New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 15 Aug 2006 10:58 On 15 Aug 2006 01:48:35 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >Look at what Dubya - and his enthusiastic supporters in ENRON - have >done to the U.S. before you restrict that problem to Third World >governments. I wonder why the principals of Enron are enthusiastic supporters of W. Perhaps they enjoy prison? John
From: Don Bowey on 15 Aug 2006 12:57 On 8/14/06 11:30 PM, in article KUwEJUHYoW4EFwLY(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk, "John Woodgate" <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message <1hk36ch.3xb3goy6e91oN%tim.auton(a)auton.groupSexWithoutTheY>, > dated Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Tim Auton <tim.auton(a)auton.groupSexWithoutTheY> > writes >> John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> In message <pan.2006.08.15.20.47.02.573084(a)example.net>, dated Mon, 14 >>> Aug 2006, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <null(a)example.net> writes >>> >>>> And you need a new dictionary. The meaning of "defense" that sane >>>> people go by doesn't include "assaulting your neighbors and killing >>>> their families". >>> >>> Ah, but it IS so defined in the Hisbollah dictionary. >> >> If a bunch of terrorists came and moved into my back garden against my >> will I'm not sure 'neighbours' would be the word I'd use for them... > > Jesus defined 'neighbour'. He must have been a Standards guy.
From: David Brown on 15 Aug 2006 13:04 Jim Yanik wrote: > David Brown <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in > news:44e039f5(a)news.wineasy.se: > >> John Larkin wrote: >>> On 11 Aug 2006 04:46:30 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>> >> > 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 >>> >> American politics is far more entertaining than a lot of European >> politics. Here in Norway, the government is formed by a coalition - it >> doesn't really make a big difference who you vote for, because they all >> get together to argue out a compromise afterwards. But on the other >> side of the Atlantic, a half percent of votes stolen here or there makes >> a huge difference to the country and the rest of the world. It's the >> same with scandals - if our prime minister had an affair, people would >> say it's between him and his wife, while a little indiscretion by your >> previous president brought your country to a halt. >> > > "stolen" votes? > > any credibility you had has evaporated. > I didn't think I had any credibility with you in the first place !
From: Mike Monett on 15 Aug 2006 13:03 joseph2k <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The US military has a long track record of buying stuff that > performs well in demonstration and trials that barely work when > fielded. > JosephKK You mean like the airplane, radar, microwave oven (magnetron), transistor, computer, satellite, internet, and innumerable other inventions that we now take for granted? Sure, there may have been teething problems, but they eventually got fixed. If you read the article, you may discover the original order was for $38 million worth of AN/PSS-14 Mine Detection Sets. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/300m-over-17000-portable- minedetectors-for-us-troops/index.php The performance of the system is easy to verify. After evaluating it for one year, the army increased the order by a factor of ten, to $300 million. Here's the info on the AN/PSS-14: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The AN/PSS-14 Mine Detection Set (formerly known as HSTAMIDS) is a vast improvement over today's metallic handheld mine detectors. It employs a state-of-the-art metal detector and ground penetrating radar (GPR), which are coupled with an advanced microprocessor array and software to achieve a high probability of detection (in excess of 95 percent) for both large and small metallic and nonmetallic antitank and antipersonnel mines. It also significantly reduces the number of false targets or alarms. If a mine is detected, audio cues alert the operator. Built-in warning and test equipment also alerts the operator of potential system malfunctions and assists maintenance personnel in fault identification. The result is a greatly improved system that protects the Soldier and enhances his/her ability to detect landmines. The AN/PSS-14 weighs approximately eight pounds, uses standard batteries and can be operated by a single Soldier. The AN/PSS-14 is also being procured by the U.S. Marine Corps as their Advance Mine Detector. http://ccsweb.pica.army.mil/2counter/anpss14.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The main point is the mine detection systems they are now buying include GPR. And a very significant difference exists between previous methods of military procurement and what happens now. If the system doesn't work as claimed, the large number of military and civilian blogs will ensure that everyone knows about the problem. That will certainly get attention needed to fix it. Regards, Mike Monett Antiviral, Antibacterial Silver Solution: http://silversol.freewebpage.org/index.htm SPICE Analysis of Crystal Oscillators: http://silversol.freewebpage.org/spice/xtal/clapp.htm Noise-Rejecting Wideband Sampler: http://www3.sympatico.ca/add.automation/sampler/intro.htm
From: David Brown on 15 Aug 2006 13:23
John Larkin wrote: > On 14 Aug 2006 10:53:09 +0200, David Brown > <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > >> John Larkin wrote: >>> On 11 Aug 2006 04:46:30 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>> >> > 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 >>> >> American politics is far more entertaining than a lot of European >> politics. Here in Norway, the government is formed by a coalition - it >> doesn't really make a big difference who you vote for, because they all >> get together to argue out a compromise afterwards. But on the other >> side of the Atlantic, a half percent of votes stolen here or there makes >> a huge difference to the country and the rest of the world. It's the >> same with scandals - if our prime minister had an affair, people would >> say it's between him and his wife, while a little indiscretion by your >> previous president brought your country to a halt. > > One electron can tip a metastable flipflop one way or the other. I > think that close elections mean that the system is working, that both > parties - we have two real parties for other reasons - are both forced > to servo towards the center, and both are forced to contain their > lunatic wings. > Sometimes close elections can be a sign of a healthy democracy - it is certainly far better than the single-party "democracies" in many countries. However, it's a little different when one side uses so many dirty tricks (sometimes legal, sometimes not) to win. I certainly don't believe all the conspiracy theories around (adding them all up would have given the Democrats way over 100% of the vote), but only the most fanatically faithful Bushites would claim it was all fair and democratic. What made the real difference, however, is how Bush reacted after winning the elections. In a healthy democratic system with a fair-minded president who was interested in representing his country, then he would, as you say, have moved towards a common centre politically. Instead, he claimed his win to be an endorsement of the whole country for his most outlying policies. > You probably have fewer lunatics in Norway, another reason your > politics is dull. All your real nut cases emigrated here ages ago. > > John > |