Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 11 Jan 2007 00:44 In article <7ce0e$45a5aac5$cdd08570$32760(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <c4f22$45a58ef3$cdd084d0$31916(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> >>>MassiveProng wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 10 Jan 07 13:45:43 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Do you honestly think that a human is listening to all phone >>>>>converstations that happen each day? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Well... at least two are. One on each end. >>> >>>Not necessarily, sometimes its my answering machine >>>on one end. And I've had messages left once in a while >>>by one of those computers trying to sell stuff, so >>>some few times it was no humans involved at all. >>> >> >> ...have your machine call my machine... > >The future is. For better or worse, yes. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Eeyore on 11 Jan 2007 01:23 Jamie wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > 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 > > > I didn't fall for any trap that you may think you had set. You > simply wasn't watching where you were walking and stepped into > one of those little holes of yours. > > Tread lightly, You'll never know who's watching. I intentionally wrote it that way actually to amuse. Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Jan 2007 01:28 MassiveProng wrote: > We are at war. With which country ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Jan 2007 07:29 In article <540f8$45a50dcc$cdd085b4$27810(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <d47f7$45a39df4$cdd08551$17354(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>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. > >Absurd. > >> 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. > >Read Hayek. I'll look it up. > >> 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. > >Salesmen all know one thing you keep missing. Deal with the >decision maker. I am. > >No matter what you might manage to convince the electorate >of, even if they voted as you would wish, you can't get >any significant change into a political system unless >you're convincing the legislators. Western civilization is supposedly based on some flavors of democracy. This requires an informed electorate. No one seems to be listening to legislators nor leaders nor enemies. This is something that astounds me. > >Here's a clue. > >They're not reading usenet, never have been, and likely >never will. I don't intend to try to change the minds of insane people. That is a futile goal. I'm not really trying to change people's minds here. I'm trying to learn how they got to think the way they are thinking. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Jan 2007 07:34
In article <eo3nk9$4ks$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eo32dq$8ss_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <eo30jp$9oj$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <eo2qd9$8qk_004(a)s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <45A3D277.F021CB68(a)earthlink.net>, >>>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In article <eo00km$8ss_002(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> [....] >>>>>> >Ah, I was using the word monitoring incorrectly. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, actually you were close to right about the use of the term. 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Phone lines ARE DIGITAL. They are only analog the "Last mile", where >>>>>the digital data one on pair is separated into multiple analog lines and >>>>>delivered to your old fashioned, POTS phone. >>>> >>>>I suppose these people believe that all phone transmissions go >>>>through copper from the caller to the phone answerer, especially >>>>their cell phone transmissions. >>>> >>>>I don't get how blindness to how stuff works. >>> >>>No, at least I am completely aware of how the actual signals travel. >> >>OK. >> >>> The >>>point I am making is that it doesn't matter. It is illegal to shoot >>>someone who is going down the side walk on a pogostick. The law says >>>nothing about pogostick based commuting. The people who are saying that >>>the taps don't need a warrant would also be saying that shooting the >>>person on a pogostick was legal. >> >>But your idea of tapping is not what is covered by the law. It might >>be a desire of yours to have this happen, but it isn't yet. >> >>If your idea was legal, then the only way to screen for certain >>phrases would be for the government to have a blanket warrant. Do >>you really want that to happen? Your phone agreements would change >>to having language that includes that blanket warrant. > >I don't want the gov't monitoring conversations without a warrant. Neither >did the writers of the 4th amendment. This doesn't happen in the US. /BAH |