Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 23 Oct 2006 09:02 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. You live in a very strange little world far, far removed from reality. Graham
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 09:14 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:453C4494.53C1529(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>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. Failure to understand the differences between science and technology is a problem prevalent on usenet and in American society in general. Electronics research may be science. Applied electronics is always technology. Chemistry research may be a science. Applied chemistry is always technology.
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 09:20 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <0ru_g.14854$GR.11260(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:453A25A3.5B3C1495(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>The precursors may not quite so simple to make as you imagine. >>>> >>>>Goodfucking GRIEF! I didn't say it was simple. >>> >>>You implied that any country could make these complex precursors. >>> >>> >>> >>>>No chemistry is simple. Have you ever taken a chemistry course? >>> >>>Yes. I have an 'A level' in Chemistry - that's after the 'O level' of >>>course. I >>>can even recite the periodic table from memory. >> >>I'll raise you a PhD and 15 years of industrial experience. To you, BAH. > > > With all that chemistry experience, you are telling me that > you could not make one of the ingredients for a chemical weapon? Typical problem, if it's not in the company manual he can't do it.
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 09:49 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <2cb0a$453a24a0$49ecfae$3598(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <58GdnewlesO5CKvYRVnygA(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eh536o$8qk_004(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <uqkaj29qqainbc7l4mc8i51e40dbj8cf56(a)4ax.com>, >>>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:57:10 +0100, Eeyore >>>>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:50:44 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future >>>>>>>>>messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how >>>>>>>>>not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they >>>>>>>>>already made. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Excellent. Care to assign cleanup duties in the Middle East and >>>>>>>>Africa? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Which bits of Africa did you have in mind ? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Well, let's see. We could start with the Belgian Congo, and maybe >>>>>>Rhodesia, perhaps Cote D'Ivorie and German East Africa. >>>>> >>>>>I think Liberia is key but I'm not sure. It would be productive >>>>>if the countries in Africa were left alone. >> >>0>> >> >>>>To kill each other? Strikes me as a reasonable idea. Let them all kill each >>>>other, then when the dust settles we can kill the one or two survivors and >>>>take all the diamonds. >>> >>> >>>A lot of recent killing is the hangover of the Cold War. >> >>Not true, IMO. African hatreds are much like American >>ones, passed from one generation to the next without >>understanding, as in "Damn Yankees burned the south!" > > > Those hatreds were used by the Communists and by the free world. Yes, factually every political bent has made use of them. >>Tribal hatreds go back many generations and thrive >>partly because of their verbal traditions. >> >> >>>The UN >>>has not helped since it seems to be admirable to keep the >>>former third world in its place by making them welfare countries >>>and punishing those who refuse such handouts. >> >>Please consider the fact that the third world had >>exactly the same opportunities as the first world >>over a period of several millenia. They aren't >>welfare countries because of us and the UN, they >>remain welfare countries despite us and the UN. >>This all comes back to mindsets and cultural values. > > > I disagree. A hidden agenda, perhaps unconscious, of the > UN leaders were to keep the rest of the world in their > place. The UN is "Johnny come lately" on the scene. Sociopolitical and monitary status we see in the world today that were in place before the UN was established mostly hold true today. My argument is that they're there for pretty much the same reasons that existed a hundred years ago. It isn't the UN's job to give the poor a leg up. The UN's mission, as I understand it, is to prevent another world war. An organization like the UN can only work with civilized governments. The militant Muslims have done an end run around that possibility where they're concerned. Look, for example, at the recent Hesbalah warfare. > A political leader who refused "help" from the > UN (thus placing the country in a long-term debt it could > never repay) was punished by ignoring reasonalbe requests. And then there was Ceaucesceau. > It's a human behaviour thing. Check out activities and demands of The World Bank. >>You'll find that within those countries are some >>extremely wealthy families. The local population >>has a sense that those rich folks are crooked >>and taking advantage of the poor. The simple >>fact is that in every population of national >>size you'll have a few individuals who are >>truly entrepreneurs. Sometimes the government >>and/or the people manage to pull them down and >>redistribute their wealth. > > > A lot of times, it is the UN generosity that does this. Perhaps that enables some of it. The inclination is almost universally present. > >>For examples of all of the above, visit Appalachia. > > > Didn't marketing move into Appalachia and start cottage > industries in crafts? Subsistence living. >>For a minature slightly more entertaining version, >>watch the movie _Zorba the Greek_. > > > I'll try. Out of curiosity, what do you consider rich? > A GNP measure or balance of a checking account or something > else? Rich is a relative term, depending on time and place. A family living in primitive conditions that owns the only livestock herd for a days walk or further is rich. The other end of the wealth spectrum is what we're more used to which most people understand better. OTOH there's the argument that wealth is a mindset. I attribute a great validity to that argument. In every setting it is just as easy to be rich as poor, all one needs is the ability to live well within the context of their life.
From: lucasea on 23 Oct 2006 09:56
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehi48a$8qk_005(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Am7_g.16015$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. And yet you continue to offer not one shred of evidence--not even one quote--that "there isn't one single Democrat...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." Eric Lucas |