Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 12 Oct 2006 17:15 Daniel Mandic wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > I have GCE Oxford and Cambridge Board 'O levels' in English Language > > and English Literature. > > Wheew, that's pretty. I guess Cambridge Board 'O levels', is the more > technic English lessons... It's actually 'Oxford and Cambridge' board. The major universities rated their exam results more highly over some of the other exam boards. There wasn't any technical bias for sure. > Do you know some Liverpool :) (could you understand?) I've never really spent any time there apart from catching ferries to the Isle of Man. So I saw a bit of the docks ( back when the docks there were still a big employer ). Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Oct 2006 17:18 T Wake wrote: > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote > >John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: > > > >>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:47:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote > > >>>A non-aggression pact *is not* an alliance ! Don't you know what the > >>>words mean ? > >> > >>--- > >>OK, maybe you're right. From your viewpoint, how would a > >>non-aggression pact signal a non-alliance? > > > > He probably thinks it's like them saying "We don't like you, but > > we'll be nice and sign this agreement..." > > And you think it isn't. Odd that, isn't it? There seems to be some preoccupation here with trying to find 'hidden meanings' in everything. Sounds quite paranoid to me. Graham
From: John Larkin on 12 Oct 2006 17:18 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:18:05 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> 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. You might start with symmetry, then move on to the harder stuff. >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? > Because it's right. John
From: John Larkin on 12 Oct 2006 17:23 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:09:07 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> 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. My answer remains, 2 >> is fundamentally correct, and Newton did not determine it >> experimentally. > >2 is still not a precise number. To this day we can not say it is exactly 2 >with an infinite amount of zeros after the decimal place. Yeah, I suppose the area of a square might be L^1.99999998, since we can't measure it any closer. And the volume of a sphere could well be 1.33333339 * pi * r^3.00000006 John
From: Eeyore on 12 Oct 2006 17:31
T Wake wrote: > You have your head buried in the sand if you think the WTC was > _the_ World Trade Centre. I'd been wondering about that ! Graham |