Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Dec 2006 08:01 In article <op.tjvnnjj426l578(a)borek>, Borek <m.borkowski(a)delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote: >On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:31:48 +0100, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.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? > >IANAL so it is hard for me to comment on the issue. I understand :-). > Things are more >complicated in Poland that in other places as some of the laws are dated >back to communist times and we have changed constitution in the meantime.. >Some laws were there to keep the balance between old law and new >political/economical situation. Yea, transitions can be a PITA. > >> 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? > >Parliament can vote that it rejects unconstitutionality ruling. That can be a potential problem. I'm not sure the US would have ever worked on our Civil Rights issues if that had been our method. > If it >doesn't - ruling becomes valid. All other bodies have to accept the ruling >once it is published. Still, remember that being half chemist/half >programmer I can be wrong on the issue. Sure, it's always interesting to see how other people deal with disagreements. Thanks for the post :-). /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Dec 2006 08:04 In article <e9edf$456ef0a6$4fe73cf$29060(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. <GRIN> Nah, my bit gods were a bit more agile than that. >They generally don't do very well in a corporate >climate. DEC was unique in that these kinds of people thrived. I remember one guy whose sole job was to walk the halls of the old Mill and just think. Other people implemented his ideas. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Dec 2006 08:18 In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>> In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>> >>>>>>Huh? >>>> >>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without regards >>> >>> to >>> >>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>> >>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>separation. >>> >>> >>> But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't >>> affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. >> >>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>which isn't socialist at all. > >Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, the >best advance. No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do estraordinary things. > However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is >under capitalism. Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Dec 2006 08:21 In article <456EFE61.92EE5E87(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: >> >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >> >> >> >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 > >I never get involved in assembler aside from DSP. It's far too difficult to >maintain and far too easy to write nonsense code. HOever, it is impossible to ship nonsense code. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Dec 2006 08:22
In article <MPG.1fd8f8f7e516aca7989d4f(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <456EFE61.92EE5E87(a)hotmail.com>, >rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >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 >> >> I never get involved in assembler aside from DSP. It's far too difficult to >> maintain and far too easy to write nonsense code. > >You're right. The simple minded should stay far away from >assembler (or any other language for that matter). I pity those who dealt with assembler and never had DDT to help them eradicate the bugs. /BAH |