New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 13 Aug 2006 13:00 In article <io8td2let3pkot582eop7of01rb2f2gj48(a)4ax.com>, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:40:02 GMT, joseph2k <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> >Gave us: > >>reply interstitial > > Top posting Usenet retard! You will notice that his reply is not top posted just like he said. You were looking at his posting and still managed to get it wrong. ********* Begin inserted *************** In article <SpvDg.9573$FN2.6777(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, joseph2k <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >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 -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 13 Aug 2006 13:05 In article <or6td2l1ns341lon8jm367b2og4ellj361(a)4ax.com>, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: >On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:16:17 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >(Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>The dirt starts eating up your signal before you get to a GHz. > > That must be why nothing passes through your head. Oh, what an amazing technical comment! My my, how it hurts me so much to be insulted by Phat again. At least you didn't claim that GPR could see to the center of the earth. This I see as some improvement. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 13 Aug 2006 13:20 In article <WY$D6HTbwv3EFwg0(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <44DEF7A3.9E134685(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sun, 13 Aug >2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > >>A *collosal* mistake in fact. It might conceivably have turned events >>around but the White House wanted to use Halliburton for Iraqi >>reconstruction ( pork politics ) rather than the Iraqis themselves and >>the seeds of hate and division were sown. > >It wasn't a brilliant move, but think of the 'pork' that would have been >involved if Iraqi companies had won the contracts. And how much materiel >would have found its way into Hisbollah fortifications? If the contracts were kept small and to the point. Only a small fraction would have ended up in Hisbolla's hands. Hisbolla is a shia group. They don't have very strong support from the other sects. The materiel would be bulky to move. The bigger issue would be the money which is easy to move. If the US had given enough of the Iraqis jobs, they would have been busy working instead of busily thinking of ways to cause trouble. >The contracts should, of course, have been awarded to British >contractors, who are wholly incorruptible and supremely efficient. Actually, they should have been given to the French who are supremely inefficient and would thus have employed the entire population of the country. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: John Larkin on 13 Aug 2006 13:57 On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:26:49 +0100, "Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp(a)ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote: > >"Phat Bytestard" wrote >> Saddam was killing people from the moment he was released from >prison >> in 1969 to the moment we put him back in one. >===================================== > >Saddam was doing his best for his country. > Yeah, poison gas cures all sorts of minor health problems. John
From: Phat Bytestard on 13 Aug 2006 16:50
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:46:49 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >Some others were made in 1959. You >were wrong about the year. ONE was made in 1959. It was the development device. MASS production, what we like to call MANUFACTURING began in 1960. |