Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 29 Oct 2006 22:01 In article <cb1d3$45452d8a$4fe72af$23817(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >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. > Indeed, sad but true. >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. > If they'll keep doing their best to torpedo any attempts to deal withy it at a lower than "all or nothing" level then obviously, "all or nothing" is all that will be left. >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. Unfortunately, history also taught us that people are much averse to learning from history. > Keep on ignoring all of history folks. I'll be investing in uranium >futures. > Actually, lead futures may be a better bet. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: mmeron on 29 Oct 2006 22:07 In article <oaiak2tqt6sdnnhllkf4s9oolavcs0788u(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes: >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$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >><snip> >> >>>>>>I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >>>>>>work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. >>>>> >>>>>Crude? For nearly all macroscopic situations we encounter Newtonian >>>>>physics is good to 7-8 decimal places or better, far more accurate >>>>>than the input parameters typically are. Not so crude:-) >>>> >>>>Yea. Thanks. It was the only word I could produce to make the >>>>contrast. :-) >> >>I thought about my choice of this word some more. I made my >>choice based on my experimental experience. Man...what I wouldn't >>have given to have been able to measure to one lousy decimal point. >> >>I don't think I've ever measured anything to 8 decimal points. >>Is that a Wow! moment in physics when you do that for the first >>time? > >Most cool: get two atomic clocks (we have one cesium and one >rubidium). Trigger a scope from one and look at the other on a >vertical channel. Crank things up to, say, 10 ns/div... the rising >edge doesn't move! Come back a half hour later, and the edge has moved >maybe a few ns. The clocks agree to parts in 1e12. > Yes, this is very cool. These are the moments where you think "yes, I know that the theory predicts it and I know that I see it but I still find it difficult to believe it. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: krw on 29 Oct 2006 22:29 In article <oaiak2tqt6sdnnhllkf4s9oolavcs0788u(a)4ax.com>, jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... > On Sat, 28 Oct 06 09:48:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >In article <2ez0h.8$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. Is your scope's trigger circuit that stable, long term? If so, I'm more impressed by the scope! -- Keith
From: unsettled on 29 Oct 2006 22:53 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <cb1d3$45452d8a$4fe72af$23817(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: snip >>Keep on ignoring all of history folks. I'll be investing in uranium >>futures. > Actually, lead futures may be a better bet. Tin foil hat futures have had a very good run, but it looks like they'll be winding down. Lead and unranium it is then.
From: MooseFET on 29 Oct 2006 23:18
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message [... electric cars ...] > > When the price of oil hits about $100, I'd expect to start seeing > > people get them as the second car. > > I absolutely agree, they may very well be the next transportation > technology--but that $100/bbl is not going to happen until the oil supply > either becomes drastically harder to get at, or there is an embargo. Or the dollar starts to fall. Right now the oil is priced in dollars. In the future, they may start of price oil based on some average of the dollar and the euro. There is a largish amount to US dollars sloshing around in the oil market. This is because the transactions are all dollar based. If that stopped bing the case, there would be a fairly sudden inflation shock in the US. As it is the US will see inflation start to grow over the next few years. It only takes 10 years of 7.2% inflation to drop the money by half. As it is, I expect oil to inch up in real price over the next 10 or 15 years to hit the $100 mark > Once > an embargo starts, it will take the automotive industry months or years to > gear up for production of large numbers of electric cars, Assuming a sudden shock, the economy will fold up and it could take longer than for the slow increase case. > so having the > nuclear power plants to support them won't matter a whit to our oil > dependence. In the longer run it may matter. We have some time to do research. > Nuclear power will in no way become a replacement for oil until > a substantial number of people own electric cars, and that's not going to > happen for a very long time, and it's no plan for dealing with an embargo at > current. She accuses people of not thinking, but she has not even analyzed > her own suggestion. At least I can agree that her analyzsis was shallow. She did not look at all the issues raised but a stopping of oil imports. [...] > > I disagree because these people are the market that gets the electric > > car started. > > > > From there it will expand into the longer commutes if > > battery technology improves or gas goes way up in price. > > I agree it is what will kick-start the technology, but it will not have a > significant impact on the amount of oil used (which is largely proportional > to the number of miles, not the number of trips) until electric cars are > practical for the longer trips--that is, until the battery technology > improves. That "if gas goes way up in price" is another key. It's not > going to happen in the near future, and it is no plan for a response to an > embargo since the lag time to get the electric cars into production and onto > the roads is way, way too long. I think we mostly agree on the broad outlines. I see todays electric car not as a solution to todays oil problems. I see it more as a way to get technology ready for when it starts to become needed. I don't see a step function in the price but rathe a smooth increase. People will start to see the increase and make plans based on it. In this way the new technology will phase in at some future date. I'm not even sure it will be electric. Right now nuclear power looks like the most likely energy source but it may not be carried to the wheels of a car by electrical means. |