Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:47 In article <45549428.2C77F4E2(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> My folks, >> >> who will not see 80 again, dug a dry well by hand in the >> >> summer of 2005. >> > >> >Dare I ask why ? >> >> >> They needed one > >Was there a problem with their water supply ? Sorry. I should have explained. If you flush a toilet there's the solids and paper and lots and lots of water. A septic tank will fill up twice a year if the water isn't allowed to leak out. A dry well, which is an empty hole in the ground, lined by cement blocks, takes water overflows and allows the excess water to seep into the ground. So the water is recycled and the septic tank only has to be cleaned once every n years depending on the number of people filling it. > >> and nobody in the business made them anymore. >> For some strange reason, leach fields are the craze. > >I'm not familiar with this 'leach fields' thing. That's another way to get rid of excess water and put it back into your water table. Didn't you ever wonder where your sewer people put all of that water that get flushed and put down the drains of your sinks, baths, and showers? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:48 In article <2739l2d2vtuc7vfffle8t6jo1p905d99dr(a)4ax.com>, Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:01:56 +0000, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> My folks, >>> who will not see 80 again, dug a dry well by hand in the >>> summer of 2005. >> >>Dare I ask why ? > >I think we would call that a "sink" rather than a "well", or possibly >a "soakaway". Oh, dear. Have I just tripped over another word that doesnt' tranlate into English? :-) If I had to guess, I would say that your soakaway is our leach field. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:52 In article <455494E3.A77ECCCA(a)hotmail.com>, 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: >> >> >unsettled wrote: >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>I object because they're not heavy industry. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Now define heavy industry. >> >> >> >> >> >> Heavy industry is capital intensive and difficult to relocate. >> >> > >> >> >Not impossible though. >> >> > >> >> >Asian companies have bought entire US steel plants and moved them >> overseas. >> >> >> >> What does that mean..."move"? Did they dismatle the furnace, move >> >> it and then rebuild it? >> > >> >Yes. More than just furnaces btw. >> >> Was it frugal to move the plant bricks? I would think they would >> build their own. I know people moving things like enviromental >> chambers and such but they aren't moving the physical plants. > >They were interested in the heavy machinery. Was that becuase they didn't have the iron ore to make new or they didn't have the machinists to make the gear?...or something else? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 07:58 In article <45549505.F2979261(a)hotmail.com>, 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: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >" The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into an airframe >> >> >> >manufacturing enterprise are gone. " >> >> >> >> >> >> Good grief. Pendantic. >> >> > >> >> >Seeking clarity. >> >> > >> >> >> Yep. Nowadays, nobody has to wait for >> >> >> their parents to die before making oddles of money. >> >> > >> >> >Most ppl aren't capable of making oodles of money. >> >> >> >> In today's global economy, lots more people have the opportunity >> >> to make lots of money. And they don't even have to think of >> >> something new. All they have to do is not spend what they make >> >> on expense items. >> > >> >If only it were that simple ! >> >> It is. > >I shall venture to differ. You may. There is tons of work out in the world that needs to be done and lots of people who will pay to have you do it. Nobody makes lots of money by doing nothing at all. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2006 08:01
In article <ej23ge$7pq$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ej22dk$8qk_011(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <45536300.3576E4F4(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >[....] >>>> >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? > > >Most DSP processors do operations like: > > Y = Y + X*Z > >in one instruction. Although this doesn't define a DSP it is so commonly >part of one that it could be used as a rule to identify one. The "very >wide" part means that it does numbers with a lot of bits in them. This is >a little less true when you look into the past. There were some DSPs that >only worked on 12 bit values. We, in the computing biz, used have a name for those things but I can't remember what is was now. > >Today a lot of DSPs also fall into the "very long instruction word" class. >The instructions have a large number of bits in them that can specify many >operations to be carried out at the same time. We used to call that "microcode" :-). > Q[J++] = Y = Y + X[I++]*Z > Thanks. /BAH |