Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 9 Jan 2007 09:41 In article <bc150$45a38971$cdd0856d$16880(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [... me ...] >> The only issue is the "written down" part of the knowledge >> base. Without it your learning is greatly slowed. > >This is true for IQ100 + some small number of standard deviations >as well a all the - group. If you're their ombudsman you're right. You would only have to be a respected member of the group for it to be true. People learn from each other but a lot of what is learned these days can be traced to a book somewhere. >That rather depends on who and what you are. I have circles I live >in, and circles I run with. The former has to have the written >material, the latter not so much. And don't forget, most people >live in families where communication is important. How many truly >isolated people have you ever met? If they are "truly isolated" how could I have met them? When I was about 11, I asked my father how a radio worked. He told me that it would take a bit of explaining so he would tell me all about it on Saturday. On Saturday afternoon, he gave me a fairly good explaination of what was going on in a radio. Only later did I find out that he got a book from the library on the subject. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 9 Jan 2007 09:54 In article <eo01nb$8qk_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <entrv6$ose$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: [....] >>Bush said the gov't could open mail in a broad range of circumstances. The >>law already allows it if the mail is suspected of containing something >>dangerous. > >It is a US President's job to do this. No it isn't. He swears to defend the constitution not to violate it. > It is the other two branches' jobs >to provide rein checks and balances to Presidential powers. These are needed only because people are human and sometimes don't do what they are supposed to do. Cops exist because there are criminals. Nobody is supposed to be a criminal but we know that some people will be. Each branch is there to ensure that the others do their jobs and don't start commiting crimes. This is how, at least, it is intended to work. [....] >This process of checks and balances doesn't seem to be understood >by Europeans. I have never met a european that didn't understand it. Their governments call it something else but they have different branches of government doing the same sort of thing. The french claim to have invented it. > My hypothesis is that this happens because their >unconscious assumptions are based in kingship type rule. So >far I don't see anything to contradict this one. This is an example of GIGO logic. >The reason this understand is important is because this European >style thinking will affect how Western civilization defends itself. Yes, it will effect it for the better in this case. Europeans tend to take a long view of history. As a result they tend to think about the long term results of their actions. They also often learn more than one language and know of more than one culture. This helps them in understanding about interactions of cultures. It prevents them from making some beginer level mistakes on the world stage. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 9 Jan 2007 09:55 In article <c03e3$45a3868e$cdd0856d$16796(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <9dp5q2h1eboobfg5rjl4j33tp6cdj699mb(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >> [...] >> >>>They do not tap or monitor unwarranted, dumbass. >>> >>> THE COMPUTER listens for key words and phrases, >> >> >> Did you just contradict your self? It sure looks like it to me. In order >> to connect "THE COMPUTER", you need a tap. > >You'll find that quite often a technical term is not >the same as a legal term even when using the same word. But, in this case I don't think it is. The connection is needed. Even a lawyer should be able to understand that. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 9 Jan 2007 10:00 In article <ug77q2t1i96ggd65qo7v7b4fk753p3070u(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 04:52:59 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: > >>In article <9dp5q2h1eboobfg5rjl4j33tp6cdj699mb(a)4ax.com>, >>MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >>[...] >>> They do not tap or monitor unwarranted, dumbass. >>> >>> THE COMPUTER listens for key words and phrases, >> >>Did you just contradict your self? It sure looks like it to me. In order >>to connect "THE COMPUTER", you need a tap. > > You are playing with the meaning of the word. In listening to >private conversations, "tap" refers not to the physical connection, >but to the actual conversation monitoring. No, I am not and no it does not. The tap refers to the connection whereever it goes. If they want to tape record the conversation and don't end up listening to it, they still did the tap. If a computer listens to it, it is still a tap. > Computers ALREADY are hooked into EVERY stream that the phone >utilities carry. Hooked == tap > No "physical tap" is required, disphit. but...but you just said it was already there. > No private >conversation is individually listened to by a person without a >warrant. The computer monitors ALL streams for keywords. The duly >appointed officer of the court issues the warrants. Listening to the conversations of many people is just many cases of listening to a conversation. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 9 Jan 2007 10:03
In article <eo00km$8ss_002(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >Ah, I was using the word monitoring incorrectly. No, actually you were close to right about the use of the term. The mistake you had made was to assume that it could be done without making the tap. If a computer digitizes and processes a signal and raises a warning if the signal has some property being looked for, the computer is monitoring the signal. > I was >using it to describe the sampling done by computers. This is where you had it exactly right. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |