December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

EVEN MORE FREE PORN: STUFFED HAS 10 LINKS TO 100S OF FREE PICS, NEW EVERY DAY
by STUFFED SAT OCT 17 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + SATAN'S CIRCUS + SIMPLY STUNNING + EURO SLUTS + ZEE ASS + NAUGHTY LADY + CAILEY'S PRECIOUS PIX + ANAL CLIMAX + MATURE WOMEN + MAD PUSSY + ALL DAY PUSSY PARTY + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/13035.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/19998.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/21450.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/20953.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/32403.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- If you haven't visited STUFFED in the last few days, you're in for a real treat. It's faster than ever before and now, as a subscriber, you get 35 FREE new pics every day, plus over 100 more at carefully selected FREE sites we link to. This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

Adam Back
by Pallas Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=35781839

1 0

IP: ISPI Clips 5.47: High-Tech Spying Gear Not Just For 007
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 5.47: High-Tech Spying Gear Not Just For 007 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:37:06 -0700 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 5.47: High-Tech Spying Gear Not Just For 007 News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Friday October 16, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: ABC News.com, October 7, 1998 http://www.abcnews.com Surveillance Tools Get Smarter, Smaller What the Watchers Use http://www.abcnews.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/spytech981007.html By Chris Stamper, spies(a)stamper.com ABCNEWS.com Are you being watched? Or listened to? High-tech spying gear is making surveillance easier as the equipment gets smaller. And its not restricted to Big Brother. The Searchcam allows for filming in tight corners.(Surveillance Systems) Bill DeArman, a senior special agent of the Customs Service, says that most privacy threats today come from gizmos bought in shopping malls, not obtained on the black market from KGB or Mossad defectors. A cheap disposable camera or a hand-held tape recorder can be as dangerous as the latest surveillance equipment. People are looking for the ultimate gizmos, but the people who commit crimes arent necessarily high-tech, DeArman says. What the Pros Use: But if its the high-end, expensive gear you want, thats increasingly available to civilians. Pinhole video cameras, for example, can be hidden in an wide variety of household products. You need a hole as small as 1/16 of an inch. says Jeff Hall, vice president of Gadgets By Design, a Lansing, Mich.-based company that makes surveillance equipment. Weve put them in light fixtures, computers and VCRs. A basic pinhole video cam costs $129, according to Hall. Theyre called pinhole because they have extremely small lenses, not because they resemble the toys children make from oatmeal boxes. A wire runs from the tiny TV camera to a transmitter or a recording VCR. Halls company has hidden these cameras in hats, thermostats, wristwatches and smoke detectors. Most of the companys sales come from businesses that want to keep track of their stock or watch their employees. If you wanted to put a camcorder in the back room, its hard to do that inconspicuously, he says. We have to get smaller and smaller to stay one step ahead of the bad guys. The Latest Fashion: A New York company called Electronic Security Products sells wearable cameras disguised as brooches, pens and eyeglasses. Theyre used for recording video one-on-one, says company president Avi Gilor. A wire runs from the camera to a transmitter concealed in a pocket. If theres no light to see by, then infrared can come in handy. Bakersfield, Calif.-based Search Systems sells the probelike Searchcam ($10,687) to law enforcement and rescue workers in tight corners. An infrared camera shaped like a long nightstick, the Searchcam is meant to be poked into small openings such as heat vents, doorways and windowsills. Officers in a high-risk situation can extend their eyes and ears in places where they wouldnt put their heads, says Scott Park, president of Search Systems. Listen to BirdsNot People: U.S. law says little about video surveillance, so just about anyone can watch you without fear of prosecution. Audio surveillance, on the other hand, is regulated by the 1984 Omnibus Crime Control Act, and arrests and prosecutions for eavesdropping are not uncommon. Ronald Kimble, Americas biggest spy shop owner, is currently serving a five-month sentence after being busted in 1995 on 70 counts of dealing in illegal wiretapping equipment. Kimble spent 11 years as an agent with the Drug Enforcement Agency before starting a chain of stores called The Spy Factory. Bugging devices, often hidden in household items, are confiscated daily at the border by Customs agents. The Customs Service says the law is too weak, however; criminals only face up to six months for each count of importing spy equipment. A camera could be hiding in what appears to be a thermostat. (Gadgets by Design) The consensus of opinion is that technology has grown so rapidly, so quickly, that laws arent up to speed, says agent DeArman. Often the legality of an item depends on its use. Parabolic microphones, for example, can be legally used for bird-watching or for professionally recording sports events. These devices, which look like small, hand-held satellite dishes, are 75 times more powerful than standard mikes and usually cost about $900. A parabolic microphone, if it looks like a dish at a football game, is a legal device, DeArman says If you disguise it as an umbrella to listen to what people have to say, then its illegal. Copyright (c)1998 ABCNEWS --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a regular bases (up to 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you value in the ISPI Clips service or if you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Clips Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Clips Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: Silent Weapon of Mass Destruction
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Silent Weapon of Mass Destruction Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:25:31 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Washington Times http://www.WashTimes.com/opinion/grenier.html The silent weapon By Richard Grenier THE WASHINGTON TIMES There is a certain logic to it, I suppose. Two nuclear explosions in Japan half a century ago, with great blasts, great noise, mushroom clouds, many dead. It terrified America and much of the world and, except for military circles, little thought was given to the estimated million American soldiers who might have given their lives if they'd tried to storm Japan without the nuclear bombs' aid. But that's the way it goes. A historical event surrounded by great theatrical effects makes a really big impression. But what if the next weapon of mass destruction is silent, gives no warning, is not preceded by a pyrotechnic blast, but takes effect more slowly, leaving hospitals swamped, and millions in great American cities with hideously blistered faces dying in the streets? The doctors sent to succor them also die the same painful and unsightly deaths. For biological weapons now have the potential to wipe out cities, states and even entire national populations if positioned in the air, water supply or food supply. The food supply would progressively be shipped to various parts of the country, ultimately killing millions of people. And all, except for the groans of the dying, could be done in relative silence, with only the piles of dead in the streets to bear witness as in the Plague Years of the Middle Ages. As pointed out by former Secretary of Defense William Perry, most biological agents are sensitive to heat, and ready-to-eat foods are the most likely vehicles for mass contamination. So eat up your Quick Burger and fries with confidence that death will soon follow. Food processing plants and water purification facilities also provide tempting targets. Microorganisms, it should be noted, are a very inexpensive way to exterminate entire populations. Above all, many microorganisms can be cheaply grown, each having its own unique uses. As stressed by Carl Yaeger of Utah Valley State College and Steven Fustero, IACSP Director of Operations, this is a great advantage in deciding the effect wished to be brought about on the section of the population at which the attack is directed. Since the organisms are capable of rapid reproduction, only a small amount is required to infect a very large area. But possibly more interesting than the large area to be infected is the selectivity. With the development of biochemistry and genetic engineering, it might be possible to target ethnic groups -- which, once it is announced to the general public, should do wonders for the harmony of America's various ethnic and racial groupings. Judging by some recent events, there are not a few extremist groups in the United States that would give little thought to wiping out thousands of "undesirables." This kind of germ weapon would be highly prized in the hands of terrorist groups, and in the hands of these terrorists could well be more lethal than tactical nuclear weapons. A terrorist can accomplish his agenda in many ways with biological weapons. Terrorists are creative and use varying tactics, as is spelled out in Yonah Alexander's book "International Terrorism." The book gives an alarming list of different styles of terrorism in different parts of the world. Contributing to the problem is the easy availability of information for anyone who would mix up a bag of anything toxic from recipes readily accessible on the internet. As Fred Reed points out in his essay "Publishing Do It Yourself Munitions Books Increases the Risk of Terrorism," much of this information is not that hard to get. Even nerve gas has a patent that makes the formula public. Biological weapons do not have a single, unique effect. Human beings along with other animals are constantly being attacked by disease-causing bacteria and viruses. Biological weapons, for the most part, create the same effects as any of the wide variety of naturally occurring diseases, which makes tracking them down so baffling. These artificial agents could be used merely to weaken the targeted population, to intimidate it with no intention of inflicting wide scale casualties, or simply to wipe it out. The options are many. Biological agents can also be selective in another way, as they could be used to target crops and cattle or to start an epidemic of a highly dangerous disease such as smallpox. Furthermore, if an agent were released in the proper way, it could be months before anyone even knew how the epidemic had started. And there are many other advantages of using biological weapons. Terrorists do not necessarily need or want a weapon of mass destruction. A simpler biological weapon might be more controllable and kill enough people to suit the terrorists' purposes. Still another advantage could be secrecy and concealment. Limited attacks could be carried out secretly before open "hostilities" even began. As you can see, a whole new age of warfare is beginning. According to an excellent PBS "Frontline" documentary aired this week, the Soviet Union, even under Mikhail Gorbachev, had already broken an international agreement restricting chemical and biological weapons. But given the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent chaos into which Russia has since been plunged, where are those Russian weapons now? Perhaps, wherever they are -- and this is an uneasy thought -- they could be prepared to kill millions by being disseminated in the air by cans of hair spray. But most Americans don't want to think about this. Copyright © 1998 News World Communications, Inc. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

2 1

CL: The Economist on Giddens, Hayek & the LSE
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Beware of socialists pitching new paradigms. Maybe the Economist hasn't succumbed to the "Cool Brittania" backwash as much as I thought it did -- nawwww.... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:50:19 EDT Reply-To: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Hayek-L List Host <HayekList(a)AOL.COM> Subject: CL: The Economist on Giddens, Hayek & the LSE To: HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU >> Current Literature < -- Giddens / Political Thought at the LSE 'Bagehot', "The third way revealed", _The Economist_. Sept 19, 1998. >From the article: "SOMETIMES you want to read a book a second time. You know, just to make sure that there was nothing important you missed first time around. In the end, though, Bagehot decided to skip the second reading of Anthony Giddens's "The Third Way" .. For the time being, first impressions must stand. This book is awesomely, magisterially and in some ways disturbingly vacuous. Why disturbing? There are many bad books in the world. But the third way is not just a parlour game for intellectuals puzzling over the content of politics now that both socialism and "unbridled" capitalism are in disrepute. It has become the quasi-official political philosophy of Britain's governing party, and is taken seriously enough to form the backdrop for a curious political seminar that Bill and Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair and Romano Prodi, the prime minister of Italy, plan to conduct in New York on September 23rd. Nor is "The Third Way" just any other book about what the third way is. It is the first detailed account of it by the man who has become its chief British prophet and interpreter. Even by the standards of the London School of Economics, which provided a base for the likes of Friedrich Hayek, the Webbs and Harold Laski, its present director exerts a powerful influence on Downing Street. Of Mr Giddens (who, thanks to Mr Blair, shall be Lord Giddens hereafter), as of no other living sociologist, it can be said that what he thinks matters. So what does he think? A large part of"The Third Way" consists of a description of where things stand after the death of socialism. Mr Giddens homes in on "five dilemmas". In merciful summary, these are (i) that globalisation is changing the meanings of nationhood, government and sovereignty. There exists (2) a "new individualism" that is not necessarily selfish but which means that social solidarity can no longer be imposed in a top-down way. Although distinctions between left and right keep changing, the left cares more about social justice and equality. However, (3), there is a category of problems-such as global warming, devolution, the future of the European Union-about which it is unhelpful to think in terms of left versus right. (4) Some jobs (defence, lawmaking) can be done only by governments, even though politicians are becoming less influential and pressure groups more effective. And do not forget (5) that while environmental dangers can be exaggerated it is highly dangerous to be sanguine about them, not least because, as in the case of madcow disease, experts sometimes differ. Hmm. At this point, the charitable reader may feel that although some of these points may be obvious, and others arguable, Mr Giddens has at least raised interesting questions. Moreover, they are original, in the narrow sense that nobody else seems to have singled out these particular five points and called them "dilemmas". The trouble with any argument constructed at Mr Giddens's level of generalisation is that you begin to wonder whether there might just as plausibly have been four dilemmas, or 14, or even whether a different five could have been chosen just as easily .. But let that pass. Philosophers describe the world. How does the prophet of Britain's third way propose to change it? Mr Giddens admits that what he is offering is merely an "outline". This is a deceptive species of modesty given that what he claims to be outlining is no less than "an integrated political programme covering each of the major sectors of society." Here we learn amongst other things that protectionism is undesirable but so is a "blanket endorsement" of free trade; that there should be no rights without responsibilities; that the protection of children is the most important bit of family policy; that society should be "inclusive" but not "strongly egalitarian"; that constitutions should aim for openness and transparency; that there may be a case for a world criminal court; that there is a need to control excessive overshoots in financial markets but that the nature of these controls is "problematic"; that . . But, really, why bother to go on? .. it would have been nice for Britain's pre-eminent sociologist and the director of the LSE to come up with at least one new proposal capable of ruffling at least someone's feathers. Remember "The Road to Serfdom", Hayek's brave, hugely unfashionable warning against planning made in the midst of a war that seemed to have made planners indispensable? By contrast, Mr Giddens's integrated political programme boils down to a list of conventional appeals to civic virtue, in which every bet is hedged and everyhard choice ducked. It is just the sort of stuffthat could find its way risklessly into the manifesto of any social democratic party interested in tarting up its image. Which is presumably why he wrote it. Mr Giddens wants to restore the LSE to a position of power and influence. How pleasing it must have been to find in Tony Blair a clever, instinctive politician in the market for some sort of ideology in which to dress up his opportunism. And how intellectually disarming. Was it fear of setting out any positions that New Labour could one day find embarrassing that made Mr Giddens write such a bad book? Whatever the reason, the third way remains as mystifying as ever. Herbert Morrison-the grandfather of Peter Mandelson, Mr Blair's cabinet colleague-once wickedly defined socialism as what the Labour Party did. On the evidence of this slight work, the third way is whatever New Labour does." Anonymous, "Bagehot: The third way revealed". _The Economist_ Sept. 19, 1998 Vol: 348, Issue: 8086. pp. 72-73. Current Literature is a regular feature of the Hayek-L list. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Is it Keynes or Is it .... ? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:09:02 -0400 > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: Is it Keynes or Is it .... ? > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:12:55 EDT > From: Hayek-L List Host <HayekList(a)AOL.COM> > Subject: Is it Keynes or Is it .... ? > "A year or so from now, it will be difficult to find > a single person who admits ever having believed > that a global free market is a sensible way of > running the world economy No global economy is a good economy, by its very definition it is a monopoly and contrary to the entire precip of free-market pundits. A free-market is exclusively a *local* market. > laissez-faire was short-lived .. The free market came > about in England as a result not of slow evolution No it didn't, it's the basic economic structure that everything else gets built on. You start out with a completely free-market and build from there. Free markets are for cavepeople. > but swiftly, as a consequence of the unremitting use > of the power of the state .. The free market > withered away gradually, thought the natural workings > of democratic political competition ... No, human psychology is what kills it. > century England illustrates a vital truth: Democracy and > the free market are rivals, not allies. Duh. Economics has nothing to do with civil liberties or crimes. One of the failures in current political and economic thought is the necessity for the *government* to regulate the money. It isn't a new belief either since it is embodies in our Constitution. What is required for a free-market is a mechanism for 'fair competition'. The problem is there is no way under a free-market to define fair or competition. > problematic relationship. The normal concomitant > of free markets is not stable democratic government > but the volatile -- and not always democratic -- politics > of economic insecurity. This is circular reasoning. A free-market is not compatible to democracy (of course not since a free-market requires two party economic contracts exculsively) but is compatible with a market that is solely stabalized by economic (in)security (which is a free-market economy after all). > History exemplifies an equally important fact: > Free market economies lack built-in stabilizers. > Without effective management by government, > they are liable to recurrent booms and busts -- > with all their costs in social cohesion and > political stability. Duh... > .. But is was also a consequence of governments' > holding to an orthodoxy that believed that so Governments *are* a form of orthodoxy, they don't hold onto it since they embody the concepts of orthodoxy. > long as inflation is under control the economy > can be relied upon to be self-regulating ,,," Nobody with half-a-clue believe this. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Happy Birthday to Convicted Child Molester Gary Burnore
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore(a)databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore) whined: > >[snip out-of-date, erroneous sex offender registration] He means you're an ignorant asswipe who shouldn't have told the North Carolina authorities of your child molestation conviction in California. Too late for that, and nuking the page on NC registered sex offenders' site doesn't make your criminal conviction go away retroactively. > More likely the one and only anonymous asshole. AKA RFG(a)monkeys.com > Ignore him. He goes away. "One and only" ... wow! But if claim to know his identity, then he isn't anonymous. Make up your little perverted mind. As for ignoring him, you just can't take your own advice, can you? Just because you're pissed that someone anonymously blew the whistle on your pederasty in Santa Clara, CA by informing your victim's mother and school officials is no reason for such ad hominem. You were busted fair and square, and your own guilty plea sealed your fate. BTW, did you ever ask yourself how this "RFG" character would have known that you were screwing your live-in girlfriend's daughter behind her back, if he's "the one and only anonymous asshole"? Getting sexual predators like you identified so that your neighbors with children can keep an eye on you is reason enough for anonymous remailers to exist, given your history of harassment against anyone who dares to criticize you.

1 0

CL: The Economist on Giddens, Hayek & the LSE (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:50:16 -0400 > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: CL: The Economist on Giddens, Hayek & the LSE > Beware of socialists pitching new paradigms. Or (the only good thing Reagen ever said), Trust, but verify. > must stand. This book is awesomely, magisterially and in some ways > disturbingly vacuous. ... > Prodi, the prime minister of Italy, plan to conduct in New York on September > 23rd. Is anyone going or know if the various discussions will be made available? > on "five dilemmas". In merciful summary, these are (i) that globalisation > is changing the meanings of nationhood, government and sovereignty. There > exists This is the definition of 'civilization', an effect that is clearly observable by studying history. The relationship between citizen and state depends on (among other things) speed of communication (or transport), and resource control. As the speed of transport increases nations have a tendency to homogenize or share cultural traits (not to mention genes). As time goes by the nations change size and number in relation to resource control, normaly you get a few large countries and lots of smaller ones. As time goes by you'll see more and more of the smaller nations forming combines, hegemonies, balkans, etc. This tendency drives the globalization of human culture. It is a basic aspect of human greed to want the whole shebang. That is a result of humans being social in nature, and having a fundamental neurosis about self. What finaly determines if one or more nations will exist is the general growth rates of each fundamentaly (and this is a bitch to describe to any precision) different national/social/psychological type. As long as none of them have a growth rate that is hyperbolic in nature (ie infinite magnitude in finite time) then a multiplicity of such 'nations' will continue to exist. A fundamental question should be what and how to measure the growth rates of nations within this context? There also needs to be a fundamental distinction between government and business, as is made with religions. Businesses need to be regulated but it should be by a indipendant political system from that defining civil issues regarding individuals. There should also be a distinct funding system which is also indipendant, but responsible for providing all funding for the other political agents. It would be regulated by some sort of representative system whereby people could elect various officials to select the process through a representative system. In short, every political entity in a government should consist of publicly elected officials with appropriate support staff. There should be strictly enforced and relatively short-lived term limits. A distinction in allowable forces for a government to use between exterior (army) threats and internal civil disturbance (militia), and nary the two should meet or ever be involved in day to day law enforcement. In regards the civil branch of the above (ie executive, legislative, judiciary) the executive branch should also be some sort of elected panel, the concept of an individual representative needs to die a deserved death. Personaly I like the idea of a panel of single representatives from each state. > (2) a "new individualism" that is not necessarily selfish but which > means that social solidarity can no longer be imposed in a top-down way. It's about time. I believe that a study of polyocracies would provide a much better model for a democratic system. I've come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with human culture is to base everything on the fundamental issue of individual distinction, this is what it means for all people to be created equal. > of problems-such as global warming, devolution, the future of the European > Union-about which it is unhelpful to think in terms of left versus right. That's because nature is by its very nature apolitical. Politics will regulate human society, it won't control it. > (4) Some jobs (defence, lawmaking) can be done only by governments, even No, they can only be done by a monopoly. If they don't then the sorts of social institutions we normaly talk about can't exist. > though politicians are becoming less influential and pressure groups more > effective. Which sortta balances out thankfuly... > should be no rights without responsibilities; that the protection of children > is the most important bit of family policy; Does he extrapolate this to some sort of all-encompassing social authorization for government intervention as is currently trying to be implimented? that society should be "inclusive" > but not "strongly egalitarian"; Which means what? We let people in but we don't treat them like they live here? that constitutions should aim for openness > and transparency; What the hell does that mean? > that there may be a case for a world criminal court; Only if nations aren't responsible for their own citizens... I'd like to see the day when one nation sues another in a world court for harms against their citizens...if the proposed system will require this as easily as a single nation dropping on a single individual then it won't work. > that there is a need to control excessive overshoots in financial markets > but that the nature of these controls is "problematic"; that . . Don't fall for the 'bigger is better' school of economics. Individualy stable markets should be highly regional, probably not national and most definitely not global. Stability comes from a voluntary long-term relationship between participants. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

"Annihilating less-than-useful contributors"
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ snipped, see full article at Declan's new site ] # http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/15611.html # # 5:45 p.m. 14.Oct.98.PDT # SAN FRANCISCO -- Science fiction author Bruce Sterling # acknowledges that he isn't a programmer, or even a # contributor to the kind of openly developed software project # [Apache] that brought his audience together on Wednesday. # ... # Using a fictional example of people gathered online around # their interest in "freakish, left-handed mollusks," he said # collaborative software is needed that liberates the creative # power of the best people and "annihilates the counterproductive." # According to Sterling, the latter includes idiots, spammers, # and less-than-useful contributors. # ... # Sterling envisions an "online utopia" that would occur if # Web- and email-leveraging software were automatically # moderated. # ... # "If you could do this, you could advance knowledge," he said. # The Net and the collaboration it enables would be able to add # to the sum of human knowledge. # ... # Successful implementation of such a concept, Sterling said, # is critical to the success of the Net as a so-called "gift # economy".... [This] economy should function more like an # [actual] economy," he said. A differing set of rewards should # be returned for a differing set of efforts.

1 0

Cyptography in the Information Age (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 21:08:14 -0400 > Subject: Cyptography in the Information Age > From: steve.benjamin(a)juno.com (Stephen Benjamin) > My paper will contain a 6-line (perl) implemenation of > RSA. Is my report subject to current Encryption Laws? > If so, which ones? I plan on making a big deal out of > how a 15 page research paper can't be exported from the U.S.A. The paper itself isn't subject to export restrictions at this point in time as I understand it. Now if you included a barcode, floppy, or some other machine readable/executable then that media would be under restrictions. > Also, How can I generate RSA keys in perl? > I found a C program to do it, but I don't have C installed. Now you get to learn how to translate... ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0