Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 23 Oct 2006 00:51 On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:27:01 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> > >> > IT and computers are a science field. >> >> Only as a misnomer. > >Since when was electronics not a field of science ? > >Graham > Electronics is a technology. Electrical engineers build things, they don't research the workings of nature. Some academic EEs pretend to be scientists. Almost all the sciences use electronics to manage, measure, and record experiments. It's remarkable how little science can now be done without electronics, the exception being theoretical work, but even that is tested and validated - or not - with electronics. Electronics has become an indispensable tool of science, like mathematics. Strange. John
From: Eeyore on 23 Oct 2006 02:24 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: > >> > > >> > IT and computers are a science field. > >> > >> Only as a misnomer. > > > > Since when was electronics not a field of science ? > > It's a fairly subtle difference, but an important one as regards such things > as approach and mindset. Science is the field of using the scientific > method (you know, hypothesize, test, repeat) to try to discover thruths > about the universe. Electronics in the sense of designing and building > electronic devices like computers is more a field of engineering than > science--i.e., it's a field that uses the results of science to do and make > cool things that people want. Electronics in this sense does use the > results of the sciences of solid state physics, chemistry, etc., and there > can be use of the scientific method involved in designing electronic > circuits (hypothesize, build, test, repeat), but it's really more an > engineering mindset. I should have said 'scientific discipline'. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Oct 2006 05:59 In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <1161169073.347610.229970(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > >> >>The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only >>the US government knows how to make these things. > > > >>They >>seem to believe that only the US government can OK >>all chemical invoices. > > >>Weapons? Yes. Certain chemicals? Yes again. > >>Our business and politics do not >>work that way. I think a lot Europeans are confused by >>this because their businesses are generally government >>controlled. > >A total lie. Europe is very capitalistic. Not the labor. Labor is union. > >>and/or union controlled > >Aw, corporations give their workers a voice in how they're run. Gee, what a >radical idea. Straight out of biblical-era communes and Pilgrim New England. > >>espeically in the >>manufacturing and mining areas. >> >>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. > >Except start wars. When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. That was written that way so that the states didn't war among themselves. Disputes are settles in courts of law rather than killing fields. The people who met at the Constitutional Convention did not want to go through the hundreds of years' war that Europe meandered in. > > >> This >>is gradually getting destroyed; everytime you hear about >>a Supremem Court ruling about the Constitution deals with whether >>the states or feds have power. >> >>> >>>Buying the bulk reagents from Western sources at high purity allowed >>>them to concentrate on the hard part of industrial scale synthesis and >>>improved yeilds. >> >>I understand that. However, that was convenience and it was possible. >>What these Europeans (with whom I'm talking) are really saying is >>that the US government should take control of all business and >>make the decisions of what, who, what and where. IOW, they >>want the US to become, not socialist, but communist. >> > >You are a liar. > > >Geez, the "red under every bed" paranoia went out with McCarthy! Communism is the result of choosing equality for everybody in favor of liberty for everybody. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Oct 2006 06:07 In article <Am7_g.16015$vJ2.1847(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehadg0$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... <snip> >> However, there isn't a single >> Democrat running for President in 2008 who is willing to deal >> with the reality that we have an enemy capable of destroying >> Western civilization and everything that smells of this living >> style. > >Proof, please. Again, this is your arrogance claiming to know what people >are and are not willing to do. The 2008 campaigns haven't even begun yet. ARe you kidding? People are actively campaigning already. Kerry just tried to make the same campaign speech in New Hampshire he did during his failed attempt in 2004. He's already collecting for his money chest. Clinton has an election office opened in NH. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Oct 2006 06:22
In article <453A24D6.FD9A2EED(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Why not start listening to and watching the BBC >> >>>? >> >> >> >> I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which >> >> slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they >> >> are taking that day. >> > >> >Amazing. Can you let me know when you come across any please? >> >> Any report about the Palestinians will give you a start. > >You think the BBC has surrendered to the Palestinians ? No. That will be the consequence. /BAH |