I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Dr. Egnor, reverse engineering, and Wikipedia reform

.
(additions as noted were made to this post on 04-23-07)

In an article in Evolution News & Views, Dr. Michael Egnor wrote,

On April 4th, the Wikipedia reference to biological reverse engineering was airbrushed out. It was changed to:

Reverse engineering … is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device or object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, an electronic component, a software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original. The verb form is to reverse engineer.

This was airbrushed:
Reverse engineering is essentially science, using the scientific method. Sciences such as biology and physics can be seen as reverse engineering of biological 'machines' and the physical world respectively.

The biological reverse engineering analogy was part of the original definition, and had been present until the day that I linked to it in my post. Someone (perhaps a Darwinist?) went to work with an eraser.

The history of the redactions shows that "DrLeeBot" deleted the phrase applying reverse engineering to the scientific method. He wrote, "Removed reference to scientific method; the analog [sic] is too abstract to be worth mentioning."

I feel that the airbrushed statement above is only partly right. Reverse engineering can of course use engineering methods as well as scientific methods, so it is wrong to say, "Reverse engineering is essentially science, using the scientific method." And in a broader sense, reverse engineering sometimes uses neither scientific methods nor engineering methods but just produces a copy of the original. Also, I feel that the purpose of reverse engineering is to recreate or reproduce some object or function, and this is not the purpose of a lot of biology and physics, so I think it is wrong to make the broad statement, "sciences such as biology and physics can be seen as reverse engineering of biological 'machines' and the physical world respectively." However, Egnor apparently did not compose the airbrushed Wikipedia statement, and a clarification of his views are here, where he cited this airbrushed statement in an article that he posted on April 3. For example, he said that "much" -- not all -- of modern biological research is reverse engineering: "Much of modern biological research, and most research in molecular biology, is reverse engineering." As Egnor said, the airbrushed Wikipedia statement was airbrushed on April 4, only one day after he cited it! Those usurpers who tyrannize Wikipedia did not waste much time!

Though the term "reverse engineering" usually refers to reverse engineering of man-made things, the process is essentially the same for "reverse engineering" of things in nature. If two processes are essentially the same, why not use the same term for both of them? If "reverse engineering" of things in nature is not going to be called "reverse engineering," then what should it be called? Words are not always used literally or in their original senses -- for example, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory once had a "Station for Experimental Evolution" (it merged with the Eugenics Record Office to form the Carnegie Institution's Dept. of Genetics ). The term "experimental evolution" appears to be oxymoronic -- maybe a more appropriate term would be "experimental breeding." Well, maybe "experimental evolution" could mean a simulation of evolution in a hypothetical situation. Anyway, here the term "evolution" is used in a broad, figurative, high-falutin, or even jocular sense, just like using the term "engineering" in "reverse engineering" of things in nature.

One of the best examples of reverse engineering is the airplane. IMO without the example of the birds, we might never have realized that sustained heavier-than-air human flight is possible. Insects and bats fly but do so only by rapid flapping of wings, a poor model for aircraft -- the root of the word "aviation" means "bird," not "insect." In fact, it is commonly believed that theoretically a bumblebee cannot fly. There are also "flying" (actually gliding) mammals and fish, but these are also natural examples of "flying." Birds directly inspired the "flying wing" designs of Jack Northrop, who thought that flying wings were closer copies of birds -- particularly soaring birds -- than were conventional aircraft; however, all modern airliners basically have the same layout as the DC-3 of the 1930's. Most examples today of flying wings are stealth aircraft (the flying wing design helps make the aircraft stealthy), but stealth is a disadvantage in commercial and private aircraft (just ask any air traffic controller). Of course, finagling Darwinists could argue that the airplane is not really an example of "reverse engineering" because birds know nothing about aeronautical engineering.

"Reverse engineering" is also extensively used in "bio-engineering" and "biomedical engineering." Cybernetics is also reverse engineering -- the Wikipedia article on cybernetics says, "cybernetics is the study of feedback and derived concepts such as communication and control in living organisms, machines and organisations."

And what about "genetic engineering"? This involves reverse engineering and it is even called engineering. The term reverse engineering should be applied to any analysis of an existing thing for the purpose of modifying it. (this paragraph added on 04-23-07)

Sometimes "reverse engineering" is not really engineering at all, but just production of a knock-off of the original design. For example, Wikipedia itself says,
As computer-aided design has become more popular, reverse engineering has become a viable method to create a 3D virtual model of an existing physical part for use in 3D CAD, CAM, CAE and other software. The reverse engineering process involves measuring an object and then reconstructing it as a 3D model.

If it is OK to apply the term "reverse engineering" to copying something without analyzing it at all, then why is it not OK to apply the term to an engineering or scientific analysis of something in nature as opposed to something that is man-made? (this sentence added 04-23-07)

Also, as quoted above, Wikipedia also says of reverse engineering,

It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, an electronic component, a software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original. (emphasis added)

IMO, the above bolded statement is an overly restrictive generalization. As the quotation preceding the above quotation says, reverse engineering often involves nothing but copying. IMO, reverse engineering should be a broad term and any attempt to restrict the term's meaning is arbitrary.

Of course, knock-offs were produced long before we had computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM -- also called "computer-aided machining").

Many references on the web define reverse engineering as just involving computer hardware and software, but this definition is of course much too narrow. BTW, in reverse engineering of software, the terms "black box," "white box," and "gray box" are used:

White-box analysis

White-box analysis consists of analyzing and understanding the program code, without running the program. Static analyzers are used by taking the program file(s) as input and outputting not only the potential program but also statistical data on some of the characteristics of code.

Black-box analysis

Black-box analysis consists of probing the external behavior of a program with inputs. Black-box analysis helps in identifying areas of white-box analysis exploration. Black-box analysis is usually done first.

Gray-box analysis

Gray-box analysis consists of using black-box analysis in conjunction with white-box analysis. For instance, nested code segments can be treated in a black-box fashion and then upon diving further into the code segment white-box analysis can be conducted.

IMO these terms "white box," "black box," and "gray box" could be applied to reverse engineering generally. "White box" reverse engineering could be considered to consist of examination of the original in detail and "black box" reverse engineering could mean just reproducing the function of the original. A good example of "black box" reverse engineering was the Soviet spacecraft "Buran", a reproduction of the USA's Space Shuttle. The Buran orbiter vehicle looks like a dead ringer for the Space Shuttle but the Soviets did not have access to the Space Shuttle itself or Space Shuttle drawings and specifications. Again, I think that the term "reverse engineering" should be used very broadly.

Anyway, the usurpers who tyrannize Wikipedia insist on allowing only entries that they approve and barring entries that they disapprove, often using Orwellian reasoning. For example, they refused to add the book "Of Pandas and People" to the Wikipedia list of banned books, essentially claiming that Judge Jones did not really ban the book but merely "removed" it from the curriculum.

Wikipedia could often handle disputes simply by adding the disputed entry along with a note that the entry is disputed and links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. This method of handling disputes is nowhere suggested in the Wikipedia rules. I suggested this method for handling the dispute over the Pandas book, but to no avail. To the Wikipedia usurpers, "it's my way or the highway."

I could make another "edit war" on Wikipedia like the one I made over "Of People and Pandas," but these edit wars are futile because the Wikipedia usurpers are arbitrary and unyielding. The only solution for Wikipedia is to throw the bums out.

Wikipedia is squandering the good reputation it once had, e.g., Wikipedia was rated as comparable to the vaunted online Encyclopedia Britannica in accuracy on scientific subjects. However, recently the history department at Middlebury College ruled that students could not use Wikipedia as an authoritative reference.
.

Labels: ,

20 Comments:

Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>>>>It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, an electronic component, a software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original.<<<<<<

>>>IMO, the above bolded statement is an overly restrictive generalization. As the quotation preceding the above quotation says, reverse engineering often involves nothing but copying. IMO, reverse engineering should be a broad term and any attempt to restrict the term's meaning is arbitrary.<<<

IMO, the above bolded statement is an overly restrictive generalization. As the quotation preceding the above quotation says, reverse engineering often involves no copying. IMO, reverse engineering should be a broad term and any attempt to restrict the term's meaning is arbitrary.

Monday, April 23, 2007 7:14:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>>> As the quotation preceding the above quotation says, reverse engineering often involves no copying. <<<<<<

Kevin Vicklund, the unscrupulous cyberbully who takes advantage of my no-censorship policy while he goes around to other blogs urging bloggers to arbitrarily censor comments posted by me and other commenters, posts a comment here again.

What are you saying here? By definition, reverse engineering always involves some copying. My point was that in a very broad sense, reverse engineering does not necessarily involve an engineering or scientific analysis of what is copied. Even Wikipedia agrees with that.

Monday, April 23, 2007 8:45:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Larry, being banned from a site means that you are not allowed to post at a site. I have never urged bloggers to ban you - I have only pointed out that you were already banned there and that your comments were thus subject to non-arbitrary removal (which basically serves as a warning to other commenters that replying to you is likely to result in "orphaned" responses). And your style is so unique that it only takes a couple of posts for you to reveal that you're posting under a pseudonym or anonymously. And let the record show that I spent a month trying to prevent you from getting yourself banned at Panda's Thumb.

As for what I was saying, I was pointing out how once again you objected to something being stated in conditionals as if it were being stated in absolutes. Often is not the same as always, and usually is not the same as only. Giving anecdotal opposites of conditionals does not disprove the conditional statement. For example, I once noted that a number of your posts were prompted by discussions you were losing at other blogs. You attempted to refute this by pointing out posts that were Larry originals. But I never claimed that all or even a majority of your posts were thus prompted, and pointed out a number of posts that were in fact prompted, in part or in whole, by discussions on other blogs. This is a typical tactic on your part, and typical of your inherent dishonesty.

Monday, April 23, 2007 10:38:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

BTW, all engineering is "reverse engineering" according to Larry's argument. This would render "reverse engineering" indistinguishable from the "engineering" and thus a redundant and unnecessary addition to the English language. Certainly, biological research involves reverse engineering, but the conclusions Egnor derives do not follow from that fact. The simple fact that we reverse engineered biological features as the basis for our own designs does not demonstrate that the biological feature was itself designed. ID is supposed to be about design detection, not design implementation.

BTW, "black box" reverse engineering is certainly not restricted to computer engineering. The term finds its origins in electrical engineering, pre-dating computers. Just because a website dedicated to computer engineering only details what reverse engineering is in terms of software engineering, does not mean that the definition of reverse engineering is restricted to software engineering. Nor does such a site need to define reverse engineering out of the scope of software engineering.

Monday, April 23, 2007 11:00:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Hi, Larry, nice to see you log in.

Monday, April 23, 2007 1:03:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>>> Larry, being banned from a site means that you are not allowed to post at a site. I have never urged bloggers to ban you - I have only pointed out that you were already banned there and that your comments were thus subject to non-arbitrary removal (which basically serves as a warning to other commenters that replying to you is likely to result in "orphaned" responses). <<<<<<

Kevin, damn you, whether I or anyone else should or should not post comments on a particular blog is none of your business. And most other commenters don't need or want your so-called "warnings." Get that through your thick skull.

>>>>>> And your style is so unique that it only takes a couple of posts for you to reveal that you're posting under a pseudonym or anonymously. <<<<<<

So what this means is that any dissenting comments from anyone may end up being censored.

>>>>>> As for what I was saying, I was pointing out how once again you objected to something being stated in conditionals as if it were being stated in absolutes. <<<<<<

There was nothing "conditional" about Wikipedia's "reverse engineering" example of just copying an existing object without any engineering or scientific analysis.

>>>>> I once noted that a number of your posts were prompted by discussions you were losing at other blogs. <<<<<

And the reason why I was "losing" those discussions on other blogs, dunghill, was that my comments were being censored.

>>>>> You attempted to refute this by pointing out posts that were Larry originals. <<<<<<

I never said any such thing.

>>>>> This is a typical tactic on your part, and typical of your inherent dishonesty. <<<<<<

Wrong. You are the one who is being dishonest -- you are putting words in my mouth.

>>>>> all engineering is "reverse engineering" according to Larry's argument. <<<<<<

Wrong -- a lot of engineering work is completely original. There would be nothing to reverse engineer if there were no things that were originally engineered.

>>>>> Certainly, biological research involves reverse engineering, but the conclusions Egnor derives do not follow from that fact. <<<<<<

Egnor's conclusions here are not the only issue or IMO even the primary issue. IMO the primary issue here is that the statement about biological research involving reverse engineering was completely airbrushed out of the Wikipedia article on reverse engineering.

>>>>> ID is supposed to be about design detection, not design implementation. <<<<<<<

A big criticism of ID is the allegation that it has produced no practical technological implementations (BTW, no practical technological implementations are based on macroevolution), and now you are saying that practical technological implementations are irrelevant.

>>>>> BTW, "black box" reverse engineering is certainly not restricted to computer engineering. <<<<<<

That's what I said. I gave the Soviet "Buran" spacecraft as an example of black-box reverse engineering.

>>>>>> The term finds its origins in electrical engineering, pre-dating computers. <<<<<<

I see no evidence that the term originated in electrical engineering, because reverse engineering is used in other branches of engineering. And reverse engineering was practiced in some other engineering branches before we had electrical things.

>>>>>> Just because a website dedicated to computer engineering only details what reverse engineering is in terms of software engineering, does not mean that the definition of reverse engineering is restricted to software engineering. <<<<<<

I said that, too.

>>>>> Nor does such a site need to define reverse engineering out of the scope of software engineering. <<<<<

I never said that. Sheeesh, Kevin, don't you bother to read my entire posts before commenting on them? Are you just trying to waste my time?

>>>>> Hi, Larry, nice to see you log in. <<<<<<

Now what is the point of that remark? We never exchange instant messages or chat online.

Monday, April 23, 2007 1:27:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Now what is the point of that remark? We never exchange instant messages or chat online.<<<

Just my oblique way of demonstrating that SiteMeter is in fact recording your visits to the site, despite your claims otherwise. You are the aol.com user (IP address 07.200.116.#) that visited starting at 1:00:03 pm. Your first visit was to this post, 31 seconds after visiting the main site.

I gotta run. More later.

By the way, why do you continue to lie about trivial things? And why do you so constantly abuse your comment policy?

Monday, April 23, 2007 1:43:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Just my oblique way of demonstrating that SiteMeter is in fact recording your visits to the site, despite your claims otherwise. You are the aol.com user (IP address 07.200.116.#) that visited starting at 1:00:03 pm. <<<<<<

None of those visitors in the list could possibly be me, because I have my SiteMeter set up to ignore my own visits -- otherwise I would really be messing up my visitor statistics. If you click on the visitor number next to aol.com, you will see that this visitor is located somewhere in Kansas or thereabouts.

>>>>> By the way, why do you continue to lie about trivial things? And why do you so constantly abuse your comment policy? <<<<<<<

I don't lie and I have not been abusing my comment policy, dunghill. And my comment policy is in fact quite lenient.

Monday, April 23, 2007 4:56:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>None of those visitors in the list could possibly be me, because I have my SiteMeter set up to ignore my own visits -- otherwise I would really be messing up my visitor statistics. If you click on the visitor number next to aol.com, you will see that this visitor is located somewhere in Kansas or thereabouts.<<<

If you once had SiteMeter set up to ignore your own visits, it no longer is doing so. You may need to update your cookie with SiteMeter - it may have gotten erased or it may have expired. In any case, you are being inadvertantly tracked by your own blog, which is sending your IP address to a third party, messing up your site statistics. Clicking on the visitor number shows that the visitor is located somewhere in the US, which has a geographical center somewhere in Kansas or thereabouts. However, this visitor happens to be on Pacific time, which is not the case for someone in Kansas. Also, the stats are identical for a number of other hits from the same AOL proxy address, and checking on the out clicks shows that this person was going to the comment page just prior to comments left by one Larry Fafarman. Allowing for time to compose, the timing indicates a high likelihood that you are the one leaving those comments, Larry. Your much self-vaunted statistics are erroneous, Larry, because you're the one who is making a good number of the long, multi-page hits!

Looks like "later" is going to have to be tomorrow or Wednesday - spring cleaning and all that -sneeze-

Monday, April 23, 2007 9:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Kevin, damn you, whether I or anyone else should or should not post comments on a particular blog is none of your business. <

And yet you are constantly telling others no to comment.

>>>>>> And your style is so unique that it only takes a couple of posts for you to reveal that you're posting under a pseudonym or anonymously. <<<<<<

> So what this means is that any dissenting comments from anyone may end up being censored. <

No. It means that comments that are obviously yours may end up being censored.

> And the reason why I was "losing" those discussions on other blogs, dunghill, was that my comments were being censored. <

No. It was your arguments were illogical and baseless as they usually are on this blog.

> you are putting words in my mouth. <

You are often "reinterpreting" the words of others. Always wrongly.

> Sheeesh, Kevin, don't you bother to read my entire posts before commenting on them? <

Pot calling kettle black!

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Speak of the devil! I just noted in the comment section of the next (chronologically) post that Kevin Vicklund and ViW are the only trolls who still bother to post comments here.

ViW wheezes,
>>>>>> Kevin, damn you, whether I or anyone else should or should not post comments on a particular blog is none of your business. <

And yet you are constantly telling others no to comment. <<<<<<

No, I feel that telling trolls that they are not welcome here does not violate my no-censorship policy. Kevin Vicklund on the other hand actively tries to get my comments and the comments of others censored on other blogs.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Kevin Vicklund on the other hand actively tries to get my comments and the comments of others censored on other blogs. <

This and other obvious lies do nothing for your credibility.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:42:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

To recap:

>>>>>> I once noted that a number of your posts were prompted by discussions you were losing at other blogs. <<<<<<

>>>And the reason why I was "losing" those discussions on other blogs, dunghill, was that my comments were being censored.<<<

>>>>>> You attempted to refute this by pointing out posts that were Larry originals. <<<<<<

>>>I never said any such thing.<<<

>>>>>> This is a typical tactic on your part, and typical of your inherent dishonesty. <<<<<<

>>>Wrong. You are the one who is being dishonest -- you are putting words in my mouth. <<<

For those that want to judge for themselves, the link to the discussion in question is here.

The pertinent quote:

>>>>>> Look at the timing of his posts here, and you'll notice that many of them were "inspired" by the merciless beating he is receiving over at TfK. <<<<<<

>>>Wrong. My recent posts "Backlash Against Judges" and "Judge Jones' Lame Excuses" were "inspired" by recent media articles that have nothing to do with the debate on Thoughts from Kansas.<<<

There you go, in black and white (or whatever color scheme this blog is in). I claimed that a number of his posts were inspired by the ass-kicking he was getting on another blog, and he denied it by pointing out two posts that weren't so inspired (I guess it could be argued that they weren't "Larry originals" but that doesn't really help Larry's objection). And he was not being censored at the other blog - in fact, a good proportion (note to Larry - that doesn't mean more than half) of the comments in that thread were made by Larry.

Why do you insist on lying, Larry? And why do you constantly abuse your own comment policy?

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:29:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>>>> As for what I was saying, I was pointing out how once again you objected to something being stated in conditionals as if it were being stated in absolutes. <<<<<<

>>>There was nothing "conditional" about Wikipedia's "reverse engineering" example of just copying an existing object without any engineering or scientific analysis. <<<

Try reading what I write before responding next time. Heck, just try remembering what you wrote! You were objecting to the following phrase:

It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, an electronic component, a software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original.

There are two conditionals in that phrase. "Often" is a conditional. "Usually" is also a conditional. And you yourself reverse engineering "often involves nothing but copying."

But there's a problem with your assertion and objection. The preceeding sentence in the quote you objected to states:

Reverse engineering … is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device or object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation.

The part you cite as basis for your objection includes the following sentence:

The reverse engineering process involves measuring an object and then reconstructing it as a 3D model.

In other words they're analyzing the structure and importing the data into a computer model. What Wkipedia fails to do is inform the reader of what is done with the computer model. The answer: analyze the function and operation in silico, which allows for more in-depth investigations without fear of damaging the original.

The simple fact is, the introduction is perfectly reasonable. Most applications of reverse engineering are to find out the principles by which a product works in order to make a better product or to integrate with the original - neither of which is about simply copying the original except for testing purposes - ie, analysis. Noting the exceptions does not disprove such conditional definitions.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Why do you insist on lying, Larry? And why do you constantly abuse your own comment policy? <

A lot of blogs have irrationality and blind partisanship but Larry leads the list for outright lies and hypocrisy.

Thursday, April 26, 2007 4:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

Larry(?),

Have you considered the fact that if you must misrepresent things to support your position that your position has little value?

Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:57:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>>>You were objecting to the following phrase:

It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, an electronic component, a software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original. <<<<<<

When are you going to mind your own business and stop urging other bloggers to censor my comments and the comments of others? How can you have the gall to post comments here when you do that kind of thing?

Anyway, I was objecting to the phrase, "usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original." (emphasis added) The whole purpose of "reverse engineering" is to copy at least something from the original, even if what is copied is just a general concept. And there is no reason to avoid copying things from the original unless one is trying to avoid patent or copyright infringement, market a new product, develop a reputation for innovativeness, etc.. Believe it or not, the Japanese are still producing a knock-off of a track-bike pedal design that I believe Campagnolo no longer manufactures.

>>>>>> Most applications of reverse engineering are to find out the principles by which a product works in order to make a better product or to integrate with the original - neither of which is about simply copying the original except for testing purposes - ie, analysis. <<<<<<

I think that is an overly broad generalization, even if it is qualified by the term "most" (as opposed to all). An awful lot of so-called "reverse engineering" is just straight copying of an existing design without any engineering or scientific analysis. Some might not consider straight copying of a design to be "engineering," but a lot of engineering consists of arbitrary and often innovative design decisions. Consider building a bridge, for example. The choice of the basic bridge design -- suspension, cantilever, steel arch, concrete arch, etc.-- might be arbitrary. After the type of bridge is selected, the basic design of the bridge elements is arbitrary -- for example, the designs of the towers of different suspension bridges are radically different. Only after the basic design is chosen can there be an engineering or scientific analysis. And so far as analysis is concerned, the direct copying of an existing design incorporates all of the engineering and/or scientific analysis that went into that design -- this too is "reverse engineering." And isn't an invention also a kind of "engineering"? Why place artificial and arbitrary restrictions on the definition of "engineering"? That is like saying that the book "Of Pandas and People" is not really a banned book because Judge Jones only expressly banned the statement that mentioned it. I have never seen such quibbling in my life.

To Anonymous and Bill Carter (?) --

I would be ashamed to post a comment just saying that someone else is wrong without saying why.

Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> To Anonymous and Bill Carter (?) <

Your use of the question mark after Bill Carter, unused for anyone else, shows that he is real and you know who he is.

Now get real yourself, Larry(?).

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:02:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViW(?) driveled,
>>>>>> Your use of the question mark after Bill Carter, unused for anyone else, shows that he is real and you know who he is. <<<<<<

Wrong, dunghill, I used one after him because he used one after me.

Friday, April 27, 2007 11:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Wrong, dunghill, I used one after him because he used one after me. <

But you started it back when he was posting regularly and you lied about not knowing him.

Saturday, April 28, 2007 3:07:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home