We're not scientists. We're Engineers. And how dumb can we be if WE managed to not get banned.
Printable View
We're not scientists. We're Engineers. And how dumb can we be if WE managed to not get banned.
The guy who wrote this article seems to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
The number of deaths due to flying is incredibly smaller than the number of deaths due to driving. Personally, I love flying... and I live in a place that is very dangerous for drivers. Since you have to be trained to fly, but not so much to drive, I'd much rather take my chances in the air. People overinflate the dangers of flying because a plane crash will cause hundreds of deaths, versus a car crash which MIGHT cause three or four.
We aren't disagreeing. There are on average approximate one million people in the air at all times (except y2k)
Talk to any risk analyist. Obviously, If i only rode in a car once in my life, i am less likely to die than a cab driver in a car wreck.
Same with air planes. A pilot is much more likely to die in a plane crash than any passenger is simply because he flys more. Airline pilot is listed as the 2nd deadliest job in the US.
Planes are more deadly statistically than cars because when one of them crashes, it usually kills everyone.
More deadly? Yes. More dangerous? No.
Small plane crashes are a different story. I have heard that dying in a small plane crash is the leading cause of on the job mortality for wildlife biologists. I am only really talking about commercial air travel, not the puddle jumpers we take to back country strips.
Odds of death/trip are probably MUCH higher for an airplane, but odds of death/mile traveled is lower. Either statistic can be manipulated. The death/trip is so greatly reduced because it includes trivial little trips , and city driving trips where the speeds involved never get up to levels where death is likely (I'll bet taxi drivers in big cities have a low probability of death by auto accident because they never achieve lethal speeds).
I think the most accurate comparison would be to compare cross-country driving vs. flying trips, where I would expect flying would be vastly safer. Though it might not be if you look at those trips in terms of hours flying vs hours driving.
Oh, I guess I ought to tie that back to terrorism. There again it comes down to how you frame the study. If you were to look at terrorist attacks in the US based on number of incidents, then muslims are less dangerous than white men, and possibly less dangerous than white, male, christians, depending on how you define christianity. If you were to look at terrorist attacks in the US based on numbers killed, muslims are more dangerous than any other group, but that is only because 9/11 is such a hage statistical outlier. So you can make the statistics show whatever you want them to show, and neither way is particularly "right", but I doubt any competent statistician would include an outlier of the magnitude of 9/11 at least without specifically justifying the reason for doing so.
You can't group muslims any more than you can group christians. Babtists are not the same as branch davidians are not the same as catholics, but they are all christians. It's a label. Christians could be lumped in to a larger category called Jews because they believe in the same god. They just differ on when the son is coming/came.
Sounds good to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Ahhhhh, I forgot. progs like to call themselvs engineers these days. :rolleyes: Isn't it funny that you get a computer "Science" degree and end up an engineer? Dumb is a relative term. Once upon a time it was considered humorous to accuse a mod for wetting his pants and was generally accepted as it was initially intended. Nothing more than a "what crawled up your butt" observation. Now it is apparently not acceptable. Whatever :confused: But again that re-enforces my observation that we are more related to the science field than engineering. Engineers deal in absoulutes and laws of Physics to acomplish a goal. Scientists also deal with these but also have to contend with inconsistant observations and attempt to find patterns and logic associated with it. Are muslims or Arabs prone to become suicide bombers moreso than caucasian, asians american indians or africans? There is no way to find out. Did an off comment really offend Si or was he having a bad day or does he really pee the bed or was he simply enforcing the rules of this forum? Who knows? Who Cares? Either way, You are not an engineer man. A relativly smart monkey can be "trained" to engineer something.
I'm out. Later guys, It's been a fun 8 years.
Since i build custom computers as a hobby, have close to 20 years of mechanical experience working on both Automobiles and diesels, Spent three years in the navy repairing radar systems, and am currently in the process of remodeling a building, i think i qualify as an engineer.
What i don't have is a computer science degree. I just do this as a hobby.
But speaking of degrees, if Computer Science isn't an engineering degree, what is it then? An Art? Those are your two options. Science or art. Guess which one the Structural Engineering program falls under. Wrong! It is an M.S. The s stands for science. so i guess they aren't engineers either.
In the UK degrees are either Art(BA, MA), Science(BSc, MSc) or Engineering(BEng, MEng).
Most computing degrees fall under the Science side not the Engineering so I would class myself in Science rather than Engineering rightly or wrongly.
Well the software debate actually is delineated between two camps:
Knuth:= Art
Pressman: = Engineering
I suspect the reality is somewhere in between.
Black Art if you ask me.
My degree was under the science faculty but I think I'd class programming as closer to engineering, if anything. To be honest though, I really don't care what people call me. I'm happy with 'Code Monkey'.
So have we concluded that profiling can be useful yet?
Computer Science is not Engineering. Engineering has to actually deal with well objects, whether designing electrical circuits or mechanical gears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Computer Science is all software and code.
What is Computer Science? I think it's more a study of applied Mathematics and Information Processing.
My main point you overlooked was that an engineering degree is also a science degree. So i guess they are scientists.
Well, in the same way that a real estate tycoon develops housing, I like to think I'm a hardware tycoon which develops software.
Sometimes it's the quality of the housing which matters, other times not.
Sometimes you may finish the housing project, other times not.
So, I'm a developer.
Computer Science is not really science either IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
It should be Computer Mathematics.
I will definitely accept that Programming is Mathematically based, but the hardware aspect isn't.
As for me, I will accept that a thread on Iraqi refugees has turned into a discussion as to what programming is related to....but only with a laugh:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
my grandfather has been brainwashed by Fox and CNN. Now he thinks it is a good idea to bring back United States concentration camps like the ones from WW2 where we locked up all the U.S. citizens with a Japanese heritage. He said "Lock the Muslims up!". when i pointed out that he's confusing a nation and a religion and 1/10 of United states was Muslim, he suggested a scenario that reminded me of "Escape From New York". And this time he wasn't even drunk.
According to the Pew Research Center (2007 estimate) there are only 2.35 million muslims in the US which would put that group at about 1% of the total US population, not 1/10 or 10%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
X
i see what you mean. I did some further looking and found numbers ranging from 1/2 percent to 7%. Turns out the census isn't allowed to ask about religion and they are all guessing.
Jesus, that is scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Just last weekend I was home visiting my parents. There were a large (relatively) number of Japanese people there. My Dad mentioned that they were all in town to visit the old WWII concentration camps (I don't really get this part because those camps are about 150 miles away from that town). I suppose they had relatives that were locked up there back in the 40s. But, I remember remarking on how strange that seems now. I also said something along the lines of, "that would never happen today." I really hope I am right.
I would be willing to bet your grandfather has held these beliefs for a lot longer than Fox and CNN have existed. They make good scapegoats, though usually one or the other gets the blame depending on your particular political leanings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
no, no. He is very patriotic and thinks if you go against anything the president says, you are a Commie. The president can't be wrong, Saddam had WMD, Saddam was working with Bin Laden, etc. And he got it all from White House press releases.
Well he is right about one thing. Saddam did have WMD, there are a lot of dead Kurds that prove that fact. Also I would explain to him (if he thinks the president can’t be wrong) that the President stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 several times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
X
Why yes he did... After he had already claimed that it did, then invaded, then got Iraq invaded by terrorists who want to take it over so now he can legitimately claim it is a terrorist nest.
And yes Saddam had WMD. which he got rid of because of UN sanctions and had been complying with that particular sanction for over ten years when US invaded.
If he "had been complying with" the UN then why do you think he tossed out all those UN inspectors? Do you really believe he had nothing to hide?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Saddam knew damn well the UN didn't (and never would) have the balls to do anything about it but pass more laughable toothless resolutions.
The real reason he moved the whole mess to Syria was because we were stupid enough to think the UN would do anything but drag their feet for SIX MONTHS before we finally said screw them and invaded anyway.
A combination of national pride and the opportunity to be seen to diplomatically poke the US and the UN in the eye.Quote:
why do you think he tossed out all those UN inspectors?
There's no evidence of this.Quote:
he moved the whole mess to Syria
Yep, sending in weapons inspectors who continually reported that there was no substantive evidence of ongoing WMD programs in an effort to prevent an unneccessary war that's been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, has destabilised the region, has furthered the causes of fundamentalism and terrorism in the region and has left a country in soon to be abandoned anarchy can definitely be described as 'dragging their feet'.Quote:
the UN would do anything but drag their feet for SIX MONTHS
To paraphrase my favorite tyrant, Monte Burns:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Hans Blix couldn't find ugly at a Radcliffe mixer.
:lol:Quote:
Hans Blix couldn't find ugly at a Radcliffe mixer
Mind you, apparently, neither can the US or British army. You draw your conclusions, I'll draw mine.
Say your local police get a tip that one of your neighbors is stockpiling illegal weapons. They go to a judge and get a warrant (see UN Resolution 1441), but instead of executing that warrant, they tell the guy "you better comply with our demands to disarm or else!"
When the cops finally get around to executing the warrant (six months later), Surprise! they can't find any weapons. They believe those weapons were moved next door, but can't do squat about it now because a certain element in the neighborhood insists the cops were lying about the weapons all along just because they didn't like the guy and/or only did it to get at the drums of oil in his garage...
Even better: just say the weapons never existed in the first place. Yeah, that's the ticket!
US and British troops couldn't find more than a handful of weapons because most had been moved elsewhere over the previous six months.
Mr. Blix couldn't find any weapons because he simply didn't want to find any weapons.
Say the local police got the tip off from a different neighbur who'd previously clashed with the first neighbour over whether their dog had crapped in thir yard... and suppose the warrant was worded in such a way as to not explicitely allow forced entry while not explicitely dissallowing it either... and suppose the warrant did explicitely allow the immediate entry of a trained and respected third party who I agreed to as well as several of my own hand picked representatives to search the premises and none of them managed to find substantive proof of said illegal weapons stockpile... and suppose, when the police forced entry some 6 months later they failed to gain a further warrant explicitely allowing that forced entry...
I suspect my neighbour would have cause to sue.
That's a ridiculous statement that lessens your entire argument.Quote:
Mr. Blix couldn't find any weapons because he simply didn't want to find any weapons.
If someone were to be moving weapons over a period of six months, they had to move them somewhere. Well where did they go? Are they being hid in Iran? If people had any kind of basis of saying "Six months ago we saw him start do unload weapons into England (as likely as anywhere else), then why didn't they put an end to it then? He wasn't transporting anything by boat because we had an embargo on him for ten years straight preventing him from selling oil to anyone, which naturally had the effect of sinking the entire country into poverty.
UN resolutions are not Toothless. The UN is the one that started the embargo. The terms were simple too. "We will drive your country to poverty unless you convert your government to a democracy", never mind that there isn't a single country in the world that is a democracy because democracy doesn't work. "To the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."
That's all for now. I'll save the good stuff for later.
I have never found a quote in which Bush has blamed Saddam for 9/11. If you can find a quote in which Bush directly states that I would like to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
The only quotes I remember concerning Iraq and 9/11 are those in which he stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
X
http://www.dunamai.com/Humor/BagdadB..._bob_large.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
The only thing you are forgetting is that the respected third party was not given total access to do their job, therefore any conclusions made by said party could not be counted on to be 100% accurate. Had there been full compliance with the third party your point might carry some weight. I would argue the police would have no other option but to check by force what the third party could not effectively do.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
X
I don’t remember which Resolution ever stated that Iraq must convert to a democracy. I looked over the various resolutions from the start of the first gulf war and I have yet to see one that specifically states this. You have it in quotes, which resolution are you quoting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
X
Very true but, lets be honest, not exactly unusual in the world of international diplomacy. Blix wasn't given enough access to satisfy the UN resolution but he was given enough access to satisfy himself. He stated in several interviews and in official reports that he did not believe Saddam had any active weapons programs and he spoke out publicly against the invasion.Quote:
that the respected third party was not given total access to do their job, therefore any conclusions made by said party could not be counted on to be 100% accurate
Given the grey area this leaves I'd have thought the correct course of action for our hypothetical police would be to get a further warrant which explicitely allowed forced entry or some other measure intended to get the neighbour to comply with the original warrant. Instead, our hypothetical police force went all Dirty Harry and waded with its .44 magnum blazing but without explicit court agreement to do so.
"Now, Sadam, did you document the destruction of six canister of biological agents for which you have no long range delivery capability or only five. In all the confusion back there I lost count myself. So what you've gotta ask yourself is 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya', punk?"
Homer, once agin :lol: Is there really a shot of him saying 'yeah everythings fine' while the American tanks come cruising past behind hiom. I've never actually seen it but it's talked about so often. I'm wondering if it's actually an urban myth but I'd love to see the footage if anyone can link to it. He provided hours of entertainment during the invasion:thumb:
I'm guessing you're referring to democracy as a sort of every individual voting on every issue you're right but that's a very narrow definition of the word. Democracy literally translates to 'rule by the people' and, while this does cover that definition, it also covers everything from anarchy (the political state, not the social one) to monarchy (The Scots declaration of Arbroath states 'Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King' - as early as 1320 the Scots were making it clear that, in the final analysis, the Bruce served them and not the other way round).Quote:
there isn't a single country in the world that is a democracy
I think most people would regard Democracy as meaning a state in which there is an formalised process in which the legislative body must periodically actively seek the aproval of the people for its continued right to govern. It's a notoriously difficult word to define though.