Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Homer J Simpson on 5 Oct 2006 14:29 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-25F347.08023505102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... >> And what percentage of Americans have ever been further than Canada or >> Mexico? Or have even left their own state? >> >> Ever watch Jay Leno? > > Yep that certainly meets my criteria for a well-done population > study.... Jay Leno: "Which two countries border the United States?" Girl on the Street: "Ummm, errr, ahhh, Europe and ummm, Paris?" Yep, that's an American all right. Like those who think Alaska is an island.
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 14:30 In article <eg3en0$j7l$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> >It well settled that as long as one phone > >> >is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair > >> >game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the > >> >country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone > >> >who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather > >> >interesting case to make. > > No it doesn't. If you're listening to Americans in America, you need a > warrant. The FISA act seems clear as does the 4th amendment. Further, > nobody > has proven the NSA was only eavesdropping on overseas calls. If so, this would be first time that indicates that. Law has always been that as long as the tap was legal on one end, persons at the other couldn't say it was illegal against them. Nobody has proven and few have suggested, that there weren't.
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 14:34 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:eg32m2$5l0$8(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95(a)4ax.com>, > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:52:37 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> >>wrote: >> >>>In article <peb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541(a)4ax.com>, >>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the >>>> >> phone > in >>>> >> my >>>> >> living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that >>>> >> your >>>> >> listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights. >>>> > >>>> > Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over >>>> >that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone >>>> >doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one >>>> >phone >>>> >is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair >>>> >game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of >>>> >the >>>> >country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone >>>> >who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather >>>> >interesting case to make. >>>> >>>> And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all >>>> calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party. >>>> >>>> All I need to do is push a button ;-) >>> >>> There are two different things going on here. One is what you can >>>do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we >>>were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom or >>>spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.. >> >>Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no >>sweat, no warrant, nada. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > And it can be thrown out. Maybe, maybe not, but in any case, the scenario that Jim presented is immaterial. It is still a private citizen behaving as a private citizen. Now, if the government were to come to that citizen and say "please tap your phone when you call X", it would be thrown out in most courts in the US, since that person would be interpreted as working as an ad hoc agent of the government. The US Constitution only says what the Federal government can and cannot do. Period. There is a reason that essentially every single clause in the Constitution says: "Congress shall", or "The Federal Government shall". A Constitution is a list of rules what a *government* can and cannot do to or for its citizens. The fact that a private citizen can do something in no way means that the Federal government is allowed to do the same thing. Oh, and there is also a Federal law that say in any recording of a phone conversation, at least one of the parties to the conversation must be aware of the recording. So if Jim calls me, John cannot record the phone call unless either Jim or I know the recording is taking place. Of course, Federal laws only apply to interstate calls, but Jim is in Arizona and I'm in Ohio (or am I?), so there you have it. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 14:36 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-C96BDE.11201105102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <Va9Vg.19654$Ij.16215(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eg2paa$8qk_011(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> > In article <PsRUg.57$45.150(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore >> > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >> >>>> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that >> >>>> >> historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the >> >>>> >> population is *dead*. Does this make it clear? >> >>>> > >> >>>> >So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ? >> >>>> > >> >>>> I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I >> >>>> pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with >> >>>> history if you don't like it. >> >>> >> >>>But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect >> >>>? >> >>> >> >>>Graham >> >>> >> >>Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need. >> > >> > The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that >> > the extremists are already doing this to themselves. >> >> Oh, the innumeracy. At the rate that they're doing that, it will take at >> least an order of magnitude longer than all of recorded human history to >> reach the stated endpoint. In the meantime, how about if we stop giving >> them reasons to do so? >> > So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states? And again, I'll ask, is there nothing in your worldview but "nuke 'em all" and "capitulate". Must really suck to live in such a black-and-white world. Eric Lucas
From: Homer J Simpson on 5 Oct 2006 14:41
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:7vhai2t6o1b3m44o0qjgoue2s0bpenvd23(a)4ax.com... > If you want to get snippy, consider this: there are several times more > Native Americans alive now, in the USA, than there were when Columbus > landed in the Americas. Pure blood? |