New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 5 Aug 2006 18:52 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 15:42:24 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:03:09 GMT, Phat Bytestard ><phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: > [snip] >>> >>>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 > When I first started flying commercial aircraft the DC3 was the predominate vehicle. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: John Fields on 5 Aug 2006 18:53 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 08:44:30 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <4ji12eF83vuqU2(a)individual.net>, dated Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Dirk >> Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes >> >And it will have to be one with enough teeth and muscle to fire on the >> >Israelis as well as Hezbollah. >> >> Almost certainly it will never need to, in defence. Let us fervently >> hope that it never fires on Israel in aggression. > >Likewise. I'd hope Israel isn't that daft. --- You seem to have missed the point, which was that a [UN] force with enough teeth and muscle to fire on the Hezbollah as well as on Israel would almost certainly never have to fire on Israel, since Israel wouldn't fire the first shot. The second part was a fervent hope that the [UN] force would never fire on Israel, in aggression, because of the horrible aftermath which would inevitably follow. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Larkin on 5 Aug 2006 19:02 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:26:59 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 01:12:31 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" >> <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >> >> > >> >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >> >news:ngj7d2hst8b7oe15nr9ksl8c3t6620fjgg(a)4ax.com... >> > >> >> What I find incongruous is that so many of you all (Europeans, I >> >> guess.) would rather turn a blind eye toward the middle east and let >> >> Israel die than to help her. Why is that? >> > >> >An eye for an eye, not 10 eyes for an eye. Israel has just >> >slaughtered too many. It has lost all of its credibility. >> >It has no longer the benefit of the doubt. >> >> --- >> Read this: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye >> >> and then come back with something specific, OK? > >" The basis of this form of law is the principle of proportionate punishment " >from your link. > >Now explain what's *proportionate* about Israel's current action please. The >very issue that I'm concerned about. > Hezbollah wants to totally destroy Israel, and Israel wants to totally destroy Hezbollah. Sounds fair to me. John
From: John Larkin on 5 Aug 2006 19:08 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:15:49 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:28:08 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Except, of course, that Britain stood alone when it mattered and the US >> >did not. >> >> --- >> "When it mattered?" Don't be absurd. As far as you know we got >> there just in time. > >I guess he might be referring to the Battle of Britain ? Had Britain fallen there >wouldn't even have been a party to come to, never mind arrive late. > There were US pilots flying in the Battle of Britain. I don't think any flew on the German side. Those Hurricanes and Spits burned premium Texan gas. The US was on Britain's side, in theory and in practice, from the start. John
From: Jim Yanik on 5 Aug 2006 18:58
John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:1nO7l7lW8N1EFwWz(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <Xns981688D64623Bjyanikkuanet(a)129.250.170.84>, dated Sat, 5 > Aug 2006, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> writes >>John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in >>news:rxscAzFfgD1EFw1P(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: >> >>> 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. >> >>I dunno about that;it seems they passively support them. > > 'Passive support'? Yes;they encourage the terrorists by cheering them on when they commit terror acts."Moral" support;it keeps the terrorists believing they're doing the "right thing"..Some even contribute money through "charities". And you rarely see "non-violent" Muslims deenouncing terrorist acts. Look at how they rioted when a few cartoons were published. VERY uncivilized. > Peaceable Muslims don't kill Islamists any more > than peaceable Jews kill Zionists. > >> Large numbers of American Muslims cheer Hezbollah,even though if >>Hez(or any other Islamics) took over,their way of life in the US would >>cease and many of them would be oppressed. IMO,it may be just that >>they are keeping a low profile and seeing which way the tides flow. > > It's easy to support militants They aren't "militants",they are TERRORISTS. > when they are 5000 miles away. Or even > 3000, like the IRA. >> >> >>Much of the stuff the "radicals" are saying IS a basic tenet of >>Islam,written in the Koran. > > Many Muslims deny that. But there is a lot of such stuff in the Bible, > too. And then there's 'Onward, Christian soldiers....'. Except that you don't see large numbers of Christians or Jews going after civilian targets,mass murdering.No suicide bombers(and don't mention McVeigh,that's not even close),no planting land mines where civs will step on them,no shooting up schools full of children.You don't see Christians or Jews rioting when their religion is "insulted".Heck,they'd be rioting every day if that were the case. there's NO equivalence. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |