In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Hello, Len

Guess I get my dander up too at times. Certainly it is wrong to paint
"all"
Republicans or "all" Democrates or "all" of any one group with a wide
brush.
Not good at all. Besides, I've gotten led off-topic - not good at all.

I have figured it out, Len. The problem is we are dropping the Morse
requirements. Dang, now my washing machine is going to over-suds again

However, BPL should help the situation. If BPL is going to reduce power
line noise (according to power companies), it should reduce my washer
over-sudsing since it runs from the mains. LOL.

It's not that BPL will reduce power line noise but rather that the companies
must reduce the noise to get BPL to work!!

Dee, it's best you go into the FCC ECFS and look at the text of
NTIA's Phase 2 report. [you can also get it at the NTIA website]
Then look at the Iowa amateur club comment of 21 June 2004
where the test measurements indicated BOTH power line noise
and OFDM BPL signals.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Do I have some sort of "evidence"...?!?! No. But he's already set the
pace and I see no likelyhood he'd get into office then suddenly get a spine.

So it's emotional, not based on objective facts with supporting evidence.

Part emotional, yes, but based on past experience with the Demoncratic
Party.

So it's really not about John Kerry as it is about Democrats vs.
Republicans.

That's not necessarily "wrong" or "right". In the end, what an
election comes down to is "who do you trust more?" Because regardless
of somebody's record, once they're in office it's a matter of trust
because you can't watch every issue and action. And you can't stop
them in time anyway.

That's why folks are/were so ticked off at Clinton and Nixon. They
betrayed the trust.

Do you see the problem?

I do.

I also know Kerry has made public remarks that supported Fonda.

Where? When? What exactly were the remarks?

Someone was a bit creative with a camera...OK...

No, they weren't.

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Kerry's words were his own.

Which words?

Remember that when Fonda got back from Hanoi, nobody here really knew
the whole story. It was only when the POWs got back, years later, and
told of what she'd done and the consequences that the whole mess
became public.

Going to Hanoi wasn't the problem, it's what she did there.

He diluted the chain of command.

How, exactly?

By trying to have everyone be IN the pot, that's how.

There can only be so many people "in charge" at one time.

Just like what LBJ did.

Part of the errors that occured in the
Iranian desert were directly the result of White House meddling in what
should have been an military operation.

Agreed.

But there were also errors that were the result of simple human error.

Yes, there were. Letting Jimmy Carter be in charge was one of them.

There were others that had nothing to do with him.

Oh wll...That's democracy.

We live in a republic.

He further diluted the Nation's overt and cover security services with
"warm-fuzzy" Executive Orders that have, to this day, continued to leave
America blind and hog tied.

Carter left office almost a quarter century ago. How could his old orders
continue to cause such problems - particularly since 16 of the intervening
years were those of the Reagan and Bush administrations?

How could one president, in office for only four years, cause so much
trouble?

Indeed. Ask any Southerner the same question.

It wasn't Lincoln who fired on Fort Sumter.

You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.

Nope.

Carter was the inheritor of what his predecessors hadn't dealt with:

LBJ started the mess by getting the USA committed to the "space race",
Vietnam and his "Great Society" social programs all at once - without
raising taxes enough to pay for them.

Nixon continued the game, and tried to tame the problem with wage and
price controls. Worked for a while - until the wage and price controls
came off.

Ford - remember "WIN" buttons and catchy slogans like "Whip Inflation
Now" and "Let's all be a little less piggy"? Didn't work, because the
root causes weren't being addressed.

On top of this, OPEC caused the price of oil to jump twice - 1973 and
1979. The first time, gasoline went from around a quarter to around a
half-dollar, and the second time it went over a dollar. (At least in
the Northeast). Diesel and fuel oil had similar jumps. Worse, the
supply was limited.

Meanwhile, American products suddenly found themselves competing with
foreign imports in a number of areas - cars, electronics, clothing,
even steel.

All of that pushed inflation and interest rates through the roof.
Which made the deficit situation that much worse.

None of that was Carter's fault.

How would YOU have dealt with it?

Our Armed Forces were, if it's at all possible, in far worse condition
when he left office than when he entered.

We were humiliated in the Middle East, a reputation were have yet to
overcome.

You mean Iran? Think about why that happened. We supported a tyrant
because he was friendly to us and not the Soviets. Same story as in
the Phillipines and elsewhere. The Iranians finally got so ticked off
they toppled him.

We were saddled with double digit inflation.

See above for why that happened.

Our intelligence services were cut off at the knees by Executive
Order...You asked how he could create so much havoc in four years...?!?! He
did this one in only a few days!

Jim, did you study any of the after-action reports out of Mogandishu?

No. But you are avoiding the questions, Steve.

How did Clinton "let them"?

I am not avoiding the question, Jim.

I secifically stated that Clinton tried to manipulate field operations
from Washington.

OK.

Should the US have stayed out of that conflict? Or gotten more involved?

What threat were they to US security?

None.

Agreed.

As much compassion as I have for hungry, sick people, I have very LITTLE
compassion for people who are hungry BUT can afford AK47's, RPGs, etc etc etc.

Such actions are what the UN is for.

Will answer the rest later.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (Gonad
the Librarian) writes:

snippage


You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.


Sounds like gunnery nursie didn't get promotion that time...

Sorry to break in on a comment that I didn't see the first time here, Len.

If a person believes that President Carter's economic and political
policies almost bankrupted the country, I would suggest looking up the
historical date of August 15, 1971. See what happened on that date, and
the consequences of that action.


I'll see if anyone knows this one before giving it away.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:



Do I have some sort of "evidence"...?!?! No. But he's already set the
pace and I see no likelyhood he'd get into office then suddenly get a spine.


So it's emotional, not based on objective facts with supporting evidence.

Part emotional, yes, but based on past experience with the Demoncratic
Party.


So it's really not about John Kerry as it is about Democrats vs.
Republicans.


That's not necessarily "wrong" or "right". In the end, what an
election comes down to is "who do you trust more?" Because regardless
of somebody's record, once they're in office it's a matter of trust
because you can't watch every issue and action. And you can't stop
them in time anyway.

That's why folks are/were so ticked off at Clinton and Nixon. They
betrayed the trust.

Do you see the problem?

I do.

I also know Kerry has made public remarks that supported Fonda.


Where? When? What exactly were the remarks?


Someone was a bit creative with a camera...OK...


No, they weren't.

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.


The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.


I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.


Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place. It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard
about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every
story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.

Nor I. You can see both photos and the surrounding story on the snopes.com
website. The real photo is from the VVAW rally, the faked one shows Kerry and
Fonda at a podium.

The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.

Yep.

I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.

Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place.

It's not OK. And as bad as Clinton's lie was, it wasn't as bad as Nixon's "I am
not a crook" lie and surrounding coverup.

Note that there are *two* Kerry/Fonda photographs. One is real, the other
faked. The real one seems to prove a point until you find out it was taken 2
years before Fonda went to Hanoi - then it proves a very different point.

It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis

Something got cut off there, Mike.

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard

about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every

story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.

Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

Your advice is right on, Mike. But remember that it's a natural human trait to
want easy, quick answers to complex problems, And it's even more attractive if
someone else or some other group can be blamed for a problem.

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for
truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/22/2004 7:57 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Point is, they could have overthrown SH any time they wanted to.

Oh? Under threat of being shot by anyone next to you?

Most of those forced into conscription knew that the man next to them
may
be an Agent of the govenment.

Would YOU make so bold an act not knowing if the person right next to
you
might shoot you when you did?


Even worse was that SH would rape, torture and then kill the family of the
suspected person in front of him before then killing him. How many would
risk that?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.


Nor I. You can see both photos and the surrounding story on the snopes.com
website. The real photo is from the VVAW rally, the faked one shows Kerry and
Fonda at a podium.


The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.


Yep.

I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.

Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place.


It's not OK. And as bad as Clinton's lie was, it wasn't as bad as Nixon's "I am
not a crook" lie and surrounding coverup.

Note that there are *two* Kerry/Fonda photographs. One is real, the other
faked. The real one seems to prove a point until you find out it was taken 2
years before Fonda went to Hanoi - then it proves a very different point.


It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis


Something got cut off there, Mike.

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard


about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every


story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.


Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

No they are not. But I see that as the difference these days. Everyone
makes mistakes, every group can have a problem and a plan that simply
won't work. I would never blame all the problems on Conservatives or
Republicans. I share too many of their values. (mostly fiscal and
smaller government) But it isn't the other side blaming everything on
them. They (mostly NeoCons) are blaming *everything* on *everyone* else.


Your advice is right on, Mike. But remember that it's a natural human trait to
want easy, quick answers to complex problems, And it's even more attractive if
someone else or some other group can be blamed for a problem.

Simple answers for simple minds. Sounds great until you try to apply it
to the problem at hand.



And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!


Yup!

- mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Gonad
the Librarian) writes:


snippage


You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.



Sounds like gunnery nursie didn't get promotion that time...


Sorry to break in on a comment that I didn't see the first time
here, Len.

If a person believes that President Carter's economic and political
policies almost bankrupted the country, I would suggest looking up the
historical date of August 15, 1971. See what happened on that date, and
the consequences of that action.


I'll see if anyone knows this one before giving it away.



Nobody have it yet? Jim, you're usually good at this sort of thing.


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it
as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to
tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas. Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

If BPL makes inroads as a legacy system, it will be very difficult
to remove, let alone stop.

BPL system companies will make money, the whole purpose of
that kind of thing. The rest of the HF communications world can
go away. Simple. A no-brainer.

Michael Powell will have made his small mark on history, unable
to complete his military career or emulate his father much.

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:


The OPEC oil embargo happened just before his "tour of duty". It was of
major concern to all.

There were *two* OPEC oil actions/embargoes/pricehikes/whatever. The
first was in 1973 (three years before Carter was elected) and the
second in 1979 (IIRC). Both were *major* factors in pushing inflation
up and prosperity down. Neither was Carter's fault.

I think one of the reasons people dislike Carter and his time so much
was the general mood caused by the OPEC mess. Up until then, "the
future" had always been pitched to us Americans as being a
techno-wonderland of more, more, more. Faster, more powerful cars.
Supersonic airliners would replace jets the way jets had replaced
piston-engine prop planes. Our houses would be bigger, more luxurious,
and further out in the 'burbs. Yet our commutes would be fast and
relaxing in George Jetson vehicles. And we could buy it all on
inexpensive credit because interest rates would be low and our incomes
growing much faster than inflation.

The reality was just the opposite. And Carter told us we'd have to
settle for less, turn down our thermostats, wear sweaters, carpool,
take transit, etc.

Who wanted a future like that?

We've been told by Bush that we'll all be driving hydrogen cars - by when?

We were told that in Popular Science in the 60's. Again, So what?

Simple: Rather than deal with the realities of energy policies, Bush tells us
there is a cheap clean technological solution "just around the corner". Heck,
he even had the governor of California fooled. (The Guvernator inquired about
having a Hummer converted to hydrogen power. The cost was something like
$250,000 - not including a source of fuel. Not exactly practical.)

Hydrogen *may* be a fuel of the future. But it's a long long way from being
practical for today's problems or those of the near future.

"Practical" is usually based upon mass production.

That's just one of the factors.

A hydrogen car is, of necessity, more complex and therefore more
expensive than an equivalent petrol car. Storing enough hydrogen to
get a reasonable range is a big techno problem.

But the bigger problem is "where will all the hydrogen come from?"
Hydrogen does not occur naturally in large quantities. It can be
derived from many sources but they all require serious new
infrastructure that will cost years and billions to install. And the
result may not be any cheaper than oil.

Meanwhile, US oil imports continue to rise and the money keeps flowing
away from the USA.

And President Bush is not the first to suggest that some scientific
breakthrough was close at hand. Billary made an announcement that there was a
breakthrough in AIDS research that was about to revolutionalize the care
delivered to those victims.

One mistake doesn't justify another. And as terrible as AIDS is, we
are not dependent on foreign imports in order to deliver care to AIDS
patients.

Still, it sounds nice, makes for great photo ops and is a pleasant PopSci
diversion from the reality that the US imports way too much oil, and pays way
too much for it in the process. That payment isn't just in dollars per
barrel.

Agreed. But as long as we insist on not harvesting OUR reserves yet are
willing to let the Arabs suck themselves dry, what are we to do.

First off, our reserves are not that large. Nor are they easy or
inexpensive to reach. Look up how much oil we'd get if we allowed
unrestricted drilling in Alaska. It's not nearly enough for us to tell
OPEC to stuff it.

What needs to be done is simply to become more efficient and wiser in
our energy use. But that's a complex set of problems that requires
discipline and longterm investment.

This isn't news. This "crisis" has been in the wings for decades. People
a lot wiser than you or I have been promising this was coming, and they were
right.

Yet our leaders since then simply ignore it. That's one reason Reagan
was so popular - he told us it was OK to have big fast cars, consume,
and not worry about where it all came from.

I se this on the same par with the "drought" in the SW United States. To
whom is it a "surprise" that we are millions of acre-feet short of the needed
water supplies out there?

The proponents of desalianation were hushed up by politicos 20 years ago
who insisted that present infrastructure would support SW US needs well into
the 21st Century.

Well, it's the 21st century now...

The problem is technological disconnect. Too many people just don't
think about what keeps everything running, or what it really costs.
And the political leadership keeps them insulated from it.

For example, it is much more safe, clean and efficient to travel by
modern electric railways like France's TGV than by air or car. For
distances up to several hundred miles it's actually faster. But
building such systems costs time and money, plus a commitment from
govt. that just isn't there. (Amtrak's entire capital budget would
build a few new runways at a major airport).

Or another example: There *used to be* considerable tax credits for
installing energy saving equipment in your home. Replace the old HVAC
with more efficient hardware, insulate, replace the windows, etc., and
document it, and the IRS gave you a break. That was in Carter's time.
Reagan's "get the government off your back" tax simplification dumped
it.

And
that we'll have permanent moon colonies and manned missions to Mars in the
"near future". No mention of how it will be paid for, or what real benefits
will accrue. Heck, there isn't even a commitment to save the Hubble space
telescope or replace the shuttle.

Again...all of this "forecasted" in the 50's and 60's.

And it hasn't happened because of the enormous cost and dubious benefits. But
now Bush talks about it like we should make it a national priority.

And why shouldn't we?

Because it's simply not worth what it will cost to do it.

For example, consider the fact that it is estimated to cost $26,000
per pound to deliver freight to the moon. That's based on mass
production of next-generation rockets specifically designed to do the
job. Maybe that price can be shaved a bit, but it is fundamentally
governed by the physics of the situation.

Now figure how many *tons* of equipment and supplies need to be
shipped to the moon in order to set up a permanent base. Remember that
the temperature on the lunar surface varies more than 400 degrees from
day to night, and that each is 2 weeks long. Also remember that the
moon has no significant magnetic field or atmosphere, so there is
absolutely no protection from any of the various forms of solar and
cosmic radiation that constantly bombard it. Satellites in low earth
orbit are afforded some protection by the earth's magnetic field, and
if things get really bad humans in orbit can get back to the earth's
surface in minutes. The moon is a totally different story.

How many tons of equipment would it take to establish a permanent moon
colony of any size? How many pounds of supplies per year to keep it
stocked?

Or look at how much even the scaled-down ISS has cost so far - and
it's only in earth orbit.


More to come.

73 de Jim, N2EY