Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 19 Jan 2007 11:12 Ken Smith wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [....] > >> Now read the past few weeks' weather reports. > > > >What would I find there ? > > You will find a bunch of folks in the LA area had trouble getting to their > jobs because of snow. Some largish fraction of the orange crop has been > frozen. The growers had the pickers working all the hours that had enough > light to see trying to pick the crop before it got damaged. The price of > oranges in the stores will go up because of this. That's the way it goes. > The growers have taken a fairly big hit. They had to pay the pickers for > the overtime work but didn't get the normal yeld from their trees. The > fruit has the most money in it right now so this is the worst time for bad > things to happen, > > This weird weather we are seeing has cost the state a goodly bit of money. > A few people may have to put off buying a new car or live without seat > warmers. This tragedy of epic proportions has been caused by the weather, > which we all know was caused by the increase in minimum wages. Or 'global warming' of course ! ;~) Graham
From: krw on 19 Jan 2007 15:41 In article <45A92D9B.B9781E2A(a)earthlink.net>, mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net says... > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > > > > In sci.physics, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> > > wrote > > on Sat, 13 Jan 07 16:45:35 GMT > > <eob2bf$8ss_013(a)s987.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>: > > > In article <45A8F9B4.EF2208ED(a)hotmail.com>, > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> > > >>> I do it today with the my 14,400 modem. > > >> > > >>Can you not even get anything faster than that ? > > > > > > Why? 14400 is faster than anything I've used before. I > > > don't need anything faster. > > > > > > /BAH > > > > Wow. 53k [*] dialup modems are standard issue on many machines > > (though they won't be for long, as WiFi takes over). > > > > [*] FCC mandated upper limit for dialup lines. Why, I forget. > > > The availble bandwidth on a multiplexed phone line. > Actually, the 53K limit (marked down from 56K) was required to keep crosstalk between pairs down. Certain transitions between points in the constellation were made illegal to limit power. -- Keith
From: Lloyd Parker on 19 Jan 2007 12:24 In article <eoqgna$8qk_002(a)s790.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45AFA79A.97173FE9(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US >>> >> plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will. >>> > >>> >Really ? I didn't hear anyone say that. >>> >>> You might try to read Carter's book. You might listen to >>> Hillary Clinton. You might notice the places both she >>> and Kerry have been visiting in the last few weeks. >> >>What has where they're visiting got to do about it ? Have they been visiting >>extremists ? > >Yes. > >/BAH Of course, you probably consider Ted Kennedy an extremist.
From: Lloyd Parker on 19 Jan 2007 12:28 In article <45920$45b0e072$49ecf6f$19658(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker woke up half of a neuron long enough to >puke out the following: > >>>>Here's what the researcher said of the methods: >>>>**** begin *** >>>> "Over the last 25 years, this sort of methodology has been used more and >>>>more often, especially by relief agencies in times of emergency," said Dr. >>>>David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston. >>>> >>>>The study, published earlier this month by the Lancet medical journal, >>>>employed a method known as "cluster sampling" in which data are collected >>>>through interviews with randomly selected households. >>>> >>>>Critics, including President George W. Bush, have said the results are not >>>>credible, but Rush said traditional methods for determining death rates, >>>>such as counting bodies, are highly inaccurate for civilian populations in >>>>times of war. >>>> >>>>Researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and Al Mustansiriya >>>>University in Baghdad estimated with 95 percent certainty that the war and >>>>its aftermath have resulted in the deaths of between 426,000 and 794,000 >>>>Iraqis. >>>> >>>>***** end **** > >>>>You will notice that no trusting of the Saddam numbers is suggested in >>>>what he said. > >>>You and BAH went through this discussion a while back. What >>>makes "cluster sampling" any more valid than drawing numbers >>>out of a proverbial hat? > >> What makes your opinion more valid than a Johns Hopkins researcher's work in >> one of the most respected, peer-reviewed journals in the world? > >This the classic sort of post from you, explaining why I >don't usually bother reading or responding to your crapola. > >Ken's scribblings place what follows into context: "Here's >what the researcher said of the methods:" So the fellow >was a researcher discussing a report in The Lancet. Ken >apparently didn't read the article itself. > >Now here's what The Lancet says on their web page: > >"We assessed the relative risk of death associated with >the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality >in the 17�8 months after the invasion with the 14�6-month >period preceding it." > >Once again, where did they get their numbers for the >period before, and with what realistic level of >confidence? What was the design of the study, this is >about politics after all, not a hard science. Again, who are you to judge what they did? > >[Lancet] >"The risk of death was estimated to be 2�5-fold (95% CI >1�6�4�2) higher after the invasion when compared with >the preinvasion period." > >Note the ESTIMATED. Note that all statistical results are estimates. Note the confidence level for that estimate is 95%. > >This "study" is no different from a political poll taken >inside the US predictive of an election. > Yes it is. It didn't ask people what they were going to do in the future. >[Lancet] >"Our results need further verification and should lead >to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes." >"Published online October 29,2004" > >Published results taken from data provided by a >population living in the midst of fighting is >going on around and above them. Crapola. > >The Lancet article itself states that the results >need further verification, but here's Lloyd Parker, >great guru of crapola depending in it as gospel. > Every study should have further verification, from the effect of a new drug to the use of a new technique in a crime lab. Doesn't mean your results are invalid. A peer-reviewed journal like Lancet wouldn't have published them unless the editors and reviewers were convinced the methodology and conclusions were valid. >> Uh, cut and run went out when you lost the election last fall. > >Get this straight, bub. I always win when any free >election is held. > >You live fads while relying on crapola "studies." > >The statement "our results need further verification" >is the *only* way this article got past peer review. >That's what establishes the context of the entire >"study". > >Now let that half neuron go back to sleep. >
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 19 Jan 2007 18:32
On Fri, 19 Jan 07 13:39:25 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ji5vq2htqol3agkgvq2ein35tognib0fc1(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Thu, 18 Jan 07 12:51:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <up7qq2915be8ep5rv69kfmrjv47e60f599(a)4ax.com>, >>> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>>On Tue, 16 Jan 07 10:35:41 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <eoinhq$8qk_006(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>In article <eogiqt$9v7$9(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>> >>>>>><snippage for poor bah's reader> >>>> >>>>>>>Actually, since we ratified the UN charter as a treaty, it already is US >>>>>law. >>>>>> >>>>>>uh...No. >>>>>> >>>>>>/BAH >>>>> >>>>>Uh, yes. Read what the constitution says about treaties. >>>> >>>>Good recommendation. They are the "supreme Law of the Land." They >>>>take precedence over most everything. The phrase there is, "and the >>>>Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the >>>>Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." >>> >>>Are you agreeing with Lloyd that the Constitution is subservient >>>to the UN charter? That is what he's implying and that is >>>what is underlying our discussions for the last two weeks; I >>>happen to disagree with his assumption, emphatically disagree. >> >>I knew what Lloyd was talking about. I was imagining that you don't. > >Lloyd, among others, are misinterpreting what "supreme law" >of the land means. They think that the UN has vetoing power >of anything the US Constitution says. That is how they are >thinking. Like I've said elsewhere, I'm no expert on the application of the Constitution and law in the US. I enjoy reading about the early history of the US and that's about where my abilities begin and end, outside of having opinions I form from that reading, here and there. However, there seems to be no doubt in my mind that treaties _are_ law, as far as our system goes. Not only that, they are treated at the highest level of authority -- if my reading of the phrase, "supreme law of the land," is correct. This doesn't mean that there aren't other supreme laws on a par with treaties or that perhaps the Constitution itself might not still guide. However, I do need to do more research to learn better about this. I just looked up the wiki page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause Check that and see what you think. It pretty much spells out my own understanding of our situation and the risks. I'd like to refresh your memory and mine on the last phrasing, which is "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Now, when I read this, I see "any Thing in the Constitution ... notwithstanding." Which sure seems to suggest the idea that a treaty could potentially ride herd over our Constitution. Not that I like that idea, at all! But there it is. >>I've read a few Supreme Court decisions, enough of them to see the >>Justices referring to these treaties with other countries in making >>their decisions. If you may remember, there was (and is) some not >>infrequent complaining from various far right wing news services >>saying that there is something "deeply wrong with our Supreme Court >>system because they use 'foreign law' in making their decisions." > >Yes. This is another thing that needs public discourse. Perhaps. However, I'm no fan of trying to resolve such a problem with an intelligent and far-thinking solution by way of public discourse, alone. If public discourse is part of the process used to surface important questions to be resolved, I'm all for it. If public discourse is to be the means by which we somehow create a solution, I think we would be in for a disasterous answer to the problem. We need wise heads, well grounded by comprehensive knowledge of fact, to carefully and thoroughly consider the situation and suggest some well-considered and intellegent options. But I agree that this may need some revisiting. Not because I don't think treaties should guide our actions -- I do believe that once we agree to do something and have made a contract with another country, that we should perform on it -- but perhaps there is a context to be provided as a guide for future decisions that better serves us all. As it stands now, though, I'm not entirely unhappy with the Supreme Court looking to our treaty agreements when arriving at decisions. Yet, Scalia may have some points worth listening to, as well -- despite the fact that I probably cannot remember a decision he wrote that I much agreed with. >>It's considered newsworthy by many services to talk about this: >> >>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42889 >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-07-foreign-usat_x.htm >>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50370 >> >>Just a few examples, including one about Scalia's comments. It's >>controversial, to say the least about it. >> >>However, the constitution is fairly clear about treaties being the >>supreme law of the land. >> >>The reason isn't hard to fathom. If a treaty were not granted this >>status, then what good would it be? How could our country's wish to >>negotiate a treaty be granted any seriousness, at all, if such a >>treaty would then be subject to state law and perhaps US law and the >>Supreme Court and any number of laws that Congress may later make? A >>foreign power would have no way to know if a treaty engaged in for >>good, serious purposes couldn't just be tossed into the garbage can in >>a year or two. And think about this in terms of our country's very >>feeble status in the world around the time the Constitution was >>signed. No foreign power would even bother with us, if a treaty were >>not given a supreme status in our own system. It would be a source of >>mochery towards the US and no foreign power would care to waste their >>time. > >And supreme law of the land implies that a treaty overrides the >States local laws; it does not imply that treaties can overrule >the Constitution. But it may. Referring back to the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause You will see that there was a proposed Bricker Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment designed to deal with a problem that you say does not exist. Refreshing your memory, the language is "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Read that closely. >>In regards to the United Nations, its charter was set up as a treaty. >>The United States Senate ratified the United Nations Charter that was >>originally signed on June 26th, 1945 in San Francisco, as a __treaty__ >>by a vote of 89 to 2, about a month later on July 28th, 1945. This >>treaty (charter) is now the supreme law of our land. >> >>http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html >> >>That's my understanding of it, right now. > >You are right. I'm trying to undo some really bad assumptions >in certain people. Remember that people who are not US citizens >are also reading these posts. I've heard a number of hints >that the UN should be the supreme law of the globe. Well, the US is the supreme power in the globe right now and the UN treaty we signed is our supreme law of the land, so ... ;) Jon |