Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Jan 2007 08:10 In article <45B29693.A2D5FE85(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> I am highly allergic to poll outcomes as an convincing argument >> about how popular an idea is. > >Because you'd rather believe the voices in your head I imagine. Since I have an ability to think and learn, those voices in my head are quite useful. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Jan 2007 08:13 In article <45B293DB.DEAE84AD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US >> >> >> >> plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Really ? I didn't hear anyone say that. >> >> >> >> >> >> You might try to read Carter's book. You might listen to >> >> >> Hillary Clinton. You might notice the places both she >> >> >> and Kerry have been visiting in the last few weeks. >> >> > >> >> >What has where they're visiting got to do about it ? Have they been >> >> >visiting extremists ? >> >> >> >> Yes. >> > >> >Which ones ? >> >> Why don't you find out for yourself? That way you might stumble >> across what these idiots have been announcing and saying, too. > >Because I'm not going to make any assumption about whom you had in mind. I don't have Kerry's nor Clinton's itenerary. The news has mentioned Syria, Afghanistan, and I don't recall if one of them stopped in PLO territory. I would expect Hillary to stop. /BAH > >All you have to do is name a few of these extremists for me or simply shut up >and stop making things up. Simple really. > >Graham >
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Jan 2007 08:17 In article <45B2943B.A29AB55E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Expect BAH to now suggest that the agriculture in California is about >> >> >> >to collapse. >> >> >> >> >> >> It already has. Adding the burden of a minimum wage hike will >> >> >> make it worse. >> >> > >> >> >I truly don't believe it ! >> >> >> >> Now read the past few weeks' weather reports. >> > >> >What would I find there ? >> >> Snow and freezing temperatures. Sigh! You claimed that >> you knew more than I about the real news. > >Since when is a local weather report *news* ??? When it destroys the season's agriculture crop. You should look at a map. California isn't quite a "local" area; it's very large. > > >> So why haven't you heard nor learned about the two (California mess and >> Democrat leadership visits)? > >What's that got to do with anything ? The issue is your claim that you know more about what's going on in the world than I do. The discussion drifted to economies and the effects of forcing a depressed piece of the economy to raise its costs when it's not going to make much money this year. Underlying these discussions is the fact that the Democrat leadership is insane with no grasp on reality. If there should be a minimum wage, the price-setting belongs to the states and not the federal government. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Jan 2007 08:19 In article <eoths4$kcm$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eot7bl$8qk_016(a)s768.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[...] >>Having a forced increase at the same time the agriculture crops >>are failing is the exact wrong thing to do at the wrong time. > >But that hasn't happened here in California. The minimum wage is higher >than most other states and has been for some time. The economy is >booming. We don't have an unemployment problem worth speaking of. <snort> Riiiight. > >California has a high minimum wage, more PHDs, more patents, most of the >orange crop, the women are strong, the men are good looking and all of the >children are above average. And does California's minimum wage include all food and agriculture? Take a second look at the one just passed by the House. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Jan 2007 08:26
In article <d5j4r2hhunahh6cv92obgan203p78cqkvl(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Jan 07 14:33:19 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>Routers, and thus firewalls, are not immune. > > Routers and HARDWARE based firewalls, as are the like in routers, >are the least susceptible. Yes, but not immune. > OS based software firewalls are vulnerable >by the very nature of their location -within the OS-. Linux based >firewalls are a bit different -by the very nature of how Linux works-. >It is almost set up as a routing server. VERY secure. The OS based >firewall is the least secure. Explain that last line with the idea that Linux is an OS. > >> The guaranteed final >>block is the human who can switch the power off the modem (or >>computer) when unwanted bits make it through. > > You have no way of monitoring when and what bits are "good" or >"bad". Sure I do. Just by the nature of how I use the internet. >It is too time intensive, and you cannot possibly keep up. If I have not made a request from the net and my modem lights begin flashing, I can power down the modem and stop the bits. That is only 100% secure method. > >>This is even more important now since backdoors are deemed >>a requirement on certain PCs. > > Huh? Go read the EULAs. /BAH |