Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 23 Oct 2006 09:59 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehi5fo$8qk_010(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <0ru_g.14854$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? No, that's not what I said. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 23 Oct 2006 10:10 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:98ef$453cbdfb$4fe708e$25125(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:453C4494.53C1529(a)hotmail.com... >> >>>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. Yes, I agree. Part of it comes from the fact that. because primary school science classes are a bunch of memorization of seemingly useless facts, people are trained to think from a very young age, that "science" is nothing but memorizing facts about the world. There is never any attempt to point out that science is really the process mankind has used to get those facts. > Electronics research may be science. > > Applied electronics is always technology. > > Chemistry research may be a science. > > Applied chemistry is always technology. It's not so clearcut. There are many times when people who do applied things like chemistry or electronics also do science. That isn't to say that applied chemistry is necessarily always science, just that it is a mix of technology and science. I suspect the same is true of electronics. Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 10:11 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <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." Those of us who know the candidates don't need to start with 1+1=2 as you demand. Don't confuse argument style with validity of argument.
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 10:18 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:98ef$453cbdfb$4fe708e$25125(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:453C4494.53C1529(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>>>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. > > > Yes, I agree. Part of it comes from the fact that. because primary school > science classes are a bunch of memorization of seemingly useless facts, > people are trained to think from a very young age, that "science" is nothing > but memorizing facts about the world. There is never any attempt to point > out that science is really the process mankind has used to get those facts. > > > >>Electronics research may be science. >> >>Applied electronics is always technology. >> >>Chemistry research may be a science. >> >>Applied chemistry is always technology. > > > It's not so clearcut. There are many times when people who do applied > things like chemistry or electronics also do science. That isn't to say > that applied chemistry is necessarily always science, just that it is a mix > of technology and science. I suspect the same is true of electronics. Difference between "tool" and "objective."
From: lucasea on 23 Oct 2006 10:39
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:b1d68$453ccb59$4fe708e$25463(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> <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." > > Those of us who know the candidates don't need to start > with 1+1=2 as you demand. Don't confuse argument style > with validity of argument. Sorry, nice try. "I know the candidates" is not a valid argument. Eric Lucas |