News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
Wed, 02 Nov 2011, 11:36pm #61
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 03 Jul 2014
Posts: 4011

TecsFanEE wrote:

Like I have said before, I dont agree with everything Student has said, but I dont agree with everything anyone says.

I can see how he would have the views he has on Taiwan and Tibet if he is Chinese. It would be kind of like how we see we have a right to have Texas and California and a whole country once owned by Indians. I dont agree with his point of view about Tibet and Taiwan, but its his right to think as he wishes.

Thanks. It's amazing what propaganda is fed to US citizens by the US media. Just reading wikipedia (ThubtenN's source) is informative if you think about what it is saying.

student wrote:

ThubtenN wrote:

Student your history is selective. Here is a more objective version of Tibet's history.

student wrote: First off, Tibet was settled by Chinese around 2750 years ago.

See The Economist July 17, 2010 issue.

student wrote: Second, it was taken by the Mongols in the 1240's.

thubtenN's source wrote: Mongolian prince Khuden conquered Tibet in the 1240s and made the Sakya Pandita the Mongolian viceroy for Central Tibet, though the eastern provinces of Kham and Amdo remained under direct Mongol rule.

student wrote: Third, Kublai Khan invaded the rest of China in 1271 and the two parts were united again up to present day.

thubtenN's source wrote: When Kublai Khan founded the Yuan Dynasty in 1271, Tibet became a part of it.

student wrote: In the first part of the last century there was much turmoil in China due to western meddling and a corrupt government. During the ensuing civil war, the province of Tibet isolated itself. With the founding of the PRC, most of China was once more made whole, including Tibet.

thubtenN's source wrote: the Chinese Revolution, began with the Wuchang Uprising on October 10, 1911 and ended with the abdication of Emperor Puyi on February 12, 1912...The revolution...set up a weak provisional central government over a politically fragmented country. Reactionaries briefly and abortively restored the monarchy twice, leading to a period of military rule...when the Republic of China formally replaced the Qing Dynasty, internal conflict persisted. The nation endured a failed Second Revolution, a Warlord Era and the Chinese Civil War before the Communists took control on October 1, 1949...

[the former Dalai Lama] declared himself ruler of an independent absolutist theocracy in Tibet ...between 1912 and 1951.

...The Chinese Communist government led by Mao Zedong which came to power in October [1949] lost little time in asserting a new Chinese presence in Tibet...the People's Liberation Army confronted the Dalai Lama's army at Qamdo in 1950 and negotiated the Seventeen Point Agreement with the newly crowned 14th Dalai Lama's government, affirming the People's Republic of China's sovereignty...

thubtenN, your source backs me up. Link to post

As for Taiwan, Taiwanese seem most interested in maintaining their standard of living and current format of rule. This includes the idea of one China. Unification talks occur off and on, tending to break down over details. Few see a Taiwan which is not more integrated with the mainland in future. Focus is currently on deepening economic ties and reducing barriers for people.

Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.

Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%


Thu, 03 Nov 2011, 12:11am #62
Registered: Apr, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 20 Jul 2014
Posts: 2729

EEventually wrote:

The bigger problem is the basic tenets of quality assurance are this far removed from people marketing products to the world.

We are both warrior nations. The history of American warfare has placed a premium on the soldier so we have a long history of wrestling with quality and reliability in the equipment we provide our soldiers. The ball really got rolling with the milspec system and has provided Americans with a great depth of experience and mindset regarding attaining a positive character in the goods we produce for our warriors. This has found its way into all products.

What is the Chinese story about how they value their soldiers? Do they equip their soldiers with a keen eye on combat effectiveness or do they have a keen eye on manufacturing a large number of soldiers?

Recommended reading: Breakout: The Chosin Reservoir Campaign, Korea 1950 - Martin Russ

I could take this a great deal deeper and discuss Occidental vs. Oriental social paradigms but then it gets a little heady and honestly, I just wanted to vent my spleen about a bunch of transceiver chips that should have remained in the scrap bin instead of lifted to uncle Cho's electronic surplus warehouse to be illegally marketed as enterprise grade chips. Counterfeits are 8% of the Chinese economy. Does anyone ever expect this to change quickly enough to stop random crap from wrecking the entire systems they are buried in?

Thank You. It is refreshing and frankly entertaining to read your intelligent posts. From your link above:

12,000 U.S. Marines were marching north to the Yalu river in late November 1950. These three regiments of the 1st Marine Division -- strung out along eighty miles of a narrow mountain road -- soon found themselves completely surrounded by 60,000 Chinese soldiers. Despite being given up for lost by the military brass, the 1st Marine Division fought its way out of the frozen mountains, miraculously taking their dead and wounded with them as they ran the gauntlet of unceasing Chinese attacks.

I expect one of your points is that milspec is ever so important.

HP Servers rock... I have HP deployed for 7 plus years and I had IBM equipment that went 18 years. OK, the stuff is old, but the hardware still goes!

Sometimes $100 dollar hammers are worth every penny.

EEStor’s legitimacy is a job for Carl Sagan and Sherlock Holmes. Times are a changing. TY B,TV,Nekote.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011, 1:11am #63
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 13 Dec 2013
Posts: 3696

milspec was about all your component parts having a pedigree that could be traced to a quality specification.

Parts used for Rickover's nuclear systems used this system to such an extent that for a single valve in the engineroom, you could trace the metal is was made out of back to the hole in the ground it was dug out of.

If you wanted to do government business at all in the US, you needed to milspec certify your manufacturing. Everyone wanted that higher margin work. Maybe 90% of your product went to private sector use but it ran right alongside the government parts. Maybe at inspection, some of it couldn't go to the government. That's the most critical thing to remember. We had to establish the distinction between levels of quality in our manufacturing output. Once you do that, the rest is just application of method and keeping that method within the context of your margins.

On our "recipe" for making product, there are several dozen steps that are "placeholders" for quality checks. Some of these checks are just there in case we find a need for them later. Some of them are active for a portion of our product that gets sampled for quality checks. Some of them I can specify to be done as part of a post-maintenance quality check or part of a problem solving plan. I have a quota to limit my use of this or I will overload the equipment that does these checks. We leave just enough capacity for these special needs because we want our scheduled sampling to do it's good work. Most of the time, I know when our stuff is going wrong but sometimes (maybe 5%), the group that runs the quality check machines will tell me something is up. We listen and respond to them, and quickly. It's a complex and carefully designed and operated system that performs a massively important function. We don't want our customers to ever think "caveat emptor" but rather to know that when they go to, they get stuff that works as advertised. These parts are going into Wasmaba's new server gear and I think he deserves the best I can make.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”- Michael Crichton

Thu, 03 Nov 2011, 2:27am #64
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Shere Khaan wrote:

I'm glad you took the effort and time to dig that up, Lensman.

Oh, I didn't. I just occasionally archive some of the more outrageous quotes from the most notorious liars on this forum.

We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011, 10:27am #65
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 24 Mar 2013
Posts: 2226

Lensman wrote:

Shere Khaan wrote:

I'm glad you took the effort and time to dig that up, Lensman.

Oh, I didn't. I just occasionally archive some of the more outrageous quotes from the most notorious liars on this forum.

Jeeze luigi get a life lensman.

In a redneck sort a way, we only have so much ass to cash that check against.