Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2007 09:53 In article <eq7fut$f9p$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eq78r8$8qk_002(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <J7udnR8smt-TQFjYRVnyhwA(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >[......] >>>It is odd that you have a lower opinion of your nation than the people who >>>get accused of being "anti-US." >> >>I just know how people work. > >So it really is true that you have a low opinion of the people of the US. In Washington, D.C., yes. >Have you considered that the logic that has led you to this conclusion may >be a reductio ad absurdum argument against the assumptions that went into >the argument. > >The american people are not stupid. I wasn't talking about regular people. I was talking about Washington D.C. politicians at the time of Nixon's resignation. If there had not been a pardon, their focus would have been on getting Nixon to trial and other revenge actions. Ford's pardons pricked everybody's balloon and forced people to start working on something else. <snip> /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 5 Feb 2007 10:01 In article <eq764a$8qk_003(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >having to clear the funnel every 5'. I'm deathly afraid >of ice these days. http://www.leevalley.com/garden/page.aspx?c=2&p=46633&cat=2,51676&ap=1 > >/BAH -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 5 Feb 2007 10:24 In article <1170687257.826310.144950(a)v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, ANDRE*** <zx81ab(a)progression.net> wrote: > >Phil Carmody wrote: > >>The screen, >> more like a text buffer, took up to 768 bytes. > > I think it is more like 793 bytes. 24 lines X (32 characters + 1 >ENTER) + 792 bytes. Plus 1 ENTER at the beginning equals 793 bytes. I think you are wrong in this. The display hardware of the ZX80 required that the end of the text for each line be marked by a halt instruction. The lines did not have to be the full width of the screen. The hardware would pad with blank space to the right. This way, the display area could be a lot smaller than a full screens worth. On the ZX80 one section of U13 and one section of U16 did the decode that forced the NOP onto the micro's input. (Yes I'm looking at a schematic) A6 drives the INT line of the Z80. Because of the timing of the cycle, the INT line is polled while the refresh register is on the address bus. For this reason, the interrupt would happen after 33 refreshes were done. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 11:03 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq77fq$8qk_007(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45C4E540.D12FB04A(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >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. >>> >>> >>> I agree. The most they should be able to charge TN with is illegal >>> sign affixment. >> >>Having seen the things now, I'd certainly say it was an over-reaction. > <snip> > > At least you people are consistent. Often a side effect of sanity. You are quite safe.
From: T Wake on 5 Feb 2007 11:16
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq77d2$8qk_006(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45C4C558.69D6D2AA(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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. > > If there was no reaction, I'd expect C-4 packages wrapped up > in cartoons. > > It was a good exercise that was not constrained by pretending. > Interesting, and strangely logical, line of reasoning. The range of packages open to the terrorist is not limited in any meaningful sense. Coke cans, shopping bags etc., have all been used in the past to hide an explosive device. If terrorists wanted to hide devices in the locations these items were placed, they could simply go over night and strap some C-4 - most people would not recognise it if they sat on it and despite some crazy ideas people have remote detonators can easily be disguised to the point at which no one (other than EOD officers) will recognise them. So, the problem appears to be that _any_ time you see litter you need to call the bomb squad. This could have some positive repercussions. Add to which, the terrorists currently high on the fear list tend to be suicide bombers, you need to think about calling the bomb squad every time you see a person standing near the road, every time you see a car, certainly every time you see a pram / buggy (you can get a *lot* of explosive on one of those). Would this sort of reaction be equally understandable and approved by yourself? I have spent some time reading about this on the web, as it touches on a subject close to my paycheck^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H heart. It seems most of the people who say the Boston reaction was a GOODTHINGT, say so because the devices were unusual, suspicious and had bits of electronics sticking out of them. I hope I don't have to point out that is generally *not* what terrorist devices look like? |