New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 11 Aug 2006 09:41 In article <44DC6F19.17F064DD(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:10:05 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >> (Ken Smith) Gave us: >> >> >BTW: You got the year and number of parts wrong. Lets see if you can >> >remember who it was. >> >> It was Fairchild, asswipe. After the development, Texas Instruments >> MANUFACTURED it in mass quantity, but it was Fairchild that developed >> it. >> >> It was a ten transistor element device. >> >> I got NOTHING wrong. > >The very idea of the IC was actually conceived by the British btw. > >" The integrated circuit was first conceived by a radar scientist, Geoffrey W.A. >Dummer (born 1909), working for the Royal Radar Establishment of the British >Ministry of Defence, and published in Washington, D.C. on May 7, 1952 " >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit Yes, and even taking just the US invention, he got both the year and the number of transistors wrong. Our friend Phat seems to never get his facts right. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: John Larkin on 11 Aug 2006 11:25 On 11 Aug 2006 04:46:30 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: >> On 10 Aug 2006 16:17:24 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> > >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> On 10 Aug 2006 09:30:01 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> On 10 Aug 2006 02:52:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Your current situation is one where people with the money to finance >> >> >> >extended advertising campaigns - not to mention judicial campaigns >> >> >> >extending to the Supreme Court - exercise a disproportionate amount of >> >> >> >power over the election process and the people who get elected. This is >> >> >> >inequitable and undemocratic. >> >> >> >> >> >> That aspect of money isn't a serious problem. A candidate for public >> >> >> office will be financed if he's truly viable. In that sense, the >> >> >> advertising budget knocks out the un-electable loonies and spoilers. >> >> > >> >> >And if the candidate has been financed and knows that they are going to >> >> >have to be financed again at the next election, they are beholden to >> >> >the financier(s)? >> >> >> >> Right. And the more diverse the financiers, the more democracy you >> >> get. It works out. >> > >> >Not exactly. By definition, financiers have money. Most people don't >> >have a lot of disposable income, so your system ends up >> >over-representing the wealthy - which makes it a plutocracy rather than >> >a democracy. >> >> Most of the money collected by politial parties and candidates is in >> small amounts, from individuals, with Republicans collecting in >> smaller increments than Democrats. >> >> > >> >> >It has given you two terms of Dubbya, which suggests the system needs >> >> >to work better, >> >> >> >> To you maybe. But you don't matter. >> > >> >No, I don't. But educated Americans mostly regard Dubbya as an >> >abberation, and they do matter. >> >> We elected him twice, the most times allowed by law. And your >> generalism about "educated americans" is clearly false, unless your >> definition is circular. > >It depends what you mean by educated. When I checked my sources in >detail, it turns out that basic college education doesn't make much >difference to peoples attitudes to Bush. I was influenced by the dozen >or so highly educated Americans I know personall - all academics with >post-graduate degrees - who all regard the man as an ignorant crook. > >In fact 47% of college graduates supported Bush in 2004, and 35% >support him now,while 48% of people who didn't get to college supported >him in 2004 while only 30% of them support him now. > >http://pewresearch.org/reports/?ReportID=26 > >Apparently only 44% of people with higher degrees supported Bush in >2004, so further education does make some difference. My acquaintances >are unlikely to be a representative sample of that group - as academics >they are probably aware of the issues discussed in Chris Mooney's "The >Republican War on Science" ISBN 0-465-04675-4 which documents the >current Republican administration's tendency to shoot the messanger >when it gets information it doesn't like, and to shuffle through >advisors until it finds one who will produce the (frequently >self-interested) advice it wants. It's interesting how obsessed europeans seem to be with American politics. Since their function in the world is largely passive by choice, and since enormous messes remain of their direct making, I should think they'd be content to spend their days on holiday, wine-tasting or whatever they do for amusement. It's the fish-or-cut-bait thing. John
From: Michael A. Terrell on 11 Aug 2006 12:27 John Larkin wrote: > > On 11 Aug 2006 04:46:30 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On 10 Aug 2006 16:17:24 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >John Larkin wrote: > >> >> On 10 Aug 2006 09:30:01 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >John Larkin wrote: > >> >> >> On 10 Aug 2006 02:52:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Your current situation is one where people with the money to finance > >> >> >> >extended advertising campaigns - not to mention judicial campaigns > >> >> >> >extending to the Supreme Court - exercise a disproportionate amount of > >> >> >> >power over the election process and the people who get elected. This is > >> >> >> >inequitable and undemocratic. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That aspect of money isn't a serious problem. A candidate for public > >> >> >> office will be financed if he's truly viable. In that sense, the > >> >> >> advertising budget knocks out the un-electable loonies and spoilers. > >> >> > > >> >> >And if the candidate has been financed and knows that they are going to > >> >> >have to be financed again at the next election, they are beholden to > >> >> >the financier(s)? > >> >> > >> >> Right. And the more diverse the financiers, the more democracy you > >> >> get. It works out. > >> > > >> >Not exactly. By definition, financiers have money. Most people don't > >> >have a lot of disposable income, so your system ends up > >> >over-representing the wealthy - which makes it a plutocracy rather than > >> >a democracy. > >> > >> Most of the money collected by politial parties and candidates is in > >> small amounts, from individuals, with Republicans collecting in > >> smaller increments than Democrats. > >> > >> > > >> >> >It has given you two terms of Dubbya, which suggests the system needs > >> >> >to work better, > >> >> > >> >> To you maybe. But you don't matter. > >> > > >> >No, I don't. But educated Americans mostly regard Dubbya as an > >> >abberation, and they do matter. > >> > >> We elected him twice, the most times allowed by law. And your > >> generalism about "educated americans" is clearly false, unless your > >> definition is circular. > > > >It depends what you mean by educated. When I checked my sources in > >detail, it turns out that basic college education doesn't make much > >difference to peoples attitudes to Bush. I was influenced by the dozen > >or so highly educated Americans I know personall - all academics with > >post-graduate degrees - who all regard the man as an ignorant crook. > > > >In fact 47% of college graduates supported Bush in 2004, and 35% > >support him now,while 48% of people who didn't get to college supported > >him in 2004 while only 30% of them support him now. > > > >http://pewresearch.org/reports/?ReportID=26 > > > >Apparently only 44% of people with higher degrees supported Bush in > >2004, so further education does make some difference. My acquaintances > >are unlikely to be a representative sample of that group - as academics > >they are probably aware of the issues discussed in Chris Mooney's "The > >Republican War on Science" ISBN 0-465-04675-4 which documents the > >current Republican administration's tendency to shoot the messanger > >when it gets information it doesn't like, and to shuffle through > >advisors until it finds one who will produce the (frequently > >self-interested) advice it wants. > > It's interesting how obsessed europeans seem to be with American > politics. Since their function in the world is largely passive by > choice, and since enormous messes remain of their direct making, I > should think they'd be content to spend their days on holiday, > wine-tasting or whatever they do for amusement. > > It's the fish-or-cut-bait thing. > > John But, but, but, Bill is bait! Are you suggesting he cut himself? -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: John Woodgate on 11 Aug 2006 12:18 In message <848pd2t1uphqor8t6deno1ea02guh0rf6r(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 11 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes >It's interesting how obsessed europeans seem to be with American >politics. You keep telling us about it. Naturally, that encourages us to comment. >Since their function in the world is largely passive by choice, and >since enormous messes remain of their direct making, I should think >they'd be content to spend their days on holiday, wine-tasting or >whatever they do for amusement. European supra-national politics is Byzantine and boring; it does indeed struggle from one mess to another. And the politics of each individual country is a closed (and boring) book to people in other countries. So US politics is all we can discuss.(;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: Jim Yanik on 11 Aug 2006 12:18
John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:p7D8yAEs+52EFwMD(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <Xns981BA62AFFF97jyanikkuanet(a)129.250.170.84>, dated Thu, 10 > Aug 2006, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> writes > >>Muslims are required by the Koran to spread the Faith,by sword if >>necessary. > > Jim, you can find words like that in the New Testament, too. > >>Infidels must not be tolerated(must be converted or killed),and "People >>of the Book" must submit and pay the poll tax,or Jizya,or convert to >>Islam. >> >>There's no such thing as "Christian soil" to Muslims. > > No, but there IS to militant Christians, and to White Supremacists. AFAIK,the "Christian soil" business is NOT in the Bible,as the Islamic soil bit is in the Koran.Nor does the Bible -require- other faiths to convert,or suggest it be done by force. > >>It's merely infidel land to be conquered. > > Well, the Crusaders had similar views 600 years ago. When Christianity > was as old as Islam is now. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |