Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (130186)	12/31/2000 10:57:10 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572386

Dear Daniel Schuh: You have a real comprehension problem. Combjelly cited a site that has ICBM RV intercepts. Patriot had intercepts. A Scud missile with holes by Patriot fragments is proof of intercept since it did not blow on impact. The report you cited no intercepts, a flat impossibility. Its ideas about intercept are clearly wrong. Just take the case of a nail bomb. The fireball is small, but the nails fly over 100 meters and can kill thousands of people in a packed stadium (It was the premise of "Black Sunday" based on a true story). A video would show that the targets were more than 10 fireball diameters away, but the people would still die. The report and subsequently the panel makes a lot of assumptions with no proof that they are true. It was wrong and so are you. You state it can't work, and that is what I flatly disagree with. Some liberal left wing flacks and scientists, who can't even write a decent scientific report, can't quote correctly, and even can't put a single confidence range on any result (something that is absolutely required on any scientific report to stand up to scrutiny) just shows their trying to pass unjustified thinking as a true unbiased scientific report. You either were misled or are another left wing liberal who thinks that just because you believe it, it must be true. A typical scientific result has a confidence range like 1.000kg +/- .022@3 sigma. That states a result of one kilogram with an error of 22 grams with a confidence of 3 sigma, or at least 97% confidence in the result and error being true. No result in that report showed any thing like that. Missing those are a common mistake of non scientists and these people should be ashamed and so should you for missing that. Shame on you. Pete