YYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
Correspondent:: "iDRMRSR"
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:57:37 -0500

--------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473144/

[*]
-----




Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:22:04 -0800

--------
In article , "iDRMRSR"
wrote:

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473144/
>
and the work-around:

www.portoflosangeles.org/statistics/detailstat_year=2004.htm
Inbound loaded containers - 2004 YTD: 2,661,377

Similar numbers for New York, San Fransisco, New Orleans, etc....

pb


Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:54:53 -0700

--------
polar bear wrote:
>
> In article , "iDRMRSR"
> wrote:
>
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473144/
> >
> and the work-around:
>
> Inbound loaded containers - 2004 YTD: 2,661,377
>
> Similar numbers for New York, San Fransisco,
> New Orleans, etc....
>

They're way ahead on that one. They've been concerned
about an enemy pre-positioning nukes in the US since
the 1960s. Anything even mildly gamma radioactive has
been detectable by air for years now--only recently,
though they're not letting ships come anywhere near
US ports without getting screened.

That was the final piece of the puzzle, if the ports
themselves were the target. So now the Coast Guard
meets them way out to sea, or even checks them out at
final destination before the US.

--
Unless there is some reason for investigation,
the federal law and the Constitution still
protect the rights of citizens.
--FBI agent Greg Stejskal


Correspondent:: Baldin Pramer
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:02:37 -0700

--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:

> polar bear wrote:
>
>>In article , "iDRMRSR"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473144/
>>>
>>
>>and the work-around:
>>
>>Inbound loaded containers - 2004 YTD: 2,661,377
>>
>>Similar numbers for New York, San Fransisco,
>>New Orleans, etc....
>>
>
>
> They're way ahead on that one. They've been concerned
> about an enemy pre-positioning nukes in the US since
> the 1960s. Anything even mildly gamma radioactive has
> been detectable by air for years now--only recently,
> though they're not letting ships come anywhere near
> US ports without getting screened.
>
> That was the final piece of the puzzle, if the ports
> themselves were the target. So now the Coast Guard
> meets them way out to sea, or even checks them out at
> final destination before the US.
>

Do you have a cite?

--
Sir Baldin Pramer, R.P.A.


Correspondent:: dblspace@aol.complex-sex (David Langlois --- Ball serves Baal)
Date: 14 Nov 2004 19:28:03 GMT

--------
Good solid reentry sheilding ensures that the Pleasure Saucers of the Sin
Godesses is quite invulnerable to such "heat rays".


David
aka
the Rebi "Slash" Foreskin
(R/4)



******

Fathom the pain of Being

"I don't need the aggravation, I'm a lazy slob - hang fire!"

America like the cheese that bears its name leaves much to be desired

Conservatives would do well to remember Satan's favorite form of government is
theocracy


Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:00:19 -0700

--------
Baldin Pramer wrote:
>
> Do you have a cite?

Of the former, not that I can share.

Of the latter (new policy):

http://tinyurl.com/5vm93

--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"

--Kino Beman, brand name


Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:25:19 -0800

--------
In article <4196D70D.486F@succeeds.com>, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:

> polar bear wrote:
> >
> > In article , "iDRMRSR"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473144/
> > >
> > and the work-around:
> >
> > Inbound loaded containers - 2004 YTD: 2,661,377
> >
> > Similar numbers for New York, San Fransisco,
> > New Orleans, etc....
> >
>
> They're way ahead on that one. They've been concerned
> about an enemy pre-positioning nukes in the US since
> the 1960s. Anything even mildly gamma radioactive has
> been detectable by air for years now--only recently,
> though they're not letting ships come anywhere near
> US ports without getting screened.
>
> That was the final piece of the puzzle, if the ports
> themselves were the target. So now the Coast Guard
> meets them way out to sea, or even checks them out at
> final destination before the US.

All well and good if you're smuggling nuclear material, but who says
that's the threat? You can fit a lot of conventional explosives in a
container, not to mention bio-agents. I don't think they're the least
bit on top of this. On the one hand, you have to intercept hundreds of
incoming missles, a formidible, but potentially doable task. On the
other, you have to check MILLIONS of containers on a daily basis.

You're facing more than a threat here, Holmes. You're facing a
mathematical limit. There's a point where more energy is expended than
obtained and diminishing returns kick in. To do a complete job of
checking would involve a burden on trade far in excess of it's value.
This is particularly true where the only "value" offered is rapidly
depreciating bits of paper.

The same principle applies to Global Hegemony, which is why empires
ALWAYS fail. Nothing to do with ideology. It's just entropy playing
out.

pb


Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:07:31 -0700

--------
polar bear wrote:
>
> All well and good if you're smuggling nuclear
> material, but who says that's the threat? You
> can fit a lot of conventional explosives in a
> container, not to mention bio-agents...

Actually, bio agents are a LOT harder to use than
you might imagine. Ironically, the deadliest and
most effective prohibited military biological
agents are not as effective as influenza, the #1
bio threat in the world today. It kills, on average,
between 20-50,000 Americans every year. No other
disease has come anywhere close since the advent of
antibiotics.

There are a bunch of limiting factors. For example
dispersion. You want to spread it to as many people
as possible. But unless you poison their food and
water, which isn't easy, you probably want them to
spread it themselves.

This eliminates whole classes of bio agents that
aren't easily communicated, and you're left with
one: "pulmonary" diseases. Spread by coughing and
sneezing.

Or so we used to think. As it turns out, most
pulmonary diseases are spread by *hand*, not by
coughing and sneezing! If you don't touch infected
people, or what they have touched soon after they
have touched it, the odds of you getting infected
become very low. The same applies to colds and the
flu.

Another strong limiting factor is health care.
There are very few diseases that aren't treatable
*at all*. And even a little treatment strongly
limits disease transmission: quarantine, if
nothing else, usually works wonders. And every
person who survives often becomes a test tube for
antibodies that can protect other people.

So what makes influenza special? First of all, it
is a virus, so antibiotics don't touch it. Second,
it continually mutates into different strains, at
a far higher rate than most other viruses. Third
it has two very common animal vectors to help in
transmission and mutation: ducks and pigs. Fourth,
one of its major strains is "avian", that kills the
chicken embryos used to make vaccine. Fifth, it is
a pulmonary disease. Sixth, its "incubation period"
is optimum for spreading the disease--uncommon in
itself--most diseases are too fast or too slow in
incubation.

It is leaps and bounds over other pulmonary agents,
and laps ahead of non pulmonary diseases, at least
insofar as causing a plague in a population.


--
"Money can't buy you happiness,
but when you're poor, you can't
buy shit, and nobody will loan
you happiness."
--nu-monet


Correspondent:: "iDRMRSR"
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:15:38 -0500

--------
NU:
>>But unless you poison their food and
water, which isn't easy, you probably want them to
spread it themselves.

Heh, heh. Here's a slow way to kill a whole bunch of people

http://www.newsnet5.com/food/3920302/detail.html

Shit, ain't hardly no Hardees around NE Ohio, dammit. My tongue is already
erect.

[*]
-----




Correspondent:: Baldin Pramer
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:47:15 -0700

--------
iDRMRSR wrote:
> NU:
>
>>>But unless you poison their food and
>
> water, which isn't easy, you probably want them to
> spread it themselves.
>
> Heh, heh. Here's a slow way to kill a whole bunch of people
>
> http://www.newsnet5.com/food/3920302/detail.html
>
> Shit, ain't hardly no Hardees around NE Ohio, dammit. My tongue is already
> erect.

Pikers.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/commercials/bigburger.asp

--
Sir Baldin Pramer, R.P.A.


Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:21:36 -0800

--------
In article <41996EF3.35B1@succeeds.com>, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:

> polar bear wrote:
> >
> > All well and good if you're smuggling nuclear
> > material, but who says that's the threat? You
> > can fit a lot of conventional explosives in a
> > container, not to mention bio-agents...
>
> Actually, bio agents are a LOT harder to use than
> you might imagine. Ironically, the deadliest and
> most effective prohibited military biological
> agents are not as effective as influenza, the #1
> bio threat in the world today. It kills, on average,
> between 20-50,000 Americans every year. No other
> disease has come anywhere close since the advent of
> antibiotics.
>
> There are a bunch of limiting factors. For example
> dispersion. You want to spread it to as many people
> as possible. But unless you poison their food and
> water, which isn't easy, you probably want them to
> spread it themselves.
>
> This eliminates whole classes of bio agents that
> aren't easily communicated, and you're left with
> one: "pulmonary" diseases. Spread by coughing and
> sneezing.
>
> Or so we used to think. As it turns out, most
> pulmonary diseases are spread by *hand*, not by
> coughing and sneezing! If you don't touch infected
> people, or what they have touched soon after they
> have touched it, the odds of you getting infected
> become very low. The same applies to colds and the
> flu.
>
> Another strong limiting factor is health care.
> There are very few diseases that aren't treatable
> *at all*. And even a little treatment strongly
> limits disease transmission: quarantine, if
> nothing else, usually works wonders. And every
> person who survives often becomes a test tube for
> antibodies that can protect other people.
>
> So what makes influenza special? First of all, it
> is a virus, so antibiotics don't touch it. Second,
> it continually mutates into different strains, at
> a far higher rate than most other viruses. Third
> it has two very common animal vectors to help in
> transmission and mutation: ducks and pigs. Fourth,
> one of its major strains is "avian", that kills the
> chicken embryos used to make vaccine. Fifth, it is
> a pulmonary disease. Sixth, its "incubation period"
> is optimum for spreading the disease--uncommon in
> itself--most diseases are too fast or too slow in
> incubation.
>
> It is leaps and bounds over other pulmonary agents,
> and laps ahead of non pulmonary diseases, at least
> insofar as causing a plague in a population.

You're focusing on instances, whereas I'm talking about a general
principle. The point is, you don't need vast destruction to achieve a
political end. A few containers exploding at key locations and trade
would grind to a halt (if that were your goal).

Look at 9/11. Consider that it involved the destruction of only two key
buildings and about 3000 deaths. This is not significant damage
compared to the ongoing destruction of Iraq, yet look at the impact
it's had. Terror is a psychological weapon. It operates below the
consciousness in a place reason can't penetrate. Recall the duct tape
frenzy surrounding the anthrax letters. A completely foolish response,
and yet there they were, lining up to buy duct tape.

Still, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it for the simple reason that any
further attacks would be redundant, now that the political aim has been
achieved.

pb


Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:58:34 GMT

--------


polar bear wrote:

> In article <41996EF3.35B1@succeeds.com>, "nu-monet v7.0"
> wrote:
>
> > polar bear wrote:
> > >
> > > All well and good if you're smuggling nuclear
> > > material, but who says that's the threat? You
> > > can fit a lot of conventional explosives in a
> > > container, not to mention bio-agents...
> >
> > Actually, bio agents are a LOT harder to use than
> > you might imagine. Ironically, the deadliest and
> > most effective prohibited military biological
> > agents are not as effective as influenza, the #1
> > bio threat in the world today. It kills, on average,
> > between 20-50,000 Americans every year. No other
> > disease has come anywhere close since the advent of
> > antibiotics.
> >
> > There are a bunch of limiting factors. For example
> > dispersion. You want to spread it to as many people
> > as possible. But unless you poison their food and
> > water, which isn't easy, you probably want them to
> > spread it themselves.
> >
> > This eliminates whole classes of bio agents that
> > aren't easily communicated, and you're left with
> > one: "pulmonary" diseases. Spread by coughing and
> > sneezing.
> >
> > Or so we used to think. As it turns out, most
> > pulmonary diseases are spread by *hand*, not by
> > coughing and sneezing! If you don't touch infected
> > people, or what they have touched soon after they
> > have touched it, the odds of you getting infected
> > become very low. The same applies to colds and the
> > flu.
> >
> > Another strong limiting factor is health care.
> > There are very few diseases that aren't treatable
> > *at all*. And even a little treatment strongly
> > limits disease transmission: quarantine, if
> > nothing else, usually works wonders. And every
> > person who survives often becomes a test tube for
> > antibodies that can protect other people.
> >
> > So what makes influenza special? First of all, it
> > is a virus, so antibiotics don't touch it. Second,
> > it continually mutates into different strains, at
> > a far higher rate than most other viruses. Third
> > it has two very common animal vectors to help in
> > transmission and mutation: ducks and pigs. Fourth,
> > one of its major strains is "avian", that kills the
> > chicken embryos used to make vaccine. Fifth, it is
> > a pulmonary disease. Sixth, its "incubation period"
> > is optimum for spreading the disease--uncommon in
> > itself--most diseases are too fast or too slow in
> > incubation.
> >
> > It is leaps and bounds over other pulmonary agents,
> > and laps ahead of non pulmonary diseases, at least
> > insofar as causing a plague in a population.
>
> You're focusing on instances, whereas I'm talking about a general
> principle. The point is, you don't need vast destruction to achieve a
> political end. A few containers exploding at key locations and trade
> would grind to a halt (if that were your goal).
>
> Look at 9/11. Consider that it involved the destruction of only two key
> buildings and about 3000 deaths. This is not significant damage
> compared to the ongoing destruction of Iraq, yet look at the impact
> it's had. Terror is a psychological weapon. It operates below the
> consciousness in a place reason can't penetrate. Recall the duct tape
> frenzy surrounding the anthrax letters. A completely foolish response,
> and yet there they were, lining up to buy duct tape.
>
> Still, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it for the simple reason that any
> further attacks would be redundant, now that the political aim has been
> achieved.
>
> pb

US Biological Attacks And Operations On US Citizens
http://www.rense.com/general56/biolog.htm




Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:37:39 GMT

--------
>In article <4196D70D.486F@succeeds.com>, "nu-monet v7.0"
> wrote:
>
>> polar bear wrote:
>> >
>> > In article , "iDRMRSR"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473144/
>> > >
>> > and the work-around:
>> >
>> > Inbound loaded containers - 2004 YTD: 2,661,377
>> >
>> > Similar numbers for New York, San Fransisco,
>> > New Orleans, etc....
>> >
>>
>> They're way ahead on that one. They've been concerned
>> about an enemy pre-positioning nukes in the US since
>> the 1960s. Anything even mildly gamma radioactive has
>> been detectable by air for years now--only recently,
>> though they're not letting ships come anywhere near
>> US ports without getting screened.
>>
>> That was the final piece of the puzzle, if the ports
>> themselves were the target. So now the Coast Guard
>> meets them way out to sea, or even checks them out at
>> final destination before the US.
>
>All well and good if you're smuggling nuclear material, but who says
>that's the threat? You can fit a lot of conventional explosives in a
>container, not to mention bio-agents. I don't think they're the least
>bit on top of this. On the one hand, you have to intercept hundreds of
>incoming missles, a formidible, but potentially doable task. On the
>other, you have to check MILLIONS of containers on a daily basis.
>
>You're facing more than a threat here, Holmes. You're facing a
>mathematical limit. There's a point where more energy is expended than
>obtained and diminishing returns kick in. To do a complete job of
>checking would involve a burden on trade far in excess of it's value.
>This is particularly true where the only "value" offered is rapidly
>depreciating bits of paper.
>
>The same principle applies to Global Hegemony, which is why empires
>ALWAYS fail. Nothing to do with ideology. It's just entropy playing
>out.
>
>pb

Wow! So true. I studied a lot a bout Theory of Social Movements,
and they are movements only as long as they are unsuccessful;
when they succeed, they become institutions and go thru the
entropy cycle. Socks get lost. You could apply ride theory
to social movements and empires.



Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:34:43 -0800

--------
In article <7Cemd.24374$7i4.12781@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:

> >In article <4196D70D.486F@succeeds.com>, "nu-monet v7.0"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> polar bear wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article , "iDRMRSR"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473144/
> >> > >
> >> > and the work-around:
> >> >
> >> > Inbound loaded containers - 2004 YTD: 2,661,377
> >> >
> >> > Similar numbers for New York, San Fransisco,
> >> > New Orleans, etc....
> >> >
> >>
> >> They're way ahead on that one. They've been concerned
> >> about an enemy pre-positioning nukes in the US since
> >> the 1960s. Anything even mildly gamma radioactive has
> >> been detectable by air for years now--only recently,
> >> though they're not letting ships come anywhere near
> >> US ports without getting screened.
> >>
> >> That was the final piece of the puzzle, if the ports
> >> themselves were the target. So now the Coast Guard
> >> meets them way out to sea, or even checks them out at
> >> final destination before the US.
> >
> >All well and good if you're smuggling nuclear material, but who says
> >that's the threat? You can fit a lot of conventional explosives in a
> >container, not to mention bio-agents. I don't think they're the least
> >bit on top of this. On the one hand, you have to intercept hundreds of
> >incoming missles, a formidible, but potentially doable task. On the
> >other, you have to check MILLIONS of containers on a daily basis.
> >
> >You're facing more than a threat here, Holmes. You're facing a
> >mathematical limit. There's a point where more energy is expended than
> >obtained and diminishing returns kick in. To do a complete job of
> >checking would involve a burden on trade far in excess of it's value.
> >This is particularly true where the only "value" offered is rapidly
> >depreciating bits of paper.
> >
> >The same principle applies to Global Hegemony, which is why empires
> >ALWAYS fail. Nothing to do with ideology. It's just entropy playing
> >out.
> >
> >pb
>
> Wow! So true. I studied a lot a bout Theory of Social Movements,
> and they are movements only as long as they are unsuccessful;
> when they succeed, they become institutions and go thru the
> entropy cycle. Socks get lost. You could apply ride theory
> to social movements and empires.

Sure, if I could find a reference to it that makes sense.
I google ride theory and all I get is this:
Ride theory is the sociological study of transportation systems, with a
particular emphasis on amusement parks and carnival rides.

???

pb


Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:52:25 GMT

--------


polar bear wrote:

> In article <7Cemd.24374$7i4.12781@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> König Prüß, GfbAEV wrote:
>
> > >In article <4196D70D.486F@succeeds.com>, "nu-monet v7.0"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> polar bear wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > In article , "iDRMRSR"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6473144/
> > >> > >
> > >> > and the work-around:
> > >> >
> > >> > Inbound loaded containers - 2004 YTD: 2,661,377
> > >> >
> > >> > Similar numbers for New York, San Fransisco,
> > >> > New Orleans, etc....
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> They're way ahead on that one. They've been concerned
> > >> about an enemy pre-positioning nukes in the US since
> > >> the 1960s. Anything even mildly gamma radioactive has
> > >> been detectable by air for years now--only recently,
> > >> though they're not letting ships come anywhere near
> > >> US ports without getting screened.
> > >>
> > >> That was the final piece of the puzzle, if the ports
> > >> themselves were the target. So now the Coast Guard
> > >> meets them way out to sea, or even checks them out at
> > >> final destination before the US.
> > >
> > >All well and good if you're smuggling nuclear material, but who says
> > >that's the threat? You can fit a lot of conventional explosives in a
> > >container, not to mention bio-agents. I don't think they're the least
> > >bit on top of this. On the one hand, you have to intercept hundreds of
> > >incoming missles, a formidible, but potentially doable task. On the
> > >other, you have to check MILLIONS of containers on a daily basis.
> > >
> > >You're facing more than a threat here, Holmes. You're facing a
> > >mathematical limit. There's a point where more energy is expended than
> > >obtained and diminishing returns kick in. To do a complete job of
> > >checking would involve a burden on trade far in excess of it's value.
> > >This is particularly true where the only "value" offered is rapidly
> > >depreciating bits of paper.
> > >
> > >The same principle applies to Global Hegemony, which is why empires
> > >ALWAYS fail. Nothing to do with ideology. It's just entropy playing
> > >out.
> > >
> > >pb
> >
> > Wow! So true. I studied a lot a bout Theory of Social Movements,
> > and they are movements only as long as they are unsuccessful;
> > when they succeed, they become institutions and go thru the
> > entropy cycle. Socks get lost. You could apply ride theory
> > to social movements and empires.
>
> Sure, if I could find a reference to it that makes sense.
> I google ride theory and all I get is this:
> Ride theory is the sociological study of transportation systems, with a
> particular emphasis on amusement parks and carnival rides.
>
> ???
>
> pb

Well, it makes sense to me. Lots of people live in Disneyland alla time!
Life has become a big damned amusement park, and people go on rides
like the Mall Ride, the Girlfriend Ride, and Terror World! Wheeeeeee!

Some fun, eh kid?