Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 10 Nov 2006 10:03 On Fri, 10 Nov 06 14:09:39 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45547172.3195E983(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >>Luckily we don't have that problem here. We do get wood rot though. ! >>> > >>> >--- >>> >Yes, I've noticed that from your posts. >>> >>> Oh, stuff it. He's talking nice and you still have to slam him. >> >>Fields is a thoroughly unpleasant fellow. > >I haven't figured that out yet :-). --- You seem OK to me. :-) -- JF
From: John Fields on 10 Nov 2006 10:04 On Fri, 10 Nov 06 14:10:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45547A34.B650DD1F(a)earthlink.net>, > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> In article <0j17l2dnu2acrl45la9t243up4ctu00ebp(a)4ax.com>, >>> John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:01:39 +0000, Eeyore >>> ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> In addition, people burn the wood that is laced with arsenic. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >What kind of wood is laced with arsenic ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Any wood you want to prevent termintes from eating. >>> >> >>> >>I see. >>> >> >>> >>Luckily we don't have that problem here. We do get wood rot though. ! >>> > >>> >--- >>> >Yes, I've noticed that from your posts. >>> >>> Oh, stuff it. He's talking nice and you still have to slam him. >>> >>> /BAH >> >> >> You are only reading him in this thread. If you read more of his >>output to SED, you would understand. >> >Which him? Fields or the donkey? :-) --- Either. Really! :-) -- JF
From: Lloyd Parker on 10 Nov 2006 04:22 In article <oiL4h.114$yE6.4(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >news:eivrob$vor$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... >> In article <2mx4h.10999$r12.3746(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:45527247.A114D14(a)hotmail.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> Don Rumsfeld, cut from the same inflexible, unthinking and >>>>> >> >> unlistening, "my way or the highway" mold, has now stepped aside. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Do you think it was his decision entirely or was he nudged or even >>>>> >> > pushed ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Oh, I'm quite certain he was pushed. >>>>> > >>>>> > I'd like to think so ! >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> You can see it on Rumsfeld's face. I >>>>> >> think Bush saw the writing on the wall, that he would probably have >>>>> >> to >>>>> >> let >>>>> >> Rumsfeld go at some point, and decided to cut bait now while he has >>>>> >> a >>>>> >> remote >>>>> >> chance of having an even minimally friendly Congress for the new >>>>> >> guy's >>>>> >> confirmation hearings. From what little I've read, however, the new >>>>> >> guy >>>>> >> is >>>>> >> probably a pretty good choice, given his actual desire and ability >>>>> >> to >>>>> >> work >>>>> >> with other people, and not think he can run the whole show himself. >>>>> > >>>>> > You mean there may yet be some hope for 'consensus politics' ??? >>>>> > >>>>> > I'd heard Bush isn't so keen on that. >>>>> >>>>> You should follow some of the unfolding events at cnn.com--these are >>>>> the >>>>> events you will likely not hear anything about in the fullness of time. >>>>> Within hours of news of his victory in 2004, Bush was doing a >>>>> spike-the-ball-in-the-endzone victory dance, and waving it in >>>>> everybody's >>>>> face. By stark contrast, within hours of news of the Democratic >>>>> victories, >>>>> Nancy Pelosi, who is expected to become probably the most powerful >>>>> Democrat >>>>> in Washington, has said almost nothing publicly, but rather has quietly >>>>> approached Bush and extended her wish to work together with him and to >>>>> compromise. >>>>> >>>>> Tell me....which of those two approaches do you think will end up being >>>>> more >>>>> effective in actually getting things done in Washington? Would that it >>>>> had >>>>> happened 2 years ago (or, while we're dreaming, 6 years ago).... >>>> >>>> That's a no-brainer. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure the Democrats should have removed the idea of impeachment >>>> quite >>>> frankly. >>> >>>While at a gut level I feel the same distress at Bush's job performance, I >>>don't really think it would really be legally justified. Remember, in >>>order >>>to be impeached and have any chance of being convicted and removed from >>>office (in other words, for it not to be simply a waste of Congress's >>>time), >>>the President needs to have committed a crime, and it has to be a felony >>>that had a material, negative effect on his ability to lead the country. >>>Clinton, after all, was accused of having lied to Congress (a crime) and >>>obstruction of justice (a crime). The rub was that I don't personally >>>believe that those crimes rose to the level of significantly disrupting >>>his >>>ability to conduct his job. The biggest disruption was not those crimes, >>>but rather, Congress's reaction to them. >>> >>>Keep in mind, in Bush's case, violating/dismantling the Constitution >>>doesn't >>>constitute a crime in the US. The Constitution is a guiding set >>>principles >>>that tell us how our government should run, it is not a list of laws with >>>punishments for violations. There may very well be laws that codify many >>>of >>>the Constitution's principles (and I believe there are), but the >>>Constitution itself is not a list of laws and punishments for violating >>>them. >>> >> One could argue ordering wiretaps in violation of the FISA law is >> impeachable, > >Well, I don't know if there is a distinction between an enabling law (like >FISA) and a limiting law (like, say, murder statutes), but I see the latter >as the usual impeachable offenses. Still, Bush claims (plausibly) that the >Patriot act and other pieces of legislation supersede FISA. Again, it's a >matter of interpretation if it's even a crime, let alone an impeachable >offense. > Of course, Congress is the decider if something is impeachable; there is no appeal. > >> but since it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict, why beat your head >> against a >> wall? The Republicans should have done the same thing with Clinton -- >> looked >> at the math. > >In a way, I disagree. The idealist in me says the law should not be a >popularity contest. However, I am above all a pragmatist, and you're >right--to do anything else is a waste of valuable time. > >Still, there are other things that Congressional oversight committees will >no doubt begin to investigate.... > >Eric Lucas > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 10 Nov 2006 04:25 In article <f4p7l21a400mq09lf26tcq86s8gkv3q479(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:40:12 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >> >>"xray" <notreally(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote in message >>news:k9u5l2tn644sntciap2sbagjmb5fabq2bl(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:44:20 +0000, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>>> However, the Republican Party >>>>> platform is more apt to provide for economic growth. >>>> >>>>Since when was a huge and increasing foreign debt the model for economic >>>>growth ? >>>> >>> >>> Foreign debt? That's so 80's and 90's. We started this war to try to >>> make our own internal debt far outshine our foreign debts. >>> >>> Of course, since we no longer make a large portion of the stuff we are >>> using in the war, you might still have a point. >> >>Ya think? >> > > Name a foreign part in the M1 Abrams. http://www.stormingmedia.us/73/7323/A732303.html
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 10:09
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >To be fair, Dell's 22 years old. > >> >> > >> >> I have other examples in another post. From Keith's and my POV, > >> >> 22 years in the computing biz is young, very young. > >> > > >> >And I could say it's very old. > >> > > >> >How many dedicated DSP processors existed 22 yrs ago for example ? > >> > >> Your definition of DSP, please. > > > >Digital Signal Processor. > > > >Think especially of devices with hardwired fast very wide multiply accumulate > >function. > > [emoticon's eye go Xeyed] I don't know hardware terms. > Are you talking about fast ACs? ACs? One of the key items in a DSP chip is the MAC, a hard wired fast multipler that typically performs very wide word multiplication and addition in a single machine cycle. Graham |