Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 6 Nov 2006 08:47 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eindoh$8qk_004(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <L62dnR_UNZvcstLYnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ein7c1$8qk_004(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <kTb3h.1659$r12.387(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>news:oojpk2tg7e5iphjsl7qdafkucotg01m67q(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:59:10 +0000, Eeyore >>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) >>>>>>kicked his >>>>>>troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. >>>>> >>>>> It didn't get into the papers much, but there was a continuous >>>>> campaign of bombing and so on for many years after the Gulf War had >>>>> allegedly ended. To enforce the "no fly zone" mostly, I think. Look it >>>>> up. >>>> >>>>And none of that had anything to do with "expansionism". At worst, it >>>>*might* have been Saddam attacking his own citizens in the no-fly zones. >>>>However, based on the patterns of flights and such, I remember analysts >>>>at >>>>that time suggesting it was only Saddam thumbing his nose at Shrub Sr. >>> >>> This was during the time when Clinton was in office. >> >>So the Clinton administration did indeed keep Saddam in check? Is that >>what >>you are saying? > > Take your reading comprehension pill and read me in the morning. No need to be rude, it was an honest question. However, earlier on in the thread it was commented that the enforcement of the north and south no-fly zones were "keeping Saddam in his cage" and here you say this was an act of the Clinton administration - which, again previously, you said did nothing. You cant have it both ways.
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 08:47 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >Interestingly people like Eeyore also tend to believe that > >new drugs are simply riped off older drugs, so all is well > >in their little world. > > That is what they are told. LMAO. Nobody *told* me this. It's something I've largely discovered for myself by keeping my eyes are ears open. I'd recommend you to do the same. In any case it's not all new drugs that are like this. Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 08:53 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > > > >> Interestingly people like Eeyore also tend to believe that > >> new drugs are simply riped off older drugs, so all is well > >> in their little world. > > > >*Some* of them are. > > You are talking about a tactic that drug companies so that > they can keep their patent for longer than 20 years. This does > not happen to all drugs. This is a very recent response to > companies not recouping their investments for producing one > drug. It's a 'quick buck'. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 08:49 In article <9d44d$454e0802$49ecf9b$23488(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <cnlmk2h3trpetb9ihb69ulvp7drvvgii65(a)4ax.com>, >> George O. Bizzigotti <gbizzigo(a)mitretek.org> wrote: > >much snippage > >>>I've seen the work of a reasonable large sample of the engineers who >>>design U.S. demilitarization plants, and all of them are a bit more >>>experienced than "an intern working at Dow." As a non-engineer, even I >>>can tell the difference between the work of a junior engineer >>>preparing specifications for a pump or a reactor and a senior engineer >>>designing plant systems. > >> I figured you could. I guess I also don't know the difference >> (apologies if I use incorrect words) between a chemist and a >> chemical engineer. My experience in chemisty was getting >> a minor when I was planning to major in biology. (I never got >> the degree; I went to work to earn money instead.) It seems >> like chemistry is also involved in manufacturing computer >> board layouts these days. So there has to be some kind >> of degree program that teaches kids how to make these plants. > >You seem to have been asking startup questions for a long time. I'm trying to learn how people learn how to do their work. Now that I no longer create stuff, I want to learn how other people create theirs. > >The person with money usually hires a team, and usually >also has one genius caliber individual on that team, to >do the basic design and startup. And how does each person on that team learn their craft? >The person with money >usually has enough smarts to do reasonability checks. > >This is invariably a multidisciplinary effort. There's >no course I know of that teaches how to go about setting >up a chemical plant. You need people with business >knowledge as well as people with an understanding >of construction as well as people who understand the >chemistry you want to do, and more. They have to be able to talk to each other. Somebody has learned enough of all three to be able to do that. > >The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into >an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. No, it's not. >But >the days of Microsoft style success are still here. There always will be companies who make a quick buck and generate no long-term infrastructure. /BAH > > >
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 08:56
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote in message > >> > Eeyore wrote: > >> > > >> >> Why would anyone spend that much on a watch ? I can't figure it. Aside > >> >> from bragging rights of course ! > >> >> > >> > you can't figure it out? why does that > >> > not surprise me? > >> > >> Because not everybody in the world allows the cost of their possessions to > >> define them as human beings? > > > >A film and sound editor acquaintance of mine who's worked in the USA said he > >couldn't live there long-term in part because he found the use of wealth to > >define yourself to be offensive. > > Then he didn't mix with the usual US types. He only saw a slice > of US. What are 'the usual US types' ? Graham |