Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 26 Oct 2006 23:58 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:23:25 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eok1k2tfnb8lj8uol8ns7h5a7ufilmi7me(a)4ax.com>, >jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... >> On 26 Oct 2006 00:49:23 -0700, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> >> > >> >> But the serious point here is that you have declared that how you >> >> evaluate an idea depends on the deference with which it is presented. >> >> That doesn't sound very scientific to me. >> > >> >If you can present a viable theory that makes testable predictions then >> >you stand a chance of getting somewhere. Arguing against evolution on >> >the basis that it conflicts with your religion will win you no friends >> >at all on the science groups. >> >> >> I have no religion and I am arguing *for* evolution. But I'm mostly >> exploring how emotions affect intellectual processing and creativity; >> the news there looks mostly grim. > >Speaking as one who has no religion but who respects those who do, >I find your posts on this most thought provoking. Evolution is >apparent but doesn't explain all. > I agree about respecting believers. The universe and life are enormous, stunning mysteries, and people who trivialize the mystery must live very monochrome lives. I wish I could find something that I could consider holy, but no luck so far. >-- > Keith > >P.S. been busy so haven't kept up with SED. Got work for a >designer? ;-) Well, I did lose an engineer recently... John
From: John Larkin on 27 Oct 2006 00:03 On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:32:02 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message >news:1161914724.827124.37810(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> What does nuclear power have to do with oil imports? You need to educate >>> yourself on how the US currently generates its power. >> >> No, you need to stop and think about it. This is not about how the US >> currently does things without "energy too cheap to meter". It is about >> what would happen if that was actually the case. Right now your car >> runs on fuel made from imported oil. If we really had "energy too >> cheap to meter", it is very likely that some other type of fuel would >> be in common use. > >I accept your arguments, but nuclear is still not germane to oil--it is >simply not the "too cheap to meter" energy you describe. You yourself said >that nuclear power plants are expensive to build and run...and I don't think >that's a matter of what design is used, it's an intrinsic fact of using >something, that if abused, can in principle become an atomic bomb and >vaporize everything within a 50 mile radius. What reactor could do that? Even a design as stupid as Chernobyl, blowing up in the worst possible way (which it did) didn't vaporize its own control buildings. TMI had a core meltdown and didn't escape containment. Power reactors can't be made into bombs. John
From: Eeyore on 27 Oct 2006 01:54 John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:32:02 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message > >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> > >>> What does nuclear power have to do with oil imports? You need to educate > >>> yourself on how the US currently generates its power. > >> > >> No, you need to stop and think about it. This is not about how the US > >> currently does things without "energy too cheap to meter". It is about > >> what would happen if that was actually the case. Right now your car > >> runs on fuel made from imported oil. If we really had "energy too > >> cheap to meter", it is very likely that some other type of fuel would > >> be in common use. > > > >I accept your arguments, but nuclear is still not germane to oil--it is > >simply not the "too cheap to meter" energy you describe. You yourself said > >that nuclear power plants are expensive to build and run...and I don't think > >that's a matter of what design is used, it's an intrinsic fact of using > >something, that if abused, can in principle become an atomic bomb and > >vaporize everything within a 50 mile radius. > > What reactor could do that? Even a design as stupid as Chernobyl, > blowing up in the worst possible way (which it did) didn't vaporize > its own control buildings. TMI had a core meltdown and didn't escape > containment. Power reactors can't be made into bombs. The pebble bed reactor looks very promising. Graham
From: |||newspam||| on 27 Oct 2006 03:59 John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:23:25 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > >In article <eok1k2tfnb8lj8uol8ns7h5a7ufilmi7me(a)4ax.com>, > >jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... > >> On 26 Oct 2006 00:49:23 -0700, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> >If you can present a viable theory that makes testable predictions then > >> >you stand a chance of getting somewhere. Arguing against evolution on > >> >the basis that it conflicts with your religion will win you no friends > >> >at all on the science groups. > >> > >> I have no religion and I am arguing *for* evolution. But I'm mostly > >> exploring how emotions affect intellectual processing and creativity; > >> the news there looks mostly grim. If you want to post seriously in scientific newsgroups about a subject it is encumbent on you to find out enough about it first to make meaningful comments. There are far too many "misunderstood geniuses" on Usenet with crank theories to sift through them all. There are several A-life simulators around for you to play with. A very simple genetic one was described in SciAms mathematical games column in the mid-80's. An easy programming exercise from scratch suitable for undergraduate coursework. Links to Alife simulator work are many eg http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/t.quick/alife.html > >Speaking as one who has no religion but who respects those who do, > >I find your posts on this most thought provoking. Evolution is > >apparent but doesn't explain all. And which part do you think evolution cannot explain? Do you understand evolution or some Disneyfied version of it from the US popular press. I note that engineers in particular do seem to have a big problem accepting that gradual mutation and selection pressures can produce major changes over geological timescales. Think of it like compound interest. How much better is a design after 100 1% improvements? > I agree about respecting believers. Depends what they believe. I reckon we need to crush the fundamentalist "Believers" that want to burn our science books and take us back to the middle ages. Science is under serious threat in the USA from the extreme religious right. YECs are beyond redemption. With any luck there will be a special place in Hell for them maintained at temperatures determined by the Biblical specification and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. eg http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/science/hell.html > The universe and life are > enormous, stunning mysteries, and people who trivialize the mystery > must live very monochrome lives. I wish I could find something that I > could consider holy, but no luck so far. I don't think that any scientist would attempt to trivialise the universe. They are just curious to figure out how everything works. Major simulations are underway as we speak. OTOH Some religions claim to know "The Truth" (TM) and will refuse to look at any evidence that conflicts with their own world view. Regards, Martin Brown
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Oct 2006 06:43
In article <4540D40F.3EA3B56E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> > >> >> > Haven't you ever wondered why he hadn't if they [Clinton's anti-terror >> >> plans] were so > comprehensive and complete and effective? >> >> >> >> He did, some of them, while he was in office. Implementation of these >> >> things takes time. Bush was unable to do anything in 9 months >> > >> >Because he was too busy taking time off to play golf. >> >> Clinton played a lot more golf, and cheated. > >He didn't take as much time off though. Are you kidding? It took him 3 years to get out of campaign mode in his first term. <snip> /BAH |