Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 1 Nov 2006 10:12 On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:18:25 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> Some day I might try to teach people to think; maybe it can be done. > >If you understand "self taught" in the broad context >then you'll see that thinking can't be taught by one >person to another. > >Many misconstrue "process" for "thinking." > >The very heart of learning is discovery. Again, there's a subtle difference between "discovery" and inventing. Of course some people have more aptitute for creative thinking than others. In my field, electrical engineering, most practitioners are competant but not very creative; that's true in science, too, in my experience. Most scientists are incrementalists, "craftsmen" as Smolen calls them. Thinking can be taught, in the sense that I can work with a talented kid and show him what he's capable of, teach (in your sense of "train") him to recognize mental roadblocks and creativity-blocking habits, and show him how to generate lots of ideas and rapidly sift them for reasonableness. Creative thinking is often blocked by bad habits, just like tennis or skiing can be blocked by acquired habits, and someone else can often help a person spot the problems and work on them. So, I think you might say that creative thinking can be "trained." There's no paradox here. John
From: lucasea on 1 Nov 2006 10:50 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eia07l$8ss_002(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ei56j9$3mf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ehv9me$8qk_001(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <1161872944.979802.222000(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>> Clinton's plans only dealt with Bin Laden? What about the other >>>>> 99% of the extremists who intend to make mesess? >>>> >>>>This is simply false. >>> >>>Oh, you mean my comment about only Bin Laden. >>>> >>>>Things I can remember, off the top of my head, Clinton admin doing: >>>> >>>>(A) >>>>The Counter-Terrorism Act of IIRC 1995 >>> >>>I don't remember that one. I'll check it out. Didn't that just >>>provide some funding to put cement barriers around a few buildings? >>>> >>>>(B) >>>>Conducted terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility. >>> >>>I don't believe that. From my recollection the embassies were >>>checked and then nothing was done to fix the security problems >>>in most of them; no funding was allowed. >>>> >>>>(C) >>>>Pressed the Saudi government to reduce support for the Wahhabis. This >>>>I remember because it was a near perfect failure. >>> >>>I don't call asking a government to reduce support for its brand >>>of religion an effective action. That's spitting into a gale >>>force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk >>>a hundred miles away. >>> >>>> The Saudi government >>>>had made a faustian bargain with the Wahhabiists and the US depended on >>>>Saudi oil so much that there was no leaverage point. >>> >>>None of these are actions that addresses the problems as Clinton's >>>stump speeches would have one believe. >>> >>>I'll ask again...if those plans were so good and so effective, why >>>didn't _Clinton_ use them instead of now blaming Bush for not >>>doing it? >>> >> >>As was posted here, the confirmation from the FBI and CIA that bin Laden >>was >>behind the Cole came right at the end of Clinton's term, so it was too >>late >>for him to act on that. But plans had been drawn up and were left for >>Bush. > > It was not too late for him to act on the first WTC bombing. Uh....he did. >>Clinton also never received a briefing that bin Laden was (1) "determined >>to >>strike inside the US" and (2) might crash airplanes into buildings. Bush >>got >>both. > > Why do you keep insisting that the only appropriate method of > ensuring national security is to wait until something happens and > then be in react mode? That is one sure way to get destroyed. No--that would be *Bush's* response. He had warnings that it was going to happen, and he had a plan left him by his predecessor for dealing with the issue, but because he didn't want to be seen as using someone else's ideas, he chose to wait and do nothing until after it happened. Nice. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 1 Nov 2006 10:52 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eia0fn$8ss_004(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ei56p7$3mf$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ehvga6$8qk_008(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <45433F9F.F6808F39(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [Clinton] >>>>> >(C) >>>>> >Pressed the Saudi government to reduce support for the Wahhabis. >>>>> >This >>>>> >I remember because it was a near perfect failure. >>>>> >>>>> I don't call asking a government to reduce support for its brand >>>>> of religion an effective action. >>>> >>>>It's not *its brand of religion* at all ! >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbi >>>> >>>>> That's spitting into a gale >>>>> force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk >>>>> a hundred miles away. >>>> >>>>How would you deal with it then ? >>> >>>I'd establish a nation with a capitalistic, representative democracy >>>with a secular education system mandatory for all residents >>>smack dab in the middle of that mess. >>> >>>/BAH >> >>And then what, leave and hope they like it? > > The people already like it. Data, please. > All they need is to be left > alone, which Iran and Syria won't do, Nor, apparently, will the US. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 1 Nov 2006 10:57 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eia16e$8ss_008(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <PDp1h.23510$e66.6564(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message >>news:1162219707.131372.172210(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> In article <1162139745.736188.86580(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >> In article <1161875197.735056.288140(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, >>>> >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> [....] >>>> >> The latest edict is forcing everybody to have >>>> >> medical insurance; if you don't the rumor is that income >>>> >> tax penalties will be imposed. >>>> > >>>> >The state pays for hospitals etc for those who can't pay. They don't >>>> >want those who can't pay dieing in the streets so they have to fund >>>> >their medical needs. There are some people who can afford to pay for >>>> >their own health care who choose to spunge off the system. To >>>> >discourage this, they are making those who can affort to have >>>> >insurance, but refuse to get it, pay a little extra towards the care >>>> >of >>>> >those who can't afford it. It is a completely rational thing to do if >>>> >you have the state paying for those who can't. >>>> > >>>> >If you don't do this you must either cut off the medical care to the >>>> >poor or spread the cost of it evenly between the responsible and >>>> >irresponsible. Neither of these options is better than the one taken. >>>> >>>> Massachusetts implemented this with car insurance. It is a mess >>>> and people are trying to get rid of it. >>> >>> Massachusetts sets the insurance rates for autos. This includes >>> mandated increases for speeders etc. The change will be to remove this >>> requirement not to remove the requirement to have insurance. You will >>> still be required to be responsible. If you drive a car you have to be >>> prepared to pay if you cause an accident. >> >>Agreed. The biggest insurance problem in Massachusetts, at least while I >>was living there, was no-fault insurance. It removes any consequences for >>bad driving. Every state in this nation that has it, has a complete >>nightmare on its roads, especially in the cities. If you make people >>responsible for their bad driving, they tend not to become such bad >>drivers. >> >> >>>> They did this with sales >>>> tax and nobody, absolutely nobody, has complained. Think about >>>> a sales tax which is tied to your income level. I suspect, since >>>> nobody bitched, these Democrats have done the same thing with >>>> medical insurance. >> >>Exactly how does the cash register know how much you earn when it rings up >>the sales tax on that gallon of milk you just bought? Me smells a red >>herring. > > Go to Mass. DoR web site. Find Form 1. Look at line 33 of the > 2005 year and its instructions. Yes, as I thought, it is a red herring. That is use tax due on out-of-state purchases, calculated independent of a person's income. In no way is the amount of tax related to a person's income. Your lies are getting you nowhere. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 1 Nov 2006 11:04
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eia7p3$8qk_009(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Rvp1h.23508$e66.15121(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ei4t4d$8qk_006(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <4544E33A.555EF3DA(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> 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 ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If production hasn't been stopped, China, India, and parts of >>>>> >> Europe >>>>> >> in exchange for capitulation. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> /BAH >>>>> > >>>>> >They're suddenly going to increase their oil consumption by over a >>>>> >factor >>> of >>>>> >10??? >>>>> >>>>> They already have. It's going to be more. >>>> >>>>Not ten times more though is it ? And not 'overnight' either. >>> >>> In economic terms, it will be overnight. >> >>Nice smokescreen. We were talking about an oil embargo, > > You may have been talking about an embargo. I wasn't. Don't try to weasel out of it. You brought this up as a national security issue. The only sense in which that is the case is if OPEC decides to undertake an embargo. Nice try. In any case, your original demand that our politicians talk about building nuclear power plants will not help, until people have electric cars. And that ain't gonna happen until oil become uncompetitive. Eric Lucas |