Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 26 Oct 2006 06:42 John Larkin wrote: > horsepower to manage a bit of self-tuning. Where's the rule that says > evolution can shape an organism but can't affect evolution itself? You are dangerous contemporaries. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Daniel Mandic on 26 Oct 2006 06:42 T Wake wrote: > Nazi Germany was a nation with a powerful miliary machine and > advanced technology. You make it too easy :) hehe.... no no, not so. Germany was, and is a powerful technic developing nation. Baden-W?rtemberg (Capital Stuttgart) for example (BOSCH, Mercedes Benz..). Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 06:16 In article <0N-dnWC3jOg2IqLYRVnyiQ(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehnfkr$8qk_010(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <676fc$453b76e5$4fe75d1$17105(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> <snip> >> >>>> Do these people own no logic circuits in their brains? >>> >>>Lucas & Wake have trouble nustering a single correctly >>>functioning neuron between them. >> >> I realize that. > >Really? Do you honestly think that? > >Prior to being kill filed, unsettled and JoeBloe provide nothing but insults >and sychopancy. If this is what criteria _you_ use to determine if some one >has a "functioning neuron" I am disapointed. > >However, the reality is at no stage have you (or the sycophants) managed to >construct an argument which has any logical integrity. > >> It a serious problem and you should be very >> worried about their kind of thinking because it is becoming >> the politcally correct way to think. > >You use two disingenuous tactics here. > >First off you create the assumption that "political correctness" is a "bad >thing" which is not always the case. Current, popular, use of the term >implies it is "bad" but the reality is political correctness is just a >buzzword to mock people doing the "right thing" (not insulting co-workers >for example). Yes it can be taken to the extreme at which point it becomes >bad, but extremism is not mainstream. > >Secondly, you use this false assumption to try and criticise the logical >arguments put in front of you. You do not try to say anything we[tinw] have >said is wrong - you just demonise the line of thinking. > >> This will cause political >> leaders who pander the same way to be elected. > >All political leaders pander to the electorate. Exactly. Thus, if the electorate started to require serious talk about serious things, the US Democrat leadership would be forced to deal with these problems. > >You are using demon #2 based on false assumption again. > >> These people >> will make the decision to not deal with Islamic extremists. > >Nonsense. > >> They will deny reality until it is too late to do anything >> about it. > >Nonsense. > >> There one difference between WWII and now. > >There are lots of differences between WWII and now. This is a very bad >analogy to use, as in the run up to WWII the Nazis ignored the international >community, demonised a religion and militarised based on the false threats. > >Nazi Germany was a nation with a powerful miliary machine and advanced >technology. > >Islamic extremism isn't. hmm..that's why these extremists use weapons manfuactured by the West to kill Westerners and Muslim moderates. > >> Today's >> technology is sophisticated enough to wipe out 75% of the >> world's population within 12 months. Even in the black plague >> days, the creep of death waves took longer. >> >> This is why trying to dismiss these people with name calling >> is not an acceptable tactic. > >No, but it is the only tactic some people have. I understand that and it's a waste of time. I'm <CTRL>Ring through a lot of these posts because of that. I'm going to have to wind down this discussion since I'm behind in my other newsgroups. Thank you for the debate. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 06:54 In article <49esj2l46b3mbf9ufjg7d6d886j4ag2lh6(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. Right. They have the energy and haven't had to budget their thinking and work time to get the maximum results in the minimum wallclock time. That's why mentors are there to herd them. > 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. That's an art form. If you're really, really good, you pass the knowledge on to the kiddies. Only bit gods can change potential into the future bit gods. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Oct 2006 06:58
In article <slrneju3lj.25mh.dhaude(a)alpha42.physnet.uni-hamburg.de>, dhaude(a)alpha42.physnet.uni-hamburg.de (Haude Daniel) wrote: >In article <49esj2l46b3mbf9ufjg7d6d886j4ag2lh6(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote: > >> 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. > >Same here. I sometimes procrastinate for days while working on a >difficult design. The ideas are all there, they just need to >ferment a while (that's what I call it. My colleagues, >especially the Japanese guy who is constantly on the brink of >dying from overwork, think I'm a bit funny but they all have >high regard for my designs). > >Recently I did a new mechanical design, lots of well-fermented >ideas and all, and the parts just came back from the machine >shop. A real engineeering gem, if I may say so, and works like a >charm. > >However, while waiting for the shop to finish I suddenly hatched >a completely new design that definetely solves the problem that >the current model is only hoped to solve *) in a completely >different, more elegant way. Fewer parts and easier to >manufacture to boot. Colleagues ask me why I didn't design it >that way in the first place. Answer, I couldn't possibly have >done it without first doing the other thing. I just wasn't there >yet. Yup. Operating system development was the same way. The guys were always ashamed of their first device driver. Most good coders include enough time to throw away their first stab at the code. > >BTW, I'm neither a mechanical nor an electrical engineer. I'm a >physicist with an engineering streak which, by now, exceeds my >interest in scientific work. But since I only work among >scientists and not engineers, my stuff may seem to be a bit more >ingenious than it actually is. It's definetely better than >what's on the (very small and limited) market, which is of >course also mostly designed by physicists and not engineers. But >who cares. I certainly don't. Among the blind, the one-eyed is >king. And you're having so much fun. > >--Daniel > >*) We'll see when the thing is down the cryostat in UHV. REport back here (s.physics) if you remember. /BAH |