OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA

[server]

message unavailable

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote (in <414BB316.1020306@nospam.com&gt about 'OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up
Grieving Mother of KIA', on Sat, 18 Sep 2004:

Read the story about Sue Niederer, a distraught and grieving mother, who
recently lost her son in Iraq. This is the "compassionate" conservative
mindset for you- they shout her down, rough her up, and arrest and
charge her. They make her out to be a psycho when her only crime was
being HUMAN!


The news item indicates that she has, not without reason, been actively
protesting for a while. Anyone who goes to a political meeting intent on
creating a disturbance, however justified, must expect that some
physical effects will result. And shouting 'police brutality' isn't
guaranteed to enlist the sympathy of those cops who might otherwise
restrain their less gentle colleagues. That's the way the world is.

'Defiant trespass' may be an offence dating from the 17th century,
punishable by a fine of 50 cents. I don't know that it is: it might be
punishable by hanging, but before judging the matter, the nature and
consequences of the charge need to be determined.

The only reason she kept screaming was because Laura would not answer
her questions. How difficult is it to say how many Bush or Congress
children are in Iraq?

Defiant Trespass has morphed into the anti-protester law.

It is section 2C:18-3 of New Jersey code:

b. Defiant trespasser. A person commits a petty disorderly persons offense
if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or
remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:

(1) Actual communication to the actor; or

(2) Posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to
the attention of intruders; or

(3) Fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders.

and,

d. Defenses. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that:

(1) A structure involved in an offense under subsection a. was abandoned;

(2) The structure was at the time open to members of the public and the
actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining
in the structure; or

(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the structure, or other
person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter
or remain, or, in the case of subsection c. of this section, to peer.

 

[Si Ballenger]

On 18 Sep 2004 02:11:18 -0700, alex+google@vuetec.com (Quack)
wrote:

Hi,

I designed a circuit running on 10v, which uses a L7805CV (morocco
MCC1A0336)voltage regulator to give me 5v for my IC's and LED's.

The problem is the 7805 gets very hot! more than enough to burn you
finger on.
Sometimes even cuts out (built in high temp. cutout).

The strange thing is, when removing the 7805 and measure with a amp
meter, i am only drawing upto 150Ma.

This particular model of 7805 is rated for upto 1.5amp (heatsink
required after 1 amp). I am using a heatsink too.

My question is, apart from the input voltage being too high, OR the
drawing current being too much, what else can make a 7805 get too hot
?

The circuit is running 2 pic 16f628's @ 16mhz, and a SX28 @ 50mhz, and
a few led's.

-I have ruled out too much current by removing the 7805 and using an
external 5v source and measuring current draw. (upto 150ma).

-I have checked the input voltage is between 10 and 11 volts, well
within normal limits.

-I have carefully read the specifications on this particular 7805 in
the datasheet to confirm the above limits

-I have ruled out a faulty 7805 because i have many of them, and using
a few of them randomly present the same problem.

-I have thoroughly cleaned the board of any flux residue which i
thought could create some kind of short.

-I have carefully inspected for any other shorts (in which case the
current draw in test#1 would have been more anyway)

-I am using a heatsink, even though it should not be necesary

-I use these same 7805's in another circuit, drawing a CONSTANT 450ma,
with no heatsink, and they dont even get warm.

-Removing the PIC chips from their sockets makes no difference, in
which case all that is left is a SX chip running @ 50mhz and 3 few
leds.

-This all happens even when the circuit is disconnected from any
external connections (PC serial etc).

I noticed on the SX chip development board, their regulator (LM294OCT)
gets unexpectadly warm also - is there something about SX chips i am
missing ?
I know the I/O can be set to CMOS or TTL levels, i think mine are
configured correctly - but i dont have much experience with SX chips
(this is my first SX based design).


I am out of ideas

Any suggestions of what to try/look for ?

You probably have a short, bad resistor, miswiring, or some such
in your circuit. Keep looking and sooner or later you will find
it.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Rene Tschaggelar wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

See the report on how the Bush mis-Administration has shot down every
effort to protect America against one of its most deadly potential
threats. America is the largest arsenal of WMDs of opportunity
available anywhere. Then look at the hefty campaign finance Bush has
received from the chemical industry.
http://www.crtk.org/library_files/PowerPlantsReport.pdf


Fred,
to start with, you should move away from such locations
just in case you happen to live close.

Rene

See yet another report on mis-Administration bumbling, deceit, and cover-up:
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/mj03/mj03hirsch.html

And all this when US forces discovered US power plant layout plans in
captured Al Qaeda documents in Afghanistan....pathetic really.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:21:48 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:


Defiant Trespass has morphed into the anti-protester law.


Which is precisely my point. It's a curb on freedom that I find
worrying for a (supposedly) free country like the US. It's the
"defiant" part that bugs me. Trespass is trespass is trespass, but
who's to decide what exactly "defiant trespass" constitutes? Some
judge with his own political agenda? The cops? The DA? Just about any
legitimate act of protest might be deemed a breach of that law. And
whilst it may be the pettiest of misdemeanors right now, that can
always change (certainly that's what typically happens in the UK,
anyway). And of course, the perfect excuse to up it to an indictable
felony is the good old "War on Terror."

Right- that will be next- a construction of giving "aid and comfort to
the enemy"- under this Patriot Act thing...Apparently when Bush gave
that "with us or against us" spiel-(note the uncomplicated cliche)- by
"us" he meant Bush.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Burridge
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote (in <3ecok05h4rogrf1ksrqbrbqfsmkddam
ik2@4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA', on
Sat, 18 Sep 2004:


Which is precisely my point. It's a curb on freedom that I find worrying
for a (supposedly) free country like the US. It's the "defiant" part
that bugs me. Trespass is trespass is trespass,


.. and in English law, anyway, is NOT an offence in itself.


but who's to decide what
exactly "defiant trespass" constitutes?


Well, the extra word seems quite reasonably to *define* an offence; of
trespass in defiance of a verbal warning or sign etc.. I believe there
is no such offence under English law, which results in serious abuse.

For example, if you are even tricked into inviting a person into your
house, you *cannot* use any sort of force to eject him, even if he
overstays his welcome. Cases have been widely reported where elderly
people have been coerced by salesmen into buying stuff after being
subjected to many hours of aggressive persuasion. These punks simply
refuse to leave and know that the law is on their side.

Okay- this is where the more specialized traditional legal terminology
is catching up with you- and I am sure the US and UK are essentially
identical because we share a common heritage. A "licensee" is along the
lines of a social guest invited onto the premises, and, strangely, an
"invitee" is a party invited onto the premises for business purposes. So
those sales "punks" are invitees and not licensees. Note the statute
wording in terms of being "licensed" which I take to me licensee status-
not real sure about how "privileged" expands into the lore.

 

[Me]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:07:02 -0400, "Meat-->Plow"
<Meat@petitmorte.net> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:57:11 -0400, Me
no-address_for_spammers@no-address.com>,wrote:

On 18 Sep 2004 07:41:24 -0700, nina.p20@gmail.com (Nina) wrote:

I'd like to clarify something that I've missed:
I'm ready to pay for your help if needed.
TIA
Nina
nina.p20@gmail.com

I see no reason to try and jam the entire band. Just put together a
simple FM transmitter and as someone earlier suggested, transmit a
squeal or something equally irritating over whatever station they're
listening to. As M->P suggested, that will be far easier to accomplish
technically. If you need schematics for a simple FM transmitter that's
very easy to build, yet very effective I can help you there. I've
built and used several on this design. In fact, there's a drag strip
in GA using a transmitter I built off of this schematic using it to
transmit race stats so people can listen in their cars and with head
sets so they can hear over the loud car exhaust. Also got the board
foil design and component layout making it super simple to build if
you want to go the professional route.

I thought the person already had a transmitter

Oops... didn't read all the way down, now did I.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:00:56 +0100, the renowned John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote (in <414C4119.1070604@nospam.com&gt about 'OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up
Grieving Mother of KIA', on Sat, 18 Sep 2004:

Right- that will be next- a construction of giving "aid and comfort to
the enemy"- under this Patriot Act thing...Apparently when Bush gave
that "with us or against us" spiel-(note the uncomplicated cliche)- by
"us" he meant Bush.

Well, the Right may have learned that from the benevolent Left
governments of the former USSR, and China.

Fortunately, the American Founding Fathers learned from the copious
examples of abuse (to stifle dissent and steal property) of treason
laws in England and severely limited their application under the US
Constitution.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Clarence]

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yzZ2d.25358$U04.25176@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Genome <genome@nothere.net
wrote (in <A_X2d.375$H%1.146@newsfe6-win.ntli.net&gt about 'Ping Kevin
Aylward
- re your "scientific paper"', on Sat, 18 Sep 2004:

One of the principle

principal

But it's a very common mistake.

Well, spotted John. At last, someone that can actually make correct and
worthwhile comments, and is much appreciated. I posted the update to the
offending paragraph.

Just delete the entire thing, then no one can complain!

 

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:27:04 -0700, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

I agree, there were a couple of things wrong with that paragraph
(two extra words, correction now posted),

I find the paragraph, even after the change, to be very difficult to
read, and I am left unsure of your meaning. Others here seem to be
experiencing the same reaction. When several receivers have the same
reception problems with the same signal, you should consider the
possibility that there is a flaw in the transmitter.


Even after correction, there are many, many errors, starting with

"These papers forms an outline...". But that is not the real problem;
the content is mostly random noise.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:11:39 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:34:44 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



Tom Seim wrote:

Oh, I get it. Those of us that are here to learn are leaching from
you high


and mighty types. Sorry for my misunderstanding, I was under the erroneous
presumption that this was an open forum to all, regardless of contribution or
experience.

I guess there are bullies in every school yard...


Welcome to the real world. This is the way guys like to play; if you
can't stand the heat go back to playing with dolls.

Man- you're tough on the women. If anything Julie has always been
polite. You owe her an apology!


There's a pattern here: whenever a female tries to join the group,
somebody will eventually be as gross and boorish as they can, in order
to drive her off. Interesting.

John


He is only echoing the sentiment of his leader, Bush, who closed
The White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach and thereby
excluded their consideration from the bargaining table of policy making
they enjoyed during the Clinton years.
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2001/myers_women_bg041901.htm

Fred,

do you think of anything, in any context, but how much you hate George
Bush? Get a life, dude. Design something.

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote (in <414C7564.2090505@nospam.com&gt about 'OT: America is Ticking
Timebomb Thanks to Bush Corruption', on Sat, 18 Sep 2004:

This has never been seen
before- and this authority is clearly being abused on the pretext of
security considerations.

I expect he learned it from Tony Blair. The English Civil Service
regards everything as secret, and it's like drawing teeth to get any
information. Matters have only superficially improved over the last 50
years.

Naturally, we don't have a Freedom of information Act, because that
would spell the end of civilization as the GCMGs ('God Calls Me God')
would like it to be.

The pressure from the public for 'privacy' is simply allowing these guys
to persist in their aim to have everything under wraps, just in case it
might prove embarrassing in 30 or 100 years time.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Guy Macon]

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

Just delete the entire thing, then no one can complain!

In a way, I sort of agree, in the sense, that most of what I am writing
should be trivially obvious, requiring no explanation ata all.

Are you willing to even consider the possibility that your writing
style obfuscates these trivially obvious concepts?

The other issue, is that one's wives don't want to accept that we men
shag as many other women as possible when ever we can, either. They just
dont want to buy into that we are inherently programmed by our genes to
acting in said manner...

Your use of the word "wives" implies entering into a purely voluntary
legal contract. Unless a man makes it clear in the wording of his
public marriage vow he reservs the right to shag as many other women
as possible whenever he can, he should either honor his marriage
contract or not enter into the contract in the first place.

Do you act this way on the job? If I hired you to do what you say
you can do at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/services.html, would you agree
to do the job, take my money, and then do something more interesting,
claiming that you are inherently programmed to do whatever interests
you the most?

How about the Privacy Statement at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/privacy.html?
can I trust you to honor that agreement?

Or is it only the marriage contract that you are willing to violate?

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:02:23 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:FNZ2d.25448$U04.22697@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Kind words, but misplaced. Look, I know when I read something
whether or not it makes sense or not. The issue is that I am
preoccupied with the *content*, so I rush through the more
inconsequential things. Even after an offending piece is pointed
out, a dyslexic still wont know why something doesn't make good
grammatical sense. I do.

I agree with that. Speed, fatigue sometimes, contributes to making
spelling errors. Speed often leads to skipping letters or entire
words. That doesn't make you an imbecile who can't write. I often
make errors with word that sound more or less equal. Like to & too,
or it's and its.

[snip]



That would certainly be true for something dashed off quickly, like a
Usenet post, but not for a web page that has doubtless gone through
several revisions before publishing.

Nope.

I write quickly and post it. I don't do much checking. Writing is just a
necessary evil that one needs to do to get things out. Writing excellent
prose is just not something that has much interest for me.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:47:15 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:36:33 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


Rubbish. Removal of two words does it.

---
It'll take a little more than that...
---



"One of the principle understandings with the theory, is the
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^
principal outcomes of [np]

We already addressed the "principle" one. I disagree with your
"outcomes" suggestion. "Understandings" is much better in my view. I
*meant* what I said. The theory gives *understandings* to what is
going on, not outcomes. In fact, it is understandings to the
outcomes. This why "outcomes" is wrong.


Understandings are agreements of principle between two parties.

Yes, thats one, of many.

They

are nothing to do with understanding a theory.

This makes no sense to me.

explanations of why the behavior of men and women are fundamentally
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
explanation

Nope. There are many explanations, not one.
is

Then don't introduce them by saying "One of the principal
understandings is..."

So, like this makes the text incomprehensible?

have no apparent biological evolutionary advantage?"
^^^^^^^^
[delete]

Not at all. Again, I truly *meant* what I said. This *specifically*
addresses the fact that it often seems that there is no biological
evolutionary advantage, but when examined closely, there may well
be. I am not making a claim that some conduct has no advantage, I am
claiming that at first glance it seems that way, but the initial
view is wrong. That is way "apparent" is there.


You miss the point. You say "much of it appear to have no apparent
biological evolutionary advantage...". Having said "appear" [sic], the
word "apparent" becomes redundant.

I'll give you that one. Oh shame on me.. its that flow of current issue
again...

So, it looks like you only caught a spelling error.

Kevin Aylward

Would you like a critical dissection of even your first paragraph?

You can correct it all if you wish.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:21:11 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Clarence <No@No.Com> wrote (in
J%%2d.22560$Kw2.7023@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'Ping Kevin
Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Sat, 18 Sep 2004:

You would insult Shakespeare?

Contrary to popular belief, Shakespeare was no paragon of grammatical
writing, or even of consistent spelling; he even spelt his own name in
several different ways. But that was not abnormal at the time.

It is not so much that his grammar was poor - there was no formal
grammar, or spelling for that matter, at that time. It was really not
until the time of Johnson that these things were formalised into what
we now recognise as English.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Paul Burridge]

On 18 Sep 2004 11:43:22 -0700, nina.p20@gmail.com (Nina) wrote:

@ Paul Burridge,
You wrote:
"Sounds like you don't need any help, then.
Use one of your old FM bugs and adapt to sweep the band with a
sawtooth generator varying the reverse bias on a suitably chosen
varactor diode as part of the frequency determining section. Then
hitch the output of your bug to a couple of additional broad(ish) band
RF amplification stages which you will no doubt have no problem
designing. Presumably you know all this, anyway."

You are wrong, I do need help...
Theoretically, I know this very well, I thought to use a varactor
diode for
this job, but - and here I need your (or other members)help...
I don't know how to match making between my old bugs and a varactor
diode sweeping circuit, and have no idea how to build one.

This site contains some useful info:

http://www.electrokits.com/id-fm_jammer.htm

And try alt.pirate.radio instead of alt.radio.pirate (you won't get
much help from anyone on the mainstream groups for an illegal aim like
you've publicised here, I'm afraid).
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <c0cujJETqJTBFw2S@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate <noone@yuk.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote (in <414C6D10.6010701@nospam.com&gt about 'OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up
Grieving Mother of KIA', on Sat, 18 Sep 2004:

The purpose was to create a FALSE SENSE of popular support-
nothing less than a deceitful and orchestrated shill. Most of the
attendees were paid stand-ins.

Perfectly normal political meeting, then. Every party does it.

The Bush folks make you sign something that basically says you will
support Bush. This adds an extra way in which the woman in question could
be charged. She was violating her contract.

The Kerry folks don't have anything you have to sign to get in and many
people from the bush camp have gone to and protested at the Kerry
meetings. I don't think there has been any net effect from this effor so
I don't think the Bush folks really gain anything from having a hand
picked crowd bussed in. For that matter they may loose the chance to
speak to the unconverted.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Guy Macon]

Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> says...

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:21:11 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Clarence <No@No.Com> wrote (in
J%%2d.22560$Kw2.7023@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'Ping Kevin
Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Sat, 18 Sep 2004:

You would insult Shakespeare?

Contrary to popular belief, Shakespeare was no paragon of grammatical
writing, or even of consistent spelling; he even spelt his own name in
several different ways. But that was not abnormal at the time.

It is not so much that his grammar was poor - there was no formal
grammar, or spelling for that matter, at that time. It was really not
until the time of Johnson that these things were formalised into what
we now recognise as English.

Have you fellows ever considered changing the subject line when the
conversation takes a 90 degree turn into a Shakespeare discussion?

Just a thought.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> says...

The issue here is that many can't understand trivial definitions, and
trivial math, or understand basic Darwinian Evolution.

Why is it that I can understand
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9609/msg00009.html
but not your page? What is different?

I had a tiny skim, and don't have time to read it all.

The reason is probably because none of them are rigorous math wise. They
use concepts of memes and genes that are wrong. They use waffle
explanations that have technical faults but you are unable to see the
flaws. You only think you understand. You don't really. Its not possible
to understand *correctly* how genes and memes work without a proper
definition and understanding of memes and genes. Genes and memes cannot
self replicate, hence any explanation that uses that concept is wrong.
The fact that such explanations give the correct answer is simple
fortuitous. These are the issues I have specifically addressed.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.