New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian on 5 Aug 2006 18:28 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:00:39 -0500, John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 07:32:06 +0100, John Woodgate >>Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >> >>>I see no reason why presidential (in fact, _all_) elections couldn't be >>>carried out on-line where the result would truly be popular. >> >>The reason is that 'big money' would lose a great deal of its present >>control over the result. > > --- > That's why they _aren't_ , not why they couldn't be. Well, they can't, as long as the guy who has the gold makes the rules. Thanks, Rich
From: John Fields on 5 Aug 2006 18:31 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 08:39:11 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Woodgate wrote: >> Well, the actions being proposed by JF and others of similar opinions >> are VERY like those comprised in a jihad. > >Ironic isn't it ? I guess they simply don't have the mental agility to examine >their own position objectively. --- 'Acuity', I think, would be a better choice of words. 'Agility' would relate more closely, it seems to me, in the ability to dodge or obfuscate an issue. Being 'Slomanesque', in other words. However, I suppose 'agility' could also refer to the ability to examine a position from several viewpoints, which might be more in line with what you were trying to say. As nebulous as all that may be, however, your argument is further flawed by the fact that the objective examination to which you refer is impossible to achieve in the normal waking world. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Larkin on 5 Aug 2006 18:34 On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 21:09:52 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <n7q9d2thm7i2tlsrsep0lkimgsrfvljgk7(a)4ax.com>, dated Sat, 5 >Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > >>what you're interested in doping is needling me. > >Very Freudian! (;-) Sharp observation. John
From: John Fields on 5 Aug 2006 18:36 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 08:43:20 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <44D41E6E.D684D343(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sat, 5 Aug >> 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >> >> >Your mistake, which seems common in the US is to see all 'Islamists' - >> >they're called Moslems btw as freedom-hating terrorists. >> >> 'Islamists' means zealots, like 'Zionists'. The vast majority of Muslims >> want nothing to do with Islamists. > >There's a difference AIUI. >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/islamist >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zionist > >But is the average American capable of making this distinction ? --- If you can, there's certainly no reason why someone average, over here, couldn't as well. --- >I'm regularly >deemed anti-Semitic by these guys yet at its most I'm merely simply mildly >anti-Zionist ( and even then not very - just anti their extreme faction ). --- A veritable prince among men, eh? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Larkin on 5 Aug 2006 18:42
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:03:09 GMT, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:47:40 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us: > >>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:12:59 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>> In article <44D39233.E2E7A513(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> [....] >>>> >> We are now "after they were developed". They didn't put any money I know >>>> >> of into the development pot. >>>> note: They included meaning the british. >>>> > >>>> >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. >>>> >>>> "Will come from" means in the future. A little context on my position may >>>> help: A little over a year ago, a well placed airforce person complained >>>> in my presents[1] using words to the effect that it was supposed to be a >>>> effort but the airforce was covering almost all of it. >>>> >>>> [1] It was intended for the ears of someone else. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >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. >>>> >>>> Score one for the other side of the argument, almost. Was this technology >>>> developed because of the spending on the joint fighter or was it something >>>> developed for anotehr purpose? The basic argument here is about driving >>>> the advances not using them. >>>> >>>> >The aft-fuselage and empennage will be shipped to Lockheed Martin?s 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. >>>> >>>> Since this is their own site. I find it odd that this says "will be" not >>>> was. >>> >>>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. >> >>The B-52's are scheduled to be retired in 2040, at which time they'll >>be 80 years old. >> > > As the oldest still in service airframe in history. I wonder if any old C47/DC3's are still in actual use. Yes! http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/DC-3/Aero29.htm "The DC-3 has proven to be the workhorse of the aviation world. Back in 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt awarded the Collier Trophy to Donald Douglas, head of Douglas Aircraft, for his achievements relating to the DC-3. In the year 2000, more than six decades after it was introduced, hundreds of DC-3s are still flying." John |