Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jan 2007 08:45 In article <eo0ad9$t1i$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. No. Communciations packets are compared for certain tonal patterns by some form of computing hardware. When the sound match a certain set of sounds, a flag is raised. Now a human needs to make a decision if the sources need to have their conversations listened to. If so, then a warrant is sought and now the listening can begin. Do you honestly think that a human is listening to all phone converstations that happen each day? /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 10 Jan 2007 09:16 In article <70760$45a3b157$cdd08584$17875(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <bc150$45a38971$cdd0856d$16880(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >> If they are "truly isolated" how could I have met them? > >I've met a few when I volunteered at shelters. Aside: good for you. The comment was meant more as a quip than anything based on the logic that if I met them, they would no longer be "truly isolated". I guess it is posible for someone with mental problems to become isolated. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 10 Jan 2007 09:42 In article <eo2mas$8qk_001(a)s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eo0aa9$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. So do the other branches. "national security" involves defending the constitution. It does not allow for the violations of 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. > >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. This is simply not true. You can have 100% freedom and 100% equality. Neither nor both are very likely but there is nothing saying that if all people can exercise all of their rights the result will be inequality (as these terms are usually defined). >> 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. You have both my wishes and the results of my wishes totally wrong. The whole basis of the advantage democracy and a tricameral government is exactly as I stated. A democratically elected dictator is a hugely bad idea but this seems to be what you are in favor of. >>[....] >>>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. I don't think so. I think you have not understood what they have said, partly because they haven't stated it well and partly because you started with a false notion of what they have been suggesting. >> 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. If you are saying that they provide more "services" you are right. When it comes to "deciding more aspects", you may get an argument out of them. The US government does many things like patent protections and subsidies which indirectly control what options you have. Some of the services provided by the governments in europe increase the options the public really have. [....] >>> 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. No, I am the one who has argued against "president as uberlord". I guess in another time, you would assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a communist. It is a common error in thinking that you are making. You are assuming that two things you disagree with are the same because they belong to the class of things you disagree with. Many people make this mistake. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 10 Jan 2007 09:46 In article <qmj9q2tjq5eg54qilhj8t4chc8ncbpbjhp(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:55:37 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: [....] >>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. So you are saying that the warrantless wire tap has already happened and this somehomw makes it ok. This is completely bogus. The US government forced the installation of equipment "to make wire tapping possible" in modern systems. This was deemed not to be a wire tap until it was activated. The activation would require a warrant. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 10 Jan 2007 09:53
In article <eo2qm7$8qk_005(a)s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [...] >>But, in this case I don't think it is. The connection is needed. Even a >>lawyer should be able to understand that. > >No. Communciations packets are compared for certain tonal patterns >by some form of computing hardware. How do they get the packet to compare? They have to already have done the tap before the compare operation can be done on the results of the tap. You have the cart before the horse. [....] >Do you honestly think that a human is listening to all phone >converstations that happen each day? A lot of years ago, taps were recorded on special "voice activated" tape recorders. These would record what was said but not the long times when the line was inactive. To do this, a warrant was needed. (Obviously, you have to tap before you can record.) It would be against the law to only get the before they listened to the tape. All that has happened now is that they can do more than simply record the signal, the warrant is if anything more needed now. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |