Subject | Re: As with our trolls, the problem wasn't the Mac Pro itself... It's the problem with the morons wh |
From | -hh |
Date | 02/19/2014 17:53 (02/19/2014 08:53) |
Message-ID | <5e888196-836e-480d-bc84-1ceb86404b01@googlegroups.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
Follows | ed |
Followups | ed (10m) > -hh |
edSure, but the criteria for where to cut off all of the relevant prequisites isn't so simplistically hard and fast. If it was, we would not only have to list all of those, but also Algebra I from way back in 8th Grade. What I chose as topically reasonable was just the generally relevant portions of the generic 'Engineering Track' to illustrate what Nicky's background is invariably deficient in...contextually, there was no reason to also list stuff like Solar Engineering Design, Control Systems, EE, etc, etc, let alone Graduate studies or real world applied applications that are still NDA'ed.
-hh wrote:-hhed
You're trying to infer that one can determine fatigue life suitability by only knowing the material, and nothing about the actual forces acting upon the design elements.
Want to think that one through again, ed?
dude. a undergrad dynamics class solves problems like: http://web.njit.edu/~milano/dyn-examples/Hc13-22.pdf http://web.njit.edu/~milano/dyn-examples/Hc14-7.pdf http://web.njit.edu/~milano/dyn-examples/Hc16-2&3.pdf http://web.njit.edu/~milano/dyn-hw/hib22-4vibr.pdf yes, the background is useful, but not vaguely specifically relevant to the question at hand, and certainly not something you would list in a set of classes to show you understand the problem- it'd be like listing a general calculus or physics class.
Because the comment would have been a positive endorsement. "Check".-hhed
Oh right, the usual ed-ism: delete the part of the quote where a primary point of discussion was specifically mentioned by name. Nice going.
i deleted the part i had no issue with / comment on.