New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 6 Aug 2006 12:34 In article <l65bd2tjg0fdbillvk95iettj1gdc4i5c2(a)4ax.com>, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 00:04:53 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: > >>BAE makes lots of stuff my friend. I see you haven't given up on trying to >>insult your way to success. > > I haven't failed at being correct yet either. There is yet another example of you being wrong. You've lost. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 12:43 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <gg3cd21bs2725tmd1lfr9p38t2t2932jm6(a)4ax.com>, dated Sun, 6 > Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> > writes > >And that consists of deciding things and doing things, not just sitting > >on the sidelines and bitching. > > Unfortunately, the EU is an institution dedicated to not deciding and > not acting, and entirely devoted to sitting on the sidelines and > bitching. It seems to able to decide and act on some daft things though. You've missed much of the past fun we've had recently with RoHS and WEEE. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 6 Aug 2006 12:48 In article <r75bd25eaic59ofa0il892ereeqcrtucte(a)4ax.com>, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 00:04:53 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: > >> >>You claimed that it spurred the development of technology and the economy. > > Yep. Everything from high frequency digital comm links to NASA >space hardware... It most certainly has. At best, it has caused one set of things to be developed at the cost of another. NASA does research and development with its own budget too. If the money for the JSF had been given to NASA, it would have resulted in some new fancy space thing. If the money hadn't been taken away from the tax payers in the first place some consumer item would have been developed. Military spending is the least efficient of all of these. They make large numbers of things that are of no use to the public[1]. Nasa makes a few items after much research and development so you get more development per dollar. In both cases the funds came from the tax payers and would have instead caused consumer products to be produced. The public would have gotten goods that enriched them. [1] except for defending them that is. >>I see you've given up on the economic argument. > > You're an idiot. see above... I saw the above a rebutted it. I also see that you are still trying to insult your way to success. It isn't going to work. [....] > Whereas my remarks are all traceable to factual practice. Nope. Your remarks have been insults mistakes and weasles. [...] > You said we get and give yesterday's technology to our worldwide >partners. To be more accurate, I said that the US *sells* things that have already been developed. ie: That the development was not caused by others. There is a major difference between the two statements which I'm sure you failed to understand. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 6 Aug 2006 12:51 In article <44D5A632.F5FB8B0B(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: [... me ...] >> 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. Yes, and obviously we have to consider where it came from as well as where it went when we consider the effect of spending. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: John Fields on 6 Aug 2006 12:53
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 07:15:04 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:48:59 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:40:03 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >John Fields wrote: >>> >>> >> Providential for us, as well, that you were there since you helped >>> >> us in _our_ war with Germany. >>> > >>> >That's the most sane thing I think you've said so far in this thread. >>> >>> --- >>> So the rest of my stuff is insane because you don't agree with it? >>> ;) >> >>You're a great fan of turning words round inaccurately aren't you ? > >--- >Oh, so then you _agree_ with the "insane" things I've said? ^^^^ Oops... "sane" -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |