Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 08:37 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eoal3e$8ss_003(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <JNednet0bbF_kDXYnZ2dnUVZ8q6nnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eo85rh$8qk_007(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <fJmdnb3Ot8NuEDrYnZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eo7uvq$8ss_001(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <45A6D193.A694451(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to turn on your modem's sound. You'll hear all kinds of >>>>>>> mating sounds. You can also tell if the ISP you're calling has >>>>>>> a headache and will cause comm eruptions. >>>>>> >>>>>>I used to do that. >>>>>> >>>>>>With broadband it's not necessary. >>>>> >>>>> <shrug> I was in the biz; we used sound pattern differences for cues >>>>> to prevent messes. >>>> >>>>Time and technology have developed significantly in the last few >>>>decades. >>>> >>>> >>> But mess detection methods haven't changed much. Changes in >>> sound patterns means changes in behaviour. If one then >>> experiences problems, you can watch for the same sound >>> patterns and see if they correlate to the same bug. >> >>With broadband there is no "sound" to listen to. This is like trying to >>tune >>in a digital television with analog methods. > > No one can hook up a speaker and listen? No. I seem to recall that was an artefact of the modem converting digital data into an analogue audio signal for transmission over telephone lines. AFAIK there is no stage at which the broadband data signal is converted into an audio signal. Can you hook a speaker up to an ethernet cable?
From: T Wake on 13 Jan 2007 08:38 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eoal64$8ss_004(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eo87pn$nji$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <eo7v28$8ss_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <eo6tdr$vsa$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <45A6D193.A694451(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You need to turn on your modem's sound. You'll hear all kinds of >>>>>> mating sounds. You can also tell if the ISP you're calling has >>>>>> a headache and will cause comm eruptions. >>>>> >>>>>I used to do that. >>>>> >>>>>With broadband it's not necessary. >>>> >>>>You also need much better hearing. >>> >>>Why? I've never met broadband. It's sound pattern differences that >>>predict that some behaviour will change. >> >>The frequency content extends well past the 20KHz that the human ear is >>limited to. In DSL, there is no real signal at all down where audio band >>modems run. > > There isn't any way to hang a converter or something on and > make patterns into sounds? How about lights? You would need to seriously slow down the data flow for it to be meaningful which would kind of defeat the purpose.
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2007 08:35 In article <eo8dk2$69v$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eo81fp$8qk_005(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <e14dq2lrf4csajui0dav1bot1lcqcag9ua(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:35:06 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>>(Ken Smith) 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: >>>>[....] >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>Commuting by pogostick isn't covered by the law. It is still not ok to >>>>shoot one. >>>> >>>>[.....] >>>>>If your idea was legal, then the only way to screen for certain >>>>>phrases would be for the government to have a blanket warrant. >>>> >>>>There is no need for the government to commit the crime of warrantless >>>>wire tapping. You seem to think that it must and therefor you look for a >>>>way to make it legal. It doesn't have to and it is not legal. >>> >>>Agreed. The only argument I seem to be hearing here is that some >>>folks seem to trust the current President enough to allow him to >>>declare himself above the law and an uncontrained dictator in all >>>issues where he decides he wants to be above the law. >> >>Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. > >Yes, most people have more sense than you. I do not trust him blindly. He is the only one in Washington who seems to be trying deal with the real problem. He explains the strategy and why the steps he takes is important. The fact is that he is dealing with reality. This rarely is a popular effort. The fact that you cannot see the overall strategy does not mean that I cannot see it. However, you have to put me in my place and declare that I'm delusional in order for you to continue to live in your fairy tale land. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2007 08:48 In article <cijfq2p2jjodffl7agug7gie7e0f2ngbef(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Fri, 12 Jan 07 13:12:25 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>Agreed. The only argument I seem to be hearing here is that some >>>folks seem to trust the current President enough to allow him to >>>declare himself above the law and an uncontrained dictator in all >>>issues where he decides he wants to be above the law. >> >>Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. I see a few people >>noticing that rpoblems are getting sorted out with interactions >>between all four structures of the US govnerment: voters, legislative, >>executive and judicial. > >I wasn't talking about people, per se. I was talking about the >arguments I often see here, which amount to little other than that. I've only been talking about one problem in this thread. I think it's very stupid for people reading this thread to believe that I trust Bush about everything just because I see him as the only one in Washington who is dealing with this national security problem. > I >gave here a pretty good exposition of exactly why such arguments are >simply wrong and dealing fully with FISA so that anyone can follow my >logic and premises -- none of which you deal with I see -- culminating >in my point, which was: > >>>The argument that Congress somehow implicitly authorized the NSA >>>program when it enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force >>>(AUMF) against al Qaeda, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (September >>>18, 2001), is without any merit at all. There is nothing in the text >>>or in the congressional record or history of the AUMF to suggest that >>>Congress in any way intended to permit the Executive to engage in any >>>and all warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States >>>without judicial approval or a showing of probable cause as required >>>by FISA. More, the AUMF was decidely NOT a declaration of war. And >>>even it it were, the explicit words only permit 15 days at most for >>>the Administration. > >Which is, I think, a proper and almost inevitable conclusion from the >facts. > >However, taking you squarely on your point, quite a few arguing here >(and I sometimes include you in this group) seem to imagine that the >President is right when he claims he is above the law. I have never said this. And for you to read into my words that I have said this is you having to have to categorize me in a certain crazy state so you can continue to live in your fantasy land. > In doing so, >you must be 'trusting' him. And I have repeatedly said that he is the only one in Washington show seems to be dealing with the _real security problem_. Now, if this is trusting him implicitly in everything he does, then you are completely delusional and illogical. > Because it is certain that there is no >other means by which such a rogue administration is being constrained >when they choose to place themselves outside of law. If you agree >with their approach, I can __only__ conclude that you trust them. > >That isn't and shouldn't ever be an acceptable thought to anyone. It is your decision that this is a rogue adminsistration; that is what the Democrats have been trying to do...see Bush as Bad so they can get into the White House in 2008. Did you listen to their rebuttals to Bush's speech the other night? None of them dealt with the real problem. All of them were campaigning. Doesn't this elision bother you just a little bit? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2007 08:58
In article <8af1c$45a7b0e1$4fe7610$13591(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eo834m$8qk_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <eo5kh2$gtn$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <eo5c66$8qk_002(a)s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>> >>>>>They are not oblivious; these people are still thinking in >>>>>the old ways. >>>> >>>>No, they are simply unwilling to allow the wrong word to be applied to the >>>>situation. If you control the language, you control the debate. By >>>>calling something "a war", you are claiming certain things are true about >>>>it. If the thing being called "a war" doesn't really have those >>>>characteristics, using the term can lead to confusion. >>> >>>Then me a word to use that describes the fight to the death >>>between two civilizations. >> >> >> Why do you need a word which describes it any better than saying a "fight to >> the death between two civilizations?" (Which, incidentally is not what a >> "war" is). >> >> >>> I call this war. It is European-style >>>thinking that has limited the description between two countries. >> >> >> Nonsense. >> >> Did a legitimate, legally empowered authority in your government declare >> war? Is your government able to declare war on behalf of a civilisation? > >How do you declare war on Hesbalah or al qaeda? If you >win, who signs the surrender documents? This won't have a signature ceremony. You are stuck in this European mindset about what is a war. > >>>Islam didn't have the notion of nationalism until recently and >>>they still don't quite use this heirarchy for classification of >>>people groups. > >> Incorrect. > >"Islam succeeded in uniting an Arab world of separate tribes >and castes, but disagreements concerning the succession of >the prophet caused a division in Islam between two groups, >Sunnis and Shi'ites." None of this deals with nationalism; in fact, it promotes the opposite. > >http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001468.html > >The balance of this history is interesting in its own right. > >Seems to me Islamic nationalism is along ideological lines >rather than classic geopolitical ones. And that is not nationalism. That is empire building which is done by expansionism. Europe and the US stopped doing that ~1900; fUSSR had not. Now that the means, materials and technology are available, Islamic extremists are continuing the Ottoman efforts. What do you think they mean when they say they want to go back to the "old ways"? > >>>Until you understand this, I guess you will >>>continue to ignore that this war[or whatever] exists. It is >>>not a simple conflict. > >> I agree, the conflict is far from simple. It is not a war either, therefore >> invoking "war powers" is dishonest. > >For the US it is the only tool currently available. I believe >UK has a strong history of dealing with Irish terrorism in >precisely the same way. > >I'm open to hearing about some other model. There's no one to >negotiate with, so what's left? Changing mindsets. It took WWI and WWII to change a certain mindset; this was all under the rules of engagement, European-style. Those rules are no longer valid because the enemy hasn't agreed to follow them; it will never agree to follow them because they're heretical. /BAH |