Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Jan 2007 07:37 In article <45BE0B7D.D6FA8748(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >unsettled wrote: >> > >> >> Only losing nations and their executives ever face the >> >> consequences. No nation or national executive engages >> >> in war with the thought of losing. >> > >> >Hmmmm, well there's more than few in the UK who would like to see Tony Blair >> >prosecuted for war crimes. >> >> Under whose law? Islam's? > >Under British law you nitwit. Britain is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions >you know. So you want your political leaders to be punished for trying to do their job. That kind of thinking must give lots of encouragement to those who intend to destroy your lifestyle. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Jan 2007 07:39 In article <osedne1yDtkuqCPYnZ2dnUVZ8qWhnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:epl056$8qk_007(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45BBC4FF.E0BD2CFA(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>>> Only losing nations and their executives ever face the >>>> consequences. No nation or national executive engages >>>> in war with the thought of losing. >>> >>>Hmmmm, well there's more than few in the UK who would like to see Tony >>>Blair >>>prosecuted for war crimes. >> >> Under whose law? Islam's? > >No. You might be surprised but the UK is not run under Sharia law (which is >what I assume you mean when you say "islam's"). The implications Eeyore is >talking about are people using UK law and internationally agreed treaties / >articles which carry the weight of law. > >I am surprised you haven't heard of this concept. > >You may discover the acts and process *you* advocate fit into "Islamic law" >much better than to any Western Civilisations legal system. > >>> >>>Channel 4 TV even made the concept into a 2 part drama. >> >> And this doesn't worry you about the hidden agenda of your >> media? > >There certainly was no "hidden" agenda about that drama. It was pretty >blatantly obvious. > >That said, most people are aware it was a "drama." You may want to >investigate that concept. 24 is not reality TV. You seem to have believed it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Jan 2007 08:24 In article <45BB7002.B7B9AFFB(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >unsettled wrote: >> >> MassiveProng wrote: >> >> >> >> > Indeed, dipshit. Laugh. You certainly don't have enough brains to >> >> > put forth a real argument. >> >> >> >> LOL, I work with what you give us to work with, which >> >> is actually nothing at all. >> > >> >It has to be said the Mr Massive Pong has nailed you on this one. >> >> 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. I thought MP wrote that he made the skins. > >It's about good design you see and good design need not be expensive. No matter how you slice it, thick skins packaging computer innards costs money. You can have a good design, but the only people who will buy if off the shelf are those who know the omputer biz. No "consumer" will buy a $5000 system, if there's a $500 system right next to it if both are running the same OS. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Jan 2007 08:28 In article <epgelk$a46$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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 pushes it up a lot. Just the testing cost oodles of money. Anechoic chambers do not grow on trees. >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. Now implement the production line that is so perfect all leaks can't get out. Implement all the documentation and engineering so that anybody, who opens the cabinets, can close them while leaving no holes nor seams open. And that, is just the beginning of the costs before the delivery. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Jan 2007 08:31
In article <0p7nr2h0klq514emgha9norph9bb5q29dg(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sat, 27 Jan 07 14:33:48 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <45BB57F0.621024C2(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>>> MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>> > Indeed, dipshit. Laugh. You certainly don't have enough brains to >>>> > put forth a real argument. >>>> >>>> LOL, I work with what you give us to work with, which >>>> is actually nothing at all. >>> >>>It has to be said the Mr Massive Pong has nailed you on this one. >> >>Not really. MP's company didn't manufacture the cases; they >>were ordered. That is not manufacturing them. >> > > Wrong again. "Ordered cases" suggests a purchase of an >off-the-shelf item. > > Manufactured cases are where a firm makes drawings and has a metal >fab shop perform the fab. The case is 100% custom manufactured to MY >spec, and *I* say that *I* could make shielded case A just as cheaply >as shitty shielded case B. Do you make each system by hand or do you design a system that is to be put together on an assembly line? > > It really is THAT simple, so quit trying to worm out of it 50 ways, >and quit trying to give the worm support, because you then become a >worm yourself. If you make each system you sell by hand, that, by definition, is extremely expensive. /BAH |