Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jan 2007 08:02 In article <eo0b49$t1i$12(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. Instead of using the fake sugar, use one orange. /BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 10 Jan 2007 02:58 In article <lhk9q29bklsq16gsbga7dt12qsb9vquvbh(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >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. > If it's the gov't's computer, yes it does. Why do you think the 4th amendment applies to a physical connection but not a computer one? > Maybe now you'll get a clue.
From: Lloyd Parker on 10 Jan 2007 02:57 In article <qmj9q2tjq5eg54qilhj8t4chc8ncbpbjhp(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >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. > Not a connection to the gov't. > 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. And that's not what "wiretapping" or "tap" means anyway. It means interception.
From: Lloyd Parker on 10 Jan 2007 02:59 In article <eo2lo8$8qk_001(a)s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <eo0ft5$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 my question. > Not all bills were approved. Name 3 of Bush's proposals which were not. >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. After Dems and civil liberties groups howled. >Congress is now >yapping about not approving military payments. I said in the past 6 years. >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: Lloyd Parker on 10 Jan 2007 02:57
In article <orj9q2hmhi9asacpcfjttbqnrs4m8p41oi(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >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 mail service is in place too, but the gov't isn't supposed to read your mail. >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? > Again, for the gov't to access it is supposed to require a warrant. > 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. |