At 06:03 PM 4/4/01 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:32:57 -0500 (CDT), Jim Choate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Note that there's NO stipulation about 'if you can't afford an attorney
one will be appointed to you'. Whether you're rich or poor the state
is OBLIGED to provide
At 12:36 PM 4/15/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
There are many markets out there which do not rely on the official
court system to enforce contracts for.
The diamond-trading jews of New York use reputation (ostracism from
the community, centrally enforced by a council that rules their voluntary
At 02:11 PM 4/15/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Tim;
One thing to consider is the role of "credit histories", or
virtually any other identity-linked information, in a milieu
where the people have access to the necessary techniques and
programs to do those deals.
You sell Alice a credit
At 05:14 PM 4/15/01 -0700, Kevin Elliott wrote:
At 15:14 -0700 on 4/15/01, Tim May wrote:
* Orson Scott Card, "Ender's Game." Kids using untraceable pseudonyms.
Huh? Excellent book but I don't recall it having the slightest
mention of anything remotely applicable to the current thread...
At 12:05 PM 4/16/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Thanks for the tip on that. I'll be looking out for it, although at
that price, it's cheaper to buy a dedicated PC and run SpeakFreely, as
you point out.
There seem to be good market reasons for dedicated set up, especially
one that ordinary phones
At 09:59 AM 4/25/01 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
The figure I heard was that up to this date, the amount of dioxin released
in the cow-pyres was equal to 25% of the total annual British industrial
output. Presumably more will be released as the cull goes on (they really
should be using napalm).
At 12:11 PM 4/25/01 -0400, John Young wrote:
Podesta noted that the 125th anniversary of the gummed-envelope
was approaching. That that technology is trusted for privacy because
of custom and law backing the custom. He stated that any privacy
technology is going to be workable only if backed by
At 06:32 PM 4/28/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
People don't need to spend several months wading through cryptography
textbooks to come up to a level that is sufficient to understand the
real issues.)
--Tim May
In fact, crypto textbooks will teach you about the tensile strength
of steel, but not
The idealism that I refer to is the
concept that human beings can create
something substantially better than
what exists.
This is the fundamental driving force of all human endeavor incl. tech.,
ag., etc.
Make your kids' situation better than yours.
Everything follows.
At 12:13 AM 4/30/01 -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
i agree...unless you're specifically directed to do so, maintaining log
files is completely optional.
Is it in fact a crime of fraud to advertise that you don't keep logs
when in fact you do?
At 10:12 PM 5/2/01 -0700, Anonymous wrote:
Seems to me that secure digital timestamps on the logs
would be really interesting to anyone wanting to preserve
their usefulness as evidence.
If you protected some logs (say, local user logins) really well,
and left other logs (say HTTP) unprotected
At 11:36 AM 5/2/01 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
In any scenario, it seems like a few points are likely to be crucial -
1. Was the logging foreseeable at the time the statement/promise
regarding no logging was made?
If there was no intentional misrepresention, pretty much everything except
12 matches
Mail list logo
