Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Jan 2007 09:44 In article <45A92E5F.C38939DE(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "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. > >And how is that going to work with packets ? Why do I need to get to that detail? The minute you start looking at the fine detail, you change the behaviour. I don't want to do that. I do want to know differences in behaviour patteners. Stop thinking so literally. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Jan 2007 09:52 In article <45A930BF.319811A6(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >Can you hook a speaker up to an ethernet cable? >> >> Technically yes you can. You can also plumb it to the kitchen sink. Both >> are about as useful. > >Be careful what you wish for. > >One day the kitchen sink may have an IP address. Toilets already have computer gear. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Jan 2007 10:00 In article <o57hq2hgacs104ki37lf6fd2d8lgjjulru(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:27 -0000, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>news:l6hfq2hq3pl65gn8pceon4g8l0fbhvc9r3(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >>>>message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore >>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's >>>>>>required >>>>>>is >>>>>>international *police* action to stop it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>>> >>>>> AND IT IS A WAR. >>>> >>>>No it isn't. >>>> >>>>You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you declare >>>>war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice >>>>rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. >>>> >>>>Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made official >>>>by >>>>a duly recognised authority. >>> >>> It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all >>> than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and >>> everything it does without having to make a rational argument to >>> anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually >>> seems to gell with far too many here in the US. >> >>Aren't there certain conditions which have to be met before a "war" can be >>declared by the US? > >You know? I had thought so in my earlier years. Honestly believed in >the idea I was taught, that Congress declares wars. Of course, >reality has a way of making one more circumspect about this issue. I'm starting to think whether the Constitution has assumed that the only kinds of war can be the European-style in which the conflict is clearly nation against nation. I'm wondering if any Constitutional scholars have thought about a war that can't be nation against nation. <reluctant snip> /BAH
From: Phil Carmody on 14 Jan 2007 10:14 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <CsGdncRAvqXihDTYnZ2dnUVZ8s2mnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > You cannot monitor what is going back and forth over the line > _while you are working online_. Of course you can. You just need some kind of tap on the line. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Jan 2007 10:12
In article <eobnlh$oor$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eo834m$8qk_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <eo5kh2$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. I call this war. > >I'm sure there is someone in a rubber room somewhere that calls a peanut >butter sandwich a "lemming". This doesn't mean that we should expect >them to start jumping off cliffs. The situation we have is nothing like a >"war". You can claim it is a "new kind of war" but this just gets you >into expecting your peanut butter sandwiches to start jumping. The >stuggle against the Mafia is a far-far better model for what you claim we >have. No it is not at all like Mafia conflicts. The Mafia is firmly entrenched in Western civilization styles of living and conducting business. > >Others believe that the threat from the Islamic extremists has been >massively overblown. They remember global communism adn the threat it >was. Which was still based on WEstern civilization without the capitalistic economic laws. > It was a far greater threat than the terrorists and yet we survived. You keep evaluating these extremists in Western civilization terms; this is a fatal assumption. > > > >> It is European-style >>thinking that has limited the description between two countries. > >No, it is the real world that applies this limitation on the use of the >word. When a word serves only to increase the confusion of the reader >about what you mean, it is time to stop using that word. THEN GIVE ME A BETTER WORD AND I'LL USE IT. So far you don't have a word. A war is what happens when no political agreement can be achieved. Because you don't have a word to describe this disagreement between civilizations, you assume the problem doesn't exist. This is illogical and dangereous. > >>Islam didn't have the notion of nationalism until recently and >>they still don't quite use this heirarchy for classification of >>people groups. Until you understand this, > >This is another thing that you assume on no basis. Do they have a word for nation? If so, when was it created? > >> I guess you will >>continue to ignore that this war[or whatever] exists. It is >>not a simple conflict. > >You bet it isn't simple. It is not a major threat to the US. If you keep saying this loud enough, you won't have to deal with cleaning up the mess because you'll be dead. > It is also >not a war. It is not a war as you define war. You definition is a Western civilization definition that was defined based on how Europe conducted their political and economic disputes. <snip broken record> /BAH |