Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 1 Jan 2007 14:57 On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:12:56 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <amlhh.13$i5.162(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >[....] >>It is an elementary problem. The mass of the ice cube is equal to the >>mass of the water it displaces (Archimedes). After melting, it'll >>fill the volume it displaces. The level *will not* change. > >You forgot about the air above the glass. > You forgot about the level of air space between your ears.
From: Ken Smith on 1 Jan 2007 15:17 In article <324d6$45994001$4fe722c$12385(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >> No, it is more a matter of whether the rights extend to those who stand >> accused. Until someone is found guilty of crime, under US law, they are >> to be considered innocent. While you are considered innocent, you have >> all the rights that innocent people have. > >Oh oh. Sounds a lot like the Robespierre rendition of Rousseau >that only "peaceful citizens" have protections of the government. Not really. I am pointing out that under the US system, the accused retains all the rights. Until someone is found guilty of a crime, that person has the full rights under US law. [...] >Simple basics for Constitutional law: If you cannot have >a reasonable expectation of privacy in communications then >the Constitutional protections *do not apply*. In a two way phone call within the US you have the reasonable expectaions of privacy and this is why up until the day of Bush, a warrant was required to tap phone lines within the US. Bush claims the right to do so without warrant. >Once your communication exits the United States on/in any >electronic (or physical in case of written material) leg >you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for it. We are talking about communications within the US. Not those that have left. The wire taps are being done within the US where the expectation of privacy applies. You need to read up on what has been happening to your rights. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: JoeBloe on 1 Jan 2007 15:29 On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 01:51:23 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >>Do you have some insight into what the activities are of >>the official US sleuthing business? > >Yes. Liar.
From: JoeBloe on 1 Jan 2007 15:43 On Mon, 01 Jan 07 12:08:38 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave us: >Look, Bozo, as we've been telling you, Americans in the US are being >wiretapped, without warrants. "Wiretapping" was a person actually listening in on your phone connections, using a recorder to record it. Explain to us all how there are agents running about tapping phone lines without warrants. I'd be willing to bet that it is not happening. What they DO is have a computer listen to audio streams for certain words. Triggered streams get human ears only for as long as it takes to determine any presence of criminal activity in the scope of their authority. The streams are STILL anonymous at this point. If a stream is suspect, then further human ears listen. If it is decided that there is a problem, THEN the call stream gets identified, a warrant for further surveillance is obtained, and surveillance continues. Tell us where the violation is?
From: JoeBloe on 1 Jan 2007 15:46
On Mon, 01 Jan 07 12:13:37 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave us: >If you're going to eavesdrop on people in the US, you need a warrant. What >part of that do you not understand? No. If one is going to eavesdrop on a SPECIFIC AMERICAN citizen, one needs a warrant. If one wishes to monitor ALL streams anonymously, selecting only those streams that carry malicious material for further, totally WARRANTED surveillance. |