Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 2 Feb 2007 09:44 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epvc02$8qk_012(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <877iv1n7xs.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>> The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. >>> This included all of the infrastructure required. >>> The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody >>> has to do that work. >> >>It also includes the requirement that you think 6 is 3. >> >>BAH maths is BAD maths. >> >>It also presumes that Szil�rd, Teller, Einstein and Oppenheimer, >>had no knowledge before they started working on the projects. >>Weird, as Szil�rd was researching the matter at about the same >>time as the Erm�chtigungsgesetz was kicking in (but not publishing >>his work for that very reason). >> >>BAH history is BAD history. > > There is a huge difference between theory and playing in the labs > and putting something into production. > > With the bomb, both were happening at the same time. It's still > an amazing managment effort. Unfortunately, it takes war > to get everybody to aim at the same goal. (sorry pressed send before typing last time) Another reason not to declare war on everything.
From: Ken Smith on 2 Feb 2007 09:46 In article <epvf18$8qk_024(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eprlv2$8ag$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <epq6o6$8qk_005(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[.....] >>>>But not sovereign immunity (or Nixon wouldn't have needed that pardon). >>> >>>Nixon didn't need the pardon; the United States of America >>>needed that pardon. You may not remember the villification >>>Ford received because he took away all chances of getting >>>revenge. >> >>The villification had a lot of justification behind it. The current story >>is that Ford did it so that the issue would be over and the country could >>get back to dealing with more serious issues. A lot of people thought at >>the time and many still believe that this was the wrong thing to do. > >Sure. > >> >>If the trial had happened etc, people would have "seen justice done". > >There wouldn't have been a trail. It would have been delayed and >the center of Washington's attention for two decades. There were >other things that needed serious attention. What makes you say that. Trials seem to happen all the time in the US. Nobody is supposed to be above the law, so how exactly do you not see a trial? > >>People are a lot more willing to forgive someone who gets found guilty >>than someone who they see as having gotten special treatment. > >Requiring the opportunity for you to "forgive" Nixon is a peurile >emotion. It is the public at large that never forgave him. They largely still haven't. The injury to the US remains. >>Nixon should have gone to jail over the 55MPH speed law and gotten 40 >>lashes for the "Nixonomics". > >Do you honestly think that him going to jail was a worse punishment >than what did happen? I honestly believe that a trial and if he was convicted, jail would have been treating him just like everyone else. Making him appear to be above the law was a dangerous thing to do. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 09:44 In article <4836$45c1f278$4fe7201$24753(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <e5843$45c09a43$4fe73f1$10006(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <c9250$45bf73b5$4fe7196$2143(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <970b3$45bcdaba$49ecfa9$6154(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:epi5ci$8ss_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are >>>>>>>>>making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, >>>>>>>>>each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on >>>>>>>>>a field somewhere and shoot at each other; thus, conflicts of >>>>>>>>>any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply >>>>>>>>>a country's criminal law to each individual. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Oh dear. The last two weeks of posts have vanished out of your memory >> >> now, >> >>>>>>>>haven't they? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You have to read her comment *very* carefully. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Damn! And I really worked on that post. >>>>> >>>>>Sorry. >>>>> >>>>>The difficulty lies in the distance between the "mistaken >>>>>assumption" bit and what it is that's mistaken. >>>>> >>>>>See if this rewrite suits your idea as I think it does. >>>>> >>>>>[rewrite of BAH theme] >>>>>In a historical context, war has been defined as two highly >>>>>organized groups, each funded and supplied by recognized >>>>>governments, meet on a field somewhere and shoot at each >>>>>other. More recent wars carry forward the same concept >>>>>with the adoption of WMD's and other distance killing. >>>>> >>>>>I'm trying to address the mistaken assumption that conflicts >>>>>of any other nature have to be treated as criminal and apply >>>>>a country's criminal law to each individual. Formal warfare >>>>>has progressed far beyond our earlier definitions and must >>>>>grow to include the new realities. >>>>>[end rewrite of BAH theme] >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes. That will do. I was never allowed to make a writeup >>>>personal. Thank you. >>>> >>>>Now, for your opinion. Is this lack of recognition of a new >>>>kind of conflict not the crux of the matter? I'm not just >>>>talking about these guys in this thread, but the so-called >>>>politically correct attitude that is pervasive. >>> >>>I think it is a symptom, not the cause of anything. >> >> >> I didn't mean to imply cause. I'm thinking about it >> being the one thing to tweak and most everything else will >> fall out as a result. >> >> >>>IMO >>>it represents one of a number of imaginary Maginot lines. >>>It might be fun to try to identify and list as many as >>>possible. >> >> >> I've already tried to do that. My working style is to list them >> and then figure out which least action will produce the maximum >> benefit with a minimum of unwanted side effects. >> >> I'm getting a niggle thta this another sentence that you will >> have those problems reading :-). > >Naw, I've heard this expressed many times and in many ways. Oh, good. I don't have to work on a rewrite. >It is a logical direct head on approach that rarely works >if the target is human behavior. Look at this thread for >the classic example of emotionalism superseding logic. > >Dr. Spock's products. Who knew? I started thinking about this yesterday to see if there were any other times when the usual war rules didn't apply. Wasn't the Cold War a new kind of fighting where the old rules didn't apply? /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 2 Feb 2007 09:52 In article <epvhqp$8qk_040(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >According to MP, the specs say 'power off'. Power is never >off unless not-plugged-in in these days of computer boards. Even before the computers stoves often had a clock and stuff like that. Some applicances had neon glow bulbs in them. They would from time to time decide to emit RF too. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 09:46
In article <d26e$45c298f8$49ecf9f$6044(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> I've already tried to do that. My working style is to list them >> and then figure out which least action will produce the maximum >> benefit with a minimum of unwanted side effects. >> >> I'm getting a niggle thta this another sentence that you will >> have those problems reading :-). > >As a second reply to you on this specific, it seems to me >that one of the problems is that Wake, Eeyore, and Smith >reply with a fantastic depth of detailed objections in >response to relatively brief conceptual presentations. > >They bury the discussion with all that stuff. The only >message they allow to get through is that the US is at >fault. Ah! But that is exactly what the Democrats are doing. They make a very good test bed. > >The google groups count this evening is 14942. IMO even the >entertainment value of this thread is done. But..but..but...I haven't learned everything yet! ;-). Are you quitting? If so, I enjoyed batting my lines across the net with you. /BAH |