New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Yanik on 6 Aug 2006 14:28 John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:7Xq4paXHah1EFwVK(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > 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. They also have a GROWING Islamic population,while their own birthrates are declining. There are very "interesting" times ahead for Europe. It seems that Islamic culture is inherently incompatible with Western culture;Islamic culture considers Western culture a disrupting and insulting influence on Islam.I note some Euro Islamics are clamoring for the right to live under their own Sharia law,sort of a separate society or nation right among you. VERY interesting times ahead for you. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Jim Yanik on 6 Aug 2006 14:36 John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in news:30bcd2p7u56k55bs2eem6j7c415hh1l9m3(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:50:18 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >> >>> Eeyore wrote: >>> > >>> > John Fields wrote: >>> > >>> > > 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. >>> > >>> > Would there be anything wrong with that ? >>> > >>> > Graham >>> >>> Would there be anything RIGHT with that? >> >>Plenty. >> >>Before the recent war there was far wider employment and less crime. >>The water, electricity, phones and other infrastructure worked and >>hadn't been blown up. People weren't suffering mental illness caused >>by the insurrection. The country hadn't divided on religious lines. >>Etc. >> >>Graham > > About 100,000 kids were dying each year as crooks inside the UN were > making deals with S for oil-for-food "vouchers"... S and pals were > getting the money, not sick and starving childern. And the Kurdish > (north) and Shiite (south) zones were nearly autonomous, protected > no-fly zones. Hardly Shangrila. And those no-fly zones could not be maintained forever. BTW,Saddam occasionally launched missiles at Coalition forces enforcing the zones,or illuminated planes with missile-guidance radars,in violation of UN Resolutions. Saddam was using Oil-for-Food money to rebuild his palaces and fund WMD programs,instead of the humanitarian purposes it was intended for.THAT is why so many Iraqis were dying. > > The US partly attacked Saddam and partly attacked the UN. > > John > > -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Phat Bytestard on 6 Aug 2006 15:00 On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 17:03:56 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <8p5bd2hu57g01kfv5q619vs6l4sk5u1h9g(a)4ax.com>, >Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >[...] >>You obviously do not know much about aircraft design routines. >> >> The X-36 is a prime example of just how wrong you are. > >Not a chance my friend. The X-36 involved nominally NASA money but there >is no question that it is a miltitary development project. Tax payer >dollars were still used for something of no use to the public and the >result is still a poorer public. You're an idiot. McDonnell Douglas as well as NASA were the prime funders. No mil money at all. > >The reason for the funny shape is to avoid reflecting radar. The shape isn't funny, dumbass. > This is not >something a commercial aircraft would require. You're an idiot. It was a competing development against the YF-22. > If a commercial aircraft >was being designed, there would be a tail and a completely different set >of design goals. It has one seat, idiot. > (except perhaps that it can remain in the air) You are truly stupid.
From: John Larkin on 6 Aug 2006 15:02 On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 18:58:44 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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. (;-) Well, stuff 208-pin TSOP fpga's, where the whiskers don't have to grow far to close the gap between pins. Maybe we could sort of conformal coat around the edges of the chips, but I read somewhere that cpating doesn't necessarily stop tin whiskers. I sure hope they keep some lead in BGA balls. That's an RoHS exception, I think. There will be a market for shops that strip non-leaded platings from parts and re-tin them, and replace lead-free BGA balls with the good ones. John
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 15:00
Jim Yanik wrote: > Saddam was using Oil-for-Food money to rebuild his palaces and fund WMD > programs There weren't any WMDs ! How many times do you need to be reminded ? Graham |