Sure is slow around here

Curtis L. Russell said:

Almost nothing going on, traffic about half that of normal. Sure is
slow around here. At least we don't have any twits that just post
because nothing is going on. Something to be grateful for...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Irony - gotta love it. It's very slow on most newsgroups I frequent.

R

Curtis L. Russell said:

Almost nothing going on, traffic about half that of normal. Sure is
slow around here. At least we don't have any twits that just post
because nothing is going on. Something to be grateful for...

You might think it's because rbr is off doing its
last-minute Christmas shopping, but actually
it's because everyone had to go take a cold shower
after reading heather's last post about tyler farrar.
Including heather.

Quoted message said:

You might think it's because rbr is off doing its
last-minute Christmas shopping, but actually
it's because everyone had to go take a cold shower
after reading heather's last post about tyler farrar.
Including heather.

oops 😉

i was just so proud of myself for being able to make a post about
tapping tyler be on topic too that i never considered the consequence of
my actions. sorry curtis!

(the only reason i'm in rbr now is my family is coming to my house in 6
hours and i'm procrastinating on the house cleaning. or is it acceptable
to have dog [censored] on one's walls when the relatives come over? hmm,
probably not, so off i go.)

h

On 23 Dec 2005 08:36:52 -0800, "RicodJour" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Irony - gotta love it. It's very slow on most newsgroups I frequent.

Irony, ennui - its all good.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

h squared said:

(the only reason i'm in rbr now is my family is coming to my house in 6
hours and i'm procrastinating on the house cleaning. or is it acceptable
to have dog [censored] on one's walls when the relatives come over? hmm,
probably not, so off i go.)

Must be well-behaved animals to be able to clean up 6 hours in
advance. The Scotties see that as a challenge. You can get a quick
shower in after cleaning the house if you carefully arrange the Aussie
Shepherd to block most of their favorite routes through the house.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Curtis L. Russell said:

On 23 Dec 2005 08:36:52 -0800, "RicodJour" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Irony - gotta love it. It's very slow on most newsgroups I frequent.

Irony, ennui - its all good.

Hmm, ennui poor blood... That ought to bring it back on topic (at least for
Brian).

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Curtis L. Russell said:

h squared said:

(the only reason i'm in rbr now is my family is coming to my house in 6
hours and i'm procrastinating on the house cleaning. or is it acceptable
to have dog [censored] on one's walls when the relatives come over? hmm,
probably not, so off i go.)

Must be well-behaved animals to be able to clean up 6 hours in
advance. The Scotties see that as a challenge. You can get a quick
shower in after cleaning the house if you carefully arrange the Aussie
Shepherd to block most of their favorite routes through the house.

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2005/12/how-i-spent-week-before-virginbirthmas.html

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

RicodJour said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

Almost nothing going on, traffic about half that of normal. Sure is
slow around here. At least we don't have any twits that just post
because nothing is going on. Something to be grateful for...

Quoted message said:

Irony - gotta love it. It's very slow on most newsgroups I frequent.

Damn, this stupid telecomms filtering script crashed AGAIN
on a holiday weekend. Sorry, Christmas weekend - can't
say "holiday" anymore around here. We just call all days off
"Christmas" to keep it simple. It's gonna take me all of
Saturday and half Sunday just to reboot 60,000 BSD boxes.
If any of you clowns in Howard County, MD notice the lights
dimming, pay no attention and continue with your bike ride.
The NSA sincerely apologizes for any Usenet propagation delays;
traffic should be back to normal by Wednesday.

Ben
RBR Minister of Data Mining

Curtis L. Russell said:

Almost nothing going on, traffic about half that of normal.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/rbr.png

Robert Chung said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

Almost nothing going on, traffic about half that of normal.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/rbr.png

Something about the x-axis is screwed up - unless July is
at a different time every year. Are they running the TdF on
a lunar calendar?

In the early days of rbr (pre Lance, and pre Festina for that
matter), the July Effect was much weaker.

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

Almost nothing going on, traffic about half that of normal.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/rbr.png

Something about the x-axis is screwed up - unless July is
at a different time every year. Are they running the TdF on
a lunar calendar?

In the early days of rbr (pre Lance, and pre Festina for that
matter), the July Effect was much weaker.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/rbr.csv

Either you're up kinda early or kinda late.

email hidden said:

The NSA sincerely apologizes for any Usenet propagation delays;
traffic should be back to normal by Wednesday.

If it helps, I can always drop some traffic off next time I come down
32, but you'll have to open up the area around the front a bit. NSA is
a lot more difficult with drive-up since I worked there.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/rbr.png

Something about the x-axis is screwed up - unless July is
at a different time every year. Are they running the TdF on
a lunar calendar?

In the early days of rbr (pre Lance, and pre Festina for that
matter), the July Effect was much weaker.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/rbr.csv

Dumbass,

http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/rbrposts.png

Your plot has the 2004 tickmark where 2005 should be.
And the 1998 and 2000 tickmarks are right under the July
spike instead of at the beginning of the year. That's why
I was complaining about the x-axis scale. Maybe you scaled
it to run from 1992.x to 2005 rather than 1992.x to 2005.9 ?

Quoted message said:

Either you're up kinda early or kinda late.

This data mining is 24-hour stuff, you know. Ever
since the POTUS realized that French people and
Middle Easterners deliberately stay awake while
Americans are sleeping, the Defenders of Freedom
are in a Heightened State of Sleep Deprivation.

Ben
RBR Scientific Editor

Quoted message said:

Dumbass,

http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/rbrposts.png

Your plot has the 2004 tickmark where 2005 should be.
And the 1998 and 2000 tickmarks are right under the July
spike instead of at the beginning of the year. That's why
I was complaining about the x-axis scale. Maybe you scaled
it to run from 1992.x to 2005 rather than 1992.x to 2005.9 ?

[censored]. You're right, I should've seen it. Don't know what the problem was;
I can't reproduce it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Either you're up kinda early or kinda late.

This data mining is 24-hour stuff, you know. Ever
since the POTUS realized that French people and
Middle Easterners deliberately stay awake while
Americans are sleeping, the Defenders of Freedom
are in a Heightened State of Sleep Deprivation.

Well, let's see know: I'm over here in Yurop, you're over there in the US
of A, and here's an electronic message that mentions Osama Bin Laden.
Hmmm. In case that wasn't enough, this ought to do it: Blessent mon coeur
d'une langueur monotone.

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Dumbass,

http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/rbrposts.png

Your plot has the 2004 tickmark where 2005 should be.
And the 1998 and 2000 tickmarks are right under the July
spike instead of at the beginning of the year. That's why
I was complaining about the x-axis scale. Maybe you scaled
it to run from 1992.x to 2005 rather than 1992.x to 2005.9 ?

[censored]. You're right, I should've seen it. Don't know what the problem was;
I can't reproduce it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Either you're up kinda early or kinda late.

This data mining is 24-hour stuff, you know. Ever
since the POTUS realized that French people and
Middle Easterners deliberately stay awake while
Americans are sleeping, the Defenders of Freedom
are in a Heightened State of Sleep Deprivation.

Well, let's see know: I'm over here in Yurop, you're over there in the US
of A, and here's an electronic message that mentions Osama Bin Laden.
Hmmm. In case that wasn't enough, this ought to do it: Blessent mon coeur
d'une langueur monotone.

You guys better be checking the bushes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051224/wl_afp/usattacksintelligence_051224200715

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US government's domestic spying operation is
much broader than previously disclosed, involving eavesdropping on vast
amounts of telephone and Internet traffic, according to US media
reports.

He didn't lie he just left out a few little details by accident.
Bill C

In article said:

On 12/24/05 4:01 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, Steve, the intitial report came about because some patriotic soul
(and I'm not being ironic or sarcastic there) in the NSA leaked it. Why?
Because they knew it was illegal. More info is slowly coming to light
because of people like them, thankfully. Some opinions on it by people
involved in that line of work:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html

[censored]!......

You [censored] could not give a [censored] about Clinton etal. Doing the exact same
thing...

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Sorry Steve, but what Clinton did was *not* the same thing. The only way that
you and your sources can make it appear to be so is by plainly and simply
misquoting the law.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

_______________________________________________
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims ³CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON
AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDERŠ² It¹s not true. Here¹s the breakdown

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: ³The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order²

What Clinton actually signed:

-----------
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence
information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the
certifications required by that section.
-----------

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not
involve ³the premises, information, material, or property of a United States
person.² That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush¹s program is that, for the first time ever,
allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the
United States. Clinton¹s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: ³Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence
information without a court order.²

What Carter¹s executive order actually says:

-----------
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve
electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a
court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required
by that Section.
-----------

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain ³the contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party.² So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
_______________________________________________

Furthermore:
_______________________________________________

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/

The Echelon Myth

Prominent right-wing bloggers including Michelle Malkin, the Corner, Wizbang
and Free Republic are pushing the argument that President Bushs warrantless
domestic spying program isnt news because the Clinton administration did the
same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

During the 1990s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored
millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other
countries under a super secret program code-named EchelonŠall of it done without
a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

That's flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon,
complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a
FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before
Congress on 4/12/00:

"I'm here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding
Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the
National Security AgencyŠ
"There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously
adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly
or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of
a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their
conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been
obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the
FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the
communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law
and breaking it.
_______________________________________________

Andrea Mitchell actually does her job for a change:

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Me <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 12/24/05 4:01 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, Steve, the intitial report came about because some patriotic
soul
(and I'm not being ironic or sarcastic there) in the NSA leaked it.
Why?
Because they knew it was illegal. More info is slowly coming to light
because of people like them, thankfully. Some opinions on it by people
involved in that line of work:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html

[censored]!......

You [censored] could not give a [censored] about Clinton etal. Doing the exact
same
thing...

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Sorry Steve, but what Clinton did was *not* the same thing. The only way
that
you and your sources can make it appear to be so is by plainly and simply
misquoting the law.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

_______________________________________________
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims ³CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET
SEARCH ON
AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDERS² It¹s not true. Here¹s the breakdown

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: ³The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order²

What Clinton actually signed:

-----------
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to
approve
physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence
information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes
the
certifications required by that section.
-----------

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will
not
involve ³the premises, information, material, or property of a United
States
person.² That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush¹s program is that, for the first time
ever,
allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside
of the
United States. Clinton¹s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: ³Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence
information without a court order.²

What Carter¹s executive order actually says:

-----------
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve
electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information
without a
court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required
by that Section.
-----------

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain ³the contents of any communication to which
a
United States person is a party.² So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
_______________________________________________

Furthermore:
_______________________________________________

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/

The Echelon Myth

Prominent right-wing bloggers including Michelle Malkin, the Corner,
Wizbang
and Free Republic are pushing the argument that President Bushs
warrantless
domestic spying program isnt news because the Clinton administration did
the
same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

During the 1990s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency
monitored
millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of
other
countries under a super secret program code-named EchelonSall of it done
without
a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

That's flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named
Echelon,
complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were
targeted, a
FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this
before
Congress on 4/12/00:

"I'm here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations
regarding
Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the
National Security AgencyS
"There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously
adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether
directly
or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are
agents of
a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their
conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant
has been
obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass
the
FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the
communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the
law
and breaking it.
_______________________________________________

Andrea Mitchell actually does her job for a change:

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Thanks for setting the record here straight.

On 12/24/05 5:28 PM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Me <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 12/24/05 4:01 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Well, Steve, the intitial report came about because some patriotic
> soul
> (and I'm not being ironic or sarcastic there) in the NSA leaked it.
> Why?
> Because they knew it was illegal. More info is slowly coming to light
> because of people like them, thankfully. Some opinions on it by people
> involved in that line of work:
>
> http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html

[censored]!......

You [censored] could not give a [censored] about Clinton etal. Doing the exact
same
thing...

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Sorry Steve, but what Clinton did was *not* the same thing. The only way
that
you and your sources can make it appear to be so is by plainly and simply
misquoting the law.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

_______________________________________________
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims ³CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET
SEARCH ON
AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDERS² It¹s not true. Here¹s the breakdown

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: ³The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order²

What Clinton actually signed:

-----------
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
[Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to
approve
physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence
information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes
the
certifications required by that section.
-----------

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will
not
involve ³the premises, information, material, or property of a United
States
person.² That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush¹s program is that, for the first time
ever,
allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside
of the
United States. Clinton¹s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: ³Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence
information without a court order.²

What Carter¹s executive order actually says:

-----------
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve
electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information
without a
court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required
by that Section.
-----------

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain ³the contents of any communication to which
a
United States person is a party.² So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
_______________________________________________

Furthermore:
_______________________________________________

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/

The Echelon Myth

Prominent right-wing bloggers including Michelle Malkin, the Corner,
Wizbang
and Free Republic are pushing the argument that President Bushs
warrantless
domestic spying program isnt news because the Clinton administration did
the
same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

During the 1990s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency
monitored
millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of
other
countries under a super secret program code-named EchelonSall of it done
without
a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

That's flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named
Echelon,
complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were
targeted, a
FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this
before
Congress on 4/12/00:

"I'm here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations
regarding
Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the
National Security AgencyS
"There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously
adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether
directly
or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are
agents of
a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their
conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant
has been
obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass
the
FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the
communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the
law
and breaking it.
_______________________________________________

Andrea Mitchell actually does her job for a change:

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Thanks for setting the record here straight.

It will never end.......
Since your "progressive" (aka socialist) website says so....... It MUST be
true.

In article <[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

Thanks for setting the record here straight.

You know, it does bug me when I see a bunch of talking points getting
propagated that are based on out and out lies and manipulations of reality. The
old saw about "repeating something often enough and it becomes the truth" is
S.O.P. for this administration, and has been. The media bears a huge
responsibility in this, as they are so afraid of getting called for "liberal
bias" that they regularly do stories with two "sides", where one is factual and
the other is [censored]. That's balance?

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?