RE: unregistered shell
> Major Variola (ret)[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > At 12:29 AM 6/10/03 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: > >At 09:48 AM 06/09/2003 -0700, Major Variola (ret.) wrote: > >>the Capitol because it had a gasoline container strapped to its roof. > > But the real point is that ammo has to be registered. Amazing. > I found an old, live cartridge in the desert last weekend, tossed it in > the car. What if I lived near DC instead of SoCal? > Actually, ammunition is not registered as such, but in DC you are only allowed to possess ammunition suitable for one of your DC-registered firearms. This applies even to spent cartridge cases. If this guy didn't own a DC-registered shotgun of the same gauge as the shell found, then he's in violation. The car had California plates, so it seems plausible that he was a non-resident. Peter Trei
Re: unregistered shell
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 09:49 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: Major Variola (ret)[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:29 AM 6/10/03 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: At 09:48 AM 06/09/2003 -0700, Major Variola (ret.) wrote: the Capitol because it had a gasoline container strapped to its roof. But the real point is that ammo has to be registered. Amazing. I found an old, live cartridge in the desert last weekend, tossed it in the car. What if I lived near DC instead of SoCal? Actually, ammunition is not registered as such, but in DC you are only allowed to possess ammunition suitable for one of your DC-registered firearms. This applies even to spent cartridge cases. If this guy didn't own a DC-registered shotgun of the same gauge as the shell found, then he's in violation. The car had California plates, so it seems plausible that he was a non-resident. I believe it was the McClure-Volkmer Amendment (or somesuch spelling) of some years back that clarified the laws regarding interstate transport of firearms. Instead of having to know the details of every single state one might be driving through on a trip, one was exempted from the local firearms laws while the guns were locked up in a trunk or suitable lockable container. This was hailed at the time as a major step towards stopping one state from busting those from North Carolina, say, when they passed through Maryland on their way to a hunting trip in Maine. The reasonable interpretation of McClure-Volkmer would have protected someone while in their vehicle, and probably while at a motel in some state, but would not have protected those staying for more than what a simple trip would take. I'm not surprised to hear that some jurisdictions think they can exempt themselves, especially for such trivial paper violations as having a shotgun shell. Mexico is like this, too. Gringos have spent time in Mexican jails because they neglected to thoroughly inspect every square inch of their vehicles, and the shakedownistas found a .22 cartridge under the floor mats. (The intent was probably to collect $100 mordita.) All this while drug operations run more or less without interruption and as they are equipped with fully-automatic HKs and FALs, the Army-issue rifles. So they bust a tourist for having a .22 cartridge while MP-5s and Uzis abound. Typical government.) As for Bill's point about a gas can strapped to the roof, this is a common way of carrying extra fuel, and is generally legal if the can is DOT approved (the red ones). LandCruisers and suchlike are often seen this way. As noted, safer than carrying them inside. Of course, normal rights and liberties are dispensed with when mere suspicion of planning to use the gas is involved. I'll bet this all gets kicked, unless an Arab was in the vehicle. --Tim May
Re: unregistered shell
At 12:29 AM 6/10/03 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 09:48 AM 06/09/2003 -0700, Major Variola (ret.) wrote: >>the Capitol because it had a gasoline container strapped to its roof. >but this sounds like a case of Darwin catching up with the guy >in a way that only eliminates *him* from the gene pool >rather than taking out innocent bystanders when the >gas can falls off his car roof Depends on how sturdily he attached it. Jeeps (et al) have spots for gas cans in the rear exterior of the car. Driving with a tank of gas in the passenger compartment isn't a good thing. Also RVs typically have a few gallons of propane on an exterior tank. And welding trucks.. But the real point is that ammo has to be registered. Amazing. I found an old, live cartridge in the desert last weekend, tossed it in the car. What if I lived near DC instead of SoCal? --- "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? . . . We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts that you're up against - and then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. . . . . There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on the guilt. Now that's the system, . . . that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." From Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.
Re: An attack on paypal --> secure UI for browsers
It's simple. It solves the problem that Microsoft Salesmen have. In order to sell shit, you have to make it look like gold. Cee Eee Ohs have heard it said that Microsoft software is insecure crap. Now the Microsoft Salesmen can do fancy demos with pretty colors and slick Operators Are standing By, Act Now, *New*, Don't Delay, Improved, Secure, Bells Whistles and Coolness demos and sign the suckers up. Just like the wonderful ads that peppered NYC when Ex-Pee came out saying "Reliable, and Secure." --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ <--*-->:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD.\|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote: > I don't see how this is going to work. The concept seems to assume > that there is a distinction between "trusted" and "untrusted" programs. > But in the NGSCB architecture, Nexus Computing Agents (NCAs) can be > written by anyone. If you've loaded a Trojan application onto your > machine, it can create an NCA, which would presumably be eligible to > put up a "trusted" window. > > So either you have to configure a different list of doggie names for > every NCA (one for your banking program, one for Media Player, one for > each online game you play, etc.), or else each NCA gets access to your > Secret Master List of Doggie Names. The first possibility is unmanageable > and the second means that the trustedness of the window is meaningless. > > So what good is this? What problem does it solve?
Re: An attack on paypal --> secure UI for browsers
Take this with a grain of salt. I'm no expert. However: I'd guess that no applications (besides the secure nexus) would have access to your "list of doggie names", just the ability to display it. The list just indicates that you are seeing a window from one of your partitioned and verified applications. I would also assume the window would get decorated with the name of the trusted application (not just your secret list). Thus you only need a single secret list to handle all of your "authorized" applications. -AdamL On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 22:00, Nomen Nescio wrote: > I don't see how this is going to work. The concept seems to assume > that there is a distinction between "trusted" and "untrusted" programs. > But in the NGSCB architecture, Nexus Computing Agents (NCAs) can be > written by anyone. If you've loaded a Trojan application onto your > machine, it can create an NCA, which would presumably be eligible to > put up a "trusted" window. > > So either you have to configure a different list of doggie names for > every NCA (one for your banking program, one for Media Player, one for > each online game you play, etc.), or else each NCA gets access to your > Secret Master List of Doggie Names. The first possibility is unmanageable > and the second means that the trustedness of the window is meaningless. > > So what good is this? What problem does it solve? -- Adam Lydick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: unregistered shell
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Major Variola (ret.) wrote: > http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/06/06/capitol/ > > They can't find WMD, but they can find a dude with a shell in his truck. That's because the guy with the shotgun shell *exists*. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Brinworld] Neighbor's surveillance camera?
Authorities said they were considering the possibility that a second person might have been involved in the abduction, based on video from a neighbor's surveillance camera. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/06/09/california.abduction/index.html
Re: unregistered shell
At 09:48 AM 06/09/2003 -0700, Major Variola (ret.) wrote: Capitol Police spokeswoman Jessica Gissubel said police stopped the car as it was traveling on Constitution Avenue on the north side of the Capitol because it had a gasoline container strapped to its roof. The man, who was not identified, voluntarily handed over the ammunition, described as a shotgun shell. It is illegal to carry unregistered ammunition in the District of Columbia. Normally I would make some cynical remark about the appropriateness of Constitution Avenue as a venue for violating the second amendment, but this sounds like a case of Darwin catching up with the guy in a way that only eliminates *him* from the gene pool rather than taking out innocent bystanders when the gas can falls off his car roof He's clearly from the clue-deprived side of the street about a variety of issues.
