December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/ciavideo.html " Aircraft with natural stability, whether a toy glider, a Cessna, or a 747, achieve that stability by designing the aircraft so that the center of gravity is slightly foreward of the center of lift. The plane is balanced by the pressure of the tail downward, called the "tail drag". By keeping the aerodymic center (the wings) aft of the center of gravity, the plane is kept naturally stable. It will fly with the nose foreward. The same with the flights of a dart or the fletching on an arrow. The stable configuration is with the aerodynamic center to the rear of the center of gravity. With the exception of modern combat CCV aircraft, which require computer control to maintain stability, all aircraft, from the Wright Flyer to the Space Shuttle, follow these same principles. Without the nose, the center of gravity of the aircraft would move aft of the aerodynamic center. Continued level flight in that configuration is an impossability. Trying to fly a 747 without it's nose would be like trying to throw a dart backwards. Both would tumble, trying to swap ends. In the case of the 747, the wings, even if they did not tear off while flat on to the 340 knot airstream, would lose all lift, and gravity would take over. "

1 0

Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:12:02 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Further costs of war > > At 1:43 PM -0700 11/23/97, Jim Choate wrote: > ... > >Any particular methodology you might care to share on stopping WWII? > >Being an avid amateur historian concerning WWII I am very much interested in > >any insight you might have. > > Not entering the war. Do you have a particular method in mind? > There's ample evidence that the U.S. provoked the > Japanese in various ways. Such as? > (I'm not saying the Japanese were blameless, or > lily-white, or"nice," etc., only that most historians agree--and Japanese > archives support--that the Japanese were motivated to attack Pearl Harbor > in the hope that a devastating first blow would sink enough ships, etc., to > cause America to back off in its actions in the ironically named Pacific.) So how does Tojo and his out of control Kwantung Army figure into this? Do you feel that Japans Co-prosperity Sphere was a benign goal? How do you consign your position that we provoked Japan with their behaviour in such situations as Nanking? > Had the U.S. concentrated on its own affairs, on just trade, it is unlikely > that what the Japanese were doing in Malaysia, Manchuria, Korea, Indochina, > and the Phillipines would have had any major interest for us. The Phillipines at the time were a US protectorate, is your position that we should have simply turned them over without a fight? Korea was ceeded to Japan as a result of the 1903 defeat of Russia, how is this relevant to your position? Let's assume for a moment that the US hadn't gotten involved. The Japanese would have eventualy gotten to Australia. Once there what would have kept them from expanding their co-prosperity sphere eastward in order to better stabalize their resources. When they knocked on Guam or Midway's door should we have let them go like the Phillipines? How about the Japanese's eventual expansion into the Allutians? Should we have simply given Alaska to them as well? Is your position that once they had the western half of the pacific rim they would have no pretentions on the eastern half? What do you base this on? > As for Europe, this was even less our war than the Pacific war. Really? How so? Is your position that Germany would have benignly left the US alone once they had defeated Britian (I am assuming of course the US hadn't shipped resources such as oil and fuel to them)? Had the US not gotten into the war the resources available to Germany and Japan were such they could realisticaly have beaten the Russian. One of the reasons that Russia had the resources to reinforce the eastern front was their ability to remove troops from the Chinese border based on Richard Sorge's intelligence. > In a sense, so _what_ if some army from some nation was rolling over other > armies? That depends on where they stop their rolling. Is your position that if we had refused to support conflicts against Japan and Germany all would have been well? Are you proposing that Germany would not have advanced with their atomic research? Completed development on their jet-based New York Bomber? > Those who wanted to liberate the death camps, or to push Hitler back into > Gerrmany, or to kick the Emperor's butt could, of course, simply go over > and volunteer. In a free society, mercenaries are legal. Volunteer to who? > The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was, > arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified. Justifiable war? How is the invasion of the US by British troops significantly different than the invasion by German or Japanese troops? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

3 2

Choate Doesn't Do His Homework
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Choate wrote: >Make up your own mind on the validity of the claims. I prefer facts when it comes to making up my mind instead of baseless claims. For the others on this list who prefer the same, let me set the record straight... Jim Choate wrote: >It has been claimed that the original claim by Bob and anonymous was that >the first Great Awakening ended by the late 18'th century. This is a >complete fabrication. Yes, and you are the fabricator. Bob claimed it happened in the 19th century (see Fact 1 below). I claimed it happened in the early 18th century (see Fact 3 below). > The original claim put forth clearly references dates >in the 1800's as the date of the first instance, clearly 50-100 years in >error from the original Great Awakening that occurred between 1700-1750. For the umpteenth time, that was Bob's original claim, not mine. See above. > In >my original posting I (thought) made it clear that I didn't quite know when >the original event occurred but was certain it ended prior to the late >1700's which would clearly pre-date the original claim. I subsequently took >the time to provide references for those citation and clearly indicated >where my memory was in error, and even took the time to explain my confusion >regarding the 'Beacon on the Hill' movement. In responce Bob and apparently >anonymous made it clear that they saw no reason to do 'homework' >irrespective of the impact of historical accuracy on their claims. Bullshit! I did my homework. You (and Bob) didn't. But because I am a nice guy, I share it with you here. The bottomline is that you screwed up, Jim. You misread my original post (confusing the 18th century for the 1800's) and started this whole chain of events. The facts (not the claims) clearly bear this out. Nerthus _________________ T H E F A C T S [note: I have edited the attribution lines for clarity, but all posts are referenced to the Cypherpunk Archive] F A C T 1: <http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0556.html> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:10:17 -0500 Robert Hettinga wrote: >Jim Choate wrote: >> Um, I believe that went from the late 1500's to the early 1700's at best. > >Nope. Check it out. As defined in any decent book of American history, >well, maybe one that hasn't been too "revised" :-), the "Great Awakening", >which gave us most of our American-flavored religions, happened in the >early part of the 19th century, though rumblings started shortly after the >revolution. F A C T 2: <http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0036.html> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:54:37 -0600 (CST) Jim Choate wrote: > X-within-URL: http://www.gnbvoc.mec.edu/webquest/PPERRY3.htm > > 2ND GREAT AWAKENING & WESTWARD EXPANSION > > 1815-1850 F A C T 3: <http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0055.html> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 02:25:01 -0000 Nerthus wrote: >Jim Choate wrote [in response to Bob]: >>After thinking about this I am certain that you are speaking of a movement >>other than the Great Awakening. I can't remember or find a convenient name >>for the religous/ethical awakening that occured prior to the Civil War. > >"THE GREAT AWAKENING > >"A conservative reaction against the world view of the new science was >bound to follow, and the first half of the eighteenth century witnessed a >number of religious revivals in both England and America. They were >sometimes desperate efforts to reassert the old values in the face of the >new and, oddly enough, were themselves the direct product of the new cult of >feeling, a philosophy which argued that man's greatest pleasure was derived >from the good he did for others and that his sympathetic emotions (his joy as >well as his tears) should not be contained." > > -- The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Third Edition, Volume 1 F A C T 4: <http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0056.html> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:38:10 -0600 (CST) Jim Choate wrote: >Nerthus wrote: >> "THE GREAT AWAKENING > >No, "The Second Great Awakening" which happened to be followed by "The Third >Great Awakening". > >You didn't read the various posts that I sent out earlier on this did you... [Once again, yes I did. 1815-1850 does not equal early 18th century!] F A C T 5: <http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0143.html> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:54:09 -0600 (CST) Jim Choate wrote: >Nerthus Wrote: >> Uh, Hello? Your post entitled "1st Great Awakening" describes the exact >> same thing that I called simply, "The Great Awakening." It was not, as you >> say above, the 2nd one. > >They are they same if we ignore the fact that there is 50+ years between >the 1st (1700-1750) and the 2nd (1800-1850). >I did some looking around as well and other then Norton, yourself, and >whoever it was that made the original claim all references I can find to >the Great Awakening refer to the 1700-1750 event(s) as the first one to >occur in the America's. If I can find my Norton Anthology I'll take a >look at it, though it is 15+ years old. [Once again, Norton and myself referenced the Great Awakening to the early 1700's/18th century: see Fact 3] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNHj40+FWwZe05jcJAQE1owf/d9ihdJarbBBEJFL5xMaEoIn+L9BdZIgZ zybreEvcfSpXpQUOcv0n0Ze9QyFz12z6iuv+rEeOhFSawR1MgIUyWK4Q314rnVdl e9vuZ1gGI1VFr3NIFksGiVODS5OprFqT59gDKhcl4NLnrQL7z29+pHA8PNfEKJ8B 3I0cuuJWvOeAZ775xMnU7Z7sTJ51S1R6qNmjYKsbAkyGACzR4cjmUT/5+Y6IwW3N 1nJJPKgq4tQbpUUNSVw5Xn3p++nBzMjvdXcqWy7zGAa/vZGSnGMTLRWNYjHtcOE+ l440LoHzVk3B+hSC7P8GB5S/qAj23vTufv2sOd7QDfNDXqLhwMj0hg== =/wWH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

DIANA : The Unrevealed Pics (NEW URL)
by paparazzi＠www.kornet.nm.kr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE=3> Note : If you want your name permanently REMOVED from this list, please e-mail : removelist(a)mlweb.com For the first time on the internet, here are the UNREVEALED pics of DIANA ! Given the sensitive nature of the materials involved, only adults will access the site. Go to http://151.196.201.51/diana/ </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3>

1 0

Tremble Bureaucrats
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:38 PM 11/23/97 -0500, Jon Galt wrote: >On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Mikhael Frieden wrote: > >> At 08:12 PM 11/18/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >(May) >> >And what would be wrong with this? >(Frieden) >> Not a damned thing. While in this country they are in the act of >> committing a crime. >And who is it that gets to decide what is a "crime" and what is not? It would appear to me that an illegal in the country is as much in the act of committing a crime as a burglar is while in a place other than his own. >The >politicos, the bureaucrats, the hoodlums in DC and elsewhere who think >they have the right to run the lives of everybody else. The politicians are responding to voters. The voters who are pressuring them are siding with foreign nationals against the interests of the United States which is presumed to be their new country of loyalty. That siding should be sufficient justification remove citizenship and return them to the land of dysentary and mui Ninos. >Again I ask the question: >What gives the hoodlums in Washington DC the right to draw a line on a >map and control people's travel across that line? The people who made handgun ownership a felony gave them that right. Lawmakers are resonsible for all foreseeable consequences not just the intended consequences. -=-=- The 2nd guarantees all the rest.

2 1

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord ?"; $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"reno"} = "<middleman(a)cyberpass.net> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{"cracker"} = "<remailer(a)anon.efga.org> cpunk mix remix pgp hash ksub esub latent cut ek reord post"; $remailer{'redneck'} = '<config(a)anon.efga.org> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"bureau42"} = "<remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org> cpunk mix pgp ksub hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"neva"} = "<remailer(a)neva.org> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub ?"; $remailer{"lcs"} = "<mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> mix"; $remailer{"medusa"} = "<medusa(a)weasel.owl.de> mix middle" $remailer{"McCain"} = "<mccain(a)notatla.demon.co.uk> mix middle"; $remailer{"valdeez"} = "<valdeez(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"arrid"} = "<arrid(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"hera"} = "<goddesshera(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"htuttle"} = "<h_tuttle(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp hash latent cut post ek"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer(a)crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix reno winsock) (weasel squirrel medusa) (cracker redneck) (nym lcs) (valdeez arrid hera) This remailer list is somewhat phooey. Go check out http://www.publius.net/rlist.html for a good one. Last update: Thu 23 Oct 97 15:48:06 PDT remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- hera goddesshera(a)juno.com ------------ 5:03:45 99.86% nym config(a)nym.alias.net +*#**#**### :34 95.82% redneck config(a)anon.efga.org #*##*+#**** 2:00 95.44% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com +++ ++++++* 19:18 95.27% squirrel mix(a)squirrel.owl.de -- ---+--- 2:34:19 95.16% cyber alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net *++***+ ++ 11:26 95.11% replay remailer(a)replay.com **** *** 10:06 94.93% arrid arrid(a)juno.com ----.------ 8:50:34 94.41% bureau42 remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org --------- 3:38:29 93.53% cracker remailer(a)anon.efga.org + +*+*+*+ 16:32 92.80% jam remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca + +*-++++ 24:14 92.79% winsock winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net -..-..---- 9:59:18 92.22% neva remailer(a)neva.org ------****+ 1:03:02 90.39% valdeez valdeez(a)juno.com 4:58:22 -36.97% reno middleman(a)cyberpass.net 1:01:28 -2.65% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien

1 0

Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:45:35 -0500 (EST) > From: Jon Galt <jongalt(a)pinn.net> > Subject: Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism > being committed. (Of course there is another definition of crime.) How about an act which harms a person or their property without their prior permission? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Further costs of war
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th >being unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what >the Supreme Court says it is, unfortunately. Personally, I do not believe in the infallibility of the Supreme Court. The people on the Court are just people. They can make mistakes. They can have ulterior motives. They can be corrupt. The Constitution is understood by many people to be something like a charter in which the people of the United States granted the government certain powers, reserving all others to themselves. The Constitution has meaning. The Supreme Court may not amend this meaning, it may only interpret it. When the Court makes a decision which is obviously not consistent with the meaning of the Constitution it is reasonable to say that the Court is in error. In an extreme situation many people would say that it is reasonable for the people of the United States to revoke the Charter granted to this government. Consider this scenario: Chief Justice Rehnquist appears in Court wearing a tutu. He declares that the Court has just decided that in emergency situations it is proper and Constitutional for the Supreme Court to take control of the government to protect democracy. Would it be reasonable to say that the Constitution had changed or would it be reasonable to put the Chief Justice in the loony bin? Let's take an example from history. The United States decides to enter World War I. People who are opposed to this war and to the draft make speeches opposing both policies. A law is passed forbidding this activity. The Chief Justice declares that speech may be controlled if it is akin to "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie house." Following this logic, the government jails people who speak against the War and the draft. One of these people, Eugene Debs, campaigns from jail for the Presidency and gets about a million votes. Would it be proper to conclude that speaking against the War may be punished Constitutionally or that the Court had failed to carry out its duties? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHm/SZaWtjSmRH/5AQEifgf/U1n6bFaEy66IyuezGhSG0AbDPCKBfwWd iMuqhy5ZoHqJR/v0RHw2Wupp3ACuYe/CgUrrftN0bzr8WaWThMr8H2kxsnxNoHX4 0cowJfnRxnJkSNoFKYa+t3y/otjYW+YRWBfoyKktvwiK30r7H2jisKPAoOCir8NP W5P10QhzKAvCp/16sCEpqYbzbXDnaiY9D55E6Ew7mLEECeGm+raATUvayksA+BT/ RNhZXQTYMYk7AfeqKxp7fuikQegTRbwC8d4G0jT6kduFOWvI4YaQIKam+eR8Dec9 jzDO5ckcPLaB80p6jQEc0nob4ltBz4mbDqqnc2YBfsAvTSKBIGKKCQ== =IzrC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism (fwd)
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:19:18 -0600 From: TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> Reply-To: 6ualdv8(a)sk.sympatico.ca To: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes(a)ssds.com> Subject: Re: Report on UN conference on Internet and racism Jim Burnes wrote: > (ahem...now back to your regularly scheduled silliness) Jim, Did you get enough drugs to share with *everybody*? Actually I'm fresh out. I think I'll go back to the coffee pot and brew some more... ;-)

1 0