Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 11 Jan 2007 07:44 On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:28:17 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >MassiveProng wrote: > >> We are at war. > >With which country ? > Again you show us just how oblivious you are to current events and life on Earth.
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Jan 2007 07:52 In article <45A5D901.C7F3FDDC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >MassiveProng wrote: > >> We are at war. > >With which country ? It's a new kind of war. The stakes are civilizations, not political geographical lines. You are still stuck in European style thinking about rules of waging war. Since this is a new kind of war, new rules and new techniques are being created. So far, these new rules are being dictated to Western civilization by religious extremists. Since technology allows these groups to wreak havoc globally, there will have to be new ways to deal with problems and messes they create. Winning this war requires time. Nobody will be able to say, "We won" on a specific date until historians look back on the century. The only response from the Democrat leadership last night was their presidential campaign platform. It was ineffective in 2004; I don't understand why they think it will be effective in 2008. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 11 Jan 2007 07:56 In article <58ccq2l4e66dccpn4kagghl0act4j0b78o(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:28:17 +0000, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >>> We are at war. >> >>With which country ? >> > > Again you show us just how oblivious you are to current events and >life on Earth. They are not oblivious; these people are still thinking in the old ways. Since the current threats don't match old European war-mongering patterns, it cannot be called war. Since they cannot call these events war, the normal military responses cannot be invoked. Stop calling them names and think about why these people cannot recognize dangers. The US has a political party whose platform is depending on people's abilities to not recognize this danger. /BAH
From: unsettled on 11 Jan 2007 08:35 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. The essentials are on the internet. Too bad you don't have access. >>>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. That's obviously extracurricular to what you're doing here then. >>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. We're immune to them for the most part. The ones who listen most closely are the opposition party searching for chinks in the armor. >>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. Definition: The ones who don't agree are sheep, the ones who do are brilliant people. Joking aside, apply some math and science to the quest. For every issue there's a more or less standard distribution curve that describes the opinions. Filter that some more to eliminate those without computers AND the savvy to use usenet AND the desire to do that and you end up with the opinions expressed here. There's no magic to understanding that this is not a cross section representative of society. Understanding a somewhat truncated and skewed standard distribution solves "how they got that way" nicely for me where usenet is concerned. Although this is a sci newsgroup I think you'll find the majority of the posters here are not working scientists and don't actually have a formal science education. In fact the level of education has been declining over time. The further we get from the September that never ended the worse it seems to get. Locally, where I live, the general thrust of the overall population is towards the liberal camp (no formal study, just my observations) while local governments they keep voting in are conservatives. Go figure. Even in this bunch I think you'd find that regardless of what they preach here, when they're alone in the secrecy of the voting booth they fall victim to a "reversion to the mean" syndrome, always choosing what they see as the safest path even when that conflicts with their vocalized ideology. Practicality universally triumphs over ideology. You needn't listen so much to what's said here as look at voting patterns and try to analyze them. That's where the BS ends temporarily.
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 10:00
In article <971fc$45a50ead$cdd085b4$27831(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >That's not the way I remember it. The final agreement was >that one system of digitizing was agreed on so that the >data stream could be deciphered by the government at any >point, regardless of who the manufacturer of the teleco >equipment happens to be. That's nothing more than a >government approved standard. The "so that government can decode it" is part of making taps possible. The various companies have to have the "standard equipment". So this means they are forced to install equipment that makes wiretaps possible and not the stuff that doesn't. This is only part of what was done to make the tapping possible. Other things were required of the ISP folks too: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.wiretap10jun10,0,4357897.story?coll=bal-attack-headlines It wasn't just a standard for the digitizers that was imposed. The other parts of it didn't get a lot of press. I did find this reference to it: http://legalpad.wordpress.com/2006/04/06/wiretap/ Here's a bit about the cost to phone companies: http://hanson.gmu.edu/wiretap-cacm.html I only slightly disagree with the government forcing others to pay for the tools of wiretapping. The extra cost of being able to tap a new technology will have to be paid somehow. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that since they have had the tools for a long time, no warrant is needed for their use. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |