Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 05:14 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:otc0j2lkj3o9u4pcqtn538040nk4sa7t21(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:27:57 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>Did you take excessive precautions? >> > > You provides the measure of what is or is not "excessive", dipshit? > > Certainly not a twit like you. You still cant work out where this conversation is going, can you? You are agreeing with me, but you haven't realised it. You are priceless. Now, did you ever come back with any of the supporting evidence for your previous claims or are you going to gloss over that?
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 05:20 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45306861.55710066(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > JoeBloe wrote: >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >> >> >> >I currently work in providing security advice to companies and in my >> >> >experience, while there is some basis for the "paranoia" approach, >> >> >most >> >> >of >> >> >the time it does not make sound business advice. >> >> >> >> Do you even know what the term "COMSEC" means? >> > >> > Why should he ? >> >> It is routinely used by Americans and some UK government departments. >> Most >> commercial organisations do not use the term properly but like to bandy >> it >> about when some middle manger has read a fiction novel. I am convinced >> Ricky >> Gervais has based his roles on people who work for the companies I visit. >> >> COMSEC requires no paranoia and, in fact, is normally based on a >> realistic >> assessment of the threat. If COMSEC gets out of hand companies do cease >> trading. > > Commercial security ? It normally means Communications Security and deals with how an organisation ensures its information is protected (phone calls, emails, conversations etc.). It has fallen out of favour a bit recently and been largely (especially in the commercial sector) with INFOSEC (information security) Also, in the UK the normal abbreviation of Security is "Sy" not SEC which is why UK organisations often have different terms. > Why make such a big fuss over it ? Because JoeBloe reads too many Tom Clancy novels.
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 05:38 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:1ie0j2lmdr8mimgbkukf4gfau40urc9mde(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:12:03 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>It is nice that your world is so clear cut and polarised. Well done. >> > Are you even capable of understanding how stupid that remark was? You aren't. That is apparent with every post you make.
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 05:40 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:2ld0j2pt8l10nc1f43bc2s8l30ele5d4d7(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:30:47 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>news:f9lti2hovlmbvh6tpsbg55oi45obh9s11h(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:01:45 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >>> >>>>So therefore we should kill more of his countrymen than he ever killed. >>> >>> >>> We have done no such thing. Those we fight "the insurgents" are >>> largely NOT Iraqi. >> >>How many are Iraqi? >> > None, considering the fact that once you join up with the > insurgent, you have essentially committed treason against your nation, > and are no longer a part of it. Particularly when the killing of > Iraqi innocents is involved. So all the people killed by the occupation forces are insurgents. This obviously includes the children, news reporters etc. You are so determined to insult and argue with me, you have lost all resemblence to reason.
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 05:42
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:ar20j2dknqp7afk9mcfeickjcprvnsh1a3(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:29:03 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:yKQXg.14611$6S3.4796(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >>> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>> news:zOadnVjl0azTVrLYRVnyiA(a)pipex.net... >>>> >>>> In physics it is normally more an offshoot of the mathematics used to >>>> describe the theory than anything else. >>> >>> There are no axioms of physics. >> >>Possibly a semantic argument here, but there are _some_ axioms in physics >>(assuming the shared meaning of the word is similar to "a statement >>accepted >>as true as the basis for argument or inference") but I think they are >>slightly different than what John is thinking of. They certainly do not >>undermine the value of using Ockhams Razor. >> > > I was first thinking of conservation of energy, which results in a > number of ways to get the number 2, exactly. I am not sure what this has to do with Ockhams Razor. Conservation of Energy relies on axioms and has itself been subjected to OR. What is your point? > But, actually, 2 is no simpler a number than 2.000000006, is it? Depends on who you are talking to. How are you defining simple in this context? It is not a context in which OR would apply. |