The most powerful woman in the world...
Edward Green
Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
University of Leipzig.
Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
thermodynamics.
Gunnar Kaestle
> Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
> University of Leipzig.
>
> Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
> thermodynamics.
During the course of time, the extent of the mess increases.
That's easy for any politician to conceive if he looks around
in his peer group, even without a physics degree.
Gunnar
--
begin SIG-VIRUS.txt.vbs
Read http://piology.org/ILOVEYOU-Signature-FAQ.html, copy this
virus to your ~/.signature and distribute me until the bitter
end
tadchem
Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
competence.
James Earl Carter was a BS nuclear engineer from the US Naval Academy.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
MathFreak NoMore
> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
> competence.
This "leadership" goal is for a politician in USA.
Someone whose only use is in getting some asked-for
thing done, be it jingobatic or not, tribal or not. A
politician in other countries is more than a leader. In
what you do "more" than leadership you can find good
use for a physics background.
Relegate the affairs of your country to the hands of
Neocons or Greens, and they'll manage like engineers
tackling physics problems.
--
"az in harfhA gAv besotuh miyAd."
Ben newsam
<jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote:
>"Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
>news:1157899801.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>But she still can't decide whether she likes having her shoulders rubbed by
>George Junior. :P
That's the second law of tribodynamics.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.
jmfb...@aol.com
I always thought that a cause of his adminstrative problems was
due to his science training: he required all the details which
can bog you down w.r.t. decisions if you're the head of anything.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
"Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>....according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
Did it say what her expertise was? Perhaps a better question is
whether she's theorist or experimentalist.
/BAH
Edward Green
I don't know if that has any correlation with scientific training:
that's "micromanaging", and it's quite possible to do this without any
scientific training at all.
I also wouldn't put a naval "nuclear engineer" on the same page as a
doctorate in physics: his was a very goal directed and pragmatic kind
of technical education.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
the details" is quite false. On the contrary, it is a matter of
recognizing which details matter and which can be ignored.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Eric Gisse
John Schutkeker wrote:
> "Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
> news:1157899801.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> George Junior. :P
Her reaction suggests she was quite sure.
Eric Gisse
tadchem wrote:
> Edward Green wrote:
> > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
> > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
> > University of Leipzig.
> >
> > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
> > thermodynamics.
>
> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
> competence.
Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position
of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA.
Edward Green
It seems to be most accurate to say she was a theoretical physical
chemist who worked in quantum chemistry, but not prolifically (five
published articles listed in Wikipedia). Her doctorate is consistently
described as "in physics" though.
Remarkably, there is not a single article mentioning her name in any of
the sci.chem* groups. You'd think _somebody_ would have been
interested enough to say "Hey! A quantum chemist is chancellor of
Germany". She grew up in then East Germany, and maybe it's a fair
guess to say she was competent at what she did, but her heart wasn't in
it: a route to a little better life in a poor society. She speaks
English and Russian fluently, and is married to a professor of
chemistry: a formidable woman.
hanson
news:1158103280.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
[Edward Green wrote]
>> > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
>> > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
>> > University of Leipzig.
>> > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
>> > thermodynamics.
>>
.... ahahaha.. Hey, Ed.. are you sarcastic here or don't you know
that "the mother's milk for politics is money" and not edu... Politics
is concerned with keeping the peasantry in a state of calm... by any
and all means.. and I really doubt that in any of the worlds' august
chambers of political debate the word "thermodynamics" was ever
heard. Thermonuclear OTOH.. or for their purposes "Termo-nukilar"
that is another ballgame... If you wanna see personally and close up
what personalities do make (up) politics then go visit one of the reg.
meetings of any of your local political parties. ---- You will wake up
next morning with your hair having turned white over night... ahaha...
... NOT from any wisdom you have heard or seen there.... ahahaha...
Fanatics, Obsessed ones, Possessed ones, Megalomaniacs, the
entire panoply of mental diseases is present at such meetings
... and it's a highly contagious, infectious atmosphere there...
>
[Tom Davidson]
>> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
>> competence.
>
> Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position
> of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA.
>
ahahaha... Eric, once you are out of the grip of and off the dependency
on your teachers and you enter the real the world wherein you try to
scrape together enough money to make a decent living, you'll be
realizing that your current notion was due to "jowr", = juvenile or
weak reasoning"... ahaha.. Hey, no hard feelings, Eric.. we all
went thru the years of those tender youth fantasies. Carry on!....
>
[Tom Davidson to Eric]
>> James Earl Carter was a BS nuclear engineer from the US Naval Academy.
>
Tom, Eric is too young to remember Carters achievements of 14-21%
inflation.... ahahahaha....
Well, how about you guys' preferences about an actor and
radio announcer... like Ronald Regan.... ahahahaha....
AFAIAC, like Tom says, the professional back ground of a
politician has little or any bearing on his/her acumen in politics.
I just can't figure out why anybody in his right mind wants to
be(come) a political leader given the unruliness of the general
peasantry... just look at the micro-cosm here at hand, these NGs.
ahahaha.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
PS: Politicians are merely the ACTORS of the show.
The power is with the quiet $$$ puppeteers behind the scenes.
Timo Nieminen
> tadchem wrote:
> > Edward Green wrote:
> > > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
> > > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
> > > University of Leipzig.
> > >
> > > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
> > > thermodynamics.
> >
> > Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
> > competence.
>
> Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position
> of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA.
Shades of Plato and his preference for philospher-kings!
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Eric Gisse
Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2006, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > tadchem wrote:
> > > Edward Green wrote:
> > > > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
> > > > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
> > > > University of Leipzig.
> > > >
> > > > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
> > > > thermodynamics.
> > >
> > > Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
> > > competence.
> >
> > Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position
> > of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA.
>
> Shades of Plato and his preference for philospher-kings!
It is easier to make a philosopher a king than a king a philosopher.
Timo Nieminen
> Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2006, Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > tadchem wrote:
> > > > Edward Green wrote:
> > > > > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
> > > > > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
> > > > > University of Leipzig.
> > > > >
> > > > > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
> > > > > thermodynamics.
> > > >
> > > > Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
> > > > competence.
> > >
> > > Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position
> > > of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA.
> >
> > Shades of Plato and his preference for philospher-kings!
>
> It is easier to make a philosopher a king than a king a philosopher.
Perhaps that explains Plato'slack of success, given that he tried the
latter. Perhaps he could have tried a coup, but then he would have needed
the army on his side, and given their usual preference for
general-kings ...
Eric Gisse
Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2006, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2006, Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > > tadchem wrote:
> > > > > Edward Green wrote:
> > > > > > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
> > > > > > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
> > > > > > University of Leipzig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
> > > > > > thermodynamics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
> > > > > competence.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position
> > > > of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA.
> > >
> > > Shades of Plato and his preference for philospher-kings!
> >
> > It is easier to make a philosopher a king than a king a philosopher.
>
> Perhaps that explains Plato'slack of success, given that he tried the
> latter. Perhaps he could have tried a coup, but then he would have needed
> the army on his side, and given their usual preference for
> general-kings ...
My readings on Plato is admittedly weak, but I wasn't aware he actually
*tried* anything of that nature. My understanding was he was a teacher
and a philosopher. More into theory, than practice, if you will.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>Timo Nieminen wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2006, Eric Gisse wrote:
>>
>> > tadchem wrote:
>> > > Edward Green wrote:
>> > > > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
>> > > > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
>> > > > University of Leipzig.
>> > > >
>> > > > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
>> > > > thermodynamics.
>> > >
>> > > Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
>> > > competence.
>> >
>> > Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position
>> > of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA.
>>
>> Shades of Plato and his preference for philospher-kings!
>
>It is easier to make a philosopher a king than a king a philosopher.
>
was a philosopher. But I know of no case when philosopher became a
king.
Timo Nieminen
He apparently took up the job (twice even?) of tutoring the tyrant of
Syracuse, Dionysius II, despite being busy in the philosphising industry.
Gunnar Kaestle
> Did it say what her expertise was? Perhaps a better question is
> whether she's theorist or experimentalist.
Analysis of the mechanism of breakup reaktions with single bond breaking
and calculation of their rate constant based on quantum-chemical and
statistical methods
Titel: Untersuchung des Mechanismus von Zerfallsreaktionen
mit einfachem Bindungsbruch und Berechnung
ihrer Geschwindigkeitskonstanten auf der
Grundlage quantenchemischer und statistischer Methoden
Verfasser: Merkel, Angela
Erscheinungsjahr: 1986
Umfang/Format: V, 153 Bl. : graph. Darst. ; 30 cm
Hochschulschrift: Berlin, Akad. d. Wiss. d. DDR, Diss. A, 1986
Sachgruppe: 30 Chemie
--
/^\
\ / Plain-Text Ribbon Campain
X Say NO to HTML in email and news!
/ \
Peter Christensen
Edward Green skrev:
What about EFE (Einsteins Field Equations) and E=m*c^2 (or to be more
correct E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4)?
:-)
pet c
Peter Christensen
MathFreak NoMore skrev:
> On 10 Sep 2006 09:06:56 -0700, tadchem wrote:
>
> > Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
> > competence.
>
> This "leadership" goal is for a politician in USA.
> Someone whose only use is in getting some asked-for
> thing done, be it jingobatic or not, tribal or not. A
> politician in other countries is more than a leader. In
> what you do "more" than leadership you can find good
> use for a physics background.
Do you think, that Germany is going for 'the bomb'? (Far behing US, UK
and France)
Hope not, :-)
PC
tadchem
hanson wrote:
<snip>
> Well, how about you guys' preferences about an actor and
> radio announcer... like Ronald Regan.... ahahahaha....
> AFAIAC, like Tom says, the professional back ground of a
> politician has little or any bearing on his/her acumen in politics.
> I just can't figure out why anybody in his right mind wants to
> be(come) a political leader given the unruliness of the general
> peasantry... just look at the micro-cosm here at hand, these NGs.
> ahahaha.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> PS: Politicians are merely the ACTORS of the show.
> The power is with the quiet $$$ puppeteers behind the scenes.
Hihihihihi hahahahahanson,
The greatest weakness of democracy is that the people who end up
getting the leadership jobs are the people who *want* those jobs, and
megalomaniacs who are crazy enough to want such a job are precisely the
people who *shouldn't* have them.
If you become President of the US, half of your own citizens and *more*
than half of the rest of the world will dispise you, many will want to
see you dead. and some *will* try to kill you. People will spew hate
about you just to get their names into the news.
As proof of the insanity (or perhaps the degree of total corruption) in
those jobs, consider that the combined Presidential Candidates'
campaigns spend over $100M to get somebody into a job that pays only
$200K a year for four years.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
jmfb...@aol.com
Point.
> On the contrary, it is a matter of
>recognizing which details matter and which can be ignored.
Sure. [here comes the but ;-)] Don't you have to look at
all the details before you can ignore them? This takes time.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>tadchem wrote:
>> Edward Green wrote:
>> > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
>> > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
>> > University of Leipzig.
>> >
>> > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
>> > thermodynamics.
>>
>> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
>> competence.
>
>Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position
>of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA.
I used to think so, too. I don't know anymore.
/BAH
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>hanson wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Well, how about you guys' preferences about an actor and
>> radio announcer... like Ronald Regan.... ahahahaha....
>> AFAIAC, like Tom says, the professional back ground of a
>> politician has little or any bearing on his/her acumen in politics.
>> I just can't figure out why anybody in his right mind wants to
>> be(come) a political leader given the unruliness of the general
>> peasantry... just look at the micro-cosm here at hand, these NGs.
>> ahahaha.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>>
>> PS: Politicians are merely the ACTORS of the show.
>> The power is with the quiet $$$ puppeteers behind the scenes.
>
>Hihihihihi hahahahahanson,
>
>The greatest weakness of democracy is that the people who end up
>getting the leadership jobs are the people who *want* those jobs, and
>megalomaniacs who are crazy enough to want such a job are precisely the
>people who *shouldn't* have them.
>
Presisdent of the United States should be disqualified on grounds of
insanity". From Mark Twain.
hanson
news:CmUNg.1$45...@news.uchicago.edu...
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> writes In article :
> <1158140739.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>>>
>
hanson wrote:
>>> Well, how about you guys' preferences about an actor and
>>> radio announcer... like Ronald Regan.... ahahahaha....
>>> AFAIAC, like Tom says, the professional back ground of a
>>> politician has little or any bearing on his/her acumen in politics.
>>> I just can't figure out why anybody in his right mind wants to
>>> be(come) a political leader given the unruliness of the general
>>> peasantry... just look at the micro-cosm here at hand, these NGs.
>>> ahahaha.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>>> PS: Politicians are merely the ACTORS of the show.
>>> The power is with the quiet $$$ puppeteers behind the scenes.
>>
>>Hihihihihi hahahahahanson,
>>The greatest weakness of democracy is that the people who end up
>>getting the leadership jobs are the people who *want* those jobs, and
>>megalomaniacs who are crazy enough to want such a job are precisely the
>>people who *shouldn't* have them.
>>
> "Anybody who is willing to put up with what it takes to become the
> Presisdent of the United States should be disqualified on grounds of
> insanity". From Mark Twain.
>
That is valid everywhere, anytime, not just here. One of the sad
upshots is unfortunately that the insanity of/in these megalomaniacs
has never prevented them to regard the world as their personal
domain/ball game/playground/money machine etc, wherein their
populations are merely tools for their personal quirks or ambitions.
== Fundamental question: Is there a better social system? Any?
hanson
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
verify that it is in its right place, or do you just glance around,
noticing when soemthing is out of place?
So, no, not only I don't have to look at all the details, but I've to
avoid looking at all the details. Wouldn't get anywhere otherwise.
I've to make a judgement call, based on general knowledge, prior
experience etc., which details may be relevant and concentrate on
these only. If it works, fine. If a serious discrepancy shows up,
the discrepancy itself may point the way to what additional details may
be relevant.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
are quite poorly qualified for positions of leadership.
Timo A. Nieminen
> <mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> "tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>> The greatest weakness of democracy is that the people who end up
>>> getting the leadership jobs are the people who *want* those jobs, and
>>> megalomaniacs who are crazy enough to want such a job are precisely the
>>> people who *shouldn't* have them.
>>>
>> "Anybody who is willing to put up with what it takes to become the
>> Presisdent of the United States should be disqualified on grounds of
>> insanity". From Mark Twain.
>>
> That is valid everywhere, anytime, not just here. One of the sad
> upshots is unfortunately that the insanity of/in these megalomaniacs
> has never prevented them to regard the world as their personal
> domain/ball game/playground/money machine etc, wherein their
> populations are merely tools for their personal quirks or ambitions.
> == Fundamental question: Is there a better social system? Any?
Churchill said it well in Parliament almost 60 years ago: "Many forms of
Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and
woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has
been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those
other forms that have been tried from time to time."
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, hanson wrote:
>
>> <mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>> "tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> getting the leadership jobs are the people who *want* those jobs, and
>>>> megalomaniacs who are crazy enough to want such a job are precisely the
>>>> people who *shouldn't* have them.
>>>>
>>> Presisdent of the United States should be disqualified on grounds of
>>> insanity". From Mark Twain.
>>>
>> upshots is unfortunately that the insanity of/in these megalomaniacs
>> has never prevented them to regard the world as their personal
>> domain/ball game/playground/money machine etc, wherein their
>> populations are merely tools for their personal quirks or ambitions.
>> == Fundamental question: Is there a better social system? Any?
>
>Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and
>woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has
>been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those
>other forms that have been tried from time to time."
>
they are present in any possible system of government), democracy at
least provides corrective mechanisms (which are mostly absent in other
systems). And, it is just, in the sense of "by and large people get
the government they deserve". As to whether this bit is a bug or a
feature, opinions are divided I guess:-)
hanson
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.06...@serene.st...
>
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> writes:
>>>> The greatest weakness of democracy is that the people who end up
>>>> getting the leadership jobs are the people who *want* those jobs, and
>>>> megalomaniacs who are crazy enough to want such a job are precisely the
>>>> people who *shouldn't* have them.
>>>>
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>> "Anybody who is willing to put up with what it takes to become the
>>> Presisdent of the United States should be disqualified on grounds of
>>> insanity". From Mark Twain.
>>>
>> That is valid everywhere, anytime, not just here. One of the sad
>> upshots is unfortunately that the insanity of/in these megalomaniacs
>> has never prevented them to regard the world as their personal
>> domain/ball game/playground/money machine etc, wherein their
>> populations are merely tools for their personal quirks or ambitions.
>> == Fundamental question: Is there a better social system? Any?
>
> Churchill said it well in Parliament almost 60 years ago: "Many forms of
> Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and
> woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has
> been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those
> other forms that have been tried from time to time."
>
Yes, exactly. For all its follies (which are not unique to it, since
they are present in any possible system of government), democracy at
least provides corrective mechanisms (which are mostly absent in other
systems). And, it is just, in the sense of "by and large people get
the government they deserve". As to whether this bit is a bug or a
feature, opinions are divided I guess:-)
>
... ahahaha.. but both you guys skirt the issue with/by handwaving
the same official platitudes in different words. Let me rephrase
my issue: "Is there, philosophically, a better social system possible
then the ones we have now?" All systems that have been tried
so far, including the 3 criminal sociopathies which Abe, the Arab
introduced some 6 KY ago, nor the recent worker's paradise, nor
the Kibbutz gigs, when used as forms of government have failed.
Granted, it is not easy to even imagine a new social structure
when evolution has been at it ever since the blue green Algae
hunkered together in their pods... But, does that mean that we
have throw in the towel? Granted again, the hormone game within
the individual has pretty much locked up the game. -- But that is
chemistry... How about investigating the issue purely from the
physics of the mechanics of/in social/group engineering?
.... ahahaha... Have at it, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson
.
Timo A. Nieminen
> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>> And, the belief that scientific training translates to "requiring all
>> the details" is quite false.
[cut]
>> On the contrary, it is a matter of
>> recognizing which details matter and which can be ignored.
>
> Sure. [here comes the but ;-)] Don't you have to look at
> all the details before you can ignore them? This takes time.
Yes, it takes time, but often very little time. To look at the details of
the details is what takes lots of time.
In my when-I-had-more-time chess-playing days, perhaps the deepest (ie the
most moves) combination I ever played was 7 moves deep (ie 7 moves each,
and that's what I analysed). I usually find that about 3.5 moves, given 3
or so plausible moves each player each time (already a severe pruning of
details that can be ignored) is about as far as is practical. Oddly, this
7 move combination - which was a queen sacrifice, so I felt I should make
sure it was productive - was in a 10 minute game (ie we each have 10
minutes on our clocks). This was only possible because the main line was
very straight-line - if my opponent took the queen, the best move was
very obvious for about those 7 moves - no branching. Again, this is
pruning of details. The biggest pruning was not looking in detail at the
possibilities if my opponent didn't take the queen. At first glance, it
didn't look like it would be a bad position, and given the psychological
element that my opponent would think it a blunder on my part, and was
skilled and experienced enough to be likely to see the possibility of a
queen capture, it just wasn't worth the time to analyse in detail - this
was rejected in seconds, as it needs to be in a 10 minute game.
This is the paradox of science. Some attention to detail is required. New
advances arise from anomalies. Too much attention to detail means that
nothing gets done. This is just a reprise of the ultraviolet paradox!
There must be some cut-off point beyond which it doesn't matter, else
approximately all effort is wasted on details that don't matter.
Edward Green
hanson wrote:
> [hanson]
> ... ahahaha.. but both you guys skirt the issue with/by handwaving
> the same official platitudes in different words. Let me rephrase
> my issue: "Is there, philosophically, a better social system possible
> then the ones we have now?" All systems that have been tried
> so far, including the 3 criminal sociopathies which Abe, the Arab
> introduced some 6 KY ago, nor the recent worker's paradise, nor
> the Kibbutz gigs, when used as forms of government have failed.
> Granted, it is not easy to even imagine a new social structure
> when evolution has been at it ever since the blue green Algae
> hunkered together in their pods... But, does that mean that we
> have throw in the towel? Granted again, the hormone game within
> the individual has pretty much locked up the game. -- But that is
> chemistry... How about investigating the issue purely from the
> physics of the mechanics of/in social/group engineering?
> .... ahahaha... Have at it, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson
To evaluate "better" we need an objective function.
hanson
news:1158204074.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> To evaluate "better" we need an objective function.
>
See, perceive, imagine, and/or dream one up and start
the ball rolling...objectively or subjectively... ahahaha...
I don't have the answers. I am here for fun!... Take care, Ed.
ahahaha... ahahanson
Tom Potter
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:MpZNg.14730$OI1.11930@trnddc05...
The problem is not with social and cultural systems,
as they tend to evolve naturally,
but with institutionalized government and religious systems,
which tend to be co-opted by individuals and small groups.
As hanson points out,
the religious system invented by Abraham/Moses,
and its' derivatives do not optimize pleasure and minimize pain,
nor do any of the government systems that have been invented so far.
I suggest that the Eastern religions are far superior to Judaism
and its' derivatives, and that the economic system of Adam Smith is
the best that has been invented.
The bottom line problem is that a better system of government
needs to be invented, and this government should stick with
Adam Smith' economic model until something better PROVES itself
in a free and open market, and it should modulate
(Eliminate tax deductions, amount of time kids can be brainwashed, etc.)
the versions of Judaism to get them in phase with the needs of mankind.
The best government would be one that
served the masses, yet provided the protection to
the movers and shakers that is needed to provide
the vision, the resources and the hard work
needed to bring costly, long-term projects on line,
and it should provide means of stopping the buck passing
when REAL emergencies occur.
And most of all, it should be bullet-proof.
I suggest that a government like this
could be built on the present framework,
by selecting the Representatives randomly
from ANYONE who wanted the job,
and to sell the seats in the Senate to the highest bidder,
no matter who they are, and where they come from.
As the Senators would be the movers and shakers,
and would understand the STABILITY and qualities
essential to a chief executive, they would select
a group of people to be presented to the Representatives
for their selection to head the various departments of the government.
These department heads in turn, would select one person to
be the BUCK STOPPER in case of emergencies,
for a one year term of office, at which time another
BUCK STOPPER would be selected.
This way, the government would tend to best serve the mass,
would provide the stability to protect creative, hard-working folks
willing to commit their energy and resources to building for the future,
and it would provide for competent government executives,
and for a BUCK STOPPER and it would not allow
the BUCK STOPPER to gain control of the government.
The BUCK STOPPER would be sort of a one man
Supreme Court, who had authority to decide
which of the conflicting views of the department heads
would be implemented. He would have no authority
over the courts, and in fact could be removed by
a two thirds vote of the department heads, the Senate,
the Representatives, or the Supreme Court.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sorcerer
"Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4508ec81$0$19691$8826...@free.teranews.com...
| The bottom line problem is that a better system of government
| needs to be invented, [list of desirable guv'ment attributes].
The Androclean system of Government.
Basic requirements for life:
1) Maintain Body Temperature. A human being will die of exposure to the
elements within hours.
2) Water. A human being will die without water within days.
3) Food. A human being will die without food within weeks.
The lone individual must provide these for himself.
A society is a group who divide the labour among themselves
and share shelter, clothing, food and water.
So... a percentage of the population has to be employed in
building homes, tailoring, fetching water and farming.
Am I my brother's keeper? Yes, you are!
To ensure a fair division of labour, government issued money is
used.
You work to earn paper or metal tokens, then you spend those
tokens on a house, clothes, food and water. Or you opt out and
build your own home, grow or hunt your own food, dig your
own well.
With the introduction of money, theft raises its ugly head.
Now the society needs a policeman, a banker and a jailer, and
to administer these specialists a form of government is required
to ensure fair division of labour and of wealth resulting from that
labour.
Ok, so we go it alone, or we need government. We can still
make igloos and hunt seals or penguins if we so choose, but few
of us want to do that.
Without going into details, history has shown democracy to be
the best option.
If we are to invent a better system of government then we must
invent a better system of democracy, but the farming and building
and tailoring and banking and policing and jailing and water pumping
still has to be done, and perhaps some of us would like to trade
jobs fetching eggs instead of water.
In other words we want flexibility, not rigidity.
So... here is my proposal for a better system of government.
Everyone has a vote, but must elect a group leader who then
has an N-vote (where N is maybe 10 or 20 individuals),
and speaks the will of the group.
That's it. You've now given your vote to someone who speaks for
you, but it is someone you know, a neighbour, relative, sibling,
parent, acquaintance, anyone you choose, and at any time.
If you do not like the way that person conducts himself on your
behalf, join a different group or vote a new group leader, at ANY time.
If you do, then you are happy.
If you are the person elected, then you are a group leader.
Group leaders must elect a leader of group leaders who
then has an MxN-vote, the will of the group of groups.
This person will also have a role in government, he could be
a policeman or jailer or banker, for example, and has
the responsibility of the wishes of 100 to 200 people.
If you want this job, get yourself elected. If not, don't.
The next stage is for the police level group to elect a judge,
after that for the judges to elect mayors, mayors to
elect senators and senators to elect a president who has a
HxIxJxKxLxMxN-vote and is the ultimate ruler. Nobody's term
of office is fixed.
*YOU* do not get to elect a president, you've had your vote
and you trusted your group leader to vote on your behalf.
If you don't like it, join a group of people who share your
views.
If that president, who remains a member of the lowest group
and a group leader, is ousted at the lowest group level, he was in
the wrong group to start with and should join a different
group, because he was certainly wanted by the majority.
However, he can be tumbled at any time by his own
immediate neighbours and at ANY group level. It is the will
of the people that will keep him in power.
So how do you start this new and better system of government?
Simple. Get 10 people together and elect one of them.
But you won't.
You'd rather gripe that a better system of government
needs to be invented (by someone else, you are too lazy).
Let's try it. I vote for Tom Potter. Anyone want to second me?
Androcles.
jmfb...@aol.com
>In article <ee8j4b$8ps...@s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfb...@aol.com writes:
>>In article <1158103280.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>tadchem wrote:
>>>> Edward Green wrote:
>>>> > ...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
>>>> > Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
>>>> > University of Leipzig.
>>>> >
>>>> > Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
>>>> > thermodynamics.
>>>>
>>>> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
>>>> competence.
>>>
>>>Personally I'd rather have a technically educated person in a position
>>>of leadership rather than a lawyer or an MBA.
>>
>>I used to think so, too. I don't know anymore.
>>
>Judging based on the technically educated people I knoe, most of them
>are quite poorly qualified for positions of leadership.
Yea, the ones I knew could lead unofficially but quit when the
politics became the number one item on each agenda. However,
the way we seem to train those MBAs and lawyers today omits
physical laws and concentrates on spin bytes. The reason I used
to think tech people would be better is because they know the
limits of the universe. But then there is that pesky problem
of pleasing all people all the time...or appearing to do so.
/BAH
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>The best government would be one that
>served the masses, yet provided the protection to
>the movers and shakers that is needed to provide
>the vision, the resources and the hard work
>needed to bring costly, long-term projects on line,
The biggest problem now is corporations can buy the legislators
because it costs so much to run a campaign.
What if you went to the other extreme and there was ZERO campaign
budget permitted? All you got were some televised debates, a website
page to have your positions on various issues posted sided by side.
You could collect endorsements on your website. This would be much
more like campaigning was in the 1800s.
But no more swamping with TV ads without rebuttal.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
jmfb...@aol.com
Roedy Green <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:40:35 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com>
>wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>
>>The best government would be one that
>>served the masses, yet provided the protection to
>>the movers and shakers that is needed to provide
>>the vision, the resources and the hard work
>>needed to bring costly, long-term projects on line,
>
>The biggest problem now is corporations can buy the legislators
>because it costs so much to run a campaign.
>
>What if you went to the other extreme and there was ZERO campaign
>budget permitted? All you got were some televised debates, a website
>page to have your positions on various issues posted sided by side.
>You could collect endorsements on your website. This would be much
>more like campaigning was in the 1800s.
I think your idea would require Taminy(sp?) Halls to be reinvented.
>
>But no more swamping with TV ads without rebuttal.
This won't work. Consider that what would have been a
TV ad 10 years ago was presented as fact in a news report.
Your proposed law about providing equal ad time wouldn't
cover this.
/BAH
G=EMC^2 Glazier
him according to constitutional powers handed down Bert
God's Creator! (HTML)
> This way, the government would tend to best serve the mass,
> would provide the stability to protect creative, hard-working folks
> willing to commit their energy and resources to building for the future,
>
>
Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*
There is no need for creating a NEW form of government.
Tribalism is thousands of years old, even most herds of animals use it.
There just needs to be _permanent_ punishment... for all crooks!
Banning or isolating is not permanent enough. 8-)
God's Creator!
(I don't forgive shit!)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todays U.S. Holy Wars News:
http://www.antiwar.com
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Tom Potter
I agree that Adam Smith's economics works best,
and that democratic government has proven to
best serve the masses.
If you want a true democracy,
it would be far more efficient,
and more representative of the will of the masses,
to randomly select the representatives from all of the people.
Elections are frequently rigged, usually bought,
and tend to put the emphasis on looks, personality and spin,
rather than on the needs and mores of the common man.
And long lived democracies are always co-opted by
some special interest group, or charlatan at some point.
Democracy in America is broken,
and must be patched very soon,
or else there will be a nuclear war, or a dictator will take over,
or the maximum leader will be replaced by a military coup,
or some chimp like Bush will ""fix things what ain't broken",
and it will take decades, maybe centuries,
for the government to evolve back into a democracy.
Sorcerer
what you've asked for and I've given you, you want to whine
instead. Would you like some cheese with it?
I vote for Tom Potter. Will anyone second that?... No?
Ok, then I vote for Bill Clinton or George Bush or Queen Elizabeth
of England.
Who wants to be president of the World? Not me, and even tho'
I want electrical energy, do not build a nuclear plant in my backyard.
Potty, you have two choices. Either take action and change the
system, or shut the fuck up!
Androcles.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
That's true, but ...
But then there is that pesky problem
>of pleasing all people all the time...or appearing to do so.
>
...or at least pleasing enough people, at any given time, to be able
to keep going. That's where the real problem is.
Clausevitz, who is still one of the greatest authorities on war ever,
wrote that, for a commander, deciding what course of action to take is
not especially difficult. What is difficult is to "make it happen" in
the face of what he called "the inevitable friction", i.e. people
being lazy, having different agendas, quarreling etc. So, when this
is so within the rigid and authoritarian structure of the military
(Clausevitz was writing from his experiences in the Prussian Army, it
doesn't get much more authoritarian than that), imagine how much more
complex it is within the framework of an open society.
hanson
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3952-450...@storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net...
>
[hanson]
ahahaha.... ahahahaha.... AHAHA...Herbie Herbie, Herbie
that may all sound very profound in your own mind, but why
is it that you, who praises and adores Israel into high heaven,
are NOT able or willing to give an even simple answer to the
question re: Israel, and instead you do scream more 'Heil Zion',
usually accompanied by your seeding and fomenting of more
Anti-Semitism with your nasty and extremely bigoted comments
instead of answering the simple question:
== What good or benefit has come in return to the American
taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that came off the
tables from poor American families?"
== "...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
involved in ?
------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert -----
PS: in one of your recent nasties, instead of you answering
the above, you said: "Why don't you go to Iran and protect
bin Larden." ... But Herbie, a much more pertinent comment
by you would have been why it is that that one of the "Ten most
Wanted" on the FBI list happens to be a TERRORIST JEW by
name of Adam Pearlman from Riverside, California, aka
Adam Yahiye Gadahn who is Al Qaida's #3 chieftain. This Jew
turned Muslim threatened that LA and Melbourne will be the
next target of terrorist attacks and "much less compassionate"
then the London & Spain massacres were.. see: 09-12-05
abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/ 102904_nw_american_alQaeda.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/31400b26f8948943
Randy Poe
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> If Bush is the most powerful man in the World Rice's power is second to
> him according to constitutional powers handed down Bert
Not officially. That's the same mistake Alexander Haig made
when Reagan was shot.
Secretary of State is not in the line of succession.
However, whether she is de facto second in command right
now (or even first -- you don't think that giggling George guy is
running things, do you?) is another question.
- Randy
jmfb...@aol.com
If nobody else lives there, a glance is necessary. If other humans
are involved, a more careful scan is required.
>
>So, no, not only I don't have to look at all the details, but I've to
>avoid looking at all the details. Wouldn't get anywhere otherwise.
>I've to make a judgement call, based on general knowledge, prior
>experience etc., which details may be relevant and concentrate on
>these only. If it works, fine.
Right.
> If a serious discrepancy shows up,
>the discrepancy itself may point the way to what additional details may
>be relevant.
But, Mati, isn't the other word for politics decrepancy? It sure
seems like the job is juggling descrpanies all the time.
In the case of politics, those details are human-based and subject
to change depending on the phase of the moon. And sometimes, a
"no" about one thing is a 180 degree turn of the same thing in a different
department.
For instance, we bought tape drives from STC, put our logo on it
and sold them with our systems. One day, STC had reps in the
north end of our building, signing a deal with us. They also
had reps in the south end <ahem>discussing a lawsuit about the
same thing. Meanwhile, the VP could be making a decision that
countered both.
I can imagine that foreign policy combined with national
politics combined with local politics combined with the lastest
bullet shot by our military would produce a bigger spaghetti
mess. If you're a detail President, you would need to know
the whys and wherefores of each instance. This takes time
even if your staff has prepared a Reader's Digest version of
the novel.
Note that I'm still trying to figure out how a country is run.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
gunnar....@gmx.net (Gunnar Kaestle) wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Did it say what her expertise was? Perhaps a better question is
>> whether she's theorist or experimentalist.
>
>Analysis of the mechanism of breakup reaktions with single bond breaking
>and calculation of their rate constant based on quantum-chemical and
>statistical methods
>
>Titel: Untersuchung des Mechanismus von Zerfallsreaktionen
> mit einfachem Bindungsbruch und Berechnung
> ihrer Geschwindigkeitskonstanten auf der
> Grundlage quantenchemischer und statistischer Methoden
>Verfasser: Merkel, Angela
>Erscheinungsjahr: 1986
>Umfang/Format: V, 153 Bl. : graph. Darst. ; 30 cm
>Hochschulschrift: Berlin, Akad. d. Wiss. d. DDR, Diss. A, 1986
>Sachgruppe: 30 Chemie
Thank you. I don't know, and don't seem able to guess, what
the project was. Here's my guess: she took H-O and various
other compounds that had two elements connected with one bond
and meausured the energy required to sever each bond?
Was she created a table like those I have in my CRC?
I guess I don't know what the reference to statistics means.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Especially in a society that has elided "the pursuit of"
from modifying happiness as a Right.
>
>Clausevitz, who is still one of the greatest authorities on war ever,
>wrote that, for a commander, deciding what course of action to take is
>not especially difficult. What is difficult is to "make it happen" in
>the face of what he called "the inevitable friction", i.e. people
>being lazy, having different agendas, quarreling etc. So, when this
>is so within the rigid and authoritarian structure of the military
>(Clausevitz was writing from his experiences in the Prussian Army, it
>doesn't get much more authoritarian than that), imagine how much more
>complex it is within the framework of an open society.
I have imagined. I have also added this as a constraint to all of
my hypotheses. I get one illogical hole plugged up and these people
produce a brand new one that has such a different shape that my
old plug configuration can't fix it.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
However, this think has to be done consciously. You can't submit
it to the back brainstem and have it pop out the answer. Science
training doesn't allow this method; people are taught to dismiss
this kind of answer unless it can be physically demonstrated.
I would think that politics and stuff cannot be demonstrated on
paper. That's why certain politicians can't make any decision
without an opinion poll to give them the answer; they've lost
all political instinct (or never had it).
Please note that instinct is defined as a black box process;
you put some data in and an answer pops out.
>
>This is the paradox of science. Some attention to detail is required. New
>advances arise from anomalies. Too much attention to detail means that
>nothing gets done.
Right.
>This is just a reprise of the ultraviolet paradox!
>There must be some cut-off point beyond which it doesn't matter, else
>approximately all effort is wasted on details that don't matter.
It's easier to identify the superfulous in science than it is
in politics. At least, for me, this is true. In politics, every
last thing seems to have a bearing.
/BAH
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <9eVNg.3$45....@news.uchicago.edu>,
>are involved, a more careful scan is required.
>
to be, a quick glance will suffice to notice changes.
>>
>>So, no, not only I don't have to look at all the details, but I've to
>>avoid looking at all the details. Wouldn't get anywhere otherwise.
>>I've to make a judgement call, based on general knowledge, prior
>>experience etc., which details may be relevant and concentrate on
>>these only. If it works, fine.
>
>> If a serious discrepancy shows up,
>>the discrepancy itself may point the way to what additional details may
>>be relevant.
>
>seems like the job is juggling descrpanies all the time.
>
that everything is a discrepancy. In fact, nearly everything isn't.
By and large, things are working. It is the same in every area.
Thousands of planes take of and land every day, safely. Some two hundred
million cars go on the road every day, in the US, and 99.9999% of them
returns home, safely. Knowledge that things go wrong is not an
invitation to treating everything as a disaster in making, as such
attitude is safe paralyzing.
>In the case of politics, those details are human-based and subject
>to change depending on the phase of the moon. And sometimes, a
>"no" about one thing is a 180 degree turn of the same thing in a different
>department.
>
>For instance, we bought tape drives from STC, put our logo on it
>and sold them with our systems. One day, STC had reps in the
>north end of our building, signing a deal with us. They also
>had reps in the south end <ahem>discussing a lawsuit about the
>same thing. Meanwhile, the VP could be making a decision that
>countered both.
>
>I can imagine that foreign policy combined with national
>politics combined with local politics combined with the lastest
>bullet shot by our military would produce a bigger spaghetti
>mess. If you're a detail President, you would need to know
>the whys and wherefores of each instance. This takes time
>even if your staff has prepared a Reader's Digest version of
>the novel.
If you're a "detail President" and want to know the whys and
wherefores of each instance, then you're a disaster, period. This
simply cannot be done. You're dealing with reality and you've to make
real-time judgements and decisions. This precludes any possibility of
tracking all details.
>
>Note that I'm still trying to figure out how a country is run.
>
A country is not run, it just runs. There is no central
administration assigning tasks to everybody in the country and
monitoring performance (and there'll better not be). There are some
operations within each country that are run on a country wide basis
and this is all the government runs.
Timo A. Nieminen
> "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And, the belief that scientific training translates to "requiring all
>>>> the details" is quite false.
>> [cut]
>>>> On the contrary, it is a matter of
>>>> recognizing which details matter and which can be ignored.
>>>
>>> Sure. [here comes the but ;-)] Don't you have to look at
>>> all the details before you can ignore them? This takes time.
>>
>> Yes, it takes time, but often very little time. To look at the details of
>> the details is what takes lots of time.
[cut]
>> queen capture, it just wasn't worth the time to analyse in detail - this
>> was rejected in seconds, as it needs to be in a 10 minute game.
>
> However, this think has to be done consciously. You can't submit
> it to the back brainstem and have it pop out the answer. Science
> training doesn't allow this method; people are taught to dismiss
> this kind of answer unless it can be physically demonstrated.
No, this is the _real_ goal of science training. To reduce this kind of
thing to "intuition". This is hard to do, and profoundly hard to teach. If
it wasn't for very talented students coming up through the system, I
think there would be little success. Perhaps there is little success in
any case.
The best have this intuition; that's why they're the _best_.
Not that I disagree with your assessment of science training, in general.
Science training pre-postgrad research is largely about cramming for
exams, and how can that teach intuition?
This is a problem. Most scientists are just crank-the-handle scientists,
just as most engineers are crank-the-handle engineers, and most <foo> are
likewise. How can a system designed to teach the mass accomodate the most
excellent few? The most excellent few are, um, typically _different_, and
I don't see any way to teach them by recipe.
Intuition, insofar as it is trainable and teachable, needs to be a 10-year
project. Compare learning martial arts: 1 hour lets you know the absolute
basics, the terminology, basics stances and the like; 10 hours lets you
actually do some of these things approximately, 1000 hours (= approx 1
year with a typical training schedule) lets you do some of these well.
About 3 times this is a respectable black belt. About 10,000 hours, and
you can actually be _good_ at what you do. Not that long after this, the
limits of human lifespan interfere, for better or for worse.
> It's easier to identify the superfulous in science than it is
> in politics. At least, for me, this is true. In politics, every
> last thing seems to have a bearing.
Given that I ended up in science rather than politics, how could I
disagree with this :?
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And, the belief that scientific training translates to "requiring all
>>>>> the details" is quite false.
>>> [cut]
>>>>> On the contrary, it is a matter of
>>>>> recognizing which details matter and which can be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. [here comes the but ;-)] Don't you have to look at
>>>> all the details before you can ignore them? This takes time.
>>>
>>> Yes, it takes time, but often very little time. To look at the details of
>>> the details is what takes lots of time.
>
>>> queen capture, it just wasn't worth the time to analyse in detail - this
>>> was rejected in seconds, as it needs to be in a 10 minute game.
>>
>> However, this think has to be done consciously. You can't submit
>> it to the back brainstem and have it pop out the answer. Science
>> training doesn't allow this method; people are taught to dismiss
>> this kind of answer unless it can be physically demonstrated.
>
>thing to "intuition". This is hard to do, and profoundly hard to teach. If
>it wasn't for very talented students coming up through the system, I
>think there would be little success. Perhaps there is little success in
>any case.
>
something we really have no good idea how it works. About all that can
be done is to show examples of past feats of intuition and hope that
these will awake something in those minds capable of similar feats.
>The best have this intuition; that's why they're the _best_.
>
>Not that I disagree with your assessment of science training, in general.
>Science training pre-postgrad research is largely about cramming for
>exams, and how can that teach intuition?
>
>This is a problem. Most scientists are just crank-the-handle scientists,
>just as most engineers are crank-the-handle engineers, and most <foo> are
>likewise. How can a system designed to teach the mass accomodate the most
>excellent few? The most excellent few are, um, typically _different_, and
>I don't see any way to teach them by recipe.
Indeed.
>
>Intuition, insofar as it is trainable and teachable, needs to be a 10-year
>project. Compare learning martial arts: 1 hour lets you know the absolute
>basics, the terminology, basics stances and the like; 10 hours lets you
>actually do some of these things approximately, 1000 hours (= approx 1
>year with a typical training schedule) lets you do some of these well.
>About 3 times this is a respectable black belt. About 10,000 hours, and
>you can actually be _good_ at what you do. Not that long after this, the
>limits of human lifespan interfere, for better or for worse.
>
Some intuition is trainable, as it amounts to accumulated and
internalized experience. But then, some things you're just born with.
Capablanca might have improved his skills with practice, but he was
already better, the first time he approached a chessboard, than many a
person with long experience.
>> It's easier to identify the superfulous in science than it is
>> in politics. At least, for me, this is true. In politics, every
>> last thing seems to have a bearing.
>
>Given that I ended up in science rather than politics, how could I
>disagree with this :?
>
I'll second this.
Edward Green
> No, this is the _real_ goal of science training. To reduce this kind of
> thing to "intuition". This is hard to do, and profoundly hard to teach. If
> it wasn't for very talented students coming up through the system, I
> think there would be little success. Perhaps there is little success in
> any case.
I share your views on the importance of intuition. I add my take.
Intuition indeed must be "trained", and this must be undertaken by the
individual. The training method is this: when some result is
encountered which is "counterintuitive" or paradoxical, one should not
be statisfied with an alternative line of thought which doesn't seem to
generate the paradox, plus the label "wrong" applied to our first line
of thinking. One should go back and meticulously take apart one's
first line of thinking until one finds the specific hidden assumptions
which led to the bad data, so that in the future one may not make them
unconsciously. Untimately the so-called counterintuitive result
becomes intuitive, because (somewhat circularly) one understands it!
Otherwise, one is left with permanent cognitive dissonance, along with
some additional structure "this is apparently wrong, and this is
apparently right, but I really don't understand why".
Ultimately, given human limitations, we must perhaps accept that we
simply don't understand some things: but it ticks me off when this is
sometimes (characteristically) worn as a kind of badge of honor --
"it's counterintuitive": that's just another way of saying you don't
really understand it, and have perhaps given up trying to understand
it, and perhaps even feel everyone else should also (not "you", Timo
Nieminen, I hurry to add). People with this bent will often _malign_
intuition, pointing out its pitfalls; but that's because they seldom
bother to retrain their own intuition when it fails, and have mostly
given up the matter as a bad business.
I used to be troubled by a strong intuition, but fortunately, I've had
most of it beaten out of me.
Gunnar Kaestle
>>> Did it say what her expertise was? Perhaps a better question is
>>> whether she's theorist or experimentalist.
>>
>> Analysis of the mechanism of breakup reaktions with single bond breaking
>> and calculation of their rate constant based on quantum-chemical and
>> statistical methods
>>
>> Untersuchung des Mechanismus von Zerfallsreaktionen
>> mit einfachem Bindungsbruch und Berechnung
>> ihrer Geschwindigkeitskonstanten auf der
>> Grundlage quantenchemischer und statistischer Methoden
>
> Thank you. I don't know, and don't seem able to guess, what
> the project was. Here's my guess: she took H-O and various
> other compounds that had two elements connected with one bond
> and meausured the energy required to sever each bond?
There is a "book review" of her thesis in the German weekly Newspaper
"Zeit" (http://www.zeit.de/2005/29/B-Merkel). Maybe you have someone
available, who can translate the main passages.
She worked as a theoretical physicist / quantum chemist. To me as a layman
it seems she did some research about the thermal decay of bonds in larger
molecules. The application would be the conversation of hydrocarbons in the
absence of oxygen (thermolysis, pyrolysis).
Best,
Gunnar
--
Do you want to be an evangelist?
See http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism and report all
dismozillarious behaviour at the Tech Evangelism category on Bugzilla.
Jeff…Relf
As far as I can tell, he's just a tame atheist, not a " Heil Zion " fanatic.
The U.S. and its partners ( e.g. the IMF ) are
effectively in charge of the Middle East.
Isreal and Saudi Arabia are under their thumb, controlling the region.
The U.S. and it's partners won WWII,
gaining control of the oil in the " Holy Land ".
They collect rent in the form of oil ( which they lust for like junkies ).
They lay down the law and evict ( or kill ) whomever they please.
MathFreak NoMore
> MathFreak NoMore skrev:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2006 09:06:56 -0700, tadchem wrote:
>>
>>> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
>>> competence.
>>
>> This "leadership" goal is for a politician in USA.
>> Someone whose only use is in getting some asked-for
>> thing done, be it jingobatic or not, tribal or not. A
>> politician in other countries is more than a leader. In
>> what you do "more" than leadership you can find good
>> use for a physics background.
>
> Do you think, that Germany is going for 'the bomb'? (Far behing US, UK
> and France)
>
> Hope not, :-)
>
> PC
Oh Germans've got better things to do, you know, like
living. They've got that luxury. And they've been ahead
of Americans in that. A lot of valuable things
appearing in USA to enhance quality of life were direct
imitation of what Germans had and did first. Say, nice
physics books :) Nice microbiology or chemistry books.
Very comprehensive and elaborately done. Quite
expensive but available, and more than anything that an
individual could ask for in learning those stuff. In
USA this type of books did not exist outside the
confines of corporations a decade or two back. But
Germans had them already by 1960. For everyone! This
may look like one little example but it says and points
to much more. Germans know how to live with each other.
So do the French. Americans proper, on the other hand,
still have that frontiersmen culture in them. They
can't rest or live no matter how "successful". Is Bill
Gates living? Did he really live the years from 1974 to
now? I think he's been on adrenaline rush since. That's
not a German way of living :)
--
"maranjAn delamrA ke in morghe vahshi
ze bAmi ke barkhAst moshkel neshinad"
Edward Green
I'm ready to vote for her for president: what a brilliant coup for the
Republicans -- the first woman and first black president, rolled into
one. Of course, the tolerant liberals will claim that she is not a real
woman or black -- because she is a Republican. All the more reason to
vote for her, just to piss them off.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
jmfb...@aol.com
And they'll spend the next 20 years trying to figure out why or
how voters cheated.
We are having a governor primary with three Democrats running.
One (I am assuming he's black) has stated that Mass. isn't ready
to vote for a black governor and his ratings improved. This is
similar to the kid asking leniency, in the sentencing phase
for murdering his parents, because he's an orphan.
The same thing happened with this Caty Curic mass media frenzy.
They turned her into the token broad.
/BAH
hanson
"MathFreak NoMore" <MathFre...@FakeAddress.com>
came the news:zoxhah4cc3an$.1ctq79f0cajbm$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
tadchem wrote:
>>>> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to
>>>> leadership competence.
>>>
>>> This "leadership" goal is for a politician in USA.
>>> Someone whose only use is in getting some asked-for
>>> thing done, be it jingobatic or not, tribal or not. A
>>> politician in other countries is more than a leader. In
>>> what you do "more" than leadership you can find good
>>> use for a physics background.
>>
ahahaha... When you compare the "leadership goal
for a politician" on the **same inter-cultural level***
you won't see any appreciable difference. It's the
same for the politician in the USA, as it is for the ones
in the EU... and.... ahahaha.... in the Arab league.
Don't be so sanctimonious. Mehram, ahahaha...
>
Peter Christensen wrote
>> Do you think, that Germany is going for 'the bomb'?
>> (Far behing US, UK and France) Hope not, :-)
>>
> Oh Germans've got better things to do, you know, like
> living. They've got that luxury. And they've been ahead
> of Americans in that. A lot of valuable things appearing
> in USA to enhance quality of life were direct
> imitation of what Germans had and did first.
>
Mehram you repeat the mistake that so many other critics
make, here comparing the USA with Germany. You compare
here an elephant with a cow. Germany with its 137,826 sqm.
is half the size of Texas (7% of US) which sports 268,581 sqm.
If you look a bit deeper then you'd see that there was & is the
same luxury and the same valuable things at the same time in
an equal size portion of the USA as there is/was in Germany.
Your faux pas may appear to you because there was/is always
far more inter/exchanges between the US and Germany then
is/was with your knack of the back woods.... ahahahaha...
Whenever I hear you rail against the US it becomes apparent
that when you visited the US you must have had some unhappy
encounters with some of our back wood folks... ahahaha... But,
why do you whine about that when you sneer about us and ours
in exactly the same ways as they did upon you?... . AHAHAHA....
>
MathFreak NoMore skrev:
> Say, nice physics books :) Nice microbiology or chemistry
> books. Very comprehensive and elaborately done. Quite
> expensive but available, and more than anything that an
> individual could ask for in learning those stuff. In
> USA this type of books did not exist outside the
> confines of corporations a decade or two back. But
> Germans had them already by 1960. For everyone! This
> may look like one little example but it says and points
> to much more.
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHA... ahahaha...now that is a truly profound
indicator of "luxury and quality of life"... but hey, whatever
floats you boat, Mehram... ahahahaha...
>
MathFreak NoMore skrev:
> Germans know how to live with each other.
> So do the French. Americans proper, on the other hand,
> still have that frontiersmen culture in them. They
> can't rest or live no matter how "successful". Is Bill
> Gates living? Did he really live the years from 1974 to
> now? I think he's been on adrenaline rush since. That's
> not a German way of living :)
>
[hanson]
Again, Mehram, you make the same parochial and
pedestrian, invalid comparison. From Sea to shining Sea
the US stretches in comparison to a Eurasian dimension
from Ireland to Iraq and from Spain to Norway and from
France to the Russian Urals. So how do *they* live together?
Pose yourself the proper question and ask:... "where did/do
these different ethic groups live in better harmony amongst
each other, ... in the US or in Europe?"
US had 1 war amongst them, 150 years ago. OTOH how
may times did they kill each other off in Europe over the
last 150 years?... the last one, in the Balkans, just happened
a decade or so ago.... ahahahaha...
There is a rarely mentioned reason why the Amis still do have
that "frontiersmen culture in them": Even today, each and
every immigrant is still a "frontiers(wo)man" on his/her level.
These folks (and there descendents) who come here do
have a tad more adrenaline going then do those nice and
placid folks who stayed behind in the old countries.
"We are Iranians, Germans &... etc, etc..." ... AHAHAHA....
Do you get it, Mehram?...
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Monica gave Hillary a chance to breath. Reality is I don't know which
one should give head to my country(Ooops be head) Monica would be the
first Jewish woman president. Still we are talking oral sex When it
comes to fucking my county republicans do it best. Go figure Bert
hanson
<herbertglazier @ webtv.net> pontificated in his message
news:4963-450...@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net...
ahahaha.... ahahahaha.... AHAHA... Herbie Herbie, Herbie,
a lot of people will dispute that unless you start to explain to us
why you praise & adore Israel into high heaven, yet you are NOT
able or willing to give an even simple answer to the question
re: Israel, and instead you do scream more 'Heil Zion', usually
with your nasty and extremely bigoted comments instead of
answering the simple question:
== What good or benefit has come in return to the American
taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that came off the
tables from poor American families?"
== "...the USA, which is paying to Israel 3-7 Billion $$$US tax
money each year for the last 60 years & an equal $ amount
to the muslim ass-venters to placate and pacify them so that
they don't continue to kick Jew ass, does beg the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars
buying the American public, besides continuous terrorism,
mayhem and war where Jews are being connected to or
involved in ?
------- answer that, oye-weh-Bert -----
PS: in one of your recent nasties, instead of you answering
the above, you said: "Why don't you go to Iran and protect
bin Larden." ... But Herbie, a much more pertinent comment
by you would have been why it is that that one of the "Ten most
Wanted" on the FBI list happens to be a TERRORIST JEW by
name of Adam Pearlman from Riverside, California, aka.
Timo A. Nieminen
> Clausevitz, who is still one of the greatest authorities on war ever,
> wrote that, for a commander, deciding what course of action to take is
> not especially difficult. What is difficult is to "make it happen" in
> the face of what he called "the inevitable friction", i.e. people
> being lazy, having different agendas, quarreling etc.
Given perfect (or at least, good enough) information, and certainty (or
close to certainty) in outcome of events, decisions are easy.
Clausewitzian friction is not just about the difficulty in making things
happen in terms of people being lazy, having different agendas etc; it
includes the other difficulties: messengers getting lost, your artillery
taking the wrong turn in the dark, discovering that a river isn't fordable
so you need to build a bridge. All of the things that can and will go
wrong and make things take longer than expected. I read an account of a US
training exercise. Not in contact with the enemy, just move from point A
to point B. At night. With a strict time limit, since they had to move to
the other side of a pass before the pass was scheduled to be blocked by a
nuclear demolition charge (for the purposed of the exercise). I think the
50% or so of the force that was still on the wrong side of the pass when
the detonation of the nuclear demolition charge was simulated must have
had some serious thoughts about efficiency.
This kind of friction is widespread (eg, I tell completing PhD students
that the last month takes 3), but has a larger impact in war, when time
matters. The Sun-Tzu/Book of 5 Rings inspired business-people might want
to claim that they suffer from the same thing (do they bother to read
Clausewitz - his/her book is much longer than them?), but the business
world is simply not that competitive - the ideal business deal benefits
both parties, something that can rarely be said about warfare.
My impression (though it's some time since I opened the covers of "On
War") is that Clausewitz was also very aware of the effect of "friction"
on intelligence - you never know enough, and don't have time to know
enough, and must decide on the basis of inadequate information. The
info-lack still brings prospective commanders to stress-induced disaster
in map-room exercises, even when there is nothing at stake except some
careers.
> So, when this
> is so within the rigid and authoritarian structure of the military
> (Clausevitz was writing from his experiences in the Prussian Army, it
> doesn't get much more authoritarian than that), imagine how much more
> complex it is within the framework of an open society.
Why, yes, of course. But often enough, in the framework of an open
society, not as much depends on "getting there firstest with the mostest"
(although a "societal Darwinist" might argue the point, that one must
crush the opposing societies swiftly and ruthlessly, by the time you
mobilise to do that, then you're fighting total war already, and well
within the Clausewitzian realm, and out of open society).
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> wrote that, for a commander, deciding what course of action to take is
>> not especially difficult. What is difficult is to "make it happen" in
>> the face of what he called "the inevitable friction", i.e. people
>> being lazy, having different agendas, quarreling etc.
>
>close to certainty) in outcome of events, decisions are easy.
>Clausewitzian friction is not just about the difficulty in making things
>happen in terms of people being lazy, having different agendas etc; it
>includes the other difficulties: messengers getting lost, your artillery
>taking the wrong turn in the dark, discovering that a river isn't fordable
>so you need to build a bridge. All of the things that can and will go
>wrong and make things take longer than expected.
Yep, yep.
>I read an account of a US
>training exercise. Not in contact with the enemy, just move from point A
>to point B. At night. With a strict time limit, since they had to move to
>the other side of a pass before the pass was scheduled to be blocked by a
>nuclear demolition charge (for the purposed of the exercise). I think the
>50% or so of the force that was still on the wrong side of the pass when
>the detonation of the nuclear demolition charge was simulated must have
>had some serious thoughts about efficiency.
>
Sure. Though I would phrase it as "thoughts about the achievable
effici3ency, as opposed to desireable".
>This kind of friction is widespread (eg, I tell completing PhD students
>that the last month takes 3),
In the best case:-)
but has a larger impact in war, when time
>matters. The Sun-Tzu/Book of 5 Rings inspired business-people might want
>to claim that they suffer from the same thing (do they bother to read
>Clausewitz - his/her book is much longer than them?)
I doubt they do. I encountered lots of people using a quote or two
from Clausewitz, but very, very few that actually did read him.
> but the business
>world is simply not that competitive - the ideal business deal benefits
>both parties, something that can rarely be said about warfare.
>
Yes, an essential difference.
>My impression (though it's some time since I opened the covers of "On
>War") is that Clausewitz was also very aware of the effect of "friction"
>on intelligence - you never know enough, and don't have time to know
>enough, and must decide on the basis of inadequate information. The
>info-lack still brings prospective commanders to stress-induced disaster
>in map-room exercises, even when there is nothing at stake except some
>careers.
Aha. People of little understanding tend to velieve that "you should
just collect all pertaining information, then make a decision", not
understanding that, as a rule, by the time all pertaining information
is available, it is way too late for any decisions. Somewhat
tangentially, a friend of mine, an MD, uses to say that "in medicine,
certainty is only achievable during the autopsy".
>
>> So, when this
>> is so within the rigid and authoritarian structure of the military
>> (Clausevitz was writing from his experiences in the Prussian Army, it
>> doesn't get much more authoritarian than that), imagine how much more
>> complex it is within the framework of an open society.
>
>Why, yes, of course. But often enough, in the framework of an open
>society, not as much depends on "getting there firstest with the mostest"
>(although a "societal Darwinist" might argue the point, that one must
>crush the opposing societies swiftly and ruthlessly, by the time you
>mobilise to do that, then you're fighting total war already, and well
>within the Clausewitzian realm, and out of open society).
>
Yes, good point.
MathFreak NoMore
> from the Menorah lit cell of the irate Iranian, Mehram Maleki aka
> "MathFreak NoMore" <MathFre...@FakeAddress.com>
> came the news:zoxhah4cc3an$.1ctq79f0cajbm$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
> tadchem wrote:
>>>>> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to
>>>>> leadership competence.
>>>>
> MathFreak NoMore skrev:
>>>> This "leadership" goal is for a politician in USA.
>>>> Someone whose only use is in getting some asked-for
>>>> thing done, be it jingobatic or not, tribal or not. A
>>>> politician in other countries is more than a leader. In
>>>> what you do "more" than leadership you can find good
>>>> use for a physics background.
>>>
> [hanson]
> ahahaha... When you compare the "leadership goal
> for a politician" on the **same inter-cultural level***
> you won't see any appreciable difference. It's the
> same for the politician in the USA, as it is for the ones
> in the EU... and.... ahahaha....
No. If you were correct then all CIA needed to do was
to bribe the European politicians against policies that
would/could condone the spread of communism. But CIA
used _businesses_, not the politicians. It distroyed
the top business owners who didn't budge to their
pressure (like that Italian oilman) and heavily bribed
the ones that did. This was enough because the
politicians of Europe are different from politicians of
USA. In Europe a politician works for _all_ the major
businesses, not the one who pays more.
Hassan, you've been in Europe. Dickheadedness is an
integral part of any American. That's how you missed
the right picture.
> in the Arab league.
> Don't be so sanctimonious. Mehram, ahahaha...
>>
> Peter Christensen wrote
>>> Do you think, that Germany is going for 'the bomb'?
>>> (Far behing US, UK and France) Hope not, :-)
>>>
> MathFreak NoMore skrev:
>> Oh Germans've got better things to do, you know, like
>> living. They've got that luxury. And they've been ahead
>> of Americans in that. A lot of valuable things appearing
>> in USA to enhance quality of life were direct
>> imitation of what Germans had and did first.
>>
> [hanson]
> Mehram you repeat the mistake that so many other critics
> make, here comparing the USA with Germany. You compare
> here an elephant with a cow.
In the adopted norm of living, that is. Sure :)
> Germany with its 137,826 sqm.
> is half the size of Texas (7% of US) which sports 268,581 sqm.
>
What has the size of country got to do with how the
individual lives. I guess for you quality/norm of
"living" is just an extension of a family's total gross
income. I'm not talking about that. The size of
individual humans in both countries are about the same,
if you want to insist on size.
> If you look a bit deeper then you'd see that there was & is the
> same luxury and the same valuable things at the same time in
> an equal size portion of the USA as there is/was in Germany.
Oh I doubt that.
> Your faux pas may appear to you because there was/is always
> far more inter/exchanges between the US and Germany then
> is/was with your knack of the back woods.... ahahahaha...
>
That should not have much to do with the point I made.
> Whenever I hear you rail against the US it becomes apparent
> that when you visited the US you must have had some unhappy
> encounters with some of our back wood folks... ahahaha...
Hehe :) Quite the opposite. I was impressed, rather.
But I met the Americans first time in Texas. Perhaps
that's why. Texans offer the best that Americans have.
One example is the outstanding and adept President that
you're having right now. Imagine what it takes to get
the right things done via totally Zionized bodies of
various Washington functionaries. A whole gigantic
repertoire of Pro-Israeli minds and means. He did a
stunt in Texas as well before that.
> But,
> why do you whine about that when you sneer about us and ours
> in exactly the same ways as they did upon you?... . AHAHAHA....
>>
> MathFreak NoMore skrev:
>> Say, nice physics books :) Nice microbiology or chemistry
>> books. Very comprehensive and elaborately done. Quite
>> expensive but available, and more than anything that an
>> individual could ask for in learning those stuff. In
>> USA this type of books did not exist outside the
>> confines of corporations a decade or two back. But
>> Germans had them already by 1960. For everyone! This
>> may look like one little example but it says and points
>> to much more.
>>
> [hanson]
> ahahaha... AHAHA... ahahaha...now that is a truly profound
> indicator of "luxury and quality of life"... but hey, whatever
> floats you boat, Mehram... ahahahaha...
>>
I knew that example wouldn't get my point across to
you. But I was saying it to someone else.
> MathFreak NoMore skrev:
>> Germans know how to live with each other.
>> So do the French. Americans proper, on the other hand,
>> still have that frontiersmen culture in them. They
>> can't rest or live no matter how "successful". Is Bill
>> Gates living? Did he really live the years from 1974 to
>> now? I think he's been on adrenaline rush since. That's
>> not a German way of living :)
>>
> [hanson]
> Again, Mehram, you make the same parochial and
> pedestrian, invalid comparison.
It is actually a delicate point Hassan's Son.
> From Sea to shining Sea
> the US stretches in comparison to a Eurasian dimension
> from Ireland to Iraq and from Spain to Norway and from
> France to the Russian Urals. So how do *they* live together?
>
> Pose yourself the proper question and ask:... "where did/do
> these different ethic groups live in better harmony amongst
> each other, ... in the US or in Europe?"
Don't change the subject. Americans may not have war
between themselves (Yeah, right) but they don't know,
each, how other people around the world live.
I bet you won't understand it but the closest that an
American faction has gotten to actually live in USA is
your minimum-wage Hispanic Wetback faction. I also
observed some newly arrived Africans who also had that
understanding. The rest of you are running around like
lunatics and thinking that's enjoying the heck out of
life!
How can one live in retrospect? This is the bottom
line.
Gray-haired Bozos, having just bought their first
"sports car" are all over USA. What a sad scene.
I said it once here that an Indian who's defecating at
the side of a street in Bombay lives better than you,
"lives" more! More of his time is his.
> US had 1 war amongst them, 150 years ago. OTOH how
> may times did they kill each other off in Europe over the
> last 150 years?... the last one, in the Balkans, just happened
> a decade or so ago.... ahahahaha...
>
Germans lived better than Americans even during the
war! Hehe :) Your utter confusion about my point is
amusing. "Bombs" don't change the norm one has for
life. One just continues living in between them.
> There is a rarely mentioned reason why the Amis still do have
> that "frontiersmen culture in them": Even today, each and
> every immigrant is still a "frontiers(wo)man" on his/her level.
> These folks (and there descendents) who come here do
> have a tad more adrenaline going then do those nice and
> placid folks who stayed behind in the old countries.
> "We are Iranians, Germans &... etc, etc..." ... AHAHAHA....
> Do you get it, Mehram?...
> ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Yes I get it. And I agree. But not each and every one
of them. The Wetbacks, while still carrying their
features before adopting the Americans' fever are not
like that. They know how to live even with the little
that USA offers to them. While, you don't.
--
"yeki be na'l mizad yeki be mikh."
hanson
from the irate brain of the dimly lit Iranian, Mehram Maleki aka
"MathFreak NoMore" <MathFre...@FakeAddress.com>
came the news news:1qvxvcantdp5y$.x6y3a3l5t6s9.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:17:06 GMT, hanson wrote:
from the Menorah lit cell of the irate Iranian, Mehram Maleki aka
"MathFreak NoMore" <MathFre...@FakeAddress.com>
came the news:zoxhah4cc3an$.1ctq79f0cajbm$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>
tadchem wrote:
>>>>>> Technical competence does not necessarily translate to
>>>>>> leadership competence.
>>>>>
MathFreak NoMore skrev:
>>>>> This "leadership" goal is for a politician in USA.
>>>>> Someone whose only use is in getting some asked-for
>>>>> thing done, be it jingobatic or not, tribal or not. A
>>>>> politician in other countries is more than a leader. In
>>>>> what you do "more" than leadership you can find good
>>>>> use for a physics background.
>>>>
[hanson]
>> ahahaha... When you compare the "leadership goal
>> for a politician" on the **same inter-cultural level***
>> you won't see any appreciable difference. It's the
>> same for the politician in the USA, as it is for the ones
>> Don't be so sanctimonious. Mehram, ahahaha...
>
> No. If you were correct then all CIA needed to do was
> to bribe the European politicians against policies that
> would/could condone the spread of communism. But CIA
> used _businesses_, not the politicians. It distroyed
> the top business owners who didn't budge to their
> pressure (like that Italian oilman) and heavily bribed
> the ones that did. This was enough because the
> politicians of Europe are different from politicians of
> USA. In Europe a politician works for _all_ the major
> businesses, not the one who pays more.
>
ahahaha... Mehram, you are getting fanatical again with
upwellings of uncontrollable hatred. I understand why. You
have right to be upset because the CIA, in form of a 2 man
operation with/where Allen Dulles and Kermit Roosevelt, came
to your Iran with a sack full of $bills and distributed the dough
amongst the Iranian crowd who took to the streets & consequently
got rid of the Commie Mossadeq and installed the Palevis, who
installed the Savaq, a secret police apparatus, run exclusively by
local Iranians and the mess, that still so irks you today, was born...
That seem to be the root of your unhappiness which you
express in almost every post and you do it in a form just
like the Jews do with their holocaust industry promotions.
Mehram, you said below: "How can one live in retrospect?"
I don't. But that is exactly what you do.... ahahahaha.....
>
[Mehram]
> Hassan, you've been in Europe. Dickheadedness is an
> integral part of any American. That's how you missed
> the right picture.
>
ahahaha... but Mehram, that is like saying every Iranian
is dimly lit and incandescently irate like you are.... ahahaha....
>>>
Peter Christensen wrote
>>>> Do you think, that Germany is going for 'the bomb'?
>>>> (Far behing US, UK and France) Hope not, :-)
>>>>
>> MathFreak NoMore skrev:
>>> Oh Germans've got better things to do, you know, like
>>> living. They've got that luxury. And they've been ahead
>>> of Americans in that. A lot of valuable things appearing
>>> in USA to enhance quality of life were direct
>>> imitation of what Germans had and did first.
>>>
[hanson]
>> Mehram you repeat the mistake that so many other critics
>> make, here comparing the USA with Germany. You compare
>> here an elephant with a cow.
>
> In the adopted norm of living, that is. Sure :)
>
>> Germany with its 137,826 sqm.
>> is half the size of Texas (7% of US) which sports 268,581 sqm.
>>
> What has the size of country got to do with how the
> individual lives. I guess for you quality/norm of
> "living" is just an extension of a family's total gross
> income. I'm not talking about that. The size of
> individual humans in both countries are about the same,
> if you want to insist on size.
>
M., you are getting fanatical again:... of course, it is a family's
total gross income which determines " that luxury... and a lot
of valuable things appearing in USA to enhance quality of life"
unless you can show me that venting my ass 5 times a day,
direction Mecca, will "enhance quality of life and bring luxury"
>
[hanson]
>> If you look a bit deeper then you'd see that there was & is the
>> same luxury and the same valuable things at the same time in
>> an equal size portion of the USA as there is/was in Germany.
>
> Oh I doubt that.
>
[hanson]
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. suit yourself. Here's one for you:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ae0a352d13310d18
wherein it says: "Oh, NO sir!.. we are not allowed to do that. We
need to call the specialist to fix the problem"... ahahaha....
>
[hanson]
>> Your faux pas may appear to you because there was/is always
>> far more inter/exchanges between the US and Germany then
>> is/was with your knack of the back woods.... ahahahaha...
>>
> That should not have much to do with the point I made.
>
>> Whenever I hear you rail against the US it becomes apparent
>> that when you visited the US you must have had some unhappy
>> encounters with some of our back wood folks... ahahaha...
>
> Hehe :) Quite the opposite. I was impressed, rather.
> But I met the Americans first time in Texas. Perhaps
> that's why. Texans offer the best that Americans have.
> One example is the outstanding and adept President that
> you're having right now. Imagine what it takes to get
> the right things done via totally Zionized bodies of
> various Washington functionaries. A whole gigantic
> repertoire of Pro-Israeli minds and means. He did a
> stunt in Texas as well before that.
>
... ahahaha... of course, you have anxieties because of Bush
who got goaded into the Iraq war by the Neo-com Jews
(Wolfowitz et al) and of course Texans do exhibit their local
patriotism thinking & believing that they are the best...NOT
any different at all than YOU do about your Iran... ahahaha....
So, Mehram, you Iranians may finally correct the situation and
build your own nuke so that you can create a MAD situation in
the Middle East... People here may then finally wake up
and ask: == What good or benefit has come in return to the
American taxpayers from Israel for all that tax money that
>
[hanson]
>> But, why do you whine about that when you sneer
>> about us and ours in exactly the same ways as they
>> did upon you?... . AHAHAHA....
>>>
" .... ... "
>
[hanson]
ahahahaha.... ahahahaha.... Cat got your tonge, Mehram?
ahahahaha.... [ I inserted that empty line above for illustration]
>
>> MathFreak NoMore skrev:
>>> Say, nice physics books :) Nice microbiology or chemistry
>>> books. Very comprehensive and elaborately done. Quite
>>> expensive but available, and more than anything that an
>>> individual could ask for in learning those stuff. In
>>> USA this type of books did not exist outside the
>>> confines of corporations a decade or two back. But
>>> Germans had them already by 1960. For everyone! This
>>> may look like one little example but it says and points
>>> to much more.
>>>
>> [hanson]
>> ahahaha... AHAHA... ahahaha...now that is a truly profound
>> indicator of "luxury and quality of life"... but hey, whatever
>> floats you boat, Mehram... ahahahaha...
>>>
> I knew that example wouldn't get my point across to
> you. But I was saying it to someone else.
>
.... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... yeah, right!, Mehram... ahaha...
>
MathFreak NoMore skrev:
>>> Germans know how to live with each other.
>>> So do the French. Americans proper, on the other hand,
>>> still have that frontiersmen culture in them. They
>>> can't rest or live no matter how "successful". Is Bill
>>> Gates living? Did he really live the years from 1974 to
>>> now? I think he's been on adrenaline rush since. That's
>>> not a German way of living :)
>>>
[hanson]
>> Again, Mehram, you make the same parochial and
>> pedestrian, invalid comparison.
>
> It is actually a delicate point Hassan's Son.
>
.... ahahahaha... Mehram, you are getting fanatical again
and your obsession with Hassan, your idol, has taken
control of you now... as usual... ahahahaha.....
>
[hanson]
>> From Sea to shining Sea
>> the US stretches in comparison to a Eurasian dimension
>> from Ireland to Iraq and from Spain to Norway and from
>> France to the Russian Urals. So how do *they* live together?
>>
>> Pose yourself the proper question and ask:... "where did/do
>> these different ethic groups live in better harmony amongst
>> each other, ... in the US or in Europe?"
>
> Don't change the subject. Americans may not have war
> between themselves (Yeah, right) but they don't know,
> each, how other people around the world live.
>
ahahaha... Mehram, I will bring it to you gently. There is no
other contry in the entire world whose people are traveling
more to see other couintries then us Gringos... starting with
vacationors, tourists, peace core, military etc... and there
is a reason for that.... To see & leanr one's ancesrtal country!
>
[Mehram]
> I bet you won't understand it but the closest that an
> American faction has gotten to actually live in USA is
> your minimum-wage Hispanic Wetback faction. I also
> observed some newly arrived Africans who also had that
> understanding. The rest of you are running around like
> lunatics and thinking that's enjoying the heck out of
> life!
>
... ahahaha... no, I don't understand what you are saying by
with your stupid and bigoted remarks. Why are you spewing
here against my African and Latino friends?
>
[Mehram]
> How can one live in retrospect? This is the bottom
> line.
> Gray-haired Bozos, having just bought their first
> "sports car" are all over USA. What a sad scene.
>
ahah... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... What appears though more
is that YOU are sad because you cannot afford any such a
"sports car"... ahahaha... Go oil your bicycle now... ahaha...
>
[Mehram]
> I said it once here that an Indian who's defecating at
> the side of a street in Bombay lives better than you,
> "lives" more! More of his time is his.
>
AHAHAHA...Hey Mehram, go join'em! Do as they do,
if that is bringing a better life for you.... ahahaha...
>
[hanson]
>> US had 1 war amongst them, 150 years ago. OTOH how
>> may times did they kill each other off in Europe over the
>> last 150 years?... the last one, in the Balkans, just happened
>> a decade or so ago.... ahahahaha...
>>
> Germans lived better than Americans even during the
> war! Hehe :) Your utter confusion about my point is
> amusing. "Bombs" don't change the norm one has for
> life. One just continues living in between them.
>
>> There is a rarely mentioned reason why the Amis still do have
>> that "frontiersmen culture in them": Even today, each and
>> every immigrant is still a "frontiers(wo)man" on his/her level.
>> These folks (and there descendents) who come here do
>> have a tad more adrenaline going then do those nice and
>> placid folks who stayed behind in the old countries.
>> "We are Iranians, Germans &... etc, etc..." ... AHAHAHA....
>> Do you get it, Mehram?...
>> ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> Yes I get it. And I agree. But not each and every one
> of them. The Wetbacks, while still carrying their
> features before adopting the Americans' fever are not
> like that. They know how to live even with the little
> that USA offers to them. While, you don't.
>
AHAHAHA... and ...that is why they leave their "rich" & precious
ancestral land? ...and come here, uninvited, risking their lives, by
the millions every year, after year to "live even with the little
that USA offers to them"?... ahahaha... Mexicans are not stupid.
Mehram, all of these Mexican would call you "El Moron" for having
such an impression about them... Now, Mehram, take some
Aspirin to get your own fever down OTOH, no! Use your local remedy.
Aspirin is a Western invention.
Thanks for the laughs, Mehram
ahahahaha.... ahahahanson