New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 11:29 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 08:24:10 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >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 ? > > --- > Never mind; I'm waiting for an answer. That's easy. Of course I don't want them to be defeated. I'd like to see them live in peace with their neighbours and I fear that their current actions are more likely to adversely affect that possibility. Graham
From: John Fields on 6 Aug 2006 11:34 On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:03:25 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >> --- >> Do you want us to lose? > >No, just want the US to realize what they have caused by going in >on their own, neglecting the UN's advice to wait a tiny bit longer. --- I we'd taken the UN's advice we'd _still_ be playing their waiting game. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 11:33 Fred Abse wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:50:45 -0400, krw wrote: > > > half of Turkey is in > > Europe > > Only about 5%, surely, if you consider the Bosporus as the boundary? Most ppl certainly do. Turkey merely has a toehold in Europe. " The Bosphorus or Bosporus............ is a strait that forms the boundary between the European part (Rumeli) of Turkey and its Asian part (Anadolu)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus In comparison, Ukraine ( also keen to join the EU ) is entirely in Europe. Graham
From: John Larkin on 6 Aug 2006 11:42 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 09:49:24 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 What does a "limit for class D" mean? And why are you guys drifting Off Topic with this electronics stuff? John
From: krw on 6 Aug 2006 11:46
In article <8p5bd2hu57g01kfv5q619vs6l4sk5u1h9g(a)4ax.com>, phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org says... > On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 00:52:28 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken > Smith) Gave us: > > >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. > > > > You obviously do not know much about aircraft design routines. > > The X-36 is a prime example of just how wrong you are. > F20 Tigershark. -- Keith |