December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: NSA Threatens To "OUT" Republicans Over Hubbell Investigation
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Uh, what in the hell is "advanced, nuclear hardened, encryption technology" ? Matt

1 0

fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness)
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh writes: > Whether you love or hate current copyright laws, it's a stretch to argue > that it's legal to republish (by forwarding) articles in full. Who cares if it's legal or not. Copyright only "works" to the extent of readers good-will (beggarware/shareware approach "please don't copy") and to the extent that thugs from your local force monopoly can enforce it at gun-point. I think the conclusion of crypto-anarchy is that copyright seems unlikely to survive as a schelling point for making money from publications. You can make money from information provision by charging extra for up-to-date news, or by charging so little that the cost from the original provider is so low that it's not worth anyones time to redistribute it, or by providing higher bandwidth connection to the net than the mirrors, or by making do with click throughs from the percentage of people who use the original rather than the cheaper mirror. Recursive auction market is a statement of reality if you make things too expensive to the reader. Overdoing the banners may be overdoing it already, viz the banner stripping attempts. The problem from wireds point of view is that they want their 1% click through rate to derive their funds. But that is their problem, and for them to develop strategies for obtaining funds in this landscape. To say it's "not legal to republish" is saying what? that you think thugs with guns should enforce bit flow controls? That wired plans to make use of these force monopoly services? I agree with Jim and Vladimir, I find it annoying to see URLs only, and the teasers (5 lines telling cut off just where it may or may not get interesting) are irritating too, as they tell you almost nothing. I'd rather see nothing or someone summarise or post the whole thing, or at least the interesting bits if it is highly relevant. Mostly it is just background clutter, most "news" isn't interesting at all. Adam

1 0

Re: IP: Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers (fwd)
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh writes: > I'm not sure I like intellectual property laws in general -- like some > libertarians, I might prefer a contract-based system. But for now I support > civil laws to punish copyright infringements, and it seems to me it's > difficult to argue that redistributing entire articles isn't one. Ah good -- I thought you'd taken leave of your cypherpunkly senses for a moment there! (re my `fuck copyright' post). > Besides, and more importantly, it's also rude. That it might be, if it is a social says that it is polite to honor peoples requests about bit flow. But hey, if more and more people find ignoring the supposed social convention convenient, then perhaps this social convention isn't as widely adhered to as people making money off subsidized copyright enforcement thugs might like to claim it is. ie. IMO social conventions on copyright are moving, and quite fast. And copyright has a hidden cost which we are all paying for. Adam

1 0

Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vladimir writes: > what we really need is a government which can personalize its > services, and people pay for what they use. yes, agree. In other words we need freedom for business to compete in provision of all services currently monopolised by government. > more and more this is becoming technically feasible. it will bring > the potential of capitalistic competition and free markets to > govt. how? well services that no one uses will tend to whither, and > the healthy ones will receive greater budgets. But also you need multiple providers of services, otherwise your freedom of choice is limited. If you can opt out of literally any goverment service, I suspect government revenues would nearly disappear. Everything they "supply" can be supplied more cheaply by business. So what government remained would have to compete on a fair basis with private industry. > the big quandary is people who can't pay for what they use > like social security. ultimately the question is how much > money the state has the authority to collect for this kind of > thing, and the political answer has varied every year, but it > has gone up every year in the 20th century generally. I think the state should have no authority to collect anything. Charity at the point of a gun is not charity. The state is an extremely inefficient distributor of charitable funds anyway. > the big problem imho is fraud/waste/corruption in govt though. I > think if a lot of it were eliminated we would be flabbergasted at > how little a personal contribution it takes to take care of people > who need it. bureaucracies are the most expensive thing on the > planet. here's hoping that cyberspace will cut through the > *ultimate* middleman: govt. Amen to that. Adam

4 4

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May writes: > I expect banner ads to die out soon enough. The technology is just too > amenable to filters. > > Adbusters for television have been talked about for years, but I know of no > reliable adbusters...and an adbuster for t.v. doesn't save too much (since > the 2-minute or whatever gap is still there). Taping and then > fast-forwarding through ads is probably more convenient than an adbuster in > realtime. I think the idea of fast-forward for a TV would be a nice product. Say that you had a high capacity video CD hooked up to TV. Record it all in a rolling backup of the weeks TV. Then you can skip around, forward over junk (ads, unintersting patches). Probably you could combine with VCR+ or programme list to prune down the bandwidth/capacity requirements by indicating disinterest and interest, topic preferences etc. Possibly a setup like this is getting closer to feasible with storage improvements. > But for the Web, the arms race between adbusters and ad providers...seems > likely to be lost for the ad makers. > > Once some mainstream adbusters appear. > > I wonder if advertisers will try to cite some right to enjoin ad > busters from busting their ads? (Far-fetched, perhaps. But imagine > if a particular version of this filtering occurrred...imagine the > howls if Microsoft Explorer automatically filtered out the ads of > companies it disliked or was competing against? Legal? Restraint of > trade?) A new feature for some enterprising cyberspace business to provide via eternity servers perhaps -- mirrors of subscriber services, and banner stripping. Free, but account based subscriber services are annoying, eg microsoft recently stuck about 5 mins worth of forms to fill in to get at support for some thing you've already paid for, forcing you to give them free user survey material. I fill it in as Billzebub billg(a)microsoft.com etc., plus random meaningless answers so that they get dud survery info, and so that his secretary gets to filter the crufty ads. Adam

1 0

Re: Grounding (last slice of spam?)
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mixmaster-san, Sorry for prolonging the agony - I was hoping, in vain, for an admission of guilt. > > The fundamental misconception that started this whole sad comedy > of Doltish errors was Jim Dolt's belief that a Faraday cage has > to be grounded in order to suppress electromagnetic radiation. > Diagnosis: Lion taming is contraindicated, a career of public service is recommended. And this... > Now the electrons repel each other and therefor move in a > circular motion with the spark gap as the center. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ takes me on a trip with Mr. Peabody and Sherman to the place where the Huskies go... Was my question about cycling the keys for a block cipher a *useless* one or did the bit about horses offend? Horses are OK, sort of. In their own way. On someone else's nickel. Mike Snowcone, anyone?

1 0

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > cpunks actually contribute to this problem with their nihilistic > philosophy in general. the msg is that it is a waste of time > to engage in group activity or political discourse or lobbying > against the govt or organization or *whatever*... it's actually > just a variant on the sheeple passivity. "If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual." --Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment I don't think many cpunks (and other freedom loving people) are necessarily nihilistic so much as they have come to the conclusion that to ignore and/or subvert government has higher probability of success than trying to reform it -- much to the demise of the Libertarian Party. The whole cryptography and geodesic communications being the bane of the nation-state theme tends to support this idea. Matt

2 1

Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:27:14 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > No, it's that facists & socialists like yourself think we should be > happy letting you decide what our social responsibilities are. Actualy, no. I'm perfectly happy to let you run around paying no taxes on your income. The part you're not going to like is that I'm also not going to let you reap one iota of benefit from those systems that are built and developed by those of us who do pay taxes without a cost. And the cost will be more than what the necessary taxes would have been. Hell, a free-market capitalist shouldn't begrudge a tidy profit anyone under any situation. > I am perfectly willing to pay for a police force. A police force > that arrests ALLEGED rapists, treats them like human beings until found > guilty and then deals with them as the law indicates. I am NOT willing to > pay for a police force that spends most of it's time (well, aside from > eating doughnuts, drinking coffee and collecting bribes) chasing after > teenagers with illegal chemicals. I am not willing to pay for a police > force that extorts money from these same teenagers. I am not willing to pay > money for a police force that thinks it needs to arrest people for > "loitering", "Mob Action", when it's defined as more than 4 people standing > together in a public place, and ESPECIALLY when EVERY TIME THEY ARREST > SOMEONE, IT'S THROWN OUT OF COURT. Neither am I, unfortunately paying taxes or not won't resolve those sorts of issues. What is required is public over-watch groups (as was recently implimented in Austin, pisses the cops off big time) and a change in the way we run our prisons. As to the way people are currently treated prior to being found guilty at a trial is an abuse of power on the part of those parties involved and clearly cruel and unusual punishment for an innocent man. Of course the *REAL* problem isn't the police. It's the people who make the laws that the police are sworn to uphold and the judges with a social agenda (that is not relevant to their job however much they may squeel like pigs). That process *is* most certainly an ideal place to inject consideration and respect for civil liberties and the purvue of government institutions. > I am willing to pay for the streets I use. I am not willing to pay > the same fees to ride my bicycle (my current primary form of > transportation) as you do to drive your 2 ton SUV. And you probably don't now (Does a Bronco II weigh 2 tons?). In actuality you don't pay the gas taxes, the vehicle registration, license fees, inspection, requisite insurance, etc. for your bicycle. I bet you don't even have to license your bike to ride it on the city streets. > I am willing to pay for fire protection. I am not willing to pay > for "universal health care", "welfare", and other such nonsense. The Constitution happens to mention that the federal government is detailed with taking care of the general welfare. If you don't like that sort of stuff then get a Constitutional amendment passed. > In other words Jim, Fuck You. I, and I'd bet most people here, > including Mr. May, are perfectly willing, and hell even eager to pay their > share, to assume their social responcibility, they just get very, very > angry at having to pay OTHER peoples social responcibility, and get very, Unfortunately, that is what social responsibility is - giving with in personal gain. That ultimately is what drives the bee up your butt. > very angry at having to pay for other shit (Senate Luncheons and Swimming > Pools, the Militaries greatly inflated budget, all the waste that is todays > federal government). Agreed. Throwing the Constitution away won't fix that and going to a free-market monopolistic no-social-responsibility-at-all system such as anarcho-capitalism is sure won't do it. > Yes, but a state can kill those who don't wish to be governed. Can > and does routinely. Oh what hyperbole. You make it sound like the Nazi's have invaded. They haven't. Yes, there are misguided people out there. Yes, there are just plain old corrupt people out there. That won't change irrespective of the political system (or lack of one). They don't just go out and pick people off the street and shoot them you're over-reacting and succumbing to a paranoid delusion of persecution. Unless you kill somebody or move a few tons of coke your individual chances of being killed by the state is less than being struck by lightening. > But did you bother to read them this time? Actualy I read it twice before I even decide if I'm going to reply. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:25:45 -0800 > I don't think many cpunks (and other freedom loving people) are necessarily > nihilistic so much as they have come to the conclusion that to ignore and/or > subvert government has higher probability of success than trying to reform > it -- much to the demise of the Libertarian Party. There is certainly little historical evidence to support such a thesis. > The whole cryptography > and geodesic communications being the bane of the nation-state theme tends > to support this idea. Cryptography is the bane of anyone who wants to listen in, it's not just nation-states that get hit with it. As to geodesic communications, it's been around a lot longer than the Internet and nation states are still here. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: NSA Threatens To "OUT" Republicans Over Hubbell Investigation
by Harvey Rook (Exchange) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An advanced, nuclear hardened encryption device, is an encryption device that will still work after a nuke has gone off in the vicinity. Nuclear bombs emit EMP's which destroy sensitive electronics. Harv. > -----Original Message----- > Uh, what in the hell is "advanced, nuclear hardened, > encryption technology" > ? > > Matt >

1 0

charity at the point of a gun (Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:27:50 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: charity at the point of a gun (Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone) > (fwd) > What people aren't willing to pay for shouldn't happen. Period. If > that means people starve well those complaining loudest had better > dig deeper into their pockets. This attitude is exactly why such system as anarchy won't ever work. > _Then_ Jim's "No state can govern those > who don't wish to be governed" starts to become true. It's true as much now as it was at the height of the American or French Revolution. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Grounding (last slice of spam?) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 16:19:48 -0800 > From: Michael Motyka <mmotyka(a)lsil.com> > Subject: Re: Grounding (last slice of spam?) > Sorry for prolonging the agony - I was hoping, in vain, for an admission > of guilt. Ok, your guilty. > > Now the electrons repel each other and therefor move in a > > circular motion with the spark gap as the center. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > takes me on a trip with Mr. Peabody and Sherman to the place where the > Huskies go... Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that a cloud of like-charged particles expand in a cloud of equi-radius (which when looked at in side view is circular). ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

govt server architecture
by Anonymous lo14 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greetings and salutations, Can anyone share experience with U.S. government server hardware, used for medium-load computing applications (not supercomputers)? I'm looking for information on brand names, flops, etc. and where to find more.

1 0

Advanced Nuclear-Hardened Encryption Technology
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Uh, what in the hell is "advanced, nuclear hardened, encryption > technology"? advanced(1) - we fucked up so we have to classify it so nobody but us boobs will know what boobs we are advanced(2) - last year's obsolete model in a new suit to fit this year's corruption conspiracy advanced(3) - we wish we had this but we're going to hint that we do anyway to keep'em guessing nuclear-hardened(1) - bikini glass ( not applicable ) nuclear-hardened(2) - a pencil encryption technology - a copy of Gideon's and some stationary from the Beijing Hilton

1 0

RE: Advertising Creepiness
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My comments on this: Consider what advertising does: it notifies potential users/consumers about products and services which might be of use or pleasure to them. Consider who a potential audience/market is: people who might be interested in availing themselves of these products/services if they but knew of their existence. Advertising which is in keeping with the theme of the medium's message is not quite so obnoxious: for instance, when looking over a magazine like Cigar Afficionado, which is about smoking and enjoying "the good life", I see ads for cigar accessories and after-dinner liquors and places where a person can order a glass of Corvoisier (sp) and light up in good company. The ads are a logical extension of what one expects to find in those pages, they allow the reader to see where they might find and purchase the goods they are reading about and indulge in their pleasure, and so are not a nuisance - in particular as their presentation is aesthetically pleasing and in good taste. I don't expect to find there advertisements from Nature's Pantry Health Foods or an Orthopedic Hospital. I can't think right now just what advertising would be so pertinent to a news magazine in cyberspace, but I imagine the same principle applies and would make ads less a mere distraction, less jarring to the attention. Marketers aren't logical, though, are they. : : ) .. Blanc

1 0

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: 9 Nov 1998 20:40:03 -0000 > From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> > Subject: Re: Grounding (fwd) > Listen to this. Jim Dolt thinks that a spark gap inside a conductive sphere > will cause charge to build up on the surface of the sphere! The dunderhead > has forgotten about conservation of charge! No, I didn't. First off your assumption that the charge in the battery is neutral is faulty. No such point was ever made. I also mentioned this fact when I brought up the Van DeGraff. > Gauss' law says that the charge on the outer surface of a closed > conductive sphere will be equal to the net charge inside the sphere. Actualy, no it doesn't. What Gauss' Law does state is that if there is a neutral ball and there is a point charge within it there will be a contrary but equal charge imposed on the inside surface of the globe. As a result of charge conservation there must be a equal and opposite (hence negative) charge that is equal to the point charge inside the globe on the outside of the globe. > The spark gap can't change the net charge inside the sphere, it can just > move charge around. Jim Dolt has conveniently forgotten about the net > positive charge which will build up on the spark gap as it (supposedly) > emits electrons. And the anonymous person has forgotten that we never defined the mechanism of how the battery worked. It might very well have started out with a net-negative charge. I didn't invent the model, just simply worked within it. I also, on two seperate occassions, mentioned that I was not going to deal with the net charge that gets deposited on the globe because of the complexity it adds to the model. > His Doltish notion that electrons will hit the inside of the sphere > and "tunnel through" to the outside is totally confused. Suppose this > happened. We've removed negative charges from the interior of the sphere > and put them on the outside, where they would give the sphere a negative > charge. Now, what is the net charge on the interior of the sphere? > We started neutral and removed negatives, hence it's positive! Gauss' > law would imply that the sphere must have a positive charge. No, Gauss Law says at all times the charge on the sphere must stay equal for point charges. Since the spark gap is by defintion emitting electrons it doesn't qualify as a point charge. I brought this up as well in reference to the Van DeGraff. Gauss's Law does say that any excess charge on the inside of the globe will propogate to the outside of the globe. Now each of those free electrons IS a point charge. You follow Gauss's Law through the same process and what do you get....a charge equal to the electron on the outside of the surface. > The whole idea is ludicrous. No charge can spontaneously appear on > the outside of an ideal closed conductive sphere. This would be a > violation of the law of conservation of charge. No, it wouldn't. The charge inside the sphere is exactly canceled by the charge induced on the inside of the sphere (+ + - = 0) by Gauss's Law. Now since the sphere is neutral, and we've induced that positive charge there must be a balancing negative charge. That charge rests on the other (outside) surface of the sphere. All that's taken place is that the universe has created a situation where you can't steal charge and hide it where it can't be found. That WOULD violate conservation of charge. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Blanc" <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:16:15 -0800 > You know, guys, it doesn't matter what sort of tax system is set up, if it > doesn't begin with one very fundamentally, essential, crucial, important point: > respect for the sovereignty of the individual. This means respect for their > individual agreement, their informed consent, to any arrangement to be taken up > by them. > > If, at any point in time - either before, during, or after a plan for obtaining > moneys from citizen-units is instigated - it loses sight of the purpose for > setting up the whole thing, then it's worthless anyway. If it doesn't support > the highest ideal of humanity - unit by unit, individual by individual, human > beings qua their separate existence - then it is not serving their purposes, > but only the purpose of those who identify themselves as the State: employees of > the State, leaders of the State, keepers of the State, goalies of the State, > wards of the State, etc. Jesus, it's a miracle. Blanc and I actualy agree....I think I'm gonna faint. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:23:20 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > Usualy !=3D Correctly. > > Take tomatoes. Perfectly legal (AFAIK) everywhere, here in this > country a 5 year old child can buy a tomato from a farmer with a stand on > the side of the road. > > If you go back 10 years, and if "this country" was the soviet > union, a tomato purchased from the wrong person could get you in trouble. So what are saying...that because any government ever happened to abuse its citizens in a particular way is justification to do away with all government? This is a strawman. > This is true in this coutry. Licquor is legal if purchased thru the > approved store. > > Try selling the same thing out of the back of your truck. > > It is the product, or how the product is sold. Well actualy it's whether it has a tax stamp whether you sell it out of a storefront or a truckbed is irrelevent. Considering the number of people who died in the late 1800's and early 1900's because of moonshine liquor from contaminated stills that were unregulated (where were those fine upstanding ethical considerate eco-anarchists then?) it's probably a good thing that it's illegal to sell untaxed and therefore anonymous alcohol. > So take ampthetimines (well, don't take them, but take the case of > them), if I get them from Joe Random Drug Dealer, it's black Market, if I > get them from Paul the Doctor, it's "white" market. Not necessarily. The doctor has to have a medicaly supportable reason to dispence those drugs. Otherwise it's just as black market as Joe's. > In fact, if I get them from Paul the Doctor, and then sell them to > someone else, I am selling them on the black market, even if I recieved > them legally, so in this case, it isn't how the item was aquired, it's > whether the _sale_, the *exchange* is legal. So, we've already established this as a viable mechanism. Rehash old hash. > I didn't think of theft when I wrote the above, and I don't usually Didn't think of theft? Jesus H. Christ, you gotta be on Joe's drugs. The vast majority of material sold on *ANY* black market is stolen from its rightful owner. It is *the* example of black market trading that most folks think of first. > I still maintain that as one moves closer to a completely free > market, there is less and less of a black market, and to be the extrememe > case of a free market, there would be the potential to trade in both human > lives, and in stolen property. Well, at least you're an honest eco-anarchist. And how do you propose to stop this sort of behaviour (it's clear that there is a market whether the economy is free-market or not) without some sort of 3rd party arbiter (call it government or not is irrelevant to the point)? > In a free market, the selling of stolen > goods might not be a crime in and of itself, but the posession of those > things could be, How the hell do you sell something on the black market if you don't have possession of it? And exactly who is going to prosecute anyone for possession? Since we've done away with laws governing economics and trade there isn't even a court to try the perps in if we did apprehend them ourselves. and the aquireing would be, as well, the _hiring_ of an > assassin might be legal, as long as no killing took place. When it does, > you hang the assassin on murder, and the hirer on conspiracy, aiding and > abetting or whatever, and stick them in the same cell. Huh? Who is doing all this arresting and writing of laws, and building jails, and staffing prisons, or hiring hangmen? We're not in Kansas anymore toto.... ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

How to make non-neutral charge batteries...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One way a person could generate a battery suitable for the spark gap experiment to address the conservation of charge issues related to the battery is to build a mechanism such as: 2N e- 1N p+ | | | | |-------------| |--------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | |------0 0------------------0 0--| \ \ spark gap switch The two vertical plates above are not a capacitor. They simply represent some mechanism to hold charge, Leyden Jars for example. Now when the switch is closed 1 N of e- will combine with 1 N of p+ to form a neutralization of charge. That will leave a net 1N of e- that will represent a point charge of that value. That charge will be exposed at the right contact of the spark gap above. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "X" <xasper8d(a)lobo.net> > Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 11:31:00 -0700 > Sorry, everyone, for this crap coming up, but JIM CHOATE wants you all to > see it... > > Jim, > > You keep reposting this to the cpunx list, and I keep trying to discuss it > with you in private. I have zero desire to discuss this in private. If you don't want to discuss it here then we won't discuss it. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of your system was a two-tiered > payment schedule where Group A could be called TaxPayers and Group B could > be called NON-Payers. Right? > > And basically, Group A would get all of the benefits that a fully paid > membership would entail, right? Secondly, Group B would "not pay taxes" and > would NOT be entitled to any benefits save for on a pay-as-you-go type > arrangement. Right? > > What USGov't services do you include in your proposal? Each and every one of them, except the criminal courts. I would include the state and local government as well. Perhaps you could think of it as a discount card....;) > (feel free to jump in with some more.) You're doin' fine. > U.S. Mail services If you don't show them your tax receipt before Jan. 1 of each year they will remove your address from their delivery list until you do so. If you don't either pick it up there in person within 10 days, every 10 days it goes back. The Constitution says they have to deliver your mail. It doesn't say they have to drop it on your front step. Personaly I think this would be a great position for those folks who have learning disabilities but still need a job. The irritation factor alone would be worth it...;) > Common defense Already covered that one. > Air traffic controlling When you buy your ticket from a commercial carrier and don't present a tax receipt your ticket price goes WAY! up. > roadways and interstates Already covered them too. > Food and Drug Administration approvals When you buy food or drugs if you don't present your tax receipt then you pay the full price for foods and drugs. > Federally mandated minimum wage I also covered this one already. > automobile safety standards See the one above. > Is your tax progressive or regressive? Depends on what *you* mean by progressive or regressive. Personaly I would go for a flat tax rate but a scaled mechanism would be ok. It isn't the particular scaling mechanism that I dislike about our current tax system. > If I'm right so far (which I may or may not be) then we have to talk about > your definition of "paying taxes." Taking a percentage of your monetary income each period (say a year) and sending it to an address. That address is the suitable tax agent who then distributes the monies into the appropriate account according to law. The suitable civic agencies can then draw funds according to law. > Does a single woman raising five kids > and paying a small mortgage making $14,200 per year pay taxes? No, > unfortunately for her, she doesn't. I guess that puts her smack into GROUP > B! Well, that's simple enough! Not at all, simply because she is unfortunate enough not to have the income necessary to participate without causing harm to herself and her family (perhaps) is no reason to deny her those rights. I'd give her a receipt that would look just like anybody elses. Now if she didn't want to apply for it by sending in the paperwork that's her decision. From a government perspective she is participating fully in the process, it isn't the amount of money (as foreign as that may be to eco-anarchists and free-market mavens) that is the issue but the willingness to participate. Nobody is forcing her to do anything, it's all of her own volition. > We'll deny her the creature comforts of the > list above until she chips in her proportionate cost, right? When that > libertarian bitch tries to send mail, we'll charge her more! WHen she gets > on the freeway, we'll toll her! When she buys a medicine for her snot-nosed > urchin, we'll give her the stuff that ain't been FDA approved, right? > RIGHT! And, if ever we should need to attack another country (or defend > ours, as you pointed out) SHE'LL happily volunteer to serve (as I remember > your post) in order to protect her TAX-FREE STATUS. No, that isn't right. As to participating in the military, no I didn't give anyone a choice. I said *draft*, you didn't give up your citizenship when you gave up your tax participation. Now if you want to give that up to then we won't draft you but you'll be one broke puppy trying to pay all the bills as a non-tax-participant and a non-citizen. > As you said to me, she's probably just looking for someone to shoulder her > part of the load, right? I said to you? > You said it would be easy to implement, right? I don't see that it would be > easy at all. As hard as this may be to take, your ability to see it doesn't effect it's viability. > Once again, I apologize for the OFF TOPIC nature of this, but MR. COHATE > (freudian slip, or merely coincidence? you be the judge!) insisted on > duking this out in public. Um, actualy YOU responded to my post. I didn't start this with you. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

securities - PRIVATE PLACEMENT WSG TECH, INC.
by private＠soon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Opportunities in manufacturing and marketing patented products. This announcement is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy these securities. Sales will be made only by a final Offering Memorandum and only in states where these securities may be offered in compliance with the securities laws of such states. The final Offering Memorandum will NOT be available to residents of the states of Hawaii, Washington, or Wisconsin. PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM REGULATION - RULE 504 UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933. 500,000 Shares of Common class non-voting stock. (Par Value $.001 Per Share) $2.00 Per Share with a 5,000 Share Minimum of WSG Tech, Inc. WSG Tech, Inc. (Company), a Nevada corporation was incorporated in Nevada in August 1998. The Company owns the manufacturing and distribution rights, or has the Options to the rights of several commercially viable patented products, and is negotiating for others. The firm also owns the option to purchase an established manufacturing firm with over twenty (20) years of continuous profitable performance. The completion of this purchase will give WSG Tech, Inc. complete control over the manufacturing, sales, distribution and fulfillment of its own products. It will also give the Company a core business of manufacturing for other clients as well as an experienced production and sales staff. The Company has recently concluded an Agreement with an International marketing firm, and is negotiating an agreement for the manufacture and distribution of its products in Europe and South America. The Company's corporate mailing address is P.O. Box 541732 Lake Worth, Florida 33454 USA The company is offering to the public an invitation to participate in the funding of the company. For a copy of the Offering Memorandum, you may contact the Company's investment consultant, e-mail us at privateplacement(a)bigfoot.com Be sure to put "Send Me A Copy" in the Subject Line and include your name and address.

1 0

Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:13:57 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > Prove it. Prove that in a competitive market certain goods and > services will be MORE expensive than in a Government-as-Supplier. Ok. Let's use the example of fire stations and insurance companies that came up earlier. What do you suppose the impact on the bottem line will be by increasing the amount of non-income-producing-services that such a situation would require? Each insurance company would be responsible for many, many stations scattered all over the country. This means some sort of centralized mechanism to create policies and other procedures and their requisite costs. Now, consider what that means to the payment each policy holder is going to have to deal with. It's going to be large because it's going to have to take up for parts of the company that don't bring in policy income but still require service coverage. Now by distributing this system out and assigning it to governments and providing equitable service to all, no questions asked they're there we, we get a system that is reasonable in cost and provides good responce. And we don't have to pay the insurance company a bunch of money to do a job they don't want to do (otherwise they'd be in the fire fighting business and not the insurance business). > How many Corporations you know buy $300 hammers, or $1000 toilet > seats? Lot's of them throw good money after bad. All businesses do. It's human nature. I know of one company that got so carried away with spending for little dribbles and drips that they ended up having to stop hiring new employees that the company desperately needs. I used to work for one, Compu-Add, that led to its final demise. > >capitalist shouldn't begrudge a tidy profit anyone under any situation. > > I don't begrudge a profit where it's due. Bill Clinton isn't due. > Neither is Newt Gingrinch, or any other Feeding at the government trough > pig. Agreed. But the solution is term limits on Congress-critters and a re-vamping of some critical laws. > No, the problem is the police. To quote (IIRC) Lydia Lunch: > > "Neo Nazis with night stick dicks, no brains but banging into yours > in the middle of the night looking for whatever don't fit in with their > ideologically unsound version of reality". Well I happen to come from that sub-culture so I can speak from experience. The majority of times I or my friends were hassled we were asking for it. Knowing Lydia's reputation I'd suspect she'd agree. > The cops in the larger cities are so fucken dirty that a "citizens > oversight commision" will either be a politically packed joke, or wind up > changing members every couple months from attrition. If anything interesting happens here in Austin with the new over-sight group I'll send a pointer. > >That process *is* most certainly an ideal place to inject consideration and > >respect for civil liberties and the purvue of government institutions. > > Oh, and that has been working OH SO WELL thus far. No, and that's my point. > No I don't. but check the numbers, there is a $6000 LESS collected > in road taxes (average) PER CAR for each car in america. That $6k comes out > of my pockets as well, How the hell do you figure that one? It may come out of YOUR state taxes but it certainly doesn't come out of mine (I don't have state taxes). The funds for road and such is collected solely through gasoline and auto related sales taxes in Texas. Perhaps you should fix your state government... Now if you're talking about the federal taxes for roads, that has NOTHING to do with your or my driving vehicles on those roads. It has to do with a program implimented in the early 20th century to create a good road net in the US for military use. The taxes are justified in principle, if not in amount, through commen defense. > If that is the interpretation, then the document is morally flawed. Interpeted? We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. > How many millions have died in the last 100 years IN wars started > by and for the advantage of the state? Most of the wars of this century were started either by people acting in concert willingly (eg Nazi Germany) or pure accident (eg Prince Ferdinand has already lived through one assissination attempt, a reasonable man would have gone home). > How many died at the hands of Stalin, Hitler. and other dictators? A lot more than at the hand of honest people, which is my point as well. These were people, not governments. The citizens willingness to participate aided and abetted each and every one of them and weakens your use of them in your defence. > The state, whether here in the US, or in other countries tends to > treat the humans that comprise it with little concern for their health or > livelyhood, Yep, I see lots of that every day. In one hand you complain about welfare and then in the other claim that the state is uncaring. Can you please make up your mind? > If you have citizens that are honest, principled, and willing to > assist those around them, you have no need for a "state". Yeah, and if frogs has wings they wouldn't bump their butt when they jumped. If your process relies on this it's doomed from the get go. This ain't Vulcan. > Without honesty and principles you have Slick Willy. And Bubba next door as well as that face that stares out at you every morning. > There are 1.7 million people struck by lightning every year? There aren't 1.7M poeple killed in the US by the LEA's. That would be about 1-in-150. There are several hundred people killed by lightening each year in the US. The number of people killed in activity complicent with LEA's is probably not a great deal (at most an order of magnitude) over that. > it's subjects are my neighbors. No, we don't kill as many, but name one > country that has jailed more of it's subjects, and the truth is, we are > getting worse. Agreed, one of the reasons I support this mailing list and my local activities. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > Date: Mon, 09 Nov 98 14:10:11 -0800 > From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> > Jim: the govt is the way it is because the sheeple of this > country have let it get out of control for many decades. > the idea that "someone else handles that stuff" has infected > our consciousness. govt is something WE handle if we want > a good one. if you want something done right, do it yourself. I agree in principle. I also believe though that the people who are taking advantage of the peoples character (it's mentioned in the Declaration of Indipendance) do so in a pre-meditated way. The people may bear some blame but they're not doing it out of malice and malpheasance. > cpunks actually contribute to this problem with their nihilistic > philosophy in general. the msg is that it is a waste of time > to engage in group activity or political discourse or lobbying > against the govt or organization or *whatever*... it's actually > just a variant on the sheeple passivity. sheeple are like, "that's > not my job". cpunks are like, "it is a waste of time and energy > to do that job". what's the difference in the end?? It's like those punk kids dressed in leather, tatoos, and pierced body parts yammering about being different, yet they all look the same. > the govt can be turned around very, very quickly if the public > stops sucking down sixpacks and being hypnotized by meaningless > dribble of sporting events and sitcoms that parade endlessly > across their nanosecond attention span. maybe they might read > even more than a comic book or pornographic magazine some day. > the political class *intentionally* created this bread and > circus atmosphere and are hiding behind the scenes as we > speak. no dorothy do not look at the man behind the curtain. I agree. Though I don't believe it necessarily requires the majority to do it. If it does then we may be doomed before we even start. As long as the government recognizes in any shape, form, or fashion that majority rule is limited by individual rights there is a chance that a small group dedicated and forthright can overcome. > who seek it. "when the student is ready the teacher will appear" God, ain't that the truth. I'm drowning in the damn books trying to keep up with just a couple of my personal interests. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: NSA Threatens To "OUT" Republicans Over Hubbell Investigation
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yes, I assumed as much. But it is electronic circuits that are EMP/nuclear hardened, not the "encryption technology." We have a populace that doesn't understand what cryptography is, such reckless statements don't help, especially putting nuclear and encryption in the same sentence. For as much as I hate Clinton, encryption is mathematics, period. National security fearmongering to spite Clinton does not help the encryption awareness/freedom campaign. Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Harvey Rook (Exchange) [mailto:hrook@exchange.microsoft.com] > > An advanced, nuclear hardened encryption device, is an > encryption device that will still work after a nuke has > gone off in the vicinity. Nuclear bombs emit EMP's which > destroy sensitive electronics. > > Harv. > > > -----Original Message----- > > Uh, what in the hell is "advanced, nuclear hardened, > > encryption technology"

3 2

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > nihilistic so much as they have come to the conclusion that > > to ignore and/or subvert government has higher probability > > of success than trying to reform it -- much to the demise > > of the Libertarian Party. > > There is certainly little historical evidence to support such > a thesis. My thesis that this is a common sentiment? Who the @#%$ is talking about history, try looking around. No, I'm talking 1950's to present, and particularly 1990's and the internet-libertarian culture. I think this sentiment is historically unprecedented. The thesis that to ignore the nation-state will see it's demise? Well we really need a financial system that they don't control, which has been promised with financial cryptography but has yet to arrive. I don't think it's time to throw in the towel yet. Matt

1 0