New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 5 Aug 2006 20:49 In article <qot9d2hupr6jtllojs8dop7turo1t6l3nk(a)4ax.com>, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 17:15:12 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: > >>Yes, tax dollars were used to develop the aircraft. Tax dollars are also >>used in the development phase. > > Nope. The aircraft contest was funded by the individual companies >own research coffers. That was only the "concept" aircraft. There is a large development budget to turn the "concept" into a real product that can be manufactured and also to make it suited to the various missions. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 5 Aug 2006 20:52 In article <urt9d2pllhp8bavntetiobg9932t8vi7e8(a)4ax.com>, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 17:15:12 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: > >>BTW: Even if lockheedmartin had paid for the development, they would have >>done so not out of the goodness of their hearts but because they expected >>to get more than that much money in return. It would still ultimately >>have been tax dollars that got used. I think this argument would be too >>complicated for you to follow so I am glad I don't have to use it. > > Just because a company's profit came from tax dollars for goods >which they have sold, does NOT make those 100% earned dollars "tax >dollars" when they use it for a new project. As I thought I made clear: The money was invested by Lockheed expecting to recover it when the contract was let. ie: the money from taxes ends up covering the cost after the fact. If the government was not willing to cover the costs, nobody in business would have sunk that much money into creating the "proof of concept" machines. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Don Bowey on 5 Aug 2006 21:06 On 8/5/06 1:51 PM, in article 44D504C7.F7A4A126(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Frank Bemelman wrote: > >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >> news:v0r9d29dk6o8mrtvgob25hmv269inq8cfh(a)4ax.com... >>> 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? >> >> Want a specific quote from that page? Okay, here's one: >> >> *** You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a >> tooth". >> *** But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on >> the right >> *** cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39) > > Those who don't understand that Christians are supposed to take heed of the > *New* Testament rather than exclusively the old might as well join up the > Jewish > faith. > > Graham > So what's wrong with that?
From: Ken Smith on 5 Aug 2006 21:18 In article <1154802678.767042.82330(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: [....] >What - you aren't using slabs of vapour-deposited diamond! Have you ever tried to get a quote on structural shapes in diamond? >No wonder the venture capitalists have stopped dropping in. There have been several times when I wanted to use diamond. The one company (Skeleton) that I though may be able to actually do what was needed, seems to have gone out of business. >Not only does it have very high thermal conductivity, It also makes very good lenses because of its high index of refraction. The lenses don't suffer from much gravity sagging or the like either because it is very stiff. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Don Bowey on 5 Aug 2006 21:34
On 8/5/06 12:26 PM, in article 44D4F103.DC917A4D(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, "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. OK. > > Graham > > An eye for an eye is sufficient justice for a single event, but the concept is not adequate in considering repeat offenses by the same person (group/organization). When there are repeat offenses, there needs to be progressively increasing retribution, otherwise the lawbreaker may feel that until there are diminishing returns, the law breaking will continue. If all the law gives me is 5 years for stealing 10 Million dollars, that's good income. Only a top engineer will beat that. We can also look at progressively increasing the level of retribution as being an attempt to get the lawbreaker's attention (three strikes and your out). With children a swat on the butt may that attention getter. Turning the other cheek to the offender is inadequate where death is the crime, but Israel did offer the other cheek before resulting to, as it has been put, 10 eyes for an eye. They essentially declared war on a terrorist organization, perhaps out of frustration for seeing no other path to peace for Israel, and the eye for an eye concept is no longer valid. If there is blame to be placed, blame the totally ineffective UN, and that means we are all to blame. Just how much death and destruction would YOU accept before you go all-out to kill the bastards who were doing it, to bring it to a halt? Don |