New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Phat Bytestard on 6 Aug 2006 14:06 On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 11:46:24 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >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. Yes. The fighter that was never bought.
From: John Woodgate on 6 Aug 2006 13:57 In message <44D628FF.FC0D5FCD(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >In the UK it simply means that house purchase has become beyond the >means of many who would once have been able to afford to buy. > >Round here, house purchase is no longer possible on anything other than >a very serious income. It's a self-fulfilling process. House prices rise, and the industry finds more and more ingenious ways of making those prices affordable. It's very much in the interest of their commission payments to do so. It's got to the point now that the Government can't stop it; action to restore realistic prices would create widespread hardship. The reasons are complex and I don't propose to recount them here. The really spectacular escalation occurred from around 50 years ago, as provident people became able to purchase their house as sitting tenants. Over about 30 years, the value of the house increased 100-fold. -- 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
From: John Woodgate on 6 Aug 2006 13:58 In message <0oacd2t5g2pkiur9iug5p6g991c76mi65r(a)4ax.com>, dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes >Yeah. My company has ignored the RoHS thing entirely, except that we >are concerned about tin whiskers on the leads of compliant parts. You still use parts with LEADS? How quaint. (;-) -- 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
From: John Fields on 6 Aug 2006 14:10 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:34:21 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:42:44 +0100, John Woodgate >> <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >In message <44D4D23A.60914DA(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sat, 5 Aug >> >2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >> >>Are you entirely incapable of absorbing anything I say ? >> > >> >There's no so deaf as them that won't hear. >> >> --- >> 'None', no? > >Classic typo. Hadn't even noticed it 'til you pointed it out. --- There's none so blind... -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 14:12
Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:29:14 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: > > > Yes, it does. If you're in the paper products or produce business. > >It would be damn hard to make money selling apples and other fruit > >without growing them on trees. It would also be very hard to build > >decent homes without lumber, which grows on trees, as well. > > Yep... even the media that the "money" got printed on came from > trees. Rag has been traditionally used actually ! You can't get much right can you ? Graham |