Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Jan 2007 09:06 In article <uel2r29ou0m4e2o4hmvkh3nduhjk0pj1uf(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Fri, 19 Jan 07 14:19:43 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <kp8vq2tb9eaq0ed813jdpr00kbcstl3v5r(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>On Thu, 18 Jan 07 13:22:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <i98qq29j207ke01380bfk1h82rhguhf8lb(a)4ax.com>, >>>> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>>>On Tue, 16 Jan 07 10:34:37 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <eoin12$8qk_002(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>><snippage for bah's reader> >>>>> >>>>>>>NATO is now in charge of helping Afghanistan. Bush isn't supposed >>>>>>>to be helping there. >>>>>> >>>>>>What? We invaded! >>>>> >>>>>Yeah! So everyone else has to help patch things up after we break >>>>>them. That's fair, right? Our motto, "We break 'em, you remake 'em." >>>>> >>>>> ;) >>>> >>>>It would behoove you to watch what happens and NATO's performance. >>> >>>None of that changes my 'teasing.' The US made the decision to >>>invade. That it may hand over some of that later on does not dissolve >>>its responsibilities created by that event. >> >>I didn't mean to imply that its responsibilities dissolved. > >Okay. > >>>By the way, I do tend to think that Afghanistan was the right place >>>for us to invade. >> >>It was the logical _first_ step. There are about 13 steps involved >>in dealing with this problem. Some can be done in parallel; some >>have a heirarchy where one step has to be almost completed before >>the next step can be started. Most of these steps can be laid >>down in a PERT chart without too much thinking (that's how easy >>the IF/THEN/ELSE/AND sets of conditions are. Getting these steps to >>work is the extremely hard part. >> >>> Bush's admin got that one right, I think. However, >>>I don't know if you remember, but the Taliban actually offered to turn >>>over bin Laden to a neutral nation (not the US) and without any having >>>to see any evidence (in other words, 'without recourse') that may be >>>used in a trial, after the 9/11 attack in the US. They wanted a halt >>>to the bombing, though. Bush said, "No." >> >>The Taliban had their chance. > >When, exactly? The Taliban were asked to hand over the Al Queda leaders _before_ the bombing of Afghanistan started. They refused. Now, do you need a date for that? > >Let me make myself clear. You often write something very, very vague >when I say something specific to you. I point out an exact >circumstance where there was an offer and some of the details of that >offer, in fact. You can easily check on me, because of those details. >A simple google with drop it in your lap. In response, you don't say >anything at all -- except that they 'had their chance.' Part of our communication problems may be that you haven't kept up with [what is called] current events. No current events will be documented with an objective analysis until at least 10-20 years from now. > >Quite frankly, I find this behavior of yours very frustrating. I have >no way of checking on you, figuring out what you are referring to, >etc. You take no burden upon yourself, at all. But instead force me >to somehow consult my crystal ball about what you are considering when >you say that. I'll try to be more thorough. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Jan 2007 09:08 In article <cd6c0$45b218ff$cdd0854a$26682(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >snip <so much crapola, so little time> > >> I can't argue with your state of mind. > >That's the entirety of the difficulty in having any >discussion with you. Points that were made aren't >understood by you. I can't tell whether that's simple >fact, or trollish. I think it's fact and I just figured out why. He doesn't keep up with current events. We are assuming that he had over the last 6 years. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Jan 2007 09:20 In article <eot0g6$nse$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >On 2007-01-15, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> I'm talking about monitoring without interfering with the performance. > >Any additional software you run will reduce performance (by using up >computer cycles and ram), Exactly. That's why lights and sounds were so useful. > wether the reduction is significant is upto >you to decide. if your computer is upto the task monitoring needn't >reduce your the speed of your internet connection. Any change of speed or response time changes the behaviour. It's one of the more interesting n-body-equivalent problems of the computer biz. There have been many time where the monitoring caused enough code to move so that the behaviour, the monitoring was supposed to watch, didn't happen. That's when watching the blinkenlights helped give the bit god a clue. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Jan 2007 11:02 In article <eko3r2phhock926n0lg356qb8t28i86de9(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: <snip> >I was presenting the poll as one of at least a few different ones that >I've noticed over the years on the subject -- in order to debate the >issue that jmfbahciv (name would be appreciated, here) I'm know throughout the computer biz world as /BAH--it's my name in the listings (code sources). > brought up, >where she tells me that "people who agree are now afraid to speak up" >and that there opinion the world about the Bush administration is high >and hasn't fallen due to their actions. I haven't said anything about their opinion of Bush! These people have a very large incentive to stay alive; they aren't going to say anything that may be interpreted by the extremists of their religion as heretical. The Muslims in the US were just starting to voice their opinions and start the debates that are necessary for their religion to sort out how to live in the 21st century. I haven't heard anything from them since the US elections in November. If I were them, I'd shut up, too and wait and see what will happen. > >I am NOT using the poll for decision making, nor would I care to >modify broad opinion by pointing to a poll. I'm disputing jmfbahciv's >point. I am highly allergic to poll outcomes as an convincing argument about how popular an idea is. I do notice when somebody uses a poll outcome as support for an opinion. It tells me that the person thinks popularity is better. The reason we have a Consitution is because popularity didn't work w.r.t. governing. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Jan 2007 11:16
In article <5fbac$45afadb6$4fe7416$12070(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <40082$45ae4277$4fe75e2$2442(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <91109$45abaa9c$49ecfc6$17678(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <45AB91C2.CF5D0E83(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are >> >> not >> >>>>>>>>"soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should be >>>>>>>treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. >>>>> >>>>>His stupidity keeps boiling to the surface. >>>> >>>> >>>>There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US >>>>plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will. >>>>Since this is a fallacy and the denigration of all US attempts to >>>>deal with this global threat is based on this fallacy, there >>>>is going to have to be extremely big messes before their minds >>>>are changed. For you to dismiss this as stupidity make you worse >>>>than them because you are, in your own way, ignoring the real >>>>problem, too. >>> >>>Despite any persistent insistence otherwise, your belief >>>system does not define legitimately "stupid." There are >>>a lot of very stupid people in the world. Many of them >>>actually vote and share the roads with the rest of us. >>>Refusing to call the stupid because there are many of >>>them is a mistake. >>> >>>The bell curve has that shape for a reason. The usual >>>skews are small. If you're only average, half the people >>>in the world are stupid by comparison. That ratio keeps >>>increasing the smarter you actually are. >>> >>>I think the main problem here is that you need to take >>>a few sociology classes and get rid of some rigidity. > >> You have overlooked the point that it is the intellgensia >> who are trying their damnedest to ignore this threat. eeyore >> is an example of the people who have assumed that these "smarter" >> people know what they are doing; thus, ignoring this threat >> is the "right" way to live. > >Eeyore is dismissible as is Parker. I don't think so :-). eeyore isn't lying. Parker does make up stuff just be superior and belong with the most popular crowd. >In fact to some extent even >people who adhere to the same value sets they puppet dismiss >them, except, unfortunately, at the voting booth. Neither of >them can rub more than a couple of properly functioning neurons >together on any given day. Use eeyore's knowledge as a metric. If you learn that and then listen to the BBC, which is proably his primary indirect source of news, you can figure out a lot. You can also estimate how much work we will have to do ahd how much work they will do. > >Kirwan, Wake, and Smith give ideas a good run for their money >and are the ones who represent the mindset you're discussing >here. None of them are European thinkers. Wake just posts to make trouble and/or create smoke. >They're worthy of consideration and engagement. In fact, >each of them is known for sometimes bringing points to the >discussion that have head turning value. I disagree about Wake but the other two have not wasted my time at all. > >I don't try to convince them on every point I have to make. It >often takes planting memes that work over longer periods. Of >course the same is true in potential transfers from them to >everyone else. I don't intend to convince anybody. It would be nice but I don't expect it. This is a bar discussion. > >The clash of civilizations is an apt and appropriate model to >offer readers. One can't help but understand better if they >read the history of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, and most >of all the Greek experience with not only the Ottomans but >the modern Greek Church's experiences with the secular Turkish >government since Ataturk's day. That's representative of the >*moderate* Muslim mentality at work. The Pope's recent visit >to Turkey was a small effort to try to help the Greek Church >with the problems it is experiencing at the hands of mainstream >Islam. Well, so far I'm not impressed with that aspect of Christianity dealing with a rival. To me, what little is done stinks to high heavens. But, I'm willing to wait and see how they do over the next few years. > >Chances of Turkey getting into the EU under the circumstances? >None, because the relationship with the Greek Church is the tip >of the iceberg. > >> In the last few months, I've observed that, if a person A dares >> to criticize some aspect of an idea a famous person B had, tons >> of social pressure is applied to person A to retract the criticism. > >That's nothing new regardless of when you began observing it. >I never liked JF Kennedy, and to say that is only lately >becoming acceptable enough in most circles that one can get >away with criticism without significant social pressures >being brought to bear. > >His own son's writings about family matters helped bring >these modern acceptabilities into being. > >The main reason I disliked Kennedy in his own day had to >do with his treatment of the American public during the >early stages of the missile crisis. He sat on information >and refused to make any statement for the longest time. So >when he finally did make a public statement the citizenry >and press were so thrilled he said *something* they missed >that what he said actually had no teeth in it. You should read how that crisis came about. Kennedy's first face-to-face encounter with the Russians left them with the impression that he had no backbone. They didn't believe that Kennedy would do anything but posturing if they set up Cuba. > >In the end it was world opinion, and the US giving up some >listening stations in the middle east, that led to the ending >of the missile crisis, *NOT* a proactive US government. > >Too bad Reagan had other career goals at the time. Reagan wasn't experienced enough then. We (Massachusetts) have just elected a governor with zero experience. We will be paying for it, literally. I don't understand voters lately. Experience doesn't even get mentioned during campaigns. /BAH |