Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 3 Feb 2007 14:40 In article <eq23j4$8qk_002(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > 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> Come on BAH! Didn't the PDP-10 run Windows CE? > > I thought you claimed to be in the computer manfuacturing biz? Don't bother with Dimbulb (AKA FatBytestard, DarkMatter, and a thousand other forgettable nyms). He's done and knows everything. Any discussions are a waste of time. > > Otherwise, it is > >no more than fancy CONTROL hardware. > > > > You really have more people laughing at you than you realize. > > Riiight. Well, there is one, evidently. -- Keith
From: MassiveProng on 3 Feb 2007 14:41 On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:31:13 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >"Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >news:87irejdu1g.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>> 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. >> >> Are you on mind-altering drugs? > >If the answer (if we ever get one) to this is "no" there is a good argument >for getting her some. > Lithium! Shoes for industry! (Shoes for the dead) -firesign theater, Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me The Pliers
From: Eeyore on 3 Feb 2007 14:44 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu writes: > > > >> Aha. And what was required was the knowledge that fission reaction is > >> possible, that it is exotermic and that it produces neutrons which > >> can generate further fissions. All of this knowledge came from > >> experiment, not theory. So, as you see, theory doesn't always come > >> before practice. In fact, quite often it doesn't. > > > >The two go closely hand in hand. > > Nobody here claimed they don't. Only that the statement "first theory > then practice" is not in generally true. There were lots of cases > when it was the other way around. You mean that apples still fell to the ground before the theory of gravity was established ? Now, if seriously exothermic nuclear reactions occurred naturally on Earth then you might have a point that you also need no theory to make a nuclear reactor. It's not that way though. Graham
From: T Wake on 3 Feb 2007 15:08 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45C4E466.6E8C1F62(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>They [Muslims] can't even buy shoes unless the shoe has been >> >>>>>>approved by >> the >>>>>>clerics (I think those are the people who do this work). >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Really? I can find no example of this being true. Can you support >> >>>>>the >> >>>>> claim that Islam dictates what shoes people can wear? >> >>>> >> >>>>Of the three Abraham-based religions, only Christianity doesn't >> >>>>have rules about living styles. >> >>> >> >>> More obfuscation. Did you take a course in not answering the question >> >>> btw ? >> >>> >> >>> Can you support the claim that Islam dictates what shoes people can >> >>> wear >> >>> ? >> >>> >> >>> Graham >> >>> >> >>http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/072.sbt.html >> > >> > Thank you. I can't get out today to check the blurb; but I'll trust >> > your judgement. >> >> This creates an interesting quandary. It appears from this, that you >> (BAH) >> had no idea where (if anywhere) in the Koran the requirement for shoes to >> be >> approved by a cleric existed. > > I can find no such suggestion in the link. It does say Muslims mustn't > wear one > shoe for sure..... > There is a bit where it talks about what to do if you don't have sandals, but I am intrigued that BAH has made the original claim, yet can not support it, and has relied on unsettled to do the research.
From: T Wake on 3 Feb 2007 15:12
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45C4E4E4.F06F7B1B(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> I very much doubt BAH will respond to explain why she thinks rationing >> lasted for three decades after the war, which is a shame as it could be >> bloody entertaining. > > She's been on this tack before. > > ISTR she had the idea that Margaret Thatcher ended rationing. Ah. Amazing grasp on reality. |