Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Don Bowey on 29 Nov 2006 14:50 On 11/29/06 10:29 AM, in article 8c48e$456dd181$4fe70f5$20615(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > krw wrote: > >> In article <456DB20A.590A3EF1(a)hotmail.com>, >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >>> >>> unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You simply can't make these analogies with small start ups. >>>>> >>>>> How do you think the large companies got started? >>>>> >>>>> It occurred to belatedly that you are a teenaged boy. That >>>>> would explain a lot of the bizarre things you have written >>>>> and your ignornance of how stuff works. >>>> >>>> "On December 17, 1903, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the Wright Flyer >>>> became the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve >>>> controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard." >>>> >>>> http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/ >>>> >>>> Small start up company. >>> >>> I'd like to see that happen now ! >> >> >> Google? > > eBay, Microsoft, PayPal, Menards, Trump's companies, > Martha Stewart's companies. Doubtless others that > don't immediately spring to mind. > > Hewlett Packard, Techtronix, both started in a garage.
From: T Wake on 29 Nov 2006 14:55 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekk3lb$8ss_016(a)s875.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ekhgg4$140$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <MPG.1fd572bb53792143989d17(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>In article <ekf023$abg$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >>>says... >>>> >>>> OK, Sweden. Saab, Volvo, Scania -- plenty of private enterprise. >>> >>> >>>You do know that Saab is owned by GM and Volvo by Ford? >>> >> >>So? That doesn't change my argument that the major industries there are >>capitalistic. And Saab and Volvo were independent as recently as 5-6 >>years >>ago. Volvo trucks still is, BTW. > > But you are counting them using one hand! > Clutching at straws to support another crazy assertion. Nothing changes.
From: T Wake on 29 Nov 2006 15:00 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ekk0qo$8ss_005(a)s875.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <456D7544.F1CC4D6D(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >John Fields wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >krw wrote: >>> >> >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>> > >>> >> >> > In any case, the party system is broken now. Here at least. It >>> >> >> > may > take some >> >> >>> > time for you guys to catch up. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Not going to change without a new Constitution. >>> >> > >>> >> >If that's what it takes..... >>> >> >>> >> --- >>> >> It's not going to happen. We've gotten to the top of the heap with >>> >> our Constitution and it's not likely we're going to abandon it for >>> >> something as silly as pie in the sky. >>> > >>> >For ever ? >>> >>> --- >>> Nothing is forever. >>> >>> 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. There is a difference between illegal > and unconstitutional. We don't have a formal constitution and as such the Law Lords don't declare things "constitutional" or "unconstitutional." We do have laws though so they can rule that some legislation is illegal. You may be surprised to know there is a difference between the UK and the US.
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2006 15:17 On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:12:59 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. > >They still don't have a single element codified constitution. > --- Yes, one of the few nations in the modern world who don't. Perhaps the reticence to frame one is the same as that which plagued some of our founders, namely that if you say what you're allowed to do, then unless you're careful you'll write yourself into a box where that's _all_ you'll be allowed to do. -- JF
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2006 15:21
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:31:07 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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. --- Physical or mental? -- JF |