Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 29 Oct 2006 14:52 On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:57:10 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> You are only counting interruptions. YOu also need to include >> long-term effects. > >Yeah, and as much as you keep parroting that, you surely must be able to >come up with some *quantified* long-term effects. Hint: they're minimal. The report _did_ include long term effects. If only jmfbahciv would read it. Jon
From: unsettled on 29 Oct 2006 17:49 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: snip > Nothing about annihilation of western civilization is amusing. > This is serious business and it will take another three massive > killings before the insane politicians are thrown out and > ones who are willing to deal with problem constructively are > put back in power. Those who persist in denying the announced and obvious end up driving the defensive system towards an eventual dictatorial authority. Hitler's Mein Kampf was not a secret. The agenda was mapped out in advance. Militant Islam has been advocating against the west for decades. Despite the protestations of some, it is a religion spread by violence and has been from the day that Mohammed decided he was heading up a new religion. If we look at British conduct in the face of Hitler's growing menace, we see the same sorts of appeasement as is being promoted in these related threads. In the case of Britain, they eventually put Churchill in charge. He was one of those "last choice" sorts of men that the appeasers disdained. They historically worked hard to derail him but there came a moment of truth when they were finally unable to deny the realities facing them any longer, and needed a strong man to drive them towards victory. By that time they were in trouble, so America was pulled into the fray, with its own dictator style president at the helm replaced eventually (after death) by a sleeper sort of a strong man who didn't hesitate to use the atomic bomb to end the Pacific war. How many today would have the nerve to actually use a nuclear weapon? Certainly none of the appeasers here want that to happen, but by their actions they're driving the system towards the point where other options will cease to exist. Unfortunately, with the sorts of "good human beings" we're encountering in this newsgroup, we'll probably evenually get to the point where we'll have to use our own final solution to the problem by using nukes. History has taught us that it is a much smaller mess if you take care of business and protect yourself early in the game, rather than late. Keep on ignoring all of history folks. I'll be investing in uranium futures. snip
From: lucasea on 29 Oct 2006 17:52 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:cb1d3$45452d8a$4fe72af$23817(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > snip > >> Nothing about annihilation of western civilization is amusing. >> This is serious business and it will take another three massive >> killings before the insane politicians are thrown out and >> ones who are willing to deal with problem constructively are >> put back in power. > > Those who persist in denying the announced and obvious > end up driving the defensive system towards an eventual > dictatorial authority. > > Hitler's Mein Kampf was not a secret. The agenda was > mapped out in advance. Militant Islam has been advocating > against the west for decades. Despite the protestations > of some, it is a religion spread by violence and has been > from the day that Mohammed decided he was heading up a > new religion. > > If we look at British conduct in the face of Hitler's > growing menace, we see the same sorts of appeasement > as is being promoted in these related threads. In the > case of Britain, they eventually put Churchill in > charge. He was one of those "last choice" sorts of > men that the appeasers disdained. They historically > worked hard to derail him but there came a moment > of truth when they were finally unable to deny the > realities facing them any longer, and needed a > strong man to drive them towards victory. By that > time they were in trouble, so America was pulled > into the fray, with its own dictator style president > at the helm replaced eventually (after death) by a > sleeper sort of a strong man who didn't hesitate to > use the atomic bomb to end the Pacific war. > > How many today would have the nerve to actually use a > nuclear weapon? Certainly none of the appeasers here > want that to happen, but by their actions they're > driving the system towards the point where other > options will cease to exist. > > Unfortunately, with the sorts of "good human beings" > we're encountering in this newsgroup, we'll probably > evenually get to the point where we'll have to use > our own final solution to the problem by using nukes. > > History has taught us that it is a much smaller mess > if you take care of business and protect yourself > early in the game, rather than late. Keep on ignoring > all of history folks. I'll be investing in uranium > futures. BAH--this is a new low for you. Self-congratulation and attacking other posters by using another screen name. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 29 Oct 2006 19:41 On Sat, 28 Oct 06 09:48:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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? Most cool: get two atomic clocks (we have one cesium and one rubidium). Trigger a scope from one and look at the other on a vertical channel. Crank things up to, say, 10 ns/div... the rising edge doesn't move! Come back a half hour later, and the edge has moved maybe a few ns. The clocks agree to parts in 1e12. John
From: unsettled on 29 Oct 2006 20:12
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:cb1d3$45452d8a$4fe72af$23817(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>snip >> >> >>>Nothing about annihilation of western civilization is amusing. >>>This is serious business and it will take another three massive >>>killings before the insane politicians are thrown out and >>>ones who are willing to deal with problem constructively are >>>put back in power. >> >>Those who persist in denying the announced and obvious >>end up driving the defensive system towards an eventual >>dictatorial authority. >> >>Hitler's Mein Kampf was not a secret. The agenda was >>mapped out in advance. Militant Islam has been advocating >>against the west for decades. Despite the protestations >>of some, it is a religion spread by violence and has been >>from the day that Mohammed decided he was heading up a >>new religion. >> >>If we look at British conduct in the face of Hitler's >>growing menace, we see the same sorts of appeasement >>as is being promoted in these related threads. In the >>case of Britain, they eventually put Churchill in >>charge. He was one of those "last choice" sorts of >>men that the appeasers disdained. They historically >>worked hard to derail him but there came a moment >>of truth when they were finally unable to deny the >>realities facing them any longer, and needed a >>strong man to drive them towards victory. By that >>time they were in trouble, so America was pulled >>into the fray, with its own dictator style president >>at the helm replaced eventually (after death) by a >>sleeper sort of a strong man who didn't hesitate to >>use the atomic bomb to end the Pacific war. >> >>How many today would have the nerve to actually use a >>nuclear weapon? Certainly none of the appeasers here >>want that to happen, but by their actions they're >>driving the system towards the point where other >>options will cease to exist. >> >>Unfortunately, with the sorts of "good human beings" >>we're encountering in this newsgroup, we'll probably >>evenually get to the point where we'll have to use >>our own final solution to the problem by using nukes. >> >>History has taught us that it is a much smaller mess >>if you take care of business and protect yourself >>early in the game, rather than late. Keep on ignoring >>all of history folks. I'll be investing in uranium >>futures. > > > BAH--this is a new low for you. Self-congratulation and attacking other > posters by using another screen name. Follow that lemming! |