Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 6 Jan 2007 13:11 T Wake wrote: > "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. Bring in our discussions about voting. Do people who are reading the labels actually comprehend what the label is telling them? See proposed solution below. >>>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. Lets put it this way. If the process for partial hydrogenation were up for US FDA approval today, would it be approved? Probably not. So we're playing catch up in a way, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. > 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. The existence of artificial trans fats should be eliminated altogether IMO. I don't care that much about the actual inclusion so long as a skull and crossbones adorn the front of the label as they do for other toxic substances sold to the general public. >>>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 think you've flummoxed him. Good man! snip
From: T Wake on 6 Jan 2007 13:21 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:33d58$459f02b2$cdd0852e$16293(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > < this post will have lots of snips to try and make it smaller :-) > >> Yes. And as an assumption surely we have to work on the basis it is >> "true?" > > Given the nature of democracies, yes, unless and until > something else which is acceptable to the electorate > takes hold. Debates over who should be able to vote > occasionally comes to the forefront. One of the favorites > propounded by revisionists is that only property > owners should have the right to vote, though there are > other variations among which I've seen some really weird > ones. Oddly, while the "democracy advocate" in me can see that is madness, if it happened I wouldn't have a problem with it. Even a vote per house would be fine by me :-) It strikes me though as a bit of a reversal of centuries of progress. Maybe the 5th century BC Athenian model would be something worth re-inventing. (I mean, who on Earth gave women the vote.....[*]) <snip> > >> Yes, I agree and without getting bogged down in semantics, my use of the >> word given included information the electorate were capable of >> researching themselves. > > With fully half the population having an IQ below 100? Ha! Yes. It just forces the advocates or opponents of a policy to learn to make their arguments clearer. I am aware of the problem with leaving important choices to whoever has the best PR machine though. Is there a solution? Is this just a problem which has to be accepted and lived with? (Should people who get to vote be IQ tested? >> However, in lots and lots of instances the electorate (like most people) >> will rely on information presented in an easily digestible chunk. For >> example, I have worked in the provision of physical security to >> businesses for the best part of ten years. I can assume that my level of >> knowledge on the subject is greater than can be achieved by a member of >> the electorate doing some background research in the run up to a general >> election. > > By definition your average voter has an IQ of 100. It is politically > incorrect these days to mention IQ let alone to consider it. > >>>If they merely listen to what is being thrown at them by >>>politicians who have some sort of a stake in the issues then >>>they've given up the very essence of their vote which is >>>supposed to be determined by their personal will. > >> Maybe the introduction of voter tests would sove this? Before people get >> the right to vote they have to demonstrate they have carried out >> sufficient research to be viewed capable of making a decision on the >> topic. > > Such measures have been held to be unacceptable in the past. What would be acceptable? >> Now, I actually agree with the essence of what you are saying here, >> however, I think we disagree about the solution. You appear to work on >> the principle that voters who can not be bothered to fully, and deeply, >> research a topic before making their vote deserve what ever happens to >> them. > > Voters cannot help but get the government they deserve. That's > an important underlying premise of any "fair" democracy. Fair comment. It remains though, that the electorate are liable to being misled by governmental candidates and, as a result, it becomes less and less possible for people to do the required research in the timescales available to make a *fully* informed decision. As a result the chance of a "fair" democracy existing becomes debatable. It is, as previously mentioned, a difficult conundrum. There may not be any valid solution. >> The problem I have with this, is potentially the majority of voters will >> make badly informed decisions, which mean those who do try to become >> informed will suffer from their choices. > >> Personally, I feel that the *only* solution is to educate the electorate >> (forcibly?). > > We're already paying for the electorate to be educated, but the > results are awful. When it comes to science, I wholeheartedly agree. Although I do think children today are better educated in a variety of other topics then say 100 years ago (or even 50 years ago). The problem with education, is that it has become "democratic" and everyone gets an equal shot. Would an acceptable option be returning to the schools of my youth when you sat an exam at 11 to decide if the rest of your education was going to be in a proper school or in a "technical school" (where you learned things like woodwork and metal work). Interestingly, at 11 it was judged that I was unsuitable for a "proper" eduction and sent to a technical college with the herds of retards. <snip> >> Sadly true. You seem to have a dim view of democracy though :-) > > Theoretical democracy is a wonderful thing. I'm griping > about the realities of the present day implementation. But the realities of the present day implementation seem to be inherent in democracy. <snip> >> Raises the question "is speeding a crime?" > > IMO only when the consequences harm someone. Surely then, the crime becomes harming someone? <snip> >> Actually, yes they are. :-) The threat is (perceived) as not being to the >> UK per se, but being to the US and US assets by > > people transiting through the UK. (That was certainly the case > > last year, I have no idea if this is still current or was > > current in 2000). > > Funny how nationalist arrogance surfaces, no? Yes, but often there is a grain of truth. There is a much greater threat to US assets from international terrorist. This is not UK arrogance but a sign of the marginalisation of the UK on the world stage. The threat in the UK is not by someone trying to blow up a plane or crash it into a building, our threat is from guilible idiots who fall under the sway of charismatic religious leaders. >>>Perhaps the quality of service provided UK security personnel >>>is in doubt? Or maybe they hire people who rather like to >>>touch strangers? (shades of Monty Python :-) > >> It wouldn't surprise me. They are not exactly paid for their skill and >> brains. At the time, the combination of annoyance at the inconvenience >> and amusement at the farce meant I never really considered any other >> implications. It was only when I wrote the last post I thought about them >> properly. > > I've done well then. LOL :-) -- -- [*] Again, for the terminally dull, this was an attempt at a joke.
From: unsettled on 6 Jan 2007 13:22 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:459F9E54.540DD7DE(a)hotmail.com... >>>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 live in a region with a strong mining history. Pasties not only famous here but there are actually specialty restaurants that have only pasties and something to drink on the menu. Grab your drink out of a glass front fridge next to the register. Of course we have variations, including what is called a Pizza Pasty, vegetarian pasties, and occasionally some other variation plays in the region for a while. Pasty pockets are little 2 inch versions of their big brothers. Handy to grab out of a bag to eat while driving. They're sold in groups of 4 for $1.00. Great alternative to McDonald s, replacing lots of grease with plenty of carbohydrates and not overwhelming the individual with protein either.
From: T Wake on 6 Jan 2007 13:30 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:459FDF55.9F4F316C(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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. Exactly, and as a result is a "tap" in any normal usage of the term in this context. > To make a distinction between a human listening for keywords and a machine > listening for keywords is disingenuous at best. Yes.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Jan 2007 08:38
In article <eno667$8ss_005(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <enm0ff$6ka$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <enll0p$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <459DC24E.2A4AD092(a)hotmail.com>, >>> 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. >>> >>> >>>/BAH >> >>How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read >first-class >>mail? > >During WWII all mail going and coming from overseas was read. Now we have laws forbidding that. >Any sensitive words were literally cut out of the letter. >My uncle married a Tunis who came from a town called Whitehall. >So his letters would read that he was still in Whitehall which >was code for a certain area on the African continent. > >Now, whether you like it or not, we are at war. The president cannot suspend laws just because he feels like it. >The news >reports have not specified which mails are in question nor >any facts about this news bite from CBS. > > Bush left it pretty open-ended. > >/BAH |