Jihad needs scientists

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehab1j$8qk_001@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

The following paragraph contains several strawment that are the hallmark of
BAH's style of "learning" from other people, and I will debunk each in turn.

I think it is a thankless task. Dittoheads cannot be educated.

The people I've been talking to appear to believe that only
the US government knows how to make these things.

Uh.....no, nobody has said that, implied that, or even said anything that
can remotely be interpreted to imply that. This is you reading into
peoples' words.

It was more that the US government was prepared to look the other way
whilst chemicals that had very obvious military applications were being
exported.

They finally closed down the loophole only when plausible deniability
was no longer an option. To this extent I agree with the CW guy once
the issue was publically drawn to their attention the US authorities
acted to prevent any further exports. I already pointed out earlier on
they siezed some 22000lbs of PF5 ready to ship.

seem to believe that only the US government can OK
all chemical invoices.

Uh....no, nobody has said or implied that. However, the chemical suppliers
must report sales of certain chemicals to the federal government--perhaps
even all chemicals, maybe that's why the DoC is involved in the CWC.

Only for certain high risk chemicals - known CW precursors for
instance.

And yes the Iraqis *could* have synthesised them from scratch but when
they could buy bulk high purity intermediates cost effectively off the
shelf why would they bother?

Whenever chemicals that have been identified as CW precursors are sold, in
combinations that are consistent with what would be used to make CW,
serious-looking men in dark sunglasses start knocking on doors.

I wish I believed that. I fear that the relatively small quantities
that terrorists would need could sneak under the radar. Aum Shinroku
managed to make Sarin in mainland Japan.

Our business and politics do not
work that way. I think a lot Europeans are confused by
this because their businesses are generally government
controlled and/or union controlled espeically in the
manufacturing and mining areas.

You *really, really* need to learn whereof you speak, before you speak.

It hasn't been like that in the UK for more than 2 decades.

In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything.

BS. Ever heard of the DoT, DoC, FTC, SEC, etc., etc. They have a *lot* to
say about how companies conduct their business.

Or more relevant here the persecution in the USA of Phil Zimmermann for
writing PGP which they classed as "Munitions" and then attempted to go
for a show trial.

IOW, they
want the US to become, not socialist, but communist.

Um....citation, please. This sounds just like another paranoid conspiracy
theory.

She is paranoid and delusional (but then so is the US President). One
of his spokesmen slipped up this weekend on Al Jazeera TV and actually
told the truth for once:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/21/iraq/main2112800.shtml

I understand Fernandez has since recanted, but his interview still
exists on tape.

So why am I an idiot when I stated that anybody, with a recipe
book, can make these chemicals.

Because not everybody with a "recipe book" as you call it, can make these
chemicals. Getting large amounts of the required reagents in the right
combination to make CW *will* garner you a rather rude knock on your door.

And there are other practical issues that it isn't appropriate to
discuss here...

In the end because the UN was kicking up a fuss about Iraqs use of CW
against the human wave tactics of the Iranian forces and the US
government didn't much like the idea of how it would play at home if US
companies were caught red-handed selling CW precursors to Iraq.

Somebody posted what happened. Are you still saying that this
is true? Warning: this is a test of your thinking ability.

Sounds about right to me. Maybe it's you who needs to consider your
thinking ability.

I agree mostly with what he said. Once the US government was put in a
position where it could no longer deny that it knew what was going on
it acted to halt these exports.

Define what "nuclear technology" is. I don't know what people
mean by this. I know what they want me to think.

Dual use nuclear technology...

Including fertilizer?

If you mean phosphates then they are about as inconvenient a starting
point for making organophosphorus nerve agents as you can possibly get.

Oh, just make your point and stop fiddle-farting around. By the time you
get around to making it, our Alzheimer's will have advanced to the point
where nobody will know what the heck you're talking about.

Preventing Iraq from losing was high on
the agenda. US foreign policy didn't get much beyond "My enemy's enemy
is my friend".

Sad that such black-and-white thinking still pervades the State department
and White House, isn't it?

Although they do occassionally have moments of lucidity. Fernandez
briefly told the truth in a recent TV interview. And even Bush admits
that Iraq is now a total shambles although I think comparing it to
Vietnam was certainly a collossal blunder on his part.

It is unfortunate that the world is saddled with the dumbest US
president in history. And it is time for "cakewalk" Rumsfeld to do the
plank walk - his strategy is now totally discredited.

The BBC Today program presenter John Humphreys is in Basra this week
and the interviews are about as unbiassed a description of life over
there as you can get.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/

Incidentally it has recently come out in the UK that the "Known
Shipper" codes for Fedex have been compromised by a drugs cartel and
anyone with the right contacts can now get cargo consignments unchecked
by X-rays onto US airliners. Not good

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/10_october/18/cargo.shtml

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[unsettled]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <2cb0a$453a24a0$49ecfae$3598@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <58GdnewlesO5CKvYRVnygA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh536o$8qk_004@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...


In article <uqkaj29qqainbc7l4mc8i51e40dbj8cf56@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:57:10 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:



On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:50:44 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:



Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future
messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how
not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they
already made.


Excellent. Care to assign cleanup duties in the Middle East and
Africa?

Which bits of Africa did you have in mind ?


Well, let's see. We could start with the Belgian Congo, and maybe
Rhodesia, perhaps Cote D'Ivorie and German East Africa.

I think Liberia is key but I'm not sure. It would be productive
if the countries in Africa were left alone.

0

To kill each other? Strikes me as a reasonable idea. Let them all kill each
other, then when the dust settles we can kill the one or two survivors and
take all the diamonds.


A lot of recent killing is the hangover of the Cold War.

Not true, IMO. African hatreds are much like American
ones, passed from one generation to the next without
understanding, as in "Damn Yankees burned the south!"


Those hatreds were used by the Communists and by the free world.

Yes, factually every political bent has made use of them.

Tribal hatreds go back many generations and thrive
partly because of their verbal traditions.


The UN
has not helped since it seems to be admirable to keep the
former third world in its place by making them welfare countries
and punishing those who refuse such handouts.

Please consider the fact that the third world had
exactly the same opportunities as the first world
over a period of several millenia. They aren't
welfare countries because of us and the UN, they
remain welfare countries despite us and the UN.
This all comes back to mindsets and cultural values.


I disagree. A hidden agenda, perhaps unconscious, of the
UN leaders were to keep the rest of the world in their
place.

The UN is "Johnny come lately" on the scene. Sociopolitical
and monitary status we see in the world today that were in
place before the UN was established mostly hold true today.
My argument is that they're there for pretty much the
same reasons that existed a hundred years ago.

It isn't the UN's job to give the poor a leg up. The UN's
mission, as I understand it, is to prevent another world
war. An organization like the UN can only work with
civilized governments. The militant Muslims have done an
end run around that possibility where they're concerned.
Look, for example, at the recent Hesbalah warfare.

A political leader who refused "help" from the
UN (thus placing the country in a long-term debt it could
never repay) was punished by ignoring reasonalbe requests.

And then there was Ceaucesceau.

It's a human behaviour thing.

Check out activities and demands of The World Bank.

You'll find that within those countries are some
extremely wealthy families. The local population
has a sense that those rich folks are crooked
and taking advantage of the poor. The simple
fact is that in every population of national
size you'll have a few individuals who are
truly entrepreneurs. Sometimes the government
and/or the people manage to pull them down and
redistribute their wealth.


A lot of times, it is the UN generosity that does this.

Perhaps that enables some of it. The inclination
is almost universally present.

For examples of all of the above, visit Appalachia.


Didn't marketing move into Appalachia and start cottage
industries in crafts?

Subsistence living.

For a minature slightly more entertaining version,
watch the movie _Zorba the Greek_.


I'll try. Out of curiosity, what do you consider rich?
A GNP measure or balance of a checking account or something
else?

Rich is a relative term, depending on time and place. A family
living in primitive conditions that owns the only livestock
herd for a days walk or further is rich. The other end of the
wealth spectrum is what we're more used to which most people
understand better.

OTOH there's the argument that wealth is a mindset. I attribute
a great validity to that argument. In every setting it is just
as easy to be rich as poor, all one needs is the ability to
live well within the context of their life.

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi48a$8qk_005@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <Am7_g.16015$vJ2.1847@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehadg0$8qk_001@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
snip

However, there isn't a single
Democrat running for President in 2008 who is willing to deal
with the reality that we have an enemy capable of destroying
Western civilization and everything that smells of this living
style.

Proof, please. Again, this is your arrogance claiming to know what people
are and are not willing to do. The 2008 campaigns haven't even begun yet.

ARe you kidding? People are actively campaigning already. Kerry
just tried to make the same campaign speech in New Hampshire he
did during his failed attempt in 2004. He's already collecting
for his money chest.

Clinton has an election office opened in NH.

And yet you continue to offer not one shred of evidence--not even one
quote--that "there isn't one single Democrat...who is willing to deal with
the reality that we have an enemy capable of destroying Western civilization
and everything that smells of this living style."

Eric Lucas

 

<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.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi5fo$8qk_010@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <0ru_g.14854$GR.11260@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453A25A3.5B3C1495@hotmail.com...


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

The precursors may not quite so simple to make as you imagine.

Goodfucking GRIEF! I didn't say it was simple.

You implied that any country could make these complex precursors.


No chemistry is simple. Have you ever taken a chemistry course?

Yes. I have an 'A level' in Chemistry - that's after the 'O level' of
course. I
can even recite the periodic table from memory.

I'll raise you a PhD and 15 years of industrial experience. To you, BAH.

With all that chemistry experience, you are telling me that
you could not make one of the ingredients for a chemical weapon?

No, that's not what I said.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi6j5$8qk_001@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <_Sq_g.16180$vJ2.3492@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd31a$8qk_004@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

A chemistry major would know
how to make those ingredients and then make the weapons.

Of course, but then again there's a vast difference between knowing how,
and
actually being able to do.

Whew.

Knowing how doesn't make it practical or easy

Sigh! It doesn't have to be practical nor easy. Why do you
think every other country has OSHA rules in place?

It certainly has to be practical. Learn the definition of the word:
capable of being practiced.


to
do, or even possible to do without the US State Department and various
other
agencies knowing about it.

What? No governemental department has the ability to know
what is happening at all times everywhere. For some strange
reason, you and other Democrats seem to believe this (or at least
try to sell this to their consumers).

Look, you brainless git. In case it's not mortifyingly obvious, I work in
the chemical industry (and yes, I do frequently work near the places of
production, as you implied I didn't in another sorely misinformed post),
and
I'm telling you, one branch or another of the Federal government knows
exactly what every single chemical plant that produces more than a few
pounds per year in this country is making, and who they are shipping to.


You seem to believe that Iraq had no chemical knowhow to manufacture
chemical weapons, including the basic ingredients.

No, that's not what I said.

Furthermore
you seem to want me to believe that only US chemical companies
know how to make these precursors.

No, that's not what I said.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. Or are you being purposely
obtuse as a smokescreen to cover up your untenable position?

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehia2n$8qk_002@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <Ez7Zg.17266$6S3.3486@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2hrq$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <ytOdnWLb3pxhMa7YRVnyig@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egvmeh$8qk_001@s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <f8SdndAS3r_41q_YRVnygA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egt6gf$8qk_001@s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
You might question it. People who expect their systems to stay
up no matter what kind of errors occur, didn't question it. It
was a requirement to have certain uptimes.

If it is excessive then it is poor business sense. If your system
needs
99.999% uptime then you take the correct precautions to ensure that.
If
it
only requires 99% uptime the precautions can be different.

Spending money and time making a 99% system 99.9999999% is wasted
money.

Think about this the next time you are a passenger on a plane.
Think about this when you're getting an MRI or CAT scan.
Also think about this when you are at the bank trying to get
some money.

Think about what? If the system needs to be 99.999% then making it 99%
is
also a failure.

I have yet to come across a system which is 100%. Is that even possible?

Yes.

Never heard of Goedel's Theorem, have you?

Well, I can't find my post. As pointed out to me, I committed
a big boner here.

I was going to try to write more clearly about what I was thinking.
I'm not going to do that; I think it would be a waste of English
ASCII bits. The answer should have been no. I was not thinking
of "system" being a single hard/software entity. I was talking
about the computing servcies provided by 0, 1, ... n collections
of hard/software.

Goedel's theorem still applies.

Eric Lucas

 

[unsettled]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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.


And do pray tell me how these extremists can influence the elections in the
USA.

They're doing a good job of it right now.

Did you miss, for example, that Reagan was, in part,
elected to counter the problems we were having then
with Iran?

 

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:98ef$453cbdfb$4fe708e$25125@DIALUPUSA.NET...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453C4494.53C1529@hotmail.com...

Since when was electronics not a field of science ?

It's a fairly subtle difference, but an important one as regards such
things as approach and mindset. Science is the field of using the
scientific method (you know, hypothesize, test, repeat) to try to
discover thruths about the universe. Electronics in the sense of
designing and building electronic devices like computers is more a field
of engineering than science--i.e., it's a field that uses the results of
science to do and make cool things that people want. Electronics in this
sense does use the results of the sciences of solid state physics,
chemistry, etc., and there can be use of the scientific method involved
in designing electronic circuits (hypothesize, build, test, repeat), but
it's really more an engineering mindset.

Failure to understand the differences between science and
technology is a problem prevalent on usenet and in American
society in general.

Yes, I agree. Part of it comes from the fact that. because primary school
science classes are a bunch of memorization of seemingly useless facts,
people are trained to think from a very young age, that "science" is nothing
but memorizing facts about the world. There is never any attempt to point
out that science is really the process mankind has used to get those facts.

Electronics research may be science.

Applied electronics is always technology.

Chemistry research may be a science.

Applied chemistry is always technology.

It's not so clearcut. There are many times when people who do applied
things like chemistry or electronics also do science. That isn't to say
that applied chemistry is necessarily always science, just that it is a mix
of technology and science. I suspect the same is true of electronics.

Eric Lucas

 

[unsettled]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi48a$8qk_005@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <Am7_g.16015$vJ2.1847@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehadg0$8qk_001@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

snip

However, there isn't a single
Democrat running for President in 2008 who is willing to deal
with the reality that we have an enemy capable of destroying
Western civilization and everything that smells of this living
style.

Proof, please. Again, this is your arrogance claiming to know what people
are and are not willing to do. The 2008 campaigns haven't even begun yet.

ARe you kidding? People are actively campaigning already. Kerry
just tried to make the same campaign speech in New Hampshire he
did during his failed attempt in 2004. He's already collecting
for his money chest.

Clinton has an election office opened in NH.


And yet you continue to offer not one shred of evidence--not even one
quote--that "there isn't one single Democrat...who is willing to deal with
the reality that we have an enemy capable of destroying Western civilization
and everything that smells of this living style."

Those of us who know the candidates don't need to start
with 1+1=2 as you demand. Don't confuse argument style
with validity of argument.

 

[unsettled]

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.

This is plain dumb. The time was selected because the militants
thought their crew, which had been in training for several years,
were ready to go. The plot was hatched during the Clinton presidency
when they had no way of knowing who would actually be president at
the moment WTCs came down. It didn't matter to them who was
president when the actual attack took place.

What mattered to them was that our open society would begin to
become more closed. In that they've been successful.

 

[unsettled]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:98ef$453cbdfb$4fe708e$25125@DIALUPUSA.NET...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:


"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453C4494.53C1529@hotmail.com...


Since when was electronics not a field of science ?

It's a fairly subtle difference, but an important one as regards such
things as approach and mindset. Science is the field of using the
scientific method (you know, hypothesize, test, repeat) to try to
discover thruths about the universe. Electronics in the sense of
designing and building electronic devices like computers is more a field
of engineering than science--i.e., it's a field that uses the results of
science to do and make cool things that people want. Electronics in this
sense does use the results of the sciences of solid state physics,
chemistry, etc., and there can be use of the scientific method involved
in designing electronic circuits (hypothesize, build, test, repeat), but
it's really more an engineering mindset.

Failure to understand the differences between science and
technology is a problem prevalent on usenet and in American
society in general.


Yes, I agree. Part of it comes from the fact that. because primary school
science classes are a bunch of memorization of seemingly useless facts,
people are trained to think from a very young age, that "science" is nothing
but memorizing facts about the world. There is never any attempt to point
out that science is really the process mankind has used to get those facts.



Electronics research may be science.

Applied electronics is always technology.

Chemistry research may be a science.

Applied chemistry is always technology.


It's not so clearcut. There are many times when people who do applied
things like chemistry or electronics also do science. That isn't to say
that applied chemistry is necessarily always science, just that it is a mix
of technology and science. I suspect the same is true of electronics.

Difference between "tool" and "objective."

 

[MooseFET]

Eeyore wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

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.

And do pray tell me how these extremists can influence the elections in the
USA.

If enough death and destruction is rained down on the troops in Iraq,
the voters will see how incompetent the Republican administration has
been and vote Democrat. This could be a consideration of the Iraqi
extremists. It would, in general, make them prefer that the
Republicans remain in power. Having you rememy blunder about on the
world stage is a great advantage.

Graham

 

[MooseFET]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehia2n$8qk_002@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <Ez7Zg.17266$6S3.3486@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2hrq$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <ytOdnWLb3pxhMa7YRVnyig@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egvmeh$8qk_001@s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <f8SdndAS3r_41q_YRVnygA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egt6gf$8qk_001@s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
You might question it. People who expect their systems to stay
up no matter what kind of errors occur, didn't question it. It
was a requirement to have certain uptimes.

If it is excessive then it is poor business sense. If your system
needs
99.999% uptime then you take the correct precautions to ensure that.
If
it
only requires 99% uptime the precautions can be different.

Spending money and time making a 99% system 99.9999999% is wasted
money.

Think about this the next time you are a passenger on a plane.
Think about this when you're getting an MRI or CAT scan.
Also think about this when you are at the bank trying to get
some money.

Think about what? If the system needs to be 99.999% then making it 99%
is
also a failure.

I have yet to come across a system which is 100%. Is that even possible?

Yes.

Never heard of Goedel's Theorem, have you?

Well, I can't find my post. As pointed out to me, I committed
a big boner here.

I was going to try to write more clearly about what I was thinking.
I'm not going to do that; I think it would be a waste of English
ASCII bits. The answer should have been no. I was not thinking
of "system" being a single hard/software entity. I was talking
about the computing servcies provided by 0, 1, ... n collections
of hard/software.

Goedel's theorem still applies.

The limit Godel sets, I believe, is well on the far side of the one
that Shannon sets for well thought out computing systems. Given a
mythical fully tested software set, the hardware's failure rate will
still limit the up time. The up time only approaches 100% as a limit
as power consumption increases without bound.

 

"unsettled" <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:b1d68$453ccb59$4fe708e$25463@DIALUPUSA.NET...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi48a$8qk_005@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <Am7_g.16015$vJ2.1847@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehadg0$8qk_001@s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

snip

However, there isn't a single
Democrat running for President in 2008 who is willing to deal
with the reality that we have an enemy capable of destroying
Western civilization and everything that smells of this living
style.

Proof, please. Again, this is your arrogance claiming to know what
people
are and are not willing to do. The 2008 campaigns haven't even begun
yet.

ARe you kidding? People are actively campaigning already. Kerry
just tried to make the same campaign speech in New Hampshire he
did during his failed attempt in 2004. He's already collecting
for his money chest.

Clinton has an election office opened in NH.


And yet you continue to offer not one shred of evidence--not even one
quote--that "there isn't one single Democrat...who is willing to deal
with the reality that we have an enemy capable of destroying Western
civilization and everything that smells of this living style."

Those of us who know the candidates don't need to start
with 1+1=2 as you demand. Don't confuse argument style
with validity of argument.

Sorry, nice try. "I know the candidates" is not a valid argument.

Eric Lucas

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehd4lp$8qk_003@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <eh5f79$8b4$7@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eh54ge$8qk_011@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is
the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they
had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory
and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their
kids present evolution as a belief;

It isn't. It's taught in science class as a scientific fact, which it is.

Wow. This one was easy. YOu just demonstrated what I wrote.

snip

/BAH

Do you consider gravity similarly a "belief" and not a fact?

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehd506$8qk_005@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <LKydnafehvClGavYRVnyrQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh54ge$8qk_011@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is
the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they
had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory
and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their
kids present evolution as a belief;

These teachers should be fired.

They are if they don't preach the Bible, too.


the implication of this
is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute
the religion known as evolution for the religion of God.

Only in the mind of fundamentalists.

You need to listen more. CSPAN aired some convention that
was to talk about this issue. Science teacher after science
teacher, who did not want to give Bible lessons in their classes,
kept using the language of "...I believe in evolution."

Do you believe in gravity?

Any fundamentalist will interpret this as the teacher substituting
evolution for Christain religious belief. Plus it is a useful
way to get public schools funds to hold their Sunday School clasess.

/BAH

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehd5rn$8qk_009@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <eh80lh$26o$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eh7mj3$8qk_001@s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh2qeu$c28$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eh2iep$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh066g$fqo$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <pev4j2pkd0bj3da8vjm44121b4tohhc1l8@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:38:27 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
null@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:07:30 -0500, John Fields wrote:

snip

It's a unilateral invasion, ordered by one man to satisfy a personal
vendetta, and 650,000 people have died as a result of his criminal
insanity.

---
You got a good source for that 650k? I picked it up blindly from
the Ass, but snapped to it and just a little while ago asked him for
a source. Maybe you've got one?
---

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as published in the
British
medical journal Lancet.

From the news reports I heard, they got this data by going
from house to house asking each member how many of their relatives
and friends were killed. Do you not see the flaw in the sum of
the numbers reported by all these interviewees?

It's called sampling. It's a very established, respected method of
finding
out things. We do it here for questions on the census each decade (the
demographic data).

But there is a control on the data collected for the census.
The data given is limited to people living in one house and
not a count of everyone they know.

The sampling was done in such a way as to take this into account, but it's
also why the confidence interval is wide.

Common sense would deemd that interval wider than the data.

Ignorance about statistics and sample would, I guess.

If this method was used, do you not see how insultingly (to you,
if you believe their report) biased this number is?


They gave their 95% confidence interval.

The news said that the questions that were asked was if
anybody knew anybody who died.

So you haven't read the study, yet you claim to know it's wrong.

I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will
never show any statistical significance.

But you've criticized this study in particular, saying it's wrong.

Adding these up will not
give a correct count. I don't know enough about counting
but I would guess that the reliablility of the count
would be 1/x, where x=number of people asked. They are
going to report anybody who is rumored to have died.

Yes, you do not know enough. Have you studied statistics, sampling, data
analysis?

Yes. A long time ago.
/BAH

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehd5ug$8qk_010@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <45378D92.1903B626@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

They gave their 95% confidence interval.

The news said that the questions that were asked was if
anybody knew anybody who died. Adding these up will not
give a correct count.

The 'news' was wrong then.

In most cases ( ~90 % ) a death certificate was shown.

And the death certificates said that all the deaths were
due to US killing them?

That wasn't what the study (which you haven't read) said. It was all deaths
in Iraq. Everybody agrees most of them have been due to sectarian violence.
But the point is, the death rate is significantly higher than when Saddam was
in power, giving lie to the notion that we've made Iraq safer.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <ehfm39$8qk_006@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <X5KdncZfhOmVpafYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd506$8qk_005@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <LKydnafehvClGavYRVnyrQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh54ge$8qk_011@s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been
subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is
the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on
the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a
bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond
the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they
had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory
and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their
kids present evolution as a belief;

These teachers should be fired.

They are if they don't preach the Bible, too.

If science teachers are teaching the Bible, they need to be fired. If
Religious Education teachers were teaching science, they should be fired.


the implication of this
is that the goal of teaching evolution is to substitute
the religion known as evolution for the religion of God.

Only in the mind of fundamentalists.

You need to listen more.

Stop being so patronising and read what I wrote.

CSPAN aired some convention that
was to talk about this issue. Science teacher after science
teacher, who did not want to give Bible lessons in their classes,
kept using the language of "...I believe in evolution."

Any fundamentalist will interpret this as the teacher substituting
evolution for Christain religious belief. Plus it is a useful
way to get public schools funds to hold their Sunday School clasess.

Like I said, only in the mind of fundamentalists. If you spent less time
trying to be patronising and imagining half the conversation you would be
able to appreciate what I actually wrote.

Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence.

No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that
the Creed starts out with "I believe...".

So? "I believe this sample contains NaCl" is perfectly valid, as it would be
based on knowledge, tests, analysis, etc. "Believe" isn't exclusively a word
for theology.

If someone reads that
as saying "I believe in evolution THEREFORE I cant believe in the Bible"
that is the fallacy.

It is not a fallacy. There are only three things in their list
that are to be believed. Adding evolution to that list is
heresy. The word belief implies faith that passes all understanding.

No it doesn't. From dictionary.com:


American Heritage dictionary:

v. tr.

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.


v. intr.

1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve
the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in
free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.


Only 1 of them (v. intr. 1) is religious.

This means that no evidence is required. No evidence has no
place in the science lab.
snip deliberate disingenuousness

/BAH