Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 14, 2004, at 3:51 PM, bgt wrote: On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 14:15, cubic-dog wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, bgt wrote: ... Anyway... be productive or be deported does not constitute I don't think I said that, you put it in quotes, implying I did. It's an okay paraphrase though, so we'll take it like that. Yes, it was intended as a paraphrase. More like I said, without regard to what you DEALT for, the is no impetus on the man to pay what was agreed to. If you don't like it, you will be deported. This does a nice job of creating For currently illegal immigrants, you're right: the contract (the agreement to do x work for y money is a contract, however informal) is illegal and so unenforceable. This leaves these workers open to theft by stiffing as you put it. Most workers are paid bimonthly, and many are paid weekly. Some day laborers are even paid daily. This makes the float a maximum of a couple of weeks, and more likely a week or less. Any laborer who has not been paid can walk away and be out the week or less in pay. (Personally, I would not want to be an employer who stiffed a Mexican...one might find one's tires slashed or one's daughter's throat slashed ear to ear...or just a bullet in the dark. This kind of stiffing such as you two are debating almost never happens, for various good reasons. The guest worker program will legalize these immigrants (for a period of time), so the contract will be legal and become enforceable. Why do you think the guest worker program will make it worse in this regard for currently illegal immigrants? This is the weakest objection to this program I've heard yet. The wholesale opening of the door to those who cut in line (ahead of those from England, Denmark, Romania, India, etc. who waited patiently in line by submitting their immigration requests) is deplorable. Either open the borders or not, but surely don't reward those who cut in line. Oh, and the march of 2.5 million Mexicans and Latins from the south is already underway...they got the message the last time when the Simpson-Mazzoli one time amnesty, just this one time! happened, and millions more arrived. Now that the new Mexican immigration is happening, several million more will arrive. By the way, there is no acceptable hospital in the region near me because legal but won't pay their bills Mexicans have utterly swamped the W*ts*nv*ll* Community Hospital. It is unable to collect from those who show up at its emergency room (and must be treated, by law) that it is now running short on so many things that it is not safe to use. (They'll probably threaten to sue me, so I'll disguise the above name.) I'd favor letting all in who want to get in, provided nobody demands that I pay for any services for them. Any services, not just few services. There are a couple of billion in the world who would gladly come to America if the borders were open...I'm not exaggerating at all. Between 1 and 2 billion, at least. Let them come. But let them starve when 950 million of them find no work and a limit to charity by the do-gooder minority. Let piles of their corpses fertilize our crops...it's why God made bulldozers. --Tim May Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone. I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout --Unknown Usenet Poster
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote: At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote: During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third? This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. In its purest form, I think not. If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has been told to quarter troops, abstractly, in her home). If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may be the case), then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice then _chooses_ to buy such devices with troops already living in them, abstractly speaking, is her choice. Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ is the one being affected by the quartering. The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government knocks on one's door and says Here is something you must put inside your house. By the way, there have been a bunch of cases where residents of a neighborhood were ordered to leave so that SWAT teams could be in their houses to monitor a nearby house where a hostage situation had developed. (It is possible that in each house they occupied they received uncoerced permission to occupy the houses, but I don't think this was always the case; however, I can't cite a concrete case of this. Maybe Lexis has one.) If this takeover of houses to launch a raid is not a black letter law case of the government quartering troops in residences, nothing is. Exigent circumstance, perhaps, but so was King George's need to quarter his troops. --Tim May Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. --Patrick Henry
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 12, 2004, at 7:46 PM, Steve Furlong wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 15:48, Tim May wrote: (Though of course this is only the _theory_. The fact that all of the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the Third, have been violated by the Evildoers in government is well-known.) A few years ago I wrote a short paper looking at government-installed snoopware in terms of the 3rd A. Given that the other BoR amendments have been broadly interpreted in light of new technology, it's reasonable to view software as soldiers. In light of the Scarfo case (keyboard sniffer software installed in a black-bag operation, ca. 1990) I'd argue that the Fedz have violated the 3rd A. (My paper was before Scarfo, so I claim some prescience. Alas.) During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third? This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. --Tim May
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote: At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote: During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third? This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. In its purest form, I think not. If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has been told to quarter troops, abstractly, in her home). If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may be the case), then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice then _chooses_ to buy such devices with troops already living in them, abstractly speaking, is her choice. Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ is the one being affected by the quartering. The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government knocks on one's door and says Here is something you must put inside your house. By the way, there have been a bunch of cases where residents of a neighborhood were ordered to leave so that SWAT teams could be in their houses to monitor a nearby house where a hostage situation had developed. (It is possible that in each house they occupied they received uncoerced permission to occupy the houses, but I don't think this was always the case; however, I can't cite a concrete case of this. Maybe Lexis has one.) If this takeover of houses to launch a raid is not a black letter law case of the government quartering troops in residences, nothing is. Exigent circumstance, perhaps, but so was King George's need to quarter his troops. --Tim May Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. --Patrick Henry
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote: I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime. Duh. Yes, arrests are allowed, and have been in all states and in all territories since the beginning of things. The alternative to what you say is that all would remain free until their actual conviction and sentencing. I'm not aware of any laws that specifically require a person to actually carry ID, but when I was stopped in NV several years ago, walking back to my home from a nearby grocery store at about 3am, supposedly because a 7-11 nearby had just been robbed, I was told that if I did not present a valid state ID I would be arrested, taken to the precinct HQ, fingerprinted, and held until I could be positively ID'd. There are driver's licenses, for driving. And there are passports, for entering the U.S. (and other countries, but we don't care about that issue here). Those neither driving nor attempting to enter the U.S. need carry no such pieces of documentation. There is no national ID, nor even state ID. Period. Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. --Tim May As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later convinces himself. -- David Friedman
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:40 AM, bgt wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:07, Tim May wrote: On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote: I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime. Duh. Yes, arrests are allowed, and have been in all states and in all Perhaps I wasn't very clear. That is (in many states, probably not all), a cop may stop (detain) someone on reasonable suspicion, but it would still be illegal to arrest the person (since this would require probably cause). This has come up various times on the Net. I'm not a lawyer, but I take arrest to mean not free to move on. As in a state of arrest (cognate to rest), arrested motion, arrested development. Hence the common question: Am I under arrest?, with the follow-up: If not, then I'll be on my way. Arrest is not the same thing as being booked, of course. Many who are arrested are never booked. Arrest, to this nonlawyer, is when a cop tells me I am not free to move as I wish, that he will handcuff me or worse if I try to move away from him. I expect our millions of lawyers and hundreds of billions of court hours have produced a range of definitions, from the cop wants to know why you're reading a particular magazine, and will cuff you if you give him any lip to all black men within a 5 block radius are being detained for questioning, but are not under formal arrest to you're under arrest, put your hands behind your back to shooting first and Mirandizing the corpse. I am under arrest if I am in an arrested state of movement, that is, not free to move as I wish. In these states, at this point the person is required by law to identify himself, and in some states even to provide proof of identification. If the person cannot or will not do this, it is legal in those states (though as we know, blatantly unconstitutional) to further detain or even arrest the person until their identity can be determined. Again, people need to read up on the Lawson case. And absent an internal travel passport, there is no requirement to carry ID. That some states haven't heard about the Lawson case, or the Fourth Amendment, is no excuse. You must mean /mandatory/ state ID. Every state I've lived in have State ID's that are (voluntarily) issued to residents that can't get or don't want a driver's license. All of these states grant their ID the same status as a driver's license for identification purposes (anywhere that accepts driver's license as valid ID must also accept the state ID). As I said, there is no requirement to carry ID except when doing certain things (like driving). Whether some or most states will issue licenses to those who don't or can't drive is irrelevant: they are not REQUIRED to be carried, so not having one cannot possibly be a crime. Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. (Thanks Steve for the links). I provided Lawson and San Diego. Plenty of stuff to find hundreds of discussions. I favor giving unique information sufficient in a Google search, not providing pre-digested search URLs. --Tim May We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter- day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability. --George H. W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998
Arrest and Identification
Reminder about talking to cops, being stopped and held by cops, being told to produce ID, etc. As there's much of the old chatter here about these issues, I dug up the ACLU card that is recommended to be carried by all persons. Or read and understood. Here's a Web version. A PDF version for efficient printing is also available: http://archive.aclu.org/issues/criminal/bustcardtext.html A couple of paragraphs relevant to the current discussion about whether being stopped for question is arrest, whether ID is required to be carried, etc.: --begin excerpt 2. You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In other situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer. 3. You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your house. If you DO consent to a search, it can affect your rights later in court. If the police say they have a search warrant, ASK TO SEE IT. 4. Do not interfere with, or obstruct the police -- you can be arrested for it. IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING 1. It's not a crime to refuse to answer questions, but refusing to answer can make the police suspicious about you. You can't be arrested merely for refusing to identify yourself on the street. 2. Police may pat-down your clothing if they suspect a concealed weapon. Don't physically resist, but make it clear that you don't consent to any further search. 3. Ask if you are under arrest. If you are, you have a right to know why. --end excerpt-- --Tim May 'I'm sorry that Tim is being a bother again. He has a long history of being obnoxious and threatening. So far, he has not broken any laws. We have talked to the authorities about him on numerous occasions. They have chosen to watch but not act. Please feel free to notify me f he does anything that is beyond rude and actually violates any laws and I will immediately inform the authorities. Thank You Don Fredrickson
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:55 AM, bgt wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:26, Tim May wrote: Have you done this since 9/11? I know that in my [red]neck of the woods, I would without question be spending a few days in the system for this. That's what sniper rifles with low light scopes are for: kill one or both or all of the cops who arrested you in this way. Cops who abuse the criminal system and violate constitutional rights blatantly have earned killing. This has probably been mentioned here before, but another interesting approach is what justicefiles.org used to do (I'm not sure what the status of the site is, it seems to be down now). They collected the names of police officers (particularly ones known to be abusive of their authority) in King County, WA and published that + all public information they could find on them (including SSN's, addresses, phone numbers, etc). Of course the police tried to take the site down but the court upheld the site's right to publish any publicly available information about the cops (I believe they excepted the SSN's). The First Amendment is quite clear about prior restraint and censorship. Not only is it legal for The Progressive to publish details of how to make a hydrogen bomb, and for the New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers, but it is legal to publish SS numbers when they become available. Now civil actions are another can of worms, and Bill Gates, for example, may sue somebody for publishing his SS number. Or I may sue the U.S. Marshal's Service for illegally using my SS number as a legal ID (which my SS card, still in my possession from when I got it in 1969) says is to be used for tax and Social Security purposes ONLY and MAY NOT be used for identifcation) and letting it circulate over the Net. But such civil suits--by Gates, by cops, by me--are NOT the same as prior restraint on publishing words. (Though of course this is only the _theory_. The fact that all of the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the Third, have been violated by the Evildoers in government is well-known.) --Tim May
Inviting the vampires into the house
By the way, something else from that ACLU site I cited (and sighted): --begin excerpt-- IN YOUR HOME 1. If the police knock and ask to enter your home, you don't have to admit them unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. 2. However, in some emergency situations (like when a person is screaming for help inside, or when the police are chasing someone) officers are allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant. 3. If you are arrested, the police can search you and the area close by. If you are in a building, close by usually means just the room you are in. --end excerpt-- This is why one should _never_ invite cops into a house, even for a chat. They may use nearly any grounds to make an arrest (again, arrest does not necessarily mean a booking, or a formal charging, just an arrest of one's freedom to move about or leave). Once an arrest has been made, they may then search the premises (as above) based on this arrest. And anything they see in other areas in plain sight, such as bottles of pills or a rifle case, etc., may be used to expand the search. I've also heard it reported that it is _easier_ for cops to arrest a person if he steps _outside_ his house. Not sure why, but it may have to do with some reptilian brain memory of a man's home is his castle or even to court precedent related to the above example. In other words, arresting a person in his home opens the home up to warrantless searches so avoid this if possible. It seems to me the ideal balance is then this: -- if cops knock and one decides to answer the door rather than hole up or shoot it out, then: -- talk to them from inside the home -- don't invite them in -- and don't step out -- keep them on the outside and oneself on the inside Of course, answering the door and, after hearing what their business is (it might be something unrelated to one's own legal status, such as a warning about an impending flood, etc.), one can and probably _should_ say I have nothing to say to you. Then they can make the next move, either escalating things to an arrest or presenting a duly-signed search warrant (which one can check...and my idea of checking would mean closing my door and calling the court house to verify that the named judge did in fact sign a warrant for my addressthis is what duly signed can only mean, that the presentee gets to check it). (I would never say Talk to my lawyer for two reasons. First, I don't keep a lawyer on retainer or even know the name of one. Second, lawyers bill by the quarter hour...I recall in the case of a probate matter I was involved in, that merely phoning the lawyer to ask a simple question showed up as a $75 charge on his probate fee bill. And this guy was just a probate lawyer shlub, not even a highly paid Jew criminal lawyer! There is no way I will let a nosy cop run up a tab with some shyster.) --Tim May The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. --Frederic Bastiat
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:33 PM, Steve Furlong wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 02:07, Tim May wrote: Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. Tim is referring to Edward Lawson, arrested repeatedly and convicted once in the late 1970s for walking around without ID. The appeal made it to the Supreme Court, as Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983). Lawson's conviction was overturned on grounds that the identify yourself law was too vague. Not surprisingly, Justice Actual Innocence Rehnquist felt that the law was good and Lawson's conviction was righteous. The opinion, with some introductory material, can be found at http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html A web page discussing this case in relation to a national ID card is http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/page5.htm And vast amounts of misinformation are constantly being spread by the popular press, and in popular television shows, and in movies. One of the most popular t.v. shows, the oxymoronically named Law and Order, almost weekly shows someone being told that if he doesn't help the police his restaurant will be shut down for a week while city health inspectors use a microscope on it. Another meme that is false is spread by NYPD Blue, Law and Order, and the Fox show that used to be on: Cops (not sure if it still is). Namely, that Fifth Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination only apply after an actual arrest (You haven't been arrested yet, so let's not hear about how you can remain silent.), or after an attorney has arrived (He lawyered up.) The right not to be compelled to provide potentially incriminating evidence is a broad one, deeply enmeshed in our Bill of Rights. Even someone suspected of a crime, even a very serious crime, is under no compulsion to talk to the police, whether or not he has a lawyer present. There are regrettable exceptions, such as in our pre-constitutional (my view of it) grand jury system, where people can be told to tell all they know. Sometimes they get various types of immunity, often the claim is that their grand jury testimony will not be used to convict them (if they not ostensibly the principals in the crime!), and so on. But the fact is that grand jury testimony is often compelled self-incrimination. (And one of the ways the Feds have been getting people they can't get in other, more direct, ways is to interview parties in a case and then find some subtle contradiction. Then the charge is lying to a federal employee (or somesuch...maybe the language is lying in an official investigation, to distinguish it from lying to your neighbor the GS-12 midlevel employee at NASA). What I've done in several cases where I was stopped by cops is to SAY NOTHING. In the Stanford case, I told them I would not be giving them either my name or telling them what my business was that day at Stanford: it was not their business and I saw no reason to satisfy their curiosity. In a couple of cases in Santa Cruz, cops have asked me my name and asked why i was in a particular area. I told them I would be answering no questions. In none of these cases was I arrested, booked, or charged. I would, and have, answer questions if I knew there was no conceivable way I could become a person of interest in a case. I have answered police questions in some crimes I have had knowledge of (and wished to see the guilty parties dealt with...I would not lightly aid in a drug case, though. And if one is committing no crime, answering a nosy cop's questions is neither required by my reading of the Constitution nor is healthy. (In the Stanford case, had I given them my name and/or ID, my name would have appeared in a report about threats to the President, and our resolution of the case--the SS version of quotas for traffic tickets. (When one cop blurted out to me that he had seen me planting a bomb near the route Clinton would pass by, I _was_ tempted to say I demand a lawyer!, just so they'd arrest me, etc. But I didn't, which is probably good, as I might have spent a few nights in jail...and felt the requirement to stalk the arresting officers and use a sniper rifle on one or more of them.) We are certainly entering a police state era. Interesting that so many Jews are so strongly behind the fascist measures...Jews like Swinestein, Boxer, Lieberman, and hundreds of others. But, as in the ZOG state, the true heirs of the Third Reich are today's Jews...it would make a good Outer Limits episode, except the modern OL was thoroughly leftist, anti-gun, pro-ZOG, and had several episodes involving SS camp guards reincarnated as camp residents, and variations. So having the SS reincarnated in the ZOG state would not have fit their Zionist biases. What the Jews think of Goyim is covered in the quotes from the Talmud, below. --Tim May #1. Sanhedrin 59a: Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal. #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: A Gentile girl who is three years old can
Arrest and Identification
Reminder about talking to cops, being stopped and held by cops, being told to produce ID, etc. As there's much of the old chatter here about these issues, I dug up the ACLU card that is recommended to be carried by all persons. Or read and understood. Here's a Web version. A PDF version for efficient printing is also available: http://archive.aclu.org/issues/criminal/bustcardtext.html A couple of paragraphs relevant to the current discussion about whether being stopped for question is arrest, whether ID is required to be carried, etc.: --begin excerpt 2. You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In other situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer. 3. You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your house. If you DO consent to a search, it can affect your rights later in court. If the police say they have a search warrant, ASK TO SEE IT. 4. Do not interfere with, or obstruct the police -- you can be arrested for it. IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING 1. It's not a crime to refuse to answer questions, but refusing to answer can make the police suspicious about you. You can't be arrested merely for refusing to identify yourself on the street. 2. Police may pat-down your clothing if they suspect a concealed weapon. Don't physically resist, but make it clear that you don't consent to any further search. 3. Ask if you are under arrest. If you are, you have a right to know why. --end excerpt-- --Tim May 'I'm sorry that Tim is being a bother again. He has a long history of being obnoxious and threatening. So far, he has not broken any laws. We have talked to the authorities about him on numerous occasions. They have chosen to watch but not act. Please feel free to notify me f he does anything that is beyond rude and actually violates any laws and I will immediately inform the authorities. Thank You Don Fredrickson
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:40 AM, bgt wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:07, Tim May wrote: On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote: I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a a crime. Duh. Yes, arrests are allowed, and have been in all states and in all Perhaps I wasn't very clear. That is (in many states, probably not all), a cop may stop (detain) someone on reasonable suspicion, but it would still be illegal to arrest the person (since this would require probably cause). This has come up various times on the Net. I'm not a lawyer, but I take arrest to mean not free to move on. As in a state of arrest (cognate to rest), arrested motion, arrested development. Hence the common question: Am I under arrest?, with the follow-up: If not, then I'll be on my way. Arrest is not the same thing as being booked, of course. Many who are arrested are never booked. Arrest, to this nonlawyer, is when a cop tells me I am not free to move as I wish, that he will handcuff me or worse if I try to move away from him. I expect our millions of lawyers and hundreds of billions of court hours have produced a range of definitions, from the cop wants to know why you're reading a particular magazine, and will cuff you if you give him any lip to all black men within a 5 block radius are being detained for questioning, but are not under formal arrest to you're under arrest, put your hands behind your back to shooting first and Mirandizing the corpse. I am under arrest if I am in an arrested state of movement, that is, not free to move as I wish. In these states, at this point the person is required by law to identify himself, and in some states even to provide proof of identification. If the person cannot or will not do this, it is legal in those states (though as we know, blatantly unconstitutional) to further detain or even arrest the person until their identity can be determined. Again, people need to read up on the Lawson case. And absent an internal travel passport, there is no requirement to carry ID. That some states haven't heard about the Lawson case, or the Fourth Amendment, is no excuse. You must mean /mandatory/ state ID. Every state I've lived in have State ID's that are (voluntarily) issued to residents that can't get or don't want a driver's license. All of these states grant their ID the same status as a driver's license for identification purposes (anywhere that accepts driver's license as valid ID must also accept the state ID). As I said, there is no requirement to carry ID except when doing certain things (like driving). Whether some or most states will issue licenses to those who don't or can't drive is irrelevant: they are not REQUIRED to be carried, so not having one cannot possibly be a crime. Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego. (Thanks Steve for the links). I provided Lawson and San Diego. Plenty of stuff to find hundreds of discussions. I favor giving unique information sufficient in a Google search, not providing pre-digested search URLs. --Tim May We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter- day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability. --George H. W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998
Re: Canada issues levy on non-removable memory (for MP3 players)
On Jan 11, 2004, at 8:24 AM, Adam wrote: I know this story is quite a bit old, but I really have to wonder how legal this levy is. http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004nr-e.html The Board also sets for the first time a levy on non-removable memory permanently embedded in digital audio recorders (such as MP3 players) at $2 for each recorder with a memory capacity of up to 1 Gigabyte (Gb), $15 for each recorder with memory capacity of more than 1 Gb and up to 10 Gbs, and $25 for each recorder with memory capacity of more than 10 GBs. It just seems to me to be a bit sketchy to tax intended illegal usage. I mean, that'd be like taxing condoms b/c of prostitution. Would something like this go over in the US? I wonder ... It already has, many times. Directly parallel to the Canadian tax is the tax on blank media for music recording, part of the Home Recording Act of 1991. (Or close to that year...Google for details if interested.) This tax was placed on blanks ostensibly to recompense recording artists for taped music. Less directly parallel, but certain sin taxes, are the various and very high taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. And the exorbitant luxury taxes on various expensive things like certain kinds of jewelry, yachts, expensive cars, etc. And various shakedowns of casinos with special taxes, such as Schwarz nigger's demand that Indian casinos in California share their profits with the state to help with the deficit. And various collectivists and fascists have proposed taxes on ammunition, ostensibly to recompense victims for being shot. (Ignoring the fact that what it would do is penalize those who practice, shooting 200 or more rounds at a trip to the range, while having no effect on the typical gangsta negro or Mexican with less than one box of ammo to his name, but still using his piece to shoot several people. The recreational shooter ends up paying 99.9% of the tax, the gangsta pays a dollar or two per box.) The point is, the U.S. taxes what political animals call sin quite a bit. --Tim May
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Steve Schear wrote: At 06:53 PM 1/10/2004, Steve Furlong wrote: On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote: What good is a Jury when the judge can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case? I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know. Did you carry and present ID? steve I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. When I was surrounded by some cops who accused me of planting a bomb to blow up Reichsminister Clinton and his family, I refuse to show them some ID. I also refused to let them look in my bag. Despite their bluster, they had no grounds for their belief, no grounds for a Terry stop search of my papers, and no grounds to arrest me. So they neither searched my papers forcibly nor arrested me. They did, however, order me to leave the grounds of Stanford University, almost making me late for a talk before Margaret Rader's cyberspace law class, scheduled long, long before the First Fascist scheduled _his_ trip to Stanford. --Tim May
Re: Canada issues levy on non-removable memory (for MP3 players)
On Jan 11, 2004, at 8:24 AM, Adam wrote: I know this story is quite a bit old, but I really have to wonder how legal this levy is. http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004nr-e.html The Board also sets for the first time a levy on non-removable memory permanently embedded in digital audio recorders (such as MP3 players) at $2 for each recorder with a memory capacity of up to 1 Gigabyte (Gb), $15 for each recorder with memory capacity of more than 1 Gb and up to 10 Gbs, and $25 for each recorder with memory capacity of more than 10 GBs. It just seems to me to be a bit sketchy to tax intended illegal usage. I mean, that'd be like taxing condoms b/c of prostitution. Would something like this go over in the US? I wonder ... It already has, many times. Directly parallel to the Canadian tax is the tax on blank media for music recording, part of the Home Recording Act of 1991. (Or close to that year...Google for details if interested.) This tax was placed on blanks ostensibly to recompense recording artists for taped music. Less directly parallel, but certain sin taxes, are the various and very high taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. And the exorbitant luxury taxes on various expensive things like certain kinds of jewelry, yachts, expensive cars, etc. And various shakedowns of casinos with special taxes, such as Schwarz nigger's demand that Indian casinos in California share their profits with the state to help with the deficit. And various collectivists and fascists have proposed taxes on ammunition, ostensibly to recompense victims for being shot. (Ignoring the fact that what it would do is penalize those who practice, shooting 200 or more rounds at a trip to the range, while having no effect on the typical gangsta negro or Mexican with less than one box of ammo to his name, but still using his piece to shoot several people. The recreational shooter ends up paying 99.9% of the tax, the gangsta pays a dollar or two per box.) The point is, the U.S. taxes what political animals call sin quite a bit. --Tim May
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Steve Schear wrote: At 06:53 PM 1/10/2004, Steve Furlong wrote: On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote: What good is a Jury when the judge can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case? I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know. Did you carry and present ID? steve I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery. When I was surrounded by some cops who accused me of planting a bomb to blow up Reichsminister Clinton and his family, I refuse to show them some ID. I also refused to let them look in my bag. Despite their bluster, they had no grounds for their belief, no grounds for a Terry stop search of my papers, and no grounds to arrest me. So they neither searched my papers forcibly nor arrested me. They did, however, order me to leave the grounds of Stanford University, almost making me late for a talk before Margaret Rader's cyberspace law class, scheduled long, long before the First Fascist scheduled _his_ trip to Stanford. --Tim May
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 9, 2004, at 10:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its hard to square the Founder's purpose of providing the common citizen, through a militia (which a National Guard), with an effective physical deterrent to governmental tyranny with many restrictions on the type of weapons a citizen in good standing may keep and bear. Though allowing the guy next door to own a nuke or a F-15 may be going too far, its not unreasonable for any of us to keep and bear any arm that our police forces (including S.W.A.T. teams) field. Where does this citizen in good standing stuff come from? I see it a lot from what I will call weak Second Amendment supporters. They talk about good citizens and law-abiding citizens as having Second Amendment rights. If someone has been apprehended and convicted and imprisoned for a real crime, then of course various of their normal rights are no longer in forced. If, however, they are out of prison then all of their rights, including speech, religion, assembly, firearms, due process, security of their possessions and property, speedy trial, blah blah blah are of course in force. As a felon, which I am, do I not have First Amendment rights? As a felon, and certainly not a citizen in good standing, have I lost my other rights? To all who say Yes, including most of the Eurotrash collectivists here, I say your legacy shall be smoke. Tens of millions, perhaps billions, need to be sent up the chimneys. --Tim May The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun. --Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Jan 9, 2004, at 10:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its hard to square the Founder's purpose of providing the common citizen, through a militia (which a National Guard), with an effective physical deterrent to governmental tyranny with many restrictions on the type of weapons a citizen in good standing may keep and bear. Though allowing the guy next door to own a nuke or a F-15 may be going too far, its not unreasonable for any of us to keep and bear any arm that our police forces (including S.W.A.T. teams) field. Where does this citizen in good standing stuff come from? I see it a lot from what I will call weak Second Amendment supporters. They talk about good citizens and law-abiding citizens as having Second Amendment rights. If someone has been apprehended and convicted and imprisoned for a real crime, then of course various of their normal rights are no longer in forced. If, however, they are out of prison then all of their rights, including speech, religion, assembly, firearms, due process, security of their possessions and property, speedy trial, blah blah blah are of course in force. As a felon, which I am, do I not have First Amendment rights? As a felon, and certainly not a citizen in good standing, have I lost my other rights? To all who say Yes, including most of the Eurotrash collectivists here, I say your legacy shall be smoke. Tens of millions, perhaps billions, need to be sent up the chimneys. --Tim May The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun. --Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:20 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote: Tim May wrote... In conclusion, your Bedford-Stuy student who doesn't see the point to studying math will never be a math researcher, or a physicist, or a chemist, or anything else of that sort. So no point in trying to convince him to study his math. Why the BedSty student Tim? Perhaps because I was replying to Tyler Durden, where he wrote: I'll tell you a story. Back in the late 1980s I taught at a notorious HS in Bedford Stuyvesant. 90% of my students were black. You liberals see racism even when people reply to the points raised by others. --Tim May
Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 2, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Tim May wrote: So Kennedy's liberals scratched their heads and came up with a new plan. Relief would be converted to a series of state and national programs, no longer handled locally. And the bad connotations of relief would be changed by the new and positive name entitlement. Money handed out to various folks would be their entitlement, something they were _owed_. Other related names would be social services and, of course, liberal mention of children and nutrition. Ergo programs like WIC (Women, Infants, and Children). Ergo, Head Start. And I should have elaborated on the family system effects of the new welfare system: since the entitlements were not given to families with husbands in the household, this made marriage a bad idea for those wanting to get welfare. A young girl could go from the bottom of the pecking order in her household to the top in her own apartment, with an income from welfare that increased with each baby she had. So we had the spectacle of 14-year-old girls being given their own apartments by Big Brother, paid for with taxes taken from working suckers. The effects of this are so corrosive as to practically be unexplainable to normal people: households solely dependent on handouts from government, fathers completely absent (except in sneak visits), a disrespect for those who work, the boys in the household anxious to hang out on the streets below rather than be with Momma, the crime that comes from this kind of hanging out, self-loathing (it seems likely) that leads to lashing out at whitey, and a perpetuating cycle as the young girls seek to get their own cribs so the process can repeat and expand. This is why so many black families today are into their third or even fourth generation of welfare life. By the way, part of the reason Kennedy wanted to remove the stigma of relief was because the decade of the 1950s had been especially bad for the urban poor. Many blacks had moved from farms in the south to cities like Washington, New York, Cincinnati, Oakland, Chicago, etc. Partly they had moved to work in factories during the war, partly because automation on the farms had displaced manual laborers, partly because they heard of the success of other blacks who had moved north. But they were moving into the cities just as the whites were leaving. (And the whites were not leaving because the blacks were coming in...rather, the new jobs were increasingly in the suburbs, and as highways and freeways and ring roads were built around cities, and as cars became plentiful, and as families grew, many of the city-born whites were moving into the massive new subdivisions being built out in the suburbs.) So the blacks got to the inner cities with mostly only manual labor skills, just as such jobs were vanishing under automation and through a shift to the suburbs. Now what government _should have done_ circa the early 1960s is this: Nothing. Except to cut taxes to encourage even more business, and to maybe point out to blacks that they should slow down their move to the cities. (By the way, the same move to the cities was happening in other countries, which is why Mexico City now has something like 20 million residents, most of them very poor.) But instead of letting the dice fall where they may, letting the bad effects discourage other blacks from moving to the cities, Kennedy set his advisors to the problem of solving urban poverty. They expanded welfare and entitlements, ostensibly because America could afford it (the 1950s having been a prosperous period). Precisely the wrong thing to do. It encouraged even more blacks to flock to the cities, and once started, once established, the welfare spigot could not be turned off, could not be denied to the newcomers. Whoops. And none of the planners, I expect, saw the effects of the law of unintended consequences, that they would disincentive blacks from seeking hard jobs, that multigenerational welfare would become the norm, and that blacks would be seen by those doing so well in the rapidly-expanding, prosperous suburbs as some kind of throwback to plantation life. The various demands by black leaders, the reverse racism (honkie mofo), the whole hatred for learning (reading be for whitey) all combined with the welfare state in these cities to create this gutterization of the negro. Even when the full magnitude of this developing train wreck was obvious even to the liberals, they didn't pull back from the brink and say Let's stop this train wreck. Nope, they said the problem was not enough money. So benefits were expanded in the 1970s, with more Medicare, Medical, larger payments...the idea was to pay enough to get people back on their feet. But of course, human nature being what it is, most took the higher payments and bought nicer stuff, hence the color televisions found in every crib. And the huge influxes of Mexicans during the 70s and 80s
Fwd: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
Second of the items lne.com never sent to the list (that I have seen, 9-10 hours later). Begin forwarded message: From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 2, 2004 1:02:20 AM PST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey On Jan 2, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Tim May wrote: So Kennedy's liberals scratched their heads and came up with a new plan. Relief would be converted to a series of state and national programs, no longer handled locally. And the bad connotations of relief would be changed by the new and positive name entitlement. Money handed out to various folks would be their entitlement, something they were _owed_. Other related names would be social services and, of course, liberal mention of children and nutrition. Ergo programs like WIC (Women, Infants, and Children). Ergo, Head Start. And I should have elaborated on the family system effects of the new welfare system: since the entitlements were not given to families with husbands in the household, this made marriage a bad idea for those wanting to get welfare. A young girl could go from the bottom of the pecking order in her household to the top in her own apartment, with an income from welfare that increased with each baby she had. So we had the spectacle of 14-year-old girls being given their own apartments by Big Brother, paid for with taxes taken from working suckers. The effects of this are so corrosive as to practically be unexplainable to normal people: households solely dependent on handouts from government, fathers completely absent (except in sneak visits), a disrespect for those who work, the boys in the household anxious to hang out on the streets below rather than be with Momma, the crime that comes from this kind of hanging out, self-loathing (it seems likely) that leads to lashing out at whitey, and a perpetuating cycle as the young girls seek to get their own cribs so the process can repeat and expand. This is why so many black families today are into their third or even fourth generation of welfare life. By the way, part of the reason Kennedy wanted to remove the stigma of relief was because the decade of the 1950s had been especially bad for the urban poor. Many blacks had moved from farms in the south to cities like Washington, New York, Cincinnati, Oakland, Chicago, etc. Partly they had moved to work in factories during the war, partly because automation on the farms had displaced manual laborers, partly because they heard of the success of other blacks who had moved north. But they were moving into the cities just as the whites were leaving. (And the whites were not leaving because the blacks were coming in...rather, the new jobs were increasingly in the suburbs, and as highways and freeways and ring roads were built around cities, and as cars became plentiful, and as families grew, many of the city-born whites were moving into the massive new subdivisions being built out in the suburbs.) So the blacks got to the inner cities with mostly only manual labor skills, just as such jobs were vanishing under automation and through a shift to the suburbs. Now what government _should have done_ circa the early 1960s is this: Nothing. Except to cut taxes to encourage even more business, and to maybe point out to blacks that they should slow down their move to the cities. (By the way, the same move to the cities was happening in other countries, which is why Mexico City now has something like 20 million residents, most of them very poor.) But instead of letting the dice fall where they may, letting the bad effects discourage other blacks from moving to the cities, Kennedy set his advisors to the problem of solving urban poverty. They expanded welfare and entitlements, ostensibly because America could afford it (the 1950s having been a prosperous period). Precisely the wrong thing to do. It encouraged even more blacks to flock to the cities, and once started, once established, the welfare spigot could not be turned off, could not be denied to the newcomers. Whoops. And none of the planners, I expect, saw the effects of the law of unintended consequences, that they would disincentive blacks from seeking hard jobs, that multigenerational welfare would become the norm, and that blacks would be seen by those doing so well in the rapidly-expanding, prosperous suburbs as some kind of throwback to plantation life. The various demands by black leaders, the reverse racism (honkie mofo), the whole hatred for learning (reading be for whitey) all combined with the welfare state in these cities to create this gutterization of the negro. Even when the full magnitude of this developing train wreck was obvious even to the liberals, they didn't pull back from the brink and say Let's stop this train wreck. Nope, they said the problem was not enough money. So benefits were expanded in the 1970s, with more Medicare, Medical, larger payments...the idea
Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:13 AM, Eric S. Johansson wrote: actually, we mean burned literally. the stamp creation process raises the temperature of the CPU. Most systems are not build for full tilt computational load. They do not have the ventilation necessary for reliable operation. So, they may get by with the first 8-12 hours of stamp generation (i.e. roughly 2000-3000 stamps per machine) but the machine reliability after that time will degrade as the heat builds up. Feel free to run this experiment yourself. Take a cheat machine from your local chop shop, run hashcash in an infinite loop, and wait for the smoke detector to go off. there is nothing quite like waking up to the smell of freshly roasted Intel. I'm skeptical of this claim. A lot of Intel and AMD and similar machines are running full-tilt, 24/7. To wit, Beowulf-type clusters, the Macintosh G5 cluster that is now rated third fasted in the world, and so on. None of these machines is reported to be burning up literally. Likewise, a lot of home and corporate users are running background tasks which are at 100% CPU utilization. (Examples abound, from render farms to financial modeling to... Friends of mine run a bunch of 2 and 3 GHz Pentium 4 machines in CPU-bound apps, and they run them 24/7. (Their company, Invest by Agents, analyzes tens of thousands of stocks. They use ordinary Dells and have had no catastrophic burned literally failures.) Further, junction-to-case temperature in a ceramic package has a time constant of tens of seconds, meaning, the case temperature reaches something like 98% of its equilibrium value (as wattage reaches, say, 60 watts, or whatever), in tens of seconds. (For basic material and physics reasons...I used to make many of these measurements when I was at Intel, and nothing in the recent packaging has changed the physics of heat flow much.) We also used to run CPUs at 125 C ambient, under operating conditions, for weeks at a time. Here the junction temperature was upwards of 185 C. Failures occurred in various ways, usually do to electromigration and things like that. Almost never was there any kind of fire. Just burnout, which is a generic name but has nothing of course to do with burning in the chemical sense. Now I grant you that I haven't tested CPUs in this way in many years. But I am skeptical that recent CPUs are substantially different than past CPUs. I would like to see some actual reports of burned literally CPUs. By the way, I have run some apps on my Macintosh 1 GHz CPU which are CPU-bound. No burn ups. I'd like to see some support for the claim that running a stamp creation process is more likely to burn up a modern machine than all of these apps running financial modeling, render farms, and supercomputer clusters are doing. Until then, render me skeptical. --Tim May
Re: Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs
On Jan 1, 2004, at 2:35 PM, Eric S. Johansson wrote: Tim May wrote: I'm skeptical of this claim. A lot of Intel and AMD and similar machines are running full-tilt, 24/7. To wit, Beowulf-type clusters, the Macintosh G5 cluster that is now rated third fasted in the world, and so on. None of these machines is reported to be burning up literally. Likewise, a lot of home and corporate users are running background tasks which are at 100% CPU utilization. I will admit to a degree of skepticism myself even though I am describing overheating as a likely outcome. But what is your actual evidence, as opposed to your belief that overheating is a likely outcome? I have said that I know of many machines (tens of thousands of CPUs, and probably many more I don't know about directly) which are running CPU-bound applications 24/7. I have heard of no burning up literally cases with the many Beowulf clusters, supercomputers, and 24/7 home or business screensavers and crunching apps, so I suspect they are not common. If you have actual evidence, as opposed to likely outcome speculations, please present the evidence. First, if you lose a fan on an Intel CPU of at least Pentium III generation or an AMD equivalent, you will lose your CPU to thermal overload. This is a well-known and well-documented problem. One question is can stamp work thermally overload and damage a CPU. Second question is how much stamp work can you do without thermally overloading the CPU. This is true whether one is running Office or a stamp program. You are just repeating a general point about losing a fan, not about stamp generation per se. Boxer fan lifetimes are usually about comparable to hard drive lifetimes, which also kill a particular machine. You are not presenting anything new here, and the association with stamp generation is nonexistent. Large clusters have more careful thermal engineering applied to them than probably most of the zombies out there. I have seen one Beowulf cluster constructed out of standard 1U chassis, motherboards, fans etc. and frequently 10 percent of the systems are down at any one time. The vast majority of the failures have been due to thermal problems. Most clusters use exactly the same air-cooled machines as are available from Dell, Sun, Apple, etc. In fact, the blades and rackmount systems are precisely those available from Dell, Sun, Apple, etc. You are presenting no evidence, just hypothesizing that your stamp protocol somehow burns out more CPUs than render farms do, than Mersenne prime apps to, than financial simulations do, etc. Yet you present no actual numbers. so, will we see a Pentium IV spontaneously ignite like a third tier heavy-metal group in a Rhode Island nightclub? No, you're right, we won't. I think it's safe to say we will see increasing unreliability, power supply failures, and failures of microelectronics due to increased thermal load. Which is good enough for my purposes. Evidence is desirable, belief is just belief. --Tim May That government is best which governs not at all. --Henry David Thoreau
Re: Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs
On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:56 AM, Riad S. Wahby wrote: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now I grant you that I haven't tested CPUs in this way in many years. But I am skeptical that recent CPUs are substantially different than past CPUs. I would like to see some actual reports of burned literally CPUs. I've never seen a burned literally CPU, but I have tracked the demise of an AMD K6 (or K6-2, can't remember now) from hot carrier effects. If all processors were made like that one, you would see a lot more load-induced failures. Just so. A lot of games are close to being CPU-bound, plus the screensavers used as Mersenne prime finders and the like, and there are few reports of house fires caused by the CPU being smoked. When I did reliability stuff for Intel, CPUs failed, but mostly not in ways that had them catching on fire, as the stamp guy is suggesting is common for stamp generation. --Tim May #1. Sanhedrin 59a: Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal. #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated. #3. Yebamoth 11b: Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age. #4. Abodah Zara 26b: Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed. #5. Yebamoth 98a: All gentile children are animals. #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean. #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.
Alt.cypherpunks will be where I do most of my posting
On Jan 2, 2004, at 1:03 PM, someone wrote: On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 13:18, Tim May wrote: Second of the items lne.com never sent to the list (that I have seen, 9-10 hours later). I saw both articles, both the originals and the reposts, on the LNE feed. I didn't, however, get the original of either on the pro-ns feed, but I saw the reposts on pro-ns. I subscribed to pro-ns after Eric M's announcement, but it seems to miss a lot of articles that I get from LNE. Still searching for a reliable feed which cuts out the Australian Jackass and other noise posts. Several operators of Cypherpunks nodes have gotten tired of the topic or the running of nodes and have moved on to other things. Even those still running nodes rarely have anything to post themselves. Those remaining on the remaining nodes, or at least the ones posting, are mainly eurotrash lefties and American collectivists who just don't get it. As none of the alternatives to lne.com are what I'm looking for in a node, I expect to do most of my future posting to alt.cypherpunks. This newsgroup has been in existence for a bunch of years and periodically gets interesting threads. A few sock puppets have been spamming it, but filters are readily available to screen out the crud. The advantage of a newsgroup is that all the distribution and propagation issues are handled more or less automagically, The disadvantages are well-known, but are not much worse than with some of today's nodes (subject to long delays, dropped articles, etc.). Another advantage is that the address will be more or less known to anyone, at all times. Also, no friendly chats by Feebs with the operators of a site. And virtually no chance of shutting down a newsgroup. --Tim May
Sources and Sinks
The jabber about how poor people are actually paying for the successful is beyond belief. All sorts of arguments are being made about how poor people somehow pay for the infrastructure the wealthy exploit. And the chestnut about how tax breaks aid the wealth disproportionately is once again brought out. (Yeah, if Alice was paying $50K in taxes and the taxes are cut to $40K she benefits more than Bob the Wino who got no tax benefits because he paid no taxes. Which misses the point about Alice's high taxes in the first place.) This is why the Tax Freedom Day approach is more useful. Tax freedom day is of course the day when the average American or Brit or whatever has stopped working for the government and has the rest of his income for himself. For most years, this is estimated to around May-June. That is, for almost half of a year a typical taxpayer is working for the government. Not a perfect measure, as it averages together folks of various tax brackets, including the many in America who pay nothing (but it doesn't assign a negative number to those who receive net net money from the government). And it fails to take into account the double taxation which a business owner faces: roughly a 50% tax on his profits, then when the profits are disbursed to the owners of the corporation, another 35-45% tax bite. For a business owner, he is effectively working for the government for the first 70% of every year. Which means only October-December is he working for his own interests. Jabber about how poor people are actually receiving fewer tax benefits than rich people misses the point of who's working for whom. Alice, an engineer or pharmacist or perhaps a small business owner, works between 40% and 70% of her time to pay money into government. Bob, a crack addict collecting disability or welfare or other government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society. (Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!) Alice is a source, Bob is a sink. Talk about how Alice gets benefits ignores the fact that she's working for the government for a big chunk of her life. Bob is not. Alice is a slave for the government, and society, so that Bob can lounge in his mobile home watching ESPN and collecting a monthly check. (I'd like to know why all of the folks here in California who are getting benefits and services are not at my door on Saturday morning to help me with my yard work. I'd like to know why finding reliable yard workers has become nearly impossible in the past couple of decades. Will work for food signs are a fucking joke...try hiring one of those layabouts to actually do some work for food and watch the sneers, or watch them threatening to fake a work injury if a shakedown fee is not given to them. These people should be put in lime pits.) When you hear John Young and Tyler Durden nattering about the persons of privilege are reaping the rewards of a benificent government, think about Alice and Bob and ask yourself who'se doing the real work. Ask who're the sources and who're the sinks. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need...and I've got a game to watch on satellite...and where's my check? --Tim May The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. --John Stuart Mill
So many statists
On Jan 3, 2004, at 3:01 PM, bgt wrote: (Jeez, I just recently got back onto this list after a several-year hiatus. How the hell did so many statists ever get the idea that ubiquitous cryptography would ever further their goals? Or are they just here to distract us with statism vs liberty type political debates so we can't get any real work done??) Most of those now posting (and maybe most of those subscribed, but I am only speculating) are various eurotrash lefties and anti-globalist activists who decided that crypto is cool after their anti-corporate, anti-choice rallies in Seattle, Milano, and other cities shut down by the Yippie marches and barricades. I assume they figured that since they were using PGP to communicate with their fellow anti-capitalists, that crypto must be cool (I'm not sure if they favor the negro term, bad, or the traditional term, good, so I'll use the term of my generation, cool.) Are they confused? Yep. Welcome to the Gen X and Gen Y (and soon) the Gen Z world. Crypto be bad, dog! This nigga be bouncin'! I'm actually glad to see that Cypherpunks nodes are winding down, that we no longer have monthly meetings, and that the Movement is ending. Better that than to see it hijacked by the eurotrash lefties, New York collectivists, and anti-globalist warriors against free trade. --Tim May, Corralitos, California Quote of the Month: It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. --Cathy Young, Reason Magazine, both enemies of liberty.
Re: Alt.cypherpunks will be where I do most of my posting
On Jan 2, 2004, at 2:00 PM, R. A. Hettinga wrote: Okay... At a time like this, I might as well trot out the Tim May Google-Stalk URL so everyone can get the full treatment...: http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=imagesie=UTF-8oe=UTF -8as_uauthors=Tim%20Maylr=lang_ennum=100hl=en (timcmayatgotdotnet doesn't work because it misses the earlier address, but a Tim May in the author field does enough...) Thanks for all the fish. I saw your silly stalking, your incorrect comments about Krakatoa. Someday you may learn that content matters more than your listen up, boys and girls and milk ran out my nose sort of patter. Then you may find actual economic success, no longer dependent on your wife to support you. Consider that CPUs have gotten 10 times faster than when you started yammering about digital bearer instruments and general programming tools have gotten at least a couple of times better. If you can't implement what you have been yammering about with this amount of CPU power and tools, but instead think you need to raise to hire a few programmers and have a company, you are clearly smoking herb. Haskell running on 4 GHz of processor(s) gives you vastly more power than any 10 programmers had several years ago. Get on with it, or give up. Your nattering about e$ and Philodex and Digital Bearer Instruments is getting really, really old. --Tim May
Re: Education Be For Whitey
On Jan 3, 2004, at 9:23 AM, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 10:41 PM 1/2/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: And until the Liberatarian utopia you speak of comes to pass, One could close all public schools and voucher tomorrow. I came up with a plan which is workable immediately and which does not require substantive changes: Put a partition down the middle of a school building. One side is Blue, the other side is Red. Blue and Red have different academic orientations, different goals. What the goals are and how they are set might arise in different ways, e.g., by a vote of parents, or the backgrounds of the teachers in each, and so on. Not so important. What is important is what follows. As the Blue and Red sides evolve, with perhaps one focusing on academic excellence and the other on social skills, parents could move their children between the sides (say, on a semester by semester basis, to reduce thrashing). As the sizes of the Blue and Red sizes change, the partition would be moved. This gives policy choice within a particular school building, which is a lot less expensive than busing students long distances to get to magnet schools (science, performing arts, crack dealing, etc.). --Tim May They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote. --Rep. Ron Paul, TX, on how few Congresscritters saw the USA-PATRIOT Bill before voting overwhelmingly to impose a police state
Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 1, 2004, at 7:44 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote: On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tim May wrote: A few moments of thought will show the connection between replicators and general assemblers. A general assembler can make another general assembler, hence all general assemblers are replicators. And in fact this is necessary to make mechanosynthesis nanotech viable, as otherwise it takes all the multibillion dollar wafer fabs in the world, if they could make nanoscale things, to make some scum on the bottom of a test tube. Or a few-dollar fermentation tanks with suitable bacteria, once its genome is tweaked in required way. Who ever said that the nanoparticles we need can't be proteins or organic molecules with required shape/properties? If viral particles can self-assemble from host-cell-synthetized proteins, if complicated structures like bacterial propulsion systems - or even whole plants - can be formed, why not nanomechanical systems? Why bother with assembling machines when they could be grown? I hope I didn't screw up my understanding of nanosynthesis. If it is build anything you want by telling the general assembler, then this won't work and would need a lab; but for mass-producing nnoparticles, eg. surface coatings or elements for camera or memory arrays, biotech should be good enough. Which is why I was careful to say mechanosynthesis and even to qualify the type of replicator as Drexler-style. We've had systems which can replicate in 25 minutes or so for as long as we've existed. But making bread is not the same thing as making computers, or Boeing 747s, or non-bread kinds of food. Specialized biologicals making specialized things is probably where nanotechnology will be a commercial success, but it just ain't real nanotech. --Tim May
Re: Sources and Sinks
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:26 PM, Justin wrote: Tim May (2004-01-02 02:42Z) wrote: Bob, a crack addict collecting disability or welfare or other government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society. (Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!) Do those who have previously been in the workforce, in your opinion, have the right to reclaim through welfare any amount up to that they've paid through taxes to the entity providing welfare/unemployment? Or is all unemployment money Pluto's fruit? No, as there is no fund that this money is in. Once taxes are paid in, the money has gone out to crack addicts, Halliburton, welfare whores (excuse me, hoes), foreign dictators like Mubarek and Sharon, and so on. In fact, the estimated overall debt is something like $30-40 trillion. I've outlined how this number is arrived at a few times in the past. As there are about 100 million tax filers in the U.S.--the other 175 million being children, spouses, prisoners, welfare recipients, illegal aliens, non-filers, etc.--a simple calculation shows the average indebtedness per tax filer is around $300,000 or more. This is far, far beyond what the average household owns in total. Because the U.S. has been charging it for the past 40 years. Quibblers will say we can reduce this indebtedness by selling off government-owned lands, which would be a good start. Or be taxing corporations more, but this still ends up with the individual tax filers, ultimately. Or by devaluing the dollar dramatically, which is the likeliest strategy the kleptocrats will follow, after gettting enough advance warning to get their own assets out of dollar-denominated vehicles. So, you see, there IS NO FUND one can withdraw money from. Anyone claiming new welfare benefits requires even more thefts from those still working. Just because money was stolen from you doesn't give you any right to steal from me. --Tim May
Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 1, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Tyler Durden wrote: Tim May wrote... First, please stop including the full text of the message you are replying to. Learn to use an editor, whether you ultimately top-post or bottom-post to edited fragments. I actually do this for a reason. If I'm not doing a line-by-line response (or sometimes even if I am), I want the original post from which I am excerpting to be visible, so that it can be referred to and determined I am not taking this particular quote out of context. The world has had well over ten years to adjust to using editors to supply sufficient context. However, the fact is that the school system sucks. It's a joke. Repeat offenders get bounced from school to school, wrecking classes and the environment everywhere they go. As demanded by the negroes and their Jew speaker-to-negroes handlers. (A high school teacher of mine pointed out that when someone demands something, reach for your gun. She left teaching not long after.) Teachers in most states have 25 classroom hours a week, a number matched nowhere in the world (as far as I've ever heard), and THAT'S in addition to homeroom and other duties. The cirriculum is a silly joke, watered down and watered down so that only someone who never shows up couldn't graduate. (And in black schools you'd be suprised how many times I've heard 'these kids can't learn...don't try'.) Because the Jews and negroes have demanded that all students be taught stuff they obviously will never use. Most innerr city mutants should be taught practical skills, not abstract stuff their previous education has been bereft of. So your whole burnoff of the eaters theme misses one critical element: direct contact with kids. If you yourself had seen and met kids you KNEW might actually have quite a talent for math, YES EVEN YOU might be tempted to give a crap, and see if just one or two might somehow be inspiried merely to do some homework. This is particularly true when you realize that you actually LIKE some of these kids, which are as fully human as you are, by the way. I don't give a shit whether they're fully human or not. I only care that they stop stealing from me, that liberal Jews stop saying that my taxes have to be increased to support these fully human bags of shit. The parallel I like is one we developed (in Ted Kaehler's nanotechnology study group in the early 90s) for looking at what a society and economy might look like where the costs of material production are as close to zero as one might imagine. That is, a society with full-blown general assemblers, i.e., von Neumann replicators at the molecular, mechano-synthesis, Drexler-type scale. How would goods be produced and sold? How would markets exist/ I don't remember reading any von Neumann where he discusses the idea of general assemblersI'm still not convinced the general physics of that idea works out, and I believe Freeman Dyson has had some similar doubts. But despite that there's a point here... Then your education in physics about von Neumann is sorely lacking. Von Neumann spend part of several years investigating self-replicating machines, using some ideas of Ulam and others. Well-covered in the cellular automata literature. In science fiction, one will find the general assembler literally referred to as the von Neumann probe. Cf. 35-year old fiction by Saberhagen on Berserkers, or slightly more recent fiction by Roger Macbride Allen and others, for example. Von Neumann machines are more than just non-functional bottleneck machines. As for nanotech, I wasn't endorsing it, just noting the context. My skepticism is noted in Crandall's book on nanotech. * The society we are heading towards is one of an increasingly sharp division between the skilled and in demand end of the spectrum and the bulk of droids who have few skills in demand. I've also witnessed this trend, but I currently believe it only holds in certain segments. There are various craft industries (as I call them) where this equation seems to be held in suspension. Like it or not, hip hop is one of those, though I suppose you could argue that the number of hip-hop 'artists' that make it is tiny compared to the audience. But the point is that in a craft industry, we're really referring to specific and local tastes, as opposed to Darwinian selection (ie, the 'most fit'). In a craft there may be room for many to contribute. (Other examples of craft industries are US high-end audio, the wine industry, high-end marijuana, organic foods and cheeses, and the current German-centered board game renassaiance.) What's desired in such an envornment is not necessarily the best/fastest/brightest, but something with a particularly 'quality' that corresponds to local vagaries of culture and taste. (At least, there's no other way to explain the success of Snoop Doggy Dog...) Snoop is razzlekamazzled by the negroes, who have the money they stole from
Fwd: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
I composed and sent this message, and one following it, last night. Lne.com has not yet forwarded either, 10 hours later. I checked Eric's message and he said new _subscriptions_ will no longer be accepted after 04-01-01 and mail will no no longer be forwarded after 04-01-15. Perhaps he is halting operations early. All things must end. Begin forwarded message: From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 2, 2004 12:03:39 AM PST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey On Jan 1, 2004, at 10:06 PM, Riad S. Wahby wrote: J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why the BedSty student Tim? Uhh, read more carefully. He was responding to a specific point from Tyler Durden. You have some incredible moments of lucidity and insight, and occasionally, we are the lucky recipients of these fleeting events - but then, just as sure as the sun coming over the horizon every morning of every day, you slip back into the pseudo-intellectual racist crap. What's wit dat? I don't think Tim is racist as such. He hates everyone equally. :-) But seriously, calling it racism seems wrong-headed. Racism is I hate black people because they're black. Tim hates (some, most, all?) black people because he percieves them as benefitting unfairly from his hard work. I'm pretty sure, all other things being equal, he wouldn't hate a black person who, through his own hard work and without taking a penny from the government, turned himself into a successful, tax-paying source. Or, at least, I'm not convinced he would hate such a person, which is to say I'm not convinced he's a racist. I admire many negroes. Shelby Steele, who wrote The Content of our Character, for example. And Thomas Sowell, an even more prolific author (and Stanford professor). And Niger Innes (son of the lefty Roy Innes...a lot of children of 60s liberal negroes are now libertarian or conservative, e.g., Adam Clayton Powell's son). And Clarence Thomas (who has argued forcefully that the Supremes ought to do a very thorough review of gun laws, with the hint that the right decision would be to restore the Second Amendment to first class status). And a bunch of others, including Ward Connerly, of California, who has been leading the effort to have race removed as the basis for _any_ government actions, including hiring quotas, special admissions requirements for negroes and Asians (at opposite ends of the test score spectrum), and so on. I don't admire the politics of Condie Rice and Colin Powell, but there is little doubt that they are accomplished, bright people. My problem is that negroes are 80% in solidarity on a bunch of disgusting, anti-liberty things: affirmative action, racial quotas, minority setasides (but not for successful minorities--they want limits on the number of Asians admitted to UC schools), welfare, increased benefits, etc. Further, they, as a whole, have a plantation mentality: always demanding that Massa in the Big White House give them more stuff. Instead of excelling and grabbing the stuff for themselves, as Chinese and Korean and Indian people have done in America, they think setasides and quotas and special favoritism is owed to them. I used to not care much about what they did or thought. When I entered college in 1970 I expected to mix with a bunch of different sorts of people. What I found was that the negroes all sat at the same tables in the dining halls, that whites who sat near them were chased off, and that we non-blacks, including Asians, Indians, South Americans, whites, etc., could mix with each other, but not with the Panthers. And they ghettoized themselves into Black Studies, which they had demanded a couple of years earlier and had just gotten in 1969. In 1972 they formed various militant groups on campus. One obnoxious woman named Judy became the student association president. When she didn't like a decision, she ordered the Panthers, her enforcers, to bar the doors and not let anyone out until the decision was reversed. It was. I am not exaggerating. I included this, and the theft of ASU funds, and the henchmen, and similar leftist actions by others (including the MeCHA Aztlanos), in a letter to the Regents of the University of California. It was published in the school newspaper, in a full-paged spread, and I got replies from the governor of the state, Ronald Reagan. I met with the Chancellor and he agreed that the situation at the campus was deplorable, but that in the interests of keeping the peace with the negroes and Mexicans, given the time (1973), there was little they could do. He promised that his office was looking into the allegations and already knew about most of them. When I joined Intel in 1974, I saw plenty of Chinese, Indians, a handful of Koreans and Vietnamese (more later), but only one negro engineer. And he had a major chip on his shoulder. When he was let go in one of the RIFs, he claimed discrimination on the basis
Re: Education Be For Whitey
On Jan 3, 2004, at 9:23 AM, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 10:41 PM 1/2/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: And until the Liberatarian utopia you speak of comes to pass, One could close all public schools and voucher tomorrow. I came up with a plan which is workable immediately and which does not require substantive changes: Put a partition down the middle of a school building. One side is Blue, the other side is Red. Blue and Red have different academic orientations, different goals. What the goals are and how they are set might arise in different ways, e.g., by a vote of parents, or the backgrounds of the teachers in each, and so on. Not so important. What is important is what follows. As the Blue and Red sides evolve, with perhaps one focusing on academic excellence and the other on social skills, parents could move their children between the sides (say, on a semester by semester basis, to reduce thrashing). As the sizes of the Blue and Red sizes change, the partition would be moved. This gives policy choice within a particular school building, which is a lot less expensive than busing students long distances to get to magnet schools (science, performing arts, crack dealing, etc.). --Tim May They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote. --Rep. Ron Paul, TX, on how few Congresscritters saw the USA-PATRIOT Bill before voting overwhelmingly to impose a police state
So many statists
On Jan 3, 2004, at 3:01 PM, bgt wrote: (Jeez, I just recently got back onto this list after a several-year hiatus. How the hell did so many statists ever get the idea that ubiquitous cryptography would ever further their goals? Or are they just here to distract us with statism vs liberty type political debates so we can't get any real work done??) Most of those now posting (and maybe most of those subscribed, but I am only speculating) are various eurotrash lefties and anti-globalist activists who decided that crypto is cool after their anti-corporate, anti-choice rallies in Seattle, Milano, and other cities shut down by the Yippie marches and barricades. I assume they figured that since they were using PGP to communicate with their fellow anti-capitalists, that crypto must be cool (I'm not sure if they favor the negro term, bad, or the traditional term, good, so I'll use the term of my generation, cool.) Are they confused? Yep. Welcome to the Gen X and Gen Y (and soon) the Gen Z world. Crypto be bad, dog! This nigga be bouncin'! I'm actually glad to see that Cypherpunks nodes are winding down, that we no longer have monthly meetings, and that the Movement is ending. Better that than to see it hijacked by the eurotrash lefties, New York collectivists, and anti-globalist warriors against free trade. --Tim May, Corralitos, California Quote of the Month: It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. --Cathy Young, Reason Magazine, both enemies of liberty.
Fwd: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
Second of the items lne.com never sent to the list (that I have seen, 9-10 hours later). Begin forwarded message: From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 2, 2004 1:02:20 AM PST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey On Jan 2, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Tim May wrote: So Kennedy's liberals scratched their heads and came up with a new plan. Relief would be converted to a series of state and national programs, no longer handled locally. And the bad connotations of relief would be changed by the new and positive name entitlement. Money handed out to various folks would be their entitlement, something they were _owed_. Other related names would be social services and, of course, liberal mention of children and nutrition. Ergo programs like WIC (Women, Infants, and Children). Ergo, Head Start. And I should have elaborated on the family system effects of the new welfare system: since the entitlements were not given to families with husbands in the household, this made marriage a bad idea for those wanting to get welfare. A young girl could go from the bottom of the pecking order in her household to the top in her own apartment, with an income from welfare that increased with each baby she had. So we had the spectacle of 14-year-old girls being given their own apartments by Big Brother, paid for with taxes taken from working suckers. The effects of this are so corrosive as to practically be unexplainable to normal people: households solely dependent on handouts from government, fathers completely absent (except in sneak visits), a disrespect for those who work, the boys in the household anxious to hang out on the streets below rather than be with Momma, the crime that comes from this kind of hanging out, self-loathing (it seems likely) that leads to lashing out at whitey, and a perpetuating cycle as the young girls seek to get their own cribs so the process can repeat and expand. This is why so many black families today are into their third or even fourth generation of welfare life. By the way, part of the reason Kennedy wanted to remove the stigma of relief was because the decade of the 1950s had been especially bad for the urban poor. Many blacks had moved from farms in the south to cities like Washington, New York, Cincinnati, Oakland, Chicago, etc. Partly they had moved to work in factories during the war, partly because automation on the farms had displaced manual laborers, partly because they heard of the success of other blacks who had moved north. But they were moving into the cities just as the whites were leaving. (And the whites were not leaving because the blacks were coming in...rather, the new jobs were increasingly in the suburbs, and as highways and freeways and ring roads were built around cities, and as cars became plentiful, and as families grew, many of the city-born whites were moving into the massive new subdivisions being built out in the suburbs.) So the blacks got to the inner cities with mostly only manual labor skills, just as such jobs were vanishing under automation and through a shift to the suburbs. Now what government _should have done_ circa the early 1960s is this: Nothing. Except to cut taxes to encourage even more business, and to maybe point out to blacks that they should slow down their move to the cities. (By the way, the same move to the cities was happening in other countries, which is why Mexico City now has something like 20 million residents, most of them very poor.) But instead of letting the dice fall where they may, letting the bad effects discourage other blacks from moving to the cities, Kennedy set his advisors to the problem of solving urban poverty. They expanded welfare and entitlements, ostensibly because America could afford it (the 1950s having been a prosperous period). Precisely the wrong thing to do. It encouraged even more blacks to flock to the cities, and once started, once established, the welfare spigot could not be turned off, could not be denied to the newcomers. Whoops. And none of the planners, I expect, saw the effects of the law of unintended consequences, that they would disincentive blacks from seeking hard jobs, that multigenerational welfare would become the norm, and that blacks would be seen by those doing so well in the rapidly-expanding, prosperous suburbs as some kind of throwback to plantation life. The various demands by black leaders, the reverse racism (honkie mofo), the whole hatred for learning (reading be for whitey) all combined with the welfare state in these cities to create this gutterization of the negro. Even when the full magnitude of this developing train wreck was obvious even to the liberals, they didn't pull back from the brink and say Let's stop this train wreck. Nope, they said the problem was not enough money. So benefits were expanded in the 1970s, with more Medicare, Medical, larger payments...the idea
Fwd: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
I composed and sent this message, and one following it, last night. Lne.com has not yet forwarded either, 10 hours later. I checked Eric's message and he said new _subscriptions_ will no longer be accepted after 04-01-01 and mail will no no longer be forwarded after 04-01-15. Perhaps he is halting operations early. All things must end. Begin forwarded message: From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 2, 2004 12:03:39 AM PST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey On Jan 1, 2004, at 10:06 PM, Riad S. Wahby wrote: J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why the BedSty student Tim? Uhh, read more carefully. He was responding to a specific point from Tyler Durden. You have some incredible moments of lucidity and insight, and occasionally, we are the lucky recipients of these fleeting events - but then, just as sure as the sun coming over the horizon every morning of every day, you slip back into the pseudo-intellectual racist crap. What's wit dat? I don't think Tim is racist as such. He hates everyone equally. :-) But seriously, calling it racism seems wrong-headed. Racism is I hate black people because they're black. Tim hates (some, most, all?) black people because he percieves them as benefitting unfairly from his hard work. I'm pretty sure, all other things being equal, he wouldn't hate a black person who, through his own hard work and without taking a penny from the government, turned himself into a successful, tax-paying source. Or, at least, I'm not convinced he would hate such a person, which is to say I'm not convinced he's a racist. I admire many negroes. Shelby Steele, who wrote The Content of our Character, for example. And Thomas Sowell, an even more prolific author (and Stanford professor). And Niger Innes (son of the lefty Roy Innes...a lot of children of 60s liberal negroes are now libertarian or conservative, e.g., Adam Clayton Powell's son). And Clarence Thomas (who has argued forcefully that the Supremes ought to do a very thorough review of gun laws, with the hint that the right decision would be to restore the Second Amendment to first class status). And a bunch of others, including Ward Connerly, of California, who has been leading the effort to have race removed as the basis for _any_ government actions, including hiring quotas, special admissions requirements for negroes and Asians (at opposite ends of the test score spectrum), and so on. I don't admire the politics of Condie Rice and Colin Powell, but there is little doubt that they are accomplished, bright people. My problem is that negroes are 80% in solidarity on a bunch of disgusting, anti-liberty things: affirmative action, racial quotas, minority setasides (but not for successful minorities--they want limits on the number of Asians admitted to UC schools), welfare, increased benefits, etc. Further, they, as a whole, have a plantation mentality: always demanding that Massa in the Big White House give them more stuff. Instead of excelling and grabbing the stuff for themselves, as Chinese and Korean and Indian people have done in America, they think setasides and quotas and special favoritism is owed to them. I used to not care much about what they did or thought. When I entered college in 1970 I expected to mix with a bunch of different sorts of people. What I found was that the negroes all sat at the same tables in the dining halls, that whites who sat near them were chased off, and that we non-blacks, including Asians, Indians, South Americans, whites, etc., could mix with each other, but not with the Panthers. And they ghettoized themselves into Black Studies, which they had demanded a couple of years earlier and had just gotten in 1969. In 1972 they formed various militant groups on campus. One obnoxious woman named Judy became the student association president. When she didn't like a decision, she ordered the Panthers, her enforcers, to bar the doors and not let anyone out until the decision was reversed. It was. I am not exaggerating. I included this, and the theft of ASU funds, and the henchmen, and similar leftist actions by others (including the MeCHA Aztlanos), in a letter to the Regents of the University of California. It was published in the school newspaper, in a full-paged spread, and I got replies from the governor of the state, Ronald Reagan. I met with the Chancellor and he agreed that the situation at the campus was deplorable, but that in the interests of keeping the peace with the negroes and Mexicans, given the time (1973), there was little they could do. He promised that his office was looking into the allegations and already knew about most of them. When I joined Intel in 1974, I saw plenty of Chinese, Indians, a handful of Koreans and Vietnamese (more later), but only one negro engineer. And he had a major chip on his shoulder. When he was let go in one of the RIFs, he claimed discrimination on the basis
Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:20 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote: Tim May wrote... In conclusion, your Bedford-Stuy student who doesn't see the point to studying math will never be a math researcher, or a physicist, or a chemist, or anything else of that sort. So no point in trying to convince him to study his math. Why the BedSty student Tim? Perhaps because I was replying to Tyler Durden, where he wrote: I'll tell you a story. Back in the late 1980s I taught at a notorious HS in Bedford Stuyvesant. 90% of my students were black. You liberals see racism even when people reply to the points raised by others. --Tim May
Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 2, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Tim May wrote: So Kennedy's liberals scratched their heads and came up with a new plan. Relief would be converted to a series of state and national programs, no longer handled locally. And the bad connotations of relief would be changed by the new and positive name entitlement. Money handed out to various folks would be their entitlement, something they were _owed_. Other related names would be social services and, of course, liberal mention of children and nutrition. Ergo programs like WIC (Women, Infants, and Children). Ergo, Head Start. And I should have elaborated on the family system effects of the new welfare system: since the entitlements were not given to families with husbands in the household, this made marriage a bad idea for those wanting to get welfare. A young girl could go from the bottom of the pecking order in her household to the top in her own apartment, with an income from welfare that increased with each baby she had. So we had the spectacle of 14-year-old girls being given their own apartments by Big Brother, paid for with taxes taken from working suckers. The effects of this are so corrosive as to practically be unexplainable to normal people: households solely dependent on handouts from government, fathers completely absent (except in sneak visits), a disrespect for those who work, the boys in the household anxious to hang out on the streets below rather than be with Momma, the crime that comes from this kind of hanging out, self-loathing (it seems likely) that leads to lashing out at whitey, and a perpetuating cycle as the young girls seek to get their own cribs so the process can repeat and expand. This is why so many black families today are into their third or even fourth generation of welfare life. By the way, part of the reason Kennedy wanted to remove the stigma of relief was because the decade of the 1950s had been especially bad for the urban poor. Many blacks had moved from farms in the south to cities like Washington, New York, Cincinnati, Oakland, Chicago, etc. Partly they had moved to work in factories during the war, partly because automation on the farms had displaced manual laborers, partly because they heard of the success of other blacks who had moved north. But they were moving into the cities just as the whites were leaving. (And the whites were not leaving because the blacks were coming in...rather, the new jobs were increasingly in the suburbs, and as highways and freeways and ring roads were built around cities, and as cars became plentiful, and as families grew, many of the city-born whites were moving into the massive new subdivisions being built out in the suburbs.) So the blacks got to the inner cities with mostly only manual labor skills, just as such jobs were vanishing under automation and through a shift to the suburbs. Now what government _should have done_ circa the early 1960s is this: Nothing. Except to cut taxes to encourage even more business, and to maybe point out to blacks that they should slow down their move to the cities. (By the way, the same move to the cities was happening in other countries, which is why Mexico City now has something like 20 million residents, most of them very poor.) But instead of letting the dice fall where they may, letting the bad effects discourage other blacks from moving to the cities, Kennedy set his advisors to the problem of solving urban poverty. They expanded welfare and entitlements, ostensibly because America could afford it (the 1950s having been a prosperous period). Precisely the wrong thing to do. It encouraged even more blacks to flock to the cities, and once started, once established, the welfare spigot could not be turned off, could not be denied to the newcomers. Whoops. And none of the planners, I expect, saw the effects of the law of unintended consequences, that they would disincentive blacks from seeking hard jobs, that multigenerational welfare would become the norm, and that blacks would be seen by those doing so well in the rapidly-expanding, prosperous suburbs as some kind of throwback to plantation life. The various demands by black leaders, the reverse racism (honkie mofo), the whole hatred for learning (reading be for whitey) all combined with the welfare state in these cities to create this gutterization of the negro. Even when the full magnitude of this developing train wreck was obvious even to the liberals, they didn't pull back from the brink and say Let's stop this train wreck. Nope, they said the problem was not enough money. So benefits were expanded in the 1970s, with more Medicare, Medical, larger payments...the idea was to pay enough to get people back on their feet. But of course, human nature being what it is, most took the higher payments and bought nicer stuff, hence the color televisions found in every crib. And the huge influxes of Mexicans during the 70s and 80s
Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:13 AM, Eric S. Johansson wrote: actually, we mean burned literally. the stamp creation process raises the temperature of the CPU. Most systems are not build for full tilt computational load. They do not have the ventilation necessary for reliable operation. So, they may get by with the first 8-12 hours of stamp generation (i.e. roughly 2000-3000 stamps per machine) but the machine reliability after that time will degrade as the heat builds up. Feel free to run this experiment yourself. Take a cheat machine from your local chop shop, run hashcash in an infinite loop, and wait for the smoke detector to go off. there is nothing quite like waking up to the smell of freshly roasted Intel. I'm skeptical of this claim. A lot of Intel and AMD and similar machines are running full-tilt, 24/7. To wit, Beowulf-type clusters, the Macintosh G5 cluster that is now rated third fasted in the world, and so on. None of these machines is reported to be burning up literally. Likewise, a lot of home and corporate users are running background tasks which are at 100% CPU utilization. (Examples abound, from render farms to financial modeling to... Friends of mine run a bunch of 2 and 3 GHz Pentium 4 machines in CPU-bound apps, and they run them 24/7. (Their company, Invest by Agents, analyzes tens of thousands of stocks. They use ordinary Dells and have had no catastrophic burned literally failures.) Further, junction-to-case temperature in a ceramic package has a time constant of tens of seconds, meaning, the case temperature reaches something like 98% of its equilibrium value (as wattage reaches, say, 60 watts, or whatever), in tens of seconds. (For basic material and physics reasons...I used to make many of these measurements when I was at Intel, and nothing in the recent packaging has changed the physics of heat flow much.) We also used to run CPUs at 125 C ambient, under operating conditions, for weeks at a time. Here the junction temperature was upwards of 185 C. Failures occurred in various ways, usually do to electromigration and things like that. Almost never was there any kind of fire. Just burnout, which is a generic name but has nothing of course to do with burning in the chemical sense. Now I grant you that I haven't tested CPUs in this way in many years. But I am skeptical that recent CPUs are substantially different than past CPUs. I would like to see some actual reports of burned literally CPUs. By the way, I have run some apps on my Macintosh 1 GHz CPU which are CPU-bound. No burn ups. I'd like to see some support for the claim that running a stamp creation process is more likely to burn up a modern machine than all of these apps running financial modeling, render farms, and supercomputer clusters are doing. Until then, render me skeptical. --Tim May
Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks
On Dec 31, 2003, at 5:53 PM, Tyler Durden wrote: PS: Is there any comment that Mr May would like to profer on the issue of having been rejected by some hot black tail back in the day? (ie, aside from I'd like to see you are your infant children stripped of epidermis and dipped in seasalt) First, please stop including the entire message you are responding to, plus the parts you comment on. I dislike editing other people's sloppiness as much as I dislike paying for their breeding choices. Second, your comment above merits no response. --Tim May
Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:51 AM, Tyler Durden wrote: I'll tell you a story. Back in the late 1980s I taught at a notorious HS in Bedford Stuyvesant. 90% of my students were black. I regarded few of them as stupid, but almost none of them saw the point of studying math...they just didn't see how it could benefit them, and they said this to me on a regular basis. First, please stop including the full text of the message you are replying to. Learn to use an editor, whether you ultimately top-post or bottom-post to edited fragments. Second, we are fast-moving toward a society and economy where only those who _wanted_ to study math and science by the time they were in high school will have anything more than a menial, makework job. Now whether they go the full course and get a college degree or advanced degree is not so much the point as it is that they were intrinsically interested. So if a kid in high school can't see the benefit of studying math, he shouldn't be. It's as simple as that. The parallel I like is one we developed (in Ted Kaehler's nanotechnology study group in the early 90s) for looking at what a society and economy might look like where the costs of material production are as close to zero as one might imagine. That is, a society with full-blown general assemblers, i.e., von Neumann replicators at the molecular, mechano-synthesis, Drexler-type scale. How would goods be produced and sold? How would markets exist/ The analogy I drew, in an essay, and that Howard Landman, Ted Kaehler, Mike Korns, and others added to was this: * We already have an example of an entire town and an entire industry where essentially the costs of material production are nearly zero. * Namely, Hollywood. Film stock is essentially free...bits even more so. Cameras remain expensive, but are vastly less so than they were a decade ago. Basically, everything material in Hollywood is nearly free. What is expensive is the creative talent, the know-how, the ensembles of actors and directors and writers and all. (And writing is itself a perfect example of material abundance. All of the money is in the writing and distribution, virtually none of it in the materials, or in the low skill segment.) Which is why some writers and some Hollywood types make tens of millions a year and most don't. * The society we are heading towards is one of an increasingly sharp division between the skilled and in demand end of the spectrum and the bulk of droids who have few skills in demand. (I argued this, circa 1991-2, to a bunch of people who basically bought the line that technology would bring wealth to the masses, blah blah. I argued that yes, the masses would have great material goods, just as the masses today have color tvs in their cribs. But the big money would elude them. Libertarian rhetoric about everybody being wealthy is only meaningful in the sense that even the poorest today are wealthy by Roman or Middle Ages or even Renaissance standards. But the split between those with talents in demand--the Peter Jacksons, the Stephen Kings, the Tim Berners-Lees, etc. and the reading be for whitey and I don't see any benefit to studying math vast bulk will widen.) Much more could be said on this. I recall I wrote some long articles along these lines in the early years of the list. In conclusion, your Bedford-Stuy student who doesn't see the point to studying math will never be a math researcher, or a physicist, or a chemist, or anything else of that sort. So no point in trying to convince him to study his math. It's like convincing a kid to start writing so he'll stand a chance of being the next Stephen King: if he needs convincing, he won't be. The burnoff of useless eaters will be glorious. --Tim May
Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 1, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Tyler Durden wrote: Tim May wrote... First, please stop including the full text of the message you are replying to. Learn to use an editor, whether you ultimately top-post or bottom-post to edited fragments. I actually do this for a reason. If I'm not doing a line-by-line response (or sometimes even if I am), I want the original post from which I am excerpting to be visible, so that it can be referred to and determined I am not taking this particular quote out of context. The world has had well over ten years to adjust to using editors to supply sufficient context. However, the fact is that the school system sucks. It's a joke. Repeat offenders get bounced from school to school, wrecking classes and the environment everywhere they go. As demanded by the negroes and their Jew speaker-to-negroes handlers. (A high school teacher of mine pointed out that when someone demands something, reach for your gun. She left teaching not long after.) Teachers in most states have 25 classroom hours a week, a number matched nowhere in the world (as far as I've ever heard), and THAT'S in addition to homeroom and other duties. The cirriculum is a silly joke, watered down and watered down so that only someone who never shows up couldn't graduate. (And in black schools you'd be suprised how many times I've heard 'these kids can't learn...don't try'.) Because the Jews and negroes have demanded that all students be taught stuff they obviously will never use. Most innerr city mutants should be taught practical skills, not abstract stuff their previous education has been bereft of. So your whole burnoff of the eaters theme misses one critical element: direct contact with kids. If you yourself had seen and met kids you KNEW might actually have quite a talent for math, YES EVEN YOU might be tempted to give a crap, and see if just one or two might somehow be inspiried merely to do some homework. This is particularly true when you realize that you actually LIKE some of these kids, which are as fully human as you are, by the way. I don't give a shit whether they're fully human or not. I only care that they stop stealing from me, that liberal Jews stop saying that my taxes have to be increased to support these fully human bags of shit. The parallel I like is one we developed (in Ted Kaehler's nanotechnology study group in the early 90s) for looking at what a society and economy might look like where the costs of material production are as close to zero as one might imagine. That is, a society with full-blown general assemblers, i.e., von Neumann replicators at the molecular, mechano-synthesis, Drexler-type scale. How would goods be produced and sold? How would markets exist/ I don't remember reading any von Neumann where he discusses the idea of general assemblersI'm still not convinced the general physics of that idea works out, and I believe Freeman Dyson has had some similar doubts. But despite that there's a point here... Then your education in physics about von Neumann is sorely lacking. Von Neumann spend part of several years investigating self-replicating machines, using some ideas of Ulam and others. Well-covered in the cellular automata literature. In science fiction, one will find the general assembler literally referred to as the von Neumann probe. Cf. 35-year old fiction by Saberhagen on Berserkers, or slightly more recent fiction by Roger Macbride Allen and others, for example. Von Neumann machines are more than just non-functional bottleneck machines. As for nanotech, I wasn't endorsing it, just noting the context. My skepticism is noted in Crandall's book on nanotech. * The society we are heading towards is one of an increasingly sharp division between the skilled and in demand end of the spectrum and the bulk of droids who have few skills in demand. I've also witnessed this trend, but I currently believe it only holds in certain segments. There are various craft industries (as I call them) where this equation seems to be held in suspension. Like it or not, hip hop is one of those, though I suppose you could argue that the number of hip-hop 'artists' that make it is tiny compared to the audience. But the point is that in a craft industry, we're really referring to specific and local tastes, as opposed to Darwinian selection (ie, the 'most fit'). In a craft there may be room for many to contribute. (Other examples of craft industries are US high-end audio, the wine industry, high-end marijuana, organic foods and cheeses, and the current German-centered board game renassaiance.) What's desired in such an envornment is not necessarily the best/fastest/brightest, but something with a particularly 'quality' that corresponds to local vagaries of culture and taste. (At least, there's no other way to explain the success of Snoop Doggy Dog...) Snoop is razzlekamazzled by the negroes, who have the money they stole from
Re: Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs
On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:56 AM, Riad S. Wahby wrote: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now I grant you that I haven't tested CPUs in this way in many years. But I am skeptical that recent CPUs are substantially different than past CPUs. I would like to see some actual reports of burned literally CPUs. I've never seen a burned literally CPU, but I have tracked the demise of an AMD K6 (or K6-2, can't remember now) from hot carrier effects. If all processors were made like that one, you would see a lot more load-induced failures. Just so. A lot of games are close to being CPU-bound, plus the screensavers used as Mersenne prime finders and the like, and there are few reports of house fires caused by the CPU being smoked. When I did reliability stuff for Intel, CPUs failed, but mostly not in ways that had them catching on fire, as the stamp guy is suggesting is common for stamp generation. --Tim May #1. Sanhedrin 59a: Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal. #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated. #3. Yebamoth 11b: Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age. #4. Abodah Zara 26b: Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed. #5. Yebamoth 98a: All gentile children are animals. #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean. #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.
Re: Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs
On Jan 1, 2004, at 2:35 PM, Eric S. Johansson wrote: Tim May wrote: I'm skeptical of this claim. A lot of Intel and AMD and similar machines are running full-tilt, 24/7. To wit, Beowulf-type clusters, the Macintosh G5 cluster that is now rated third fasted in the world, and so on. None of these machines is reported to be burning up literally. Likewise, a lot of home and corporate users are running background tasks which are at 100% CPU utilization. I will admit to a degree of skepticism myself even though I am describing overheating as a likely outcome. But what is your actual evidence, as opposed to your belief that overheating is a likely outcome? I have said that I know of many machines (tens of thousands of CPUs, and probably many more I don't know about directly) which are running CPU-bound applications 24/7. I have heard of no burning up literally cases with the many Beowulf clusters, supercomputers, and 24/7 home or business screensavers and crunching apps, so I suspect they are not common. If you have actual evidence, as opposed to likely outcome speculations, please present the evidence. First, if you lose a fan on an Intel CPU of at least Pentium III generation or an AMD equivalent, you will lose your CPU to thermal overload. This is a well-known and well-documented problem. One question is can stamp work thermally overload and damage a CPU. Second question is how much stamp work can you do without thermally overloading the CPU. This is true whether one is running Office or a stamp program. You are just repeating a general point about losing a fan, not about stamp generation per se. Boxer fan lifetimes are usually about comparable to hard drive lifetimes, which also kill a particular machine. You are not presenting anything new here, and the association with stamp generation is nonexistent. Large clusters have more careful thermal engineering applied to them than probably most of the zombies out there. I have seen one Beowulf cluster constructed out of standard 1U chassis, motherboards, fans etc. and frequently 10 percent of the systems are down at any one time. The vast majority of the failures have been due to thermal problems. Most clusters use exactly the same air-cooled machines as are available from Dell, Sun, Apple, etc. In fact, the blades and rackmount systems are precisely those available from Dell, Sun, Apple, etc. You are presenting no evidence, just hypothesizing that your stamp protocol somehow burns out more CPUs than render farms do, than Mersenne prime apps to, than financial simulations do, etc. Yet you present no actual numbers. so, will we see a Pentium IV spontaneously ignite like a third tier heavy-metal group in a Rhode Island nightclub? No, you're right, we won't. I think it's safe to say we will see increasing unreliability, power supply failures, and failures of microelectronics due to increased thermal load. Which is good enough for my purposes. Evidence is desirable, belief is just belief. --Tim May That government is best which governs not at all. --Henry David Thoreau
Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
I'll comment on the sociology after commenting on the physics: (actually, looking over your sociology, I see it's just more of the liberal whine and sleaze, so I won't bother commenting on it again) On Jan 1, 2004, at 6:34 PM, Tyler Durden wrote: Tim May wrote... Then your education in physics about von Neumann is sorely lacking. Von Neumann spend part of several years investigating self-replicating machines, using some ideas of Ulam and others. Well-covered in the cellular automata literature. As you can probably tell, I've never read many secondary or tertiary sources. (ie, as a physicist I've always considered it of dubious usefulness to read ABOUT physics...) I've only read the few more famous von Neumann journal articles I've come across w.r.t. cellular automata...I actually thought he had only written two or three, and I don't remember his ideas of self-replicating machines as including something like a GA, but then again it's easily possible I didn't pick up on the ramifications of what I was reading (which is granted when I was much younger). The last refuge of the scoundrel is to dismiss stuff as secondary and tertiary sources, sort of like the fakers I used to meet in college who nattered on about having learned their physics from Newton's Principia instead of from secondary and tertiary sources. I encountered von Neumann's work on self-replicating machines when I was in high school (*). It came up in connection with the Fermi paradox and in issues of life (this was before the term artificial life was au courant...I was at the first A-LIFE Conference in '87...von Neumann couldn't make it). (* And no, I don't know mean my high school teachers taught us about von Neumann machines. 97% of the science I knew by the time I graduated from high school I'd learned on my own, from the usual secondary and tertiary sources.) A few moments of thought will show the connection between replicators and general assemblers. A general assembler can make another general assembler, hence all general assemblers are replicators. And in fact this is necessary to make mechanosynthesis nanotech viable, as otherwise it takes all the multibillion dollar wafer fabs in the world, if they could make nanoscale things, to make some scum on the bottom of a test tube. GAs only start to become possible after the replication problem has been solved (which it has not, despite claims about self-reproducing software structures and train sets and the like). If you are not aware of basic developments, recall Wittgenstein's maxim: Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent. --Tim May He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. -- Nietzsche
Sources and Sinks
The jabber about how poor people are actually paying for the successful is beyond belief. All sorts of arguments are being made about how poor people somehow pay for the infrastructure the wealthy exploit. And the chestnut about how tax breaks aid the wealth disproportionately is once again brought out. (Yeah, if Alice was paying $50K in taxes and the taxes are cut to $40K she benefits more than Bob the Wino who got no tax benefits because he paid no taxes. Which misses the point about Alice's high taxes in the first place.) This is why the Tax Freedom Day approach is more useful. Tax freedom day is of course the day when the average American or Brit or whatever has stopped working for the government and has the rest of his income for himself. For most years, this is estimated to around May-June. That is, for almost half of a year a typical taxpayer is working for the government. Not a perfect measure, as it averages together folks of various tax brackets, including the many in America who pay nothing (but it doesn't assign a negative number to those who receive net net money from the government). And it fails to take into account the double taxation which a business owner faces: roughly a 50% tax on his profits, then when the profits are disbursed to the owners of the corporation, another 35-45% tax bite. For a business owner, he is effectively working for the government for the first 70% of every year. Which means only October-December is he working for his own interests. Jabber about how poor people are actually receiving fewer tax benefits than rich people misses the point of who's working for whom. Alice, an engineer or pharmacist or perhaps a small business owner, works between 40% and 70% of her time to pay money into government. Bob, a crack addict collecting disability or welfare or other government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society. (Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!) Alice is a source, Bob is a sink. Talk about how Alice gets benefits ignores the fact that she's working for the government for a big chunk of her life. Bob is not. Alice is a slave for the government, and society, so that Bob can lounge in his mobile home watching ESPN and collecting a monthly check. (I'd like to know why all of the folks here in California who are getting benefits and services are not at my door on Saturday morning to help me with my yard work. I'd like to know why finding reliable yard workers has become nearly impossible in the past couple of decades. Will work for food signs are a fucking joke...try hiring one of those layabouts to actually do some work for food and watch the sneers, or watch them threatening to fake a work injury if a shakedown fee is not given to them. These people should be put in lime pits.) When you hear John Young and Tyler Durden nattering about the persons of privilege are reaping the rewards of a benificent government, think about Alice and Bob and ask yourself who'se doing the real work. Ask who're the sources and who're the sinks. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need...and I've got a game to watch on satellite...and where's my check? --Tim May The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. --John Stuart Mill
Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 1, 2004, at 7:44 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote: On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tim May wrote: A few moments of thought will show the connection between replicators and general assemblers. A general assembler can make another general assembler, hence all general assemblers are replicators. And in fact this is necessary to make mechanosynthesis nanotech viable, as otherwise it takes all the multibillion dollar wafer fabs in the world, if they could make nanoscale things, to make some scum on the bottom of a test tube. Or a few-dollar fermentation tanks with suitable bacteria, once its genome is tweaked in required way. Who ever said that the nanoparticles we need can't be proteins or organic molecules with required shape/properties? If viral particles can self-assemble from host-cell-synthetized proteins, if complicated structures like bacterial propulsion systems - or even whole plants - can be formed, why not nanomechanical systems? Why bother with assembling machines when they could be grown? I hope I didn't screw up my understanding of nanosynthesis. If it is build anything you want by telling the general assembler, then this won't work and would need a lab; but for mass-producing nnoparticles, eg. surface coatings or elements for camera or memory arrays, biotech should be good enough. Which is why I was careful to say mechanosynthesis and even to qualify the type of replicator as Drexler-style. We've had systems which can replicate in 25 minutes or so for as long as we've existed. But making bread is not the same thing as making computers, or Boeing 747s, or non-bread kinds of food. Specialized biologicals making specialized things is probably where nanotechnology will be a commercial success, but it just ain't real nanotech. --Tim May
Re: Sources and Sinks
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:26 PM, Justin wrote: Tim May (2004-01-02 02:42Z) wrote: Bob, a crack addict collecting disability or welfare or other government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society. (Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!) Do those who have previously been in the workforce, in your opinion, have the right to reclaim through welfare any amount up to that they've paid through taxes to the entity providing welfare/unemployment? Or is all unemployment money Pluto's fruit? No, as there is no fund that this money is in. Once taxes are paid in, the money has gone out to crack addicts, Halliburton, welfare whores (excuse me, hoes), foreign dictators like Mubarek and Sharon, and so on. In fact, the estimated overall debt is something like $30-40 trillion. I've outlined how this number is arrived at a few times in the past. As there are about 100 million tax filers in the U.S.--the other 175 million being children, spouses, prisoners, welfare recipients, illegal aliens, non-filers, etc.--a simple calculation shows the average indebtedness per tax filer is around $300,000 or more. This is far, far beyond what the average household owns in total. Because the U.S. has been charging it for the past 40 years. Quibblers will say we can reduce this indebtedness by selling off government-owned lands, which would be a good start. Or be taxing corporations more, but this still ends up with the individual tax filers, ultimately. Or by devaluing the dollar dramatically, which is the likeliest strategy the kleptocrats will follow, after gettting enough advance warning to get their own assets out of dollar-denominated vehicles. So, you see, there IS NO FUND one can withdraw money from. Anyone claiming new welfare benefits requires even more thefts from those still working. Just because money was stolen from you doesn't give you any right to steal from me. --Tim May
Vengeance Libertarianism
On Dec 30, 2003, at 10:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (This space reserved for former Marxist and now neocon standard-bearer James Donald to foam that I am a Saddam lover and a supporter of Chomsky.) I will say that I was a a former marxist. This is not to bow at the feet of some better method, nor to trivialize the past. My awakening, as it were, actually happened here, for better or worse. Tim, Hal, Lucky, Uni and to some extent Detweiler all helped form my view. More than a few others. This was back in '93, mostly. At least, the founding, for me was then. I know some things happened later (I saw Uni present his Coke Presentation in 2002 for the first time), and I became concerned with business, or at least companies that wanted cash, and to be a business later. I never went through a Marxist phase, never even came close. This despite entering college in 1970, this despite going to a school where the dominant paradigm was leftist (UC Santa Barbara). I occasionally wonder what my perspective might be had I ever held leftist, collectivist thoughts. Oh well, I'll never know. Thirty years ago I _was_ more charitable about the various groups which claim to have been aggrieved, and I dutifully referred to negroes as blacks, argued earnestly with doubting leftists about the importance of the profit motive, cited semi-leftists who had reasonable things to say about capitalism and liberty and the Constitution. But over the years, as I have seen a huge chunk of money taken from me at gunpoint and given to welfare skanks, inner city negro mutants, gay activist buttfucker San Francisco queer groups, foreign nations with dictators like Hussein (both of them), Mubarek, Amin, Meir, Rabin, and a hundred others, and as education has declined while the pigeons demand more handouts...I have become what I call a vengeance libertarian. While certain theoreticians of 30 years argued for silly ideas about how how it is immoral to land on another's balcony while falling from a building, because the property rights had not been negotiated, and thus argued that even self-defense is fraught with moral problems, another camp of us were developing the idea that vengeance is good, that crypto anarchy will not only let some of us withdraw from the system, a la Galt's Gulch, but also it will let us execute justice on those who stole from us. For every negro welfare momma who took money for the past number of years, tell her to pay it all back, with compounded interest, or face time in a labor camp to repay what she stole. And if she cannot, or will not, which is ovewhelmingly likely, harvest her organs (if any takers can be found) and send the leftovers up the smokestacks. Ditto for the queers who have collected public health funds to pay for their sodomy. (I have no issue with their choices of partners, except that the diseases they contract via their habits, and their inability to work, is their problem, not mine. And not any corporations, except by the choice of that corporation.) Vengeance libertarianism is the rational kind. It will result in 20-40 million of the leeches, the bums, the minority grifters, the so-called aggrieved, the winos, the addicts, all being sent up the chimneys. Hitler had only minor reasons to go after the Jews (many of them had manipulated the economy to favor Jews while also preaching a no defense loser strategy to their untermenschen), we have much more reason to go after the tens of millions of underpeople who have been using their thugs in government to steal from us. We have much more justification today to liquidate the parsites than Hitler ever had. As for government, I estimate that 99% of those in Congress and government agencies in the past 40 years have earned killing. Of current Congressvarmints, only two seem to be not guilty. Of low-level employees, a bunch are just willing dweebs, and may be able to work off their debts in a labor camp for a decade or two. But probably the cleaner solution is just to do a thermonuclear cauterization of the region surrounding Washington and start fresh from there with a very limited government that honors the Constitution instead of catering to negroes and queers and welfare addicts. Crypto anarchy will make delivering justice to tens of millions a reality. The world will learn a lesson when we burn off these criminals. --Tim May Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.--Barry Goldwater
Vengeance Libertarianism
On Dec 30, 2003, at 10:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (This space reserved for former Marxist and now neocon standard-bearer James Donald to foam that I am a Saddam lover and a supporter of Chomsky.) I will say that I was a a former marxist. This is not to bow at the feet of some better method, nor to trivialize the past. My awakening, as it were, actually happened here, for better or worse. Tim, Hal, Lucky, Uni and to some extent Detweiler all helped form my view. More than a few others. This was back in '93, mostly. At least, the founding, for me was then. I know some things happened later (I saw Uni present his Coke Presentation in 2002 for the first time), and I became concerned with business, or at least companies that wanted cash, and to be a business later. I never went through a Marxist phase, never even came close. This despite entering college in 1970, this despite going to a school where the dominant paradigm was leftist (UC Santa Barbara). I occasionally wonder what my perspective might be had I ever held leftist, collectivist thoughts. Oh well, I'll never know. Thirty years ago I _was_ more charitable about the various groups which claim to have been aggrieved, and I dutifully referred to negroes as blacks, argued earnestly with doubting leftists about the importance of the profit motive, cited semi-leftists who had reasonable things to say about capitalism and liberty and the Constitution. But over the years, as I have seen a huge chunk of money taken from me at gunpoint and given to welfare skanks, inner city negro mutants, gay activist buttfucker San Francisco queer groups, foreign nations with dictators like Hussein (both of them), Mubarek, Amin, Meir, Rabin, and a hundred others, and as education has declined while the pigeons demand more handouts...I have become what I call a vengeance libertarian. While certain theoreticians of 30 years argued for silly ideas about how how it is immoral to land on another's balcony while falling from a building, because the property rights had not been negotiated, and thus argued that even self-defense is fraught with moral problems, another camp of us were developing the idea that vengeance is good, that crypto anarchy will not only let some of us withdraw from the system, a la Galt's Gulch, but also it will let us execute justice on those who stole from us. For every negro welfare momma who took money for the past number of years, tell her to pay it all back, with compounded interest, or face time in a labor camp to repay what she stole. And if she cannot, or will not, which is ovewhelmingly likely, harvest her organs (if any takers can be found) and send the leftovers up the smokestacks. Ditto for the queers who have collected public health funds to pay for their sodomy. (I have no issue with their choices of partners, except that the diseases they contract via their habits, and their inability to work, is their problem, not mine. And not any corporations, except by the choice of that corporation.) Vengeance libertarianism is the rational kind. It will result in 20-40 million of the leeches, the bums, the minority grifters, the so-called aggrieved, the winos, the addicts, all being sent up the chimneys. Hitler had only minor reasons to go after the Jews (many of them had manipulated the economy to favor Jews while also preaching a no defense loser strategy to their untermenschen), we have much more reason to go after the tens of millions of underpeople who have been using their thugs in government to steal from us. We have much more justification today to liquidate the parsites than Hitler ever had. As for government, I estimate that 99% of those in Congress and government agencies in the past 40 years have earned killing. Of current Congressvarmints, only two seem to be not guilty. Of low-level employees, a bunch are just willing dweebs, and may be able to work off their debts in a labor camp for a decade or two. But probably the cleaner solution is just to do a thermonuclear cauterization of the region surrounding Washington and start fresh from there with a very limited government that honors the Constitution instead of catering to negroes and queers and welfare addicts. Crypto anarchy will make delivering justice to tens of millions a reality. The world will learn a lesson when we burn off these criminals. --Tim May Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.--Barry Goldwater
Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks
On Dec 31, 2003, at 9:27 AM, Tyler Durden wrote: Nowhere in Tim's spew is the recognition that the largest beneficiaries of government favoritism are corporations and wealthy individuals like himself, especially those associated with the greeders of the defense industry, rather the national security state. Yes...that's the thing I don't fully get. If we assume that Mr May made a big chunk of $$$ at Intel, isn't it rather naive of him to assume that the same system that helped make Intel the global $$$-generator it is isn't the same system that keeps black folks quiescent and so on? I think it's doubtful that Intel could have become what it is in any other country in the world. What's this nonsense about keeping black folks quiescent and so on/ I saw minorities practically float under the Golden Gate Bridge in inner tubes, coming from Vietnam. A few years after arriving, they were opening small shops and restaurants, then leading the way to opening screwdriver shops for building white box PCs. As with most past minorities--Irish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, etc.--they buckled down and worked their butts off, often living 5-10 to an apartment, saving for the day when they could buy their own house. Huge parts of Sunnyvale and Cupertino, to name just a few of the communities where this happened, became largely Asian during the 1980s. Meanwhile, the black folk kept listening to Rev. Jess Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton tell them that they were owed reparations, that they were owed a series of entitlements. No suprise that a large fraction of negro teens subscribe to the view that reading be for whitey. In fact, negroes have invented a whole series of insult terms for those who study too much, for those who break out of the field worker status: Uncle Toms, Oreos, etc. Imagine where the Asians would be if Asian kids who did well in science and math were taunted as race traitors? Today, Intel's engineering staff is about 75% minority, mostly Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Pakistanis, and assorted other minorities. More than half of all entering students at Berkeley, in all majors summed together, are Asian. At Intel, we had very, very, very few blacks apply for engineering jobs. I recall three of them, and one of them was from Sierra Leone, not the U.S. All three left after various problems of their own making. When I was interviewing candidates for engineering, I interviewed a bunch of Asians, about the same number of whites, and no negroes. Not by my choice, but because the negroes had largely ghettoized themselves into Black Studies, Sociology, and Yoruba/East African languages, or had not made it to graduation. There are no negroes in senior high tech positions at any of the companies I am in investor in for some very obvious reasons. Math be for whitey. Reading be for whitey. We be owed repa-ations for diskiminashun!! Add to that the fact that Mr May seems to lead a fairly bucolic life (from his accounts)...working in his gardens, installing tripwires and landmines and so forth, apparently without worrying about cash or physical needs. So this system has served him pretty well, insofar as there was a place for him to apply his skills in order to make his $$$. That system was payed for by somebody else's taxes, and now it's asking (well, demanding from) him for some $$$ that he apparently can easily afford. Nonsense. The chip companies were NOT payed for by somebody else's taxes. (Nor was the invention of the IC or the microprocessor paid for by DARPA or anyone else in government, despite factually incorrect lore to the contrary. I was there, at least for the onset of the micro, and I can say precisely what role government contracts played: none.) Engineers and scientists who work an estimated 8 months out of each year to pay their taxes (Federal plus state plus local plus payroll plus property plus sales plus.) see the minority layabouts working not one _day_ for their entitlements and benefits and social services. Do the math, unless you think math be for whitey. Therefore, any thought system that has as a corrollary ...and 40 million negros should die... should immediately be suspect of having been based on a foundation of non-mathematical muck, likely relating to penis envy and getting rejected by some hot black chick Mr May tried to date back in 1957 or whatever. You are contemptible. --Tim May
Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks
On Dec 31, 2003, at 10:51 AM, Tim May wrote: Add to that the fact that Mr May seems to lead a fairly bucolic life (from his accounts)...working in his gardens, installing tripwires and landmines and so forth, apparently without worrying about cash or physical needs. So this system has served him pretty well, insofar as there was a place for him to apply his skills in order to make his $$$. That system was payed for by somebody else's taxes, and now it's asking (well, demanding from) him for some $$$ that he apparently can easily afford. Nonsense. The chip companies were NOT payed for by somebody else's taxes. (Nor was the invention of the IC or the microprocessor paid for by DARPA or anyone else in government, despite factually incorrect lore to the contrary. I was there, at least for the onset of the micro, and I can say precisely what role government contracts played: none.) Engineers and scientists who work an estimated 8 months out of each year to pay their taxes (Federal plus state plus local plus payroll plus property plus sales plus.) see the minority layabouts working not one _day_ for their entitlements and benefits and social services. I'm going to elaborate on this point, as there seems to be a growing meme in the tech culture (especially amongst the anti-free trade, twentysomething, self-described geeks) that somehow government built or paid for technology, business, high tech, etc. What built our system was essentially a _compact_, an agreement codified in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and even centuries of common law that a bunch of things would happen: -- that interference in the business choices of a business would be minimal -- that failing businesses would not be bailed out (and, indeed, none of the leading companies in 1850 last much beyond 1900, few in business in 1900 are still dominant, etc.) -- that owners, employers, etc. and their employees, customers, etc. would themselves negotiate wages, prices, benefits, etc., without a top-down order about who might be employed, at what rates, etc. (This of course began to change when the socialists assumed power in the 1930s, and then dramatically changed when the Great Society socialists assumed power in 1961. It then came to be seen as the role of government to set wages, to force businesses to deal with those they wished not to, to let debtors off without repaying debts or even having their kneecaps smashed, etc. This was the start of the Era of Entitlements, when some ethnic groups decided that reading be for whitey and that they would coast on freebies paid for by the suckas still working.) This compact, based essentially on voluntary interaction in trade, employment, and investment, worked quite well for many decades. This compact, this way of doing things which is usually called liberty or laissez faire, was not built by government...until relatively recent times the size of government was small and tax rates for most workers and investors were low. What made the system work was that the system largely worked on the non-initiation of force principle, which is what begets voluntary transactions. If a person thought he was not being paid enough, it was his option to go elsewhere, to start his own business, etc. If a business wanted to raise or lower prices, their option. Customers were free to purchase or not. The meme which Tyler Durden and John Young--not surprising to me that both are Manhattanites, representing the East Coast view of capitalism--are popularizing is the one that says that what made companies successful was *government spending*, not this compact which needed little or no government role, and that this makes government intervention in business justifiable. Even more mendacious is the claim that those who worked hard and risked their capital by investing in companies are profiting at the expense of the less privileged. You are successful because of the taxes paid by the less-privileged, so now it is right that you be taxed at high rates so that welfare benefits can be maintained. is the essential message here. This is hokum. Very few U.S. or even European and Asian businesses were built with public funds. Neither Sony nor Honda, two examples of post-war successes, were built by MITI (MITI, in fact, frequently criticized Sony and Honda for the courses they pursued...meanwhile MITI was funding the now-defunct TRON microprocessor and the Fifth Generation Computer, utterly missing out on workstations, PCs, modern microprocessors, CAD, routers, and the Internet). None of Intel's achievements, whether the first dynamic RAM (the 1101), the first EPROM, the first microprocessor, the first single board computer, the first, etc., was paid for by any kind of DARPA or DOD or government grant. In fact, the military was pissed off at us for not developing their kind of mil-spec components, for not bidding on military contracts. We made our
Re: [camram-spam] Re: Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project
On Dec 30, 2003, at 1:01 PM, R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 7:46 PM + 12/30/03, Richard Clayton wrote: where does our esteemed moderator get _his_ stamps from ? A whitelist for my friends, etc... We're not moderated. Get used to it. Or are people _again_ spamming the Cypherpunks list with crap from half a dozen of their moderated lists? As for white lists, I'm all for them, though the coloreds keep trying to get government to force them out of business. --Tim May
Re: [camram-spam] Re: Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project
(I have removed the various other mailing lists. People, please stop cross-posting to all of Hettinga's lists, plus Perrypunks, plus this CAM-RAM list.) On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:11 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: At 07:46 PM 12/30/2003 +, Richard Clayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [what about mailing lists] Obviously you'd have to whitelist anybody's list you're joining if you don't want your spam filters to robo-discard it. moan I never understand why people think spam is a technical problem :( let alone a cryptographic one :-( /moan The reason it's partly a cryptographic problem is forgeries. Once everybody starts whitelisting, spammers are going to start forging headers to pretend to come from big mailing lists and popular machines and authors, so now you'll not only need to whitelist Dave Farber or Declan McCullough if you read their lists, or Bob Hettinga if you're Tim (:-), you'll need to verify the signature so that you can discard the forgeries that pretend to be from them. I don't have to whitelist anyone. If mail doesn't get to me, less junk to read. I certainly won't be running some Pennyblacknet scam promulgated by Microsoft. This pennyblack silliness fails utterly to address the basic ontological issue: that bits in transit are not being charged by the carriers (if by their own choice, fine, but mostly it's because systems were set up in a socialist scheme to ensure free transport...now that the free transport means millions of e-mails are charged nothing, they want the acapitalist system fixed, they hope, with either government laws or silliness about using memory speeds to compute stamp numbers...silliness). I haven't looked closely at the Pennyblack scheme, but I expect cleverness with caches and background tasks will fix things. For example, maybe people with idle CPU/memory time will sell their time to spammers, at suitably close-to-zero rates. (Essentially equivalent to Joe Sixpack selling his machine as a spam machine, which is probably likely, and still cheap for the sender.) Fixing the fundamental market distortion is the best approach to pursue. Not my problem. --Tim May
Re: [IP] FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers
On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:30 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: My first thought on reading this was that it was from The Onion, but its real. I guess being well-informed is now a cause for suspicion, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Well, they've been working on the mountains of skulls in Iraq (of course, we have to destroy the country in order to save the country), so going after eyeglass wearers, the college-educated, and those who watch PBS is the logical next step. Today's news is that analysts are saying a successful prosecution of Saddam on war crimes is going to be nearly impossible, given that he was a sovereign leader attacked by a foreign power and that none of the WMD were found (not that having WMD has been grounds for war crimes convictions, else the U.S., U.S.S.R., P.R.C., U.K., France, Zionist Entity, and numerous other states would have been prosecuted.). So, I expect that even as I write CIA toxins experts are preparing what will make Saddam go away the quiet way. Look for him to go of natural causes before any War Crimes Tribunal can ever actually happen. (This space reserved for former Marxist and now neocon standard-bearer James Donald to foam that I am a Saddam lover and a supporter of Chomsky.) --Tim May, who owns both a Farmer's Almanac and a Rand-McNally Atlas (apparently the illiterates who recorded the Maximum Leader's thoughts on the dangers of almanacs may have gotten the two confused, we are now hearing, and the order for the droids to search for almanacs apparently got confused...so now they're looking for evildoers who have either of these banned books)
Re: [IP] FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers
On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:30 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: My first thought on reading this was that it was from The Onion, but its real. I guess being well-informed is now a cause for suspicion, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Well, they've been working on the mountains of skulls in Iraq (of course, we have to destroy the country in order to save the country), so going after eyeglass wearers, the college-educated, and those who watch PBS is the logical next step. Today's news is that analysts are saying a successful prosecution of Saddam on war crimes is going to be nearly impossible, given that he was a sovereign leader attacked by a foreign power and that none of the WMD were found (not that having WMD has been grounds for war crimes convictions, else the U.S., U.S.S.R., P.R.C., U.K., France, Zionist Entity, and numerous other states would have been prosecuted.). So, I expect that even as I write CIA toxins experts are preparing what will make Saddam go away the quiet way. Look for him to go of natural causes before any War Crimes Tribunal can ever actually happen. (This space reserved for former Marxist and now neocon standard-bearer James Donald to foam that I am a Saddam lover and a supporter of Chomsky.) --Tim May, who owns both a Farmer's Almanac and a Rand-McNally Atlas (apparently the illiterates who recorded the Maximum Leader's thoughts on the dangers of almanacs may have gotten the two confused, we are now hearing, and the order for the droids to search for almanacs apparently got confused...so now they're looking for evildoers who have either of these banned books)
Re: [camram-spam] Re: Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project
(I have removed the various other mailing lists. People, please stop cross-posting to all of Hettinga's lists, plus Perrypunks, plus this CAM-RAM list.) On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:11 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: At 07:46 PM 12/30/2003 +, Richard Clayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [what about mailing lists] Obviously you'd have to whitelist anybody's list you're joining if you don't want your spam filters to robo-discard it. moan I never understand why people think spam is a technical problem :( let alone a cryptographic one :-( /moan The reason it's partly a cryptographic problem is forgeries. Once everybody starts whitelisting, spammers are going to start forging headers to pretend to come from big mailing lists and popular machines and authors, so now you'll not only need to whitelist Dave Farber or Declan McCullough if you read their lists, or Bob Hettinga if you're Tim (:-), you'll need to verify the signature so that you can discard the forgeries that pretend to be from them. I don't have to whitelist anyone. If mail doesn't get to me, less junk to read. I certainly won't be running some Pennyblacknet scam promulgated by Microsoft. This pennyblack silliness fails utterly to address the basic ontological issue: that bits in transit are not being charged by the carriers (if by their own choice, fine, but mostly it's because systems were set up in a socialist scheme to ensure free transport...now that the free transport means millions of e-mails are charged nothing, they want the acapitalist system fixed, they hope, with either government laws or silliness about using memory speeds to compute stamp numbers...silliness). I haven't looked closely at the Pennyblack scheme, but I expect cleverness with caches and background tasks will fix things. For example, maybe people with idle CPU/memory time will sell their time to spammers, at suitably close-to-zero rates. (Essentially equivalent to Joe Sixpack selling his machine as a spam machine, which is probably likely, and still cheap for the sender.) Fixing the fundamental market distortion is the best approach to pursue. Not my problem. --Tim May
Re: unsub from lne
On Dec 29, 2003, at 9:42 AM, Harmon Seaver wrote: Hmm, maybe Eric needs to undo his spam filter so people can unsub from lne.com. I just tried to, but it was rejected as undeliverable spam. Tried sending it thru a remailer but don't know if majordomo will go for that. An unsubscribe command sent to the lne.com administrivia address was rejected as spam? I find that hard to believe, as that is one of the normal commands, ones which the lne regular message lists. Perhaps you tried to send an unsubscribe message to the actual lne.com list site, rather than the administrivia address. Check which address you mailed to. --Tim May
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Dec 27, 2003, at 10:40 AM, Michael Kalus wrote: That you have extremists who will use the past as the main argument for their reasoning can be clearly seen by your own views. There is no difference between people like you and jews (or any other extreme zealot) who tries to push his or her own agenda. There is in fact a _very_ important difference, one you should think carefully about: the issue of force. In Germany, men with guns arrest those who sing songs which are not PC. I have no such power to use force to arrest those who use words I don't like. This is the essence of liberty. It's all about the initiation of force, versus free choice. In a free system, those who don't want to see swastikas or here prejudiced speech will take steps to avoid concerts where such symbols or words are used, will use the OFF switch on their radios and televisions when such symbols or speech appears, and will avoid visiting Web sites which offend them. Choice. And responsibility. They may even hire others to act as watchdogs or censors to screen material which may offend them. This is what ratings systems are all about. And closed communities. And voluntary associations. However, in a free society they may not use guns or force to stop what other people are reading or viewing or singing. Think about it. Carefully. Read up on some of the basics. You are on the wrong mailing list if you are as statist as you appear to be. --Tim May
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Dec 27, 2003, at 7:52 AM, Michael Kalus wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Dec-03, at 9:53 AM, Tyler Durden wrote: All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned Wolfenstein 3D. Interesting. So even if the swatsika is protrayed as a bad thing (to the point of practically being a bullseye) it's banned. So...can you have swastikas in Textbooks? Perhaps 100 years from now the Holocaust will be forgotten. Of course, that'll make Tim May happy because then it could happen all over again. So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license or something? (And let's just assume I have a politically correct view.) To my understanding Historical documents are exempt from this. Jew groups have demanded that Microsoft modify its symbol font sets to remove swastikas. Part of a CNN report on this flap: The swastika, which was made infamous by Nazi Germany, was included in Microsoft's Bookshelf Symbol 7 font. That font was derived from a Japanese font set, said Microsoft Office product manager Simon Marks. Microsoft said it will release other tools at a later date to remove only the offending characters. A form of the swastika has been used in the Buddhist religion to symbolize the feet or footprints of the Buddha. The symbol, which was also used widely in the ancient world including Mesopotamia, Scandinavia, India and the Americas, became common in China and Japan with the spread of Buddhism. So, the racialist demands of a sect of dreidl-spinning weirdos is now being used to affect even academic scholarship: the day will soon be upon where swastikas are removed even from Buddhist, Scandinavian, Indian, etc. texts, and where scholars who wish to write about them must blank out they symbol and refer to it as the s symbol, analogous to the way negroes freely call other negroes niggers and niggaz and nigga hoes, but demand that whites refer to the words as the n word. Now that the Jews dominate Germany once again, time for book burning of any book which offends the Jews? --Tim May
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Dec 27, 2003, at 6:53 AM, Tyler Durden wrote: All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned Wolfenstein 3D. Interesting. So even if the swatsika is protrayed as a bad thing (to the point of practically being a bullseye) it's banned. So...can you have swastikas in Textbooks? Perhaps 100 years from now the Holocaust will be forgotten. Of course, that'll make Tim May happy because then it could happen all over again. Nonsense. The problem with the Holocaust was not because people were expressing their opinions about Jews, their habits, etc., or having un-PC thoughts about their neighbors. In fact, the so-called anti-Semitism in Germany in the 1920s and 30s was less pronounced than in other European countries, notably France. The issue with the Holocaust, as with the suppression of the Kulaks in Soviet Russia, as with the forced starvation of entire provinces of tens of millions of people by Mao, was directly attributable to STATE POWER. In other words, the problem was that Hitler, Eichmann, Goebbels, etc. could have their bureaucrats meet at Wansee to implement the Final Solution. In a decentralized political system, one with constitutional protections for speech, movement, association, gun ownership, property accumulation, etc., such purges and pogroms and final solutions are much more difficult to carry out. And had the Jews spent more time on self-defense, on matters martial instead of matters Talmudic, they might not have been such easy pickings and gone so readily into the cattle cars headed east. By the way, practically speaking, banning the swastika and outlawing any expression of admiration for Hitler just makes these things more attractive to young kids. Duh. --Tim May, who counts more on the Constitution to limit the power of government (though these limits are falling, year by year) than he does in some ban on putting swastikas in books or on armbands #1. Sanhedrin 59a: Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal. #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated. #3. Yebamoth 11b: Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age. #4. Abodah Zara 26b: Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed. #5. Yebamoth 98a: All gentile children are animals. #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean. #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Dec 27, 2003, at 10:40 AM, Michael Kalus wrote: That you have extremists who will use the past as the main argument for their reasoning can be clearly seen by your own views. There is no difference between people like you and jews (or any other extreme zealot) who tries to push his or her own agenda. There is in fact a _very_ important difference, one you should think carefully about: the issue of force. In Germany, men with guns arrest those who sing songs which are not PC. I have no such power to use force to arrest those who use words I don't like. This is the essence of liberty. It's all about the initiation of force, versus free choice. In a free system, those who don't want to see swastikas or here prejudiced speech will take steps to avoid concerts where such symbols or words are used, will use the OFF switch on their radios and televisions when such symbols or speech appears, and will avoid visiting Web sites which offend them. Choice. And responsibility. They may even hire others to act as watchdogs or censors to screen material which may offend them. This is what ratings systems are all about. And closed communities. And voluntary associations. However, in a free society they may not use guns or force to stop what other people are reading or viewing or singing. Think about it. Carefully. Read up on some of the basics. You are on the wrong mailing list if you are as statist as you appear to be. --Tim May
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Dec 26, 2003, at 4:48 PM, Michael Kalus wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy task as you can see in a six month trial. Germany, or any State that restricts words or thought, needs a regime change with extreme prejudice. Then I guess you better start liberating the world. Pretty much any country in the world has a law against hate speech. Some do, some don't. The U.S., for all its oft-cited faults, doesn't. It's not a violation of any national or state (California) law to argue that negroes are monkeys, that Germany's main failure was to miss getting the last 100K Jews (the main cause of their problems today, as the dreidl-spinners yammer about Nazism while arguing for socialism), and so on. One or two states in the U.S. tried to implement hate speech laws, but the Supremes, in a rare moment when the negroes and Jews were outnumbered, said Go back and read the First Amendment, you fucking dweebs and Hebes. Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron. All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned Wolfenstein 3D. You've been brainwashed by your Yid masters. The swastika goes back to very, very old Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist symbology. Hitler read about it in some magazine and adopted it as his own. You make me sick. I hope the ovens are fired up again and you are sent to one for a nice, long, _very_ hot shower. --Tim May
Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
On Dec 23, 2003, at 3:07 PM, Jamie Lawrence wrote: On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald; You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements. Your repeated attempts to impute opinions to others that they don't actually hold, really, is pathetic and boring. Chomsky lies. You repeat the sentiments of Chomsky and thus you are support Chomsky and are thus a liar and a supporter of the KGB High Command and a lap dog of the running dogs of the Kremlin. As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the ragheads (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse. You obviously endorse the views of George McGovern and other pinko(e)s who wish to pervert our precious bodily fluids. As far as your babbling and frothing about how I and many others must be Saddam supporters, you're just not making any sense, intentionally ignoring what people say, and just generally acting like a fool. If you want to do something other than bat at strawmen and denounce the commies you keep seeing in your bedsheets, then please, begin to do so. Otherwise... Tim nailed it: you're just a statist who found a new god. Chomsky lies. and you are obviously a sock puppet for the Trilateralist Bilderbergers. --Tim May, who has noticed for a long time that the cadence and even the phrasing that James Donald uses is remarkably like the cadence of those who used to talk about the running dogs of capitalism. But he uses replacement phrases like sock puppets of the KGB instead. Which I guess shows that his indoctrination ran deep, though he is now ostensibly infiltrating the libertarian fringe.
Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
On Dec 23, 2003, at 3:07 PM, Jamie Lawrence wrote: On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald; You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements. Your repeated attempts to impute opinions to others that they don't actually hold, really, is pathetic and boring. Chomsky lies. You repeat the sentiments of Chomsky and thus you are support Chomsky and are thus a liar and a supporter of the KGB High Command and a lap dog of the running dogs of the Kremlin. As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the ragheads (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse. You obviously endorse the views of George McGovern and other pinko(e)s who wish to pervert our precious bodily fluids. As far as your babbling and frothing about how I and many others must be Saddam supporters, you're just not making any sense, intentionally ignoring what people say, and just generally acting like a fool. If you want to do something other than bat at strawmen and denounce the commies you keep seeing in your bedsheets, then please, begin to do so. Otherwise... Tim nailed it: you're just a statist who found a new god. Chomsky lies. and you are obviously a sock puppet for the Trilateralist Bilderbergers. --Tim May, who has noticed for a long time that the cadence and even the phrasing that James Donald uses is remarkably like the cadence of those who used to talk about the running dogs of capitalism. But he uses replacement phrases like sock puppets of the KGB instead. Which I guess shows that his indoctrination ran deep, though he is now ostensibly infiltrating the libertarian fringe.
Re: I am anti war. You stupid evil scum are pro Saddam.
On Dec 20, 2003, at 5:41 PM, James A. Donald wrote: I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam. Back in the sixties, there were lots of good reasons to oppose the Vietnam war, notably that it was fought by conscription, and that McNamara's search for measures of war fighting efficiency and to create incentives for efficient production of war effort were demoralizing the troops, and instead of creating incentives to fight effectively, created perverse incentives to commit mass murder in place of killing the enemy. But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi Minh As usual, you generalize to the point of venality. I, and many others, were against the war in Vietnam without being supporters of Ho Chi Minh or the Soviets or anyone of that ilk. We were voters for John Hospers in 1972, who opposed the war in Vietnam without being a chanter of Ho, Ho or whatever it is your fantasies had us all chanting. (And, yes, I was at the 1970 Mobe March in D.C., the one in May 1970, just after Kent State, where Nixon surrounded the White House with buses. I finagled my way into the inner ring, and saw the speakers from a few feet away. Essentially _none_ of them were supporters of the Soviets or the North Vietnamese qua North Vietnamese.) Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party, murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery. So? Not my problem. And rescuing others by using taxes stolen from Americans, or their bodies, is statist. Moreover, rescuing others is a moral hazard. Rescuing the Jews from their folly of spinning their dreidels and twirling their sidelocks was a particularly heinous moral hazardthey had been in favor of victim disarmament for centuries prior to the so-called Holocaust and their liquidation was predictable. For the American government to send boys to Europe to die to liberate Europe was one of the great crimes of the last century. All of America's alliances have either been based on one-sided use of force (the USA always goes to fight in foreign lands, they never come here to help us fight our battles with the negroes and Mexicans) or have been based on corporate interests (oil companies, manufacturers wishing to expand into dangerous countries, etc.). Not my problem is what the libertarian sentiment embodies. General Motors wants to set up a factory in Eritrea? Let them hire a private army, not use American cannon fodder. Squibb wants to sell baby formula in Paraguay? Intel wants to open a plant in mainland China? The answers are all the same: the U.S. armed forces are not clearing operations for corporations or do-gooders. Anyone who opposed the war on Vietnam should have started off by asking How shall we contain the Soviet Union and eventually defeat communism, and what is wrong with the way this administration is doing it. Containing some political system in some foreign land is NOT MY PROBLEM. Nor is it in the U.S. Constitution that foreign wars would be launched to save _other_ people from themselves and their foolish decisions. Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish. All of you, and I do mean _you_, who take my money to spend on these kinds of foreign adventures ought to be taken out and shot...for your aggressions, not for your sentiments. Spend your own money. Become a mercenary. Fight Saddam and Muamar and Jacques all you want. But don't steal my money, either directly or through corporate taxation to do it. Use your own money. Got it? --Tim May In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. -- Mark Twain
Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
On Dec 21, 2003, at 7:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers. Jamie Lawrence: Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope. You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Care to give us your take on the two towers? Straw man. You keep bringing up the World Trade Center attack as if Saddam ordered it, or was involved in some central way. No credible evidence has been presented...not even the usually-unreliable sources...that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. (Whether some Iraqis celebrated or not is beside the point...if that were the criterion for launching a war, we'd be at war with Syria, Egypt, France, China, and Malaysia, to name a few.) Going after the actual planners, financiers, and attackers involved in the 9/11 attacks is of course justified. Liberating Afghanistan and letting women in Kabul bare their legs and all was not justified (oh, and the women in Kabul are back to wearing scarves). Inasmuch as Iraq and the Baath regime was never linked in any credible or substantive way, beyond the merest of maybe they met with Bin Laden's guys rumors, and inasmuch as a 9/11 link was never even alleged by warmongers like Cheney and Perle and Rumsfield, the claim that Iraq was attacked because of the World Trade Center attack is ludicrous. You really are, down deep, a statist. You may have changed your stripes from supporting the Marxist variant of statism, but what you now support remains statism to the core. --Tim May
Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?
On Dec 16, 2003, at 1:50 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: This makes me a bit curious. Tell me, is your opinion then that the U.S. has done nothing questionable here? You don't feel that treating a former head of state (regardless of what you happen to think of that person) in this manner and videorecording it AND transmitting it to the entire globe violates the spirit of the convention? You feel this was the right thing to do? You would have no problem seing a U.S. or European leader being treated the same way? Who is the you referred to here? Please quote or refer to comments you (you) are responding to, especially when you ask questions. --Tim May
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Dec 15, 2003, at 5:36 PM, Anonymous wrote: I am not sure I agree. I am no expert on this however. I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on this field from another country commenting on the issue stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In either of these interviews were there any discussion on whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what clothings he happened to wear or whattever. I got the impression that it was clear that the U.S. treatment wasn't fully appropriate. The U.S. would have screamed up and down in front of the U.N. and threatened severe reprisals if a U.S. prisoner were to have his (or her) mouth, hair, and medical exam televised by the Iranians, Syrians, Serbians, Iraqis, Panamanians, or any of the other nations we have gone to war with. There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of Saddam taking his first dump while in custody. Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. I hope the next time a U.S. fighter is captured he is shown publically humiliated, with an Iranian or Syrian or French doctor forcing his mouth open and checking his hair for lice. The U.S. would be in no position to complain. (But they would, of course.) But, what can one expect of a country which refers to its own terrorists who blow up commercial Cuban planes as freedom fighters and to Palestinians seeking to expel the Zionist Jew invaders as terrorists? We are in Wonderland and the Republicrats are the Mad Hatters. --Tim May We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania. We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia. We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq. We are at war with France. We have always been at war with France.
Re: cpunk-like meeting report
On Dec 16, 2003, at 7:50 AM, V Alex Brennen wrote: Tim May wrote: On Dec 14, 2003, at 6:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've been admiring your and Tim's contributions, and I was wondering if either of you were planning to subscribe to the (new) news list. http://lists.cryptnet.net/mailman/listinfo/cpunx-news No, we don't need a cpunx-news list. This is what Google and the ability to see hundreds of various lists and sites is for. I don't even plan on subscribing myself. I just wanted to get the traffic off of cypherpunks. Back when I first joined this list, cypherpunks where known for making news, not reading it. I recognized some addresses posting here recently from other lists that may suggest a revival is possible if we can clean things up a bit. For the most part, the only people who subscribed to the new list are the people who tend to forward news announcements. There seems to be very few consumers (4 out of 7 subscribers on the new list - there's 8 total so far, one person subscribed twice). This figures. And I doubt subscriptions will ever climb much higher. We've heard similar clamorings for chat and technical and announcement sub-lists many times in the past. Nevermind that the main list is not terribly high-volume. Nevermind that sub-lists tends to wither away. (As when a relatively small city like Monterey gets monterey.config, monterey.events, monterey.forsale, monterey.general, and monterey.test, all of which are nearly empty or filled only with Usenet spam. But, hey, someone thought that what Monterey needed to boost traffic was a bunch of newsgroups. Didn't happen, the traffic, that is.) As for Cypherpunks, this was done. Several Usenet newsgroups, which are perfectly fine for news announcements, were created by someone (no doubt long-since gone on to other projects). Here they are: alt.cypherpunks alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.technical But, hey, I hope the subscribers to the new list send their dumpings there. --Tim May I think the root of the problem is that we tend to organize ourselves into tribes. Then people in the tribe are our friends, and people outside are our enemies. I think it happens like this: Someone uses Perl, and likes it, and then they use it some more. But then something strange happens. They start to identify themselves with Perl, as if Perl were part of their body, or vice versa. They're part of the Big Perl Tribe. They want other people to join the Tribe. If they meet someone who doesn't like Perl, it's an insult to the Tribe and a personal affront to them. --Mark Dominus, Why I Hate Advocacy, 2000
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Dec 15, 2003, at 5:36 PM, Anonymous wrote: I am not sure I agree. I am no expert on this however. I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on this field from another country commenting on the issue stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In either of these interviews were there any discussion on whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what clothings he happened to wear or whattever. I got the impression that it was clear that the U.S. treatment wasn't fully appropriate. The U.S. would have screamed up and down in front of the U.N. and threatened severe reprisals if a U.S. prisoner were to have his (or her) mouth, hair, and medical exam televised by the Iranians, Syrians, Serbians, Iraqis, Panamanians, or any of the other nations we have gone to war with. There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of Saddam taking his first dump while in custody. Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. I hope the next time a U.S. fighter is captured he is shown publically humiliated, with an Iranian or Syrian or French doctor forcing his mouth open and checking his hair for lice. The U.S. would be in no position to complain. (But they would, of course.) But, what can one expect of a country which refers to its own terrorists who blow up commercial Cuban planes as freedom fighters and to Palestinians seeking to expel the Zionist Jew invaders as terrorists? We are in Wonderland and the Republicrats are the Mad Hatters. --Tim May We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania. We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia. We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq. We are at war with France. We have always been at war with France.
Re: Idea: Simplified TEMPEST-shielded unit (speculative proposal)
On Dec 14, 2003, at 8:33 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote: TEMPEST shielding is fairly esoteric (at least for non-EM-specialists) field. But potentially could be made easier by simplifying the problem. If we won't want to shield the user interface (eg. we want just a cryptographic processor), we may put the device into a solid metal case without holes, battery-powered, with the seams in the case covered with eg. adhesive copper tape. The input and output can be mediated by fibers, whose ports can be the only holes, fraction of millimeter in diameter, carefully shielded, in the otherwise seamless well-grounded box. There are potential cooling problems, as there are no ventilation holes in the enclosure; this can be alleviated by using one side of the box as a large passive cooler, eventually with an externally mounted fan with separate power supply. If magnetic shielding is required as well, the box could be made of permalloy or other material with similar magnetic properties. I am not sure how to shield a display. Maybe taking an LCD, bolting it on the shielded box, and cover it with a fine wire mesh and possibly metalized glass? Using LCD with high response time of the individual pixels also dramatically reduces the value of eventual optical emissions. I worked inside a Faraday cage in a physic lab for several months. And, later, I did experiments in and around Faraday cages. Shielding is fairly easy to measure. (Using portable radios and televisions, or even using the Software-Defined Radio as a low-cost spectrum analyzer.) My advice? Skip all of the nonsense about building special laptops or computers and special displays with mesh grids over the displays. Those who are _casually_ interested will not replace their existing Mac Powerbooks or Dell laptops with this metal box monster. Instead, devise a metal mesh bag that one climbs into to use whichever laptop is of interest. To reduce costs, most of the bag can be metallized fabric that is not mesh, with only part of it being mesh, for breathability. (Perhaps the head region, to minimize claustrophobia and to allow audio and visual communication with others nearby.) I would imagine a durable-enough metallized fabric bag could be constructed for under a few hundred dollars, which is surely cheaper for most to use than designing a custom laptop or desktop. Or consider heads-up LCD glasses. These have been available for PCs and gamers for a few years (longer in more experimental forms, of course, dating back to the VR days of the late 80s). Sony has had a couple of models, and so have others. Some have video resolutions (PAL, NTSC), some have VGA resolutions. Perfectly adequate for displaying crypto results and requesting input. These very probably radiate little. But of course a lightweight hood, a la the above mesh bag, would drop the emissions by some other goodly amount of dB. Experiments necessary, of course. Interface to a laptop or PC could be as you described it, with shielded cables. Or just use a small PC (Poqet, etc.) and move the keyboard and CPU under the draped hood. Leakage out the bottom, hence the earlier proposal for a full bag, like a sleeping bag. --Tim May
Re: Idea: Simplified TEMPEST-shielded unit (speculative proposal)
On Dec 14, 2003, at 8:33 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote: TEMPEST shielding is fairly esoteric (at least for non-EM-specialists) field. But potentially could be made easier by simplifying the problem. If we won't want to shield the user interface (eg. we want just a cryptographic processor), we may put the device into a solid metal case without holes, battery-powered, with the seams in the case covered with eg. adhesive copper tape. The input and output can be mediated by fibers, whose ports can be the only holes, fraction of millimeter in diameter, carefully shielded, in the otherwise seamless well-grounded box. There are potential cooling problems, as there are no ventilation holes in the enclosure; this can be alleviated by using one side of the box as a large passive cooler, eventually with an externally mounted fan with separate power supply. If magnetic shielding is required as well, the box could be made of permalloy or other material with similar magnetic properties. I am not sure how to shield a display. Maybe taking an LCD, bolting it on the shielded box, and cover it with a fine wire mesh and possibly metalized glass? Using LCD with high response time of the individual pixels also dramatically reduces the value of eventual optical emissions. I worked inside a Faraday cage in a physic lab for several months. And, later, I did experiments in and around Faraday cages. Shielding is fairly easy to measure. (Using portable radios and televisions, or even using the Software-Defined Radio as a low-cost spectrum analyzer.) My advice? Skip all of the nonsense about building special laptops or computers and special displays with mesh grids over the displays. Those who are _casually_ interested will not replace their existing Mac Powerbooks or Dell laptops with this metal box monster. Instead, devise a metal mesh bag that one climbs into to use whichever laptop is of interest. To reduce costs, most of the bag can be metallized fabric that is not mesh, with only part of it being mesh, for breathability. (Perhaps the head region, to minimize claustrophobia and to allow audio and visual communication with others nearby.) I would imagine a durable-enough metallized fabric bag could be constructed for under a few hundred dollars, which is surely cheaper for most to use than designing a custom laptop or desktop. Or consider heads-up LCD glasses. These have been available for PCs and gamers for a few years (longer in more experimental forms, of course, dating back to the VR days of the late 80s). Sony has had a couple of models, and so have others. Some have video resolutions (PAL, NTSC), some have VGA resolutions. Perfectly adequate for displaying crypto results and requesting input. These very probably radiate little. But of course a lightweight hood, a la the above mesh bag, would drop the emissions by some other goodly amount of dB. Experiments necessary, of course. Interface to a laptop or PC could be as you described it, with shielded cables. Or just use a small PC (Poqet, etc.) and move the keyboard and CPU under the draped hood. Leakage out the bottom, hence the earlier proposal for a full bag, like a sleeping bag. --Tim May
Re: Compromised Remailers
involving coins and parity and selective disclosure with some neighbors to show that it can be proved that one of a group paid the bill, but not which one.). Adding reply-block capability significantly raises the risks for traceability, in my opinion. I am not casting doubt on the Anonymizer and on Mixmaster Type N (whatever is current), but I have not seen much detailed discussion here on the Cypherpunks list, and I am unaware of peer-reviewed papers on the cryptographic protocols being used. (If they exist, pointers here would be great to have!) When I did the BlackNet demonstration, conventional Cypherpunks remailers were used for the sending of a message to a recipient, who might be a true name, might be a nym, whatever. Replies were handled with message pools, i.e., sending another message via remailers to a place that is widely visible (a Democracy Wall sort of thing) such as a Usenet newsgroup. The newsgroup alt.anonymous.messages was created around that time, as I recall, and served well. This was not a reply-block approach, just the basically clean approach of nesting payloads, a la conventional encrypted Cypherpunks remailers. For a significant fraction of messages through remailers, replies are not even needed. When replies are needed, message pools. Note: From 1988-93 I bought the Crypto Proceedings, some of the Eurocrypt proceedings, etc. I even attended some of the conferences. I followed who was doing what. For various reasons, my interest in the guts of crypto declined. Others were following developments, fortunately. But I haven't looked at a Crypto Proceedings volume in several years, so I'm out of touch with what researchers are publishing about mixes and untraceability. I'm relatively confident that the points above are general enough to be unchanged, whether the Newest Name is Onion Routing or Crowds or whatever. --Tim May
Re: cpunk-like meeting report
On Dec 14, 2003, at 6:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14 Dec, Tim May wrote: No, we don't need a cpunx-news list. This is what Google and the ability to see hundreds of various lists and sites is for. News lists tend strongly to be just dumping grounds for crap from other lists. Yea, and I'll admit that I'm a junky, which is why I made the following pages... http://www.gnu-darwin.org/update.html http://www.gnu-darwin.org/applelists.html More... info., Must have ... more... Lie down and just resist the temptation. The world already has a dozen crypto/cyber rights mailing lists, probably more. And many 'e$, digibucks, digital bearer settlement, and cybercurrency types of list just from one single person...who also cross-posts to Cypherpunks. I had a friend who created a new high technology company whenever he got bored. Of course, these were not _real_ high tech companies, with actual products and actual profits. Rather, they were ventures, things that gave him a new business card, Orion X. Altschluss, President, Plutonic Transgenics, Inc. A few months later, Director, Corporate Relations, the Galt Foundation. Some people think spinning off new lists whenever they get interested in some area is interesting. Most of these lists fail for obvious reasons. Sometimes a famous person, especially Net famous, creates a vanity list. Hence the Interesting People vanity list. This trend seems to be giving way to Blogs, however, as the various net.personalities realize that what they really want is a forum for blogging their message to an attentive audience. I have done nearly all of my writing for Cypherpunks since 1992. I have watched Lewispunks, Perrypunks, various e-rights and digidollars and Geodesic Singularity Lists arise and do whatever they do after they arise. I have joined none of the varous other lists (which are usually with permission of owner lists--fuck that). So now we have someone calling himself Proclus, who has not contributed anything memorable to Cypherpunks, inviting Cypherpunks to join his new cpunx-news list. Yawn. Have fun. --Tim May #1. Sanhedrin 59a: Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal. #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated. #3. Yebamoth 11b: Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age. #4. Abodah Zara 26b: Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed. #5. Yebamoth 98a: All gentile children are animals. #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean. #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.
Re: cpunk-like meeting report
On Dec 14, 2003, at 6:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've been admiring your and Tim's contributions, and I was wondering if either of you were planning to subscribe to the (new) news list. http://lists.cryptnet.net/mailman/listinfo/cpunx-news Be sure and check the archive before posting. It is still small. No, we don't need a cpunx-news list. This is what Google and the ability to see hundreds of various lists and sites is for. News lists tend strongly to be just dumping grounds for crap from other lists. Otherwise, if anyone could recommend additional good sources for cypherpunk-related news, I'd be very grateful, because I don't feel right about cross-posting news items to cypherpunks list. I'm already subscribed to the Cryptome rdf channel, Politech, and GNU-Darwin of course. I don't think I'm interesting enough for Interesting People ;-}. I failed the entrance exam for Interesting People, which is fine, for obvious reasons. --Tim May
Re: Don't worry...it's just one of Saddam's doubles
On Dec 14, 2003, at 6:33 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote: On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: Spread the word. The adminstration got desparate. In a few weeks they'll announce this isn't the real Saddam, but that rounding up all of the clones is necessary progress in the fight to get the real Saddam. If I don't remember incorrectly, they said something about identifying him by DNA testing. But it wasn't widely quoted in the mainstream news. How boring. The DNA confirmation was reported on all of the puppet news organizations here. The Germans and Eastern Europeans, being mostly opposed to the war, probably just buried the confirmation. The Czech Republic supported the war, and sent troops, and now that Saddam has been captured, both of them will be returning home, with medals. --Tim May
Re: [linux-elitists] Monday 15 Dec: first all-Open Source System-on-Chip (fwd from schoen@loyalty.org)
On Dec 12, 2003, at 12:16 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: - Forwarded message from Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:32:31 -0800 To: Jason Spence [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please STOP forwarding traffic from other lists to the CP list. --Tim May
Re: [linux-elitists] Monday 15 Dec: first all-Open Source System-on-Chip (fwd from schoen@loyalty.org)
On Dec 12, 2003, at 5:58 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Tim May wrote: On Dec 12, 2003, at 12:16 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: - Forwarded message from Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:32:31 -0800 To: Jason Spence [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please STOP forwarding traffic from other lists to the CP list. Why don't you just filter it Tim: the rest of are capable of making our own reading decisions. And so why don't you just filter _my_ comments, twit? It's bad enough that that Eugene Leitl has made himself the new Choate, now you have made yourself the new Detweiler. --Tim May
The silliness of those who argue that gold is the key to untraceability
On Dec 12, 2003, at 5:59 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 11 Dec 2003 at 21:00, Neil Johnson wrote: Even Ayn Rand weaves this into Atlas Shrugged where the competitors of Reardon Steel get the government to try and force him to give them his formula for his high-strength steel because it's putting them out business and unfair. Ah yes, recall big steel corporations talking about 'fair trade in recent weeks. Tim has been implying that I am a pinko, gold nut, and randroid, which sort of hints that Ayn Rand is too pink for him. Rand supported taxes for the space program and for support of big business. So, yes, she was very pinkoid. And like Rand, you have the same delusions about what's possible and what's not. Your notion that a gold atom cannot be distinguished from another has anything important to do with issues at the crypto and traceability layers is symptomatic of this delusion. Hint: the alleged traceability of Federal Reserve Notes at the serial number level has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with traceability of payments and the reasons we need digital money. When a person deposits $10,000 and then writes a check to another person, or wires money, or withdraws cash, and so and so forth, do you think some record of the serial numbers was the means by which this transaction was traced? Your foolish faith that E-gold is some significant step because gold atoms look like all other gold atoms, because there is only one stable isotope of gold is embematic of the delusions which the gold bugs and offshore platform silly people have. And people wonder why the wrong issues are being worked on. --Tim May
Re: [linux-elitists] Monday 15 Dec: first all-Open Source System-on-Chip (fwd from schoen@loyalty.org)
On Dec 12, 2003, at 12:16 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: - Forwarded message from Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:32:31 -0800 To: Jason Spence [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please STOP forwarding traffic from other lists to the CP list. --Tim May
The silliness of those who argue that gold is the key to untraceability
On Dec 12, 2003, at 5:59 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 11 Dec 2003 at 21:00, Neil Johnson wrote: Even Ayn Rand weaves this into Atlas Shrugged where the competitors of Reardon Steel get the government to try and force him to give them his formula for his high-strength steel because it's putting them out business and unfair. Ah yes, recall big steel corporations talking about 'fair trade in recent weeks. Tim has been implying that I am a pinko, gold nut, and randroid, which sort of hints that Ayn Rand is too pink for him. Rand supported taxes for the space program and for support of big business. So, yes, she was very pinkoid. And like Rand, you have the same delusions about what's possible and what's not. Your notion that a gold atom cannot be distinguished from another has anything important to do with issues at the crypto and traceability layers is symptomatic of this delusion. Hint: the alleged traceability of Federal Reserve Notes at the serial number level has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with traceability of payments and the reasons we need digital money. When a person deposits $10,000 and then writes a check to another person, or wires money, or withdraws cash, and so and so forth, do you think some record of the serial numbers was the means by which this transaction was traced? Your foolish faith that E-gold is some significant step because gold atoms look like all other gold atoms, because there is only one stable isotope of gold is embematic of the delusions which the gold bugs and offshore platform silly people have. And people wonder why the wrong issues are being worked on. --Tim May
Re: Is Matel Stalinist?
On Dec 11, 2003, at 1:56 AM, ken wrote: Corporations have sales tracking software out the wazoo. If it sells, they buy more and sell them. Sounds like they're doing precisely what their owners want them to do. Yes, but, it might be that a corporation makes more money for its owners by centralising and systematising and reducing the local autonomy of business units. It's a lot easier to manage a thousand identical stores than a hundred unique ones. So from Tyler Durden's's POV there might be more responsiveness from an independent store than a chain. Though like you said, that doesn't seem to apply to books. Might to food though. I doubt it applies to food, either. If my local grocery store runs low on Spam, say, they will order more. This is why they track items with POS terminals and UPC labels (largely replacing the inventory people who used to be seen in the aisles counting items and entering them into a small computer or, earlier, onto an inventory log sheet). It makes no sense to lump or consolidate all of the stores into one lump calculation and then issue order to send more Spam in this amount to each store. Not only does it not make sense, but clearly this would cause pileups at _some_ stores (too much Spam) and shortages at _other_ stores (still not enough Spam, even with the latest send more Spam to all stores order. The fact that neither shortages nor pileups (that I can see) are apparent at any of the stores I visit, and that all of them use UPC and POS methods for _all_ sales of ordered products, is consistent with the reorder method described earlier. I repeat: the despised by anti-capitalists Borders store has a deeper and broader inventory of books than the cherished by Greens and locals locall-owned bookstore. And they also use UPC and POS and reorder books dynamically. (For another list I've been discussing lazy evaluation languages, like Miranda and Haskell, and like Scheme can be forced to do, and the similarities between demand-driven evaluation of partial results and the obviously demand-driven inventory practices of modern businesses is striking. There's an essay here for some political thinker, along the lines of Phil Salin's Wealth of Kitchens essay drawing parallels between free markets and object-oriented systems.) --Tim May
Re: ALTA/DMT privacy
On Dec 11, 2003, at 11:54 AM, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 10 Dec 2003 at 19:31, Tim May wrote: I receive several messages a month saying I need to re-verify information with an E-gold account (which I never recall establishing, by the way). These are messagers from scammers. e-gold never sends out email. E-gold was never even slightly interesting to me for reasons I talked about a few years ago--the notion that a bar of gold moving between shelves in someone's hotel room in Barbados or Guyana or wherever is equivalent to untraceability is silly Randroid idol-worship raised to the fourth power. Every atom of gold is identical to every other atom of gold. There is only one stable isotope. E-gold does not provide untraceability -- but gold does. Where tax authorities get people is in the transfer _in to_ and _out of_ certain kinds of accounts, be they Cayman Island or Swiss bank accounts, whatever. The issue with opening a Swiss bank account and wiring money into it, or depositing Federal Reserve Notes into it has NOTHING to do with FRNs having serial numbers and hence being traceable. The issue is with their own reporting to the IRS (these days) and to stops in place to stop the wiring of said money or the transport of said FRNs. What *form* the item of value is inside the bank, be it gold bars or Spanish doubloons or stacks of $20 bills or diamonds, is unimportant. In fact, for all intents and purposes the item of value inside the bank can be marks in a ledger book, which is effectively the situation today. (It is true that what is stored inside a bank, be it gold coins or Federal Reserve Notes, becomes important if and when enough depositors ask for their money in that particular form. But this is an issue of believing the bank does in fact store gold dust or doubloons or FRNs, not anything about the intrinsic untraceability of such things!) In other words, any bank except for U-Stor-It-Yourself safe deposit systems, is basically a black box with beliefs by I/O users about how likely it is to behave according to its specifications. That some of the gold fetishists here keep perpetuating this deep misunderstanding of the issues is...unsurprising. --Tim May
Re: ALTA/DMT privacy [was: Re: (No Subject)]
On Dec 10, 2003, at 6:20 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: On 10 Dec 2003 at 15:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: E-gold and other DGCs do not do much if any due diligence in checking account holder identification Unfortunately, they also don't due much if any due diligence in identifying themselves in messages to real or potential customers, so it's extremely difficult to determine if I've gotten any administrative messages that really _were_ from them as opposed to the N fraudsters sending out mail asking you to log in to e-g0ld.com or whatever fake page lets them steal your egold account number and password so they can drain your balance. A policy of PGP-signing all their messages using a key that's published on their web pages would be a good start, though it's still possible to trick some fraction of people into accepting the wrong keys. For now, my basic assumption is that any communications I receive that purport to be from them are a fraud, and it's frustrating that there's no good mechanism for reporting that to e-gold. I receive several messages a month saying I need to re-verify information with an E-gold account (which I never recall establishing, by the way). If I ever determine that E-Gold personnel have faked an account on my behalf, or are complicit in any way with stealing from me, I will of course think that killing their children, their parents, and them is moral. E-gold was never even slightly interesting to me for reasons I talked about a few years ago--the notion that a bar of gold moving between shelves in someone's hotel room in Barbados or Guyana or wherever is equivalent to untraceability is silly Randroid idol-worship raised to the fourth power. The scandals reported--and not meaniingfully rebutted--several years ago confirm to me the whole thing is some Randroid fantasy built on sand. --Tim May --Tim May Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now racing down, with American flags fluttering.-- Tim May, on events following 9/11/2001
Re: Is Matel Stalinist?
On Dec 11, 2003, at 1:56 AM, ken wrote: Corporations have sales tracking software out the wazoo. If it sells, they buy more and sell them. Sounds like they're doing precisely what their owners want them to do. Yes, but, it might be that a corporation makes more money for its owners by centralising and systematising and reducing the local autonomy of business units. It's a lot easier to manage a thousand identical stores than a hundred unique ones. So from Tyler Durden's's POV there might be more responsiveness from an independent store than a chain. Though like you said, that doesn't seem to apply to books. Might to food though. I doubt it applies to food, either. If my local grocery store runs low on Spam, say, they will order more. This is why they track items with POS terminals and UPC labels (largely replacing the inventory people who used to be seen in the aisles counting items and entering them into a small computer or, earlier, onto an inventory log sheet). It makes no sense to lump or consolidate all of the stores into one lump calculation and then issue order to send more Spam in this amount to each store. Not only does it not make sense, but clearly this would cause pileups at _some_ stores (too much Spam) and shortages at _other_ stores (still not enough Spam, even with the latest send more Spam to all stores order. The fact that neither shortages nor pileups (that I can see) are apparent at any of the stores I visit, and that all of them use UPC and POS methods for _all_ sales of ordered products, is consistent with the reorder method described earlier. I repeat: the despised by anti-capitalists Borders store has a deeper and broader inventory of books than the cherished by Greens and locals locall-owned bookstore. And they also use UPC and POS and reorder books dynamically. (For another list I've been discussing lazy evaluation languages, like Miranda and Haskell, and like Scheme can be forced to do, and the similarities between demand-driven evaluation of partial results and the obviously demand-driven inventory practices of modern businesses is striking. There's an essay here for some political thinker, along the lines of Phil Salin's Wealth of Kitchens essay drawing parallels between free markets and object-oriented systems.) --Tim May
Re: Speaking of Reason
On Dec 9, 2003, at 8:46 PM, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: On Tuesday 09 December 2003 19:57, Eric Murray wrote: Ok, bye! plonk Eric (just to make it crystal clear, Tim's going in my _personal_ killfile) Shit, mine too. I really don't get what's happened to Tim. He used to be a great resource. Now he's even forgotten how to troll well. Good riddance. You've never contributed an iota to this list. --Tim May
Re: ALTA/DMT privacy [was: Re: (No Subject)]
On Dec 10, 2003, at 6:20 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: On 10 Dec 2003 at 15:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: E-gold and other DGCs do not do much if any due diligence in checking account holder identification Unfortunately, they also don't due much if any due diligence in identifying themselves in messages to real or potential customers, so it's extremely difficult to determine if I've gotten any administrative messages that really _were_ from them as opposed to the N fraudsters sending out mail asking you to log in to e-g0ld.com or whatever fake page lets them steal your egold account number and password so they can drain your balance. A policy of PGP-signing all their messages using a key that's published on their web pages would be a good start, though it's still possible to trick some fraction of people into accepting the wrong keys. For now, my basic assumption is that any communications I receive that purport to be from them are a fraud, and it's frustrating that there's no good mechanism for reporting that to e-gold. I receive several messages a month saying I need to re-verify information with an E-gold account (which I never recall establishing, by the way). If I ever determine that E-Gold personnel have faked an account on my behalf, or are complicit in any way with stealing from me, I will of course think that killing their children, their parents, and them is moral. E-gold was never even slightly interesting to me for reasons I talked about a few years ago--the notion that a bar of gold moving between shelves in someone's hotel room in Barbados or Guyana or wherever is equivalent to untraceability is silly Randroid idol-worship raised to the fourth power. The scandals reported--and not meaniingfully rebutted--several years ago confirm to me the whole thing is some Randroid fantasy built on sand. --Tim May --Tim May Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now racing down, with American flags fluttering.-- Tim May, on events following 9/11/2001
Re: Speaking of Reason
On Dec 9, 2003, at 8:46 PM, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: On Tuesday 09 December 2003 19:57, Eric Murray wrote: Ok, bye! plonk Eric (just to make it crystal clear, Tim's going in my _personal_ killfile) Shit, mine too. I really don't get what's happened to Tim. He used to be a great resource. Now he's even forgotten how to troll well. Good riddance. You've never contributed an iota to this list. --Tim May
Re: cypherpunks discussions
On Dec 9, 2003, at 4:57 AM, John Young wrote: Nomen Nescio wrote: I find it strange that some people here so often wants to intimidate those that dares to ask some questions. Eric put it very well in his post about dicksizewar. Very true indeed. I find it very *l*a*m*e* to all the time tell people to RTFM when something comes up that happened to be have been dealt with like five years ago. Brain rot is the cause of impatience with what is mistakenly perceived to be repetition of old stuff. But brain rot leads to wars which pointlessly kill young people by the thousands, so watch out believing what the brain pre-dead spout as wisdom. PLONK. I've had it with years of these e.e. cummings bits of zero content. --Tim May
Re: cypherpunks discussions
On Dec 8, 2003, at 11:13 PM, Sarad AV wrote: hi, Asking questions is part of learning. Unless one learns how is he expected to participate and make once in a while intelliget discussions? 1. You never contribute anything that indicates you have actually learned. 2. Your questions, such as the ones I gave as examples of your recent ones, are phrased as if they were lifted directly from algebra and number theory books. The conclusions are obvious. You are either a bot or a noob. Give noobs some space and time to learn and over time they will contribute to the list. Yep, a noob, whatever that is. Start contributing or leave. You've been posting textbook paragraphs and asking us to fill in the next line for way too many months. --Tim May
Strong Crypto is about the Burnoff of Useless Eaters
competitors try to wrest control of Intel's dominance in several ways: -- there was the Japanese TRON project, massively-funded by the Japanese government and supported by NEC, Hitachi, Fujitsu, Toshiba, and all of the other giants of the Japanese chip industry (remember when the Japanese were seen as 1- feet tall and invincible and how they would swallow up Intel as well as Pebble Beach?) -- there was the consortium of DEC, MIPS, Compaq, and a bunch of other companies to come up with the industry-standard alternative to Intel, AMD, Harris, and others in the x86 camp. (BTW, where were the antitrust regulators when this collusive attempt to drive a wedge into Intel's dominance was being hatched? Answer: government ignores what it chooses to ignore and persecutes what it chooses to persecute.) -- and each of Intel's direct competitors were, without the collusions above, fighting intensely to displace Intel. Had one of them succeeded, as easily might have been case in some alternate history, the anti-globalist lefties would now be arguing for the break-ups of Motorola and Sun so that poor little Intel and Microsoft could be given a fighting chance. And so on, for all of the examples. Don't like Ford? Don't buy from Ford. Think McDonald's is too global? Don't eat at McDonald's. Companies are not permanent. They rise and fall, they come and go. In fact, of the Dow 30 Industrials, the very measure of Giant Corporation capitalism, take a look at how many of those on the list several decades ago are still on the list. Twenty years ago the anti-globalists (such as they were back then, before lefties discovered this as their new raison d'etre) would have been nattering about the need to break up Digital Equipment Corporation, which utterly dominated the corporate minicomputer market (crushing the likes of Data General and even IBM, which was seen as a dinosaur). But DEC got absorbed in Compaq, a company which barely existed back then, and then Compaq got absorbed into H-P, which is struggling. Joseph Schumpeter called this the process of creative destructionism, the process of companies forming, evolving, dissipating, dissolving, the surviving staff and ideas (memes) forming new companies, new ensembles. Long after Boeing and Airbus are gone, new aircraft and spacecraft companies will form. Long after Intel and IBM are gone, new electronics and nanotech companies will form. The difference between corporations and governments is vast. Governments don't give choices. Governments don't allow competition. Governments enslave people and send them to fight wars with other governments. That the anti-globalists have lost sight of this and are instead holding their silly rallies and marches to stop job export to China and force a living wage and break up Microsoft shows they have nothing whatsoever in common with what strong crypto and untraceable communication and digital money will do. The official protests against the WTO natter about unfair wage practices in the so-called developing world, but the real issue is just what it has always been with protectionism. News flash to all the lefties on this list who think these technologies will somehow bring about the socialist paradise they want to see: strong crypto means no government goon can take money from those who work and save and give it to others who failed to study, work, and save. Programs like welfare/AFDC/WICC/social programs boondoggles. It may mean, if we are lucky, the death and burn-off of tens of millions of useless eaters. This will be a GOOD THING. Of course, those who choose to participate in the new digital economy will do well. To paraphrase the saying, On the Net, no one knows you're colored. This is what strong crypto and a True Names world means. Do the math. For all the lefties here, you should've known this for years and years. Enough of us have talked about it. And it was obvious to me in the early days (which predate CP by several years, of course (cf. the Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, 1988) that strong crypto would usher in a world where no liberal traitor like John Kennedy could steal my money to send to some negroes in Washington so they could buy more malt liquor and breed more chilluns. Good riddance to bad rubbish. The Crypto Revolution will burn off tens of millions of useless eaters. --Tim May
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Dec 7, 2003, at 6:54 PM, Greg Newby wrote: On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 07:37:26PM -0800, John Young wrote: ... What I like about the ring-in-the-flesh crowd is their pleasure in grossing out the stodgers. Makes me wish I still had that knack instead of only the memories. Hey, John -- wear some of that shit, and I promise to be grossed out. But seriously, has anyone considered that maybe the problem is Tim May? His hate-filled ignorance is a real impediment to anyone who might otherwise be interested in the cause. His spews are pretty distasteful, and to him, anyone who didn't start cp a zillion years ago is just an ankle biter come-lately. Fuck off and die, along with all of your fellow travellers. You have contributed _nothing_ here. I've only been on the list for 3 years, but I'd say that things were a lot more interesting before (In-) Choat jumped ship. In your three years here, nothing. And a big fuck you, too to anyone who thinks otherwise. -- Greg I hope you and your family are some of the first of the tens of millions who will die in the Great Burnoff of Useless Eaters. --Tim May Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound
Re: Is Matel Stalinist?
supermarkets came to town and the small grocery stores faced competition. Exactly what was heard 30 years ago when Wal-Mart and their type came to town and the small five and dime stores faced competition. Corporations have sales tracking software out the wazoo. If it sells, they buy more and sell them. Sounds like they're doing precisely what their owners want them to do. But nobody seems to notice...we're completely used to being passive cogs in a big, fat machine-state. So in a sense, it's gone way beyond 'repression'...no need for that rat-cage around our heads anymore. You silly Bolshies are obviously on the wrong list if you think strong crypto is going to help your cause. Feh. --Tim May --Tim May The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. --Frederic Bastiat
Re: Speaking of Reason
On Dec 9, 2003, at 4:57 PM, Eric Murray wrote: On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:05:29PM -0800, Tim May wrote: Since Eric Murray has expressed distaste with my views I pretty much agree with your views, minus the racism and misogny. On days that the brilliant thoughtful Tim posts, I'm in awe. When Tim the asshole posts, I'm disgusted. Unfortunately these days the latter Tim isn't letting the former Tim near the keyboard very often. Fuck you dead. Fuck all of you Bolshies dead. Ok, bye! plonk Eric (just to make it crystal clear, Tim's going in my _personal_ killfile) I hope he killfiles me in his lne.com files, as I am fed up with these Bolshies, fellow travellers, censors, and why haven't you done more for the Cause! whiners. --Tim May
Re:
On Dec 8, 2003, at 1:23 PM, Keith Ray wrote: who end It might help if you sent these requests to the corresponding administrivia/majordomo/etc. sits instead of to the list distributions. (But probably not.) --Tim May --Tim May That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. --Samuel Adams
Re: cypherpunks discussions
On Dec 8, 2003, at 11:13 PM, Sarad AV wrote: hi, Asking questions is part of learning. Unless one learns how is he expected to participate and make once in a while intelliget discussions? 1. You never contribute anything that indicates you have actually learned. 2. Your questions, such as the ones I gave as examples of your recent ones, are phrased as if they were lifted directly from algebra and number theory books. The conclusions are obvious. You are either a bot or a noob. Give noobs some space and time to learn and over time they will contribute to the list. Yep, a noob, whatever that is. Start contributing or leave. You've been posting textbook paragraphs and asking us to fill in the next line for way too many months. --Tim May
Strong Crypto is about the Burnoff of Useless Eaters
competitors try to wrest control of Intel's dominance in several ways: -- there was the Japanese TRON project, massively-funded by the Japanese government and supported by NEC, Hitachi, Fujitsu, Toshiba, and all of the other giants of the Japanese chip industry (remember when the Japanese were seen as 1- feet tall and invincible and how they would swallow up Intel as well as Pebble Beach?) -- there was the consortium of DEC, MIPS, Compaq, and a bunch of other companies to come up with the industry-standard alternative to Intel, AMD, Harris, and others in the x86 camp. (BTW, where were the antitrust regulators when this collusive attempt to drive a wedge into Intel's dominance was being hatched? Answer: government ignores what it chooses to ignore and persecutes what it chooses to persecute.) -- and each of Intel's direct competitors were, without the collusions above, fighting intensely to displace Intel. Had one of them succeeded, as easily might have been case in some alternate history, the anti-globalist lefties would now be arguing for the break-ups of Motorola and Sun so that poor little Intel and Microsoft could be given a fighting chance. And so on, for all of the examples. Don't like Ford? Don't buy from Ford. Think McDonald's is too global? Don't eat at McDonald's. Companies are not permanent. They rise and fall, they come and go. In fact, of the Dow 30 Industrials, the very measure of Giant Corporation capitalism, take a look at how many of those on the list several decades ago are still on the list. Twenty years ago the anti-globalists (such as they were back then, before lefties discovered this as their new raison d'etre) would have been nattering about the need to break up Digital Equipment Corporation, which utterly dominated the corporate minicomputer market (crushing the likes of Data General and even IBM, which was seen as a dinosaur). But DEC got absorbed in Compaq, a company which barely existed back then, and then Compaq got absorbed into H-P, which is struggling. Joseph Schumpeter called this the process of creative destructionism, the process of companies forming, evolving, dissipating, dissolving, the surviving staff and ideas (memes) forming new companies, new ensembles. Long after Boeing and Airbus are gone, new aircraft and spacecraft companies will form. Long after Intel and IBM are gone, new electronics and nanotech companies will form. The difference between corporations and governments is vast. Governments don't give choices. Governments don't allow competition. Governments enslave people and send them to fight wars with other governments. That the anti-globalists have lost sight of this and are instead holding their silly rallies and marches to stop job export to China and force a living wage and break up Microsoft shows they have nothing whatsoever in common with what strong crypto and untraceable communication and digital money will do. The official protests against the WTO natter about unfair wage practices in the so-called developing world, but the real issue is just what it has always been with protectionism. News flash to all the lefties on this list who think these technologies will somehow bring about the socialist paradise they want to see: strong crypto means no government goon can take money from those who work and save and give it to others who failed to study, work, and save. Programs like welfare/AFDC/WICC/social programs boondoggles. It may mean, if we are lucky, the death and burn-off of tens of millions of useless eaters. This will be a GOOD THING. Of course, those who choose to participate in the new digital economy will do well. To paraphrase the saying, On the Net, no one knows you're colored. This is what strong crypto and a True Names world means. Do the math. For all the lefties here, you should've known this for years and years. Enough of us have talked about it. And it was obvious to me in the early days (which predate CP by several years, of course (cf. the Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, 1988) that strong crypto would usher in a world where no liberal traitor like John Kennedy could steal my money to send to some negroes in Washington so they could buy more malt liquor and breed more chilluns. Good riddance to bad rubbish. The Crypto Revolution will burn off tens of millions of useless eaters. --Tim May
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Dec 7, 2003, at 6:54 PM, Greg Newby wrote: On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 07:37:26PM -0800, John Young wrote: ... What I like about the ring-in-the-flesh crowd is their pleasure in grossing out the stodgers. Makes me wish I still had that knack instead of only the memories. Hey, John -- wear some of that shit, and I promise to be grossed out. But seriously, has anyone considered that maybe the problem is Tim May? His hate-filled ignorance is a real impediment to anyone who might otherwise be interested in the cause. His spews are pretty distasteful, and to him, anyone who didn't start cp a zillion years ago is just an ankle biter come-lately. Fuck off and die, along with all of your fellow travellers. You have contributed _nothing_ here. I've only been on the list for 3 years, but I'd say that things were a lot more interesting before (In-) Choat jumped ship. In your three years here, nothing. And a big fuck you, too to anyone who thinks otherwise. -- Greg I hope you and your family are some of the first of the tens of millions who will die in the Great Burnoff of Useless Eaters. --Tim May Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound
