Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Feb 2007 07:55 In article <4b6b4$45c88a02$4fe768c$16515(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <45C80196.8DA7B028(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Look at the difficulty in getting kids to study science now for >> >> example. I'm >> >>>>>>>>>sure the kids are right to tend to avoid it since they've seen so many >>>>>>>>>'scientific' jobs disappear. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Spoken like a tech. Science isn't a "job", it is a calling. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Perhaps you meant to say "engineering". >>>>>> >>>>>>>I used the term science quite intentionally. Hence the quote marks. Not >> >> least >> >>>>>>>because that's what politicans here call it. Engineering has become a >> >> dirty word. >> >>>>>>>There's another problem. >>>>>> >>>>>>So what you actually meant is technological jobs? >>>>> >>>>>That covers a very broad range. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I was told that a man whose job related education consisted of an solely >> >> of an >> >>>>>>apprenticeship at Rolls Royce (automobiles) was "an engineer" I almost >> >> fell out of >> >>>>>>my chair. His "maths" consisted of what we call "shop math" over and >> >> above the >> >>>>>>regular schooling all children get. >>>>> >>>>>I'd say that person was perhaaps a technician but the it's become popular >> >> for people to >> >>>>>be given more important sounding names for their positions these days. >>>>> >>>>>Below the technician in an aero engine company would be a mechanic / >> >> fitter >> >>>>>historically. >>>>> >>>>>I have difficulty explaining to 'average ppl' today what an electronics >> >> design engineer >> >>>>>does. Typically I'm asked if that means I solder things ! When I say I >> >> design circuitry >> >>>>>and enter it on a CAD system most ppl look very perplexed. If I mention >> >> software, > ppl >> >>>>tend to ask if that means I do phone support. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>Also, as for Blair's idea that we can do 'R&D' instead of >> >> manufacturing, he's >> >>>>>>>>>barking mad. Doesn't he know who it is who needs that R&D ? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Once again spoken like a tech. The future needs today's R&D. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Of course it's required by companies. Now explain how a country with >> >> little >> >>>>>>>manufacturing industry can support a large R&D industry. >>>>>> >>>>>>Immediately switch from being a socialist economy to a capitalism. >>>>> >>>>>Would you care to elaborate how you see socialism and capitalism fitting >> >> into the > above >> >>>>? In other words which you associate with what ? >>> >>>Lack of answer noted. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>R&D is an investment just like any other. How can you *not* afford that? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I agree in principle but who wants ( can use ) the R&D if there aren't >> >> any >> >>>>>manufacturing companies ? >>>> >>>>The product of R&D is an asset like any other. >>> >>>I know. You still need customers though. R&D isn't a freely tradeable >> >> commodity like oil or >> >>>corn. >> >> >> No. It is not. No one can predict the results that an R&D group >> will produce. In the R&D context, which you are talking about-- >> this is not generally science research--, the group will have >> 1000 ideas but only 1 will be profitable over the short term. > >My experience was different. The large number of ideas is >of no consequence. Right. > The number that make it into prototype >and testing is. That's what I though I wrote :-). >The conceptually brand new system I worked >on in 1967 was ending its first production run in 1977 and >is today in use as the 4th generation direct descendant >with the next generation in late stage prototype testing. I would consider that short term. > >Each generation became simpler, lighter, and more efficient >while providing all the necessary effectiveness, which also >changed over the years as user experience demands. Today's >system still looks and behaves a lot like what we developed >in 1967. If you can look back [emoticon tried to find a suitable word, fails] objectively, you might be able to discern the tradeoffs those projects had to make because of time constraints of the schedules. The goal was production; unusual side effects or results were secondary and put on back burners to be left as a later investigation. I do know that priorities have to change as a project evolves through time. I've written this badly but I've been trying to sort this kind of stuff out in my own corner of the computer biz. There isn't any formulation to these processes and the best data are the war stories of those who lived through them. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Feb 2007 08:34 In article <8430d$45c76d79$49ecf88$8642(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:45C682ED.9CCF819D(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>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? >>>> >>>>There are blasphemers in all religions. >>> >>>Blaspheming clerics ? >>> >> >> >> It also creates the situation (often used by theists to counter the argument >> that religion is cause of suffering), where the rules are open to >> interpretation by the individual. >> >> The argument says Islam is a religion of "serious control" and I am saying, >> if I can find a picture of an Arabic, Islamic, Cleric wearing sandals which >> do not have two straps doesn't it falsify that claim? The example of control >> BAH made was about shoes, unsettled modified that (as he often has to do >> when BAH starts talking nonsense) into sandals (not a major shift though) >> and I am now curious as to how this can actually be an example of "serious >> control" if I can find pictures of Islamic Arabic Clerics wearing footwear >> not in accordance with the extract from the Koran. >> >> Would it be better if the picture is from a Taliban-era Afghani cleric? Or >> are these claims un-falsifiable? > >I think this is one of those which can produce no definitive >agreed on outcome even with both (all?) sides being completely >straightforward and honest. To a great extent that's because >in every human population are rule breakers who can be pointed >to as examples. I think any viewpoint can "prove" validity by >finding examples inside Islam. I consider the anti-Zionists >within Judaism a close parallel. > >Speaking of "rules"..... > >I can't go back into google and find anything in this thread >because of its size and google pukes out what it wants to >rather than what's asked for. So I'll insert this reopening >of a former part of the discussion particularly between the >two of us a while back about the Geneva Conventions. > >A local friend handed me a stack of magazines recently that >had made the rounds. A number of issues of a small magazine >called "The Week" was in the stack. I open one now ad again >in odd moments and read. The November 17, 2006 issue has an >article which specifically addresses some of the things we >were discussing earlier. > >Without looking in depth, I had simply assumed that the USA >is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. That's essentially >true, however it turns out there were some protocols added >in 1977 relating to "wars of self-determination" and civil >wars. > >Under the 1977 protocols combatants are required to carry >weapons openly and to distinguish themselves. If captured >otherwise they're not considered POW's. > >So far, so good. However there were some amendments added >which held that those ununiformed people are considered >POW's if they're fighting "against colonial domination" >and "alien occupation" and "racist regimes." These are >claims made by virtually every terrorist in history. These are convenient lip-flapping. I think if you want to understand what was going on and why these things became into being, you will need to learn a lot about the UN's welfare state business and how they undid all the colonialism. > >"Some 160 nations have ratified the 1977 accords to varying >degrees, but the US did not." (This Week, Nov 17, 2006, p13) > >The article addresses a number of the issues that have been >discussed in this thread. > >http://www.theweekmagazine.com/ > >It seems, from the issues I've looked at, to be politically >as neutral as they come while reporting facts. > >In this discussion I'm not supporting any aspects pro or >con the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, however one >begins to better understand the sort of case that the >Bush administration deemed to be the guiding light. There >was no existing treaty or law to which the detainees are >subject, although it seems the US courts have wrested >control and are making new laws to control the gap. > >Strictly speaking that's extralegal too, but they find >a way to include whatever they want. There's a fine >argument to be made that we have two legislative branches >in the US, the judicial one cannot be further appealed >short of modifying our constitution. It is very true that all of these kinds of matters have to have sane people thinking about them. So far, the US has one political party that is not thinking at all and the other political party trying to defend their political turf. IOW, there is absolutely no statemanship thinking going on. Europe certainly is shrugging. They still are in the mode where, if they say "Pretty please" their enemies will stop trying to kill them. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Feb 2007 08:38 In article <mMmdnXlTA4drSFXYnZ2dnUVZ8seinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eq9ts5$8ss_007(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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$8ss_009(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>[......] >>>>>>Most of the code I wrote didn't do calculations. Most of OS >>>>>>code simply moves bits without error. >>>>> >>>>>Now that Windows is the most common OS, >>>> >>>> Except Windows isn't an OS. >>> >>>What is the OS on a windows XP machine then? >> >> An OS that had an application's footprint shoved into its exec. > >In an OS which has had an applications footprint shoved into it's exec no >longer an OS? It is still an OS but its security abilities is completely compromised. Note that the application in my statement is the thingie called Windows. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Feb 2007 08:44 In article <osmdnWy5quVHSFXYRVnytAA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >news:eq8rv7$v7q$6(a)blue.rahul.net... >> 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. > >Interesting. I hadn't read that there was Win98 / DOS code left over in XP. >Thanks. Do you think they rewrote the program known as Windows? Since they couldn't, they had to backfit it into the new OS code they got. This implies that old DOS cruft had to be included. Anybody who knows the OS development biz, can make pretty good guesses how this was done given the insane time scheduling. Add to that that their bit gods are not treated well nor coddled to prevent burnout, they don't even have a corporate memory. /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 7 Feb 2007 10:05
In article <40d89$45c89c48$4fe7166$16958(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >US electrical fires have several primary causes. One is >incompetent people messing about creating dangerous situations. >Another is that for a brief period we allowed the use of >aluminum wires. The third is user stupidity, such things as >running an extension cord under a carpet and overloading it. You missed what I think is a fairly common one: A fire starts. The fire department shows up and sprays water all over the place and in the process a lamp is knocked over and the bulb breaks. The "investigator" sees the broken bulb and says "Well there's the problem. Case closed. When's lunch." I know of a case where I think it is likely that that is what really happened. I think the real source of ignition was a candle. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |