Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 7 Jan 2007 15:30 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:3a4ca$45a060c4$cdd0846a$24381(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:425d0$45a031ed$cdd084a4$23305(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:5a100$459fe8df$cdd0854f$21662(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>> >>>>In most circumstances the pasties are a "healthier" choice than a Big >>>>Mac, but it remains a choice. I doubt anyone would suggest living on >>>>nothing but Cornish pasties.... >>> >>>LOL. Fact is the miners used to have last night's leftovers >>>wrapped up in a crust as their lunch. So it was their >>>mainstay, at least here, after a fashion. >> >> >> Although what you say implies there was at least one meal a day which >> wasn't a pastie (otherwise very soon the pasties would be made from >> leftover pasties until some singularity was reached), it would still be >> interesting to get some one like Morgan Spurlock to try and live on three >> pasties a day for 30 days. > > Local industry needs some good PR. I'll suggest this to them. It has lots of potential :-) I would watch it for a start.
From: T Wake on 7 Jan 2007 15:31 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:enqpv7$8qk_003(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <459F9E54.540DD7DE(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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. >> >> >>> > 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 ! >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >>> 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. > > They are. It costs more money to not use real fat when frying > potatoes. So the prices went up. If McDonald's prices are so > high that they can't stay in budiness, there going to be an > awful messy economy pretty soon. If McDonalds are unable to stay in business another company will be move in to take their place. They are not the "cornerstone" of capitalist markets.
From: unsettled on 7 Jan 2007 16:44 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:enqpqn$8qk_002(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <45A0E100.62E7E990(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>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 ! >> >>You should try to think this one through a little bit more. >>You might start with radio and TV transmissions. > > > If you are going to try and use semantic arguments you need to become a bit > more accurate with your own terminology. > > And there isn't really a difference between monitoring everything one person > says and monitoring everything every one says - other than scale. From a legal standpoint I wish you'd give this some more thought, more along a political science line. Consider strangers on a busy street, say in London or NYC, unknown to one another, overhearing one another's conversation as they pass by. Probably no harm no foul in that. Overhearing, or even overt or covert listening has no impact unless and until the information has a use not compliant to the wishes or benefit of the individual speaking. Where your personal wishes are concerned, you'd prefer no third uninvited party ever overhear or listen in on your conversations whether on the street or on a telephone. But there are other realities in play. The premise in the laws as written usually aren't entirely honest. Where they say that the government may not listen in on your conversations without either your permission or a proper warrant, the real consequence, this is realpolitik at work here, is that when the government does listen in they're not permitted to use the information they acquired against you. When they overhear something that sounds like a violation of laws they are, in the US anyway, permitted to go get a retroactive warrant. Generally speaking the police, and government in general, isn't held accountable for lying to you, but you can be held accountable for lying to them. None of this is intended to be equitable. The state always has an advantage. Just as we've agreed that airport security is designed more to give people the appearance of security without any real substance, I maintain the anti-wiretapping laws are established for precisely the same reason and very much to the same effect. The FSU had a constitution that read much like the US constitution. Laws alone don't mean anything. In the eastern block in the 1980's they instituted anti pollution laws. Of course the polluters were government entities with inadequate budgets so they were unable to meet the requirements of the new laws. They were fined under the new laws. So the money went from one pocket into another within the same government. But what they were attempting to achieve was the appearance that they were aboard the anti pollution movement along with the rest of Europe. As far as it went, that worked at the time. The fact that you believe yourself immune from wiretap because there are strict laws against it in the UK means the laws have met their intent. Perhaps this once the US is more honest in our crookedness.
From: Ken Smith on 7 Jan 2007 19:45 In article <enqou0$8ss_011(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <enq1pe$cuv$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>It has been spelled out on several news casts. Here's the text that >>causes the most concern: >> >>******* Begin quote ******** >>The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as >>enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an >>item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner >>consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct >>searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and >>safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches >>specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection. >>******************* >> >>Note that it applies to all mail of any kind. The claim is one of quite >>broad authority since the definition of "exigent circumstances" is quite >>wide. > >How are you going to make it more specific? The definitions could be spelled out. > Should there be legal >handcuffs on inspections even if new types of containers are dripping >powder or tick or can't be x-rayed or zapped to kill bacteria? There should be the need to get a warrant in a situation that is not truly an emergency. "A reasonable expectation of death or injury" could be included in the wording. In non-emergency cases, there is time to get the warrant. No judge will deny one if the case is anything like reasonable. >ARe you really insisting that a law be passed for each and every >new method people use to transport deadly materials? No, all that I or any others want is that nothing else be snuck into the law under the mask of "national security". > Congress >can't pick which toilet paper to use within 12 months. > >You're being silly. No, you are going willingly to the slaughter. You have been tricked into thinking there is a threat worthy of giving up your rights over and then tricked into thinking that giving up your rights will make you safe. > >/BAH > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 7 Jan 2007 19:46
In article <enqp0r$8ss_012(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >> >>Your taps don't need warrants any more though do they ? > >Yes, they do require warrants. Perhaps you should stop >confusing tapping with monitoring. Before you can monitor, you have to tap. You can't have the monitoring first. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |