Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 12 Oct 2006 11:04 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egl91p$8qk_002(a)s837.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <452E30DC.C77C7F17(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >> There aren't any other stores. There won't be any other >>> >> >> stores. You are assuming that capitalism, a.k.a. >>> >> >> competition, is allowed. >>> >> > >>> >> >Are you really this stupid ? >>> >> >>> >> Based on your definition of stupid: Fortunately, yes. >>> > >>> >It appears that you're also suffering from a serious case of paranoia. >>> >>> I was paid very well for a long time to be 100% paranoid. I was >>> an expert in anticipating everything that can go wrong and how >>> to prevent it or minimize the damage. The fact that >>> you are able to post in this electronic medium is due to people >>> like me who did this work. >> >>That's a pretty extravagant claim. > > Put in your pipe and stuff it. Perhaps you should learn who > I am. Well, whether you like it or not, his response was an honest one. If you're going to expect people to drop to their knees and worship your experience, then you're going to have to give them a reason to. So far all we've seen is a bunch of what appear to be wacko paranoid interpretations of the worst possible reality. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Eric Lucas
From: Ken Smith on 12 Oct 2006 11:05 In article <ovnri2drfcml40iuvogog2d6qlvl29r64q(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)nosuchplace.org> wrote: >On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:31:48 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>I say sort of because the delivery method limits the amount of material and >>the detonation methods so it could be viewed as a big deal. > > > In other words... the only capacity N. Korea has to deliver such a >payload compares with what a bottle rocket is capable of lofting. No. In other words, they can load it on a ship. It would be somewhat better if their rockets worked just well enough for them to be fooled into using them to carry the nuke. They don't so I don't think they would risk it. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 12 Oct 2006 11:08 In article <452D8839.791B6B1E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [.... nuke ...] >The idea of putting it in a container is so obvious that I'd hope a total >blockade of N Korea is shortly established. I'm with you on that. We would also need China's help to close off the northern border as well. If they load it on a truck and then transfer it to ship elsewhere, if would only take a little longer. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Spehro Pefhany on 12 Oct 2006 11:24 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:31:59 +0100, the renowned Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> > >> >> The vast majority of >> >> Islamic people are peace loving - only a very tiny minority are >> >> terrorists. But if you persecute them all for their religion I expect >> >> you can change that. >> > >> >This concept seems to be lost on the USA sadly. >> > >> >Graham >> >> That's silly. Nobody burns mosques in the US. > >Not yet at least. > > >> Nobody is passing laws >> requiring girls to remove their head scarves in school. > >The country that does that also forbids the wearing of Christian trinkets >like crosses too. Should they not be even-handed ? Only *LARGE* crosses. Actually, Turkey forbids it too, and they are a secular Muslim country. http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=10533 Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: Spehro Pefhany on 12 Oct 2006 11:24
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:11:11 -0700, the renowned John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On 12 Oct 2006 09:02:52 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> >wrote: > >>["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] >>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:25:59 -0700, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >> in Msg. <uu8ri25d43ms9k07u8ued1dc2rde6fqmru(a)4ax.com> >> >>> No. See my post above. Given imperfect data, I'd be inclined towards a >>> more flexible - more complex - solution to give me wiggle room to >>> adjust for the unexpected. >> >>A scientific theory is not the same as a technical solution to an >>engineering problem. >> >>robert > >Of course. Someone suggested that Occam's Razor was applicable to >both. I was pointing out that it's applicable to neither. > >John I wonder if Pareto's principle applies to Occam's Razor. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |