Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
"C. P. Weidling" wrote in message ... "Thomas McDonald" writes: "David James Polewka" wrote in message ... http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una3.html THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS 87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of ...snip... and effort that scientists put into their work. The "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up. David, This fellow is a comedian. How interesting that he feels competent to rule on what is "normal". FWIW, pretty much everyone I know who has a very narrow scientific focus has a range of curiousity and excitement about other areas. Hell, even Gould was a Red Sox fan, and wrote on baseball. Tom McDonald snip more-of-the-same ramblings Gould was a Yankees fan. I remember reading something he wrote wrt to Red Sox hitter Ted Williams. When the Sox played the Yanks, Williams was The Enemy. Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan? Tom McDonald |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
Thomas McDonald wrote:
Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan? Oh Yecchhh! Almost enough to turn me into a Steinbrunner-Marxist. (Actually I don't think that's true. Say it ain't so, Joe, say it ain't so. George Will is my idea of the uber-Yankee. If he should come up to Boston, may everybody pour growlers of bottom-sludge on his head.) Excuse me, Mr. Van Winkle, did I hear somebody say the Dodgers have moved out of town? -dlj. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
Thomas McDonald wrote:
Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan? Oh Yecchhh! Almost enough to turn me into a Steinbrunner-Marxist. (Actually I don't think Will could be a Red Sox fan. With that haircut he's gotta be a Princeton guy. Maybe a Yalie if he ever had a bad hair day. But he's never been within ten miles of the Green Monster. Say it ain't so, Joe, say it ain't so. [That was a bow to David Friedman, as a Chicago lurker in this newsgroup.] George Will is my idea of the uber-Yankee. If he should come up to Boston, may everybody pour growlers of bottom-sludge on his head.) Excuse me, Mr. Van Winkle, did I hear somebody say the Dodgers have moved out of town? -dlj. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
"Thomas McDonald" wrote Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan? Try again :-) George Will was a Cubs fan in his youth. Then he went Beltway and started rooting for the Orioles. I don't know whether that was before or after he changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that we, as a nation, are _under_taxed. -- Tony P. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
"tonyp" writes:
"Thomas McDonald" wrote Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan? Try again :-) George Will was a Cubs fan in his youth. Then he went Beltway and started rooting for the Orioles. I don't know whether that was before or after he changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that we, as a nation, are _under_taxed. -- Tony P. John Updike perhaps? He saw Ted Williams last time at bat and wrote a fairly famous description of the event. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
tonyp wrote:
"Thomas McDonald" wrote Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan? Try again :-) George Will was a Cubs fan in his youth. Gawd, what a f#$%^&*()g relief!! Then he went Beltway and started rooting for the Orioles. Well, maybe the guy isn't that bad after all. The Orioles have their good points... Like, take *that* Hubert Humphrey! I don't know whether that was before or after he changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that we, as a nation, are _under_taxed. Undoubtedly true -- but when did whiney George say that? -dlj. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
tonyp wrote:
"Thomas McDonald" wrote Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan? Try again :-) George Will was a Cubs fan in his youth. Gawd, what a f#$%^&*()g relief!! Then he went Beltway and started rooting for the Orioles. Well, maybe the guy isn't that bad after all. The Orioles have their good points... Like, take *that* Hubert Humphrey! I don't know whether that was before or after he changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that we, as a nation, are _under_taxed. Undoubtedly true -- but when did whiney George say that? -dlj. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
tonyp wrote:
"Thomas McDonald" wrote Oh, crap. Was it George Will who's the Red Sox fan? Try again :-) George Will was a Cubs fan in his youth. Gawd, what a f#$%^&*()g relief!! Then he went Beltway and started rooting for the Orioles. Well, maybe the guy isn't that bad after all. The Orioles have their good points... Like, take *that* Hubert Humphrey! I don't know whether that was before or after he changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that we, as a nation, are _under_taxed. Undoubtedly true -- but when did whiney George say that? -dlj. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message ... tonyp wrote: I don't know whether that was before or after he changed his mind about taxes: he used to argue that we, as a nation, are _under_taxed. Undoubtedly true -- but when did whiney George say that? I figure, 1984: here's the opening paragraph of his column titled America the Undertaxed "Ah, July: the fields are white with daisies. In January, I promised that not "until the fields are white with daisies" would I again mention that we are, as a nation, undertaxed. I now return to that topic because the inescapable need to raise taxes raises this question: can Ronald Reagan really want to be re-elected? If he faces facts --if he reads the numbers in the Wall Street Journal -- he knows that in 1985 the President must hurry to restore the government's revenue base. Reagan cannot be a Reaganite after 1984." How times do change :-) -- Tony P. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:51:47 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote: Go marry a European if you can stand the smell. How many European ladies did you meet? Do you want us to believe that Nth American beauties use more soap, deodorants, etc? Unless your American broad mind is focused on Russia. Belarus and probably Rumania. I have been to most of European countries, and have totally opposite experience. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
Uncle Al wrote in message ...
David James Polewka wrote: [snip] THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS 87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. [snip] http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg The mindless troll has found a compadre. If you don't like technology, ass, don't use it. Sure as Hell don't bother those of us who are the high priests of it. We are busy creating the future you so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? Go marry a European if you can stand the smell. Interesting little piece of research came up the other day. There are two statistically significant links concerning breast cancer : 1) Right handed people tend to get them on the left breast and vice versa. 2) The UK, which uses more underarm deodorant than other European countries ( as in most things, we Brits seem to be mid Atlantic ) has higher breast cancer rates than other european countries. The researchers posit that the aluminium or zirconium oxides in deodorants may be causing the cancers......and the right / left part is becasue a right handed person will naturally aply more doedorant using their right hand....to hte left side of the body. ( Rather like men nearly always have shorter sideburns on the other side of their face from their handedness ). I don't say it's true, probably simply a result of data dredging. Yet interesting nonetheless....smell or surgery ? Tim Worstall http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm Do something naughty to physics. Uncle Al says, "The inevitability of scientific socialism is queued up with controlled thermonuclear fusion, christ's return, and honest government." |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message ... Mark Thorson wrote: Steve Harris wrote: I can't tell you how many times I've had a grant proposal criticized on the grounds that it wasn't being submitted by a recognized expert in the field in which the work was proposed. That's fine, but this actually happened once in a field my lab had invented, and in which there WERE no experts working on the technique but me and a couple of my team members! This would be your work in proactive treatments for chronic, whole-body frostbite? Nah, my work in rapid mild hypothermia induction in mammals by repeated fluorocarbon lung lavage. Three years ago they said it was pretty extreme, since not likely clinically relevant. If you caught the front page of the NY Times yesterday, you'll see that the clinical relevance of cooling people down rapidly after resuscitation has now pretty well penetrated, even to the popular media. This was all obvious to us 3 years ago from 20 years of animal experiments done by a dozen labs, but the reviewers had to read it in the NEJM 16 mo ago. Morons. As noted, we gave all the references; the reviewers were either too lazy to read them, or too stupid to see their implications, or both. We were NOT asking for money to do human research, just more animal research as proof of concept (stuff since done by others who DID get the grant money, in academia). Mostly at the time it was research we'd already done g, but not all of it. Try doing that and having a reviewer tell you that work you already did won't work. It makes you want to commit murder, since you really can't reply in any way which should cause the kind of pubic embarrassment and career damage to the anonymous reviewer that such remarks SHOULD occasion. If a reviewer has the unmitigated egotistical gall to say your experiment won't work, when you know it will because you did it, and you know the reviewer can't be basing his opinion on any of his own work or expertise because he doesn't DO that kind of work, because it was invented by you and *nobody* else is doing it, THEN you have the right to be pretty damned angry. But who are you going to complain to? The NIH is only going to yawn and tell you to take a number and stand in line. SBH |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
Uncle Al wrote:
The mindless troll has found a compadre. If you don't like technology, ass, don't use it. Sure as Hell don't bother those of us who are the high priests of it. We are busy creating the future you so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? well, I think the Unibomber has a point. I mean if you're going to do that, then wouldn't your time be better spent trying to solve the seemingly intractible problem of creating a backless halter dress that is also strapless (and also with a hem 12" above the knees)? As is well-known, Einstein has already carried out significant preliminary research on the issue of spatial dependence of the stress tensor along the periphery of a strapless dress. So, there's good work to build upon here. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
Alfred Einstead wrote:
Uncle Al wrote: The mindless troll has found a compadre. If you don't like technology, ass, don't use it. Sure as Hell don't bother those of us who are the high priests of it. We are busy creating the future you so abhor - including smoother, softer, silkier, drier armpits for our ladies. You got a problem with that, bub? well, I think the Unibomber has a point. I mean if you're going to do that, then wouldn't your time be better spent trying to solve the seemingly intractible problem of creating a backless halter dress that is also strapless (and also with a hem 12" above the knees)? As is well-known, Einstein has already carried out significant preliminary research on the issue of spatial dependence of the stress tensor along the periphery of a strapless dress. So, there's good work to build upon here. A good engineer first identifies the real problem. A chemist would use adhesive rather than equilibrium structural support. Given the wonders of the marketplace (and ending up shopping for cosmetics with my woman), I have empirical proof that one can purchase both adhesive nipple outline obliterators and artifical high beams. We have come so far from the pastie. Implantable Fe-Nd-B magnets also suggest themselves. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Unabomber Manifesto -- an excerpt
in article ,
steve harris wrote: |"C. P. Weidling" wrote in message ... | |Members of a lay audience always ask the big questions, the important |questions, and that helps us to remember that our piecemeal efforts |are only worthwhile insofar as they're steps towards answering those |big questions. | | |Actually, in my own field (biomedical research) you don't |need to rely on lay people to ask the big questions. The MDs |in the audience will do it, because they're always thinking |about how whatever it is you're doing can be usefully |applied to some real and pressing clinical problem. md's _are_ laypeople. -- [e-mail address ] |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
excerpt from NNFP news | alt.forestry |