Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Nov 2006 08:39 In article <456ED6F1.7986616B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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? > >Can you explain what you mean in normal language ? START: MOVEI T1,[ASCIZ/Did your system get hexed?/] OUTSTR T1, END START /BAH
From: unsettled on 30 Nov 2006 09:30 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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? <groan>
From: unsettled on 30 Nov 2006 09:45 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. "The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it." Marbury v. Madison 1 Craunch 137 http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
From: Ken Smith on 30 Nov 2006 09:50 In article <6f64d$456af1d5$4fe771a$31908(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [...] >The druggie problem is usually a dual one. The largest >percentage resort to crime to acquire the funds with >which to purchase. Long term incarceration tends to reduce >the crime rate. This could be an argument for simply giving them the drugs. It would be a lot cheap than jail. A few countries have tried this and as far as I know the sky hasn't fallen. [...] >This is one realm where studies help. The government used to >put out a triennial report on drug addiction. I haven't seen >the last two or three. I think after saying "it isn't getting any better" many times they got bored. There does seem to be a trade of roles in terms of which drug is the worst. I used to claim that you could tell where the CIA was up to something by looking at which drug got declared the worst problem. I can't make crystal methamphetamine fit the theory so maybe it was just coincidence. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 30 Nov 2006 09:54
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <456ED79C.A359CCA2(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>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 ! >>> >>>The way the computer biz works these days, is the brightest start >>>up a company to make a widget. If it is successful, a large >>>company buys them out and begins the process of manufacturing >>>and distributing the widget. The bright young things begin >>>a new startup company making a new widget. >> >>And you believe there are an infinite number of >>widgets to be invented that the >>big companies can't think of too ? > > > Sigh! I wish you had more thinking ability. It is more cost > effective to have startups do the R&D of a new widget. > They will be ones who eat the costs of all mistakes and > all the ideas that don't help to produce the widget. > Since the computer biz now seems to allow only a 3-month > development cycle, the above is the only way to do the > development piece. > > If you think about it, it's a very efficient method. The > larger company doesn't have to constantly manage any R&D, > especially the job of having to herd the brightest. Who often can't walk down the hallway without bouncing off the walls. They generally don't do very well in a corporate climate. > All they need to do is write a check or stock options and > pick up the development process right have all the kinks > and problems have been solved. > > Drug development is taking on the same model with the > appropriate modifications to the distriubtion process. > > /BAH |