Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453EBF9E.741A6D99@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:

There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

So where's le Pen now ?

Well 2002 wasn't long ago. If the Right Wing nutters get more than half a
percent of the vote something is wrong.

It is not just Europe. In the UK we have BNP members getting reasonable
votes in local elections. This is wrong.

I agree ( up to a point - feel free to probe ) but last time I checked BNP
membership was ~ a scary 6,500.

Ok,

May 2006, Birmingham elect a BNP councillor (although there may have been a
miscount IIRC). She got something like 2000 votes, even if every one was
counted twice that is still 1000 voters in Birmingham. Unless you feel
Birmingham is more of a White Power stronghold than anywhere else in the UK
it is reasonable to say this is a suitable approximation. (Again IIRC) 1 in
5 of the voters voted BNP. That is significant. I recall (distant memories
now) the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust publishing research in June claiming
that 1 in 4 would vote BNP.

I am not saying every single person who voted BNP is a card carrying
fascist, however it does show that people are modifying their opinions of
the right wing nutters to think they are even slightly reasonable or an
"alternative" to the mainstream parties.

Personally I put it down the fearmongering press we have and the "horror"
stories about immigrants and ethnic minority groups. Neither of these help
themselves when they come to the UK and refuse to adapt to our culture.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453EC000.B4248F23@hotmail.com...

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.

I am fairly confident there was a "plan." It may well have been flawed from
the outset but the western hemisphere seems trapped in a culture of being
seen to do something is more important than actually doing the right thing.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnbd1$8qk_001@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <YsqdnSqgH-CP2qPYnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehktr9$8qk_004@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
snip

You two, actually three, are getting lumped together because
you keep repeating our Democrat sound bites as supporting
evidence that there isn't a danger from Islamic extremeists.

I haven't heard any Democrat soundbites so I have no idea if I am
repeating
them.

You are.

Ok. Doesn't falsifiy them.

Because something is a "soundbite" does not intrinsically make it
wrong or incorrect.

For the 2004 US President campaign (so this would be 2002, 2003, and
2004) Democrat candidates would go over to Europe, and try out
sound bites. The BBC would pick it up and repeat it. Our news
media would pick up the BBC report and report the sound bite as
news. Then this "news" would become recursive because now
the BBC would pick it up as fact. Meanwhile, polls were taken
to see the sound bite had resonance among US voters.

Ok. It still doesn't make them wrong. You post right wing soundbites but I
assume you think it is Ok to do that.

These bites have morphed.

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

You are being foolish.

No I am not. I make threat assessments for business on a daily basis and I
am actually very, very sucessful at it.

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

From what I see, it has diminished.

Realy? How do you work that one out?

If the threat has diminished, why are the Alert states still high?

But it can always pick
up again if a majority of people believe as you do and
open the city gates.

Far from the truth. You are saying the threat is lower but more precautions
need to be taken?

This does not make sense.

The smoke and mirrors is so thick in this discussion, it is
difficult to identify who is who.

Really? Maybe it isn't smoke and mirrors.

It is.

It isnt.

We haven't even started discussing the issue.

I have tried but you are obsessed about keeping your blinkers on.

I've
been trying to sweep away the crud that you were using
as a point to support your opinion.

But I'm not doing very well at this.

First you need to realise what is crud and what isn't. You are drowned in
false assumptions so it is not surprising you are struggling.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnefp$8qk_004@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:a4ioj2hb7thtg4gl99sh7mas1fnmddbt6i@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:27:01 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



unsettled wrote:

T Wake wrote:

IT and computers are a science field.

Only as a misnomer.

Since when was electronics not a field of science ?

Graham


Electronics is a technology. Electrical engineers build things, they
don't research the workings of nature. Some academic EEs pretend to be
scientists.

Almost all the sciences use electronics to manage, measure, and record
experiments. It's remarkable how little science can now be done
without electronics, the exception being theoretical work, but even
that is tested and validated - or not - with electronics. Electronics
has become an indispensable tool of science, like mathematics.
Strange.

Not strange. Separating them is (IMHO) strange. Electronics is a practical
implementation of science. Why force them into different categories?

Because there exist computer science major programs that do
not require its students to take any, and I mean ANY, other
science course. The logic behind this says, "If computer
science degree has "science" in its name, then the studies
do not have to include real science."

My question remains unasnwered.

There are teachers out there who actively discourage CS
types from taking physics.

Sack them. They are obviously not very good.

Now how in the world are
we going to breed kids to develop and improve technologies
if they have absolutely no knowledge about the limits
of the physical universe? An example is that the speed
of EMF not in a vacuum is slow.

Only compared to c. You will not outrun a beam of light in air for example.
Sending EM through solid objects is also faster than pretty much anything
else you will send through it.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehne1b$8qk_002@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <db6dnYRkTNUz7KbYRVnysw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfn55$8qk_011@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <JaednSrRmpdFE6fYRVnyhA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd5rn$8qk_009@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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

Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality
of
their data than *you* are, since your understanding of statistics is
essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who
reviewed
the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny
tad
more knowledgeable of statistics than you are?

When BAH posted this, it struck me as a massive example of how really
closed
minded some people can be. She hasn't read the data, she has no idea
about
the methods, she doesn't know who reviewed it (etc), yet she does know
that
bad data will spoil stats (which is true). She has taken the one thing
she
does know and assumed it to be the case because the answer is not one
she
wants.

Amazing that BAH claims to have any scientific background at all.

I don't. Biology and math were my majors; chemistry was my minor.

All three are sciences.

I didn't work in the science field. I thought I made that clear.

IT and computers are a science field.

Oh, good grief. It is not.

Oh good grief it is. Because some teach it as not being a science does not
make it so. Because some teachers are bad does not make it not a science.
Stop assuming your experience is the _only_ experience possible.

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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.

Ben Ladin said he would stop attacking if the voters voted for
Kerry.

I've heard no such thing.

There was a news item that a similar ad is playing on
that al jazeer network. I haven't checked that one out.

Why not go and visit their website ?

Graham

 

In article <5qlpj2134gu2465dshd5e7iojthb0kqeta@4ax.com>,
George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo@mitretek.org> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 06 10:28:08 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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?

I've worked in the areas of chemical demilitarization and
counterproliferation for the past dozen years or so, and I have a good
understanding of how chemical warfare agents were made, both in the US
and elsewhere. I would argue that the above issues can be better
understood if one discusses chemistry and technology separately.

The chemistry of chemical warfare agents is fairly simple. Most
undergraduates should be able to figure out the reactions used to make
chemical warfare agents; there number of possible routes for most
agents is small. Many laboratory syntheses are in the open literature.
For example, the most difficult part in finding multiple routes to
make mustard lies in finding a library that has holdings from the 19th
century; any chemist should know how to obtain the citation.

Thank you. You wrote what I was trying to say better than I did.

The technology of chemical warfare agents is considerably more
challenging. The challenges arise mostly in materials of construction
and in safety.

Exactly. Yet people seem to think that weapons made by
people who don't place any value on human life will adhere
to OSHA regulations.

The reactions involve reagents that are very corrossive
to "standard issue" materials, and those materials that can stand up
to those reagents are some combination of expensive, rare, and much
more difficult to fabricate than standard materials. In the 1980s,
imports of production equipment were probably more critical to Iraq's
program than were imports of precursor chemicals.

I had assumed this. What I don't understand with all these
mess makers is why they didn't build their own plants but
bought...hmm...oh, if you have pots of new monies, you suffer
from middle classism and buy instead of making it by hand.
Does this happen with governments, too?

Safety is also a concern, even to authoritarians and at least some
terrorists. The skills required to operate manufacturing facilities
are rare enough that even the Saddam Husseins of the world cannot
afford to operate the plants unsafely. Making significant quantities
of chemical warfare agents without killing the operators requires
safety measures that go beyond standard industrial hygiene practices.

Would this still be true if there is no value of human life in a
society?

My reasonably educated opinion is that any decent chemist and most
bright university chemistry majors could figure out the reactions used
to make chemical warfare agents. However, the equipment and skills
required to produce more than laboratory quantities using those
reactions are much rarer.
Thank you. Saddam sent his brightest to US schools. Isn't this

safety stuff taught in production classes? An intern working
for Dow would learn a lot about setting up a production line
that won't blow up the plant.

/BAH

 

In article <453F4FE2.29EB7593@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Isn't it trying to run the EU economics show?

No. The European Central Bank is.


The news
over here implies that France and Germany as the main
players. All those other countries seem to get no
attention.

Your news is crap in that case.

I'm glad you agree that the BBC is crap.

/BAH

 

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

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnadm$8ss_003@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <YMidnRe1eI5f2KPYnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
snip
There is an upswell in right wing organisations getting public support
across Europe, but this is not quite the same.

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.

That isn't the only thing that can trigger an economic depression.

Never said it was. Germany is not in a depression.

In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Isn't it trying to run the EU economics show?

No more so than France.

The news
over here implies that France and Germany as the main
players.

Unlike 1930s Germany. France and Germany are closely aligned at times, but
at others they are not so. EU politics are no different than the rest of the
world.

All those other countries seem to get no
attention.

News is not always accurate.

ROTFLMAO. oh, the irony.

/BAH

 

In article <9b6dnRQ92dLsyqLYRVnyhg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnbd1$8qk_001@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <YsqdnSqgH-CP2qPYnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehktr9$8qk_004@s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
snip

You two, actually three, are getting lumped together because
you keep repeating our Democrat sound bites as supporting
evidence that there isn't a danger from Islamic extremeists.

I haven't heard any Democrat soundbites so I have no idea if I am
repeating
them.

You are.

Ok. Doesn't falsifiy them.

Apparently you did not comprehend the consequences of listening
and believing that these were facts that had happened rather
than political rhetoric to demean the oppostion.

Because something is a "soundbite" does not intrinsically make it
wrong or incorrect.

For the 2004 US President campaign (so this would be 2002, 2003, and
2004) Democrat candidates would go over to Europe, and try out
sound bites. The BBC would pick it up and repeat it. Our news
media would pick up the BBC report and report the sound bite as
news. Then this "news" would become recursive because now
the BBC would pick it up as fact. Meanwhile, polls were taken
to see the sound bite had resonance among US voters.

Ok. It still doesn't make them wrong. You post right wing soundbites but I
assume you think it is Ok to do that.

You heard the BBC report those sound bites as news. You use these
manufactured facts as your reasons to decide that there is no
threat to western civilization. Do I need to expand this
explanation further?

These bites have morphed.

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

You are being foolish.

No I am not. I make threat assessments for business on a daily basis and I
am actually very, very sucessful at it.

Business is much different than mortal annihilation of that business.

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

From what I see, it has diminished.

Realy? How do you work that one out?

If the threat has diminished, why are the Alert states still high?

If there had been no infrastructure put into place, which you
see as Alert States, there wouldn't be anything that stops
people from your places up.

But it can always pick
up again if a majority of people believe as you do and
open the city gates.

Far from the truth. You are saying the threat is lower but more precautions
need to be taken?

This does not make sense.

That's because you keep twisting what I say. I know you
have to do that twisting.

The smoke and mirrors is so thick in this discussion, it is
difficult to identify who is who.

Really? Maybe it isn't smoke and mirrors.

It is.

It isnt.

We haven't even started discussing the issue.

I have tried but you are obsessed about keeping your blinkers on.

You don't try if you keep repeating Democrat campaign sound bites
as your arguing points that prove there is no danger.

I've
been trying to sweep away the crud that you were using
as a point to support your opinion.

But I'm not doing very well at this.

First you need to realise what is crud and what isn't. You are drowned in
false assumptions so it is not surprising you are struggling.

Oh, the irony.

/BAH

 

[Eeyore]

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.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

IT and computers are a science field.

Oh, good grief. It is not.

Oh good grief it is. Because some teach it as not being a science does not
make it so. Because some teachers are bad does not make it not a science.
Stop assuming your experience is the _only_ experience possible.

IT covers a wide range of things. I'd like to see a 'science free' way of
designing and building computers !

Who fancies defining what field logic falls into ?

Then again much programing is conceptual.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why not start listening to and watching the BBC ?

I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which
slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they
are taking that day.

Amazing. Can you let me know when you come across any please?

Any report about the Palestinians will give you a start.

You think the BBC has surrendered to the Palestinians ?

No. That will be the consequence.

Of what?

Choosing to protray groups of people, whose goal is to
destroy production, as good guys who should be pitied
and aided in their endeavors, will have the result
of the society that produces these programs to surrender.

Who's trying to 'destroy production' ?

Graham

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <o09tj2hlhnvv0jtfrnutmnblmjfkvej4dj@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 06 17:02:26 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <t1msj214ga0dem1ntfhb5p3kq8cf52v0dn@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 06 10:27:14 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:



Whether or not models are correct is not important to us.
What is important that they provide accurately predictive
tools for us to use.

Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools?
Simple cases, like bacterial drug or temperature resistance, are
somewhat predictable and can be verified by experiment. But how about
macro things, like the creation of new genera and orders? Are past
creations at this level "predictable" after the fact?

Predict the movement of a body in a 3-body system.



Given the masses, locations, and velocities, this can be done with
extreme accuracy for some amount of time. The time depends on the
precision of the inputs and the available computational resources. In
most cases, the time over which accurate predictions can be made is
extreme, billions of orbital periods. Pathological/chaotic cases can
still be predicted for usefully long times. Even the chaotic behaviors
have predictable statistics.

But there is no exact solution. Therefore, we do not understand the
movement
of 3 bodies and we cannot model it. Weren't those your complainst about
evolution?

Just because there is no universal closed-form solution for the 3-body
problem doesn't stop anybody from modeling a given case. And only a
tiny minority of delicately-balanced cases don't model fairly, or
very, well, and even then we know *why* they don't model well.
Earth-moon-sun is a 3-body system, and people were predicting eclipses
pretty well a thousand years ago.

Yes, but they were often off by a bit. Besides, predicting when the moon will
be "over the sun" only requires a rough approximation. Predicting where the
moon will be precisely at any given time cannot be solved for except by
iteration.

Evolution, because it's mostly a qualitative theory, is not very
testable,

Isn't the Big Bang? Black holes? Plate tectonics?

which is I suppose why people stake such dogmatic positions
on so little hard evidence. That seems contrary to me: the less hard
evidence for a phenom, the more range there should be for speculation.
The very soft sciences, psychology and nutrition and such, are known
for having wild faddish swings of dogma; remember when stress caused
ulcers? remember when hydrogenated margarine was the healthier
substitute for butter?

John

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <1161766136.353925.20200@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 06 17:02:26 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <t1msj214ga0dem1ntfhb5p3kq8cf52v0dn@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 06 10:27:14 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

Whether or not models are correct is not important to us.
What is important that they provide accurately predictive
tools for us to use.

Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools?

Selective breeding in domestic animals for thousands of years. Although
because we provided the selection pressure rather than nature you can
get stupid dogs with heavy jaws that can't breathe properly but will
bite and hold onto a bulls leg (or some other more or less useful
trait).

Evolution of multi-drug resistant strains of bacteria due to overuse of
anti-biotics. Selection pressure kills the least fit and leads to an
altered population better suited to the new environment. Things with
unstable genomes that reproduce rapidly show the most change (influenza
for instance).

We even use genetic design techniues now for certain types of
algorithmic programming. And simulating A-life has become fairly
routine. It is actually quite interesting to watch how things evolve
over a few hundred generations to match environmental pressure.

And EVOP (evolutionary operation) has been used in industry since George Box's
work what, 50 years ago?

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Oct 06 10:59:33 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <k4uqj2tih5dpatici8qeesbi8otu4gp5p1@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

snip


I wonder if any really new life forms are evolving now, right under
our eyes.

Ah-choo! [emoticon picks nose] Yep.

/BAH

Well, I was sort of hoping for something more radical than butterflies
with differently colored wings.

I arguw with my biologist daughter over the definition of "species."
It no longer what I learned in biology class, with ability to breed as
the boundary; in fact, she can't give me a definition that's clear to
me.

John

 

[Daniel Mandic]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

If Bush hadn't organized, the bombs in the Underground would have
blasted that infrastucture to inoperability. There would have
been more airplanes used as bombs. Spain would have had more
crippling of its infrastructure. Afghanistan would still be
training new recruits. The Islamic moderates would still be
in hidden in their closets. Nobody would be trying to keep
Iran from deploying atomic bombs. Women would not be gaining
access to mobility and education in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan would
still be exporting its atomic bomb knowledge without restraint.

Should I go on?

/BAH

It's amazing how much hypothetical stuff you believe.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

--

 

[Daniel Mandic]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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.

/BAH

May I give you a tip.


You should live like you were jailed. ...playing cards, solving
puzzles, playing chess, going a bit for walking, etc.

Not acting like a free pp, going around, and that far away, too...




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:54:34 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:4iitj2p030albnbvi4ssev39j7ge23lq82@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:47:01 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


For every hundred thousand crackpot ideas there is one brilliant one. How
should people react to new ideas?

By *thinking* about them!

For how long? Also this assumes that people don't think about them *at all*
before they dismiss them. Often the new idea is thought about, maybe for a
second or two, before it is dismissed as crackpot.

This is not a bad thing.

No, if one is skilled in the area, and reasonably open-minded, ideas
can be sifted pretty fast. But cases like the Townes maser story still
give caution. And in sciences that still have gaping holes in
explaining widespread phenomena, it makes sense to be more
open-minded.

The declaration "that's impossible" should not be applied lightly.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Oct 06 09:58:47 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <gldsj29b1c1911oi7v8ii0secbsntuh51o@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

All topics have conferences like that.


I find physicists to be especially aggressive.

Terseness isn't aggressive; it's efficient.

"That can't work" is pretty terse, especially when it turns out later
that it can work.

It's a good first reaction. If you agree, meeting is over.
If you've done your homework, you can start yakking about
the real stuff. That response is used to shortcut the typical
3-meeting territorial imperative shaking out that seems to
be SOP whenever new humans get together for the first time.

I'm talking about people who are good at their job, not the
average types.



It's hard to brainstorm
with them, because their first reaction to an idea is often to slap it
down, rather than play with it and see if there might be something
there.

That's only way to design something. We wouldn't have gotten anything
done if we didn't slap each new idean and tear it apart.

But ideas, even bad ideas, can be played with and sometimes that leads
to ideas that are not bad.

Of course. But if you're a newbie, a "no" will test your mettle
and tell them if you're a crank or not . A similar approach
is used here, although it takes a lot longer w.r.t. wallclock time
and number of words used.

If you squash the process at step #1, it
ends there.

If you accept the squash, then you don't have the inner fortitude
to carry the project through to the end. It's test.

And it makes the person with the idea work alone. In other words, it
reduces the average IQ of those present, when it's possible to
increase it.

grin> You should try working with people who are doing engineering
work with a thinking style trained to do physics.


Now *that* is an interesting concept. Elaborate?

JMF was trained as a physicist but decided he wanted money so
he started in the computer biz. The bit gods I talk about
occasionally did their work in operating systems for
a manufacturer of computer hardware. So we were doing
engineering but at the same time doing and creating
a lot of things that hadn't been done before and solving
problems that had never existed until we made them.

Our best OS people had their degrees in math, chemistry,
physics, a couple were engineers, and there was one philosophy
guy later on. These were very, very, very, very bright
people who did not suffer fools at all. The people here in
this newsgroup put up with 100x more shit than the guys
I worked with would.

The two best programmers I know were trained in chemistry and thermal
hydraulics. Neither ever studied programming.

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