New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 7 Aug 2006 22:08 In article <FTxBg.4596$9T3.4046(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, joseph2k <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [...] >> 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. It may have been taken from the tax payers before the event in question but it was certainly taken from the tax payers. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 7 Aug 2006 22:17 In article <nuecd2tht1ru76qe456khfrmdoaka4v7i3(a)4ax.com>, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >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. Like I said: The money was take from a buget labeled "NASA" but there is no doubt that this is a military aircraft they are making. You obviously didn't read carefully enough. >> >>The reason for the funny shape is to avoid reflecting radar. > > The shape isn't funny, dumbass. If I say the shape is funny, the shape is funny! :> Take a look at it. It is a funny shape. > >> This is not >>something a commercial aircraft would require. > > You're an idiot. It was a competing development against the YF-22. The YF-22 was not a commercial aircraft either. So you admit that this was not a commerial aircraft design. Now go back and reread what I said more carefully and you will find that what I said was correct. > >> 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. Yes, we agree it is not a commerial aircraft. I don't see why you are stressing this point since it destroys your argument but if you wish please do continue you still haven't shot yourself in the otehr foot yet. >> (except perhaps that it can remain in the air) > > You are truly stupid. So now you are suggesting that an aircraft doesn't have remaining in the air as one of its design goals. Do tell! -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Jim Thompson on 7 Aug 2006 22:20 On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 02:17:03 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <nuecd2tht1ru76qe456khfrmdoaka4v7i3(a)4ax.com>, >Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >>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. > >Like I said: The money was take from a buget labeled "NASA" but there is >no doubt that this is a military aircraft they are making. You obviously >didn't read carefully enough. > > > >>> >>>The reason for the funny shape is to avoid reflecting radar. >> >> The shape isn't funny, dumbass. > >If I say the shape is funny, the shape is funny! :> > >Take a look at it. It is a funny shape. > > >> >>> This is not >>>something a commercial aircraft would require. >> >> You're an idiot. It was a competing development against the YF-22. > >The YF-22 was not a commercial aircraft either. So you admit that this >was not a commerial aircraft design. Now go back and reread what I said >more carefully and you will find that what I said was correct. > > >> >>> 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. > >Yes, we agree it is not a commerial aircraft. I don't see why you are >stressing this point since it destroys your argument but if you wish >please do continue you still haven't shot yourself in the otehr foot yet. > > >>> (except perhaps that it can remain in the air) >> >> You are truly stupid. > >So now you are suggesting that an aircraft doesn't have remaining in the >air as one of its design goals. Do tell! > "Phat Bytestard" is heading quickly to the plonk bin... his only argument is very Bloggs-like, name-call :-( Of course, when I refer to "leftist weenies", I'm not name-calling ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: Ken Smith on 7 Aug 2006 22:50 In article <44D784E6.719EADBD(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: [...] >I recall watching the fall of Saigon on the TV and it was actually not >very violent at >all. More idiotic propaganda you've fallen for ! I knew the guy that turned over control of the school system. He didn't talk about it much but his stories were more about the threat and fear of violence than the actual act of it. He spent a long time on a pig farm doing heavy labor before he figured out a way to get out. He and his family were some of the "boat people". -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 7 Aug 2006 22:59
In article <8fa5rKhG501EFwkz(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <eb7gsk$s9b$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, dated Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Ken >Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> writes > >>Unfortunately, the US seems to be trying to make a strong central >>government. This isn't likely to work for them. > >A weak central government is no use to man nor beast. All governments >need to be strong in their domain, but to have no more **powers** than >are really necessary. I was using the term weak to mean basically what I think you mean by the "not more **powers**". ie: A powerful government has many powers and a weak one has fewer. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |