Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 6 Jan 2007 12:28 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eno6c0$8ss_007(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <b5WdnSyWgZDHOAPYnZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:enlq8v$8u0_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <459E6B0F.D4DB32BA(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> When you use your wireless telephone, >>>>> >> do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>>>> > >>>>> >Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether >>>>> >real >>> or >>>>> >electronic. That's for sure. >>>>> >>>>> Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>>>> all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>>>> couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>>>> filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>>>> Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >>>> >>>>I don't live in the US embassy and Hollywood is about fantasy. >>> >>> A lot of times Hollywood does take instances in real life and >>> then embellish it. >> >>Yes, they also make things up. Very little that comes out of hollywood has >>historical accuracy as part of its "project goal." >> >>> The point is that I'd like to know when >>> anybody actually had expectations that words uttered would >>> never be overheard; >> >>I am on my own in a room now. If I say something I have the expectation >>that >>it will not be overheard. >> >>If it is monitored then either a criminal is doing it or a warrant has >>been >>issued for my room to be monitored. Somethings really are black and white. >> >>> everybody, especially those who like to >>> gossip know how to take privacy precautions. Now childish >>> notion is that all transmissions in the EMF range are private? >>> >>>> >>>>It is however pretty clear to me that a former g/f of mine had her land >>>>line >>>>tapped for being active in CND. It was hilariously obvious. >>> >>> So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >>> Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >>> >>> I don't understand this logic. >> >>The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do you >>see how that is different. > > And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone > tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances. Really? It is an interesting distinction you seem to apply. Sampling hundreds of "sounds" for certain utterances implies the "tap" is already in place and functioning. Using your earlier example about how I should not have an expectation to having my uttered words over heard. I have just shouted out a plan to kill the prime minister? Was it overheard? It could not have been possibly overheard without some form of monitoring _already_ in place - which would be illegal unless there was already a warrant issued under RIPA/IOCA legislation. If I telephone a friend and discuss how we can smuggle enough P-4 onto an airliner to destroy it, the call can only be monitored if there is _already_ a tap in place to know I said that. If the phone call is sampled for "sounds" then a "tap" is in place. In the UK, as we still have some liberties, this is _currently_ illegal without a warrant issued in advance and the correct RIPA/IOCA paperwork being completed and submitted for approval.
From: T Wake on 6 Jan 2007 12:37 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:459F9D48.40D3DD99(a)hotmail.com... > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > unsettled wrote: >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> >> > >> >> >>We're not at war. Congress has not declared war. >> >> > >> >> > He seems to be aiming for a self fulfilling circle. In time of war >> >> > the >> >> > president can do what he wants and he can choose when "war" is >> >> > declared. The >> >> > war against obesity was obviously justification for martial law in >> >> > any >> >> > town with a McDonalds...... >> >> >> >> LOL. Have you heard about New York City banning trans fats >> >> from restaurant food? >> > >> > I heard about it a few weeks back. >> > >> > >> >> http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cardio/cardio-transfat.shtml >> >> >> >> There's talk around the US in other places about following >> >> the example. >> > >> > It's a damn good idea. I've been banging on about it myself for some >> > time. >> > >> > Trans-fats just make you overweight and contribute very significantly >> > to >> > heart disease. There's no excuse for them at all. >> >> Well, last time I checked no one forced people to buy trans-fat products >> in >> the shops. > > The point is that most ppl don't even know they're there. It's not as if > you buy > a jar of 'trans fat'. It's in there without you knowing unless you > scrutinise > every single label. People have the option to read labels. If they dont, that is (in effect) a choice. Legislation to make labels more accurate and truthfull would be (IMHO) better - and with out the patronising nonsense that most supermarkets have gone to. >> I agree there may be no real reason for having them in products >> as there are other substances which will taste as nice and have less >> health >> related issues, but that is (surely) not grounds for making it illegal? > > Because it's *uniquely* related to heart disease. It's far worse than most > natural fats you see. It is a grey area to dictate that this is sufficient to legislate against it's use. There are numerous compounds which are currently linked to various diseases, and sometimes these links are subsequently found to be false. I dont massively disagree with what you are saying - people should know enough to limit their intake of trans-fats - however I do think that consumers should be given the choice to limit it. >> If governments want to improve the uptake of "healthy food" then surely >> the >> solution is to subsidse whatever is in vogue as "health food" rather than >> tax or bad the "bad things." > > If it were a totally natural product I'd probably agree but it's not. Most > of it > has to be manufactured. What do you mean by "totally natural product?" I can be pedantic [*] and we could argue that eating supernatural food is an odd concept, but I think I get your point here. I am not, personally, a beliver in the value of "natural" foods vs "man made" foods and the vast majority of food viewed as natural is the products of human interference anyway. > The government also has an interest in reducing NHS costs too for that > matter ( > on our behalf ) so reducing heart disease makes sense economically too. This is something we sort of agree on as well but it creates a problem as to where do we draw the line. At what point does "unhealthy" behaviour become illegal? A law forcing everyone to undergo 30 minutes physical training every day would drastically improve the nations health and could probably be implemented very cheaply (compared to the potential savings) - but would it be a "good thing?" >> > In fact the pressure for the food industry to sell as as much fat in >> > food >> > as possible may be reduced by the discovery that fats can be used to >> > synthesise bio-diesel fuel. It's an area I expect to take off quite >> seriously. >> >> As it should, when customer choice makes it viable. When customers choose >> to >> buy products which are lower fat (an odd choice as fat is an excellent >> source of energy for the body) or "healthier fats," then the market >> driven >> food industry will react and adjust it's products. > > If you had a choice that would be fine but you don't, so it's best to get > rid of > the muck. People do have the choice. How much trans-fat food do you eat? - - - [*] What me?
From: Eeyore on 6 Jan 2007 12:41 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> > >>> everybody, especially those who like to > >>> gossip know how to take privacy precautions. Now childish > >>> notion is that all transmissions in the EMF range are private? > >>> > >>>>It is however pretty clear to me that a former g/f of mine had her land > >>>>line tapped for being active in CND. It was hilariously obvious. > >>> > >>> So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. > >>> Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? > >>> > >>> I don't understand this logic. > >> > >>The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do you > >>see how that is different. > > > > And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone > > tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances. > > Really? It is an interesting distinction you seem to apply. > > Sampling hundreds of "sounds" for certain utterances implies the "tap" is > already in place and functioning. It's simply an automation of the process that a human would previously have done. To make a distinction between a human listening for keywords and a machine listening for keywords is disingenuous at best. Graham
From: T Wake on 6 Jan 2007 12:47 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:459F9E54.540DD7DE(a)hotmail.com... > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > >> > Hey, did you know that a McDonald's in Cornwall had to close because >> > they >> > simply weren't getting enough customers any more ? >> >> Not really surprising in Cornwall. Full of old age pensioners.... > > The point is that it traded ok for years but demand dropped. That's not > just > down to pensioners. I realise that. I was making a joke at Cornwall's expense. >> > There's hope for sanity yet. >> >> Maybe. Personally I think of McDonalds as a choice in the same manner as >> (for example) Sayers. > > I don't know Sayers ! Bakers chain. Make lovely pasties. (Of Cornish fame). >> I find it hard to think of food as "good" or "bad." If >> you ate McDonalds three times a day every day then fair enough, but I >> would >> say the same of some one who ate nothing but lettuce three times a day >> every >> day. > > Well.... I can think of McDonalds as providing fairly indifferent and not > very > tasty food. Their rolls in particular taste to me like cardboard. Each to their own. Choice is a wonderful thing. I am sure there are types of food you enjoy which make me gag. For example, I hate (and I mean _really_ hate) the taste of pretty much any fish. The smell makes me gag and the little eyes freak me out. Snails are repulsive and while I have eaten worms, it certainly is not pleasant. Generally speaking I hate french food and while I love italian food, I find italian pizzas barely edible (especially when compared to "american" italian pizzas). Does any of this carry the valid reasoning that anyone who does eat the above is making a mistake? Personally, as a rare part of my diet, I find Big Macs and Chicken sandwiches fine. Nothing wrong with them at all. I prefer KFC but that is another matter. Not everyone will like the taste of the food in McDonalds, but that is perfectly normal and I would be surprised if anything else was the case. Some people dont like Gordon Ramsay's food. >> My view is that educating people and then giving them the choice is the >> only >> solution. > > That makes sense too. > > >> I rarely eat at McDonalds (I think the last time I did was in >> August), but for example, when I drive to Glasgow next week and I stop >> off >> at a service station is having a Big Mac a "bad thing?" As long as the >> choice remains (for example, I may choose to have the worlds biggest big >> mac >> meal but no breakfast or tea that day), then I don't really see what >> problem >> any one else should have with it. > > It's just a shame that such places can't sell healthier food. You can buy salads at McDonalds. Food is food. Eating is healthier than starving. Any food consumed in excess will lead to "health problems." Any food consumed at the total expense of other foods will lead to health problems. Defining one type / group or item of food as healthy is (IMHO of course) a bit odd. Celery is often touted as a "health food" but if you ate nothing else for 30 days, I would love to see how healthy you were at the end.
From: unsettled on 6 Jan 2007 13:04
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eno6c0$8ss_007(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <b5WdnSyWgZDHOAPYnZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:enlq8v$8u0_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>In article <459E6B0F.D4DB32BA(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>When you use your wireless telephone, >>>>>>>>do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether >>>>>>>real >>>> >>>>or >>>> >>>>>>>electronic. That's for sure. >>>>>> >>>>>>Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>>>>>all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>>>>>couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>>>>>filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>>>>>Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >>>>> >>>>>I don't live in the US embassy and Hollywood is about fantasy. >>>> >>>>A lot of times Hollywood does take instances in real life and >>>>then embellish it. >>> >>>Yes, they also make things up. Very little that comes out of hollywood has >>>historical accuracy as part of its "project goal." >>> >>> >>>>The point is that I'd like to know when >>>>anybody actually had expectations that words uttered would >>>>never be overheard; >>> >>>I am on my own in a room now. If I say something I have the expectation >>>that >>>it will not be overheard. >>> >>>If it is monitored then either a criminal is doing it or a warrant has >>>been >>>issued for my room to be monitored. Somethings really are black and white. >>> >>> >>>>everybody, especially those who like to >>>>gossip know how to take privacy precautions. Now childish >>>>notion is that all transmissions in the EMF range are private? >>>> >>>> >>>>>It is however pretty clear to me that a former g/f of mine had her land >>>>>line >>>>>tapped for being active in CND. It was hilariously obvious. >>>> >>>>So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >>>>Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >>>> >>>>I don't understand this logic. >>> >>>The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do you >>>see how that is different. >> >>And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone >>tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances. > > > Really? It is an interesting distinction you seem to apply. Interesting perhaps, yet this is valid. > Sampling hundreds of "sounds" for certain utterances implies the "tap" is > already in place and functioning. Nope. A tap is on an individual phone line. The monitoring that's being done is to a nonspecific data stream. The data stream carries not only many conversations but also detailed information about the origin and destination of the connection. When key words or phrases are heard someone listens for context, but has no idea of the point of origin or destination of that conversation, it is a random conversation identified only by some number assigned to the segment of the data stream which is of interest. When/if the decision is made to contextualize and monitor the individuals associated with the conversation, a warrant is requested and then a tap is emplaced. At least this is my understanding of how it works. > Using your earlier example about how I should not have an expectation to > having my uttered words over heard. I have just shouted out a plan to kill > the prime minister? Was it overheard? Did you say that in an international call? > It could not have been possibly overheard without some form of monitoring > _already_ in place - which would be illegal unless there was already a > warrant issued under RIPA/IOCA legislation. Perhaps that's the way it is in the UK. Once outside your physical borders what is the specific law that applies? > If I telephone a friend and discuss how we can smuggle enough P-4 onto an > airliner to destroy it, the call can only be monitored if there is _already_ > a tap in place to know I said that. Are you calling outside the UK? > If the phone call is sampled for "sounds" then a "tap" is in place. See above. > In the UK, as we still have some liberties, this is _currently_ illegal > without a warrant issued in advance and the correct RIPA/IOCA paperwork > being completed and submitted for approval. Better look deeper than you have. As we just discussed about airport security, those laws might only be giving you the illusion of protection. :-) |