Favorite electronics movies

[Richard Henry]

When I was in High School, I joined the Young Republicans and we went and
campaigned for Goldwater. "Au H2O '64" was the catch-phrase. I remember,
after he got trounced, seeing an ep of "That Was The Week That Was" where
someone remarked, "Well, Goldwater didn't get elected because he said he
wanted to bomb North Vietnam". And then somehow manages to notice that
that's exactly what Johnson was doing.

And, yes, back in those days the Republicans were for upholding and
supporting the Constitution. They advocated limited government, too,
AFAIK.

Wonder what made them flip-flop to the party of "**** the Constitution!"

Money.

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

It took a bit of googling, but this might be interesting:
http://www.maxmon.com/history.htm

"1926 AD First patent for a semiconductor transistor"

So, yes, if anybody'd thought of it, it was pretty much off-the-shelf by
then.

IIRC a FET.
However, materials problems would have prevented it working.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:18:43 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."

Richard Henry wrote:

[snip]

I agree that monitoring communications between US citizens and unfriendly
foreigneers is in the US national interest. In fact, Congress agrees, so
much so that they set up a special secret court to issue the necessary
warrants so that the Bill of Rights is not trashed in the process.

That court (the FISA court) will even grant subpoenas after the fact.
So, why is George opposed to using them? My guess is that the wiretaps
in question have nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Its more
likely that the administration is venturing into areas like industrial
espionage or putting together lists of 'Friends of George' and 'Enemies
of George'.

Bull puckey.

But George IS "listening" in on calls that end up yielding no
subpoena-worthy information.

And you apparently have no problem with that.

If you are blind listening to calls from "over there" what do you
expect?

To end up in court on the wrong end of a warrant.

In this day and age, I'd call it "Googling" ;-)

Historically, it has been known as "spying".

You'd think on a technical newsgroup people would be more cognizant of
the technology...

The calls are "listened to" by computers looking for "key words".

Not legally in this country without a subpoena.

Calls with certain key words are tagged for human examination.

First, everyone knows about that capability. Years ago, even the stupid
terrorists started using code words or euphemisms for the actual
terminology. Second, the conversations of interest are most probably in
Arabic (one of a number of dialects), Farsi, Pashtun, etc. The FBI, CIA
nd NSA lack the language expertise to parse even the targeted
intercepts, let alone those caught by such a wide net.

That this technique is being used suggests that it is being used against
US residents for entirely different purposes than combating terrorism.

Do you have a problem with that?

Yes. Its illegal.

If you do, may your town be the next terrorist target ;-)

Maybe, maybe not. But spending time and money looking for porn and
closing strip clubs isn't going to stop that from happening. Read the
9/11 Report about where the intelligence shortcomings are: They are in
data analysis, not collection. The CIA and FBI need better tools to
parse what they legally collect, not get swamped with more data. They'd
be better off throwing the con artists off the FBI IT upgrade project
and hiring somebody competent, for example.

 

[Rich Grise]

Frankenstein.

Actually, the movie "Frankenstein" had very little to do with the
book. Anyone ever actually read "Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus"
by Mary Shelly? I have, and I loved it.

The "monster" only gets referred to as the "creature", and parts of
the story are told from his POV - loneliness, rejection, and getting
blamed by his maker for not getting made right.

It's scary, but not monster-movie scary - more like psychodrama
scary.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Frankenstein.

Uh uh. Gotta be "YOUNG Frankenstein." Woof!

WRT the OP's question. Hadn't seen the flick before, just happened to
surf by it and watched the rest (so I never did figure out what Will
Smith's character did that started the whole mess).

I was rocking along with it okay until the part where (paraphrasing):

[team is looking at satellite images]
agent 1: Dang, I wish we could see his face.
agent 2: Dude! These are satellite photos from 150 miles up. They can
only look straight down.
agent 1: D'oh![/QUOTE]

One cute thing I noticed about that satellite is that as it's trundling
past the (stationary) camera in orbit, the sound FX was
"Beep-bip-beep-bip, beep-beep-bip-beep" AKA "CQ" in Morse Code. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

On 22 Jan 2006 11:36:42 GMT, Ian Stirling <[email protected]>

One of my favorites was on tv tonight - Enemy of the State.

Frankenstein.

Uh uh. Gotta be "YOUNG Frankenstein." Woof!

WRT the OP's question. Hadn't seen the flick before, just happened to
surf by it and watched the rest (so I never did figure out what Will
Smith's character did that started the whole mess).


--Spoiler--

The Jon Voigt character arranged the murder of a Congressman who was opposed
toa bill giving more power to NSA. The murder was captured on a
motion-sensitive wildlife study camera. The biologist saw the tape, and
then called a friend who published a left-wing paper. The NSA intercepted
the call, and agents (on a Standard Training Op) chased him down. He
dropped a copy of the tape on a flash card, hidden in a hand-held game, into
Will Smith's shopping bag. The NSA then started chasing Smith, but he
didn't know what they were after.


I was rocking along with it okay until the part where (paraphrasing):

[team is looking at satellite images]
agent 1: Dang, I wish we could see his face.
agent 2: Dude! These are satellite photos from 150 miles up. They can
only look straight down.
agent 1: D'oh!

Ooooookay ...

Well, earlier they were able to take the film from a store security camera
and turn the image of a shopping back through 360° looking for suspicious
bulges.

WRT the OP's question: not subversive at all. And besides, it's already
too late. King George has (i) a "war" on an emotion that will last as
long as he wants it to last, and (ii) claimed "authority as Commander In
Chief" during time of "war" to ignore any laws that he chooses,
irrespective of the legislature or the courts.

I thought it was a fun movie, something that could get the leftist
weenie's panties all in a knot. Can't you just see Teddy (or Hillary)
screaming, "See what they're doing?" ;-)

I mean, it's not as if the US intel services would do anything illegal to their
own citizens, is it?

Yeah, and if you believe that, I've got a neat bridge for sale. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On 22 Jan 2006 11:36:42 GMT, Ian Stirling <[email protected]>
wrote:



One of my favorites was on tv tonight - Enemy of the State.

Frankenstein.

Uh uh. Gotta be "YOUNG Frankenstein." Woof!

WRT the OP's question. Hadn't seen the flick before, just happened to
surf by it and watched the rest (so I never did figure out what Will
Smith's character did that started the whole mess).


--Spoiler--

The Jon Voigt character arranged the murder of a Congressman who was opposed
toa bill giving more power to NSA. The murder was captured on a
motion-sensitive wildlife study camera. The biologist saw the tape, and
then called a friend who published a left-wing paper. The NSA intercepted
the call, and agents (on a Standard Training Op) chased him down. He
dropped a copy of the tape on a flash card, hidden in a hand-held game, into
Will Smith's shopping bag. The NSA then started chasing Smith, but he
didn't know what they were after.


I was rocking along with it okay until the part where (paraphrasing):

[team is looking at satellite images]
agent 1: Dang, I wish we could see his face.
agent 2: Dude! These are satellite photos from 150 miles up. They can
only look straight down.
agent 1: D'oh!

Ooooookay ...

Well, earlier they were able to take the film from a store security camera
and turn the image of a shopping back through 360° looking for suspicious
bulges.


WRT the OP's question: not subversive at all. And besides, it's already
too late. King George has (i) a "war" on an emotion that will last as
long as he wants it to last, and (ii) claimed "authority as Commander In
Chief" during time of "war" to ignore any laws that he chooses,
irrespective of the legislature or the courts.



I thought it was a fun movie, something that could get the leftist
weenie's panties all in a knot. Can't you just see Teddy (or Hillary)
screaming, "See what they're doing?" ;-)

I mean, it's not as if the US intel services would do anything illegal to their
own citizens, is it?

Yes, but "We were just following orders" is the excuse.

Well, the CIA and especially the FBI have a pretty bad track record for
respecting the limits in the constitution.

But it is my opinion that the people in the NSA understand the
constitution. You can bet that president Bush's illegal order to
monitor US persons without FISA or other court approval was leaked by
someone in the NSA who was disgusted and appalled.

As far as I can see, without a bona-fide declaration of war from the
congress, precious little slack should be accorded to the president on
matters of the constitution and limits to executive power.

--Mac

Yeah, they keep saying, "We're at WAR!!!" But when I ask them "So can
someone please show me that declaration of war?" they fall strangely
silent.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Pooh Bear]

Cable channels always rerun movies,because they have so much time to fill.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that network execs would not select
their movies to match current events? Especially considering the Mainstream
Media bias towards liberalism.

Schedules are worked out way in advance.

Graham

 

[JeffM]

Wonder what made them flip-flop

Money.
Richard Henry

The man sure can give a concise answer.

 

[JeffM]

Blade Runner...showed futuristic devices that were less than perfect

Yeah, but Daryl Hannah was hot!
Rich Grise

Not even on her best day.
http://www.google.com/search?filter=0&q=gary-mule-deer+your-grandma

 

[Jim Yanik]

In one of his broadcasts, 1996
http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

and for the US side of the declaration;

http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp

read down to the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force".(AUMF)

The article is mainly about the current US-Foreign "surveillance" brouhaha.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Those weren't floppy disks - they were plastic props.

They did kinda foreshadow the gigabyte USB sticks (or whatever they're
called these days)...

Cheers!
Rich

Or some sort of flash memory card;SD,Compact Memory....

 

[Jim Yanik]

[snip]

Well, the CIA and especially the FBI have a pretty bad track record for
respecting the limits in the constitution.

But it is my opinion that the people in the NSA understand the
constitution. You can bet that president Bush's illegal order to
monitor US persons without FISA or other court approval was leaked by
someone in the NSA who was disgusted and appalled.

Maybe. Or perhaps it was noticed by someone in the telecom industry.
After all, wiretaps are no longer conducted with alligator clips in a
phone closet anymore. RF interception doesn't work well for fiber optic
systems either. The NSA needs a hook into the telecom's switching
equipment. That leaves behind lots of evidence in log files, network
traffic reports, etc.

As far as I can see, without a bona-fide declaration of war from the
congress, precious little slack should be accorded to the president on
matters of the constitution and limits to executive power.

The courts have ruled that a state of war isn't justification for
violating provisions of the constitution or the law. And, we're not even
officially at war right now.

Do you think that FISA overrides the Constitution? I don't.
Clinton didn't,either.

http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
I'd say this guy's qualifications indicate he knows what he's talking
about.

And we ARE "officially at war" right now.

(how DOES one declare war against a non-nation/state or multinational
terror group? Congress authorizes use of military force.)
(military force being an "act of war".)

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Jim Thompson" <[email protected]>
wrote in message On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:18:43 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."

Richard Henry wrote:

[snip]

I agree that monitoring communications between US citizens and
unfriendly
foreigneers is in the US national interest. In fact, Congress
agrees,
so
much so that they set up a special secret court to issue the
necessary warrants so that the Bill of Rights is not trashed in
the process.

That court (the FISA court) will even grant subpoenas after the
fact. So, why is George opposed to using them? My guess is that
the wiretaps in question have nothing to do with the war on
terrorism. Its more likely that the administration is venturing
into areas like industrial espionage or putting together lists of
'Friends of George' and 'Enemies of George'.

Bull puckey.

But George IS "listening" in on calls that end up yielding no
subpoena-worthy information.

And you apparently have no problem with that.

If you are blind listening to calls from "over there" what do you
expect?

To end up in court on the wrong end of a warrant.

In this day and age, I'd call it "Googling" ;-)

Historically, it has been known as "spying".

You'd think on a technical newsgroup people would be more cognizant
of the technology...

The calls are "listened to" by computers looking for "key words".

Not legally in this country without a subpoena.

Calls with certain key words are tagged for human examination.

First, everyone knows about that capability. Years ago, even the
stupid terrorists started using code words or euphemisms for the
actual terminology. Second, the conversations of interest are most
probably in Arabic (one of a number of dialects), Farsi, Pashtun, etc.
The FBI, CIA nd NSA lack the language expertise to parse even the
targeted intercepts, let alone those caught by such a wide net.

That this technique is being used suggests that it is being used
against US residents for entirely different purposes than combating
terrorism.

Do you have a problem with that?

Yes. Its illegal.

If you do, may your town be the next terrorist target ;-)

Maybe, maybe not. But spending time and money looking for porn and
closing strip clubs isn't going to stop that from happening. Read the
9/11 Report about where the intelligence shortcomings are: They are in
data analysis, not collection. The CIA and FBI need better tools to
parse what they legally collect, not get swamped with more data.
They'd be better off throwing the con artists off the FBI IT upgrade
project and hiring somebody competent, for example.

read this;
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/130610.shtml?s=ic

About FISA.

 

[Richard Henry]

The man sure can give a concise answer.

Thank you, I guess. I am a fan of Calvin Coolidge, known for such famous
speeches as "Sin...He's ag'in it", "You lose', and "Ash".

However, allow me to elaborate a bit on the "Money" comment. It's not that
the politicians are weak or greedy (at least not all of them), but under the
current electioneering system, if they don't accept money, they won't have
money to spend, and they won't get elected. Therefore the campaign fund
abuse is built into the system.

There are exceptions. The entire time I lived in Vermont, George Aiken was
in the Senate. He accepted almost no campaign contributions, but didn't
need them - his last campaign expenditure report (1968) was $17.09. The
Democrats eventually just yielded and nominated him as their candidate also.

 

[Richard Henry]

[snip]

Well, the CIA and especially the FBI have a pretty bad track record for
respecting the limits in the constitution.

But it is my opinion that the people in the NSA understand the
constitution. You can bet that president Bush's illegal order to
monitor US persons without FISA or other court approval was leaked by
someone in the NSA who was disgusted and appalled.

Maybe. Or perhaps it was noticed by someone in the telecom industry.
After all, wiretaps are no longer conducted with alligator clips in a
phone closet anymore. RF interception doesn't work well for fiber optic
systems either. The NSA needs a hook into the telecom's switching
equipment. That leaves behind lots of evidence in log files, network
traffic reports, etc.

As far as I can see, without a bona-fide declaration of war from the
congress, precious little slack should be accorded to the president on
matters of the constitution and limits to executive power.

The courts have ruled that a state of war isn't justification for
violating provisions of the constitution or the law. And, we're not even
officially at war right now.

Do you think that FISA overrides the Constitution? I don't.

Which part of the Consitution did you have in mind?

Clinton didn't,either.

Citing one criminal does not excuse another.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

and for the US side of the declaration;

http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp

read down to the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force".(AUMF)

The article is mainly about the current US-Foreign "surveillance" brouhaha.

This is just more bullshit propaganda fluff.

I want to see the document that says, "In Congress, on <date>, it has been
resolved that the United States shall be in a state of war with <country>."

Can you find me one of them?

If not, then George W. Bush is a criminal, plain and simple.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

[snip]

Well, the CIA and especially the FBI have a pretty bad track record for
respecting the limits in the constitution.

But it is my opinion that the people in the NSA understand the
constitution. You can bet that president Bush's illegal order to
monitor US persons without FISA or other court approval was leaked by
someone in the NSA who was disgusted and appalled.

Maybe. Or perhaps it was noticed by someone in the telecom industry.
After all, wiretaps are no longer conducted with alligator clips in a
phone closet anymore. RF interception doesn't work well for fiber optic
systems either. The NSA needs a hook into the telecom's switching
equipment. That leaves behind lots of evidence in log files, network
traffic reports, etc.

As far as I can see, without a bona-fide declaration of war from the
congress, precious little slack should be accorded to the president on
matters of the constitution and limits to executive power.

The courts have ruled that a state of war isn't justification for
violating provisions of the constitution or the law. And, we're not even
officially at war right now.

Do you think that FISA overrides the Constitution? I don't.
Clinton didn't,either.

http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601240827.asp
I'd say this guy's qualifications indicate he knows what he's talking
about.

And we ARE "officially at war" right now.

Please cite the specific declaration of war.

(how DOES one declare war against a non-nation/state or multinational
terror group? Congress authorizes use of military force.)
(military force being an "act of war".)

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are (supposedly) acting under the
authority of the UN Security Council.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:58:53 -0800, "Richard Henry"


"Jim Thompson" <[email protected]>
wrote in message On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:18:43 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."

Richard Henry wrote:

[snip]

I agree that monitoring communications between US citizens and
unfriendly
foreigneers is in the US national interest. In fact, Congress
agrees,
so
much so that they set up a special secret court to issue the
necessary warrants so that the Bill of Rights is not trashed in
the process.

That court (the FISA court) will even grant subpoenas after the
fact. So, why is George opposed to using them? My guess is that
the wiretaps in question have nothing to do with the war on
terrorism. Its more likely that the administration is venturing
into areas like industrial espionage or putting together lists of
'Friends of George' and 'Enemies of George'.

Bull puckey.

But George IS "listening" in on calls that end up yielding no
subpoena-worthy information.

And you apparently have no problem with that.

If you are blind listening to calls from "over there" what do you
expect?

To end up in court on the wrong end of a warrant.

In this day and age, I'd call it "Googling" ;-)

Historically, it has been known as "spying".



You'd think on a technical newsgroup people would be more cognizant
of the technology...

The calls are "listened to" by computers looking for "key words".

Not legally in this country without a subpoena.

Calls with certain key words are tagged for human examination.

First, everyone knows about that capability. Years ago, even the
stupid terrorists started using code words or euphemisms for the
actual terminology. Second, the conversations of interest are most
probably in Arabic (one of a number of dialects), Farsi, Pashtun, etc.
The FBI, CIA nd NSA lack the language expertise to parse even the
targeted intercepts, let alone those caught by such a wide net.

That this technique is being used suggests that it is being used
against US residents for entirely different purposes than combating
terrorism.

Do you have a problem with that?

Yes. Its illegal.

If you do, may your town be the next terrorist target ;-)

Maybe, maybe not. But spending time and money looking for porn and
closing strip clubs isn't going to stop that from happening. Read the
9/11 Report about where the intelligence shortcomings are: They are in
data analysis, not collection. The CIA and FBI need better tools to
parse what they legally collect, not get swamped with more data.
They'd be better off throwing the con artists off the FBI IT upgrade
project and hiring somebody competent, for example.

read this;
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/130610.shtml?s=ic

About FISA.

That still doesn't excuse going beyond what the Patriot act authorized.
The administration actually asked for more powers than were granted by
the act and congress specifically said, 'No'. So they are intentionally
violating congressional intent.

It'll be a real shame if they lose the capabilities that they have been
granted at present by abusing them.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

[snip]

I agree that monitoring communications between US citizens and
unfriendly foreigneers is in the US national interest. In fact,
Congress agrees, so much so that they set up a special secret court
to issue the necessary warrants so that the Bill of Rights is not
trashed in the process.

That court (the FISA court) will even grant subpoenas after the fact.
So, why is George opposed to using them?

Because it unConstitutionally transfers Executive powers to conduct war to
the Congress or the Courts.That is the SAME as Clinton asserted during his
terms.It's been like that for hundreds of years.

My guess is that the wiretaps
in question have nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Its more
likely that the administration is venturing into areas like industrial
espionage or putting together lists of 'Friends of George' and
'Enemies of George'.

Now,the Clinton administration did EXACTLY that.

Conducted illegal espionage? Not likely, or Ken Starr wouldn't have had
to pursue the blow job angle against Clinton.

They also used the IRS as their personal weapon.

That's a weapon that's effective against someone who violates the tax
code. If Cinton's enemies were particulary vulnerable to this sort of
attack, maybe they deserved it. If you can't do the time, don't do the
crime.