Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 9 Jan 2007 10:05 In article <ko77q21pf19e2i7pcb6ehvqp84nsrj8123(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 04:54:51 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: > >>In article <oop5q296ar51h8rgahllt1jn532fqj8sb0(a)4ax.com>, >>MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >>>On Mon, 08 Jan 07 11:34:28 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >>>us: >>> >>>>No harm if one of them is being tailed by the police who overhear it >either. >>>>That's a public street. If they are talking in their home, it's illegal for >>>>the police to do it. >>> >>> >>> It's a public phone service, dumbfuck. >> >>It doesn't start the clock on a patent, does it. >> > > You likely do not even know who invented the telephone. > > Hint: initials were not AGB. AGB was a thief, and collaborated >with thieves. I guess the fact that you elected to insult rather than rebut, means that you don't have a counter argument. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 9 Jan 2007 10:07 In article <97fd$45a39f71$cdd08551$17405(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >I have problems with real sugar. Thank heavens for alternatives. Here here. Lemonade made with fake stuff and real fresh lemons is great. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 9 Jan 2007 10:14 Ken Smith wrote: > 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? I've met a few when I volunteered at shelters. > 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. Your dad was clever.
From: unsettled on 9 Jan 2007 10:32 Ken Smith wrote: > 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. > > I think you'll find that because of the confusion demonstrated by so many people legislative bodies are steadily moving away from even using the words "tap" and into "eavesdrop" and "overhear" as the descriptions in laws. Here's an interesting argument: http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/projects/mac/cfp96/plenary-court-shadow-majority.html Too bad it isn't a real court. Whose side are you on?
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Jan 2007 06:25
In article <oop5q296ar51h8rgahllt1jn532fqj8sb0(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 08 Jan 07 11:34:28 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >us: > >>No harm if one of them is being tailed by the police who overhear it either. >>That's a public street. If they are talking in their home, it's illegal for >>the police to do it. > > > It's a public phone service, dumbfuck. > No it is not. The phone company is private and your conversation is private without a warrant. And you can get your argument across more effectively without using language that I guess you think makes you seem "grown up." > By your own logic, you fail. > > One driving one's car is a private event. Just because it is on a >public roadway... > >Oooops... > > Has the anvil lump on your head healed yet, dipshit? Bwuahahahaha! Being in public is different from being on a phone. |