oops, not LCD, but LED... no LCD affordable at my time. 2015-09-18 9:26 GMT+02:00 Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>:
> this devices does not look like a bomb. > too complex. > To be honest it does not even look like a clock, too complex. > It look like a single board computer of 1980 generation with LCD display. > This is probably what it is with modern controllers. The kid need some > years in electronic engineering school and better tools, before he can make > something small enough to look like a clock. He is at the level I was at > his age. > > if someone with notion of electronics says that it looks like a bomb, I > remove even his bachelor of science immediately. > > bomb is either much simpler, or you see specific devices to protect from > disarming, like captors, fake wires. > moreover you need a load. > > moreover someone who make a fakebomb, and say it is not a bomb have no > intent deceive. > > it is simple incompetence, nothing else to say. > > this is in fact racist mixed with stupidity , incompetence, incapacity to > recognise it's own stupidity and mistakes, and as we see often, initial > stupidity is transmited in the group , kept by general incapaciity to > recognised own errors, and supported by general racism. > > this is great, and memorable story. > digging a little you will probably see it is an example of groupthink. > > probably there was many people able to see it was a clock, but some mind > guards probably was too dominant and frightened the weaker. > > > 2015-09-17 23:24 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]>: > >> Any reasonably cautious person would say this thing looks like a hoax >> bomb: >> http://www.wired.com/2015/09/heres-bomb-clock-got-ahmed-mohamed-arrested/ >> >> >> Making something that LOOKS LIKE A BOMB is a felony. It's akin to >> shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Again, I think the teachers over >> reacted a little, but I think it fell within a not so completely unexpected >> range of reasonable reactions. >> >> The only thing they screwed up on was letting the kid get photographed. >> He's 14. There's no reason this needed to go on the internet and >> permanently harm him. >> >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I will say one thing - the one thing I think everyone completely missed >>> was that there should not have been a picture of the kid in handcuffs and >>> it should have been handled much more discretely. The over reaction can >>> be excused, but it should have been done very very quietly. That can not >>> be pardoned and I wish everyone would focus more on that so future >>> educators wouldn't make the same mistake. >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> lol. I love the outrage! Such drama. However simple reality is no >>>> one, and I mean no one, knows the facts on the ground. Was it an >>>> overreaction? Sure, most likely, but perhaps there is more to this than >>>> meets the eye. Maybe the kid was spouting islamic stuff. >>>> >>>> Remember columbine, people. Think of all the people who blame the >>>> teachers there for not doing anything. >>>> >>>> How about more support for our educators, here, they are caught in a >>>> very very hard spot - between over reacting and under reacting. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think that the value system of the so called scientists and >>>>> journalists that were involved in the P-F discrediting episode is >>>>> inconsistent with what Jed implies they possessed--in other words >>>>> scientist >>>>> and journalist values. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me they had values of capitalists and money grubbers and >>>>> little, if any, scientist and journalist values. Their values were to >>>>> cover up nature's real face and spread false ideas. They were not at >>>>> fault. They were simply acting in their best interests and according to >>>>> their values. Lies and propaganda were appropriate actions based on their >>>>> values. And the acceptance of such values has not decreased in the >>>>> corporate world and independent scientific community, but it has increased >>>>> with time IMHO. >>>>> >>>>> They were vassals of the "science kings" and did not want to kill the >>>>> goose that gave them their golden eggs. >>>>> >>>>> I think this undesirable value system is a political issue that should >>>>> be addressed--the sooner the better for civilization. Gay marriage does >>>>> not hold a candle to the importance of this issue in my mind, yet it seems >>>>> to get more attention in the press and by politicians--what a travesty. >>>>> Again it is consistent with journalist and political values unfortunately. >>>>> >>>>> Bob Cook >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> *From:* Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2015 6:58 AM >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Ahmed Mohamed case and distrust of experts >>>>> >>>>> Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The problem of cold fusion was incompetence of the particle and >>>>>> plasma physicist in calorimetry. >>>>>> >>>>>> These people were in fact not totally incompetent, just not enough to >>>>>> understanf Fleischmann&pon and trust calorimetry, but too much to be >>>>>> modest >>>>>> and not to imagine artifacts from their armchair. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree. >>>>> >>>>> I think there was plenty of blame to go around: it was not only the >>>>> fault of the science journalists or the physicists. However, I think a >>>>> larger share of the blame goes to science journalists and especially the >>>>> editors of Nature magazine. In an academic dispute you will find >>>>> scientists >>>>> lining up on both sides, including incompetent scientists to pontificate >>>>> about things outside their own expertise. A journal such as Nature or >>>>> Scientific American should make an effort to present both sides of the >>>>> dispute. That did not happen with cold fusion. >>>>> >>>>> As Mike Melich says, to this day, the US is letting the editors of >>>>> Nature decide our energy policy. >>>>> >>>>> - Jed >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
