Jihad needs scientists

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:00:43 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:52:45 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:18:40 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:13:01 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:crnvj2pn12lbhdqj7j88rs3bq4ub38b0qn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Oct 06 16:23:50 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <j9vuj25679i7d4bp38km98lii0acq1ajai@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:



It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the
best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies.

I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs.

You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some
one

Einstein

may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect
because of [insert reason here].

General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury.


But even that cannot be entirely correct, as it is incompatible with
quantum
mechanics.

But it certainly makes Newton's formulation not-the-best.

Newtonian gravity is perfect at what it tries to describe.

Cool, it's perfect when it's perfect; otherwise, it's not.

Got it.

The very use of the term, perfect, should be removed from our
vocabulary. We don't ever have the perspective to even use it.

Anyway, it's not complicated or confusing, and you know it, John. I
hope you weren't implying anything. Theories evolve in our mental
space and not in perceptual space and we don't always know the
limitations, at first. In fact, it's actually the possession of a
good theory that allows you to then "see" better towards what is left
unexplained and to then go after that.

Sure, it's like a higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a
simpler one. Newton's equations lack some small high-order terms.
Einstein's are better.

No, the comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity is
not at all like that. To say that Einstein's GR theory is "like a
higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a simpler one" of
Newton's is appalling. You could not possibly be further away from
describing their relationship.

To begin, we imagine broader reach simply because we lack perspective
to know better, when first proposing a theory. Then, as various
boundaries are unearthed in our perceptual space via experimental
results, we learn to recognize them and the initially imagined
boundaries contract a little. More encompassing theory may then be
discovered and applied to the same places where prior, more prosaic
theory also applies, but also now to deal with still more.

Of course, you know all this, as you don't need to worry about the
exact solutions to Schroedinger equations in 10^10 dimensional space
in order to use BJTs, nor would you chastise the use of practical and
much simpler theory, such as Gummel-Poon or EM or even just Shockley,
just because they are not perfect.

What you got, "it's perfect when it's perfect; otherwise, it's not,"
discerns nothing useful or new.

As didn't the line I was responding to.

Dang, you guys get serious.

It's nothing compared to a "friendly physics debate luncheon."

Jon

 

In article <aPL%g.15871$TV3.5888@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnai0$8ss_004@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <c3ptj2hik5d15egrtr0b9q6hcr9rv4vttt@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:41:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:56:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression
and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany
still
had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Especially so as the Brits and French and Russians have nukes.

Nearly irrelevant in the European context.

The way things are going we ( the above ) need to target the USA.

Graham



I knew you would say that.

Yup. I did, too.

Do you stay up at night, dreaming of killing?

Nah, people that have his type of thinking are believing
that, if the US were gone, there wouldn't be any of these
problems. It's an opinion that's been building up
over the last decade...and another damned thought process
I've been trying to fix.

Pretty arrogant of you to know what he believes. Even more arrogant of you
to think it's your place to "fix" him.

I should just let everything turn to shit and try to do nothing
to stop it? I suppose some people think that the satisfaction
of being able to blame somebody else for not doing anything
is desirable. That doesn't work for me.

/BAH

 

In article <0N-dnWC3jOg2IqLYRVnyiQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnfkr$8qk_010@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <676fc$453b76e5$4fe75d1$17105@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
snip

Do these people own no logic circuits in their brains?

Lucas & Wake have trouble nustering a single correctly
functioning neuron between them.

I realize that.

Really? Do you honestly think that?

Prior to being kill filed, unsettled and JoeBloe provide nothing but insults
and sychopancy. If this is what criteria _you_ use to determine if some one
has a "functioning neuron" I am disapointed.

However, the reality is at no stage have you (or the sycophants) managed to
construct an argument which has any logical integrity.

It a serious problem and you should be very
worried about their kind of thinking because it is becoming
the politcally correct way to think.

You use two disingenuous tactics here.

First off you create the assumption that "political correctness" is a "bad
thing" which is not always the case. Current, popular, use of the term
implies it is "bad" but the reality is political correctness is just a
buzzword to mock people doing the "right thing" (not insulting co-workers
for example). Yes it can be taken to the extreme at which point it becomes
bad, but extremism is not mainstream.

Secondly, you use this false assumption to try and criticise the logical
arguments put in front of you. You do not try to say anything we[tinw] have
said is wrong - you just demonise the line of thinking.

This will cause political
leaders who pander the same way to be elected.

All political leaders pander to the electorate.

Exactly. Thus, if the electorate started to require
serious talk about serious things, the US Democrat leadership
would be forced to deal with these problems.

You are using demon #2 based on false assumption again.

These people
will make the decision to not deal with Islamic extremists.

Nonsense.

They will deny reality until it is too late to do anything
about it.

Nonsense.

There one difference between WWII and now.

There are lots of differences between WWII and now. This is a very bad
analogy to use, as in the run up to WWII the Nazis ignored the international
community, demonised a religion and militarised based on the false threats.

Nazi Germany was a nation with a powerful miliary machine and advanced
technology.

Islamic extremism isn't.

hmm..that's why these extremists use weapons manfuactured by
the West to kill Westerners and Muslim moderates.

Today's
technology is sophisticated enough to wipe out 75% of the
world's population within 12 months. Even in the black plague
days, the creep of death waves took longer.

This is why trying to dismiss these people with name calling
is not an acceptable tactic.

No, but it is the only tactic some people have.

I understand that and it's a waste of time. I'm <CTRL>Ring
through a lot of these posts because of that.

I'm going to have to wind down this discussion since I'm behind
in my other newsgroups. Thank you for the debate.

/BAH

 

In article <LbM%g.15888$TV3.3426@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnh4d$8qk_015@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <obeqj25dhnhpo19q90c1s4vtdrticvi04o@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:13:35 -0500, unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com
wrote:

snip
In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted.
snip

That shows such horrible ignorance and it is exactly the kind of thing
that Hamilton wrote about "back in the day."

Scares me spitless that anyone actually believes that crap about what
government is permitted to do.

Go back and reread the thread before unsettled's statement.
The subject was businesses in the USA. Not the government,
not the people, not anything but business.

And if you would bother to go back a couple posts further, you were talking
about businesses that might export technology related to CWA. Sounds like
national security to me.

In the US, until an item is deemed to be a risk to national
security, the businesses who make, sell, and trade that item
are NOT under government control. This a difference between
how business is run in the US and socialistic based economies.

<snip>

/BAH

I was talking about how the US government has very little
power over what a business does to make money.

Then you've never heard of the DoC, DoT, EPA, FDA, DEA, USDA, OSHA, DPH....
All have direct controls over what businesses can do. Need I list more?


OTOH, a country whose economics is based in socialism has
to give permission for everything new.

Strawman. Name one such country in the EU.

A country who licenses TV usage. A country where the
wait for phone installations has a waiting list of
more than a few days (no competition). A country where
every job requires government permission. A country
whose total economy can't be shut down with one strike.
A country where its citizens expect the government to
provide and pay for all basic living requirements with
no labor in exchange.

/BAH

 

In article <ehnt22$irn$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <ehnhh9$8qk_016@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <ehildp$rv0$12@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <ehi52h$8qk_007@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <453C44D7.540280C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been
created
by the current administration.

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

/BAH
The Democrats supported action in Afghanistan.

Yup. And Kerry's campaign for president, both in 2003 and now,
is to promise to go back and wage that war all over again.

Bush's invasion of Iraq, OTOH,
had nothing to do with the US being attacked.

It is one step in the stragegy.

Like attacking Canada after Pearl Harbor.

It is a necessary step.

Bulls**t.

It was
also the only step that could produce good results with minimum
risk.

So invade Granada again.

That one little exercise stopped the expansion.

This is still true unless the Democrats succeed in
diverting the world from the original threat.

Which had what to do with Iraq? It's Bush who's been diverted from al Qaida
and bin Laden.

As he should be. Those two are only two small components to
a much bigger problem.


/BAH

 

In article <XfM%g.15891$TV3.785@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnhh9$8qk_016@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <ehildp$rv0$12@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <ehi52h$8qk_007@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <453C44D7.540280C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been
created
by the current administration.

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

/BAH
The Democrats supported action in Afghanistan.

Yup. And Kerry's campaign for president, both in 2003 and now,
is to promise to go back and wage that war all over again.

In case you hadn't noticed, that threat has grown substantially since we
declared victory and moved on. Another negative result of our idiotic
invasion of Iraq, and one that Bush appears to have no intent of dealing
with.

Do you know why it seems to be that way. Hint: it's two weeks until
our elections.

Bush's invasion of Iraq, OTOH,
had nothing to do with the US being attacked.

It is one step in the stragegy.

Hunh? What did it have to do with the 9/11 attacks?

9/11 was a tactic in the stratgy of the expansion of Islamic
extremism. Islam is still in an expansionist frame of mind.
The free world started to change out of this mindset
at the beginning of the 20th century.

It is a necessary step.

Why? The only result of us invading Iraq was the deaths of 650,000 Iraqis,

So far, every report on the news is that this is a biased bogus count.
Why do you keep using this number?

and the introduction of terrorism into a country that formerly had none.

What?!!
<snip>

/BAH

 

In article <453F5C31.F7940689@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

If Bush hadn't organized, the bombs in the Underground would have
blasted that infrastucture to inoperability.

You're now saying the Bush saved the London Underground ?

Does your insanity know no bounds ?

But for the illegal war on Iraq the Underground never would have been
bombed.

Good grief. You people certainly do have thinking problems. I'm
saying that the infrastructure was in place to prevent that
attack _before_ it happened. Because of 9/11, Britain and
the US are no longer in react mode but in mess prevention mode.
Mess prevention takes organization and people focusing on that
activity rather than constantly reacting to attacks after they
occur.

/BAH

 

[Daniel Mandic]

John Larkin wrote:

Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force
in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school
were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery
school.

John

Your psychos you have, are all Na.. remnants, or Jail(USA)-Master in a
religious controlled super-state...



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

John Larkin wrote:

horsepower to manage a bit of self-tuning. Where's the rule that says
evolution can shape an organism but can't affect evolution itself?

You are dangerous contemporaries.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jamie wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:

Islamic Extremism does not pose a greater threat than other
threats people >> >>live with on a daily basis.

Indeed.

Oddly, the threat from Islamic Extremism has markedly
increased since >> >>2003. The plan is not working.

The 'plan' if there ever really was one was critically flawed
from the very >> > beginning.

Graham

Oh, and you have all the answers! typical./

Not invading Iraq would have been a good place to start.

---
Not doing anything is always the answer for pussies like you.

And doing something because you can't think of anything more
intelligent to do is plain dumb.

Graham

This man is almost crazy. I have never read so much self-indulged,
moronic and utter drivel.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

John Fields wrote:

Not doing anything is always the answer for pussies like you.

Geez, a live polio vaccine? Oh no, it's just too scary!

A canal across the isthmus of Panama?, Oh no, it's just too scary!

And so your pitiful life goes on, with you living in the shadows of
what you might have done had you not been such a goddam coward.

Take your damned 4 elsewhere.
Take your Sponge with you, and all they, they are lurking into.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

T Wake wrote:

Nazi Germany was a nation with a powerful miliary machine and
advanced technology.

You make it too easy hehe.... no no, not so.


Germany was, and is a powerful technic developing nation.
Baden-Würtemberg (Capital Stuttgart) for example (BOSCH, Mercedes
Benz..).



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

John Fields wrote:

However, this thread isn't about that putative fifth force, it's
about my hypothesis that our universe is a bubble surrounded by
gravitationally attractive material fueling the outward acceleration
of the matter in our universe.

Nothing you've said, so far, contradicts my hypothesis.

If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate reading why you think so.

Wow...., you can think greater than the whole Universe.

Take your sponge and wipe out your wishi-washi, you have wrote on the
blackboard


But, I think you cannot even wash your feets properly.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

John Fields wrote:

"More intelligent" from the likes of you, is playing a waiting game
while dancing and singing, hoping against hope that your daughters
and sons won't be introduced to Mr. Zyclon B.

You are really a hypothetical accident/crash!


I guess you would make new childs with your fingers




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

--

 

In article <ehnt8r$irn$5@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <ehni4n$8qk_019@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <RT3%g.23038$7I1.13549@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi52h$8qk_007@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <453C44D7.540280C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been
created
by the current administration.

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

Ahh...so *that's* why the picked a Republican presidency to carry out their
worst attack in history against anybody, ever. Now I understand your
logic.

No, the plans were made during Clinton's adminstration.

And Clinton left Bush plans to deal with bin Laden too.

That's whay he's preaching at the moment; he's stomping for
the elections.

Plans Bush ignored.

He left stuff written down on paper. I've never heard Clinton
state that he implemented his plans. Haven't you ever wondered
why he hadn't if they were so comprehensive and complete and
effective?

The first
bombing did not produce much reaction. Plans were made for a
second bombing. None of this happened when Bush was president.

Do get your timelines straight.

/BAH

Yes do. Clinton had developed plans for dealing with bin Laden. Bush
twiddled his thumbs for 9 months.

Clinton's plans only dealt with Bin Laden? What about the other
99% of the extremists who intend to make mesess?

/BAH

 

In article <snM%g.15897$TV3.893@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehni4n$8qk_019@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <RT3%g.23038$7I1.13549@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi52h$8qk_007@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <453C44D7.540280C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been
created
by the current administration.

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

Ahh...so *that's* why the picked a Republican presidency to carry out
their
worst attack in history against anybody, ever. Now I understand your
logic.

No, the plans were made during Clinton's adminstration.

So what? By your assertion, it was only the timing of the actual attack
that mattered, since that is what would garner a retaliation. And that
happened when Bush was in office.

Bin Ladin didn't expect retailiation. Clinton was a wuss.
National security was a non-goal for 8 years.

The first
bombing did not produce much reaction. Plans were made for a
second bombing. None of this happened when Bush was president.

No, just the destruction of several billion dollars of US real estate, and
the killing of about 2700 Americans.

Get it through your head that those people were not all
Americans. Which word of the phrase "World Trade Center"
do you not understand?

snip

/BAH

 

In article <49esj2l46b3mbf9ufjg7d6d886j4ag2lh6@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 06 10:52:58 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

But the problem turned out to be a lot simpler, almost linear, when we
looked at it from another direction. And when we changed the specs on
the product, it got even simpler.

Kewl. I once did a project where we spent most of our time
bullshitting designing the formats of the data. One of my
bit gods got an inspiration, and we finished the design within
two days. The formats were so good, the code practically wrote
itself.

A month of two bit gods yakking and arguing and getting headaches.
Then, poof, one gets a new idea, we throw out everything, and
do the real design in a couple of hours. Then you get that
feeling of satisfaction that tell you this is the Right one.

Yup, the right solution just clicks into place. Snap!

I keep telling the kids that they're not lazy enough. They get a
problem, conceive a solution, and plow in with enormous energy to
implement it.

Right. They have the energy and haven't had to budget their
thinking and work time to get the maximum results in the minimum
wallclock time. That's why mentors are there to herd them.

I look at a problem, consider various solutions, and
keep rejecting the ones that look like too much work, until I come
across some core simplicity that makes it easy. Or I change the rules,
ditto.

The other problem with a complex solution, for example a matrix
solution to a circuit, is that it has an input and an output but the
intermediate steps are not capable of being sanity checked. So when
you get crazy results, you don't know why, and may not even notice
that they're crazy.

The kids may be smarter than me, but I'm sneakier.

That's an art form. If you're really, really good, you
pass the knowledge on to the kiddies. Only bit gods
can change potential into the future bit gods.

/BAH

 

In article <slrneju3lj.25mh.dhaude@alpha42.physnet.uni-hamburg.de>,
dhaude@alpha42.physnet.uni-hamburg.de (Haude Daniel) wrote:

In article <49esj2l46b3mbf9ufjg7d6d886j4ag2lh6@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:

I keep telling the kids that they're not lazy enough. They get a
problem, conceive a solution, and plow in with enormous energy to
implement it. I look at a problem, consider various solutions, and
keep rejecting the ones that look like too much work, until I come
across some core simplicity that makes it easy. Or I change the rules,
ditto.

Same here. I sometimes procrastinate for days while working on a
difficult design. The ideas are all there, they just need to
ferment a while (that's what I call it. My colleagues,
especially the Japanese guy who is constantly on the brink of
dying from overwork, think I'm a bit funny but they all have
high regard for my designs).

Recently I did a new mechanical design, lots of well-fermented
ideas and all, and the parts just came back from the machine
shop. A real engineeering gem, if I may say so, and works like a
charm.

However, while waiting for the shop to finish I suddenly hatched
a completely new design that definetely solves the problem that
the current model is only hoped to solve *) in a completely
different, more elegant way. Fewer parts and easier to
manufacture to boot. Colleagues ask me why I didn't design it
that way in the first place. Answer, I couldn't possibly have
done it without first doing the other thing. I just wasn't there
yet.

Yup. Operating system development was the same way. The guys
were always ashamed of their first device driver. Most good
coders include enough time to throw away their first stab at
the code.

BTW, I'm neither a mechanical nor an electrical engineer. I'm a
physicist with an engineering streak which, by now, exceeds my
interest in scientific work. But since I only work among
scientists and not engineers, my stuff may seem to be a bit more
ingenious than it actually is. It's definetely better than
what's on the (very small and limited) market, which is of
course also mostly designed by physicists and not engineers. But
who cares. I certainly don't. Among the blind, the one-eyed is
king.

And you're having so much fun.

--Daniel

*) We'll see when the thing is down the cryostat in UHV.

REport back here (s.physics) if you remember.

/BAH

 

In article <1161700854.976916.304350@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
T Wake wrote:

[... democrats ...]
They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien
attacks

If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why
they may not want the other side to hear of them.

Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty
coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better
inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they
haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen
at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you
wouldn't want a nuke to go off.

What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete
silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important
action that can be taken right now. Only the person known
as President Bush is even uttering those nouns.

It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit
to open a plant. We'll see what the will of these politicians
is.

What on earth are you talking about ?

The discussion seems to have turned to the idea of making more nuclear
power plants. One way to make the country more secure is to not have
to import large amounts of oil.

The US still has oil with in its boundaries, but the dumbest thing you
can do is start using it. If you assume that the oil will run out one
day this just makes sure that the other guys have the last oil. If the
economy continues to rely on oil, the last guy with oil wins.

Renewable energy, can reduce the need but it doesn't look like it can
meet all the need. This leaves use with few other options besides
eventually building more atomic power plants.

Thank you for writing this clearly.

The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and
screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant
isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that
makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing
because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell.

The only person who is willing to say those "bad" words, nuclear
power plant, is Bush. I haven't heard Republicans say them and
Democrats always leave it off their list of items we have
to do to become less dependent on oil imports. I want to kick
their behinds and wake them up. All we get here in Mass.
is Kennedy claiming there isn't a war on terror using lanugage
that can be interpreted two different ways. The usual 95%
assume the incorrect way...as he meant it to be misinterpreted.

/BAH

 

In article <1161700163.343842.50780@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161448269.254202.18890@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

[... democrats ...]
They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien
attacks

If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why
they may not want the other side to hear of them.

Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty
coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better
inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they
haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen
at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you
wouldn't want a nuke to go off.

What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete
silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important
action that can be taken right now.

.... so I type the words "democrat" and "nuclear" into google and the
very first page that comes up reads:
********
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Democrats from Iowa to powerful members of
Congress are endorsing more nuclear power in the United States, often
to combat climate change or dependence on oil, but critics say it's a
shortsighted venture.
***********

Interesting. Can you do a traceback of where that item came from?
I haven't heard a single Democrat say those words. And it's an
obvious campaign win.

Only the person known
as President Bush is even uttering those nouns.

Perhaps the problem is that you spelled it "nucular" when you did your
google search. When I tried that I got mostly stuff about North Korea
gitting nucular wepins.

Sorry. Would you believe that, before I got sick, I very rarely
made spelling and typos?


But the problem is that you found it written up but I haven't heard
them say it.

/BAH