Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 19 Oct 2006 16:41 On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:44:11 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:p0mdj29rrhlrl7g74vu9kkqsg2ib9d0lb9(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >It is already astonishing that ACGT can spell out a human and a fruit fly. >The analogy of a programming language may be accurate, and is certainly >attractive, but answers nothing. > Is it fun, being dull and dogmatic all the time? John
From: John Larkin on 19 Oct 2006 16:47 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:15:37 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:08:09 -0700, the renowned John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:08:56 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:09:14 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>>> >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >>>> >> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > That's where we pretend we like the French ;-) >>>> >> >>>> >> Sorry, Jim, but I'm not THAT good at playing pretend. >>>> > >>>> >Don't worry. The French don't much like your kind of Americans either. >>>> > >>>> >Graham >>>> >>>> Heck, you can hardly get into a roadside rest area bathroom for the >>>> crowds from the French tour busses. On our way back from Monterey, my >>>> wife had to sit shivering at the Junipera Serra rest stop for that >>>> very reason, waiting out a bus full of female French tourists. If you >>>> go to the top of Twin Peaks in San Francisco, the language you're most >>>> likely to overhear is German. >>>> >>>> Stay home! The lines at Peet's Coffee and Joseph Schmidt Chocolate are >>>> long enough already. >>> >>>The attraction of the falling dollar and rising Euro of course. >>> >>>Graham >> >>The rooms at the Inn at Spanish Bay start at about $550, and europeans >>are a glut there, too. But you can sit on the deck, overlooking the >>ocean, next to a cozy open-air firepit, sipping a Guinness, and the >>burger and fries are excellent. If you get chilly, they'll bring you >>blankets. Golf is an insane activity, but golf resorts are almost >>always a great place to stay. >> >>John > >Last survey I saw showed US tourism down a modest 7% since 2000, but >globally it was up 25% over the same period. > > Hmmm, then maybe I can wrangle a room at Spanish Bay. It's great during the winter storms, when the golfers are away anyhow. John
From: lucasea on 19 Oct 2006 17:39 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:0fjfj2tam9m1ct80c6cou2o3fhnpibsclk(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:42:33 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >><snip> >>> And a *few* ppl are now waking up to the fact that service industries >>> don't >>> invent things ! >> >>When more than a few people wake up to this, I will be happier. > > The problem driving the change in the us towards service and away from > knowing how to design and make things is fundamental and won't go away > with some realization. People already realize it. And it's been going on for at least half a century--probably since the end of WWII (the advent of McDonald's may be some sort of watershed here, actually.) I remember my dad, who worked in the electronics industry, carping about it in the late 60s...and that was back when US industry was in general still strong and US-based. I think he would be appalled, but not surprised, if he were still alive today. I don't think many people "got it" back then, but it seems like a few more are beginning to, now. Eric Lucas
From: Daniel Mandic on 19 Oct 2006 18:01 John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:22:57 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > You're a bunch of meanies. > > Oh there, there. Have a chocolate and don't cry. > > John Xocolatl? Or the African version (traded/exchanged with Kokain, ~3-7000Y before Christi)? Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 19 Oct 2006 18:27
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:39:36 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:0fjfj2tam9m1ct80c6cou2o3fhnpibsclk(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:42:33 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>><snip> >>>> And a *few* ppl are now waking up to the fact that service industries >>>> don't >>>> invent things ! >>> >>>When more than a few people wake up to this, I will be happier. >> >> The problem driving the change in the us towards service and away from >> knowing how to design and make things is fundamental and won't go away >> with some realization. People already realize it. > >And it's been going on for at least half a century--probably since the end >of WWII (the advent of McDonald's may be some sort of watershed here, >actually.) I remember my dad, who worked in the electronics industry, >carping about it in the late 60s...and that was back when US industry was in >general still strong and US-based. I think he would be appalled, but not >surprised, if he were still alive today. I don't think many people "got it" >back then, but it seems like a few more are beginning to, now. It's a natural. As populations increase, their labor value relative to materials decline. And exploitation of resources similarly works to raise the value of materials. The two effects work simultaneously. Technology works as a negative feedback to moderate the impacts, by reducing the costs of extraction and exploitation, reducing the costs of discovery, and finding better ways to do more with less material. I suspect that we are in for a transition in our lives. A few millennia years ago, humans and all their domesticated livestocks accounted for perhaps 0.1% of the total vertebrate biomass on land and air on this planet. Today, that figure was just marked at about 98.5% (see Paul MacCready, 2004.) We are pushing all the other animal life forms off this planet. At the same time, human populations well exceed 6 billion and are expected to rise rapidly to about 9 billion by 2040. See: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html In any case, even in the US we are rapidly seeing the impacts of growing populations and resource competition. Our system is currently factored for maximal individual consumption (laws regarding single family dwellings dominate across the board, preventing even parents from living with children, unless they are granted an exception for disability.) I suspect that is simply going to have to change for efficiency's sake, but it's hard to say anything about when. We might first transition into an apartment-dominated culture, first. Not sure. Rising influences due to anthropogenic climate modification are also increasing pressures on resources. We already see the impacts, today. Much more already in the pipeline. That's the really big picture. The over-arching effect is that the cost of tangible materials climb faster than labor. Your time buys less raw material. Luckily for us, technology has compensated and allowed much less to do a lot more for us. But even with all that, we still have a growing percentage of situations where it takes at least two workers to maintain a modest lifestyle and one person cannot easily consider buying a home. When I was growing up, it cost about 10% of your (tiny, in dollar figures) income to buy a home. When I was at the age where I could consider buying my first home, mortgage companies were already setting the absolute limits on ratios at 28% for the secondary market products (which account for almost every mortgage, today), so that if your home payment exceeded that (with stringent adjustments) figure you would NOT get a loan. Today, there are mortgage products that negatively amortize being sold routinely, hoping that the increase in value will exceed the growth of the loan. All bets are off. But mostly because if they didn't do that, they wouldn't sell mortgages. A single wage-earner can almost no longer cut it, anymore, in the US. Globalization and the transfer of manufacturing offshore the US has put additional pressure on the wages, too. Education costs society a LOT OF MONEY. It is very expensive. When older folks die, they take a lot of experience and knowledge with them out of society. When new babies are born, they bring nothing into it. A society maintains itself only by making sure that what is lost is compensated by the education of its youth. And it is a treadmill, too. You stop running so hard, you lose ground. If you want to improve your level, you have to run harder. But it never ends. You have to keep up some run rate, or you lose it. We certainly cannot just become a society of consumers and expect to keep our place for very long. We have to also be a society of makers, of people who _know_ about things. There is no getting around the work. (At least, not without also continuing to take over the lives and resources of others.) And even with all that, the population rises, the pressures on resources rise, etc. It's not going to get any easier. On June 7th, 1966, in Cape Town, South Africa, Bob Kennedy said, "There is a Chinese curse which says, 'May he live in interesting times.' " It will be an interesting time, these next 30 years. Jon |