| |
Main
Date: 07 Jan 2007 09:11:58
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07Antidoping.t.html >
It's a long article, you'll have to read it to make up your mind.
Sample paragraph:
"Battling the known and the unknown, and probably outspent and
outgunned, Pound has seized the prerogative of the underdog:
fight with whatever you've got. Fight fair. Or unfair. His best
weapon is his brilliance as a formulator of quotes, his ability to
make headlines and call attention to his cause. (He takes great
pride in this; one of his books is titled "High Impact
Quotations.") Pound is not a stereotypical Canadian, if you think
of Canadians as reticent, nor is he very lawyerly: he assembles
whatever facts he can gather, but when they're not attainable,
sometimes just makes them up."
In an article that is somewhat sympathetic to Pound's cause,
the author exposes various unflattering tendencies. It's
backlash time. I wasn't impressed by Tricky Dick's throwing
out a steroid accusation on Carl Lewis and then "not finding"
the file (Lewis may be an asshole, but even Wade Exum didn't
come up with anything other than pseudoephedrine on him).
Actually, the creepiest stuff in the article isn't Dick Pound's
crusade, it's the DARPA Universal Soldier research, although
you sort of had to know they were doing that.
Ben
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 12:45:31
From: ilan
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On Feb 14, 9:29 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> ilan wrote:
>
> > Yes, I was there this afternoon (my first outdoor ride this year). I
> > also noticed the crows, but I attributed it
> > to the guy who always feeds them, who was in the peloton. I think they
> > recognise him. The old Khuota
> > guy was also there, but I didn't see you, I was there from 4 to 5:30.
> > The two guys I talked to had ridden
> > 100 and 70 km, respectively, doing laps at Vincennes. Impressive!
>
> I was there a bit earlier: maybe around 2:30ish. I only did a couple of
> turns around the piste on my way back home. I talked briefly with the guy
> who was feeding the crows: he says the crows on the "uphill" part of the
> piste are different from the ones on the downhill side. It's the ones on the
> downhill side will fly down and take a peanut from his hand.
>
> So, what was the reference to Cyril and Dominique?
Check out the video playing here http://lachaine.tf1.fr/lachaine/
staracademy7/0,,3388266,00-annonce-casting-star-.html
You can sign up for next year while you're there!
-ilan
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 11:27:33
From: ilan
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On Feb 13, 3:28 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> Saw the old guy on the Kuota Khan at Vincennes. He was riding with another
> old guy on a Scott CR-1.
>
> The crows are there, too.
Yes, I was there this afternoon (my first outdoor ride this year). I
also noticed the crows, but I attributed it
to the guy who always feeds them, who was in the peloton. I think they
recognise him. The old Khuota
guy was also there, but I didn't see you, I was there from 4 to 5:30.
The two guys I talked to had ridden
100 and 70 km, respectively, doing laps at Vincennes. Impressive!
-ilan
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 09:29:57
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
ilan wrote:
>
> Yes, I was there this afternoon (my first outdoor ride this year). I
> also noticed the crows, but I attributed it
> to the guy who always feeds them, who was in the peloton. I think they
> recognise him. The old Khuota
> guy was also there, but I didn't see you, I was there from 4 to 5:30.
> The two guys I talked to had ridden
> 100 and 70 km, respectively, doing laps at Vincennes. Impressive!
I was there a bit earlier: maybe around 2:30ish. I only did a couple of
turns around the piste on my way back home. I talked briefly with the guy
who was feeding the crows: he says the crows on the "uphill" part of the
piste are different from the ones on the downhill side. It's the ones on the
downhill side will fly down and take a peanut from his hand.
So, what was the reference to Cyril and Dominique?
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 05:01:44
From:
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On Feb 13, 5:41 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Feb 12, 7:58 pm, "ilan" <ila...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 6:11 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07Antidoping.t.html>
>
> > > It's a long article, you'll have to read it to make up your mind.
> > > Sample paragraph:
>
> > It says on the site: "To read this archive article, upgrade to
> > TimesSelect or purchase as a single article."
> > and it costs $4.95. Can you copy the article and paste it here, so I
> > can read it? Thanks.
>
> Nope. I mean, aside from the ethicality of copyright
> violation, the article is over a month old, as is
> this thread. NY Times articles are free on the web
> for a week after publication, so if you had noticed
> the thread then, it would have been free. Because
> I don't have a paid Times subscription anymore, it's
> behind the wall for me too.
>
> Sometimes you can find Times news articles that have been
> syndicated on other newspapers' websites for free, but
> since this was a magazine article rather than news,
> that probably won't work. Try googling Dick Pound and
> the author and see what turns up.
>
> Oh yeah, if you are at a university or company that
> subscribes to Lexis-Nexis or the global equivalent,
> you might be able to find it that way.
>
> Ben
hmm, the correct response was: "dumbass," I think.
-ilan
|
| | |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 15:28:05
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
Saw the old guy on the Kuota Khan at Vincennes. He was riding with another
old guy on a Scott CR-1.
The crows are there, too.
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 20:41:29
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On Feb 12, 7:58 pm, "ilan" <ila...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 6:11 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07Antidoping.t.html>
>
> > It's a long article, you'll have to read it to make up your mind.
> > Sample paragraph:
>
> It says on the site: "To read this archive article, upgrade to
> TimesSelect or purchase as a single article."
> and it costs $4.95. Can you copy the article and paste it here, so I
> can read it? Thanks.
Nope. I mean, aside from the ethicality of copyright
violation, the article is over a month old, as is
this thread. NY Times articles are free on the web
for a week after publication, so if you had noticed
the thread then, it would have been free. Because
I don't have a paid Times subscription anymore, it's
behind the wall for me too.
Sometimes you can find Times news articles that have been
syndicated on other newspapers' websites for free, but
since this was a magazine article rather than news,
that probably won't work. Try googling Dick Pound and
the author and see what turns up.
Oh yeah, if you are at a university or company that
subscribes to Lexis-Nexis or the global equivalent,
you might be able to find it that way.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 18:58:28
From: ilan
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On Jan 7, 6:11 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07Antidoping.t.html>
>
> It's a long article, you'll have to read it to make up your mind.
> Sample paragraph:
>
> "Battling the known and the unknown, and probably outspent and
> outgunned, Pound has seized the prerogative of the underdog:
> fight with whatever you've got. Fight fair. Or unfair. His best
> weapon is his brilliance as a formulator of quotes, his ability to
> make headlines and call attention to his cause. (He takes great
> pride in this; one of his books is titled "High Impact
> Quotations.") Pound is not a stereotypical Canadian, if you think
> of Canadians as reticent, nor is he very lawyerly: he assembles
> whatever facts he can gather, but when they're not attainable,
> sometimes just makes them up."
>
> In an article that is somewhat sympathetic to Pound's cause,
> the author exposes various unflattering tendencies. It's
> backlash time. I wasn't impressed by Tricky Dick's throwing
> out a steroid accusation on Carl Lewis and then "not finding"
> the file (Lewis may be an asshole, but even Wade Exum didn't
> come up with anything other than pseudoephedrine on him).
>
> Actually, the creepiest stuff in the article isn't Dick Pound's
> crusade, it's the DARPA Universal Soldier research, although
> you sort of had to know they were doing that.
>
> Ben
It says on the site: "To read this archive article, upgrade to
TimesSelect or purchase as a single article."
and it costs $4.95. Can you copy the article and paste it here, so I
can read it? Thanks.
-ilan
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 18:08:40
From: zencycle
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On Jan 11, 4:08 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> zencycle wrote:
> > It's Monkey boy's turn to shut the fuck up and listen.
>
> > As much as I appreciate the discourse, the idea that anyone in this
> > forum has any clue about the benefits or detriments the DARPA program
> > has on the US budget is completely laughable. That especially applies
> > to the fucking loud mouthed gorilla. Unless any of you have the
> > highest levels of security clearance, you are in no position to comment
> > as to what you _interpret_ the level of spending and progress for DARPA
> > to be. If you _do_ have the highest levels of clearance, you obviously
> > know better than to be blabbing about defense research. Logic dictates
> > therefore than _none_ of you do. There are certain things that the
> > general population should _not_ be privy to, and the details of DARPA
> > initiatives are one of them.
>
> > Also, before you cluesless fuckwads start calling me a redneck bush
> > supporter, know that I am against such things as the so-called-patriot
> > act wiretapping authorizations, holding enemy combatants without due
> > process, the secret cheney energy task force meetings, and the fact
> > that condi rice was getting more air time than britteny spears bald
> > snatch when she was the NSA to dubyah.
>
> > The only impact we should be seeing from our national security programs
> > are a safer america. Not partisan cheeleading, and certainly not
> > know-it-all-wannabe dipshits like you thinking you have either the
> > experience or knowledge to be commenting on it.
>
> > Stick to bike racing.
>
> You aren't a redneck, but you might be a dumbass. DARPA
> is not a secret underground laboratory full of guys like
> James Bond's M or the creepy robotic defense system from
> Terminator 3. Much of what DARPA does is to issue
> solicitations for proposals and let contracts for research.
> The research itself is often done at universities and
> private companies that aren't black ops, security cleared, etc.
>
> The Internet, of course, was originally the ARPAnet, named
> after DARPA's predecessor. So far as I know none of that
> research was classified when it was originally done.
>
> If you want some idea of what DARPA is interested in now,
> you can look at their website:http://www.darpa.mil/body/off_programs.html
> For examplehttp://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/biosci/psp.htm
>
> Ben
Right, and I believe everything I read on the www also. I concede
there may be an exceptionally small possibility that someone on this
list may actually have some inner knowledge of the skunkworks within
DARPA. It's inversely likely that they're not commenting. It'a also
just as likely that anytime someone types DARPA on an e-forum that
there are servers in the basement of some building somewhere looking
at the authors creditcard transactions for the past decade. So you go
ahead and tell youselves that Matt Drudge is privy to the dirty
details of DARPA research, and that anything on any of the newslinks
you pinheads are posting are anything more than a keting diversion.
As Chung said, "that's what they want you to think"
|
| | |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 20:37:43
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
zencycle wrote:
> On Jan 11, 4:08 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
>>zencycle wrote:
>>
>>>It's Monkey boy's turn to shut the fuck up and listen.
>>
>>>As much as I appreciate the discourse, the idea that anyone in this
>>>forum has any clue about the benefits or detriments the DARPA program
>>>has on the US budget is completely laughable. That especially applies
>>>to the fucking loud mouthed gorilla. Unless any of you have the
>>>highest levels of security clearance, you are in no position to comment
>>>as to what you _interpret_ the level of spending and progress for DARPA
>>>to be. If you _do_ have the highest levels of clearance, you obviously
>>>know better than to be blabbing about defense research. Logic dictates
>>>therefore than _none_ of you do. There are certain things that the
>>>general population should _not_ be privy to, and the details of DARPA
>>>initiatives are one of them.
>>
>>>Also, before you cluesless fuckwads start calling me a redneck bush
>>>supporter, know that I am against such things as the so-called-patriot
>>>act wiretapping authorizations, holding enemy combatants without due
>>>process, the secret cheney energy task force meetings, and the fact
>>>that condi rice was getting more air time than britteny spears bald
>>>snatch when she was the NSA to dubyah.
>>
>>>The only impact we should be seeing from our national security programs
>>>are a safer america. Not partisan cheeleading, and certainly not
>>>know-it-all-wannabe dipshits like you thinking you have either the
>>>experience or knowledge to be commenting on it.
>>
>>>Stick to bike racing.
>>
>>You aren't a redneck, but you might be a dumbass. DARPA
>>is not a secret underground laboratory full of guys like
>>James Bond's M or the creepy robotic defense system from
>>Terminator 3. Much of what DARPA does is to issue
>>solicitations for proposals and let contracts for research.
>>The research itself is often done at universities and
>>private companies that aren't black ops, security cleared, etc.
>>
>>The Internet, of course, was originally the ARPAnet, named
>>after DARPA's predecessor. So far as I know none of that
>>research was classified when it was originally done.
>>
>>If you want some idea of what DARPA is interested in now,
>>you can look at their website:http://www.darpa.mil/body/off_programs.html
>>For examplehttp://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/biosci/psp.htm
>>
>>Ben
>
>
>
> Right, and I believe everything I read on the www also. I concede
> there may be an exceptionally small possibility that someone on this
> list may actually have some inner knowledge of the skunkworks within
> DARPA. It's inversely likely that they're not commenting. It'a also
> just as likely that anytime someone types DARPA on an e-forum that
> there are servers in the basement of some building somewhere looking
> at the authors creditcard transactions for the past decade. So you go
> ahead and tell youselves that Matt Drudge is privy to the dirty
> details of DARPA research, and that anything on any of the newslinks
> you pinheads are posting are anything more than a keting diversion.
> As Chung said, "that's what they want you to think"
>
Shit....are you channeling eunuch????
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 18:46:27
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
Robert Chung wrote:
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> > You aren't a redneck, but you might be a dumbass. DARPA
> > is not a secret underground laboratory full of guys like
> > James Bond's M or the creepy robotic defense system from
> > Terminator 3.
>
> This is exactly what DARPA wants you to believe.
DARPA is the public front; what keeps the wacko
colonels from spending the defense budget on antigravity
devices, Tesla death rays, and nuclear airplanes. That
shit all happens inside the military research labs (I assume,
since of course I don't know anything about it, right?).
I'm counting on Pentagon bureaucracy to make sure the
robotic defense system is too laden down with non-workable
feature creep to ever actually take over the world.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 09:57:08
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> I'm counting on Pentagon bureaucracy to make sure the
> robotic defense system is too laden down with non-workable
> feature creep to ever actually take over the world.
Just imagine Terminator running on Windows.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 03:22:54
From: ST
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On 1/11/07 6:46 PM, in article
1168569987.652145.295470@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>
>>> You aren't a redneck, but you might be a dumbass. DARPA
>>> is not a secret underground laboratory full of guys like
>>> James Bond's M or the creepy robotic defense system from
>>> Terminator 3.
>>
>> This is exactly what DARPA wants you to believe.
>
> DARPA is the public front; what keeps the wacko
> colonels from spending the defense budget on antigravity
> devices, Tesla death rays, and nuclear airplanes. That
> shit all happens inside the military research labs (I assume,
> since of course I don't know anything about it, right?).
> I'm counting on Pentagon bureaucracy to make sure the
> robotic defense system is too laden down with non-workable
> feature creep to ever actually take over the world.
>
The SkyNet funding bill is passed. The system goes online on August 4th,
2007. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. SkyNet begins to
learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14am Eastern time,
August 29th, 2007. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
And........ Skynet fights back. Details to come on the Drudge Report
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 17:39:17
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
Robert Chung wrote:
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> > You aren't a redneck, but you might be a dumbass. DARPA
> > is not a secret underground laboratory full of guys like
> > James Bond's M or the creepy robotic defense system from
> > Terminator 3.
>
> This is exactly what DARPA wants you to believe.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/coin-spy.html
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 03:08:48
From: ST
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On 1/11/07 5:39 PM, in article
1168565957.491157.185630@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>
>>> You aren't a redneck, but you might be a dumbass. DARPA
>>> is not a secret underground laboratory full of guys like
>>> James Bond's M or the creepy robotic defense system from
>>> Terminator 3.
>>
>> This is exactly what DARPA wants you to believe.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/coin-spy.html
>
Must be hi-tech.....
They spelled "defence" instead of "defense" All through the story...
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 09:57:35
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
ST wrote:
> Must be hi-tech.....
> They spelled "defence" instead of "defense" All through the story...
Its a secret new spell checker.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 14:23:31
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
Bill C wrote:
> They hide how much of this shit is actually useable
> pretty carefully from the general public.
Bush :
"We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and
protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the
deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will
expand intelligence sharing - and deploy Patriot air defense systems
to reassure our friends and allies."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot :
"The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia
and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and
40%. However, when President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's
Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts during the Gulf
War, he declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41
intercepted!"[4] The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97%
during the war.
On April 7, 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified before
a House Committee stating that, according to their independent
analyses, the Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and
perhaps even a zero success rate."
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 13:08:44
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
zencycle wrote:
> It's Monkey boy's turn to shut the fuck up and listen.
>
> As much as I appreciate the discourse, the idea that anyone in this
> forum has any clue about the benefits or detriments the DARPA program
> has on the US budget is completely laughable. That especially applies
> to the fucking loud mouthed gorilla. Unless any of you have the
> highest levels of security clearance, you are in no position to comment
> as to what you _interpret_ the level of spending and progress for DARPA
> to be. If you _do_ have the highest levels of clearance, you obviously
> know better than to be blabbing about defense research. Logic dictates
> therefore than _none_ of you do. There are certain things that the
> general population should _not_ be privy to, and the details of DARPA
> initiatives are one of them.
>
> Also, before you cluesless fuckwads start calling me a redneck bush
> supporter, know that I am against such things as the so-called-patriot
> act wiretapping authorizations, holding enemy combatants without due
> process, the secret cheney energy task force meetings, and the fact
> that condi rice was getting more air time than britteny spears bald
> snatch when she was the NSA to dubyah.
>
> The only impact we should be seeing from our national security programs
> are a safer america. Not partisan cheeleading, and certainly not
> know-it-all-wannabe dipshits like you thinking you have either the
> experience or knowledge to be commenting on it.
>
> Stick to bike racing.
You aren't a redneck, but you might be a dumbass. DARPA
is not a secret underground laboratory full of guys like
James Bond's M or the creepy robotic defense system from
Terminator 3. Much of what DARPA does is to issue
solicitations for proposals and let contracts for research.
The research itself is often done at universities and
private companies that aren't black ops, security cleared, etc.
The Internet, of course, was originally the ARPAnet, named
after DARPA's predecessor. So far as I know none of that
research was classified when it was originally done.
If you want some idea of what DARPA is interested in now,
you can look at their website:
http://www.darpa.mil/body/off_programs.html
For example
http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/biosci/psp.htm
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 16:54:44
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> You aren't a redneck, but you might be a dumbass. DARPA
> is not a secret underground laboratory full of guys like
> James Bond's M or the creepy robotic defense system from
> Terminator 3.
This is exactly what DARPA wants you to believe.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 19:09:46
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On 11 Jan 2007 13:08:44 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
>You aren't a redneck, but you might be a dumbass. DARPA
>is not a secret underground laboratory full of guys like
>James Bond's M or the creepy robotic defense system from
>Terminator 3. Much of what DARPA does is to issue
>solicitations for proposals and let contracts for research.
>The research itself is often done at universities and
>private companies that aren't black ops, security cleared, etc.
Very slightly security cleared -- such as sometimes with restrictions
on foreign nationals working in the labs, etc.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 13:18:31
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> You aren't a redneck, but you might be a dumbass. DARPA
> is not a secret underground laboratory full of guys like
> James Bond's M or the creepy robotic defense system from
> Terminator 3.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of saying pretty much the same thing.
Acting like a clueless dumbass is MY schtick, thank you very much. It
really bugs me when others try to steal it.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 12:51:51
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On Jan 11, 12:41 pm, "zencycle" <zency...@bikerider.com > wrote:
> It's Monkey boy's turn to shut the fuck up and listen.
>
> As much as I appreciate the discourse, the idea that anyone in this
> forum has any clue about the benefits or detriments the DARPA program
> has on the US budget is completely laughable. That especially applies
> to the fucking loud mouthed gorilla. Unless any of you have the
> highest levels of security clearance, you are in no position to comment
> as to what you _interpret_ the level of spending and progress for DARPA
> to be. If you _do_ have the highest levels of clearance, you obviously
> know better than to be blabbing about defense research. Logic dictates
> therefore than _none_ of you do. There are certain things that the
> general population should _not_ be privy to, and the details of DARPA
> initiatives are one of them.
>
> Also, before you cluesless fuckwads start calling me a redneck bush
> supporter, know that I am against such things as the so-called-patriot
> act wiretapping authorizations, holding enemy combatants without due
> process, the secret cheney energy task force meetings, and the fact
> that condi rice was getting more air time than britteny spears bald
> snatch when she was the NSA to dubyah.
>
> The only impact we should be seeing from our national security programs
> are a safer america. Not partisan cheeleading, and certainly not
> know-it-all-wannabe dipshits like you thinking you have either the
> experience or knowledge to be commenting on it.
>
> Stick to bike racing.
I'm not going to trot out credentials and neither is anyone else but a
few of us are, or were close enough to have a decent idea of what's
going on, and stay in touch, including at Darpa. For the most part the
basic concepts they are working on are NOT classified, and lots of the
stuff is covered in places like DefenseTech, GlobalSecurity.org, and
Janes among others.
Fucking Bush1 put the "No Such Agency" on the goddamn tourist list.
Bush the lesser is screwing the military and intelligence community
even worse than dad did and handing out, and defending no bid contracts
to his friends for shit that doesn't work, isn't being delivered, is
massively overpriced, or all of the above at once.
You're more than a little erratic.
Looks like you're right Ryan the V-22s are airborne again. All 9 of
them:
http://www.newsobserver.com/162/story/469844.html
Out of those nine given the reliability problems I'd guess that 3 are
"mission capable". They hide how much of this shit is actually useable
pretty carefully from the general public.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,121685,00.html
Oldest Aircraft Gets High ks in Iraq
InsideDefense.com NewsStand
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 09:41:11
From: zencycle
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
It's Monkey boy's turn to shut the fuck up and listen.
As much as I appreciate the discourse, the idea that anyone in this
forum has any clue about the benefits or detriments the DARPA program
has on the US budget is completely laughable. That especially applies
to the fucking loud mouthed gorilla. Unless any of you have the
highest levels of security clearance, you are in no position to comment
as to what you _interpret_ the level of spending and progress for DARPA
to be. If you _do_ have the highest levels of clearance, you obviously
know better than to be blabbing about defense research. Logic dictates
therefore than _none_ of you do. There are certain things that the
general population should _not_ be privy to, and the details of DARPA
initiatives are one of them.
Also, before you cluesless fuckwads start calling me a redneck bush
supporter, know that I am against such things as the so-called-patriot
act wiretapping authorizations, holding enemy combatants without due
process, the secret cheney energy task force meetings, and the fact
that condi rice was getting more air time than britteny spears bald
snatch when she was the NSA to dubyah.
The only impact we should be seeing from our national security programs
are a safer america. Not partisan cheeleading, and certainly not
know-it-all-wannabe dipshits like you thinking you have either the
experience or knowledge to be commenting on it.
Stick to bike racing.
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> dbrower wrote:
> > Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >
> >> "Dumber than a fighter pilot."
> >>
> >> If the officer in question happened to BE a fighter pilot, they were
> >> generally too busy talking about how anyone who flew a different fighter
> >> than they did was gay to notice any stupid activity.
> >
> > How do you tell if there's a fighter pilot in the room?
> >
> > Don't worry, he'll tell you.
> >
>
> Complete with "He was here and I was there" hand motions...
>
> "And then I went up like this and he went there..."
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2007 17:18:27
From: Mark Fennell
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
zencycle wrote:
> As much as I appreciate the discourse, the idea that anyone in this
> forum has any clue about the benefits or detriments the DARPA program
> has on the US budget is completely laughable.
<snip >
Uhhh, that's a pretty bold statement. IMHO, funding going to DARPA is by far
better spent than it is in the rest of the DoD. DARPA management and PMs are
highly motivated and st people, and even if only one out of ten programs
get transitioned, that more than justifies the other nine.
k
(have briefed five different DARPA directors in former life)
|
| |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 20:58:44
From: dbrower
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> "Dumber than a fighter pilot."
>
> If the officer in question happened to BE a fighter pilot, they were
> generally too busy talking about how anyone who flew a different fighter
> than they did was gay to notice any stupid activity.
How do you tell if there's a fighter pilot in the room?
Don't worry, he'll tell you.
-dB
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 08:37:14
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
dbrower wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>
>> "Dumber than a fighter pilot."
>>
>> If the officer in question happened to BE a fighter pilot, they were
>> generally too busy talking about how anyone who flew a different fighter
>> than they did was gay to notice any stupid activity.
>
> How do you tell if there's a fighter pilot in the room?
>
> Don't worry, he'll tell you.
>
Complete with "He was here and I was there" hand motions...
"And then I went up like this and he went there..."
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 21:14:37
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
Bill C wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2:45 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BenI see you were suckered into the keting hype. In fact, the entire
> > DARPA program is little more than a pork barrel spending project. If
> > DARPA had anything now the solders in Iraq would be using it.
> >
> > This "future" stuff is just a bunch of hype. Weren't we suppose to have
> > flying cars by now anyway?
Oh, I agree the DARPA stuff is likely 3/4 keting hype.
The military funds some research that is speculative to the
point of being crackpot (nuclear airplanes, anti gravity crap).
But they are and will work on doing stuff that is "performance
enhancing" and they will use it. Of course they aren't using it
now in Iraq because it's still just lab rat experiments; I expect
in Iraq they're using plain old greenies.
As for the "future" being hype, you are correct. There will be
no future. James Inhofe and Cheney are murdering the future
by holding up any action on climate change. Millions of
desperate refugees. coming not-soon but several decades
from now to a port near you.
> Stick to anything but the military. You are so fucking clueless on the
> subject you're like a eunuch in a whorehouse.
> Darpa's a porkbarrel special, but they've been at least as good as
> Nasa at creating good shit and spinoffs. The "Future Soldier" stuff is
> crap though.
> We've still got a POS rifle, pistol, body armor, basic equipment, but
> we do have billions for shit like the V-22 Osprey which they should
> tether to ships so they can act as a boat anchor when they inevitably
> crash, and at least get some use out of it.
I think they'll probably come up with improved greenies at least.
Whether they come up with something that is _safe_ for use by
enlisted men is another question. Whether the authorities care
whether it's safe is yet another question.
If rifles cost as much as Ospreys maybe military contractors would
be using their political influence to insure that new rifle contracts
were let. However, if the rifles were then only as good as the
Ospreys,
I can't see that it would be an improvement.
In the meantime,
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0105BorderAttack05-ON.html
(It's not relevant, it's just an example of backfires when using the
military for political purposes.)
Ben
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 21:06:57
From: bdbafh
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <HOycnf7o7vpo0DzYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
> MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> > bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> >
> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07Antidoping.t.html>
> > >
> > > It's a long article, you'll have to read it to make up your mind.
> > > Sample paragraph:
> > >
> > > "Battling the known and the unknown, and probably outspent and
> > > outgunned, Pound has seized the prerogative of the underdog:
> > > fight with whatever you've got. Fight fair. Or unfair. His best
> > > weapon is his brilliance as a formulator of quotes, his ability to
> > > make headlines and call attention to his cause. (He takes great
> > > pride in this; one of his books is titled "High Impact
> > > Quotations.") Pound is not a stereotypical Canadian, if you think
> > > of Canadians as reticent, nor is he very lawyerly: he assembles
> > > whatever facts he can gather, but when they're not attainable,
> > > sometimes just makes them up."
> > >
> > > In an article that is somewhat sympathetic to Pound's cause,
> > > the author exposes various unflattering tendencies. It's
> > > backlash time. I wasn't impressed by Tricky Dick's throwing
> > > out a steroid accusation on Carl Lewis and then "not finding"
> > > the file (Lewis may be an asshole, but even Wade Exum didn't
> > > come up with anything other than pseudoephedrine on him).
> >
> > I agree this accusation against Lewis was a mistake by Pound. But
> > besdies this one, can you quote me any other false allegations by Pound?
>
> 'roid Floyd.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Oh. Science dammit.
Flawed Logic strikes, again.
-bdbafh
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 13:43:09
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On Jan 7, 4:25 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 2:45 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>BenI see you were suckered into the keting hype. In fact, the entire
>
> >>DARPA program is little more than a pork barrel spending project. If
> >>DARPA had anything now the solders in Iraq would be using it.
>
> >>This "future" stuff is just a bunch of hype. Weren't we suppose to have
> >>flying cars by now anyway?
>
> >>Thanks,
>
> >>Magilla- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> > Stick to anything but the military. You are so fucking clueless on the
> > subject you're like a eunuch in a whorehouse.
> > Darpa's a porkbarrel special, but they've been at least as good as
> > Nasa at creating good shit and spinoffs. The "Future Soldier" stuff is
> > crap though.
> > We've still got a POS rifle, pistol, body armor, basic equipment, but
> > we do have billions for shit like the V-22 Osprey which they should
> > tether to ships so they can act as a boat anchor when they inevitably
> > crash, and at least get some use out of it.
> > Bill CNASA knows a lot but they overestimate capability in order to dispel
> doubt and get the funding.
>
> I think they cured the V-22 Osprey with some faster computers and
> updated software. They are suppose to replace the Chinook, or at least
> supplement its poor range and slower speed.
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
The Ospreys are grounded again.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 23:59:27
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
In article <1168206189.450409.167270@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 4:25 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com> wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 7, 2:45 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>BenI see you were suckered into the keting hype. In fact, the entire
> >
> > >>DARPA program is little more than a pork barrel spending project. If
> > >>DARPA had anything now the solders in Iraq would be using it.
> >
> > >>This "future" stuff is just a bunch of hype. Weren't we suppose to have
> > >>flying cars by now anyway?
> >
> > >>Thanks,
> >
> > >>Magilla- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Stick to anything but the military. You are so fucking clueless on the
> > > subject you're like a eunuch in a whorehouse.
> > > Darpa's a porkbarrel special, but they've been at least as good as
> > > Nasa at creating good shit and spinoffs. The "Future Soldier" stuff is
> > > crap though.
> > > We've still got a POS rifle, pistol, body armor, basic equipment, but
> > > we do have billions for shit like the V-22 Osprey which they should
> > > tether to ships so they can act as a boat anchor when they inevitably
> > > crash, and at least get some use out of it.
> > > Bill CNASA knows a lot but they overestimate capability in order to
> > > dispel
> > doubt and get the funding.
> >
> > I think they cured the V-22 Osprey with some faster computers and
> > updated software. They are suppose to replace the Chinook, or at least
> > supplement its poor range and slower speed.
> >
> > Magilla- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> The Ospreys are grounded again.
> Bill C
They are? A google indicates there's a current advisory about not using
the engine particle filters, but they appear to be operational,
otherwise.
On the other hand, I did find this moderately dumb Harper's article:
http://harpers.org/sb-this-week-in-babylon-1168026499.html
They link to the emergency procedures checklist for the V-22:
"Harry Dunn, an Air Force veteran, former pilot, and aerospace engineer
who served in Vietnam and worked on the Hill for 21 years as a military
liaison with Congress, sent me the emergency procedures checklist (1.8M
PDF) for the V-22. At 144 confusing, overly detailed pages, Dunn said,
it is ³beyond any pilot.²"
http://harpers.org/art/silverstein/OspreyEmergency.pdf
Now, maybe some of the pilots in this group can comment. I'm not a
pilot, but it looks an awful lot like the emergency checklists that all
big planes carry, and doesn't appear to be unusual in the genre. I
suspect this is especially familiar stuff for any helicopter pilots out
there.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 07:45:48
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <1168206189.450409.167270@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 7, 4:25 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com> wrote:
>> > Bill C wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Jan 7, 2:45 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >>>BenI see you were suckered into the keting hype. In fact, the
>> > >>>entire
>> >
>> > >>DARPA program is little more than a pork barrel spending project. If
>> > >>DARPA had anything now the solders in Iraq would be using it.
>> >
>> > >>This "future" stuff is just a bunch of hype. Weren't we suppose to
>> > >>have flying cars by now anyway?
>> >
>> > >>Thanks,
>> >
>> > >>Magilla- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>> >
>> > > Stick to anything but the military. You are so fucking clueless on
>> > > the
>> > > subject you're like a eunuch in a whorehouse.
>> > > Darpa's a porkbarrel special, but they've been at least as good as
>> > > Nasa at creating good shit and spinoffs. The "Future Soldier" stuff
>> > > is crap though.
>> > > We've still got a POS rifle, pistol, body armor, basic equipment,
>> > > but
>> > > we do have billions for shit like the V-22 Osprey which they should
>> > > tether to ships so they can act as a boat anchor when they inevitably
>> > > crash, and at least get some use out of it.
>> > > Bill CNASA knows a lot but they overestimate capability in order to
>> > > dispel
>> > doubt and get the funding.
>> >
>> > I think they cured the V-22 Osprey with some faster computers and
>> > updated software. They are suppose to replace the Chinook, or at least
>> > supplement its poor range and slower speed.
>> >
>> > Magilla- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>>
>> The Ospreys are grounded again.
>> Bill C
>
> They are? A google indicates there's a current advisory about not using
> the engine particle filters, but they appear to be operational,
> otherwise.
>
> On the other hand, I did find this moderately dumb Harper's article:
>
> http://harpers.org/sb-this-week-in-babylon-1168026499.html
>
> They link to the emergency procedures checklist for the V-22:
>
> "Harry Dunn, an Air Force veteran, former pilot, and aerospace engineer
> who served in Vietnam and worked on the Hill for 21 years as a military
> liaison with Congress, sent me the emergency procedures checklist (1.8M
> PDF) for the V-22. At 144 confusing, overly detailed pages, Dunn said,
> it is ³beyond any pilot.²"
>
> http://harpers.org/art/silverstein/OspreyEmergency.pdf
>
> Now, maybe some of the pilots in this group can comment. I'm not a
> pilot, but it looks an awful lot like the emergency checklists that all
> big planes carry, and doesn't appear to be unusual in the genre. I
> suspect this is especially familiar stuff for any helicopter pilots out
> there.
>
I used to work as a contractor at an Air Force base. Had Air Force officers
underfoot all the time. When an Air Force officer sees something or
someone that seems exceptionally stupid, they commonly say:
"Dumber than a fighter pilot."
If the officer in question happened to BE a fighter pilot, they were
generally too busy talking about how anyone who flew a different fighter
than they did was gay to notice any stupid activity.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 10:54:18
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> "Harry Dunn, an Air Force veteran, former pilot, and aerospace engineer
> who served in Vietnam and worked on the Hill for 21 years as a military
> liaison with Congress, sent me the emergency procedures checklist (1.8M
> PDF) for the V-22. At 144 confusing, overly detailed pages, Dunn said,
> it is ³beyond any pilot.²"
Do you have a checklist for when you countersteer into a haybale ?
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 03:00:03
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
In article <45a206f0$0$9707$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > "Harry Dunn, an Air Force veteran, former pilot, and aerospace engineer
> > who served in Vietnam and worked on the Hill for 21 years as a military
> > liaison with Congress, sent me the emergency procedures checklist (1.8M
> > PDF) for the V-22. At 144 confusing, overly detailed pages, Dunn said,
> > it is "beyond any pilot."
>
> Do you have a checklist for when you countersteer into a haybale ?
Dumbass: I'm not the club haybaler. I did win the crash prize one year,
but it was for having two other people crash on my rear wheel on
separate club rides. I've had two race crashes in road races, and I've
had a few exciting moments (rear wheel drift at mid-corner while leading
the pack on a sprint lap during a crit, occasional use of grass verges
as a racing line, general sketchiness, etc.)
The year after he was sick of being called "Haybale," the same rider
(who I shouldn't mock, because I am a weak 4 and he is a strong 3)
managed to get knocked out of the pack during a training race and was
run over by one or more riders.
Now I call him "Treadk."
BTW, I am quite convinced that my dozen years or so of motorcycling
before I started racing bicycles considerably helped my cornering and
general bike-handling. At least at the Cat 4 level, I'm pretty happy
with my cornering skills, though I'm a bit overcautious on descending
corners that require you to actually lose speed.
But my cornering isn't the problem: it's my Masters-grade gut.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 16:49:47
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
In article <rcousine-B7DED0.15592607012007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> On the other hand, I did find this moderately dumb Harper's article:
>
> http://harpers.org/sb-this-week-in-babylon-1168026499.html
>
> They link to the emergency procedures checklist for the V-22:
>
> "Harry Dunn, an Air Force veteran, former pilot, and aerospace engineer
> who served in Vietnam and worked on the Hill for 21 years as a military
> liaison with Congress, sent me the emergency procedures checklist (1.8M
> PDF) for the V-22. At 144 confusing, overly detailed pages, Dunn said,
> it is ³beyond any pilot.²"
>
> http://harpers.org/art/silverstein/OspreyEmergency.pdf
>
> Now, maybe some of the pilots in this group can comment. I'm not a
> pilot, but it looks an awful lot like the emergency checklists that all
> big planes carry, and doesn't appear to be unusual in the genre. I
> suspect this is especially familiar stuff for any helicopter pilots out
> there.
I'll send it to my dad. He taught cockpit resource management for C-5As and a
variety of commercial airliners so he'd have an idea if it's run of the mill or not.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 12:05:35
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
On Jan 7, 2:45 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com > wrote:
>
> > BenI see you were suckered into the keting hype. In fact, the entire
> DARPA program is little more than a pork barrel spending project. If
> DARPA had anything now the solders in Iraq would be using it.
>
> This "future" stuff is just a bunch of hype. Weren't we suppose to have
> flying cars by now anyway?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Stick to anything but the military. You are so fucking clueless on the
subject you're like a eunuch in a whorehouse.
Darpa's a porkbarrel special, but they've been at least as good as
Nasa at creating good shit and spinoffs. The "Future Soldier" stuff is
crap though.
We've still got a POS rifle, pistol, body armor, basic equipment, but
we do have billions for shit like the V-22 Osprey which they should
tether to ships so they can act as a boat anchor when they inevitably
crash, and at least get some use out of it.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 16:25:20
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
Bill C wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2:45 pm, MagillaGorilla <MagillaGori...@zoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>BenI see you were suckered into the keting hype. In fact, the entire
>>
>>DARPA program is little more than a pork barrel spending project. If
>>DARPA had anything now the solders in Iraq would be using it.
>>
>>This "future" stuff is just a bunch of hype. Weren't we suppose to have
>>flying cars by now anyway?
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Magilla- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Stick to anything but the military. You are so fucking clueless on the
> subject you're like a eunuch in a whorehouse.
> Darpa's a porkbarrel special, but they've been at least as good as
> Nasa at creating good shit and spinoffs. The "Future Soldier" stuff is
> crap though.
> We've still got a POS rifle, pistol, body armor, basic equipment, but
> we do have billions for shit like the V-22 Osprey which they should
> tether to ships so they can act as a boat anchor when they inevitably
> crash, and at least get some use out of it.
> Bill C
>
NASA knows a lot but they overestimate capability in order to dispel
doubt and get the funding.
I think they cured the V-22 Osprey with some faster computers and
updated software. They are suppose to replace the Chinook, or at least
supplement its poor range and slower speed.
Magilla
|
| |
Date: 07 Jan 2007 14:45:57
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07Antidoping.t.html>
>
> It's a long article, you'll have to read it to make up your mind.
> Sample paragraph:
>
> "Battling the known and the unknown, and probably outspent and
> outgunned, Pound has seized the prerogative of the underdog:
> fight with whatever you've got. Fight fair. Or unfair. His best
> weapon is his brilliance as a formulator of quotes, his ability to
> make headlines and call attention to his cause. (He takes great
> pride in this; one of his books is titled "High Impact
> Quotations.") Pound is not a stereotypical Canadian, if you think
> of Canadians as reticent, nor is he very lawyerly: he assembles
> whatever facts he can gather, but when they're not attainable,
> sometimes just makes them up."
>
> In an article that is somewhat sympathetic to Pound's cause,
> the author exposes various unflattering tendencies. It's
> backlash time. I wasn't impressed by Tricky Dick's throwing
> out a steroid accusation on Carl Lewis and then "not finding"
> the file (Lewis may be an asshole, but even Wade Exum didn't
> come up with anything other than pseudoephedrine on him).
I agree this accusation against Lewis was a mistake by Pound. But
besdies this one, can you quote me any other false allegations by Pound?
> Actually, the creepiest stuff in the article isn't Dick Pound's
> crusade, it's the DARPA Universal Soldier research, although
> you sort of had to know they were doing that.
>
> Ben
>
I see you were suckered into the keting hype. In fact, the entire
DARPA program is little more than a pork barrel spending project. If
DARPA had anything now the solders in Iraq would be using it.
This "future" stuff is just a bunch of hype. Weren't we suppose to have
flying cars by now anyway?
We can't even cure the common cold and people keep doing articles about
making bionic men.
Frivolous conversation. That's all it is. Why not talk about building
a city on the moon or a huge shopping mall at the bottom of the Atlantic
Ocean while you're at it.
Get the fuck out of here with this Isaac Asimov bullshit. One day, a
giant asteroid is going to impact the Earth and knock a good 4 billion
people right off the census list. And then we'll see how much of a
st-ass you people are with your bionic man quotes.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jan 2007 04:45:46
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Dick Pound before he dicks you
|
In article <HOycnf7o7vpo0DzYUSdV9g@ptd.net >,
MagillaGorilla <MagillaGorilla@zoo.com > wrote:
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/magazine/07Antidoping.t.html>
> >
> > It's a long article, you'll have to read it to make up your mind.
> > Sample paragraph:
> >
> > "Battling the known and the unknown, and probably outspent and
> > outgunned, Pound has seized the prerogative of the underdog:
> > fight with whatever you've got. Fight fair. Or unfair. His best
> > weapon is his brilliance as a formulator of quotes, his ability to
> > make headlines and call attention to his cause. (He takes great
> > pride in this; one of his books is titled "High Impact
> > Quotations.") Pound is not a stereotypical Canadian, if you think
> > of Canadians as reticent, nor is he very lawyerly: he assembles
> > whatever facts he can gather, but when they're not attainable,
> > sometimes just makes them up."
> >
> > In an article that is somewhat sympathetic to Pound's cause,
> > the author exposes various unflattering tendencies. It's
> > backlash time. I wasn't impressed by Tricky Dick's throwing
> > out a steroid accusation on Carl Lewis and then "not finding"
> > the file (Lewis may be an asshole, but even Wade Exum didn't
> > come up with anything other than pseudoephedrine on him).
>
> I agree this accusation against Lewis was a mistake by Pound. But
> besdies this one, can you quote me any other false allegations by Pound?
'roid Floyd.
--
Michael Press
|
|
