Yay. In trouble with ITAR...
Scott Lowther
Export Control Compliance guy at NASA/KSC. Wanted to ahve a chat with me
about my web page here:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspace.htm
Didn't leave details, and by the time I heard the message, he had long
since left for the weekend. So I get to wait until Monday, I suppose.
So I did the obvious thing... lookeda t that page to see what was on
there that might be ITAR-problematic. I don;t see nuthin' but mostly
Saturn stuff, witha bit of Shuttle and Dyna Soar. I figured maybe he
got the wrong page, and instead meant this page:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm
That, at least, has some Convair nuclear powered aircraft stuff. Figured
that must be it, the guy being from General Dynamicws and all.
But then I got this message from a contact who worked at KSC:
"However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control
Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our
office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the
Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA public
relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters showing
the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
took them down and shredded them."
WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Danny Deger
<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
> While I was out today, a voicemail came in from a General Dynamics
> Export Control Compliance guy at NASA/KSC. Wanted to ahve a chat with me
> about my web page here:http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspace.htm
>
> Didn't leave details, and by the time I heard the message, he had long
> since left for the weekend. So I get to wait until Monday, I suppose.
>
> So I did the obvious thing... lookeda t that page to see what was on
> there that might be ITAR-problematic. I don;t see nuthin' but mostly
> Saturn stuff, witha bit of Shuttle and Dyna Soar. I figured maybe he
> got the wrong page, and instead meant this page:http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm
>
> That, at least, has some Convair nuclear powered aircraft stuff. Figured
> that must be it, the guy being from General Dynamicws and all.
>
> But then I got this message from a contact who worked at KSC:
>
> "However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control
> Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our
> office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the
> Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA public
> relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters showing
> the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
> covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
> some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
> care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
> took them down and shredded them."
>
> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
>
I got into some hotwater for Shuttle display software. When did they
start putting people on ICBMs that need displays? This is all
documented in my book, "Houston, You Have a Problem" that you can
download at www.dannydeger.net The summary is: ANY data on a launch
vehicle is ITAR.
Danny Deger
Scott Lowther
> The summary is: ANY data on a launch
>
>vehicle is ITAR.
>
>
That's a bit loopy. It would imply that a *photo* of a Shuttle is ITAR.
It would imply that mentioning that the Saturn I had a payload of X lbs
to Y orbit is ITAR. Even when said data comes from public domain sources.
Pat Flannery
Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> "However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control
> Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our
> office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the
> Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA
> public relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters
> showing the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they
> were all covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept
> telling him some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but
> he did not care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop
> until we took them down and shredded them."
>
>
> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
You just can't make this shit up, can you?
This reminds me of them taking the Fat Man and Little Boy off display at
the National Atomic Museum because some terrorist might learn how to
make a nuclear weapon by studying them. "So that's what we've been doing
wrong! The fins go at the _back_ end!"
Somebody might want to point out to them that the Saturn V, and all
drawings of the Saturn V, were financed by taxpayers as part of a
civilian space project by a civilian agency, and therefore are public
property every bit as much as photos taken on the Moon's surface by the
astronauts are.
They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
mentally unbalanced.
Pat
Scott Lowther
> This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
> security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
> Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is
> clinically mentally unbalanced.
A lot of the ITAR nuttiness arose in the 1990's. Last I checked, this
administration wasn't around in the 90's.
Unclaimed Mysteries
> Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>> This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
>> security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
>> Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is
>> clinically mentally unbalanced.
>
> A lot of the ITAR nuttiness arose in the 1990's. Last I checked, this
> administration wasn't around in the 90's.
>
Ahem,
That's not for you to say, citizen. While we strive to keep the American
people as informed as possible, the exact dates of our Administration as
well as today's calendar date and even the color of the sky are topics
we cannot discuss outside an executive session with properly cleared
personnel. To openly talk about these matters is a security breach of
the most critical nature and those who attempt to, for instance, fix an
exact date of this administration's arrival as well as its departure
date are, to put it simply, traitors. I trust you do not want to be
included in that category. Good. I'm glad we had this little talk. Run
along now.
Yer pal, Dick.
Seriously, gift shop Saturn V posters? GIFT SHOP SATURN V POSTERS? The
Freakshow Junta's contractor is trying to reclassify GIFT SHOP SATURN V
POSTERS and your response is to snark about Clinton?
Wait a minute. Are you ... are you EVOR LRAK?
C.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
>Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
>This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
>security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
>Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
>mentally unbalanced.
I think there's a lot more evidence of that for you than for Dick
Cheney.
David Lesher
>Somebody might want to point out to them that the Saturn V, and all
>drawings of the Saturn V, were financed by taxpayers as part of a
>civilian space project by a civilian agency, and therefore are public
>property every bit as much as photos taken on the Moon's surface by the
>astronauts are.
>They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
>Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
Better check and make sure no one has stolen one of the display units.
I've alerted the Smithsonian Police; no cameras or rulers allowed near
the you-know-what engine...
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Fred J. McCall
:
:Scott Lowther wrote:
:>
:>
:> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
:
:You just can't make this shit up, can you?
:
And you don't have to. Just read the bloody regulation.
:
:Somebody might want to point out to them that the Saturn V, and all
:drawings of the Saturn V, were financed by taxpayers as part of a
:civilian space project by a civilian agency, and therefore are public
:property every bit as much as photos taken on the Moon's surface by the
:astronauts are.
:
This is the silliest 'logic' I've ever heard. The taxpayers finance
all sorts of things. A lot of them are various and assorted bits of
nastiness that we're pretty careful about letting the wrong people
have. Even the 'public property' because it was a 'civilian agency'
argument is silly. That 'public' is US CITIZENS, not 'property of the
world'. Such things are still subject to ITAR, just as your own
private property is.
:
:They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
:Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
:This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
:security and classifying things.
This administration didn't write the ITAR regulations. Go read them.
:
:Most of this seems to emanate from
:Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
:mentally unbalanced.
:
Any evidence for any part of that last claim? Or is it just your own
mental imbalance from your own ideological hatreds?
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Rand Simberg
McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>:Most of this seems to emanate from
>:Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
>:mentally unbalanced.
>:
>
>Any evidence for any part of that last claim? Or is it just your own
>mental imbalance from your own ideological hatreds?
Got it in one.
richard schumacher
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
That's life in Bush's Amerika. No doubt some 'pug will now post an
explanation of how this is all actually Bill Kkkklinton's fault.
Pat Flannery
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 200
>
>
>
>> :Most of this seems to emanate from
>> :Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
>> :mentally unbalanced.
>> :
>>
>> Any evidence for any part of that last claim? Or is it just your own
>> mental imbalance from your own ideological hatreds?
>>
>
> Got it in one.
>
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070319&s=cottle031907
He thinks Iraq has reconstituted it's WMD program; the CIA investigates
and says it hasn't; he says the CIA is wrong and he knows it has. After
invading we find out the CIA was right.
He thinks Al-Qaeda is being trained in Iraq; the CIA investigates and
says that's not the case; he says the CIA is wrong and he knows it has.
After we invade it turns out that the CIA was right.
He thinks Iraq is secretly importing uranium from Africa; the CIA
investigates and says the report is bogus, he says the CIA is wrong and
he knows the report is true. After we invade, we find out that the CIA
was right.
This sounds a lot like Dick Cheney is a clinical paranoid.
This Newsweek article touches on that:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19886673/site/newsweek/
He spends most of his time worrying about threats to America that are
constantly forming out there in the darkness somewhere. Something bad is
going to happen soon and he's the only one who suspects it and can guard
us all against it.
Has his house been infected with anthrax? Nope. But it could happen next
week if we're not all very careful.
He reads all of the intelligence reports, no matter how minor or unreliable.
He knew that "Curveball" was right about those Iraqi portable biological
weapon trailers. Except "Curveball" was full of crap, and a fraud.
He's the only one that can see the whole truth; that can put all the
pieces together.
Who knows that there are really _two_ keys and someone has _stolen_ all
those strawberries from the U.S.S. Caine's food stocks.
I don't know exactly what the founding fathers had in mind for the
office of the VP (neither did they for that matter; the whole office is
only vaguely described in the Constitution) but something like a
scheming Grand Vizier who is always trying to thwart the constantly
evolving possible plans of Ali Baba to raise evil Djinn and overthrow
the kingdom while the dim-witted Sultan wanders around the throne room
and drools, it probably wasn't.
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:46c039b1...@news.giganews.com...
Oh I don't know. When one day he's claiming executive privilege and the
next he's claiming the VP's office isn't part of the executive branch, does
make you wonder. (I note since the threat of defunding his office was made
he hasn't really tried to force that particular claim. :-)
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
Rand Simberg
Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
>>>Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
>>>This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
>>>security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
>>>Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
>>>mentally unbalanced.
>>
>> I think there's a lot more evidence of that for you than for Dick
>> Cheney.
>
>Oh I don't know. When one day he's claiming executive privilege and the
>next he's claiming the VP's office isn't part of the executive branch, does
>make you wonder.
Not much. At least not compared to the lunacy that Pat spews on a
regular basis.
Pat Flannery
richard schumacher wrote:
> That's life in Bush's Amerika. No doubt some 'pug will now post an
> explanation of how this is all actually Bill Kkkklinton's fault.
>
They've already done that.
And I'm insane BTW. :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> Oh I don't know. When one day he's claiming executive privilege and the
> next he's claiming the VP's office isn't part of the executive branch, does
> make you wonder. (I note since the threat of defunding his office was made
> he hasn't really tried to force that particular claim. :-)
>
Hasn't produced a list of those classified documents yet either.
I'm still snickering about Alberto Gonzales' sworn testimony, which held
up for around...what was it? 24 hours this time?
Next time around, I imagine it will collapse right while he's being
questioned:
"Mr. Attorney General, what is the weather at the moment?"
"Clear blue skies."
"Then why are you carrying a umbrella?"
"Because it's raining."
"The sky is blue, and yet it's raining?"
"Yes."
"How can that be?"
"I don't know."
"Did someone tell you it was clear today instead of raining?"
"I can't say."
"Did you talk to anyone about the weather today?"
"If I did, it certainly wasn't about whether it was raining."
"What did you talk about in regards to the weather then?"
"Something else, but not rain."
"What exactly?"
"Something classified." :-P
Pat
BigR...@hotmail.com
Wade's site, plus in the book about the Saturn 5, the Saturn 5's
payload guide is right there in black and white. Plus go to the
library and scour back issues of AWST between 1965 qnd 1966
>
>Pat
Fred J. McCall
:
:
:Rand Simberg wrote:
:> On Sat, 28 Jul 200
:>
:>> :Most of this seems to emanate from
:>> :Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
:>> :mentally unbalanced.
:>> :
:>>
:>> Any evidence for any part of that last claim? Or is it just your own
:>> mental imbalance from your own ideological hatreds?
:>>
:>
:> Got it in one.
:>
:
: <snip>
:
I'll just note that your raving and the two cites you give don't seem
much connected.
:I don't know exactly what the founding fathers had in mind for the
:office of the VP (neither did they for that matter; the whole office is
:only vaguely described in the Constitution) but something like a
:scheming Grand Vizier who is always trying to thwart the constantly
:evolving possible plans of Ali Baba to raise evil Djinn and overthrow
:the kingdom while the dim-witted Sultan wanders around the throne room
:and drools, it probably wasn't.
:
It only exists so that paranoid ideological haters like you have
something else to be delusional about.
Hop David
I tune him out when he's in Rush Limbaugh mode.
However I listen attentively when Lowther talks about space or engineering.
Hop
Len
> In article <13aloi1cstip...@corp.supernews.com>,
I'm afraid that both major parties are bad news
when it comes to ITAR--and a lot of other
issues.
Len
Peter Stickney
Sounds to me like typical "NewCOntractoritis"
(Which is the civilian form of "NewAgencyitis")
Whenever a somebody gets a contract for, say, Site Security or
ITAR-like functions, they comein all gung-ho trying to show that they're
On the Ball, Bright Eyed and Bushy-tailed.
Of course, the people they are hiring to fill the slots are inexperienced,
unknowlegable lightweights - your Standard Issue wannabee - like the bozos
who hand out at the Dunkin' Donuts at 0300 waiting for a cop to come in, so
they can try to talk "Adam-12" talk.
They very quickly establish themselves by throwing their weight around, and
being deathly afraid that everybody knows more than they do.
As an example, last year I was supervising an installation on a Destroyer.
The Security contract at the Shipyard involved had just changed.
The new Security folks were incapable of getting things done right (Like
maintaining Access Lists from one day to the next), but had absolute power
to either refuse access to the yard or toss people out for "Workplace
Safety Violations - like having the wrong color steel-toed boots. (Happened
to one of my people. The funny thing is that the Safety Goon who made that
pronouncement was wearing the exact same "Unsafe Shoes")
I on the other hand, had (Other than dealing with lost paperwork such that I
would stand in the Security Office and make the Security Supervisor hand
carry the (Faxed for the 3rd time that morning) Access list to the Gate
Apes.) little problem - My Sreel-toes are broken in and obviously used,
my Hard Hat had my name stenciled on it and was also obviously not from Home
Depot, and I looked like I knew what was going on.
The same behavior occurs in Government Agencies (At all levels) when either
an Agency is rapidly expanded, or newly created.
It's completely independent of who's administration it is, or what their
policies are.
--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion
Glen Overby
>the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
>covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
>some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
>care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
>took them down and shredded them."
So, I guess that's the only way to get rid of the Saturn V: Bring an armed
security copy around and demand that you shread the drawings.
I kinda wish Russia would put the drawings for the N1 up on the net :-)
Glen Overby
Pat Flannery
Glen Overby wrote:
>
> I kinda wish Russia would put the drawings for the N1 up on the net :-)
>
COMRADE! Mighty Soviet Super-Rocket!:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/n1diagko.jpg
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/n1cut4.gif
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1.html
Pat
Unclaimed Mysteries
> Scott Lowther wrote in part:
>> Pat Flannery wrote in part:
>>
>>> This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
>>> security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
>>> Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is
>>> clinically mentally unbalanced.
>>
>> A lot of the ITAR nuttiness arose in the 1990's. Last I checked, this
>> administration wasn't around in the 90's.
>>
> Seriously, gift shop Saturn V posters? GIFT SHOP SATURN V POSTERS? The
> Freakshow Junta's contractor is trying to reclassify GIFT SHOP SATURN V
> POSTERS and your response is to snark about Clinton?
>
P.S: My calm, sober, eminently reasoned response here is conditional on
this incident being true. No personal slight intended, but it could be
made up. Or it could even be a plant, designed to discredit any actual
incidents of heavy-handed securitizing. In either case, I'll keep my
security breeches on.
C.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
"Obviously too fucking stupid to bother with." - Top-postin' USENET
SUPERSOLDIER Fred J. McCall in rec.photo.digital
Pat Flannery
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>
> P.S: My calm, sober, eminently reasoned response here is conditional
> on this incident being true. No personal slight intended, but it could
> be made up. Or it could even be a plant, designed to discredit any
> actual incidents of heavy-handed securitizing. In either case, I'll
> keep my security breeches on.
Scott's been around here for a lot of years, I don't agree with him at
all politically, but he never made anything up as far as I know.
Pat
Ian Woollard
> http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070319&s=cottle031907
> He thinks Iraq has reconstituted it's WMD program; the CIA investigates
> and says it hasn't; he says the CIA is wrong and he knows it has. After
> invading we find out the CIA was right.
> He thinks Al-Qaeda is being trained in Iraq; the CIA investigates and
> says that's not the case; he says the CIA is wrong and he knows it has.
> After we invade it turns out that the CIA was right.
> He thinks Iraq is secretly importing uranium from Africa; the CIA
> investigates and says the report is bogus, he says the CIA is wrong and
> he knows the report is true. After we invade, we find out that the CIA
> was right.
You left out shooting his friend in the face.
> This sounds a lot like Dick Cheney is a clinical paranoid.
Kinda, but nahhh. Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed
to incompetence....
... except the version for politicians is:
Never ascribe to malice or incompetence that which can be ascribed to
venal greed.
Doesn't he have a chairmanship of Halliburton that would benefit from
getting a good war on? There you go then.
America has the best gosh-darn politicians money can buy; you got to
keep that in mind.
> This Newsweek article touches on that:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19886673/site/newsweek/
> He spends most of his time worrying about threats to America that are
> constantly forming out there in the darkness somewhere. Something bad is
> going to happen soon and he's the only one who suspects it and can guard
> us all against it.
> Has his house been infected with anthrax? Nope. But it could happen next
> week if we're not all very careful.
> He reads all of the intelligence reports, no matter how minor or unreliable.
> He knew that "Curveball" was right about those Iraqi portable biological
> weapon trailers. Except "Curveball" was full of crap, and a fraud.
> He's the only one that can see the whole truth; that can put all the
> pieces together.
Yup, putting all the pieces together to spell profit for him and
Halliburton!
> Pat
Fred J. McCall
:
:Doesn't he have a chairmanship of Halliburton that would benefit from
:getting a good war on? There you go then.
:
Yeah, there you go then. Ignorance works wonders.
Hint: No, he doesn't "have a chairmanship of Halliburton". There is
only one CB and he's not it.
:
:Yup, putting all the pieces together to spell profit for him and
:Halliburton!
:
Yep, if you're stupid and your audience is stupid you can make a case
for anything.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Eric Chomko
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:29:07 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >They are probably concerned that Iran or China will back-engineer a
> >Saturn V from the drawings and get to the Moon before we return.
> >This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
> >security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
> >Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically
> >mentally unbalanced.
>
> I think there's a lot more evidence of that for you than for Dick
> Cheney.
That's because Pat hasn't had his battery replaced recently like
Cheney did, and on the public's dime mind you.
Pat Flannery
Ian Woollard wrote:
>
> You left out shooting his friend in the face.
>
>
That's easily explainable; he thought that was Dan Quayle in disguise.
He knows that about half the people who visit him are in some sort of
disguise, as his trigger finger starts twitching whenever one
approaches. They are under alien control, and they are out to destroy
America.
He knew Dan Quayle was one of _them_ the moment he started talking about
how we could live on Mars because Mars and Earth are in the same orbit.
Cheney knows there is only one way to stop the Martians, and that is to
make Earth's climate impossible for them to live in. In short, as unlike
cold Mars as possible...in short, as hot as possible.
If only he knew he was doing the bidding of Venusian agente provocateurs
to prepare for _their_ invasion.
Pat
marky...@gmail.com
Maybe he was talking to someone about Al Gore's weather control ray
located in a super-secret lab in the sprawling underground complex
beneath his Tennessee estate.
BradGuth
<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
Why of course our Jewish Third Reich "Saturn V" is entirely hocus
pocus ITAR worthy.
After all, accomplishing our NASA/Apollo missions within a mere 60:1
rocket per payload ratio, as well as for having a nearly 30% inert
GLOW to start off with, never the less somehow that big old sucker
managed via hocus-pocus smoke and mirrors in order to so quickly get
our rad-hard and electrostatic dust proof Apollo missions off to such
an impressive fly-by-rocket start. Apparently those brave rad-hard
astronauts of ours consumed mass quantities of beans and subsequently
utilized their flatulence for the necessary 4th stage thrusting, as
well as for their getting safely back home. If that's not fully ITAR
rated, then perhaps nothing is.
Why don't you try posting those all-inclusive hard facts about such
impressive fly-by-rocket specs of that nifty Saturn V (including its
initial tonnage of ice loading), showing us how those ITAR rated
Jewish Third Reich laws of such faith-based conditional physics are
simply way superior to anything else on Earth, even still as of today
being at least twice if not nearly three fold better.
Perhaps you can use any number of the most modern fly-by-rocket
technology that's not nearly as inert to start with, that couldn't
possibly manage GSO at much better off than 80:1.
- Brad Guth
nsa...@gmail.com
Scott Lowther wrote:
> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
>
I wonder when the US is going to copy the great internet firewall
china has.... won't be long now...
BTW, don't understand why you don't just host it on a server in the
EU? can they still nail you as a US citizen? can they even track that
it's you who is operating site X..??
NASA has a book (and many others) that I once borrowed in my
Engineering University's library (in Denmark) describing exactly how
to create liquid fueled rocket motors... Like a textbook of
rocketmotor-design-101-with-everything-you-need-to-know (forgot the
title) ...I started a project to create one (a small one,liquid oxygen
+hydrogen) with a fellow student but I moved away :( before we got
anywhere (would have been waaay cool). Our stated goal was to be the
first to put a live frog in orbit... (students...cheez!) heh heh.
Are they going to start burning books, anytime soon? what about all
the books describing all this stuff all around the world? do the
Americans think they're the only ones who can build a rocket? (let
alone an OLD one?) haha. sad really. state paranoia....
Are terrorists going to build Saturn V rockets????? OMG! ROFL.
PS: loved the N1 pics someone posted links to! Oh and to the guy
saying Cheney doesn't have a 'chairmanship' of HB, well he's got lots
of stock so he'll make loads of dosh on wars, eh?
Tobias
BradGuth
Certain OT faith-based groups are getting a bit extra testy these
days, and I suppose if you'd call WWIII as a form of book burning,
then why the hell not?
- Brad Guth
bill_c...@hotmail.com
simulation software will have to be pulled from the web because of
ITAR:
http://www.atariage.com/software_page.html?SoftwareLabelID=466
se...@yahoo.com
I have way too many years in DoD work, and it always came back to
security being only as good as the people keeping it. During the Cold
War, and later Star Wars era, protection on data and documents were,
shall we say, extreme. Each artifact has an elaborate control system
from inception through destruction. Once the Berlin wall came down it
became apparent that the cost of maintaining such a system outweight
the knowledge lost to openness, and a wholesale declassification
process started in earnest. Heck, I still have the detailed flight and
weapon delivery manuals for our fighter inventory. All perfectly legit
as long as I didn't ship or share information out of country.
The point? Well, think of the pendilum model. All this too will pass,
and in a decade or two you will be able to get this information
sitting at your local Starbucks hotspot.
Unclaimed Mysteries
> The point? Well, think of the pendilum model. All this too will pass,
> and in a decade or two you will be able to get this information
> sitting at your local Starbucks hotspot.
>
Yeah, but it will be beamed directly into your compulsory Freedom Brain
Implant Receiver and if you try to tell anyone They will send the
destruct code and your head will ASPLODE just like in "Scanners."
Other than that, no problemo.
Scott Lowther
>BTW, don't understand why you don't just host it on a server in the
>EU? can they still nail you as a US citizen?
>
Yes. If you have ITAR data and you try to host it via a foreign
server... you still have to *get* the data to the foreign server. And
for that they can getcha.
--
-------
The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
nsa...@gmail.com
<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
> >BTW, don't understand why you don't just host it on a server in the
> >EU? can they still nail you as a US citizen?
>
> Yes. If you have ITAR data and you try to host it via a foreign
> server... you still have to *get* the data to the foreign server. And
> for that they can getcha.
Yes ok, that really sucks. But in reality I guess they would have to
prove that you sent it. If you encrypt it with strong encryption you
can beam it to europe without the old NSA lineeater spotting
anything... and once its there you just host it somewhere anonymously
(ok not so easy to be truly anonymous but possible by legal means, or
get a EU friend to do it).
..oh wait...I forgot...strong encryption is outlawed for US citizens
to export/use (and what they allow they can crack)....man bummer....
but there's ways around that too, hide the encrypted file encoded in
the spare bandwidth of an image file... etc etc and other ways...
(there will *allways* be ways around their nonsense....)
Tobias
Fred J. McCall
:
:Scott Lowther wrote:
:>
:> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
:>
:
:I wonder when the US is going to copy the great internet firewall
:china has.... won't be long now...
:
I don't understand why you people can't just read what the bloody
regulation says.
:
:Are they going to start burning books, anytime soon? what about all
:the books describing all this stuff all around the world? do the
:Americans think they're the only ones who can build a rocket? (let
:alone an OLD one?) haha. sad really. state paranoia....
:Are terrorists going to build Saturn V rockets????? OMG! ROFL.
:
Good thing you're self-amusing. The preceding is idiotic.
:
:PS: loved the N1 pics someone posted links to! Oh and to the guy
:saying Cheney doesn't have a 'chairmanship' of HB, well he's got lots
:of stock so he'll make loads of dosh on wars, eh?
:
Perhaps you should go look up how Haliburton makes its money, eh?
BradGuth
That's more true than you can imagine, as otherwise those wise old but
pesky Chinks are going to use it against us, as they take over the
moon's L1 and their next stop being Venus L2. Are we screwed, or
what?
- Brad Guth
nsa...@gmail.com
> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
> :I wonder when the US is going to copy the great internet firewall
> :china has.... won't be long now...
> :
>
> I don't understand why you people can't just read what the bloody
> regulation says.
Because even if the regulation says it's ok for the OP to publish
these posts, his experience with ITAR shows that the whole thing is on
a slippery slope and especially so when it is managed by morons who
don't know the regulation. You can't export this, you can't export
that...next... the firewall in china...
> :Are they going to start burning books, anytime soon? what about all
> :the books describing all this stuff all around the world? do the
> :Americans think they're the only ones who can build a rocket? (let
> :alone an OLD one?) haha. sad really. state paranoia....
> :Are terrorists going to build Saturn V rockets????? OMG! ROFL.
> :
>
> Good thing you're self-amusing. The preceding is idiotic.
Notice how I cleverly inferred book burning from internet censorship,
displayed how this would be difficult in practice, and then making a
seemingly little joke about rocket building that then turns into
terrorists making Saturn V rockets! my god! could a professional
comedian have done better? or...or...a Politician! I should apply to
Mensa or something.... =8-)
Not idiotic...logic...
By the way, serious forces in the US are wanting to burn the Harry
Potter books... (ok, now I'm waay OT, but it does have a bearing on
the whole censorship thing).
> Perhaps you should go look up how Haliburton makes its money, eh?
Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL. There is both in Iraq.
Lots. Cheney is a WAR monger. This is no secret. Do you think Cheneys
cabal of cronies and his family members and theirs do not own stock or
get bribes...um I mean 'campain contributions' from them?
Tobias
Fred J. McCall
:On Jul 31, 4:29 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
:
:> :I wonder when the US is going to copy the great internet firewall
:> :china has.... won't be long now...
:> :
:>
:> I don't understand why you people can't just read what the bloody
:> regulation says.
:>
:
:Because even if the regulation says it's ok for the OP to publish
:these posts, his experience with ITAR shows that the whole thing is on
:a slippery slope and especially so when it is managed by morons who
:don't know the regulation. You can't export this, you can't export
:that...next... the firewall in china...
:
You're an idiot. Speaking of "morons who don't know the regulation",
I will once again suggest that YOU GO READ THE BLOODY THING!
:
:> :
:> :Are they going to start burning books, anytime soon? what about all
:> :the books describing all this stuff all around the world? do the
:> :Americans think they're the only ones who can build a rocket? (let
:> :alone an OLD one?) haha. sad really. state paranoia....
:> :Are terrorists going to build Saturn V rockets????? OMG! ROFL.
:> :
:>
:> Good thing you're self-amusing. The preceding is idiotic.
:>
:
:Notice how I cleverly inferred book burning from internet censorship,
:displayed how this would be difficult in practice, and then making a
:seemingly little joke about rocket building that then turns into
:terrorists making Saturn V rockets! my god! could a professional
:comedian have done better? or...or...a Politician! I should apply to
:Mensa or something.... =8-)
:Not idiotic...logic...
:
By your standards it may be logic. By human standards it just doesn't
qualify.
:
:By the way, serious forces in the US are wanting to burn the Harry
:Potter books... (ok, now I'm waay OT, but it does have a bearing on
:the whole censorship thing).
:
Both irrelevant AND stupid to bring up.
:
:>
:> Perhaps you should go look up how Haliburton makes its money, eh?
:>
:
:Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL.
:
I see. You're too stupid to actually know what Haliburton does.
:
:There is both in Iraq.
:Lots. Cheney is a WAR monger. This is no secret. Do you think Cheneys
:cabal of cronies and his family members and theirs do not own stock or
:get bribes...um I mean 'campain contributions' from them?
:
I think you're an idiot blinded by his own ideological hatreds.
Richard....@gmail.com
<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
> Pat Flannery wrote:
> > This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to
> > security and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from
> > Cheney's office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is
> > clinically mentally unbalanced.
>
> administration wasn't around in the 90's.
>
> -------
> The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. - H.L. Mencken
Guess what John Bolton was up to before being sent off to make friends
and influence enimies at the U.N. - Rick
Pat Flannery
nsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL. There is both in Iraq.
> Lots. Cheney is a WAR monger. This is no secret. Do you think Cheneys
> cabal of cronies and his family members and theirs do not own stock or
> get bribes...um I mean 'campain contributions' from them?
>
I'm keen to see exactly how much of that proposed 20 billion dollars in
military aid to "friendly" Arab states somehow works its way into
Halliburton of Dubai's hands.
Meanwhile, for the money, we get....pretty much nothing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20037146/
Pat
nsa...@gmail.com
> You're an idiot. Speaking of "morons who don't know the regulation",
> I will once again suggest that YOU GO READ THE BLOODY THING!
This is Ad Hominem, you can't refute what I'm saying so you attack me
personally. Great!
The guy, who I was referring to, telling the OP to take down the
website obviously didn't know the regulation, therefore he can
reasonably be said to be a 'moron who don't know the regulation'.
> :Not idiotic...logic...
> :
>
> By your standards it may be logic. By human standards it just doesn't
> qualify.
Maybe *you* are the one who is 'not human'...ever thought of that?
> :By the way, serious forces in the US are wanting to burn the Harry
> :Potter books... (ok, now I'm waay OT, but it does have a bearing on
> :the whole censorship thing).
> :
>
> Both irrelevant AND stupid to bring up.
Neither actually. I asserted that censorship is a slipperyslope, and
that next would be book burning, and then I'm showing that these
tendencies are indeed manifesting, right now in Harry Potter books,
next will succeed in getting them banned and next after that will be
banning of other books for 'national security' reasons....
> :Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL.
> :
>
> I see. You're too stupid to actually know what Haliburton does.
Well why don't you enlighten me then? You seem to only be able to come
up with profanities... which again shows that you know nothing of what
you are talking about.
Go read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/haliburton and then tell me
how it is that they don't make money on oil and war.
> I think you're an idiot blinded by his own ideological hatreds.
More personal attacks... I'm getting rather bored now.
You just managed to call me: an idiot, sub-human, stupid, stupid
(again), idiot (again) and blinded by hatred.
All in the same response!
hahahaha. you're funny. Please either refute my arguments or shutup
with your profanity, nobody is interrested in what you think of me
personally, and I certainly will not continue responding to this kind
of crap...
Tobias
nsa...@gmail.com
> Go read here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/haliburtonand then tell me
That link should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
Tobias
Eric Chomko
> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> :On Jul 31, 4:29 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote::> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> :
> :> :I wonder when the US is going to copy the great internet firewall
> :> :china has.... won't be long now...
> :> :
> :>
> :> I don't understand why you people can't just read what the bloody
> :> regulation says.
> :>
> :
> :Because even if the regulation says it's ok for the OP to publish
> :these posts, his experience with ITAR shows that the whole thing is on
> :a slippery slope and especially so when it is managed by morons who
> :don't know the regulation. You can't export this, you can't export
> :that...next... the firewall in china...
> :
>
> You're an idiot. Speaking of "morons who don't know the regulation",
> I will once again suggest that YOU GO READ THE BLOODY THING!
It reads like any legal document. Wide open for interpretation. I have
read it and I know you can't get everyone to agree on what means
what.
>
> :
> :> :
> :> :Are they going to start burning books, anytime soon? what about all
> :> :the books describing all this stuff all around the world? do the
> :> :Americans think they're the only ones who can build a rocket? (let
> :> :alone an OLD one?) haha. sad really. state paranoia....
> :> :Are terrorists going to build Saturn V rockets????? OMG! ROFL.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Good thing you're self-amusing. The preceding is idiotic.
> :>
> :
> :Notice how I cleverly inferred book burning from internet censorship,
> :displayed how this would be difficult in practice, and then making a
> :seemingly little joke about rocket building that then turns into
> :terrorists making Saturn V rockets! my god! could a professional
> :comedian have done better? or...or...a Politician! I should apply to
> :Mensa or something.... =8-)
> :Not idiotic...logic...
> :
>
> By your standards it may be logic. By human standards it just doesn't
> qualify.
Ad hominem attack on your part makes the other poster look right.
>
> :
> :By the way, serious forces in the US are wanting to burn the Harry
> :Potter books... (ok, now I'm waay OT, but it does have a bearing on
> :the whole censorship thing).
> :
>
> Both irrelevant AND stupid to bring up.
>
> :
> :>
> :> Perhaps you should go look up how Haliburton makes its money, eh?
> :>
> :
> :Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL.
> :
>
> I see. You're too stupid to actually know what Haliburton does.
Win no-bid contracts to set up the infrastructure for Americans to
operate in a foriegn country. And that includes oil companies as well
as the military. National security and all that.
> :
> :There is both in Iraq.
> :Lots. Cheney is a WAR monger. This is no secret. Do you think Cheneys
> :cabal of cronies and his family members and theirs do not own stock or
> :get bribes...um I mean 'campain contributions' from them?
> :
>
> I think you're an idiot blinded by his own ideological hatreds.
Are you saying Cheney is NOT a warmonger? If so, then you're wrong...
Danny Deger
<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
> Danny Deger wrote:
> > The summary is: ANY data on a launch
>
> >vehicle is ITAR.
>
> That's a bit loopy. It would imply that a *photo* of a Shuttle is ITAR.
> It would imply that mentioning that the Saturn I had a payload of X lbs
> to Y orbit is ITAR. Even when said data comes from public domain sources.
>
Yes it is loopy. You can read in my free book at www.dannydeger.net
NASA launched a criminal investigation against me right after I got
Department of State approval for my contract with a Canadian company.
A week later my boss told me, "Danny you really cover your tracks
well, We will get you next time." They did end up getting me in the
Summer of 1999 by lying to local officials about my behavior to have
me locked up. They also worked with a local judge to have me locked
up without a hearing or access to an attorney. I have documents to
prove all of this on my web site.
Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net
Eric Chomko
> On Jul 31, 1:07 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
> > You're an idiot. Speaking of "morons who don't know the regulation",
> > I will once again suggest that YOU GO READ THE BLOODY THING!
>
> This is Ad Hominem, you can't refute what I'm saying so you attack me
> personally. Great!
Yep, that is Freddy...
> The guy, who I was referring to, telling the OP to take down the
> website obviously didn't know the regulation, therefore he can
> reasonably be said to be a 'moron who don't know the regulation'.
Yes, exactly WHO doesn't know the regulation? Probably Freddy.
> > :Not idiotic...logic...
> > :
>
> > By your standards it may be logic. By human standards it just doesn't
> > qualify.
>
> Maybe *you* are the one who is 'not human'...ever thought of that?
I wouldn't stoop to that stupe's level.
> > :By the way, serious forces in the US are wanting to burn the Harry
> > :Potter books... (ok, now I'm waay OT, but it does have a bearing on
> > :the whole censorship thing).
> > :
>
> > Both irrelevant AND stupid to bring up.
>
> Neither actually. I asserted that censorship is a slipperyslope, and
> that next would be book burning, and then I'm showing that these
> tendencies are indeed manifesting, right now in Harry Potter books,
> next will succeed in getting them banned and next after that will be
> banning of other books for 'national security' reasons....
>
> > :Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL.
> > :
>
> > I see. You're too stupid to actually know what Haliburton does.
>
> Well why don't you enlighten me then? You seem to only be able to come
> up with profanities... which again shows that you know nothing of what
> you are talking about.
> Go read here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/haliburtonand then tell me
> how it is that they don't make money on oil and war.
>
> > I think you're an idiot blinded by his own ideological hatreds.
>
> More personal attacks... I'm getting rather bored now.
> You just managed to call me: an idiot, sub-human, stupid, stupid
> (again), idiot (again) and blinded by hatred.
> All in the same response!
That is Freddy. You are not alone when it comes to his ad hominem
attacks.
>
> hahahaha. you're funny. Please either refute my arguments or shutup
> with your profanity, nobody is interrested in what you think of me
> personally, and I certainly will not continue responding to this kind
> of crap...
Welcome to my world. Freddy posts like this to virtually everyone. I
have turned it into a form of entertainment for myself.
Eric
nsa...@gmail.com
>
> Welcome to my world. Freddy posts like this to virtually everyone. I
> have turned it into a form of entertainment for myself.
Thanks for the heads-up! It's kind of funny actually, but more like
sad...
If everybody would be positive towards others instead of sending out
all this negativity all the time everywhere, there would be no wars or
halliburtons or cheneys for us to argue about... and maybe, just maybe
then they would spend all those buck$ on the moon-programme instead of
iraq! Permanent moon and mars bases, hotels in orbit, cheap space-
flight, etc, and more!
Peace & love
Tobias
Fred J. McCall
:
:
:nsa...@gmail.com wrote:
:> Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL. There is both in Iraq.
:> Lots. Cheney is a WAR monger. This is no secret. Do you think Cheneys
:> cabal of cronies and his family members and theirs do not own stock or
:> get bribes...um I mean 'campain contributions' from them?
:>
:
:I'm keen to see exactly how much of that proposed 20 billion dollars in
:military aid to "friendly" Arab states somehow works its way into
:Halliburton of Dubai's hands.
:
Haliburton doesn't make weapons, which is what 'military aid' is spent
on.
Do you people have ANY idea of what Haliburton does?
Unclaimed Mysteries
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :
> :nsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> :> Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL. There is both in Iraq.
> :> Lots. Cheney is a WAR monger. This is no secret. Do you think Cheneys
> :> cabal of cronies and his family members and theirs do not own stock or
> :> get bribes...um I mean 'campain contributions' from them?
> :>
> :
> :I'm keen to see exactly how much of that proposed 20 billion dollars in
> :military aid to "friendly" Arab states somehow works its way into
> :Halliburton of Dubai's hands.
> :
>
> Haliburton doesn't make weapons, which is what 'military aid' is spent
> on.
>
> Do you people have ANY idea of what Haliburton does?
>
>
Bitchin' briefcases.
C.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell
Fred J. McCall
:On Jul 31, 1:07 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
:
:> You're an idiot. Speaking of "morons who don't know the regulation",
:> I will once again suggest that YOU GO READ THE BLOODY THING!
:
:This is Ad Hominem, you can't refute what I'm saying so you attack me
:personally. Great!
:
"Ad Hominem" is not a noun, much less a proper noun meriting
capitalization.
:
:The guy, who I was referring to, telling the OP to take down the
:website obviously didn't know the regulation, therefore he can
:reasonably be said to be a 'moron who don't know the regulation'.
:
Have you ever done as I suggested and gone and read the regulation?
Apparently the guy DID know the regulation and you do not. Hence my
remark, above.
:> :Not idiotic...logic...
:> :
:>
:> By your standards it may be logic. By human standards it just doesn't
:> qualify.
:
:Maybe *you* are the one who is 'not human'...ever thought of that?
:
Go read the regulation.
:> :By the way, serious forces in the US are wanting to burn the Harry
:> :Potter books... (ok, now I'm waay OT, but it does have a bearing on
:> :the whole censorship thing).
:> :
:>
:> Both irrelevant AND stupid to bring up.
:
:Neither actually.
:
Yes, both actually, since last time I checked Harry Potter wasn't on
the Munitions List.
:
:I asserted that censorship is a slipperyslope, and
:that next would be book burning, and then I'm showing that these
:tendencies are indeed manifesting, right now in Harry Potter books,
:next will succeed in getting them banned and next after that will be
:banning of other books for 'national security' reasons....
:
I asserted that your 'assertion' is both irrelevant AND stupid to
bring up.
:> :Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL.
:> :
:>
:> I see. You're too stupid to actually know what Haliburton does.
:
:Well why don't you enlighten me then?
:
You can't afford my hourly rate.
:
:You seem to only be able to come
:up with profanities... which again shows that you know nothing of what
:you are talking about.
:
Sure. Got any more straws on you that you want to grasp at to make
yourself feel better?
:
:Go read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/haliburton and then tell me
:how it is that they don't make money on oil and war.
:
I trust Wikipedia on anything even remotely controversial about as far
as I can throw my car.
:
:> I think you're an idiot blinded by his own ideological hatreds.
:
:More personal attacks... I'm getting rather bored now.
:You just managed to call me: an idiot, sub-human, stupid, stupid
:(again), idiot (again) and blinded by hatred.
:All in the same response!
:
Perhaps you should try harder to hide your innate nature?
:
:hahahaha. you're funny. Please either refute my arguments or shutup
:with your profanity, nobody is interrested in what you think of me
:personally, and I certainly will not continue responding to this kind
:of crap...
:
One doesn't 'refute' moronic assertions, Toby. You see, YOU need to
support your assertions with something other than idiotic ideology
before anyone need bother to greet it with anything other than
derision.
Pat Flannery
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>>
>> Haliburton doesn't make weapons, which is what 'military aid' is spent
>> on.
>>
>> Do you people have ANY idea of what Haliburton does?
>>
>>
>
> Bitchin' briefcases.
You just watch that; they'll get a big chunk of that money one way or
another.
"Look at all these new weapons... and where will you store them
securely? You need an 'AIRBASE UPGRADE ©'!"
Pat
Fred J. McCall
:On Jul 31, 8:50 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:
:>
:> Welcome to my world. Freddy posts like this to virtually everyone. I
:> have turned it into a form of entertainment for myself.
:>
:
:Thanks for the heads-up! It's kind of funny actually, but more like
:sad...
:
You'll notice that it's Chimpko butting in to post his 'responses'
when he's not even been mentioned.
:If everybody would be positive towards others instead of sending out
:all this negativity all the time everywhere,
:
Include yourself. Including toward people you dislike ideologically.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Fred J. McCall
:On Jul 31, 7:07 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
:>
:> :On Jul 31, 4:29 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote::> nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :> :I wonder when the US is going to copy the great internet firewall
:> :> :china has.... won't be long now...
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> I don't understand why you people can't just read what the bloody
:> :> regulation says.
:> :>
:> :
:> :Because even if the regulation says it's ok for the OP to publish
:> :these posts, his experience with ITAR shows that the whole thing is on
:> :a slippery slope and especially so when it is managed by morons who
:> :don't know the regulation. You can't export this, you can't export
:> :that...next... the firewall in china...
:> :
:>
:> You're an idiot. Speaking of "morons who don't know the regulation",
:> I will once again suggest that YOU GO READ THE BLOODY THING!
:
:It reads like any legal document. Wide open for interpretation. I have
:read it and I know you can't get everyone to agree on what means
:what.
:
Eric, you can't read and comprehend Usenet. The fact that YOU are
confused by it doesn't mean much.
:
:>
:> :
:> :> :
:> :> :Are they going to start burning books, anytime soon? what about all
:> :> :the books describing all this stuff all around the world? do the
:> :> :Americans think they're the only ones who can build a rocket? (let
:> :> :alone an OLD one?) haha. sad really. state paranoia....
:> :> :Are terrorists going to build Saturn V rockets????? OMG! ROFL.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Good thing you're self-amusing. The preceding is idiotic.
:> :>
:> :
:> :Notice how I cleverly inferred book burning from internet censorship,
:> :displayed how this would be difficult in practice, and then making a
:> :seemingly little joke about rocket building that then turns into
:> :terrorists making Saturn V rockets! my god! could a professional
:> :comedian have done better? or...or...a Politician! I should apply to
:> :Mensa or something.... =8-)
:> :Not idiotic...logic...
:> :
:>
:> By your standards it may be logic. By human standards it just doesn't
:> qualify.
:
:Ad hominem attack on your part makes the other poster look right.
:
It's not an ad hominem attack when it's true. You folks need to get
over this. All 'opinions' are not equally correct nor equally well
reasoned. Some are just idiotic spew and merit all the derision that
can be heaped upon them.
:
:>
:> :
:> :By the way, serious forces in the US are wanting to burn the Harry
:> :Potter books... (ok, now I'm waay OT, but it does have a bearing on
:> :the whole censorship thing).
:> :
:>
:> Both irrelevant AND stupid to bring up.
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> Perhaps you should go look up how Haliburton makes its money, eh?
:> :>
:> :
:> :Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL.
:> :
:>
:> I see. You're too stupid to actually know what Haliburton does.
:>
:
:Win no-bid contracts to set up the infrastructure for Americans to
:operate in a foriegn country. And that includes oil companies as well
:as the military. National security and all that.
:
Don't tell me. Tell 'handle boy' at GMail, who insists Halliburton
"money (lots) on WAR". He's an idiot.
Very little of Halliburton's business has anything to do with anything
other than oil.
:> :
:> :There is both in Iraq.
:> :Lots. Cheney is a WAR monger. This is no secret. Do you think Cheneys
:> :cabal of cronies and his family members and theirs do not own stock or
:> :get bribes...um I mean 'campain contributions' from them?
:> :
:>
:> I think you're an idiot blinded by his own ideological hatreds.
:
:Are you saying Cheney is NOT a warmonger? If so, then you're wrong...
:
Cite your proof of this amazing insight, Eric. You won't, of course,
since you never cite anything sane to back up your astounding
fantasies, but I'll keep making you the offer.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
Fred J. McCall
:On Jul 31, 11:41 am, nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
:> On Jul 31, 1:07 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>
:> > nsa....@gmail.com wrote:
:> > You're an idiot. Speaking of "morons who don't know the regulation",
:> > I will once again suggest that YOU GO READ THE BLOODY THING!
:>
:> This is Ad Hominem, you can't refute what I'm saying so you attack me
:> personally. Great!
:
:Yep, that is Freddy...
:
Funny how El Chimpko has to jump into any thread I'm in, isn't it?
:
:>
:> The guy, who I was referring to, telling the OP to take down the
:> website obviously didn't know the regulation, therefore he can
:> reasonably be said to be a 'moron who don't know the regulation'.
:>
:
:Yes, exactly WHO doesn't know the regulation? Probably Freddy.
:
Sorry, stupid, but I sort of have to know what it actually says, since
I'm in the 'merchant of death' business.
But, as usual, El Chimpko doesn't let little things like reality get
in the way of his stupid remarks.
:
:>
:> >:
:> > :Not idiotic...logic...
:> > :
:>
:> > By your standards it may be logic. By human standards it just doesn't
:> > qualify.
:>
:> Maybe *you* are the one who is 'not human'...ever thought of that?
:>
:
:I wouldn't stoop to that stupe's level.
:
Mostly because you'd have to climb a ladder and use a telescope to see
up to the bottom of my feet.
:
:>
:> >
:> > :
:> > :By the way, serious forces in the US are wanting to burn the Harry
:> > :Potter books... (ok, now I'm waay OT, but it does have a bearing on
:> > :the whole censorship thing).
:> > :
:> >
:> > Both irrelevant AND stupid to bring up.
:>
:> Neither actually. I asserted that censorship is a slipperyslope, and
:> that next would be book burning, and then I'm showing that these
:> tendencies are indeed manifesting, right now in Harry Potter books,
:> next will succeed in getting them banned and next after that will be
:> banning of other books for 'national security' reasons....
:>
:> > :Umm... they make money (lots) on WAR and OIL.
:> > :
:>
:> > I see. You're too stupid to actually know what Haliburton does.
:>
:> Well why don't you enlighten me then? You seem to only be able to come
:> up with profanities... which again shows that you know nothing of what
:> you are talking about.
:> Go read here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/haliburtonand then tell me
:> how it is that they don't make money on oil and war.
:>
:> > I think you're an idiot blinded by his own ideological hatreds.
:>
:> More personal attacks... I'm getting rather bored now.
:> You just managed to call me: an idiot, sub-human, stupid, stupid
:> (again), idiot (again) and blinded by hatred.
:> All in the same response!
:>
:
:That is Freddy. You are not alone when it comes to his ad hominem
:attacks.
:
Yep. Most idiots get them (and then complain about having their
idiocy pointed out).
:
:>
:> hahahaha. you're funny. Please either refute my arguments or shutup
:> with your profanity, nobody is interrested in what you think of me
:> personally, and I certainly will not continue responding to this kind
:> of crap...
:>
:
:Welcome to my world. Freddy posts like this to virtually everyone. I
:have turned it into a form of entertainment for myself.
:
You keep telling yourself that, Eric. Everyone else views it as you
having your nose rubbed in your usual stupidity yet one more time.
BradGuth
<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
> WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?
Nearly 30% inert GLOW, a mere 60:1 ratio of rocket per payload. Go
figure.
It currently takes along with the very best of the least inert fly-by-
rocket technology, better than 80:1 for establishing GSO.
- Brad Guth
Danny Deger
news:13aloi1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
snip
> Somebody might want to point out to them that the Saturn V, and all
> drawings of the Saturn V, were financed by taxpayers as part of a civilian
> space project by a civilian agency, and therefore are public property
> every bit as much as photos taken on the Moon's surface by the astronauts
> are.
Our tax dollars funded the development of many defense projects that are
classified. Does this mean they should all be public domain now? Get a
grip man, get a grip.
Danny Deger
BradGuth
> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
The only thing to grip about the Saturn V is the lies upon lies, as
based entirely upon the Yiddish conditional physics of those smart
Third Reich Jewish wizards that somehow made it all possible, before
they each fell off the edge of Earth.
Odd that we still can't manage to replicate any similar or scale
version of our Saturn V, and not even at half the inert mass is the
60:1 ratio capable of accomplishing anything related to orbiting our
moon, that is unless taking considerably greater time.
- Brad Guth
Pat Flannery
Danny Deger wrote:
>
> Our tax dollars funded the development of many defense projects that
> are classified. Does this mean they should all be public domain
> now? Get a grip man, get a grip.
Oh, I have no problem with keeping defense projects details classified;
but the Saturn V/Apollo was a civilian, not military program.
Classifying it, especially forty years after it was made, is really a
case of closing the barn door after the horse has left...in this case
the horse is long dead of old age.
It would be rather like classifying the plans for Hoover Dam in the
1970's, and trying to seize all photos and drawings of it.
Pat
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>It would be rather like classifying the plans for Hoover Dam in the
>1970's, and trying to seize all photos and drawings of it.
Bad example. The Hoover Dam plans might actually be useful to someone
who is up to no good.
If someone out there is planning to use the Saturn plans to build
their own rocket, maybe we should just give them to them and hire them
for Constellation. They can't really do any worse than Ares I.
Brian
Fred J. McCall
:
:Oh, I have no problem with keeping defense projects details classified;
:but the Saturn V/Apollo was a civilian, not military program.
:Classifying it, especially forty years after it was made, is really a
:case of closing the barn door after the horse has left...in this case
:the horse is long dead of old age.
:
Uh, nobody is talking about or has classified any such thing, Pat.
Are you really this clueless about what ITAR is? It has no connection
to 'classified'.
Pat Flannery
Brian Thorn wrote:
> Bad example. The Hoover Dam plans might actually be useful to someone
> who is up to no good.
>
If one of those Canadian Lancaster bombers ever goes missing, watch out.
:-)
Seriusly, the thing is so massive that it would be very difficult to
destroy with anything less than a nuclear weapon.
Pat
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>Brian Thorn wrote:
Still, it's possible, however massive that the dam is, and however
unlikely that it may seem, that detailed study of the plans could reveal
a vulnerability.
I think they made a movie about this kind of thing a few years back.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
Alan Anderson
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:11:29 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >Seriusly, the thing is so massive that it would be very difficult to
> >destroy with anything less than a nuclear weapon.
>
> Still, it's possible, however massive that the dam is, and however
> unlikely that it may seem, that detailed study of the plans could reveal
> a vulnerability.
>
> I think they made a movie about this kind of thing a few years back.
Yeah, Hoover Dam might turn out to have the equivalent of a thermal
exhaust port.
Len
> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :Oh, I have no problem with keeping defense projects details classified;
> :but the Saturn V/Apollo was a civilian, not military program.
> :Classifying it, especially forty years after it was made, is really a
> :case of closing the barn door after the horse has left...in this case
> :the horse is long dead of old age.
> :
>
> Uh, nobody is talking about or has classified any such thing, Pat.
>
> Are you really this clueless about what ITAR is? It has no connection
> to 'classified'.
>
Something should either be classified
or not classified. Capricious interpretation
of basically public information and normal
technical exchanges can be enormously
destructive and not particularly useful to
national security. Quite the opposite,
actually, IMO.
Len
Rand Simberg
<l...@tour2space.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>On Aug 2, 11:43 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>>
>> :
>> :Oh, I have no problem with keeping defense projects details classified;
>> :but the Saturn V/Apollo was a civilian, not military program.
>> :Classifying it, especially forty years after it was made, is really a
>> :case of closing the barn door after the horse has left...in this case
>> :the horse is long dead of old age.
>> :
>>
>> Uh, nobody is talking about or has classified any such thing, Pat.
>>
>> Are you really this clueless about what ITAR is? It has no connection
>> to 'classified'.
>>
>I rather think this is the main problem.
>Something should either be classified
>or not classified. Capricious interpretation
>of basically public information and normal
>technical exchanges can be enormously
>destructive and not particularly useful to
>national security. Quite the opposite,
>actually, IMO.
Be careful what you ask for, Len...
Ian Parker
> On Aug 2, 11:43 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
> > :
> > :Oh, I have no problem with keeping defense projects details classified;
> > :but the Saturn V/Apollo was a civilian, not military program.
> > :Classifying it, especially forty years after it was made, is really a
> > :case of closing the barn door after the horse has left...in this case
> > :the horse is long dead of old age.
> > :
>
> > Uh, nobody is talking about or has classified any such thing, Pat.
>
> > Are you really this clueless about what ITAR is? It has no connection
> > to 'classified'.
>
> I rather think this is the main problem.
> Something should either be classified
> or not classified. Capricious interpretation
> of basically public information and normal
> technical exchanges can be enormously
> destructive and not particularly useful to
> national security. Quite the opposite,
> actually, IMO.
>
you are bound by it. If you here anything at all it is in confidence
and you must not divulge that confidence. That much is absolutely
clear.
If the government puts things on open file, it cannot snatch them back
again and declare them secret. That must be against the first
amenment. Suppose, to take another example, someone finds out
something that the government does not, for whatever reason, want
people to know. This clearly is censorship.
I think if the law were to be tested things would have to be either
classified or not. If the government were allowed to classify
retrospectively it would be the end of free speech.
BTW - Why is no action being taken against the people selling these
CDs? Surely if the Iranians wanted one they would have one by now.
They are not short of $10 or so.
- Ian Parker
Len
True enough, Rand. However, I was thinking
in the "Edward Teller" context. Dr. Teller
thought that best thing for national secuirity
would be to have very few things classified
--but then really prosecute serious violations.
In particular, things like revealing secret troop
movements, IMO, should really get someone
hung. Technical info, however, is a tradeoff
of free exchange and rapid development--
at which Americans have always excelled--
versus trying to play things too close to the
vest. Teller cited the rapid growth of the
wide-open personal computer industry versus
some other industries that are shackled by
trying to protect small bits of progress.
Len
Rand Simberg
>> >> Are you really this clueless about what ITAR is? It has no connection
I agree. I'm just saying that if you demand that a brighter line be
drawn, in the current environment, a lot of currently unclassified
things would be placed on the other side of it.
Fred J. McCall
:On Aug 2, 11:43 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Oh, I have no problem with keeping defense projects details classified;
:> :but the Saturn V/Apollo was a civilian, not military program.
:> :Classifying it, especially forty years after it was made, is really a
:> :case of closing the barn door after the horse has left...in this case
:> :the horse is long dead of old age.
:> :
:>
:> Uh, nobody is talking about or has classified any such thing, Pat.
:>
:> Are you really this clueless about what ITAR is? It has no connection
:> to 'classified'.
:>
:
:I rather think this is the main problem.
:
I rather think cluelessness is the main problem as well.
:
:Something should either be classified
:or not classified.
:
And that's how it is.
:
:Capricious interpretation
:of basically public information and normal
:technical exchanges can be enormously
:destructive and not particularly useful to
:national security. Quite the opposite,
:actually, IMO.
:
Then I guess it's good that your opinion doesn't prevail.
Should I be able to sell smallpox to Osama bin Ladin? Smallpox isn't
classified...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:
:Nobody has looked at this legally.
:
False. Lots of people have looked at it legally. Some of them paid
big fines and/or went to jail.
:
:If you sign an Official Secrets Act
:you are bound by it. If you here anything at all it is in confidence
:and you must not divulge that confidence. That much is absolutely
:clear.
:
Irrelevant to the issue.
:
:If the government puts things on open file, it cannot snatch them back
:again and declare them secret.
:
Of course it can. However, this is once again irrelevant to the
issue.
:
:That must be against the first
:amenment. Suppose, to take another example, someone finds out
:something that the government does not, for whatever reason, want
:people to know. This clearly is censorship.
:
That's 'another example', all right. It also has even less to do with
the discussion than your prior irrelevancies.
:
:I think if the law were to be tested things would have to be either
:classified or not. If the government were allowed to classify
:retrospectively it would be the end of free speech.
:
Hint: Things are either classified or not. The government is allowed
to classify retrospectively (I suspect you meant retroactively here
and am operating on that assumption). *NONE* of that has anything to
do with ITAR or the issue at hand.
:
:BTW - Why is no action being taken against the people selling these
:CDs? Surely if the Iranians wanted one they would have one by now.
:They are not short of $10 or so.
:
Because it's legal to sell them to US nationals. It's not like
they're classified or something.
If people want to bash on ITAR (and there's lots there to bash on),
I'd think the first step would be to understand what the hell it is.
It doesn't seem that any of you have taken that first step.
Pat Flannery
John Savard wrote:
> Still, it's possible, however massive that the dam is, and however
> unlikely that it may seem, that detailed study of the plans could reveal
> a vulnerability.
>
> I think they made a movie about this kind of thing a few years back.
>
Cut to image of the unshielded turbine water seepage drain vent directly
beneath the main exhaust water exit tunnel.
A green-uniformed Giant Iraqi Badger with a suspicious package on its
back crawls into the drain vent....
The way the thing is built means that trying to find the vulnerable
point is going to like trying to find that one key block on the Great
Pyramid that you can destroy to make the whole thing collapse. The arch
shape facing Lake Mead behind it means the water actually pushes its
structure together via the pressure against the dam. So cracks would
tend to self-seal in the hydraulic equivalent of gravity pressing
stacked bocks together.
Also the thing gets very thick indeed as you descend from its top (these
plans were recovered from a FDR-2 unit that was familiar with the dam's
construction): http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/hooverdam/hooverdam.jpg
At the base you are dealing with 660-foot-thick concrete (little did the
dam security forces suspect that Osama bin Laden has beens hiding in one
of the sealed water diversion tunnels for several years, and that the
Giant Iraqi Badger was bringing him a box of Kentucky-Fried Chicken).
Actually there is a way you can destroy a hydroelectric dam, or at least
destroy its electrical generating ability...the Soviets used this trick
against the advancing Germans...you just shut off the lubrication system
to the dynamos and wait a couple of hours. As the drive shaft to the
dynamo from the water turbine overheats and fails, the giant multi-ton
armature will come out of the dynamo at several thousand RPM and go
rolling around inside the powerhouse.
But the dam itself is going to be a mighty tough nut to crack.
Pat
Ian Parker
the government can do what it damn well likes.
Well I'm glad I live in the free world - Great Britain. It seems we do
not have any common values despite what the orators tell us. America
is not a free country if what you say is correct. It is as simple as
that.
If these things are freely sold to Americans, then anyone from
anywhere can get them with forged documents. There is no security at
all. That is if said documents would help anyone anyway, which I very
much doubt.
- Ian Parker
Rand Simberg
Parker <ianpa...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>I find you very hard to understand.
You find *who* very hard to understand? About what?
Why can't you learn to use a newsreader, and provide quotes and who
you're responding to with your nonsense? Particularly when you accuse
people of writing things they didn't? Things like this is why we
question your IQ.
Fred J. McCall
Why is it you delete all context when you want to say something
particularly stupid?
:
:I find you very hard to understand. You are in effect telling me that
:the government can do what it damn well likes.
:
I'm telling you the facts. I'm sure it's no different there.
:
:Well I'm glad I live in the free world - Great Britain. It seems we do
:not have any common values despite what the orators tell us. America
:is not a free country if what you say is correct. It is as simple as
:that.
:
Stupid assertion. What you miss is that WE DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL
SECRETS ACT HERE.
What that means is that the press may publish classified material that
it comes into possession of. In your "free world" they cannot, as
they can be sent to prison for it.
:
:If these things are freely sold to Americans, then anyone from
:anywhere can get them with forged documents. There is no security at
:all. That is if said documents would help anyone anyway, which I very
:much doubt.
:
Go learn something about what ITAR is, Ian. As usual, you're making
lots of noise but very little sense.
Unclaimed Mysteries
Robert Jackson, famous for his duties as chief prosecutor at Nuremberg
and later a US Supreme Court Justice, is often quoted by Bushian
Republicans attempting to justify their continuing efforts to set aside
inconvenient civil liberties: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Clearly, lifting and paraphrasing his actual quote found here:
is political reframing at its slickest. But another direct quote from
Jackson might more clearly illustrate any government's motivation to
invoke arbitrary rules such as the ones motivating this thread:
"With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a
prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical
violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it
is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then
looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking
the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to
work, to pin some offense on him." (1940)
(From http://www.roberthjackson.org/Man/theman2-7-6-1/)
This tendency is tempting no matter which party's in charge, but right
now the GOP has leveraged the legitimate fear of terrorism to set this
country on a path toward authoritarian-style government. No, we're not
there yet - I'm posting *this* after all - but not even during the
Depression or the Civil War has it gotten as far along.
Having said that I'm not sure that the the UK, Land of 6.02 X 10^23
Surveillance Cameras, is the best counterexample to the US. We all got
problems.
DANGER! Suspicious photo here:
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/saturn5_ir00.php
C.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Rand Simberg
Unclaimed Mysteries
<theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>This tendency is tempting no matter which party's in charge, but right
>now the GOP has leveraged the legitimate fear of terrorism to set this
>country on a path toward authoritarian-style government. No, we're not
>there yet - I'm posting *this* after all
Indeed you are. It should give you pause.
> - but not even during the
>Depression or the Civil War has it gotten as far along.
You mean like when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil
War? Or like when Roosevelt interned thousands of American-born
Japanese in camps? Did I miss when the BusHitler did something like
that?
Unclaimed Mysteries
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:18:26 -0500, in a place far, far away,
> Unclaimed Mysteries
> <theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> made the
> phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>> This tendency is tempting no matter which party's in charge, but right
>> now the GOP has leveraged the legitimate fear of terrorism to set this
>> country on a path toward authoritarian-style government. No, we're not
>> there yet - I'm posting *this* after all
>
> Indeed you are. It should give you pause.
A post from you always gives me pause as I become filled with
anticipation of ensuing hilarity.
>
>> - but not even during the
>> Depression or the Civil War has it gotten as far along.
>
> You mean like when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil
> War? Or like when Roosevelt interned thousands of American-born
> Japanese in camps? Did I miss when the BusHitler did something like
> that?
You did miss the point, but it's not the first time. Although I'm
surprised that you didn't work in a current rightwing talking point
about Rachel Carson killing entire civilizations WITH HER MIND.
Rand Simberg
Unclaimed Mysteries
<theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>> - but not even during the
>>> Depression or the Civil War has it gotten as far along.
>>
>> You mean like when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil
>> War? Or like when Roosevelt interned thousands of American-born
>> Japanese in camps? Did I miss when the BusHitler did something like
>> that?
>
>
>You did miss the point, but it's not the first time. Although I'm
>surprised that you didn't work in a current rightwing talking point
>about Rachel Carson killing entire civilizations WITH HER MIND.
You lead a rich fantasy life.
Len
wrote:
You are probably right. Perhaps the more
basic question is: "How do we change the
current environment? And keep if from
changing back?
We used to have a quite useful classification
called "restricted." If you left restricted data
in the car, you at least locked it up in the
trunk. And you were generally careful about
who might get ahold of it--Americans or
other. However, this classification was not
particularly burdensome. Moreover, there
was a lot less hassle discussing some
technical data with foreigner with some
reasonable credentials. Given that a
sizeable chunk of the American citizenry
is "anti-American," the ITAR criterion of
citizenship is nonesense.
Len
ReedS
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> Well I'm glad I live in the free world - Great Britain. It seems we do
> not have any common values despite what the orators tell us. America
> is not a free country if what you say is correct. It is as simple as
> that.
>
Ok, simple example -- go buy a television and use it without registering it
for the BBC fees. When the BBC monitoring hounds come knocking at your
door, tell them to sod off since you "live in the free world".
"Europeans always see fascism descending on America. But it always seems to
land in Europe." -- Tom Wolfe
--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | rsnellenberger
to make a phone that you can just talk | -at-comcast.net
into." Major Thomb |
Ian Parker
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:
> Ian Parker wrote:
> > I find you very hard to understand. You are in effect telling me that
> > the government can do what it damn well likes.
>
> > Well I'm glad I live in the free world - Great Britain. It seems we do
> > not have any common values despite what the orators tell us. America
> > is not a free country if what you say is correct. It is as simple as
> > that.
>
> > If these things are freely sold to Americans, then anyone from
> > anywhere can get them with forged documents. There is no security at
> > all. That is if said documents would help anyone anyway, which I very
> > much doubt.
>
> Robert Jackson, famous for his duties as chief prosecutor at Nuremberg
> and later a US Supreme Court Justice, is often quoted by Bushian
> Republicans attempting to justify their continuing efforts to set aside
> inconvenient civil liberties: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
>
> Clearly, lifting and paraphrasing his actual quote found here:
>
>
> is political reframing at its slickest. But another direct quote from
> Jackson might more clearly illustrate any government's motivation to
> invoke arbitrary rules such as the ones motivating this thread:
>
> "With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a
> prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical
> violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it
> is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then
> looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking
> the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to
> work, to pin some offense on him." (1940)
>
>
> This tendency is tempting no matter which party's in charge, but right
> now the GOP has leveraged the legitimate fear of terrorism to set this
> country on a path toward authoritarian-style government. No, we're not
> there yet - I'm posting *this* after all - but not even during the
> Depression or the Civil War has it gotten as far along.
>
> Having said that I'm not sure that the the UK, Land of 6.02 X 10^23
> Surveillance Cameras, is the best counterexample to the US. We all got
> problems.
>
> DANGER! Suspicious photo here:http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/saturn5_ir00.php
>
> C.
> --
> It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Yes indeed we all have problems. The Uk is different from the US in
having no written consitution. The Queen, in theory at any rate, can
do what she likes.
There was an intersting case coming from Gordon Brown himself, this
was to do with church appointments. In the Curch of Englend the Queen
appoints the bishops. This has come to mean the Prime Mininister,
although Gordon, who I don't think wants to interfere in Church
matters, says that the Queen should take advice from the
ecclesiastical authorities.
The consititution is in practice what has come to us through precedent
and the Queen's advisors work very much on precedent. Surveillance is
not really a consitutional issue. Far more serious is how long
suspects can be held without trial and the question of "control
orders" in effect house arrest without trial. The courts have
repeatedly thrown them out. Gordon hasn't got the same personality as
Tont Blair. Tony has in fact railed against the judiciary and accused
them of being pro terrorist. Rather intemperate as all they are doing
is interperating laws, many of which Tony made himself
At the back of my mind on the US military is this. Before and during
the Iraq war they lied through their teeth. There was the dossier,
yellowcake from Niger. We are told that intelligence is not 100%.
Well part of the reason for the Shuttle failure was that the military
wanted to carry heavy indivisible loads into space. Loads that would
see Iraq at something like 10cm or less. BTW - Adaptive optics is
needed to look up. You just need 2 or 3 m aperture when looking down.
To convert yellowcake into a nuclear bomb you need equipment that
would be visible at 10 METRE resolution.
During the war they lied through their teeth as wekll. None of their
predictions turned out to be remotely accurate. After a democratic
victory the military are going to plead for 6 moonths more. They will
of course be lying through their teeth then just as they have done
consistently before.
My question - could the military use official secrecy to cover their
lies and silence their critics?
- Ian Parker
Len
> Len <l...@tour2space.com> wrote:
>
> :On Aug 2, 11:43 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :Oh, I have no problem with keeping defense projects details classified;
> :> :but the Saturn V/Apollo was a civilian, not military program.
> :> :Classifying it, especially forty years after it was made, is really a
> :> :case of closing the barn door after the horse has left...in this case
> :> :the horse is long dead of old age.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Uh, nobody is talking about or has classified any such thing, Pat.
> :>
> :> Are you really this clueless about what ITAR is? It has no connection
> :> to 'classified'.
> :>
> :
> :I rather think this is the main problem.
> :
>
> I rather think cluelessness is the main problem as well.
>
> :
> :Something should either be classified
> :or not classified.
> :
>
> And that's how it is.
Yes, but, unfortunately, that is not how it
is treated. Disclosure of unclassified information
should not have a $10 million fine and/or 10 years
in jail for disclosure to someone who is
not an American citizen of information
that may, or may not, be useful to a
terrorist. Expecially, when ITAR does not
prohibit disclosure to an "anti-American"
American. That's hardly logical.
>
>
> :
> :Capricious interpretation
> :of basically public information and normal
> :technical exchanges can be enormously
> :destructive and not particularly useful to
> :national security. Quite the opposite,
> :actually, IMO.
> :
>
> Then I guess it's good that your opinion doesn't prevail.
>
It's hardly my opinion alone. Many of
feel that restrictions on unclassified
technical information is probably much
more harmful to national security than
helpful. American technical progress has
been far more dependent historically on free
exchange of unclassified information than
on protection of such information--much of
which is already or naturally in the public
domain. The geniua of American technology
has been an ability to move faster than the
rest of the world. Unnecessary restriction of
technical information greatly slows the pace.
It also causes others to develop their own
technology, just because American technology
becomes unavailable. Cryptology is a case
in point.
> Should I be able to sell smallpox to Osama bin Ladin? Smallpox isn't
> classified...
Absurd. Not many on this NG would give him
the time of day--even though "time of day" isn't
on the munitions list.
Actually, the smallpox example is not a bad example
for the case in point. At the present time, at least,
smallpox would be a commodity. I would have no
trouble adding this or other dangerous commodities
to the munitions list, if it isn't on there already.
At such time--never, hopefully--
as smallpox information can be used to build it,
two situations are likely. First, the authorities
might determine that it is impossible to classify
the information. Second, if it is possible and we
have the information and few others do, then it
should become highly classified. In the meantime,
it is only information, and most of us using our
own individual judgement and respect for national
security, would likely to be careful with this type
of information. ITAR restrictions on unclassified
information would likely yield no better protection.
I would have not problem with the government's
publishing of a rational, limited "guidance" list of
the types of information that could be useful to a
terrorist. This would serve as a supplement for
normal, individual judgement. However, even if
it is only a guidance list, not a prohibition list,
care should be taken not to inhibit the free-flow
of most unclassified technical information.
This is always a tough balancing act, but it is
probably best to err on the side of making the
list too short, rather than too long.
Elsewhere on this thread I commented on the
old security classification: "Restricted."
This category was not very burdensome, but,
IMO, was fairly effective--probably as effectve
as ITAR, in spite of ITAR's Draconian potential
punishment for what might be a rather
capricious interpretation of critical information on
an item that happens to be on the munitions list.
Restricted worked out of loyaty and respect for
national secuirty--not fear of a capricious law
with a lot of teeth. IMO, this category of
classified information was discarded because
it did not feed a huge bureaucracy.
Airliners are not on the munitions list. However,
airliners have proven to be a very effective
terrorist weapons. To their credit, the authorities
have not tried to add airliners to the munitions
list. They have opted instead for other rather
ineffective measures.
Len
Fred J. McCall
:
:At the back of my mind on the US military is this. Before and during
:the Iraq war they lied through their teeth. There was the dossier,
:yellowcake from Niger. We are told that intelligence is not 100%.
:
Not the military.
:
:Well part of the reason for the Shuttle failure was that the military
:wanted to carry heavy indivisible loads into space.
:
No lie there. They also had a high crossrange requirement for
landing.
:
:Loads that would see Iraq at something like 10cm or less.
:
Cite?
:
:BTW - Adaptive optics is
:needed to look up. You just need 2 or 3 m aperture when looking down.
:
You think the atmosphere is different looking up and looking down?
No, Ian. That's just silly. Looking down is actually harder, since
you don't have the option to only look at mountaintops to avoid the
worst of the atmospheric effects. Looking up, we build telescopes up
high for that very reason.
:
:To convert yellowcake into a nuclear bomb you need equipment that
:would be visible at 10 METRE resolution.
:
They've never heard of 'buildings' where you live?
:
:During the war they lied through their teeth as wekll. None of their
:predictions turned out to be remotely accurate. After a democratic
:victory the military are going to plead for 6 moonths more. They will
:of course be lying through their teeth then just as they have done
:consistently before.
:
You're well into 'delusional', Ian. Not because we disagree, but
because there is only one set of facts and you don't seem to be in
touch with them.
:
:My question - could the military use official secrecy to cover their
:lies and silence their critics?
:
Just how would that work, Ian? Remember, no Official Secrets Act
here, so merely classifying something doesn't silence anyone.
ur2...@dsl.pipex.com
the constantly evolving possible plans of Ali Baba to raise evil Djinn
and overthrow the kingdom while the dim-witted Sultan wanders around
the throne room and drools, it probably wasn't."
Pat,
Something like a scheming Grand Vizier who is always constantly
evolving possible plans of Ali Baba to erase evil Djinn and oversee
the kingdom while the brighter-witted Sultans wonder around the
Perfumed Gardens throne rooms and dream, it probably should be....
It most definitely could be. IT is one of Merlin, the MetaPhysician's,
Good Juju Spells. AI VXXXXine for and of Advanced IntelAIgents
Design........ in a NeuReal Field of Virtual Medicine.
With that being a statement and not a question.
ur2...@dsl.pipex.com
> That's more true than you can imagine, as otherwise those wise old but
> pesky Chinks are going to use it against us, as they take over the
> moon's L1 and their next stop being Venus L2. Are we screwed, or
> what?
> - Brad Guth
Brad,
There's only one way to get to Venus and if the Chinese have found
IT2, you will have no need to worry about being screwed, only of
maintaining an obvious excited interest in her delights. A Simple
Direct Root Imperative for all Space Personnel...... IT is a Universal
Basic Requirement for Outer Limits Space [and Time] Travel.
In Space, does Time Exist .....for is it not Perpetual Sun to Show us
what we have Imagined and Made 42BTrue with Communication of Ideas/
Thought Transfer into Positive Creative Action........ NEUKlearer
HyperRadioProActivity, no less.
BradGuth
"In Space, does Time Exist .....for is it not Perpetual Sun to Show us
what we have Imagined and Made 42BTrue with Communication of Ideas/
Thought Transfer into Positive Creative Action........ NEUKlearer
HyperRadioProActivity, no less."
Say what again?
- Brad Guth
Unclaimed Mysteries
At least I know the difference.
C.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell
ur2...@dsl.pipex.com
> Say what again?
> - Brad Guth
Brad,
Surely in Space, it must be an eternal Day?
BradGuth
That's correct, in that an interstellar icy proto-moon that's
migrating away from a red giant phase of Sirius, as headed into our
solar system, seems rather humanly doable. Even our moon's L1 is
sunny most all the time, as well as getting extra roasted and/or
radiated to death from the naked moon itself.
At least for our frail DNA, time does exist, as in not nearly enough
time in order to accomplish the best of our intentions before we're
too old and cranky.
- Brad Guth
Scott Hedrick
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:13aloi1...@corp.supernews.com...
> This reminds me of them taking the Fat Man and Little Boy off display at
> the National Atomic Museum because some terrorist might learn how to make
> a nuclear weapon by studying them. "So that's what we've been doing wrong!
> The fins go at the _back_ end!"
When was this? I last visited about 2 years ago and they were there.
A few years earlier Paul Tibbets had a book signing in front of them- it was
hard to see him from all of the Japanese tourists taking pictures :P
> This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to security
> and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from Cheney's
> office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically mentally
> unbalanced.
That's classified information. Please report to your local disintegration
booth.
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:13aloi1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> This reminds me of them taking the Fat Man and Little Boy off display at
>> the National Atomic Museum because some terrorist might learn how to make
>> a nuclear weapon by studying them. "So that's what we've been doing wrong!
>> The fins go at the _back_ end!"
>>
>
> When was this? I last visited about 2 years ago and they were there.
>
It was back around 2002 when they were going nuts about security after
911; the story was pretty funny, ranking up there with Ashcroft draping
the naked lady statues at the Department Of Justice.
I'll see if I can dig up specifics on it, but the nuclear scientists and
military historians were rolling their eyes over the whole thing. :-)
Pat
Scott Hedrick
>
>
> Scott Hedrick wrote:
>> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>> news:13aloi1...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> This reminds me of them taking the Fat Man and Little Boy off display at
>>> the National Atomic Museum because some terrorist might learn how to
>>> make a nuclear weapon by studying them. "So that's what we've been doing
>>> wrong! The fins go at the _back_ end!"
>>>
>>
>> When was this? I last visited about 2 years ago and they were there.
>>
>
> It was back around 2002 when they were going nuts about security after
> 911;
Yeah, the last time I visited it on base was Sept 10, 2001.
I saw it two years ago in its new location and they were there in all their
shining glory, but the statute of a sword being beaten into a plowshare was
missing. In its place was a plow made from recycled nuclear bomb casings :)
The new location is somewhat easier to get to (since its off base, but in
the Old Town area of Albuquerque, with its 16th century street designs).
Unfortunately, this means the outdoor exhibits are lost- the missiles,
planes, artillery and retired boomer sail. The B-52 would require the entire
lot the museum now sits on.
The first time I visited the place in 1995, I was also able to drive out to
the solar power tower I saw in National Geographic. Nobody seemed to have a
problem with my driving my pickup anywhere on base. The only time I was
asked for ID was when I entered the base, and all they wanted was what any
traffic cop would want. There was more concern over insurance than
citizenship. Makes me want to find the ashes of Atta and piss on them.
Scott Hedrick
<se...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185833734.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> Heck, I still have the detailed flight and
> weapon delivery manuals for our fighter inventory. All perfectly legit
> as long as I didn't ship or share information out of country.
And so, since transferring encryption software was illegal, PGP managed to
get out of the US by having the source code printed out, carried by hand to
Europe, then typed back in, because books about encryption weren't banned.
Which didn't stop Phil Zimmerman from getting prosecuted.
> The point? Well, think of the pendilum model. All this too will pass,
> and in a decade or two you will be able to get this information
> sitting at your local Starbucks hotspot.
See the exchange between Dana Elcar and Roy Scheider in the beginning of
"2010".
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
> And so, since transferring encryption software was illegal, PGP managed to
> get out of the US by having the source code printed out, carried by hand to
> Europe, then typed back in, because books about encryption weren't banned.
> Which didn't stop Phil Zimmerman from getting prosecuted.
>
I still like playing with my Enigma machine simulators:
http://frode.home.cern.ch/frode/crypto/index.html
http://frode.home.cern.ch/frode/crypto/simula/
Pat