Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 08:26 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehnefp$8qk_004(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <csSdnSsIJpDCmqDYRVnysA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:a4ioj2hb7thtg4gl99sh7mas1fnmddbt6i(a)4ax.com... >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >> >>Not strange. Separating them is (IMHO) strange. Electronics is a practical >>implementation of science. Why force them into different categories? > > Because there exist computer science major programs that do > not require its students to take any, and I mean ANY, other > science course. The logic behind this says, "If computer > science degree has "science" in its name, then the studies > do not have to include real science." My question remains unasnwered. > There are teachers out there who actively discourage CS > types from taking physics. Sack them. They are obviously not very good. > Now how in the world are > we going to breed kids to develop and improve technologies > if they have absolutely no knowledge about the limits > of the physical universe? An example is that the speed > of EMF not in a vacuum is slow. Only compared to c. You will not outrun a beam of light in air for example. Sending EM through solid objects is also faster than pretty much anything else you will send through it.
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 08:27 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehne1b$8qk_002(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <db6dnYRkTNUz7KbYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehfn55$8qk_011(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <JaednSrRmpdFE6fYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>news:Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>>>> >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> 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, 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? >>>> >>>>When BAH posted this, it struck me as a massive example of how really >>>>closed >>>>minded some people can be. She hasn't read the data, she has no idea >>>>about >>>>the methods, she doesn't know who reviewed it (etc), yet she does know >>>>that >>>>bad data will spoil stats (which is true). She has taken the one thing >>>>she >>>>does know and assumed it to be the case because the answer is not one >>>>she >>>>wants. >>>> >>>>Amazing that BAH claims to have any scientific background at all. >>> >>> I don't. Biology and math were my majors; chemistry was my minor. >> >>All three are sciences. >> >>> I didn't work in the science field. I thought I made that clear. >> >>IT and computers are a science field. > > Oh, good grief. It is not. Oh good grief it is. Because some teach it as not being a science does not make it so. Because some teachers are bad does not make it not a science. Stop assuming your experience is the _only_ experience possible.
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 07:38 In article <6qSdndc6PtVrmqDYRVnyjQ(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehi55a$8qk_008(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <453A24D6.FD9A2EED(a)hotmail.com>, >> 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 ? >> >> No. That will be the consequence. >> > >Of what? Choosing to protray groups of people, whose goal is to destroy production, as good guys who should be pitied and aided in their endeavors, will have the result of the society that produces these programs to surrender. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 25 Oct 2006 08:49 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>IT and computers are a science field. > > > > Oh, good grief. It is not. > > Oh good grief it is. Because some teach it as not being a science does not > make it so. Because some teachers are bad does not make it not a science. > Stop assuming your experience is the _only_ experience possible. IT covers a wide range of things. I'd like to see a 'science free' way of designing and building computers ! Who fancies defining what field logic falls into ? Then again much programing is conceptual. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Oct 2006 08:51
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: > >>>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 ? > >> > >> No. That will be the consequence. > > > >Of what? > > Choosing to protray groups of people, whose goal is to > destroy production, as good guys who should be pitied > and aided in their endeavors, will have the result > of the society that produces these programs to surrender. Who's trying to 'destroy production' ? Graham |