Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 10 Jan 2007 06:48 On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:03:15 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >No, actually you were close to right about the use of the term. You just can't get through a day without calling everyone wrong, boy. > 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. Yep. Ya got one right. Guess what, chump... a computer does NOT require a warrant to conduct this task. Maybe now you'll get a clue.
From: MassiveProng on 10 Jan 2007 06:49 On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:05:08 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >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. > I guess the fact that you have decided not to answer the question means that you are oblivious about that one as well.
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jan 2007 07:21 In article <eo0ft5$k5b$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >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: >>>In article <entm2m$8qk_002(a)s947.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>In article <ens471$m0q$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>How do you know that Bush's administration isn't dealing with >>>>emergencies? Should they hold a public poll asking which ones? >>>>Or should we ask our enemies if envelop X has lethal substances? >>>> >>> >>>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. > >Enforce the law, not break it. I was talking about national security. Excesses will always be done by anybody. That is why there are two other branches of government to balance powers on each other. > >> It is the other two branches' jobs >>to provide rein checks and balances to Presidential powers. That >>is how our political system works. Congress can also overreach >>their grab of powers; this is check by the executive and judicial >>branches. All of these processes happen over time--never >>instantaneously. Most of this anti-Bush bitching is mewling >>because instantaneous gratification has not been fed to the >>yapping mouths. > >No, it's because there's been no check with a lapdog Republican Congress. I don't know when there was a lapdog Congress. That term is a nice soundbite to use to avoid dealing with realities and pesky problems that will never have a yes/no solution. > >> >>This process of checks and balances doesn't seem to be understood >>by Europeans. 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. >> > >So what checks has the Congress used in the past 6 years? Where have you been? We just had an election that changed the sligtht majority. Not all bills were approved. All lot of proposals never made it to house vote. There have been a couple of reversals in the legal piece. The Patriot Act was renewed with changes based on previous experience. Congress is now yapping about not approving military payments. All of this is a checking exercise. There is no instantaneous fixing of these matters; that's a fact of the thing called polictics. /BAH /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jan 2007 07:31 In article <eo0aa9$t1i$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. He also has the job of national security. >> 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. This is needed because one goal counters another goal. For instance, freedom counters equality and equality counters freedom. To have 100% of one requires 0% of the other. > 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. So far, it does work. If you had your wishes, the results would be no Constitutional rights and some flavor of oligarchy which, I think, would eventually end up in a viscious dictatorship. > >[....] >>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. You've met them here. > 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. Their governments "take care" of them by deciding more aspects of their lifestyle than the US does. > > >> 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. Then you haven't thought much about it. It is possible that you have the thinking style which longs for a similar decision heirarchy. I'm discovering that most people do have this preference. > > >>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. Yes. That is why they wait until they are forced to deal with a mess that is too big to clean up easily and in a short time period. > 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. So how do you explain the messes they left in Africa, southeast Asia, the Middle East, Germany, and central Europe? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jan 2007 07:49
In article <d47f7$45a39df4$cdd08551$17354(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <1164b$45a3872b$cdd0856d$16796(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <entn7b$8qk_003(a)s947.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <entkvo$kr2$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>> >>>>[... access to information ...] >>>> >>>> >>>>>A person can learn without access. >>>> >>>> >>>>No they can't. Without information input there is no learning. >>> >>>Another of those abbreviated sentence difficulties >>>where what she wrote isn't the complete thought. >> >> >> My apologies. I'm trying to work on this lapse. I do keep >> assuming that people remember what we've been talking about >> two posts ago. > >You're perhaps more used to face to face conversations. No. > You >write as though these were taking place in real time. Some >people will have a longer retention time than others. I am writing as if the thread is an ongoing exchange of letters. If I have to assume that all preveious letters are forgotten, then this medium is useless. It does not help that the sub-topic under discussion is snipped and you read the post as if it were the first of the sub-topic. Whether you like it or not, newsgroups is a discussion forum. It just takes a longer wallclock time than a face-to-face meeting. > >>>We've been discussing access to written knowledge. >> >> yes. >> >>>>>However, each person has >>>>>to make the same mistakes. >>> >>>>If I hit my thumb with a hammer, I quickly recieve the information that it >>>>is a bad idea. If there is no feedback from actions, you can't identify >>>>mistakes. >>> >>>Picky picky. >> >> >> Not really. It's a good example. If there is no written warning >> about hitting the thumb, then every body who picks a hammer >> will have to learn the same lesson by experience. This takes time-- >> lots of time--w.r.t. technology, manufacturing and science. > >Now here's an example of not following the conversation by >not realizing that I was addressing Ken's failure to continue >"We've been discussing access to written knowledge." when I >made my "picky picky" comment. I really don't think it is >possible to have a reasonable discussion with so much >misunderstanding going on so consistently. Here I'm not >only about my posts. I was trying to use his choice to try to explain that access to written knowledge has to do with efficiency. Since he understands about hammering, I'll use it to try to get him to understand what I'm talking about. He would never be able to understand using my examples; he has his mind made up that I'm stupid, uneducatable and has to prove this with every post. If he can't prove it, he might have to consider that I may know something. This would be intolerable w.r.t. the subject matter. I understand how individual people think this way. I'm trying to figure out how a governing body gets this way. > >But since we're here, the lesson only needs to be learned >once as a child with a rock or some hard toy. To extend >the example to each new iteration, like a hammer held by >an adult, is severely flawed unless you're talking about >someone who has a problem learning. > >And yes, every child learns quickly at a very young age >that impact hurts. None of my children needed to learn >this lesson twice despite their reinforcing experiences >that came out of repetitive falls while learning to >walk. "How do you know that hitting yourself with a >hammer hurts?" "I've always known that, doesn't everyone." > >The longer this subthread goes on the sillier it gets. > >Probably the entire thread actually. You are letting your silliness opinion color what you read. To deal with the real problems requires an acceptance of how peoples' and governments' reactions are going to be. Then you can make plans taking this in account. Nobody is going to automagically change their mind until it's too late. My goal is prevent the "too late"ness of this particular problem. /BAH |