Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 08:38 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: > >On 2007-01-20, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> Please measure the miles between Israel and the Mediteranean. > > > >0 > > > >> Note the number of miles between Israel and the Suez Canal. > > > >about 120 at closest approach, 140 from Beersheba, 160 from Tel Aviv > > > >> Now consider that Iran does its atomic bomb testing on > >> Israel soil. How long do you think the Canal will be closed? > >> You may assume that Iran doesn't "miss" and take out the > >> core of Egyptian commerce with the same single attack. > > > >at that range? a couple of months. > > Possibly, if all political winds blow exactly the correct way. > I can't even guess the effects of no oil tankers delivering > oil for a couple of months. From Thatcher's book about her > government and the coal miners' strikes, England had about > 3 months reserve. Of *COAL* ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 08:45 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> > > >> >>JMF was using a VT05. His screen would duplicate on my black > >> >>and white TV two rooms over (about 25 feet). I warned him > >> >>to tell me when he was going online and then I'd turn my TV > >> >>off. > >> >> > >> > You should have "warned him" to repair the emissions issue, or the > >> >FCC would do it for him. > >> > >> They didn't exist then > > > >Oh yes they did. > > Not for computer gear at that time. Ah. You're trying to wriggle off the hook on that account now ? I think the relevant rules ( CFR47 part 15 subpart J ) came into force in the early 80s, the issue having been formally first addressed in 1976 in FCC docket 20780. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:JLSCCJCfxXwJ:www.conformity.com/0502/0502historical.html Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 08:48 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <87fya1he8b.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> > You should have "warned him" to repair the emissions issue, or the > >> > FCC would do it for him. > >> > >> They didn't exist then. > > > >Oh, dear. The 20th century all a blur to you? > > > >The FCC predates your very existance. Unless you actually are > >as old as your senility indicates. > > Sigh! The FCC emissions rules did not include VT05s. > > Is that sentence better? Neither did they exclude them ! They were if you like 'unintentional' transmitters. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 08:55 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >T Wake wrote: > > > >> In the US can you receive ten years for intent to commit a crime without a > >> trial? Can you receive the death penalty for intent to commit murder > >> without a trial? I very much doubt it. > >> > >> These are not naive views, they are bedrock views of the "Western > >> Civilisation" BAH is obsessively trying to defend. > > > >In the UK it's a crime to belong to an illegal organisation or aid/abet one. > >Additionally it's apparently a crime also to fail to disclose/report > >knowledge of such things. > > > >That would seem to cover pretty much what's required. > > Are people, who are arrested for that crime, able to post bail > before they are tried in your country? There's no such thing as 'posting bail' as in money here. Someone awaiting trial may be 'released on bail' with conditions ( say surrendering a passport or being subject to electronic tagging ) but it's at the judge's discretion anyway as I believe it is also in your country. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 09:02
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >When you say Italy let terrorists go, what country had already found the > >> >people guilty of terrorism? > >> > >> So, the only time the people, who have an intent to destroy Western > >> civilization infrastructure and population, can be held in jail > >> is after they have been convicted. > > > >Of course not. They can be remanded for trial if a criminal charge is brought > >against them. > > What if there isn't enough evidence that satisifies your legal > definitions? Then they won't be charged in the first place. > >> Italy had the same legal opinion and let them go. They disappeared. > > > >Who were these people ? > > I don't remember. I remembered the incident because it pointed > to a chink in legal systems that wouldn't prevent a mess from > being made. > > >> If you insist on following your legalities that assume the nation > >> is at peace, then you have to assume that a Muslim extremist > >> is innocent until proven guilty. > > > >That is indeed the rule of law. > > Of our (Western civilization) laws. That's why we can make a valid claim to have better standards than some other countries, yes. > >> But, wait! He hasn't made any messes yet. So you can't arrest him. If your > police >> do manage to arrest him, he can pay the bail and be free to continue > >> his plans to make a mess. > > > >No - the police can object to bail where there's a public > >risk and a judge may not be willing to grant bail anyway. > > And what about judges who have a political agenda and are > very willing to set bail so they can go about their mess-making > plans? Excessively 'political' judges seem to be a uniquely US phenomenon. Ours seem to be very rational and level-headed. In a very serious case I think the Home Secretary could over-rule bail in any case. > This is a problem that needs to be solved. > > > >> If you insist that these people be treated as criminals, then > >> you should be ready to cope with an interruption in your > >> life-style. > > > >It's been discussed here and voted on in the UK Parliament. The Police have > >powers to hold terrorist suspects for up to 30 days ( IIRC ) without charge > >subject to regular judicial review. After that time they must > >indeed be released or charged. > > IMO, 30 days isn't long enough. Hasn't been a problem. > >Any longer was rejected by Parliament. > > I understand that. I don't think 30 days is long enough. As I said, it hasn't prevented any prosecutions here. > All these people have to do is include a contingency plan that allows > a 30-day delay. What a strange idea. 30-day delay of what ? > I don't know what the correct thing to do is. > > Our legislators over here don't appear to be even thinking about > this problem. I know. We're way ahead of you. Graham |