Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 22 Jan 2007 23:36 In article <ep2l5l$8ss_004(a)s889.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ep2jsh$qm3$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ep2b2c$8ss_007(a)s898.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>>><snort> Riiiight. >>>> >>>>You need to get some facts. >>> >>>So do you. If there is no unemployment on the books, then those >>>illegals wouldn't be coming in to do the work for lower wages. >> >>This is simply false. The farmers need a bunch of labor for short periods >>of time. The illegals are willing to fill that gap. They, in general, >>aren't replacing american workers. The farmers can't get enough legal >>workers at any price. If you offer to work for someone cheaper than the >>going rate, they are likely to accept your offer and put the money towards >>the bottom line. > >You can write this with a straight face and still claim there isn't >employment problems. You have just told me that your food supply >depends on a wages that are lower than the minimum wage. Do you >not smell a little bit of stink here? You need to reread what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that the food supplyy depends on lower than minimum wage labor. I stand by what I wrote. What you misread from what I wrote is another matter. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: MassiveProng on 23 Jan 2007 03:16 On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:56:08 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> Small things affect all economies on a long-term basis in this >> age of global technology and trade. > >Small things have small effects. Don't get over-excited about it. > Ever heard of the butterfly effect, dipshit? The segment of math that revolves around is known as CHAOS. Remember 1929? That was over coffee, initially, which happened weeks earlier. Small affect = your brain. Your brain = ineffectual. Works for me.
From: MassiveProng on 23 Jan 2007 03:28 On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:38:40 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <ep2ftt$8qk_002(a)s898.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>It won't be. I'm supposed to be running a Unix which will >>run an emulator which will load and run various flavors >>of our OSes. Each of these emulations will appear as >>if I had those hard/software systems in my house. But >>I only need gear the size of a breadbox and 115V power. >>No buss bars required. > >"bochs" will run on linux. > >I don't think you will have trouble: > >"bash" is the shell I prefer. You have other choices on this. They all >are programming languages in their own right. If you've written batch >files in the past, you will find the concepts in shell scripts easy to >grasp. > >Unlike windows, most of the *nix is controled via simple ASCII files. >What starts up when you power up is controled by a bunch of scripts. It >is a concept sort of "autoexec.bat" but spread over more files and able to >do more. > >Files with names like "somethingrc" and "something.conf" replace the >"something.ini" files. DAmn! A corner of the world you actually do know something about! Much better in this realm than you are in social or political discourse, or knowledge.
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 06:16 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ep429i$fib$3(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <0KqdnemHBs12aCnYRVnytgA(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [....] >>I know Ken describes the report as saying "moderately bad stuff" happened, >>but the above accounts (chained in the foetal position for example) are >>beyond *my* use of the term moderate bad stuff. > > I said the "moderately bad" comment to set apart what the FBI saw and > reported on and what likely went on when they weren't there. I did not > mean to trivialize what the FBI reported. I only was leaving a lot of > room on the scale for the worse things. OK - fair point :-)
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 06:17
"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ep42ff$fib$4(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <zISdnY4yq_45cinYRVnyiQA(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [....] >>> We can only hold ourselves accountable for our actions, not >>> those of insurgents and terrorists. So what is it you're >>> actually trying to say here. I smell doublespeak. >> >>I thought he was referring to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners taken by >>the >>US forces, and the treatment of people at Guantanamo. I may be wrong. > > Yes exactly. The US needs to hold to its standards in what it does. Sadly, there are some in this thread who feel "winning" is more important and are more than happy to throw away every value and standard in order that more enemy get killed. |