OT: Bush Thugs Rough Up Grieving Mother of KIA

[John Larkin]

On 28 Sep 2004 13:05:53 -0700, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:

Did you oppose the first Gulf war (I would bet money you did)? If so,
we would be looking at Sadam with nuclear weapons now - there is no
way we could attack him if he had nukes.

Why not?

John

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
bericht news:eohjl09kgj02r01is06188kccds7mdlj24@4ax.com...

On 28 Sep 2004 13:05:53 -0700, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:


Did you oppose the first Gulf war (I would bet money you did)? If so,
we would be looking at Sadam with nuclear weapons now - there is no
way we could attack him if he had nukes.

Why not?

Perhaps a new concept, but it may have consequences.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Dave]

"Tim Wescott" <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in message
news:10lhnnu694cis92@corp.supernews.com...

Dave wrote:
I am trying to design and build a simply RF amplifier to give me better
reception on standard television (ch 2 is the main thing I want. If I
can
get that, the rest will fall in place.) Problem is, I can't remember
anything about transistor biasing. Do you simply need a .6 volt
difference
between the different junctions? I am wanting to use two transistors,
the
first in common-base configuration and the second in common collector
configuration, for the benefits of impedance matching I understand this
will
provide. I understand the requirements of forward/reverse biasing, but
can't seem to dig out the actual voltages needed to do the job. Can
anyone
offer help, or parhaps a website that explains the intricacies?
Currently
using my old tradeschool textbooks (Grob Basic Electronics, and
Transistor
Electronics by I-can't-remember-who.) Also, what frequencies cover the
"standard" TV spectrum? I mean Ch. 2 through 69, or whatever it is.
Can't
seem to find that. *Think* it's roughly 50 Mhz to 450 Mhz, or something
like that. Is this close?

Thanks much for any help.

Ignorantly yours...

Dave
db5151@hotmail.com


Unless you have a long run of cable from your antenna to your TV a
preamp isn't going to do you much good -- and if you use one you'd want
it out on the mast at the antenna, not at the TV.

You can find TV frequencies on the web; channel is on 56MHz and the
nominal spacing is 6MHz, but I can't remember where the gap is for FM
radio.

If you can't remember how to bias a transistor then you probably can't
design a good TV preamp from scratch. I'd look around and see if
there's any kits -- Down East Microwave would be good but I doubt they
have anything wide band enough.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Well, the old Rat Shack 10db amp in combination with the RF amp built into
the old VCR used to do the job just fine, with both of them inside of the
house, so I am willing to gamble some time and spare parts on a DIY project.
And yes, I do have a long run of coax out to the antenna, which is the only
way to get decent reception without cable.

Thanks anyway, I'll figure it out via Google. Just thought I'd ask.

Dave
db5151@hotmail.com

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Roberto Diana wrote:

Hi to all,
I've two voltage signals V1(t) and V2(t) which have to be processed to
give:

s(t)=V1(t)/V2(t)

The frequency range is 1-200MHz.
If we use a log/antilog conversion, we can operate with a signal
difference, so:

s(t)=antilog( log(V1) - log(V2) )

Please, let me know if a logarithmic/antilog integrated circuit,
operating at high frequency (200MH), is available. Moreover, I would
like to know if diffent approaches are possible.

Since i have to realize a circuit to process the two signals, I would
be very grateful for any suggestions on the required integrated
circuits.
Thank you in advance.

Roberto,
You are extremely lucky.
Such a chip exists. With some luck the dynamic range is right.
AD8302. From LF to 2.7GHz, with 2 channels of -60 to 0dBm each.
Beside the log ratio, it also outputs the phase between the two.
In the order of 20$ @1

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[Rolavine]

From: kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith)

You can't say "for nothing" if he manages to use it to get re-elected now
can you?

I wouldn't put having a war to get his failure ass reelected passed this man. I
don't blame Bush for being the weasel he is, but I do blame his supporters for
having only BS as their reasons for that support.

Bush is a failure, tell me what major thing he has done that has been positive?

Rocky

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thursday 23 September 2004 07:21 am, John Woodgate did deign to grace us
with the following:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigita
l@earthlink.net> wrote (in <1qstdsae4nzak.88acqjjtcv1r$.dlg@40tude.net&gt
about 'Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON', on Thu, 23 Sep 2004:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:50:58 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

An understanding of Boolean algebra
requires one to dismiss the ideas of decimal math.

Or to more fully understand them.

(I know it's a split infinitive - bite me)

I don't follow all of Noah Webster's axioms - some of them are not
valuable. 'Or more fully to understand them.' is just not what anyone
but a pedant would say.


Incidentally, most of the 'rules of grammar' are axioms, of greatly
varying value.
--

This is the sort of pedantry up with which I shall not put!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <20040928170354.03267.00001230@mb-m17.aol.com>,
Rolavine <rolavine@aol.com> wrote:
[...]

Bush is a failure, tell me what major thing he has done that has been positive?

I'll do even better I'll name several:

(1)
Contributions to the DNC are up.

(2)
The French and Germans agree on something/

(3)
The Kurds and Sheites in Iraq aren't at each others throat.

(4)
Duct tape sales are way up.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[john jardine]

"Paul Burridge" <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message
news:td1jl0t868i7rus1n15lhbq2nt4greufq7@4ax.com...

Sick of all the American politics on this group? Here's an
alternative...

[clip]

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

Steady on, Paul old chap. We are British after all!.

We both know there's a truly nasty but well suppressed violent streak,
lurking in the depths of our national pyche.
Best not to speak of these things, or we will all be unmasked.
(Ever see the film "The Forbidden planet"?.)
regards
john

 

[Rolavine]

From: soar2morrow@yahoo.com

The bottom line is: what is John Kerry going to do that is materially
different from what is being done now?

Bush made Iraq, just because it is such a mess that no one can figure a way out
without millions of deaths, is no reason to keep the fool that started it. If
we get out of there without a 500 billion bill, without millions of extra
deaths, and with any kind of stable govt in place, we will have been very
lucky.

In the near future there is going to have to be diplomatic negotiation with
Iran and North Korea. Bush opened negotiations with Iran by putting them on the
Axis of Evil, this is apparently his idea of diplomacy.

Considering that Iran is just about the closest thing there is to a democracy
in that part of the world, Bush's actions toward it are just crazy. Iran's
current islamic democracy has been stable, and is prob. pretty close to what we
can hope for for Iraq's govt. Iran is still under sanctions, so there is room
to negotiate. But Heck, Bush didn't even allow our own Govt to negotiate the
price of drugs for the medicare drug bill.

Sorry Bush and his supporters, being president is about being a diplomat not
about being a Yosemite Sam bobble head!

Looney Tunes and 2004 politics seem a good fit.

Rocky

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thursday 23 September 2004 12:29 am, John Woodgate did deign to grace us
with the following:

I read in sci.electronics.design that xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid
wrote (in <oqo4l01n0f279bf5901lc9dsu6j21ahk89@4ax.com&gt about '[OT]:
Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Thu, 23 Sep 2004:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:38:17 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

If god appears and produces a sun before me, I might reconsider my
decision,

If that happens you will either be vaporized out of any further
consciousness, or you will enter a new dimension that you don't seem to
believe in.

Or did you mean son?

San, sen, sin, son or sun; it doesn't matter. Appearing and producing
ANYTHING is both necessary and sufficient. (;-)
--

You can't do miracles any more, because physical matter has gotten so
much denser than it originally was. The red shift isn't because the
Universe is expanding, it's because we're shrinking. At a certain
density level, science lost all the magick. )-;

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thursday 23 September 2004 03:21 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com>
did deign to grace us with the following:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> says...

Appearing and producing ANYTHING is both necessary and sufficient. (;-)

Do invisible six-foot tall white rabbits count?

A flow of Living Kundalini from your Root Chakra certainly does, but
only for the one experiencing it. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thursday 23 September 2004 02:10 am, xray did deign to grace us with the
following:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:29:29 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that xray <notreally@hotmail.invalid
wrote (in <oqo4l01n0f279bf5901lc9dsu6j21ahk89@4ax.com&gt about '[OT]:
Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"', on Thu, 23 Sep 2004:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:38:17 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

If god appears and produces a sun before me, I might reconsider my
decision,

If that happens you will either be vaporized out of any further
consciousness, or you will enter a new dimension that you don't seem to
believe in.

Or did you mean son?

San, sen, sin, son or sun; it doesn't matter. Appearing and producing
ANYTHING is both necessary and sufficient. (;-)

But the sun option is akin to, "I'll tell you but then I have to kill
you", isn't it? The sin option sounds ok, but it wouldn't be god
producing that, would it?

Well, us believers say, "Look around. How could there _not_ be?"

And, once again, the pain and suffering isn't caused by free will, it's
caused by the denial of free will.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thursday 23 September 2004 06:37 am, Dirk Bruere at Neopax did deign to
grace us with the following:

Rich Grise wrote:


Oh, well, if anybody wants to know how to be God, just say the
word, I'll tell you where you can find out!

(hint - inside yourself).

I want to know how *not* to be God!

You could do it the way the current one did - explode yourself into

billions and billions of pieces, each of which thinks it's just a
clever machine in a clockwork Universe. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thursday 23 September 2004 06:37 am, Dirk Bruere at Neopax did deign to
grace us with the following:


Rich Grise wrote:


Oh, well, if anybody wants to know how to be God, just say the
word, I'll tell you where you can find out!

(hint - inside yourself).

I want to know how *not* to be God!


You could do it the way the current one did - explode yourself into
billions and billions of pieces, each of which thinks it's just a
clever machine in a clockwork Universe. ;-)

http://www.kbnet.co.uk/artemis/words/Travels/words.htm
" I was the light in the void (or of the light, or under the light? this
relationship is important but still not understood). There was no time, or if
there was then one second was an eternity, and no space. There was no thought or
feeling, only awareness. I slipped somehow, and a shadow came into being. As I
tried to return to the original state I came into conflict with the shadow. As
we manoeuvred for position, trying to outflank each other, we fractured and
multiplied and intertwined. The vision was of a rose unfolding, as we became
space and time and matter and energy in a scene of vastly increasing fractal
complexity. Each of our mindless yet aware parts repeated on a smaller scale
that which had happened at first. I (we) fell further and further from the
light, deeper into the matter that we had become."

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

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

What an uneducated bumpkin you are.

There is no content to be had here. Kevin Aylward subsitutes
childish namecalling for reasoned discourse.

Er... dude, the bit of post that you sniped was the originator making a
statement of no content. There was argument to reason against.

You have been given lots of reasoned discourse. Like, axioms,
deductions, arguments forming conclusions hint: its the paper you are
unable to understand due to lack of competence. Ignore my insults. Then
go back and actually read what you have posted. Now imagine trying to
convince an uninterested party, i.e. one with no axe to grind, how you
would actually convince them that the *content* of the papers, say,
contradicted known science, as you have claimed many times.

Why don't you see that you have only made claims, with no content? For
example, what *specifically* do you find at issue with my definitions?
Do you see an error in my mathematical derivation of the "observed the
most" statement? What is the logical flaw you have discovered in my
argument to explain some known characteristics of Fashion?

Do I have to go on? Its hard being honest with oneself. To wit:

"A good scientist tries to find evidence to support his theory, a better
scientist tries to find evidence that contradicts his theory" - Richard
Fynmann.

How long do you think I have been working on my papers, including past
information? How long have you been looking at them? Who has the
greatest probability of being mistaken on them? Does a Have you even
read "The selfish Gene" - Richard Dawkins?

Stand back and actually prove to *yourself* that you have a *logical*
basis for your views. For example, having Porridge pat you on the back,
is that really credible? Its that truly confirmation. Have you actually
seen his other posts over the last year? What about Clarence, what
evidence do you have that suggests his view have any value? The fact
that you don't like me, has no bearing on my validated skill set. I
suspect you will continue to huff and puff, and get het up, and make
some sort of excuse why my questions above, are invalid. Then stand back
and ask yourself, why are you huffing and puffing about them? You can
either answer them, or you cant. If you cant, do you really believe its
credible to blame it all on the grammar?

You have been giving a needed kick up the arse. Don't waste the
experience.

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 Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:33:58 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:01:21 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:


A recently completed *scientific* survey by the The American Jewish
Committee results in Kerry:69, Bush:24 MoE +/-3% on the "who would you
vote for right now" question. These are *very* good results and
illustrate that *INFORMED* people give Kerry overwhelming support:
http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PubSurveys.asp?did=1339

There is plenty of time for Kerry to attain the double digit lead he
deserves once people get past the cartoon presentation and dirty tricks
of that Texas mob and start thinking like mature, reasoning, and
responsible adults.


You assert that the Jewish population of USA is *INFORMED*.

Yes they are- and this is supported by more scientific polls confirming
their over representation as voters and their more detailed knowledge of
events in the Middle East.


I presume
there is a corollary that the rest of the population, that doesn't
necessary share the Kerry preference is, by definition *UNINFORMED*?

No- your presumption is ridiculous. The UNINFORMED are a subset of
people opposed to Kerry which includes UNINFORMED, AMERICAN
IMPERIALISTS, and RECKLESSLY EXPLOITIVE BUSINESS INTERESTS among others.

But suppose those Jews polled were uninformed (and you have no way of
knowing how informed they were), and favour Kerry because they are
uninformed.

After all, there must be both informed and uninformed people on both
sides of the argument, and to demonise the opposition the way you do
here does you no credit as a supposedly informed reporter.

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

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:40:36 -0700, "john jardine"
<john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

Steady on, Paul old chap. We are British after all!.
We both know there's a truly nasty but well suppressed violent streak,
lurking in the depths of our national pyche.

It's not good enough for a so-called "leader" to exhibit such
tendencies. People are calling on him to resign or at least
apologise(!) If you or I had killed a bunch of people, with or without
good reason, I think we'd be in for a very substantial jail term...

Best not to speak of these things, or we will all be unmasked.
(Ever see the film "The Forbidden planet"?.)

Nope! I'm not into cinema.
--

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

 

[Rich Grise]

On Friday 24 September 2004 02:41 pm, Dbowey did deign to grace us with the
following:

Rich stuck his foot in his mouth with:

Did you see that map of the states that carried Bush in 2000?
It's all cowboys and hillbillies. No wonder the country's going
down the toilet.


And what states would that be, asshole?

The ones loaded with cowboys and hillbillies, dipshit.

 

[John Larkin]

On 28 Sep 2004 16:01:37 -0700, yannick_de_wit@pandora.be (Yannick)
wrote:

Better don't wait at all.
I tried this almost 10 years ago and failed due to the little light
coming back. It was rather frustrating to see how little came back
from a white paper in 20cm distance. The ultimate surface was not
meant to be white and perhaps a bit farther away than 20cm.

Rene

but it has to be possible... i found range meters wich could detect
distances to 5km with 1cm accuracy , i am wondering how they do
that...

Yannick

Time-domain, maybe. Watts of pulsed laser, fast pd, picosecond timing,
lots of signal averaging, good optics. One advantage of pulsing is
that your transmitter (or close-in backscatter) doesn't blind your
receiver.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Monday 27 September 2004 01:46 pm, Rolavine did deign to grace us with
the following:

And I could go on an on. We don't need the Daughters, or Laura, or even
Neil!.

This Pres has been a total failure, the only magic he has is in his
supporters, and I don't claim to understand them. I can only work with
facts, and the facts are BUSH IS A FAILURE!

Oh, he's quite successful at generating hatred and contempt, and creating
"terrorists" by the bushel. Also apparently quite successful at talking
the US into going along on his killing spree.

He really needs hanging as a traitor.

Cheers!
Rich