Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2007 07:53 In article <45C6765E.7F40CFA0(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >>I suggest you consider the difference between general purpose and embedded. >> >> >> >>Can BAH's stove print "Hello world" for example ? >> > >> >Could Colossus? >> >> <GRIN> He's young. By asking the question, he showed what he >> thought was an old program. > >Duh ! I gave a well known example. Only for the PC BASIC types ;-). > >My own early experience of computers was with paper tape I/O FWIW. <grin> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2007 07:54 In article <45C6769C.DEE26489(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >I expect a computer to have some decent input and output devices / ports. A >> >few buttons and a 4 character display don't cut it for example. >> >> Son, that's a computer system. > >No, that's a micro something. IOW, a small computer system. Aka boy toy. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2007 07:59 In article <45C6525A.BB423643(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >There's a Cambridge Mass too. >> >> Son, that is a town; it is not a school. > >City actually. Same as ours. I think it's a town. I'd have to check what it's carter is. I don't remember a mayor of Cambridge. > >Cambridge is a city in the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts, United States. >It was named in honor of Cambridge, England. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge%2C_Massachusetts > >The city of Cambridge is an old English university town and the administrative >centre of the county of Cambridgeshire. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge The difference between town and city is the style of government. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2007 08:09 In article <45C67A96.253DB7CF(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>MassivePong <MassivePong(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> If he is on a modem, he is hardly anything even close to a "bit god". >> >>> >> >>>Then you've never met one. >> >> >> >>His assesment sounds spot on to me. >> > >> > If you dismiss the minimalists in the computing biz, you will always >> > overlook the real bit gods. They are dying off and we don't seem >> > to be breeding enough replaements. >> > >> > /BAH >> >> I was told that >> >> http://www.ts1000.us/ >> >> had a coding contest in 2006. That's using the old Sinclair >> "doorstop" computers with 1K memory which also held the OS >> and a basic interpreter. I don't know how much space was >> left for programs, but it wasn't very much. >> >> A contest puts one in mind of the period when these were >> new and such contests were common. > >Structured programming makes far more sense than minimalism. To write tight code, you had to be structured...but not in the sense you think it means. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2007 08:21
In article <ofudnc8fItCCn1vYnZ2dnUVZ8tKsnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eq4p08$8u0_001(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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. > >Your two sentences are no more applicable to "Islam" than any other >religion. Christianity doesn't concern itself about eating nor sanitary habits. It doesn't establish a lifestyle nor daily habits as part of its catecism. > >> 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. > >You are still focusing on the extremists. Oddly, I find I agree with bits of >what you say here, but it really is applicaple only to a very small minority >of Islamists. If you have a billion Muslims and a million are intent on making a mess, that is a minority. A million are a lot of people. > >It is also applicable to an equal proportion of Christians and Jews (and >probably Hindus, Jains etc). No, so far there haven't been Christians in today's society who have the same goal. However, those few who do are paying attention and taking lessons from the mess-making Muslims. > >> 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. > >So you made "shoes" up to show how absurd the concept was - that is fine, >but please say so. You make a sweeping statement based on Turkish approval >of a printing press hundreds of years ago. Not Turkish, Ottoman. Clothes were very important w.r.t. determining who was in charge. > >Are you labouring under the belief that all Moslems abide by the extremist >directives? They have to listen to their clerics and religious leaders. There is no other option. It is obey or be dead. > >Do you know there are Islamic television stations now? Yes. Have you noticed what is said on those broadcasts? > >>>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. > >Do you understand the authority fallacy? Yes, I'm learning how to spot it 1000 miles away. > >>>Can *you* provide any evidence that the Koran dictates what shoes people >>>can >>>buy? >>> >>>Are the strictures laid down in that link any more prohibitive than those >>>in >>>the Old Testament? >> >> I suspect that the Jews who are very strict have similar rules of >> living styles. The difference is that they haven't blown up trade >> centers for the purpose of forcing the rest of the world to their >> adapt to their living style. > >The vast majority of Muslims have not blown up trade centres. For each >extremist there are over a million "moderates." How do you know that? > There are Christians who >commit acts which can best be described as terrorism to encourage others to >adapt to their living style. > >All religions have strictures on what people can and can't do. What they can >and can't buy. Why do you think Islam is better or worse for what it's >strictures are? The strictures haven't kept up with progress. It is 300 years behind. That is what this fight is all about. Does the Shariah get updated to reflect today's level of technology or does all the stuff that isn't currently approved by the Shriah get destroyed? That is the fight. It is also known as a conflict of two civilizations. /BAH |