Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 27 Jan 2007 16:02 In article <45BB7002.B7B9AFFB(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > [....] >> Not really. MP's company didn't manufacture the cases; they >> were ordered. That is not manufacturing them. > >Who did the mechanical design ? That's the important part. Whoever actually >bashes the tin is irrelevant. > >It's about good design you see and good design need not be expensive. It may not be "expensive" but good EMI shielding does tend to push the cost up a bit. It usually requires that the sheet metal makes a good connection at the joints and stuff like that. This typically adds a bit to the cost. It doesn't add as much as adding an extra cup holder however. > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 16:03 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>T Wake wrote: > >>> > >>>I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. > >> > >>No more so though than any religious zealot. > > > > Very true. > > Your bias rears up again. > > That depends on whether destruction and killing are part of > the zealot's "thing" or not. It is very much the "thing" > for Islamic fundamentalists, but I have yet to discover > any other religion with zealots advocating those things. > > Even if there is another one, its hardly a universal case. You're quite mad. History's full of such examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition Graham
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 16:12 T Wake wrote: > This is why I asked what you (and BAH) thought the purpose was. It strikes > me that you both feel the Convention is there to limit the options warring > nations can take when they wage war and I wondered if that was the case. No. > If it is, do you feel it is the only reason for the conventions? The only reason is to criminalize conduct the convention defines to be illegal. Only losing nations and their executives ever face the consequences. No nation or national executive engages in war with the thought of losing. How many nations have conducted significant torture since becoming signatories of the convention? Several, actually. Does Israel, a signatory, abide by the convention? It doesn't seem so, because the people they're fighting against aren't accorded POW status. Since you say that the people at Gitmo aren't soldiers, they're not subject to the convention and, as the Russians used to tell the world, how we treat criminals is an internal matter. If it turns out they're being abused we should probably do as the Turkish government did after the Armenian genocide, claim it was carried out by "bad officials" who will be punished once we identify them.
From: Ken Smith on 27 Jan 2007 16:14 In article <CPudnQHjc4nEPybYnZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: [....] >I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. I did question what we mean by "insane". Some people seem to think that there is no logic in insane people. There often is logic but some false assumption going into it make the person insane. Someone who thinks the family cat is a bird, will try to return the "bird" to its cage. Given what they believe, their actions can be understood. > > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 16:20
Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>T Wake wrote: >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>>>I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. >>>> >>>>No more so though than any religious zealot. >>> >>>Very true. >> >>Your bias rears up again. >> >>That depends on whether destruction and killing are part of >>the zealot's "thing" or not. It is very much the "thing" >>for Islamic fundamentalists, but I have yet to discover >>any other religion with zealots advocating those things. >> >>Even if there is another one, its hardly a universal case. > > > You're quite mad. History's full of such examples. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition You really are very very stupid. The Spanish Inquisition was a political tool used to try to eliminate converted Jews and Moors from Spain and to seize their assets. Read the section headed "Motives for instituting....." which tells about additional political advantages to the institution. |