New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 8 Aug 2006 07:26 On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:26:14 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >> --- >> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her >> own laws and in her own way? > >Yes, *defending*, sure, and without the American cheerleaders throwing >money at it. Thank you very much. --- Us "throwing money" at Israel is part of our way of defending ourselves under our own laws and in our own way, so if you don't have a problem with Israel doing the same thing (defending herself under her own laws and in her own way) why do you have a problem with us doing the same thing? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 07:20 John Fields wrote: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:21:44 +0100, John Woodgate > <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >In message <7umed296qg2k96rhg962c1cbdfibv65c2l(a)4ax.com>, dated Mon, 7 > >Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > > > >>I think that now, however, when we see the handwriting on the wall we > >>have fewer compunctions about going after the author in a pre-emptive > >>way. > > > >But it says 'Mene, mene tekal upharsin.' > > --- > I think that would apply more to the kingdoms of Jerry Falwell and > his ilk than to the US, but I was referring to events like > acquisition of nuclear weaponry by those with no respect for life. What makes you say their respect for life is any different to your own ? How do you think we Europeans feel about the US prediliction for cooking people on the electric chair ? Or suffocating them by gassing as you used to do ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 07:30 John Fields wrote: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:26:14 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" > <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: > > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht > >> --- > >> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her > >> own laws and in her own way? > > > >Yes, *defending*, sure, and without the American cheerleaders throwing > >money at it. Thank you very much. > > --- > Us "throwing money" at Israel is part of our way of defending > ourselves Yourselves ? Sorry, don't quite get that. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 07:44 xray wrote: > On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:04:06 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> I don't know the early details, but the first big computer I heard about > >> was to compute firing tables for artillery guns in WWII. I think the > >> first "bug" story occured with that project and captain Grace Hopper. > > > >See the film 'Brazil' for an interesting context. Worth seeing anyway as it happens. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug > > > I do know about the bug, I've got a better picture of that notebook page > hanging on my wall. > > Brazil? > > I've seen the strange movie but it's been a while and I'm not sure where > exactly is the relevance to these early computers. The tale begins as the result of a computer bug - literally a bug in the works. It's a fabulous piece of work. A bit like 1984/Brave New World on steroids but including torture/brainwashing and 'political terrorism' too ( on both sides ). Yet it still manages to be funny ! > P.S. > Grace used to hand out nanoseconds. Do you know about that? I didn't. Do tell. Graham
From: John Fields on 8 Aug 2006 07:48
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:36:59 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: >> --- >> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her >> own laws and in her own way? > >No. >The right of self defence has to be limited in a civilised society. If >somebody slaps me I have no right to burn their house down with them and >their family inside. >The law recognises 'proportionate response'. --- OK, let's say, in one case, that I slap you for no reason other than that I hate you. What would you suggest as an appropriate response? A return slap of equal amplitude and duration or a blow of sufficient power to make me never want to slap you again? In the second case, let's say that I slap you with the intent of getting slapped back, but my eventual plan is to kill you after you slap me back, and for justification I'll call your slap back a disproportionate response. An appropriate response, in my view, would be for you to so severely incapacitate me after I slapped you the first time that it would be impossible for me to continue. In other words, I had no business slapping you in the first place, so you should make it your business to make sure that I can never slap you again. Do you have a problem with that? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |