Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 11:45 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:37:10 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> schreef in bericht >news:e3m5j2lple94veach42a3080hf6mfjuta9(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:03:54 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>><snip> >>>> Originally, to defend Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan. I think it's time >>>> to pull out of the European bases and let them pay for their own >>>> defense, now that they don't need much of it. >>> >>>I agree. I cant see the US military being too happy at it. Forward staging >>>bases are pretty useful. >> >> Europeans are already beginning to work out the details of a European, >> as opposed to individual country, military with soldiers who swear >> allegiance to the united countries and not the country they come from. >> Yes? >> >> With the US behaving the way it is, I'd wonder if the Europeans would >> bite at the chance to field an independent force sufficiently funded >> to balance US behavior and provide the necessary 'encouragements' so >> the US negotiates no longer as an unopposed bully. > >Seems the only way to deal with the US if they don't change their >behaviour. It would not surprise me this is already a topic on hidden >agendas for quite a while. The Gallileo GPS system may have been >a result of such plans. The plans that are not discussed in public of >course. While I prefer to see my tax money spend on other things >than military goals, it may be the only way to put a stop to the >growing American arrogance. Ah, your concern is not about peace. It's not about democracy, or human rights, or the health or nutrition or safety of the poorest people in the world. It's about arrogance. John
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 11:50 On Mon, 16 Oct 06 10:03:33 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <2925j2dlsd2jau4crqchld5e7filit9481(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:51:15 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> > You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude >>>> > bomb than with a sophisticated bomb. >>>> >>>> Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably >fairly >>>> crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may >have >>>> to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York >>>> harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar Caribbean >>>> island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong. However, >>>> it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated >>>> fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their own >>>> country. >>> >>>You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from such >>>action for it to make sense though. >>> >>>Since the likely result would be 'wiping N Korea off the map' it really >wouldn't >>>be very much in their interests to do this ! >>> >> >>If Kim is a crazy as Mao (and he's probably a lot crazier) > >I don't think Kim is crazy. I think he has to prove that he >is as big a god as his father. Being on equal footing (IOW >having and wielding nuclear bombs) with the rest of the >world powers is necessary to keep his god image up. We >are dealing with a different kind of religious fanaticsim, I >think. > Anybody who would beat, torture, and starve to death millions of his own subjects qualifies for my definition of crazy. Your standards may vary. > >> he may >>consider a nuclear exchange acceptable, as Mao apparently did. Both >>starved millions of their own people to suit their own purposes. Even >>Deng was reportedly once told that a certain policy would cost a >>million lives, and replied that a million wasn't all that many. > >Western civilization puts value on human life; this is one >of the things that people, known as our enemies, want to change. Some cultures worship death. Yuk. John
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 11:53 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:13:50 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:06:29 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:09:39 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:26:55 +0100, Eeyore >>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>JoeBloe wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> >JoeBloe wrote: >>>>> >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >More 'Christian' propaganda you willingly lapped up ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> You're an idiot. Now that you have been pegged, and proven to be a >>>>> >> US hater, you try to switch it to Christian hater. >>>>> > >>>>> >I respect ppl's right to practice religion. I'm offended by any religion >>>>> >that inspires ignorance though lies whether that be Christian, Moslem or >>>>> >other. >>>>> >>>>> All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not >>>>> moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be >>>>> a crime. >>>>> >>>>> I have a problem with that. Do you not have a problem with that? >>>> >>>>If it was true I would have a problem with it. It's simply not true though. >>>>Do you really believe that nonsense ? >>>> >>>>Graham >>> >>>Sometimes I don't think Europeans understand the religious atmosphere >>>here in the US and probably no imagination for the extreme reaches of >>>it or how it actually influences politics here. I have a hard time, >>>too, so here is a page that paints one of the extreme but important >>>influences: >>> >>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/12/105122/66 >>> >>>In the latter part of it you will see how "thinking" is blocked and >>>dismantled. >> >>The Daily Kos is hardly a bastion of objective thinking either. > >The discussion there is an entirely personal story. It's decidedly >_not_ objective. > >>>Imagine living in the middle of this. I do. >> >>Where do you live? I haven't encountered much religious extremism in >>the US, at least nothing threatening. Mormons and Masons and >>born-agains tend to be enthusiastic, but so are vegans and baseball >>fans. Boring, mostly. > >I have. But I was directly involved with politics as well as teaching >in schools here. So I saw it first hand playing a role. I have seen >such people literally hiding in school closets in order to get the >goods on the teachers in classes. I've seen principles fired and then >new ones selected on boards mostly for their ability to act as go >betweens because of their own religious beliefs, but moderated enough >to make a workable combination. I also live just a couple of miles >from such a similar group and meet such folks, from time to time here. > >They exist and they _do_ have an impact on politics in the US -- and >particularly within the Republican party. If you haven't seen it, you >aren't really actively involved in much that's political. Well, no, I design electronics for a living. And I didn't like the culture I grew up in, so I researched America for eight months, packed all my belongings into my MG, and drove to California, which is equally crazy, just different. John
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 11:55 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:43:13 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >JoeBloe wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >JoeBloe wrote: >> >> >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >> >> >> >> >More 'Christian' propaganda you willingly lapped up ? >> >> >> >> >> >> You're an idiot. Now that you have been pegged, and proven to be a >> >> >> US hater, you try to switch it to Christian hater. >> >> > >> >> >I respect ppl's right to practice religion. I'm offended by any religion >> >> >that inspires ignorance though lies whether that be Christian, Moslem or >> >> >other. >> >> >> >> All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not >> >> moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be >> >> a crime. >> >> >> >> I have a problem with that. Do you not have a problem with that? >> > >> >If it was true I would have a problem with it. It's simply not true though. >> >Do you really believe that nonsense ? >> > >> >Graham >> >> Sometimes I don't think Europeans understand the religious atmosphere >> here in the US and probably no imagination for the extreme reaches of >> it or how it actually influences politics here. I have a hard time, >> too, so here is a page that paints one of the extreme but important >> influences: >> >> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/12/105122/66 >> >> In the latter part of it you will see how "thinking" is blocked and >> dismantled. >> >> Imagine living in the middle of this. I do. > >It's insane. It's gobbledegook. > >I can't even relate to this. It's like a bad dream. > No it's not. It's diversity, pluralism, and democracy. We have a Constitution and courts to enforce the rules of the game, and then we play it. John
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 12:02
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egvmeh$8qk_001(a)s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <f8SdndAS3r_41q_YRVnygA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egt6gf$8qk_001(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> You might question it. People who expect their systems to stay >>> up no matter what kind of errors occur, didn't question it. It >>> was a requirement to have certain uptimes. >> >>If it is excessive then it is poor business sense. If your system needs >>99.999% uptime then you take the correct precautions to ensure that. If it >>only requires 99% uptime the precautions can be different. >> >>Spending money and time making a 99% system 99.9999999% is wasted money. > > Think about this the next time you are a passenger on a plane. > Think about this when you're getting an MRI or CAT scan. > Also think about this when you are at the bank trying to get > some money. Think about what? If the system needs to be 99.999% then making it 99% is also a failure. I have yet to come across a system which is 100%. Is that even possible? What system can survive no matter what errors occur? Planes crash, software crashes, plants malfunction. If there is a 100% system, let me know and I can pretty much guarantee a large customer base for it. >> >>I may be using a different definition of excessive than you. > > No. You just don't know the biz. An excessive act to prevent > system crashes would be to never plug it in. Being able > to anticipate, thus write defensive code, for everything > that can go wrong, is prudent, practical, and sells a lot > of hard/software. Which brings us full circle. You claim your 100% paranoia meant you took excessive precautions. As I said, excessive precautions are by their definition _excessive_. Every system has weaknesses. Identifying and managing them is a step. But I have never come across anyone who has a system which has 100% of potential risks anticipated. Certainly not anything written down which makes this claim. If you do know of systems which are 100% safe (even planes which are 100% safe) then please let me know. >> >>>>Taking the correct level of precaution is the only plan with long >>>>term viability. >>> >>> And what is the correct level of precaution if the system >>> is the one keeping your airplane up in the air wihout tailspins. >> >>What ever is required to keep it in the air. Taking precautions against >>the >>system being immersed in water at 100m depth is excessive. >> >>Can you see the difference? > > Yes I can see the difference. I know my biz. I am sure you do. As I said, "Taking the correct level of precaution is the only plan with long term viability" and despite your apparent urge to disagree with me, you haven't said anything to the contrary yet. >> >>As an example from an Industry I know better than airframes. If you are >>protecting assets worth ?1,000,000 then spending ?1,200,000 on security >>_is_ >>excessive yet I know companies which do this (the main one which springs >>to >>mind is US company but it is not soley Americans who do this). >> >>Everything has an inherent risk which has to be tolerated. Excessive >>precautions are wasted time and money. >> >>I am not arguing against taking the appropriate measures, just that the >>claims of "100% paranoia" are jingoistic and dont really hold up to >>scrutiny. > > You did not understand the reference. I'm beginning to form > the hypothsis that this was done on purpose. I did understand the reference. Please re-read my posts and show where I have said anything other than this, if I did it was unintentional. I am fairly sure at no point did I advocate taking less than the required measures. I also doubt I advocated taking anything _more_ than the required measures. > If I am right in one thing, I might be right about a second thing, > or a third thing, or the topic in this thread. Well, you may be right but I have no idea what your hypothesis is, or the second or third thing. You introduced the "100% paranoia" to justify your ideas about Islamic extremists aiming for world domination. I pointed out 100% paranoia was madness and should be avoided. You (with JoeBloe trying to butt in occasionally) then came up with examples about how important excessive precautions were and I said that wasn't the case. Please, at any point you want to stop appearing vague and mysterious, let me know what you are thinking (first, second and/or third) and I will be able to easily confirm. Generally speaking I have not yet felt the need to have a hidden agenda in this debate. >>>>Personally, depending on the criticality of the system you are talking >>>>about >>>>I would say what you suggest may, or may not be, excessive. >>> >>> It was not. AAMOF, our precautions wouldn't be enough in today's >>> biz. Today's computing business takes 7x24 uptime for granted. >> >>Well, most web servers use a "rule of nines" for uptime with 99.999% being >>about the gold standard but I see what you mean. >> >>That said, the precautions taken must reflect the business, for example do >>the webservers meeting 99.999% uptime get tested for operation (to go back >>to a previous example) underwater at 100m depths? It is never, ever, going >>to be possible to anticipate every situation. > > But we did anticipate every situation w.r.t. system software. Bet you didnt. Sweeping statements like this cause confusion in people who then come to expect _every_ situation to be anticpated and get upset when it isn't. > It > was our job to do that. Like I said, we were paid very well > to be paranoid by expecting everything to go wrong and try > the best we could to not let such an event do no harm. I dont doubt that you did try to cover as many potential problems as possible in the time available. The limitations of time, equipment and imagination will always ensure that the system is less than 100% fool proof. As you said yourself, the fall back is to "expect the unexpected" and have some sort of failsafe built in. Even the best failsafe is not 100%. >> A business model which works >>defines the normal working practices and determines what precautions have >>to >>be taken for that. From there, depending on cost and time constraints >>othe |