Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 24 Oct 2006 09:32 unsettled wrote: > 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? Wipe you chin. You're drivel's showing. Graham
From: Daniel Mandic on 24 Oct 2006 09:58 Eeyore wrote: > Really ? The actions of the Republicans has made things far worse IMO. > > > Graham Hi Grahame! The difference between them, is IMO, the Republicans send out troops for political (World Police) reasons, Democrats do it, really for ressources. And so they change sometimes the rule (Gov.), on how the demand stays... :( Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: MooseFET on 24 Oct 2006 10:29 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <1161448269.254202.18890(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > > >T Wake wrote: > > > >[... democrats ...] > >> They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien > >> attacks > > > >If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why > >they may not want the other side to hear of them. > > > >Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty > >coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better > >inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they > >haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen > >at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you > >wouldn't want a nuke to go off. > > What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete > silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important > action that can be taken right now. .... so I type the words "democrat" and "nuclear" into google and the very first page that comes up reads: ******** WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Democrats from Iowa to powerful members of Congress are endorsing more nuclear power in the United States, often to combat climate change or dependence on oil, but critics say it's a shortsighted venture. *********** > Only the person known > as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. Perhaps the problem is that you spelled it "nucular" when you did your google search. When I tried that I got mostly stuff about North Korea gitting nucular wepins. > > It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit > to open a plant. We'll see what the will of these politicians > is. > > /BAH
From: MooseFET on 24 Oct 2006 10:40 Eeyore wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > > > > > >[... democrats ...] > > >> They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien > > >> attacks > > > > > >If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why > > >they may not want the other side to hear of them. > > > > > >Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty > > >coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better > > >inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they > > >haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen > > >at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you > > >wouldn't want a nuke to go off. > > > > What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete > > silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important > > action that can be taken right now. Only the person known > > as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. > > > > It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit > > to open a plant. We'll see what the will of these politicians > > is. > > What on earth are you talking about ? The discussion seems to have turned to the idea of making more nuclear power plants. One way to make the country more secure is to not have to import large amounts of oil. The US still has oil with in its boundaries, but the dumbest thing you can do is start using it. If you assume that the oil will run out one day this just makes sure that the other guys have the last oil. If the economy continues to rely on oil, the last guy with oil wins. Renewable energy, can reduce the need but it doesn't look like it can meet all the need. This leaves use with few other options besides eventually building more atomic power plants. The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell. > > Graham
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Oct 2006 06:19
In article <955a3$453d2b09$49ed52d$28585(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:42:53 -0500, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:55:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of(a)4ax.com>, >>>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake" >>>>>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>>>>>the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best >>>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not >>>>>>>something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a >>>>>>>better description. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell? >>>>>> >>>>>>Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the >>>>>>accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Well, there was an Onion story... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Strawman indeed. Since the >>>>>>time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have >>>>>>progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've >>>>>>read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact >>>>>>pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead >>>>>>in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe >>>>>>through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors >>>>>>to math and science. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>So your rejection of evolution makes you more Islam than Christian? >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't reject it. I have a long history in s.e.d. of arguing that >>>>evolution and the operations of DNA will turn out to be far more >>>>complex than Darwin or the neo-Darwinists ever imagined. The dispute >>>>is that I believe in evolution more than most other people do. As >>>>such, evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not very well >>>>developed science. >>> >>>The same statement can be made with great validity about any >>>of the sciences. >> >> >> Most of the other sciences produce theories that work quantitatively >> to some goodly number of decimal points, and can be tested >> experimentally, and that have difficulty quantitatively explaining >> only extreme situations. Evolution is essentially qualitative, and >> only connects the dimly-understood functionality of DNA to evolution >> in a fuzzy, descriptive sort of way. > >Let's examine one tidbit, the one I was addressing. > >"evolution is still very poorly understood, hence not >very well developed science." But that could be said of any theory, from gravity to quantum mechanics. > >We know only a tiny fragment of the totality of >eventually available knowledge, irregardless how many >decimel poinnts of accuracy we can muster for the >relatively few bits of understanding we have. > >snip |