Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 5 Nov 2006 11:00 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <cnlmk2h3trpetb9ihb69ulvp7drvvgii65(a)4ax.com>, > George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote: much snippage >>I've seen the work of a reasonable large sample of the engineers who >>design U.S. demilitarization plants, and all of them are a bit more >>experienced than "an intern working at Dow." As a non-engineer, even I >>can tell the difference between the work of a junior engineer >>preparing specifications for a pump or a reactor and a senior engineer >>designing plant systems. > I figured you could. I guess I also don't know the difference > (apologies if I use incorrect words) between a chemist and a > chemical engineer. My experience in chemisty was getting > a minor when I was planning to major in biology. (I never got > the degree; I went to work to earn money instead.) It seems > like chemistry is also involved in manufacturing computer > board layouts these days. So there has to be some kind > of degree program that teaches kids how to make these plants. You seem to have been asking startup questions for a long time. The person with money usually hires a team, and usually also has one genius caliber individual on that team, to do the basic design and startup. The person with money usually has enough smarts to do reasonability checks. This is invariably a multidisciplinary effort. There's no course I know of that teaches how to go about setting up a chemical plant. You need people with business knowledge as well as people with an understanding of construction as well as people who understand the chemistry you want to do, and more. The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. But the days of Microsoft style success are still here.
From: T Wake on 5 Nov 2006 11:05 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eiko6k$8qk_002(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454C99F1.B208F5A0(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >So all you're doing here is criticising the failings of your current > system. >>> >Quite so. It needs radical overhaul. >>> >>> To go to a single payer system implies an expansion of the Medicare >>> system. So a national health insurer will not work well. >> >>The use of the word *so* implies some cause-effect relationship which you > have >>failed to show. I'm sorry but simple assertions based on political >>doctrine > count >>for nought. > > You are unbelievable. I'm getting to the point were I'm awestruck > by your ability to not-think. If a person botches a chore of > digging a ditch in your backyard, would you really hire him > to build a Panama Canal and expect it to work? Irrelevant comparison. You said "To go to a single payer system implies an expansion of the Medicare system. So a national health insurer will not work well." You are saying A=B so F=Z. Can you see the logical flaw? First you need to prove that an expansion of the Medicare system is not capable of "working well." >> >>> Congress even did something sensible and passed an extraordinary >>> insurance. The youngsteres who ran AARP caused their subscribers >>> to get it repealed. >> >>I know nothing about this. > > Then learn. Why it has nothing to do with the UK. Why dont you learn about how the NHS works and see how it is actually a better, more cost efficent, model than the present US system. > People do not want to pay for insurance either, > especially if the insurance is prudent and make sense. Eh? >>> >It's rare here to find a doctor who *doesn't* do NHS work. >>> >>> Is his license tied to volunteering? >> >>Licence ? You mean his qualification as a doctor. That's dealt with by the > BMA ( >>British Medical Association ) as it always has been. >> >>Most doctors here simply work for the NHS since it's the largest health >>care >>employer in the land. There's no compulsion to do so and you can work in > private >>practice to or even both, just like any other job. > > I smell union here. Hahahahahaha.
From: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 11:07 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message. > >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>>>There never have been any restrictions on what you can buy since rationing > >>>> > >>>>>from WW2 ended in the 50s. > >>>> > >>>>It didn't end in the UK. Thatcher was still removing vestiges of > >>>>WWII price and labor controls when she was PM. > >>> > >>>You might actually want to listen to the citizens of the UK in this > >>>discussion for this data. They know what they're talking about--you appear > >>>not to. Or did you read in one of your books that there was rationing in > >>>the UK more recently than the 50s? Your assumptions again need a huge dose > >>>of actual data. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>You're a funny old girl you know ! > >>>> > >>>>Once in a great while I'm funny. However, I'm old all the time. > >>> > >>>That would go a long way to explain your odd worldview, and your inability > >>>to change it by incorporating data that contradict your assumptions. > >> > >>The really nice thing about experience is that eventually > >>you'll become more like BAH than you realize. I'm old > >>enough, and experienced enough, to laugh at you now. > > > > > > Really ? > > > > As the years have passed I've found I'm actually more open to new ideas. > > What does your reply have to do with what I wrote? As opposed to having a closed mind like yourself and BAH. Graham
From: YD on 5 Nov 2006 12:13 Late at night, by candle light, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> penned this immortal opus: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> These restrictions may have to be dropped now that there is >> >>> online shopping available. >> >> >> >>There never have been any restrictions on what you can buy since rationing >> >> from WW2 ended in the 50s. >> > >> > It didn't end in the UK. Thatcher was still removing vestiges of >> > WWII price and labor controls when she was PM. >> >> Nonsense. Not to mention its been more than 15 years since she was PM. >> >> Seriously, do you exist in some Bizzaro world of 50 years ago? It would >> explain your reluctance to use a web browser on your otherwise capable PC. > >Is there a DOS browser ? > >Graham > Lynx for DOS. ITSR there are some others around too. Try looking in the Garbo Archives http://garbo.uwasa.fi/, any DOS shareware is likely to be treatable as abandonware by now. Even if MS will still sue you for using "illegal" copies of WFWG 3.11. - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail.
From: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 11:11
unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>Unsettled wrote > >>> > >>>>>I never was able to find buttermilk in any shop or > >>>>>"supermarket." > >>>> > >>>>Probably because there's little demand for it. > >>> > >>>It's one of those regional cuisine things. > >> > >>It is a beverage many people like to drink. > > > > > > Not here. > > Just where is "here"? Do you live in goat milk country, > or perhaps camel milk country? United Kingdom. > > T Wake posted that his local Tesco has it btw. Tesco is a very popular UK supermarket chain btw. Graham |