TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE

Big Will wrote:

> So who paid for your freedom?

Not that same old story again.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:

> That remark was childish and uncalled for.

Hmmm... I don't think so. But I believe it is irrelevant, the situation
is not comparable.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:39:55 -0800, Big Will
>cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:43:42 -0800, Big Will

>> *Never* make the mistake of thinking "things can't get worse". You
>> don't want to create the "need" for an Islamic nuclear deterrant.

>I am well aware that things can get worse, which is why we need to be
>proactive about it to mke sure this doesn't happen, and hopefully make
>things better. I don't want my government to wait around for things to
>get worse.

Hm. Picking fights on the basis you can win them is not a winning
strategy - you may want to re-examine the basis for policy to see
where the anger's coming from. You can't claim a democratic paradise
domestically while treating the rest of the world expediently - at the
same time as posing as the world's impartial peacekeeper.

Well, you can (and perhaps have done), but it's going to cause a lot
of problems down the road.

In the longer term, imagine a future where nukes are something any
small mom and pop shop can cook up. Keeping nukes off the map may no
longer be a workable strategy, so one hopes human sentinence will have
caught up with human dexterity.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
NNA Tech Support, 2037:
"Double-click 'My Silo', click Map..."
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Big Will wrote:

> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:39:55 -0800, Big Will
>>
>>> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:43:42 -0800, Big Will
>>
>>
>>
>>>> *Never* make the mistake of thinking "things can't get worse". You
>>>> don't want to create the "need" for an Islamic nuclear deterrant.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am well aware that things can get worse, which is why we need to be
>>> proactive about it to mke sure this doesn't happen, and hopefully
>>> make things better. I don't want my government to wait around for
>>> things to get worse.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hm. Picking fights on the basis you can win them is not a winning
>> strategy - you may want to re-examine the basis for policy to see
>> where the anger's coming from.
>
>
> Neither is bighting off more then you can chew, which is why we haven't
> been able to solve all the world's problems yet.
>
>> You can't claim a democratic paradise
>> domestically while treating the rest of the world expediently - at the
>> same time as posing as the world's impartial peacekeeper.
>
>
> Please see my latest response to art within this thread about the
> "democratic paradise" that you speak of. I'm sure you haven't had a
> chance to read it yet, otherwise one might accuse you of only picking
> fights that you could win.
>
>>
>> Well, you can (and perhaps have done), but it's going to cause a lot
>> of problems down the road.
>
>
> Who said anything about impartiallity. The role of the "impartial peace
> keeper" is that of the UN's, which I have to say has been doing a lowsy
> job.
>
>>
>> In the longer term, imagine a future where nukes are something any
>> small mom and pop shop can cook up. Keeping nukes off the map may no
>> longer be a workable strategy, so one hopes human sentinence will have
>> caught up with human dexterity.
>
>
> Which is why we need to fight the war on terrorism, duh! Oh, BTW, you
> could download plans for building a nuke online, or even get plans in a
> community college course. Of course, the thing that keeps common
> citizens from owning a nuke is access to purified Uranium (Uranium 235)
> or Plutonium (Plutonium 241), otherwise if I had those materials, I
> could build a nuke right now (not that I'd want to). Nonetheless, as
> destructive as they are, we, as a world, must seek to limit who has
> them, and who buys/sales them.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>>
>>
>> NNA Tech Support, 2037:
>> "Double-click 'My Silo', click Map..."
>>
>>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>
>
>
Here's the reply message I was refering to in previous post.

news://news.ucsc.edu:119/4046628b$1@darkstar

--
William


If it don't work, hit it
If it still don't work, kick it
If it works after hitting it or kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
that helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

optikl wrote:

> The problem is in agreeing on what *imminent threat* is.
> The current administration would argue it was the WMD.

Maybe if the US paid more attention to what foreign intelligence
services have to say, it would obtain a clearer image of the situation.
Recently there was a report on the CIA's refusal to take into acount
warnings from Germany ("American eyes only") - the result was 9/11.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

optikl wrote:

> He's still in power because he's still a relatively popular figure
> and he knows how to manipulate people. The US
> isn't interested in Cuba anyway.

I wonder how he managed to survive the long period of McCarthyism and
anti-Communism in general. Probably because he was backed by the
Soviets. But then you have had a couple of presidents who were radically
anti-Communist and who didn't bow to the Soviets, like Reagan.
It's really strange to see Castro there, it's anachronistic. On the
othre hand I doubt that he's really dangerous.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Frederic Bonroy wrote:
> optikl wrote:
>
>> He's still in power because he's still a relatively popular figure
>
> > and he knows how to manipulate people. The US
>
>> isn't interested in Cuba anyway.
>
>
> I wonder how he managed to survive the long period of McCarthyism and
> anti-Communism in general. Probably because he was backed by the
> Soviets. But then you have had a couple of presidents who were radically
> anti-Communist and who didn't bow to the Soviets, like Reagan.
> It's really strange to see Castro there, it's anachronistic. On the
> othre hand I doubt that he's really dangerous.

No. Just dangerous to himself and his people. If he was smart, he could
have had US $ pouring in there. Look at the Chinese. They've manipulated
Western & Asian Capitalists into making huge investments in their
economy, by pretending to implement reforms throughout their society. Of
course, the average Chinese' life is still just as controlled as it was
15 years ago.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Heather wrote:


> IIRC, haven't some of your US celebrities gone down to Cuba for a holiday??
> Guess it is all right with your government if you are rich or well-known.
> The poverty is appalling, mind you. But you could say that about Haiti and
> the D.R. and a few others as well. I know it is because I have been to all
> of them.
>
Compared to Haiti, Cuba looks like Beverly Hills 90210. Remember, Cuba
is still a Caribbean vacation for Canadians and some others. You
couldn't get me to vacation in Haiti if you promised me 7 virgins when
I got to heaven. There were allowances made for some to visit Cuba; the
pretense was usually some sort of "mission". But, that's history now.
Castro screwed the pooch. The old man's getting senile.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

optikl wrote:

> Heather wrote:
>
>
>> IIRC, haven't some of your US celebrities gone down to Cuba for a
>> holiday??
>> Guess it is all right with your government if you are rich or well-known.
>> The poverty is appalling, mind you. But you could say that about
>> Haiti and
>> the D.R. and a few others as well. I know it is because I have been
>> to all
>> of them.
>>
> Compared to Haiti, Cuba looks like Beverly Hills 90210. Remember, Cuba
> is still a Caribbean vacation for Canadians and some others. You
> couldn't get me to vacation in Haiti if you promised me 7 virgins when
> I got to heaven. There were allowances made for some to visit Cuba; the
> pretense was usually some sort of "mission". But, that's history now.
> Castro screwed the pooch. The old man's getting senile.
To my knowledge, a U.S. citizen could still travel to Cuba for
educational reasons. Last year (as well as the year before last), we
had people take a semester in Cuba. In fact, I even was one of the
people who voted on approving/denying money for a scholarship fund from
the associated student body. I don't know if there are any going this
year, however, becuase I'm no longer attending that college.

--
William


If it don't work, hit it
If it still don't work, kick it
If it works after hitting it or kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
that helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

"optikl" <optikl.RemoveThis@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:Qpt2c.490450$I06.5322480@attbi_s01...
> Heather wrote:
>
>
> > IIRC, haven't some of your US celebrities gone down to Cuba for a
holiday??
> > Guess it is all right with your government if you are rich or
well-known.
> > The poverty is appalling, mind you. But you could say that about Haiti
and
> > the D.R. and a few others as well. I know it is because I have been to
all
> > of them.
> >
> Compared to Haiti, Cuba looks like Beverly Hills 90210. Remember, Cuba
> is still a Caribbean vacation for Canadians and some others. You
> couldn't get me to vacation in Haiti if you promised me 7 virgins when >
I got to heaven.

Oops......should have made that clearer......we were in the DR about 20
years ago and warned NOT to go near Haiti....but the poverty in the DR was
bad. As it is in Kingston, Jamaica. We don't visit the relatives
anymore.....besides, I think most of the Jamaicans are in the US and Canada
now......grin.

There were allowances made for some to visit Cuba; the
> pretense was usually some sort of "mission". But, that's history now.
> Castro screwed the pooch. The old man's getting senile.

He is no youngster......that is for sure. In fact, I am not sure if he
isn't close to 80 or older. He was at the London School of Economics with
Pierre Trudeau and Michael Manley eons ago. Speaks perfect english I should
imagine, but never does. I was just talking to a couple who were down
there for 2 weeks and they were actually allowed to take a *guided
tour*......something he didn't allow all that long ago.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 16:51:01 -0800, Big Will
<SPAMWSPAMiSPAMlSPAMlSPAMBSPAM4SPAMeSPAMvSPAAAAAMeSPAMMITTYrSPAAAAAM.RemoveThis@nIeDONTtLIKEzSPAMero.net>
>cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:39:55 -0800, Big Will
>>>cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:43:42 -0800, Big Will

>> Well, you can (and perhaps have done), but it's going to cause a lot
>> of problems down the road.

>Who said anything about impartiallity. The role of the "impartial peace
>keeper" is that of the UN's, which I have to say has been doing a lowsy job.

They've been more successful than the League; that's not saying much,
I agree. As the UN's the right org for the job, it's generally best
to work through rather than around it <ahem>. Keeping one's dues paid
up is also a good idea; we always hear the US is in arrears, but I'm
sure they are not the only country in that situation.

>> In the longer term, imagine a future where nukes are something any
>> small mom and pop shop can cook up. Keeping nukes off the map may no
>> longer be a workable strategy, so one hopes human sentinence will have
>> caught up with human dexterity.

>Which is why we need to fight the war on terrorism, duh!

You missed the words "longer term" - this is looking ahead further
than the scientific status quo. In the shorter term, I'd want to know
that the custodians of the ex-USSR arsenal are having thier salaries
paid on time and so on. Not a good department to privatize, that.

>Nonetheless, as destructive as they are, we, as a world, must seek
>to limit who has them, and who buys/sales them.

Abso. Keep the cat in the bag - as some have done with personal
firepower (neither SA or US fall into that happy category). I can see
a time that the National Nukes Association will staunchly defend the
right of every US household to nuke whoever, tho...

>>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>> NNA Tech Support, 2037:
>> "Double-click 'My Silo', click Map..."
>>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

....after all, if firearms are "arms", are not nukes "arms"?



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Hmmm... what was the *other* idea?
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Hey Will......I fired off my answer before seeing this post, but my stance
is still the same. Tighten up your gun laws. And I worked in criminal law
for over 20 years.....so do have some awareness of the situation. (G)

Ours are REALLY tough now......but it doesn't bother me. Unfortunately the
criminals seem to have bigger and better firearms than the cops at times.
8-((

Heather

"Big Will"
<SPAMWSPAMiSPAMlSPAMlSPAMBSPAM4SPAMeSPAMvSPAAAAAMeSPAMMITTYrSPAAAAAM@nIeDONT
tLIKEzSPAMero.net> wrote in message news:404beab1@darkstar...
> To add to this, if you really want to know why we have so much crime,
> it's not the guns, at least not entirely. Please Read Craig Haney's
> (2002) "Making Law Modern: Toward a Contextual Model of Law". In it, he
> discusses a more proactive approach to law by removing some of the
> social contextual influences--the criminogenic factors--that predispose
> someone or a particular demograph toward commiting criminal acts in the
> first place. While the idea may be hard to implement given today's
> court standard of </i>star decisis</i> and the current political motives
> involved in the drafting and enforcing of current legislation, it makes
> sense on paper. Reduce the criminogenic factors involved, and thus
> reduce the amount of prisions having to be built, as well as the amount
> of money having to be spent on judges, jury, lawyers, and our legal
> system in particular. But, there's the rub; whenever there's money
> involved, surely political motives are not to far behind.
>
> --
> William
>
>
> If it don't work, hit it
> If it still don't work, kick it
> If it works after hitting it or kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
> that helped, what's important is it worked.
>
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

On that special day, Big Will,
(SPAMWSPAMiSPAMlSPAMlSPAMBSPAM4SPAMeSPAMvSPAAAAAMeSPAMMITTYrSPAAAAAM@nIe
DONTtLIKEzSPAMero.net) said...


This isn't meant to criticise you, or directed in any personal way, only
some rambling.


> The problem is with the enforcement of
> the current gun laws, which is a police matter entirely. Of course,
> given our overcrowded prisons, I don't see how the courts would be able
> to handle it if we actually started enforcing the gun-control
> legislation we already have.

You needn't put the illegal gun owners in prison; just confiscate the
weapons and have them pay a fee. That's how we do it, and it works to
some extent.

Although we DO have a problem after the fall of the communist regimes,
as there are many "exporters" of weapons formerly owned by the east
European states, which now find their way to the west and are sold even
on flea markets. Still, our incidents with firearms are mostly connected
to people owning weapons legally (even the Erfurt guy had a legal
weapon, and the illegal pump gun was carried, but not used by him. I
don't know why).

You say in another posting:

> People ought to learn gun safety before they purchase a
> gun.

That is the key point. It is a question of state of mind, and not so
much of the ownership of a weapon in itself. If you feel that you are
only strong when toting a gun, you will use it.

We Germans don't feel that more strong with a firearm. That is because
we have to attend a training in firearms (very often conducted by a
shooters club) and prove that we are mentally mature enough to handle
such items. If someone is found to be "unreliable" (mentally unstable, a
weapon addict or the like), he won't get his license.

We know that a gun is only as strong as the owner, and cannot turn you
into superman or replace a bomber. At least, most of us do.


Gabriele Neukam

Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam DeleteThis @t-online.de


--
Ah, Information. A good, too valuable these days, to give it away, just
so, at no cost.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE