Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 10 Oct 2006 13:04 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:452BC908.7410316F(a)earthlink.net... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:452B24D6.7B8C3149(a)earthlink.net... >> > >> > Yes, not to mention idiots on motorcycles who blow through red lights >> > without slowing down. >> >> Darwin at work. Stupidity *should* be lethal. > > Unfortunately, they cause wrecks they aren't involved in, and live to > do it again. Sadly, true, but I think it's fairly rare. Generally, the motorcycle rider is at much more risk than is the driver of a car. Eric Lucas
From: Lloyd Parker on 10 Oct 2006 08:04 In article <MPG.1f957c658cff0220989a2d(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <egdtg3$86h$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> In article <MPG.1f917c9ace8a03fe989a1c(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >In article <eg6464$fjf$15(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >> >says... >> >> In article >> >> <kurtullman-4CDB3C.12183406102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, >> >> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <eg5rop$70s$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> >> > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Didn't. If the American is CALLING France, warrants are still needed, >> >> >> >even under the Bush statement. When calls originate OUTSIDE the country >> >> >> >and just come, then Bush says they don't need warrants. This is backed >> >> >> >up by current law, more or less. >> >> >> >> >> >> Which law is that? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Case law. See below. This has been in place at least since my >> >> >training in the mid-70s. >> >> > >> >> >> >If there is a legal tap on Goomba 1, >> >> >> >then if Goomba 2 calls G1, anything G2 says is usable against G2, >> >> >> >because the tap was legal. >> >> >> > In this case, when calls originate outside the US, there are no >> >> >> >requirements for warrant. Thus, if Terrorist 1 calls Terrorist 2 in >> >> >> >Pakistan it is legal. If T1 calls T3 in Newark it is also legal. >> >> >> > If one phone is legally tapped any calls to or from that phone are >> >> >> >fair game. >> >> >> >> >> >> The issue is "domestic wiretapping" though. >> >> > Which was illustrated by Goomba one and two. As in Mafia type >> >> >one and two. One side is legal, then what is heard either way is okay. >> >> > Actually we are talking international wiretapping. Domestic by >> >> >most definitions remains inside the US. In this case the tapped phone is >> >> >outside the US. The US phone isn't tapped. But when someone from the >> >> >tapped phone calls or is called then the conversation is probably legal. >> >> >> >> There isn't "tapping" anyway. The NSA monitors phone calls. ALL phone >> calls. >> >> Computers flag those with certain words or phrases, or certain voices, or >> >> certain locales, etc. But we have no way of knowing which things cause >> calls >> >> to get flagged, nor do we have any assurance nobody is looking at the >> others. >> >> >> >> That's why a judge declared the whole program unconstitutional a couple of >> >> weeks ago (just stayed by an appeals court pending appeal). >> >> >> >The judge's decision was an embarrassment (written by Al Franken?). >> >> Yeah, like the 4th amendment. > >Did you read it? What a stinking pile of political garbage. Your opinion. >Note >that judges are *not* supposed to be political. Tell that to Scalia. > >> >Even the leftie loons are saying the decision doesn't stand a >> >chance in hell of surviving (the reason the appellate court shelved >> >the opinion). >> > >> >No comment? None merited. You post rumor and innuendo without citing a source. >
From: Lloyd Parker on 10 Oct 2006 08:01 In article <452B0A7C.59334AA2(a)earthlink.net>, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> >> I studied the Jefferson-Hamilton debate in school, as most of us have, >> and I'm not ignorant of it. Amendment 4, >> >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall >> not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, >> supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the >> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." >> >> doesn't address whether the people have a right to privacy when >> engaged in public affairs, or when using a NASA-launched satellite to >> send messages to another country. Censorship of international >> correspondence in time of war would not have shocked the Founders. >> >> Your insertion of phrases like "of which you appear ignorant" is >> silly. And I don't care what you consider to be "excusable" because >> you have no means of enforcing your rules. So you might stick to >> trying to make sense. > > > Soldiers letters home were censored during WW II, I have seen >pictures of letters with words or sentences cut out. I have a DVD with >some WW II training films, including one about "Loose Lips Sink Ships", >telling the military what they could, and could not write home about in >any war related effort. > > The courts have ruled people in the military give up some rights.
From: John Fields on 10 Oct 2006 13:52 On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:22:12 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Unfortunately this would require that there were ppl of vision and integrity in >the White House. --- LOL, from your "performance" around here it appears you know the meaning of neither. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 10 Oct 2006 13:56
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > > > They were calling on frequencies the pilot probably wasn't even monitoring. > > How much do you know about commercial and military aircraft > communications? What problem do you have with commercial aircraft not being fitted with military radios ? And vice-versa too it seems. Graham |