Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 21:29 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:j_adnVHme9Tk8N7YRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ehvdfq$8qk_001(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <EL-dnW6mcO-Zn9zYRVnygg(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <iLOdnYf2fLhzz6LYRVnyuw(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:ehndut$8qk_001(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>>> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>>>>>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being >>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>best >>>>>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow >>>>>>>some >>>>>>>one >>>>>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually >>>>>>>incorrect >>>>>>>because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything >>>>>>>in >>>>>>>the >>>>>>>scientific method. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. No matter how the concept is refined, the lab method worked. >>>>>> I can then use that method to predict similar setups. That's >>>>>> how science works. >>>>> >>>>>I know how science works. >>>>> >>>>>We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of >>>>>what >>>>>happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your >>>>>understanding of what you are observing. >>>>> >>>>>A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new >>>>>(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that >>>>>happens >>>>>we >>>>>[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*. >>>>> >>>>>That is how science works. >>>> >>>> I know. What you seem to omit is that the old method will still >>>> continue to work within the range of the old measurements. >>>> >>>> I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >>>> work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. >>>> I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use >>>> because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. >>> >>>You must have misread my post. Can you read over it again and see where I >>>said Newtonian gravity doesn't work, I don't think I said it and I hope I >>>didn't imply it. >> >> Sorry. I was nitpiking because I knew what readers would conclude :-). >> They've done it before. > > Ok. I dont have a problem with nitpicking at all. You should, however, have a big problem with her assuming she knows what you're *going* to say. It's precisely why she never hears anything from either political party that would contradict her wacky black-and-white worldview--she simply already knows what they're going to say, and doesn't actually bother to listen to what they *do* say. Ditto with what she already knows the terrorists are going to say. Eric Lucas
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 28 Oct 2006 21:36 On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:19:40 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehvloo$8qk_005(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45435648.FD2B9A7(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >Your pompousness aside, so what? It was just a couple of buildings >> full >>>> >> >of people, mostly Americans. >>>> >> >>>> >> The primary purpose of the occupants was global trade. >>>> > >>>> >Not especially. It was just a catchy name for a big office block. >>>> >>>> Yes. That is how the mayor got the building filled up; by attracting >>>> businesses that dealt in world trade. >>> >>>Largely financial institutions as far as I know. That's not exclusively >>>about >>>world trade. >> >> You overlooked the commodities and shipping businesses. > >Yes, and what has the loss of these world-critical buildings done to world >commodities and shipping businesses, exactly? So far as I can tell, the harm was mostly localized geographically and where there were broader impacts, they were localized in time: http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/bud/reports/WTC_Attack_Oct_4-final.pdf "The business interruptions that occurred during the days and weeks following the WTC attack are those resulting from the destruction of the WTC and the shutdown of airports and financial markets. Some of these impacts are permanent; for example, flights postponed may be cancelled forever. Other impacts simply represent a shift to a later time period. For example, securities trades that were to be made from September 11 to 14 were postponed to September 17." "The major initial impact over the first five weeks is on (1) Wall Street firms, (2) tourism, i.e., Broadway theaters, museums, hotels, air travel, automobile travel in NYC, and (3) retail sales. For the remainder of FY 02, the business interruption is estimated equal to the value of the first five weeks." etc. So I'm interested in researched evidence that classifies this "world trade impacts" being pointed at. Jon
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 21:59 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4543715D.6B2BCAF8(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> What part of changing a mindset to Western economy and politics do >> >>> you not understand? >> >> >> >>What part of " changing a mindset to Western economy and politics " do >> >>you not realise can't be imposed by external force ? >> > >> > First you remove the elements that prevent this from happening >> > and then you let the locals figure out how to organize and >> > implement it and stay out of their way. >> >> Yeah, and how's that one working out? > > I watched a couple of episodes of Star Trek just now. It's been a while > since it > was last on BBC. > > It's amusing to see some of those modern 'morality tales' once again. > > It seems to me that the Bush administration ( and others ) could learn > something > from the famous Prime Directive - i.e don't interfer in the affairs of > other > cultures because of the risk of disaster if you do no matter how well > meaning > your interference may have been. I agree. In fact, you have to remember that those episodes were born of a time when we had just stuck our noses in a couple of other peoples' messes for absolutely no good reason, and we got our faces handed to us in at least one of those instances. There's a good reason that somebody as preachy as Shatner was chosen as the lead actor. Could you see a good actor, say Peter O'Toole or Richard Harris, pulling off a role like Kirk? There were exactly two people in the world that could pull off that role, and Sean Connery was already spoken for. I guess we're bound never to learn the lessons from those episodes, no matter how obvious or simple. By the way, on a related note, has anybody else seen the educational film series that Shatner did in the late 70s? We saw a couple of his films in my high school economics class--I have a distinct memory of him paddling a canoe down a defunct canal, talking about the rise and fall of the canals and railroads as two major economic forces during the industrial revolution in the US. I only ask because nobody I've ever asked that question has ever seen those films. They really were rather campy and funny, despite Shatner's best effort at being a serious teacher. (That, and it didn't help that my semi-senile economics teacher kept calling him "Richard Shaftner".) Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 22:29 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1162050251.715069.164440(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Eeyore wrote: >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> > >> > >Currently the US imports a lot of oil to run cars and the like. You >> > >can make automotive fuel from other things but the energy to do so is >> > >more than you get back. In a market where energy cost money, you will >> > >continue to use oil. >> > > >> > You people are not thinking! Scenario: oil imports stop. >> >> So who's going to be buying the oil instead of the USA ? Where did the >> oil go ? > > Its obvious. Canada will buy up all the oil. They already have more > than Saudi Arabia but they want to have it all. They haven't gotten > over the "Blame Canada" song yet, you know. Have you ever seen the movie "Canadian Bacon". You may not like American films, but I think you might find it amusing. Espeicially the line with Alan Alda shouting to his cabinet, "I need some intelligence!" Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 28 Oct 2006 22:33
"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1162051292.871997.222400(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > [....] >> Well, since electric cars are neither practical nor economically >> competitive >> with fossil fuel ICE, I guess we're never going to find out. Nobody will >> buy electric cars, > > This is not actually true. Lots of people will buy electric cars when > they can be had at a reasonable cost. When will that be? Not any time soon, as near as I can tell. > They are not practical for long > commutes but as I sure the folks in Florida will confirm, even the golf > cart will work as a way to get the old folks to the 7-11[1]. And therein lies a major problem. The American lifestyle does not admit of a vehicle that cannot reliably tranport them > 150 miles per day. People simply will not buy them until forced to. > The electric car has the advantage that you don't need to drive it to > the gas station to fill it up. For many this would be the longest trip > they would take. But by far those are the minority, whether you're counting vehicles or miles driven. And replacing them with electric cars will have almost zero impact on the amount of oil we consume, for a long time. Eric Lucas |