Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Oct 2006 08:45 In article <k9ski2he66qemvlu5cp38ltao29anhdht3(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:37:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... >>> My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way we >>> are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted >>> (possibly part of the problem). >> >>I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a word >>from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. > >The Founders certainly didn't have our modern idea of "privacy." For >the first 200 years of the Republic, it was illegal to use the US >Mails for "immoral" purposes, and mail was opened, and people >prosecuted for felonies, if immorality was suspected. Such >"immorality" included explicit letters between a husband and his wife. > >I don't think that any of the Founders would think it unreasonable to >snoop on international communications, or even domestic >communications, looking for signs of known conspiracies to commit >murder. They did list "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in >that order. They also didn't think it was wrong to keep slaves, if you really want to go there. > >The current concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled >up by the Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing. > No, it's been recognized for other things, and has its foundations in common law. The 4th amendment seems to imply a right to privacy. >John > >
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 13:05 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:k9ski2he66qemvlu5cp38ltao29anhdht3(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:37:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... >>> My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way >>> we >>> are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted >>> (possibly part of the problem). >> >>I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a >>word >>from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. > > The Founders certainly didn't have our modern idea of "privacy." So what? The US constitution is not the world's answer on rights. In the UK we have a concept of privacy which dates back to (in written form at least) the time of Alfred the Great. >For > the first 200 years of the Republic, it was illegal to use the US > Mails for "immoral" purposes, and mail was opened, and people > prosecuted for felonies, if immorality was suspected. Such > "immorality" included explicit letters between a husband and his wife. And now that we live in much more enlightened times isn't strange when people try to return to the days of reading other people's mail? > I don't think that any of the Founders would think it unreasonable to > snoop on international communications, or even domestic > communications, looking for signs of known conspiracies to commit > murder. They did list "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in > that order. At the start of the twentieth century, the UK and US agonised over the introduction of SIGINT, thinking it was not "fair" to read the other sides mail. BTW: I think it is disengenious to ascribe a priority onto the list. When it comes to monitoring - who watches the watchmen?
From: Michael A. Terrell on 9 Oct 2006 13:09 Ken Smith wrote: > > In article <4529A7FE.88FB0C0B(a)earthlink.net>, > Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> > >> There is a *lot* of bad wine made in California too. When wine making > >> started to look like a way to make money, everyone and their dog got into > >> the business. > > > > > > Come on Ken. Everyone knows that dogs don't know "Beans" about > >grapes. ;-) > > LOL > > I know that cats can't taste sugar. Maybe it is also true of dogs. This > would explain a lot about dog viniculture. It would not explain the paint > stipper some wineries produce. Simple: The dogs are not in charge, the bean counters are. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 13:09 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452A6228.3D02953D(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > Why assume bombs will be the weapons? >> >> >> >> I didn't make that assumption. I was detailing the possible threat >> >> delivery systems which could have been in place. As you can see >> >> I also mentioned that ASMs are very efficient at hitting ships. >> >> >> >> Having said that, the aircraft was flying level which is generally a >> >> sign >> >> of a bombing run. >> > >> > Actually, the Vincennes thought they were diving IIRC. >> >> Yes, if they had waited long enough for visual observation it may have >> been >> different. If the missile launch really was the result of faulty >> equipment > > It was the result of faulty ppl. The equpiment was working fine, the crew > were > reading what they wanted to see. > > >> then all the more reason for the Ships Captain to be apologetic and >> reassure >> the families that the loss was an accident not a deliberate ploy on >> behalf >> of the "Enemy." > > To be honest an apology should be left to the Pentagon in this case. > Arguably > the captain should have been court-martialled. He had apparently been > behaving > like a bear with a sore head all the time the Vincennes was stationed in > the > region. I am not sure it wasn't the Captains place. As a human being, if he felt he had made an accidental call then an apology is called for. Not apologising implies he thought nothing was wrong. Saying they "did it by the book" is far from sufficient. If a group of people I was in charge with did something wrong, it would be upon me to apologise on their behalf. The President should have _also_ apologised on the Nations behalf. When I was in the Army (at around the same time) it was drummed into every single person, at all ranks, that you were responsible for your actions. If you were ordered to fire and it was "wrong" you were not to fire. It was that clear cut (and has resulted in soldiers going to jail - admittedly not many of them). The missiles were a mistake. When you make a mistake you say sorry afterwards.
From: T Wake on 9 Oct 2006 13:10
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452A6294.FC8DD10B(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > John Fields wrote: >> > >> >> And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from >> >> their flight paths >> > >> > What gave you the idea it had ? >> > >> >> and do respond when contacted by the military. >> >> >> >> To not do so _is_ madness. >> > >> > It did ! >> > >> > Reading a bit more..... >> > >> > " When Carlson [commanding officer of the USS Sides which was nearby] >> > concluded that >> > the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn >> > away >> > or receive >> > fire ( on a military frequency only - my comment ) he urgently warned >> > IR655 on a >> > civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a >> > military craft and >> > should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a >> > trajectory away >> > from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. " >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources >> >> I never noticed that. Makes things a bit gloomier. >> >> For me personally, the purpose of this branch of the debate is not to >> seek >> closure on the incident but to highlight the "world image" problem that >> America suffers from. > > Quite so and I find it truly amazing that seemingly well-educated > engineers > should still find no error with this kind of behaviour. > Well, that is engineers for you.......................... |