New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Woodgate on 12 Aug 2006 14:01 In message <44DE0AF2.34DDDECD(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >Are you afraid of the principle of self-determination ? I'm sure we are all in favour of it, for EVERYONE. The NVs didn't have it, and probably still don't. -- 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: John Woodgate on 12 Aug 2006 13:59 In message <Xns981D89D0F500ANoemailadr(a)208.49.80.251>, dated Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Mike Monett <No(a)email.adr> writes >GPR seems to work well for the US Army and Marines. They just > bought $338 million worth: No doubt the evaluation samples worked. (;-) I don't know about the US services procurement (apart from USD10 pencils and USD 100 hammers, of course), but the UK has bought boots that melt and guns that won't reliably fire. -- 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: Ken Smith on 12 Aug 2006 16:08 In article <hmvrd2lrtgo07mtb2r737rs89npfoglgdk(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: [... GPR vs land mine ...] >Plus, there's just too much junk down there. At cm resolution, you >can't tell a mine from a potato from a rock from a beer can. A "pouch rat" can tell by the smell. They are easily portable and self powered. They only cost peanuts to run. The antipersonnel land mines of today have very little metal in them. This makes them hard to see electromagnetically. Also in many of the places that have land mines there is a lot of metal bits of old weapons and equipment laying around from past wars. It is hard to tell which is which. Shooting high speed neutrons into the ground and looking at what comes back may detect the mines. It also kills everyone nearby so that method hasn't gained much popularity. :0 -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: bill.sloman on 12 Aug 2006 18:16 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:06:56 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >John Woodgate wrote: > > > >> In message <1154865648.931183.173690(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > >> dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes > >> > >> >As was pointed out before you invaded Irak, the three-way division of > >> >Irak into Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites makes it impossible to construct a > >> >stable government. > >> > >> The *government* was reasonably stable before Saddam, and, of course, > >> during his reign of oppression and genocide. Various sectors of the > >> population experienced bad things; such was the price of 'stability'. > > > >Overall it seems that the price under Saddam was less than the price under the > >coalition. > > --- > I think the cost in innocent Human lives under Saddam Hussein was > greater than the cost after his deposition. I think that you haven't bothered to dig out any numbers, which would make your opinion pure unsupported prejudice - the sort of stuff we get from Phat Bytestard. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: joseph2k on 12 Aug 2006 21:40
reply interstitial Eeyore wrote: > > > Jim Yanik wrote: > >> Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <null(a)example.net> wrote in >> news:pan.2006.08.08.21.53.47.770682(a)example.net: >> >> > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:18:16 +0100, John Woodgate wrote: >> > >> >> In message <92ued29drs5ivb9483hvqsveon0m14h012(a)4ax.com>, dated Mon, 7 >> >> Aug 2006, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> writes >> >> >> >>>It isn't his power sources in question, it is his intentions with the >> >>>spent fuel rods, >> >> >> >> The US is objecting to enrichment of uranium beyond the 5% or so >> >> required for peaceful purposes. If there are plans to extract Pu239 >> >> from fuel rods, there won't BE any spent fuel rods for about 5 years. >> >> Some reactor types can make PU aside from the normal complement of fuel >> rods. Russian reactors are like that,I believe. >> Iran's reactor is from Russia. There are three classes along this axis, fast breeder reactors (several times more new fuel than fuel spent), slow breeder reactors (producing about as much new fuel as they use) and non-breeder reactors (essentially not producing any new fuel). > > *All* nuclear reastors make Plutonium. That's how you get it. It's not a > naturally occurring substance. Only in the sense that a really fine lab can detect the output in most reactors. Reactors that produce relatively useful amounts (in the part per billion to part per million range within the fuel content) are very specialized designs and not common relatively. > > The idea that Russian reactors make more of it is as daft as the idea that > the laws of physics behave any differently depending on the political > regime in place. Quite the converse the reactor designs are different because of the political climate. Thus, more reactors capable of producing recoverable quantities Plutonium. > > Graham reply interstitial -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller |