Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Feb 2007 16:34 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >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. > > You are making no sense. Do you honestly believe that, if each > part passes the test, the assembled item doesn't need to be tested? Yes. It doesn't have to be tested for RF emissions. > Which word, electtic, magnetic or field, do you not understand? What part of a correctly designed and assembled product don't *you* understand. There is simply no need to test completed products for RF emissions when the base design has been proven. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Feb 2007 16:38 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >There's a Cambridge Mass too. > > Son, that is a town; it is not a school. City actually. Same as ours. Cambridge is a city in the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts, United States. It was named in honor of Cambridge, England. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge%2C_Massachusetts The city of Cambridge is an old English university town and the administrative centre of the county of Cambridgeshire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge Graham
From: unsettled on 4 Feb 2007 16:43 Phil Carmody wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>Phil Carmody wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>Ya got me, Phil. So I forgot about the ROM. However: > > > Yeah, it's easy to forget about little things like ROMs. > I was just assembling a PC the other day, and I forgot > to put a CPU in! NOT! > > >>"The ZX81 contained only four main chips : the ROM, Z80A CPU, >>1K RAM and the Ferranti custom-made chip! It is as simple as >>that. The machine was assembled by Timex Corporation in their >>Scottish plant. " >> >>http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=263 > > > Why are you telling me about a machine I used and programmed > for over a year? You were a hobbyist then, and you're a hobbyist now. >>Total available bytes of RAM 901. > > > Available for what? Do you know what that figure represents? > Or did you just mindlessly search for a webpage and copy-paste > the first thing that you found that looked vaguely relevant? > It looks like the latter. > > Phil
From: unsettled on 4 Feb 2007 16:57 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eq50qv$8qk_001(a)s1104.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>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. > > > Of course, unsettled is speaking from his priveledged knowledge of the > Muslim mind. (Ignoring the issue about westerners being Muslims of course) > > >>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. > > > If I point to a webpage with a picture of an Islamic Arabic cleric wearing > sandles which do not have two straps are you happy this falsifies your > claims? There are blasphemers in all religions.
From: Phil Carmody on 4 Feb 2007 18:06
unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > Phil Carmody wrote: > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > > > >>Phil Carmody wrote: > >> > >>>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 > >> > >>Ya got me, Phil. So I forgot about the ROM. However: > > Yeah, it's easy to forget about little things like ROMs. > > I was just assembling a PC the other day, and I forgot > > to put a CPU in! NOT! > > > >>"The ZX81 contained only four main chips : the ROM, Z80A CPU, > >>1K RAM and the Ferranti custom-made chip! It is as simple as > >>that. The machine was assembled by Timex Corporation in their > >>Scottish plant. " > >> > >>http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=263 > > Why are you telling me about a machine I used and programmed > > for over a year? > > You were a hobbyist then, and you're a hobbyist now. Thank you for recognising that. You're not the first. Some very high profile, _very_ high profile, companies have recognised that, and have given me quite valuable freebies because of it. For which I am very grateful, and kept a very happy chappy. Right now, and for the next few months, I am helping break a number theoretical computation record using hand-tweaked code on freebie hardware. Look for the publication of the result in about April. I'm sure Ken knows better than me, but I actually think the 901B figure on that page is wrong - I think it should be 899B. (Or 902B, but that's cheating, IMHO.) I don't have my ZX81 any more, so I can't check. And of course, as I mentioned, it's a bogus figure anyway for reasons that are apparently beyond you. 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./. |