Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 25 Oct 2006 12:36 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehnibo$8qk_020(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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 This is another strawman. Who has said that? Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 13:15 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehngkf$8qk_014(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <48c%g.19686$6S3.1431(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:856de$453d290d$49ed52d$28493(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>> news:9d61d$453cfc77$49ecff9$27195(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>>>>>lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Except start wars. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of >>>>>>the >>>>>>Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. >>>>> >>>>>Did you not read what I just wrote? Is your brain incapable of >>>>>understanding that "specifically limits" is a prohibition? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Uh, no..."specifically limits" says what they can do. Anything else is >>>> prohibited, not permitted. >>> >>> Precisely. So everything which is not prohibited is permitted, >>> exactly as I wrote. >> >>You need to brush up on your propositional logic. "A implies B" is not >>the >>same as "(not A) implies (not B)". >> > > And unsettled was talking about C. Which may explain why his posts are so ... confused.
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 13:23 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:p5ruj2hdqdprs3fmtr2m4i6c1k607mc94n(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:54:34 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:4iitj2p030albnbvi4ssev39j7ge23lq82(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. >>>>How >>>>should people react to new ideas? >>> >>> By *thinking* about them! >> >>For how long? Also this assumes that people don't think about them *at >>all* >>before they dismiss them. Often the new idea is thought about, maybe for a >>second or two, before it is dismissed as crackpot. >> >>This is not a bad thing. >> > > No, if one is skilled in the area, and reasonably open-minded, ideas > can be sifted pretty fast. But cases like the Townes maser story still > give caution. Not really. There are many orders of magnitude more crank theories than ones with potential. The fact that the maser story exists as an anecdote highlights just how unusual it was for it to make a success. > And in sciences that still have gaping holes in > explaining widespread phenomena, it makes sense to be more > open-minded. You are asking for a very broad definition of open minded. Scientists are generally quite open minded. People like fame and fortune. Finding a breakthrough brings both. > The declaration "that's impossible" should not be applied lightly. People who know what they are talking about do not use it lightly.
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 15:29 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:453F5D61.CEC37E06(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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 ? For me it is a science. Logical arguments underpin mathematics...... > Then again much programing is conceptual. And there is an art to it :-)
From: T Wake on 25 Oct 2006 15:33
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehnf70$8qk_008(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ehiku1$rv0$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >>So if anything, the prewar deaths are over-reported, since you're relying >>on >>people to tell you, and for post-war deaths, you have death certificates. > > When did the public records offices get reopened in that country? > How does their public records offices work? > > I would need to know this before I'd even bother reading the > report of estimated death count. How do you know this is not mentioned in the report? Do you feel you are able to peer review a document without seeing it? |