Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Oct 2006 06:47 In article <pNN0h.9$e06.431(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <ehv91q$8qk_001(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>In article <2ez0h.8$e06.383(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>In article <ehso6p$8qk_008(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>In article <Dg80h.5$e06.363(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >>>> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>>In article <ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >><snip> >> >>>>>>I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >>>>>>work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. >>>>> >>>>>Crude? For nearly all macroscopic situations we encounter Newtonian >>>>>physics is good to 7-8 decimal places or better, far more accurate >>>>>than the input parameters typically are. Not so crude:-) >>>> >>>>Yea. Thanks. It was the only word I could produce to make the >>>>contrast. :-) >> >>I thought about my choice of this word some more. I made my >>choice based on my experimental experience. Man...what I wouldn't >>have given to have been able to measure to one lousy decimal point. >> >>I don't think I've ever measured anything to 8 decimal points. >>Is that a Wow! moment in physics when you do that for the first >>time? > >Sometimes it is, when a confirmation or rejection of a model stands on >this result. But first, it is just hard, tedious (most of the time) work. I can imagine. I keep mismeasuring boards and wall boards. I had a pretty good cooky hypothesis about lengths changing because I moved them from the porch to the room they were to be installed. >Precision measurements are difficult and, for the most part, non >glamorous. A guy posted here 11 years ago talking about going blind from studying something. I think it was plates that recorded particle tracks. Is that deemed as a measurement in your biz? > >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>It is even worse than bad form, under most circumstances it is pompous >>>>>twittery. >>>> >>>><GRIN> >>>> >>><BIG GRIN> >>> >>>>> You know, you've the kind of people who enjoy saying "all >>>>>you know is wrong, I know better, nah nah nananah...". You would >>>>>think they should grow out of this by the end of adolescence but some >>>>>people never do. >>>> >>>>I had my virtual baseball bat that stopped a little bit; alas >>>>it was never a permanent cure. >>>> >>>Well, it is not permanent but still useful. Doesn't it say in the >>>instructions "apply as often as needed"?:-) >> >>Instructions? What instructions?! I didn't know these things >>came with instructions. >> >Of course, translated from Chinese to English by somebody not very >fluent in either:-) There was blurb on the radio this morning about some MIT dude being able to have a conversation with a German lady with neither speaking each others' language. I wondered how the French were going to deal with that one. >>> >>>>> >>>>>Sure, Newtonian physics is not exact. It is an approximation, and a >>>>>damn good one over a broad range of physical parameters. Calling it >>>>>"wrong" is stupid. >>>> >>>>Thanks for the clarification. I'm not only hip deep in allygaters, >>>>I think they're raining down. >>>> >>>So I noticed. >> >>I'm untwining myself from the thread. It's still got my ankles. >> >I admire your perseverence. Having free time helps, of course. It is only because I have free time. If I could work, I'd be using my resources doing something useful. /BAH
From: Daniel Mandic on 29 Oct 2006 07:24 Eeyore wrote: > > > 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. > > > Graham Yes, that's good. And it would not interfer with the self-acclaimed super-state, where all is so peaceful and happy and, of course, their super high evolved high-tech Art Tech they have. But what they do actually (Irak), is the same for me, as Captain Kirk (Star Trek) would dig for dilizium (Trekkie fuel :-)), on a world with inhabitants, which have no clue about starships... (Someone knows an iraqi brand Car?? Airplane? Ship?) Best regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Daniel Mandic on 29 Oct 2006 07:24 T Wake wrote: > > 486, DOS 6.0, Windows 3.11, and about 18Kbyte of real memory left. > > Lynx. > > If you can read USENET you can read the web. > > Better still, get rid of Windows and install Linux. I dare to say, her 486 shifts through the mega thread "Jihad bla bla", faster than my 32bitOS Newsreader, under NT5.1 with ~1083MHz Pentium. :-| Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Oct 2006 07:49 In article <4t08k2pjlpobt7rql6ghtn3sei5ro4d3lv(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >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: This (localized in time) is never true with economic cycles. > >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." You are only counting interruptions. YOu also need to include long-term effects. Companies, who did survive, reacted by spreading their operations over a wide-geographic area. The computer biz has yet to solve the problem of keeping data pristine and accessible over the long-term in wall clock time. > >etc. > >So I'm interested in researched evidence that classifies this "world >trade impacts" being pointed at. Consider the added costs of doing business that was not necessary before then. This increases the market prices. Now can you see the long term effects? /BAH
From: Daniel Mandic on 29 Oct 2006 07:56
Eeyore wrote: > What excuse is there for 1/20th of the world's population using 1/4 > of the world's energy production ? > > Graham piggishness greed Best regards, Daniel Mandic |