SWIFT traffic monitored

Earlier the Belgian SWIFT concern got into a muddle by stating that it had allowed the U.S. access to SWIFT transfer information based on warrants issued by the U.S., but refused to show the EU which warrants had been issued. They basically just maintained they had done nothing wrong and that was that.

Now it seems the U.S. has been monitoring SWIFT traffic for some time – sifting through all international payments in the hope of finding terrorists. Now I don’t remember giving the U.S. (or anyone else, for that matter) permission to sift through my private money transfers, and the E.U. is looking into the legality of the system.

Of course, the E.U. is going to roll over and not get anything done, but it’s nice to know that at least they’re concerned about our personal privacy – especially against the more and more dictatorial republik der Amerika.

Big national databases

The UK is on guard after a huge database containing loads of trivial details of everyone under 18 and accessible to around 400,00 people is called ‘unsafe’ – duh.

At the same time the US is parading it’s huge counter terrorism database – which no one will ever hack. Really.

You’d have thought they’d have learnt what having these large databases can do after the Germans marched into the Netherlands and used the most comprehensive people registrar in the world (at the time) to round up all the Jews. Guess not.

No, RIAA, you CAN’T prove it was me!

Well done, Tammie Marson fought the giants and won!
She claims that allthough there were illegal files on her computer that had been downloaded over her internet connection, there was simply no way that they could prove it was her who had downloaded the stuff. Anyone else of the hundreds of cheerleaders that came into her house on a daily basis could have done it. Quite so – settlement out of court.

Anti anti smoking

In an earlier post, I vented my frustrations about smoking studies – few of them are available and the ones that are are flawed: there are very few indeed with a sample size larger than 15 (which is surprising considering the millions of smokers out there) and the one (and only one!) I’ve been pointed to so far has been far from conclusive (putting it mildly).

Now I’ve found a few websites dedicated to telling you a few truths – they also find the studies they have access to are full of shit, especially those regarding passive smoking.

The Smokers Club, inc.

FORCES

The Truth Is A Lie

We are Americans Too!

The Smokers Rebellion

The only claims they refute that I simply can’t agree with is that smoking is non-addictive. Having smoked for quite some time, I can tell you that it damn well is.

What they do show is the conspiracy of the anti-smoking lobby having successfully inundated the population with their fairy tales and spin which grows larger and more all encompassing (eg. that smoking affects appearance).

I’m glad to see there is some movement to grant us our rights!

Is smoking really that bad for you?

Well, I’ve been looking for medical proof the past 8 years that smoking really is that bad for you, but have never been able to find it – all I’ve found is conjecture, sensationalism and bad quotes by reverends and law professors. Statistical studies containing only 8 or 12 subjects are bad science, so I’ve looked long and hard for hard science on the matter containing (and I’ve frequently stated I’ll reject many scientific requirements) at least N > 100!
Now you’d think with the witch hunt going on against smoking and everybody just knowing that it’s bad for you (just like we knew the world was flat, yeah?) there’d be plenty on the matter all over the web. I’ve defied plenty of people to find it for me, and after 8 (!!!!!) years someone has found something for me:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6959/901
(Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years’ observations on male British doctors
R Doll, R Peto, K Wheatley, R Gray, I Sutherland)

Looking at this study, I found this quite
interesting:

In table I the first 2 columns indicate that he had about twice as
many smokers as non-smokers in the study in 1951. Which is,
coincidentally, about the same ratio of non smoker to smoker deaths by cancers etc
in the table III! Egads – this result is neatly replicated in table
IV.

They then make some pretty pictures, which actually make it look like
there might not be so much difference between smokers / stopped
smokers / non smokers.

The appendix table is interesting, as it shows what a load of bollocks
statistics are:
non smokers seem to almost never die of lung cancer, BUT (especially
considering the ratio of 1:2) they seem to die a lot more than smokers
of ‘other cancers’ at all ages as well as having higher probabilities
of vascular diseases, cirrhosis, ‘other medical’, non-medical deaths.
Finally, it looks like in ‘all causes’ non-smokers (still considering
the 1:2 ratio of the study) die more at all ages, except at 70-74 and
especially at 65-69 (just after they’ve retired!).

So there we go – smoking is actually quite good for you 🙂

Long Range Acoustic Devices

nasty

http://www.atcsd.com/PressReleases/02_26_04.html

Used on their own people in the US:
http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/soundcannon_photos.htm

Used in Iraq:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040307-120634-6220r.htm

— Zathur