May 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Hippies Banning Smoke
by Major Variola (ret) 03 May '03

03 May '03

At 06:03 PM 5/3/03 +0100, Dave Howe wrote: ><snip "I should be free to smoke"> >Actually I agree - you should be free to smoke all you want to; however, >given that >a) the rest of us don't want to share your smoke >b) you don't want to share the smoke you are paying for *with* us >the real problem is the inefficiencies of your drug equipment - you really >should have some system so you get 100% of the smoke you paid for (rather >than less than 30% as now) Hey, we should *encourage* people to smoke, drink, fuck whatever moves, eat whatever you're served, because we are *coerced* into paying for their retirement. If we weren't, we wouldn't care; but since we are, please, take up whatever reduces your lifespan. And of course, if someone tries to stop you from whatever consensual-'harm' you wish, waste the fuckers, who have claimed ownership of your bodies. Or enjoy your slavery.

1 0

Re: Hippies Banning Smoke
by Tyler Durden 03 May '03

03 May '03

Harmon Seaver wrote... "Oh, another one who either can't read or is just too clueless to get it. Nobody, but nobody, here has suggested outlawing tobacco (although, actually, now that I think of it, maybe it should be until such time all other drugs are freed -- boy, would that be fun to watch all those nic junkies murdering one another to get a fix). If you'd read the thread, what part of "forcing others to smoke" don't you understand? Yeah, even if there's disagreements with some of the anti-public-smoking arguments, the general principals involved shouldn't be too hard to agree with. Basically, "don't try to kill me". It gets easier when one remembers that cigarette smoke was inches away from being declared a "class A carcinogen", but the tobacco companies through much dinero into the debate. That would have put smoke in the same category as asbestos. So now replace a public smoker with a guy playing tossing around a big blob of asbestos, and watch various cypherpunks start taking out their shotguns. -TD "I was in favor of gun control prior to the Patriot Act." -Tyler Durden >From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver(a)cybershamanix.com> >To: jburnes <jburnes(a)vonu.net> >CC: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Hippies Banning Smoke >Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 19:02:11 -0500 > >On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:25:43PM -0500, jburnes wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 11:03 AM, Harmon Seaver wrote: > > > > >On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 11:21:05AM -0400, Sunder wrote: > > >>What part of "Don't impose your ideals on others" do you not > > >>understand? > > > > > > What part of "Don't impose your drug addiction on others" do you not > > >understand? Tobacco junkies are worse than crackheads, especially > > >concerning > > >their irrational behavior. > > > > > Actually it may be quite rational. > > "Irrational" is what I call junkies so desperate for a fix that they >don't >care how it affects anyone else. > > > A certain percentage of the > > population may > > be self-medicating for type 2 ADD (nicotine fills in for acetylcholine > > that they > > lack). Some others use tobacco to focus and tune out the really high > > levels > > of environmental noise and distraction that are part and parcel of > > modern society. > > > > Some others may do it just because they like it. > > That's their perogative, they just can't force others to indulge along >with >them. > > > Man, cypherpunks has > > really > > gone down quite a ways when members are advocating who should be allowed > > to consume what and when. Next it will be laws to stop people from > > blowing their > > noses in restaurants. I say let people go to hell in their own way. > > Cigarettes or > > Jack Black or cocaine. > > > Oh, another one who either can't read or is just too clueless to get >it. Nobody, but nobody, here has suggested outlawing tobacco (although, >actually, now that I think of it, maybe it should be until such time all >other >drugs are freed -- boy, would that be fun to watch all those nic junkies >murdering one another to get a fix). If you'd read the thread, what part of >"forcing others to smoke" don't you understand? > > > >-- >Harmon Seaver >CyberShamanix >http://www.cybershamanix.com _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

2 1

Re: Conspiracy
by Jay h 03 May '03

03 May '03

>The "actual agreement" can be inferred by a creative prosecutor *. I >don't remember the cases, but can dig out my criminal law case books if >pressed. As usual in these discussions, this applies only to the U.S. > Prosecutors have actually argued that people who talked about NOT doing particular things were actually code talking about commiting the crimes. Sheesh. we're all guilty. j ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at 1st.net

3 2

Some CA elected officials need killing
by Anonymous 03 May '03

03 May '03

arch criminals 1. John Longville (62) - Treason, Betrayal of public trust [1] midlevel criminals 2. Paul Koretz (42) - Treason, Betrayal of public trust [2] lesser criminals 3. Rudy Bermudez (56) - Treason, Betrayal of public trust [3] 4. Jackie Goldberg (45) - Treason, Betrayal of public trust [3] 5. Mark Leno (13) - Treason, Betrayal of public trust [3] [1] "Assemblyman Longville, who earlier was casting votes self-admittingly having no idea which bill he was voting on, was likewise indifferent to the concerns of La Suer, Spitzer and most of the assembled audience. When asked on the sidelines how he was leaning, Longville rather blithely explained, I dont know. I'll vote which ever way the speaker tells me to." [2] "One by one La Suer dissected the claims of what was soon exposed as just another myopic gun ban pushed to center stage while the economy burned. At one point, La Suers growing disgust crossed its limit. The Assemblyman vehemently expressed his outrage that the time and resources of the state were being diverted from the economy to even consider such a blatant sham and he called on Koretz to pull the bill so they could get on with real work. Koretz simply smiled and refused, knowing the fix was in. His fellow Democrats on the committee seemed all-too eager to rubber-stamp the bill in spite of the facts." [3] "At the end of the day, partisan politics once again proved stronger than right or reason. Down the line the five Democrats on the committee cast their obligatory yes votes and AB50 moved one step closer to becoming law in California. Even staunch liberals in attendance were stunned. One woman leaving the proceeding stated, Im not a big fan of guns but right now Im ashamed to say those people are from my party. What are they thinking?" source: soon-to-be-published fcspi.org news item event: Apr ?29th? sham of a committee meeting CA assembly's committee on public safety

1 0

Re: Why are there so many statists and communists here on this list now?
by Tyler Durden 03 May '03

03 May '03

"people who use encryption technology to make statism impossible" I just think that's too grandiose a statement. In my particular case, "People who use encryption technology to make interference in my personal communications impossible", where interference is defined as eavesdropping, jamming, "man-in-the-middle" and so on. In other words, an infinitely hard titanium pipe between me and who/whatever is on the other side. As for the state, well, it may come or go as a result of secure communications. I suspect it will find a way to stick around. But if heavy crypto proliferates it will force it to change, at the very least. But the state is secondary. If they get out of my way (or if by technology I push them out of the way) for the important stuff, fine. But then again, the implications of further terrorist attacks (and the reasons) may be relevant here, but one must tread very carefully on any public board..... -TD "I used to be in favor of gun control prior to the Patriot Act." -Tyler Durden >From: Matt Beland <matt(a)rearviewmirror.org> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Why are there so many statists and communists here on this >list now? >Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 16:50:08 -0700 > >On Friday 02 May 2003 04:14 pm, Bill O'Hanlon wrote: > > I think my analogy is good. I think your error is displayed by your > > analogy. In your example, both groups are astronomers. > > > > In the current situation on this list, both groups are _not_ >cypherpunks, > > if you accept the definition of cypherpunks as "people who use >encryption > > technology to make statism impossible." If you don't accept that > > definition, that's fine, but I think my definition is consistent with > > the history of the list, and my guess is that Tim would agree. And he's > > the one who asked the question in the first place. I think it's a good > > question, and I'm curious to hear the answer from one of the folks it's > > aimed at. > >Accepting your definition for a moment, your analogy is still flawed >because >it assumes one group is rejecting science altogether, where here the two >groups simply arrive at different conclusions from the same data. > >But in fact, I don't completely agree with your definition. A Cypherpunk is >one who is interested in the technology and use of encryption, and the >social >and political effects thereof. One definition assumes a conclusion, one >definition defines a group in search of a conclusion. > >And really, my question would remain valid in either case. IF this list is >to >be the home of any sort of useful discussion, then the discussion must >include both sides of the issue. Otherwise you don't have discussion, you >have dogma. > > > You left statists out of your list, unless you were including them when > > you said "cranks" and "gun control nuts". The original question was >about > > statists. > >Statists and communists both would be included in politician, Republican, >Green, Democrat, Libertarian, crank (though not only statists and >politicians >fit there) and gun control nut. Just pick the flavor that matches the >label. > > > Some interesting people have left. Other interesting people have > > joined and are contributing. > >And being railed at as statists and communists. Oh, some interesting people >have joined on the other side, as well - but again, what value in one-sided >discussion? > >-- >Matt Beland >matt(a)rearviewmirror.org >http://www.rearviewmirror.org _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: Why are there so many statists and communists here on this list now?
by Tyler Durden 03 May '03

03 May '03

Steve Furlong wrote... "Powerful computers, strong crypto, and big databases can lead either to anarchy or to an unstoppable Big Brother. Too close to call, right now." Well, I haven't ruled out the possibility that governments will somehow evolve to roll with the punches. Some new form of government may arise that has characteristics we haven't seen before, or perhaps similar to some of the Sci-Fi out there. (Wasn't it in Snow Crash where Stevens pictures traditional governments basically in competition with numerous franchise governments?) For a long time now I've been very sceptical of any predictions of the future for more than 5 years or so out. Technology and society have a way of generating stuff that's beyond an individual's ability to predict, and government might be the same. Or not. -TD "I used to believe in gun control prior to the Patriot Act." -Tyler Durden >From: Steve Furlong <sfurlong(a)acmenet.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Why are there so many statists and communists here on this >list now? >Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 22:05:24 -0400 > >On Friday 02 May 2003 14:57, Tim May wrote: > > > And as in that debate, where "free speech" is tossed around a lot, > > nothing in the Dixie Chicks case has involved freedom of speech in > > any way whatsoever. Think about it. > >Tim, you're assuming that statists have the wherewithal to think. This >assumption has yet to be demonstrated. > > > > I do wonder why they are on the list given the implications of the > > technologies. I don't think they've realized the implications for > > their world view and for the breeders and useless eaters they > > support. > >I'm not as confident of crypto's chances of destroying the state and >leaving the parasites out in the cold. It's just as likely that the >government(s) will declare all crypto illegal, except that necessary >for the protection of their own secrets. Digital money is right out, of >course. All in the name of anti-terrorism, or the War on Some Drugs, or >for the chiiiiildren. Powerful computers, strong crypto, and big >databases can lead either to anarchy or to an unstoppable Big Brother. >Too close to call, right now. > >-- >Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel > >Guns will get you through times of no duct tape better than duct tape >will get you through times of no guns. -- Ron Kuby _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: Fake News for Big Brother
by Tim May 03 May '03

03 May '03

On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 07:16 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: > I'm not sure how I feel about this. Problems would arise if there > *were* a > law against > news media presenting false information. The question becomes 'What is > truth?', and > 'Who decides". Laws of this type are used in many tyrannies (recently, > Zimbabwe) to > persecute reporters on the grounds that they were 'libeling the > government'. > > 'Truth in media' is a sword that cuts both ways. I don't see any basis for supporting a "law against lying." Unless a contract is involved, lying is just another form of speech. Should a church which claims that praying to the baby Jesus will save one from going to Hell be prosecuted for lying? Should a newspaper be prosecuted for publishing a claim that the Sumerian prediction that Nibiru, aka Planet X, will stop the earth from rotating on May 15, 2003? Should someone be prosecuted for saying the Holocaust never happened, or was exaggerated greatly by the Jewish lobby? The answer to all libertarians, and the answer embodied in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is "No." Of course, the idea of reputation matters. And--Declan can correct me or clarify things--newspapers and perhaps even reporters have professional organizations and other "standards and practices" type of seals of approval. Something like "This newspaper is a member of the National Assocation for the Advancement of Uncolored Journalism," or somesuch. Probably the Weekly World News ("Baby Eats Own Hand, Aliens Suspected") would not be a member in good standing of the NAAUJ. And the newspaper which published the deliberately false arson story should at the least face suspension. Were someone to kill the reporter who wrote the false story, I would only chuckle. This doesn't mean government should be involved in deciding the answer to Pilate's famous question, "What is truth?" --Tim May "The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." --Frederic Bastiat

6 11

[e-gold-list] Norfolk Island's new currency!
by Steve Schear 03 May '03

03 May '03

GoldNow is in the process of helping set up an entire small island population (pop. 1900) to accept/trade in e-gold. The second highest priority we have is to educate the new e-gold users on keyloggers, trojans etc. The place is Norfolk Island, approx. 450 miles northwest of New Zealand. They are the descendants of the mutineers from the Bounty. Pitcairn Island was where they came from. The Queen of England at the time asked them to move to Norfolk Island instead, which they did... interested parties can read the history at http://www.nf The author Collen McCulloch lives on Norfolk Island, as well as singer Helen Reddy. NF folk claim to be independent from Australia. OZ government says they're not. They have had a bun fight for about 150 years about this very issue. There is an uneasy truce at present, but the Australian government demands that NF do not mint their own currency. So, that's where GoldNow & e-gold steps in... Graham Kelly CEO GoldNow http://www.GoldNow.St Primary Customer Service +61 3 9776-4886 US Free Call 1-866-999-1717 US Fax 1-213-559-8555 UK Phone +44 (0) 709 233-7612 UK Phone +44 (0) 709 201-4015 CEO "Money runs away from those without valor" - Ayn Rand

1 0

Re: patriotism considered evil
by James A. Donald 03 May '03

03 May '03

-- On 30 Apr 2003 at 7:17, Adam Back wrote: > I'm not American. I'm dual-national British/Swiss, I've > lived in Britain, Scotland, Canada and now the US. But I > have not noticed anyone in Britain, or British press > discussing "un-British" behavior, or putting down anyone > attempting to ask questions as "un-patriotic". (Ditto for the > other countries). Press coverage of Iraq is varyingly biased > in those countries (ridiculously so in the US, somewhat in > the UK due to their involvement). I do not think so: Observe CNN whitewashing Saddam. Observe NBC imagining "unexpectedly strong Iraqi resistance", predicting that the battle of Baghdad would resemble the siege of Stalingrad, and observe its conspicuous failure to notice that the US was winning decisively in the cities. If you watched NBC, then when the statue fell, you would say "Hey, what happened!!" Ann coulter has been having a great time parodying the foolish pinkos that dominate the news media. www.anncoulter.com : : Liberals Meet Unexpected Resistance April 30, 2003 : : : : THOUGH MANY had anticipated a cakewalk for the media : : in undermining the war on terrorism, instead : : liberals are caught in a quagmire of good news about : : the war. Predictions that liberals would have an : : easy time embarrassing President Bush have met : : unexpected resistance. They're still looking for the : : bad news they said was there. Experts believe the : : media's quagmire results from severely reduced : : troops. The left's current force is less than half : : the size of the coalition media that undermined the : : Vietnam War. This is a melange of infamous claims issued by the New York Times, NBC, and CNN --- "US ofrces meet unexpected resistance" She has been doing much the same in every column since the statue fell. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Mz00mZ5gWkjnT0B8TL9Q/ovyfF/rh8UgopMSl51V 4hokukmt8BDA5AtehHVy0Gm+1fzARkRhDtq8q9MRR

2 2

Re: Why are there so many statists and communists here on this list now?
by Major Variola (ret) 02 May '03

02 May '03

t 03:08 PM 5/2/03 -0700, Matt Beland wrote: >Looks like you've driven most of the interesting people away. Who's left? The >ones who agree with you? Where's the fun in that? > >Don't you get tired of talking into an echo machine? "When I was your age we didn't have Tim May! We had to be paranoid on our own! And we were grateful!" --Alan Olsen Perhaps this whole thing is just one person talking to himself, with Tim listening in! -Dr Evil

1 0