Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Tony Lance on 12 Feb 2007 12:09 Big Bertha Thing gyro Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/gyro.html Access page JPG 12K Image Astrophysics net ring Access site Newsgroup Reviews including alt.war.nuclear Drawing of an ordinary gyroscope. Caption:- Fig. XVI Extract from the Introductory Chapter:- But the most interesting top of all is undoubtedly the ordinary gyroscope. That depicted in Fig. XVI........ although merely sold as a toy, is nevertheless capable of illustrating the gyroscopic phenomena which have been so much made use of in modern mechanical invention. From the book An Elementary Treatment of the Theory of Spinning Tops and Gyroscopic Motion. By Harold Crabtree M.A. Formerly Scholar of Pembroke College, Cambridge Assistant Master at Charterhouse Longmans, Green and Co. 1923 First Edition 1909 Second Edition 1914 New Impression 1923 (C) Copyright Tony Lance 1998 Distribute complete and free of charge to comply. Big Bertha Thing rita Educating Rita This film portrays a dominant spouse and a long-suffering student, to the extent upto and including divorce, book-burning and forced pregnancy. There was zero privacy. Any attempt to re-register or change the password would not work, because the secret could not be kept. Every posting by the spouse is a violation of OU rules and the students education, causing real pain. Vetting by one moderator or by several using a non-public Rita conf. would not work, because the spouse would use the students name, with all the further alienation that would cause. A new policy needs to be adopted. The last resort punishment measure, needs to be the first resort measure on compassionate grounds; that of making the student read-only on FC. The student would thank you for it, but not publically. It would need to be agreed between ACS and OUSA, which is what they are there for. Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk
From: Phil Carmody on 12 Feb 2007 15:07 unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > Phil Carmody wrote: > > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > > > >>Ken Smith wrote: > >> > >>>In article <OtidnQWNJOAtcVTYnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > >>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>>[.....] > >>> > >>> > >>>>yes, but I am confused on terminology. With a Windows XP machine, > >>>>what you do call the OS? > >>> > >>>The Linux on the other partition. > >> > >>A properly installed Linux uses all the available > >>partitions. > > Wrong. (But about what I expected from an ignoramus like yourself.) > > A properly installed linux uses all the partitions which the system > > administrator wants linux to be able to use, and none that the system > > administrator doesn't want linux to be able to use. > > As usual, you redefine the discussion to suit yourself. Which precise bit do you claim I redefined? What was the prior definition? What have I changed it too? 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: MassiveProng on 12 Feb 2007 19:36 On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:18:24 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: >Phil Carmody wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>>In article <OtidnQWNJOAtcVTYnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>[.....] >>>> >>>> >>>>>yes, but I am confused on terminology. With a Windows XP machine, >>>>>what you do call the OS? >>>> >>>>The Linux on the other partition. >>> >>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>partitions. >> >> >> Wrong. (But about what I expected from an ignoramus like yourself.) >> >> A properly installed linux uses all the partitions which the system >> administrator wants linux to be able to use, and none that the system >> administrator doesn't want linux to be able to use. > >As usual, you redefine the discussion to suit yourself. > >Be happy. Bullshit. But hey, at least you didn't sidestep... no... you claimed someone else did. Just admit that your remark was incorrect and move on. Have you ever had a machine that contained more than one physical drive? How about more than two?
From: MassiveProng on 12 Feb 2007 19:42 On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:34:34 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: >MassiveProng wrote: > >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:28:38 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >> Gave us: >> >> >>>MassiveProng wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:16:56 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>>Gave us: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <OtidnQWNJOAtcVTYnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>[.....] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>yes, but I am confused on terminology. With a Windows XP machine, what you >>>>>>>do call the OS? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The Linux on the other partition. >>>>> >>>>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>>>partitions. >>>> >>>> >>>> You're an idiot. I have had systems with 5 OSes on them at the same >>>>time. >>> >>>What's your point? >>> >>> >>>> I have done plenty of Linux installs, and nearly ALL add menu >>>>selections for windows, beos and other systems. >>> >>>What's your point? >>> >>> >>>> If you have ANY brains, you do NOT let linux "set things up" for >>>>you. ANYONE with ANY brains goes through the pain of learning how to, >>>>and setting it up him or herself. >>> >>>> That is a ridiculous statement you have made. >>> >>>As it has been with everything else you've written, you >>>know nothing about this subject while understanding less >>>than nothing. >>> >>>I'll repeat it since you're a slow learner: >>> >>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>partitions. >> >> >> >> And I repeat: >> >> You're a goddamned idiot. > > >So when, despite being a slow learner, you do learn something, >it is invariably wrong. You're an idiot. You statement about Linux is absolutely 100% WRONG! >LOL That is the only task you are likely actually able to perform. You certainly know next to nothing about Linux... or less.
From: harris777 on 12 Feb 2007 20:00
Phil Carmody wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >>> >>> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <OtidnQWNJOAtcVTYnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>[.....] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>yes, but I am confused on terminology. With a Windows XP machine, >>>>>>what you do call the OS? >>>>> >>>>>The Linux on the other partition. >>>> >>>>A properly installed Linux uses all the available >>>>partitions. >>> >>>Wrong. (But about what I expected from an ignoramus like yourself.) >>>A properly installed linux uses all the partitions which the system >>>administrator wants linux to be able to use, and none that the system >>>administrator doesn't want linux to be able to use. >> >>As usual, you redefine the discussion to suit yourself. > > > Which precise bit do you claim I redefined? > What was the prior definition? > What have I changed it too? You've redefined what a "properly installed Linux" is. |