Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 3 Feb 2007 08:38 unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > Phil Carmody wrote: > > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu writes: > >> Ahh, so that's why James Watt had to wait for thermodynamics before > >> developing his steam engine. > > That straw man ought to be below someone posting from a .edu address. > > If it expands, it will pushes, and if we can trap it so it > > can only push in one direction, and we can use part of that > > push to cause the mechanism to reset is a _theory_. It does not > > require knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics. > > So your straw man is self-quenching - congratulations. > > And, just for reference, you're history is incorrect, it wasn't > > Watt. Hmmm, .edu's ain't what they used to be. > > The only person who developed Watt's engine was, > Ta Da! Watt > > Watt's engine relied on an outboard condenser. > Ta Da! Thermodynamics! God, you're stupid. It also relied on the quantum electrodynamics and strong nuclear force. That is irrelevant. One does not need an inverse square law theory of gravity to realise that the higher you aim your arrow, the further it goes. You model the behaviour, you prove your model. The Greeks had already modeled the motive power of steam. Watt is possibly the most commonly over-credited person in history. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Feb 2007 08:32 In article <87ps8sgifg.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >What nations do you think are "not dealing" with Iran? >> >> Bush has given Europe the job to deal with Iran's stubborness. >> They are the ones who have been bitching that the US doesn't >> know how to do this stuff. > >In what way was that supposed to be an answer to the question >asked? > >I should probably expect as an answer to my enquiry something >like "milky way!". In case you haven't noticed, the old "Free European" countries now hide behind acting as a conglomerate when the task is politically incorrect. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Feb 2007 08:40 In article <SsKwh.17$25.390(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <epvcgf$8qk_014(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>In article <58776$45c259f5$4fe752c$2080(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >><snip> >> >> >>>However, nobody in the US was formally researching "making a >>>bomb" till the Manhattan project so far as I know. That there >>>were a few mathematical physicists around the world, including >>>the USA, who were toying with the possibilities isn't disputed. >>>What is fact is that it took 3 years to make the bomb once >>>anyone got serious about it. >> >>If you ever get a chance to visit Oakridge, don't forget to >>look up. I was stunned to see all the strung wire. A lot >>of it was accumulated over the years, but still, the manpower >>to put it up there was just astounding. It was one the >>beautiful moments in my life. >> >As you said, it was an incredible effort. Can't see anything like >this happening in peacetime. I got to observe little projects. JMF's first job involved living in a motel outside Oakridge getting a bunch of gear to talk to each other in a different building. The guys who did that work told a lot of stories about that project. So layering that work (without the ease of our computer gear) onto all that wiring, plus all the walls and floors gave me just a small understanding of how much work was done back then. I also knew I underestimate. It was an awesome moment. And that was just one building. And the roads going in were very long. /BAH
From: unsettled on 3 Feb 2007 08:48 Phil Carmody wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>Phil Carmody wrote: >> >>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu writes: >>> >>>>Ahh, so that's why James Watt had to wait for thermodynamics before >>>>developing his steam engine. >>> >>>That straw man ought to be below someone posting from a .edu address. >>>If it expands, it will pushes, and if we can trap it so it >>>can only push in one direction, and we can use part of that >>>push to cause the mechanism to reset is a _theory_. It does not >>>require knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics. >>>So your straw man is self-quenching - congratulations. >>>And, just for reference, you're history is incorrect, it wasn't >>>Watt. Hmmm, .edu's ain't what they used to be. >> >>The only person who developed Watt's engine was, >>Ta Da! Watt >> >>Watt's engine relied on an outboard condenser. >>Ta Da! Thermodynamics! > > > God, you're stupid. It also relied on the quantum electrodynamics > and strong nuclear force. That is irrelevant. One does not need > an inverse square law theory of gravity to realise that the higher > you aim your arrow, the further it goes. You model the behaviour, > you prove your model. The Greeks had already modeled the motive > power of steam. Watt is possibly the most commonly over-credited > person in history. Once again talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're the clown who, just a few posts back, claimed first the theory, then the practice. Now, caught out you've completely reversed your argument while continuing with insults to cover your lack of knowledge and logic. You've time and again demonstrated you're not worth the clock cycles it takes to download.
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Feb 2007 08:44
In article <gm08s2luj0mrj73m00vt7isc8sb4kvt630(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:11:52 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >Gave us: > >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 02 Feb 07 14:04:45 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>> >>>>In article <8e65s297p2fs3tfodc3mk1rmqu2phstukv(a)4ax.com>, >>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 07 12:46:52 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>It isn't the burners. It is the computer board in the stove that >>>>>>is bad. >>>>> >>>>> The stove has a clock, a cooking timer, and maybe some thermal probe >>>>>monitoring ports. That isn't a computer. >>>> >>>>It has one board. >>> >>> >>> >>> Which incorporates all the items I listed above. Being a single >>> board STILL does NOT make it a computer. >>> >>> Nice attempt at a sidestep, though. >> >>Your definitions are, to coin a phrase, unique. > > You're an idiot. I work in the industry. > > It would be termed a micro-controller, at best. > > STILL NOT a computer. > >>"An electronic device for the storage and processing of information." > > A calculator would fit the definition. It isn't a computer either. >It IS a calculator. > > The controller in an oven is a micro-controller, nothing more. > > The consumer device has to have Windows CE or the like on it, and >have a user interface with a gui to BE a computer. <spluttering emoticon wipes oatmeal off screen> I thought you claimed to be in the computer manfuacturing biz? > Otherwise, it is >no more than fancy CONTROL hardware. > > You really have more people laughing at you than you realize. Riiight. /BAH |