Re: Gubmint Tests Passport RFID...
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whaddya know. Thompson said something that didn't make me want to beat him to death... Too bad for you that I cannot say the same about what you write. I have a different threat model. I've reached more or less the same conclusion. Or at least, incompetence may not be deliberate per se, but the byproduct of a system that needs to appear to care but is otherwise silently incented not to. Checking bags in the NYC transit system is the ultimate example of this: Completely, absolutely pointless in the face of a determined foe. (Meanwhile, of course, there's all sorts of state shennanegins that are possible through such an arrangement.) No fucking shit. Thanks for pointing this out to me. The obvious question is how much 9/11/01 is an example of this. For me, the conspiracy theories just don't quite add up (close though) but a moderately sharpened Occam's razor leads one to believe that some 'deliberate' holes were left open, which bin Laden, et al exploited. (I actually still believe that Bush didn't expect that level of damage, however.) I don't know Bush, personally, and so I feel that it would be improper to suggest that his unspoken cost-benefit analysis resulted in a particular set of actions. As for the integrity of the money supply, I must succumb to temptation and question whether the Stalinst model of a demand economy (servicing an endless war on terror) hasn't been looked at by folks such as Wolfowitz, Cheney and so on. Suckkumb all you want. Regards, Steve __ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
Re: Gubmint Tests Passport RFID...
--- Roy M. Silvernail [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: And since one's passport essentially boils down to a chip, why not implant it under the skin? You say that as though it hasn't been considered. Good point. As many of us know, there are groups of well-educated people who spend all their time on the analysis of technology: think tanks. Who can possibly say what sorts of universal, 'machine-readable' identification systems are considered, and which modes of use they imagine? Many of the studies that are conducted under the umbrella of think tank resarch is, of course, proprietary and restricted in distribution. Knowledgable individuals can do only so much (in their spare time, for instance) towards doing their own analysis of leading-edge technology use and misuse, and most people know this. So, why is it that there seem to be no open source groups who, like people in the free software movement might write software, produce non-trivial papers on the results of their brainstorming sessions? If we can agree that the research of closed NSA think-tank groups might be of immense interest to people with a vested interest in the use or misuse of emerging technologies, then it follows that open source intelligence analysis of technology is a field that is both very much wide-open for exploration, and also quite critical. People like Bruce Schneier do a good job more or less on their own in their respective fields, but it seems that there is likely a significant quality gap in what can be done by individual experts, and what might be accomplished by groups of savvy intellectuals. However, the playing field is such in the public realm most discussion and analysis of these kinds of issue are relegated to science fiction, academic journals, mailing lists, and of course blogs. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of a great many people to bring a more rigorous and wide ranging type of analysis to such fields, and I am not quite sure why. Nevertheless, for those who are at all aware of the kind of product produced by conventional think-tank groups, it is evident that there are large gaps in the areas of consideration and fields of study covered by the open-source analysis field. This obviously affects the quality of debate in the public sphere. As for the encryption issue, can someone explain to me why it even matters? It doesn't, actually. There is no clear and compelling reason to make a passport remotely readable, considering that a Customs agent still has to visually review the document. And if the agent has to look at it, s/he can certainly run it through a contact-based reader in much the same way the current design's submerged magnetic strip is read. It would seem to me that any on-demand access to one's chip-stored info is only as secure as the encryption codes, which would have to be stored and which will eventually become public, no matter how much the government says, Trust us...the access codes are secure. http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67333,00.html?tw=wn_story_related This story says the data will be encrypted, but the key will be printed on the passport itself in a machine-readable format. Once again, this requires manual handling of the passport, so there's *still* no advantage to RFID in the official use case. (ie, they want to be able to read your RFID wihtout you having to perform any additional actions to release the information.) Yup. Bruce Schneier nailed the real motivation almost a year ago: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/10/rfid_passports.html Normally I am very careful before I ascribe such sinister motives to a government agency. Incompetence is the norm, and malevolence is much rarer. But this seems like a clear case of the Bush administration putting its own interests above the security and privacy of its citizens, and then lying about it. I have a different threat model. I suggest that incompetence is _often_ deliberate and, at least to those who orchestrate such things, is designed to leave or provide cracks in arbitrary systesm that will be expoited. This may be defensible in cases where someone wants to encourage child molesters to expose their operations to sophisticated intelligence and surveillance activities, but is harder to defend when such policies affect the integrity of the money supply, or the transportation infrastructure, or Interestingly, even the on-document keying scheme doesn't address the fundamental problem. Nowhere is it said that the whole of the remotely readable data will be encrypted. If a GUID is left in the clear, the passport is readily usable as a taggant by anyone privy to the GUID-meatspace map. Without access to the map, the tag still identifies its carrier as a U.S passport holder. Integrating this aspect into munitions is left as an exercise for the reader. The only way I see it
Re: Well, they got what they want...
--- J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Steve Thompson wrote: --- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: pretend you hate. But there is an up-side: you're too fucking stupid to be of permanent use to the 'Stazi', and so you can anticpate outliving your usefulness eventually. Why don't you two get a room? I'll even subsidize it. Beg me. Regards, Steve __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Well, they got what they want...
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's an old pattern to character assassins: I've attacked you publically but I really don't want to have defend what I've said or reply to suggestions about my own motivation. And psychopaths are sometimes said to accuse their victims of the malice and violence the psychopaths perpetrate. Great. Fuck you too. Hope the new Stazi grab you while you bitch and complain and do nothing. Likewise, although I rather suspect you would be one of very 'Stazi' you pretend you hate. But there is an up-side: you're too fucking stupid to be of permanent use to the 'Stazi', and so you can anticpate outliving your usefulness eventually. Regards, Steve __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Well, they got what they want...
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, apparently you haven't been getting any of my posts to the Al-Qaeda node, otherwise the context would be clear. I'm not even going to bother with you anymore. Your motivation is quite clear enough, and any further bad-faith back-and-forth on your part would be superfluous to the task of proving that you won't be serious when you reply to my messages. Regards, Steve __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Well, they got what they want...
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This premise, however, depends somewhat on the observation that the so-called left and right-wing divisions of the political spectrum are largely illusory. The most strident critics of diametric political opposites in the press and elsewhere would disagree, but their very occupations are rather dependent upon the perception that the evident differences in ideology are more than superficial. But as far as I'm concerned, there is no meaningful difference in most cases. Yeah...the reason you know to say that is because I just made that point. Is that correct? 'Cause it looks to me like you're farting chaff. Local authorities, however, can take these differences as meaningful and act upon them. Yes they can. But should they? Is this paranoid? Yes, but in the wrong way. Which makes you either an idiot or a JBT troll. Possibly both. What the fuck are you talking about? I don't have a clue. Clue: JBT = Jack-booted thug. Within the cypherpunks list membership, this is usually an identifier referring to people working for the so-called law-enforcement arm of a government -- particulaly one of the federal-level agencies whose personnel believe themselves to be entitled to dictate terms of existence to mere mortals. Uh-huh. Y'know the police planted a stupid story in the local media here (toronto) not too long ago. They said that some wack-job had been deterred from going on a psychotic rampage with his evil guns because he met a friendly dog in a park, and that the dog made him re-assess his homocidal/suicidal ideation. I imgaine the people who thought that one up should cut down on their intake of hallucinogens and laughing gas. Well, maybe up in Canada. Such a story would be seen as very meaningful here in most of the States, proof that we're responding correctly. In other words, as stupid as Canadians can be, Americans are often far stupider. And more belligerent, too, which is why we're in this mess. I think you would better serve yourself if you were employed doing something productive as opposed to being occupied doing something that merely seems productive. Regards, Steve __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Well, they got what they want...
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Well, they got what they want... Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:01:30 -0400 (EDT) --- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...I'm sure most are aware that random searches has begun here in NYC, at subway stations and in the LIRR. Contraband (drugs, etc...) can get the owner arrested. The next step, of course, will be to start grabbing anyone carrying terrorist propaganda, such as the Qu'ran, leaflets, or even the New York Times. You fucking 'tard; nobody is going to be arrested for carrying a copy of the NYT. Well, if you're saying what I think you're saying, I'm still not so sure. Well, what do you *think* I'm saying? Perhaps I could clarify my post. Lies of the Times indeed...the Times Liberal compared to NYPost, etc...is like Kodos compared to Kang. I fail to see the relevance. Domestic security services haven't spent the last few decades co-opting the press for nothing. As far as I'm concerned, it is ludicrous to suggest that quasi-offical state press organs will produce product that will in any way be candidate materials for classification as subversive publications. This premise, however, depends somewhat on the observation that the so-called left and right-wing divisions of the political spectrum are largely illusory. The most strident critics of diametric political opposites in the press and elsewhere would disagree, but their very occupations are rather dependent upon the perception that the evident differences in ideology are more than superficial. But as far as I'm concerned, there is no meaningful difference in most cases. BUT, -local- authorities just might declare it Liberal Propaganda. Or worse, ANY litereature (left, right) will be suspect. Uh-huh. Is this paranoid? Yes, but in the wrong way. Which makes you either an idiot or a JBT troll. Possibly both. A year or two I would have thought so. But things have gotten so out of wack that anything goes. Cellphones, of course, are the latest scary devices, and here in NYC the towers for them are down in key infrastructural places. I could easily see that being expanded into the Wall Street/downtown area, where we already have multiple barricades and machine gun armed cops. I agree that cell-phones are scary devices, but only because they are proprietary, and because the phone companies are just as bad as the press when it comes to co-operating with the so-called law-enfocement community. Anyone recall Operation Sundevil and friends? Saw a local security expert on the news, and he stated the obvious: Blah, blah, blah. Random searches and whatnot are going to do zero for someone determined, but might deter someone who was thinking about blowing up the A train. In other words, everyone here in NYC Uh-huh. Y'know the police planted a stupid story in the local media here (toronto) not too long ago. They said that some wack-job had been deterred from going on a psychotic rampage with his evil guns because he met a friendly dog in a park, and that the dog made him re-assess his homocidal/suicidal ideation. I imgaine the people who thought that one up should cut down on their intake of hallucinogens and laughing gas. As for propogating the silly idea that bombs can be detonated by remote-control with a cell-phone trigger... Well, that's really fucking stupid. Any half-wit could do just as good a job with a one-way pager, or a digital watch -- if he were not so inclined as to cobble toghether a 555 timer and some glue in a shielded enclosure. As I mentioned elsewhere, science, logic, and fact have no major role to play in the operation of courts or law enforcement today. That should be inexcusable to anyone who expects to rely on science, logic, or fact in any other areas of life; such as medicine or transportation, for instance. knows that we've given up a lot for the sake of the appearence of security, but no one seems to give a damn. Well ain't that just too fuckin' bad. Regards, Steve __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Well, they got what they want...
--- John Kelsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jul 23, 2005 9:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Well, they got what they want... ... Saw a local security expert on the news, and he stated the obvious: Random earches and whatnot are going to do zero for someone determined, but might deter someone who was thinking about blowing up the A train. In other words, everyone here in NYC knows that we've given up a lot for the sake of the appearence of security, but no one seems to give a damn. I think the reality is a bit different. The random searches won't keep someone who's planning an attack from trying to carry it out, but it may delay their attack, if they made plans based on the old security setup, not the new one. It may also convince them to shift the attack to a new target. --John __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Well, they got what they want...
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...I'm sure most are aware that random searches has begun here in NYC, at subway stations and in the LIRR. Contraband (drugs, etc...) can get the owner arrested. The next step, of course, will be to start grabbing anyone carrying terrorist propaganda, such as the Qu'ran, leaflets, or even the New York Times. You fucking 'tard; nobody is going to be arrested for carrying a copy of the NYT. This deliberate abrogation of the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure is typical of the way authorities abuse process. This sort of thing happens _all the time_. Here's how the scam works (for those of you who require that their information comes pre-chewed): J. Random Authority will decide that he or she wishes to advance the incremental fait accompli of the tiered police state. He or she examines the political landscape of the moment and identifies a flimsy excuse that may be used to backstop this-or-that draconian measure. In this case, random searches of transit passengers. It is expected that the flagrant violation of the law by the authorites for some contrived need will eventually be examined in court by virtue of some citizen petition that is made in a fit of outrage or pique. Depending on the political reality of the moment, the courts may be encouraged to rule in such a way as to force the complainant through the expensive and time-consuming task of going in front of the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the authorities carry on with their blatantly illegal activities and wait for the courts to rule them in the wrong; if that actually occurs -- by no means a sure thing when science, reason, and logic are habitually excluded from judicial processes. As a nice side effect, many actions of this sort are undertaken with the secondary motive of outraging and provoking so-called undesireable elements within the affected population. In North America, this is the business-as-usual model of government interacting with its citizens. And since every judicial ruling has a small but finite chance of being ruled in the Government's favour, no matter how absurd such a ruling might be, the tiered authoritarian and plutocratic police state is thus incrimentally realized. The sad thing is that it is still absurdly easy to get whatever you want into the subways. For one, not every station has any kind of significant police presence (funny, but the Chambers street station this morning had multiple possible places where someone could enter with a backpack, despite the fact that it opens directly inside Ground Zero and the path Trains to New Jersey). But even if there were police everywhere, there are still many places between stations where someone determined could enter. Not to mention the subtle, expensive, and time-consuming methods for putting people and things in-place that tend to be favoured by the Usual Suspects. OK, OK...so the police are deterrents against a few lone crazy copycats, who don't have enough sense to enter away from police line-of-site. But it sure seems damned silly to be giving up constitutional protection for the sake of an image of protection. You got one thing right: it's damned silly. Regards, Steve __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [rationalchatter] Interesting Trial - IRS trial - July 11th (fwd)
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah...it's pretty fuckin' pointless. Tantamount to proving a guy pointing a gun at you is actually pointing a gun at you, TO the guy pointing the gun at you. Oh, I don't know about that. What about proving that someone is pointing a [gun] at you, who has already lets you know he's pointing a [gun] at you via deniable means of some kind, but who categorically denies such when asked about it directly. In that vague scenario, I would imagine that there is some utility in proving conclusively that someone is pointing a [gun] at you if only to warn others around you about the threat. I, of course, live a similar scenario. The main difference is that it is a group with a somewhat unethical agenda that poses the threat, and who swear up and down that (a) they are all really, really nice people, and (b) that they have no actual interest in my affairs. Both assertions are quite false, but proving it is another matter -- and difficult too, given the ignorance and stupidity currently in fashion at the moment. But I don't mean to provoke an off-topic discussion in this thread. Please do carry on. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
--- Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then, of course, in the off chance they can't actually break the message under that flag, they can merely send a guy out with binoculars or whatever. Don't forget about rubber-hose cryptanlysis. Rumour has it that method is preferred in many cases since it makes the code-breakers feel good by way of testosterone release. Guns. You may not be able to kill them, but you may be able to force them to kill you. If they're using rubber hoses, they're probably going to kill you anyways. Hoses leave marks, of course, and if there's one thing a spook hates, it is leaving evidence of his or her passage. Unless his or her mission is about leaving visible traces, of course. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Stash Burn?
--- A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Steve Thompson scribbled: --- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [incinerating the evidence] What's wrong with this idea? The Alabama hillbilly remains free to harass you the next time you pass through the area. Don't you think it's a little insensitive to stereotype pigs in that particular way? What if they were to read this online and somehow link it to your real name? Who gives a shit? Much better to pay off the cops ahead of time so they won't inconvenience your criminal activities. Do you pay off every cop in the US or merely every cop within twenty miles of your drug route? Whatever it takes, of course. But in practice, there are minimising techniques that will tend to reduce the requirement of paying off every pig in the continental US of A. For instance, if you have the means you might choose to establish a culture of privilage and exclusivity (perhaps via allocating scarce 'access') among the pig population in which the payoffs are only given to pigs who demonstrate loyalty to your drug empire over time. Various selection criterion would apply: don't ask, don't tell; not too greedy; length of service; consistent and courteous attitude. Rookie pigs would have a file opened, and their service record updated each time they interact with your drug cartel's employees. After some arbitrary period, or after the accumulation of enough 'points', pigs would start receiving cash payoffs and perhaps other perqs. As you might imagine, there would need be a detailed and sophisticated system described in order to make for a complete system, and I do not propose to make an exhaustive list of requirements here. I simply think that it could be done if your organisation was sufficiently competent. SOP is to drive unregistered or stolen cars with license removed. Keep a fake new car paper license in the rear windshield. With no way to connect you to the vehicle, response to a traffic stop should be obvious. No need to stop the car if you have a passenger and a few scoped and unscoped battle rifles. Sunroof optional but recommended. Be prepared to repaint the car. Sure. It is unnecessary to have a belt-fed AR or m249 with several thousand rounds mounted in the trunk facing backwards. Using a turn signal or windshield wiper lever to aim is awkward, and so is explaining away bullet holes in tail lights when you're pulled over for that later. I confess that I don't really understand the obsessive preoccupation you people have with firearms. They have their place, of course, as everyone understands the occasional necessity of a well-placed load of number-four buckshot (to the knees, usually), but guns are above all else, a tool. And they aren't the only tool in the arsenel. Far too many people are sidetracked in this way, however, and it's a shame. Just once, can't we have a nice polite discussion about the logicstics and planning side of large criminal enterprise? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: End of a cypherpunk era?
--- Anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Still, if we could achieve mutual respect and freedom in the physical world, we would happily pay the price of increased rudeness online. Speak for yourself. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
[snip] Agreements and accords such as the Berne convention and the DCMA, to say nothing of human-rights legislation, are hobbled by the toothlessness of enforcement, pulic apathy to others' rights, and a load of convenient exceptions to such rules made for the agents of state. Okay. So it's fair to say, then, that we have compromises between property rights protections and other (perceived yet imaginary?) property rights protections. Which is really what it boils down to. Absolutely. There's no property rights usurpation without some motive behind it. Unless if it's by accident. And motives generally stem from wanting to redistribute property or deny it to another individual, group, or an entire nation. Sometimes that property is land (the excuse for such property redistribution or denial of ownership is called self determination) Operative word: excuse. , sometimes it is intellectual property (the excuse is information wants to be free)... Or like maybe the NSA needs to steal something that they can't buy because they NEED to conceal the project that requires the stolen item. Or maybe a wealthy interest has a commercial interest to protect and bribes an official to steal land that threatens said interest. Or maybe it's a Klan member who thinks that niggers shouldn't own property, and so he steals it. Or perhaps it's a Xtian who believes it's God's will to deny property rights to heathens, as a lesson in coming to God. Or maybe it's a bunch of fucking theives who use any excuse they have at hand to justify their own greed. sometimes it's explosives (they're TOO DANGEROUS, and only terrorists have them... are you a terrorist?). Sometimes it's a complete load of shit, and there's no real valid reason that will stand intelligent scrutiny as to why some people are allowed to do one thing that is denied to another people. Personally, I believe that the people who run the US, the dirty ones, are too well aware of the liabilities they have assumed as a matter of course in their history, and who will do anything rather than face paying the debt. Anything. And futher, this conclusion is not so foreign as to be beyond comprehension, but rather represents a problem that no-one is willing to deal with -- thus compounding the error. Since you still aren't bothering to address messages I write in good faith, I suggest that you should go fuck yourself. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
--- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Property is like rights. We create it inherently, because we're human, it is not bestowed upon us by someone else. Particularly if that property is stolen from someone else at tax-time. Bzzt. I call you on your bullshit. Supposedly by convention, individuals attach some of a set of symbol relations to physical objects and ideas and processes. Such relations, when observed consistently, confer rights of posession and use to groups or individuals. Individuals employed by governments, as well as special interest groups, are certainly no longer satisfied with a democratic arrangement of property rights and have manufactured consent, as it were, to establish a bunch of exceptions to property rights that allow for `legalised' theft. But as long as property rights are generally considered to be a tenet and characteristic of society, excuses for officiated theft, for instance, merely put a veneer of legitimacy over certain kinds of theft. I doubt that RMS will ever be framed, arrested and thrown in to the gulag, his property confiscated; but for someone like myself, that is certainly an option, eh? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
--- Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2005-02-16T13:31:14-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Property is like rights. We create it inherently, because we're human, it is not bestowed upon us by someone else. Particularly if that property is stolen from someone else at tax-time. But as long as property rights are generally considered to be a tenet and characteristic of society, excuses for officiated theft, for instance, merely put a veneer of legitimacy over certain kinds of theft. I doubt that RMS will ever be framed, arrested and thrown in to the gulag, his property confiscated; but for someone like myself, that is certainly an option, eh? Is there a difference between property rights in a society like a pride of lions, and property rights that are respected independent of social status? Or are they essentially the same? They seem to be different, but I can't articulate why. Obviously the latter needs enforcement, possibly courts, etc., but I can't identify a more innate difference, other than simply as I described it -- property rights depending on social status, and property rights not depending on social status. I don't think any society has ever managed to construct a pure property rights system where nobody has any advantage. Without government it's the strong. With government, government agents have an advantage, and rich people have an advantage because they can hire smart lawyers to get unfair court decisions. So maybe this is just silly, in which case I believe even more strongly that formal status-independent property rights are not the basis of government. Whatever. See the sentence I wrote last in my previous message. When you grow the fuck up, drop me a line. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
--- Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] As governments were created to smash property rights, they are always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property, and the greatest enemy of those with the most property. Uh-huh. Perhaps you are using the term 'government' in a way that is not common to most writers of modern American English? I think it's fair to say that governments initially formed to protect property rights (although we have no historical record of such a government because it must have been before recorded history began). I think it's fair to say that governments were initially, and still largely remain today, the public formalisation of religious rule applied to the civil sphere of existence. It's more complicated than that, but generally speaking, somewhat disparate religious populations (protestant, catholic, jew, etc.) accepted the fiction of secular civil governance when in reality religious groups have tended to dominate the shape and direction of civil government, while professing to remain at arms-length. 'Fiction' is the operative term here, and I contend that nowhere is this more evident in the closed world of clandestine affairs -- civilian OR military. Religion has always been about 'powerful' and educated in-sect sub-populations organising civil and intellectuall affairs in such a way as to mobilise the serfs to the advantage of the privilaged, all the while presenting convenient systems of fiction to the masses that are expected to suffice as the broad official reality of society; a reality fully accessable to some who quite naturally use their position of possibly intellectual privilage to order the affairs of the serf/slaves. They then developed into monarchies which were only really set up to protect property rights of the ruler(s). If I'm not mistaken, it was in Germany where the concept of public figureheads-as-leaders was evolved to a system in which the figurehead (king, pontiff, leader) was presented as the soruce of state power, but who in actuality was groomed, controlled, and ruled by a non-public contingent of privilaged political and intellectual elite who, in general, ran the affairs of state and/or religion from the back room, so to speak. This way of organising the public affairs of government has, I think, roots that date back to the ancient Greeks, but is also largely in favour today. With the advent of various quasi-democratic forms of government, the law has been compromised insofar as it protects property rights. You no longer have a right to keep all your money (taxes), no longer have a right to grow 5' weeds in your front yard if you live in a city, and no longer have a right to own certain evil things at all, at least not without special governmental permission. There were analogous compromises in democratic Athens and quasi-democratic Rome. It's rather different today. When democratic states inevitably fold into tyranny, some of those restrictions remain. Right now most states have a strange mix of property rights protections (e.g. the Berne convention and the DMCA) and property rights usurpations (e.g. no right to own certain weapons; equal protection). Agreements and accords such as the Berne convention and the DCMA, to say nothing of human-rights legislation, are hobbled by the toothlessness of enforcement, pulic apathy to others' rights, and a load of convenient exceptions to such rules made for the agents of state. For instance, the copyright on my computer software was blithely subverted by the fascist ubermench involved and responsible for the surveillance detail that I have suffered over the past two decades. I listened to some of these people make excuses for stealing my intellectual property, fashioning rumours to lessen the wrong of their theft, or 'merely' applying pressure or making plans to 'encourage' the release of my code in the public domain so their prior theft could be buried. Failing that, they have simply stolen all my computer equipment and delayed my life, possibly so my code could be `developed' by their own programmers and a history shown -- perhaps with the partial aim of finally accusing me of stealing their intellectual property after it is released in their own product. These people are nothing more than jack-booted thugs, and whether they are Nazis or not is immaterial to the fact that their methods and ideology closely resemble a modernised version of it. Whatever the EXCUSE offered, it is a triumph of putocratic-fascist zeaotry in the sense that nominally modern and democratic institutions and groups in this world have acquired some of the memes that drove the Gestapo/SS/Abwher. There is no excuse, but since Orwellian political and intellectual abdications and maneuvers are quite well in fashion today, it is obviously stylisn to pretend
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
--- ken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James A. Donald wrote: The state was created to attack private property rights - to steal stuff. Some rich people are beneficiaries, but from the beginning, always at the expense of other rich people. More commonly states defend the rich against the poor. They are what underpins property rights, in the sense of great property More of the usual bullshit, SOP for the quasi-anonymised defenders of local trvth. State _workers_ attack property rights; state _workers_ act to aid 'the rich' in consolidating and concentrating property and property rights against 'the poor'. In exchange for a little job security, state _workers_ have passivly evolved a neat little system which may be exploited by knowledgeable insiders for their own malign purposes. Congratulations to the defenders of Truth, Freedom, and Democracy for in effect rolling back property rights (to say nothing of human and civil rights), in effect cancelling the legal advances brought about by the Magna Carta and succeeding documents. It is a testament to the success and current fashion of reality simplification that state agents may arbitrarily employ the tools of terrorism, appropriation and confiscation, arbitrary detention, and not insignificantly, micromanage _de facto_ slaves according to their whims, or at least those of their privilaged benefactors. This is accomplished by the strategic use of pretexts -- some secret, others validated by tenets of pop culture; none of which may be assailed by reasonable means -- to lend a veneer of legitimacy to the acts of violence. And in this vein I should not need to remind anyone of the fact that theft, as much as a boot to the head or back of the neck, is an act of violence; and no matter if it is perpetrated by seeming officiousness by way in some farcical one-sided and secret legal process, or by dint of a convenient and contrived necessity. - until the industrial revolution that was mostly rights to land other people farm or live on. Every society we know about has had laws and customs defending personal property (more or less successfully) but it takes political/military power to defend the right to exact rent from a large estate, and state power to defend that right for thousands or millions of landowners. Uh-huh. And what of the state of affairs where rights of property, for example, may be subverted by fraud and the means of legal redress (no matter how unjust, inefficient and ineffective they may be for practical purposes) are closed off, one by one, so that the victims of state violence are allowed NO OPTIONS or RELEIF, perhaps to start again from scratch, but more likely to whither and die on the vine, ignored except when it is necessary to reinforce the conditioning to ruin by the application of a periodic boot to the back of the neck. Again, compare the burning of Shenendoah with the Saint Valentine's day massacre. There is just no comparison. Governmental crimes are stupendously larger, and much more difficult to defend against. True. The apposite current comparison is 9/11 the most notorious piece of private-enterprise violence in recent years, and the far more destructive US revenge on Afghanistan and Iraq. Which was hundreds of times more destructive but hundreds of thousands of times more expensive, so far less cost-effective - but in a a war of attrition that might not matter so much. Of course the private-enterprise AQ their friends the Taliban booted themselves into a state, of sorts in Afghanistan, with a little help from their friends in Pakistan and arguable amounts of US weaponry. Not that Afghanistan was the sort of place from which significant amounts of tax could be collected to fund further military adventures. States can get usually get control of far larger military resources than private organisations, and have fewer qualms about wasting them. Not that it makes much difference to the victims - poor peasants kicked off land wanted for oilfields in West Africa probably neither know nor care whether the troops who burned their houses were paid by the oil companies or the local government. And you all may cluck cluck safely in your ivory towers at the sorry state of others affairs, pontificating (again, safely) at an intellectual remove from the ground that is in conflict and at issue. Obvioulsly the best way to seem comitted to change and a solution to difficult problems without actually risking engagement with the core matter. This list is becoming a chore to read. Would someone find out where Tim May and Detwellier (for a start) are hiding, and please recommend them back to Cypherpunks? When such as they were active, we could be assured of lively and entertaining debate. These days, the air is rather too thin to support vigorous and sincere exchange. Regards, Steve
RE: What is a cypherpunk?
Anonymous wrote: I challenge anyone here to answer the question of what it means to be a cypherpunk. What are your goals? What is your philosophy? Do you In this day and age, do you realy expect anyone to answer questions like that openly and honestly? Really. There's a similar and simple label that gets used and abused by people who might either be technically competent engineers, or merely script kiddies: hacker. These days, being a hacker is nearly enough the moral equivalent of being a Communist in California during the Fifties. Or a leper. Note how the term 'hacker' is normally used, as a perjorative, in writings and speech found in the mainstream media. If a journalist for Time Magazine uses the label 'hacker' in a perjorative context, chances are that a letter-writing campaign launched in earnest for the purpose of reclaiming the defintion preferred by engineers, will at best produce a tiny correction buried in a corner of a subsequent issue. And then some other writer will make the same mistake later. The same applies to the term `cyperhpunk', only the term is rarely used outside of the Internet. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what label applies to me. I'm somewhat knowledgeable on issues that are said to be characteristic of the focus of 'cypherpunks', but I don't pray every day with a reading from the Cypherpunk Manifesto. even recognize the notion of right and wrong? Or is it all simply a matter of doing whatever you can get away with, of grabbing what you can while you can, of looting your betters for your own short term benefit? Depends on the person, I guess. Is that what it means to be a cypherpunk today? Because that's how it looks from here. Perhaps a comprehensive survey should be done. A comprehensive questionaire in the form of a purity test might do it, as might something like a geek code for 'cypherpunks'... Do you read Applied Cryptography? Have you ever generated a 16 kbit RSA key? Do you have a picture of Ralph Merkle hanging on the wall in your bedroom? etc. Face it. You aren't going to get straight answers to questions from highly technical internet sophisticates, even if you ask politely. They have better things to do than to justify and explain their ideologies when in fact such is easily read from the body of their work, and implicit to their writings. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Jim Bell WMD Threat
--- John Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FBI continues to claim Jim Bell is a WMD threat despite having no case against him except in the media, but that conforms to current FBI/DHS policy of fictionalizing homeland threats. http://www.edgewood.army.mil/downloads/bwirp/mdc_appendix_b02.pdf See page 16. This document was initially prepared in June 2002, updated in June 2003. Interesting that you say the FBI/DHS have a policy of fictionalizing [homeland] threats, but suggest that Jim Bell is a victim of such fictionalization rather than an example of a fictionalised threat. Probably back in about 2001, my Government Cynicism Threat and Alert System(tm) was upgraded from a rating of Moderate to Near Total Cynicism. Consequently, I re-assessed the words I had read concerning the Jim Bell case and decided that he was a fake threat designed as input to the legal/policing system in order to push it in a number of well-defined directions, tending of course towards tyranny. Nothing that I have seen or heard of since, directly related to Jim Bell or otherwise, has led me to believe anything other than threats of the kind that Mr. Bell are supposed to pose are nothing more than sophisticated and well orchestrated frauds. In fact, even such incidents as the Adobe PDF kerfuffle including Dmitri Skylerov and a cast of pseudo-hacks in the tech press are indicative of the degree to which the government and certain segments of the industry and online community are trained to march in lock-step to the tunes as they are called by certain special interest groups. Perhaps the RAND institute might be characterised as one of the organisations that might be said to steer broad trends in fields and strategic industries of interest to government control-freaks and would-be plutocrats. Mind you, I am not necessarily the best or most objective source when it comes to the analysis of such issues. As *some* of you know, I allege a variety of real and utterly indefensable wrongdoings on the part of various police and government-related officials, but as yet have seen not the least bit of support come my way despite the value of some of the work that is at risk. This is in contrast to petty crap like the RSA script on a T-shirt bullshit that has previously occupied so many people's attentions, not to mention media coverage (like Wired). But perhaps I am merely not worthy, and that my thoughts on various matters cannot be trusted, even when they are relevant. Fraud, after all, is a rather serious charge. If one is accusing the Massey Fergeson of the Industry of perpetrating a massive fraud, then I suppose one requires rock-solid evidence -- which I admit I cannot possibly produce at this time. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs
--- Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seeing as it comes out of the TCG, this is almost certainly the enabling hardware for Palladium/NGSCB. Its a part of your computer which you may not have full control over. Well we all know that having complete control over one's own computer is far too dangerous. Obviously, it would be best if computers, operating systems, and application software had proprietary back-doors that would enable the secret police to arbitrarily monitor the all goes on in the suspicious and dark recesses of memory and the CPU. Hell, I trust the secret police to use such capabilities for moral and legitimate purposes only, and as we all know the people who become secret police are of the best and brightest stock of humanity and will allways act in the best interests of mankind. Corruption and fraud among such elites will be impossible, particularly if current standards of law and morality continue to be applied with the consistency we are now accustomed to. Personally, I have no fear that you, the members of this group, who I am barely qualified to address online, and who represent some of the best people the Internet has to offer, would not be the ones best suited to control the computing infrastructure of the Earth's people. And in that vein, I offer the following job tip as a token of my confidence. In today's Globe and Mail newspaper there is an advertisment from the CSE (Communications Security Establishment, for those who are not familiar with the lesser known TLA's) in which they relate that they are soliciting new team members: We are the Communications Security Establishment, a member agency of Canada's security and intelligence team. CSE acquires and provides forign signals intelligence and provides advice, guidance and services to help insure the protection of Government of Canada electronic information. CSE also provides assistance to federal law enforcement and security agencies. We offer a stimulating work environment, state-of-the- art technology, competative salaries, and an opportunity to make a difference. ENGINEERS - hardware design - wireless - computers and network security - test and verification - project management ANALYSTS - intelligence - linguistic (Asian, Middle Eastern and European languages) - systems - financial - human resources - policy - network COMPUTER SCIENCE SPECIALISTS - LAN/WAN administration (UNIX/WINDOWS) - programmer analysts (C/C++, Java) - computer and network security - project management MATHEMATICIANS - cryptography and cryptanalysis - diverse theoretical and applied areas of mathematics - optimization, numerical and computational methods Requirements: - Postions in our organisation will be of interest to those with a post-secondary education and/or experience in: engineering, mathematics, computer science, language studies, political science, business, economics or accounting. You must be a Canadian citizen and eligable for a top secret security clearance. positions are located in Ottawa. CSE is an equal opportunity employer. We welcome applications from all qualified individuals, including women, mempers of visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities. It sounds so good that I would certainly consider applying myself if it were not for the fact that I love my current occupation as slave and chew-toy for the privilaged and beautifle so very much. For those of you who are not canadian citizens, I can let you in on a little secret. CSIS doesn't check all that closely when they do their security clearance background investigations, and so you can just tell them you forgot your ID in your other suit when they ask for it. By all accounts, the pay is great as are the fringe benefits. Loot confiscated as a part of legitimate intelligence excercises and operations are generally made available on a first-come, first- serve basis to employees in good standing. Other benefits include super-human abilities and powers unavailable to normal human beings. All in all, it sounds like a great place to work. Good luck to any of you who apply. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: [i2p] weekly status notes [feb 1] (fwd from jrandom@i2p.net)
--- Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Forwarded message from jrandom [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: jrandom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:03:02 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [i2p] weekly status notes [feb 1] [snip] Thats all I have for the moment (good thing too, as the meeting starts momentarily). As always, post up your thoughts whenever and wherever :) Ha ha. Just why is it that we should post up our thoughts when it is now the norm to ignore such thoughts if they (a) come from the 'wrong' source, or (b) if said thoughts do not mesh in the approved fashion with the agendas of the moment? I've recently come to a realisation that the reason why most people are accepting of the current environment of highly tuned and structured radio/television media and news content is that the common themes underlying most such input gives people a false sense of inclusion and belonging. Sure, the cognitive neural structures that become trained and tuned to one broad class of input leverage some of the basic and flexable architecture of the human mind, and this leads to what some would consider a higher commonality of performance in communication and interaction with like others, but the loss of fundamental flexability in thought and debate in public spaces is an unacceptable compromise in so far as I am concerned. Excuses that in turn leverage the idea that the present status- quo is the best we've got at the moment, in terms of fostering a community of purpose among people of a single culture, and also in terms of avoiding an `unproductive' factionalisation of the citizenry, strike me as being without sustainable merit. Am I making sense here, or is this merely superficially obfuscated surplus verbiage? You decide. In the meantime I will further consider, in my few moments of quiet and solitude, the negative aspects of the current state in which civil and human rights are selectively applied only to those who kiss ass in the 'approved' fashion. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [mistake rate] And of course there's the fairly obvious point that lots of those in prison correctly are there for drug-related crimes. Said crimes would almost completely dissappear and drug usage would drop if many of those drugs were legalized and taxed. But God forbid that happen because what would all those policemen do for a living? Prison workers? Judges? Well, pot is bad. Duh. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder
--- Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve Thompson Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder --- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [airport security] More indications of an emerging 'Brazil' scenario, as opposed to a hyper-intelligent super-fascist state. As if. There already is a kind of intelligent super-fascist state in place thoughout much of society. My bugbears of the moment are the police and courts, so you get my take on how they are organised so as to be 'intelligent' without seeming so -- which further enables a whole lot of fraud to masqerade as process and incompetence. The super-fascist part comes about because the system avoids public accountability while also somehow evading any sort of reasonable standard of performance. What's the error rate, that is the false arrest, prosecution, and/or conviction rate of a Western countries' judiciary and police divitions? If it's even ten percent, and it's probably much higher, then there is no reason to respect the operation and perpetuation of the system. One chilling data point. Remember a few years ago the (pro death penalty) governor of Illinois suspended all the death sentences in has state? The reason being was that with the introduction of DNA testing, 1/3 of the people on death row were found to be innocent. I don't know how many other innocents the state planned to murder, but presumably there were some cases where DNA evidence was not available. If, in a capital case, where the money to pay public defenders is usually maximally available, and the appeals process, checks, and cross-checks are the more thorough than in any non-capital prosecution, you STILL get at least a 33% error rate, then what is the wrongfull conviction rate in non-capital cases, where there are far fewer appeals, and public defenders are paid a pittance? Peter Trei __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder
Speaking of mistakes I seem to have pasted the wrong message text when I sent my reply to Mr. Trei. I regret the unfortunate duplication and consequent waste of list bandwidth. --- --- Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [mistake rate] If, in a capital case, where the money to pay public defenders is usually maximally available, and the appeals process, checks, and cross-checks are the more thorough than in any non-capital prosecution, you STILL get at least a 33% error rate, then what is the wrongfull conviction rate in non-capital cases, where there are far fewer appeals, and public defenders are paid a pittance? I couldn't say, but it is well known that people who are accused of a crime are given rather large incentives to plead guilty in order to avoid the lengthly trial process. This is, of course, a major point. However, there isn't much discussion about the lack of accountability for people (police, judicial officials, etc.) who themselves run afoul of the law and who are rarely punished at all. And of course there's the lucrative prison system with it's large union and bureaucracy. Plus, many people know about the recruiting facet of that industry in which some individuals are groomed and incentivised to become agents of the state, in one capacity or another, in exchange for freedom or lesser sentences. Insofar as the intel community is concerned, it seems from my perspective that there is no effective deterrent for violent crime since you've pretty much got to do something really stupid before they'll prosecute: like cut off your wife's head and store it in your freezer, or something equally gregarious. For people in SpookWorld, fraud, larceny, perjury, and murder are merely the tools of the trade. And don't get me started on about the cartels. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: Ronald McDonald's SS
--- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- On 24 Jan 2005 at 10:34, Tyler Durden wrote: Military and civilian participants said in interviews that the new unit has been operating in secret for two years -- in Iraq (news - web sites), Well hell, it's doing such a good job already it should definitely be expanded! Note that the main enemy it is aimed against is the CIA, and it's existence was successfully kept secret from the CIA for this time. (For had the CIA detected it, they would have instantly leaked the information, the same way they have leaked so much other stuff.) I rather doubt that anyone outside of the CIA could really say what they would or would not do in such a situation. Recall that people in that world view deceit as much more than a skill. It's more of a way of life to them, and as a result of so many years of rounds of layerd deceit colouring their operations, the analysis of their actions is bound to fail when approached with that kind of simplicity. Oh, by the way. The last post I made in reply to you went unanswered just when I was starting to make some difficult points. Surely that was an oversight? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [airport security] More indications of an emerging 'Brazil' scenario, as opposed to a hyper-intelligent super-fascist state. As if. There already is a kind of intelligent super-fascist state in place thoughout much of society. My bugbears of the moment are the police and courts, so you get my take on how they are organised so as to be 'intelligent' without seeming so -- which further enables a whole lot of fraud to masqerade as process and incompetence. The super-fascist part comes about because the system avoids public accountability while also somehow evading any sort of reasonable standard of performance. What's the error rate, that is the false arrest, prosecution, and/or conviction rate of a Western countries' judiciary and police divitions? If it's even ten percent, and it's probably much higher, then there is no reason to respect the operation and perpetuation of the system. And consider how the courts deal with error. After all is said and done, the victim is expected to launch appeals at his own expense to force the system to take official notice of judicial error. We know how dilligent the police are at bringing creativity to their investigations and arrests. Countless examples abound of fraud and abuse of processs. And the population at large carries on as if it doesn't matter. Well in my not so humble fucking opinion, if police and judicial officials in Canada (or the US, or wherever) wish to acquire respect and lend the appearance of legitimacy to their operations, then they should bloody well bring some transparent accountability to their operations and more, should take exacting pains to ensure that they conduct their affairs so as to put their integrety beyond question for anyone who examines their fucking books. And when they *do* err, they should fucking well bend over backwards to correct their god damn mistakes. AND when they catch one of their own abusing his or her position of authority that fucker should be PILLORIED for the least offense. But no, this does not and will not occur because the police and courts have had decades of self-selection in their recruiting processes, and decades of deirected evolution applied to their internal culture and processes. It is considered more proper to rule by fear, than to consider that wageing a de facto war on the civilian population as being even slightly wrong. Since it is considered *normal* for their to be a high error rate, it is only natural for the intelligent special interest groups within the government to exploit the lax standards to crushing competing groups and individuals who might pose a latent threat to the extant corrupt culture. And then there are those nasty writers who won't wedge their ideology into the narrow confines of mass consumer culture, and well there's all sorts of legal ways to deal with *that* kind of trouble-maker. And so on. Petty little tyrants have all sorts of latitude for abuse, but so do real villans like the ones directing your military contractors. State of the art in pulling the strings of government is to view (at different levels, and different levels of abstraction) departments and ministries as black boxes with adjustable inputs. Some inputs are more adjustable than others, of course, and there are levels of access to the inputs, but the approach is sound. I suppose it might take a well-placed CIA agent to subtly adjust CPIC records to suit an RCMP officer's relative's influence peddling, but the nice thing about reciprocal arrangements is that they may be negotiated and traded by fascist and highly placed warmongers. And we don't care because most people are brainwashed into blindly accepting the norm of incompetent ineffiency in all official matters. Indeed, for many it's a game that is only slightly more real than arcade shoot'em-ups but much more sophisticated. Of course no individual is at all required to respect such unnecessary corruption, and I certainly do not. (Why would I, considering the marauding warmongers who have been entirely subverting my ambitions and interests for years, simply because they like the challenge.) And in continuing with the outing, I predict that God was named John by his parents, and has official carte blanche to fuck up the lives of Canadian citizens given to him by his pet dogs in the Canadian government. Gutless weasels. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Vive le rubber 'ose: 'The Interrogators' and 'Torture': Hard Questions
--- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://nytimes.com/2005/01/23/books/review/23KAPLAN.html?pagewanted=printposition= The New York Times January 23, 2005 'The Interrogators' and 'Torture': Hard Questions By ROBERT D. KAPLAN [snip] What a load of shit. The reality of today is such that the defense establishment, or rather it's personnnel will use torture, fraud, and assassination to (a) advance their Total Police State Paradise, (b) to run their spook schools, (c) to steal whatever they want, and (d) to bury the evidence of their malfeasance. They will steamroller domestic and foreign civilians and combatants indiscriminately, held in check only by virtue of the lamentable practical necessity of appearing to have valid reasons for actions taken. Because the judicial branch of government is entirely tame, and because the media is in the habit of obeying, and because there is a secret history to the military and SpookWorld that is wrapped up in the mythology of religion and superstition, there is simply no process extant to address the inequities of the present time. The only action on the front, as it were, consists of political and ideological yes-men banging the drum of conformity and assimilation: join us and prosper; obey and serve; destroy the reality that does not support our orthodoxy. Dissent is marginalised and criminalised, although provocations are important in order to provide the fearsome spectacles necessary to encouraging fear and cultivating obedience. Too bad there are so many dirty hands. The necessity of protecting so many actual establishment terrorists from sanction, legal or otherwise, may kill billions one day. Or worse, as death isn't the worst thing that can occur to an individual... as many of you are aware. Keep up with the bullshit, folks. Continue to justify all the repressive and regressive measures. Legitimise arbitrary human rights abuses. Keep training your terrorists. Pretend you must use slaves. Keep lying to yourselves about the rightness of your approach, and the necessity of the web of deceits necessary to keeping your veil of propriety afloat. It's been clear to me for a long time that your little club is morally bankrupt, although we know that such considerations are entirely obsolete to the modern ubermench. Arguing on your terms is a losing proposition. The game was lost a long time ago: when the taboos on certain kinds of speech became entrenched. Recapitulations of traditional religious speech and action into modern forms, such as interrogation simply aren't enough to undo the damage. By the way, I really enjoy the drugs used today in the service of official knowledge acquisition. I sincerely hope that many more people enjoy them too. And I would be remiss if I failed to remind everyone who is a player in this part of SpookWorld to tounge the peanuts from my shit. War criminals and cowards all. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Cpunk Sighting
--- Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:12 PM 1/21/05 -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote: John Young, Cryptome strikes again. NPR is running a story on all of the sensitive information available. Funny shit! LATimes ran something too! And even included a link to the mental-jihadist, terrorist-du-coeur, amateur pan-geo-opticon-astronomer who freely admits having studied what hold buildings (and the thugs that tax them) up, as well as once being an operative of the largest, most WMD'd military ever. Zeus bless his Promethian soul. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs21jan21,1,5352367.story January 21, 2005 IN BRIEF / CANADA Many Barred From U.S. Because of Security Lists From Times Wire Reports Dozens of people from Canada have been turned back at the U.S. border or prevented from boarding U.S.-bound planes because their names are on the American no-fly list or a State Department list of possible terrorists, documents show. The incidents are detailed in daily briefs from the Homeland Security Department. They contain no classified information. A department spokesman confirmed that the memos, posted at http://cryptome.org , were legitimate. Were legitimate? What happened, did their content expire or something? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Carnivore No More
--- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:31 AM +0100 1/16/05, Eugen Leitl wrote: it is believed that unspecified commercial surveillance tools are employed now. It was always AGGroup's Skyline package to begin with. The FBI is like NASA. They never build anything, and take all the credit. At least we now know that the capabilities of the FBI in this regard are at least equivalent to that which a good Linux admin can deploy when he has control of your upstream link. The FBI cannot argue in court that their network eavesdropping capabilities require secrecy and non-disclosure. Sure they can pretend that the userland tools are super high-tech, but the analysis and inteception of arbitrary network traffic is not rocket science. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Brin needs killing, XIIV
To leave the attributions and headers, or not? --- Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Forwarded message from David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:02:03 -0500 To: Ip ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] more on No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! Thank you and best wishes - Josh Josh, thanks for sharing these remarks about privacy. Alas, these folks are falling for the usual trap that has snared so many well-meaning people for the last decade. They are right to worry about creeping Big Brotherism... and vigorously defending the wrong stretch of wall. I was naive once too. What weird reflex is it, that makes bright people fall for the trap of seeing SECRECY as a friend of freedom? As we all know, 'freedom' is a value-neutral term when used on it's own, without a suitable modifier, as in the above. (Oh, when it's YOUR secrecy you call it privacy.) To I imagine that most people, in the fuzzy space of colloquial conceptions, associate 'privacy' with the information security of their own lives, and associate `secrecy' with the concealment of corporate or government information, processes, and assets. But we may use the terms interchangeably if it makes you happy. To wit: I have secrets which I would like to keep from malicious criminals and other government workers. rail against others seeing, without suggesting any conceivable way that (1) the technologies could be stopped or (2) how it would help matters to stop govt surveillance even if we could. As I've emphasized in The Transparent Society, the thing that has kept us free and safe has been to emphasize MORE information flows. To ENHANCE how much average people know. Ok, that is a nice idea but... http://www.futurist.com/portal/future_trends/david_brin_empowerment.htm [skimmed] Given the information-centric disparity that already exists between individuals of varying allegiance or association, how is it possible to assure that most everyone is brought up to speed on the current state- of-the-art in the numerous fields of study and technology that relate to intelligence and counter- intelligence in such a way as to make the playing field level for all? As it stands, with the mutability inherent in the acquisition and interpretation of signals and surveillance data, it is too easy for large masses of people to acquire widespread mis- conceptions about the veracity of the information at their disposal. Put another way: hypothetical well-organised dis-information sophisticates could in theory arrange to give the masses a false sense of security and inclusiveness within a subtly fraudulent framework of public-mediated surveillance and information sharing. Perhaps this could be arranged by building backdoors and covert access points in the public surveillance network which would allow the 'cabal' to diguise their activities while also permitting them to arbitrarily muck about with the publically availble data, subject only to constraints imposed by the actual state-of-the-art -- enhanced on a practical level by virtue of limiting in some ways the technology available to the masses. If that makes sense to you, then it should become obvious that certifying the `public surveillance network' free compromise by privilaged elites of any kind becomes a very difficult task. And as we all know, groups like the NSA and their foreign counterparts already enjoy an indeterminate lead on the public in areas of interest and relation to information technology and surveillance. So, how do we as average citizens mitigate the threat of being lulled into a false sense of security by the flashy newness of some kind of hypothetical BrinWorld public surveillance and sharing network? Clearly this is a large problem, and I certainly don't have the answer. But, I think the idea of BrinWorld is the correct approach, and obviously some very intelligent people think so too. I would refer to the paper entitiled The Weapon of Openness, by Arthur Kantrowitz, which approaches this issue from a more general perspective. Most likely, there is a solution that we all can live with. Avoiding the risks will, however, be rather difficult. Personally, I wouldn't mind too much living in a total surveillance world if I were assured that everyone else was subject to the same level of scrutiny. This is primarily because I don't engage in activities which are particularly shameful or which are dependent upon the immoral or wanton explotation and subversion of another person's right to pursue interests that do not harm others. I am fully aware that a great many people do engage in such activities, some of which are cultural rites or religious rituals that are validated by the tacit legitimacy given to them by a tyrranical majority. And then there are people who live off the avails of crime because they find that
Re: [IP] Cell phones for eavesdropping
--- Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cell phones for eavesdropping - finally some public chatter Of course, the low-budget govt snoops go for the basestations and landline links. Oh, I don't know about that. What would it cost a small to medium sized 'security firm' to hire a couple of decent EEs with decent RF expertise? Given five years and a decent budget, I bet that you could mock-up a system to capture cell-phone calls in progress so long as you were in range of the target's phone. I suspect that the protocols for setup and teardown of cell calls, not to mention the OOB handoff signals, aren't so complex that one couldn't intercept them in real-time with cheap off the shelf hardware. Hell, we all know that encryption, where it exists in the cell-net as a capability, has gone unused to this day. The pending cell phone virus which calls 911 should be a real hoot. I bet that depends on whether the Java VM in modern phones is secure or not. I wonder if cell virii can carry a voice payload which they can inject as well. Or do we have to wait a few (viral) generations for that? Depends on how much RAM you've got in your phone, I guess. The ABCs probably have the complete specifications for most phones, software and hardware, and so may be able to arbitrarily fuck with any given model to their heart's content -- given sufficient motivation, however you might characterise that... What's your threat model? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife's Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?
The subject header is very nice. --- J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several points come to mind: (1) Mr. Monahan seems to think that lies on police reports are an artifact of 9/11. Welcome to the real world Mr. Monahan. You say that like it's a bad thing. The real world, that is. Most people find that the real world isn't all bad, and get on with their lives. (2) Monahan, and those like him who continue to fly, have nobody to blame but themselves: if you continue to feed these assholes by buying those tickets, then you have it coming: simple economics. If people refuse to fly, this will stop. Oh, it's even simpler to deal with than that. Technology (for real this time) will eventually make air travel, at it's current state-of-the-art, obsolete, thus obviating the immediate inconveniences that spur like complaints. It's all simply a matter of obtaining the proper perspective. (3) As to the ACLU, again, welcome to the real world. Many of us have been down that road before you Mr. Monahan - while the ACLU is not a bad thing per se, they are a lot like the cops and courts: they are not there for any one individual, there are there for the big picture. And the Big Picture requires money, which means you must be a minority (since how can anyone of the majority ever be oppressed?). In a nutshell, Fuck The ACLU. This is fairly cogent. In the real world, large bureaucracies are not so good at handling a wide variety of different things. Corporations usually specialize in one major product area, and don't do so well when they expand into areas that differ too much from their core product. Don't blame the ACLU too much, it's really not their fault if they fail to fully leverage their expertise and influence in every single case. (4) Lastly, as to your cesarian, fuck you and your wife, and her cesearean. We don't give a shit about your personal problems, just like you don't care about ours. Sure, it makes for a pulpy little story, but That's strange. I find that one's personal life is never really much of a concern to for most people in our society. I know a large number of people, personally, who give virtually no thought to their own lives outside of work. Myself, I am also inclined in that direction. Today, most of the people I know are out satisfying their Christmas obligations. And while those who choose to enjoy the season are fully engaged in the spirit of merrymaking, it is very nice that at least the holiday is entirely voluntary. So far, I have not had to fight off any Christmas carolers, nor have I received any unpleasant gifts (although I will tell you more later about the non-Jewish group I saw recently that seemed to be confused by Chanukah). Which is why, incidentally, that I rarely have to care about my personal life. As much as can be expected, my personal life caries on in the best way possible, thus requiring none of the time and attention that would be better directed elsewhere. when you get right down to it, do we really care? No. Because, again, you helped to create this beast you are now bitching about, and after it bit you, you *continued to fly*, and thereby feed it some more. These things happen from time to time. The best advice that you could give to the original author would be to suggest that he relax and wait until the incident passes. Regards, Steve (Sent only to Mr. Terranson yesterday, thought it would amuse the list and so resent.) __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Steve Thompson
Alright. Time for a little 'fun'. --- R.W. (Bob) Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tyler Durden wrote: Something occurred to me...it probably occurred to others already but I am a stoopid Cypherpunk, don't forget. I like the nomenclature of AI: it makes for an interesting tool in the analysis of day-to-day interpersonal relations. Here, for instance, I am in the habit of making a mental note of the above as a frame axiom, one which is intended to influence the state of the fluents that might be said to accompany this message, or which are intended to be assumed by it. So, Mr. Erickson here wishes to assert and emphasise that he is a stupid cypherpunk, a proposition that may or may not conflict with extant fluents held by readers of Cypherpunks. Or, put another way, it might conflict (or be designed to conflict) with frame axioms that Mr. Erickson knows or suspects to be held by his audience. Without knowing the internal mental state of Cypherpunks' subscription base, and without knowing the frame within which Mr. Erickson is operatiing (either his 'global' frame, or the 'local' frame of convenience that he may have adopted), it is nearly impossible to infer what he or she is intending by writing a statement like I am a stoopid Cypherpunk when its banality might suggest to some that it is blatantly insincere. There's really nowhere to take this digression, what with the limited information that is available in context, and so we can only speculate as to what relation Mr. Erickson's possible stoopidity has to the topic at hand, which is (if we are to take the message at face value), that he is concerned with a complaint about a bad eBay sale, which is the responsibility of someone using the name Steve Thompson, and which was made to Cypherpunks (a known spook-haven[1]), via an anonymous message that appears to have been sent through a cypherpunks remailer. Anyone think it a TINY bit odd that someone with a fairly mundane complaint about bad computer gear would know to come in on an anonymous remailer? Yes, it is quite odd. My first thought was that they had gotten burned by a Steve Thompson (maybe the same, maybe not) did a google search and came across Cypherpunks and then tossed in a couple of stinky posts. That condition may satisfy the principle of least hypothesis, which has much to recommend it, but is it really the likely scenario? But it seems a little farfetched to me that such a person would also have bothered (by accident) reading about the anonymous remailers and then use one. Without a detailed psychological workup on the person who sent the message, the question is largely indeterminate. Perhaps the person making the complaint was coincidentally familiar with anonymous remailers prior to their interaction with eBay. So...the complainer must have already been aware of remailers and Mr Thompson's contribution to Cypherpunks. I am not sure whether that conclusion is supported by the data available at this time. Kind of interesting. To someone who is genuinely 'stoopid', perhaps. -TD Somebody has been experimenting with reputation cracking Did you just happen to notice? I have informally noted a number of messages in which the authors purport to present information that seeks to damage or modify another's reputation, using a variety of subtle language- and psychology-oriented special effects. Whether one puts stock in the veracity of each instance is probably a matter of personal preference; expediency and convenience in such a busy environment dictates that for practical reasons one simply cannot chase down every half-assed assertion merely to verify its accuracy. In the print and televised media, the flood of information shovelled at the reader (or watcher) is such that distortions, omissions, and outright falsehoods are expected to lodge in the public mind as they accompany a wealth of otherwise useful information that is of some accuracy. The repetition of like falsehoods is carried out over time with the expectation that it will be reinforced. A favoirite example of mine is to be found in one of the two local entertainment weeklies. Recently it was asserted that `reincarnation is the new black' in reference to the intended memetic propogation of the associated frame axioms, and their intended effect on the readers' fluents vulnerable to modification by the memes in question. My tentative analysis of the PR intent prompted me to stop reading the weekly in question as I have no interest in wasting my time with such unimportant drivel. In my case, I feel there are much better things to spend time on -- as interesting as watching the PR spin might be as viewed from a cultural-anthropological perspective. Regards, Steve [1] Choate, et al. __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Insurrectionist covers
--- Justin Guyett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2004-12-11T08:10:27-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: [snip] This is what happens when one picks up ideas from people who present them second-hand (or at even greater distances from their origin) and who do not make proper footnotes. That's just a symptom of the problem that there's no clear line past which ideas must be cited. How infrequently do you have to see an idea in print, and how novel must it be, before a citation is appropriate? Depends, I suppose, on a number of factors. Ideas are a continuum. Plagiarism is an artificial notion constructed as a result of the need to measure individuals' progress in higher education, as well as to protect intellectual property (which didn't really exist before the invention of the printing press). People used to have scribes copy books. They were treated as tomes of knowledge, not as property. Now that they are property, people have more books than ever before, and are reading them less carefully than ever before. Well, previously there was more importance put towards knowledge, and less on making money with same. Today the emphasis is somewhat different. Even Dawkins and Hobbes picked up ideas and used them without explicit citation. Hobbes didn't arrive at his conception of the State of Nature in a void. He got those ideas in reaction against Greek history, Descartes, and several other people. Everybody does that, or at least those who create knowledge either as a process of study and synthesis, or as a result of original research. Some ideas are prevalent to the extent that it is obvious as to their origin. Ideally, someone who presents an idea as his or her own will take some pains to indicate the fact, and will distinguish their sources by way of appropriate references. Which brings up an interesting thought relating to entropy. Does it matter whether a prior author breaks up a subject into N pieces, proving N-1 pieces unworkable but leaving the last unaddressed? Someone who Now you're talking about SLAC. takes those ideas and writes a defense of the last piece might be copying the prior author's ideas, even though they were not written anywhere. Intellectual property and ideas are often traceable directly, but sometimes they are not. Requiring citations for ideas often results in incorrect citations or citations to secondary or tertiary (or worse) sources. Theft of IP is a complicated endeavour these days. Hijacking that thought a bit, lack of citations is one of my pet peeves. Me too. Nobody makes proper footnotes or citations these days; it's particularly noticeable in quote collections. There are fake quotes from the founders floating around, as well as fake quotes from Marcus Aurelius (Times are bad; children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.) as well as from all sorts of other historical figures. Opinion: It seems there is a new trend towards guild-like protection of scientific and scientific-like diciplines. People who like the idea of guilds are working towards making participation contingent upon membership. Membership may eventually only be granted to individuals who submit to arbitrary rules. And note that I am not referring to ethical restrictions in this instance. Ethics -- good ones that dicate a minimum of racism and like discrimination, for instance -- are becoming somehwat rare. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Blinky Rides Again: RCMP suspect al-Qaida messages
--- J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Bill Stewart wrote: The more serious problem is what this means for computer evidence search and seizure procedures - the US has some official rules about copy the disk and return the computer that came out of the Steve Jackson case, not that they're always followed; Actually (at least here in the Midwest), it's copy (image) the machine and provide a copy of that image. The computer and original drive stay locked in the evidence locker till the case is over. I can't say what the legal practice is in Canada. I imagine it depends on whether the legal proceedings are politically charged; whether the cops are out to discover evidence, or if they are looking to destroy evidence; or any of a number of motivating factors. From a purely technical perspective, there is no possible reason why the police would ever need to keep the computers and all copies of data related to an investigation. It is possible to image everything on a hard disk in an afternoon, including the extra bits available through, say, the, READ LONG(10) command in the SCSI protocol, which are normally used for ECC and CRC on each sector. Depending on the device, it may also be possible to access the spares tracks. In the rare event that a forensics firm is looking to scoop data that was overwritten, the police should be able to provide a copy of the original data back to the individual or business at a trivial cost in comparison to the costs of the forensic proceedures. Apart from data stored in flash memory, or similar less common places, there is no good reason why the actual computer hardware would need to be confiscated, except in the most exceptional circumstances where in-situ testing might need to be done with the original equipment. But in that case, the police should be required to acquire hardware that duplicates the original, so that they cannot be said to have tampered or damaged the originals. For correctness, the original computer equipment should be used once for the acquisition of a read-only copy of the data residing on it. However, it seems that the police will pretend that they are more incompetent than they actually are in order to use confiscation as extra-judicial punishment -- and that is just the common case where there are only legitimate legal proceedings at issue. In some cases, the police (in canada) are apparently willing to go to great lengths to destroy evidence and impose extra-judicial sanction on the subject of an `investigation', which may not exist at all in a legal sense, by way of employing clandestine tactics. In terms of my experience, the near total loss of my computers and other materials was carried out over a period of about three years, in an incrimental fashion that did not have even the pretense of legitimacy, but which nevertheless accompanied a subtle PR campaign that sought to suggest that there was some sort of hush-hush investigation that as a result of so-called exceptional circumstances, necessitated the particular methods that I observed. Total bullshit, actually, but we know that SpookWorld is exempt from the normal rules of civilised behaviour because of the special nature of its denizens. Anyhow, my assessment of the needs of computer forensic proceedures is probably quite accurate. The reality of conflicting and extra-legal agendas at work in some cases (such as the Steve Jackson incident) has apparently dictated a deliberately 'stupid' approach on the part of law enforcement personnel when it suits them. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Steve Thompson
--- J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote: Out of nowhere cometh Steve Thompson, and sayeth he all manner of things. But, while his mouth moveth one way, he seemeth to move the other. http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22steve+thompson%22start=0hl=ensafe=off; What hath suddenly attracted our AUK creep? AUK denizens have lots and lots of credibility, and even though I don't sell shit on eBay, I suppose I should be worried about being mistaken for someone who does. Perhaps I should be thankful for the warning? Who cares? You got a beef, state it. My detractors are strangely unwilling to state their 'beef' with any significant degree of specificity. Rather, they typically prefer to employ misdirection. I can't seem to wrap my head around their motivations, but I do have a tentative hypothesis -- which I will spare discussing on the list in the spirit of conserving the existing signal to noise ratio. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Insurrectionist covers
--- R.W. (Bob) Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Thompson wrote: [take back the night] Yep, the state fights to preserve its life while the people suffer their own. The mistake of top down thinking lies in the inability to really model large populations with rules, too much of the action happens at the fine grained level of every day staying alive. Actually, there's a false dichotomy there, but the misconception is so common that nobody notices it. When change comes, it will happen as the cummulative effects of millions of stuborn folk who subvert excessive authourity, 'cause they need to. Perhaps not. It may be that enough people are not too inconvenienced by the way things are today (and tomorrow). Only people on the margins will be affected in that scenario, which is largely insignificant to the perpetuation of the corrupt state. Right? As the state tries to squeeze more gold out of the untaxed ecconomy ordinary people will swarm to new work-arounds And so it goes. --bob cpunks write scripts And code. Can't forget the code. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: tempest back doors
--- Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I am stupid. I don't know how one would go about modifying application software to include a 'back door' that would presumably enhance its suceptibility to TEMPEST attacks. Isn't tempest all about EM spectrum signal detection and capture? You have your code drive a bus with signal. The bus radiates, you 'TEMPEST' the signal, game over. Back in the 60s folks programmed PDPs to play music on AM radios. Same thing. Dig? Fine. That's great as an example of transmitting data over a covert channel, but so what? As you suggest, people have been doing that with AM radios since the 60's, although the folklore mentions the phenomenon in the context of monitoring the computer's heartbeat, purely as a debugging technique. What makes this odd is that the Wired article makes no mention of Tempest, only of the possibility of there being a back door, which in the usual vernacular of computer security, usually implies a method for unauthorised access or use of the software system in question. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
--- John Kelsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [May] Maybe, maybe not. The thing I always find interesting and annoying about Tim May's posts is that he's sometimes making really clearly thought out, intelligent points, and other times spewing out nonsense so crazy you can't believe it's coming from the same person. It's also clear he's often yanking peoples' chains, often by saying the most offensive thing he can think of. But once in awhile, even amidst the crazy rantings about useless eaters and ovens, he'll toss out something that shows some deep, coherent thought about some issue in a new and fascinating direction. That paragraph could easily be modified to make it a commentary on my posting habits, or indeed, on my general presentation from day to day. So, I will comment. On a pseudo-random but cyclic schedule, I am harassed, provoked, or otherwise experience incidents of aggression of one sort or another. This affects my mood and general state of mind to varying degrees. Furthermore, I do not have consistent dietary intake, nor do I live in an environment which allows or provides privacy, security, or consistency save that which I impose with the expenditure of a great deal of effort and patience. If you also consider the fact that I have been variously poisoned in recent years with everything from sedatives to stimulants to hormones to psychoactive compounds to low-level hallucinogens, and as well have been subjected to uncounted appeals to my subconscious in the main through the use of direct and indirect sexually exploitative imagery and encounters, you might get the idea that consistent literary output is simply not in the offing. Before anyone goes to the trouble of suggesting that I discuss matters with the police, I'll save them the bother. The police have entirely failed to allow my allegations the courtesy of a hearing. Not even once. I belive that those who have not merely dirties their own hands in some way, are too chikenshit to recognise some of the more subtle criminality that goes on in this country. Or they may be intimidated by the kind of agency[1] that has invoved itself in the kind of clandestine activity that is at issue. Add in the fact that I've been dealing with _some_ sort of malicious and interfereing bullshit for quite a few years without any sincere assistance of any sort beyond the odd informational giveaway of dubious provenance, and you might well conclude that whatever else is going on, I'm not a happy camper. Perhaps my inconsistent presentation mimics the inconclusive partial criterion for certain classical mental afflictions. This is convenient as such afflictions are conveniently viewed by the layman and professional alike as having an origin that is entirely internal to the individual in question. However, I have quite a bit of evidence of varying grades that support my position rather well. Time will tell, perhaps, the true nature of the matter in a fashion that leaves no doubt in the mind of the uninvolved spectator. But in the interim, that will have to stand as my overbrief outline of the reason why I exhibit inconsistency in writing, speech, and action. I am simply way too busy dealing with what can in one way be viewed as a chronic and personalised denial of service attack. Perhaps Tim May has an entirely different set of factors influencing his online behaviour. You will have to ask him to explain his circumstances, and hope that he consents to it. As for my case, I do not really wish to make it a topic of discussion on the Cypherpunks list. The law enforecement (and perhipheral) personnel who have involvement in my affairs, for whatever reason, are (and should be) fully aware of the external influences on my psychology. They have the investigative tools and authority to make definitive findings of fact, and to take corrective action should they find incidents of criminal liability, but as yet have refused to do so. And *that* is another matter entirely. Regards, Steve [1] general sense of the term. I'm not referring to, say, the CIA specifically in this instance. __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Insurrectionist covers
--- Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2004-12-10T15:50:22-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: [snip] state's personality, the state has the right, nay, obligation to preserve its identity unchanged. (Isn't this pretty much polysci 101 material?) Not typically. The idea that the state has its own identity is obvious, because it has a name -- the state. It is clearly an atomic entity, in the same sense as a beehive or ant colony (to borrow unapologetically from R. Dawkins). However, discussion of the state as an singular entity that acts to preserve itself is typically delayed until study of Leviathan. Then it's expanded when studying Kant's theory of International Relations. This is what happens when one picks up ideas from people who present them second-hand (or at even greater distances from their origin) and who do not make proper footnotes. Those are typically 2nd-year courses, at a minimum. IR is typically 3rd or 4th year, but Leviathan is discussed in any number of classes, just not polysci 101. My bad. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Sounds like a fuckin' party, if you ask me! Quit bogartin' that J... Oh, sure. It wasn't all bad. Just ask the chick who is known in certain circles as Nefertiti. (That's her code-name). We had an excellent time together; or at least we did until the wheels fell off... But that's a story for another day. While we're speaking of pot, I should note that the grass available in this neck of the woods is substandard at best. What with all the illegal suburban grow-ops in Toronto, you'd think one would be able to buy half-decent weed from time to time. But no... It's all crap. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Timing Paranoia
--- Roy M. Silvernail [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Thompson wrote: [imagine] Imagine using observed timing to conclude that your agent provocateur operates from geostationary orbit. That would be a neat trick considering the variety of likely signal path lengths to be found in the terrestial telephone network or the terrestial Internet. All in all, there are so many varibles in such conjecture as to make the hypothesis largely indeterminate. But it is amusing to consider the potential existence of the CIA Orbital Alien Mind Control Laser Cannon(tm). R. W. may be annoying, but at least he's derivative. Derivative of what, exactly? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: tangled contexts
--- R.W. (Bob) Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Process and perception [snip] We have lots of timing to tap. Response times, flicker fusion times, saccades, pulse, peristalsis, menstruation. The royal road to cognitive illumination is the path of chronus. If you go about tapping the peristaltic functions of the general public, you will definately get in shit. Why, you might even get your hands dirty. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Timing Paranoia
--- R.W. (Bob) Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the tools currently being used in the cognitive sciences is the measurement of reaction time to stimulus. What's this? The cognitive equivalent to wacking someone on the knee with a rubber hammer to measure the mentak kick reflex of the subject? It turns out that the length of time it takes to given situations is a credible proxy for how difficult the discrimination is to make. For the individual subject. I would imagine that such testing would (among other things) allow some measurement of the thoughtfullness put into a response. Careful construction of the tests to control for various factors might then allow inferences to be made about the relative sophistication to be found in the cognitive structures involved in the test-response on a subject-by-subject basis. Imagine a paranoia involving mysterious e-mail delays and the length of time it takes to catagorize Imagine hordes of otherwise unemployable psychologists and cognitive psychologists deployed on mailing lists and Usenet, harassing the fuck out of `persons of interest'. Civil rights, for the majority of the civilian population, are entirely non-existent for all intents and purposes. I imagine that a great many self-styled scientists are happily engaged in the cultivation and acquisition of psycho-social data and knowledge, in public fora, without too much thought about the morality of their intrusive meddling in the commons. All in the name of science, of course. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Blinky Rides Again: RCMP suspect al-Qaida messages
--- R.W. (Bob) Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Thompson wrote: [assholes] You tell them, Steve I believe I just did. Insanity is a great cover for an insurectionist! I suppose it could be, although I am give to belive that residents of the White Room Hotel may only carry out insurection in the program room, and even then only while under direct adult supervision. I have been told that this makes the task somewhat more difficult, what with the sometimes necessity of colouring outside the lines on the page (so to speak). Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
--- J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Steve Thompson wrote: snip one of the funniest posts in recent cpunk history (STANDING OVATION) (SOUNDS OF MANY HANDS CLAPPING) Thank you Steve, for that short but entertaining look into the dark recesses of our collective consciousness :-) That's what I'm here for. Now, perhaps we can get back to discussing issues with more direct relevance to cypherpunks? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
--- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 3:34 PM -0500 12/6/04, Steve Thompson wrote: I rather suspect that the people who 0wn the upstream pipe from my points of access are toying with their ability to interpose their data in place of quasi-authoritative texts. Oh, *my*... Come on, tell us what you really think. Anyhow, when I used to post to usenet via google, I experienced a number of incidents in which there were minor changes to the text of articles I wrote and posted. I also regularly noticed people posting messages that were being exempted from the normal posting delay. Articles that arrived at google were subject to a delay of a few hours before their index entries propogated across to the entirety of the index search cluster. Some individuals evidently had acces to the google database such that they were able to put their (suitably Date:ed) articles at the head of the posting queues. The apparent 0wn3rs of the continential US 1nt3rn3t are clearly making sure they have capabilities that they may use to appear as if they are super-3l33t. Why, it wouldn't suprise me if I were to find that some of them are busy playing 'alien' to unsuspecting unsophisticates at this very moment. Actually, it's a little more likely that they are playing you are trapped in the Matrix on the gullible, isn't it. Where is Detweiller, now that we need him? Probably off somewhere consulting in the industry, having tired of the noise and wearied by the futility of hitting on Tim May. I think that I have better taste, personally, and am waiting for the chance to make a pass at Condi. Perhaps after the current presidential term she'll have some time for me. ;-) Is that a sincere emoticon? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
--- Roy M. Silvernail [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R.A. Hettinga wrote: Oh, *my*... Where is Detweiller, now that we need him? Huh? I thought that *was* Detweiller! Detwellier had an oral fixation, and while I may like a good argument as much as anyone, mere talk about sex never really did it for me. But I confess that I like to watch sometimes. At any rate, Detweiller is another person entirely. But I cannot prove it. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Michael Riconosciuto, PROMIS
--- privacy.at Anonymous Remailer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Thompson: If that's true, then the government couldn't have stolen it. However, I suspect that mainfraim code of any sophistication is rarely released into the public domain. I imagine the author would be able to clear that up, assuming he has no financial reason to falsify its history. The page clearly states that the enhanced version was not in the public domain or owned by the government, it was a completely new version and the development was not funded by the government. The old one was for 16 bit architecture whereas the new one was for 32 bit. Excuse me; I only skimmed the article and missed the part that described the original funding arrangements supporting the development of the initial version. You'd think that the development of software intended to be used by the Justice Department, for an application of non-trivial sensitivity, would be contracted out to a firm with existing connections to the government law enforcement community. But at that time, I suppose it could be said that computer security and trust issues would have little chance of being understood by largely computer-illiterate prosecutors and administrative personnel. Presumably today the award of software development contracts follows a rigid and formal protocol -- for the protection of both parties. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/inslaw.html Perhaps I am stupid. I don't know how one would go about modifying application software to include a 'back door' that would presumably enhance its susceptibility to TEMPEST attacks. Isn't tempest all about EM spectrum signal detection and capture? ALL electronic devices emits signals that you can intercept and obtain information from. Whether or not you can extract much useful data or not depends, but generally you can always extract something. There are more general principles of information theory that apparently apply to any instance in which code and a dictionary are used to process information. I believe that the extraction of information from such processes at arbitrary points of access is something of a black art. This is a vast field and it's hard to generalize. I have personally attended tests at a firm working for the military in a western European country and I've seen how extremely easy it is to do remote classic tempest-reading of the screen of a lap-top, to name only one example. The equipment easily fits in only a station wagon. Generally So goes the contemporary non-specialist understanding of the field. this is really hard to protect yourself from. Let's say you build yourself a bunker and put your computer inside it but you forget to run it on batteries, then you'll find out that signals will be carried out on the electric cord entering your bunker and they'll be readily readable outside anyway. You can't have any kind of opening in and out of that bunker, not even for ventilation, so you see this is hard to do. Quite. If you want to get any actual work done, the process exposes you to the risk of leaking information to third-parties. Assuming that is not what is intended, I suppose you can spend a metric shitload of money on measures designed to mitigate against specific risks, without any guarantee of success. Maybe they built in other forms of remotely usable back-doors too, just in case there were able to make contact with the computer remotely over some network. This makes sense too, since one or two or those computers surely were less protected. In .5M LOC, just about anything is possible. However, I don't believe that back-door code would have had anything to do with enhancing the vulnerability of the system to TEMPEST attacks. Some people falsely believe that only CRT screens can be read remotely using TEMPEST techniques, this couldn't be more false, in fact one of the test managers I spoke to said he thought it was easier with TFT type monitors. Also remeber that we're not just talking about monitors, many other devices emits interesting and potential useful informaation: faxes, printers, networking hardware etc. Indeed. I've heard rumours suggesting that arbitrary bus signals (SCSI, PCI, FSB) are radiated with the same promiscuity as are monitor signals. IIRC, a sharp right-angle trace on a circuit board will allow the emmission a detectable RF signal, contingent only on the sensitivity and proximity of a suitably configured receiver. Presumably the expense of designing digital electronics with the criterion of minimising radiated signals is not worth the bother for the vast majority of devices. The status quo of the commodity consumer market for computers and peripherals suggests that the primary design criterion is the minimisation of manufacturing cost. Function and security criterion are necessarily compromised. Those PROMIS people built in hardware on the motherboards
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
--- Nomen Nescio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Furlong: Random racist ranting is also required. There are some racist assholes currently posting on cpunks, but none have quite the May flavor. LOL You can say that again. Here are a few examples of what this once renowned cypherpunk usually writes nowadays. [snip] Tim May has probably gotten all strange in the last few years, living in his remote hilltop home, waiting to see the end that will not come since the y2k crisis turned out to be nothing more than a financial boondoggle for the companies that believed all the hype. Imagine that his racist rantings are the expression of a frustration that he cannot admit, and that the overtly bigoted expressions are a cover to hide his real opinions on affairs over which he has no control. I sincerely doubt that he cares one way or another over the fate of Washington welfare cases, the poor of Africa, or the 'Underground Zionist Leaders of America' (or whatever). Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
--- Neil Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 08:46 -0500, R.W. (Bob) Erickson wrote: To be bobbed is never the goal, but bobless fear steers the undifferentiated bob along conventional paths, to the abattoir Where is Tim May when when you need him? :-) Tuning the output stage of his useless eater welfare-mutant oven, in all probability. I think he wants to avoid criticisms from the environmentalists by way of making sure his machinery conforms to Kyoto Protocol expectations. Bonus question: Who is the author of the origin question that inspired the copycats? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Michael Riconosciuto, PROMIS
--- Nomen Nescio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read a few old email messages I had and stumbled over some interesting material relating to NSA, CIA and one Michael Riconosciuto among other things. [PROMIS] Does anyone here have a good idea of what the PROMIS code actuall does; what its characteristics and capabilities are in terms of its function as an aid to intellegence analysts, logistics technicians, or consultants? I've only read vague hints and rumours concerning its implicit design philosophy and architecture from the rare instances where it is mentioned at all. Yes, he code is probably classified (blah, blah, blah), but its actual use must reveal its purpose and function to some degree. And sure, we know that feds and other ne'er-do-wells have a bug up their ass about revealing sources and methods (unlike the public, who have no practical option in that regard) so any information that does leak is bound to be sketchy, but surely there must be _some_ accurate data available concerning its nature, especially considering the fact that it has been under development for two or three decades. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Michael Riconosciuto, PROMIS
--- Neil Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 20:58 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote: [PROMIS] Yes, I have found that puzzling too. Articles I have read refer to the original version being in the public domain. You'd think the source code would be out there somewhere. If that's true, then the government couldn't have stolen it. However, I suspect that mainfraim code of any sophistication is rarely released into the public domain. I imagine the author would be able to clear that up, assuming he has no financial reason to falsify its history. The least Tin Foil Hat (TM) version of the story I found is at Wired http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/inslaw.html Which gives this description: Designed as case-management software for federal prosecutors, PROMIS has the ability to combine disparate databases, and to track people by their involvement with the legal system. Hamilton and others now claim that the DOJ has modified PROMIS to monitor intelligence operations, agents and targets, instead of legal cases. Interesting. I find the claims made about this software (it's ability to reconcile data from many different sources automagically ) pretty vague and frankly, a little far fetched, based on what I know about software, databases, etc. No kidding. Databases are _hard_ to write efficiently, let alone to arbitrarily integrate. (And that's not even including the modifications supposedly made to install a TEMPEST back door in later versions). Perhaps I am stupid. I don't know how one would go about modifying application software to include a 'back door' that would presumably enhance its suceptibility to TEMPEST attacks. Isn't tempest all about EM spectrum signal detection and capture? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
--- Steve Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bonus question: Who is the author of the origin question that inspired the copycats? Well, I remember May posting it but I don't think he was the ultimate author. I suspect whoever posted it recently in fact dug it out of the archives and re-posted it, a particularly lame maneuver if so. Wrong. The origin quote is Who is Socrates, now that we need him written by Richard Mitchell as the title of chapter one in The Gift of Fire. Mitchell may have cribbed the line from another source, but in this context it is the origin quote. Ms. Harsh is in posession of the original physical vector, having stolen it, but only the spooks will be unofficially aware of that facet of the context. On further reflection, I think it is necessary to go out on a limb and suggest a correction to my comment above. I verified the original quotation from a quick google search. That was probably not enough. My recollection suggests that the original quote should be where is Socrates now that we need him. I rather suspect that the people who 0wn the upstream pipe from my points of access are toying with their ability to interpose their data in place of quasi-authoritative texts. I cannot consult the physical document owing to the fact that its rarity is such that there are no copies available at either the Metro Central Reference Library, and I have no access to the stacks at the University of Toronto Robarts library. Someone who does may consult the book themselves with its call number: B72 .M55 1987. Further, Ms. Harsh may be said to posess the probable physical vector. I cannot say what level of participation she has had in this travesty owing to the fact that after she perjured herself in court in 2001, she has entirely avoided using her actual identity online. However, she could answer the question with her copy of the book in principle if there were any way to compel her testimony. It is possible that the quote is being used as a source by online spooks by virtue of the text's presence in their funky everything database. Any way you look at it, the phrase tax money well spent would seem to apply here. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Anti-RFID outfit deflates Mexican VeriChip hype
--- Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [further snippage] Pray the draft is women-empowered so there's no need to shanghai the overaged, over-decrepit, over-funny-loving, inbred-feeders, pray for the Condies and the Maggies to fight the gameboy-dreamy battles, really face-to-face, not just stomp-hoof the youngsters into hell for a face-save the empire. Won't someone please slip a healthy dose of haloperidol into JYA's food? Don't be cruel. Let's all chip in and buy him a bottle of good scotch and a shiny-new tinfoil hat for Christmas. Think he'd accept graciously, or would that offend him too? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Lockheed and the Future of Warfare
--- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/business/yourmoney/28lock.html November 28, 2004 Lockheed and the Future of Warfare By TIM WEINER LOCKHEED MARTIN doesn't run the United States. But it does help run a breathtakingly big part of it. [LockMart: corporate patriot collective] Today, Lockheed is building weapons so smart that they can change the world by virtue of their precision, he said; they aim to wage war without the death of innocents, without weapons misfiring, without fatal miscalculation. That should be a no-brainer. I know the fog of war exists, Mr. Stevens said, adding that it could be lifted. We envision a world where you don't have any more fratricide, no more friendly fire, he said. With technology we've been able to make ourselves more secure and more humane. Like they're going to admit otherwise... Look, managing the perception of friendly fire statistics is super-easy. All you have to do is use a little set-theory to define all casualties of war as enemies. Presto! No more friendly-fire incident paperwork. Take me, for example. The good government of Canada has been slowly but surely flushing my life down a toilet for years and years, perhaps even with the help of foreigners. (Don't ask, it's a long story.} However it is only in the last four or five years that the authorities in question have been able to escalate the threat I pose to their retirement cachets and pension benefits by way of cleverly manipulating their selective disclosure of facts[1] and by virtue of the creative misunderstanding of what I do in the course of conducting my own self-defense[2] operation. 911 didn't hurt them any either. The end result is that I become an enemy of the state as a direct consequence of the attentions and interference of state actors. No causal chain is allowed to officially exist linking a state-sponsored `harassment' campaign with my subsequent bad attitude, thus I automatically become the Bad Guy(tm), who then deserves a total loss of civil rights and forfeiture of present and future personal property without counterfraudulent due process. Apparently this method was perfected some years ago, and so I conclude that LockMart is simply borrowing the technique for their present approach to selling their corporate image and product line to the world. [1] Fact as used in this context is to be taken as synonymous with 'rumour', 'meme complex', 'lie', and 'distortion'. [2] Conducted, as it were, on a budget that is significantly lower than the net disposable income of your average pan-handler. [3] If you happen to be curious about the details of my state of affairs, do not hesitate to interview Geoff Miller or any of his past and present professional associates. And we aren't there yet - but we sure have pioneered the kind of work that is taking us well along that trajectory. And there's a lot of evidence that says we're doing well. And we're setting the bar high and we expect to be able to do that. Now that's pretty exciting stuff. Corporate productspeak for `nyah, nyah, nyah. I don't say this lightly, he said. Our industry has contributed to a change in humankind. BFD. The medical industry has also contributed to a 'change in humankind'. Similar sentiments can be attached to the public education sector, the automotive industry, the steel industry, etc. Oh, I suppose we should not also forget the Internet and its boundless potential for connecting people to each other for arbitrary business and leisure activities. But the really sad thing about the quoted article is that someone (or more people) actually got paid to write it. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Fallujah: Marine Eye-Witness Report
--- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [permanent holy war] Steve Thompson True, but there's a question of the waste of resources and man-years that would come from such a circumstance. All the oil money has been wasted, most of the humans in the middle east have suffered poverty, ignorance, lack of freedom and the unproductive absence of useful labor. Just like the good ol' USA, AFAIK. It's just that the inequities at home aren't limited to those that are a product of the petrochemical industry. All of which is not too different from what I see in the poorer parts of the city I live in: Toronto. All my life, people have been proposing to solve this problem. Nearly every American president since 1950 announced some big and expensive initiative that would supposedly solve this problem, or make some substantial progress towards a solution. Lately people were talking about PSE/COA topics which make moot much of the bickering and squabbling that is a constant feature of capitalism. We don't hear much about PSE these days for some reason. I suspect that the path from here to there is still too far beyond the planning horizon of too many people. So, if PSE in a recognizeable form represents a rational outcome of current economic progress, then I guess we must wait until it looms nearer before selling it to the world. What is your solution? PSE. And the death of all superstitious nonsense. Of course, there are probably enough people around who like domination games that the elimination of bogus memes such as those attached to theology may prove difficult. Do you have a better idea? And then there's the ethical[1] side of the coin: do the (largely financial benefits) that might come from a civil war in Iraq really justify the consequent standard-of-living for the residents of Iraq? And your remedy for improving the standard of living in the arab world is? Give them more money. Aridrop directv dishes, televisions, and old computers. Hell, I don't know. Winning arab hearts and minds is a topic that is entirely beyond my area of expertise. Steve Thompson Aren't we all about to run out of oil soon anyways? Forty years or so, according to estimates by the more sane and conventional authorities. And then what? What are we and they going to do the following year? And the year after that? I'm sure your military think-tanks have walked through the scenarios and have a good handle on the likely outcomes, but they aren't really talking at this time. (And of course, I wouldn't trust public military think-tank product to correctly predict the sunrise.) James A. Donald: the people who organize large scale terror can be identified, particularly by locals and coreligionists, which is why they have been dying in large numbers in Afghanistan. Steve Thompson Um, what planet are you on? The planet where the Afghans held an election, in which nearly everybody voted, some of them several times, and the Taliban were unable to carry out any of the threats they made against the voters, which indicates that the Afghans have been pretty efficient in killing Taliban. Ok. That may well be true. And it is a step in the right direction. However I would guess that the long-term stable state of Afghanistan is entirely up in the air. Barring coups and such I guess we'll have to revisit the Afghanistan question in a few decades. At that time, and after they've had a little practice with the democratic process, we'll probably have a much better idea of how well their liberation from the taliban went. The people who, as you say, organize large scale terror tend to be protected by virtue of large bureaucratic firewalls, legislated secrecy, misdirection (smoke and mirrors), and even taboos. The average Afghan warlord is untroubled by any of this crap. I suspect that not many of them get to the civilised portions of the Internet all that often. He sees someone who looks suspicious, says Hey, you don't look like you are from around here. What are you doing? If he does not like the answers, he brings out his skinning knife, and asks a few more questions. If the answers make him even more unhappy, he hands his skinning knife to the womenfolk, and tells them to take their time. You gotta admire the hands-on leadership style, at the very least. But perhaps you are not referring to Western terrorists, but are expecting your reader to assume that terrorists always wear turbans, and who generally will live and operate in the Middle-Eastern theatre. Perhaps you have forgotten about the people who planned and executed the operations that helped South-American tyrants form up and train their death- and terror-squads? The parties that sponsored death squads of Latin America, when victorious, held free and fair elections, which they won, and those they had been fighting lost. The death squads were an response
Re: Fallujah: Marine Eye-Witness Report
--- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- James A. Donald: Seems to me that permanent civil war in Iraq provides Americans with the same benefits as democracy in Iraq, though considerably more reliably. Steve Thompson You might be more accurate to say that a permanent [civil] war in Iraq benefits miltiary leaders and civilian contractors with a variety of benefits. [pardon the redundancy] Permanent holy war in Iraq would keep them busy and out of mischief WITHOUT permanent large involvement from American military. True, but there's a question of the waste of resources and man-years that would come from such a circumstance. And then there's the ethical[1] side of the coin: do the (largely financial benefits) that might come from a civil war in Iraq really justify the consequent standard-of-living for the residents of Iraq? People like Tim May might say that the towel-headed barbarians deserve to be killed in a bloody civil conflict, but other people might argue that there are stable states that do not actually require heavy foreign civilian losses. As to who is correct, I cannot say. As a relatively new student of history I am still researching the topic. Plus, of course, they would be pumping oil like mad in order to fund it. Aren't we all about to run out of oil soon anyways? Finding Al Quaeda is hard. Nation building is even harder. Military training covers nation smashing, not nation building. Of course. It's much easier to smash things than it is to create; and smashing requires much less wisdom. On average; depending on how one goes about `smashing' a nation-state. I imagine that nation-building, or nation-`shaping', would be quite hard -- and what if such efforts were to go awry? The consequences might be terrible. But arranging matters so that Al Quaeda is busily killing those muslims it deems insufficiently Muslim, and muslims are killing Al Quaeda right back, seems astonishingly easy. If you've been practising pitting groups of barbarians against each other, as is apparently the case for those involved with the military intelligence community, then yes, I suppose it might be considered `astonishingly easy'. I would also be inclined to suggest that those sorts of arrangements are quite expensive, regardless of their degree of ease. It is like throwing a match into a big petrol spill. Why are American soldiers getting shot putting out the fire? Why are Americans dying to stop arabs from killing arabs? We *want* arabs to kill arabs. When arabs kill arabs, we fear that the wrong side might win - but whichever side wins, it usually turns out to be the wrong side. If no one wins, no problem. I suppose that Americans are getting shot and dying because they are being paid to engage in high-risk operations. The risk-taking probably makes them feel more like manly-men -- until they bleed out all over the desert sand, of course. Is there a psychologist in the house who might shed more light on this kind of risk-taking behavior? Nothing like a long holy war with no clear winner to teach people the virtues of religious tolerance. That is, after all, how Europeans learnt that lesson. You're dreaming. People simply do not learn from history. But we learnt from history. Europe, and Europeans, did learn from the European holy wars. Well, my opinion is such that the major lesson that [a few] people end up learning from history is how to make conflict seem more legitimate to increasingly better educated populations. But there is evidently a long way to go before the enterprise of warfare is perfected. As to other lessons learned from history, it is evident that we as a species have learnt that war remains profitable under all conditions. This is now a matter of the most sacred orthodoxy to high-culture. Do not worry. I will not presume to challenge such a strongly-held belief. Many things would be nice if [group A] were busy killing [enemy B] instead of [group C]. Sadly, this is not a perfect world and the people who need the most killing do not, generally speaking, get it. Perhaps it is a bit of a shame that the kind of broken person who ends up becoming a suicide bomber, a Ted Kaczynski, a Timothy McVeigh, or even a Jim Sikorski, First: Three cheers for Timothy McViegh. How about, Where is Ted Kaczynski now that we really need him? Secondly, the people who organize large scale terror can be identified, particularly by locals and coreligionists, which is why they have been dying in large numbers in Afghanistan. Um, what planet are you on? The people who, as you say, organize large scale terror tend to be protected by virtue of large bureaucratic firewalls, legislated secrecy, misdirection (smoke and mirrors), and even taboos. But perhaps you are not referring to Western terrorists, but are expecting your reader to assume
Re: Fallujah: Marine Eye-Witness Report
--- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- James A. Donald: And the problem with a civil war in Iraq is? On 24 Nov 2004 at 2:42, Bill Stewart wrote: Well, once you get past the invalid and dishonest parts of Bush's 57 reasons We Need to Invade Iraq Right Now (WMDs, Al-Qaeda, Tried to kill Bush's Daddy, etc.) you're pretty much left with Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy and Replacing the EEEVil dictator Saddam with a Democracy to protect the Iraqi people. Seems to me that permanent civil war in Iraq provides Americans with the same benefits as democracy in Iraq, though considerably more reliably. You might be more accurate to say that a permanent [civil] war in Iraq benefits miltiary leaders and civilian contractors with a variety of benefits. Of course, I am quite stupid about a great many subjects and consequently I may not be able to fully appreciate the benefits that trickle down to the American public from being `part' of a theocratic-military pseudo-oligarchy. Perhaps such an arrangement makes the best of the human condition and I am merely too inferior to appreciate the fact. Chances are that after fair and free election, the majority will vote to screw the minority - literally screw them, as in rape being unofficially OK when members of the majority do it to members of the minority. Well this is to be expected if one studies the field of game theory. And given that reality, there is really no point in using psychology and legislation to mitigate against the dictatorship of the proletariat. Vulnerable minorities might as well lie back and enjoy the inevitable loving attentions of the majority, eh? Nothing like a long holy war with no clear winner to teach people the virtues of religious tolerance. That is, after all, how Europeans learnt that lesson. You're dreaming. People simply do not learn from history. Never mind the fact that the historical record is largely incomplete and of course written by the victors; what does survive in the history of the species entirely fails to teach individuals and cultures the errors of primitive and barbaric ways. Of course this may change in the future. The Christian crusaders, to use but one trivial example, did not have television and the History Channel at the time when they were working themselves into a frenzy in preparation for war. And the worst comes to the worst - well today the Taliban are busy kiling Afghans instead of Americans. Wouldn't it be nice if Al Quaeda was killing Iraqis instead of Americans - well actually they are killing Iraqis instead of americans, but wouldn't it be nice if they were killing *more* Iraqis? Many things would be nice if [group A] were busy killing [enemy B] instead of [group C]. Sadly, this is not a perfect world and the people who need the most killing do not, generally speaking, get it. Perhaps it is a bit of a shame that the kind of broken person who ends up becoming a suicide bomber, a Ted Kaczynski, a Timothy McVeigh, or even a Jim Sikorski, cannot be identified early on by some sort of DNA screening technology and then channeled into an appropriate military program in which they might be trained to use their special talents against truly worthy enemies of the state. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: [osint] Group to launch terrorist database
"R.A. Hettinga" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [from osint] Wednesday, November 17, 2004 Group to launch terrorist database BY Diane Frank Published on Nov. 17, 2004[snip] The Terrorism Knowledge Base is the latest Web-based resource from the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, a nonprofit organization in Oklahoma City. The institute developed three solutions, which also include the Lessons Learned Information System and the Responder Knowledge Base, with funding from the Justice and Homeland Security departments. This system provides open-source, unclassified information on international and domestic terrorism, pulling information from a database of terrorist incident information maintained since 1968 by Rand, nonprofit research organization. It also incorporates links to original court documents pertaining to suspected terrorists.They should set up a snitch line, so to speak,so that the general public can report, possibly even by email, incidents ofsmall-scale terrorism and potential terrorism that they might witness as they go about their daily lives. It couldn't hurt. In fact, such a move would easily eliminate any question of institutional bias in reference to the selectioncriterionused to evaluate whether any given incident qualifies as terrorism or not. I'm not usually one to come out in favour of government database systems, but for something like the terrorism database (whichhas the potential to greatly enhancethe security of democracy and law),what's there not to like about it? Regards, Steve Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Re: Printers betray document secrets
I seem to recall hearing a rumour that suggested that for years now, photocopiers have been leaving their serial number on the copies they produce. If true, and I am inclined to believe it, it follows naturally that something similar might happen with laser-printers and ink-jet printers.Ian Grigg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R.A. Hettinga wrote: US scientists have discovered that every desktop printer has a signature style that it invisibly leaves on all the documents it produces.I don't think this is new - I'm pretty sure it waspublished about 6 or 7 years back as a technique.iangPost your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Re: Airport insanity
--- John Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the Boston Red Sox team look as if they have just come from a terrorist training camp for blind, handless barbers, decked-out in ill-fitting sports gear, staring wild-eyed at RPGs being fired at their heads and nuts, swinging clubs futilely at the inerrant missiles, their ass-wipe paws swollen into giant shit-covered patties, muttering homicidal jihads against devil-bred yankees. Our Maple Leafs' hockey team might look similarly if it weren't for the lockout. As it is, all of our players are well-fed and well-rested (if a little restless, ha ha ha). I imagine they have no trouble whatsoever convincing airport security of their benignity when they flit about on their vactions. We might as well face it. Whether one is designated as resembling a terrorist or not, according to security screeners, is really a matter of random happenstance in many cases. Did you purchase a 12ga Remington Defender sometime in the last twenty years? No? Well then please step onboard. Yes? Oh, well you're going to have to wait while we send your thong to the lab for analysis, Mr. Alleged, just to check for accelerant or explosives residue. Net result? Just one more obstacle on the highway of life. Ho hum. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Airport insanity
--- Damian Gerow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus spake James A. Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15/10/04 15:19]: [laws making stupidity mandatory for gov't officials] I've had more than one comment about my ID photos that amount to basically: You look like you've just left a terrorist training camp. For whatever reason, pictures of me always come out looking like some crazed religious fanatic. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to bomb anything. And I sure hope that I'm not going to be detained or denied entry because of how I *look*, alone. Way back when phrenology was all the rage they did not have terrorists. Since it is evidently vital to the security of the state for its officials to have the capability of committing arbitrary civil rights violations, I can see a need for the resurrection of phrenology, suitably updated, as a screening tool. The shape of your head; the cadence of your gait; the way your eyes shift according to carefully structured stimulae, and of course your spending patterns -- all these things will help the cause of profiling. Remember: petty inconveniences that make travel on average less pleasant and more onerous are not at all intended to facilitate tightened centralised control of civilian life. That it may actually do so is an unintended side-effect. As for me, I have resigned myself to the current lamentable state of world affairs. Until the world's policeman finishes flushing the terrorists out into the open for the purpose of apprehension, we will all have to make sacrifices for the greater good. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Keith Henson Needs Help
"R. A. Hettinga" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith Henson Needs Help (MLP)By BaldrsonWed Sep 15th, 2004 at 07:42:14 AM EST[snip]Anyway, back to the question: Why should you care?Maybe you don't like Scientology.Maybe you like Keith.Maybe you just like to mess with the California government.Whatever, Keith Henson is asking for help and he quite probably actuallyneeds it. This is interesting. I haven't had the time to follow much of Mr. Henson's case; either the refugee claim, or the subsequent deportation proceedings. I do recall that he was incarcerated at theMetro West Detention Centerwhile some of his legal maneouvers were being heard in Oakville, and that won't havebeen very pleasant at all. People who belong to The Church of Scientology seem to comprise a rather nasty group,and I am not surprisedto hear that there are people who fear their reach and influence.Of course, the USjustice system has a number of problems that have been welldocumented in recent years, andis obviously no walk in the park for anyone who runs afoul of it for whatever reason. But given that, Ican't imagine the naïvetéof thought that would leadsomeone to believe thatCanada (and its judicial system) is so much better as to make it worthy as ahaven for contemporary US dissidents. The Church of Scientology is obviously somewhat active here, at least as far as I can detect; as areother [religious] special-interest groups. Despite this, or perhaps because of it,officials of government here seem only too willing to allow all manner of tomfoolery and hi-jinks to play out alongside the official processes of law. Tangentially, the Globe and Mail recently printed an article that used thephrase "asymetrical government" to seemingly describe the recent change of characterto the practises of federal governance in Canada. I can't imagine thatbodes well considering the term's likely relation to'asymetric warfare', but then perhaps some bored PSYOPS expert is merely having a little fun withGlobe readers. However,notwithstanding the spectre of improved 'asymmetric' Canadian government, I am not too intelligent in these matters and so there could be some very significant differences up here that makes it an attractive destination forrefugees fleeing your own very Happy Fun Government.It is a truism to say that people sometimes do the strangest things and that their motives are often extremely obscure, and so I am not surprised tofind myself mystified on occasion. Why, I don't believe I evenreally appreciating the subtleties of John Gilmore's currentcivil action against the USG over airline security screening procedures. Politicsreally isquitecomplex these days for the nonexpert. If Keith had asked me before he decided to set out for Canada, I probably would have advised him then that this is no utopia of jurisprudence and fair play. Sure, if one has enough (but not too much) money to spare, this can be a nice place, but I am told that the same holds true for Chile.There are tiers of access to publicservices and no exemplary history available to hold up as evidence to support the idea of Canada asmuch ofa sanctuary from the excesses of certain malign foreign government actors. And, sure, I have not travelled about Canada extensively so I can personally only attest to the existence of malign domestic government and non-governmentactors in the Greater Metropolitan Toronto area. Other provinces could be much, muchbetter than Southern Ontario. Of course my cynicism and discontent could be mostly a product of, and reaction tobeing more or less unilaterally hung out to dry by my friends, acquaintances, and the officials of my immediate experience in recent years. (Incidentally, I can't say that I haven't learned some important bits of data frompseudonymous benefactors, but the fact of pseudonymity andindirection in such instances isreally not very comforting. [shit] And furthermore, study, induction and deduction, as well asa whole bunch of testing comprise_the_ major contributors to what little peace of mindI posses if bound literatureis excepted. Help is clearly a commodity in short supply around here.) Anyhow, Keith's failed refugee claim is clearly significant. Considering my calendar at the moment I don't think there's much that I can do to help, unfortunately. I willwatch, though, and I'll be be interested to see exactlyhow the final moves play out in his case. Regards, Steve Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Re: The Mechanics of Skyscraper Collapse
--- Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote: I think the nearly perfectly vertical collapse of the WTC towers was because of the pancaking of each floor into the floors below, as shown in the videos. Whether removal of one support triggers pancaking or toppling is more complicated than the blocks example, of course. The collapse is self-aligning due to the delay occurring at each subsequent segment. I think you'll get a toppling only in small/extremely overengineered structures after at an explosion at the base. This seems reasonable. As a large structure topples, the sheer stress across the long axis of the building will inexorably increase as the upper floors retard the downward progression of the lower floors (caused of course by gravity). I suspect that a large structure such as a WTC tower would cant no more than a few degrees before loading stresses opposite to the design of the compression structure caused a series of gross structural failures -- which would allow the building to fall mostly `in place'. That is only my intuitive take on the physics of the moments in question. Someone with real knowledge could easily disagree with my naC/ve oversimplification I'm sure. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?
Kevin S. Van Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tyler Durden wrote: Let's take one of my famous extreme examples. Let's say a section of the New Jersey Turnpike gets turned over to a private company, which now owns and operates this section. So...now let's say I'm black. NO! Let's say I'm blond-haired and blue eyed, and the asshole in the squad car doesn't like that, because his wife's been bangin' a surfer. So...he should be able to toss me off the freeway just because of the way I look? (Or the way I'm dressed or the car I drive or whatever.) Not if he wants to keep his job. This is supposed to be a profit-making operation, remember? Pissing off or outright throwing out paying customers is a good way to make the company lose money, which is bound to get the owners quite upset. That's too logical, and as you state below mere economic incentive does not cover the case where organised bigotry drives an agenda of exclusion. Your much vaunted Constitution and the Bill of Rights are supposed to address this issue, since the principles in question govern the overall social fabric, which is supposed to provide for a measure of equality in `the commons', but in practice that is not so. I'll note that as a practical matter it looks sort of like your Constitution (and the Charter up here in Canukistan) have become of little more use than as bog-roll, so while these discussion are nice to have in theory, there is no practical application to be made in this environment. Let's suppose, however, that the owners are such extreme bigots that they prefer nursing their prejudices over making money. Should the owners be able to arbitrarily deny certain people access to their property? In the absence of a valid contract to the contrary, OF COURSE. Anybody for whom this is not blindingly obvious still hasn't grasped the fundamental concept that most children acquire by the age of three or four: the difference between MINE and YOURS. This has always been something of a peeve of mine; that certain people consistently fail to make this distinction. If I were more knowledgeable in the fields of genetics and human neurophysiology I might suggest that the widespread nature of this moral failure results from a common psychological artifact that is manifest from some bizarre recessive gene. But the simpler explanation is that it is learned behaviour, which implicates bad parenting. Whatever the cause, its prevalence has resulted in norms coded in law which agents of the state surely appreciate. The way I see it is there's private property, there's public property, and then there's reality with lots of stuff in between. No, there's private property, there are unowned (unclaimed) resources, and that's it. I don't consider the State to have any valid property rights at all, as everything which it claims as its property was obtained by theft, violence, or both. Your stuff in between is just a bunch of hooey invented in order to justify violations of property rights. Sort of like this compelling state interest test invented by the frauds in the Supreme Court to weasel their way past the clear and unambiguous wording of the First Amendment; no trace of the concept exists in the Constitution. I agree. The state should not be able to own property. But again, as a practical and historical matter, states own the planet; government employees have parceled much of it out to corporations, or sold bits to private individuals. Supposedly, property of the government is held in trust for the population, but that fiction is of course quite laughable. I would say that some tuning of government is indicated given the current mess, but these days that sort of talk is bound to get one thrown into a gulag. Though, perhaps this state of affairs isn't quite as much of a problem. Crypto-anarchy and the march of science are tending towards the obsolescence of the nation-state, so no-one may need to do much of anything radical at all to effect changes in this regard. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?
--- Kevin S. Van Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Thompson wrote: That's too logical, No, it's not. Logical actors dominate in the economy because those prone to excessive irrationality end up with little money to play with. Perhaps you aren't joking... I would be forced to agree with you is you defined `logical' in this context to mean actors following the logic of the current economic status quo. Obviously, our present economic order resists (strongly!) fundamental change; and there is a logical consistency to it. Concerning irrationality in the sense that applies above, well, I think that's a difficult one. Some are irrational in their expectations of returns from the economy; others are irrational in their assessment of its very structure. Obviously there are many ways of going wrong and losing. and as you state below mere economic incentive does not cover the case where organised bigotry drives an agenda of exclusion. No, I do not state this; I merely answered a what-if question. So you weren't suggesting that organised bigotry in any way drives an economic agenda? Fine. You could say that, but you would be ignoring the obvious exclusion of the poor/uneducated from many areas of the economy by way of a conscious set of policies. But perhaps you don't notice that sort of thing? Your much vaunted Constitution and the Bill of Rights are supposed to address this issue, since the principles in question govern the overall social fabric, What in the world is overall social fabric supposed to mean? The only thing the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meant to govern is the U.S. Federal Government itself (and, to some extent, the states comprising this federation). I suppose I could have merely said `social fabric' and it would have been better English, but I am not perfect. Otherwise, I understand the scope of authority imputed to be the sole domain of said documents. I don't believe that my comments are completely beyond the scope of the philosophy that was, or at least should have been, the motive for their creation. which is supposed to provide for a measure of equality in `the commons', You won't find any trace of any notion of equality in the commons -- whatever the phrase is supposed to mean -- in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, nor any of the discussions involved in the drafting and ratification of these documents. I would think that the idea of `equality in the commons' is implicit in the motivation for such documents, whether or not it is stated in so many words. It seems rather obvious to me, but of course that may not be the case. I wasn't there when they were written, and I do not really know anything about the people involved, their personalities, beliefs, and motives. Perhaps I'm projecting what I *think* should be a part of the principles behind such documents. I'll note that as a practical matter it looks sort of like your Constitution Why in the world are you bringing the U.S. Constitution into this anyway? I never even mentioned it, and it wasn't mentioned in the material to which I was responding. My answers are meant to be normative, addressing fundamental issues of rights that are entirely independent of the decrees or scribblings of any group who styles themselves a government. I mentioned them because they are not only a frequently occurring subject of debate in this forum, but they are pertinent to the subject of this thread, and because they have seen mention recently in other messages. Anybody for whom this is not blindingly obvious still hasn't grasped the fundamental concept that most children acquire by the age of three or four: the difference between MINE and YOURS. This has always been something of a peeve of mine; that certain people consistently fail to make this distinction. [...] Well, we seem to be in violent agreement w.r.t. the rest of what you have written... Perhaps that is so. I'll ask that you excuse my tangential comments, but that said, I was merely using your reply as a foil for my comments and wasn't intending to stick exclusively to the nominal focus of your post. I expect you'll understand that while I was indeed spawning a subthread, that sort of thing does happen from time-to-time in this forum. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: [more car-trivia] Re: To Steve Schear, re Rome, Architects, Shuttles, Congress
--- Adam Back [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as evolutionary pressures, aggressive and fast driving is far more dangerous, however adrenaline inducingly fun that may be. Depends on one's strategy. When riding a motorcycle, there are two aggressive driving principles I observe at all times (in addition to the usual precaution of keeping track of the vectors of all nearby vehicles at all times): (a) Remain ahead of car `packs' at all times. From stoplights, I will tend to accelerate aggressively to put distance between myself and the other cars waiting at the light. (b) Drive five to ten kilometres per hour faster than the average traffic speed so that in most cases, I am approacing vehicles from behind, and can therefore plan my maneuverings appropriately. Particularly on the highway, I think it is stupid to stay in the right lane at a speed where most of the car and truck traffic is passing you, and where people entering and exiting the highway are constantly changing in and out of your lane. It is not always pleasant driving in the `fast' lane on a 550 c.c. bike, but it tends to be the safest place. In my opinion, this sort of aggressive driving has its place as a valid defensive driving strategy. (ke =1/2.m.v^2). Also exposed or unduly light vehicles -- motorbikes, light built cars like citroen 2cv or such. motorbikes have very bad accident statistics. This is true, and the reason that I tend to prefer driving my car when I have to commute any great distance, or in marginal weather conditions. That said, individual skill plays a part, as does equipment. I believe I have better than average reflexes and driving skill, and I don't ride a crotch-rocket; which I like to think improves my odds somewhat. This may be wishful thinking, but I've only dropped the bike twice in four years of riding, and on both occasions it occured at very low speeds when my wheels skidded on a tiny bit of loose gravel. Set a new personal record for removal, disassembly, reassambly, and installation of a transmission after I slipped the clutch to get the car home too. I had a clutch cable snap on me when I was moving -- car was jam packed with household effects. Just drove it for 10 miles without a clutch. To start: switch engine off, put it in first, start engine; gear change match engine speed to road speed pull out of gear, reduce engine speed to match road speed at higher gear ratio put into new gear; and plan ahead to not have to do a hill start on 1 in 6 hill on way home :-) You can change down also, but it's harder because there's less tolerance for error in the engine speed. This is called power-shifting. The transmission on my bike is particularly well suited for this and I have found that acceleration is *much* better when you don't have to worry about that pesky lever. Downshifting is tricky, but with a little practice it becomes managable. When I don't care about making noise, it's a lot of fun to ride around, going up and down the gears without needing touching the clutch at all except for stoplights. I think it frightens some drivers when I do this, but that probably has something to do with the holes I drilled at the back of the pipe for those few extra HP. :) Now that I think of it, the noise on the highway at 5500 RPM probably alerts drivers as to my approach, contributing to my safety. It helps to have practised this a bit first, otherwise you'll grind the gears or even break something. I was glad I had practised it when the cable broke. Never had a clutch-cable break, but it's a good skill to have. I've blown a few shifts though, and was Informed of the fact by the very unnerving feeling of the clutch-plates slipping while at full-throttle. Some transmissions are better than others for power-shifting, too. My VW 4-speed will power-shift, but it wasn't designed for it. Consequently, shifting normally with the clutch tends to be faster and more comfortable. There are aftermarket shifters for many cars that will do wonders for your quarter-mile. Only recommended for the truly anal. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Touching shuttle debris may cause bad spirits to invade your body!
--- Eric Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Feb I'm not sure which is more irritating-- the obvious way in which the govermedia manipulate the issue, or their automatic assumption that americans are too stupid/criminal to turn in all the parts they find if NASA just said we need all the parts, please bring 'em in. In part it seems it is because such a vast number of people in America have been so well served by the education system that the most effective way to coerce obedience is to invoke their fear of the unknown. I'm sure that the other part of the equation is that the government officials responsible for the cleanup feel they must take advantage of every oppourtunity to assert their authority; to make it impicit to every command/request. It is an insult to the intelligence, but to speak out in indignation invites the wrath of the low-level, insecure powers that be. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: smartcards
Quoting Trei, Peter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): The phone SW world is nowhere near as closed as you think. * Thousands of developers are writing Java applets for Japanese iMode phones. * Hundreds are developing applets for the Blackberry 5810 and 5820 phones (free Java-based IDS from RIM). * Similarly, the high end Pocket PC and Palm phones both have free or inexpensive development environments (C/C++) * Finally, Qualcomm phones support BREW (free SDK, expensive training). I stand corrected. I'm even reading a short bit about Nokia's new 3g phone: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/27310.html The device, known as the Nokia 6650, is also notable for allowing users to record up to 20 seconds of video (128x96 pixels) with sound using a built in VGA camera employing 4096 colours, the first Nokia phone to offer the facility Other features include a multimedia messaging service (MMS) client, a WAP 1.2.1-compatible browser, integrated Bluetooth, a wallet application for mobile transactions, and a Java 2 Micro Edition (J2ME) virtual machine based on the mobile information device profile (MIDP). Includes infrared and USB as well. Not much quickly available describing the wallet app, but it probably isn't peer-to-peer. My take on the situation is that the platform vendors are so anxious to get developer mindshare, and new apps, that they are for the most part giving away the development environments and specs. IOW, a decent number of platforms are ready to go. Cool. Regards, Steve
Re: smartcards
Quoting James A. Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): -- James A. Donald: When Chaumian money comes into wide use, I think that for most end users we will have to stash all unused tokens inside smartcards. Someone: Here in Hong Kong, contactless Octopus smartcards (based on the Sony FeliCa device) are well established for paying fares on buses, ferries and subways, and also for small transactions with vending machines, convenience stores and supermarkets. Critical mass is no problem if a payment mechanism is backed by the big boys, but the big boys want a mechanism for transferring value where only a few giant corporations who are in bed with the state receive transaction payments, a system that divides the economy into a tiny number of actors, the big corporations, who alone take action, plan and produce, and huge number of passive consumer zombies. We would like a system which treats those making and receiving payments as peers, which makes critical mass a considerably more difficult problem. I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned cell-phones as a digital cash platform. Perhaps this belabours the obvious, but I'll spell it out anyways: o They are ubiquitous. o Most of them have an IR port and many contain enough storage and horsepower to keep and play small MP3 collections. Chaumian digital cash code should fit easily. Hell, some companies are already making noises about full-motion video. How long before the damn things have a digital camera built in? o Peer-to-peer transactions will obviously work via IR. Central clearing mechanisms will work through the phone net. Thus they embody the basic infrastructure for both worlds. The entire thing could be done over SMS, of course, but IR for peer-to-peer, day-to-day transactions is best from a privacy and usability standpoint. o PC-based software is in use for the synchronisation of calendar data, etc. Many people are already familiar with using their phones for these kinds of purposes so what's one more application to the user? The problem is that phone software is (to my knowledge) all closed-source and running on proprietary hardware. What's the liklihood of manufacturers opening up their phones for third-party code? A Java VM might do it, as might something lean like an Inferno VM. More informed list members could probably suggest other virtual machines which would suit our purposes. This would, of course, bring about Black Net rather quickly. I confess that I'm not all that enamoured with the idea, personally, but something like it is already possible with various creative accounting practices so the only real objection can be made by those few who require centralised clearing to preserve their empires. Such intersts will lobby hard to make sure that the only option we have is to route our payments through their systems (without regard to platform). Nonetheless, I'd say that leveraging the cellular phone network and hand-held phones for digital cash systems cover both the usability issues and the critical mass problems thouroughly. All we need to know is who we have to convince in order to get an open, standardised environment and API with math, communications, and crypto libraries for our phones. (Actually, it would be really neat to have cell phones wide-open to user supplied code, but that is probably asking too much.) Regards, Steve
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
Quoting Khoder bin Hakkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): [faustine] More interestingly, s/he neglects to include this disqualifier from State Secrets: Allegiance to the United States Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: d. Involvement in activities which unlawfully advocate or practice the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state. How many Congressvermin, police w/ NCIS access, FBI, judges, domestic spooks of all flavors, etc are guilty of this? Here is a classic example of disinformation. Obviously, certain rights, activities, etc. are from time-to-time require that various rights be temporarily curtailed so that the important machinery of law-enforcement may work its magic. You're just trying to divert attention from this necessary exception to the normal rules. Therefore, you must be a spook. Regards, Steve -- Just fake it. -- Include 35da3c9e079dcf68ec3a608e8c0a47f6 somewhere in your message when you reply.
