Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT: CPU heatsink "heat pipes"

J

Joseph2k

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard said:
SDo why didn't they just synthesize octane?
Octane the linear hydrocarbon molecule maximum non-exploding burning rate is
the basis of the octane fuel rating. The Germans could not make much fuels
with a higher than 100 octane ratings.
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
GEO" [email protected] said:
Your claim was:

'You should try reading it because the Geneva Convention also
explicitly states what constitutes legal vs illegal combatants and
what rights the two enjoy.'
'The fact of the matter is that the U.S. is wholly complaint and
treats illegal combatants much better than anything stated in the
Geneva Convention.'

The text you quoted makes no mention whatsoever of 'illegal
combatants' as you claimed. Besides the Geneva Convention is not one
single paragraph, but a number of documents. Read the rest of them.


If you want to play illiterate and pretend to not understand that the
Geneva Convention specifies who qualifies for prisoner of war status and
those who meet that criteria qualify and those who do not meet it don't,
then so be it, but I've already gone through the matter in excruciating
detail with you and am not inclined to play your 'repeat the same
fallacious argument over and over forever' game.

<snip of already answered>
 
David said:
This isn't rocket science, it's 'specified' by whether it's recognized or
not and if the international community doesn't 'recognize' the government
then it isn't 'recognized'. It's simply a statement of what is and you
can't just stomp your foot and say "oh yes you do" when they don't.

As an international lawyer, you don't make it to first base. Who is
"the international community"? What do they do to "recognise" a
government?

Your "simple statement" is simple because it is meaningless. Try and
find something that relates to objectively defined and verifiable
facts.
Well, I guess you can 'say' it but it's nonsense nevertheless.

As you fail to recognise when you "say" something.
It's an interesting article on his opinion of when a government should, or
might, recognize another government but it doesn't mean the government *is*
recognized.

It is an interesting article on what a court has to look at when they
want to decide whether a government is "recognised" or not.
Convenient to pick (b) and ignore (a) (and all others), "whether it is the
constitutional government of the state," when arbitrarily deciding what you
think is "the crucial qualification," ain't it?

It is identified as the one that carries most weight in U.S. courts.
The U.K. courts are less independent.
Now, you could argue it's your opinion they *should* have been recognized
but the *fact* remains they were not.

Whose "fact" is this? Your opinion isn't exactly decisive in any
tribunal I've ever heard of.
I already presented one, whether it occupies the official UN seat.

And I've had my good laugh - when the Northern Alliance hung onto to
its UN seat when it only controlled 10% of Afghanistan, that definition
of a "recognised government" became the stuff of comedy.
Then there is the rather obvious matter of whether other governments have
officially recognized it.

As yours did, by giving the Taliban money to help root out the
opium-growers - a job they were managing much better than anybody else
ever did, and much better than anybody else has since they were booted
out.
You may now giggle yourself to death but I'm afraid that a government isn't
recognized just because you'd like that to be the case.

I'm certainly giggling. A government isn't unrecognised just because
you'd like it to be the case either.
One looks around at the countries of the world and ask "do you recognize that
government" and if the answer is no, like in this case, then it isn't "recognized."

Only if you believe their answer. Try looking at what they did, rather
than listening to what their mendacious diplomats chose to say.

And try to find a little evidence to support your parochial opinions -
right winger's don't seem to be able to google, and precious few ever
come up with a URL. Even fewer come up with URL's that might be seen as
unbiased.
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
David Maynard said:
"GEO" [email protected] wrote:


If you want to play illiterate and pretend to not understand that the
Geneva Convention specifies who qualifies for prisoner of war status and
those who meet that criteria qualify and those who do not meet it don't,
then so be it, but I've already gone through the matter in excruciating
detail with you and am not inclined to play your 'repeat the same
fallacious argument over and over forever' game.

<snip of already answered>

Dang! I guess I missed it.
 
J

Joseph2k

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
You should try reading it because the Geneva Convention also explicitly
states what constitutes legal vs illegal combatants and what rights the
two enjoy.
That is weird, because i just spent about 2 hours carefully reading it and
there is no discussion of "illegal combatants". If you read it you will
find that that the US administration definition of "captured illegal
combatants" falls within the Geneva Convention definition of "prisoners of
war".

It is in your own best interest to properly know what you are citing.
 
J

Joseph2k

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
I *did* explain it, which you snipped out. You then claim what you pasted
in is "more misrepresentation" so explain yourself.

And, btw, you should be wary of articles that are 99% them telling you
their 'opinion' of what things 'mean' with only a handful of partial
sentences ripped out of context.

I've read the entire memo itself. Have you?
You are not in a strong position to make that claim given your
misrepresentation of the Geneva Convention.
 
J

John Doe

Jan 1, 1970
0
Who is the "recognized governemnt" of Taiwan?
Wal-Mart?







<...>




Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!p01!fed1read01.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Richard Henry" <rphenry home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,sci.electronics.design
References: <11rrqsejhpp8ffd corp.supernews.com> <1136529822.829134.127060 o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <11rtdpjduv3qde3 corp.supernews.com> <1136581336.322549.97390 f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <N8Qvf.3088$iQ.463 tornado.southeast.rr.com> <43c23817$1 news.wineasy.se> <11s627dinhe1629 corp.supernews.com> <1136861850.697002.257780 g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11s6cveiajri8c5 corp.supernews.com> <1136948084.099610.220320 g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11s92hpkuhtm04f corp.supernews.com> <1137021400.474718.31380 z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <11sc22gc6a3mi3a corp.supernews.com> <1137070932.459936.168670 g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11sdqfdm33nnu00 corp.supernews.com> <1137118205.447293.98200 g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11sehvc9n2khsf5 corp.supernews.com> <1137160229.390580.264170 f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <11sg68f4mb0523b corp.supernews.com> <1137198090.693122.149590 o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <11sgl43en3gcie1 corp.supernews.com>
Subject: Re: OT: CPU heatsink "heat pipes"
Lines: 18
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <tb5yf.9049$jR.8666 fed1read01>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 03:24:48 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.179.2.61
X-Complaints-To: abuse cox.net
X-Trace: fed1read01 1137237849 70.179.2.61 (Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:24:09 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:24:09 EST
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:456180 sci.electronics.design:618030
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard said:
Who is the "recognized governemnt" of Taiwan?

<...>


Recognized by who?

http://publish.pots.com.tw/english/JusticeMatters/2004/11/15/334_18sovereignty/

"Sovereignty exists when other recognized governments recognize a
government as being the highest legitimate government of the land which it
claims. Sovereignty is given by other sovereign nations. You can not bestow
it on yourself. And the votes have been in on Taiwan since it got asked to
get its ass out of its UN chair so many years ago.
..
..
..
Another specifically local confusion is the belief that if you click your
heels together three times and say "I want to be sovereign, I want to be
sovereign, I want to be sovereign" then you will be. But remember, you
gotta be wearing the ruby slippers."
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
As an international lawyer, you don't make it to first base. Who is
"the international community"? What do they do to "recognise" a
government?

It's amusing you want to critic my 'lawyer' status and then follow by
asking those fundamental questions.

In this context the 'international community" is the collection of
recognized sovereigns capable of recognizing another government.
Your "simple statement" is simple because it is meaningless. Try and
find something that relates to objectively defined and verifiable
facts.

What's meaningless is you trying to argue about a simple, self evident.
statement.
As you fail to recognise when you "say" something.

Again, you want to argue against the self evident. If you think the Taliban
was a "recognized government' then find a government who 'recognized' it.

It is an interesting article on what a court has to look at when they
want to decide whether a government is "recognised" or not.

No, it's an article of his opinion on what he thinks they 'should', or can,
look at. He has no authority to dictate to the court nor the government. He
can simply 'argue his case'.

You also confuse domestic commercial matters with the international
political. As the article you, yourself, presented "the advance this
judgment makes is to prise away the question of who is the government for
international, political purposes from the question of who it is for
domestic legal purposes."

It's one of those 'pragmatic' aspects of the law you apparently disdain,
"they got the money so we still want to sue whether they're a legitimate
government or not' (among other matters that may please the court).

And the references further clarify the derivative.

"11.... to the effect that courts may enforce the acts of an UNRECOGNIZED
entity where private rights, or acts of everyday occurrence or perfunctory
acts of administration are concerned'
..
..
the courts of this country can recognize the laws or acts of a body which
is in effective control of a territory even though it has NOT BEEN
RECOGNIZED by Her Majesty's Government"

I.E. no reason to dispute the legal marital status of someone simply
because they're unfortunate enough to have been married some place
controlled by terrorists or other unrecognized entity.
It is identified as the one that carries most weight in U.S. courts.
The U.K. courts are less independent.

Be interesting to see you cite something but, in any case, US courts cannot
dictate who the US government will recognize as the sovereign of any nation.
Whose "fact" is this? Your opinion isn't exactly decisive in any
tribunal I've ever heard of.

I'll be more precise, I can't find reference to any sovereign 'recognizing'
the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and they definitely
did not occupy the UN seat for Afghanistan, a condition normally accepted
as being 'recognized'.

And if you're going to keep insisting they were 'recognized' then you need
to find some sovereign who did. Otherwise it's just you blustering and
complaining about it.
And I've had my good laugh - when the Northern Alliance hung onto to
its UN seat when it only controlled 10% of Afghanistan, that definition
of a "recognised government" became the stuff of comedy.

You can laugh all you want but one does not get to 'hold onto' a UN seat
because they like the chair. The body must recognize them as the legitimate
representative of the government in order to do so. Just ask Taiwan who was
instructed to get their butt out.
As yours did,

Nonsense.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092801a.htm

"The United Nations and the governments of other nations still recognize
and maintain diplomatic relations with the Northern Alliance, rather than
the Taliban."
by giving the Taliban money to help root out the
opium-growers - a job they were managing much better than anybody else
ever did, and much better than anybody else has since they were booted
out.

Man, you don't even read your own articles.

"This is, again, because States often, for policy rather than legal
reasons, have relations with bodies that are not governments or States."

I'm certainly giggling. A government isn't unrecognised just because
you'd like it to be the case either.

I didn't say it was, or wasn't, 'just because' and I provided proof the
Taliban was not recognized by the U.N.

So, giggle boy, instead of stomping around like a 3 year old crying "is so,
is so, is so" provide some evidence of which sovereign nations recognized
them. And while you're at it you might also explain why this supposedly
'recognized' government wasn't allowed to sit in the Afghanistan UN seat.
Only if you believe their answer.

LOL. I don't believe it, you actually said it: 'governments don't know if
they 'recognize' one another'.
Try looking at what they did, rather
than listening to what their mendacious diplomats chose to say.

You're simply demonstrating you don't know what a recognized government is.

And try to find a little evidence to support your parochial opinions -
right winger's don't seem to be able to google, and precious few ever
come up with a URL. Even fewer come up with URL's that might be seen as
unbiased.

A pretty stupid thing for you to say when I've presented the supporting
evidence, and URLs.
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
JAD wrote:
[snip]
a researchers job is never done, you certainly have the nack...........I
just can't that passionate about anything anymore

Thank you.

I think some of that began for me when my mother, in what I considered a
rather prissy attitude at the time, kept saying "look it up" when I'd ask
questions.

I guess it stuck.


I had an Algebra teacher like that.

I still remember her name, Evelyn Truchovesky, 8th grade (1953-54),
first year Algebra.

I even adopted her "E" as the way I write my middle initial.

Made me what I am today.

...Jim Thompson

Ah yes, 'the math teacher'. I had an outstanding one too.

You suppose there's something about the discipline math imposes that causes
that?
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ken said:
I don't think this is an adequate explanation. The 'old' countries (ie.
Europe) had to co-exist or battle it out (both tried over the years of
course). In the course of doing this they did learn the art of
state-to-state dialogue and co-operation (or at least armed
co-existence) while battling for resources.

That's an interesting take on it but rather than 'co-operation' the "art of
state-to-state dialogue" they practiced seems, from the historical record,
more appropriately described as how to feign a smile, curtsey, and 'talk'
while contemplating which knife to stab in each other's back.

'Fluent and elegant deception' seems to have been a prized talent.
America (as we know the USA) basically had an open field with which to
play (ie. the new colonists could easily over-power the existing
population and have what they wanted). The state remained essentially in
isolation as it grew with enough local resources so it didn't have to
coerce, cajole or do battle, until it had grown to such a size and power
that we have our current situation where it is, well, bigger than the
rest of us.

I doubt overwhelming the existing population was quite as trivial as you
make it sound but perhaps Americans are prone to a more 'direct' approach
because 'fluent and elegant deception' was likely to get an arrow up the
butt as the existing population never did appreciate that talent very much.

forked tongue... war... damn
 
David said:
[email protected] wrote:


LOL. I don't believe it, you actually said it: 'governments don't know if
they 'recognize' one another'.

They usually do know, and regularly lie about it.
You're simply demonstrating you don't know what a recognized government is.

You're simply demonstarting that you don't understand the issues
involved.
A pretty stupid thing for you to say when I've presented the supporting
evidence, and URLs.

You presented one URL, which consists of a short history of Afghanistan
over the past twenty-odd years, including the usual hypocritical lies
about "not recogising" the Taliban.

Elsewhere in this thread, we've had a couple of URLs bringing out the
interesting case of Tiawan - another "unrecognised" government. I must
confess that I should have thought of that - I'm certaily surprised
that my quick google serach didn't pick them up.
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
David Maynard said:
Recognized by who?

....by whom.>

http://publish.pots.com.tw/english/JusticeMatters/2004/11/15/334_18sovereignty/
"Sovereignty exists when other recognized governments recognize a
government as being the highest legitimate government of the land which it
claims. Sovereignty is given by other sovereign nations. You can not bestow
it on yourself. And the votes have been in on Taiwan since it got asked to
get its ass out of its UN chair so many years ago.

Another specifically local confusion is the belief that if you click your
heels together three times and say "I want to be sovereign, I want to be
sovereign, I want to be sovereign" then you will be. But remember, you
gotta be wearing the ruby slippers."

Your government seems to think Taiwan is sovereign:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard said:

Feel free to cut and paste where you think that page says the US has
recognized them as a sovereign.

What is does say is "goals of the Taiwan independence movement include
establishing a sovereign nation on Taiwan and entering the UN."

Being a "goal" implicitly tells you it ain't the case.

And if that isn't enough for you it also tells the relationship:
"Diplomatic representation...: none; unofficial commercial and cultural
relations with the people of the US are maintained through an unofficial
instrumentality,"
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
David Maynard said:
Feel free to cut and paste where you think that page says the US has
recognized them as a sovereign.

"chief of state: President CHEN Shui-bian (since 20 May 2000) and Vice
President Annette LU (LU Hsiu-lien) (since 20 May 2000)
head of government: Premier (President of the Executive Yuan) Frank HSIEH
(since 1 February 2005) and Vice Premier (Vice President of the Executive
Yuan) - WU Rong-i) (since 18 February 2005) "

" Taiwan currently enjoys de facto independence and - whatever the ultimate
outcome regarding reunification or independence - that Taiwan's people must
have the deciding voice"

"Army, Navy (includes Marine Corps), Air Force, Coast Guard Administration,
Armed Forces Reserve Command, Combined Service Forces Command, Armed Forces
Police Command"

"The trade surplus is substantial, and foreign reserves are the world's
third largest."
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
They usually do know, and regularly lie about it.
ROTFLOL


You're simply demonstarting that you don't understand the issues
involved.

Oh but I do. The only thing I don't understand is what makes you think you
can simply 'invent' your own definition of recognized government and expect
all the governments of the world, not to mention the UN, to obey your
arbitrary decree.

They tend to be a bit stuffy about that sort of thing like "who made you god?"

How about The European Journal of International Law? Surely that can't be a
'Bush invention'.

http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol9/No3/art3-01.html

"Recognition of a new state is an act that confers a status; as a result of
recognition, the recognized entity acquires the legal status of a state
under international law. In this sense, a (new) state is not born, but
chosen as a subject of international law. Only when the new state has been
recognized does it become a subject of international law, and this
initially only with respect to the existing states recognizing it.2 On
admission as a member of the United Nations, the new state then becomes
part of the globally organized community of states by way of co-optation.
..
..
..
It is only by recognition that the new state acquires the status of a
sovereign state under international law in its relations with the third
states recognizing it as such. If it were to acquire this legal status
before and independently of recognition by the existing states, solely on
the basis of the three so-called traditional criteria of statehood (state
population, state territory, effective government)..... It would not be
possible to bring about the `negative' legal consequence intended by
non-recognition, i.e. denial of the legal status of a state under
international law.
..
..
..
contrary to the doctrine of the de facto regime,12 which is thus misleading
on this point, the validity and operative effect of rules of international
law in international relations always depend on the recognition (in
whatever form) of the new state by the existing ones.
..
..
..
it is not true that a de facto regime assumes a certain legal position on
account of its existence, without any particular recognition being required.
..
..
..
Thus, in order for it to enjoy the protection of the prohibition of the use
of force applicable in international relations, integration to a greater or
lesser extent into the international community is always necessary by way
of (collective) recognition..."

You presented one URL, which consists of a short history of Afghanistan
over the past twenty-odd years, including the usual hypocritical lies
about "not recogising" the Taliban.

All it takes is one to show they didn't sit in the UN seat and the Northern
Alliance did.

Stomp, cry, bellow, giggle, do whatever you feel like. The fact of the
matter is the Taliban was not a recognized government. Worse yet, for you,
the other one WAS.

Elsewhere in this thread, we've had a couple of URLs bringing out the
interesting case of Tiawan - another "unrecognised" government. I must
confess that I should have thought of that - I'm certaily surprised
that my quick google serach didn't pick them up.

And what have you learned from your new found knowledge?
 
J

JAD

Jan 1, 1970
0
In politics, a de facto leader of a country or region is one who has assumed
authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or legitimate
means; very frequently the term is reserved for those whose power is thought
by some faction to be held by unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise
illegitimate means, often by deposing a previous leader or undermining the
rule of a current one. De facto leaders need not hold a constitutional
office, and may exercise power in an informal manner
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard said:
"chief of state: President CHEN Shui-bian (since 20 May 2000) and Vice
President Annette LU (LU Hsiu-lien) (since 20 May 2000)
head of government: Premier (President of the Executive Yuan) Frank HSIEH
(since 1 February 2005) and Vice Premier (Vice President of the Executive
Yuan) - WU Rong-i) (since 18 February 2005) "

" Taiwan currently enjoys de facto independence and - whatever the ultimate
outcome regarding reunification or independence - that Taiwan's people must
have the deciding voice"

"Army, Navy (includes Marine Corps), Air Force, Coast Guard Administration,
Armed Forces Reserve Command, Combined Service Forces Command, Armed Forces
Police Command"

"The trade surplus is substantial, and foreign reserves are the world's
third largest."


Sorry, but none of that makes it a recognized sovereign.

 
Top