Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jamie on 9 Jan 2007 22:06 Eeyore wrote: > > That's because you're deaf / blind to anything you don't want to see / hear. > > Graham > ah, now you're finally getting a grip on your self Graham.. You know, didn't your mother tell you that talking to your self will make you go cross eyed? -- "I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: Jamie on 9 Jan 2007 22:52 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45A25F8D.F0F820A6(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>butter isn't really butter anymore. >>>> >>>>No ? Does it not come from cows any more ? >>> >>>Buy some butter. Melt it. See how much of the brick is fluff >>>[there's a cooking name for this but I can't remember it]. >> >>Use ghee or clarified butter in that case. >> >> >> >>>>>You think it's funny? Legislating food chemical content is >>>>>new trick. It used to be set by a committee who, presumedly, >>>>>had some education about these things. Now it's lawyers >>>>>legislating the latest diet fad^Winsanity. >>>> >>>>Trans fats are chemically manufactured. >>>> >>>>It's not a natural FOOD ! >>> >>>Really? >> >>" The initial purpose was to create a cheaper substance to make candles than > > the > >>expensive animal fats in use at the time. Electricity began to diminish the >>candle market, and since the product looked like lard, they began selling it > > as > >>a food. " >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisco > > > It doesn't look like lard. It doesn't mix like lard. > It's easier to work with. So what are the ingredients > used to make Crisco? > > /BAH Mexicans ? -- "I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: Eeyore on 10 Jan 2007 01:42 Jamie wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > > That's because you're deaf / blind to anything you don't want to see / hear. > > > > Graham > > > ah, now you're finally getting a grip on your self Graham.. > You know, didn't your mother tell you that talking to your > self will make you go cross eyed? Hah ! You fell for my little trap :~) Graham
From: MassiveProng on 10 Jan 2007 06:34 On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:55:37 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >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. > The connection is already present, dingledorf. Ever since the advent of ISDN switching (digital from the first switch) phone data streams are all already connected to. No physical "tapping device" needs to be added.
From: MassiveProng on 10 Jan 2007 06:46
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:00:07 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >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 Digital == computer You == dipshit infrastructure == already in place can't blame Bush for what was already in place and took literally decades to get that way. The US people, and the government of this country has had the telephone system constructed this way over several decades. Thank the FCC, you military, and you various administrations over the years. I do. >> No "physical tap" is required, disphit. > >but...but you just said it was already there. Not a physical tap. ALL digital signals are piped through computers, dork. All gear is already in place. Are you capable of grasping that concept, or have you been this naive for decades? You still seem to think Johnny Jack Attacher is out on the phone pole clamping alligator clips to you phone line. Wrong. >> 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. > You seem to be oblivious to this one, as well as the several others. So, even when listening, you are as deaf as a pile of horseshit. |