Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 23 Oct 2006 17:07 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:u2aqj2lqr0gbuujmq84mgge0bq67brplon(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:47:03 +0100, 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 ? >> >> >>Graham > > http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/45336.aspx > Bias is not surrender.
From: John Larkin on 23 Oct 2006 17:13 On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:07:31 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:u2aqj2lqr0gbuujmq84mgge0bq67brplon(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:47:03 +0100, 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 ? >>> >>> >>>Graham >> >> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/45336.aspx >> > >Bias is not surrender. > It is if you call yourself a journalist. John
From: T Wake on 23 Oct 2006 17:46 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:p2cqj29kqih3ull23h0sllt242km3b48lh(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:07:31 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:u2aqj2lqr0gbuujmq84mgge0bq67brplon(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:47:03 +0100, 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 ? >>>> >>>> >>>>Graham >>> >>> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/45336.aspx >>> >> >>Bias is not surrender. >> > > It is if you call yourself a journalist. You'd have to ask the journalist that. I have never seen an "unbiased" journalist though. In this instance it is more about the organisational bias than that of individual reporters. The bias is not solely towards the Palestinians either.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 23 Oct 2006 18:42 On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:57:34 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >"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. That about sums my grasp of it. The radical idea debated prior to approving our US Constitution (as documented in letters to the New York Journal, the Federalist Papers, personal letters, the Virgina legislature debates in 1787, and so on), was the idea of from where rights themselves emanate. I think I've read published letters in the New York Journal dating back as far as about 1755 on that topic. The conclusion of those writing the US Constitution and, where it really counts, of those signing it into effect is that they emanate from the individual, not from government or from society, and that government operates by the consent of individuals who grant those rights they deem necessary and which persist only for so long as they choose to continue granting them. You can see this kind of thinking in most of what survives today as the body of materials elaborating the underlying intent of the Constitution. Some don't recall today that Hamilton had argued fiercely at the time against the Bill of Rights, something that Jefferson felt was very important to include. Hamilton's argument, if put in a nutshell, claimed that if *any* specific guarantees about rights were written down, that instead of being a useful protection against the more frightening forms of state power and coersion, it would instead eventually be seen as the *ONLY* rights anyone had. That later generations would imagine (and therefore accept a yoke being placed around their necks) these rights were the only ones and thus the Bill of Rights would become the prison bars of our own jailing -- that government would then be able to claim for itself, without much resistance, everything else. His argument was so profoundly expressed and so thoroughly agreed to that they decided to actually write it in as one of the Bill of Rights -- namely, the 9th Amendment (known as "The Hamilton Amendment".) His argument went something like this: It's like coming to a new, vacant land and staking out your homestead. You build a nice little fence around it and put in a garden there. Someone new arrives and sees your fence and naturally assumes that what isn't fenced, must be available to newcomers or anyone else. Of course, having lived there yourself for decades beforehand, you might think otherwise. But the fence has become the only obvious line of demarcation. So the assumptions others make may materially operate to make you seriously regret having put up a fence at all. You might have been better off simply not having one. Hamilton's opposition argued that there were some individual rights that were so important and so vital that they simply had to have explicit expression. Kind of like, "Governments may transgress rights now and then, but if they even come close to transgressing these you know you are in very deep trouble already and should consider abolishing what's there and finding another way." Hamilton, though, felt very strongly that putting down just a few rights would then imply that others didn't also exist and that later generations would lose sight of the agreed upon understanding that all rights emanate from the individual and that society and governments have NO RIGHTS except those ceded by individuals, for such time as they continue to perceive that the common benefits outweigh the cost of ceding them to government. --- There is no legitimate power of a government or a king or anyone else to either grant rights or to take them away. Nothing inherently makes anyone man or women the possessor of individual rights, who can hand them out or withhold them as they please. We don't need a contract from someone to have rights. And no one else owns that contract that they can rescind at their will. These rights are "inalienable," as the wording goes -- inherently within each of us, as individuals. They flow out of us as actors in the world. This starting point was debated over a period of decades, well before the revolution started or the US Constitution was eventually created, debated, and then signed. By the time it was signed, there was almost no material argument here. From this founding assumption, it followed that governments are _granted_ rights "by the people" for the purposes of mutual safety and their pursuit of happiness. The idea is actually pretty simple and requires no belief in a god, no acceptance of the rights of a king, etc. Instead, we grant our government certain rights, for example the right to accumulate police powers needed to enforce a law against murder, because we jointly feel that there is an overwhelming social need that we can agree on. The benefits of ceding these rights to government's good purposes outweighs the loss we suffer as individual actors. We give up our own control to a degree and grant such powers and for such purposes, so long as it continues to serve the general will. The problem with the Magna Carta was an implicit assumption. This was a
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 23 Oct 2006 19:18
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:51:00 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. I think of engineering, in general, as the application of science and math knowledge for practical purposes. Not all science knowledge can be used, at some particular moment anyway, for such purposes. And it is definitely true that not all mathematical knowledge can be used for practical needs. (Mathematicians sometimes gleefully seek and are actually attracted to researching some area that they are personally convinced no one will ever use for practical things -- I particularly remember John Conway's comments in that regard.) >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. Galileo was an engineer -- a military and sometime civil engineer -- who was also bright enough to begin some of the amalgam of theory and experimental result that would later become associated with the practice of science. And there is Archimedes and host of others. So in that sense, perhaps one could say that engineering gave science a jump-start. In the 18th and 19th centuries, though, theoretical scientists used to quite often have to switch hats long enough to be engineers (and better than most) in order to develop what was needed to test an idea. It's hard to imagine any of them not knowing quite a lot about practical engineering issues of the day. Today, things are a lot more specialized and they probably have to be. But through all of it, ultimately, it is theory that is primary. Theory provides a way to "see." Without it, we can't discern. Jon |