On 3 Feb 2005 10:11:03 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

~In article ,
~bigboard wrote:
~Nick Maclaren wrote:
~
~ Whereas I loathe it intensely. It wouldn't matter if so many boneheaded
~ physicists didn't believe it - and extrapolate it to mean that they don't
~ need to learn from other sciences :-(
~
~Aha! A stamp collector.
~
~Sigh. Carroll would have despaired at you, I despair at you, and for
~the same reason. Even accepting Rutherford's definition, I am neither
~a physicist nor a stamp collector. Yet I can (with justification)
~claim to know more about what constitutes a science than most scientists.
~What am I?
~
~[ Actually, I don't claim to be a specialist in that area, but I can
~honestly claim what I did. Unfortunately :-( ]
~
Going by your old .sig and email addy, a computer scientist?

Otherwise known as someone who has to deal with whacky computing
requests from every other discipline. And maybe knows a fair bit about
semiconductors, materials science and logical flow.

Either that or a mathematician (you could argue all physics is just
applied maths, which would have shut Rutherford up).


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!