Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Dec 2006 06:20 In article <45731BA4.76584814(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Ken Smith wrote: >> > >> >> The so called "war on terror" has cost the US a great deal without really >> >> yelding anything much as a result. >> > >> >You're kidding. >> > >> >It's yielded greater instability in the word and more hatred of the USA ( >> >entirely justified this time ). >> > >> >What sheer brilliance. >> >> You both have been blind. > >Come on then. Don't be shy. What's your opinion on the matter ? The sound bite "war on xxxx" was misused so often that, when the real thing is happening, nobody pays attention. The fable about the boy crying wolf has become reality. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Dec 2006 06:37 In article <3affd$457312fb$4fe70d7$29554(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> The economy can "seem" things that it isn't really. Military spending >> drives the stock market up and gives everyone a job. This makes the >> economy look good if you look at those numbers. If you instead look at >> the contents of the average household you get a different picture. During >> WW2, people drove the old car and used the old washing machine and didn't >> buy that new TV. > >LOL, minor point. Consumer TV's didn't come on the market till >the late 1940's. > >To keep the comparison fair, the machinery of that age was much >better designed and wasn't on a short replacement cycle. Well >after WW2 my mother didn't replace the washing machine till >my parenst decided to buy a fancy new automatic washer. Even then >the wringer washer was held as a spare in case the fancy one broke >down. Eventually I pulled it apart for the motor which saw >various uses for more than a decade afterwards. And the backup to the wringer was the washboard, which invariably ate one's knuckles. > >Cars were typically 1930's, solid, tanklike. With gas rationing >they didn't wear a whole lot, and the superhighway had yet to >be invented. Most people who owned a car used it on weekends. >Oil changes were scheduled at 1000 miles. The average person >could actually slide under tha car to drain the oil without >needing ramps to raise it higher for access. > >The consumerist lifestyle was in the future. > >> The standard of living was on the average going down. > >Try telling that to the southern blacks who moved into the >industrial belt during that period; many of them stayed, and >their descendents are still there, now mostly unemployed. Fix the Detroit-flavored politics that keeps them in their place with welfare. > >In fact you might say that a good part Michigan's unemployment >problem today is a consequence of WW2. Nope. Unions. They kept all factories from retooling and going robotic in time to be competitive. Some of the industry that went overseas is coming back but only in trickles. <snip--I'll leave it to you to try> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Dec 2006 06:40 In article <45732718.132742B6(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: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> When everybody gets everything equally, nobody is >> >> >> allowed to be wealthy. Thus, all are poor, equally poor, but >> >> >> poor. >> >> > >> >> >Even communist Russia wasn't run like that ! >> >> >> >> Of course it was. Only the viscious of the managers got the >> >> power. >> > >> >We were talking about wealth, albeit rather limited wealth in that era. >> >> And look how their agriculture suffered. How people get food is a clue >> to their economy, social structure, trade and power. > >This has absolutely nothing to do with degress of wealth under communism. If that is true then I've been wasting all of my studying time. However, I haven't wasted my time; you can tell a lot from old grocery lists. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Dec 2006 06:43 In article <73101$45730543$4fe70d7$29287(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <4572483D.8CB44CB6(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >snip > >>>It's more to do with 'professors' not having a clue about the real world > >> IMHO. > >> Those professors never had exposure to the real world when they >> were kids. It's a problem; one of the ones I'm working on. > > >One of the beauties of universal military service. > [puzzled emoticon here] Explain? oh....are you talking about the broods of intelligensia mixing with regular people? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Dec 2006 06:44
In article <83aa4$457305a4$4fe70d7$29287(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <MPG.1fdb63e0b29518b4989d88(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >>>In article <ekrvkr$8qk_002(a)s1015.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >>> >>>>In article <b59c2$4570f18a$4fe7357$10170(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>For me hex and hex were the same thing. I worked for year in >>>>>>an octal environment. I'd never be able to convert to hex. >>>>> >>>>>In a different world it was said of one bit god, >>>>>the patron saint of cpm, that "For him, assembler >>>>>is a high level language." >>>> >>>>If you want to dabble in machine lanugage and not have to struggle >>>>with binary arithmetic, play with IBM's 1620. >>> >>>Ah, the CADET (Can't Add, Didn't Even Try). Addressing was still >>>binary, no? (long before my time) >> >> >> I don't think it was. I never knew about binary until I met >> a PDP-10. I had no idea about bases other than 10. There >> were a few math problems that dealt with converting logs >> in my past, but nothing was tied to reality. They were just >> logic problems that were fun to do but never used. > >Yet you're old enough to have used a slide rule. Yup. I used it for a few physics problems but did the arithmetic by hand instead. I got "better" answers. /BAH |