Re: All these different addresses.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to be told "Check the Archives". How come this list has so many addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is any of these the *real* address, or it is a personal choice? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: US: Democracy or Republic?
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote: From: "Kent Snyder-The Liberty Committee" [EMAIL PROTECTED] THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS A REPUBLIC. THE ELECTORAL A republic is a form of democracy, a representative one. No, it isn't. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: Re: Data Logs
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Russ K wrote: Maybe not, but the tools used to remove the barrel/s can be traced by teeth marks and other metal to metal contact. So the moral of the story is... If you want to destroy the potential barrel you'll need to: - Have replacement barrels purchased in a non-traceable manner. Why? There are many reasons to have spare barrels. Think "Squib load". - Have some mechanism to brush or scratch the inside of the barrel, - Apply a corrosive and allow it to thin the barrel significantly. - Then twist barrel and heat until red hot. - Then handle with non-metallic tools only until discarded. Nonsense. The forensic tests on bullets/firearms are based on percentage matches. You simply need to change *slightly* the "finger print" of the barrel and firing pin. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: Gates to Privacy Rescue? Riiight!
At 2:27 PM -0800 12/10/00, petro wrote: Mr. May: The author also mentions that consumers dislike (so?) tracking of their purchases...and then in the next paragraphs cites the Firestone tire recall as an example of better policy than most Web sites have (or something like this...I re-read his analogy several times and still wasn't sure what his claim was). But I took that statement to mean that if Firestone exercised the same level of diligence in the engineering of their tires that most web sites used, they would be recalling a *LOT* more tires, enough to make the current recall a drop in the bucket. Sure, but I was making the point that this is an ironic example, as it was the records which Firestone and Ford kept of their customers which allowed them to send recall letters out to those customers! Oh, I wasn't speaking to that--I agree that there is a degree of irony there. I was just replying to the specific sentences quoted. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: IBM Uses Keystroke-monitoring in NJ Mob Case (was Re:
At 05:31 PM 12/5/00 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote: An instructive case. Apparently they used the keystroke monitoring to obtain the pgp passphrase, which was then used to decrypt the files. A PDA would have been harder to hack, one imagines. Are there padlockable metal cases for PDAs? As I've written, the FBI should run quality house cleaning services in large cities. How do you know they don't? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: IBM Uses Keystroke-monitoring in NJ Mob Case (was Re: BNA'sInternet Law News (ILN) - 12/5/00)
Mr. May: Frankly, the PGP community veered off the track toward crapola about standards, escrow, etc., instead of concentrating on the core issues. PGP as text is a solved problem. The rest of the story is to ensure that pass phrases and keys are not black-bagged. Forget fancy GUIs, forget standards...concentrate on the real threat model. What is the real threat model? Everybody has different worries. I'm not a bookie, I don't do work for the mob, I don't spend more than I earn. My biggest threat is (1) financial (stolen credit card numbers, or other form of credential fraud) (2) Political--that comments here and other places get me the list of "People To Take Care Of Later". The first threat can be dealt with by "cheap" crypto deployed everywhere--to co-opt one of RAH's phrases--a "Geodesicly encrypted network. In a network where every single stinking bit on the wire is encrypted at as many layers as possible, even with "10 cent" crypto will virtually eliminate (by making it more expensive) many of the low level financial threats. Yes, big banks and large financial institutions need stronger crypto, but they can multiple-encrypt, write their own protocols etc.). The second threat would be made much harder by the encrypt everything all the time type of network, if I weren't so thick headed as to insist on using my Real Name. This is presumably what the "PGP Community" veered off towards. Unfortunately, they've done a half-assed job so far. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: Re: Sunders point on copyright infringement HTML
Mr. May: (And then there's Riad Wahby, whose signed messages are unopenable by Eudora Pro. He is doing _something_ which makes my very-common mailer choke on his messages. Not my problem, as his messages then get deleted by me unread. Again, standard ASCII is the lingua franca which avoids this problem.) He's apparently using GPG, and he has been told about this. He doesn't seem to care. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: Carnivore Probe Mollifies Some
At 06:54 AM 11/28/00 -0500, Ken Brown wrote: Of course if they leave the machine [Carnivore] in the cage you can always stop feeding it electricity. Or take it home to show the neighbours. It might make a good conversation piece at dinner. Or maybe use it as an ashtray. At 10:36 PM 11/27/00 -0500, Tim May wrote: CALEA has some onerous language in it, but it doesn't trump the Fourth Amendment. You could try the Carnivore box against an implemention of your Second Amendment rights. Unless the chassis were hardened you'd win. I seriously doubt they make NT boxes that are hardened against a .50 BMG. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: Jim Bell arrested, documents online
Oh come now. You have real recourse against Bill Gates and John Tesh Bill Gates is a questionable case, but there is no doubt that John Tesh should die. It is extremely unlikely it is going to change in the least the "who" or "why" of contract killing. I really don't think everyone is going to start murdering their bosses, their landlords, or their local prosecutor. Most people just aren't vicious enough to want to *really* kill someone. Most. Case in point: There are some 80 million gun owners in this country. Some 250+ million guns. Yesterday 79,999,900+ of those gun owners killed no one. It really is only the mentally disturbed that kill for any reason other than self defense or other *huge* cause. 10 million dollars is, IMO a huge cause. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: [ca-firearms] voting
From: petro [EMAIL PROTECTED] It would be fairly simple to eliminate *most* of the current voter fraud schemes, and fairly inexpensive. Please provide details of this simple technique for eliminating voter fraud. I've always found utopian fantasies intriguing. "Reading Comprehension Counts". (This was accidentally cross posted from another list. Sorry.) -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: 2:15 am, Eastern Time--The Election Train Wreck
Alan: On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote: What a cluster fuck. Punch drunk, dazed burrowcrats triggering this train wreck. I will not forget this week, and not forget watching this latest event live, as it happened. Kind of the the "moon landing" of political train wrecks. What I don't understand is why you are not laughing your ass off! Bush winning is bad, AlGore winning is worse. This insane infighting over the spoils is too much to stomach. It really doesn't matter which one wins, the damage is done. There is significantly less faith in the *voting* system this week than there was 7 days ago. This will mean even more trouble--more shitbags calling for "direct democracy" (hint folks, the problem isn't the electoral college it's a broken fucked up corrupt *balloting* system) more scum trying to fuck with the constitution or insisting that it be ignored. I'm not laughing because I really don't *want* to die in a fire-fight. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: A secure voting protocol
Mr. May said: At 4:19 PM -0800 11/11/00, petro wrote: -- At 03:11 PM 11/10/2000 -0800, Tim May wrote: Physical ballot voting has its problems, but at least people _understand_ the concept of marking a ballot, as opposed to "blinding the exponent of their elliptic curve function and then solving the discrete log problem for an n-out-of-m multi-round tournament." Ideally, we should organize an election so that the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk will generally fail to vote correctly. Unfortunately someone would then issue the handy dandy automatic party vote generator, and hand it out to the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk, adding a bottle of cheap wine when handing it out to the drunk. The easiest way to do this would be to have the ballot books only contain numbers, and the sample ballots mailed to each (allegedly) registered voter provide the mapping from name/issue to number. I did not write the paragraph you attributed to me (presumably through not-so-careful snipping). Please be more careful. If necessary, manually add a line like "James Donald said:" Anyone who can read a Florida Ballot, and is the least familiar with how MUAs and Newsreaders work can tell that you wrote the part with the three (now four) angle brackets (). As to adding the x wrote: sometimes I remember, sometimes I forget. I am still human, and hence not perfect. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: A very brief politcal rant
It's called "Straight Party", and IIRC it is a box on the Missouri ballots. I *know* it was on the Illinois ballots. Saves dead people time you understand, they only have a limited amount of time. They removed it from the Illinois ballots 4 years ago. It now takes me 10 times longer to vote. I voted in Illinois 4 years ago, and I remember seeing it. Then again, I only noticed it in passing, because if you voted straight party libertarian, you didn't get to vote against the incumbents in the races where there was no libertarian. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: Greetins from ZOG-occupied Palestine
At 08:34 PM 11/10/00 -0600, Phaedrus wrote: On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim May, the heavily armed hate monger who refers to ZOG, and , his extreme right wing malitia friends have missed there chance. So is "malitia" a bunch of bad soldiers? No, malicious. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: Courts interfering with election
TimMay wrote: #I thought I was jaded, but this is too much even for me to believe. # #A judge in St. Louis has ordered the polls kept open later, until 10 #pm local time. The effect will be to let more inner city, #Democrat-leaning voters vote. What a lame-ass complaint. For some reason, certain polling areas got jammed up, as in long lines. The court agreed to keep the polls open longer so the people could vote. It didn't matter who the people might vote for, despite the Democrats asking for the extended hours. The Republicans actually went into federal court to try and block this, and failed. Did you expect a Republican judge to say no since the people who might be unable to vote by the normal deadline were Democrats? What's your objection to people voting? Try not to mention a political party in your reply. It's not an objection to voting, it's an objection to manipulating the open and closing times of polls (in this case the closing time) to make it more convenient for a specific segment of the population. If I remember correctly, in Missouri Polls are open from 7 am to 7pm (though that could have changed), and IIRC it is mandatory for an employer to allow you time to vote. There is simply no reason for polls to have to be open longer than their allotted time, and specifically not just for specific sections of a state. If anything, it would make more sense to keep rural polls open longer, since they are often more difficult to get to. The thing is, voting should *not* be easy. It *should* require some effort (not a LOT of effort, but it should be non-trivial) so that only those who actually care to bother will. -- When money becomes the objective, truth is abandoned. --The Guru
Re: Bush took ss# off his Texas license!!!
Kaos wrote: # There's no SS# on a Texas DL, never has been. There is a DL# that is 8 # digits in length (and related to time and place of initial license # application, not SS#). Then someone in tx.politics was wrong (and I passed it along). But now I'm confused (no cracks please): why change your driver's license number if it doesn't mean anything special? He did change it. Because it is still a "linking" number used for identification. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: An Introduction to Complexity, Hamiltonian Cycles, and Zero Knowledge Proofs--Part 1
Mr. May: x-flowedAt 2:20 PM -0500 11/4/00, dmolnar wrote: On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Jim Choate wrote: On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote: "NP" problems, on the other hand, are those that can be solved in nondeterministic polynomial time (think only by guessing). NP includes P. Actualy any time that can't be described using a polynomial (i.e. a0 + a1x + a2x^2 + ...) is NP. For example something that executes in factorial or exponential time is NP. I'm sorry - by the definitions I know, Declan has it closer. I'm not sure what you're getting at with "any time that can't be described..." or "something that executes in factorial or exponential time." As far as I know, NP is a class of *problems*, not a class of running times or even a class of algorithms. And I'm going to give a completely informal, but I hope useful, introduction. Though formalism is very important, and jargon is useful, I suspect that all the talk of "succinct certificates," "oracles," "reducibility," "nondeterministic polynomial time," "Co-NP," etc., isn't very useful to someone just coming to this stuff for the first time. snip I confess that I only skimmed the sections on "Presburger arithmetic" and why it is "beyond NP" in some weird sense. Have fun, Thank you. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
RE: The Market for Privacy
Lucky Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It appears that ZKS is yet another company that fell prey to the DigiCash "we know better than the market what the market wants" syndrome. What a shame, really. What does the market want? SEX!!! -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: Zero Knowledge changes business model (press release)
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:56:56PM -0500, David Honig wrote: One can envision a system where there's a corporate "document czar" who is regularly given docs from various employees and who then encrypts them in his own key. When and where the docs get decrypted is determined by corporate policies. No key escrow required. I don't know of any existing system like this, but formal corporate document control isn't my field. Should be an easy hack to add some sort of public-key crypto to CVS or something like bitkeeper, and Presto... -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
Jim Burnes wrote: As much as I generally respect what Harry Browne says, I dontated money to his campaign only to see it squandered on expensive DC consultants who were 'friends of the party'. Nary a penny made it to drive-time radio ads, which are by far the most cost effective communication medium for reaching voters. ... Hats off to CH and NRA for those ads, even though I'm still pissed about the instant background check bullshit. Next time I want to excercise my right to free speach lets see if I need an instant background check. That particular compromise enabled the FBI to stop all gun sales by simply bringing down the database. (Not to mention unconstitutionally keep all records, making it a de-facto registration system.) If you're unfamiliar with "Citizens of America," check out: http://www.citizensofamerica.com/ They have some great anti-gungrabbing radio (and other media) ads worthy of contribution. Hmmm... Is this who I think it is? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: Zero Knowledge changes business model (press release)
places, explaining to them why we don't build in back doors. And, suprisingly, when you go and talk to them, rather than hissing and shouting, they listen. They listen, but do they hear? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
Re: Hard Shelled ISP?
At 4:37 PM -0400 10/26/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 11:59 AM -0700 on 10/26/00, Ray Dillinger wrote: Here is what I envision, at a cost of something like $10/month. Go find the original archived web page for c2.net? When privacy costs more than no privacy, we have no privacy. Sad, but true. Oh? "When curtains over windows cost more than no curtains over windows, we have no curtains." "When locks on doors cost more than no locks on doors, we have no locks on doors." Locks on doors are (in most areas) much cheaper than replacing the contents of ones home. It is quite possible that Sameer was just a little early with C2.net, between higher overhead and a smaller/less mature (in terms of experience) market it might be possible that a small business could be started today that could be self sustaining. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: why should it be trusted?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:59:51PM -0700, petro wrote: That's true, but it is irrelevant. As long as insurance companies and hospitals are privately owned, putting a requirement like this one on them constitutes theft of their resources. If you want to have them engaging in charity, set up a charity and solicit money instead. ie, you can ask but you don't have permission to steal. I think the government has a right to do whatever it needs to do to maintain You don't think very well then. Perhaps. the health and well-being of its population. That is the purpose of the government. Not in the United States of America it isn't. Then what is the purpose of our government? www.constitution.org may help you. That is one way of defining freedom. I view freedom as the right of people to live happy, productive lives. A discriminatory policy such as this one would infringe on that freedom. You have been completely brainwashed. You have a no idea what a "right" is. OK, then, what is a "right"? A thing which no one else has entitlement or authority to take away. What you confuse is that just having a *right* to something doesn't put the onus of responsibility on anyone (or society) to provide it. For instance, you *do* have a right to housing, but there is neither a responsibility on government/society to provide it for you, nor a responsibility on them to make sure you keep it once you have it. They are just not allowed to prevent you from acquiring it without violating the property rights of others. You have the right to happiness, but I don't have to make you happy. I am also not obligated modify my behavior to keep you happy, absent an obligation not to initiate force against you. In your little fantasy world a right is an entitlement. It ain't so. I also persist in believing that, as a philosophical point, nobody who is *compelled* to do something can be considered a good person for doing it. I also feel that history has shown us that those who receive charity compelled from others have never appreciated the work and sacrifice that it represents. Compelled charity is morally and emotionally meaningless. Fine, so the insurance companies won't be considered "good." Who cares? The point is, people who need medical care would be getting it. The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my productive labor to support someone else. This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this, as I have a right to be happy. Not if it hurts someone else. Serial killers often get off on killing people. However, this hurts others, so it is outweighed. There is a distinct difference between the initiation of force and withholding aid. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: why should it be trusted?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 11:08:48PM -0700, petro wrote: Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness, even one completely unrelated in any way to his genetic predisposition. Nonsense. If Insurance companies were completely (or even greatly) deregulated, they could offer *seriously* ala-carte policies. They could easily write a policy that simply excluded--say breast cancer--from the policy of a woman who has a strong genetic predisposition to it, and *greatly reduce* the overall cost of her insurance for *all* other illnesses. Leaving her free to either (a) find a high risk policy *just* for that, or spend the money on getting a radical mastectomy to eliminate the problem. Or any of a dozen other issues. But they AREN'T deregulated, at least not yet. In any case, the debate was about what companies should do NOW, not about what they No, the argument was over what it would be *right* for insurance companies to do. would/could/should do in the as-of-now imaginary world of total deregulation. I can't debate about the deregulation of insurance, because I'm not well-read on that subject. That's what Nathan "I'm a thoughtless whiner" Come on, now. Our disagreement doesn't automatically classify me as a "thoughtless whiner." I have thought about these issues; I just haven't reached the same conclusions you have. I am not calling you a thoughtless whiner because you disagree with me. I have disagreed with many on this list--including Mr. May, and Mr. Choate, but I would call neither of them thoughtless. You have consistently (in the short time you've been "here) advocated positions that indicate a severe lack of cycles spent on the ramifications of that which you argue. and Sambo A. S. seem to miss, is that increased costs for a few mean *savings* for everyone else. The costs for the few would rise much more than the savings for the many. Therefore, the number of people with genetic abnormalities who could not afford insurance would rise, while the number of genetically normal people who could afford insurance would not be altered drastically. No, they wouldn't. Ailments caused by genetic predispositions, once they manifest, are *very* expensive, and help set the bell curve. In an insurance market with deregulated players (both providers and consumers) a companies would be forced to compete *much* harder than they do now. As it is, government influence in the Medical Insurance market has strongly distorted costs, and driven up the prices for medical care *and* insurance. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: Re: why should it be trusted?
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, petro wrote: Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness, even one completely unrelated in any way to his genetic predisposition. Nonsense. It's not? Demonstrate where Libertarian or Anarchic ideals take care of this person even in principle? Explain how they're not turned away and left to die? I did, and you brought up the reason why yourself: And don't invoke the old 'somebody will take care of them' bullshit. Because it is clear today that many people don't get taken care of at all. Explain why moving to such a system will empower the mild of human kindness in these sad souls? It's not kindness, it's *for the money*. If I (as Evil Insurance Inc) can make money selling a policy, I am going to do it. If you have a genetic pre-dispositing to, say, Brain Cancer, and I can write a policy that says I cover you for everything *BUT* that, why shouldn't I? Yes, it might be inordinately expensive for you to get a policy that *does* cover brain cancer, but you will be covered for lung cancer (unless you choose to smoke), testicular cancer or Alzheimer's disease. I can make money, so I will. If Insurance companies were completely (or even greatly) deregulated, they could offer *seriously* ala-carte policies. They could, but they're not stupid. In a un-regulated market the insurance companies will focus on profits alone and that unfortuantely (and much to the chagrin of the libertarian/anarchy crowd) means that there will actualy be LESS insurance available and it will exist at a higher cost. How so? Insurance companies make money 2 ways. First is through a slight profit on their premiums. The second is through *investing* that money. If they can invest wisely--and they should be able to after all, they're in it for the profits--and properly balance the payouts v.s. premiums equation--and they should, they've been doing it long enough--they should have no problems. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: Re: why should it be trusted?
From: petro [EMAIL PROTECTED] The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my productive labor to support someone else. This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this, as I have a right to be happy. No dipshit, you have a right to TRY TO BE HAPPY. You're the "dipshit" that can't track a conversation. If you could, you would have noticed that it wasn't *me* that was making the assertion that one has a right to "be happy", I was poking at the original poster for his asserting that happiness is an entitlement. Typical anarcho/libertarian bullshit misprepresentation. And another prime example of 'freedom for me, but not for thee'. This is a perfect example of the failure of libertarian/anarcho thought, it is completely focused on the 'me'. When will you learn that free market economics is about the market and its stability and not the individuals attainment of nirvana. I'll answer my own question, never. This would have a lot more weight if you could follow a converstation. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: Re: Re: Gort in granny-shades (was Re: Al Gore goescypherpunk?)
For me the description of an ideal movie is "A series of gunshots and explosions strung together by one liners". I go to the movies for amusement, not intellectual satisfaction. That said: By the way, I didn't take seriously the view that _we_ are living in a Matrix world. The film was ambivalent on the claim that _this_ world is a Matrix world: it was more plausible to buy the timeline Morpheus gives of how _our_ world becomes the "Matrix" world. That is, the events taking place are "really" a few hundred years from now, with the machines having set the "environment bit" to "late 20th century." I thought this was obvious. Maybe not. Normally I don't worry ovemuch about such subtleties, but it seemed to me some fraction of Bob Hettinga's hate-rant had something to do with the supposed conceit that _our_ world is the "Matrix" world. I didn't take it this way. Rather, I took it as a classic SF story, describing some _possible future_. The *ONE* thing that beefed me big time about the "Matrix" was the excuse they gave for the computer keeping all the people alive. The claim (as I remember) was that the bodies were used to store/create energy for the computer to run. It *really* irked me. It's fun for a few seconds to think about the implications of _this_ world being a simulation in the Matrix, but it doesn't hold up, even in the context of the film's conceits. (I mean "conceit" in the lit-crit sense, not in the common sense.) If this world *were* a computer generated construct, it would explain a few things. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: why should it be trusted?
That's true, but it is irrelevant. As long as insurance companies and hospitals are privately owned, putting a requirement like this one on them constitutes theft of their resources. If you want to have them engaging in charity, set up a charity and solicit money instead. ie, you can ask but you don't have permission to steal. I think the government has a right to do whatever it needs to do to maintain You don't think very well then. the health and well-being of its population. That is the purpose of the government. Not in the United States of America it isn't. Everybody dies of something. Some are likely to die sooner than others, due to accidents of birth or extreme lifestyle. That is reality. I persist in thinking that "freedom" means everybody gets to decide how to use his/her own talents and property and how to deal with his/her own deficiencies, genetic or otherwise. That is one way of defining freedom. I view freedom as the right of people to live happy, productive lives. A discriminatory policy such as this one would infringe on that freedom. You have been completely brainwashed. You have a no idea what a "right" is. I also persist in believing that, as a philosophical point, nobody who is *compelled* to do something can be considered a good person for doing it. I also feel that history has shown us that those who receive charity compelled from others have never appreciated the work and sacrifice that it represents. Compelled charity is morally and emotionally meaningless. Fine, so the insurance companies won't be considered "good." Who cares? The point is, people who need medical care would be getting it. The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my productive labor to support someone else. This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this, as I have a right to be happy. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: why should it be trusted?
Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness, even one completely unrelated in any way to his genetic predisposition. Nonsense. If Insurance companies were completely (or even greatly) deregulated, they could offer *seriously* ala-carte policies. They could easily write a policy that simply excluded--say breast cancer--from the policy of a woman who has a strong genetic predisposition to it, and *greatly reduce* the overall cost of her insurance for *all* other illnesses. Leaving her free to either (a) find a high risk policy *just* for that, or spend the money on getting a radical mastectomy to eliminate the problem. Or any of a dozen other issues. That's what Nathan "I'm a thoughtless whiner" and Sambo A. S. seem to miss, is that increased costs for a few mean *savings* for everyone else. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: LDRider: Forwarded from the ST1100 list at the sender'srequest
From: "The Truth" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:54:05 -0400 Subject: ST1100: John Korb and Two Brothers Racing The late John Korb had learned how Two Brothers Racing has alledgedly stolen the ST1100 accessory designs of Ron Major, and continues to this day to represent and sell these items as their own, with no attribution to Ron Major, nor pay any royalties whatsoever to his surviving daughter. John wanted Two Brothers Racing to explain the nature of the Ron Major luggage rack they had sold him. The letter in the web site below is TBR's response, signed by Craig Erion. John was a member of the Long Distance Rider's email list. If one of you would please forward this post to LDRiders, I am sure John would appreciate it. The letter speaks for itself, especially the last sentence. You may draw your own conclusions about TBR. http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/tbr/ Ok, so Mr. Majors invents this *really* nifty thing, then dies. TBR starts marketing it. Korb learns about it, and then gets killed. I smell a conspiracy... -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: judges needing killing...
Mr. May said: PCBs are as close as your nearest utility pole transformer. Are they as dangerous as reporters have led us to believe? My suspicion? No. Just wait until the News Media realizes that everyone who ever died had also inhaled O2. "Breathing leads to dying, stop now!". -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
No Subject
Mr. May: At 12:14 AM -0700 10/20/00, petro wrote: At 1:39 PM -0400 10/18/00, Tim May wrote: There's also a very scarce compilation of "The Peace War" and "Marooned in Realtime" which is called "Across Realtime." It contains "The Ungoverned" in between the two novels. Good luck in finding it, though. I believe the Sunnyvale Public Library has a copy. IIRC that's where I checked it out--but returned it when I noticed that it seemed to be just Peace War and Marooned together in one book. Which is what I said, with the novella "The Ungoverned" in between. I realize that: My point was that I *didn't* realize it when I held the book in my hand. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: Re: Insurance (was: why should it be trusted?)
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Anonymous wrote: Crypto-anarchy is in fact not really anarchy, since it only addresses some kinds of authority, ie government, and only in certain situations. True anarchy involves the dissolution of other hierarchical relationships, including those that spring from private property. Get rid of private property and many of these problems disappear. Details, details. People use the term 'anarchy' a bit too casually here, nothing else. Mostly what they mean is 'libertarian'. The latter in no way excludes other hierarchical relationships, as we all know hardcore anarchy does. Tim's favorite characterization of this side of anarchy is No, it doesn't. There are some hardcore anarchists who claim that their vision of anarchy doesn't, but if (as an example) Alice cannot direct the life of bob *at* *all*, how can she prevent Bob from *voluntarily* joining (or in fact creating) a hierarchical relationship? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: Insurance (was: why should it be trusted?)
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote: How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the "tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own interests they end up screwing it up for everyone (Overgrazing land with to many cattle is the example I've been given). The tragedy of the commons is that nobody owns it. The point is, there are certain things which cannot be exclusively owned without rendering the concept of rights, as most people understand them, for all practical purposes moot. Air is one. You assume that most people understand "rights". I see no evidence of that. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: Re: Re: why should it be trusted?
OK. So how about preventative care? It might well be that by insuring everyone and keeping them in health, the total risk per dollars paid for coverage actually goes down. Especially if infectious diseases can be kept in check. Plus, the sum total of money paid by the insurees goes up as they stay healthier for longer, thus giving more money for the insurance company to invest into more profitable ventures. This is what governments do now. How are you going to make sure that people do the things that make them healthy? If their health care is paid for by the state (or rather by the collective labor of society), then they can engage in any sort of behavior they wish and still get covered, so why bother with that boring stuff like exercise and leafy green vegetables when you can sit back, suck up a six pack, eat some brauts and watch the game on the telly? Believe it or not, not all people in this world are hardworking. Not all people in this world are willing to put forth much effort at all, especially for long term issues like health. So how are you going to make sure that people do the things they need to do to keep them healthy? Pass laws? Use force? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." --Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women s Studies, Bowling Green State University
Re: why should it be trusted?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 10:17:17PM -0700, petro wrote: Even if they do (which I haven't heard of, but I could be wrong), the trend right now is more corporate power, less governmental power. As I said before, we are already seeing this trend, what with corporations able to circumvent countries' environmental codes and whatnot. It will only get worse. Then you aren't paying attention. Corporations have *NO* power over you that doesn't come from the barrel of a government gun. That's like saying that the person with the power in a police department is the street cop, because he's the one doing the actual arrest. The one calling the shots is the one to be afraid of. No. The one *shooting* is the one to be afraid of. Without governments Companies (not corporations, corporations are inherently creatures of the state) would have to do their bullying directly and that would severely cut into the bottom line. I'm sure the companies could do bullying themselves for far less than they contribute to candidates in order to have the bullying done for them. No, for several reasons: (1) Armies and police forces are expensive to maintain, especially given that for corporations they are needed in geographically diverse areas *occasionally*, and that by buying the government they get access to them, but *only* when they need them. (2) Private armies/mercenaries tend to be dangerous tools--they have the guns, and loyalty to the paycheck. They also can easily turn on you, or be bought. (3) If one engages in warfare, one takes the risk of getting shot. If companies were to engage directly in actions involving force, they would risk having some of their targets bypass shooting at the foot soldiers and go straight for the top of the chain of command. By buying themselves a government, that risk is averted. Try thinking outside your box a bit. When the rules are gone, there are no rules, and there are interesting ramifications there. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Stop spam!
Come on, lighten up. The guy's receiving spam, and like most people, he gets pissed about it. So he sends a nasty email to the address in the From: line of the spams. Can you blame him? He's not getting spam. He's been subscribed to the cypherpunks list by someone. OK. Still, he's getting unwanted email, and it's not his fault (I assume). And yes, I can blame him for being clueless. Clueless how? Because he hadn't heard of the cypherpunks list? Or is there some other reason he's clueless? The Cypherpunks list is a mailing list. There is a very small variation in the ways one gets on and off mailing lists. If he doesn't realize he's on a mailing list, that is cluelessness. If he *does* realize this, he should be able to figure out relatively quickly how to get off the mailing list. That he can't is cluelessness. He is calling it spam. It is not spam. That is cluelessness. He is threatening people. People he doesn't know. That is clueless in a dangerous way. You are defending an ignoramus. That is also clueless. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Insurance (was: why should it be trusted?)
Two Things: 1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy. (Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them anonymous digital cash to go away). There is plenty of room for human compassion. Forcing me (with threats of violence) to pay for something I don't believe in, or disagree with is not compassion. It's theft. 2. I think that it's funny that ultra-conservatives who are for letting "competition" improve health care are setting themselves up for more abortions. Being "ultra-conservative" for certain values of that word, I think abortion laws ought to be changed. I don't think they should stop at birth, I think they ought to be allowed up until the tissue mass is willing and able to be self-sufficient. This would of course make it open season on many politicians. How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the "tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own The "tragedy of the commons" is only possible where there is something held in common by all people. If everything is owned by an individual or company, then it isn't a "commons", and they have the power to deny access to those who would abuse it, and the responsibility (to themselves, their share holders whatever) to take care of it. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Insurance (was: why should it be trusted?)
At 9:11 PM -0500 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote: Two Things: 1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy. (Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them anonymous digital cash to go away). Another socialist simp-wimp heard from. Lots of socialists to be dealt with and disposed of. I wonder who will stoke the furnaces? Robots? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Re: Insurance (was: why should it be trusted?)
Another socialist simp-wimp heard from. Lots of socialists to be dealt with and disposed of. I wonder who will stoke the furnaces? Not very many if enough of us "simp-wimps" gather enough e-cash to create our own "Imprisonment Betting Pool". I think languishing in jail with life-mate "Bubba" would be far better poetic justice than simple execution for those who display no compassion for their fellow man (I never said I was a socialist). It's not about "justice", it's about getting them out of the way so productive people can produce and grow. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: why should it be trusted?
Tim May wrote: At 11:38 PM -0400 10/18/00, Steve Furlong wrote: At most, an insurance company would have some information Bob didn't have. Bob could reasonably demand a copy of the results of his DNA test. ... If the insurance company refused, he could shop elsewhere. Or self-insure, as many of us choose to do. Indeed. But let's drop the use of the word "demand." I was taught that a "demand" is a "demand," not a request. Yep, I wrote carelessly. I _said_ "demand" but I _meant_ that Bob would refuse to deal with the insurance company unless they share what they Anybody who would take such a test (assuming that it wasn't from "skin flakes left behind on the couch") without being able to see the results as a pre-condition would be lucky not to get what they disserved. find. And I'm not so confident that the insurance company would be paying for the test, as you suggested in your (snipped) scenario. I have no experience with insurance plans which required you to get a physical before they take you on; I've always had HMOs (or self insurance) since I left the military. Who normally paid for the exams? For at least some plans, they send a nurse-like person around with a stethoscope and a sphygmomanometer to give you a health questionnaire and take certain vitals. It's amazing what can be inferred from some very basic measurements. i.e. you're 27, have high blood pressure, a high pulse rate, high respiration rate, are 5'9 and weigh over 200 pounds. I don't need to know all that much about your family medical history, or your individual one. You are a big risk for some *very* expensive treatments over the next 20 years, but will probably be fine for the next 5. I really think that DNA testing for insurance is being overblown--I don't believe that it's going to catch all that much that family history, and there are a *LOT* more environmental factors that lead to health problems. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: why should it be trusted?
Most insurance companies are worth millions, if not billions, of dollars, and they make huge profits. Insuring all of the people that they now deny based on genetic abnormalities would still allow them to make decent profits. So? Where is it mandated that they cover those? In fact, display proof that they *DON'T*. Most children--which is where genetic "abnormalities" show up--are covered often sight unseen through their parents policies, and often before they are even conceived. Also, people cannot simply create insurance companies. Breaking into the healthcare business is damn near impossible, unless you have established relationships inside the industry. No, you have to have (a) big chunks of assets, and (b) follow some *EXTREMELY* thick government rules. It's the government stupid. And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the possibility of simply paying for their coverage. Huh? How does denial of coverage prevent them from paying? Oh, you must not have meant what you wrote. You must have meant "many people who are denied coverage are denied treatment since they don't have health care". Guess why? Government again. If I have a health care bill, and pay even a *TINY* bit on it--like $10 a month, the creditor cannot file negative reports against me, cannot come after me legally etc. even if I owed 20k in medical bills. (you do the math on how long it takes to pay off 20k at $10 a month). Therefore, the hospitals know that for anything less than life threatening treatment, it's a losing battle to provide treatment to those without the demonstrated means to pay. Medicine is not a commodity, but it's *still* a business. It has to be. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: why should it be trusted?
This is why the current American system where virtually everyone's insurance pays for virtually every visit to the doctor is such a bad idea. People should be paying for their ordinary, year-in year-out health care. Insurance should only enter the picture if The system only works because employers are picking up a large chunk of the tab. And they only do it because of tax advantages. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Re: Re: why should it be trusted?
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Neil Johnson wrote: But the Bob has no control of his risk (genetics), or at least not yet :). The insurance company does. Say What?! Sorry, no insurance company has the power to say who is and is not born with particular genetics. I don't have a problem with insurance companies raising rates for people who smoke, are overweight (cough, cough), or have high cholesterol (cough, cough, cough). That's behavior that can be changed. You speak as though the insurance companies business where arbitration of morals rather than arbitration of risks. They can't make money arbitrating morals -- at least not without becoming religions. Sure they can. Moral!=religious. It is "immoral" to commit murder. Is this because God Says So, or because it's generally better for society if we can assume that the vast majority of people *won't* be trying to shoot us? It is "immoral" to steal. See above. When you look at many things that are "traditionally" immoral (by that I mean before modern socialism), they tend to have 1 thing in common. It is wrong to take what isn't yours (property, life etc.) without the blessing of the state. If we eliminate the state (Go state!, Go away!), we get "it is immoral to take what isn't yours". Consuming more than you produce is functionally the same thing. Short term illness and youth can be excused that in the long term you wind up either producing the same as you consume, or producing more. If it lasts long enough, illness can reverse that, as can things like certain addictions etc. Insurance companies--in a free market--would reward those who acted "morally"--those who took steps to minimize their non-productive times, and refuse to reward (or punish depending on your perspective) those who did things that tended to increase their non-productive times. Genetics plays only a small part in this. Most of the truly devastating genetic problems really are a drop in the bucket, and are often fairly educational in medical knowledge--which the medical establishment should pay for. The less obvious genetic problems are usually manageable if the individual knows about it, and is willing to do those things--or not do those things--as their condition demands. Case in point, I have a friend who is diabetic. Not a major issue with modern medicine. He can easily afford (given his profession) the insulin and medical checkups necessary. However he likes to drink, and drink heavily. This will bite him in the future. He knows this, and still drinks. Should the insurance companies be forced to support him? I say no. He knows what to do. He doesn't do it. As much as I like him, it's his life. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Tim May's anti-semitic rants
This list is no stranger to Tim May's sarcasm and anti-semitic rants. He's bashing a completely facist and dictatorial country of which a sizeable number of citizens are completely willing to commit genocide of the very same kind that was once waged against them. I cannot recall seeing him bash *jews*, rather he bashes Isreal. As they deserve. You just used a German word. I'm reporting you to the Zionist League. "Remember, children of Israel, "Eretz Israel" is not the same thing as "lebensraum," and the suppression of the ragheads in Eretz Israel is merely pest eradication, not the "Final Solution." War is peace, freedom is slavery, and Zionists are libertarians." --Tim May -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: It's all property, folks
Your neighbor pollutes your lungs or your land and you don't know what to do about it? Shit man, get real -- $5 bucks worth of gasoline and a midnight stroll takes care of his house, him, and his family. Burning someones house down is *REALLY* bad for the air and land around the site. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Anyone know easy symmetric cypher for perl?
I need a perl module or a function that would perform symmetric key encryption/decryption. I need it to encode secret information in URLs. Thanks I thought you were brighter than that Igor. http://search.cpan.org/search?mode=modulequery=encrypt -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: why should it be trusted?
One of the points I believe is sorely missing in these discussions is how important "improvements in algorithms" can be. In the narrowest sense, I agree with your statements - but I have also seen what elegant alternative approaches can do to systems that were presumed to be vulnerable only to brute force, and I've also seen how nicely they may be placed into custom hardware. When you are talking "heat death of the universe" time lengths, improvement is algorithms don't really add up to all that much time. In the real world (outside of Academentia) we have different threat models that we need Crypto for. To keep a credit card safe, we need only to make sure that a given undesired decrypt be more expensive than it's worth--and the encrypted credit card string has to last what? Three years? before it's worthless anyway. I'll take the risk that someone will improve factoring by what? 6 or 7 orders of magnitude? (that makes 1,000,000,000 years into 1000 years. I think my card will be expired by then). Other sorts of banking operations have an even short life--from minutes to months. They could take almost 9 orders of magnitude(unless I don't understand this order of magnitude thing)--does it really matter if a banking transaction falls to a break in 10 years? One would think that a bank would be wise enough to expire it's keys more regularly than that. Or military secrets--because of the nature of the military, keys can be expired even more rapidly 3 to 5 years ought to be plenty. And hey, if we do get a break through in factoring speed, it seems cheap enough to double our key size. Quantum computers are a different story--and may (may) make a shambles of our current crypto schemes--but as near as we can tell no one is close to a working system. Call it threat analysis - I think it is reasonable to assume they know a few tricks that aren't public yet. And any trick related to factoring or Feistel networks is sufficient to obsolete those "age of universe" extrapolations. There is a wide difference between "age of universe" and "age of man". The point of the whole "heat death of the universe" thing is that even if a given brute force decrypt can be made 1000 times faster, it's still going to take a *LONG* time. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: free speech children michigan law
"A. Melon" wrote: Michigans Anti-Cussing Law Called Into Question A Michigan boor swore at and made sexually suggestive gestures to a woman after she asked him not to swear near a small child. He might be charged under MI's anti-swearing law or under disturbing the peace. This doesn't sound like the peace and safety of the community is being threatened. Why doesn't the offended woman file a civil claim, if she was that offended? I don't know Michigan law, but the offence should fit within the common law "intentional infliction of mental distress" and "nuisance" torts. (I can't believe I wrote that. Two weeks in law school and I'm already warped.) Down, not across. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Re: would it be so much to ask..
Jim Choate wrote: Yep, http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.98.10.12-98.10.18/msg00019.html has a rant about Rosa Luxemburg and various people redefining the word "socialism" so that it included only ideas they didn't like excluded ones they did. It was a sort of reply to a thread started by Jim Choate: Since I was mentioned in passing, socialism (at least the way I use it) is the central management of resources and people without private ownership. Facism is the central management of resources and people with private ownership (of course if you don't manage it the way they want they do take it away - so it does have a 're-definition' of ownership). The trouble with that use of the words (though it is the most common one on this list I guess) is that it defines just about every nation-state that ever existed as "fascist" Yes, it rather does doesn't it. including the so-called capitalist countries: "if you don't manage it the way they want they do take it away" is more or less the situation in western Europe and North America right now. (Can anyone say "consent order"?) So we end up with words that don't really distinguish between the very different situations of say, the USA, the old USSR, Spain under Franco. There are other words. The difference between the USA and the USSR was the difference between "socialism" and "fascism". The difference between Spain under Franco and the US is "Democracy" v.s. "Autocracy" (or Democratic Republic v.s. Autocratic Dictatorship). Also of course most people who call themselves "socialists" (at least in Western Europe) say they don't want centralised state control of everything. You might say that socialism inevitably leads to an No, just the most *important* things. Most people believe that the government should control x. You get enough people together you wind up with a whole lot of xs. It seems much easier to me Taking the easy way isn't always the most productive, the most interesting or the most accurate. to define socialism in opposition to capitalism. So capitalism is just an economic condition in which the suppliers of capital (banks, shareholders, landlords, governments, whatever) control productive enterprises. Capitalism is an economic system where the owners of the capital choose where and how to use their capital, and reap the results of those choices. And socialism is the condition in which some other part of society controls enterprises - whether state governments or local governments or direct democracy or some non-state community or whatever. Socialism is where the state--in whatever form that state is--owns and controls the capital in that society. And the word "fascism" is best used to describe the sort of nationalist authoritarian politics that went on in Italy and Spain in the 20th century. It could be compatible with either capitalism or (state) socialism. Fascism is where the state *controls* the capital, but allows the "owners" to reap the results of the states decisions of where and how to use that capitol. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
RE: was: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Kerry L. Bonin wrote: especially software sold to us mass market consumers. I expect markets exist in which software has to be held to an extremely high standard of reliability (e.g. Space Shuttle, financial markets, health software, embedded systems spring to mind). How are liability issues dealt with in There is a specific group that handles the software for the Space Shuttle. There is an article at: http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html. The solve the liability problem by being *very* *very* anal retentive and good at what they do. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Canada outlaws anonymous remailers (was Re: GigaLaw.comDailyNews, September 15, 2000)
I believe there is a difference between knowing who an "anonymous" e-mailer is and wanting to avoid disclosing such information... and operating a service where finding out is not possible (at least without invasive means). Its the old story, you cannot be subpoenaed to reveal information that you simply do not have. Whether or not you are permitted to operate a system so structured is another matter. You *can* be subpoenaed for that information, you just aren't capable of providing it. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: GA-CAT-CA
At 9:25 PM -0700 9/11/00, petro wrote: RAH: But, again, I'm sure the thing was a spoof. Nope not a spoof. Heard it on NPR, and several other outlets the day it came out. I thought I remembered hearing about it as well, but I can't find anything on CNN's web site, nor on the LA Times web site. Best to go directly to search engines--let computers do the searching of various sites. I found numerous hits, with various URLs, just by entering "dna cats justice" into www.deja.com. Google probably would have worked as well. (I used deja because it picks up very recent comments which a web crawler might miss between sweeps.) I did go directly to Google, but used "cat hair dna" for the search. I didn't think of deja. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
Re: Germans to tax PCs for Lars
Jim: Having the government make it a tax is a little too much like fascism. Correction, its exactly like fascism. Now that the US Federal government wouldn't try it. And the English say Americans don't understand sarcasm or irony. That *was* sarcasm, right? (btw, I'm stealing your .sig line). -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "They can attempt to outlaw weapons but they can't outlaw the Platonic Ideal of a weapon and modern technology makes it absolutely trivial to convert a Platonic Ideal of a weapon into an actual weapon whenever one desires."
Re: Is kerberos broken?
petro wrote: Of course, a *simple* substitution of one word (or even spaces) would make this *much* harder. "Friends, Romulans, fellow countrymen, lend me your beers..." not likely. crack has been guessing simple substitutions for years. Crack has been guessing "simple" substitutions at the character level. It gets a bit unwieldy and time consuming when running brute force attack against a 50 or 60 character string. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: Good work by FBI and SEC on Emulex fraud case
Mr. May said: (News services still have some role, of course.) Of course, one of there roles could be "verification" of the press release, i.e. Emulex signs it, and rather than having to have 985,234,003 keys on my key ring to verify every press release I read, the News Service can sign the whole thing saying "we witness that this press release was signed with the proper key".. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: Robert Cailliau: turncoat?
Mr May: At 12:10 PM + 8/30/00, Gil Hamilton wrote: That headline should be: "Co-inventor of Web *still* calling for 'licence' to surf". Here's a story from last October: http://www.forbes.com/forbesglobal/99/1018/0221020a.htm Twenty years from now Cailliau will still be stamping his feet and prattling on about the "dangers" of the Internet and how governments need to "do something" about it. Whatever value he contributed to the 'net is now history. Ironic that, as near as I can tell, _all_ of the many self-proclaimed "co-inventors of the Web" are calling for regulation, licensing, punishment of the politically incorrect, and persecution of capitalists. What do you expect from a bunch of whipped Europeans? To quote T. Pratchett "They don't need chains, they have obedience." -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: Re: SF Internet self-defense course
Mr. May: someone: (While I don't think it is possible, I'm eager to hear ideas on how an anonymous physical gathering could be planned and executed with the public in attendance, while preserving the anonymity of the organizers. Venue should be irrelevant, because all the attendees should be able to be anonymous as well, which would mean permitting Agent Gordon to show up if he so desired. Thoughts?) Yeah, my thoughts are that you are now joking. Why? Because the "anonymous" organizing of an event is almost too easy to figure out? Or because you think it's silly? It's really trivial to anonymously organize an event in a place where you don't need to pay for the space. If you do, it's not much more difficult. Having "anonymous" speakers is more difficult only in that the more interesting the speaker, the more likely the speaker is to be recognized. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: Re: SF Internet self-defense course
Fact is, "ordinary people" are not in any significant danger of having their e-mail or files intercepted and read by "ripoff artists, criminals, and spies." Next-door neighbors and other non-governmental entities rarely have access to packet sniffers, Carnivore-type intercept systems, or other surveillance gear. A buddy of mine ran a Windows based packet sniffer on his Cable Modem for a while. He claimed to have seen some interesting stuff from his neighbors. Who uses crypto on a regular basis are those for whom the risks of getting caught with certain material or certain thoughts are nonzero, and for whom the penalties are significant. The usual examples: freedom fighters plotting to blow up government buildings, child pornographers, money launderers making plans, etc. Or who prefer to read certain Usenet News Groups. Not arguing much, just pointing out a possible way of getting people interested. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: :If they truly believe in getting rid of guns, why don't they start with the :guns of their body guards? They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in getting rid of OUR guns. I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is tightly watched. The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their toes. Somewhat like the situation with drugs - no problem if 10% of the Except reality doesn't show that. In the real world, those who are normally law abiding tend not to use it when "somebody steps on their toes". In fact, they tend to mis-identify targets less often than police officers. Throughout history, every dictatorship has practiced arms [gun] confiscation and regulation in order to impede reactionary / revolutionary backlashes from their crimes - from Ceasar through Hitler, Stalin, and Clinton. On the other hand, everyday drive-by shootings and such aren't exactly pointed towards the powers that be. No, drive-by shootings *tend* to be targeted at other combatants--usually rival gang members or rival drug dealers. They also tend to occur (at least in the US) in the cities with the strictest gun control. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: AOL and hate speech
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Tim May" [EMAIL PROTECTED] In any case, I never suggested that MenWithGuns should force AOL to modify its hate speech policy. It could have been easily interpreted as such (and it has been). Anyone who has been reading Mr. May's missives for any length of time would not interpret it so. Well, they wouldn't interpret it as MenWithGovermentGuns anyway. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: Ministers told to plan for e-nightmare
At 10:51 AM +0100 8/1/00, Ken Brown wrote: The Times July 31 2000 BRITAIN Ministers told to plan for e-nightmare In one of them, called "Gangland", a failure by Government to secure electronic transactions leads to the nation being held to ransom by hackers. Society reaches the verge of meltdown as a bankrupt Government is unable to pay for public services. With gangsters running the electronic economy, people return in desperation to an antiquated form of exchange - cash. One wonders how "gangsters" control an electronic medium where transactions are largely voluntary, where untraceability is possible, and where meatspace coercion is essentially impossible. (Perhaps those doing the study were of the belief--common amongst liberals--that Amazon is a 'coercive monopoly" which "forces" people to buy from them. Or that those who devised Mojo Nation will become the new underworld bosses.) Simple. Anyone participating in such things is ipso facto a gangster. In short, the report is a mishmash of mutually contradictory situations. Only from the perspective of someone who believes that people should be free to make their own choices and live their lives as they see fit. From the perspective of someone who feels that everyone should be beholden to, and regulated by "society", it makes perfect sense. As for the "meltdown" part, that part is true. Crypto anarchy means tens of millions of welfare breeders told to either go out and start doing something others will voluntarily pay money for, or to start starving. To paraphrase Red in "Shawshank," "Get busy working, or get busy dying." Let's hope so. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: Agents other than Congress w/ respect to USPS
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 02:03:55PM -0700, petro wrote: On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:42:09AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: The proposal has been made that the Constitution doesn't prevent other agents from participating in the postal service. The Constitution was quoted as proof. This 'proof' isn't. The clause clearly states "...Congress shall". It only says Congress shall... To establish Post Offices and post Roads;... It never specifies that Congress is the only one that can. What is not specifically permitted is allowed. Make that "whatever is not specificlly proscribed is allowed".
Re: ZKS economic analysis
Degree or no, you clearly haven't thought about this very much and your blather about the "problems" with cash and what some economists may or may not think is therefore unlikely to be well-informed. You are hereby sentenced to read thirty hours of Hettinga-rants on settlement costs in digital commerce transactions. Doesn't the constitution ban cruel and unusual punishments? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: Welcome to Crypto World
-- At 09:59 AM 7/27/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote: A kind of language for generating complex protocols was something Eric Hughes and I discussed at length before even holding the first meeting of what became the Cypherpunks group. Such a language would not be very useful. We have a lot of great crypto libraries, and with those libraries we can whip up any such protocol quite easily. The hard part is putting a cool user interface on the protocol, and marketing the resulting product. On the contrary. Such a language--or such a set of reusable objects with high level interfaces that can easily be used by average or beginner programmers --think Logo-Crypto, or "HyperCard Crypto", only more so--would enable those programmers to slap whatever piece of shit gui they wanted on things, and as long as they didn't do anything exceptionally dumb, their app would still be secure (for certain values of secure). -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As Corporate Bully
At 07:09 PM 08/04/00 -0400, Petro wrote: Reeses Peices: Sticks stones - ah hell, Fuck You anyhow. Try saying something good about Reagan, I wanna see if you can. He had good hair for a man his age. The question wasn't directed at you. Since you've entered the forum, say something good about his politics. He had more integrity than most of the lying scum that have held that office. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: LogJam
And then the grocery sells that info to a national database that adds it to all the other info on you. Which the cops can access to see just how much alcohol Tim is using these days, and maybe they need to put his vehicle description/plates on a watch list to stop for DWI checks whenever they see him on the road. Or perhaps he's been buying books on meth at Amazon and they need to pay his house a visit, because that's probable cause. As Mr. May has clearly stated in the past, most businesses--absent a law requiring them to collect the information--will choose the sale over the gathering of information. For instance with Alcohol, you currently only have to display an approved ID demonstrating you are over a certain age. There is no *mandated* tracking. If you choose to be tracked (for instance by using some sort of store supplied "discount card", you get what you deserve. Most libraries vetoed the idea of "customer tracking" long, long ago, after the FBI started visiting libraries demanding that they be given the records of what certain people -- commies -- were reading. Library computers automatically delete the record of who had a book immediately after it's checked back in. Probably because at the time most Librarians were Socialists. Today things would be *very* different. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: Not an unexpected verdict ...
And the four cops were of course not dressed as cops...they were part of the "Street Crimes Unit," meaning they were supposed to blend in by looking like street thugs. What Yabba.. thought was going down when four white guys started yelling at him will forever be unknown to us. I know what _I'd_ think was going down if I was entering my home late at night and four black guys approached me and started screaming... And you wouldn't be reaching for your wallet either. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: Not an unexpected verdict ...
Sunder writes: Any jurisdiction that considers pupming 41 pieces of lead in a man that refuses to talk to four predatory bastards isn't by any stretch of the immagination free. The number of bullets is not the issue. As has been discussed here before, any firefight involving multiple police officers is going to Actually, it is an issue--it shows a lack of training and fire discipline by the police officers. produce a lot of gunfire. Once that first bullet is fired, the decision is made to use lethal force. At that point there is no reason to hold back, not if the officers want to survive. The only relevant issue is There damn well is a reason to "hold back", you have to, or at the very least you *should* know where *every* *single* *bullet* is going. From memory, they had about a 50% hit ratio, which is pretty high for cops these days. Of course, that means that they really had *no stinking clue* where 20 of those bullets went, beyond "that a way". The fact that cops can let loose 20 bullets, having *no* idea where those bullets went, and can still keep their jobs is a *serious* problem. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: Alternative To Handguns Package
The only real alternative to handguns is shotguns. Short barreled carbines--like the M-1 carbine, or a lever action 30-30, or "Sub-machine guns" like the MP5 do quite a decent job. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: Neo-Cypherpunks and calls for privacy regulations
I wrote much of what you quoted and then responded to, and yet you snipped the part that said "Tim May wrote..." Please take some care in how you quote. Apologies. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: Alternative To Handguns Package (fwd)
untraceable contract killings. At least 342,000 persons in America have already earned killing. How did you come at this figure? I'm proud that untraceable technologies we have helped to develop and publicize will make possible the cleansing of this country of gun grabbers. By the time it will be possible, it will no longer be necessary. This isn't a bad thing. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: Clinton Gore Vow To Fight The Establishment On
Nope, I look at what life was like without governments - nasty, brutish and short. We both agree that bad governments can do a lot of evil, even in democratic countries. Richard Nixon being a prime example, committing acts of treason at home and committing war crimes abroad. I don't think you've got to look that far back. Not that far at all. Governments are going to exist, the question is therefore whether they are going to exist for good or for bad. No, the question is who is going to be the master, and who the servant. As for being pro Clinton Gore, it is much more that I dislike the alternatives, a judgement the US people shared in the past two elections. In this election Gore, McCain and Bradley appear to me to be acceptable choices, Bush does not - to put it mildly. You draw distinctions of no difference. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: Re: why worry?
In South Vietnam, our client regime The US of A did _not_ have a "client regime" in S. Vietnam. You are a complete fucking imbecile. There were several "regimes" in S. Vietnam that served at the whim of the US State department. I think I've made my point. The one on top of your head? Dig deeper, young Jedi, you've only scratched the surface. Whereas you're still sitting there staring at the surface. It's easier (at least for me) to forgive people who *try* to delve beneath the surface and don't quite grasp what they've dug up than to forgive those who never look. Seaver and May are saying essentially the same thing--that individuals should be allowed to determine there own destinies. Harmon comes to this position by way (apparently) of a more "touchy feely" world view while May comes to it from the Techno/Philosophical position. Does it matter how you get there? We all pretty much want the same thing--the ability to live our own lives free from the interference of those who wish to control our lives and our output. They (Seaver and May) both detest the actions of the US government in many areas, they are just focusing on different flaws and violations in the same system. This isn't some hippy bullshit "Can't we just get along", but rather an attempt to point out that both "sides" are saying the same thing, just using different words. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
RE: the power of cryptography
I have as well. Never to the point of being inside the car, but to the point of trying my key in the lock. Yeah, given that one car off the assembly like looks pretty much like another, and that a True CypherPunk(tm) wouldn't do anything to his car to distinguish it from the rest of them (that would make it more obvious, and limit anonymity), it's not unlikely. I don't drive a car that often, so I don't have that problem. There just aren't many old BMW R bikes in a given parking lot. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: Neo-Cypherpunks and calls for privacy regulations
At 7:45 AM -0800 2/14/00, Duncan Frissell wrote: At 08:55 PM 2/12/00 -0500, Petro wrote: Or will bother to look in the future. What is considered legal/moral/rational today *might* change in the future. Do you really want to take that chance? It's a lot easier to remove your eye-glasses to hide your intellectualism than to hide a decade or twos computerized records of your checking seditious literature out of the library, or buying it from Amazon.com. On the other hand, you can just blow people off these days if they don't like your activities. Since one has millions of possible employers and millions of possible residence locations and since attitudes are so diverse, you will be able to find people to live with no matter how bizarre your practices. Even smokers can find work these days. Anarchists have no problems. For some companies, anarchism's a positive. And since there seem to be some newcomers who are here bashing "megacorps" and calling for "privacy laws," let's revisit some well-known points: Neither DCF, nor myself are exactly newcomers, and (at least I) wasn't calling for "privacy laws" as such. I would not be opposed to laws that allowed me to protect my privacy--such as laws preventing states (i.e. the government) from mandating that I provide certain information (i.e. SSN) in exchange for a drivers license, and then selling that information on the open market, or laws prohibiting the government from buying/forcing their way into private databases for any reason. I don't worry about what the *corporations* will do with the data, I worry about what the *government* will/would do with the data in certain circumstances. That is an area where law is the second to last recourse. The last of course being armed revolution. I have to do just about everything in my power to avoid that last step--while many of the politicians deserve being shot, they wouldn't be the only ones massively hurt by such an event, and commerce would probably be massively disrupted. If I can get closer to the world I would prefer without lots of killing and bombing, much the better. * the desire for a profit almost always wins out over the desire to collect customer information: if a business has a choice between collecting some customer info or completing a sale, it will take the sale every time. (Unless other factors, such as government requirements, intervene...) Which is where laws, whether they be in the form of legislation, or the constitution should come into play. The government *should* be prevented from establishing these requirements. * cash settlement is nearly always acceptable, except when Drug and Tax Warriors decree otherwise. Is there any case where cash *isn't* acceptable legally? I am not aware of any, but since the most expensive thing I've ever purchased in my life was bought on credit, it's never been an issue. * when the bus companies had blacks sitting in the back of the bus in the south, it was largely local _law_ that caused them to spend this additional money to enforce such rules. (Same as when IBM and Coke and other corporations wanted no part of apartheid in South Africa--it was the RSA government which demanded they practice apartheid.) They may have wanted no part in Apartheid, but they were willing to go along with it. This is part of my point above--that should the political situation change massively for any reason, the government could have reason to go looking for people with certain characteristics in their background. They already have (legal) access to medical records--want to round up every AIDS patient in the country? They have access to all of the gun purchase background checks, what if they started requiring that ammunition and reloading supply purchases be registered, or at least that the sellers start keeping track of purchases and forward that to the Feds? Is that something that should be prevented by law? How about a law that prevents you from being punished if you use a non-real ID to avoid getting put *into* these databases to begin with? * "megacorps" are just businesses which have had a lot of customers. Cisco is a megacorp because a zillion people like their routers. This ignores decades of proof that some of the larger (Cisco is a small company compared to PepsiCo) MegaCorps have involved themselves in politics world wide--occasionally pumping money and guns into small countries to insure that local dictators continue to push policies that provided cheap raw material or labour to the detriment of the population (I agree that this is to a large degree that countries problem, but it does demonstrate that at least some MegaCorps are not just a large version of your local Mom Pop distributer). The Cypherpunks list has obviously evolved over time. We don't discuss "basics&q
Re: NWA computer seizureg;
This thing has occasioned an untoward measure of shock, for the fact is the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do provide for it, see Rule 34, in appropriate circumstances--the argument should be whether the circumstances are appropriate. MacN And everything the Feds do is correct? Both in terms of "morally proper", and in terms of "follows the rules". I think not. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
RE: the power of cryptography
At 4:30 PM -0800 2/11/00, Matthew Gream wrote:
If you were to read the sentence that follows the one you quoted, you would
find that I say "however, until such time" to acknowledge two things.
Firstly, that an ideal society takes time to reach (if at all reachable),
and secondly, that when an ideal society is reached, it needs to prevent
itself from slipping back to a non-ideal society.
I understood your point. And I still think your point is pernicious.
The very notion of "perfection means rights won't be needed" is what is
pernicious. Seen frequently in the gun debate. ("If we lived in a perfect
I would agree with your position on this.
society, guns would not be needed and there would be no need for the Second
Amendment.")
In an ideal society, neither guns, nor the second amendment
*would* be needed.
Guns would not be "needed" for defense or protection because
those situations wouldn't come up.
The Second amendment wouldn't be needed because there would
be no government to take the guns away, and society would
recognize--without any coercion--not only the right to the means to
self defense, but all other rights.
To use another line of attack on this that might make what I
am trying to say more clear--In the "Perfect World", there would be
no need for a spare tire, but that doesn't mean that spare tires
would be outlawed.
Of course, the perfect society is like the perfect
gun--different to each person.
--
A quote from Petro's Archives: **
If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret
the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: the power of cryptography
At Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:49:02 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . If ever there was the ideal society, then such little call would there be for these devices of confusion. The only ideal society I can think of where " little call would there be for these devices" would be one brought into being via genocide on the scale of nothing we have ever seen. Hardly anyone I am familiar with would consider a society where there is no privacy, nor need for it, ideal. The fact that your mind cannot think of it doesn't mean that it's impossible. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: the power of cryptography
the coming age, cryptography is the quintessential tool to negotiate the boundary between what is mine, and what is everyone elses, to protect the world from me, and to protect me from the world. If ever there was the ideal society, then such little call would there be for these devices of confusion. Until such a time In particular, an ideal society will still involve competition, both personal and commercial. I don't want my rivals reading my plans, no matter how ideal the society is. In the "ideal" society, your competition wouldn't look at your plans, your boss would only care about your at work performance, your mistress and your wife would get together for coffee to discuss ways of better pleasing you, and Windows would be stable and have a decent interface. Oh, and Clinton would be a dishwasher. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: Money
With the discussion of philosophy lately, I'll share with you a URL for an interesting article about the _real_ philosophical dilemma: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/archive/2207/news/current/superstar.htx ?source=blq/yhoodist=yhoo An excerpt: "LOS ANGELES (CBS.MW) -- OK, so you're a millionaire. Now what? Well, for one thing, folks, more and more Americans are asking that question. Rephrased, it is life's most fundamental question: What is the meaning of life? Or better yet, what is the meaning of underlinemy/underline life? ..." Man I hope I have to face this problem some day. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
