New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 5 Aug 2006 15:10 On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 01:20:24 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >news:l3i7d2t6hnppubng26c12m121klnu976pd(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:42:11 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" >> <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >> >>>Sounds fair enough. Actually, I never thought of the USA as a >>>nation of fools, at least not until that nation voted for >>>Bush for the *2ND* time. I mean, his first election can be >>>called an honest mistake, but how can a nation continue to >>>follow such an insane leader with such dangerous ideas? That >>>is *very* hard to understand. >> >> --- >> You have to understand, Frank, that we live in a country where what >> we do actually _matters_, so I understand why you might be chagrined >> by the fact that Bush's actions are totally different from what you >> might consider to be in your best interests. >> >> As far as the "Nation of Fools" thing goes, even you must be aware >> that the entire populace didn't vote for Bush. As a matter of fact, >> only a miniscule percentage of it did, the electors who cast their >> vote for him. >> >> http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/allocation.html > >No, but about half the polulace voted so that the electors had a >good chance keeping him in the saddle. In my book, that is the same. --- Half a nation of fools is the same as a nation of fools? --- >> A lousy system if ever I saw one, and I see no reason why >> presidential (in fact, _all_) elections couldn't be carried out >> on-line where the result would truly be popular. > >Coulda woulda shoulda? ;) --- Cite why they couldn't. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 15:17 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <1154801057.855289.34900(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated > Sat, 5 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes > >Allende's government in Chile was - correctly - called a democracy, and > >you didn't find it sympathetic. > > It wasn't very, and it was stupid. Nationalising US companies without > compensation was not a brilliant move, was it? Look at how the US behaved when Britain and France ( oh *and* Israel ! ) took Egypt to task over the nationalisation of the Suez Canal though ! Who were the 'weenies' then ? Graham
From: John Fields on 5 Aug 2006 15:22 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:32:07 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:38:45 -0500, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > >>As far as the "Nation of Fools" thing goes, even you must be aware >>that the entire populace didn't vote for Bush. As a matter of fact, >>only a miniscule percentage of it did, the electors who cast their >>vote for him. >> >>http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/allocation.html >> >>A lousy system if ever I saw one, and I see no reason why >>presidential (in fact, _all_) elections couldn't be carried out >>on-line where the result would truly be popular. > >Like the way Tony Blair was elected? > >John --- I don't know. Got a link or an example? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 15:24 John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:12:59 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >More for you.... > > > >BAE Systems - A Key Partner on the F-35 JSF Program............................ > > > >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 [ System > >Development and Demonstration Phase ] > > > >http://www.baesystems.com/facts/programmes/airsystems/jsf.htm > > > >Graham > > BAE has fairly extensive operations in the US, too. We work with one > group that's doing B-52 radar upgrades; they were Sanders Associates > before being acquired by BAE. They tell me that, because of security > rules, they can tell me stuff they aren't allowed to communicate to > the home office in Europe. How widely known is it that the largest overseas investor in the USA is Britain btw ? > The B-52's are scheduled to be retired in 2040, at which time they'll > be 80 years old. Astonishing longevity. It's actually the design that's that old - nothing made back then is still in line service though. Mainly the H and maybe some G models flying now IIRC. C130s been around a while too and not much has come along to challenge it although Airbus do have an A400M they'd like to develop. Graham
From: Phat Bytestard on 5 Aug 2006 15:28
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:13:37 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >I guess having a simple view of the world is quite cosy for those who aren't >comfortable with exercising their brain as opposed to brawn. You're an idiot if you think that is what has happened. |