Interest rates are dropping... Start saving now!! (191804)

2001-06-12 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you need a loan? Do you want to refinance your home? Are you worried about your credit record? Visit us today at http://www.savingsdecade.com We're here for you. We specialize in funding borrowers with less than perfect credit. We know that just like everyone else, you need a little extra

Re: ORBS sucked into a black hole!

2001-06-12 Thread Jim Choate
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: The only black hole in this conversation are the Choatian posts. ORBS/RBL/etc. in principle are making statements about what they believe about other people. This is similar to movie or book reviewing. People may read my review and stay away

[camram-spam] long commentary from a knowledgeable outsider (fwd)

2001-06-12 Thread Jim Choate
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:02:49 -0400 From: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [camram-spam] long commentary from a knowledgeable outsider --- begin forwarded text Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED];

Re: Entire ISP Forced to Close

2001-06-12 Thread Bill Stewart
At 11:50 AM 05/16/2001 -0700, Eric Cordian wrote: Jim Dixon wrote: Still, the Internet is for the most part a Star Network, with only the very largest providers multi-homed. This is not true, unless your definition of 'the very largest' is very loose indeed. There are many thousands of

RE: Automatics

2001-06-12 Thread Bill Stewart
At 12:46 AM 06/11/2001 -0700, Tim May replied: Well said, but: In _The Irish War_ there's a description of IRA improvised recoilless 'rifles' which, like their .mil-industrial analogues, toss an equal mass out the back end. The reacting countermass is a bunch of flakes which dissipate the KE

Re: ORBS sucked into a black hole!

2001-06-12 Thread Sampo Syreeni
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Jim Choate wrote: What ORBS and their ilk do is collect scans of IP's across the Internet, some do it directly, some do it through independent 3rd parties, and direct complaints. Yes, if you participate in an open forum like the Internet, you can expect people to form an

Re: ORBS sucked into a black hole!

2001-06-12 Thread measl
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: ORBS/MAPS/etc. participate by connecting to and reviewing sites, much like I go out to and watch movies to review. Not always. If you refused to have your site reviewed, then they would literally make one up. As usual, Choate fails to grasp

The 'theory' behind ORBS and it's ilk...

2001-06-12 Thread Jim Choate
It's easier, because of the law, to go after the middle man who have nothing to do with the actions of spammers other than being there rather than the actual spammers themselves. -- ...where annual

Re: ORBS sucked into a black hole!

2001-06-12 Thread Jim Choate
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: Yes, if you participate in an open forum like the Internet, you can expect people to form an opinion about you. Or about your contribution to the infrastructure, as the case may be. Do you expect movie critics to stop going to new movies unless

Thermal Imaging Decision Applicable to TEMPEST?

2001-06-12 Thread John Young
The Supreme Court's decision against thermal imaging appears to be applicable to TEMPEST emissions from electronic devices. And is it not a first against this most threatening vulnerability in the digital age? And long overdue. Remote acquisition of electronic emissions, say from outside a

Re: Thermal Imaging Decision Applicable to TEMPEST?

2001-06-12 Thread Declan McCullagh
I noodled over this in my article: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,4,00.html On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 08:58:36AM -0700, John Young wrote: The Supreme Court's decision against thermal imaging appears to be applicable to TEMPEST emissions from electronic devices. And is it not a

Re: Thermal Imaging Decision Applicable to TEMPEST?

2001-06-12 Thread Declan McCullagh
BTW John your cryptome.org writeup says: This decisions appears to be applicable to TEMPEST technology, the first instance to make use of this technology illegal. I'm not sure that's accurate. First, this is a Fourth Amendment case, and the court only decided what limits should be placed on

Re: SCOTUS rulz!

2001-06-12 Thread Greg Broiles
At 08:51 AM 6/12/2001 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Real-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isn't Jim Choate Prime against this ruling, on the basis that it discriminates against certain radiating frequencies? He has posted to that affect before. No, no, this is a copyright problem in Choate Prime -

Re: ORBS sucked into a black hole!

2001-06-12 Thread Jon Beets
No but ORBS was not involuntary.. It did'nt make everyone on the internet use it.. It was completely up to the ISP to use it or not... If you the customer don't like it then voice your opinion with the ISP and see if they will remove it.. If not.. Change your ISP.. Freedom of Choice. I am

Re: pap Smear

2001-06-12 Thread Sampo Syreeni
On 12 Jun 2001, Nat Love wrote: And whats to stop an untrustworthy virus from making the same claims, placing the 'trustworthy' virus on the system and deleting itself? Nothing, of course. It is a question of likelihood. And we were thinking about *probable* cause, not evidence beyond

RE: Automatics

2001-06-12 Thread Jim Dixon
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Bill Stewart wrote: The military recoilless rifles are more or less bazookas - Hardly. A bazooka is a shoulder-held tube from which you fire a missile, the fuel in the missile burning as it goes through the air. When the missile is gone, you put another one in. A

Re: Pap Smear

2001-06-12 Thread Sampo Syreeni
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check out the house and, sure enough, the window has been broken into, and right by the broken window is a pile of child porn. Wouldn't ANY sensible person conclude that more likely than not it was planted there? Except if the virus code is well

Re: Pap Smear

2001-06-12 Thread Eugene Leitl
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: Except if the virus code is well known, and deemed trustworthy. Any code can clean up after itself, leaving a well-known trustworthy code behind. I'm a bit boggled at seeing virus and trustworthy in the same sentence. -- Eugen* Leitl

Re: SCOTUS rulz!

2001-06-12 Thread Jim Choate
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't Jim Choate Prime against this ruling, on the basis that it discriminates against certain radiating frequencies? He has posted to that affect before. Bullshit. What I said was that basing a 'search' on the frequency of the radiation

Re: ORBS sucked into a black hole!

2001-06-12 Thread Jim Choate
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: The analogy's not perfect, but analogies never are. Especially when you're involved in them. If you don't like what spam critics are doing, move to a different ISP. I *AM* my own ISP you dunderhead. I don't like some asshole with zero investment

No Subject

2001-06-12 Thread Seminar
Title: ! . : . . .

Re: ORBS sucked into a black hole!

2001-06-12 Thread Jim Choate
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Greg Broiles wrote: Movie critics don't go around blocking me and my friends from seeing other movies besides the ones they want. Movie theaters prevent me from watching movies I want to see by A theatre is generaly not a critic. Apples and oranges. --

Re: snow crash really exists

2001-06-12 Thread Tim May
At 1:48 PM -0400 6/12/01, Riad S. Wahby wrote: David Honig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In _Science_ Vol 292 1 June 01 p 1637 there's a brief reference to musicogenic epilepsy, a rare conditionin which seizures are triggered by music My good friend and roommate of two years has just such a

Re: ORBS sucked into a black hole!

2001-06-12 Thread Tim May
At 8:27 AM -0700 6/12/01, Greg Broiles wrote: At 07:07 AM 6/12/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: Yes, if you participate in an open forum like the Internet, you can expect people to form an opinion about you. Or about your contribution to the

Re: Thermal Imaging Decision Applicable to TEMPEST?

2001-06-12 Thread John Young
Bill Stewart wrote: TEMPEST really refers to two kinds of technology - keeping equipment quiet, and reading signals from not-quiet-enough equipment. The former category is the main thing that would apply to private citizens, and it's not addressed here. Yes, and the confusion between the two