Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 23 Oct 2006 14:17 "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 ? Well, unless they have started giving out Bachelor of Electronics, I think it still falls into the "science" side of the classroom :-) That said, USENET without semantic arguments would be a very different place (probably with more Arts students...) so while I still think of IT et al., as "science" subjects I agree they are not subject to the scientific method in their practical interpretations (they are heavily based on physics though so... :-)) and people can call them anything they want.
From: T Wake on 23 Oct 2006 14:18 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:a4ioj2hb7thtg4gl99sh7mas1fnmddbt6i(a)4ax.com... > 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. Not strange. Separating them is (IMHO) strange. Electronics is a practical implementation of science. Why force them into different categories?
From: T Wake on 23 Oct 2006 14:20 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehi55a$8qk_008(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. > Of what?
From: T Wake on 23 Oct 2006 14:34 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehi8at$8qk_005(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Vq-dndGja_EooqfYRVnyuQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehd382$8qk_006(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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. >>>> >>>>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. 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. >> >>Most of the troubles in Africa are down to the fact they are not countries >>in the sense "Westerners" use the term. They are artificial borders drawn >>by >>colonial powers which cross traditional tribal and ethnic boundaries. To >>expect people to settle with this is (IMHO of course) nonsense and the >>warfare is almost understandable. >> >>I don't think that any of the central African nations are hold overs from >>Cold War proxy conflicts, it goes back further than that. > > Sigh! Make a list of their debt to the World Bank. > Compare who is having lots of internal problems with those > who are building an infrastructure that is skipping > the copper wire. Sigh. Re-read my post. The turmoil in central Africa goes back much further than the Cold War.
From: lucasea on 23 Oct 2006 14:57
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:9d61d$453cfc77$49ecff9$27195(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <ehafo7$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 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. >>>> >>>>And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? >>> >>>In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted. >> >> >> Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of the >> Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. > > Did you not read what I just wrote? Is your brain incapable of > understanding that "specifically limits" is a prohibition? Uh, no..."specifically limits" says what they can do. Anything else is prohibited, not permitted. Eric Lucas |