Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 9 Oct 2006 12:24 In article <452A63FB.13B89DA7(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [...] >Anyone would think making nukes was easy the way the Republicans go on about it >too. Actually it is fairly easy if you don't care about size or quality. The material doesn't have to be "weapons grade" either. For a given yeld, the bomb gets bigger as some very rapid function of impurity content but it isn't a step function. You could stop short of what the US or Russia used for material. To get a high yeld you need to get the reaction material together and to stay together for a longish time while the pressure is trying to push it apart. If you use a huge surplus of material its own interia will hold a portion of the material in. This gives a low yeld and very dirty bomb. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: John Fields on 9 Oct 2006 12:31 On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:00:20 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:mujii25168dj6fm841h5qqvck8bdva1fb7(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:11:51 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Fields wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >The only thing that worries me about the 'state of the world' is what >>>> >idiocy America's up to next. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Bullshit. >>>> >>>> All you're trying to do is avoid having to account for yourself in a >>>> way which won't cast you in a bad light. >>>> >>>> How much do you weigh? >>>> >>>> How much do you make? >>>> >>>> How much do you laugh? >>>> >>>> Who would you like to see dead? >>>> >>>> Are you willing to answer even just _one_ of the questions? >>> >>>Why the heck should I ? What's it got to do with anything ? What gives you >>>the >>>idea you even have any right to ask such intrusive questions ? >> >> --- >> I have the right to ask anything I want to, just as you have the >> right to be devious. > >Is refusing to answer being devious? --- I refuse to answer. Is that being devious? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Ken Smith on 9 Oct 2006 12:34 In article <EaiWg.14375$7I1.3809(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: [...] >> Did CBS >> news publish the fact that the Democrats that brought this event to >> light won't turn over the unedited emails and refuse to tell how >> they were obtained to the FBI? There is more stink here than a >> Republican perv. > >Nice Republican talking points, but they're irrelevant and nothing but a >smokescreen to divert attention away from the issue. I see Hastert's trying >the same thing. Let's pray the American people are smart enough to not let >it work. I'm surprised you let him get away with the claim that it was democrats that brought the issue to light. This is another bit of disinformation that is floating around out there. It was in fact republicans that brought it to light. The democrats learned about it from the news. There are some republicans with high moral standards who simply refuse to let such things slide. I know it is hard to believe and they may be a endangered species but they are not extinct. >just the tiniest bit of perspective. The trouble is, punishing a sexual >predator (particularly in your own party) doesn't get votes. Not punishing one can lose you votes however. The republicans are strongly supported by the "chirstian right". The attempt to cover up the Foley's Fallies may result in some of them sitting out the election. Given the choice between the party of child molesters and the party of church-state seperation, they may simply stay home. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: John Fields on 9 Oct 2006 12:40 On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:13:14 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:e5mii2lk999fcil32t1rtv0ad6qfnrjhdj(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:32:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >> >>> >>>> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>> news:780gi25ruponn590krd8cgvvt9p3catitk(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:13:31 +0100, "T Wake" >>>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>>It is ok, it was an imaginary elephant. In the real world, imaginary >>>>>>things >>>>>>cant hurt you. As an aside, I know what imaginary numbers *are* and I >>>>>>also >>>>>>know there is no way *you* are juggling them. >>>>> >>>>> I say again. You *know* nothing. >>> >>>Repetitive sycophant. >> >> The void between your ears is astounding. > >Wow. A new insult. Brilliant. Did you spend all weekend trying to come up >with that one or did you over hear some school children like you seem to >have done with all your others. --- Now, now... I seem to recall that when you first started posting here you were of the opinion that a calm and rational debating style was best. Now, however, you seem to be more and more slipping into the quagmire we love which you initially denounced... For shame... ;) -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 12:59
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:D8tWg.12748$6S3.9188(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... >> My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way we >> are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted >> (possibly part of the problem). > > I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a > word from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. I agree. In the UK we have an assumption of rights which is not seriously different from the Iron Age. There have been periods in our history where insane governance has removed or rescinded these assumed rights - but this is supposed to be an enlightened age. > Until recently, the Republicans liked to trumpet about how precious > peoples' rights are, because there are millions of people who have fought > and died for them. Then, along comes a President who makes a few > major-league blunders, and decides the only way to distract from those > blunders is to pull a Chicken Little stunt, and hope that people are so > afraid that they will fall to their knees worshiping him and his cronies. > All of a sudden, the government is demanding that people give up their > rights, as part of the attempt to keep the "sky is falling" illusion. I > just don't buy it. Either those rights are sacrosanct (I happen to > believe they are) or they're not--in which case the government has no > right, ever again, to ask people to die to preserve those rights. They > can't have it both ways, and as a populace, we're fools to let them! I agree, and I would add that not only should they never ask people to die to defend them, the government should never try to "force" them on to other nations. >> Some of it is done in the name of "National Security" which really does >> annoy me. > > I agree. Thoughout human history, appealing to fear and anger has proven > one of the most effective techniques for getting power over other people. Shamefully so. >>Some of it is done in an insane move to appear to be "liberal" and >>"multicultural." > > I'm not sure I understand--can you give some examples? I tend to support > this sort of thing more than fear-mongering. There is much more mixing of > cultures in the world today than ever before. Plus, as was guaranteed to > happen at some point, there is for the first time since the Industrial > Revolution, a move toward levelling the vastly disparate standards of > living across the globe. I think it's simply the way of the world in a > highly technological society, and I think it's important to resist the > urge to fight it. There will be some pain (maybe a lot of pain), but in > the end, it will lead to a better, more peaceful world. Sorry, I will try to make it clearer. I am not opposed to multiculturalism, I think it is the only way for societies to survive and expand. The problems we have in the UK (IMHO obviously) are that we are heading towards legislation which (for example) bans jokes made at the expense of religions because it may cause offence. This strikes me as playing into the hands of the fear mongers. Recently one of our Members of Parliment has asked that when his Female Muslim constituents visit him for clinics, they lift their face veils to enable one-on-one conversation. This caused uproar and now other MPs are saying it is wrong and going on about how they are championing the rights of women to wear veils. More (IMHO) ammunition for the right wing extremists who pose ten times the threat any Islamic one does. >> Still, it isn't just the current government which is entirely to blame. >> All the political parties are close enough that nothing will change. > > And thus my comments about the broken political process. It would appear > from the outside that the UK does have more of a multi-party system than > the US, but how effective are the parties beyond the two major ones in > fomenting honest debate rather than a two sided "yes, you did"-"no, I > didn't" contest? Not at all. We are a two party system with some others which leech away a small percentage of the vote. Local elections are a different matter, but this just makes it worst when facist organisations get elected on the wave of anti-PCness. >>> No, but I can think of several that have fallen apart because their >>> government became corrupt and eroded peoples' rights all in the name of >>> keeping power when they should not have been able to. >> >> Pretty much the main cause of Empires collapsing. > > Yep, that's the thing we should *really* be afraid of and fighting > against. A war on governmental corruption seems unlikely in the near future :-) |