Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 2 Jan 2007 01:50 Winfield Hill wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >>> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > >>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>>>>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most > >>>>>>>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This > >>>>>>>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress > >>>>>>>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, > >>>>>>> but I never found out which newsgroup. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts > >>>>>> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! > >>>>> > >>>>> Good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still > >>>>> going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only > >>>>> read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's > >>>>> a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. > >>>> > >>>> Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. > >>> > >>> Impressive, zoomed right past 12,000 without slowing, now > >>> at 12130 posts and climbing towards 13000, going strong. > >> > >> Hmm, we're slowing down a bit folks! We're now at 12480 > >> posts with 12500 in sight, but not so sure about 13000. > > > > Merry Christmas, Win. :) > > Happy New Year Michael :) > > With this post we're only three away from breaking the > 12500 post BARRIER. I know we can do it! You too! How's the weather up your way? It is actually raining down here for the first time in a long time. -- 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: Ken Smith on 2 Jan 2007 09:07 In article <e4998$4599798f$4fe76a0$13856(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >> 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. > >This is your claim. > >Show me. Note here that the judge's order was "nation wide" //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/18/WIRETAP.TMP This is only someone else's opinion, but note the bit about "social net" http://www.nerdylorrin.net/jerry/politics/Warrantless/WarrantlessFACTS.html Note the word "domestic" http://www.feingold.senate.gov/statements/06/02/20060207.html Note where the equipment is http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72336-0.html Why did they feel the need to said what they did here http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s2455.html -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 2 Jan 2007 09:10 In article <459A00A0.DE70F2C9(a)earthlink.net>, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: [...] > You too! How's the weather up your way? It is actually raining down >here for the first time in a long time. It never rains in sunny California. If we work at it we may even hit my suggested target of 1,000,000 posts -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 2 Jan 2007 10:41 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <e4998$4599798f$4fe76a0$13856(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: > > [....] > >>>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. >> >>This is your claim. >> >>Show me. > > > Note here that the judge's order was "nation wide" > //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/18/WIRETAP.TMP "A federal judge's emphatic rejection Thursday of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of calls between Americans and alleged foreign terrorists is far from the last word on the legality of the program, which most likely will be determined by the Supreme Court or Congress." An opinion in a district court is the starting point for a legal discussion. Note the international nature of the discussion. <snip> additional opinions > Why did they feel the need to said what they did here > http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s2455.html Congress is liable to say anything at all, especially when writing and submitting new bills. Let's just wait and see what comes out of the Judiciary Committee. You've not convinced me that domestic phone calls are being wiretapped without a warrant. I've maintained that the program which has everyone cranked has to do with international calls and international emails. That's a completely different issue than domestic only because there can be no expectation of privacy. Which mobster was put away because the government bugged every parking meter along a route he liked to walk while he talked business with his associates? We live in a world of surveillance. How many cameras in the UK today? As surveillance increases so do the countermeasures, and eventually the counter- countermeasures will kick in. Nothing will stop the cycle. I remember when it was almost fashionable to be in a plane that was hijacked and forced to fly to Cuba. That fad ended when Castro summarily locked up any hijacker who forced a landing on Cuban soil. Wile initially he demanded a ransom which he called a "landing fee" from the airline whose plane had been forced to Cuba, he tired of the game. All this will end when all governments clamp down on terrorists among them. Note that Pakistan is tired of the nonsense along the Afghanistan border and has expressed an intention to fence and mine that border. They'll probably get theirs done before we fence the Mexican border. But eventually those governing will not only become bored with the problems terrorists carry with them but will also realize that their country cannot progress while harboring such violence. Once the terrorism eventually drops into oblivion the wiretaps will also cease. The question will be whether to scrap NSA's computers or to try to find some other use for them. Perhaps an artificial reef someplace? :-) All this assumes the terrorists lose. In the meanwhile I'm guessing that terrorist networks are finding more secure means of communicating over time. That means that the surveillance system presently in use loses its value. I don't think the the USG needs to worry too much because the shift in the communications paradigm will take place long before the wheels of government resolve the present day concerns of citizens like you, Ken, and you'll have a whole new set of concerns before you know it.
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Jan 2007 05:40
In article <j8sip2tkdf6327ab9i2vmmva0dt8d22esf(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >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. > The recording part isn't necessaty; just tapping. > 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. Bush has admitted it is! > > 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. No they are not. The info as to who was on the line and when is there too. > > If a stream is suspect, then further human ears listen. Without a warrant. >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? Bush says he doesn't need the warrant. |