Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 30 Jan 2007 08:40 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. If they break the law so doing, absolutely. I'd also like to see politicians punished for lying too. > That kind of thinking must give lots of encouragement to those who intend to > destroy your lifestyle. Bollocks. Graham
From: Eeyore on 30 Jan 2007 08:41 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > I don't expect them to do a damned thing about Iran's atomic > bombs. Iran has no atomic bombs. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Jan 2007 08:38 In article <8b250$45bbd232$4fe72dd$25487(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:87f48$45bbc045$4fe72dd$24989(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>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. >> >> >> Ok. Thanks for clearing it up. >> >> >>>>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. >> >> >> That can be used to describe pretty much every law as well. It also leaves >> more of the question remaining. What is the reason the signatories decided >> to agree that the conduct the convention described as illegal should be >> described as illegal? > >Because everyone likes to put a nice face to unpleasantness. > >>>Only losing nations and their executives ever face the >>>consequences. No nation or national executive engages >>>in war with the thought of losing. > >> Very true. The lack of consequences for the victor is part of a different >> problem. Are you saying the convention should be ignored because America >> will probably win? > >No, but I am saying it can safely be ignores if America wins. >I won't attempt to draw moral judgments on what amounts to >the massive immorality of wholesale killing. Nor will I >approve of war nor condemn it, because warfare is one of those >human conditions which have and will always exist. > >>>How many nations have conducted significant torture since >>>becoming signatories of the convention? Several, actually. > >> So what? > >> Are you saying it is OK to torture because other countries do so / have done >> so? > >I am saying it should not be unexpected. > >>>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. > >> I agree. I have said that several times in this thread. The detainees at >> GTMO can easily be declared illegal combatants under the terms of the >> convention. I even pointed to the articles which said that. > >> Now, the problem is (and the reason it was raised) is that some people >> insist the war on terror is a war. If that is so, the convention does indeed >> apply. > >> I do not think it is a war, so the convention does not apply. > >> Some people, and I am not sure if you are one of them, think that it is a >> war so the rule of national law should not apply. If this is the case, then >> the GC should apply. > >> I suspect some people, and again I am not sure if you are one of them, want >> neither the rule of national law nor the geneva convention to apply. > >The situation of Gitmo was created with the intent to avoid >laws and conventions. To the mind of those charged with the >warfare in this instance, the alternatives are to kill them >when captured or to take them to secret prisons in countries >which will gladly accommodate them for a few. > >>>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. > >> That is always an option. Is that the sort of thing Americans do? > >Who knows. This is the first time we're facing this sort of >problem. This is the most important sentence in this thread. It seems as if most people are unable to understand this. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 30 Jan 2007 08:52 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Who physically knocks the metal into shape is irrelevant. I've designed plenty of metalwork myself. The designer doesn't usually go into the workshop to physically make it but he is responsible for whether it does the required job. What exactly do you mean by skins anyway. Another attempt to confuse the issue ? > >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. What is "thick skins packaging" ? The thickness of the material isn't the issue btw. Graham
From: Eeyore on 30 Jan 2007 08:55
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >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. Compliance testing is routine these days. You don't need an anechoic chamber btw. > >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. It shouldn't be the job of the production line. > Implement all the documentation and engineering > so that anybody, who opens the cabinets, can close them while > leaving no holes nor seams open. Dealt with by design again. Graham |