New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 7 Aug 2006 10:57 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <44D63156.398F88EC(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >Phat Bytestard wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:29:20 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> > >> >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. > >> > >> "Their current action" was 100% defensive, dumbass. > > > >You've got a very odd idea of defence. > > The US DOD stands for Department Of Defence so *everything* they do is > defence and paid for by the "defence budget". That's a curious way of thinking of it too. Graham
From: Keith on 7 Aug 2006 11:11 In article <PdABg.1688$1f6.996(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com says... > Phat Bytestard wrote: > > > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:05:14 +0100, Eeyore > > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > > >> > >> > >>Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> > >>> You really are 100% clueless about armaments.It isn't a race. It is > >>> a protector. A defensive tool. > >> > >>What's defensive about bombing civilians ? > > > > The JSF has NEVER bombed a civilian. > > > > Has it even flown? > Sorta looks like it to me: http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/x35ccomp_high.wmv http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_video.htm#x35 -- Keith
From: Keith on 7 Aug 2006 11:34 In article <44D6969D.56F13922(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > Even foie gras has been banned in Chicago. > > Because of cruelty to geese issues ? They must be a bunch of real weenies up there ! > Yes, because of a *false* issue of cruelty to geese. Yes Chicago is full of weenies. It's a blue city in a mostly blue state. What did you expect? > > > Seriously, though, why would you expect me to ride herd on US > > > Francophobes? I've never been to France, so I don't have any > > > hands-on experience with the niceties or even the not-so-niceties of > > > that culture, so that puts me out of judgement range. > > > > Remember that little ditty a few years back with Gadaffi where the > > French again showed how much they like white flags? > > Do tell ! > > Did the USA use any white flags when quitting Saigon btw ? Yep. The mainstream press is trying to roll out the same white flag these days. -- Keith
From: Ken Smith on 7 Aug 2006 11:38 In article <PXu1p$bXni1EFwDY(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <eb56gj$m83$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Ken >Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> writes > >>If the money hadn't been taken away from the tax payers in the first >>place some consumer item would have been developed. > >Most people who have studied the subject disagree. By 'pushing the >envelope', the military demands are a powerful force for innovation. I don't think that is true. Do you have sites? They last study I heard of on the subject said that military spending was a very inefficient way to support science etc. Spending on the military may be needed but it never is efficient. According to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, military spending creates 6,400 fewer jobs per $1 billion than would spending our tax dollars for bridge repair, education, or health programs. If 35 billion dollars were transferred from the Pentagon to domestic programs, an additional 262,000 full-time jobs would be created. They cause innovation of things good for military purpose. They then make many copies at considerable cost. They leave the nation poorer as a result. NASA makes fewer copies of things so the amount of money for development is a larger fraction. The part of the military budget that most directly supports science is the DARPA budget. I have worked on DARPA contracts. The one thing you are not allowed to say while working on a DARPA contract is "This is a dumb idea". > Go >back to WW2 (and even WW1, which turned telephony and radio from >curiosities into weapons) Yes, they made a lot of stuff into practical weapons. Most of the basic science was done well before the war and not funded for military purpose. > and look at what was developed as a result. By >comparison, what happened between 1920 and 1940 was aimless and mostly >ineffectual[1]. Since we can't run the experiment both ways, we don't know what would have happened to those ideas developed between the wars without WWII. A great deal of science looks aimless and it always appears ineffectual. Newly discovered science takes years to be turned into useful products. The automobile is a classic example. All the parts of it were around for many years before they were put together. > There is no comparable later period when military >demands were not driving the development of better, smaller, cheaper >electronics. I disagree with this. Look what has happened with the PC, the cellphone, the VCR and the pocket calculator. These were funded by people wanting to play Freecell, talk while driving, watch things, and calculate things. >[1] In 1939, RAF fighters use the TR9 radio which ran on valves/tubes >developed for battery radios, with 2 V directly-heated cathodes. They >were immensely fragile and about 100 mm long and 50 mm diameter. By >1945, valves/tubes for proximity fuses were about 25 mm long and 8 mm >diameter, and could survive firing from guns. We've often had sudden advances in one field or another. The spending on military during WW2 was huge. It is a question of how much development you get per dollar not whether or not you get development. Every dollar spent on the military is a dollar that wasn't spent elsewhere. We have to compare where it comes from to where it goes to to see the real effect. The real effect is to make a nation poorer and reduce the advance of technology. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 7 Aug 2006 11:39
In article <akdcd2lr94tfp8fjhu2sgn0168t6e34uat(a)4ax.com>, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:48:19 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: > >>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. > > You sure have a dim witted view of things. What a true well thought out rebuttal . Did you stay up all night to think of it. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |