Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 24 Oct 2006 11:57 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > 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.) Hi Jonathan! Math is, one of 'The Sciences'... Surely my baddest, but. Best regards, Daniel Mandic
From: John Larkin on 24 Oct 2006 12:10 On Tue, 24 Oct 06 10:52:58 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>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. Yup, the right solution just clicks into place. Snap! I keep telling the kids that they're not lazy enough. They get a problem, conceive a solution, and plow in with enormous energy to implement it. I look at a problem, consider various solutions, and keep rejecting the ones that look like too much work, until I come across some core simplicity that makes it easy. Or I change the rules, ditto. The other problem with a complex solution, for example a matrix solution to a circuit, is that it has an input and an output but the intermediate steps are not capable of being sanity checked. So when you get crazy results, you don't know why, and may not even notice that they're crazy. The kids may be smarter than me, but I'm sneakier. John
From: lucasea on 24 Oct 2006 12:11 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehkolh$8ss_004(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <yaL_g.16505$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. Yes, that does seem to be how the current administration has justified their actions. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 24 Oct 2006 12:20 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehkt54$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> Unless you can produce one, I am forced to assume that you >>weren't listening carefully (as is your wont), and substituted your own >>imagination of what you *think* he would have said, for what he actually >>said. > > These are not stupid people; they are merely insane. They are > quite clever using words to hide their meanings. Clinton is > famous for his meaning of the word "is". Ah, now we see why you refuse to provide evidence--there is none. Would've been better for your credibility if you would've admitted that the first time I asked for evidence. Ever consider that *you're* the insane one, reading meaning into words where none is intended? > Whenever Kennedy is running for reelection he tries to increase > the federal minimum wage. A very common statement he makes > is, "Raising the federal minimum wage will not result in mass layoffs." > > I'll rewrite the statement the way he really means it. > > Raising the federal minimum wage will not result in Mass. layoffs". > > And it won't because our minimum wage is always higher than the > feds. This is how the Democrats, who are now running the > part, work. I never thought I'd miss the old Southern Democrats. > > The best approach to figuring out the hidden agendas for these > insane people is to notice what they refuse to talk about. Yeah, they also refuse to talk about Earth being taken over by little green men from Mars. I suppose, in your twisted interpretation, that means that they are all in favor of little green men from Mars taking over the Earth. How dare they! Vote 'em all out of office, the bastards! > The primary topic that they refuse to say anything other than > an anti-Bush slogan is the threat of all Islamic extremists' attacks. And don't forget the little green men from Mars. Wouldn't want to have to label them "soft on little green men from Mars", now would we? Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 24 Oct 2006 12:38
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehku1t$8qk_005(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <rYydnRCQepdT8abYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehfl72$8qk_002(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <1161446216.247073.137760(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> In article <1161181426.078024.31230(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>> >Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven >>>>> >these days is virgin wrangler. >>>>> >>>>> Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction, >>>> >>>>It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an >>>>obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed. >>> <snip> >>> >>> This is not all that funny when it is the carrot used to >>> convince people to kill themselves in the form of a human bomb. >> >>And yet the qualifier "male" was still not needed. > > Yes, it is needed. I think that's one of the underlying reasons > people cannot comprehend the concept of mess prevention. It > appears that modern females are also not getting trained to > anticipate and prevent messes. > > I'm starting to think that this may have something to do > with concentrating on work that pays money rather than > other kinds of work. Nonsense |