On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:52:13 -0500, "Cerion"
wrote:


Seriously though, if the technology develops quite a bit more, no tellin'
what kinds of cool practical applications it might have, or it could fade
into obscurity with no practical or popular applications at all. But riot
control? I don't think they're gonna make a living selling it for such a
ridiculous application. :-)

Hey security and weapons budgets have never been higher... it's all in
the marketing.

Al

heh heh!


"playon" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message
...
So you advocate shooting off guns in crowded areas... nice.

Al

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:24:44 -0700, "paul"
wrote:

I always preffered the sound of a .44 for discouraging crap from
accumulating near a convention center.

paul


"playon" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message
.. .
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082704C.shtml

beacuse it upsets the flow of the conversation!

why is top posting frowned upon?

heh heh!


"playon" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message
...
So you advocate shooting off guns in crowded areas... nice.

Al

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:24:44 -0700, "paul"
wrote:

I always preffered the sound of a .44 for discouraging crap from
accumulating near a convention center.

paul


"playon" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message
.. .
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082704C.shtml

In article writes:

As I recall, the resonant frequency of the human anal sphincter is 7 Hz.
14 Hz. But who's counting?

my RTA shows it at about 160
(_o_)

Is that coming or going?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

playon wrote:

I'm guessing if they ever used subsonic frequencies with that thing,
ear plugs wouldn't help much.

Either really big earplugs or a butt plug might help.

--
ha

In article kz%Xc.106102$TI1.33217@attbi_s52,
"Rich Peet" wrote:

Don't flame the guy like me that field records a lot with large parabolics.
I do some pretty neat things with parabolic recordings.

They can not reflect a beam back to the source. They direct an infinite
distance to one point or can project one point to an infinite distance. A
surface that reflects directly back at the source is called a wall.


Of course, you're right. And flat surfaces are much more useful at a
demonstration: you can write on them!

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

(hank alrich) wrote in message ...
playon wrote:

I'm guessing if they ever used subsonic frequencies with that thing,
ear plugs wouldn't help much.

Either really big earplugs or a butt plug might help.

Pampers. Hurled back at the oppressors when, uh, 'filled'.

Mikey Wozniak
Nova Music Productions
This sig is haiku

Hey security and weapons budgets have never been higher... it's all in
the marketing.

Al


Yeah, a barrel of monkeys all the way around!

Maybe some Chinese factory will copy those things and we'll all be able to
buy our own personal riot control sound beams at Wallmart for $29.99...

Skrl

I have an obscure electronic music CD with some curious black & white
photos
on the sleeve. Big parabolas fashioned out of concrete, one like 20
meters
high! Turns out they were parabolic reflectors on the coast of England
used
to detect approaching aircraft during World War II!

Dang, I lost the CD.... :-o

Have no fear:

http://www.arcanemethods.com/Waalsdorp1.jpg

http://www.arcanemethods.com/Waalsdorp2.jpg

I know of one acoustic experimentalist, who shall go
nameless, that I would dearly love to sit in that at some
small distance from Killerhorn to see if Doppler distortion
can be detected.


Bob


Oh, I found those darned things on the web and the one on the CD sleeve
were in Denge, Kent (England) & built during World War I (not WWII).
Pretty puzzling when I first saw the photos as they were from the back sides
of those things and it was hard to tell how big they were or what the heck
they were for. :-P

One web site refers to them as "concrete ears". :-)

Skler

Have no fear:

http://www.arcanemethods.com/Waalsdorp1.jpg

http://www.arcanemethods.com/Waalsdorp2.jpg



Oh man, those are choice photos! :-)

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:09:27 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1093913398k@trad):

ubject: NYC Police to use sound to control protesters
From: (Mike Rivers)
Date: Yesterday 6:09 AM
Reply-To:
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro


In article
writes:

As I recall, the resonant frequency of the human anal sphincter is 7 Hz.
14 Hz. But who's counting?

my RTA shows it at about 160
(_o_)

Is that coming or going?


Is that with the accelerator card upgrade?

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:02:57 -0400, playon wrote
(in article ):


So you advocate shooting off guns in crowded areas... nice.

Al

Did they book some Dance-Hall acts to play at this? Buju Banton? Gun Gun
Salute!

Didn't know them rednecks partied like that.

I heard that every July 4th 'on average' 4 people get killed by stray
bulletts from revellers shooting their guns in the air.

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:

George

yup it takes the national guard to protest the protesters by shooting
them dead, as they did at Kent State

Taking up rocket science too, are ya G?

how quickly we forget our fallen heros
G

WillStG wrote:

know", "What are you protesting?" and he says "I dunno - I haven't been given
my assigned protest for the day yet." Truly ironic.



Not really. A protest is a surprisingly organized event. There is, for
example, a huge network of support taking care of the kids, whatever,
that you never see. Anyway, there are plenty of things to protest at
the RNC - Bush has a *huge* number of "accomplishments" (to be polite)
that could be protested, and everyone's gonna want to protest the war.
The organizers will have to make assignments, otherwise the full breadth
of this awful administration's screw-ups won't be highlighted.

paul wrote:

Huh?!?

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/ohio.htm

playon wrote:

Right, and what portion of the protesters were they, about 1%?


A lot of these protestors don't want Kerry, either. How can anyone
assume they do?

I guess some people (especially at 1211 6th Ave.) only see black and
white. No colors. Not even any shades of gray!

Bingo!

Give the man a prize.

Most of these good folks doing the protesting are true anarchists. They only
see Kerry over Bush as a step in the right direction; not the final
prefferred destination which would be no laws, no governments, no respect
for anything... ANYTHING, and a take what you can take, do what you can do
attitude.

paul

"Don Cooper" wrote in message
...


playon wrote:

Right, and what portion of the protesters were they, about 1%?


A lot of these protestors don't want Kerry, either. How can anyone
assume they do?

I guess some people (especially at 1211 6th Ave.) only see black and
white. No colors. Not even any shades of gray!

Bob Cain wrote:

Heavy sigh. It is not those polled a poll makes liars of,
it's those responsible for the misinformation the polls
indicate people have. I've told you over and over and over
that such polls don't disclose the truth, they disclose the
lies.


I know of no one else in the world that calls the events of 9/11/01 a
"bombing" or a "second bombing:".


You can't really be as dense as you pretend, Will. It just
isn't possible.


It does, however, seem to be medical.

playon
Read my lips: 1993 was different from 2001.

Yeah, it's a *real big difference* that Saddam Hussein killed fewer people
and destroyed less of the World Trade Center in 1993 than Osama Bin Laden did
in 2001.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

playon
Read my lips: 1993 was different from 2001.

Yeah, it's a *real big difference* that Saddam Hussein killed fewer people
and destroyed less of the World Trade Center in 1993 than Osama Bin Laden did
in 2001.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:

playon
Read my lips: 1993 was different from 2001.

Yeah, it's a *real big difference* that Saddam Hussein killed fewer people
and destroyed less of the World Trade Center in 1993 than Osama Bin Laden did
in 2001.


Can't be a connection. Aren't their birthdays different?

WillStG wrote:

playon
Read my lips: 1993 was different from 2001.

Yeah, it's a *real big difference* that Saddam Hussein killed fewer people
and destroyed less of the World Trade Center in 1993 than Osama Bin Laden did
in 2001.


Can't be a connection. Aren't their birthdays different?

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:

playon
Read my lips: 1993 was different from 2001.

Yeah, it's a *real big difference* that Saddam Hussein killed fewer people
and destroyed less of the World Trade Center in 1993 than Osama Bin Laden did
in 2001.


I see you really do understand
Saddam was the focus and did the attack in 93
OBL should be /have been the focus for the attacks he did in 01
saddam-93
obl-01

Say it again will
saddam-93

OBL-01


It was not saddam in 01 , it was OBL(who GW has not mentioned in over 2
years)

it was neither Saddam 's role in the 9/11 atrtacks(there was none) nor
the WMD(again there were none) that could have possibly promted us to
divert our mission from fighting a terroist to taking over oil feilds


I know you know this stuff Will
your just to entrenched in the right wing propaganda machinbe to ever
admit it in public
George

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:

playon
Read my lips: 1993 was different from 2001.

Yeah, it's a *real big difference* that Saddam Hussein killed fewer people
and destroyed less of the World Trade Center in 1993 than Osama Bin Laden did
in 2001.


I see you really do understand
Saddam was the focus and did the attack in 93
OBL should be /have been the focus for the attacks he did in 01
saddam-93
obl-01

Say it again will
saddam-93

OBL-01


It was not saddam in 01 , it was OBL(who GW has not mentioned in over 2
years)

it was neither Saddam 's role in the 9/11 atrtacks(there was none) nor
the WMD(again there were none) that could have possibly promted us to
divert our mission from fighting a terroist to taking over oil feilds


I know you know this stuff Will
your just to entrenched in the right wing propaganda machinbe to ever
admit it in public
George

On 06 Sep 2004 05:15:16 GMT, ospam (WillStG) wrote:

playon
Read my lips: 1993 was different from 2001.

Yeah, it's a *real big difference* that Saddam Hussein killed fewer people
and destroyed less of the World Trade Center in 1993 than Osama Bin Laden did
in 2001.

OK so now you are finally admitting that Saddam wasn't behind 9/11.
You are making progress.

On 06 Sep 2004 05:15:16 GMT, ospam (WillStG) wrote:

playon
Read my lips: 1993 was different from 2001.

Yeah, it's a *real big difference* that Saddam Hussein killed fewer people
and destroyed less of the World Trade Center in 1993 than Osama Bin Laden did
in 2001.

OK so now you are finally admitting that Saddam wasn't behind 9/11.
You are making progress.

playon playonATcomcast.net

ospam (WillStG) wrote:

playon
Read my lips: 1993 was different from 2001.

Yeah, it's a *real big difference* that Saddam Hussein killed fewer
people
and destroyed less of the World Trade Center in 1993 than Osama Bin Laden
did
in 2001.

OK so now you are finally admitting that Saddam wasn't behind 9/11.
You are making progress.

Explain to me why Saddam, who was behind the first attack on the WTC in
'93 should be treated any differently Al Qaeda who did the second attack on
911. What, were too few Americans killed the first time for you to give a damn
about it? And you can't *prove* that Saddam didn't provide assistance to Al
Qaeda either, however there is proof they had an "ongoing relationship"
according to the Bi-Partisan 911 Commission.

So you do the math. You do have the occasional lucid moment, do you not?
Or go ahead and rather continue to claim by implication poor Saddam didn't
deserve to be removed from power. I'm sure that's going to get your Swiftboat
Hero Senator elected.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

playon playonATcomcast.net

ospam (WillStG) wrote:

playon
Read my lips: 1993 was different from 2001.

Yeah, it's a *real big difference* that Saddam Hussein killed fewer
people
and destroyed less of the World Trade Center in 1993 than Osama Bin Laden
did
in 2001.

OK so now you are finally admitting that Saddam wasn't behind 9/11.
You are making progress.

Explain to me why Saddam, who was behind the first attack on the WTC in
'93 should be treated any differently Al Qaeda who did the second attack on
911. What, were too few Americans killed the first time for you to give a damn
about it? And you can't *prove* that Saddam didn't provide assistance to Al
Qaeda either, however there is proof they had an "ongoing relationship"
according to the Bi-Partisan 911 Commission.

So you do the math. You do have the occasional lucid moment, do you not?
Or go ahead and rather continue to claim by implication poor Saddam didn't
deserve to be removed from power. I'm sure that's going to get your Swiftboat
Hero Senator elected.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits