Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 12:01 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> 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 ? > > > >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. It sounds like it. Soakaways are common here to for rainwater especially. Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 12:02 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: > > >> >> >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? Because it's cheaper ( and quicker ) than making new. Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 12:04 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: > > >> >> >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. Finding the right thing that's profitable isn't always that easy. Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 12:06 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: > > >> >> 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? > > Yup. I'm an auld fart. I don't know what you mean by 'AC'. > >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. > > Isn't this what the feature called a floating point addon does > in the PC biz? The floating point unit doesn't do it in one clock cycle AIUI. Graham
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 12:05
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej7fk5$8qk_043(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eYydnQX-mf2npsvYnZ2dnUVZ8v2dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej4k4i$8ss_029(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <455493E7.A39EFCD9(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: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >>>>> > >>>>> >Why ? >>>>> >>>>> It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially housing. >>>>> It eliminates wage competition. People's real productivity is >>>>> no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>>> > >>>>> >Can anyone actually live on that ? >>>>> >>>>> $10k/year? Yes. >>>> >>>>You wouldn't get far on ?5263 over here for sure. >>> >>> I didn't say it was easy and one also has to give up a lot >>> of middle class "attitudes" ;-). >> >>Like housing, food, clothing ... > > Now stop being stupid. You are being stupid here. > You do have to plan. My folks (2 people) > are living on $10K; if you divide by 2, that's $5K. But the > division not a correct thing to do. Irrelevent. > You grow your own food; you don't buy many clothes and what > you do buy, you limit your price to $2 or less. What about the people who don't own their own land? Where do you get the land from? How much does it cost? What you are saying is great for people living in the eighteenth century or subsistence living in Africa, but the reality is _most_ people in the US are in no position to do this. Do you advocate parcelling out the land again so every one has an equal share? Even if that did happen, the surface area of the US is about 3x10^6 miles^2 and the population is around 3x10^8 so there wouldn't be much land to work (about 0.02km^2 if my estimation is correct). Your suggestion that everyone lives in a Walton's lifestyle is comical considering if people choose to do so, the minimum wage is irrelevant because they will not be working for some one else. The minimum wage is as close to subsistence level income as possible, yet people would be expect to go to work day in, day out to earn it. |