Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: nonsense on 18 Mar 2007 14:07 krw wrote: > In article <epqqv2t6s4ttag7qov051p5gj2nltp89lp(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > >>On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:11:42 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>(Ken Smith) Gave us: >> >> >>>That is not a recursive problem at all. You seem unclear on what >>>recursive means. >> >> >> She sure is good at doing it though. Recursive nonsense. >> > > Like your "guns won't fire in space", gunpowder needs oxygen (yes > folks, that's todays Dimbulbism)? Dimbulb, you're the last one on > the planet that should be throwing bricks! Now that's funny. Did anyone think to ask him if AA cells could work without oxygen?
From: krw on 18 Mar 2007 14:28 In article <e3170$45fd7fbc$4fe7414$4523(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense(a)unsettled.com says... > krw wrote: > > > In article <epqqv2t6s4ttag7qov051p5gj2nltp89lp(a)4ax.com>, > > MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > > > >>On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:11:42 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > >>(Ken Smith) Gave us: > >> > >> > >>>That is not a recursive problem at all. You seem unclear on what > >>>recursive means. > >> > >> > >> She sure is good at doing it though. Recursive nonsense. > >> > > > > Like your "guns won't fire in space", gunpowder needs oxygen (yes > > folks, that's todays Dimbulbism)? Dimbulb, you're the last one on > > the planet that should be throwing bricks! > > Now that's funny. Did anyone think to ask him if AA cells > could work without oxygen? Of course not, without oxygen they'd be too small! -- Keith
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Mar 2007 07:26 In article <etjolv$3gp$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <1174221298.287074.230690(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> In article <1173976773.203668.217...(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>> Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential. >>> >>> I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following >>> statement carefully: >>> >>> This statement is incorrect. >>> >>> Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it >>> must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and >>> higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I >>> think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion. >> >>Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are >>dumb enough to let it. >> >>The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer >>science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR >>file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know >>where to look it up). > >You are agreeing with my point. I think you now are starting to see what >has really happened with BAH's agrument. She has made an incorrect >statement and was left with the choice of admitting the error or ignoring >the path to the solution. She simply won't step outside the problem. I wasn't paid to step outside the problem. I was paid to solve the problem and I did in a manner that didn't cost money nor waste time. >>The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self >>consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm >>(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way >>her head explodes. > >Well we do know that she is a republican. You can't even get that correct. <snip> /BAH
From: MooseFET on 19 Mar 2007 10:06 On Mar 18, 11:03 am, "nonse...(a)unsettled.com" <nonse...(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: > > In article <etjdf4$8qk_...(a)s874.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > > <jmfbah...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >>In article <1174221298.287074.230...(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > >> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > >>>>In article <1173976773.203668.217...(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > >>>>Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>>>Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential. > > >>>>I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following > >>>>statement carefully: > > >>>>This statement is incorrect. > > >>>>Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it > >>>>must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and > >>>>higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I > >>>>think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion. > > >>>Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are > >>>dumb enough to let it. > > >>>The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer > >>>science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR > >>>file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know > >>>where to look it up). > > >>>"This statement is TRUE" > > >>>Is true and then there is no recursion. Problem solved. > > >>>The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self > >>>consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm > >>>(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way > >>>her head explodes. > > >>The people who are doing the work making those tapes are not > >>programmers. Although they appear to have been more sophisticated > >>than most participants of this thread; nevertheless, they could > >>not be expected to edit magtapes as part of the packaging > >>procedures. > > > The people handling the tapes is not who we thought we were arguing with. > > We had assumed a programmer wrote the script to cause the tape to get > > written correctly. The person would mount the tape and from there, it is > > all software. If your procedure had these people doing more than that, > > you left lots of holes for trouble to get in. > > Not knowing all the players and all the gambits is always > a problem. It is far easier for the folks who were part > and party at the time. On this basis alone you're in a > classic never win situation. You can say how you would > do things, but you cannot say how they should have, > because obviously they made their own decisions based > on scenarios which, at this late date, you cannot > accurately reproduce. I think you misunderstand the situation. BAH made claims which I took to be all honest rememberances of the situation in the past. Among these was an error. She claimed something that was posible to be beyond the scope of the posible. We were not arguing over what was done. It was about what could have been done. She had represented herself as a developer but it now appears more likely that she was an operator.
From: MooseFET on 19 Mar 2007 10:12
On Mar 19, 4:26 am, jmfbah...(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <etjolv$3g...(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensm...(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > > > >In article <1174221298.287074.230...(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > >Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >>> In article <1173976773.203668.217...(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > >>> Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> >Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential. > > >>> I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following > >>> statement carefully: > > >>> This statement is incorrect. > > >>> Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it > >>> must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and > >>> higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I > >>> think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion. > > >>Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are > >>dumb enough to let it. > > >>The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer > >>science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR > >>file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know > >>where to look it up). > > >You are agreeing with my point. I think you now are starting to see what > >has really happened with BAH's agrument. She has made an incorrect > >statement and was left with the choice of admitting the error or ignoring > >the path to the solution. She simply won't step outside the problem. > > I wasn't paid to step outside the problem. I was paid to solve the > problem and I did in a manner that didn't cost money nor waste time. You haven't understood the teerm "step outside the problem". That term applies to where your own thinking has gotten trapped within and is now actually part of the problem you are trying to solve. We do it all the time without really thinking about it. Take the simple example: Solve for Y : Y = Y+1 You will quickly say "It can't be done" because you can see the problem from the outside. If you didn't see that you may end up covering a page with chicken scratch to come to the same conclusion. > > >>The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self > >>consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm > >>(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way > >>her head explodes. > > >Well we do know that she is a republican. > > You can't even get that correct. You can't even see the joke. |