Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 9 Jan 2007 07:24 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <77600$45a27180$cdd085cc$9806(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: > > [....] > >>>>I've sat on a one legged stool before. The fact yours has >>>>three might be a cute argument but is of no consequence >>>>to the discussion at hand. >>> >>> >>>All three items are needed for learning to happen. If any one is in >>>short supply, it becomes the limiting factor. If that is so, you can't >>>all one more important than the other. >> >>Untrue. > > > No, sorry it is true. > > >>An individual can learn without "access to data" in the >>context BAH discusses it and we start that at birth. > > > We get information in for the outside world starting at birth. If we are > lucky, we have parents to teach us. The data they provide is external to > the child. > The only issue is the "written down" part of the knowledge > base. Without it your learning is greatly slowed. This is true for IQ100 + some small number of standard deviations as well a all the - group. If you're their ombudsman you're right. > [...] >>Given an individual with the eagerness for knowledge >>and the capacity to understand you can't hold that >>individual back from learning, regardless of their >>"access to knowledge that's been written down." >> >>They may be hampered in the content of what they learn, >>but they sure won't be kept from learning. > > > If you hampered their learning by 50% you kept them from learning by 50%. Let's just call you the king of linearity then. LOL >>How do you think humankind managed to develop the database >>of knowledge we presently possess? Divine revelation? > > > No, they learned what was already known and added an item or two and then > passed it along. Mere trial and error can be used to add to the knowledge > base. It won't do for recreating it from scratch in one person though. That rather depends on who and what you are. I have circles I live in, and circles I run with. The former has to have the written material, the latter not so much. And don't forget, most people live in families where communication is important. How many truly isolated people have you ever met?
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Jan 2007 07:27 In article <entrv6$ose$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <entm2m$8qk_002(a)s947.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <ens471$m0q$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <enqou0$8ss_011(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <enq1pe$cuv$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>[....] >>>>>It has been spelled out on several news casts. Here's the text that >>>>>causes the most concern: >>>>> >>>>>******* Begin quote ******** >>>>>The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as >>>>>enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an >>>>>item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner >>>>>consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct >>>>>searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and >>>>>safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches >>>>>specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection. >>>>>******************* >>>>> >>>>>Note that it applies to all mail of any kind. The claim is one of quite >>>>>broad authority since the definition of "exigent circumstances" is quite >>>>>wide. >>>> >>>>How are you going to make it more specific? >>> >>>The definitions could be spelled out. >>> >>>> Should there be legal >>>>handcuffs on inspections even if new types of containers are dripping >>>>powder or tick or can't be x-rayed or zapped to kill bacteria? >>> >>>There should be the need to get a warrant in a situation that is not >>>truly an emergency. "A reasonable expectation of death or injury" could >>>be included in the wording. In non-emergency cases, there is time to get >>>the warrant. No judge will deny one if the case is anything like >>>reasonable. >> >>How do you know that Bush's administration isn't dealing with >>emergencies? Should they hold a public poll asking which ones? >>Or should we ask our enemies if envelop X has lethal substances? >> > >Bush said the gov't could open mail in a broad range of circumstances. The >law already allows it if the mail is suspected of containing something >dangerous. It is a US President's job to do this. It is the other two branches' jobs to provide rein checks and balances to Presidential powers. That is how our political system works. Congress can also overreach their grab of powers; this is check by the executive and judicial branches. All of these processes happen over time--never instantaneously. Most of this anti-Bush bitching is mewling because instantaneous gratification has not been fed to the yapping mouths. This process of checks and balances doesn't seem to be understood by Europeans. My hypothesis is that this happens because their unconscious assumptions are based in kingship type rule. So far I don't see anything to contradict this one. The reason this understand is important is because this European style thinking will affect how Western civilization defends itself. This European style of thinking causes all non-royal people to leave the final decision up to the non-existent "king". This will result in belated decisiveness. This is as far as I've gotten in my analysis. /BAH /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Jan 2007 07:36 In article <45A30AE0.605C45BB(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> > >> >No, you are going willingly to the slaughter. You have been tricked into >> >thinking there is a threat worthy of giving up your rights over and then >> >tricked into thinking that giving up your rights will make you safe. >> >> But I haven't given up my rights. > >You've just had them removed without you being consulted. I was consulted. I voted. I don't see how you can state that I've given up my Constitutional rights when you do not know what these rights are nor how they are protected. > > >> I tell you what. I'll post >> my list of what I've read in the last few years. You read it >> so you can learn my basis. Then you can pick holes in facts >> rather than wishful thinking that no national threats exist. > >No threats at all... ? I'm sure there are some. > >Are they being blown hugely out of proportion for political ends. You bet ! That kind of thing will happen. What will also happen is some politicians will also allow real threats to come to fruition. These politicians are so arrogant that they believe they will be able to talk to the extremists and convince them to stop making messes. This is a lesson that Carter never learned. > >If you browsed the web I'd advise you to look at the truly excellent 3 part - 3 >hour BBC series called the Power of Nightmares ( the rise of the politics of fear >) which catalogues government action to keep their public quietly compliant over >many decades culminating in the ultimate 'Muslim Threat'. > >http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=power+of+nightmares >http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22power+of+nightmares%22&search= Search The BBC has a hidden agenda to undermine any attempts of peace among the Palestinians. I don't understand why; someday I may figure it out. They have broadcast outright lies to swap their listeners to side with the Arrafats of this world. I only listen to BBC broadcasts now to find out which fictitious trends they are promoting. I do the same with the US evangilical TV broadcasts. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Jan 2007 07:41 In article <1164b$45a3872b$cdd0856d$16796(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <entn7b$8qk_003(a)s947.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>>In article <entkvo$kr2$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >> [... access to information ...] >> >>>A person can learn without access. >> >> >> No they can't. Without information input there is no learning. > >Another of those abbreviated sentence difficulties >where what she wrote isn't the complete thought. My apologies. I'm trying to work on this lapse. I do keep assuming that people remember what we've been talking about two posts ago. > >We've been discussing access to written knowledge. yes. > >>> However, each person has >>>to make the same mistakes. > >> If I hit my thumb with a hammer, I quickly recieve the information that it >> is a bad idea. If there is no feedback from actions, you can't identify >> mistakes. > >Picky picky. Not really. It's a good example. If there is no written warning about hitting the thumb, then every body who picks a hammer will have to learn the same lesson by experience. This takes time-- lots of time--w.r.t. technology, manufacturing and science. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Jan 2007 07:45
In article <45A30FA4.3E2E7377(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >Have you see the size of the small print they use for ingredients ? >> >> Yes. People bring magnifying glasses with them so they can read >> the labels. > >Do they ? I've never seen that. It seems to be an odd way to go about avoiding >being poisoned. Perhaps you are not very observant of your environment. People read the ingredients because they have allergies and wish to avoid death by asphixiation. > > >> >I doubt it's possible for say a prepared meal to list every single damn thing >> >in it anyway. >> >> It's the law over here. It's better to list peanuts than to be sued >> into bankruptcy by a family who has a member who died from eating >> the product. > >Sure we have warnings such as 'may contain traces of nuts' to cover that but I've >looked at some labels and they clearly can't list ever single damn thing. Then your country doesn't have the label laws we do. > > >> >If tans-fats could be associated with some clear benefit that would be fine >> >but all I'm aware of is its negatives. >> >> Did you examine the science that have, all of a sudden, concluded >> that transfats are poison? No. You are basing your decisions on >> the latest dietary fad. A few months ago it was nn-carb. Some months >> it was low-carb and other months it was high-carb. I no longer >> what these terms means since they became sound bites. > >I don't like fads myself. I've been aware of this business about trans-fat for >ages though. It's not some fad any more than the connection between smoking and >heart disease and cancer. Sigh! > > >> >> What do you mean by "totally natural product?" >> > >> >Something that once grew in a field maybe ? >> >> Belladonna grows in a field. So does digitalis sources. >> Both of these are bad and they grow in a field. Your criteria >> isn't effective. Do you want to ban all of these poisons? > >You're intentionally misinterpreting my words as usual. And no, I don't want them >in my food either. You rarely eat anything raw; most of your food has been cooked. Cooking changes chemistry of the substances. /BAH |