Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2007 07:44 In article <PY2dnZg-I_A77lrYnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eq7bq8$8qk_003(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <2srcs2douj8ck4ojlg9fsvio58o83hf97c(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Sun, 04 Feb 07 15:56:58 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>>>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." >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>> >>> That's not "rationing", dingledorf. That's inflation control, and >>>economic growth initiative. >> >> They were rationing the amount of money anyone could have, >> especially businesses that could have expanded outside the >> country. > >Not really. Your politicians were forcing England's industry and manufacturing to make all of their own stuff. They couldn't buy technology from outside the country. Besides this, industry had their hands tied because they had to dump monies down the unions' black holes. What is a wonder is how well England has survived this economically. Now, I know this is going to be hard for you to do but think just a little bit. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2007 07:47 In article <97c1a$45c73738$4fe718a$7435(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <45C67C3F.E37768AC(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Islam is now ~1400 years old. We can look at what >>>>Christianity was doing about the year 1400. Much of >>>>what was going on wasn't very pretty. >>> >>>You may to be interested to know that I concur with the view that the >> >> behaviour of >> >>>religions is related to their age too. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Luther was born in 1483. If the evolution of Islam tracks that of >>>>Christianity at all, their great reformer should be coming along any time >> >> now. >> >>>>The conditions happen to be ripe. Funny how that works. >>> >>>Yes. I've been thinking that it's time for some kind of 'reform Islam' that >> >> takes >> >>>them into a modern forward-thinking technological era instead of a regressive >>>agrarian tribal/fuedal one. >> >> >> And that is exactly what I've been talking about for 15,000 posts. >> >> What we are seeing is the struggle between modernization and >> keeping things at the status quo. Those who do not want to change >> are trying to destroy the cause of those who want to mondernize. >> >> Modernization means including Western civilization's progress. >> >> Until WWI and the final breakup of the Ottoman Empire, there was >> no WEstern civilization influcence to tempt most Muslims. Even >> those who were the first embassadors to Europe in the late >> 1800s could not understand most of the European lifestyle. >> There was no way they could send back explanations for certain >> things like entertainment, science, art and medicine. > >It is a difficult time between now and the 'some point in >the future' when Islam will reform itself. Yes it will be. >I guess that >was a little too tongue in cheek for some readers, the >word difficult includes the concepts of deadly and >generally destructive. And the politically correct nonsense is helping the destruction. I just read a book written by a woman whose business is to provide nanny help to people who live inside the Beltway. None of those people have a grasp on reality. /BAH > >
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2007 07:55 In article <0LKdnfp6w6j5-VrYnZ2dnUVZ8seinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eq78ue$8qk_003(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <eq56kc$h3d$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <eq4ksf$8ss_009(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[......] >>>>Most of the code I wrote didn't do calculations. Most of OS >>>>code simply moves bits without error. >>> >>>Now that Windows is the most common OS, >> >> Except Windows isn't an OS. > >What is the OS on a windows XP machine then? An OS that had an application's footprint shoved into its exec. > What about a Windows Vista machine? I haven't seen it yet. Based on past coding history of the company, I don't expect any miracles; the corporate folklore is just too engrained into their infrastructure to allow it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2007 07:57 In article <eq8rv7$v7q$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <0LKdnfp6w6j5-VrYnZ2dnUVZ8seinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eq78ue$8qk_003(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <eq56kc$h3d$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>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, >>> >>> Except Windows isn't an OS. >> >>What is the OS on a windows XP machine then? What about a Windows Vista >>machine? > >Vista is really a shell. It contains a bunch of XP code. Whenever OS >like stuff needs to be done, Vista passes the command to the XP code. >Which then passes it down to some Win98 code that fires up DOS and runs >the operation through QBasic. This is why Vista needs so much RAM. So all they did is rinse, repeat previous releases? I expected this but I had my hopes up. ARe you sure that's what they did? Do you know who did the work? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2007 08:43
In article <de959$45c60d58$cdd084ad$929(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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.h tm >> >> 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. >> >> >> 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. >> >>> >>>>>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. >>> >>>Historically that's not exactly true. When Jericho was >>>captured the Jews killed all the inhabitants without >>>mercy, even though many begged to live a life of slavery >>>instead of death. >>> >>>But, if we look at your statement in modern day context, >> >> >> I think that's what I was talking about. I've tended to lose >> my way among the thread drifts lately. >> >> >>>it seems the older the religion the less interested it >>>is in converts. >> >> >> I may have a quibble with this. > > > > >Talk to me about Judiasm's missionaries spreading the >word and seeking to convert people. I haven't learned everything about Judiasm. I thought the religion didn't put much emphasis on proselytizing; the stuff I've read gave me the impression that emphasis was to not do this. > >Does Christianity have fewer missionaries than Islam? >I don't know, but I'd guess yes. I would guess no. I see no evidence of missionary concepts in Islam. Their creed says that, if there is a mosque in a country, that country is Islam. And I don't know where I read this; it was in the last three years but I'm not going to paw through 10,000 pages to find it. >>>Islam is now ~1400 years old. We can look at what >>>Christianity was doing about the year 1400. Much of >>>what was going on wasn't very pretty. Luther was born >>>in 1483. If the evolution of Islam tracks that of >>>Christianity at all, their great reformer should be >>>coming along any time now. >> >> >> I don't think it will be a reformer in the religious sense. I >> do think it will involve getting their Shariah updated to the >> last century. it hasn't changed in 300 (I may be off with that >> est.) years. Since then the Industrial Revolution has happened >> and the world is hip deep in the Information Revolution. Even >> if their coda gets updated to the 20th century they'll be way >> behind. > > >Give Luther's reforms in a context beyond the obvious religious >concerns of the day. The financial and political ramifications >were tremendous. Sure they were. I can't see a single man doing this job. First of all the religion started out as two sects which were created to put an end to their first political war. There's no way either sect will accept changes from a man of the other's faith. These people are still disagreeing about who inherits the seat of power. How un-Western thinking is that? <snip> /BAH |