Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 09:49 "Robert Latest" <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4ok19kFf2looU2(a)individual.net... > ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:22:41 -0700, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote > in Msg. <7pq8i2t26e02tutk5nbakmv4jm1rtrg73s(a)4ax.com> > >> I didn't like FT; it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I >> Love Lucy", nowhere near Monte Python level. > > Have you seen the recent BBC series, "Extras"? It's as close as it gets > to MP, though entirely different. That's also on HBO, set in Hollywood, with Ricky Gervais, right? I really wanted to like it (I love both the US and UK versions of "The Office"), but sadly it kind of bored me, frankly. Eric Lucas
From: Ken Smith on 5 Oct 2006 09:52 In article <7qCdnW1uWfo2B7_YRVny3w(a)pipex.net>, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: [....] >A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to >die for their cause you know? Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc. They would be far less willing to spend the rest of their lives in jail than to die as a result. Dieing of old age doesn't get you the free ticket to heaven. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 09:53 In article <eg32g6$okg$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >What makes you think nuking Mecca would have anything but a very, very > >negative effect on us? > > Note that I said "theat". I was suggesting that the threat would work so > I don't need to respond to this. For a threat to work it would have to be credible and the Other Side would have to think that the threat might actually have a high probability of being carried out. Nukin' Mecca fits neither in the real world. > >
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 10:02 In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a > Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets. > Define abuse, (seriously). I usually reserve that term for actual physical contact (sexual, assaultive) and (so far at least) there is nothing to indicate that either happened. Although I am the first to suggest that the possibility it did happen is much more likely given both the history of abuse and behaviors that got him into trouble. Talkin' dirty is illegal, but I still say it is a couple orders of magnitude below physical and sexual abuse.
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Oct 2006 05:41
In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh(a)4ax.com>, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET>, >> Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >[snip] >>> >>>Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without >>>warrant. Get with the program. >>> >> >>Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to involve >>someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for >>certain key words and phrases. >> >[snip] > >That's rarely the case, and not without warrant. > Yes, that is the case, and Bush claims he does not need a warrant; that he has the inherent power as C-in-C. >What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_, >"To/From" data. > No, they were monitoring phone calls. >From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge. Have you been in a coma? The issue is warrantless eavesdropping. > > ...Jim Thompson |