New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Rich Grise on 7 Aug 2006 12:53 On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:00:35 -0500, John Fields wrote: > 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. (;-) > > --- > Really. Doesn't RoHS mandate that they be leadless? <groan>
From: John Fields on 7 Aug 2006 13:01 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:00:40 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ? There were no WMDs found because they were moved before we got there. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Larkin on 7 Aug 2006 13:05 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:25:09 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On 4 Aug 2006 16:25:48 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> >America itself is only fond of democracy as long as it produces >> >governments that America finds sympathetic. >> >> Agreed. They are called "democracies." > >America has had *no trouble at all* supporting undemocratic countries. That's another >reason you're seen as 2 faced. > >Graham The Cold War caused some unsavory distortions. It's over. Hell, the Hundred Years War is over, too. John
From: John Fields on 7 Aug 2006 13:10 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 12:13:33 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 18:57:34 +0100, John Woodgate ><jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>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. > >In California, the squeeze results from increasing population combined >with putting a lot of land off-limits to development. You don't have a >lot of surplus land in Britain, either, I guess. Housing is a fraction >of our local pricing in, say, Texas or Florida. --- I live in a 4000 square foot house on half an acre, the total worth around 500k in Austin, Texas. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 7 Aug 2006 13:08
John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 19:12:18 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >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 ? > > --- > I might be late with this, (haven't yet read the rest of the thread) > but where do you think rag came from? Not from *trees*. Graham |