Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 4 Feb 2007 10:57 unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > I was told that > > http://www.ts1000.us/ > > had a coding contest in 2006. That's using the old Sinclair > "doorstop" computers with 1K memory which also held the OS > and a basic interpreter. I don't know how much space was > left for programs, but it wasn't very much. Unsurprisingly you can't get your facts right. The ts1000 and the Sinclair ZX81 both had 8KB ROM. The former had 2KB RAM, the latter 1KB. The screen, more like a text buffer, took up to 768 bytes. Of course, it was well worth saving up for the 16k RAM pack, wobble or no wobble. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 10:56 In article <45C34470.DCB07DFF(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >> >> I have. It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. > >3 decades ! Where on earth did you get that figure from ? What was being >rationed in 1975 ? I found it. whew! Reference: _The Downing Street Years_; Margaret Thatcher, Harper-Collins; 1993; page 44. "But I took greatest personal pleasure in the removal of exchange controls -- that is the abolition of the elaborate statuatory restrictions on the amount of foreign exchange British citizens could acquire. These had been introduced as an 'emergency measure' at the start of the Second World War and maintained by successive governments, largely in the hope of increasing industrial investment in Britain and of resisting pressure on sterling." /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 11:00 In article <P8WdnTT-ftcvxl7YRVnyigA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:epvepo$8qk_023(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45C1F6C2.699C14D3(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>>How about an example ? >>>> >> >>>> >> Food coupons. >>>> > >>>> >I think you misread. You were talking about freedoms. Do you mean the >>>> >freedom from Food coupons was suspended? >>>> >>>> I consider being told what I can buy and when I can buy it >>>> a loss of choice. Freedom involves each individual making choices >>>> and coping with the consequences of those choices. >>> >>>I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >> >> I have. > >Didn't the US institute rationing? Yes. >Or doesnt that count? Sure but Truman stopped it as soon as possible. > >> It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. > >When do you think WWII finished? > >Rationing ended in 1954, I am fairly sure the second world war finished >_after_ the 1920s. I just posted my reference to eeyore's post. REad it. > >Did you mean 1 decade? 3: 1979-1949 > >>>You have some daft fanciful ideas about it it seems. >> >> I also listened to the stories of my elders. Perhaps you should >> ask some for their stories. > >I lived through the very last years of rationing. Do you want my stories? I would have but your credibility is zero so I don't think I can believe anything you would write. And that's sad. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Feb 2007 11:15 In article <a34df$45c5f1c8$cdd0859a$311(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <aK2dnURuwa_HQ1nYnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eq1u5g$8ss_004(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>In article <9c9e$45c38013$4fe768e$12122(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>They [Muslims] can't even buy >>>>>>>>>shoes unless the shoe has been approved by the clerics (I think >>>>>>>>>those are the people who do this work). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Really? I can find no example of this being true. Can you support the >>>> >>>>claim >>>> >>>>>>>>that Islam dictates what shoes people can wear? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Of the three Abraham-based religions, only Christianity doesn't >>>>>>>have rules about living styles. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>More obfuscation. Did you take a course in not answering the question >>>>>>btw ? >>>>>> >>>>>>Can you support the claim that Islam dictates what shoes people can wear >>>>>>? >>>>>> >>>>>>Graham >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/072.sbt.htm l >>>> >>>>Thank you. I can't get out today to check the blurb; but I'll trust >>>>your judgement. >>>> >>> >>>This creates an interesting quandary. It appears from this, that you (BAH) >>>had no idea where (if anywhere) in the Koran the requirement for shoes to be >>>approved by a cleric existed. >> >> >> The heads of religion decide what people can eat, wear, use, >> and make. They have been in control from the start of Islam. >> Their peoples are now getting exposed to Western media. These >> people see stuff they would like to wear or use or buy or make. >> Now they are the ones who are making the decisions and not >> the clerics. The clerics who are sensitive to loss of this >> kind of oversight power, recognize, rightly, that Western >> civilization is encroaching into their territory. The most >> normal decision is to decide to destroy the threat to their >> power. >> >> The one advantage that these people have is they do not >> insist on instant gratification; they think in centuries, >> not minutes. > >>>That alone raises the question of why *you* were so convinced the rule >>>existed - was it simply something you heard in the past and assumed it was >>>true? >> >> >> It is based on everything I've read. It is based on how long >> it took for the Ottoman clerics to "approve" Western civilization >> innovations, e.g. printing press. >> >> >>>Now, the secondary quandary is that you *assume* the link supports your >>>argument, without going there or checking. For all you know it could be >>>nonsense or it could be something which unsettled thinks is relevant but >>>still doesn't support your argument. >> >> >> Unsettled has passed most of my rationale tests. We don't agree on >> a lot of things but he has his feet planted in reality. > > >Thanks. > >Now, about that secondary quandary. If one reads the web page >carefully it discusses the fact that the prophet wore sandals >with two straps. (Did you folks miss that?) To the western >mind that doesn't mean much, but to the Muslim it is the >model to be followed, IMO a directive. Western fashions come and go at the drop of a haute couteur hiccup. All through Islamic history, the clothes people wore were dictated. Some had political reasons like banning the styles that was dictated by your predecessor but others seems to keep the infidels' influcence away from the the pure Mulsim. That's control, serious control. And that's just textiles and shoes. > > >>>Can *you* provide any evidence that the Koran dictates what shoes people can >>>buy? >>> >>>Are the strictures laid down in that link any more prohibitive than those in >>>the Old Testament? >> >> >> I suspect that the Jews who are very strict have similar rules of >> living styles. The difference is that they haven't blown up trade >> centers for the purpose of forcing the rest of the world to their >> adapt to their living style. > >Historically that's not exactly true. When Jericho was >captured the Jews killed all the inhabitants without >mercy, even though many begged to live a life of slavery >instead of death. > >But, if we look at your statement in modern day context, I think that's what I was talking about. I've tended to lose my way among the thread drifts lately. >it seems the older the religion the less interested it >is in converts. I may have a quibble with this. > >Islam is now ~1400 years old. We can look at what >Christianity was doing about the year 1400. Much of >what was going on wasn't very pretty. Luther was born >in 1483. If the evolution of Islam tracks that of >Christianity at all, their great reformer should be >coming along any time now. I don't think it will be a reformer in the religious sense. I do think it will involve getting their Shariah updated to the last century. it hasn't changed in 300 (I may be off with that est.) years. Since then the Industrial Revolution has happened and the world is hip deep in the Information Revolution. Even if their coda gets updated to the 20th century they'll be way behind. >The conditions happen to >be ripe. Funny how that works. Oh, I don't think it's odd. That's simply how knowledge, trade, and thinking flows work. I've been trying to grasp the general stuff but my brain keeps crossing when I study finance, banking, and economics. I'm just not cut out for that kind of thinking style. > >In the meantime the west needs to hold the Muslim >radicals at bay. Right. Time; my estimate was a decade. I don't think we have a decade. > IMO "winning the war against terror" >won't be so much by our hand as it will be Islam's >internal reforms. Exactly. > If you look at things as I do, you >might see that Ghandi nearly pulled it off for India >and Pakistan. I think his legacy has worked to keep >those two from destroying one another. If left alone, they might figure it all out. Look at the maps. They are between two rocks. One of them is determined to make trouble for everybody. The other is sitting back waiting for everyone else to shoot their feet. > We, that is >in some generation after me, will see this particular >"war on terror" conflict end. Then, after a short >period of peace (at most, a few generations,) the >emergence of the next variation on large scale >human dissent. Yep. Water. /BAH
From: Phil Carmody on 4 Feb 2007 11:30
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> It is significant that England couldn't figure out how > >> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. > > > >When do you think WWII finished? > > > >Rationing ended in 1954, I am fairly sure the second world war finished > >_after_ the 1920s. > > I just posted my reference to eeyore's post. REad it. > > > >Did you mean 1 decade? > > 3: 1979-1949 The war didn't end, or start even, in 1949. 1979, and your reference in your other post, is nothing to do with rationing. Yet again, you show that you are the master of the irrelevant. > >I lived through the very last years of rationing. Do you want my stories? > > I would have but your credibility is zero so I don't think I can > believe anything you would write. And that's sad. I've rarely seen such pathetically obvious hypocricy before. From someone else that is, you have a reputation for it nowadays. If you just want pity, why not post to alt.support.depression; that's far easier than going through this repeated self-shaming ritual that you perform here. Does 'BAH' stand for Beatme Aboutthe Headplease? Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. |