OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA

[Peter Bennett]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:11:45 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

*.sch schematic files are defined by Orcad. There are at least 3
incompatible versions of them.

..sch files are defined by Protel, and I believe there are several
varieties of them (all incompatible with Orcad) (and also incompatible
with some Microsoft program which thinks .sch files are "schedule
files").



--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca
new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

The thing that escapes you is that Kerry the President and Kerry the
Senator are two different roles. You have no understanding that as
Senator his responsibility is to advocate for the interests of the his
constituency, and as President he will advocate for the best interests
of the American people. You can stupidly call this flip-flopping along
with the other slanderers, but more sensible people call this doing the
job right. The last thing you want is an egomaniac who thinks he's
bigger than the office- similar to a Hollywood star who is always
playing "himself" regardless of the role- and that would be GWB- a very
dangerous person to have in control. The Democratic Party has
demonstrated that they will work with the best available talent to do
the job. President Clinton for example appointed a tough conservative
Senator to be Secretary of Defense, William Cohen.


Fred,

You must be back on your Prozac; you are actually starting to make
some sense. I have always maintained that Kerry couldn't do everything
he's promissed, there is simply not enough money in the world for
that. If he did get elected (gulp!) he would have to deal with a (most
likely) Republican Congress. I've also said that the policy in Iraq
would be, basically, the same.

Actually not the same at all and that is why it's essential he be
elected. It has been reported today that Rumsfeld told Allawi last week
that there may be a US military drawdown in Iraq even if the security
situation in Iraq is "imperfect"- so watch out!- whenever that jerk
starts innovating it usually means you can standby for something
catastrophic. The question put to Rumsfeld by the military community is:
How are we going to train the Iraqi security forces to defeat an enemy
we can't defeat ourselves. No answer has been forthcoming as of yet.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <Xns956FC1010B17Cjyanikkuanet@204.117.192.21>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
[...]

There's no statute of limitations on treason,either.

So when is the trial of the one who outed the CIA agent to Mr Novak
(Ascroft) going to start?

There has been treason in the last year and no action taken. The odds
of any attempt be made to bring a treason charge against Kerry close
enough to zero that we can call them zero. If they are brought the
odds of getting a conviction are even less. Kerry's defence will be
that what he did was not treason. Any DA with an once of brains would
never bring such a charge.

The outting of the CIA agent on the other hand would likely result in
the conviction of a highly placed official (Ashcroft) and perhaps the
impeachment of Bush if he is re-elected. I don't doubt that Bush
knows who committed the treason and is protecting him. That qualifies
as treason also. Since Bush has said "we are at war" he should face a
firing squad.


Excuse me,but we were discussing a candidate for the office of President.

About whom, you allege treason.

What you or others allege about Mr.Ashcroft is not relevant to this
discussion.

It is very relevant to the subject treason and the odds of that someone
actually getting charged with an alleged treason. In the case of outing
the CIA person, there is no question that there was treason and it would
be very easy to find out who did it but no charges have been brought. In
Kerry's case, it was 30 years ago that he did something that a few people
today claim is treason. No-one in even the current justice department
seems to agree or consider it important enough to bring a charge on Kerry.

What Kerry did;illegally meeting with N.Vietnamese officials in Paris while
still an officer in the Naval Reserves,was and still is treason.
(aiding and abetting the enemy)

I think someone else in this news group has already disproven the
assertion that he was still an officer on that day but we can skip that
question completely because he did not aid and abet an enemy by having
that meeting.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Ken Smith wrote:

I think someone else in this news group has already disproven the
assertion that he was still an officer on that day but we can skip that
question completely because he did not aid and abet an enemy by having
that meeting.

Yannik is demented. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is well
publicized and accessible- the jurisdiction provision:
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/blucmjsubject.htm
The bottom line: inactive status= no jurisdiction.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <ktvbl0dms5e8jgh1f4e6pb5m2iquc79js6@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:18:08 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <zeN5hgA19cVBFwxW@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate <noone@yuk.yuk> wrote:
[...]
I have irrefutable evidence that they were spoken by James Garfield.

I've got copies of the typewritten documents signed by him.


Proportional font?

Titles in bold and nicely kerned.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Rich Grise]

On Saturday 25 September 2004 09:50 am, Colin Dawson did deign to grace us
with the following:

The only problem that I've got is that the battery monitor circuit, looks
more like a sound level meter when the laptop's hard drive kicks in.

That's because you've got the monitor monitoring the wrong voltage.

Use two new wires, and measure the voltage at the battery itself, and
let the devices worry about their own cable drop.

And you'll still see droop, because of the internal resistance of the
battery, but that is the droop you actually want to see, from your first
post And measuring the voltage directly at the battery, with two brand
new wires that weren't there before, is the only way to do that without
moving the meter.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

[YD]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:12:42 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that YD <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote
(in <0aual09h5tr5makj17iff0lbet08ip9hso@4ax.com&gt about 'triumph and
tragedy, almost', on Sat, 25 Sep 2004:

Are these the only two sites giving you this problem?

As far as I know, but I haven't checked all 1 000 000 000 sites.
Yet.(;-)

Do you see
that little "missing graphic" icon in the left column?

No.
Is the text
formatted in a column at the right or does it go across the whole
window?

Formatted right.

Whatever else you can think of.

Escalope de veau Normande. Yum! (;-)


Thanks for trying to help.

Any firewalls or filtering routers in your path? It just occured to me
that something may be blocking links embedded in images. Try
http://ydtech.port5.com/pinhole/phgaleria.html, if you can see the
thumbnails and whether they open up in a new window.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[keith]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:24:39 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On Friday 24 September 2004 08:23 pm, John Larkin did deign to grace us with
the following:

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:52:16 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:

A spokesperson for the group said they would provide more details about
their decision on Thursday.


And....


So, between the Doctors and the Taliban, whose side are you on?

Would you rather be hung or shot?

No!

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Objection! Badgering the witness. (I watched PM when I was a kid!)

Ever been caught jerking off in the shower?

No.

What's the issue?

--
Keith

 

[YD]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:06:54 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlog
DOTyou.knowwhat> wrote (in <o84bl05jl3nlkv0lm4itsa7c23f70mg6l1@4ax.com&gt
about 'triumph and tragedy, almost', on Sat, 25 Sep 2004:

There's no web site there- it's just a few miscellaneous files in the
public_html directory. I left the default "under construction"
index.html file in there, which prevents browsing the directory.

I'm surprised it's slow- that file is only 176K.

Acrobat had actually crashed; silently, as it does sometimes when trying
to work with IE6.

Acrobat seems to crash in practically any browser, bogs down the box
and is impossible to close down without taking everything else with
it. My work-around is to d/l the file and open it up separately.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[keith]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:52:11 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On 24 Sep 2004 11:20:25 -0700, geert@user1.be (Pinchy) wrote:

I intend to design a device to measure the power factor without the
use of a microcontroller.

---
Why on earth would you want to do that?

Because his professor asked the question, and he's been skipping class?

--
Keith

 

[Rich Grise]

On Saturday 25 September 2004 03:55 pm, Jim Yanik did deign to grace us with
the following:

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:cj4mnn$g7l$3@blue.rahul.net:

In article <Xns956F7E3D86FA9jyanikkuanet@204.117.192.21>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote in
news:6c71b322.0409242107.48769009@posting.google.com:

Let's start doing a little research, and document his crimes
against humanity, and bring him up on charges in the World Court.
And Treason against the Constitution of the United States.

There's no question, something has to be done.

Thanks,
Rich

Please, what Kerry did was over 30 years ago-let it go, man!

If someone committed treason,falsified documents,and lied to Congress
30 years ago,you would want that person to become President of the US
today? Or be a US Senator?

There's no statute of limitations on treason,either.

So when is the trial of the one who outed the CIA agent to Mr Novak
(Ascroft) going to start?

There has been treason in the last year and no action taken. The odds
of any attempt be made to bring a treason charge against Kerry close
enough to zero that we can call them zero. If they are brought the
odds of getting a conviction are even less. Kerry's defence will be
that what he did was not treason. Any DA with an once of brains would
never bring such a charge.

The outting of the CIA agent on the other hand would likely result in
the conviction of a highly placed official (Ashcroft) and perhaps the
impeachment of Bush if he is re-elected. I don't doubt that Bush
knows who committed the treason and is protecting him. That qualifies
as treason also. Since Bush has said "we are at war" he should face a
firing squad.


Excuse me,but we were discussing a candidate for the office of President.
What you or others allege about Mr.Ashcroft is not relevant to this
discussion.Nice try at shifting the subject,though.

What Kerry did;illegally meeting with N.Vietnamese officials in Paris
while still an officer in the Naval Reserves,was and still is treason.
(aiding and abetting the enemy)

At the very least,he should not be in public office.

Neither should Bush. In fact, he should be tried and convicted for the

treason that he's committing today.

I say we ask him if he'd rather be hung or shot. But only after he's
found guilty, of course. Don't want to be accused of speaking out against
Der Fueh^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HOur Fearless Leader, now, do I? Might send the
Homeland Security forces after me for Suspected Terrorist Thoughts.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Saturday 25 September 2004 09:53 am, Fred Bloggs did deign to grace us
with the following:

Jim Yanik wrote:
soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote in
news:6c71b322.0409242107.48769009@posting.google.com:


Let's start doing a little research, and document his crimes against
humanity, and bring him up on charges in the World Court. And Treason
against the Constitution of the United States.

There's no question, something has to be done.

Thanks,
Rich

Please, what Kerry did was over 30 years ago-let it go, man!


If someone committed treason,falsified documents,and lied to Congress 30
years ago,you would want that person to become President of the US today?
Or be a US Senator?

There's no statute of limitations on treason,either.


The appropriate question is should they *be* President? For a moment
there I thought you were talking about Bush and the falsified WMD
intel-that he knowingly promulgated in his State of the Union address to
*CONGRESS*.

I certainly was. He's ordered a flagrantly illegal, unconstitutional,
unauthorized attack on a country who has made no move of aggression against
the U.S.

If 9/11 is his excuse, then he belongs in a hospital for the criminally
insane. Or found insane but still guilty.

But what we really need is a policy change to get America to stop going
on jihads.

Thank you.
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Saturday 25 September 2004 08:34 pm, keith did deign to grace us with the
following:

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:24:39 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On Friday 24 September 2004 08:23 pm, John Larkin did deign to grace us
with the following:

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:52:16 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:

A spokesperson for the group said they would provide more details about
their decision on Thursday.


And....


So, between the Doctors and the Taliban, whose side are you on?

Would you rather be hung or shot?

No!

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Objection! Badgering the witness. (I watched PM when I was a kid!)

Ever been caught jerking off in the shower?

No.

Pretty good hiding place, isn't it?

Ba-DUMP-bump.

 

[Guy Macon]

Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

Kevin Aylward did deign to grace us with the following:

I will quote it for the last
time:

Finally! Thank God! ;-)

Just killfile him. Eventually he will grow tired of shouting into
an empty hall, insulting people who never see his insults, and in
general making a pest of himself. He feed on attention - so starve him.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote (in <415621F7.4080602@nospam.com&gt about '[OT]: The not-so-
democratic Democrats', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

The question put to Rumsfeld by the military community is:
How are we going to train the Iraqi security forces to defeat an enemy
we can't defeat ourselves. No answer has been forthcoming as of yet.

The Iraquis have a significant advantage; they speak Arabic and are not
regarded by the citizenry as invading aliens.
--
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

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Saturday 25 September 2004 01:47 am, Kevin Aylward did deign to
grace us with the following:

And subsequently, addresses the *prediction* of new positions and
momentums. This is the crux of QM.

Even if we knew the exact position and momentum, of a particle at a
point in time. Its new position and momentum at a later time can
only be predicted within the limits of HUP. That is, its position
and momentum will be within n.standards deviations with a
probability. That is, the new position and momentum is not directly
causal to its prior position. It is as if the universe has imparted
a random background noise onto the particle, which according to ZPE
idea, is what is actually happening.

Ok, here's some more meat I can get my fangs into.

Would you care to speculate as to the mechanism whereby the "Universe
imparts" this "random background noise" onto the particle?

No.

There is a background field. That's about all one can say. One has to
accept some facts of nature, as facts of nature. Not everything is
explainable in terms of something else.

Suppose you _could_ determine, with arbitrary precision, the positions
and/or momenta of every single particle in the universe and the
resulting forces.

I bet the resultant vector of the sum total (or however in hell you're
supposed to say such a thing - average of the instantaneous
positions?) would look very much like random noise.

It would look like random noise, and excluding QM, it would not be. QM
supposedly imparts "true" randomness. However, of course, this is an
assumption. If QM had cycle times of 10000's of years it may be
impossible to tell if it was truly random.

..

Which still doesn't address the free will/random question, which I
suppose belongs more in a philosophy group, but haven't people been
saying for some time that science is approaching the edges of what's
knowable, or something like that?

either is random, or not random. Either way physics doesn't allow for
true free will. Its that logically simple.

Free will is only allowable if you simple declare a little man in ones
head, external to physics. Or alternatively, just declare the Darwinian
Machine as an object that has free will, as it is indistinguishable from
something that does.

What if the next breakthrough in our understanding were something as
"big" as the Earth-around-the-Sun bit. Everybody "knew", right? But
who could have ever imagined anything as bizarre as Earth being a
little ball spinning through vast, empty spaces, and the sun a ball
of fire more than a million miles away! Ludicrous! Heresy!

Well, you get the idea, I hope.

Physicists have a much better picture now than then.

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]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Saturday 25 September 2004 01:20 am, Kevin Aylward did deign to
grace us with the following:

Guy Macon wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> says...

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

(Very useful background info snipped)

Imagine being asked to measure the exact point in time of a signal
and, at the same time, being asked to measure the exact frequency
of the same arbitrary signal. It simply wouldn't make any sense.

Can you measure these both so that they are each arbitrarily tiny
for the same signal? I don't think so. And it wouldn't make any
sense to ask.

You aint getting it. With all due respect, to Jonathan, although I
am no where near an expert in physics, it would seem that I am the
most formally qualified in this subject in this thread, so it would
seem *resonable* that I should have the best understanding.

I will even explain where the HUP is derived from.

Consider a random signal. It has a spectrum in the timme domain f(t),
i.e. a shape. Take the fourier transform of that signal g(w). The
transform has a spectrum, i.e. a shape.

Now calculate the standard deviation of f(t), sigma_t, and take the
standard deviation of g(w), sigma_f. It can be shown as a pure
mathematical resuult that for *any* f(t):

Kevin, you simply show here that your perceptions are skewed.

Nope.

Your
exposition of why Johathan Kirwan "aint[sic] getting it"

I wasn't referring to here Jonathan at all. I thought it was obvious
that I was referring to Guy, the poster. He was the one who made the
comment.

is nothing
more than a restatement of his exact premise, except that you say
1/2, and he says 1, which is probably tomatoes/tomahtoes, as it were
- I don't know which, I don't have the math -

I didn't have a problem with Jonathans text, my post was in response to
Guys.

But this is the kind of thing I'm infamous for needling people about
to the point of harassment - saying "You're Wrong," and then showing
their stupidity by, well, either repeating the "wrong" thing as
"right," just in different words, or, just plain being wrong. In your
case, it's type 1, although you're the first of those I've seen.

It seems your infamous for misreading prose.

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.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelati
ons@hotmail.com> wrote (in <41562851.70168C04@hotmail.com&gt about 'Ping
Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

It's sloppy talk, I think, that has made 'alternate' the normal US form.

A language, at any point in time, is 'what people say and write' at that
time. Dictionaries record what it WAS when the dictionary was written,
and dictionary compilers are often 'high-pass filters' - failing to
record demotic usage until it becomes used by almost everyone.
--
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

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Friday 24 September 2004 10:37 pm, Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com> did deign to grace us with the following:


Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> says...

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

To put it simply and to help me to avoid error, is it or is it not
possible to determine the exact position and the exact velocity of
a single subatomic particle at a particular point in time?

(Very useful background info snipped)

Imagine being asked to measure the exact point in time of a signal
and, at the same time, being asked to measure the exact frequency
of the same arbitrary signal. It simply wouldn't make any sense.

...

Can you measure these both so that they are each arbitrarily tiny
for the same signal? I don't think so. And it wouldn't make any
sense to ask.

Likewise, I fear your question isn't meaningful.

That lines up with my understanding. I can readily accept that
Heisenberg might have been wrong on some details, but as far
as I can tell, all experts agree that it not possible to determine
the exact position and the exact velocity of a single subatomic
particle at a particular point in time.

My conclusion from this is that it is also impossible to determine
the exact positions and the exact velocities of a collection of
subatomic particles at a particular point in time, and thus
impossible to predict their future positions and velocities in a
deterministic fashion.

I see nothing wrong with this

Of course you don't, you aren't qualified in physics to understand. This
logic here shows a lack of basic understanding of what QM is really
about. Its only *predictions* that are constrained by HUP, not
measurements. Therefore, one can not "derive" the former the latter
statement.

The crux of QM is predictions. That is, the future is indeterminate,
irrespective of initial measurements. QM is not about measurement
problems. Its about the inherent indeterminacy of the universe.

- in fact, there's a book, "The
Reflexive Universe", that even expands on that - kind of applying
quantum mechanics to cosmology, and even cosmogony. (I looked it
up - it's a pretty cool word )

But let's not all forget, non-predestination doesn't necessarily
exclude free will.

I think everyone here knows that I advocate Free Will to the point
of lunacy, so I'm clearly biased.

How about providing a mechanism that achieves it?

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.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that YD <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote
(in <omdcl0de88bd0pstuoi8tqs5cams6q5lcr@4ax.com&gt about 'triumph and
tragedy, almost', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

Any firewalls or filtering routers in your path?

Yes, I have ZoneAlarm. No router.

It just occured to me
that something may be blocking links embedded in images.

I don't even see the images.

Try http://ydte
ch.port5.com/pinhole/phgaleria.html, if you can see the thumbnails and
whether they open up in a new window.

They all work OK, and so do image links on other sites.


Thanks for suggestions.
--
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