Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: nonsense on 19 Mar 2007 10:26 MooseFET wrote: > 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. All that doesn't mean you don't get caught up in chasing a few ghosts along the way. > Among these was an error. You'd have to have the entire specification in front of you at one time, understand the specification as well as what the customer(s) expected, the corporate culture, the technology of the day, and more, in order to determine whether there was an error in what she's been telling you. I've read it as it came out and agree with her that, as she stated in the beginning of this subthread, she was placed in a catch 22 situation. The other thing I've learned to do in this lifetime is to read between the lines just a bit. Yes there are "solutions" which fall outside the specification. That today we would probably be intolerant of the specification is an altogether different issue. > 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. You're actually arguing against the specification. > She had represented herself as a developer but it now > appears more likely that she was an operator. BAH is not the first bright person I've encountered who has difficulty expressing themselves in writing. The sci newsgroups are full of such people.
From: MooseFET on 19 Mar 2007 10:29 On Mar 19, 6:49 am, "nonse...(a)unsettled.com" <nonse...(a)unsettled.com> wrote: [....] > That all depends on who you're trying to convince. ProngHead > and Smith are obviously going to need more convincing than > people with an elementary physical sciences comprehension. Now now :) [....] > For those ignorant who claim that CO2 has oxygen present in > it, the experiment becomes just a bit more complicated. The > easiest approach is to procure an argon cylinder and displace > the air in your container with argon. Argon is easy to get from a welding supply house. It will work a little better than N2 because it is heavier. > If ProngHead is going to be really ignorant you'd have to > do a demonstration using a vacuum chamber of some sort. I > don't expect you'll do that in your kitchen. It depends on how good of a vacuum is needed and how much creative work with kitchen stuff and plumbing items and the like you are willing to do. You can get under 50Tor with water as the working material. A steam filled container placed in the freezer would get down to quite low pressures: P = ( (T-Tmelt)/(Tboil-Tmelt) )^4
From: nonsense on 19 Mar 2007 10:43 MooseFET wrote: > On Mar 19, 6:49 am, "nonse...(a)unsettled.com" <nonse...(a)unsettled.com> > wrote: > [....] > >>That all depends on who you're trying to convince. ProngHead >>and Smith are obviously going to need more convincing than >>people with an elementary physical sciences comprehension. > > > Now now :) > > [....] > >>For those ignorant who claim that CO2 has oxygen present in >>it, the experiment becomes just a bit more complicated. The >>easiest approach is to procure an argon cylinder and displace >>the air in your container with argon. > Argon is easy to get from a welding supply house. It will work a > little better than N2 because it is heavier. The "argon" used in welding is usually mixed with CO2. They call it argon because it is mostly argon. >>If ProngHead is going to be really ignorant you'd have to >>do a demonstration using a vacuum chamber of some sort. I >>don't expect you'll do that in your kitchen. > > > It depends on how good of a vacuum is needed and how much creative > work with kitchen stuff and plumbing items and the like you are > willing to do. > > You can get under 50Tor with water as the working material. A steam > filled container placed in the freezer would get down to quite low > pressures: > > P = ( (T-Tmelt)/(Tboil-Tmelt) )^4 True, but.... To get a vacuum you have to have containment. Even a small amount of gunpowder fired off will need a large fully contained chamber, or a very strong one. We can do this, but IMO it falls outside the sorts of things one might want to attempt in a residential kitchen. She's made her point. This is a problem of working within the specification.
From: MassiveProng on 19 Mar 2007 20:15 On 19 Mar 2007 07:06:13 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> Gave us: >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. > Or a not all that good analyst.
From: MooseFET on 19 Mar 2007 21:23
On Mar 19, 7:26 am, "nonse...(a)unsettled.com" <nonse...(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > On Mar 18, 11:03 am, "nonse...(a)unsettled.com" <nonse...(a)unsettled.com> > > wrote: [....] > > > I think you misunderstand the situation. BAH made > > claims which I took to be all honest rememberances > > of the situation in the past. > > All that doesn't mean you don't get caught up in chasing > a few ghosts along the way. If by ghosts you mean misrememberances, then yes, I knew going into it that there was a chance that I was seeing an error in BAH's memory. I find that theory less satisfactory now because she has had time to examine what she said and what she really remembered. > > Among these was an error. > > You'd have to have the entire specification in front of > you at one time, understand the specification as well > as what the customer(s) expected, the corporate culture, > the technology of the day, and more, in order to determine > whether there was an error in what she's been telling you. No, I would not have to have the specification. She made statements that were contradictions of each other and statements about the operation of the tape drive and the theory of checksums. None of these required any knowledge of the specification to see as false. She said that the TAPE.DIR had to be the directory of what was on the tape and that it was the first file on the tape. This would mean that it was made by looking at the very same tape as it was on. This is posible to do. She later admitted that this is not what was really the case because the TAPE.DIR was not actually a file and that it was in fact created by looking at some other tape that contained what she intended to put onto the tape. She had protested that the TAPE.DIR could not be made from what was intended to be put onto the tape when I tried to explain things in terms of what was intended to be put onto the tape. She said that putting the correct checksum into TAPE.DIR would always change the checksum of TAPE.DIR preventing the checksum from ever being right. I pointeed out that htis exact thing has been done for years. It does not require any hand editing BTW. |