Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Feb 2007 12:18 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > > >>One of my projects is to find an electrician and have him a damned > >>switch on the thing. > >> > > > > Probably be cheaper to get one to FIND and SOLVE the problem. > > > > D'OH! > > The stove people failed at this. Why should I pay someone else > $100/hour to come to the same conclusion? The FCC won't charge you. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Feb 2007 12:21 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: > >> >>Eeyore wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> The standards do not use the word 'unplugged'. > >> >> > >> >>What word meaning unplugged do you find in your standards then? > >> > > >> > If you knew anything about the industry, you would know. > >> > > >> > The words I chose were quite sufficient, and quite literal. Powered > >> >off means powered off, not some off the top of your retarded little > >> >brains' bullshit standby mode creeping in. > >> > >> Powered off is not the same as unplugged. No matter how you want > >> to squirm, techs would read 'powered off' in the procedures and > >> just hit the power button, then take the base-line measurement. > > > >You are completely wrong. > > Not really. It would explain the condition. No it wouldn't. Any emissions with the stove connected but the power switch in the off position have to meet the standards. It's *not* a test method problem. Graham
From: Eeyore on 3 Feb 2007 12:21 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > > >>Powered off is not the same as unplugged. > > > > You're an idiot. Test benches have power supplies to power circuits > >so that they do not require their internal AC fed power supply. All > >the circuits of your petty little stove would have been tested before > >even being assembled into the stove. > > If the stove was not tested after assembly, the procedures have > another bug. No. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 3 Feb 2007 12:21 In article <epvr4c$8ss_016(a)s930.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <epvis8$gav$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>>>If the trial had happened etc, people would have "seen justice done". >>> >>>There wouldn't have been a trail. It would have been delayed and >>>the center of Washington's attention for two decades. There were >>>other things that needed serious attention. >> >>What makes you say that. Trials seem to happen all the time in the US. >>Nobody is supposed to be above the law, so how exactly do you not see a >>trial? > >The Nixon problem would have been used to delay work on anything >else. Nonsense. You seem to think that the US can't think about two things at once. As it is, the festering of the Nixon problem was allowed to continue. [.....] >>>Do you honestly think that him going to jail was a worse punishment >>>than what did happen? >> >>I honestly believe that a trial and if he was convicted, > >What if he weren't convicted? If not then do the same as would happen to anyone else. He walks away. It is how a functioning legal system works. I know that you distrust allowing the US to be under the rule of law but it is the best way to go. >> jail would have >>been treating him just like everyone else. > >Do you honestly believe that he would have put into a jail? >Now I know you aren't dealing with reality. US Presidents >are fonts of security knowledge among others. There was no >way Nixon would have gone to any jail. This would make him, in your opinion, above the law. There are folks in the FBI, the CIA and the NSA who also know a whole lot. Do they also get a free ride? You seem to sending the US in the direction of having a royalty. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 3 Feb 2007 12:24
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Pay attention to what happened in Boston yesterday; especially > >> >> >> follow what happens after this and what the critics are saying > >> >> >> and what these critics don't say. One thing you need to know > >> >> >> is that the mayor of Boston is the only politician here who > >> >> >> is taking the warnings of 9/11 seriously. > >> >> > > >> >> >Would you care to explain for us who don't live there > >> >> >what it is that happened in Boston ? > >> >> > >> >> It's too long to explain. Magic incantations are: gorilla marketing, > >> >> Turner Broadcasting; the Cartoon channel and some movie about > >> >> hair (I haven't figured this one out yet); Boston temporarily > >> >> shut down. > >> > > >> > Completely failing as ever to say the word bomb and hoax. > >> > > >> > I've heard elsewhere about this now. The police in Boston acted > >> > correctly. I hope whatever nitiwit thought this one up goes to jail. > >> > >> To be honest, I have no idea how this incident in Boston shows the Mayor > >> there is the "only politician [there] who is taking the warnings of [11 > >> Sep] seriously." > > > >Several other cities also had the 'suspicious devices' planted yet no action > >was taken about them. > >http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/31/mass_suspi > cious_devices_called_a_hoax/ > > That supports my statement that only a few politicians are > taking this threat seriously. You could also say that the reaction in Boston was an over-reaction. Graham |