Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 24 Oct 2006 09:20 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Here is a religious extremism whose stated goal is to destroy > Western civilization. Cite ? > The compensation for those who die > while doing this work for them is only addressed to males. > The idealism puts all women out of society (cover and > no transport out of the house). This is not getting back > to the old ways of Muslim living (from I've read). So you reckon that all Muslim women would happily say OK to this ? Graham
From: unsettled on 24 Oct 2006 09:21 Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> >>>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. > > > I think you're very mistaken wrt reality. > > If the British public feel seriously threatened by Islam it'll be > Islamic blood that'll be spilt, not Anglo-Saxon. Headed for another Dunkirk episode, are they?
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Oct 2006 08:22 In article <1dfnj29m7qmdina5m7ko9bh5650mcf92bi(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:42:48 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:975nj2hbutglodujgqd5ungvjn7ai8rhgo(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:ehd4o6$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>>>>>>> > subject >>>>>>>>>>> > to >>>>>>>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed >>>>>>>>>>> > is >>>>>>>>>>> > the >>>>>>>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> radio >>>>>>>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who >>>>>>>>>> reckon >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>> vailidity ! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when >>>>>>>>>some >>>>>>>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>>>>>>guess at how nature and its laws work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >>>>>>>quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >>>>>>>situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not going to deal with this one. >>>>> >>>>>So why make any post? Why not just ignore it? >>>> >>>>It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread. >>>>If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was >>>>important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept >>>>is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik. >>>> >>> >>> So sorry. "Science" does not allow anyone to be "slightly incorrect." >> >>Only partialy true, so in essence this is itself slightly incorrect. >> >>> Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to >>> watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor. >> >>All topics have conferences like that. >> > >I find physicists to be especially aggressive. Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient. >It's hard to brainstorm >with them, because their first reaction to an idea is often to slap it >down, rather than play with it and see if there might be something >there. That's only way to design something. We wouldn't have gotten anything done if we didn't slap each new idean and tear it apart. > Most physicists have a better understanding of device physics >than the average engineer, but are still rotten circuit designers... >check out the circuits in RSI, for instance. That wasn't so in the >RadLab days, but it sure seems that way now. The physics biz is not a production line activity. It is their job to fiddle and tweak until it works. Then the mess gets handed over to engineers; it is their job to figure out how to manufacture the thingie without having to reproduce the bandaging steps. > >The thing about physics, especially quantum/particle/cosmological >physics, is that some very smart people have already discovered a lot >of stuff, and there's no low-hanging fruit left that mere mortals can >reach. In condensed matter physics (aka "dirt physics") and chemistry >and biology, there's still a lot left to discover, so it's not as >brutally competitive. > >Circuit design is fun, because you can invent something entirely new >most any afternoon, and dabble in the physics and chemistry and optics >without having to spend a decade as an impoverished post-doc. <grin> You should try working with people who are doing engineering work with a thinking style trained to do physics. /BAH
From: Radial on 24 Oct 2006 09:27 T Wake wrote: > <hill(a)rowland.org> wrote in message > news:1160958932.302841.324250(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > science_for_jihad(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> Jihad needs competent scientists in the fields of nuclear physics, > >> chemistry and biology. Qualified scientists and engineers at the > >> Master/Ph.D. level and above are encouraged to apply. Readiness > >> to travel and to pass a preliminary examination is required. > >> > >> Anyone interested should send his anonymous CV to the address > >> science_for_jihad(a)yahoo.com . The CV should contain information > >> reflecting the academic level reached by the candidate and his work > >> experience. The information however should not be so accurate as to > >> identify the candidate. An appropriately fantasious nickname and a > >> birth date corresponding to the approximate age of the candidate > >> should also be provided, together with a working email address. > >> Further instructions will follow. > > > > 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. > > > > BTW, did the further instructions follow? > > Sadly, no :-)
From: Radial on 24 Oct 2006 09:32
I got a response. Firstly, I had to id names of people I knew who were in the security services. They wanted to check my connections, my validity and legitimacy. Nationality was not important though country of operation and area of expertise clearly was. There is someone at the other end who is playing a joke but also being serious. |