Re: Trap guns, black baggers, and Arlington Road
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:43:26 -0800, you wrote: -- how does a property owner authenticate a person or group claiming to be cops? Flashing a badge is not enough, as badges for hundreds of jurisdictions are for sale by mail order, gun shows, and probably lots of other shops. (For the uninitiated, these are _actual_ badges and/or nearly perfect replicas...they are absolutely undistinguishable from real badges, so say concerned cops.) Apart from constitutional considerations, no-knock laws are bad. If its people are to have a respect for law, a nation must have respectable laws, and no law is respectable if it authorizes officers to act like burglars, and robs the people of the only means they have for determining whether those who seek to invade their habitations violently or by stealth are officers or burglars. United States Senator Sam Ervin of Watergate fame.
Re: Dell Dude Arrested for Pot
At 4:22 PM -0800 on 2/10/03, Tim May wrote: In this age of the War on (Some) Dictators and the War on (Some) Drugs, the persecutors have to pick their targets for maximum effect. Hence the impending life sentence for the Berkeley guy who committed thoughtcrime by writing books and articles about growing marijuana. Force shits on Reason's back. --Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack -- R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lex vincula justitiae
Re: Putting the NSA Data Overwrite Standard Legend to Death... (fwd)
at Monday, February 10, 2003 3:20 AM, Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say: On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Sunder wrote: The OS doesn't boot until you type in your passphrase, plug in your USB fob, etc. and allow it to read the key. Like, Duh! You know, you really ought to stop smoking crack. Spin doctor bullshit, you're not addressing the issue which is the mounting of an encrypted partition -before- the OS loads (eg lilo, which by the way doesn't really 'mount' a partition, encrypted or otherwise - it just follows a vector to a boot image that gets dumped into ram and the cpu gets a vector to execute it - one would hope it was the -intended- OS or fs de-encryption algorithm). What does that do? Nothing (unless you're the attacker). indeed. it usually boots a kernel image with whatever modules are required to get the main system up and running; There are two and only two general applications for such an approach. A standard workstation which isn't used unless there is a warm body handy. The other being a server which one doesn't want to -reboot- without human intervention. Both imply that the physical site is -secure-, that is the weakness to all the current software solutions along this line. The solution is only applicable to cold or moderately tamper-proofed systems, to prevent analysis of such systems if confiscated. It can only become a serious component in an overall scheme, but this is universally true - there is no magic shield you can fit to *anything* to solve all ills; this will add protection against the specified attacks and in fact already exists for windows (drivecrypt pluspack) - it is just non-windoze platforms that lack a product in this area.
Re: [IP] Open Source TCPA driver and white papers (fwd)
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 02:32:13PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: TPM != TCPA. TCPA with *user* control is good. The TPM is a mandatory part of the TCPA specifications. There will be no TCPA without TPM. And there will be no TCPA-enabled system with complete user control. Just look at the main specification: - users can't access nor alter the Endorsement Key - the TPM can't be disabled completely. This allows operating systems that bind (product activation ?) themselves to an unique TPM and refuse to start if it's not fully activated. If a system doesn't meet these reqirements (as the IBM paper suggests) it isn't a TCPA system. Therefore for DRM purposes TCPA and Palladium are both socially bad technologies. It's bad only if the *user* does not have control over their own machines. If each enterprise can control their own machines, completely independently of all other external organizations, then TCPA could be really useful. If only Bill Gates controls all machines, it's bad for the rest of us (but pretty damn good for Bill!!) TCPA uses some interesting possibilities that may enhance system security. But with the current specifications, it likely destroys any privacy that's left on todays systems. -- Michel Messerschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] antiVirusTestCenter, Computer Science, University of Hamburg
RE: Forced Oaths to Pieces of Cloth
While I have a lot of problem with the Pledge in any form, I think it would be greatly improved if it were made to the Constitution, rather than the flag. But wouldn't that hint to these children that they may actually have to think ? You don't have to think of a flag, you just react with (preprepared) emotions, but with a constitution... I once went to the US, in a family, for a couple of weeks, and went to high school there. I didn't know about it then, and it really took me by surprise. The whole classroom standing up to the sound the loudspeaker, like some show of warmongering made for TV in some dictatorial country. Eerie. Best of all was, we were a group of french people one day, in the library, and this happened again. We looked at each other, and tacitly decided to continue our stuff, silently, without at all disrupting their ceremony. No more than two minutes after the end of it, we got the head of the library come to us, knowing we were french, and telling us we *had* to do it... That was *years* ago. You bet that after that, some people forget to think altogether and refer back to this thorough brainwashing they had when they were kids. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
RE: Forced Oaths to Pieces of Cloth
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: But wouldn't that hint to these children that they may actually have to think ? You don't have to think of a flag, you just react with (preprepared) emotions, but with a constitution... No reason we can't start a movement to plege alegiance to the constitution :-) Best of all was, we were a group of french people one day, in the library, and this happened again. We looked at each other, and tacitly decided to continue our stuff, silently, without at all disrupting their ceremony. No more than two minutes after the end of it, we got the head of the library come to us, knowing we were french, and telling us we *had* to do it... That was *years* ago. Some 40+ years ago we had to learn it in kindergarten. One kid refused and they took him out of class. I never saw him again. I think he had other problems (learning disability of some sort) but you can bet it scared the shit out of the rest of us. Ever since I've despised the plege ceremony. It really is brainwashing, and it only works on the robots :-) You bet that after that, some people forget to think altogether and refer back to this thorough brainwashing they had when they were kids. Unless it has an opposite effect, and you're scarred for life to watch out for brainwashing. It's interesting watching my local community deal with it, we made national news last year by *disallowing* the pledge (kids didn't have to say it). Whooboy, talk about a tempest in a teapot! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: [IP] Open Source TCPA driver and white papers (fwd)
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Michel Messerschmidt wrote: The TPM is a mandatory part of the TCPA specifications. There will be no TCPA without TPM. That makes sense, TPM is just key storage. And there will be no TCPA-enabled system with complete user control. Just look at the main specification: - users can't access nor alter the Endorsement Key - the TPM can't be disabled completely. This allows operating systems that bind (product activation ?) themselves to an unique TPM and refuse to start if it's not fully activated. If a system doesn't meet these reqirements (as the IBM paper suggests) it isn't a TCPA system. Not having access to the secret key inside the TPM is what makes the hardware secure. Not being able to disable it is a problem for sure. To me that implies the user does not have control. So my idea of a good TCPA is not part of the spec. Too bad. That makes it impossible to sell to anyone with a brain cell left. TCPA uses some interesting possibilities that may enhance system security. But with the current specifications, it likely destroys any privacy that's left on todays systems. If they want to sell it, they'll have to fix the specs. Any IT pro is going to explain to the CEO how it allows somebody else access to all a companies data, and poof, TCPA goes away. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Snake Oil That Will Not Die
Oh look, it's a brand new fluff piece on Meganet and their Virtual Matrix Encryption, deconstructed years ago in various forums, including this one. http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.1998.01.01-1998.01.07/msg00047.html Why on earth is the Department of Labor giving them money? Meganet now claims that all other encryption methods have been compromised - except for theirs, of course. Titter. http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPageenDisplay=viewenDispWhat=objectenDispWho=Articles%5El306enZone=TechnologyenVersion=0; - Company develops unbreakable data encryption code By Nicky Blackburn February 09, 2003 Meganet has won a $4 million tender to supply the U.S. Department of Labor with information encryption and digital signatures for its 18,000 employees. Meganet, an Israeli-U.S. data security company, has developed an encryption technology that appears to be unbreakable, enabling governments and corporations, to keep their data safely out of the hands of competitors, thieves and saboteurs. Among the clients that believe in their ability to protect sensitive information is the U.S. government ... Meganet Corporation's founder, Saul Backal, claims that its solution can put an end to these problems. Meganet offers a patented non-linear data mapping technology, called VME (Virtual Matrix Encryption), that creates exceptionally random cipher text and combines it with a one million-bit key, which is unheard of in today's data security markets. Competing solutions offer a maximum of 256 bits. There is nothing stronger in existence, says 38-year-old Backal, a dual Israeli-U.S. citizen who was a tank commander in the IDF in the Lebanon war. All other encryption methods have been compromised in the last five to six years. ... -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
Here in war-preparing America, reports are running on CNN, CNBC, CBS, and presumably other networks about the importance of some basic emergency supplies for all good citizen-units. This is mostly good advice, of course. Being a paranoid and a kind of survivalist, I already have first aid kits, spare water, batteries, flashlights, warm clothing, duct tape and plastic sheets, spare eyeglasses, and the other items being recommended by the experts. In fact, I have a _lot_ more than this. The idea is that the some attack by the Evil Doers in the Axis of Evil may come after the U.S. begins carpet-bombing Baghdad or Tehran or Pyongyang. Unspoken is the possibility that one of the various powderkegs may lead to a larger war. Disruption of supply lines, even civil disorder, could occur. The news channels are right in spending a couple of minutes a day talking about basic preparedness for a several day disruption. However, there's one basic item they conspicuously neglect to mention. That Item Whose Name May Not Be Spoken on Television: a gun. If there's disruption, looting, a breakdown in what now passes for civil order, a gun is just about the most important thing to have. Probably not necessary to use it, for 99.5% of everyone, but then most of the emergency things like plastic sheets and medical supplies probably won't be needed, either. But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) --Tim May The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun. --Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) I thought Ashcroft was on record as stating that the second amendment confered an individual right to own arms. Are his actions are not in accord with his words? Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the Ameican | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
My point was that a gun is an item for an emergency, not that everyone who does not now have one should buy one. Nor was my point addressing the issue of what would happen if everyone tried to buy one suddenly!? On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 12:43 PM, Trei, Peter wrote: Three points: 1. About half of US households have guns already. It's safe to assume that they will defend themselves if TSHTF. And my point is that mention of a gun in a set of emergency supplies is expected, except where the press is gun-phobic. 2. For the half which don't, a very large number of them consist of people with no firearms experience (especially since the draft ended 30 years ago), no knowledge of gun maintenance and safety, or training in how, when, and when not to use them. This overstates the dangers and care required for a gun by a wide margin. Guns are very simple, require almost no maintenance (I know friends/family who have never cleaned or oiled their guns, and yet they work fine when the trigger is pulled). 3. The supply isn't there. Guns last a very long time, and rarely need to be replaced. As a result, the stockpile of available unsold guns is much smaller than the size of the unarmed populace. Beware the but what if _everyone_ thought that way? logical fallacy. And apply your reasoning to some of those other emergency kit items being recommended, e.g., a spare pair of glasses: But if everybody tried to get eyeglass prescriptions filled, think of the chaos at Lenscrafters and Pearlevision? It would be diastrous. Just the traffic jams alone would cripple the economy. By the way, having looked at the inventory of several of the local gun shops, each has several hundred guns on display. More are in warehouses. A surge in gun buying, should it happen, would likely result in millions of handguns and rifles being shipped out of warehouses and depots to gun stores. Furthermore, many gun owners have dozens of handguns and rifles. (One friend of mine has a dozen handguns and 40 rifles. I myself have...well, a lot.) A modest increase in prices, such as would be expected if the supply isn't there market situation were true, would likely result in a lot of people deciding they'd be happy to sell that old .38 Special they've moved beyond for a modest $300. Or that old .30-30 lever action for $250. A hundred million handguns and rifles could come out of closets--without depleting the owners of more serious and modern firepower--in weeks. Not that this will happen. Most people won't get the first aid kit or water purification systems the emergency kit reports are recommended, so they wouldn't get a gun either. My point was that not mentioning guns is the dog that didn't bark. Advising on emergency kits to deal with disruptions of food, water, and power but mentioning _nothing_ about defense, is telling. Even if they live in a state where it's legal to do so without getting a license from the state first, telling the sheeple to rush out and buy shotguns would probably lose more lives to accidents than it would save, if Walmart etal didn't run out of stock first. Doubtful, but I dealt with these issues above. --Tim May That government is best which governs not at all. --Henry David Thoreau
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 11:20 AM, Bill Frantz wrote: At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) I thought Ashcroft was on record as stating that the second amendment confered an individual right to own arms. Are his actions are not in accord with his words? He talks the talk, but his Justice Department continues to enforce assault weapon laws (which are ipso fact unconstitutional, as the language of the Second makes it clear that military-type rifles for the citizen militia were the intent, not just target pistols and .22 plinkers). His DOJ continues to raid houses where gun stockpilers are believed to be. His DOJ has not charged Ruby Ridge sniper Lon Horiuchi with capital murder. And so on. He talks the talk, but he and his buddies in HomeSec are establishing a national police force, states rights be damned. If Ashcroft and Company really believed the line they publically speak, they would, for example, initiate a court challenge in California to strike down California's restrictions on evil black rifles as being unconstitutional. The impending clusterfuck (I hope) should be interesting to watch. The good news is that France and Germany are saying no to the use of NATO for Bush's war. This may break apart NATO, especially as the NATO wannabees like Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, etc. are all kowtowing to the U.S. demands. (Saddam is not an ally of liberty, and Iraq looks to be a repressive place. But I take no entangling alliances quite seriously. And unless there is a clear and present danger of an attack by or from a foreign nation, I say stay at home and avoid foreign entanglements. I have seen no evidence that Iraq launched the 9/11 attacks, so carpet-bombing Baghdad seems unjustified. Powell's smoking gun was a fizzle.) --Tim May Dogs can't conceive of a group of cats without an alpha cat. --David Honig, on the Cypherpunks list, 2001-11
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) Firearms permits were instituted in the late 1920s and were required for ownership of firearms, ammunition, or the legal ability to manufacture either. When Hitler came to power, he had the laws changed so that only members of the Nazi party could obtain a firearms permit. -- J. Eric Townsend -- jet spies com buy stuff, damnit: http://www.spies.com/jet/store.html
RE: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
Tim May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] That Item Whose Name May Not Be Spoken on Television: a gun. If there's disruption, looting, a breakdown in what now passes for civil order, a gun is just about the most important thing to have. Probably not necessary to use it, for 99.5% of everyone, but then most of the emergency things like plastic sheets and medical supplies probably won't be needed, either. [...] Your point is well taken, but: Three points: 1. About half of US households have guns already. It's safe to assume that they will defend themselves if TSHTF. 2. For the half which don't, a very large number of them consist of people with no firearms experience (especially since the draft ended 30 years ago), no knowledge of gun maintenance and safety, or training in how, when, and when not to use them. 3. The supply isn't there. Guns last a very long time, and rarely need to be replaced. As a result, the stockpile of available unsold guns is much smaller than the size of the unarmed populace. Even if they live in a state where it's legal to do so without getting a license from the state first, telling the sheeple to rush out and buy shotguns would probably lose more lives to accidents than it would save, if Walmart etal didn't run out of stock first. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the freedom to do so - far from it. But I don't think it's practical advice. Peter Trei
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tim May wrote: And so on. He talks the talk, but he and his buddies in HomeSec are establishing a national police force, states rights be damned. He's proof that you can fool just about everyone simultaneously - the NRA supports him inspite of his lack of of commitment to the 2nd. The impending clusterfuck (I hope) should be interesting to watch. I'm betting 3 days start to finish of the war portion. After that it should be interesting. The good news is that France and Germany are saying no to the use of NATO for Bush's war. This may break apart NATO, especially as the NATO wannabees like Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, etc. are all kowtowing to the U.S. demands. (Saddam is not an ally of liberty, and Iraq looks to be a repressive place. But I take no entangling alliances quite seriously. And unless there is a clear and present danger of an attack by or from a foreign nation, I say stay at home and avoid foreign entanglements. I have seen no evidence that Iraq launched the 9/11 attacks, so carpet-bombing Baghdad seems unjustified. Powell's smoking gun was a fizzle.) I've not followed it closely, but Powell claims to have a tape of Bin Laden talking to Iraqi's. Al Jazerra denys it's real. This is all from NPR. The game is afoot, let's see who can deliver the bigger lie. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: A secure government
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:25:25AM -0800, Steve Schear wrote: How about a publishing bot that creates a current and accessible db of randomly selected recent emails crossing the Internet alphabetized by sender name and email address? My guess is that if the scoundrels supplying the data cannot be found and the data cannot be removed an increasing number of people will begin to take their email privacy more seriously. Interesting idea. Implementation would be fairly trivial. The hard part would be getting samples from diferent locations. Or, you could fake emails, and have the vast majority of them be encrypted, as an example of the benefeit.
NYT: The Wimps of War
[use login: cyberpunks/cyberpunks] By PAUL KRUGMAN George W. Bush's admirers often describe his stand against Saddam Hussein as Churchillian. Yet his speeches about Iraq and for that matter about everything else have been notably lacking in promises of blood, toil, tears and sweat. Has there ever before been a leader who combined so much martial rhetoric with so few calls for sacrifice? Or to put it a bit differently: Is Mr. Bush, for all his tough talk, unwilling to admit that going to war involves some hard choices? Unfortunately, that would be all too consistent with his governing style. And though you don't hear much about it in the U.S. media, a lack of faith in Mr. Bush's staying power a fear that he will wimp out in the aftermath of war, that he won't do what is needed to rebuild Iraq is a large factor in the growing rift between Europe and the United States. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/opinion/11KRUG.html Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard P. Feynman
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:44:13 -0800, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) You are correct about the conspicuous absence of the mention of guns. Just not politically correct. Too much connection to individual action and power, which whether good, bad or indifferent is the enemy of passive submission to the state. But you damage your accurate point by accompanying it with the erroneous, but often repeated claim about Hitler confiscating guns. The Waffengesetz of March 18, 1938 did not confiscate guns from German citizens. (Of course, Jewish people were not considered German citizens under the law at that time.) There was no need to confiscate guns from the population in general. Hitler was immensely popular with Germans, and the Weimar Republic had enacted some gun control in 1928, before Hitler gained power in 1933. The Hitler Confiscation of Guns is pure urban legend, that attempts to link gun registration and confiscation with evil's 20th Centure poster boy. It's bogus. The German law certainly was not an ideal one from the viewpoint of today's beleaguered American patriot, because it did have certain licensing requirements. A permit (Waffenerwerbschein) was required to buy a handgun (but not a long gun), and a separate license (Waffenschein), good for three years, was required to carry any firearm in public. Actually, the German law was less restrictive than most state and local laws in the United States were before the current campaign to nullify the Second Amendment shifted into high gear in 1993. More significantly, it ameliorated a law which had been enacted ten years earlier by a Left-Center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government headed by Wilhelm Marx and consisting of a coalition of Socialists and Catholic Centrists). The 1938 law irritated the Jews by pointedly excluding them from the firearms business, but it clearly was not a law aimed at preventing the ownership or use of firearms, including handguns, for either sporting or self-defense purposes by German citizens. As noted above, it actually relaxed or eliminated the provisions of a pre-existing law. The facts, in brief, are these: The National Socialist government of Germany did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self-reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was alien to National Socialism. Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany five years before the National Socialists gained power. Five years after they gained power they got around to rewriting the gun law enacted by their predecessors, substantially ameliorating it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; and the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years). They may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but they had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. The highlights of the 1938 German Weapons Law (which in its entirety fills 12 pages of the Reichsgesetzblatt with legalese), especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow: Handguns may be sold or purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle-loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun. A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns. Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range. A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:00:38 -0800, you wrote: At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) Firearms permits were instituted in the late 1920s and were required for ownership of firearms, ammunition, or the legal ability to manufacture either. When Hitler came to power, he had the laws changed so that only members of the Nazi party could obtain a firearms permit. -- J. Eric Townsend -- jet spies com buy stuff, damnit: http://www.spies.com/jet/store.html This one just won't die. People keep repeating it. Not much different from Bush's Time is running out or They hate us because we love freedom. Would you like to show us the part of the twelve page German law of March, 1938 that limits gun permits to members of the Nazi party? Uh huh, I didn't think so.
Re: Forced Oaths to Pieces of Cloth
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Mike Rosing wrote: Some 40+ years ago we had to learn it in kindergarten. One kid refused and they took him out of class. His and the other kids parents were pussies. I first went to school about the same time ago, 1966 in Houston. I didn't do the pledge and they called my parents. The solution, I had to stand but didn't have to say anything. So that's what I did. Worked for 12 years of public school (of course after about the 4'th or 5'th grade I don't ever remember having to do it in school except perhaps at assembly or a sports event). Reminds me of the time in 5th grade when a teacher threatened to tie me in a chair. I told her my mother would 'beat her ass'. They called my mother, she asked the teacher and the principle if the threat had been made. They said yes. She said I was right, she would beat their asses. Pretty impressive from a women barely over 5ft. This was the same women in high school who told the principle he had better things to do with his time than bother me about not tucking my shirt in or having long hair. I wish I had a picture of the instructor in the only time I ever got detention (in HS) when they threatened me with more detention and expulsion for long hair. 'Ripping them a new asshole' only begins to describe. I did my three days and that was that. I've never put my hand on my heart or said the pledge, don't ever intend to either. I'll never sign an oath either. I've had people ask me about it, a simple 'Fuck you' resolved the problem quite nicely. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: My favorite line from the DOJ's latest draft bill
Except that there are so few of those no one has ever been able to quantify/qualify them, so we don't know what that really consists of. When you say those are you referring to bad acid trips? (Don't tell me you've never had one!) I'll grant, however, that bad trips seem to occur much more on 'cid than on natural substances. But I'll also point out that its on the bad trips where the Emporer's New Clothes are most obviously yanked away, and we SEE that all the stuff we thought held us together was more or less arbitrary or self-defeating. Unfortunately, some folks are so dependent on those illusions that they can not handle their removal, even for 4-8 hours or so, so they freak. -TD PS: It was along these lines that my comparison of a bad trip to 9/11 was meant. From: Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My favorite line from the DOJ's latest draft bill Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:11:43 -0600 On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 06:31:56PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: I'm not so sure this emperor could handle psycedelics. Might break the robotic connections Arguably, 9/11 was a bad trip, and now we're completely freaking out. Except that there are so few of those no one has ever been able to quantify/qualify them, so we don't know what that really consists of. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: My favorite line from the DOJ's latest draft bill
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 02:34:54PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Except that there are so few of those no one has ever been able to quantify/qualify them, so we don't know what that really consists of. When you say those are you referring to bad acid trips? (Don't tell me you've never had one!) As far as actual LSD goes -- none. And I did a couple hundred, anyway. Towards the end (and after it was suggested on the Senate floor that bad drugs be created and distributed on the streets to freak out LSD users), many things were sold as LSD which were not. I recall having some very strange experiences which caused me to decide to stop taking LSD. And very clearly remember someone locally who died in the emergency room after freaking out on the same batch of acid that seemed quite weird to us, they gave him thorazine and it killed him. Obviously it wasn't LSD. I then came into a large quantity of peyote -- shazaam, no more weirdness. Likewise mushrooms, ayahuasca, etc. And that is why, essentially, blotter acid came into being, because you can't get enough of anything else but LSD on that tiny piece of paper to do *anything*, so it's safe. I'll grant, however, that bad trips seem to occur much more on 'cid than on natural substances. Again, I never had a bad trip on LSD. But I'll also point out that its on the bad trips where the Emporer's New Clothes are most obviously yanked away, and we SEE that all the stuff we thought held us together was more or less arbitrary or self-defeating. Well, if you are talking about ego-loss -- that's not a bad trip, that's what is supposed to happen. Coming to some astounding realizations about the nature of the universe and our place in it is not bad, it's what seekers have spent years working towards -- all yours in a few hours. Unfortunately, some folks are so dependent on those illusions that they can not handle their removal, even for 4-8 hours or so, so they freak. Set and setting have more to do with it than anything. People who partake in powerful spiritual experiences, not just psychedelic substances, with no consideration of the consequences of what they do deserve what they get. Some people get very freaked out by a tarot reading. Most people sleep walk through life, many are completely entranced by the delusions of their preconceptions. Reality can be terrifying. Look at how many people are truly afraid of the dark, how many who fear spiders and other natural things. -TD PS: It was along these lines that my comparison of a bad trip to 9/11 was meant. From: Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My favorite line from the DOJ's latest draft bill Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:11:43 -0600 On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 06:31:56PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: I'm not so sure this emperor could handle psycedelics. Might break the robotic connections Arguably, 9/11 was a bad trip, and now we're completely freaking out. Except that there are so few of those no one has ever been able to quantify/qualify them, so we don't know what that really consists of. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: My favorite line from the DOJ's latest draft bill
Harmon Seaver wrote... As far as actual LSD goes -- none. And I did a couple hundred, anyway. Towards the end (and after it was suggested on the Senate floor that bad drugs be created and distributed on the streets to freak out LSD users), many things were sold as LSD which were not. I recall having some very strange experiences which caused me to decide to stop taking LSD. That's interesting, actually. I remember getting some very high purity windowpane, and the effect was even calming. The bad trips seem to have been associated with acid-mixed-with-speed in general. But then again, taking 'cid and wandering the streets of New York City has to be a lot more bad-trip-inducing than taking it in more rural settings. (And, there are some personality types that I know really couldn't handle LSD. These are the ones that need constant control over their social surroundings.) And very clearly remember someone locally who died in the emergency room after freaking out on the same batch of acid that seemed quite weird to us, they gave him thorazine and it killed him. Obviously it wasn't LSD. Indeed there are tons of questionable anti-drug propaganda stories out there. Like claims that Ecstacy is dangerous, despite the fact the RIGHT NOW there's probably millions of kids around the world high on it, and probably none of them will die. (The danger almost certainly comes from the fact that petty mobsters and whatnot make it in their basement.) As for LSD driving people batty, I believe it, but then again those it drove batty I think already had the seeds of battiness down deep before hand...acid was basically just miracle grow on those seeds (and LSD-induced battiness requires a LOT of acid). Then again, a HighSchool buddy of mine took it about 300 times in HS and college and he remains as blase as always. -TD Stuy's High! _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: My favorite line from the DOJ's latest draft bill
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 05:20:19PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Harmon Seaver wrote... As far as actual LSD goes -- none. And I did a couple hundred, anyway. Towards the end (and after it was suggested on the Senate floor that bad drugs be created and distributed on the streets to freak out LSD users), many things were sold as LSD which were not. I recall having some very strange experiences which caused me to decide to stop taking LSD. That's interesting, actually. I remember getting some very high purity windowpane, and the effect was even calming. The bad trips seem to have been associated with acid-mixed-with-speed in general. Early on, LSD never came in anything less than 250 mics, and frequently higher. By the time that people were mixing speed with it, actual dosages were much less (adding amphetamines to 250mic LSD is fairly pointless) and today most, from what I hear, are around 75-100 mic. Major difference and really rather worthless, unless you take 4 or so tabs of blotter. If you don't take enough to break through, you might as well take speed. But then again, taking 'cid and wandering the streets of New York City has to be a lot more bad-trip-inducing than taking it in more rural settings. Hardly. Well, wandering around anywhere is not a good idea -- set and setting are extremely important. I well recall once, on some very clean and potent LSD, walking in the woods outside a friends house on the outskirts of Madison, and getting caught in a patch of blackberrys. I not only couldn't free myself, but the vines began to grow rapidly, wrapping around my legs and torso. I was vastly relieved when Ranger Dick showed up to lend a hand, and calmly unsnagged me from their lecherous grasp. But again -- wandering around the streets? Going into bars, etc. -- worst thing to do -- these are not party drugs. (And, there are some personality types that I know really couldn't handle LSD. These are the ones that need constant control over their social surroundings.) Yup - increase their dose. Best thing that could happen to the world would be the development of a benign airforce that sprayed a fog of lsd/dmso on areas like Palestine. Real LSD, that is. Or better yet, psilocybin. 8-) And very clearly remember someone locally who died in the emergency room after freaking out on the same batch of acid that seemed quite weird to us, they gave him thorazine and it killed him. Obviously it wasn't LSD. Indeed there are tons of questionable anti-drug propaganda stories out there. Well, you can check the Congressional record, this was not rumour, it was actually proposed in the Senate, can't remember by who, but I well recall thinking, when reading about it, what a stupid idea -- and then later being very aware that something was seriously wrong with what was hitting the streets. Especially when people started dying. Hint: LSD/thorazine doesn't kill you. If, indeed, it even slows down the trip. Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: My favorite line from the DOJ's latest draft bill
On Tuesday, Feb 11, 2003, at 21:25 Europe/London, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 02:34:54PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Except that there are so few of those no one has ever been able to quantify/qualify them, so we don't know what that really consists of. When you say those are you referring to bad acid trips? (Don't tell me you've never had one!) [..] experiences which caused me to decide to stop taking LSD. And very clearly remember someone locally who died in the emergency room after freaking out on the same batch of acid that seemed quite weird to us, they gave him thorazine and it killed him. Obviously it wasn't LSD. LSD has virtually zero physical toxicity but it's possible someone could die as a result of being hysterical or choking due to psychological stress. Not that likely to happen but there are cases. It has been claimed that DOM (STP) reacts badly with thorazine but this is now not thought to be the case. It's far likely he died from the thorazine alone since it can cause cardiac arrest. I then came into a large quantity of peyote -- shazaam, no more weirdness. Likewise mushrooms, ayahuasca, etc. And that is why, essentially, blotter acid came into being, because you can't get enough of anything else but LSD on that tiny piece of paper to do *anything*, so it's safe. There have been documented seizures of DOB on blotter (particularly in Australia with its traditionally high street cost of LSD). DOB is a psychedelic which both closely resembles LSD in its effects and approaches LSD in potency (a few hundred micrograms). DOB, unlike most psychedelic drugs like LSD, can be physically toxic but at a massive overdose level (~100 milligrams) which probably wouldn't fit on a blotter. There are a lot more known drugs active at the LSD level in 2002 than 1967 but as a rough rule of thumb you are probably still basically right. The blotter is most likely to contain LSD (often as the freebase) or nothing at all. BTW blotter is unstable and likely to have a short shelf life. Microdots (containing salts) are likely to last for years. I'll grant, however, that bad trips seem to occur much more on 'cid than on natural substances. I think you are just generalising from your personal experience which may not hold for others. It's just the same as some people claiming particular alcoholic drinks are better or worse than others. The key thing about these drugs is the effects are intensively subjective and highly unpredictable. The dosage level is more likely to be related to adverse effects than the particular psychedelic drug used. In double blind tests, where neither the doctor nor the subject knows which drug is which, people can't distinguish major psychedelic drugs anyway. The only clear distinction is the duration of drug effect which does vary. This is usually denied by users of these drugs despite numerous studies supporting this since the late 1960s. Set and setting have more to do with it than anything. People who partake in Sure. Leary was right on that one. -- Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
