Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 03:43:03 - xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > You disagree because you just keep cheating. There isn't > > much to add. Logic isn't about 'agreement' with you, or with the > > party. > > I take this to mean that you don't believe that logic requires > fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven, but must be agreed > upon? I made that clear two posts ago. That's what the O'Brien quote meant. So, you didn't get it after all. Again, truth is NOT a matter of agreement. And axioms are not to be 'agreed' upon. Also, axioms can be proven. If axioms couldn't be proven then any statement based on them would be...unproven, meaningless, useless, et cetera. > And using figurative language isn't misrepresentation of your > position. In this case it is. Not that I care too much, except to point out that I don't misrepresent what you say, I rather 'streamline' it =) Your attempt at concisely explaining my position fails though =) > You have dismissed as stupid/retarded/nonsense my opinions > because they were not consistent. Are you finally acknolwedging that they are not consistent? =) (I dismiss some of your opinions for other reasons too) > This is little different than a > religious person dismissing my opinions because they are "sacrilege." > They are incompatible with your system of thought. So, in this way, > you quite do put logic on a pedestal. Again you are using a wrong analogy. Furthermore, to pretend that 'religious' bullshit is equivalent to reasoned argument is, I suppose, nothing but a cheap provocation =) > If it isn't logical (or holy) it is wrong. No. If it isn't 'holy' then it is 'unholy' 'demoniacal' 'arab' 'mexican' 'antisemite' or whatever terms the crazies use. It's all nonsense anyway. If it isn't logical, then it is wrong, right. The two scenarios are rather unrelated though. Except if you want to use the first as wrong analogy for the second? What point would you be making apart from...teasing me? > That is an accurate > summation of your position, Not at all. It's just trolling. > and it is clear that the figurative > speech of "putting logic on a pedestal" .. in fact applies, pointedly. OK. > > > Oh, and as far as I knew, the pythagoreans were credited > > with discovering 'irrational' numbers (which of course are not > > actually irrational as in absurd or meaningless) - And the > > legend I knew is that they killed one of the sect who > > 'leaked' (haha) the secret, but it's probably a bullshit > > legend. > > I didn't hear the legend that way. As I recall it being told, they > killed the guy who discovered it. I'm not sure either version is > true, and if I had to bet, would wager that both are simply fiction. > > > Logic is what it is. I 'accept' it, if you wish. I'm not an > > arrogant asshole who believes that inconsistent nonsese is > > 'non-linear' 'valid', nay, even 'superior' thimking. It > > isn't. > > You accept what, exactly? > > I've never claimed that inconsistent statements are superior to > consistent statements, as such. What I claim in that regard is that > there are certain truths that can only be indicated by inconsistent > pairs of statements. Nonsense =) > And yes, within the context of our discussion, I > have favored inconsistency as a balance to your focus on minutia, > mere points of debate, and reliance on ideological principles which I > obviously do not hold, and which therefore have nothing to do with > the actual ideas that you started asking me questions about. > > The reality of logical inconsistency is trivially observable even in > simple situations: It is logical for the USA to try to prevent nuclear > proliferation. It is logical for Iran to seek a nuke. Lol! You are using 'logical' as a very coloquial synonym for self-interest. It has nothing to do with actual logic. "It is logical for Iran to seek a nuke" Meaningless hand waving. It MAY be convenient for the iranian governent to do so, or it MAY GET THEM ATTACKED SOONER. So there's nothing necessarily 'logical' about that course of action. Also, there isn't any incosistency in both government doing the same thing - or different things, or whatever. But again, you are using a different meaning for 'logical' here than the one implied in the rest of the discussion. Equivocation much. > > Therefore, what is LOGICAL tells us NOTHING about the actual > situation. What ACTUALLY informs us about the situation is the > inconsistency. Nonsense unpackaged above. And this is just a waste of time again. Too much effor on my part to disentangle your cheap tricks. >
Yet another DNC Leak, by Guccifer2.0
https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/clinton-foundation/ ×
United States of America
This should sum it up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:07:52 - xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 00:29 -0300, juan wrote: > >> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500 > >> "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out > >> > there, and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at > >> > least a bit un-American, if not flagrantly so. > >> > >>Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand > >> for. > > > > It is 100% UN-American and it is NOT what I stand for. Not now, not > > ever. > > Well, I'm not moderator but I'll try to mediate this, here. > > I get what Juan is saying, and I understand what you are saying. Here > is the disconnect: > > It seems to me that Juan is looking at this entirely.. functionally. > Functionally, the government suppresses information for its own > interests. All of them do. He is disregarding the belief system of > Americans, and the cultural identity and beliefs that this involves. > What is American, is what America, as a whole, does. To be American > is to enslave blacks, bomb brown folks, and generally make a great > mess of things, and worse - to be proud of that mess. > > You are using the term "American" quite differently. You're not using > it functionally, you're using it, forgive the term.. mythologically. > There is the cultural identity of "American" which sees itself as > being about freedom, natural rights and so on. For you, these are > ideals, that Americans strive for, and you acknowledge that in the > past your country fell short of, and that you have (and perhaps > always will have) more to do. > > For you, it is totally possible for America to be UN-American. To > Juan, this is a logical absurdity. Thanks xorcist, but you got it wrong...again! =) Well, you got it half right actually. Yes, to be 'american' is to morally support all sorts of outrageous attacks against natural rights...in the name of natural rights (that's at least done by the american jingos articulate enough to talk about natural rights, prolly not something a scumbag like quinn can do). But it is possible for a piece of shit like quinn to be un-american too. What did he do, like a good american? Ask for censorship. Bue he could have been un-american instead and could have been a decent defender of free speech. But no, quinn is the quintessential fascist americunt and also a torbot. And he's been consistently wanting to censor this list (with a few accomplices from the tor-pentagon-projet) for a while. > > I think I got that about right. I've been fucken with this dude, > exploring how he thinks for like two weeks now. So you actually haven't followed previous posts from that piece of shit quinn and the other american tor gang members. > It's like some weird > catharsis for me because I used to think quite similarly. I don't think so. To use an analogy, since you like them so much. It's like you told me that first you were a kkkristian, then regained your senses and became anti-clerical, but THEN, went BACK to sucking jesus cock and FINALLY learned the REAL truth. > > > > Moderator, please remove Juan from the list. > > > > I suspect you're beign ironical? Not really. He's trolling, but if he had his way he would 'remove' me. He's one of the shitbags responsible for censorship in the tor project.
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
> On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 00:29 -0300, juan wrote: >> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500 >> "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: >> >> > >> > I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there, >> > and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit >> > un-American, if not flagrantly so. >> >> Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand for. > > It is 100% UN-American and it is NOT what I stand for. Not now, not > ever. Well, I'm not moderator but I'll try to mediate this, here. I get what Juan is saying, and I understand what you are saying. Here is the disconnect: It seems to me that Juan is looking at this entirely.. functionally. Functionally, the government suppresses information for its own interests. All of them do. He is disregarding the belief system of Americans, and the cultural identity and beliefs that this involves. What is American, is what America, as a whole, does. To be American is to enslave blacks, bomb brown folks, and generally make a great mess of things, and worse - to be proud of that mess. You are using the term "American" quite differently. You're not using it functionally, you're using it, forgive the term.. mythologically. There is the cultural identity of "American" which sees itself as being about freedom, natural rights and so on. For you, these are ideals, that Americans strive for, and you acknowledge that in the past your country fell short of, and that you have (and perhaps always will have) more to do. For you, it is totally possible for America to be UN-American. To Juan, this is a logical absurdity. I think I got that about right. I've been fucken with this dude, exploring how he thinks for like two weeks now. It's like some weird catharsis for me because I used to think quite similarly. > > Moderator, please remove Juan from the list. > I suspect you're beign ironical?
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
From: Razer On 10/04/2016 08:07 PM, juan wrote: >> ...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government' >> would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the >> american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The >> subjection has little to do with which point in space the > > subjects might be accidentaly occupying. >I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least) >are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US >government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter where >they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation chartered in >the US. That's an interesting take on the matter, but I don't think you could find sufficient legal precedent to force this issue against the will of the (vacationing?) employee, or the will of the stay-at-home corporation. Remember, I'm not even talking about an employee who wants to leak the information against the will of the corporation: I'm speculating that the corporation WANTS some employee to leak it, but to do so using a means not obviously in violation of the requirements of the subpoena/court order. Since a corporation generally is entitled to communicate information to its employees (who may not be in the U.S., or ever were in the U.S.), that's a powerful tool to launch the relevant information beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Jim Bell
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
From: Shawn K. Quinn On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 02:26 +, jim bell wrote: >> Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside >> the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says >> so. The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction I am >> not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these >> companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign >> embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the >> existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the >> law. >The problem is that the company's operations in the US will remain under >US jurisdiction, and that is the most likely avenue of >enforcement--against the company, not the individuals leaking the info >from the shores of Vancouver or Cancún. Well, then the government would have to argue that the corporation violated the court order somewhere within America, as opposed to an individual outside the jurisdiction of that court. The thing could go as far as the company hiring a foreign attorney, communicating with him by Internet (or courier, etc), with the foreign attorney announcing the fact of the information. It would be very difficult to formulate a theory that a company isn't entitled to communicate with an attorney who was outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., or that the U.S. just happened to have legal power to prevent that attorney from speaking. It would be quickly seen as a First Amendment issue, and would fail. Jim Bell
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 00:29 -0300, juan wrote: > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500 > "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: > > > > > I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there, > > and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit > > un-American, if not flagrantly so. > > Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand for. It is 100% UN-American and it is NOT what I stand for. Not now, not ever. Moderator, please remove Juan from the list. -- Shawn K. Quinn
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
>> The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" > > A double criminal absurdity. The mafia known as government has > no real 'jurisdiction' in the territory they usurp, let alone in > territories 'belonging' to other mafias. On this, at least, we can agree completely. The only thing I would add is that this is largely a recent phenomenon due to the ability for large enough governments to have truly global reach. Power will exert itself as far as it can.
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
> You disagree because you just keep cheating. There isn't much > to add. Logic isn't about 'agreement' with you, or with the > party. I take this to mean that you don't believe that logic requires fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven, but must be agreed upon? And using figurative language isn't misrepresentation of your position. You have dismissed as stupid/retarded/nonsense my opinions because they were not consistent. This is little different than a religious person dismissing my opinions because they are "sacrilege." They are incompatible with your system of thought. So, in this way, you quite do put logic on a pedestal. If it isn't logical (or holy) it is wrong. That is an accurate summation of your position, and it is clear that the figurative speech of "putting logic on a pedestal" .. in fact applies, pointedly. > Oh, and as far as I knew, the pythagoreans were credited with > discovering 'irrational' numbers (which of course are not > actually irrational as in absurd or meaningless) - And the > legend I knew is that they killed one of the sect who > 'leaked' (haha) the secret, but it's probably a bullshit legend. I didn't hear the legend that way. As I recall it being told, they killed the guy who discovered it. I'm not sure either version is true, and if I had to bet, would wager that both are simply fiction. > Logic is what it is. I 'accept' it, if you wish. I'm not an > arrogant asshole who believes that inconsistent nonsese is > 'non-linear' 'valid', nay, even 'superior' thimking. It isn't. You accept what, exactly? I've never claimed that inconsistent statements are superior to consistent statements, as such. What I claim in that regard is that there are certain truths that can only be indicated by inconsistent pairs of statements. And yes, within the context of our discussion, I have favored inconsistency as a balance to your focus on minutia, mere points of debate, and reliance on ideological principles which I obviously do not hold, and which therefore have nothing to do with the actual ideas that you started asking me questions about. The reality of logical inconsistency is trivially observable even in simple situations: It is logical for the USA to try to prevent nuclear proliferation. It is logical for Iran to seek a nuke. Therefore, what is LOGICAL tells us NOTHING about the actual situation. What ACTUALLY informs us about the situation is the inconsistency. It's also observable in more complex situations: A person may simultaneously "love" and "hate" another. The apparent inconsistency points to, and indicates, the underlying tensions of the situation as it really exists. In this way, there are REAL contradictions. But lets get down right to physical reality with it, too: A computer system with two sensors of arbitrarily high resolution and accuracy, measuring the temperature of tank of water will, nevertheless see inconsistent data from the two sensors. Measurement is an inherently subjective activity. Inconsistency and uncertainty is a fact of life, right down the the barest components of physical reality. The ability to deal with inconsistency without dismissal is, to me, vital for 'valid proper thought' which is the goal of 'logic' as a discipline, in my understanding. > > So keep up with the parables, the false analogies (now from > maths) and the preaching. The more you preach...I hope you can > figure the rest =) Not preaching. I have no reason to believe that you'll get yourself into any type of trouble, or doom for only thinking one way. I'm not trying to save you from the evils of classical thought, nor classical liberalism. I'm not interested in converting you, partly because I'm not interested in converting anyone. Mostly, in your case, because I'm sure I wouldn't want you in my circles. I'm just giving my perspective, and explaining what you continually misrepresent and attack. And I will point out that saying that I gave "false analogies" doesn't make it so. I gave NO analogies in the bit about logic, and maths. An analogy is to draw simile between two things. I didn't do that. I made direct statements of fact. There are different branches of logic, as I've described. There are different branches of geometry, as I described. There are theorems which prove facts about the limits of logic, which while stated informally, are in fact true. If you're out of your depth, that's quite alright. You said before you're not much for maths, so I didn't get into it, and instead tried to show some of those limits playfully instead. But you're not the playful sort either. So, I'll admit, I'm rather at a loss for how to convey these ideas to you, except to say -- rather than merely "accepting" logic, perhaps you really ought to consider studying it.
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: > > I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there, > and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit > un-American, if not flagrantly so. Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand for. > >
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 20:07 -0700, Razer wrote: > I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least) > are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US > government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter > where they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation > chartered in the US. That's what I was going for. You said it better than I did... -- Shawn K. Quinn
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 02:26 +, jim bell wrote: > Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside > the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says > so. The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdictionI am > not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these > companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign > embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the > existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the > law. The problem is that the company's operations in the US will remain under US jurisdiction, and that is the most likely avenue of enforcement--against the company, not the individuals leaking the info from the shores of Vancouver or Cancún. I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there, and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit un-American, if not flagrantly so. -- Shawn K. Quinn
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
On 10/04/2016 08:07 PM, juan wrote: > > ...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government' > would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the > american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The > subjection has little to do with which point in space the > subjects might be accidentaly occupying. I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least) are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter where they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation chartered in the US. Rr > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 02:26:53 + (UTC) > jim bell wrote: > >> >> Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside >> the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly >> says so. > > >> The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" > > A double criminal absurdity. The mafia known as government has > no real 'jurisdiction' in the territory they usurp, let alone in > territories 'belonging' to other mafias. > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdictionI am >> not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these >> companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign >> embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the >> existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the >> law. > > > ...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government' > would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the > american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The > subjection has little to do with which point in space the > subjects might be accidentaly occupying. > > > If an american subject says something the government doesn't > like or that 'threatens' 'national' 'security' he will be > considered a 'traitor' and dealt with accordingly. Just ask > snowden, who is not standing on a territory claimed by the US > mafia-government. Or perhaps if an 'american' says something > the gov't doesn't like, he would be be treated like an 'enemy > combatant' or somesuch crazy jargon. > > Oh, look here... > > > "Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants" > > > https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31724.pdf > > > http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-u-s-citizens-can-be-held-as-enemy-combatants/ > > "Yes, U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants" > > > > > > >> While it is conceivable that Congress could re-write the >> relevant law to prohibit somebody from travelling for the purpose of >> such a disclosure, I think it's unlikely that the current law >> anticipated this. (In part, because American law doesn't usually >> pretend to be able to prohibit freedom of speech, and less so, the >> freedom of speech of people in foreign lands.)Somebody should tell >> this corporate fools that they should have their high-priced >> attorneys investigation this, and figure out a way to disclose the >> information LEGALLY, possibly outside America.Jim Bell >> >> From the Wikipedia article cited above:"Generally, the U.S. founding >> fathers and early courts believed that American laws could not have >> jurisdiction over sovereign countries. In a 1909 Supreme Court case, >> Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes introduced what came to be known as the >> "presumption against extraterritoriality," making explicit this >> judicial preference that U.S. laws not be applied to other countries. >> American thought about extraterritoriality has changed over the >> years, however. For example, the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 allows >> foreign citizens in the United States to bring cases before federal >> courts against foreign defendants for violations of the "law of >> nations" in foreign countries. Although this statute was ignored for >> many years, U.S. courts since the 1980s have interpreted it to allow >> foreigners to seek justice in cases of human-rights violations in >> foreign lands, such as inSosa v. Alvarez-Machain.[22] In Morrison v. >> National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in >> interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" >> is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says >> otherwise.Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free >> encyclopedia" >> >> >> >> | >> | >> | >> | || >> >>| >> >> | >> | >> | | >> Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >>| | >> >> | >> >> | >> >> × >> >> >
Wikileaks 10th Anniversary
Thanks Wikileaks, Julian, leakers, et al, for the journalism and the sunshine. May another 10 years of secrets be set free.
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 02:26:53 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > > Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside > the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly > says so. > The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" A double criminal absurdity. The mafia known as government has no real 'jurisdiction' in the territory they usurp, let alone in territories 'belonging' to other mafias. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction I am > not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these > companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign > embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the > existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the > law. ...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government' would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The subjection has little to do with which point in space the subjects might be accidentaly occupying. If an american subject says something the government doesn't like or that 'threatens' 'national' 'security' he will be considered a 'traitor' and dealt with accordingly. Just ask snowden, who is not standing on a territory claimed by the US mafia-government. Or perhaps if an 'american' says something the gov't doesn't like, he would be be treated like an 'enemy combatant' or somesuch crazy jargon. Oh, look here... "Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants" https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31724.pdf http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-u-s-citizens-can-be-held-as-enemy-combatants/ "Yes, U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants" > While it is conceivable that Congress could re-write the > relevant law to prohibit somebody from travelling for the purpose of > such a disclosure, I think it's unlikely that the current law > anticipated this. (In part, because American law doesn't usually > pretend to be able to prohibit freedom of speech, and less so, the > freedom of speech of people in foreign lands.)Somebody should tell > this corporate fools that they should have their high-priced > attorneys investigation this, and figure out a way to disclose the > information LEGALLY, possibly outside America. Jim Bell > > From the Wikipedia article cited above:"Generally, the U.S. founding > fathers and early courts believed that American laws could not have > jurisdiction over sovereign countries. In a 1909 Supreme Court case, > Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes introduced what came to be known as the > "presumption against extraterritoriality," making explicit this > judicial preference that U.S. laws not be applied to other countries. > American thought about extraterritoriality has changed over the > years, however. For example, the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 allows > foreign citizens in the United States to bring cases before federal > courts against foreign defendants for violations of the "law of > nations" in foreign countries. Although this statute was ignored for > many years, U.S. courts since the 1980s have interpreted it to allow > foreigners to seek justice in cases of human-rights violations in > foreign lands, such as inSosa v. Alvarez-Machain.[22] In Morrison v. > National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in > interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" > is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says > otherwise.Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free > encyclopedia" > > > > | > | > | > | || > >| > > | > | > | | > Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia >| | > > | > > | > > × > >
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 01:29:23 - xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > > > You subscribe to that one too? Well no, since scammers, > > charlatans and intellectual frauds love to hide their scams > > behind empty, ambiguous words. > > > > Anyway, hopefully you got the point. Your 'understanding' > > of 'logic' is quite similar to that of the worst > > totalitarian. > > I disagree, but I can understand where you're coming from. You disagree because you just keep cheating. There isn't much to add. Logic isn't about 'agreement' with you, or with the party. Oh, and as far as I knew, the pythagoreans were credited with discovering 'irrational' numbers (which of course are not actually irrational as in absurd or meaningless) - And the legend I knew is that they killed one of the sect who 'leaked' (haha) the secret, but it's probably a bullshit legend. > I always > have understood your point. I've discussed this sort of thing, at > length, with many people who put logic on a pedestal. I don't believe > you've made an effort to understand my point, however. So you don't really understand the bigger point. I don't put logic on a pedestal. That's just figurative language on your part, it's 'misrepresentation' of my position and ultimately an absurdity. Logic is what it is. I 'accept' it, if you wish. I'm not an arrogant asshole who believes that inconsistent nonsese is 'non-linear' 'valid', nay, even 'superior' thimking. It isn't. So keep up with the parables, the false analogies (now from maths) and the preaching. The more you preach...I hope you can figure the rest =) > > There is a danger in being too focused on logic and reason. It > unnecessarily constrains one's thoughts. Consider the very word - > RATIONAL. As in, rational numbers - numbers expressible as ratios. > That is how the Pythagoreans thought of numbers. They had no concept > at all of an "irrational" number - a number not expressible as ratios. > > So, to say to them that sqrt(2) is not expressible as a ratio of two > integers was UNTHINKABLE. They had no framework for the concept within > their "logic." They lacked the IMAGINATION to set aside their quite > literally rational view of arithmetic and to simply THINK, with as few > rules guiding that process as they could manage. > > And that is an example regarding something a simple as the concept of > quantity. How much more should we be suspicious of such failures of > imagination when dealing with complex concepts? > > As far as totalitarianism goes, I'm not sure what an example from > fiction is necessarily supposed to prove, but I can counter with > another: legend has it that Hippasus was murdered for proving that > root 2 is irrational. A warning for taking systems of thought, > ideologies, logics and so on, too seriously. > > But there is a deeper matter, here. When you ask for something to be > "logical" what, exactly, do you mean? Logical according to what? > > A triangle has interior angles which sum to 180 degrees, says Euclid. > Lobachevsky can prove all triangles have more than 180 degrees. Both > are correct, given their assumptions. Both work in the real world. > Which, then, meets your criteria of "logical" or "rational"? Which do > we use? > > There is classical, "Aristotelian" logic. But there are parametric > logics where induction and deduction are special cases of > consequence. There are fuzzy logics where truth and falsehood are not > 1 and 0's but take on a range of values .. formalized "grey area" > thinking, essentially. More importantly, there are paraconsistent > logics - logics which specifically deal with contradiction in > definable, inconsistency-tolerant ways. > > So what type of logic should we use? And why? You want to use one > type of reasoning, as most people do, usually Aristotelian; but there > is absolutely no basis for this other than ignorance of the others - > despite the fact that the others are often times the better tools for > the job. That is why they were invented. > > I mentioned Godel's Incompleteness Theorem at one point. It says, > informally, that in any logical system with a finite number of > assumptions, one cannot have consistency, and the ability to prove all > true statements. > If you value consistency as the ideal, you put truth at second place. > This is the choice of the mathematician. To have access to all truths > within such a system, you need either an infinite mind to hold > infinite axioms, or tolerance for inconsistency. This is the path of > the philosopher. > > Some would suggest that complete tolerance for all inconsistencies and > having an infinite mind are quite the same thing. Hence, the F.S. > Fitzgerald quote. > > My point is that "rational" and "logical" only make sense according to > some assumptions, according
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
From: Razer "“Federal law prohibits us from answering your question, and we’re >currently suing the Justice Department for the ability to disclose more >information about government requests,” Twitter spokesman Nu Wexler said >in a statement." Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says so. The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction I am not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the law. While it is conceivable that Congress could re-write the relevant law to prohibit somebody from travelling for the purpose of such a disclosure, I think it's unlikely that the current law anticipated this. (In part, because American law doesn't usually pretend to be able to prohibit freedom of speech, and less so, the freedom of speech of people in foreign lands.)Somebody should tell this corporate fools that they should have their high-priced attorneys investigation this, and figure out a way to disclose the information LEGALLY, possibly outside America. Jim Bell >From the Wikipedia article cited above:"Generally, the U.S. founding fathers >and early courts believed that American laws could not have jurisdiction over >sovereign countries. In a 1909 Supreme Court case, Justice Oliver Wendel >Holmes introduced what came to be known as the "presumption against >extraterritoriality," making explicit this judicial preference that U.S. laws >not be applied to other countries. American thought about extraterritoriality >has changed over the years, however. For example, the Alien Tort Statute of >1789 allows foreign citizens in the United States to bring cases before >federal courts against foreign defendants for violations of the "law of >nations" in foreign countries. Although this statute was ignored for many >years, U.S. courts since the 1980s have interpreted it to allow foreigners to >seek justice in cases of human-rights violations in foreign lands, such as >inSosa v. Alvarez-Machain.[22] In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, >the Supreme Court held that in interpreting a statute, the "presumption >against extraterritoriality" is absolute unless the text of the statute >explicitly says otherwise.Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free >encyclopedia" | | | | || | | | | | Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | | | | ×
Re: [Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
It's noted in the article that Twitter did a FISA/FISC Glomar: "“Federal law prohibits us from answering your question, and we’re currently suing the Justice Department for the ability to disclose more information about government requests,” Twitter spokesman Nu Wexler said in a statement." On 10/04/2016 06:46 PM, Razer wrote: > On 10/04/2016 02:30 PM, jim bell wrote: > >> Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for US intelligence-sources > http://dailym.ai/2dOI1gj via http://dailym.ai/android >> > > > I wonder if the execs who approved this or someone on Y!'s legal team > who advised them to comply is secretly on Google's payroll or plans to > 'jump ship' into a BIG raise. > > Rr > > > With links: > http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article105936487.html#emlnl=Evening_Newsletter > > > By Tim Johnson [email redacted] > > Civil and human rights groups issued denunciations and some > cybersecurity experts urged their clients to stop using the popular > Yahoo Mail service after a news agency reported Tuesday that the > internet service provider had secretly scanned hundreds of millions of > clients’ emails at the behest of U.S. intelligence agencies. > > The report by the Reuters news service said Yahoo complied with a > classified U.S. government directive last year that demanded that it > scan all incoming emails of its users for certain phrases. The report > said Yahoo’s engineers wrote a program that complied with the blanket > spying request. > > “Enough is enough. It’s time to close your Yahoo account,” Graham > Cluley, a British cybersecurity expert, tweeted following the report. > > The report was the second piece of challenging news in recent days for > the Sunnyvale, California, company as it attempts to finalize a $4.8 > billion sale of its core business to Verizon. On Sept. 22, Yahoo > acknowledged that the passwords of 500 million Yahoo account holders had > been stolen. > > Yahoo did not immediately respond to the Reuters report. A chief rival > for global email, Alphabet Inc.’s Google, said it had not been > approached by the intelligence agencies. > > “We’ve never received such a request, but if we did, our response would > be simple: ‘No way,’ ” Aaron Stein, a Google spokesman, said in a > statement posted online. > > Another large tech firm, Twitter, also weighed in, but without > clarifying whether it had received a directive aimed at intercepting > communications. > > “Federal law prohibits us from answering your question, and we’re > currently suing the Justice Department for the ability to disclose more > information about government requests,” Twitter spokesman Nu Wexler said > in a statement. > > Civil and human rights groups directed their criticism not at Yahoo but > at the U.S. government, saying its request had undermined trust in the > internet. > > “The government appears to have compelled Yahoo to conduct precisely the > type of general, suspicionless search that the Fourth Amendment was > intended to prohibit,” said Patrick Toomey, an attorney for the American > Civil Liberties Union. “It is deeply disappointing that Yahoo declined > to challenge this sweeping surveillance order, because customers are > counting on technology companies to stand up to novel spying demands in > court.” > > The alleged Yahoo collaboration with intelligence agencies caused > turmoil in the upper ranks of the company, the Reuters report said, and > led to the June 2015 departure of Chief Information Security Officer > Alex Stamos. > > Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer bypassed the company’s security team > and went to engineers to write the program to siphon off emails in real > time for the government, it added. > > Stamos, who is now the chief security officer for Facebook, offered no > immediate comment on the report. The federal government also did not > comment. > > Amnesty International, a London-based rights group, lamented what it > called the eroding privacy of internet users and efforts by the U.S. > government to “indiscriminately vacuum up the world’s data.” > > “This is a clear sign that people can trust neither their government nor > their service providers to respect their privacy: Only end-to-end > encryption that keeps their communications away from prying eyes will > do,” said Amnesty’s Sherif Elsayed-Ali, the head of technology and human > rights. > > Yahoo has gotten into hot water before for collaborating with government > requests – in China. More than a decade ago, it shared information with > the Chinese government that allowed for the jailing of two dissidents, > one of whom, Wang Xiaoning, spent a decade in jail. The other dissident, > Shi Tao, served a shorter sentence. > > Yahoo’s partial sale to Verizon is already facing uncertainty over the > massive data breach, which took place in 2014. Yahoo apparently did not > inform Verizon of the breach, and news of it came out only last month > when Yahoo user d
[Was, and still is: yahoo sux] Security experts urge clients to stop using Yahoo Mail
On 10/04/2016 02:30 PM, jim bell wrote: > Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for US intelligence-sources http://dailym.ai/2dOI1gj via http://dailym.ai/android > I wonder if the execs who approved this or someone on Y!'s legal team who advised them to comply is secretly on Google's payroll or plans to 'jump ship' into a BIG raise. Rr With links: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article105936487.html#emlnl=Evening_Newsletter By Tim Johnson [email redacted] Civil and human rights groups issued denunciations and some cybersecurity experts urged their clients to stop using the popular Yahoo Mail service after a news agency reported Tuesday that the internet service provider had secretly scanned hundreds of millions of clients’ emails at the behest of U.S. intelligence agencies. The report by the Reuters news service said Yahoo complied with a classified U.S. government directive last year that demanded that it scan all incoming emails of its users for certain phrases. The report said Yahoo’s engineers wrote a program that complied with the blanket spying request. “Enough is enough. It’s time to close your Yahoo account,” Graham Cluley, a British cybersecurity expert, tweeted following the report. The report was the second piece of challenging news in recent days for the Sunnyvale, California, company as it attempts to finalize a $4.8 billion sale of its core business to Verizon. On Sept. 22, Yahoo acknowledged that the passwords of 500 million Yahoo account holders had been stolen. Yahoo did not immediately respond to the Reuters report. A chief rival for global email, Alphabet Inc.’s Google, said it had not been approached by the intelligence agencies. “We’ve never received such a request, but if we did, our response would be simple: ‘No way,’ ” Aaron Stein, a Google spokesman, said in a statement posted online. Another large tech firm, Twitter, also weighed in, but without clarifying whether it had received a directive aimed at intercepting communications. “Federal law prohibits us from answering your question, and we’re currently suing the Justice Department for the ability to disclose more information about government requests,” Twitter spokesman Nu Wexler said in a statement. Civil and human rights groups directed their criticism not at Yahoo but at the U.S. government, saying its request had undermined trust in the internet. “The government appears to have compelled Yahoo to conduct precisely the type of general, suspicionless search that the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit,” said Patrick Toomey, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It is deeply disappointing that Yahoo declined to challenge this sweeping surveillance order, because customers are counting on technology companies to stand up to novel spying demands in court.” The alleged Yahoo collaboration with intelligence agencies caused turmoil in the upper ranks of the company, the Reuters report said, and led to the June 2015 departure of Chief Information Security Officer Alex Stamos. Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer bypassed the company’s security team and went to engineers to write the program to siphon off emails in real time for the government, it added. Stamos, who is now the chief security officer for Facebook, offered no immediate comment on the report. The federal government also did not comment. Amnesty International, a London-based rights group, lamented what it called the eroding privacy of internet users and efforts by the U.S. government to “indiscriminately vacuum up the world’s data.” “This is a clear sign that people can trust neither their government nor their service providers to respect their privacy: Only end-to-end encryption that keeps their communications away from prying eyes will do,” said Amnesty’s Sherif Elsayed-Ali, the head of technology and human rights. Yahoo has gotten into hot water before for collaborating with government requests – in China. More than a decade ago, it shared information with the Chinese government that allowed for the jailing of two dissidents, one of whom, Wang Xiaoning, spent a decade in jail. The other dissident, Shi Tao, served a shorter sentence. Yahoo’s partial sale to Verizon is already facing uncertainty over the massive data breach, which took place in 2014. Yahoo apparently did not inform Verizon of the breach, and news of it came out only last month when Yahoo user data was offered for sale on the black market. Legal advocates said they expected Congress to be uneasy over Tuesday’s revelation. “If Yahoo is indeed scanning the content of all of its customers’ emails at the NSA’s behest, that would appear to violate the Fourth Amendment,” said Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. “It’s also a violation of customers’ privacy and trust. It’s disturbing to learn that the NSA was secretly expanding its surveillance reach at the very same t
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
> > You subscribe to that one too? Well no, since scammers, > charlatans and intellectual frauds love to hide their scams > behind empty, ambiguous words. > > Anyway, hopefully you got the point. Your 'understanding' > of 'logic' is quite similar to that of the worst totalitarian. I disagree, but I can understand where you're coming from. I always have understood your point. I've discussed this sort of thing, at length, with many people who put logic on a pedestal. I don't believe you've made an effort to understand my point, however. There is a danger in being too focused on logic and reason. It unnecessarily constrains one's thoughts. Consider the very word - RATIONAL. As in, rational numbers - numbers expressible as ratios. That is how the Pythagoreans thought of numbers. They had no concept at all of an "irrational" number - a number not expressible as ratios. So, to say to them that sqrt(2) is not expressible as a ratio of two integers was UNTHINKABLE. They had no framework for the concept within their "logic." They lacked the IMAGINATION to set aside their quite literally rational view of arithmetic and to simply THINK, with as few rules guiding that process as they could manage. And that is an example regarding something a simple as the concept of quantity. How much more should we be suspicious of such failures of imagination when dealing with complex concepts? As far as totalitarianism goes, I'm not sure what an example from fiction is necessarily supposed to prove, but I can counter with another: legend has it that Hippasus was murdered for proving that root 2 is irrational. A warning for taking systems of thought, ideologies, logics and so on, too seriously. But there is a deeper matter, here. When you ask for something to be "logical" what, exactly, do you mean? Logical according to what? A triangle has interior angles which sum to 180 degrees, says Euclid. Lobachevsky can prove all triangles have more than 180 degrees. Both are correct, given their assumptions. Both work in the real world. Which, then, meets your criteria of "logical" or "rational"? Which do we use? There is classical, "Aristotelian" logic. But there are parametric logics where induction and deduction are special cases of consequence. There are fuzzy logics where truth and falsehood are not 1 and 0's but take on a range of values .. formalized "grey area" thinking, essentially. More importantly, there are paraconsistent logics - logics which specifically deal with contradiction in definable, inconsistency-tolerant ways. So what type of logic should we use? And why? You want to use one type of reasoning, as most people do, usually Aristotelian; but there is absolutely no basis for this other than ignorance of the others - despite the fact that the others are often times the better tools for the job. That is why they were invented. I mentioned Godel's Incompleteness Theorem at one point. It says, informally, that in any logical system with a finite number of assumptions, one cannot have consistency, and the ability to prove all true statements. If you value consistency as the ideal, you put truth at second place. This is the choice of the mathematician. To have access to all truths within such a system, you need either an infinite mind to hold infinite axioms, or tolerance for inconsistency. This is the path of the philosopher. Some would suggest that complete tolerance for all inconsistencies and having an infinite mind are quite the same thing. Hence, the F.S. Fitzgerald quote. My point is that "rational" and "logical" only make sense according to some assumptions, according to a frame of reference. And that frame of reference needs to be agreed upon for use in order to have any utility in a discussion. You mentioned that 2+2 doesn't equal 5 before. True enough, at least not that I know of, but I countered that 7+10 does equal five. And it does, according to a different frame of reference. That frame of reference being the face of a clock. Circular. You choose to only think linearly. I choose to think according to any rules I choose, when I choose them, for the purposes of getting to the goal that I decide is worth pursuing. I'm free of thought that way.
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 00:03:48 - xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:36:40 - > > xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > > >> Rationality is, at its > >> foundation, about AGREEING on some basic foundational ideas, > > > > > > > > "I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish > > to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it." > > > “Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range > of thought? ... Every concept that can ever be needed will be > expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined.." You subscribe to that one too? Well no, since scammers, charlatans and intellectual frauds love to hide their scams behind empty, ambiguous words. Anyway, hopefully you got the point. Your 'understanding' of 'logic' is quite similar to that of the worst totalitarian.
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:36:40 - > xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > >> Rationality is, at its >> foundation, about AGREEING on some basic foundational ideas, > > > > "I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. > I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it." > Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? ... Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined.."
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:36:40 - xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > Rationality is, at its > foundation, about AGREEING on some basic foundational ideas, "I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it."
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
>> I'm not anti-rationalist, any more than I am anti-wrench. It's a >> tool. And when it is a useful too, I'm more than willing to use it. >> >> But not all problems are mere nuts and bolts. > > > It's the only valid tool for rational discussions. But you > want to be able to use rational arguments if they serve your > purpose and play the irrationalist card when the argument > doesn't go your way. Neat. Ah, now this is telling. Please take a moment, and consider our mutual choice of words here: I used the word "useful." Whereas you chose the word "valid." It is quite natural that "rationality" is the only "valid" tool for "rational discussions." This is a tautology. Sometimes tautologies can be quite profound, but in this case, I'm not finding it. But I chose the word useful. I chose that word because often times in "rational discussions" the participants cannot agree on basic axioms and perspective from which to reason. Rationality is, at its foundation, about AGREEING on some basic foundational ideas, and PROCEEDING from them. When the bedrock cannot be found, reason as a tool has no purchase. The teeth of the wrench have no bite. When this happens (among other times), rationality ceases to be useful, and one goes round and round getting nowhere in the discussion. As we have. It is at that point that I begin to make fun of the entirety of the discussion. It is at that point that I bring in "irrational" (more properly - non-rational) modes of thought to inform the discussion. Sometimes, they can help provide the friction needed to move forward. Other times there is such a great insistence on thinking only just a certain way, and such a volatile response to bringing in any other considerations, that I'm then content to just go into foolishness mode and fuck with the other participant. I may not get ideas from the "discussions" but I'll get ideas for a turn of phrase or such, and that's fun too. > Feel free to reply with the same nonsense, and have the last > word... Oh, we both know you won't let that happen. But thanks. Alternatively, you're welcome to the 'last word' so long as those words are simply a disagreement with what I've ACTUALLY said, rather than a misrepresentation, attack, or some pathetic conspiracy delusion.
yahoo sux
Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for US intelligence-sources http://dailym.ai/2dOI1gj via http://dailym.ai/android Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Yahoo covertly built a program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information
Spotted in Ars: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/report-fbi-andor-nsa-ordered-yahoo-to-build-secret-e-mail-search-tool/ Yahooâs CISO resigned in 2015 over secret e-mail search tool ordered by feds Reuters: Yahoo "complied with a classified US government directive." Cyrus Farivar - 10/4/2016, 1:59 PM According to a new report by Reuters citing anonymous intelligence officials, in 2015, Yahoo covertly built a secret âcustom software program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information.â Reuters noted that Yahoo âcomplied with a classified US government directive, scanning hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts at the behest of the National Security Agency or FBI, said two former employees and a third person apprised of the events.â It is not clear what data, if any, was handed over. Further Reading Yahoo exec goes mano a mano with NSA director over crypto backdoors Presuming that the report is correct, it would represent essentially the digital equivalent of a general warrantâwhich is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, as Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Andrew Crocker noted on Twitter. The Fourth Amendment implications are staggering. Yahoo as agent of government scans all email, devoid of probable cause, particularity, etc pic.twitter.com/kx510PHH9n â Andrew Crocker (@agcrocker) October 4, 2016 This seems to be the first known case of an American Internet company acting on behalf of the government to search messages in near real timeâprevious operations captured stored data or intercepted only a handful of target accounts. As Reuters also reported, Yahoo's then-Chief Information Security Officer, Alex Stamos, resigned in protest once he found out about the secret program. Stamos now works at Facebook. Yahoo did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment.
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:42:24 - xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > Besides since you are an anti-rationalist, why would you > > care about any 'refutation'. > > I'm not anti-rationalist, any more than I am anti-wrench. It's a > tool. And when it is a useful too, I'm more than willing to use it. > > But not all problems are mere nuts and bolts. It's the only valid tool for rational discussions. But you want to be able to use rational arguments if they serve your purpose and play the irrationalist card when the argument doesn't go your way. Neat. > > > >> lulz. You're ridiculous, which is why I enjoy saying ridiculous > >> things in return, sweet tits. > > > > > > And that sums it up. In reality, what you say to me is the > > very exact garbage you put in all your posts. You type the mental > > vomits that your brain creates. Like your proposal for a > > 'community' run cyber police state "little sister". Sick - > > but rather useful as a clue to what you really are. > > Yes, it does: a realist. Nope. A surveillance ideologue. As to the 'realist' bit, see above. It's a variation on your basic scam theme. You are a 'realist' only when it suits you. Are you a realist? Well, in real reality the state is all powerful. That is it. Wait, you pretend to believe that the state "shouldn't" be all powerful?? What kind of 'real' 'realist' would go against 'reality'?? > I don't like the idea of surveillance in > general. Just as I don't like the idea of nukes, in general. But I'm > a realist. Nukes, unfortunately, do in fact exist. In this, > nation-states found the only workable strategy to be a strategy of > mutual deterrence; so I find that this same strategy may be the only > one workable with regards to a police state and surveillance. > > What's sick, to my way of thinking, is to KNOW that the state has > surveillance abilities, and to oppose citizenry from making an equally > capable system to keep the state/police in check. Exactly what a (state sponsored) surveillance ideologue would say. Of course your 'community' police state wouldn't 'check' the other police at all, it would simply make things worse. But then again, since you only use rational arguments and 'realism'/'idealism' when it suits you, anything you say is pretty much meaningless or 'trolling'. Just be at least 1% honest and don't complain when you get treated exactly the way you deserve to be treated, that is, as a scam artist whose tricks are old and obvious. > That would be like > opposing the Soviet's from pursuing nukes when they knew America had > them. It's, frankly, nonsensical. > > If I could, somehow, make all surveillance technology either cease to > exist, or in some way moot, I'd happily do so. As I would for nukes. > > But that isn't reality. > > I don't engage much with ideology, LOL! > and the 'should be' nature of > people's opinions. "should be" is a (moral/non-realist) category only you are allowed to use, and only when it suits you. Rest of your message is the same as the first part, and the same as all your other messages, so I'll 'ignore' it. Feel free to reply with the same nonsense, and have the last word... > I understand that the sunset might well be > prettier if there were some greens, or silvers thrown in. Maybe > things "should be" that way, according to your aethstetic, and I > would likely agree so long as we're talking deep greens, and not some > garish color. I might like two moons, as well. > > But it is irrelevant, because are not not that way, and anything you > might do to the atmosphere to make some nice shades of green show > up, would most surely make a worse mess of things than we already > have. > > What is. Not what is not. 'Rational' 'principled' 'idealistic' > thinkers tend to have difficulty in this. I get it. I really do. I > once had difficulty with it as well. > > But then one day I realized its far better to appreciate the sunset, > and do what you can to keep the park you're enjoying it in cleanly, > than to sit around pissing and moaning about the garbage and how the > sunset doesn't even have the appropriate colors. >
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
> Besides since you are an anti-rationalist, why would you care > about any 'refutation'. I'm not anti-rationalist, any more than I am anti-wrench. It's a tool. And when it is a useful too, I'm more than willing to use it. But not all problems are mere nuts and bolts. >> lulz. You're ridiculous, which is why I enjoy saying ridiculous >> things in return, sweet tits. > > > And that sums it up. In reality, what you say to me is the very > exact garbage you put in all your posts. You type the mental > vomits that your brain creates. Like your proposal for a > 'community' run cyber police state "little sister". Sick - but > rather useful as a clue to what you really are. Yes, it does: a realist. I don't like the idea of surveillance in general. Just as I don't like the idea of nukes, in general. But I'm a realist. Nukes, unfortunately, do in fact exist. In this, nation-states found the only workable strategy to be a strategy of mutual deterrence; so I find that this same strategy may be the only one workable with regards to a police state and surveillance. What's sick, to my way of thinking, is to KNOW that the state has surveillance abilities, and to oppose citizenry from making an equally capable system to keep the state/police in check. That would be like opposing the Soviet's from pursuing nukes when they knew America had them. It's, frankly, nonsensical. If I could, somehow, make all surveillance technology either cease to exist, or in some way moot, I'd happily do so. As I would for nukes. But that isn't reality. I don't engage much with ideology, and the 'should be' nature of people's opinions. I understand that the sunset might well be prettier if there were some greens, or silvers thrown in. Maybe things "should be" that way, according to your aethstetic, and I would likely agree so long as we're talking deep greens, and not some garish color. I might like two moons, as well. But it is irrelevant, because are not not that way, and anything you might do to the atmosphere to make some nice shades of green show up, would most surely make a worse mess of things than we already have. What is. Not what is not. 'Rational' 'principled' 'idealistic' thinkers tend to have difficulty in this. I get it. I really do. I once had difficulty with it as well. But then one day I realized its far better to appreciate the sunset, and do what you can to keep the park you're enjoying it in cleanly, than to sit around pissing and moaning about the garbage and how the sunset doesn't even have the appropriate colors.
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 05:11:49 - xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > > > It's quite clear that your idiotic ramblings are anything > > but accurate. But of course, since your goal is propaganda, > > accuracy is something you don't want at all. > > Thank you with going for the a-list troll move once again and > ignoring and cutting things you can't refute. mate, out of the 100% of stupid propaganda you write, I cut 90% of it. No sane person can deal with your mental vomits. Besides since you are an anti-rationalist, why would you care about any 'refutation'. > And to be clear: not > taking the time to respond to a point, is one thing. But RESPONDING > by ignoring what was actually said, Actually, I respond to what you actually say, not to all the garbage you put around it. I am so sorry that your scam 'artist' tricks get you nowhere, piece-of-shit. > > xorcist bottom line? DON"T MESS WITH MY BUDDIES THE > > ANGLO-AMERIKUNTS - WE HAVE THE PSYCHIARIC RIGHT TO RULE THE > > WORLD. > > lulz. You're ridiculous, which is why I enjoy saying ridiculous > things in return, sweet tits. And that sums it up. In reality, what you say to me is the very exact garbage you put in all your posts. You type the mental vomits that your brain creates. Like your proposal for a 'community' run cyber police state "little sister". Sick - but rather useful as a clue to what you really are. > > >
Re: "Tor is dead technology"
On 10/04/2016 09:39 AM, Steve Kinney wrote: > > > On 10/03/2016 09:59 PM, Razer wrote: >> The poster of that tweet, @thegrugq, 'security researcher', also >> said: "the government doesn’t use Tor." > >> https://twitter.com/attractr/status/783014723226861568 > >> Comments? > > "I was familiar with TOR and had it previously installed on a computer > to anonymously monitor the social media website of militia groups > operating within central Iraq." - Chelsea Manning, March 2013 Pretty sure he meant for secure government communications but thanks for that... Rr > > So as of 2009 or so, U.S. Army intelligence was still using TOR for > its originally stated purpose. I have not seen any indications that > they have something better today; against its intended targets, TOR > "just works." TOR has a daily user base of 1-3/4 to 2 million, a fair > sized crowd to hide in. The likely alternative would be to > impersonate a "normal" user via a fast VPN connection set up to spoof > one's location and identity - and I am sure the intel services are all > set up for that, where and as they have reasons to look perfectly > normal vs. standing out as TOR users. > > > > > 0xA18AF1AD.asc Description: application/pgp-keys
Re: "Tor is dead technology"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/03/2016 09:59 PM, Razer wrote: > The poster of that tweet, @thegrugq, 'security researcher', also > said: "the government doesn’t use Tor." > > https://twitter.com/attractr/status/783014723226861568 > > Comments? "I was familiar with TOR and had it previously installed on a computer to anonymously monitor the social media website of militia groups operating within central Iraq." - Chelsea Manning, March 2013 So as of 2009 or so, U.S. Army intelligence was still using TOR for its originally stated purpose. I have not seen any indications that they have something better today; against its intended targets, TOR "just works." TOR has a daily user base of 1-3/4 to 2 million, a fair sized crowd to hide in. The likely alternative would be to impersonate a "normal" user via a fast VPN connection set up to spoof one's location and identity - and I am sure the intel services are all set up for that, where and as they have reasons to look perfectly normal vs. standing out as TOR users. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX89s1AAoJEECU6c5XzmuqqhsH/RwOEpjq8YPBcVGZFmScsxFy gS/QzjHwwtskYUoLOnUSJsERF9LA/2Gn+9LUKjP/X96LzIfsv5IYtSTCCvVktL26 U6RlPSECntw/s8rV2h8I9ChitMsU4s3LANQrNy+aGv7A5J8A4X0z6RReEGdQS8+J vYEF2Ta94q56g0+aArijKg3wdCTsD8ABrRlH8qRsTbBsaAlMx58+MH4xZJtER5ed jyF8YOD/LJj/GZS/a9F03sVTerNuuHz2+JGf56j8Iuz800Q7lLzX6hX842fdoZmh IDPVA8rnQAjX7sUnodQK7/JtjxL7xHuSMzkHvPNVaFNtlMvWS682HmXjwTohG4g= =mI2e -END PGP SIGNATURE-
DefecTor ... meet DetecTor
"DetecTor is an open source project to implement client side SSL/TLS MITM detection, compromised CA detection and server impersonation detection, by making use of the Tor network." http://detector.io/
Re: "Tor is dead technology"
> As X said, it DOES sort of tip the opponent off that you have something > to hide, but whether they can identify 'you'... especially using > something like Tails that spoofs your mac address and leaves no trace > that you've ever done anything more than power up at a given time. > > So if you're in some internet cafe in Singapore with a hundred other > people walking in and out using the connection, the IP of entrance to > the tor network just doesn't do a lot to identify you unless perhaps > you're already being surveilled. > > Over time, if under surveillance the opponent could find a correlation > between your presence and tor's use. Again, that why I've said 'the more > users the better'. If everyone in that Singapore cafe was using it. the > opponent would still be drawing a blank about your identity. Yeah, in this respect the difficulties of Tor are much like the difficulties of deniable encryption. Using it at all is in a certain way incriminating. Its one of the main reasons why I try to explore novel, legitimate uses of Tor, quite apart from anonymity. It's ability to reach beyond firewalls for hosting is quite novel; unfortunately there isn't much legitimate purpose for this. Personally I don't have a problem with exfiltrating/liberating data from corporate coffers, but it is generally frowned upon more widely. But I wonder if there is a market for such an Internet cafe. An internet cafe that provides wifi for your device, and a few on-premises computers, and tunnels all connections through Tor as a matter of policy. I'd certainly hang out there, just as a matter of geek-chic if nothing else. Could also serve as a kind of base-of-operations for wider public education about cryptography, privacy, security, and so on.
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
> It's worse than that :( In that I agree with much of what he says. Or at > least, I get his perspective, as part of a working understanding. But > he's clearly not interested in that :( So it goes. Yeah. It's like I told a friend of mine once during a discussion. "That is a lucid, cogent, well thought-out opinion." "But I disagree." I have a working theory related to Christianity in this regard. I find that in cultures not rooted in Christianity, people seem to be more accepting of disagreements, and understand that disagreements are quite natural and are to be respectfully explored, but that this should represent no difficulty towards understanding. Whereas, those from Christian cultures used to all the preaching and such tend to develop the idea that there is only one way to think, and if you think differently then, well YOU MUST BE CONVERTED! This seems to break down somewhat, however, in regards to Russians; whom while Orthodoxy is a deep cultural influence, also have very nuanced linguistic forms like 'Da nyet' (yes no). It's use to express a somewhat undecided negative answer in some contexts, or to contradict someone. Or 'da nyet navernoe' (yes no maybe) to express a negative answer, but which is decidedly undecided. But the important point is the 'da nyet', while usable to contradict someone, has no personal pronouns involved. So, while in English one must say 'You are wrong.' or 'I disagree' .. in Russian, and other languages too, the subtext becomes more "There is disagreement" with the personal side taken out. I suspect this is why, in English speaking countries, talking politics or religion carries a certain social taboo in many situations, while in Russia there seems to be a much greater expectation to talk about such things with new people, in order to get to know them. Just a little applied Chomskyism today, I suppose. > >> Alas, I have difficulty accepting the heat death of the universe as >> well; >> I suppose that's 'on me' as they say. > > I'm rooting for a big crunch :) > Me too! I'm too big of a fan of symmetry to think otherwise.
Re: "Tor is dead technology"
On 10/04/2016 05:58 AM, John Newman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 06:59:57PM -0700, Razer wrote: >> The poster of that tweet, @thegrugq, 'security researcher', also said: >> "the government doesn???t use Tor." >> >> https://twitter.com/attractr/status/783014723226861568 >> >> Comments? > > I would think US governemnt actors, using tor, would be some of the > only people that might have a reasonable expectation that it works... > not because their traffic or metadata about their traffic can't be > pwned to some extent, but because they work for or with some of > the only people capable of such attacks (the NSA). > > Tor is not secure against a GPA... but is the US/NSA the only "real" > GPA that counts? > > > John > Or if the government is surveilling them it's for 'quality assurance' and it doesn't matter anyway. When I suggested that there might be two tors. One for them and one for us, it elicited the 'government doesn't use it' response. As X said, it DOES sort of tip the opponent off that you have something to hide, but whether they can identify 'you'... especially using something like Tails that spoofs your mac address and leaves no trace that you've ever done anything more than power up at a given time. So if you're in some internet cafe in Singapore with a hundred other people walking in and out using the connection, the IP of entrance to the tor network just doesn't do a lot to identify you unless perhaps you're already being surveilled. Over time, if under surveillance the opponent could find a correlation between your presence and tor's use. Again, that why I've said 'the more users the better'. If everyone in that Singapore cafe was using it. the opponent would still be drawing a blank about your identity. Rr
Re: [WAR] Leaked recording proves John Kerry pushed for massive war in Syria, while Saudi Arabia and Turkey funded Al Qaeda
On Oct 3, 2016 9:16 PM, "John" wrote: > > Careful - Alex is gonna jump you guys shit for mocking his FSB butt brother ;) My dear John, being sincere, I was considering to move to Russia... ;) http://listverse.com/2016/10/01/10-things-you-can-legally-do-if-you-go-to-the-right-country/ I would _legally_ be a happy and fluffy nyan cat, w-o-w-!!! Nyan nyan nyan... *-*
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
On 10/04/2016 07:19 AM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: >> >> Ignoring what he writes, and declining to address whatever I notice, >> works pretty well :) >> > > Truth. I should learn to look at chatter like juan's as something akin to > entropy. It's worse than that :( In that I agree with much of what he says. Or at least, I get his perspective, as part of a working understanding. But he's clearly not interested in that :( So it goes. > Alas, I have difficulty accepting the heat death of the universe as well; > I suppose that's 'on me' as they say. I'm rooting for a big crunch :)
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
> > Ignoring what he writes, and declining to address whatever I notice, > works pretty well :) > Truth. I should learn to look at chatter like juan's as something akin to entropy. Alas, I have difficulty accepting the heat death of the universe as well; I suppose that's 'on me' as they say.
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
>> Like I told ya. A dingy hotel bar napkin. I'd scan it and prove it to >> ya, >> since I know you like evidence and logic, but unfortunately I used it >> for >> cleanup and tossed it with the condom wrapper, and your mom's phone >> number >> already. True story. > > Mean :( > > I know, I know. I'm not proud of that either. I should have been a gentleman and called her back.
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
On 10/03/2016 05:22 PM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: >> http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder >> >> Were you abused as a child? >> > > No, just having some 'fun' with Juan. > > Trying different strategies to see what will actually shut him the fuck up > and just ignore me. Ignoring what he writes, and declining to address whatever I notice, works pretty well :)
Re: "Tor is dead technology"
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 06:59:57PM -0700, Razer wrote: > The poster of that tweet, @thegrugq, 'security researcher', also said: > "the government doesn???t use Tor." > > https://twitter.com/attractr/status/783014723226861568 > > Comments? I would think US governemnt actors, using tor, would be some of the only people that might have a reasonable expectation that it works... not because their traffic or metadata about their traffic can't be pwned to some extent, but because they work for or with some of the only people capable of such attacks (the NSA). Tor is not secure against a GPA... but is the US/NSA the only "real" GPA that counts? John signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.
On 10/03/2016 02:00 PM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: >> Not 'we'. I'm commenting on the estalishment progaganda you >> post. > > Yah. > >> >> What? You can't come up with any decent answer, piece-of-shit >> psychobabble scam artist? > > Actually, I found that answer quite entertaining. And seeing that our > previous interaction has proven to me that you will persist in > intentionally misrepresenting anything I write, and ignoring those parts > which you can't misrepresent, I have already decided that my future > interactions with you will be for entertainment purposes only. > > So how about that margarita there, Juanita? Hey, everyone sane gets there eventually :) >> xorcist's bottom line : society is great after all and don't >> rock the boat or the terrists will get you! > > > Yup. That is clearly what I said. And any other the people on this list > who shares your reading difficulties will obviously also get that out of > it, so there is no point in me repeating a correction that will be > willfully misinterpreted by a two-bit shit-for-brains troll like yourself. :) > But I'll be glad to flirt any time, tiger. > >> >> So, from what manual does that come from? > > Like I told ya. A dingy hotel bar napkin. I'd scan it and prove it to ya, > since I know you like evidence and logic, but unfortunately I used it for > cleanup and tossed it with the condom wrapper, and your mom's phone number > already. True story. Mean :(
