Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 20:58 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eiknta$8qk_001(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <cnlmk2h3trpetb9ihb69ulvp7drvvgii65(a)4ax.com>, > George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote: > > I had assumed that this was a learned art. One of the areas on > my list of things to learn about is how people figure out > how to make manufacturing plants. As I've tried to point out to you, they learn by doing it, by working with others who have done it in the past. There is a certain amount of theory that they teach in college, but absolutely nothing substitutes for field experience. *Extensive* field experience. > I want to learn how a government head starts this stuff up. > Wouldn't he send his brightest to learn how make a plant > and production lines and stuff. As I've tried to point out to you repeatedly, no, they need to have experience at the hands of others that have done it. Lots of experience. > In the 80s and even now, lots of stuff is automated. Can you > do automation when you're making chemistry thingies? Some, but people still need to handle things, and there are still exposure issues, even when things are automated...especially when some CWAs are so toxic that an amount the size of the head of a pin will kill you within minutes. >>Safety is certainly taught in classes, *Some* safety theory is taught in school. However, like I've said, in the chemical industry, we spend lots of time working with new chemists and engineers, developing their safety skills from academic "here's how ya do it" to the actual level of safety needed to run and design labs and actual production units. >> but the safety required to work >>with supertoxic materials goes well beyond ordinary chemical plant >>practice. This is a point that cannot be glossed over or minimized in any way. Some CWAs are so toxic that the vapor over the liquid will kill you in an area that isn't spectacularly well ventillated. And some are so toxic that a small droplet, the size of the head of a pin, which you might not even see splatter from the tip of a tube, will kill you in minutes. > Now I'm wondering how I (if I were a new young thing) would learn > how make a chemical plant from scratch. Practice, practice, practice, at the hands of someone who has actually done it. Then practice some more. >>>An intern working >>>for Dow would learn a lot about setting up a production line >>>that won't blow up the plant. >> >>I'm a chemist, not an engineer, but I think this grossly understates >>the experience required to design a plant dealing with toxic agents. It even grossly understates the experience required to design a plant that deals with ordinary chemicals. > I didn't intend to understate it. But the fact is that you did. You have absolutely no idea how complex a plant is, and exactly how badly things can go wrong if even one valve or meter isn't set right. >>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." That's even true of engineers who design ordinary chemical plants. > So there has to be some kind > of degree program that teaches kids how to make these plants. Another weak assumption. There are degree programs who teach kids the theory of how to design a plant. It takes many, many years of actual field experience (the type that no school can provide) to do it safely. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 21:02 <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? That's a hopelessly over-simplified analogy. The fact is that there are other models beside Medicare for a nationalized health care system, so your assumption that "to go to a single payer system implies an expansion of the Medicare system" is worthless. > I smell union here. Your olfactory senses have already proven woefully under-equipped to contribute to this discussion. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 21:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eikpng$8qk_005(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <KZa3h.5012$B31.2822(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>news:SJqdneZANLpQVNHYnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >>> >>>> It isn't just one or two. It is everyone I listened to plus >>>> relatives of in-laws who needed the service. >>> >>> How many did you listen to? How many relatives? What percentage of the >>> total did this reflect? How did you ensure your sample was >>> representative >>> and not just people with complaints? >>> >>>> The only ones >>>> who thought Canada's medical system was wonderful were those >>>> husbands who were very, very sick. >>> >>> How can you make a claim like this? Did you speak to _every_ one? >>> >>> You were the first to complain about the data sample methods and >>> conclusions in the Lancet report, yet here you seem to be more than >>> happy >>> to weigh personal anecdote over data. >> >>Oh, but she's much better at it, > > I'm not only better at it, but I'm very, very, very good doing this > kind of work. Yep. A legend in your own mind. At a single interview, you are capable of diagnosing what 300,000,000 people think of something. Get over yourself. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 21:09 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eikq31$8qk_007(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <pqmdnRwNx-agVtHYnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eii0o0$8ps_005(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <I7I2h.500$Mw.369(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eifeh1$8qk_004(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> What counts with measuring the effectiveness of any social program >>>>> is the individual stories, not the cut and dried percentages >>>>> of service delivery counts. >>>> >>>>And yet you prefer to believe impersonal books when learning about what >>>>Islam is all about, instead of talking to actual Muslims. >>> >>> What do you suggest? I'm reading about their history. >> >>Try doing both. I get the feeling you distance yourself from society >>somewhat, which may explain the perspective you bring to the discussion. >> >>Try talking to, and spending time with, Moslems. They are not very >>different >>from Christians. > > gODDAMMIT FUCKHEAd. I have done the talking and the visiting. So now you're changing your story? First you say you refuse to talk to actual Muslims because you get your data from books. Now you're saying you talk to Muslims. Which is it? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Nov 2006 21:11
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eikqaj$8qk_008(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454C9AB3.BC6D0925(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: >>> >> >>> >> >So you choose to listen to somebody who isn't even running for >>> >> >office, >>> >> >>> >> Kerry? He's running for President. >>> > >>> >Is he ? >>> >>> Yes. Time will tell if his latest slip of foot-in-mouth >>> disease will affect his campaign. >> >>I wasn't aware that he had committed to run. > > He hasn't stopping running. Up until the last two months, > the Democrat leadership were still making the 2004 campaign > speeches. Why do you think I'm doing all this bitching about > them? They are still in time capsule years of 2002 and 2003. >> >>Given his apparent lack of 'charisma' he might actually make a better >>vice-presidential candidate perhaps ? > > Nobody runs for vice-president in the US. Where did you get this nonsense? John Edwards ran for vice president in 2004...or in Eeyore's words, John Edwards was the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004. Eric Lucas |