Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2006 14:31 unsettled wrote: > Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, > which isn't socialist at all. If it were a socialist > system we'd allow cripples in the US military. Please post an example of cripples in the military anywhere. Graham
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2006 14:34 John Fields wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:48 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >John Fields wrote: > > >> --- > >> Nothing is forever. > >> > >> You all now have a Supreme Court, no? > > > >The Law Lords. > > --- > No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to > the extent of their building. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 > > >In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. > > --- > OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an > actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I > believe. That would seem to be the case. We don't seem to have suffered as a result though. The new Supreme Court is scheduled to open for business in 2009 or 2010 IIRC. Graham
From: Don Bowey on 29 Nov 2006 14:44 On 11/29/06 8:10 AM, in article ekkbe9$hgv$2(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > In article <C191DF9D.4F0CD%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, > Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> On 11/28/06 6:50 AM, in article ekhiav$pkt$4(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" >> <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > [.....] >> >>> "could" doesn't mean it does. An FM station in SanFransisco will not be >>> heard in another state. Geography will see to that. Its range running >>> inland will be less than 50 miles in most directions and certainly less >>> than 200 in all. There is no way that it will make it out if state. >> >> You must not have done much of a study for that. > > What makes you think I didn't? > >> I live near Vancouver, WA >> and can often find FM stations over 100 miles away, for example, Eugene, Or. >> And when at Eugene, I can find Portland stations, so I know the signal will >> also go to Vancouver, Wa. Some people make a hobby of finding broadcast >> signals from distant locations, and write the station for a card (QSL) to >> acknowledge it. Google might help you find more info. > > Take a look at the geography in the SanFransisco area. I picked that > location for a good reason. I live near enough that I've had a goodly > amount of experience with where the radio signals get to. Nobody in > another state is *ever* going to hear KALW over the air. There are hills > that ensure that you can't get a low angle to the ionospere. Google on > "total internal refraction". > > >> During atmospheric conditions called ducting, some very long signal paths >> will exist. In my personal experience I've encountered several hundred miles >> due to ducting. This differs from skip, which can provide a path over >> thousands of miles. > > Ducting won't get the signal from KALW out of state. > >>>> 2. A multitude of low power transmitters within a state could interfere >>>> with all interstate reception, intentionally or by accident. >>> >>> Not on the FM band in SanFransisco. The station I am using as an example >>> would not have any out of state FM stations to interfere with. >> >> Ok. So consider state borders. Portland, Or. and Vancouver Wa, for >> example. Or NY and New Jersey. Or Ca. and Mexico. Etc. > > No, consider only the case I gave. The station in never going to be > heard out of state. How does the FCC constitutionally get the right to > regulate it, that can't also be used as an argument making the NHS > constitutional? Several people have asserted that the constitution bars a > NHS. > > The case you gave is insufficient to build law upon.
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2006 14:44 John Fields wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 06 13:09:44 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >In article <456D7544.F1CC4D6D(a)hotmail.com>, > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>John Fields wrote: > >>> You all now have a Supreme Court, no? > >> > >>The Law Lords. > >> > >>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. > > > >No. Unconstitutional. > > --- > Do you have a reference you can cite? Here's a couple. The Gov't had to back down on the indefinite detention of foreign terror supects btw. http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1375827,00.html And we can even influence the law in Trinidad still ! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3239726.stm And here's the House of Lords acting as a brake on the Gov't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4338737.stm Graham
From: T Wake on 29 Nov 2006 14:46
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekk3cr$8ss_014(a)s875.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <456C4AD2.5AEF9B64(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >That's clearly not going to happen overnight ( or even in >>> >the long term ) no matter how favourable the circumstances may be. >>> >>> There is all kinds of stuff that needs somebody to work on it. >>> All you have to do is look and start working. My sister worked >>> with a gal in the factory. The factory had a very high reject >>> count with a particular part. This gal started her own business >>> and offered to fix all the rejects of this part. She was making >>> tons of money, had quite a few people working for her. >> >>How many ? >> >>100,000 ? > > Of course not. If you want a strong economy that can withstand > the usual boom and bust cycles, you need small business to be > the backbone of employers--not the unions; not the govnernment; > and definitely not the only employer in the country. England > is not kind to its wealthy and, since WWII, had been stifling > its middle-class. Really? Can you cite an example of this or are you talking from personal experience again? Because my personal experience says this is nonsense. > That's what socialism does. Nobody feels > they "own" a problem and so will not use any of their ingenuity > to solve it. Breathtaking lack of knowledge about the UK. |