Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 30 Nov 2006 01:00 On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:43:09 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >Your originality is breathtaking. > The shame is that it isn't working. Read what I write a thousand time. Perhaps you can asphyxiate yourself.
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Nov 2006 07:15 In article <cknbh.6$45.98(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <MPG.1fd798efddba3542989d3c(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: >>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? >> >Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Marth Stewart, Pixar, ... > >Would be interesting to go over the list of Fortune 500 companies and >find how many didn't even exist 30 years ago. It would also be interesting to go over that list and see if those, who were listed, are still in the same business and if they have acquired other kinds of businesses. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Nov 2006 07:23 In article <MPG.1fd79bef70af1ed3989d3d(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: <snip> >It's not a "3" it's "=3F" (the code-point for the apostrophe). I'm >not sure what I did (it just happened recently). If someone has an >idea how to fix it I certainly will! Did your system get hexed? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Nov 2006 07:28 In article <fqirm2t45qcd6h4nl6fca45bkhq8n4l7ln(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> 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? I don't understand the question. >--- > >>There is a difference between illegal and unconstitutional. > >--- >Splitting hairs, Not at all. >perhaps, but since the Constitution is the Law of >the Land, an unconstitutional act would break that law, making it >illegal. This may be splitting hairs but it's so important that our whole society is based on it. Congress can make any damn law they want. The checks and balances in the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional. Not illegal but not allowed using the Constitution as a metric. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Nov 2006 07:31
In article <op.tjts92um26l578(a)borek>, Borek <m.borkowski(a)delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote: >On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:06:24 +0100, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>> There is a difference between illegal and unconstitutional. >> >> --- >> Splitting hairs, perhaps, but since the Constitution is the Law of >> the Land, an unconstitutional act would break that law, making it >> illegal. > >No idea how it looks in UK, but IIRC in Poland law that is ruled to be >unconstitutional has to be changed by whoever created it. Trick is there >is a time limit for the change to be done (I think this limit is a part of >the ruling), and before that time this law is in working order. But I can >be wrong. hmm...That could create havoc. I can already think of four messes to make using that delay to my advantage. Is there a reason they allowed the law to stand while the change is getting written? What happens if the lawmakers defy your constitution and don't change the law? Does it still stand or do the two bodies have a duel? /BAH |