Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 7 Jan 2007 00:57 In article <vs6dnXJwRM5-dwLYRVnygw(a)pipex.net>, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: [....] >> 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. The "tap" really refers to the connection not the listening. Usually they went to a tape recorder in the past. The whether or not the tape ever got listened to didn't matter in the question of it being a tap. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 7 Jan 2007 01:09 In article <459FA50D.3DE3D914(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >The problem is heart disease and removing trans fats from ppls' diets >will reduce >that. Maybe we have ahold of the wrong end of the problem. Some people die of heart disease if they eat trans fats. Others only get a little sicker than they normally would be. A bit of "unnatural selection" could be at work here and eventually, only those who survive eating trans fats will be left. Outlawing them only prevents the breeding of this stronger race of humans. :) -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 7 Jan 2007 01:25 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <459FA50D.3DE3D914(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [....] > >>The problem is heart disease and removing trans fats from ppls' diets >>will reduce >>that. > > > Maybe we have ahold of the wrong end of the problem. Some people die of > heart disease if they eat trans fats. Others only get a little sicker > than they normally would be. A bit of "unnatural selection" could be at > work here and eventually, only those who survive eating trans fats will be > left. Outlawing them only prevents the breeding of this stronger race of > humans. :) Not at all. By the time trans fats take their toll most the reproduction has already taken place.
From: jasen on 7 Jan 2007 03:37 On 2007-01-03, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> Of that I have no doubt. Everything usenet is international and >> public with *no* expectation of privacy. This is just like >> the bugged parking meters. Many of have assumed for years that >> usenet is scanned for such key words. I've seen all sorts of >> attention seeking posts using dozens of suspect expressions >> like anthrax, bomb, suitcase bomb, hijacking, concealed weapons, >> and the like. >> >> There, think that got someone's attention? >> >> I sure hope so! Otherwise the boys are asleep at the switch. > > And there is no way of knowing if they are. I heard from one guy who got a visit from the Departmrnt of Energy after discussing his home-built dry-cell powered electrolysis based hydrogen generator. The spooks are out there watching. Bye. Jasen
From: Eeyore on 7 Jan 2007 07:01
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> > >> 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. No there isn't ! Graham |