Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 4 Feb 2007 12:54 In article <eq4ksf$8ss_009(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [......] >Most of the code I wrote didn't do calculations. Most of OS >code simply moves bits without error. Now that Windows is the most common OS, the second part of your statement is no longer correct. You should have said: Most of the code for a correctly functioning OS moves bits without error. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 14:34 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq50qv$8qk_001(a)s1104.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <a34df$45c5f1c8$cdd0859a$311(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <aK2dnURuwa_HQ1nYnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eq1u5g$8ss_004(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>>>In article <9c9e$45c38013$4fe768e$12122(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>> 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.htm > l >>>>> >>>>>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. >>> >>> >>> The heads of religion decide what people can eat, wear, use, >>> and make. They have been in control from the start of Islam. >>> Their peoples are now getting exposed to Western media. These >>> people see stuff they would like to wear or use or buy or make. >>> Now they are the ones who are making the decisions and not >>> the clerics. The clerics who are sensitive to loss of this >>> kind of oversight power, recognize, rightly, that Western >>> civilization is encroaching into their territory. The most >>> normal decision is to decide to destroy the threat to their >>> power. >>> >>> The one advantage that these people have is they do not >>> insist on instant gratification; they think in centuries, >>> not minutes. >> >>>>That alone raises the question of why *you* were so convinced the rule >>>>existed - was it simply something you heard in the past and assumed it >>>>was >>>>true? >>> >>> >>> It is based on everything I've read. It is based on how long >>> it took for the Ottoman clerics to "approve" Western civilization >>> innovations, e.g. printing press. >>> >>> >>>>Now, the secondary quandary is that you *assume* the link supports your >>>>argument, without going there or checking. For all you know it could be >>>>nonsense or it could be something which unsettled thinks is relevant but >>>>still doesn't support your argument. >>> >>> >>> Unsettled has passed most of my rationale tests. We don't agree on >>> a lot of things but he has his feet planted in reality. >> >> >>Thanks. >> >>Now, about that secondary quandary. If one reads the web page >>carefully it discusses the fact that the prophet wore sandals >>with two straps. (Did you folks miss that?) To the western >>mind that doesn't mean much, but to the Muslim it is the >>model to be followed, IMO a directive. Of course, unsettled is speaking from his priveledged knowledge of the Muslim mind. (Ignoring the issue about westerners being Muslims of course) > Western fashions come and go at the drop of a haute couteur > hiccup. All through Islamic history, the clothes people wore > were dictated. Some had political reasons like banning > the styles that was dictated by your predecessor but others > seems to keep the infidels' influcence away from the the pure > Mulsim. That's control, serious control. > > And that's just textiles and shoes. If I point to a webpage with a picture of an Islamic Arabic cleric wearing sandles which do not have two straps are you happy this falsifies your claims?
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 14:36 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq51fs$8qk_003(a)s1104.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ddbd9$45c5e0ea$cdd0859a$32380(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > <snip> > >>> Eeyore is laying groundwork for justifying going back to rationing. >>> He prefers being told what to do and having to be responsible >>> for any decisions. >> >>(Another "not" missing there) > > Yes. Dammit. And I have to start doing income taxes. Missing > my nots is a bad thing to do when doing that stuff. :-) > >>The socialist utopian bundling blanket. > > Nicely put. I wish I could figure out how to be effectively > terse. You have managed the inaccuracy part of it. Don't sweat about the rest.
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 14:45 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq4voa$8qk_001(a)s1104.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45C34470.DCB07DFF(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >>> >>> I have. It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >>> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. >> >>3 decades ! Where on earth did you get that figure from ? What was being >>rationed in 1975 ? > > I found it. whew! > > Reference: _The Downing Street Years_; Margaret Thatcher, Harper-Collins; > 1993; page 44. > > "But I took greatest personal pleasure in the removal of exchange > controls -- that is the abolition of the elaborate statuatory > restrictions on the amount of foreign exchange British citizens > could acquire. These had been introduced as an 'emergency measure' > at the start of the Second World War and maintained by successive > governments, largely in the hope of increasing industrial > investment in Britain and of resisting pressure on sterling." Blimey, the fact you count this as rationing is interesting. The actual legislation which amended this was presented in November 1946 (if you have internet access I will send you the BOPCRIS link for it, or you can search for it yourself). You may want to have a think about the fact that Mrs Thatcher, in her autobiography, is writing about how she wants the world to see her, not the literal truth about what she did or did not do. Using biographies like this to base your understanding of foreign cultures is badly, badly flawed. I would suggest you speak to the natives of those countries who lived through those times, but as their opinions seem to differ with yours, you dismiss them. That is a shame because you are obviously intelligent enough to use a computer and it is sad to see your intellect wasted in such a manner.
From: T Wake on 4 Feb 2007 14:48
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq4vu9$8qk_002(a)s1104.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <P8WdnTT-ftcvxl7YRVnyigA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epvepo$8qk_023(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45C1F6C2.699C14D3(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>How about an example ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Food coupons. >>>>> > >>>>> >I think you misread. You were talking about freedoms. Do you mean the >>>>> >freedom from Food coupons was suspended? >>>>> >>>>> I consider being told what I can buy and when I can buy it >>>>> a loss of choice. Freedom involves each individual making choices >>>>> and coping with the consequences of those choices. >>>> >>>>I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >>> >>> I have. >> >>Didn't the US institute rationing? > > Yes. > >>Or doesnt that count? > > Sure but Truman stopped it as soon as possible. As did the UK governments. You just have a different idea of when was as soon as possible. >>> It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >>> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. >> >>When do you think WWII finished? >> >>Rationing ended in 1954, I am fairly sure the second world war finished >>_after_ the 1920s. > > I just posted my reference to eeyore's post. REad it. Yeah, and Mrs Thatcher is being somewhat economical with the truth there. >>Did you mean 1 decade? > > 3: 1979-1949 >> >>>>You have some daft fanciful ideas about it it seems. >>> >>> I also listened to the stories of my elders. Perhaps you should >>> ask some for their stories. >> >>I lived through the very last years of rationing. Do you want my stories? > > I would have but your credibility is zero so I don't think I can > believe anything you would write. And that's sad. Another irony meter bites the dust. |