Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 10:35 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:OKKdnVqrU4EB39LYRVnyjQ(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:einfa9$8qk_004(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <NPw3h.6024$B31.873(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> <snip> >> >>>So now you're changing your story? >> >> No. >> >>> 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? >> >> nice try. The answer is none of the above. >> >> Make another list. > > It seems difficult to think of an answer other than you do or don't talk > to Muslims. > > Do you commune with their spirits? In which case she should stop whining about not being able to talk to dead Muslims. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 10:37 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fb90e071de0287c989aa6(a)news.individual.net... > In article <454F423C.3B207DEE(a)hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> > >> > >The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into >> > >an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. >> > >> > No, it's not. >> >> Do please supply an appropriate example. > > Hewlett Packard, Apple, Mc$hit, Dell... Who knows where the next > one will pop up. Not sure who you mean by "Mc$hit", but not one of those companies is < 30 years old. How about some *recent* examples. The business climate in this country now is very, very different than it was in the 70s. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 10:42 "George O. Bizzigotti" <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote in message news:ccfuk29tpphhkcnt7u5ar9obt5ntet9u3j(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 05 Nov 06 13:11:06 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > [I've read Eric Lucas's response, and I generally agree with what he's > posted. Note that I believe he has more relevant experience in general > plant design that do I, so I'll comment mostly on areas relevant to > chemical warfare agents, where I have some 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. And at the same time, >>wouldn't he start to figure how to make these recipies from >>scratch? His plans were to bite all hands that supplied him; >>a tactical approach would be to learn how to make all the >>stuff you got from those hands. > > This was in a discussion about fabricating highly corrosion-resistant > equipment. The recipes for those materials are all broadly available, > but it's the fabrication skills, e.g., how does one make welds that > are not corrodible or prone to cracking, that are much more difficult > to obtain. In this example, don't assume that welding technique for > ordinary carbon steel will work for these alloys. My understanding is > that the Iraqis figured some of this out by themselves, but it took > considerable time. Note also that certain of the fabrication skills > are not "taught" except in the shops of the few companies that > manufacture such equipment, and it may be easier to enroll at MIT than > to place someone in one of those shops. > > [snip] > >>In the 80s and even now, lots of stuff is automated. Can you >>do automation when you're making chemistry thingies? > > Plants handling supertoxic materials are typically very automated, but > there are still maintenance tasks that require very skilled workers to > work on the automated units. There are certain design features that > are necessary so that these workers, even dressed in moon suits, can > safely work in the same room as the units. There are other design > features that are necessary so that the operators can safely sit at > their consoles in the same building as the operating units. Automation > is only one measure among many needed to mitigate the hazards to > acceptable levels. > >>>The suicidal scenario is a concern for small-scale production, e.g., a >>>single batch on a scale that can be achieved using manual >>>manipulations, but it's much less likely once one starts to speak of a >>>plant designed for continued operation. This is why I qualified my >>>statement to "at least some terrorists." > >>I understood. I guess I don't know what a "small" batch is. >>Note that I'm still facinated by war story accounts that measure >>supplies in tons. > > For my reference to manual manipulations, think a large chemistry > laboratory. I'd need to look at specific procedures to give an exact > figure, but my educated guess is that the maximum is in the low 10s of > kg. > > [snip] > >>So there has to be some kind >>of degree program that teaches kids how to make these plants. > > One point that was sort of buried in my reply and that Dr. Lucas made > in a slightly different way: chemical engineering schools teach > students necessary but not sufficient skills for design of an entire > plant. Junior engineers typically work on design teams with more > senior designers. Juniors typically will be responsible for individual > components, whereas it is the senior engineers who guide the entire > team in preparing an integrated design, i.e., "make the plant." After > extensive experience, first with individual components and then with > smaller systems, engineers then are qualified to head the teams that > design entire plants. If I understand correctly, this process of > increasing levels of responsibility for a design is what Dr. Lucas > referred to as "years of actual field experience." Yep, you put it better than I did. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 10:46 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:c5919$454f47b3$4fe747e$31082(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <MPG.1fb72cfb22c0d81989a98(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >>>In article <sfa3h.4932$B31.2443(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>> >>>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>>news:MPG.1fb684b3fd4ca419989a89(a)news.individual.net... >>>> >>>>>In article <GRH2h.485$Mw.139(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:eifcgg$8qk_001(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, Medicare and Medicaid in the US. If these two programs which >>>>>>>are single payer don't work, why would making them be the only >>>>>>>insurance payer in the country work? For that matter, why should >>>>>>>we allow medical insurance payouts be a federal responsibility? That >>>>>>>is undermining our Constitution by transferring power to the federal >>>>>>>government rather than keeping it in each State. >>>>>> >>>>>>What part of "provide for the general welfare" do you not understand? >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps you want to read what the founding fathers thought it >>>>>meant. Hint: I has nothing to do with what we call "welfare". >>>> >>>>Yes, I know that. Its original meaning was the health of the people of >>>>the nation. >>> >>>Bullshit. >> >> >> That is how the politically correct raionalized the change >> of having health *insurance* from a benefit to a right. > > Even more than that, it is a major paradigm shift away from > making the federal (US) government responsible for maintaining > a stable economic environment. Please explain to me, exactly, how a population fewer and fewer of who cannot afford to take care of their health contributes to a "stable economic environment". Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 6 Nov 2006 10:49
"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:einjea$b1$1(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <454E9F43.D241BF58(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> The lesson was that if you cry wolf too many times, then nobody >>> will believe you when there is something wrong. That lesson was lost on >>> Bush and the Republicans...and their uncritical minions like you and >>> BAH. >> >>Surely you mean 'cry WMD' or somesuch ? >> >>Who would ever believe them now ? > > In the past, the CIA and NSA were believed to be reliable. When the US > said there were missiles in Cuba, everyone believed it. The US's enemies > feared the CIA's ability to find them out. The really irksome thing is that it was known *before* the invasion that the intelligence was just simply wrong. Colin Powell ultimately resigned over the issue. Shame, too, because he was a very good, and potentially great, diplomat, and the one voice of reason in the Bush cabinet. > Now the US is feared as one might a rabid dog. A country of 300 million > mostly intelligent and honorable people does not deserve to be brought so > low in the eyes of the world. We can only hope that some good people step > forward, as they have in the past, and turn the country back onto the > right path. Goldwater was an extremist, but he was an honorable man when > it mattered. Well-put. Eric Lucas |