Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 07:27 In article <leOdnWnR65RrVFnYRVnygQA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eq23td$8qk_004(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <87d54rfki2.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>> In article <87lkjggic8.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>> >> Saddam broke a long tradition which was Arab didn't attack Arab. >>>> >> I think this is going to be viewed as a crucial point in world >>>> >> history. >>>> > >>>> >Which event are you referring to here? Which particular Arabs >>>> >did he attack and when? (It's not obvious from the context.) >>>> >>>> When Saddam tried to annex Kuwait. >>> >>>That's what I assumed. You do realise that you've just brought >>>up another example that weakens your own argument from about >>>half a dozen posts back? >> >> I'm sure all kinds of facts contradict each other in this case. It >> is a complicated issue and isn't going to be solved with a >> STOP, RESET, RESTART procedure. It's also clear that this group, >> who keep trying to prove me wrong, doesn't have any idea how >> these Muslims live, think or believe. You are making conclusions >> based on zero knowledge. > >I am not sure where this mini-rant is going, but I think you are (once more) >either missing the point or trying to re-direct. > >*You* said that the existence of Israel prevented the nations in the middle >east from attacking each other. We now have two examples of when they did >attack each other and Israel was certainly in existence at the time. Let try to do a rewrite so you understand...If there was no Israel, the Muslim countries would be spending all their time and resources fighting each other. Do you understand now? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 07:35 In article <eq2foe$2bi$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <epvkjc$8qk_004(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <epqdem$lk3$14(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[.....] >>>Oh good now you admit that there are moderates and exteremists. >> >>This is more smoke and mirrors. I do not lump moderates and >>extremists together; you appear to have done this by assuming >>that, when I talk about extremists, I'm also talking >>about moderates. > >You need to go back and read your posts from a while back. You did indeed >lump them together. It would only take one action to cause all of Islam to join those extremists. Some day, perhaps you will think a little bit more. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 07:36 In article <eq2gbn$2bi$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <epvr4c$8ss_016(a)s930.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <epvis8$gav$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>>>>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? >> >>The Nixon problem would have been used to delay work on anything >>else. > >Nonsense. You seem to think that the US can't think about two things at >once. It can't. Did you miss the zipper mess of Clinton's administration? <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 07:51 In article <8qm9s2t5d9ckmqrdn8lvm0ifachcbf8vo5(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sat, 03 Feb 07 13:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <mgo7s21ckoee6om4d5c05vj9rr8pjfi78h(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> 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. >> >>You have the term "computer" and "computer system" confused. >>They are not equivalent terms. >> >>/BAH > > A controller board that incorporates all the sensors mentioned and >the timers and clock, are not a computer, NOR are they a computer >system. It is a micro-controller, nothing more. > > You sit in front of a dumb (or smart) terminal connected to a remote >computer. > > Those are two elements of a computer system. > > Embedded micro-controller circuitry for hardware is NOT a computer. > > No calculations have to be made. Nothing got computed. Not a >computer. Most of the code I wrote didn't do calculations. Most of OS code simply moves bits without error. > Try again, please. Just so you know, the definition put up by the >unsettledTard is not correct either. He will have a slightly different definition of a computer because of the applications his business had to use. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 07:55
In article <45C5201F.C179A0D5(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ? I can't enter R BASIC to it so I don't know if the idjits stored the code on that board. Knowing how techs work, ... /BAH |