Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Kurt Ullman on 4 Oct 2006 19:02 In article <3v-dnToicYfirLnYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > Nope, public debate - granted most of that is what the media show. I am not > for one second suggesting chat shows or vox pop news is completely > indicative of public opinion - however, the media needs to get > listeners/viewers/readers so generally the opinions expressed _are_ > representative. > I would argue with this (yet again, my friend). They are only representative of what a certain segment of the population, and a relatively small one at that, is willing to listen, read or watch. The evening news hours get only about 25 million on average out of around 300 million people. Cable gets less. 1/10 people ins't representative. If anything BIG declines in TV News veiwership over the years, at least in the US, would indicate that the representative view is probably elsewhere or why would be people be leaving in droves? > Our reactions to things are an example of public fear. The nonsense that > goes on at Airports is a shocking example of how people would rather be > messed around to "feel" safe, than actually institute effective security > measures. > > When we all have to carry ID cards I will know the "war" is indeed over. ... or just beginning...
From: Jim Thompson on 4 Oct 2006 19:04 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:52:37 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <peb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541(a)4ax.com>, > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in >> >> my >> >> living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your >> >> listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights. >> > >> > Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over >> >that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone >> >doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone >> >is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair >> >game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the >> >country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone >> >who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather >> >interesting case to make. >> >> And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all >> calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party. >> >> All I need to do is push a button ;-) > > There are two different things going on here. One is what you can >do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we >were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom or >spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.. Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no sweat, no warrant, nada. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 4 Oct 2006 19:09 Keith wrote: > > In article <4523D85F.43BBD99C(a)earthlink.net>, > mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net says... > > Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > > > I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my > > > guess is janitor ;-) > > > > > > Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility? > > Keys to the place? > > -- > Keith No. Control of the toilet paper. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Michael A. Terrell on 4 Oct 2006 19:11 T Wake wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:4523D85F.43BBD99C(a)earthlink.net... > > Jim Thompson wrote: > >> > >> I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my > >> guess is janitor ;-) > > > > > > Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility? > > > > It is interesting that instead of disagreeing with Eric's comments and > explaining why, the general response has been to criticise his imagined work > status. > > Nothing I have seen in this thread seems to relate to his job and he has not > claimed professional authority based on his employment so what, on Earth, > does his job matter? > > Unless this really is a pathetic attempt to "one up" on someone you think is > in a lower paid / less "exalted" job. If it is, you really should be ashamed > of yourselves. Yawn. You invade our newsgroup with crossposted bullshit, then you want to set the rules? Forget it. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Daniel Mandic on 4 Oct 2006 19:13
Eeyore wrote: > That was how the Stasi worked wasn't it ? > > Graham Hmmm, I guess to over-paranoic patriots, forgetting that they already acting like neo-na.... The situation is getinng better.... erm. I htink cpmouters are not made to apart people from another. That would be contrary to the name COM - puter. (I don't know if commands are communication, yet. :-|) But although, if the Computer puts my COM for further processing, it would be interesting to know, what the observer would like to put to my COM (from him/her) puter - Monitor. I know only about the fact, using Computers to conversate to other machines, via the COM port. But that's a Right/Left-Right/Left communication. For two people it works, Right/Left-Left/Right and vice versa, of course. (Right=Computer, Left=Human) Kind regards, Daniel Mandic |