#91
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote:
William Mook wrote: I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"? Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying to make life difficult for you, do you? I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-) Jim Davis Well, if this line of reasoning causes Brad to temper his responses does it matter? |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote:
William Mook wrote: I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"? Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying to make life difficult for you, do you? I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-) Jim Davis To answer your question though, the thesis is that the US takes the threat posed by usenet seriously enough to warrant its monitoring and shaping usenet discussion. The same way King George monitored and shaped the fellows who inhabited Speaker's Corner back in the day when the public turned against him, or the way the French Postal Service monitored international mails in its famous 'black room' without the French people's knowledge. All these efforts proceed, not by outright obvious ban, but by what Nixon might call 'dirty tricks' not directly attributable to the agency carrying it out. So they would be any agency charged with the duty to control the range of discourse on usenet - if such exists. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 14, 7:36 pm, wrote:
On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote: William Mook wrote: I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"? Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying to make life difficult for you, do you? I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-) Jim Davis To answer your question though, the thesis is that the US takes the threat posed by usenet seriously enough to warrant its monitoring and shaping usenet discussion. The same way King George monitored and shaped the fellows who inhabited Speaker's Corner back in the day when the public turned against him, or the way the French Postal Service monitored international mails in its famous 'black room' without the French people's knowledge. All these efforts proceed, not by outright obvious ban, but by what Nixon might call 'dirty tricks' not directly attributable to the agency carrying it out. So they would be any agency charged with the duty to control the range of discourse on usenet - if such exists. Speaking of expanding the market 'laterally', why is it that none of the telecoms are picking up on mass marketing the newer g-wave technology? ... I mean, this stuff kinda obsoletes everything up to the I-phone, IT, and EVEN electronics funds transfers... ...and yet another Soviet patent for the invention of a gravity wave transmission device has the following abstract: "The inventive method for generating and receiving gravity waves in a continuous harmonic mode consists in forming longitudinal waves in a vacuum by producing compression and decompression zones according to harmonic law, periodically redistributing a vacuum density inside a working medium and modifying the vector of vacuum field deformation in the direction of gravity wave propagation by acting on the working medium of a system of nonhomogeneous electric and magnetic fields whose vectors are disposed at an angle of 90° in a normal plane with respect to the direction of the gravity wave propagation. The emission of the gravity wave is amplified by acting on the working medium of the system of rotatable nonhomogeneous electric and magnetic fields and/or by rotating the working medium. Identical transmitter and receiver of gravity waves form a communication channel by additional pre-setting of a modulated carrier frequency in the system of nonhomogeneous electric and magnetic fields which affect the working medium of the gravity wave transmitter and by successive transformation of the gravity wave signal into an associated electromagnetic signal in the gravity waves receiver by filtering and detecting the variable component of said signal within the resonance frequency." .... So when will APPLE roll out its "g-phone" transmitter, receiver, etc., in time for the holiday? American |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 14, 2:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote:
William Mook wrote: I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"? Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying to make life difficult for you, do you? I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-) They, them and those other guys are merely a borg like collective of those silly Zion Yids, and/or of their brown-nosed minions doing their usual damage-control thing, by covering their butts and continually spewing infomercials while lying about their being naysayers in denial. It's exactly what official rusemasters in charge of our private parts do best, and don't bother pretending that you folks don't know exactly what I'm ranting about. - Brad Guth - |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 14, 4:28 pm, wrote:
On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote: William Mook wrote: I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"? Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying to make life difficult for you, do you? I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-) Well, if this line of reasoning causes Brad to temper his responses does it matter? Now that's a weird contribution, Rabbi Mook. What part of MI5/NSA did you say you worked for? - Brad Guth - |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 14, 4:36 pm, wrote:
On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote: William Mook wrote: I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"? Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying to make life difficult for you, do you? I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-) To answer your question though, the thesis is that the US takes the threat posed by usenet seriously enough to warrant its monitoring and shaping usenet discussion. The same way King George monitored and shaped the fellows who inhabited Speaker's Corner back in the day when the public turned against him, or the way the French Postal Service monitored international mails in its famous 'black room' without the French people's knowledge. All these efforts proceed, not by outright obvious ban, but by what Nixon might call 'dirty tricks' not directly attributable to the agency carrying it out. So they would be any agency charged with the duty to control the range of discourse on usenet - if such exists. Such a discorse controlled usenet is obviously the case, as well as for their spermware/****ware that gets in charge of my poor old PC from time to time. Limiting the given topic range or scope is clearly one of their clown like tactics, as clearly intended to keep good and/ or improved ideas from ever emerging via the usenet or via any other internet forum. As I'd said before, that them pesky Yids and their trusty usenet rusemasters don't give a tinkers damn about how spendy, bloody or polluting our energy gets. Brown-nosed rusemasters as usenet spooks, moles and clowns are the status quo norm, and even at times Willie.Moo seems a whole lot more rusemaster worthy than not (at least at times it has been somewhat hard to tell the difference). Lord/wizard Jim Davis is clearly one of them pesky MIB Yids or worse, as well as having been connected to the very top dog, or soon to be First Bitch. There's nothing but orchestrated Semitic clownism that's getting in the way of the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it's clearly what they do best. - Brad Guth - |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 14, 9:43 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:36 pm, wrote: On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote: William Mook wrote: I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"? Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying to make life difficult for you, do you? I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-) To answer your question though, the thesis is that the US takes the threat posed by usenet seriously enough to warrant its monitoring and shaping usenet discussion. The same way King George monitored and shaped the fellows who inhabited Speaker's Corner back in the day when the public turned against him, or the way the French Postal Service monitored international mails in its famous 'black room' without the French people's knowledge. All these efforts proceed, not by outright obvious ban, but by what Nixon might call 'dirty tricks' not directly attributable to the agency carrying it out. So they would be any agency charged with the duty to control the range of discourse on usenet - if such exists. Such a discorse controlled usenet is obviously the case, as well as for their spermware/****ware that gets in charge of my poor old PC from time to time. Limiting the given topic range or scope is clearly one of their clown like tactics, as clearly intended to keep good and/ or improved ideas from ever emerging via the usenet or via any other internet forum. As I'd said before, that them pesky Yids and their trusty usenet rusemasters don't give a tinkers damn about how spendy, bloody or polluting our energy gets. Brown-nosed rusemasters as usenet spooks, moles and clowns are the status quo norm, and even at times Willie.Moo seems a whole lot more rusemaster worthy than not (at least at times it has been somewhat hard to tell the difference). Lord/wizard Jim Davis is clearly one of them pesky MIB Yids or worse, as well as having been connected to the very top dog, or soon to be First Bitch. There's nothing but orchestrated Semitic clownism that's getting in the way of the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it's clearly what they do best. - Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What is obvious to you Brad isn't obvious to others, and probably doesn't even exist in the form you imagine. These serve a bogey men for your imagination so that you don't have to look at yourself as the cause of all the problems in your life. This propensity to project onto 'them' all your problems is a common failing of most people to one degree or another, and is especially pronounced in certain mental disorders, like schizophrenia where there is a full blown personality split, and paranoia, where EVERYTHING is blamed on the illusory 'them'. Jim I am sure was referring to that possibility with my last reply where I didn't take care to speak succinctly. Now, the success of any magic trick stems from mis-direction. And good magicians know their audience and what they're likely to do under most conditions. And they craft fabulous illusions based on this knowledge. Secret agencies exist. Secret agencies in the US government exist. Secret agencies in the US government have likely existed which are responsible for managing the range of political and public discourse since the time of the Civil War. Secret agencies do not operate in the public eye. They operate in the shadows of public life and public thought. They are well aware of human failings. They no doubt exploit human failings to achieve whatever ends they set for themselves. It is easy to believe that they recognize that the propensity to blame others is strong in you obi-wan, and know precisely how to push your buttons and let you go against whatever target they have set up to marginalize or shut down in this public domain - again assuming such a 'they' exists. Given the sensitivity of missile and nuclear and space technologies and the wide-open nature of usenet I believe it very likely that there are US government agents sitting around usenet analyzing classifying and targeting a range of issues and perhaps even individuals. This is likely not a very glamorous or prestigious or even an important job, likely an entry level position that one wants to move out of relatively quickly. But it is likely that such a 'they' exists. Now Brad, you believe 'they' are far more powerful and sinister and all-encompassing than I have portrayed here. That's partly due to your illness, and partly due to your pride. After all, if Brad Guth is targeted by 'them' - well, this is a batle of titans right? hahaha. You gotta learn to laugh a little dude, and live life away from the internet - then you might be more interesting when you get back. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 14, 9:23 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:28 pm, wrote: On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote: William Mook wrote: I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"? Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying to make life difficult for you, do you? I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-) Well, if this line of reasoning causes Brad to temper his responses does it matter? Now that's a weird contribution, Rabbi Mook. What part of MI5/NSA did you say you worked for? - Brad Guth - Do you really expect an honest answer to that question? If not why ask it? The fact is Brad, I work for myself and others work for me. I'm just trying to help you see things a little differently from the boneheaded approach you've been following since day one. You may recall I have been nothing but consistent. I have asked you to stop posting, failing that to stop posting to areas I post to, failing that to be nice, failing that to temper your responses. I don't know that this has any impact, you can be assured I will continue giving you these consistent clear messages to shut the **** up and get out of my damn life - until you understand. haha.. I was responding to Jim where he lives emotionally. He wanted to imply so badly I was paranoid he forgot what it would cost him - the possibility that you might be more temperate in your responses. Ah well. I will say my ex-wife got her PhD in education and she worked on using computers to guage response latency of learners. Very interesting topic. One interesting application was in lie-detection. If you asked a question such as does a bird have wings a person replies yes. does a bird have feathers yes. does a bird have skin - a pause - yes. Now, do this enough times and you can construct a latency map between concepts. Birds and feathers, birds and wings, are closely allied. Bird and skin is not. In fact you can after a series of interactions determine that there is another subject a subject not discussed at all between bird and skin - call it animal - that you didn't talk about at all. Another interesting fact is that you can figure out whether or not this item is there no matter how they answered the specific questions!! In a learning situation you can use this information to direct teaching software very accurately to the needs of a learner. In a spy situation you can use this information to figure out what two people think about an subject neither talked about even if they were lying through their teeth to one another. Now, my EX- *did* get a DOD grant for her research, and they took certain aspects of it and developed it further, but she couldn't tell me about it. The office of naval research I think was involved - but they may not exist any more in the form that funded her stuff. This was back in the day we were both young and foolish and in grad school together. she was hot and so was i - haha.. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 14, 8:12 pm, American wrote:
On Oct 14, 7:36 pm, wrote: On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote: William Mook wrote: I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"? Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying to make life difficult for you, do you? I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-) Jim Davis To answer your question though, the thesis is that the US takes the threat posed by usenet seriously enough to warrant its monitoring and shaping usenet discussion. The same way King George monitored and shaped the fellows who inhabited Speaker's Corner back in the day when the public turned against him, or the way the French Postal Service monitored international mails in its famous 'black room' without the French people's knowledge. All these efforts proceed, not by outright obvious ban, but by what Nixon might call 'dirty tricks' not directly attributable to the agency carrying it out. So they would be any agency charged with the duty to control the range of discourse on usenet - if such exists. Speaking of expanding the market 'laterally', why is it that none of the telecoms are picking up on mass marketing the newer g-wave technology? ... I mean, this stuff kinda obsoletes everything up to the I-phone, IT, and EVEN electronics funds transfers... ..and yet another Soviet patent for the invention of a gravity wave transmission device has the following abstract: "The inventive method for generating and receiving gravity waves in a continuous harmonic mode consists in forming longitudinal waves in a vacuum by producing compression and decompression zones according to harmonic law, periodically redistributing a vacuum density inside a working medium and modifying the vector of vacuum field deformation in the direction of gravity wave propagation by acting on the working medium of a system of nonhomogeneous electric and magnetic fields whose vectors are disposed at an angle of 90° in a normal plane with respect to the direction of the gravity wave propagation. The emission of the gravity wave is amplified by acting on the working medium of the system of rotatable nonhomogeneous electric and magnetic fields and/or by rotating the working medium. Identical transmitter and receiver of gravity waves form a communication channel by additional pre-setting of a modulated carrier frequency in the system of nonhomogeneous electric and magnetic fields which affect the working medium of the gravity wave transmitter and by successive transformation of the gravity wave signal into an associated electromagnetic signal in the gravity waves receiver by filtering and detecting the variable component of said signal within the resonance frequency." ... So when will APPLE roll out its "g-phone" transmitter, receiver, etc., in time for the holiday? American- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I am unaware that anyone has generated detectable gravity waves in the laboratory. Do you hae any pointers to this nobel prize quality work? I must admit that my knowledge of gravity waves is limited to miserable thorn and wheeler's GRAVITATION. I'm looking now at Chapter 35 and Chapter 36 of the 1973 edition (which I keep by my desk side since I love Dirac Notation the way others love Soduko. If you would care to look at these chapters you would note that while there are similarities between electromagnetic waves as well ad powerful differences. The first is the gravitatioal constant that governs Einstein's equations is far smaller than the comparable constants that govern Maxwell's equations. This means that you need a helluva lot more mass to generate a g-wave than an em-wave. How much more? Well consider that a dime store magnet can hold itself on a refrigerator door against the combined might of the ENTIRE EARTH's gravity. That'll give you a clue. Second, is the quadropole nature of gravity waves. Electromagnet waves are dipoles. This means that gravity waves don't have a lot of range. Third, gravity waves self interact in non-linear ways. Electromagnetic waves do not. Now, the ability to generate even weak unmodulated gravity waves and detect them would be a feat of the first order in science. It would allow us to see how gravity waves interact and resolve many unknown factors in the theory of matter. So, I cannot imagine that someone did it and I didn't hear about it. But I've been busy. So, maybe I missed it. I also can't imagine that really good people would waste their careers on such a hopeless task, given the smallness of the gravitational constant. But maybe someone had an idea. Who knows? Tell me more. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 10, 9:12 pm, John Schilling wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:42:24 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote: On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:14:19 -0700, John Schilling wrote: If they're *not* being cooperative, dual citizenship can be an enormous hassle. For example, and not hypothetical, you can be required to spend the years between age 18 and 20 serving in the armies of two different nations. Pick one, and for the rest of your life risk prison if you ever set foot in a country that has an extradition treaty with the other. Do you have any case examples of this? A couple from personal experience, involving US/Polish dual citizenship back in the Cold War. Fortunately, both have been able to revisit their homeland since '91, but were limited in their overseas travel (not just to Poland, but to some third-party nations as well) before that. The only things that come up on a quick google involve hypothetical conflicts between US selective-service laws and foreign conscription. Possibly a foreign-language search would be more revealing; is there anyplace left in the Anglosphere with military conscription? -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * I did not know the US recognized dual citizenship. Please tell me more |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Laws of Nature | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 0 | January 2nd 07 11:31 PM |
80/f5 For the In-Laws | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | November 3rd 05 01:55 AM |
IP in china worse than no laws at all | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | February 24th 05 04:02 AM |
Kepler's laws and trajectories | tetrahedron | Astronomy Misc | 2 | March 27th 04 06:31 AM |
Kepler's laws | Michael McNeil | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 23rd 04 05:45 PM |