suckas


sorabji.com: The Stalking Post: suckas
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By patrick on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 05:27 pm:


By wisper on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 05:47 pm:

    man, american companies are gonna be so pissed they didn't move on that first.


By wisper on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 05:47 pm:

    and then were will the free people of Iraq get their Coke and Nikes?!


By patrick on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 05:54 pm:

    move on what?

    they have.

    .


    I wonder if Bush has said "fuck the french" at all.

    I bet he has.

    you know he has.


By patrick on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 07:15 pm:

    ohhhhhhhh

    the absurdity builds.


    Like.

    OH MA GAWD

    what a freakin coincidence.

    this really getting to be like a comedy or something. they, in the whitehouse, just dont give a shit anymore do they. they got their war. they have their Congressional majority, they just don't give a rats ass how transparent they are anymore.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 07:27 pm:

    lay off the herb, man. you're babbling like a paranoid skitzo.

    what's next? you working in a gay publisher as a KGB double agent cum CIA?


By patrick on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 07:42 pm:

    what.

    its all right there man. no interpretation required.



    i havent smoked in weeks btw.






By patrick on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 07:58 pm:

    i mean my god, how can anyone NOT find it remotely absurd that they are handing out contracts to the VP's former company, a company and VP that are not unfamiliar to accusations of conflicts of interests mind you.

    oh c'mon.

    and then have the fucking french saying "well, while you're bombing them back to the stone, OF WHICH WE OPPOSE, please let us lick some of bones when your done"


    not that i ever regarded the french in high esteem anyway, but man did their motives shine through.

    if you going to wage ware and reward your oil buddies along the way, at least be discreet about it.

    There are hookers with more shame.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 08:00 pm:

    what if haliburton was the clear choice for the contracts? i'm not saying they are or aren't, but should they automatically be disqualified because of prior involvement with cheney?


By spunky on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 08:03 pm:

    None is needed.
    Should Haliburton no longer receive federal contracts because Cheney is now VP?


By patrick on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 08:08 pm:

    yes.



    he was CEO and quit to run with Bush. Its still fresh. its not like he was a low-level fuckwit. He wasnt "involved", he was the CEO for fuckssake!

    the risks for corruption and conflict of interest are way too great.

    sorry. maybe cheney shouldnt have ran with the Shrub then they could get that contract.

    oh wait, they did anyway.


    see? they just dont care.






By patrick on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 08:13 pm:

    considering he was the CEO trace, yes.

    the fence seperating mega corps and politicians is shakey enough as it is man...you wanna just tear it down?

    and don't spout that free enterprise shit that you have little to no understanding mister spunk. this is less about free enterprise than clear corruption and conflict of interest.





By trace on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 08:31 pm:

    No.
    You are the one with little to no understanding, little patrick.
    You obviously have no idea about the federal contracting process do you?

    The law requires no less then 3 bids.
    All three bids are reviewed by a selection comittee then their review is reviewed by another committee.

    Again, stuff your condecending attitude. Stop with the belittling remarks and come back to reality.
    I work for the federal government.
    I know the process.
    I also know a hell a lot more about the military then you would ever even want to know.
    I am sick of your self assured know-it-all bull crap.
    I helped with the fucking targets that were hit last week.
    I transmit all that fucking data from the AFIWC (Air Force Information Warfare Center), wich is part of the CPSG (crypto). Where the fuck do you think I have been this week?

    And goddamit, I know a fuck of a lot more about federal contracts then evidently you do.


By Nate fondue on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 09:10 pm:

    tracey you so cute when you're pissed off!


By dave. on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 10:26 pm:

    the news that a halliburton subsidiary landed that contract without a bid is so unsurprising.

    q- how many dead soldiers does it take to land a halliburton contract.

    a- who fucking cares! we're rich!


By trace on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 11:03 pm:

    "KBR would claim the cost of its services plus two to five percent depending on how it executed the job, Pawlik said."

    Um, you can't do much better then that.
    The norm is 2.5 times the cost, or cost plus 150%.


By dave. on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 - 11:44 pm:

    tip o' the iceberg.


By trace on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 08:18 am:

    never delt with the GAO, have you?


By semillama on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 09:06 am:

    That's way better than what we get from the government - we get base plus 100% for overhead an a 10% net fee.

    Still, don't politicians have to get rid of their stock options before taking on high level govt positions to make the appearance of avoiding conflict of interest? Apparently that's no longer the case.


By trace on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 10:12 am:

    I thought he did get rid of his stock?


By semillama on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 10:52 am:

    but he still gets about $1 million/year from them in pension, etc, so it can be fairly argued that he still has an interest in the company.

    If anything, it's pretty bad taste. First Halliburton gets that insane open-ended Guantanamo contract and now this? Almost makes me wish I was a stockholder, except that I have this damn moral conscience that wouldn't allow me to sleep if I held stock in a corporation like that.


By sarah on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 11:30 am:


    looks like the iraqis will have to settle for freedom fries with their Coke a Cola, instead of french fries.




By Antigone on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 11:47 am:

    trace, you are such a tool.

    And, you love being a tool, don't you?


By patrick on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 11:56 am:

    trace, im familiar with GAO purchasing process.

    I used to sell computers and hardware to the federal, state and local government agencies.

    so. suck it bitch.

    second. in case you didnt read the story, Halliburton was offered the bid with no competition, details of the bidding process were not made public.

    give me a fucking break.

    moreover, the story seems to have largely disapeared today.

    from the USA Today Business section:
    "Dallas-based Halliburton and San Francisco-based Bechtel are likely to be prominent in U.S.-financed rebuilding efforts based on their big-job experience and strong political ties. Bechtel and Halliburton's construction and engineering subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, are among USAID's invited bidders for the emergency reconstruction contract. Others include Fluor, a California-based construction behemoth, and Washington Group International of Boise.


    The Center for Responsive Politics says the invited bidders made nearly $3 million in political contributions since the 1998 election, most of it to Republicans."


    Gee whiz trace, you think there's ANY connection between the 3 mil and the invite to bid? Hmmmmm.


    but back to the point...of whether corporations whose CEO's quit being CEOs to run for the second highest office in the land should be left out of major federal contract awards....yes, the risk of fraud and corruption is just too tempting.

    any idiot can see that.

    corporations have the right to limit a high ranking officer where he works should he leave the company in non-competition clauses, the federal gov't does, and should reinforce such measures to ensure a fair bidding processes when some its most senior members are former leaders of said corps.


    its no surprise dave, its just getting to the point of such over the top absurdity, as I maintained yesterday.




By Nate on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 01:15 pm:

    the success of corporations provides us our freedom.

    now, silence cog! back to the salt mines!


By trace on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 01:20 pm:

    You are paranoid....

    OK buddy, so you are telling me that when a contract (labor involved, not just equipment) is awarded, they do not
    a. pay it out in quartley installments.
    b. require all laborers to have a sheet of paper on them at all times authorizing them to bill the contract.
    c. require an expenditure report on a monthly basis.
    d. make the contractor submit a "request for funds" for items not included in the contract
    e. drop in for suprise visits at either the contractor's office, or the clients office?

    When you accept gov't money, whether it is for services rendered or a grant or a loan, you must be willing to give up certain amount of privacy.
    they will and do crawl all over you with a fine tooth comb.
    Hell, I had to sit in front of a security group explaining why I was 30 days late on a electric bill 5 years ago.
    We have to submit for bids for pens and paper for christ sakes. and no, does not matter if we are talking about a contract for $5 or five billion dollars.
    does not matter if it is for labour or for material, the process is exactly the same.

    Handing any company any contract for that much money is not what it appears to be, and the wording and the treatment of any mega-corporation in the media as of late is VERY biased.

    It is a continuance on the destruction of the american idea of success.


By patrick on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 01:22 pm:

    none of that has anything to do with my concern trace.

    you apparently dont understand what im saying.




By patrick on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 01:23 pm:

    would someone please clue him in?

    eri, do you have a special dialect with him, because im gonna loose my mind trying to convey this to him.


By trace on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 01:29 pm:

    No, i get it.
    Haliburton is a successful energy company.
    haliburton made a contribution to the republicans in the amount of $3 million dollars within the last 5 years.
    Haliburton was once run by Dick Cheney who has since then sold all interest in the company but retains a fixed retirement of one million dollars.
    Haliburton was accused of accounting fraud, but was later cleared of such accusations.
    A request for bid was sent to 4 companies, and Haliburton's subsidary won.

    You accuse the administration of benifiting by awarding the contract to Hailiburton.

    I think that sums it up, right?
    Never mind they are experts in the field, and have an extremely low bid.


By patrick on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 01:37 pm:

    no.

    you dont get it.


    you dance around the idea, but its obvious you dont understand the core issue of ethics, integrity and the idea of conflict of interest.

    the swimming coach for the US team in the Olympics is qualified, and more than knowledgeable in the field swimming but you can't have him on the board of judges during the competition.

    do you understand why?

    my opinion has nothing to do with Halliburton's qualifications or success trace.



By Antigone on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 01:52 pm:

    So, trace, you see no possibility at all that there could be a conflict of interest here?


By semillama on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 01:53 pm:

    "OK buddy, so you are telling me that when a contract (labor involved, not just equipment) is awarded, they do not
    a. pay it out in quartley installments.
    b. require all laborers to have a sheet of paper on them at all times authorizing them to bill the contract.
    c. require an expenditure report on a monthly basis.
    d. make the contractor submit a "request for funds" for items not included in the contract
    e. drop in for suprise visits at either the contractor's office, or the clients office?"

    a. and b.: not in any of my experience.
    c. pretty standard across the board.
    d. haven't had to do this yet with the Feds.
    e. nope, they always let us know they are coming.

    Of course, we are a small architecture/cultural resources management firm, and amount to "decimal dust" in any Federal [roject, so the above level of oversight is probably not applied to us.


By trace on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 02:08 pm:

    of course, there is always a possibility of confilict of interest.
    Consider this:

    Any US company that gets the contracts will contribute to:
    a. income tax revenue
    b. gdp
    c. improvement in US Economy.
    Eh, what can you do?


By trace on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 02:10 pm:

    you guys get any of the Base clean up jobs?
    Those are potentially huge


By trace on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 02:11 pm:

    As far as Cheney personally benifiting, absolutely none.
    He has a fixed retirement, not tied into the company's performance.


By semillama on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 02:42 pm:

    You mean BRAC? not yet. I'm mainly involved with the PPV process. It would be cool though.


By trace on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 02:52 pm:

    I know a few people involved with that at Kelly and Brooks out here.


By patrick on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 04:09 pm:

    This hasnt been about Cheney benefiting as much as its about payback for campaign contributions.

    not an old concept. no surprises here. just the blunt transparency is so fucking absurd.


By spunky on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 04:15 pm:

    ic


By Bigkev on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 04:36 pm:

    yeah, but as with most things in this current administration, that should be expected. Dont you think, patrick?

    Its just really hard to swallow, the brazen-ness of the admission, 'yes they helped us no they get theirs back'.

    I mean is it really that hard to see through the BS. even at the best of times?


By semillama on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 05:08 pm:

    not really.

    Same ol' same ol'.


By trace on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 05:54 pm:

    thank you sem.
    No different then clinton, bush1, or carter.
    Reagan's problems were his cabinet.


By semillama on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 06:42 pm:

    Well, that and the fact he was really just a shambling corpse that hasn't stop walking and talking after he died in 1968.


By Nate on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 08:24 pm:

    jimmy carter fucks up pronouncin 'nuclear' too.

    stupid fucking southern hicks. STUPID FUCKING SOUTHERN HICKS.


By trace on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 08:45 pm:

    Thanks Nate...NOT


By eri on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 09:46 pm:

    Spunky gets upset at me all of the time for correcting him when he mispronounces nuclear, but it is like a pet peeve of mine.


By Rowlf on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 08:14 am:


By kazoo on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 08:30 am:

    I did not just see that.


By semillama on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 08:54 am:

    You know, i once had to take this government class in high school, and they told us about this little thing called the First Amendment...


By Spider on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 09:16 am:

    Wha-?


By Antigone on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:01 am:

    Wow. spunky is strangely speechless.


By spunky on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:07 am:

    i see no reason what so ever to mandate silence and prayer.


By Antigone on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:11 am:

    Do it, or Jesus will spank you.


By spunky on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:46 am:


By Antigone on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:54 am:

    Did an Iraqi general's 10 year old daughter paint that? Their technique sux.


By sad spunk on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:56 am:

    Fight or die is what Iraqi officers are telling their reluctant soldiers, and they mean it. Refusal to fight American and British soldiers means a bullet in the back of the head - the Iraqi version of friendly fire.
    In addition to intelligence reports that the "Fedayeen Saddam" are taking children from their homes in order to make their parents fight against coalition troops, proof of other, bullet-based Iraqi coercion was evident in the case of an injured Iraqi private.

    The dying Iraqi had been shot in the head during the firefight Tuesday night with American troops, reported the New York Times, and his wound to the back of his head was from a small-caliber bullet, most likely from a pistol fired at close range.

    Iraqi prisoners taken after the battle said their officers had been firing at them, forcing them to go into battle they dud not want to fight.

    "The officers threatened to shoot us unless we fought," a wounded Iraqi told the Times from his bed in the American field hospital here. "They took out their guns and pointed them and told us to fight." "We think he was shot by his own," Dr. Wade Wilde a Navy surgeon assigned to the Marines, told the Times. "If he had been hit by an M-16, it would have taken his whole head off. It seems like it was an Iraqi gun."

    As Dr. Wilde spoke, his eyes drifted to the Iraqi soldier, still clinging to life, on the stretcher. "We've tried to make him as comfortable as possible," he said, "and let the wound run its course." American marines guarding Iraqi prisoners told the Times the Iraqis complained that their own officers had shot at them during the battle.

    Proof of "Fedayeen" kidnappings came from another of the injured Iraqis, whom we are now treating: "I have four children at home, and they threatened to hurt them if I did not fight. I had no choice."


By patrick on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 12:06 pm:

    why the fuck are you giving us a minute by minute play spunk. we all have news, more than most can handle.

    its not driving your point home. its not like you are changing anyone's minds.

    so unless you have some sort of point or angle other than just repeating the news, spare mark the server space punk.


By Nate on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 12:56 pm:

    the funny thing, patty, is that once one of these threads are started, adding a message may not actually change the storage space.

    you see, you don't seek data from a harddrive in single bytes, but rather in bursts of bytes. on the harddrive, these groupings of bytes are called sectors, and are generally in the realm of 512 bytes. this makes everything faster.

    At the filesystem (OS) level you choose a number of bytes that you want to be the smallest granularity of information for stored files. This is called block size, and represents the smallest size a file can have. modern filesystems allow for block sizes of 512 bytes to 64KB.

    if I had to guess, the server sorabji is running on would have a block size of at least 4KB. that is, 4096 characters of data.

    so if this file is less than 4096 characters, it is one block. if it is 4097 characters, it is two blocks, or 8K.

    i hope this helps, patty. good luck!


By Nate on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 01:00 pm:

    i should clarify, sector size is frequently 512b, but maybe not generally.

    and the upper side for block sizes is probably not 64KB. i think XFS will go to 1MB.


By trace on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 01:00 pm:

    Well, Patrick, I will be more then happy to tell you why I post things like this.
    You seem to beleive that George W Bush is worse then Saddam Hussien, and I am trying to provide you with evidence to the contrary.


By patrick on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 01:07 pm:

    "You seem to beleive that George W Bush is worse then Saddam Hussien"

    no. this is what you interpret and im tired of trying to spelling things out for you.

    i've never said anything remotely like this, that is one is worse than the other. thats kindergarten level interpretation on your part. if thats all you have been able to derive from my sentiments..whatever. i can't help you.

    but im pretty sure that A) you could barely convince me the is sky blue muchless our president is a better man and B) that im not the only one annoyed with your constant news postings.


By Antigone on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 01:11 pm:

    Hey, spunk, you're using qualifying verb phrases to transform your accusations into existential observations.

    Good for you!


By trace on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 01:17 pm:

    "A) you could barely convince me the is sky blue muchless our president is a better man "

    The mere fact that you appear to view the two as being the same is sickening and repulsive


By patrick on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 01:31 pm:

    did you have a lobotomy recently? any head wounds? seriously, if i knew for fact you had some sort of disability, id go easy on you, but i dont think you do, so im fucking stumped.

    my sentence structure implies no correlation between the color of the sky and Bush trace.

    maybe tigster can drop some grammatical science on you, but there is no reason why you should interpret as such.


    would you say i view apples and oranges the same if i said the following:


    *I wouldnt eat an apple, muchless an orange.*

    the only commonality is that fact that i wont eat both.


By trace on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 01:34 pm:

    then please explain what you meant by saying aht I could not convince you that bush is a better man. because what I read from that, obviously, is that you do not think bush is WORSE then saddam, JUST NOT BETTER then saddam.

    If that is not what you meant, I take it back and appoligize.


By patrick on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 02:03 pm:

    what i think of Bush is one thing, and Saddam another.

    The two opinions have little to do with each other.


By semillama on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 02:09 pm:

    Here's some help, trace, since I think I see where you want to go with this:

    Patrick, if theoretically you had to choose between having Bush as a leader or Hussein as a leader, which would it be?

    Personally, for me it would be Bush of course, because he's not a maniac, just horrendously unqualified for his position (although he'd probably be an ok vice-president)

    (man, am I feeling charitible today)


By patrick on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 02:13 pm:

    well, i think my answer would be obvious.


By Antigone on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 02:20 pm:

    So, for the record, which is it?


By patrick on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 02:30 pm:


By patrick on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 02:33 pm:

    oh shit, they've replaced it with Rob Corrdry's report (which is equally as funny)

    oh well, im sure Stephen's report is somewhere in there.


By patrick on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 02:33 pm:


By Spider on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 03:42 pm:

    Now, see, that's why I love that man. Hmmm...both of them, actually.


By Rowlf on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 04:59 pm:

    On tape downstairs I have a clip of Jon Stewart singing on Sesame Street. You have never seen anything more cute in your life.


By kazoo on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 05:00 pm:

    that sounds ADORABLE


By wisper on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 06:12 pm:

    "A) you could barely convince me the sky is blue muchless our president is a better man "

    see, the sky isn't really blue. "The sky" is actually a colourless mass of gasses that make up the protecting layer of atmosphere around the earth.
    The light from the sun is known as 'white light', but it's actually a mix of all colours. That's why you can see a rainbow in a prism, because a prism divides this light. When light from the sun passes through these gasses, all the other colurs get absorbed by the gasses, except for the blue spectrum, which is reflected off the atmosphere, into our eyes, and is registered as blue.
    (this is the same for all objects. It's why we can't see in the dark.)


By Antigone on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 06:16 pm:

    Damn empiricist!


By patrick on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 06:17 pm:

    smart ass.

    i know all this as its a must with color photography.

    also, certain light has a certain temperature


By dave. on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 06:20 pm:

    if we only see the colors that get reflected back, wouldn't the actual color of the object be all the colors absorbed?


By wisper on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 06:30 pm:

    well that depends what your definition of 'actual colour' is. The nature of colour (for human eyes) is the colour of the reflected light. For insects, it's something else. Dogs, something else. And bats only 'see' sound.
    And mirrors reflect everything, so what would their actual colour be?

    actual colour is more of a philosophical question.


By patrick on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 06:49 pm:

    step out of the visable spectrum dave and tell us what you see.










    wait.





    thats a really weird statement i just made.










    philosophical indeed.


By Nate on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 07:49 pm:

    philosophical like ralph wiggum.


By dave. on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 08:40 pm:

    as for mirrors, why do they invert right-left left-right but not top-bottom bottom-top.

    i think i posted that question years ago. still don't have a good answer besides "that's the way it is".


By wisper on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 09:18 pm:

    you know dave, if i could remember 9th grade science class i would tell you.

    it may have something to do with how our eyes actually see everying upside down, and then our brain flips it back for us.
    Thank you, brain!


By Spider on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 08:33 am:

    Did you know that in the '70s neurologists performed experiments on people that kept them from flipping the image in their brains, so they saw everything as upside down? They severed some nerve or other...or something (sorry, it's been a while). Anyway, after a few weeks, the brain adjusted and flipped the image back around so that people could see everything right-side-up even though the physical mechanism that had allowed this in the first place had been removed.

    Neat, huh?


By dave. on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 10:07 am:

    are you saying i'm stumped by a junior high science problem?


By patrick on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 11:25 am:

    i didnt know that...about seeing everything upside down.

    severing that particular nerve sounds like a real kick.


By semillama on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 11:58 am:

    How's this for an awesome little contribution to humanity? self-healing minefields

    What that is in a nutshell is a minefield that, w3hen a mine is blown up, the mine field reacts to replace it. The objective is to confound attempts to clear the field.

    Notably lacking in this is any discussion of how this will affect civilian mine clearing efforts after a conflict ends.

    I suppose that if they are smart enough to come up with this, they are smart enough to relocate and disable these things? Oh, wait, maybe they didn't think of that.


By dave. on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 12:48 pm:

    i still hold that a red object is everything but red. however, since it can only tell us that it rejects red, we have to call it red. which it isn't.

    also, i'm somewhat colorblind. or am i?


    ok, back to the spreadsheets.


By wisper on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 06:25 pm:

    "are you saying i'm stumped by a junior high science problem?"

    not at all. I'm just pointing out that everyone learns this at one point in school, and then forgets it. Just like i did.
    I wish i could get that textbook back, it had very clear diagrams and everything. Not just for mirrors, but for concave, convex, and one-way mirrors too.
    And i forgot it all.


    "i didnt know that...about seeing everything upside down."
    i think cameras do it too. Like those big pro ones where you look onto a big plastic sheet with a grid on it, and it's upside down? that's how we really see things.
    You can see it for yourself if you want. It used to be a cool trick back before they had cameras. This one scientist (or was he an early photographer?) would set up a big lightproof shed out in a field, with just a little tiny hole in the middle of one wall. the daylight would go through the hole and make a crude sort-of projection onto the back wall, but upside down.

    That's how our eyes work, with the shed as our eyeball, the hole as our retina, and the back wall like the back of our eye. But behind that is the nerves that send the image to our brain, and somewhere in between is the thingy that flips it over.

    I could say why it's all upside down, but i fear i've said too much already.



    yes, indeed.


By spunky on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 09:18 pm:


By spunky on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 09:30 pm:

    19 page PDF that

    Should "shock and awe" you.
    This was written in 1999.

    Here is the script
    that goes with the slides on the PDF.

    Nutshell:

    in 1999 we had the capability of using FLIES and COCKROACHES to gather information on biological and chemical material and transmit it.


By Nate on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 10:05 pm:

    ya, dude, did you, like, see that webserver they built into, like, a fly? that was fucking great, man.


By trace on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 12:26 am:

    This is a very interesting read.

    It was written September 10, 2001.

    An interesting thing you will note from this:

    George W Bush was reniging on a campaing promise of spending more money on the Department of Defense. Rummy wanted an increase of at leaste $36b and got only $18b.
    That flies in the face of those whom accuse bush of being rummy's lapdog.
    Or warmonger. His pre-9/11 plans did not include beefing up defense to expand the empire, as some of you have accused.

    His actions are a direct result of what happened since he got in office, not ambitions he had prior to it.

    Which is exactly what he has said over and over again.

    He did not choose this path, it was chosen for him by fate and history.


By trace on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 12:27 am:

    remember, an increase of 18 billion barely kept pace with inflation that was already in progress starting in 1999.


By patrick on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 02:41 pm:

    mmm anyway.

    YES wisper large format camera viewfinders are upside down. i didnt put two and two together.


bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact