Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 18:59 Eeyore wrote: > > T Wake wrote: > > >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>MassiveProng wrote: >>> >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>> >>>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In the following period we had skyrocketing inflation (under >>>>>>>Thatcher) and it marked the time when outsourcing also started to take >> >>serious >> >> >hold. >> >>>>>> Wasn't it already heading that way as she came in, and a lot of the >>>>>>damage already done though? >>>>> >>>>>Labour had been very protective of manufacturing industry whereas >>>>>Thatcher's approach was to let 'the market' do its thing. She believed >> >>that 'the >> >>>>>market' was the only important factor in the economy and distanced >> >>government >> >from any long-term strategic thinking about industry. >> >>>>>So, if it was cheaper to get stuff from abroad whether outsourced or >>>>>simply imported from foreign suppliers, that was what went. >>>>> >>>>>Heck, we now even buy stuff like locomotives from the USA and ships from >>>>>Italy, France and Germany, our own industry in those areas now being a >> >>minute >> >>>>>fraction of what it once was. >>>>> >>>>>Thatcher also believed strongly in the service economy. As such, the UK >>>>>is now regarded as being 'post-industrial'. >>>> >>>> >>>> So you are saying that her cutting these said controls was a bad >>>>thing for the value of british pounds sterling? >>>> >>>> Would it have been better to have retained it? >>> >>>I'm not sure what effect it would have had on the value of the pound. >>> >>>I'm confident that the loss of many key industries is bad for the UK >>>economy though. >> >>The value of the pound cuts both ways, thanks to BAH's heroine the UK is >>dependant on imports for many, many things and as a result fluctuations in >>the exchange rate have a massive impact. >> >>Prior to Thatcher, this was not as significant. >> >>I am not saying if this is a good or bad thing though. > > > On a short term day-to-day basis I'm sure it's relatively benign. In the long > term it's very different. > > Look at the difficulty in getting kids to study science now for example. I'm > sure the kids are right to tend to avoid it since they've seen so many > 'scientific' jobs disappear. Spoken like a tech. Science isn't a "job", it is a calling. Perhaps you meant to say "engineering". > Also, as for Blair's idea that we can do 'R&D' instead of manufacturing, he's > barking mad. Doesn't he know who it is who needs that R&D ? Once again spoken like a tech. The future needs today's R&D.
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 19:08 Eeyore wrote: > unsettled wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: >>>The US is also very safety oriented. In China, I asked for an extension >>>cord. The took a length of zip cord, stripped the ends, folded them over >>>and pushed them into the wall outlet. >>In the UK it appeared to me that every power cord had a fuse >>in the plug. OTOH they're known for their "ring" circuits with >>high ampere fusing. > 30 amps is high ? Yes. 7200 watts at 240 volts. That's what the typical US electric clothes dryers uses, and the typical central air conditioning condenser. US general purpose circuits are mostly 15 amperes at 120 volts, with some 20 ampere circuits for kitchens with heavy appliance use, and laundries where a washing machine and gas clothes dryer are connected to one circuit. We don't do rings for residential power. UK puts up to 7 amp fuses in the cord plugs, approximately the same wattage as our 15 amp branch circuits. >>Safety in one way, not so very safe in another. > In what way is that unsafe exactly ? Doctor Doctor, what's holding up that brain transplant?
From: unsettled on 5 Feb 2007 19:13 Phil Carmody wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >>> >>> >>>>Phil Carmody wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>So you're saying that the ancient tracts don't matter, then? >>>>>If so, why did you start this subthread by posting references to a >>>>>document 1200 years old? >>>> >>>>Matters to some, not to others. Islam doesn't seem to >>>>evolve because "Allah wrote the Koran and handed it to >>>>Mohammed, It is not to be interpreted." >>> >>>What's the Koran got to do with this? >>>Is you a bit fick or summin? >> >>Cite one, cite the other, they're all alike. You can't >>follow the discussion? No surprise there, Phil. >> >>Is you a bit fick or summin? > > > Au contraire - I'm confusing you with simple, but to you > very annoying, factual arguments as I pick holes in > pretty much everything you post. You have delusions as well I see. > So, who cited the koran? > Your ignorance is beginning to exceed your master's > - she's taught you well. You have delusions as well I see.
From: Eeyore on 5 Feb 2007 19:21 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > >>The vast majority of Muslims have not blown up trade centres. For each > >>extremist there are over a million "moderates." > > > > How do you know that? > > Mathmatics mixed with hyperbole. There really are not many extremists, even > in Taleban-era Afghanistan, most people were just "normal" people going > about their daily lives. > > >> There are Christians who commit acts which can best be described as terrorism > to >> encourage others to adapt to their living style. > >> > >>All religions have strictures on what people can and can't do. What they > >>can+ and can't buy. Why do you think Islam is better or worse for what it's > >>strictures are? > > > > The strictures haven't kept up with progress. It is 300 years behind. > > That is what this fight is all about. Does the Shariah get updated > > to reflect today's level of technology or does all the stuff that > > isn't currently approved by the Shriah get destroyed? > > This is not unique to Islam, although you seem to have a hatred only of > Islam. Have the Christian strictures kept up with progress? > > Remind me again why people from the Irish Free State travel to the North for > Abortions. What was the outcome in the US about stem cell treatment? Blimey, > in Christian nations they are even trying to re-define the "meaning" of > science so their religious nonsense can be taught in schools to unsuspecting > children. With today's seemingly rational laws in the west I sometimes have to 'pinch myself' that not long ago religiously inspired law sought to dictate what some ppl could or couldn't do sexually in the privacy of their own homes. It seems quite scary somehow now. > Now, the question does remain, why do you think Islam is worse than > Christianity? You have obviously grown up with Christianity so you assume > the strictures it has are "normal" which makes Islam wrong in your eyes. To > me, all the monotheistic religions are insane. And to Muslims, their norms seem quite normal too. Graham
From: MassiveProng on 5 Feb 2007 19:32
On 05 Feb 2007 16:13:41 +0200, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> In article <45C6525A.BB423643(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >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. >> >> I think it's a town. I'd have to check what it's carter is. >> I don't remember a mayor of Cambridge. > >Maybe you could look at the City of Cambridge's own home page: >http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/ > >> >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 >> >> The difference between town and city is the style of government. > >Oh, you and your absolutes. You'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. > >What you provide is not a universal definition. To the more >practical, such as cartographers, it's simply a matter of size >and density. To others, it might be the representation of the >parishes within a in a diocese. This does mean that there are >definitions which make Ely a city, and Cambridge not, at least >according to some cam.misc regulars. > Most US governments have statutes that define when, according to population and other factors, a town can APPLY to be incorporated as a city. So she is wrong again. It is 100% NOT about any "style" thing. SOME states divide up their counties into "townships" and some do not. In Ohio, each township has its own cops. Here in California, if the town is too small (Santee), the county sheriff's dept. manages LEO things and traffic. Odd since the counties in Ohio are fairly small, and SD county is FRIGGIN HUGE! It is one of the biggest counties in the nation, falling in at No 6, with LA county at No 1. |