December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** forwarded as requested ** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:04:57 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> To: Jim Burnes <jvb(a)ssds.com> Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) If you want a responce post it publicly. > > On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Wow. He said it. This proves that Jim hasn't really read any history > since public high school. > > Actually this is the central fallacy of those that haven't bothered to > actually read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers or the > constitution, much less say how it should be amended. > > If a constitutional amendment had to have been passed it would have been > to give the federal government unlimited power to do what they believe is > in the interests of our general welfare. Madison explicitly addressed > the issue of unlimited federal power emanating from the welfare clause. > > Had the supreme court bothered to read the founder's writings on this > they would have found it in a week or two. That's assuming their > conclusion was not already decided. > > The constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of the federal > government. It is very specific. As Madison stated, if the general > welfare clause meant what the socialist engineers wished it meant, there > would have been no need to enumerate the specific powers of the federal > government. In fact, it would have been as if the founding fathers had > said: > > "The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it > feels necessary." > > "The powers of the federal government are as follows" > > (1) > (2) > (3) etc > > Which would be ridiculous on its face. > > The reality of the situation is that Roosevelt kept trying to stack the > Supreme Court. He eventually suceeded in appointing his socialist > crony judges to "reinterpret" the constitution. The first result > of this was that Social (in)Security was ruled constitutional because > it was in "the general welfare". > > This was probably the last nail in the coffin of the Republic. The first > nail was imposing huge export duties on cotton in order to limit demand > outside the country -- in effect driving down cotton prices so it could be > had cheaply by the northern industrial (clothing/textile) markets. > Southern states saw this as blatant price controls. In their inability to > change the taxes they sought to leave the union. A prime example of the > old adage -- "the power to tax is the power to destroy". In this case it > was destroying the union itself. Only after the war was on did the north > use the anti-slavery propaganda to peddle their cause. And use it to good > advantage they did. I'm glad the slaves were emancipated, but I wish > it were done with less blood and more foresight. > > Bear in mind that as a libertarian I view slavery as one of the ultimate > evils. However, the northern industrialists had no leg to stand on > because they were one of the prime beneficiaries of cheap labor and thus > cheap cotton prices during the era of westward expansion. Never mind that > only the wealthy in the south owned slaves. If that was so, why was the > opposition to the feds so virulent? > > By 1913, Jekyl Island was a done deal. The income tax and the federal > reserve banking system were unleashed. A concise discussion of this is > beyond the scope of this posting. Needless to say centralized federal > power was on the move. The system of institutionalized fiat currency was > one of the main causes of the 1929 crash that put Roosevelt in power. It > was that "government breaks your leg, government hands you a crutch, > government becomes savior" mentality that resulted in the endless cycle > of market distortions and power grabs that put us where we are now. > > Does this mean that Roosevelt was "evil". No. Just that, as one > playwrite once said, "the conflict of good against good is much more > interesting". Well-intentioned "good people" have contributed more to the > misery of the human race that any other factor alone. I'm sure that > Roosevelt felt he was doing "good" when he undid the Republic. His > crowning achievment was his stacking of the Supreme Court and the > resulting unlimited expansion of federal power. If this country survives > Y2K it will have to contend with the issue that the scope of the federal > government's power is not unlimited. Something has got to give. Y2K > seems as likely a bifurcation and surfaction point as any. > > Maybe Hettinga is right. Economics, like physics obeys the "reality is > not an option" rule. When centralized bureacracy becomes too expensive > the invisible hand will select something more efficient. > > jim > > > > > >

1 0

Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:59:11 -0500 (EST) > From: Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> > Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] > Why would this be "unconstitutional?" Juries are to be composed of your peers taken from the community in which the crime occurred. A single judge doesn't make a jury of ones peers. > Are you at all familiar with the case? There seems to be a fair amount of > evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that would indicate a certain > politically and financially powerful family used its influence to keep > the two prime suspects in the case from coming to trial for over 20 > years. Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have been abused. One wrong does not justify another. > One judge is better than nothing. OTOH, maybe a football, a few pine > trees, and some vertical slope would do justice. Actualy 10 guilty men walking free is better than one innocent man in jail, or a justice system that gets abused. > (Or do you think there should be a statute of limitations involved?) Irrelevant. ____________________________________________________________________ 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: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:27:21 -0700 (MST) > From: Jim Burnes <jvb(a)ssds.com> > Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd) > > Actually this is the central fallacy of those that haven't bothered to > > actually read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers or the > > constitution, much less say how it should be amended. That's an easy way to brush aside having to prove your point. Especialy after having drawn a completely illogical and incorrect conclusion like this. > > If a constitutional amendment had to have been passed it would have been > > to give the federal government unlimited power to do what they believe is > > in the interests of our general welfare. This sentence makes no sense, mind rewording it so I know specificaly what it is your talking about. No amendment has to be passed. > Madison explicitly addressed > > the issue of unlimited federal power emanating from the welfare clause. Would you mind explaining where providing for the *general* welfare equates to unlimited powers? No government has unlimited powers and providing for the general welfare can't honestly be extrapolated to that conclusion. Within the context of the Constitution general welfare is in reference to building a framework for the expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > > Had the supreme court bothered to read the founder's writings on this > > they would have found it in a week or two. That's assuming their > > conclusion was not already decided. Found what? Whose conclusions, the founding fathers or the sitting supremes? > > The constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of the federal > > government. It is very specific. And prohibits the enumeration of individual liberties by the same government. Rather handy little situation that, since it completely blows holes in any move to derive totalitarian control (which by the way is not democratic). As Madison stated, if the general > > welfare clause meant what the socialist engineers wished it meant, there > > would have been no need to enumerate the specific powers of the federal > > government. Well to be accurate there was no enumeration of the specific powers in the original Constitution, it's why Jefferson (who was in France at the time), Madison, and others fought and supported the Bill of Rights. Because of the 9th and 10th such moves are inherently doomed to failure. In fact, it would have been as if the founding fathers had > > said: > > > > "The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it > > feels necessary." > > > > "The powers of the federal government are as follows" > > > > (1) > > (2) > > (3) etc > > > > Which would be ridiculous on its face. This entire section is ridiculous. To say on one hand the powers are unlimited and then to proceed to list them weakens the argument, this was also the reason for the 10th. It prevents such extrapolations as this. > > The reality of the situation is that Roosevelt kept trying to stack the > > Supreme Court. Wow, I didn't realize Roosevelt was even alive to participate in the original Constitutional debates. I'm going to stop here since we are obviously off on one of your pet peeves that isn't related to the discussion at hand. To jump 150 years in one fell swoop is pretty extraordinary. The reality is, as Jefferson himself said, that the laws of one generation aren't the laws of another. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

ANNOUNCE: SATURDAY Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting - Stanford University
by Hugh Daniel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The November Cypherpunks Meeting will be Saturday 11/14 from 1-5pm at Stanford, at the tables outside Tresidder Union, near the bookstore. The tables are on the west side, which is the inside of the U-shape. Coffee and food are available in the building. If the weather is uncooperative, we will also be inside the building. Lucky Green will be talking about his latest work. Hugh Daniel will update us on the new alpha of Linux FreeS/WAN. Bagels and Bagel Parephrenalia will be provided. Directions to Stanford Tresidder Hall Stanford is between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Blvd, which are between 101 and 280. The Tresidder Parking Lot is on Mayfield Ave, off Campus Drive East. http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/search_map.html?keyword=&ACADEMIC=Tresidde… http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/stanford_zoom_map.html?234,312 The upside-down map of Stanford&Vicinity is at http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/vicinity.html Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:52:06 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can > call it that) [CNN] (fwd) > Jim, "Grand Jury", a jury to see if there is enough evidence to > warrant a full trial. > > >Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have > >been abused. One wrong does not justify another. > > Correct, but this isn't a guilty or innocent trial, this is a "is > there enough evidence to try this person" type trial. > > This judge can't throw the perp in jail, only throw another trial > where there will be 12 to judge. ARTICLE V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ARTICLE VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- By definition a jury is more than one, it's the reason they are implimented; to moderate the biases of the individual. Secondly, a judge is not impartial when acting in the stead of the state in two capacities at one time. Especialy when by their very nature they are at least to some degree confrontational. Dem's da rules bubba. The Kennedy lawyers should be throwing civil right shit fits about now. ____________________________________________________________________ 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: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can (fwd) [a couple of other comments]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > ARTICLE V. > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise > infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, > except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, > when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any > person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of > life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness > against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without > due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, > without just compensation. It's important to read that part about depriving life, liberty, or property within the context of forced medication, deprivation of social contacts, etc. before a trial has even been held. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and that means you can deprive him of geographic freedom if they can't pay bail. Outside of that any interruption or loss of income is the responsibility of the state to recompensate. It should also guarantee that if found innocent the incident won't have an impact on current or future career and life opportunities. They're sworn to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with their lives if necessary. That's why their called PUBLIC SERVANTS. Note that property may be taken by the state through due process, private property (my home, personal savings, papers, etc.) can't be siezed for *ANY* reason without just compensation. Businesses and shared accounts (such as 401k's perhaps) are fair game. I break the law and you want to take my house? Fucking get your check book out. Otherwise it's theft and that's a crime in principle and practice. This means that *EVERY* confiscation law on the books yesterday, today, or tomorrow are completely illegal if they allow confiscation of private property in relation to crime. If the LEA's, courts, politicians, etc. really, really, really believe that the people of this country want to allow them to confiscate their property in relation to criminal activity then they should parent an amendment to that effect immediately. I'll tell you now, it ain't got a hope in hell. And when the reckoning day comes on this particular issue it's going to be a doozie. > ARTICLE VI. > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right > to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and > district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district > have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the > nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses > against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his > favor, and to have Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Note that the right to have *ASSISTANCE* of counsel is guaranteed. This means the state must provide you an attorney to assist in the correct process documentation *EVEN* if you represent yourself. Because it uses the term assistance there can be no implied power of attorney without direct and unconstrained and willing complicity by the accussed. ____________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:34:10 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > There is an expectation that when one travels, one is protected by > certain laws, at least the laws of the country that one is traveling to. Absolutely, that concept does not proscribe them from making a law to recognize the laws of other countries. It doesn't make it right but then again the freedom of choice implies the freedom to make mistakes. It figures that on occassion it'll be a whopper (TM). If Penoche didn't know that Spain could extradite him from England then he needs to hire a new lawyer. There is absolutely no expectation in the concept of freedom that prohibits one from walking into a police station and admitting a crime. This isn't even an issue, neither the British or the Spanish forced him to England. And the Spanish didn't force Britian to sign the treaty recognizing extradition. He got what he deserves. He was stupid to have treated anyone like that and he was stupid to go to England. He is a stupid man. My personal view is I don't care unless I am in that country. If I have an expectation to go somewhere I check on the laws before I'd go. > There are also certain types of crimes that are so morally > reprehensible that to allow them to continue is not possible. Absolutely, and each country should have it's right to choose it's own particular brand of reprehensibility recognized. > Or are you willing to go on record as stating that what Stalin did > to the Jews (or Hitler for that matter) was acceptable, since we shouldn't > have a say in their laws? Well, you have to understand I'm a pantheist. I know it's easy to shrug off and say "so what" but I can't answer this exactly unless you fundamentaly understand literal pantheism. But I'll try. I believe there is no transcendence. As a result everything is divine because that's all there is. To disrespect the uniqueness in anything is a disservice to self. However, concepts of literal sin to my view simply don't exist. The killing of a human by a human is not fundamentaly (think of it as outside of human society, it's close but not close enough) different than a human killing a rabbit, or crushing a rock, or painting a picture. It's an activity, in and of itself it is nothing more than a cold, cosmic event mediated by complete and utter indifference. The universe does not act with anthropocentric motives or mechanations. However, within the concerns of human biology, psychology, and society there is a very real distinction. As a matter of fact there are quite a few. Since they are all a construct of human existance they deserve some level of respect, the freedom of expression in speech and press, not necessarily in action. Because of the fundamental uniqueness of anything, to destroy or change it with willful intent (I wish I could express this better, all I can say is it isn't what normal English means by those two words exactly enough) except in self-defence or survival (eg killing an animal for food) is not moraly (permissible at the level of individual) or ethicaly (the range of permissible acts related to an activity, say a doctor or lawyer) supportable. I am willing to go on record stating that what they did from a national level should concern no nation that is not directly involved. Nations do not have the right to impose their will on other nations, period. Nations may of course dissolve and reform of their own free will and whim. From a personal level everyone should have run over there in about 1936 and kicked their stinking ass as volunteers (the fact that it is not in human nature to participate in mass exhibitions like this voluntarily is another reason that anarcho-whatevers won't work). From a fundamentaly cosmic perspective what they did is completely and utterly irrelevant and of no consequence. At the same time I'm horrified that human beings can do that to other people and live with themselves. The total lack of empathy I find utterly chilling. Poppy Z. Brite in carnate. Let me give you another example, unless the US is attacked directly by Iraq we have no business threatening, let alone initiating, violence. But I'll do what I did the last time we got in a scrap with the rag-head, whatever I can. To do any less might cost somebody their life through my negligent short-term unprincipled self-interest, a sin of ommission for a man of no sins, I won't stop bitching about it either. Does that help any better? Life is a contradiction in motion. > >Do you want Germany having a say in our laws (for example)? > > They do already, it's called international trade. Me selling apples to a German doesn't involve their having a say in my law making unless I'm an idiot in making the laws I operate under. There are treaties, but the assumption is that they are entered into freely and with comprehension. If they don't and do well that's their problem. > Also, if I were a Catholic in a death camp because Jesse Helms > ramed thru legislation blaming the Y2K bug on the Holy C, I'd hope someone > would intervine. Congress can't make laws respecting establishments of religion. Not only can't they support any, they can't prohibit any, they can't even constitutionaly decide what a religion is. Per the 10th that is left to the individual states and their respective representative constitutions. > But you claimed it started in the early 1900's in response to > deaths and blindness. The regulation of the manufacture and sales of alcohol started after the civil war, late 1800' and early 1900's depending on your geography. It's impossible to set a single date since the various laws were'not all initiated at the same time. I believe somebody else is the person who equated prohibition with regulation. In general the laws were put in place because either there was a problem with tainted alcohol (this was a real problem in the very early 1900's because of the use of lead pipes and other amalgams that don't treat people nicely) or excessive consumption by the youth usualy (ala The Great Gatsby). The laws got a lot more draconian after prohibition was renounced. This is when many states really jumped on the taxation band-wagon. The reasoning behind the taxation of alcohol is the same today as it was in Jeffersons day. He said that the taxation was intended to reduce the use because of its debilitating effects. Then of course there is the consideration of what a government can do with that money as well. This taxation is what started the Whiskey Rebellion in the late 1790's. Jefferson finaly repealed it after quite a string of violence in the early 1800's (sorry I don't remember the actual dates, a web search on Whiskey Rebellion would probably turn something up). During the whole thing Washington was riding his fat ass around buying cheap land and forceably moving people who had lived there, in general acting the little tyrant. He was involved in at least two related deaths and had invested in the business and supported the taxation. What's really interesting is that when these taxes were intiated in the early 1700's (originaly by the British) they were imposed on the manufacturer not the consumer even though they were to limit the consumption and not the manufacture. The history of alcohol is long and twisted. > It prevents the press from manipulating the government because > there ISN'T ONE, or if there is (in the case of extreme > libertarian/minarchist) it is so restricted and powerless it can't do > anything execpt try to gather more power. True, but then the news papers (they are not the same as the press - where that commen misconception is from is beyond my keen) would just pander to their extant major supporter, advertisers. How honest do you think that would make them? Not very. If given the choice between the truth or a fatter check newspapers (and their reporters) have in general chosen the way of the greenback. Jefferson said he would never write a line in a newspaper, and didn't. He thought them vile. He however held the free press (he meant unrestrained communication between individuals) in high regard (obviously). > Yes, businesses can manipulate the press, and do-gooders can always > start their own press and fight back. Who do they buy the press parts from? The ink and paper? The distribution channles? Etc. You might be able to start one up but you won't last long in a monotonicly profit driven free-market. If they rake muck too much they won't have a rake anymore. > Yeah, and there are laws against Drug Dealing which work real well. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere... > I wanna say Karen something or other as one case--Silkwood? That was one of the ones I was thinking of. > Point still holds, you speak out, you get in trouble, legal or no. > Laws don't prevent things from happening, they simply give society the > moral authority to say "We Warned You, Now Off With His Head" or some such. They moderate and mediate those actions and in fact do set a limit on what can occur at the social level. I'll say it again, government isn't for regulating individual interactions at the daily level. It's simply too fine grain. It will control trends and behaviours with a good deal of aplomb (if it's not abused) - and I'm talking specificaly of a republican democracy like the US has. Governments address the general parameters of a society. > When was the last time you _didn't_ kill someone just because it is > illegal? Every time. I can think of three times. Two accidents hunting and the third a crazy with a knife. On a personal level I felt my sense of justification from committing such an act didn't equate to me spending time in jail. They're still alive, and I didn't do time. Works for me. In all three times I could have shot them and walked off, I wouldn't have been found and there were no connections. All three times were completely random events, hapinstance. I quit hunting after the second hunting event. I also don't go for long walks on the other side of the tracks at 2am anymore when I can't sleep. Some junior high kid tried to rob me. > It's expected, but illegal? How can it be illegal if there are no bodies to create them, courts to ejudicate them, supposedly unbiased police to enforce them. Now if we agree that human nature isn't going to change then there is still the unanswered (but asked a few dozen times) as to what the exact mechanism is that prevents abuse. Simply saying that people will find out is not historicaly reliable, people just don't volunteer for those sorts of things. Their first reaction is to stay out of it. Even if they find out what do they do about it? Go to a similar business down the street that operates identicaly? > It prevents government abuse, it prevents systemic abuse of power > and authority. Rape is rape, the point is to prevent it. Not just prevent it from your father. > It also makes it easier to get people to resist abuse & to fight > back, since the abuse isn't built in, nor do the abusers have any sort of > "authority" to fall back on. People are more likely to suffer injustice as long as its sufferable. It's a rare event to incite a large population to violence. > Which is different from now HOW? At least now there are limits to how ruthless they may be. You don't see tanks on your street corner, there aren't troops of men running around dragging people out of their homes because they're catholic or read 'Catcher in the Rye' or 'Atlas Shrugged' and shooting them. And people (like us right now) get to bitch about it with as near complete impunity as is possible in a real world. Hell through the amendment process we can concievably bypass the federal government completely. All that is required is the calling of a convention, which the federal government have no authority over (especialy since the right to peaceably assemble is protected and it don't get much more peaceable than a constitutional convention). > Isn't Billy Gates one of your poster boys for being ruthless? Isn't > he so far head of the rest of us that he could be in court for the rest of > his life and not spend everything? What makes Bill Gates reprehensible is not what he did with Microsoft, though the company as a whole should suffer. They certainly made profit together, they should share the flip side of the coin. Why I hold Bill Gates in so low esteem is his moral standing. A perfect example is hurricane Mitch. The World Bank came up with a tad over $100M for releif. Bill makes that in a few days. Here is a man with the means to institute huge social, political, and economic change that at his level is a pittance and he does nothing. He is scum. He made his bed, let him lie in it. He didn't help others when they could have used it at little to no impact to him, why should they extend a helping hand in return? This is another excellent example of why anarcho-whatevers won't work. The psychology of the truly wealthy is so self-interested and goal-oriented instead of principled that they almost become pathological in their lack of empathy. The claim is that succesful business will be some sort of utopic, empathetic social force. It won't be, it isn't in human nature. > Greed is not an agenda, it is an emotion, Profit is an agenda. True, but there are many potential motives that drive profit, greed is the most base one and as a result drives the lower levels of human activity. I gotta stop now, I'm sleepy. If I didn't get around to answering all the questions it's because there are lots of you and only one of me...ask again in a few days and I'll answer it then. Good night. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

update.401 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:30:13 -0500 (EST) > From: physnews(a)aip.org (AIP listserver) > Subject: update.401 > INFLUENCE OF COSMIC RAYS ON EARTH'S CLIMATE. Do > SUREFIRE QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT, the ability to > interlink two quantum particles with practically 100% certainty, has > been achieved by a NIST group (Quentin Turchette, 303-497-3328), > advancing hopes for ultrapowerful quantum computers. Previously, > physicists obtained entangled particles as a byproduct of some > random or probabilistic process, such as the production of two > correlated photons that occasionally occurs when a single photon > passes through a special crystal. Receiving entangled pairs in this > way is fine for tests of quantum nonlocality (Update 399), but > entangling a large number of quantum particles--essential for > building a practical quantum computer--becomes much less likely if > it is dependent on a probabilistic process. In their "deterministic > entanglement" process, the NIST researchers trap a pair of > beryllium ions in a magnetic field. Using a predetermined sequence > of laser pulses, they entangle one ion's internal spin to its external > motion, and then entangle the motion to the spin of the other atom. > The group believes that it will be able to entangle multiple ions with > this process. (Turchette et al, Physical Review Letters, 26 October > 1998.) > THE PETAWATT is the name for what is currently the world's ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Fwd: GOST
by scoops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:50:36 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: scoops <scoops(a)quiknet.com> >Subject: GOST > >Jetico <www.jetico.com> a Finnish company (I believe) offers a number of encryption algorithms in its BestCrypt package, among which is GOST which it reports having a 256 key (it also sports Blowfish and DES as I recall). I also remember a few weeks ago reports in the press and on the List of a porn ring broken up and some agent involved saying that the some porn was encrypted in an old KGB program which sounded much like GOST. The implication is that it's transparent to the feds. However I have no idea about various levels at which it might be implimented. I'm sure the real experts on the List will fill you in.

1 0

Long Term Returns: Value vs. Growth
by 5se Investment Research 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Fellow Investor, Recently two professors from the University of Chicago, Eugene Fama and Ken French, published a study demonstrating the difference in long term returns of value and growth stocks. The study encompassed almost all stocks on every major US exchange. This celebrated study presented overwhelming evidence that market forces tend to overreact to past events, pricing growth stocks too high, and value stocks too low. Because of these reactions, as a group, growth stocks produce below average returns for investors who purchase them at high prices, and value stocks produce above average returns for investors who purchase them at depressed prices. The professors used book to market value to correlate the long term returns. Value stocks having high book to market value and Growth stocks identified by a low book to market value. On average the stocks fitting the value criteria had average annual returns of 21.4% while growth stocks had only 8% average annual returns. Factoring in inflation, the real long term rate of return for value stocks is a bit over 15% but only 2.5% for the growth group. Essentially the study is a good reminder that, when it comes to investing, what goes around comes around. Good companies can experience bad times and be unfairly priced. Apple, IBM, Coke, American Express, and many other excellent companies have experienced the wrath of an unforgiving market, and yet, they are companies with a proven ability to persist in the face of large challenges. Identifying value is simple. All you have to do is look for Good companies experiencing temporary difficulties. This simple strategy will, if you are willing to wait out the storm, reward you with hefty long term returns and lower risk (as the F&F study also showed). Stocks that meet the F&F criteria for value and have solid management in todays market include: Callaway Golf Ensco Corp Reebok Advanta Corp To learn more about the F&F study read Robert Haugen's book "The New Finance" available at http://www.5se.com/5se1.htm Regards, Jeffrey Minich 5se Investment Research New at the 5se site ********************** PortfolioPower! Portfolio Management Model versions for both Excel 95 & 97. Special Upgrade price, only $19.95, for PortfolioPower! Trial Users. Includes a special single-issue online preview of the latest 5se Wealth Building Report. Instant online credit card payment processing and PortfolioPower! order fulfillment with your American Express, Visa, Mastercard, Diners Club, or Discover card. http://www.5se.com/secretproduct.htm

1 0