Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 18 Oct 2006 21:45 On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:56:56 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >One thing I find odd, is that you don't think DNA/RNA mutation and evolution >is amazing and wonderful in itself. Isn't it amazing how four bases can >produce such variety? The four bases are a programming language. The *programs* and their high-level structure will turn out to be astonishing in their own right. John
From: MooseFET on 18 Oct 2006 22:02 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <1161180088.789377.65880(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: > > > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> In article <1161136120.854490.3840(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: > >> > > >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> >> In article <1161093618.810074.46780(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: [....] > >In those cases, the US gains nothing by calling it a war either. If > >the US calls it a war, they will be called "freedom fighters" so > >nothing is gained. In those cases where the US does have some control > >over public opinion, what the US calls them matters. In those places, > >calling them criminals is better. > > > You can call them "guntzetzvarthers" and it still won't matter. It is > not what you call them but what means you employ that's the issue. I disagree. I still believe that the US does have some influence by means of what words it chooses to use. Using the word "war" is a mistake in this case. The means that have worked so far have been the police actions not the miltiary ones. It was the British police that stopped the latest group trying to use aircraft as weapons. It was a customs officer that uncovered the millenium. After the first bombing of the world trade center the police tracked down and arrested a whole bunch of folks. So far, I've seen little or no evidence that the miltiary means has had any net result. [....] > >> >In the US there is a law called the RICO statute. I assume that most > >> >other countries have a law like this too. > >> > >> You assume a lot. > > > >Yes I do. Am I wrong on this. Doesn't Italy (for example) have a law > >like this? > > Some countries do, many don't, and since a law of this nature is very > vague, it'll be used (or not used) based on political contingencies. This is always a problem with laws. We also have the same sorts of problems with military actions. Other countries will help, hinder or stand aside depending on internal politics. [....] > >> requirement which is fine for dealing with individuals and small > >> groups, but cannot be satisfied when dealing with global ideological > >> movement. > > > >I don't see why not. If it is a world wide movement with many people > >involved, there should be even better evidence than if there are just a > >few people. The more people in a conspiracy the more likely it is > >someone will talk. > > So he'll talk, so what. So you'll get few low level operatives > convicted (assuming you can find them in the first place). Will do > very little good. If you throw all the operatives in jail and cut off the money supply it will do a lot of good. If you catch just one it does only a little good. If you send hundreds of thousands of troops into battle but fail to catch or kill their leaders it also does very little good or perhaps it does harm. If the bad guys survive an attempt on their life, it increases their credibility. [...] > You should read a bit about the difference between war and criminal > investigation. No, I don't think so. I think you need to reconsider your opinion. You seem to be a smart person so I know that if you stopped and thought about these things you would see that I am 100% completely correct in absolutely everything I have ever said. > Criminal investigation is aimed at individuals and > uses precise but limited tools. It is conducted under conditions > which severely limit what can and cannot be done (as it should be, > under the circumstances). .... and I say this is exactly the only way to defeat the terrorists. Going around killing people at random only makes the problem worse. > War is aimed at large entities and uses > blunt tools with few apriori limits on what can and cannot be done. > War means dirtying your hands (something you seem averse to) and, > unfortunately, lots of collateral damage. No, I'm not worried about the dirty hands. I'm worried about the fact that that route leads to a loss. Unless you are willing to turn a large fraction of the world into slag, you can't defeat the terrorists with the means of war. > Yet, in severe cases, > that's what is necessary. If you see a mouse in your living room, by > the china cabinet, you'll be a fool to use a shotgun (assuming you've > one). If you see a tiger there, you'll be a fool not to use the > shotgun. The fact is though that the mouse nor the tiger is in the living room at this moment. It is somewhere else. You have to figure out where it is before you can do anything about it. Every time you shoot off the gun it opens the cage doors on two more tiger cages. Shooting at random isn't going to do any good. Once you know where the tiger is, it is quite likely you will be able to dart it and return it to its cage. > >> It appears to me that you believe that it is not a war unless you call > >> it so. Would be nice, but it ain't so. > > > >No, what I believe is that calling it "a war" is a bad idea. As I said > >at the start it is granting the other side a status that they should > >not be granted. > > I know you said it and I said that what you do or don't grant is > hardly of relevance here. What is of relevance is proper assessment > of risks. The likely result of actions adn the risks need to be assessed. Calling it a war makes things worse so lets stop doing that. What I personally call it doesn't matter much but what the US refers to it as matters a great deal.
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 22:36 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:0cmdnWILnIOmN6vYRVnysw(a)pipex.net... > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:jnxZg.16082$e66.10170(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... >> >> The discussion below was meant to be an explanation of that difference. >> Do you disagree that they are fundamentally diffferent? (that's an honest >> question, not an invitation to an argument.) > > Generally, I treat all your questions as honest ones and I do try to > respond in kind. Many here don't, and are quick to take offense. I hate the fact that I have to waste so much time trying to keep this discussion focused, civil and respectful. > This is a difficult question for me to answer as I suffer from two big > problems regarding physics - I went to university late in life (I do not > mean these in a disparaging matter, merely acceptance of the fact that > after a while it becomes harder to "warm" to new ideas :-)) I have known several people who have gone to school later in life. I have to say that I respect it a lot. The fact that one loses one's ability to learn new concepts with age is in my observation way more than counterbalanced by the increased maturity, motivation, and focus on what really matters. > Sadly, a lot of people become almost religious in their zeal regarding new > theories, and string theory is certainly suffers from this. I guess I don't have enough exposure to such cutting edge physicists to see this. > When (if) string theory can be formed into something which makes testable > predictions as well as explaining the currently observed data - without > suffering from torturous, ad hoc, adjustments to shoe horn a fit - I will > be forced to reconsider. > > Until then, I really cant shake the feeling it is more belief than > science. I can understand that. I guess the way I look at it now, much like most of theoretical physics, is that it is much more a mathematical construct than a physical theory. As such, they aren't really expected to make useful predictions so much as to provide a mathematical underpinning. As such, it's not so much a theory as a basis for describing. (On the other hand, maybe I don't understand the purpose behind a GUT.) Hopefully, at some point when the mathematical construct has been fleshed out better, one would hope that it does make useful predictions, but until then, I don't have a problem with people having enthusiasm for it, much like any other field of mathematics--as long as they understand the limitations of the construct. I'm not a physicist, but my understanding is that quarks were an exactly analogous "discovery"--at first, they were a mathematical construct, that was eventually fleshed out enough to make predictions about how we might observe quarks--which we then proceeded to do. While it remains to be seen whether string theory will reach the same level of experimental support to be considered a physical theory, as opposed to theoretical physics. > I am fully aware I am not in keeping with the majority viewpoint here I'm not so sure that's true. I've heard this critique a lot, from some well respected physicists. >>> Gravity, certainly in my day, was taught as a curvature of space time. >>> There is no force carrier required as it shapes the "spacetime" >>> everything else exists in. >> >> Well, I guess that sort of begs the question, because there must be a >> mechanism for an object here to bend spacetime hundreds of millions of >> miles away. That is discomforting. > > It does beg the question, and for me personally finding that mechanism > would be more worthwhile than trying to unify the electroweak, strong > force and gravity. As I understand it, EW and strong have already been unified--not true? Perhaps they need to be unified in a slightly different way--a new connection needs to be found between them--in order to be more compatible with gravity without such mind-bending mathematical contortions as quantized 11-dimensional space-time. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 22:45 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4536C69E.2FB24281(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> You haven't been paying attention. That is the reward for >> >> murdering thousandS and millions of people. >> > >> > Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven >> > these days is virgin wrangler. >> >> Is that someone who wrangles virgins, or a wrangler who has not yet >> gotten >> laid? > > Thanks. You just helped me get it. OK, I have to admit I'm a little slow. Can you explain it to me? My comment was mostly smartass meant to inject humor into the discussion. Eric Lucas
From: mmeron on 18 Oct 2006 22:50
In article <1161223334.040783.47000(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <1161180088.789377.65880(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: >> > >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> In article <1161136120.854490.3840(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: >> >> > >> >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> >> In article <1161093618.810074.46780(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: >[....] > >> >In those cases, the US gains nothing by calling it a war either. If >> >the US calls it a war, they will be called "freedom fighters" so >> >nothing is gained. In those cases where the US does have some control >> >over public opinion, what the US calls them matters. In those places, >> >calling them criminals is better. >> > >> You can call them "guntzetzvarthers" and it still won't matter. It is >> not what you call them but what means you employ that's the issue. > >I disagree. I still believe that the US does have some influence by >means of what words it chooses to use. Using the word "war" is a >mistake in this case. > Feel free to believe what you wish, but don't expect me to share your beliefs. >The means that have worked so far have been the police actions not the >miltiary ones. It was the British police that stopped the latest group >trying to use aircraft as weapons. It was a customs officer that >uncovered the millenium. After the first bombing of the world trade >center the police tracked down and arrested a whole bunch of folks. So >far, I've seen little or no evidence that the miltiary means has had >any net result. > Police actions are important, as defensive measures. They're necessary but, in this case, far from sufficient. >[....] >> >> >In the US there is a law called the RICO statute. I assume that most >> >> >other countries have a law like this too. >> >> >> >> You assume a lot. >> > >> >Yes I do. Am I wrong on this. Doesn't Italy (for example) have a law >> >like this? >> >> Some countries do, many don't, and since a law of this nature is very >> vague, it'll be used (or not used) based on political contingencies. > >This is always a problem with laws. We also have the same sorts of >problems with military actions. Other countries will help, hinder or >stand aside depending on internal politics. Certainly. > >[....] >> >> requirement which is fine for dealing with individuals and small >> >> groups, but cannot be satisfied when dealing with global ideological >> >> movement. >> > >> >I don't see why not. If it is a world wide movement with many people >> >involved, there should be even better evidence than if there are just a >> >few people. The more people in a conspiracy the more likely it is >> >someone will talk. >> >> So he'll talk, so what. So you'll get few low level operatives >> convicted (assuming you can find them in the first place). Will do >> very little good. > >If you throw all the operatives in jail and cut off the money supply it >will do a lot of good. Sure. And if you won't it won't. There is little reason to think that you're catching more than a small fraction of the operatives and cutting off more than a small fraction of the money supply. > If you catch just one it does only a little >good. If you send hundreds of thousands of troops into battle but fail >to catch or kill their leaders it also does very little good or perhaps >it does harm. If the bad guys survive an attempt on their life, it >increases their credibility. > I'm glad you start to see why going personally after Bin Laden, in a way which had far from overwhelming chance of success, was not a very bright idea. >[...] >> You should read a bit about the difference between war and criminal >> investigation. > >No, I don't think so. I think you need to reconsider your opinion. >You seem to be a smart person so I know that if you stopped and thought >about these things you would see that I am 100% completely correct in >absolutely everything I have ever said. > The net is full of people who are absolutely convinced that they're 100% correct in absolutely everything they ever said and who, moreover, just know that everybody else will agree with them if they'll just stop and think about it:-) Take a number and wait in line. > >> Criminal investigation is aimed at individuals and >> uses precise but limited tools. It is conducted under conditions >> which severely limit what can and cannot be done (as it should be, >> under the circumstances). > >... and I say this is exactly the only way to defeat the terrorists. Didn't seem to work in any place it was tried, except against small and isolated groups. >Going around killing people at random only makes the problem worse. > For a while, until you kill enough to get them discouraged. Read Clausevitz about how wars end, eventually. >> War is aimed at large entities and uses >> blunt tools with few apriori limits on what can and cannot be done. >> War means dirtying your hands (something you seem averse to) and, >> unfortunately, lots of collateral damage. > >No, I'm not worried about the dirty hands. I'm worried about the fact >that that route leads to a loss. Unless you are willing to turn a >large fraction of the world into slag, you can't defeat the terrorists >with the means of war. Once they've a large support base, the only way to defeat them is to discourage the base. > >> Yet, in severe cases, >> that's what is necessary. If you see a mouse in your living room, by >> the china cabinet, you'll be a fool to use a shotgun (assuming you've >> one). If you see a tiger there, you'll be a fool not to use the >> shotgun. > >The fact is though that the mouse nor the tiger is in the living room >at this moment. It is somewhere else. You have to figure out where it >is before you can do anything about it. Every time you shoot off the >gun it opens the cage doors on two more tiger cages. Shooting at >random isn't going to do any good. Once you know where the tiger is, >it is quite likely you will be able to dart it and return it to its >cage. > Yeah, sure:-) > >> >> It appears to me that you believe that it is not a war unless you call >> >> it so. W |