New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Don Bowey on 4 Aug 2006 11:42 On 8/3/06 11:36 PM, in article 44D2EADE.852B18ED(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Don Bowey wrote: > >> I believe we should not fall into the trap of thinking the few USA bashers >> here > > I'm bashing current US foreign policy, not the country ! > > >> represent their countries. > > Very representative actually. Not one Brit ( or any European ) has taken the > 'US > side' as presented by the right-wingers here. > > >> They really are insignificant in the scheme of things. > > Ultimately so will the USA be. Europe's already a bigger market than the USA > with a pop'n of > 500m and will be growing larger still. Ukraine's pop'n alone > is nearly 50m. Turkey ( if they ever get in ) has 70m. > > Graham > The insignificant item is YOU, not your country. Your opinion does not necessarily represent the view of the majority of the UK population. Listening to people like you, Sloman, and Reg, in this setting, is counter productive. But be careful what you wish for; it may come to pass. Don
From: Don Bowey on 4 Aug 2006 11:45 On 8/3/06 11:43 PM, in article 44D2ECAA.8F0FC2DE(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <fep4d2pnbc1sjgbihd3eh27itvb5jlmu0u(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 3 >> Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >> >>> Well, John, I think the "abuse" is retaliation against constant >>> America-bashing, and I don't really think this is grass-roots, do you? >> >> It IS a public face of a section of US society; a small section indeed, >> but the whole society is too big for anyone, even sociologists and >> anthropologists to view in toto. >> >> The nature of the abuse gives a terrible impression of the intelligence >> of the abusers. > > Doesn't it just ! > > I'm amused that confronted with a challenge to an IQ test, 'Phat' responded > with > tales of his virility ! It's a truly sad reflection on the state of the USA > today. And that says what about US foreign policy, which you avow is all you are commenting on regarding the American people? > > Graham >
From: krw on 4 Aug 2006 13:08 In article <rop6d25tr65dko68fgorg9us4pldkl5p8t(a)4ax.com>, jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 05:58:09 +0200, "Bill Sloman" > <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> schreef in > >bericht news:44D222B8.DD68A7C9(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com... > >> > >> > >> Ken Smith wrote: > >> > >>> The US only sells the previous generation of hardware not the latest. > >>> The > >>> US airforce spends the money for development of the new fighters not the > >>> other countries they get sold to. > >> > >> Well..... Britain's getting some JSFs too. > > > >And they are paying for, and carrying out, part of the development, along > >with the Dutch and few other countries > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II > > > >What did you think the "Joint" in the Joint Strike Fighter meant? Weed? > > > It refers to the US Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, all of > whom will use the plane. The umbrella military command is the Joint > Chiefs. It certainly doesn't refer to any international concepts. We > have a number of "Joint" munitions projects, which means they are > funded by multiple US services. e.g. JSTARS: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jstars/ and JDAM: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm -- Keith
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 14:30 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <44D222B8.DD68A7C9(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >Ken Smith wrote: > > > >> The US only sells the previous generation of hardware not the latest. The > >> US airforce spends the money for development of the new fighters not the > >> other countries they get sold to. > > > >Well..... Britain's getting some JSFs too. > > We are now "after they were developed". They didn't put any money I know > of into the development pot. F-35 JSF Involvement Across BAE Systems During the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase, BAE Systems is involved in two particular areas- airframe and mission systems. A major part of the UK industrial contribution to JSF will come from BAE Systems aircraft manufacturing facilities in Warton and Samlesbury, as well as facilities at Rochester and Edinburgh. BAE Systems North America facilities in Nashua, NH, and Johnson City, NY, also support a significant amount of F-35 JSF involvement for BAE Systems. The aft fuselage and empennage (tails and fins) for each F-35 JSF are being designed, engineered and built at the BAE Systems Samlesbury site, using the latest in advanced design and manufacturing technology. The aft-fuselage and empennage will be shipped to Lockheed Martins Fort Worth plant in the summer of 2005, where they will be joined with the wing and forward fuselage from Lockheed Martin and the centre fuselage from Northrop Grumman. Assembly of the initial F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant is expected to be completed at the end of the year. The first flight of the CTOL aircraft is scheduled for mid-2006. BAE Systems is responsible for the design and delivery of key areas of the vehicle and weapon systems, in particular the fuel system, crew escape, life support system, Prognostics Health Management (PHM) integration and Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS). BAE Systems also has significant work share in Autonomic Logistics, primarily on the support system side, and is involved in the Integrated Test Force, including the systems flight test and mission systems. BAE Systems is also responsible for supplying the Vehicle Management Computer, the Communication, Navigation and Identification (CNI) modules, the active stick and throttle and the EOTS Laser subsystem. BAE Systems facilities in the US & UK are responsible for developing an Alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (AHMDS) as part of the risk mitigation effort for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. BAE Systems has successfully completed the Critical Design Review (CDR) which was funded by the UK Joint Combat Aircraft Integrated Product Team (UK MOD). Through its Nashua, NH, facility, BAE Systems is responsible for the F-35 JSFs Electronic Warfare (EW) systems suite and is also providing advanced, affordable low-observable apertures and advanced countermeasure systems. Additionally, BAE Systems will provide critical and complex electronic circuits and modelling and simulation capability in support of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) and production phases of the program. BAE Systems - A Key Partner on the F-35 JSF Program BAE Systems brings with it a rich heritage of Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) experience from the Harrier program as well as advanced lean manufacturing technology from its facilities at Warton and Samlesbury, UK. BAE Systems has the most modern fighter production line and the most recent experience utilizing and applying digital design due to its manufacturing experience on Typhoon. BAE Systems is a major UK industrial participant, investing $72M upfront in the Concept Development Phase (CDP) and $65M in UK JSF facilities during SDD. http://www.baesystems.com/facts/programmes/airsystems/jsf.htm
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 14:39
Bill Sloman wrote: > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in > bericht news:dp85d21r71jr2495asoedog49cp1kskcnk(a)4ax.com... > > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:26:26 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>In 1000 years the only thing the US will be remembered for will be the > >>moon landings. Not its brief shot at empire before the Chinese dominated > >>the globe. > >> > >>Dirk > > > > In 1950, at the end of 1000 years of European domination of the world, > > there were 22 democracies. By 2000, after a mere 50 years of evil > > American hegemony, there were 120, by far the greatest number in > > history. > > > > 120/22 = 5.4, a pretty serious factor. > > And you are counting Zimbabwe, Chile, Indonesia and Pakistan as democracies? > > How many of the new democracies are new nation states? Papua-New Guinea > probably rates as a democracy in your book, but it does not score too well > on any index of democratic function. > > In short, point us to your list of democracies - both the one for 1950 and > the one for 2000. It seems he may have found this piece of serious disinformation ! http://www.hooverdigest.org/003/diamond.html I see they can't list them either. Graham |