I AM old enough to remember the pre-war and the phoney-war impressions of
the population of the cities of Birmingham and Coventry about the
capabilities of the Luftwaffer.

It was "They'll never get this far."

At the same time the citizens of Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin and Dresden were
saying much the same thing.

"Zak" wrote in message
news:%8p6c.5424$EV2.35407@amstwist00...
Terry Given wrote:

The current situation exists, time doesnt flow
backwards, and if a real solution is not found, the terrorism will not
only
continue, but will coninue to get worse. Neither side seems interested
in
moving forward though, they are caught up in an ever-escalating round of
murderous tit-for-tat.

OT, but I have to say I fully agree. This will also take away a lot of
the breeding grounds of war-mongering terrorist organizations that seek
islamic/arabic support.

==========================

But we musn't forget who is to control the oil wells and the pipelines.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

snip

unfortunately its not likely to happen. Little things like the clearly
observable FACT that decades of repressive behaviour towards the
palestinians has NOT resolved the problem, but made it WORSE, seem to have
escaped the notice of successive israeli governments. so much for "an eye
for an eye" being of any practical use.

Um, Israel is backed up against the Mediterranean. What
impenetrable barrier are the "Palestinians" backed up against?

Mark L. Fergerson

Terry Given wrote:
dont they have a nice monument though?

Terry, what the heck are you doing awake at 2am tomorrow?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Do you know what the word ILLEGAL means? It is very obvious that you are
ignorant of the technical details and I am not going to be your electronics
teacher. It is illegal for a reason.

"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:00:55 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull
electronic
interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the part of my
post
about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try again. If a
terorist
is going to strike, he is going to strike. The Department of Homeland
Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything about it.



And cellphone signal blocking is localized, short range, same as WiFi.
Put up a sign to that effect in your business premise. Those who feel
they must have their cellphone access 24/7 can always step outside
the door or avoid the place. That business will survive because there
are a miniscule number of 24/7 cellphone freaks.

Anyway the use of cellphones while driving is banned in many states in
the US and worldwide. What is so different in banning their use in
selected public places. The only difference is that signal blocking
is applied universally in that defined building area, and without
having intrusive checks being made on anyone to effect compliance.

Damn sight bigger target and there are not a lot of hiding places in the
sky. In any case, you are talking about a miniscule little country. Try to
keep an eye on this one.

I am ALMOST old enough to remember a similar idea held in UK and Europe
before WW2, that 'the bomber (aircraft) will always get through'. The
RAF pretty well disproved it.

There is a finite probability that an individual terrorist, acting
completely alone, might evade all the checks. But it's far more
difficult for members of a terrorist cell to evade detection.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

And cellphone signal blocking is localized, short range, same as WiFi.
Put up a sign to that effect in your business premise.



An idea just occurred to me.

You notice those electronic anti-shoplifting interrogators at the
checkout counters?

Why not include a circuit in every cellphone that will cause the
answer bell to ring when anyone carrying a cellphone crosses one of
these interrogators. Maybe have the circuitry activate a different
ring tone or ring pattern from the normal call ring. Its extremely
short range and won't interefere with normal cellphone use.

It will set off a cellphone bomb or at least ID a suspicious cellphone
owner who can be asked to show the phone (any cellphone modifications
will be noticed immediately) or can be called aside for further
inspection. This will enable security people in places like train
stations, bus stations and airports to quickly screen crowds.

The same interrogating circuitry could be installed in metal detector
security gates.

Its rare to be able to go anywhere without encountering one of these
interrogators these days. A bomb carrying cellphone triggered
terrorist will have a hard time moving around without attracting
attention somewhere.

------------------------------------------------

On a different discussion point, picture the recent Spanish train
bombings (10 set off.) Had the train installed cellphone signal
blocking equipment most of those bombs would probably not have been
set off. Calls on emergency workers commuting by train could easily
have been relayed by the train's onboard PA system. Calls out can be
made from on-board public pay phones. Or can the signal blocking be
effective only for incoming calls and leave out going calls
unrestricted? Airlines blocks incoming calls. Outgoing calls can be
made from anywhere during flight through the aircraft's phone system.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:53:28 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

Do you know what the word ILLEGAL means? It is very obvious that you are
ignorant of the technical details and I am not going to be your electronics
teacher. It is illegal for a reason.


Terrorists are using cellphones to kill and maim hundreds of people
and you are maintaining that unrestrcted CP use is a god given
inviolable right.

I'd rather hear your "reason" than to argue with you about the
technical details. If the rationale for public safety is there, the
laws can be changed. Maybe you should tell to us what this cast- in-
concrete law is and that will save us a lot of guesswork and
rebuttals.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:08:01 GMT, the renowned KLM
wrote:

On a different discussion point, picture the recent Spanish train
bombings (10 set off.) Had the train installed cellphone signal
blocking equipment most of those bombs would probably not have been
set off.

From the fact that few of them went off in the station, where they
would have been far more effective, one may conclude that they were
triggered by simple timers.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

I told you before, I'm not going to be your electronics teacher and in any
case, I have my doubts about your ability to comprehend.
Has nothing to do with "right to have a cell phone". I don't have one, never
have and wouldn't care if they disappeared from the planet but in no way
will I ever approve of electronic jamming of them unless under a carefully
controlled situation for a specific reason. Paranoia is not a good reason.

"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:53:28 -0800, "CW"
wrote: