Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 3 Feb 2007 16:44 On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:43:56 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: >MassiveProng wrote: > > >> Try again, please. Just so you know, the definition put up by the >> unsettledTard is not correct either. > >I get mine from reasonable sources on the internet, with >the appropriate URL displayed in close proximity. > >Your definitions, on the other hand, are unique. A microcontroller does not compute. It responds to hardware input, and responds explicitly in hardware. The oven has a clock, a timer that is tied to that clock, and power links to oven elements that the timer can CONTROL, as well as thermal inputs that get referred to. There are no computations made. A computer takes what we call DATA, and performs computational tasks on it to turn it into what we call INFOrmation. There is a difference, and you and BAH obviously do not know what that difference is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microcontroller http://m-w.com/dictionary/microcontroller Neither mention the word computer at all.
From: unsettled on 3 Feb 2007 17:15 MassiveProng wrote: > On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:43:56 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: > > >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >> >> >>> Try again, please. Just so you know, the definition put up by the >>>unsettledTard is not correct either. >> >>I get mine from reasonable sources on the internet, with >>the appropriate URL displayed in close proximity. >> >>Your definitions, on the other hand, are unique. > > > A microcontroller does not compute. It responds to hardware input, > and responds explicitly in hardware. > > The oven has a clock, a timer that is tied to that clock, and power > links to oven elements that the timer can CONTROL, as well as thermal > inputs that get referred to. There are no computations made. > > A computer takes what we call DATA, and performs computational tasks > on it to turn it into what we call INFOrmation. > > There is a difference, and you and BAH obviously do not know what > that difference is. > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microcontroller > > http://m-w.com/dictionary/microcontroller > > Neither mention the word computer at all. An electronic device for the storage and processing of information. www.micro2000uk.co.uk/hardware_glossary.htm
From: krw on 3 Feb 2007 18:05 In article <oam9s2dqk60b9c39bbhishkpqvr36betp6(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > On Sat, 03 Feb 07 13:26:22 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >In article <ksp7s25msr8da10g2ld0dd8n6qfe4jiq9t(a)4ax.com>, > > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >>On Fri, 02 Feb 07 15:20:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> > >>>In article <45C3495D.93DE0786(a)hotmail.com>, > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> So, if it's on its own circuit, how can the stove affect the > >>>>> wiring of the plug of the radio? > >>>> > >>>>You clearly don't understand how RF energy propagates. It doesn't matter > >>>which > >>>>circuit it's on. > >>> > >>>Exactly. And it can't be the house wiring. > >> > >> You're an idiot. You proved that when you stated that you are > >>plugging a stove into a pigtail. > > > >So what do you call it? > > > > This is not semantics, twit. > > The stove plugs directly into the outlet. Anything else is illegal > and you would be liable were someone to get hurt. If you are placing > a "pigtail" between the stove cord and the outlet, then it is YOU that > is causing the problem. Both the electrical problem and a potential > for a electrical shock hazard problem. Dimbulb, the cord that attaches to the stove is called a "pigtail". You buy the pigtail that matches the outlet in use (older installation are 3-wire, newer 4-wire). In BAH's case the stove was wired directly into the basement, so a pigtail from that connection to an outlet under the stove was installed. > > What idiot raised you to think that you could plug a high power AC > device in with a pigtail between the device and the outlet? Only the manufacturer. -- Keith
From: Fred Kasner on 3 Feb 2007 18:50 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <87abzwhyjl.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu writes: >>> In article <87bqkdll8y.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >>>>> Phil Carmody 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. >>>>> Why didn't you simply include the entire history of mankind >>>>> and start with "Adam" then" >>>> Because all of the above had were in America, and had some >>>> part >>>> >>>>> Einstein *never* worked on the bomb project. His input was >>>>> limited to sending a letter at Szilard's request. >>>> And by doing so he validated the theories underpinning the >>>> work. Theories come before practice. >>> 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. >> > 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. > >> 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. > > It wouldn't matter in the least if it was Kurtzonoguvlo, for the > above. The point being, theory often doesn't come before practice. >>>> Without that input from >>>> him, the research may well not have got underway in 1939. >>>> >>> There was no input from relativity required for this research. >> Do I mention relativity? If so, where? Come on, cite me - message >> id and line. Cite or retract. > > See some 20 or so lines above > > _______________________________________________________ > >>>>> Einstein *never* worked on the bomb project. His input was >>>>> limited to sending a letter at Szilard's request. >>>> And by doing so he validated the theories underpinning the >>>> work. Theories come before practice. > ___________________________________________________________ > > The second sentence are your words. Now, what theories did you have > in mind, if not relativity? >> So, are you studying strawmanology at Chicago? You're gonna get >> a starred first at this rate. He was a name. His contribution >> was his signiture. > > That's right. So, what does this has to do with "...validated the > theories...". >> And, I suspect that his knowledge of mass-energy equivalence >> might have been one of the reasons why he was considered >> to have a something relevant to say. >> > Hardly. The reason he was considered was the he was possibly the only > physicist whose name meant something to non-physicists. > > >>>>> The rest of them, including the important work done by >>>>> Wheeler's group at Princeton and Bohr, started with the >>>>> Manhattan Project. The problems to be solved were not >>>>> whether or not a bomb could work, but actually making it >>>>> work, and a contingent trying to figure out whether or not >>>>> once started a chain reaction wouldn't extend to the entire >>>>> planet. >>>> Wrong. The US-based research got underway in 1939. >>>> >>> Only small potatoes research. The real effort started by end of 1941. >> OK, so does small = zero in uchicago.edu. > > Did I say "small = zero"? Only "small ~ zero". > >> Jesus, don't ever take up >> teaching maths. Or even trying to learn it! >> > Most entertaining:-) > >>>>>> 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). >>>>> Szilard and others were trying to keep up with what the Germans >>>>> were doing in their nuclear program. We sent a mission to >>>>> destroy Germany's heavy water facility in Norway. >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage >>>> Irrelevant. Szil�rd's results were from 1933. That alone >>>> counters BAH's absurd claim. >>> Szilard's had no results other than "if such and such may be >>> happening, then such and such is possible". These are no results at >>> all. No results were possible before the possibility of fission has >>> benn discovered, and that was in 1939. >> No, they're workable theories. > > They are not theories *at all". Of course, with your ignorance of > physics you wouldn't know the difference. > >> As I said, theories before practice. That's good science. >> > I would suggest to you learning some science before wasting bandwidth. > > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" The work in the first nuclear reactor (at the west stands of Stagg Field a the U. of Chicago) was the experiments that Fermi et alia used to demonstrate the reality of sustained nuclear fission as well as to breed some plutonium. They were not certain that the process would be self sustaining. Fermi who was the experimenter and theoretician par excellence had missed fission many years earlier. He wasn't going to go off half-cocked in this endeavor. FK
From: Eeyore on 3 Feb 2007 18:51
unsettled wrote: > MassiveProng wrote: > >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: > >>MassiveProng wrote: > >> > >>> Try again, please. Just so you know, the definition put up by the > >>>unsettledTard is not correct either. > >> > >>I get mine from reasonable sources on the internet, with > >>the appropriate URL displayed in close proximity. > >> > >>Your definitions, on the other hand, are unique. > > > > > > A microcontroller does not compute. It responds to hardware input, > > and responds explicitly in hardware. > > > > The oven has a clock, a timer that is tied to that clock, and power > > links to oven elements that the timer can CONTROL, as well as thermal > > inputs that get referred to. There are no computations made. > > > > A computer takes what we call DATA, and performs computational tasks > > on it to turn it into what we call INFOrmation. > > > > There is a difference, and you and BAH obviously do not know what > > that difference is. > > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microcontroller > > > > http://m-w.com/dictionary/microcontroller > > > > Neither mention the word computer at all. > > An electronic device for the storage and processing of information. > www.micro2000uk.co.uk/hardware_glossary.htm I suggest you consider the difference between general purpose and embedded. Can BAH's stove print "Hello world" for example ? Graham |