Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2007 11:43 In article <45A8F1B6.15170D6(a)earthlink.net>, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> We certainly gathered tons of information about the trafficing. >> I don't why that can't be converted to a sound rather than >> a picture on the TTY. >> >> I don't know if anybody put a speaker on an ethernet. I'll have >> to ask. > > > Does your hearing go to 10 Mhz, 100 MHz or even 1 GHz? Can you find >a speaker that goes that high? Data over ethernet is in small fixed >length packets and the higher the bandwidth, the less time it takes to >send a packet. A cable modem has transmit and receive LEDs that flicker >with each packet, but even an online audio or video stream can have >several seconds between bursts of data packets. Its a completely >different game. I'd probably assign a set of sounds to each layer. I'd have recall the specs to figure out how to assign sound within each layer. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2007 11:45 In article <45A8F9B4.EF2208ED(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> I do it today with the my 14,400 modem. > >Can you not even get anything faster than that ? Why? 14400 is faster than anything I've used before. I don't need anything faster. /BAH
From: MassiveProng on 13 Jan 2007 11:56 On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:03:00 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >To Arabs, failing to posture and spout rhetoric would be *weenie* ! A posturing weenie is still a weenie, and yes, they are weeinies. If they weren't they would declare war on the US, attempt an attack, and be mashed like the little cockroaches they aspire to (and succeed at) be.
From: Ken Smith on 13 Jan 2007 12:02 In article <ea9fe$45a7b632$4fe7610$13687(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [...] >> Chatrooms are a much newer thing than the phone. The phone has a history >> in law. If the signal on the phone line becomes something like a phone >> billing record, there are some things we will have to stop using the phone >> for. You won't for example be able to talk to your patent lawyer without >> starting the clock. > >What makes you think the clock hasn't already started? Personal experience from working with a patent lawyer makes me believe this. You can also try looking at places like this: www.rplotkin.com/ Also note: "Salt Lake City firm and over the phone, I meet with clients" in: www.haightiplaw.com > Why are >there rules about record keeping? Billing records need to be kept as part of the proper operation of the company. You can also say that the phone numbers involved can be expected to be kept much like with a shipping company or Fed-X, where you have to disclose where the package is going. Fed-X, the shipping company and the phone company do not gain ownership of what is being transported, > >>>Digitized information is pretty easy to retain for long periods. Who >>>knows for sure what the phone companies are doing. Which do you suppose >>>generated more data per day, phone usage or the internet? > >> It doesn't matter whether it is easy or not. It would not be all that >> hard to hook voice activated tape recorders onto the phone lines of >> certain people and keep those records too. The phone company has no >> reason or business doing it. As a result, we have the reasonable >> expectation that they don't. The long distance number dialed is another >> matter. We know that they will keep a record for billing purposes. > >Practices and law evolve after the inception of new technologies. Yes but th basic rights remain the same. It would be an unlawful search if they sent a robot to do it without getting a warrant. [....] >The judge that overturned the conviction was shuffled to >the side, his career destroyed for his honest enforcement >of the law. Such things do happen. Human failings are something we need to allow for. If we demand that the ruling not be overturned in such a case, we create a worse situation than if it is overturned. The only way that the judge can correct the error is to overturn the ruling based on the error. They don't have the power to require the public flogging of the police etc. [....] >> IF you allow the "the government has the right to because it is necessary" >> argument", to stand, you will have no rights at all. They can always >> argue the need to violate your rights. The warrant is at least forcing >> two branches of the government to agree before your privacy can be >> invaded. > >I don't dispute the validity of that statement, however the >realities are carrying us further into the subpoena by a >prosecutor being sufficient. This may be happening but it is a dangerous trend. We need to restrain it. [....] >>>The reality is that usually the government presses forward anyway with >>>decisions like the one we're discussing here settling the matter in >>>a court action well after the fact. > >> Well at least this seem to be the MO of the current bunch. They even >> press forwards when they don't need to. The FISA grants just about every >> warrant they are asked for. > >The denials, top my understanding, have been very few. I think >you'll find the MO of any bunch taking over the executive branch >will be quite the same. I expect that this is why the Democrats are not making as much of a fuss about this as you would otherwise expect. They figure that in 2008 they will gain the Whitehouse . The current use of the "signing statement" and not going to the FISA court are new though. > >>>Illegal action by the government is what the court holds illegal. > >> You are turning "all power not granted" on its head. > >That's caller realpolitik. It is also called being in a handbasket. >> "overly zealous" comes under the same heading as "honest mistake". What >> the Bush admin is doing is "willful violation". This would get a cop sent >> to jail. > >Intent is argued to death in almost every instance of over zealous. >Invariably the government is granted leeway. Not when it comes to using fruit of the poisoned tree they haven't. [...] >> The judges have become far too friendly with the cops. It happens. In >> other countries, you would be found guilty unless you bribed the judge. >> The standard must never become that we only have the rights we can enforce >> in the worst situation. This would lead to another end of all rights. > >Your point is? It is a tiny bit of corruption. We have a system involving humans, they let emotions and familiarity get into the judgements. This is in many ways something we want to have happen but in some ways it is a bad thing. [.....] >> The had no damn business doing it and still have no damn business doing >> it. > >Hard to argue with that logic. LOL I figured you'd agree. There is no escaping the conclusion. [....] >> No, I dispute the suggestion that that is the next question. The next >> question is whether they can be said to be in possession of that >> information. When I drive my car down the road, the contents of my car >> remain mine. I am running my car over the counties road. The same >> applies to the content of a phone conversatioon. > >Well if the cop sees the handgun sticking out from under the seat >a little, or even THINKS he sees one, your rights to privacy end. You are in a car and the car has windows. As part of the ordinary actions of the policeman, his vision will extend to the inside of your car. He has not conducted a search. If a cop during the normal conduct of his duties, sees evidence of a crime, he can act on it. In most states, obtaining a driving license, requires you to agree to some things. Extending the automotive case to a house doesn't work so well. You would be better to have the cop see the gun through the window of a house if you want to go down this line. [....] >> If you say they are like a common carrier, you are saying that they have >> no legal claim of ownership of the information at all. Common carriers >> transport peoples stuff without gaining any right of ownership. > >Same can be said of the bank and the records of your account. Many things that are incorrect "can be said". I believe that this is an example. The bank has to keep records of how much money you have in the account. They are a business and the money you have put into the account is a loan from you to that business. They have a need to keep track of their assets and liabilities for the proper operation of that business. This makes the records, at least in part, theirs. [....] >> Yes, I agree that an international phone call is quite a different thing. >> A large part of the argument (at least by others here) has been that phone >> calls between US locations could legally be listened in on by the >> government without a warrant. I am assuming that you agree that they are >> wrong in this. > >I agree that they are wrong in this. My contentions have always >had an extranational element in them. Yes and your argument is strong because of that detail. Others however who may well be reading along, have been arguing that the monitoring of the content of calls that remain entirely within the US is being done and that this is legal. [....] >> You are arguing that the taps on calls leaving the US can be within the >> US. I will let you have that point for now and point out that the >> hardware that was installed to allow wiretaps was not installed on the >> lines that leave the US. It was installed to allow wiretaps, with a >> warrant, of calls that are purely within the US. > >I don't know that. We've been over this ground before and >the information which is in the public domain hasn't been >clear. Since we can't find good information either way and you agree that the calls purely within the US are a different matter, I think we can say that we must wait for further information before we can go any further on this part of the subject. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 13 Jan 2007 12:06
In article <GJidnUY_c-B5fTXYRVnytgA(a)pipex.net>, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eoal64$8ss_004(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... [...] >> 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. That would depend on the purpose. You can have an indication of the SNR, error rate or other data about the signal that would have some use. You could also make a sound for every outgoing packet. The clicking and buzzing would tell you there is activity. With a little decoding, if you are running XP you could hear when it phones home. > > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |