Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 15:12 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452E1C63.3D95B911(a)hotmail.com... > > > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> It seems that in America you can now be attacked on an aircraft for >> having a suntan and an iPod (as happened to a top UK jet set architect >> fairly recently). I cannot understand why the gung-ho idiot that >> assaulted him was not arrested when the plane touched down (unless of >> course he was a sky marshall). >> >> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1777847.ece >> >> This guy is rich enough to get justice out of the American legal system >> so that's OK. > > Jesus HC. And he was *Jewish* too ! > > " To the applause of fellow passengers, the Jewish designer was escorted > from a > New York flight as a potential bomber. " > It's ok though, cos as a few posts here have said the "average person" is not in the grip of a fear of terrorists.... Must have been a plane full of non-average people.
From: Jamie on 12 Oct 2006 18:38 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:452E1C63.3D95B911(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> >> >>>It seems that in America you can now be attacked on an aircraft for >>>having a suntan and an iPod (as happened to a top UK jet set architect >>>fairly recently). I cannot understand why the gung-ho idiot that >>>assaulted him was not arrested when the plane touched down (unless of >>>course he was a sky marshall). >>> >>>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1777847.ece >>> >>>This guy is rich enough to get justice out of the American legal system >>>so that's OK. >> >>Jesus HC. And he was *Jewish* too ! >> >>" To the applause of fellow passengers, the Jewish designer was escorted >>from a >>New York flight as a potential bomber. " >> > > > It's ok though, cos as a few posts here have said the "average person" is > not in the grip of a fear of terrorists.... > > Must have been a plane full of non-average people. > > nah, just some illegal Mexican's! no lost there.! -- Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 15:15 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egl7bj$8qk_003(a)s837.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <452D8AAB.63CA95F9(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>> >>> > You guys? >>> > >>> > You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back >>> > you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if >>> > you were wrong? >>> >>> Really? Is this an unspported assertion in order that you may score some >>> points against Eeyore? >>> >>> I can certainly think of occasions where the UK has _not_ had US back up >>> in >>> military operations. That said, our military is about 1/10th the size of > the >>> US military so expecting the same is a fallacy all on its own. >> >>The big difference is that the UK actually *wins* the wars we take on ! > > WWII, WWI, The American Revolutionary War, War of 1812, the nameless > one around 1800. > > Yep, you won all of those. WWI and WWII were won by the British as much as the Americans or any other "single" nation. Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from almost 200 years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare this to Vietnam, I suppose. And if you call WWII a non-win for the UK, America gets the pleasure of Korea being a "defeat." We have however, won some interesting wars - even one that was half a world away - without American assistance.
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 15:16 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:shori2dd8rpf7fdtudenjeng8kmenlnccd(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:20:08 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> Typical European attitude. Now you expect the USA to clean up >>> >> China's and fUSSR's messes. >>> >> >>> >> What would you do if we simply said no more; deal with your own >>> >> mess. >>> > >>> >You're quite mad. >>> >>> --- >>> Really? >>> >>> Who else could do it? >>> >>> You guys? >> >>What's it got to do with us ? > > Wow. You really are beyond stupid. Something about which you are truly an expert.
From: lucasea on 12 Oct 2006 15:18
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:h5vsi2hj346pkp8n0qfhk2u8ttrko8mlct(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:07:00 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:12fri2961usl6qoiqotcc442va44b4q1i3(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:47:25 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>message >>>>news:fedri21s4toqia7j4a8o2ejko440n73gp9(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:18:02 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>F = m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999982 * (g-0.000000000016), >>>>> >>>>> Ah, gravitational force is independent of distance, as Occam's Razor >>>>> predicts. That certainly is a useful simplification. >>>> >>>>Oops, my mistake. Please answer the same questions as if I had typed it >>>>right-- >>>> >>>>Please explain why Newton chose F = m1 * m2 * g / d^2, when F = >>>>m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999999982 * (g-0.00000000000016) / >>>>d^2.000000000013 would have fit the available data just as well. And if >>>>you're going to put it off to Kepler's law, which is the basis for >>>>Newton's >>>>law, then why did Kepler get something so simple, like Period = k * >>>>radius^1.5? Why didn't he say Period = k * radius^1.50000000000038? >>>>After >>>>all, if needless complexification is the norm in science, then he >>>>shouldn't >>>>have come up with anything so simple. >>>> >>>>Or are you being deliberately obtuse to cling to an untenable position? >>> >>> Obtuse? I'm not the one who swore there was no "2" in Newton's law of >>> gravitation, as you did in the part you snipped. >> >>I didn't swear, don't put words in my mouth as a strawman. It was a >>mistake. I suppose you never admit to making those. >> >> >>> My answer remains, 2 >>> is fundamentally correct, and Newton did not determine it >>> experimentally. >> >>There's nothing fundamental about it--it's based on Kepler's observation >>of >>a 2/3 exponent. Anyway, what about all the other numbers? >> > > Simple mental experiments show that m1*m2 works in that form, at least > in the non-relativistic case. Hunh??? Tell me about these simple mental experiments. And tell me why m1*m2 is any better than m1^1.00000000038 * m2^0.99999999947. They both explain the data that could be observed in Newton's time (and close to the limit of observation even today). And yet you tell me that we shouldn't accept m1*m2 because it's simpler. Then why should we? >>> Occam's Razor is folklore. It is unproven, proves nothing, cannot >>> separate good theories from incorrect ones and, if trusted, shuts off >>> thought. In mathematics, only formal proof validates a theorem; in >>> physics, only experiment. Being simple isn't enough. >> >>Of course it isn't. However, I'm going beyond the data--for any given set >>of data, there are an infinite number of explanations. How do you choose >>between them? Of course, one way is to get more data. However, it's not >>possible to collect an infinite amount of data to disprove all of those >>possible theories. The other way to select between theories is to choose >>the simplest, and then look for data to invalidate it. Once you do, then >>you choose a more complex theory, and repeat the process. However, >>fundamental to all of this, at each stage, is choosing the simplest theory >>that fit the data. Ask any experimental scientist, and you'll get laughed >>out of the room if you tell them that "Ockham's razor is folklore." > > It's arguable that testing, for falsity, the simplest theories first > is an efficient/lazy way to proceed through the list. But that doesn't > make the simplest theory the most likely one to be true, which is what > OR claims. > > "It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated > than the simplest possible explanation because it requires fewer > assumptions. In light of this, the popular rephrasing of the razor - > "The simplest explanation is the best one" - can lead to a gross > oversimplification when the word simple is taken at face value." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Science_by_Razor_alone.3F > > is about right. The crux of this statement is the required number of assumptions. Relating this to the discussion at hand, I'd say that claiming that al Qaeda knocked down the WTC because they want to destroy Western Civilization requires *far* more assumptions than the simple explanation, which is that they either wanted to knock down a couple of buildings (zero assumptions--that's what they did) or that they want to get revenge on America by knocking down a couple of American buildings (one or two simple assumptions that aren't wild stretches of the imagination). > As an engineer, and out of experience, I tend to be suspect of simple > explanations of mysterious behavior, because the ultimate explanations > are often of astounding subtlety, like two or three pathological > behaviors hiding behind one another, masquerading as a single simple > problem. Yes, but you don't automatically gravitate to the more complex explanation until you have data that say the simple one is not the answer. That would lead you to look for more data, not to automatically assume the more complex theory is true. As an example, you don't automatically call the power company and complain about the electric grid having been knocked out, when you go to enter a room and the light is not on. You simply assume that the light switch is turned off, and you go turn it on. Only when that doesn't work, and you check the lightbulb for being burnt out, and you check for the circuit breaker not being tripped, do you begin to suspect that perhaps there's a problem with the electricity coming into the house. It's not being closed-minded to check the simple things first...it's just common sense. > What I object to is the common invocation of OR to "prove" that some > theory must be right, or even is most likely to be right, because it's > simple. Nobody I know does that...and it's not what I did. My position is that *in the absence of evidence* suggesting that a more complex explanation is necessary, I will take the simple explanation. That leaves the door open--if you want |