Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 11 Oct 2006 16:30 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452D52B3.95C3D22D(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> I think you have mixed metaphors by bringing in the real >> world engineering solutions - yes there may be a convoluted answer >> needed, >> but that it is still the simplest, working, solution which is used. > > Engineers pretty much invariably like the simplest solution ! And I'll wager that even John goes for the simplest solution *that is consistent with all the data he has*. Once one collects more data that suggest that it's a more complex problem, then one would go for the more complex solution...but not before. An analogy. Newton could've formulated his law of gravity such that F = m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999982 * (g-0.000000000016), but he didn't, despite the fact that that equation would certainly have given the same results, to within the experimental accuracy of the day. He didn't. Why? Because of Ockham's razor--there's no need for the added complexity, so why add it? It's one thing to be open-minded to more complex solutions. (Although, I have to say, I'm glad Newton wasn't. We probably wouldn't have made it to the moon, otherwise.) It's another thing entirely to insist on adding complexity where none is justified based on the data at hand. That's the worst type of closed-mindedness--the refusal to acknowledge that the simplest solution that explains all the available data is probably the right one...at least until more data are available. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 16:32 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> > >> > Typical European attitude. Now you expect the USA to clean up > >> > China's and fUSSR's messes. > >> > >> Really? Where do you get that from? > > > > I suspect he's getting at N. Korea's supposed 'client state' status with > > the aforementioned. > > Aha. Thanks (BTW "she" :-) ). Ah yes. Who is she btw ? Some one suggested I should know but I fail to see why. Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 16:34 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote > >> > >> > Sit back and watch, Johnny Stupid. > >> > >> Watch what? Watch America posture and moan for a while then complain that > >> the UN wont assist them? > > > > I've concluded that the USA is beyond being rationally reasoned with. > > The nutters who post here are not the "USA." They are just nutters. In the > same manner as Habishi is not India (or the UK). > > > At least we can all laugh when it blows up in their faces ! > > Sadly, the explosion is likely to cover more than "their" own faces. *** DUCK AND COVER *** Graham
From: T Wake on 11 Oct 2006 16:43 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452D4CBE.264F5E66(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > T Wake wrote: >> > >> >> In the UK we are toying with ID cards to fight terrorism. Pure, >> >> unadulterated nonsense. >> > >> > They would certainly be quite useless against terrorism. >> >> Yet that was the initial reason they were suggested. Fingerprinting / >> recording Biometrics of people will not prevent terrorism either. > > Why would a potential terrorist be afraid of having his identity > confirmed FFS ? It's not like he's making a secret of it in the first > place. > > Until the Police / State Security can read your brain, all these ideas > are so much wasted time. I know. This is what annoys me about the way governments try to force laws through on the "terror" wave. We do it with other things (Child Protection being one that springs to mind). Very strange way of determining a legitimate response to a threat.
From: T Wake on 11 Oct 2006 17:14
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452D54D8.6A176352(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> > Typical European attitude. Now you expect the USA to clean up >> >> > China's and fUSSR's messes. >> >> >> >> Really? Where do you get that from? >> > >> > I suspect he's getting at N. Korea's supposed 'client state' status >> > with >> > the aforementioned. >> >> Aha. Thanks (BTW "she" :-) ). > > Ah yes. > > Who is she btw ? Some one suggested I should know but I fail to see why. I don't know. I do know that when the situation demands it she is happy to use Gender Politics. |