Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Oct 2006 06:07 In article <yaL_g.16505$vJ2.3095(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehfmrv$8qk_009(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <IKudnYawzLIroafYRVnyjQ(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data. >>> >>>Eh? Why would common sense demand this? >> >> I tried to explain why. Apparently it was written in Martian. > > >No, it was written with a *complete* lack of understanding of statistics, >especially population sampling statistics. > > >> <snip> > >Getting awful snippy lately, aren't you? I'm getting tired; I'm behind in my other work and you are starting to repeat yourself. We haven't even begun to dicuss the topic. Most of these posts have been about how twisty little facts, all alike, are used to divert the discussion. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Oct 2006 06:28 In article <c387f$453a4078$49ecfae$4299(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: <snip> >Now I understand. You're a Muslim or a MUslim shill. I don't think so. I think these types of people are trying to survive and assume that, if they were nice about this terrosism, the Islamic extremists will have mercy and not kill them. It's similar to a pack mentality, I think. /BAH
From: T Wake on 24 Oct 2006 07:53 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehkpst$8qk_002(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <c387f$453a4078$49ecfae$4299(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > <snip> > >>Now I understand. You're a Muslim or a MUslim shill. > > I don't think so. You are correct. > I think these types of people are > trying to survive and assume that, if they were nice > about this terrosism, the Islamic extremists will > have mercy and not kill them. You are incorrect. There is no "trying" to survive about it. I can only speak for myself and I am trying to maintain my freedom and the rights I have been brought up to think were inalienable. > It's similar to a pack > mentality, I think. This argument cuts both ways.
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Oct 2006 06:52 In article <M9Wdndw-ELm9dqHYRVnyjw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehi9t2$8qk_001(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <PtWdnWzlorfyqafYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehd3gi$8qk_007(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> The regular people were not allowed to watch a soccer match >>>> (TV shows human images which is not allowed in Islam). Now >>>> the regular people are starting to say no to these extremists. >>> >>>Which is why there is very little to fear from extremism. >> >> Sigh! I estimate that this attitude change will take about 10 years. > >I estimate that you are wrong and you reasoning is based on incorrect data. > >> I do not think the world will have those 10 years to evolve societies. > >It will if the west can be prevented from playing into the extremists hands >with a massive over reaction. > >> I think there will be an event that will cause such a huge mess >> that it will take a milenia to restore life styles back to current >> levels. > >I dont think this. > >>> >>>In Turky, with 98% of the population being Moslem, they watch TV. >> >> Sigh! Turkey has a government body that separates church from >> state. It has its own spoken and written language. It has >> not had this type of government very long and is in danger >> of reverting back to the old ways. > >Yet it is still a Moslem country. You do not know the difference when a government is not based in a religion. This may be another ingredient to the odd attitude in Europe. > >Your arguments are equally applied to most western countries. > >> Pay attention to what is >> going on in Turkey. Turkey is also the only Muslim country I >> visited where people knew how to work and get things done. >> They tend to have capitalism as their economic base. > >This is not related to the religion or "mess-potential" of the nation in any >meaningful manner. It has everything to do with it. > >>> >>>>>> The residents in that area are now sorting >>>>>> out which culture will exist. >>>>> >>>>>That is indeed for those who live there. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The US' religious right has similar fears. Note their >>>>>> tactics. They chose a political tactic and targeted >>>>>> schools. It's blowing up in their faces in most areas >>>>>> (they're either getting fired or voted out). I don't >>>>>> know what these types in Europe are doing. I only get >>>>>> hints from Pope news. >>>>> >>>>>Religion doesn't have that much power in most of Europe. There is no >>>>>parallel. >>>> >>>> Europe is more susceptible than any other place in the Western >>>> world (that I can think of). >>> >>>Not true. Your nation is founded by religious zealots who left Europe to >>>get >>>religious freedom for their idiosyncrasies. >> >> No wonder you have your attitude. You are wrong about how >> the Constitution was written. > >Really? Why did the founding fathers of the US leave Europe? Our founding fathers were born here. They did not emigrate from Europe. There may be one or two who were born in Europe but I don't recall any. > >I never mentioned the constitution, I seem to recall that came quite some >time _after_ America was colonised. I know you didn't. It is your ignorance of the impact of that document which is causing you to make incorrect assumptions about how US government, politics and business work. > >>> >>>Yes, 500 years ago, Europe was the centre of Christian extremism. This is >>>no >>>longer the case. The papal state is not exactly a large nation, is it? >> >> However, the creators of Europe's last Christian extremism is >> starting to get political power in Germany again. > >You mean the Roman Catholics? Or do you mean the Facist Germans? yes, among others. > >> So don't >> get so damned smug. The veneer of civilization in Europe is very thin >> and breeches have been allowed to occur with very little reaction... >> again. > >The smugness you mention is not on this side of the atlantic. > >Yes the facists are gaining popularity in Europe - this is largely because >there is a phantom menace from Islam which people seem to react to in the >same manner as to the claims Judaism was a threat in the thirties. Then the menace is not a phantom, is it? When you start to take this menace seriously, then you'll begin to be able to discuss the problem rather than keep throwing our Democrat sound bites to prevent the discussion from occurring. > >>> >>>> You certainly have forgotten >>>> all of your history. >>> >>>Again, not true. Culture has flourished in Europe since at least 3000BC. >>>Europe has only been a Christianised region since around AD1000. Up until >>>around AD1700, Europe was dominated (in a loose sense of the word) by >>>Christianity but since then it has been on the wane. >>> >>>Are you implying that those 700 years of Christian ascendancy outweigh the >>>other 4300 years? >> >> I am implying that Europe is very used to allowing religious >> extremism to make messes. > >Your implications are wrong. Allowing bad behaviour is not tolerance; it is an implicit approval that the behaviour will be allowed to continue. > >> It is in that location's folklore >> and basic hidden assumptions. > >Not the case. > >>> >>>Your nation is led by a President who is overtly seek guidance from God. >> >> All of our Presidents have done this. It's part of the politics in the >> US. > >And you dont think this is odd. No. > >> >>>That would frighten me. The UK PM is a devout Catholic. That offends me, >>>but >>>at least we are not a super power >> >> There you go again placing the US in the position as supercop >> yet bitching vehementing when we do take action. > >Sorry, you must have misread me. I said super power not super cop. Policing >is not about "power" as such, it is about enforcing the laws which are >written by governments which are elected by the people the police, police. It is not the United States of America's job nor duty to police the rest of the world. There is no universal code book of law. > >Also, nothing I said contradicted in any way my previous postion on the >subject (which I suspect you dont understand anyway) - yo
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Oct 2006 06:52
In article <n7onj2ljh70n37ov8q6jg5ts9v7qi45oi3(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 22 Oct 06 12:09:48 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data. >>> >>> >>>....and because you have absolutely no background in or understanding of >>>statistics, your "common sense" would be wrong. Please do learn whereof you >>>speak, before you speak. The gaps in your knowledge in areas that are key >>>to a lot of the points you insist are right, is phenomenal and appalling. >>> >>> >>>> I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will >>>> never show any statistical significance. >>> >>>Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality of >>>their data than *you* are, >> >>Nope. Not when it's for the BBC comsumption. >> >>> since your understanding of statistics is >>>essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who reviewed >>>the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny tad >>>more knowledgeable of statistics than you are? >> >>This is not a question of ability of applying statistics. It is >>a question of the agility of applying statistics. I am sceptic >>of the agility. >>> >>> >>>>>Yes, you do not know enough. Have you studied statistics, sampling, data >>>>>analysis? >>>> >>>> Yes. A long time ago. >>> >>> >>>Then you've clearly forgotten everything you learned. >> >>I can certainly open my stat books and yak a good game of >>presenting the same data point as a dozen. In the olden >>days, I'd just dup 12 cards. >> >> > >We were just talking about doing a polynomial curve fit to a dataset, >where one of my guys decided that points on one end of the scale >should be weighted more than points on the other end. He came up with >a page of equations, full of matrices and things, to apply a weighting >function on top of a polynomial regression. It hurt my head, <GRIN> That would happen in our shop, too. Only it was code. > so I >suggested he just copy various multiples of different points back into >the table, like 5x from the low end tapering up to 25x on the high >end, the run the curve fit. You could do that with punch cards, too. > >But the problem turned out to be a lot simpler, almost linear, when we >looked at it from another direction. And when we changed the specs on >the product, it got even simpler. Kewl. I once did a project where we spent most of our time bullshitting designing the formats of the data. One of my bit gods got an inspiration, and we finished the design within two days. The formats were so good, the code practically wrote itself. A month of two bit gods yakking and arguing and getting headaches. Then, poof, one gets a new idea, we throw out everything, and do the real design in a couple of hours. Then you get that feeling of satisfaction that tell you this is the Right one. /BAH > >John > > |