New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Aug 2006 06:28 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > Phat Bytestard wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:17:36 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: > > > > >Eeyore wrote: > > >> > > >> bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > >> > > >> > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > >> > > Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > Obviously too many head shots. > > This is field-hockey, not ice-hockey, as I've already mentioned I've had some balls fly pretty damn close to my head though ! I'll never forget one I caught and returned - it was *just* inside the legal shoulder level limit ! That made my stick crack and them some ! It was a goal too ! Graham
From: bill.sloman on 3 Aug 2006 06:31 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:30:38 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >Anyone who reckons hockey is a game for pacifists hasn't seen a game of hockey ! > >I used to play centre forward btw. > > Too many pucks into the skull cavity. > > I knew your problem had to have physical roots. Field hockey is played with a ball, not a puck, and brain-damaging head injuries are relatively rare - at least when compared with ice-hockey - and mostly caused by relatively low velocity contact with the hockey stick at the end of the backswing or the follow-through. You aren't supposed to let the stick get higher than shoulder level in field-hockey, which doesn't provide much protection for anybody whose head happens to be below shoulder level for some reason or another. What you know about field hockey does seem to be representative of the reliability of your knowledge in general. Ever thought about a brain implant? There does seem to be a lot of unused space available inside your skull. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 3 Aug 2006 08:29 Eeyore wrote: > > Don Bowey wrote: > >> On 8/2/06 8:39 PM, in article 44D16FE3.F09C46C3(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Don Bowey wrote: >>> >>>> I suppose England should fervently hope they are not caught up again in a >>>> debacle of their own. >>> England ? >>> >>> Graham >> Yes! You deaf? > > Tell me more about this *England*. > > Does it have an English Army, an English Navy and an English Air Force ? > > Does it have a seat on the UN Security Council too ? > > Graham > > He's referring to the bit that owns Scotlandshire (Englands northernmost county) Walesborough (also known as West England) and Island. Dirk
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 3 Aug 2006 08:32 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > Eeyore wrote: >> Don Bowey wrote: >> >>> On 8/2/06 10:02 PM, in article 44D1834D.314D1A6B(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm wondering if it wouldn't have made more sense for Britain to have made >>>> peace with Germany on the condition that France was un-occupied and >>> the > 3 countries would rule a New >>> Europe. >>>> We could have quietly had Hitler assasinated so many of the Jews would have >>>> lived and Russia would have quietly taken the hint and kept out of the way. >>>> >>>> Had we gone that way, I reckon it's likely that half the globe would be >>>> 'European' now ( think of the combined overseas territories of the former >>>> colonial powers ) and the USA would simply be a colony again ! >>> >>> Dream on. My only comment is that this would be a very different world had >>> the US not entered into the war in Europe. >> You're deluding yourself about possible scenarios. It was WW2 that made the USA a >> world power. Without it you'd still be a backwater. >> >> Graahm > > > England wouldn't exist. A "Backwater" country could not have > converted all of its industry to war materials, food, and medical > supplies, or supplied so many trained solders in several generations, > you little brain dead rag doll. The US was already a power to be > reckoned with, but we were minding our own business. When push came to > shove, we shoved, and won. You can whine, lie and cry all you want, but > the facts are the facts. You could not have produced the steel, > aluminum, copper and other needed metals in large enough quantities in > time to build anything on the scale needed to win a World War. What would likely have happened would be that the Germany would have exhauseted itself beating the Russians. The British Empire would have had time to fully militarise, the US would still have fought and beaten Japan (with nukes). The result would have been a Cold War with the Nazis instead of the Communists. IMO Britain would have come out of it better off than it did in the real world. Dirk
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 3 Aug 2006 08:34
bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > John Woodgate wrote: >> In message <1154540545.114278.233890(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated >> Wed, 2 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes >>> Phat seems to be dense enough that he could have a uranium brain. >>> Happily, there isn't enough brain for there to be any risk of a >>> critical mass. >> The bad news is it's not U, it's Pu. Or is that Poo?(;-) > > Plutonium-239 has a minimum critical mass of about 10kgm versus 15kgm > for U-235, but since the Phat Bytestards cerebral mass seems to be > fly-weight (a few grams), we don't seem to be at much risk. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass > > If his brains were dynamite - which they clearly aren't - they woudn't > blow his hat off. It is quite possible to build a nuke with as little as 1kg of Pu There have been suggestions (ie word of mouth, unpublished) that it might be done with as little as 200g A lot depends on compression and neutron reflection. Dirk |