information suppression by universities
 

Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

information suppression by universities
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

This is a complex issue and one of considerable debate within those
universities AND the publishers of the journals.

1) The journals have operating costs (someone has to edit them and do
the typesetting and production).. these must be paid by subscription
fees and page charges from the author. Giving it away for free means
that other means must be developed for funding.

2) Not all the funding for research comes with a "must release to
public" clause. For instance, you might get a grant to defray part of
the cost of some research, and fund the remaining part out of your own
assets. The granting agency gets the data they want (at a lower cost
than paying for all of it), but you retain the rights.


3) Putting stuff on the web isn't free.

However, a LOT of newer research IS being published for free on the web.
PLOS (Public Library of Science), PubMed, arxiv, etc. are all examples.

Remember, too, that this is academia, and they tend to be conservative
and change slowly. To a certain extent, it IS an exclusive club,
because publication leads to promotion, and the publication process is
full of gates and wickets. The term "publish or perish" did not arise
out of thin air.

information suppression by universities
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

Why is it that the general public rejects anything beyond sound bites and
clever slogans?
Why is it that some experts completely reject mainstream thought and even go
so far as to present their own paradigm complete with their own private
semantics and definitions. Not many actually learned the Klingon language,
although many were accustomed to hearing it on TV. Like Psychology and
Philosophy where every major school of thought had it's own paradigm,
language, definitions and required intimate study as if it were a cult unto
itself. The end result was many led astray by loony professors who had
dreamed everything up in their heads and sought to prove it by changing all
the rules. Even Charley Manson still has his followers. Oh to be sure
there had to be some element that rang true - some brain prick of insight to
trigger the euphoria to forge ahead. But nearly all found their theories
held true only for a few specimens they held under their own microscope.

What's your point, Art? Are you looking for a grant to start your own
school of Philosophy?

Why don't you get a web presence where you can put your lab notes, math and
drawings. You can copyright them unless they belong to someone else.

information suppression by universities
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:51:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE.

Who needs the IEEE? I've found every new design offered - FOR FREE
from the universities! And every one of those "new designs" mentioned
here were worth every penny I spent.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

information suppression by universities
 

On Nov 25, 11:26*am, Jim Lux wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources *Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

This is a complex issue and one of considerable debate within those
universities AND the publishers of the journals.

1) The journals have operating costs (someone has to edit them and do
the typesetting and production).. these must be paid by subscription
fees and page charges from the author. *Giving it away for free means
that other means must be developed for funding.

2) Not all the funding for research comes with a "must release to
public" clause. *For instance, you might get a grant to defray part of
the cost of some research, and fund the remaining part out of your own
assets. *The granting agency gets the data they want (at a lower cost
than paying for all of it), but you retain the rights.

3) Putting stuff on the web isn't free.

However, a LOT of newer research IS being published for free on the web.
PLOS (Public Library of Science), PubMed, arxiv, etc. are all examples.

Remember, too, that this is academia, and they tend to be conservative
and change slowly. *To a certain extent, it IS an exclusive club,
because publication leads to promotion, and the publication process is
full of gates and wickets. *The term "publish or perish" did not arise
out of thin air.

Well said !
It pleases me that it is a subject of debate. If the publishing is
part of the business
then ofcourse the market decides whether it is read or not. One would
have thought that public universities would
also publish the benefits of their work for all and thus advertise the
high standards of the university.
From a ham radio point of view we have the ARRL organization but the
do not seem interested in advances in the science
even tho they have the vehicle (QST) to keep its members up to date.
But it is not the private institutions that I point the finger at but
the public institutions
who now take on a mantle of private business by forcing students to
buy high price text books where their is a feed back to them or
increasing tuition costs that doesn';t seem to marry with the present
market but yet are paid for by public funds. I suppose that the
present state of affairs will continue if academia doesn't peruse the
web or publish their thesis even tho they actually belong to the
institution. In the mean time I am happy to make a over 100 mile round
trip to a suitable library to spend a day reading on the premises as I
am not allowed to visit Roswell.
Thanks for your input
Regards
Art

information suppression by universities
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?

Because socialism has not completely taken over?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

information suppression by universities
 

It sure hasn't taken long for the ability of some people to find
information to contract to the single source of the Internet.

But other sources still exist as they have for a very long time. And
IEEE publications are and always have been available to the public.

A lot of university libraries have IEEE publications which are available
for free viewing. And I have yet to see a library that lacks a way of
copying an article.

Even my humble local library, which lacks even a single decent EE text,
is happy to get any article I specify via an "interlibrary loan". Not
only can I get anything the IEEE has published, but papers from the most
obscure journals as well.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

information suppression by universities
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:51:06 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

From a ham radio point of view we have the ARRL organization but the
do not seem interested in advances in the science
even tho they have the vehicle (QST) to keep its members up to date.

You might want to look at QEX magazine. It's the ARRL technical
publication for experimenters:
http://www.arrl.org/qex/

Also, publication, free or otherwise, constitutes disclosure, which
has signifigant effects on the patent process. Premature public
disclosure can easily invalidate a patent. It must be done carefully,
with due consideration for the implications of publication. Here's a
short summary of the situation:
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/rpc/InventionDisclosure.asp

The ARRL's interest in advances in the sciences is intentionally
limited to their applications to amateur radio. While hams may have a
good general interest in scientific advances, the number that apply to
amateur radio is rather limited. I have specific opinions about some
of these advances, such as the ARRL's discovery of Wi-Fi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_multimedia
but I don't have the time or strength for yet another endless debate.

In my never humble opinion, the ARRL's support and publication of ham
inspired new technology has been usually late, limited, and sometimes
wrong. (NBFM using commercial radios, FM repeaters, packet radio,
packet networks, computahs, etc)[1]. Fortunately, this has not always
been the case, as PSK31, bizarre antennas, satellite, and SDR have
been well supported and published. Personally, I would be quite happy
if the ARRL concentrates on what nobody else is doing, which is acting
as a lobbyist for amateur radio with the FCC and the government.


[1] I still recall articles in QST in the late 1960's and early 1970's
on how to convert commercial FM radios into AM radios. I often
wondered what the ARRL was thinking.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

information suppression by universities
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:11:38 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:51:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE.

Who needs the IEEE? I've found every new design offered - FOR FREE
from the universities! And every one of those "new designs" mentioned
here were worth every penny I spent.

Out of curiosity, does that include the IEEE Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation and the IEEE Antenna and Propagation Magazine? I'm
currently debating the merits of re-joining the IEEE mostly to obtain
these publications. In the past, they were literally gold mines of
interesting ideas on antennas. However, like all gold mines, I had to
dig through a considerable amound of rubble and useless garbage to
find the gold. I've seen little of this stuff on university web
piles, except after publication by the IEEE. I drag myself up to UCSC
and borrow a few issues, but I prefer to have them online
(downloadable and searchable) which costs money.

Do I spend the money, or do I seach for your secret horde of free
university publications on antenna design?



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

information suppression by universities
 

On Nov 25, 1:53*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:51:06 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
From a ham radio point of view we have the ARRL organization but the
do not seem interested in advances in the science
even tho they have the vehicle (QST) to keep its members up to date.

You might want to look at QEX magazine. *It's the ARRL technical
publication for experimenters:
http://www.arrl.org/qex/

Also, publication, free or otherwise, constitutes disclosure, which
has signifigant effects on the patent process. *Premature public
disclosure can easily invalidate a patent. *It must be done carefully,
with due consideration for the implications of publication. *Here's a
short summary of the situation:
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/rpc/InventionDisclosure.asp

The ARRL's interest in advances in the sciences is intentionally
limited to their applications to amateur radio. *While hams may have a
good general interest in scientific advances, the number that apply to
amateur radio is rather limited. *I have specific opinions about some
of these advances, such as the ARRL's discovery of Wi-Fi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_multimedia
but I don't have the time or strength for yet another endless debate.

In my never humble opinion, the ARRL's support and publication of ham
inspired new technology has been usually late, limited, and sometimes
wrong. *(NBFM using commercial radios, FM repeaters, packet radio,
packet networks, computahs, etc)[1]. *Fortunately, this has not always
been the case, as PSK31, bizarre antennas, satellite, and SDR have
been well supported and published. *Personally, I would be quite happy
if the ARRL concentrates on what nobody else is doing, which is acting
as a lobbyist for amateur radio with the FCC and the government.

[1] I still recall articles in QST in the late 1960's and early 1970's
on how to convert commercial FM radios into AM radios. *I often
wondered what the ARRL was thinking.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Hmm that is interesting. Seems like the popular thinking is to resist
change as everything is O.K.
EXCEPT fior the ARRL and CQ magazine. Can't really fault that tho I
suspect that many would be better of saving their money
and use it to set up a personal business instead of spending it at
university. Seems like the financial advantages of old with respect to
return
has floated away in the wind. Why go to university if the older books
like Termans and Jackson has everything that anybody wants to know and
at a reasonable price compared to the price of books that Universities
foist on their students?. Does the world really need advances in
science and for whome?
Regards
Art

information suppression by universities
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Out of curiosity, does that include the IEEE Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation and the IEEE Antenna and Propagation Magazine? I'm
currently debating the merits of re-joining the IEEE mostly to obtain
these publications. In the past, they were literally gold mines of
interesting ideas on antennas. However, like all gold mines, I had to
dig through a considerable amound of rubble and useless garbage to
find the gold. I've seen little of this stuff on university web
piles, except after publication by the IEEE. I drag myself up to UCSC
and borrow a few issues, but I prefer to have them online
(downloadable and searchable) which costs money.

Do I spend the money, or do I seach for your secret horde of free
university publications on antenna design?

A lot of universities have Transactions for most of the societies like A
& P as well as the Proceedings. IEEE members get free access to online
Proceedings and all past issues of Transactions for all societies they
belong to. For example, if you're a member of Antennas and Propagation,
you can access online any paper in any issue of the Transactions on
Antennas & Propagation. The incremental cost for joining a society is
modest -- A & P is $36.00 per year once you're an IEEE member. (I think
you can get Trans. on A & P or others without joining, but at a much
higher price.) I just renewed my membership and joined the Microwave
Theory & Techniques Society for only an additional $14.00. Now I'll have
online access to all the past Transactions for that group.

Incidentally, anyone can purchase and download any individual IEEE paper
online for around $20. A lot of other organizations like the IEE (U.K.),
physics societies, etc. have a similar offer. I've gone this route a
number of times when it was worth it to me to avoid the hassle of going
downtown to the university library or waiting for an interlibrary transfer.

If you're used to looking at A & P transactions from the '40s through
the '60s, you'll probably be disappointed with current issues. Research
has always concentrated on where the money is, and now it's coming from
much different industries than it was a few decades ago. Samplings from
the current issue: "Synthesized-Reference-Wave Holography for
Determining Antenna Radiation Characteristics" and "Parallel In-Core and
Out-of-Core Solution of Electrically Large Problems Using the RWG Basis
Functions". No Brown, Lewis, and Epstein papers, those! But there was an
interesting paper on putting RFID tags on explosive ordnance as a
possible way to locate it when unexploded and buried, and a short paper
on coax loss.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

information suppression by universities
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:01:35 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Do I spend the money, or do I seach for your secret horde of free
university publications on antenna design?

Hi Jeff,

Surely you must realize that this is not about money (a convenient
foil in this troll topic), but about skill (what the troll lacks).

The cheesy inventions that we have been breathlessly advised of have
the commensurate value of the bandwidth they return in a simple Google
search. It takes very little effort to recognize the moldy
fluorescence surrounding those meager offerings.

If you want the exact article specified, yes you can shell out money.
If you want the research behind it, and probably more data than you
would care to wade through, you simply investigate the investigator.

Myself, if I don't want to spend any more than the cost of bus fare, I
go to the engineering library, check it out, bring it home, scan it,
and its done. As I am on campus twice a week anyway (and the cost of
bus fare is already covered for my other activities), it is hardly an
imposition and the university certainly isn't suppressing me as they
give alumni library privileges.

Even public libraries have online access to special topic databases
(subscriptions) - unless you live in Bumf**k, Illinois.

Now, if you happen to be a troll who visits a campus infrequently only
to spit on their library shelves, I can well imagine the ego-bruised
outrage that is visited upon us here after they give you the bum's
rush.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

information suppression by universities
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

Absolutely, with public colleges and universities ... if they use public
funds, the knowledge is public. Perhaps, someday, a decent attorney
will take them to task. The college I hold a position with knows all of
this, we make as much as humanly possible available--we are educators
and we take our responsibility SERIOUSLY!!!

But, somehow the trash has gotten into the system ... :-(

Regards,
JS

information suppression by universities
 

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:51:06 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

From a ham radio point of view we have the ARRL organization but the
do not seem interested in advances in the science
even tho they have the vehicle (QST) to keep its members up to date.

You might want to look at QEX magazine. It's the ARRL technical
publication for experimenters:
http://www.arrl.org/qex/

Also, publication, free or otherwise, constitutes disclosure, which
has signifigant effects on the patent process. Premature public
disclosure can easily invalidate a patent. It must be done carefully,
with due consideration for the implications of publication. Here's a
short summary of the situation:
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/rpc/InventionDisclosure.asp

The ARRL's interest in advances in the sciences is intentionally
limited to their applications to amateur radio. While hams may have a
good general interest in scientific advances, the number that apply to
amateur radio is rather limited. I have specific opinions about some
of these advances, such as the ARRL's discovery of Wi-Fi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_multimedia
but I don't have the time or strength for yet another endless debate.

In my never humble opinion, the ARRL's support and publication of ham
inspired new technology has been usually late, limited, and sometimes
wrong. (NBFM using commercial radios, FM repeaters, packet radio,
packet networks, computahs, etc)[1]. Fortunately, this has not always
been the case, as PSK31, bizarre antennas, satellite, and SDR have
been well supported and published. Personally, I would be quite happy
if the ARRL concentrates on what nobody else is doing, which is acting
as a lobbyist for amateur radio with the FCC and the government.


[1] I still recall articles in QST in the late 1960's and early 1970's
on how to convert commercial FM radios into AM radios. I often
wondered what the ARRL was thinking.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Excellent post. The problem with QEX is not enough submissions. As for the
QST AM mods, I was thinking that was ATV, but maybe you were talking about
something else. The same applies to QST. If there aren't enough
submissions, the only recourse is to hire writers to do columns or fill the
empiness with drivel and ads like 73. The best things to come out of 73 was
the Star Trek communicator clone and Byte magazine. I hate how Ham Radio
magazine died out. I was President of the local ham club for a while, and
wound up doing the newletter too. For the three or four years of that, I
only got 3 submissions from the membership. All the rest I had to either
pull out of my A** every month or go around like a reporter and interrogate
people.

On the other hand - What neat inventions can we come up with to share with
the World, so it can be exploited and give reason to take more of our
spectrum? Interesting to note how public safety volunteers showed Los
Angeles Sheriff how neat ATV was and they turned around and petitioned the
FCC for those frequencies.

Oh well, we will probably all be shot in head by the next regime because we
are an irritation.

information suppression by universities
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin wrote:
Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?

Because socialism has not completely taken over?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

When socialism has completely taken over, they will be shot in the head
because nothing they know will be useful for picking rice.

information suppression by universities
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:47:48 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Out of curiosity, does that include the IEEE Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation and the IEEE Antenna and Propagation Magazine? I'm
currently debating the merits of re-joining the IEEE mostly to obtain
these publications. In the past, they were literally gold mines of
interesting ideas on antennas. However, like all gold mines, I had to
dig through a considerable amound of rubble and useless garbage to
find the gold. I've seen little of this stuff on university web
piles, except after publication by the IEEE. I drag myself up to UCSC
and borrow a few issues, but I prefer to have them online
(downloadable and searchable) which costs money.

Do I spend the money, or do I seach for your secret horde of free
university publications on antenna design?

A lot of universities have Transactions for most of the societies like A
& P as well as the Proceedings. IEEE members get free access to online
Proceedings and all past issues of Transactions for all societies they
belong to.

It's the ability to search and download proceedings, reports, and
articles that interest me. I do that now at the local multiversity
(UCSC) but there are problems. However, there are problems. Since
I'm not an alumnus, teacher, or employee, the annual cost is about 1/3
of an IEEE membership plus 2 IEEE society memberships. In addition,
some items of interest are not available off campus. The local
library has access, but that requires a pilgrimage to the library
every time I want something. As long as my reading requirements were
minimal, a few trips to the library or paying for individual papers
was cheaper than IEEE membership.

The current economics a
IEEE membership: $169/yr
A & P membership: $24/yr
I couldn't find the current costs of the various printed transactions
and magazines. My guess is at least $40/yr.
With only downloaded issues, that's about $200/yr or $17/month. I
value my working time at about $75/hr. If joining saves me 3 hours of
time, it's break even. That's about how much time I waste on just one
trip to the local university, so I guess membership is justified.
http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/Cost/dues.html
http://www.ict.csiro.au/aps/
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=8

What go my attention and inspired my questions was the alleged free
availability of antenna design articles from various secret university
archives. I've found a few, but nothing compared to the online IEEE
A&P collection.

For example, if you're a member of Antennas and Propagation,
you can access online any paper in any issue of the Transactions on
Antennas & Propagation. The incremental cost for joining a society is
modest -- A & P is $36.00 per year once you're an IEEE member. (I think
you can get Trans. on A & P or others without joining, but at a much
higher price.)

I haven't checked the current numbers but last time I checked, the
annual subscription price was exactly the same as joining the IEEE.
I'm sure that was planned.

I just renewed my membership and joined the Microwave
Theory & Techniques Society for only an additional $14.00. Now I'll have
online access to all the past Transactions for that group.

Hmmm.... I hadn't heard of that group. So many groups, no little
time.

Incidentally, anyone can purchase and download any individual IEEE paper
online for around $20. A lot of other organizations like the IEE (U.K.),
physics societies, etc. have a similar offer. I've gone this route a
number of times when it was worth it to me to avoid the hassle of going
downtown to the university library or waiting for an interlibrary transfer.

I'd forgotten about the wait, which requires two trips to the library.
I ordered several articles from the local library. Apparently, it's a
common thing, costs nothing, and is fairly simple. All the articles
and abstracts are easily searchable on the IEEE web pile, so obtaining
the necessary identification was trivial. What I didn't expect was
that to save the library some money, they only ordered such transfers
on Tuesdays and only delivered perhaps a week later. There was no
charge for hard copy, but an extra charge for having it delivered on a
CDROM, which methinks seems backwards. This was about 2 years ago,
and I haven't done it since.

If you're used to looking at A & P transactions from the '40s through
the '60s, you'll probably be disappointed with current issues. Research
has always concentrated on where the money is, and now it's coming from
much different industries than it was a few decades ago. Samplings from
the current issue: "Synthesized-Reference-Wave Holography for
Determining Antenna Radiation Characteristics" and "Parallel In-Core and
Out-of-Core Solution of Electrically Large Problems Using the RWG Basis
Functions". No Brown, Lewis, and Epstein papers, those! But there was an
interesting paper on putting RFID tags on explosive ordnance as a
possible way to locate it when unexploded and buried, and a short paper
on coax loss.

Sigh. Such esoteric and obscure research pays the bills and feeds the
academics, but also adds considerable clutter. My areas of interest
is probably considered equally narrow and arcane. With a suitable
search engine and filter, I can live with it.

Actually, the current issue doesn't look that horrible:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2008&isnumber=4685873&Submit3 2=Go+To+Issue
For example "Internal Coupled-Fed Shorted Monopole Antenna for
GSM850/900/1800/1900/UMTS Operation in the Laptop Computer" appears to
genuinely useful.

Incidentally, there are "delayed" RFID tags of sorts, that use long
term chemical action on the chip or PCB, to activate its operation
after a pre-determined interval. Basically, the chip arrives shorted,
and the short disappears over time. The logic is that RFID can be
used to locate unexploded mines and ordinance after the battle or war
is finished, but not during the action.

Thanks much...

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

information suppression by universities
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:59:01 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:01:35 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Do I spend the money, or do I seach for your secret horde of free
university publications on antenna design?

Surely you must realize that this is not about money (a convenient
foil in this troll topic), but about skill (what the troll lacks).

If I had money and the necessary skills, I wouldn't be asking dumb
questions in this newsgroup.

The cheesy inventions that we have been breathlessly advised of have
the commensurate value of the bandwidth they return in a simple Google
search. It takes very little effort to recognize the moldy
fluorescence surrounding those meager offerings.

Wrong. Techno-hype became somewhat of a hobby of mine. During the
dot.com boom of the late 1990's, I was deriving considerable income
from doing technical sanity checks on business plans and projects.
During this time, I accumulated a fair collection of patents and ideas
that are pure bogus, yet were successfully promoted at least to the
point of being funded by technically clueless investors. Many are
still around today. Considering extent of the problem, and the fair
number of bogus patents, I would suggest that it is NOT easy to
recognize technical quackery.

If you want the exact article specified, yes you can shell out money.
If you want the research behind it, and probably more data than you
would care to wade through, you simply investigate the investigator.

I've been shelling out the money. I just want to shell out less
money. Your suggestion that there was some secret horde of free
research articles on antenna research at universities caught my
attention. I guess not.

Myself, if I don't want to spend any more than the cost of bus fare, I
go to the engineering library, check it out, bring it home, scan it,
and its done. As I am on campus twice a week anyway (and the cost of
bus fare is already covered for my other activities), it is hardly an
imposition and the university certainly isn't suppressing me as they
give alumni library privileges.

I haven't been on a bus in perhaps 25 years. The local multiversity
(UCSC) is on top of a mountain. I like to bicycle but at my age, the
hill is a challenge. Parking is impossible, expensive, or both. I'm
not an alumni, but am tempted to take exactly one class just to become
one. I've been "borrowing" accounts, but that has it's limitations.

Even public libraries have online access to special topic databases
(subscriptions) - unless you live in Bumf**k, Illinois.

Thanks, but I've tried that. See my other rant in this thread.

Now, if you happen to be a troll who visits a campus infrequently only
to spit on their library shelves, I can well imagine the ego-bruised
outrage that is visited upon us here after they give you the bum's
rush.

Punch my name into the Google Groups search page and read some of my
past postings. Then decide for yourself if I'm a troll or not. This
might help:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tWGMphwAAAAGTj9X4k0U7wKkGyU 8QhaBhaxMG2M1PWkMtCZAt5tdxQ

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

information suppression by universities
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:14:18 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Surely you must realize that this is not about money (a convenient
foil in this troll topic), but about skill (what the troll lacks).
....
Punch my name into the Google Groups search page and read some of my
past postings. Then decide for yourself if I'm a troll or not.

You didn't originate this decrepit topic did you? Connect the dots.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

information suppression by universities
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:59:01 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:01:35 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Do I spend the money, or do I seach for your secret horde of free
university publications on antenna design?

Surely you must realize that this is not about money (a convenient
foil in this troll topic), but about skill (what the troll lacks).

If I had money and the necessary skills, I wouldn't be asking dumb
questions in this newsgroup.

The cheesy inventions that we have been breathlessly advised of have
the commensurate value of the bandwidth they return in a simple Google
search. It takes very little effort to recognize the moldy
fluorescence surrounding those meager offerings.

Wrong. Techno-hype became somewhat of a hobby of mine. During the
dot.com boom of the late 1990's, I was deriving considerable income
from doing technical sanity checks on business plans and projects.
During this time, I accumulated a fair collection of patents and ideas
that are pure bogus, yet were successfully promoted at least to the
point of being funded by technically clueless investors. Many are
still around today. Considering extent of the problem, and the fair
number of bogus patents, I would suggest that it is NOT easy to
recognize technical quackery.

Sure it IS easy. Unfortunately, there are plenty enough people who have
Mad Skillz in the suspension of disbelief.

Looking at technical guano and judging it as such is not difficult.
There are ways that dilettantes or the intelligent uninformed can detect
the aroma of hi-tech manure.

In a field where I am mostly ignorant - finance -I called shenanigans
when I first heard of heard of the new breed of ATM's. I yelled fraud
when I heard of the sub prime loans, and shook my head in disbelief as
80 year old people took out 50 year mortgages that folded interest and
principle back into the loan. And yet while I knew the present economic
crisis was coming back around 2003, it seems a whole lot of people
couldn't see that. And I was told by enough of them that my "old school"
view of economics was surely evidence of my stupidity.

In science, economics and technology, the evidence is all there, the
fundamentals are still quite serviceable, and analysis is not
difficult. The problem is that people start out with a basic premise
such as "Owning a house is the American Dream", or "The old guard is
saying that all is already known about antennas", and then trying to fit
everything into *that* philosophical Iron Maiden.

So I can take a look at say Art's antenna, and draw the conclusion that
it is very likely an inductor on the end of a pole, and it will tend to
perform like an EH antenna, with the coax serving as the major radiator.
Contacts can certainly be made. I don't even condemn it out of hand, I
don't think it is anything new, and after looking at it, it just seemed
to be a lot more effort to build than I wanted to trouble myself with.

Yet I'm an uneducated dilettante dummy - most people out there are a lot
smarter than me, so how come they can't figure this out when I can?


`- 73 de Mike N3LI -

information suppression by universities
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:29:20 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Yet I'm an uneducated dilettante dummy - most people out there are a lot
smarter than me, so how come they can't figure this out when I can?

Hi Mike,

As a girlfriend of mine once offered:
"They've had the common sense educated out of them."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

information suppression by universities
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:48:50 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Excellent post.

Thanks. I'll add one more notch on my LCD frame.

The problem with QEX is not enough submissions.

Well, they rejected one of mine many years ago. The problem was they
never really said why. When I pressed the editor, he replied that he
had enough submissions of sufficient quality. I tried again later and
had it rejected because I wasn't an ARRL member at the time (because I
was broke). I don't know what was going on, but I wasn't thrilled and
never bothered again.

As for the
QST AM mods, I was thinking that was ATV, but maybe you were talking about
something else.

Something else was converting commercial land mobile FM radios from
WBFM or later NBFM to AM (A3A) modulation. Mostly, it was adding a
low level modulation circuit, and converting the power stages from
Class C to Class A or AB. To me, it was a little like publishing an
article today on converting a Prius Hybrid automobile to only run on
gasoline.

The same applies to QST. If there aren't enough
submissions, the only recourse is to hire writers to do columns or fill the
empiness with drivel and ads like 73.

Probably true. I submitted an article in about 2002 on using the
audio time delay through a repeater to do hyperbolic (Loran A style)
vehicle location. I forgot why it was rejected because I ended up in
the hospital and my memory from that period is rather muddled. When I
inquired about the submission a year later, they said that they
couldn't find it or that it was lost. Then, I mentioned that I still
wasn't an ARRL member and all communications ceased.

The best things to come out of 73 was
the Star Trek communicator clone and Byte magazine. I hate how Ham Radio
magazine died out.

73 published Joe Moell's column on amateur radio direction finding. To
me, it was worth the price of a subscription. Before I tossed my
archives, I ripped out and saved most of these issues. Wanna build a
rotating antenna direction finder? The only references in ham radio
land you'll find are in these 73 magazine issues. Same with various
microwave columns. I could have done without Wayne Green's endless
editorials.

I was President of the local ham club for a while, and
wound up doing the newletter too. For the three or four years of that, I
only got 3 submissions from the membership. All the rest I had to either
pull out of my A** every month or go around like a reporter and interrogate
people.

Our current newsletter editor complains about the same thing.
http://www.k6bj.org
Still, he manages to produce a superior ham radio newsletter. I used
to submit irregular technical articles and obnoxious opinionated radio
politix articles. However, one article that I spend considerable time
writing was butchered beyond recognition. When I asked for an
explanation, I got nothing. So, no more articles from me.

On the other hand - What neat inventions can we come up with to share with
the World, so it can be exploited and give reason to take more of our
spectrum?

It probably shouldn't be an invention. More likely, an unusual or
interesting application of some existing technology. Your ATV camera
for disaster services is a good example. Direction finding is still a
common problem (i.e. stuck public safety transmitters). Perhaps
demonstrating how some of the dumb|great ideas originating out FCC can
be made to work (i.e. white space, ultra narrow band FM, on the fly
TDMA, etc). I could think of lots of useful things to build, design,
buy, or analyze.

Interesting to note how public safety volunteers showed Los
Angeles Sheriff how neat ATV was and they turned around and petitioned the
FCC for those frequencies.

We had some floods a few years ago. The levee broke along the Pajaro
river. One of our members has a helicopter and volunteered to fly an
ATV camera over the area for the sheriff. On screen was GPS position
in APRS format. Everything worked and everyone was suitably
impressed. Then, nothing. No clue exactly why, but my guess is that
homebrew is not funded by Homeland Security.

Oh well, we will probably all be shot in head by the next regime because we
are an irritation.

Nope. We will all be promoted to a position of responsibility, where
we will be setup to fail, thus demonstrating that technologists are no
better at running the country than politicians, crooks, bureaucrats,
and thugs.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

information suppression by universities
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:45:05 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:14:18 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Surely you must realize that this is not about money (a convenient
foil in this troll topic), but about skill (what the troll lacks).
...
Punch my name into the Google Groups search page and read some of my
past postings. Then decide for yourself if I'm a troll or not.

You didn't originate this decrepit topic did you? Connect the dots.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Nope. Art started it. You might want to enable threading on your
newsreader so it's easier to assign the blame.

While not guilty of the original sin, I am guilty of the lesser crime
of engaging in topic drift. I attempted to answer Art's accusations
against the ARRL and the universities. You then mentioned free
antenna articles hidden in secret university archives, and I expanded
on this distraction. It was of interest to me because it might
eliminate the necessity of shelling out $200 to the IEEE for
convenient access.

You also suggested that I might be a usenet troll. I've been accussed
of many things, but not of trolling. If I wanted to play troll, it
would be obvious and fairly evident.

So, back to my original diversion and topic drift:
1. Where this horde of university antenna design articles?
2. Do you think I should keep looking for this horde, or should I
give up now and shell out the $200.
3. After reading some of my 19,000 assorted postings, do you still
think I'm a troll?

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

information suppression by universities
 

Richard Clark wrote:

As a girlfriend of mine once offered:
"They've had the common sense educated out of them."


That's a quintessentially American point of view. I highly recommend
_Anti-Intellectualism in American Life_ by Richard Hostadter. It helps
explain why ignorance is such an asset to American politicians (and
schoolchildren, for that matter), while intellectual accomplishments and
ability generally have to be hidden. It won a Pulitzer prize, which of
course proves that the author can't possibly have any common sense.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

information suppression by universities
 

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
treetonline...
Richard Clark wrote:

As a girlfriend of mine once offered:
"They've had the common sense educated out of them."


That's a quintessentially American point of view. I highly recommend
_Anti-Intellectualism in American Life_ by Richard Hostadter. It helps
explain why ignorance is such an asset to American politicians (and
schoolchildren, for that matter), while intellectual accomplishments and
ability generally have to be hidden. It won a Pulitzer prize, which of
course proves that the author can't possibly have any common sense.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Yes, KGB likes intellectuals because they are so easily manipulated by their
own self-importance.

information suppression by universities
 

JB wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
treetonline...
Richard Clark wrote:
As a girlfriend of mine once offered:
"They've had the common sense educated out of them."

That's a quintessentially American point of view. I highly recommend
_Anti-Intellectualism in American Life_ by Richard Hostadter. It helps
explain why ignorance is such an asset to American politicians (and
schoolchildren, for that matter), while intellectual accomplishments and
ability generally have to be hidden. It won a Pulitzer prize, which of
course proves that the author can't possibly have any common sense.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Yes, KGB likes intellectuals because they are so easily manipulated by their
own self-importance.

Damn, there goes my cover!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

information suppression by universities
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

As a girlfriend of mine once offered:
"They've had the common sense educated out of them."


That's a quintessentially American point of view. I highly recommend
_Anti-Intellectualism in American Life_ by Richard Hostadter. It helps
explain why ignorance is such an asset to American politicians (and
schoolchildren, for that matter), while intellectual accomplishments and
ability generally have to be hidden. It won a Pulitzer prize, which of
course proves that the author can't possibly have any common sense.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

When I returned to college, they started talking "remedial" classes, to
"bring me up to speed." I laughed, they insisted, I took their tests,
they relented ... the "dumbing down" is REAL! I have seen it, first
hand ... :-(

I am glad I went when you got a REAL education ...

Regards,
JS

information suppression by universities
 

JB wrote:

...
Yes, KGB likes intellectuals because they are so easily manipulated by their
own self-importance.


WOW!

I like idiots, but for the same reason ... seems to me, someone is
mistaken ...

Regards,
JS

information suppression by universities
 

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

snip .

We had some floods a few years ago. The levee broke along the Pajaro
river. One of our members has a helicopter and volunteered to fly an
ATV camera over the area for the sheriff. On screen was GPS position
in APRS format. Everything worked and everyone was suitably
impressed. Then, nothing. No clue exactly why, but my guess is that
homebrew is not funded by Homeland Security.

Homeland Security is among the worst things that ever happened to this
country. Just their role in interfering with airline travel (TSA) should be
enough to put them out of business -- but no.

Feel free to dismiss me as being hopelessly shallow, but ... On my way home
from work one day, I shared the train with a young babe in a form-fitting
uniform. When I got around to identifying the patches on the uniform, I
realized she worked for the TSA. I immediately stopped looking at her. No
longer ogle-worthy.

information suppression by universities
 

Sal M. Onella wrote:

...
Homeland Security is among the worst things that ever happened to this
country. Just their role in interfering with airline travel (TSA) should be
enough to put them out of business -- but no.

Feel free to dismiss me as being hopelessly shallow, but ... On my way home
from work one day, I shared the train with a young babe in a form-fitting
uniform. When I got around to identifying the patches on the uniform, I
realized she worked for the TSA. I immediately stopped looking at her. No
longer ogle-worthy.



You just raised yourself on my "smarts scale" about 100 points. This
gov't has told us, "Be afraid, be very, very afraid." But then, it has
left the borders open so any idiot with a stick of dynamite, a sack of
drugs, or a suitcase nuke can enter with little problem ...

Now something is wrong. I am beginning to believe I live in a country
of idiots and you and I are the only ones suspecting something is wrong
.... :-(

Or, what smells like Bleucheese?

Regards,
JS

information suppression by universities
 

Yes, KGB likes intellectuals because they are so easily manipulated by
their
own self-importance.


WOW!

I like idiots, but for the same reason ... seems to me, someone is
mistaken ...

No, KGB don't HAVE to manipulate idiots. They manipulate the intellectuals,
who in turn lead the idiots until they all wind up in a ditch. They only
serve purpose to destabilize and demoralize. There is no place for them in
normalization phase because they find they have been duped and become bitter
enemies. It is better they be liquidated first in the normalization phase.

information suppression by universities
 

JB wrote:

WOW!

I like idiots, but for the same reason ... seems to me, someone is
mistaken ...

No, KGB don't HAVE to manipulate idiots. They manipulate the intellectuals,
who in turn lead the idiots until they all wind up in a ditch. They only
serve purpose to destabilize and demoralize. There is no place for them in
normalization phase because they find they have been duped and become bitter
enemies. It is better they be liquidated first in the normalization phase.


Yeah, I guess ... whatever he said ...

Regards,
JS

information suppression by universities
 

On Nov 25, 11:26*am, Jim Lux wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Many of us have checked the net for the latest advances in antennas.
Advances are usually arrived at public university research units some
of which are partially funded by outside sources *Most, if not all,
the results are presented to the IEEE as a way of getting recognision.
But this information such as advancement in science is not provided to
the public even tho they came from a public institution. Thus you
cannot access it on the net as a member of the public as access is
with held UNLESS
you hand over some money to the IEEE. Why are the universites not
sharing their work with the public?
Is it because academics feel they are part of a special club divorced
from the public? Ofcourse I may be wrong
in taking that view in light of the fact that these study results are
available in libraries but why are they not put on the web for the
good of science and the general public at large?
Art

This is a complex issue and one of considerable debate within those
universities AND the publishers of the journals.

1) The journals have operating costs (someone has to edit them and do
the typesetting and production).. these must be paid by subscription
fees and page charges from the author. *Giving it away for free means
that other means must be developed for funding.

2) Not all the funding for research comes with a "must release to
public" clause. *For instance, you might get a grant to defray part of
the cost of some research, and fund the remaining part out of your own
assets. *The granting agency gets the data they want (at a lower cost
than paying for all of it), but you retain the rights.

3) Putting stuff on the web isn't free.

However, a LOT of newer research IS being published for free on the web.
PLOS (Public Library of Science), PubMed, arxiv, etc. are all examples.

Remember, too, that this is academia, and they tend to be conservative
and change slowly. *To a certain extent, it IS an exclusive club,
because publication leads to promotion, and the publication process is
full of gates and wickets. *The term "publish or perish" did not arise
out of thin air.

Jim
IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the
presence of the IEEE?
This statement was in regard to the high costs of obtaining copies
from the IEEE without
having to pay the high costs of belonging . I understand the need for
peer review by academics but not necessarily a private entity
and the IEEE rights to publish such so, are the IEEE demanding SOLE
ownership of presented papers?
I am assuming that all papers presented by the Universities as well as
thesis papers belong to the parent university
based on a recent antenna patent awarded to a University derived from
a student dissertation. This leaves
an outstanding question !. If the university a public entity,
reserves the rights of all papers arrived at the university
then what rights do they hold that allows transference from the public
domain of those rights to a private institution to the detriment of
the public
that finance them?
Regards
Art Unwin

information suppression by universities
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

WOW!

I like idiots, but for the same reason ... seems to me, someone is
mistaken ...

No, KGB don't HAVE to manipulate idiots. They manipulate the
intellectuals,
who in turn lead the idiots until they all wind up in a ditch. They
only
serve purpose to destabilize and demoralize. There is no place for them
in
normalization phase because they find they have been duped and become
bitter
enemies. It is better they be liquidated first in the normalization
phase.


Yeah, I guess ... whatever he said ...

Regards,
JS

Here is full explanation from 1985 interview of KGB defector. If accent is
difficult, subtitles are in French.

Although plans may have changed since then, it appears that once plan is put
into motion, it is self-perpetuating since brainwashed idiots become too
deeply ingrained in thinking and entrenched in their positions, continually
indoctrinating others..

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

information suppression by universities
 

JB wrote:

...
Here is full explanation from 1985 interview of KGB defector. If accent is
difficult, subtitles are in French.

Although plans may have changed since then, it appears that once plan is put
into motion, it is self-perpetuating since brainwashed idiots become too
deeply ingrained in thinking and entrenched in their positions, continually
indoctrinating others..

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

Your first problem, which seems to negate your entire statement(s), is
the obvious error in your definition of "intellectual." Anyone make
those error in reasoning/thinking is far from an "intellectual",
although very young ones might make those errors.

An exact example of what the error(s) you are making was given with John
Mccain--the IDIOT "intellectuals" called him a war hero!

Now, someone who was ONLY able to become a pilot because his father was
an admiral and exerted his influence, smashed up five planes
(http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh...ost_five_u.htm)
and was captured by the enemy and held for five years is NOT a true "war
hero" in the true meaning to the term ...

.... idiots abound, you can know them by the errors in the reasoning,
text and thinking ... idiots can't ... :-(

Regards,
JS

information suppression by universities
 

JB wrote:

...
Here is full explanation from 1985 interview of KGB defector. If accent is
difficult, subtitles are in French.

Although plans may have changed since then, it appears that once plan is put
into motion, it is self-perpetuating since brainwashed idiots become too
deeply ingrained in thinking and entrenched in their positions, continually
indoctrinating others..

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

Your first problem, which seems to negate your entire statement(s), is
the obvious error in your definition of "intellectual." Anyone making
those errors in reasoning/thinking is far from an "intellectual",
although very young ones might make those errors.

An exact example of what the error(s) you are making was given with John
Mccain--the IDIOT "intellectuals" called him a war hero!

Now, someone who was ONLY able to become a pilot because his father was
an admiral and exerted his influence, smashed up five planes
(http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh...ost_five_u.htm)

and was captured by the enemy and held for five years is NOT a true "war
hero" in the true meaning to the term ...

.... idiots abound, you can know them by the errors in the reasoning,
text and speech ... idiots can't ... :-(

Regards,
JS

information suppression by universities
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
Here is full explanation from 1985 interview of KGB defector. If accent
is
difficult, subtitles are in French.

Although plans may have changed since then, it appears that once plan is
put
into motion, it is self-perpetuating since brainwashed idiots become too
deeply ingrained in thinking and entrenched in their positions,
continually
indoctrinating others..

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

Your first problem, which seems to negate your entire statement(s), is
the obvious error in your definition of "intellectual." Anyone making
those errors in reasoning/thinking is far from an "intellectual",
although very young ones might make those errors.

An exact example of what the error(s) you are making was given with John
Mccain--the IDIOT "intellectuals" called him a war hero!

Now, someone who was ONLY able to become a pilot because his father was
an admiral and exerted his influence, smashed up five planes

(http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh...ost_five_u.htm)

and was captured by the enemy and held for five years is NOT a true "war
hero" in the true meaning to the term ...

... idiots abound, you can know them by the errors in the reasoning,
text and speech ... idiots can't ... :-(

Regards,
JS

You must be an intellectual. Help me to reason this then.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/...aspx?id=336456

information suppression by universities
 

Now, someone who was ONLY able to become a pilot because his father was
an admiral and exerted his influence, smashed up five planes

(http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh...ost_five_u.htm)
and was captured by the enemy and held for five years is NOT a true "war
hero" in the true meaning to the term ...

... idiots abound, you can know them by the errors in the reasoning,
text and thinking ... idiots can't ... :-(

The Forrestal disaster was attributed to druggies. The enemy was no doubt
there on board. Many people have yet to figure out about the mechanics of
such disasters. I submit that there will be 2 sides to every story to come
out of the Vietnam war, and that sufficient truth is often left out to allow
that.

I wrecked a few cars before I learned how to drive. Have you ever been
tortured for information? or just for the hell of it? People who sit around
and talk about it over tea aren't fit to judge who a hero is but they are
often left to talk about it. Let's just call him "experienced". I really
don't consider Obama to be the "Black Messiah" either.

I feel that both candidates were potential disasters, showing the idiots had
prevailed before the election. The vote only served as an international
"poll" on how best to proceed to our doom. It seems the election has tried
to set the clock back to what it was before 9/11. Let's see what develops
this time around.

information suppression by universities
 

JB wrote:

...
You must be an intellectual. Help me to reason this then.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/...aspx?id=336456


I am intellectual enough to recognize something I have never taken an
interest in. I am intellectual enough to recognize something I have
never read on, engaged in discussion upon, and things which invoke and
evoke emotions to cloud the participants into a "religious fervor",
willing to guard and defend their own political beliefs.

And, finally, I am intellectual to recognize something which I have no
intellectual interest in ...

Now, all that said, it would surprise me if one had ALL the facts, data
and knowledge of the evil done, that the KGB should appear any more evil
than the CIA or other related and/or secret arms of their and/or our
governments ... my blind belief that men in power would honor their
duties and responsibilities to the American people has been destroyed.

The time when our nation stood on infallible principals, morals, ethics,
honors and commitments has slowly disappeared until such territories are
loath to intellectuals--other than to demand a return to sanity, truth
in government and the publics right to know, and a fair and just system.

Idiots will see little problem jumping into this quagmire.

P.S. Any of the following, and all, definitions of quagmire will do:

1. an area of miry or boggy ground whose surface yields under the tread;
a bog.
2. a situation from which extrication is very difficult: a quagmire of
financial indebtedness.
3. anything soft or flabby.

Or, intellectuals can tell when an argument or discussion is worth
having; for the rest, there is always Rush Limbaugh.

Regards,
JS

information suppression by universities
 

... my blind belief that men in power would honor their
duties and responsibilities to the American people has been destroyed.

The time when our nation stood on infallible principals, morals, ethics,
honors and commitments has slowly disappeared until such territories are
loath to intellectuals--other than to demand a return to sanity, truth
in government and the publics right to know, and a fair and just system.


This is actually where I have stood since the first grade. Except that the
public seems to have abdicated it's right to know by entrusting that to
advertisers and spokesman.

1. Vote no when there is too much verbiage in legislation
2. Vote such that politicians will tend wear themselves out (on each other)
before doing harm which often results from an unchallenged decision. This
also gives the public more of a swing vote in their decisions.

The only infallible is God. Our country takes a tumble every time we lose
our moral compass. Aside from that, NO country or system has ever been
infallible. We could be disappointed under any system that we entrust all
power to men (or women). Be very afraid when they are all in complete
agreement, because they won't need us for anything anymore.

information suppression by universities
 

JB wrote:

...
The Forrestal disaster was attributed to druggies. The enemy was no doubt
there on board. Many people have yet to figure out about the mechanics of
such disasters. I submit that there will be 2 sides to every story to come
out of the Vietnam war, and that sufficient truth is often left out to allow
that.

I wrecked a few cars before I learned how to drive. Have you ever been
tortured for information? or just for the hell of it? People who sit around
and talk about it over tea aren't fit to judge who a hero is but they are
often left to talk about it. Let's just call him "experienced". I really
don't consider Obama to be the "Black Messiah" either.

I feel that both candidates were potential disasters, showing the idiots had
prevailed before the election. The vote only served as an international
"poll" on how best to proceed to our doom. It seems the election has tried
to set the clock back to what it was before 9/11. Let's see what develops
this time around.

Along the way, though college, it is pointed out to you that any great
story (or, at least a believable one) has a protagonist and an
antagonist (sometimes more of them, sometimes less of them); i.e. a
"good guy" and a "bad guy." It is based on a storyline where great
adversity is found, great sacrifice and energy extended and exerted, and
finally the defeat of the enemy is had ... funny, but we will fall for
this same line though uncounted books by uncounted authors. Read any
great Greek tragedies/novels/plays, Shakespeare knew this and you find
it in his offerings. (Or, turn on Rush, "... bad democrats, good
republicans ...", this is simply recited over-and-over again to keep
idiots in line and massage the weak minds into the hypnotic/religious
lies which got us here ... some still have futures which hinge on
keeping the insanity alive. Indeed, real change will bring collapse ...)

Such is also how our political system is arranged, good guy vs. bad guy
(and, you just pick who is good and who is bad, or toss a coin. Or have
you allegiances bought and paid for ...) And, so is our foreign policy
applied, we are the good guy, they are the bad guy and these are our
friends who help us in our great adventure ... fear gets the whole ball
rolling, even unjustified fear(s) will work ...

Someday, all will see the truth, become ashamed of living such a shallow
"truth(s)", and be shamed into higher standards and goals ... until that
time, a few can control the minds of many ... and ultimately the world.

Regards,
JS