Enemies of the People Who Need Killing

[Anonymous]

  These fucks need killing immediately. Kill any SCOTUS pig and you 
will assure your place in Heaven, with 21 beautiful virgins at your command. 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/05/three.strikes.ap/index.html

   So the US military now has no problem with torturing prisoners of war. 
And the US pigs also see no problem with torturing suspects. Time to start
killing pigs. What fun!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/05/terror.amnesty.internat/index.html
 
Hey Kids -- don't be stupid about this. Shoot from behind, use a cheap
2 liter pop bottle for a silencer, taped on with duct tape (what else?), and 
don't ever confront them, or argue, or protest -- just kill the fuckers! 

Re: CAPSII protest... or, speakers must not be actors

[Tyler Durden]

"and continue to
provoke conspiracy to fuck with interstate trade/travel"
Yeah...was a little drunk when I wrote that. That should clear up right 
after I convert to Islam!

-TD







_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

thirty year plan

[david]

Here's a link to an interesting article about the US plan to 
control the world's oil supply.  It points put the hazard of 
inviting the wolves to watch your henhouse for you.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html

David Neilson

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote:
>
> At 11:03 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
> >From the article, New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen
> >Gottlieb says, "We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we
> >believe that protects the freedom to speak." How is Constitutionally-
> >protected freedom of speech imperiled when an agent of a private
> >corporation asks someone to leave because his speech is offensive?
>
> Steve is right.  Free speech is tested by wearing "Fuck the Army"
> t-shirts [1]
> in public places, not "Peace" while in some private store.

Not too fast. What about "nonobvious involvement of the state"? 
Don't prematurely assume this is private, non-state conduct.

What connections exist, if any, which link the state to that 
mall? For example, was the construction of the mall, or the 
awarding of the permit, or the environmental exceptions made, 
etc., such that the state has a sufficient role in the existence 
of the mall so as to implicate by that link the fourteenth 
amendment's extention of the first amendment to that operation 
of that mall? Some research should be done to determine the 
depth of state involvement in that mall before everyone goes 
running off down the "private mall" path. The state need not 
occupy the space, or staff and direct the security service or 
anything else there.

"The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), "embedded in our 
constitutional law" the principle "that the action inhibited by 
the first section [Equal Protection Clause] of the Fourteenth 
Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that 
of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely 
private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful." Chief 
Justice Vinson in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948). It 
was language in the opinion in the Civil Rights Cases, supra, 
that phrased the broad test of state responsibility under the 
Fourteenth Amendment, predicting its consequence upon "State 
action of every kind . . . which denies . . . [365 U.S. 715, 
722] the equal protection of the laws." At p. 11. And only two 
Terms ago, some 75 years later, the same concept of state 
responsibility was interpreted as necessarily following upon 
"state participation through any arrangement, management, funds 
or property." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 4 (1958). It is 
clear, as it always has been since the Civil Rights Cases, 
supra, that "Individual invasion of individual rights is not the 
subject-matter of the amendment," at p. 11, and that private 
conduct abridging individual rights does no violence to the 
Equal Protection Clause unless to some significant extent the 
State in any of its manifestations has been found to have become 
involved in it. Because the virtue of the right to equal 
protection of the laws could lie only in the breadth of its 
application, its constitutional assurance was reserved in terms 
whose imprecision was necessary if the right were to be enjoyed 
in the variety of individual-state relationships which the 
Amendment was designed to embrace. For the same reason, to 
fashion and apply a precise formula for recognition of state 
responsibility under the Equal Protection Clause is an 
"impossible task" which "This Court has never attempted." Kotch 
v. Pilot Comm'rs, 330 U.S. 552, 556 . Only by sifting facts and 
weighing circumstances can the nonobvious involvement of the 
State in private conduct be attributed its true significance."

U.S. Supreme Court
BURTON v. WILMINGTON PKG. AUTH., 365 U.S. 715 (1961)
365 U.S. 715
BURTON v. WILMINGTON PARKING AUTHORITY ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE.
No. 164.
Argued February 21, 23, 1961.
Decided April 17, 1961.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 9:58 AM -0800 on 3/5/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:


> "Fuck the Army"
> t-shirts [1]

I thought it was "Fuck the Draft" Levi jackets, if I remember my supreme
court case law right:

>> Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971).  Cohen was convicted of
>> disturbing the peace for entering a courthouse while wearing a jacket
>> bearing the epithet  "Fuck the Draft ".

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)

[Tim Dierks]

At 02:30 PM 3/5/2003 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>From: Somebody
>
>Technically, since their signal speed is slower than light, even
>transmission lines act as storage devices.
>
>Wire tapping is now legal.
The crucial difference, from a law enforcement perspective, is how hard
it is to get the requisite court order.  A stored message order is
relatively easy; a wiretap order is very hard.  Note that this
distinction is primarily statutory, not (as far as I know)
constitutional.
Furthermore, it's apparently not illegal for a non-governmental actor to 
retrieve stored information which they have access to, although it might be 
illegal for them to wiretap a communication even if they had access to the 
physical medium over which it travels.

I disagree with "Somebody"'s claim; I don't think that claim would go 
anywhere in court, since a transmission clearly falls under the category of 
"wire communication", and it's clear that transmission lines are the very 
entities the wiretap act has always been intended to protect, so Congress' 
intent is quite clear, regardless of any argument about "storage".

 - Tim

Re: CAPSII protest... or, speakers must not be actors

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 09:56 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
>OOOH!
>One wonders if a bad enough "air sickness" on a crowded flight could
turn a
>plane back...(And if I say "airline sickness" I don't need the quotes.)

>Hummif it happened a dozen times within the span of a month do you
think
>they'd notice a pattern?
>
>-(the REAL) Tyler Durden

Would you please sign this cryptographically, include the MAC on your
network card,
state whether you possess any weapons or small children in your place of
residence, and continue to
provoke conspiracy to fuck with interstate trade/travel ?  Also what is
the weather like
where the grand jury convenes in your district, and are there any good
hotels there?

Merely staging several pukes on a plane, given the baseline statistical
unliklihood of this,
might be a rational reason to land (aside from aesthetics) and get a
nice shower on the tarmac from those
friendly boys in the space suits.  You might have to do more than simple
food poisoning
symptoms, though, for that reaction to get by Occam's (McDonald's?)
razor.   A single faked heart attack would
divert the plane, though they might try the defib on you, which would
hurt.  Certain pharms would
fake the sweating and tachy, but could be detected if looked for, which
they might, depending on your
demographics.

Near-simultaneous convulsions should do the trick.
Extra points for timing their initiation front-to-rear or vice-versa.
You don't even need aisle seats.

BTW, "Tyler", if you do get airsick (for real), now, expect a personal
landing party... and tell your
ride you'll be late.

Re: Anarchy, and confusion

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 10:37 AM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
little to ensure freedom.  And we doubt that competition between
units in an anarchic system would provide islands of freedom.
So we are not impressed by "crypto anarchy"
as an informative name; although as agitprop, it functions very nicely.
Who're "we"? Are you writing on behalf of a committee or club, or do 
you have tapeworms?

As for all of you not liking the name, fine, none of us is compelling 
your group to use any particular name.

--Tim May

Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "R. A. Hettinga" wr
ites:
>
>--- begin forwarded text
>
>
>Status: RO
>From: Somebody
>To: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short   Perio
>d (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
>Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 14:09:05 -0500
>
>Bob,
>
>Technically, since their signal speed is slower than light, even
>transmission lines act as storage devices.
>
>Wire tapping is now legal.
>

No, that's not waht the decision means.  Access to stored messages also 
requires court permission.  The (U.S.) ban on wiretapping without judicial
permission is rooted in a Supreme Court decision, Katz v. United States,
389 U.S. 347 (1967) 
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=347)
which held that a wiretap is a search which thus required a warrant.  I 
don't think there's ever been any doubt that seizing a stored message 
required a warrant.  But in an old case (OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928))
the Court had held that the Fourth Amendment only protected material 
things, and therefore *not* conversations monitored via a wiretap.  
That decision was overturned in Katz.

The crucial difference, from a law enforcement perspective, is how hard 
it is to get the requisite court order.  A stored message order is 
relatively easy; a wiretap order is very hard.  Note that this 
distinction is primarily statutory, not (as far as I know) 
constitutional.  

--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

Re: Anarchy, and confusion

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 01:08 PM 3/4/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>The confusion about anarchy and what it means is common. We see it
here.

Not sure if this is intended towards us or not.
In any case, our comments about dropping 'anarchy'
for a BerkFlyer was simply to avoid attracting
raisethefist type black shirts.  (Unless that's
the poster's goal, of course.  )

...

On the relation of crypto and anarchy, sometimes its agonistic,
sometimes neutral, sometimes antagonistic.  You're mixing tech &
politics in that phrase, a mixed relationship is expected.

Anarchy as a system (which you explore
etymologically below) strikes us as unstable, much like democracy.
Unstable with respect to protecting individual freedoms.
After all, some of the groups you might belong to in an anarchic
system would be pure democracies, and thus ready to
saponify you, or random others outside the group, as soon as enough
votes are in.
Democracy (or monarchy,  or anarchy, or elders consulting tea leaves)
without
constitutional guarantees & courts (or however you implement the spec
of immutable rights) are latent dictatorships.

A far better phrase would be crypto & freedom.  Including freedom to
choose one's risk level (as you mention below) in a free market
bound mostly by contract.  Freedom to choose currency, etc.  Freedom
from coercion to fund random projects that exist because some group of
voters figured
out how to get a slice of the pork pie.

In an anarchic system, you could have the same crypto-freedom-apocalypse

that you could in a fascist one: all computers registered, programmers
(in both hardware and software senses) licensed, state-daemons mandatory

in all machines, etc.  Merely not having a central ruler, or rules, does

little to ensure freedom.  And we doubt that competition between
units in an anarchic system would provide islands of freedom.
So we are not impressed by "crypto anarchy"
as an informative name; although as agitprop, it functions very nicely.
YMMV.




>
>Perhaps some of us have not done enough to try to educate people.
>Mostly, I think we have already written enough and if people will not
>think deeply about the issues, will not read at least _some_ of the
>readily-searchable (with Google, even) archives, and will not read some

>of the basic articles and books, then further blathering from us will
>not help.
>
>Anarchy is all around us. We write what we want, at least until
>Ashcroft and Bush get PATRIOT III passed by acclamation, and this is an

>anarchy ("without a top authority" -- "an arch"). We pick our
>restaurants by anarchic means. Anarchy doesn't mean "chaos, with people

>killing each other at will." Folks need to think about what "monarch"
>means ("one top"), about what oligarch means, etc.
>
>Here's a very practical example: medical malpractice. Much in the news,

>debated daily. Bush Himself spoke out this morning (or, as he put it,
>"We gotta open a can of Texas whoop-ass on those trial attorney bad
>boys!").
>
>This is a situation where an anarchic, voluntaristic, polycentric law
>solution is obvious: let people choose doctors and hospitals based on
>how much malpractice they will pay:
>
>Hospital Alpha and its doctors have this policy: "If you have any
>complaints whatsoever, if you stub your toe going to the toilet, or if
>your baby dies in childbirth, we will pay you multiple millions of
>dollars for your mental anguish. Of course, we will charge you $65,000
>for a baby delivery, $750,000 for heart transplant, and we don't take
>VISA or Mastercard."
>
>Hospital Beta and its doctors have this policy: "We use this group to
>adjudicate disputes about health care. If you choose to use us, you
>also choose them to adjudicate disputes. Our rates reflect our less
>outrageous payouts than the Hospital Alpha system. A baby delivery will

>cost you $3000, assuming no complications. A heart transplant is
>$63,500. You may die during the operation. Life is tough. You agree to
>the adjudication described above. We wish you well."
>
>This is what a society based on _contracts_ would allow. Free choice.
>
>Instead, contracts are toilet paper and free choice is a joke.
>
>Anarchy means "an arch" means free choice means responsibility for
>choice means noncoercion.
>
>But I don't expect most of you yahoos, those who have never read Hayek
>or Friedman or even Rand to grasp these points.
>
>The connection with crypto is obvious. Crypto means never having to let

>Big Brother intervene in contractual negotiations. Which is where
>"crypto anarchy" comes from. (That, and the pun on "hidden," as with
>Vidal's denunciation of Buckley as a crypto-fascist.)
>
>I read what some of you folks here write and all I can say is that I
>hope you are inside the fireballs when the freedom fighters take out
>the Great Satan.
>
>--Tim May
>"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
>hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're

>around." --attribution uncertain, possibly Gunner, on Usenet

Re: Give peace a chance?

[Tyler Durden]

Someone should go into that same mall with "Support the War in Iraq" 
T-shirts to see if they also get thrown out.

What pisses me off is that its probably just some powerless little pion 
enforcing what they feel is the current "accepted, noncontroversial stance". 
It could be that 90% of the people oppose the war, but if TV convinces the 
pion that the war is supported by Americans, then an anti-war stance is now 
labeled controversial.






From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Give peace a chance?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:08:39 -0500
Apparently "Give peace a chance" is dangerous, subversive speech, not to be
tolerated in polite company
http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m276307.asp?0ct=-302&cp1=1


_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 11:03 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
>From the article, New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen
>Gottlieb says, "We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we
>believe that protects the freedom to speak." How is Constitutionally-
>protected freedom of speech imperiled when an agent of a private
>corporation asks someone to leave because his speech is offensive?

Steve is right.  Free speech is tested by wearing "Fuck the Army"
t-shirts [1]
in public places, not "Peace" while in some private store.

[1] Literally, it was so tested; the legal readers will know what I'm
talking about.

Enforcement of the Court's ban on coercive monotheist nationalist
allegiances will
be another test case, of whether the constitution + courts can keep
demobcracy
and the American taliban at bay.

Linking both issues, I imagine there will be some *CLU [2] cases
about messages in public schools with garments as the medium.

[2] with apologies to Liskov

Re: Who Owns the News

[Peter Gutmann]

Eric Cordian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>We've pretty much gotten to the point where the only places real news can be
>found in America these days is on Indymedia and The Daily Show with Jon
>Stewart.  A sad situation for a country with an alleged "free press."

There was an article in some UK paper (Grauniad?) about the fact that some
large percentage of people visiting the BBC site were from the US, with a
marked increase in numbers in the last few months.  The assumption was that
they were after unbiased news coverage which they couldn't get in the US.

On a related note, some of our TV stations broadcast foreign news programming
during the graveyard shift for people who want access to that sort of thing,
two larger channels do the BBC and ABC news, and smaller regional ones do a
pile of other countries (India, France, Germany, and various others).  One
channel does half an hour or so of imported ABC news some time after midnight,
I caught the start of it (or at least the end of the program that preceded it)
last night and they ran an ad/voiceover by their (the NZ channel's)
newscasters which pointed out that propaganda was propaganda, whether it came
from Washington or Baghdad, and their (the NZ channel's) evening news wouldn't
become biased because of this.  This was immediately followed by the ABC
evening news program.  Maybe it was just pure coincidence that they ran this
right before the piped-in US news, but I interpreted it as "The following
program is a paid advertisement by the US Ministry of Truth".

Peter.

Re: Give peace a chance?

[Steve Furlong]

On Tuesday 04 March 2003 21:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Apparently "Give peace a chance" is dangerous, subversive speech, not
> to be tolerated in polite company
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m276307.asp?0ct=-302&cp1=1

>From the article, New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen 
Gottlieb says, "We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we 
believe that protects the freedom to speak." How is Constitutionally- 
protected freedom of speech imperiled when an agent of a private 
corporation asks someone to leave because his speech is offensive? 
Gottlieb is presumably a lawyer, since they tend to infest *CLUs. 
Either he missed Constitutional Law class the day they talked about 
scope of applicability of the Bill of Rights or else he's just a 
dumbass.


-- 
Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere   Have GNU, Will Travel

Guns will get you through times of no duct tape better than duct tape
will get you through times of no guns. -- Ron Kuby

Austin Cypherpunks Physical Meet - Mar. 11

[Jim Choate]

Time:Mar. 11, 2003
 Second Tuesday of each month
 7:00 - 9:00 pm (or later)

Location:Central Market HEB Cafe
 38th and N. Lamar
 Weather permitting we meet in the un-covered tables.
 If it's inclimate but not overly cold we meet in the
 outside covered section. Otherwise look for us inside
 the building proper.

Identification:  Look for the group with the "Applied Cryptography"
 book. It will have a red cover and is about 2 in. thick.

Contact Info:http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr/index.html#austincpunks



 --


  We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
  are going to spend the rest of our lives.

  Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

  [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.ssz.com   www.open-forge.org

Re: CAPSII protest...

[Tyler Durden]

OOOH!
One wonders if a bad enough "air sickness" on a crowded flight could turn a 
plane back...(And if I say "airline sickness" I don't need the quotes.)
Hummif it happened a dozen times within the span of a month do you think 
they'd notice a pattern?

-(the REAL) Tyler Durden






From: Michael Motyka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CAPSII protest...
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Yes Tyler, there is something nasty you can do that will not get you
nabbed. It requires the following equipment :
 airline ticket ( aisle seat )
 large pizza with the works
 quart of yogurt
 one dozen raw oysters
 one package of M&Ms
 ipecac syrup ( or a wafer-thin mint )
Just imagine the effect if almost every flight had one (:or more:)
passengers barfing buckets of primordial goo soon after takeoff.
Works just as well for trains and buses. It requires massive
participation and a large, but not necessarily strong, stomach. I think it
expresses quite well how recent events affect us all.
This may be a new form of civil disobedience. I hereby place it in the
public domain for the benfit of all mankind.
I wonder if there's a lab test for ipecac?

(:

--


_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: .sig

[Bill Stewart]

> At 1:08 PM -0800 3/4/03, Tim May quoted:
> >"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
> >hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
> >around." --attribution uncertain, possibly Gunner, on Usenet
But WAIT!  *Which* gun should I hold on to?  The Glock in the holster?
The 38 in the ankle holster?  The Derringer in the little inside pocket?
The shotgun in the gun rack next to the samurai sword?  Decisions, decisions!
> Would the converse read?
> "If I'm going to reach out to the Republicans then I need a third hand.
> There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my freedom while they're 
around."
But you need your third hand for the spare handcuff key, to undo the other 
two

At 12:43 AM 03/05/2003 +, anonimo arancio wrote:
If you think your wallet is less at risk with Democrats making
the tax law, or if you really think we are having inflation now
(versus the risk of deflation), or that the Democrats will keep
your taxes down in the future, then you need to run out and take
voting lessons so you can make yours count.
He's not saying that - it's just that everybody _knows_ to hang
onto their wallets (and their guns, if they've got them)
when the Democrats are around, and some people have tended to forget
that you also have to hang onto their wallets just as tightly
when there are Republicans around.

Re: CAPPS II protest - Vandalizing collaborating airlines

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 07:01 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:

Well, some of the proposed ideas may be more efficient, but they don't
exactly express my rage accurately...
-TD
Rage isn't tactical.

Don't forget that the revenge is best when consumed cold. :)

Only sometimes true. More often than not, lack of rage means watching 
more t.v.

Rage is what often fuels freedom fighters to destroy buildings where 
the oppressors live.

Rage is what causes assassins to kill those who need killing. Without 
rage, Kennedy, King, and Kennedy might still be alive.

Rage is what will spread crypto anarchy.

Fuck those who have stolen our liberties. Fuck them dead. Fuck 50 
million of them. Send them up the chimneys. Turn them into soap. Slag 
them. Liquify them.

Rage ennobles, and enables.



--Tim May, Corralitos, California
Quote of the Month: "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; 
perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks." 
--Cathy Young, "Reason Magazine," both enemies of liberty.

Re: .sig

[Tyler Durden]

"Republicans are
like "The Rock" and Democrats are like "Stone Cold Steve
Austin", and elections are like "WWF Slap Down". It's fixed, get
it?
The contest is not between Dems and Repubs, it's between
government and the governed."
Nice!

GOTTA steal that quote (if only there were another board that gave a 
crap...)

-TD







From: anonimo arancio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: .sig
Date: 5 Mar 2003 00:43:51 -
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:33:59 -0800, you wrote:
>
> At 1:08 PM -0800 3/4/03, Tim May quoted:
> >"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
> >hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
> >around." --attribution uncertain, possibly Gunner, on Usenet
>
> Would the converse read?
>
> "If I'm going to reach out to the Republicans then I need a third hand.
> There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my freedom while they're
> around."
>
> It seems to me that right now, my wallet is at risk due to the rise in
> federal debt, whether by depleting my savings through inflation, or by
> higher future taxes to pay the debt.  The attack on freedom, lead by the
> Republicans, has been commented on so frequently here I don't need to 
add
> more.

If you think your wallet is less at risk with Democrats making
the tax law, or if you really think we are having inflation now
(versus the risk of deflation), or that the Democrats will keep
your taxes down in the future, then you need to run out and take
voting lessons so you can make yours count. In your spare time,
find a Democrat, or anyone else, who will stand up and be
counted and fight against Patriot II, also known as the "Repeal
of the Bill of Rights without State Ratification". Good luck,
all of them, Democrat, Republican, and Independent, are busy
being panicking cowards right now.
Maybe, you can figure it out. Here is a hint. Republicans are
like "The Rock" and Democrats are like "Stone Cold Steve
Austin", and elections are like "WWF Slap Down". It's fixed, get
it?
The contest is not between Dems and Repubs, it's between
government and the governed.


_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: "How Do I Classify My Item?"

[Bill Stewart]

At 03:24 PM 03/04/2003 -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote:

> For those doing the classifying, i.e., those inside government, since
> when did they start charging each other real folding money for
> attending meetings?
Capitalism maybe ? :-)
You mean "selling the capitalists rope so they can hang themselves"?

Re: CAPPS II protest - Vandalizing collaborating airlines

[Thomas Shaddack]

> Well, some of the proposed ideas may be more efficient, but they don't
> exactly express my rage accurately...
> -TD

Rage isn't tactical.

Don't forget that the revenge is best when consumed cold. :)

Re: .sig

[Bill Stewart]

At 05:43 PM 03/04/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 04:57 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote:

Yeah, I agree. It's time I retired that .sig. PLONK.
Move .sig. For great justice.


It's a Slashdot .signature line parody of a line from ZeroWing, aka
All Your Base Are Belong To Us,
http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/story.shtml#game

It's a cultural phenomenon from a couple of years ago.
It you missed it, that's, ummm, "your bad" :-)
Take your basic Japanese-made video arcade game with
really bad Engrish transration.
Have it get quoted and parodied extensively.
Pretty short; you may enjoy it.

Re: .sig

[Eugen Leitl]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote:

> Yeah, I agree. It's time I retired that .sig. PLONK.

Move .sig. For great justice.

Give peace a chance?

[jayh]

Apparently "Give peace a chance" is dangerous, subversive speech, not to be 
tolerated in polite company

http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m276307.asp?0ct=-302&cp1=1

Re: .sig

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 02:33 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:

At 1:08 PM -0800 3/4/03, Tim May quoted:
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while 
they're
around." --attribution uncertain, possibly Gunner, on Usenet
Would the converse read?

"If I'm going to reach out to the Republicans then I need a third hand.
There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my freedom while they're
around."
It seems to me that right now, my wallet is at risk due to the rise in
federal debt, whether by depleting my savings through inflation, or by
higher future taxes to pay the debt.  The attack on freedom, lead by 
the
Republicans, has been commented on so frequently here I don't need to 
add
more.
Yeah, I agree. It's time I retired that .sig. PLONK.

--Tim May
"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, 
my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists."  --John 
Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General

Re: .sig

[anonimo arancio]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:33:59 -0800, you wrote:
>
> At 1:08 PM -0800 3/4/03, Tim May quoted:
> >"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
> >hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
> >around." --attribution uncertain, possibly Gunner, on Usenet
>
> Would the converse read?
>
> "If I'm going to reach out to the Republicans then I need a third hand.
> There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my freedom while they're
> around."
>
> It seems to me that right now, my wallet is at risk due to the rise in
> federal debt, whether by depleting my savings through inflation, or by
> higher future taxes to pay the debt.  The attack on freedom, lead by the
> Republicans, has been commented on so frequently here I don't need to add
> more.

If you think your wallet is less at risk with Democrats making 
the tax law, or if you really think we are having inflation now 
(versus the risk of deflation), or that the Democrats will keep 
your taxes down in the future, then you need to run out and take 
voting lessons so you can make yours count. In your spare time, 
find a Democrat, or anyone else, who will stand up and be 
counted and fight against Patriot II, also known as the "Repeal 
of the Bill of Rights without State Ratification". Good luck, 
all of them, Democrat, Republican, and Independent, are busy 
being panicking cowards right now.

Maybe, you can figure it out. Here is a hint. Republicans are 
like "The Rock" and Democrats are like "Stone Cold Steve 
Austin", and elections are like "WWF Slap Down". It's fixed, get 
it?

The contest is not between Dems and Repubs, it's between 
government and the governed.

"Department of Homeland Security" vs. Full Disclosure?

[Ryan Lackey]

It appears the DHS is taking responsibility for putting pressure on
those who discover security flaws to keep them quiet until they see
fit to release.  Hopefully in the future those who
discover security flaws will take advantage of the remailer network
and cryptographic signatures to post their findings immediately,
rather than reporting them to the government for processing and delay.

Otherwise, given the government's excellent track record in securing
information, DHS will become the premier location for getting
knowledge of "secret" vulnerabilities.  Plus, is it really a
great stretch to imagine the government will use tit for tat to keep
some vulnerabilities from ever being made public, for their own purposes?
(to have a government-only backdoor, if the vulnerability is
sufficiently well hidden, or to use as leverage with vendors to add
other features for the government, like "this will shame you in the
marketplace, but we can just keep it quiet if you'll play ball with us
on DRM or anti-anonymity in your future products..."

One would think anyone in the "security industry" would be
sufficiently paranoid to not trust the government with this
responsibility.

[http://news.com.com/2100-1009-990879.html?tag=fd_top]
-- 
Ryan Lackey [RL960-RIPE AS24812]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   +1 202 258 9251
OpenPGP DH 4096: B8B8 3D95 F940 9760 C64B   DE90 07AD BE07 D2E0 301F

Re: Anarchy, and confusion

[Tyler Durden]

"Anarchy doesn't mean "chaos, with people killing each other at will."

No? But what about...

"I read what some of you folks here write and all I can say is that I hope 
you are inside the fireballs when the freedom fighters take out the Great 
Satan."

Ah. It's all so clear when you put it like that.



In all seriousness, Chomsky has pointed out that international trade 
functions in what is largely an anarchic fashion, and things work...OK, for 
the most part.

As for me, I'm not convinced that the social and physical technologies are 
yet in place (or developed!) so as to allow for what we in 2003 might label 
"anarchy".

-TD





From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Anarchy, and confusion
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:08:29 -0800
The confusion about anarchy and what it means is common. We see it here.

Perhaps some of us have not done enough to try to educate people. Mostly, I 
think we have already written enough and if people will not think deeply 
about the issues, will not read at least _some_ of the readily-searchable 
(with Google, even) archives, and will not read some of the basic articles 
and books, then further blathering from us will not help.

Anarchy is all around us. We write what we want, at least until Ashcroft 
and Bush get PATRIOT III passed by acclamation, and this is an anarchy 
("without a top authority" -- "an arch"). We pick our restaurants by 
anarchic means. Anarchy doesn't mean "chaos, with people killing each other 
at will." Folks need to think about what "monarch" means ("one top"), about 
what oligarch means, etc.

Here's a very practical example: medical malpractice. Much in the news, 
debated daily. Bush Himself spoke out this morning (or, as he put it, "We 
gotta open a can of Texas whoop-ass on those trial attorney bad boys!").

This is a situation where an anarchic, voluntaristic, polycentric law 
solution is obvious: let people choose doctors and hospitals based on how 
much malpractice they will pay:

Hospital Alpha and its doctors have this policy: "If you have any 
complaints whatsoever, if you stub your toe going to the toilet, or if your 
baby dies in childbirth, we will pay you multiple millions of dollars for 
your mental anguish. Of course, we will charge you $65,000 for a baby 
delivery, $750,000 for heart transplant, and we don't take VISA or 
Mastercard."

Hospital Beta and its doctors have this policy: "We use this group to 
adjudicate disputes about health care. If you choose to use us, you also 
choose them to adjudicate disputes. Our rates reflect our less outrageous 
payouts than the Hospital Alpha system. A baby delivery will cost you 
$3000, assuming no complications. A heart transplant is $63,500. You may 
die during the operation. Life is tough. You agree to the adjudication 
described above. We wish you well."

This is what a society based on _contracts_ would allow. Free choice.

Instead, contracts are toilet paper and free choice is a joke.

Anarchy means "an arch" means free choice means responsibility for choice 
means noncoercion.

But I don't expect most of you yahoos, those who have never read Hayek or 
Friedman or even Rand to grasp these points.

The connection with crypto is obvious. Crypto means never having to let Big 
Brother intervene in contractual negotiations. Which is where "crypto 
anarchy" comes from. (That, and the pun on "hidden," as with Vidal's 
denunciation of Buckley as a crypto-fascist.)

I read what some of you folks here write and all I can say is that I hope 
you are inside the fireballs when the freedom fighters take out the Great 
Satan.

--Tim May
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third 
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're 
around." --attribution uncertain, possibly Gunner, on Usenet


_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: .sig

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 04:57 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote:

Yeah, I agree. It's time I retired that .sig. PLONK.
Move .sig. For great justice.






--Tim May
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any 
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm 
to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient 
warrant." --John Stuart Mill

Re: Anarchy, and confusion

[gabriel rosenkoetter]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:08:29PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> anarchy ("without a top authority" -- "an arch"). We pick our 
[...]
> Anarchy means "an arch" means free choice means responsibility for 

I confess I haven't a clue what you mean by "an arch", though your
first quote jives.

Anarchy comes from the Greek anarchos (that "ch" is a chi... but the
Italians mudered that particular character for a diphthong along the
way; a pity: it'd make fuck a three letter word). an- is a negative
prefix, and archos means "rule".

So what's "an arch"? Like in St. Louis? Like in Noah? Or do you
think all the illiterates who can't be bothered to read Rand spent
that time reading Classical Greek instead (I mean, *I* did, but...),
but they just can't get it unless you break it into particles for
them?

- -- 
gabriel rosenkoetter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE+ZUcw9ehacAz5CRoRAhLOAJ9/JhE619ho6yf4JpPI6xHjxKYhpACdFGGU
B5mTSJQZI86HbTmK0h/L/jA=
=/0Ee
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Anarchy, and confusion

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 04:40 PM, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:08:29PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
anarchy ("without a top authority" -- "an arch"). We pick our
[...]
Anarchy means "an arch" means free choice means responsibility for
I confess I haven't a clue what you mean by "an arch", though your
first quote jives.
Anarchy comes from the Greek anarchos (that "ch" is a chi... but the
Italians mudered that particular character for a diphthong along the
way; a pity: it'd make fuck a three letter word). an- is a negative
prefix, and archos means "rule".
So what's "an arch"? Like in St. Louis? Like in Noah? Or do you
think all the illiterates who can't be bothered to read Rand spent
that time reading Classical Greek instead (I mean, *I* did, but...),
but they just can't get it unless you break it into particles for
them?
My explanation of anarchy as 'without a top authority -- an arch" is 
clear to anyone who bothers to look up the etymologies. I was 
separating "anarchy" into the two parts, the negation and what it 
negates. This is precisely what my favorite etymological dictionary 
does when they write:

"an-, without; see a1 +  arkhos, ruler; see arch."

If you dislike this way of separating, complain to them.

More:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/A0282000.html

The American Heritage. Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth 
Edition.  2000.

anarchy

SYLLABICATION:
an7ar7chy
PRONUNCIATION:
 nr-k
NOUN:
Inflected forms:  pl. an7ar7chies
1.  Absence of any form of political authority.  2.  Political disorder 
and confusion.  3.  Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common 
standard or purpose.

ETYMOLOGY:
New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from  anarkhos, without a ruler 
:  an-, without; see a1 +  arkhos, ruler; see arch.

--

arch

SUFFIX:
 Ruler; leader: matriarch.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English -arche, from Old French, from Late Latin -archa, from 
Latin -archs, from Greek -arkhs, from  arkhos, ruler, from  arkhein, to 
rule.



No connection with Noah's Ark, which probably comes from the Latin for 
chest, arca, or of course the Proto-Indo-European even further back.

The meaning of "arch" which is related to "arc," as in the geometric 
shape, comes from "arcus." it may have some connection with "-arch," 
but maybe not.

The connotation of "-arch" in a top, or most important, sense shows up 
in many of the words which use it:

Archduke, archetype, archdiocese, archangel, archenemy



--Tim May
"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, 
my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists."  --John 
Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General