New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 03:24 John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:24:43 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >Given the number of UN positions attacked by the Israelis in the past, I > >expect a serious force to be able to return such fire. > > So you'd like for Israel to be defeated? How on earth did you jump to that idea ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 04:20 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <44D4D316.2625E7AE(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > [....] > >The *concept* phase was funded by the participating companies. The *development* > >phase ( prior to production ) was paid for from government funds. > > Yes, and the companies did the concept phase only because they expected to > recover the money from the government when the contract was let. This is normal commercial behaviour. > Obviously, the money for that development was taken away from the tax > payers who could have used it for some other purpose and thus driven the > development of some consumer item. The money has to come from *somewhere* ! It doesn't grow on trees. Graham
From: Don Bowey on 6 Aug 2006 04:32 On 8/5/06 10:42 PM, in article Iba0qqBEFY1EFwi8(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk, "John Woodgate" <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message <C0FAA143.3DA13%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dated Sat, 5 Aug 2006, > Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> writes > >> Gee, and all this time I thought an agenda could contain a bias based >> on personal or company "wants." And sore agendas exist due to anger or >> displeasure with people or companies." My golly, perhaps my >> observations while working on Standards Committees is wrong? > > All standards committees are wholly impartial and are never influenced > by personal or company 'wants'. Anger or displeasure are never expressed > in agendas, which are written so as to be utterly even-handed and > dispassionate. > > > > > Aren't they? I would like to think that what you say is true today.
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 04:49 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <C0FAA143.3DA13%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dated Sat, 5 Aug 2006, > Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> writes > > >Gee, and all this time I thought an agenda could contain a bias based > >on personal or company "wants." And sore agendas exist due to anger or > >displeasure with people or companies." My golly, perhaps my > >observations while working on Standards Committees is wrong? > > All standards committees are wholly impartial and are never influenced > by personal or company 'wants'. Anger or displeasure are never expressed > in agendas, which are written so as to be utterly even-handed and > dispassionate. I heard that the IEC1000-3-2 limit for Class D of 75W ( to be later reduced to 50W ) was indirectly influenced by Philips. I hear it's to be fixed at 75W now btw. Graham
From: John Woodgate on 6 Aug 2006 05:27
In message <44D5AD14.62C34786(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >I heard that the IEC1000-3-2 limit for Class D of 75W ( to be later >reduced to 50W ) was indirectly influenced by Philips. I would say not indirectly at all; but not by Philips alone. It's not a limit, it a boundary (or, better, 'bound'). > >I hear it's to be fixed at 75W now btw. I wonder where you heard that. It isn't going to be changed in the short term, but in the longer term a completely different approach may be adopted, which does not involve a bound. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK |