Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 30 Jan 2007 05:01 In article <epne6r$8ss_002(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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 The sovereign being above the law went out in the US around 1776. I doubt it applies in the UK any longer either.
From: unsettled on 30 Jan 2007 11:10 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45BF4E3C.65CCC581(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>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. > > > Not really. I have to unplug my stove to listen to AM radio. > > >>You don't need an anechoic chamber btw. > > > How do you measure the EMF in "noisy" environments? > Or don't you need numbers anymore? > >> >> >>>>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. > > > Think about it. The production line has to be designed so > that the process doesn't leave any seam untoned. OP's designs never see line level production. >> >>> 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. > > > There is more to design of manufacturing and assembling than > laying out a circuit board by hand. > > /BAH
From: unsettled on 30 Jan 2007 11:16 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <epne6r$8ss_002(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>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 > > > The sovereign being above the law went out in the US around 1776. I doubt it > applies in the UK any longer either. Not completely. Judicial immunity and a few other features arise out of sovereign immunity. This has been discussed in SCOTUS opinions more than a few times.
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Jan 2007 11:11 In article <45BCCBF6.D0445A6(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are >> making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, >> each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on >> a field somewhere and shoot at each other > >That's pretty much it. > > >> thus, conflicts of any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply >> a country's criminal law to each individual. > >And what precisely is mistaken about that ? There is a non-Western war going on. If you do not adapt, you will lose. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Jan 2007 11:12
In article <970b3$45bcdaba$49ecfa9$6154(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:epi5ci$8ss_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> >>>I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are >>>making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, >>>each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on >>>a field somewhere and shoot at each other; thus, conflicts of >>>any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply >>>a country's criminal law to each individual. >> >> >> Oh dear. The last two weeks of posts have vanished out of your memory now, >> haven't they? > >You have to read her comment *very* carefully. Damn! And I really worked on that post. /BAH |