New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 21:25 krw wrote: > Even foie gras has been banned in Chicago. Because of cruelty to geese issues ? They must be a bunch of real weenies up there ! > > Seriously, though, why would you expect me to ride herd on US > > Francophobes? I've never been to France, so I don't have any > > hands-on experience with the niceties or even the not-so-niceties of > > that culture, so that puts me out of judgement range. > > Remember that little ditty a few years back with Gadaffi where the > French again showed how much they like white flags? Do tell ! Did the USA use any white flags when quitting Saigon btw ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 6 Aug 2006 21:37 krw wrote: > In article <44D69456.9E0E8524(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com says... > > > Is nuclear power a good idea or not ? > > Certainly it is, but why in hell does Iran need "nuclear power"? Why in hell does the USA ? Graham
From: joseph2k on 6 Aug 2006 22:01 Eeyore 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 I fundamentally agree that blowing up the (largely civilian) infrastructure was WWII thinking and wholly inappropriate to this situation. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: joseph2k on 6 Aug 2006 22:31 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:47:40 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us: > >>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:12:59 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>> In article <44D39233.E2E7A513(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> [....] >>>> >> We are now "after they were developed". They didn't put any money I >>>> >> know of into the development pot. >>>> note: They included meaning the british. >>>> > >>>> >F-35 JSF Involvement Across BAE Systems >>>> >During the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase, BAE >>>> >Systems is involved in two particular areas- airframe and mission >>>> >systems. A major part of the UK industrial contribution to JSF will >>>> >come from BAE Systems aircraft manufacturing facilities in Warton and >>>> >Samlesbury, as well as facilities at Rochester and Edinburgh. BAE >>>> >Systems North America facilities in Nashua, NH, and Johnson City, NY, >>>> >also support a significant amount of F-35 JSF involvement for BAE >>>> >Systems. >>>> >>>> "Will come from" means in the future. A little context on my position >>>> may >>>> help: A little over a year ago, a well placed airforce person >>>> complained in my presents[1] using words to the effect that it was >>>> supposed to be a effort but the airforce was covering almost all of it. >>>> >>>> [1] It was intended for the ears of someone else. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >The aft fuselage and empennage (tails and fins) for each F-35 JSF are >>>> >being designed, engineered and built at the BAE Systems Samlesbury >>>> >site, using the latest in advanced design and manufacturing >>>> >technology. >>>> >>>> Score one for the other side of the argument, almost. Was this >>>> technology developed because of the spending on the joint fighter or >>>> was it something >>>> developed for anotehr purpose? The basic argument here is about >>>> driving the advances not using them. >>>> >>>> >The aft-fuselage and empennage will be shipped to Lockheed Martin?s >>>> >Fort Worth plant in the summer of 2005, where they will be joined with >>>> >the wing and forward fuselage from Lockheed Martin and the centre >>>> >fuselage from Northrop Grumman. Assembly of the initial F-35A >>>> >conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant is expected to be >>>> >completed at the end of the year. The first flight of the CTOL >>>> >aircraft is scheduled for mid-2006. >>>> >>>> Since this is their own site. I find it odd that this says "will be" >>>> not was. >>> >>>More for you.... >>> >>>BAE Systems - A Key Partner on the F-35 JSF >>>Program............................ >>> >>>BAE Systems is a major UK industrial participant, investing $72M upfront >>>in the Concept Development Phase (CDP) and $65M in UK JSF facilities >>>during SDD [ System Development and Demonstration Phase ] >>> >>>http://www.baesystems.com/facts/programmes/airsystems/jsf.htm >>> >>>Graham >> >>BAE has fairly extensive operations in the US, too. We work with one >>group that's doing B-52 radar upgrades; they were Sanders Associates >>before being acquired by BAE. They tell me that, because of security >>rules, they can tell me stuff they aren't allowed to communicate to >>the home office in Europe. >> >>The B-52's are scheduled to be retired in 2040, at which time they'll >>be 80 years old. >> > > As the oldest still in service airframe in history. Could be, how many DC-3's are still flying? -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: joseph2k on 6 Aug 2006 22:50
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. > > 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. > No, not really it was already in the hands of a Government sponsored aerospace company. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller |