June 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

Casio's credit card watch
by R. A. Hettinga 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

<http://www.engadget.com/entry/6562458580289881/> - Engadget - www.engadget.com Casio's credit card watch Posted Jun 9, 2004, 8:30 AM ET by Gareth Edwards Related entries: Misc. Gadgets Putting IC chips into things to turn them into electronic wallets is officially the latest Japanese gadget trend. Casio gets in on the act with a watch it has developed with card company JCB that can be swiped over a reader to pay for purchases, or get through security gates in office buildings. It uses the Sony FeliCa chip, which is fast becoming the de facto standard and will start appearing in Japanese cellphones very soon. Casio is very big on the fact that you now don't have to root around in your bag for a credit card or cellphone in order to pay for things or get in and out of the office. We're happier with the latter idea, if only because the standard IC-chip company ID cards are apt to snap in half if you look at them crosseyed; on the other hand, being able to pay for stuff with something that doesn't even look like a credit card sounds like a recipe for disaster, unless they have the hands swing to one minute to midnight when you're about to hit your credit limit. Also, it's worth pointing out that the kidz of Japan don't seem too bothered about watches these days; we recall a survey not so long ago in which the most popular watch brand among teens was "NTT DoCoMo". -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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

[Neuclear-general] VERAX Beta Dollar the second NeuClear asset is now live
by R. A. Hettinga 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

RE: [irtheory] War ain't beanbag. Irony is conserved.
by R. A. Hettinga 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ah. Here we go. A "liberal" hides behind the straw man, this time in the shape of a child. How original. At 3:37 PM +0100 6/13/04, Lee James wrote: >I'd like to hear how children who werent old enough to pronounce the >colour were 'reds' who were rightly tortured (apparently) in your >view, as well as the many women raped and tortured at the hands of >SOA graduates. Funny how "liberals" always do the debits and not the credits in these grotesque calculations. Shall we count the several-orders-of-magnitude number of starved (*and* butchered) children in various Marxist "paradises" around the world, too? I thought not. It wouldn't be "fair". >I'd also be keen to see evidence of this free-market success of >which you talk, because it isn't in central america for the >countless millions in poverty. Freedom, market or otherwise, isn't about the fool's errand of forced income redistribution, which is, invariably, what actually causes famine and tragedy. See "children", above. (Not that "for the children", above, isn't the "liberal" canard it has always been.) Freedom, market, and otherwise, is about *choice*. The choice to work hard and make money and do better than you started. Progress, more stuff cheaper now than it used to be, more stuff cheaper tomorrow than it is now, is the result. What you do with that stuff, is your problem. More to the point, it is the very "maldistribution" of that stuff that makes *progress* happen. Marxists have this problem with counting stuff. They deal in lumps of labor, or "missing" jobs, or labor theories of "value", and it all speaks to a basic innumeracy that does them ill in a world where actual math and science are required to achieve things. >Before, a person encourages free-markets elsewhere, how about >encouraging them in the United States in order to really test the >theory and give these nations a chance of economic development. The >three most successful industries in the united states (steel, >agriculture and >techonology/military) Straw man. You're comparing markets and economies that are, for the most part, free, and pulling out subsidies which are, by definition, exceptional, and then comparing them to economies in which private property is, for the most part, criminalized, and saying that the former is worse. Give me a break. Sure. I wish that government didn't control huge tracts of the economy in the US, making them, for the most part, like the very lands that they own -- sometimes to enhance it's take in graft, sometimes to mystify nature for various useful idiots out there -- productivity wastelands. Manufacturing in the US is done in *spite* of, not *because* of, subsidy, not to mention over-regulation and the government-assisted extortionate demands of labor "unions". So too with the political feather-bedding and log-rolling in agriculture, mining, and, even, I would claim, defense -- if it were possible to imagine a world with force-monopoly to begin with, making the whole point moot. >are all state funded and protected in a exceedinly >'socialist' manner. There is no evidence in Europe of development >occuring in industry any other way either. Say no more. :-). In Europe industry is forbidden unless permitted. In the US, where new industries are created (what medium are we talking on, here, for instance) faster than governments can regulate, much less subsidize them, industry is permitted unless forbidden. >The defence of America and by proxy Reagan's crime in Central >America is alarmingly close to Hitler's defence of his Genocide and >also Stalin's killing of counter-revolutionarys (if we hadnt done it >they wou;d have killed more, theyre the threat not us etc). That's it. Go for it. You know you want to: Reagan = Hitler. Somewhere, even Mike Godwin, who probably didn't vote for Reagan, though for different, more valid, reasons than yours, is laughing. Godwin, a casual friend of mine, has another "law", by the way. See my .sig, below, which points to an axiom of mine, which is, "progress, like reality, is not optional". It's entirely appropriate to this discussion of industry being created by government, and not the other way around. > >Exactly at which point does a war (any war) stop being defensive >because according to the history books the US has never fought an >aggressive war. I prefer to think about the McDonald's paradox: No country that has a McDonald's has attacked another. :-). We'll see how long *that* stands up. As for "democracy" somehow being magical, remember that Athens brought on the Peloponnesian war, not Sparta. That Andrew Jackson, the founder of the political spoils system that is one and the same as the "Democratic" party in the US, was one of the great war-mongers of all time. There is a hoary old joke among Republicans in the US that Democrats start wars, and Republicans finish them. Humor that is, in this case, rooted more often than not in reality. >I'm not sure that it is defensive to defend a country against its >own people, when europe did so it was called colonisation. Yawn. When Europe did it it was called "economics". A word you seem to be unfamiliar with. When their economic interests were attacked (First the Portuguese, then the Spanish, then The Dutch, then the English), surprise, they won. See Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel", for details. Eventually, having won all these mostly defensive wars, they owned all this territory, and like other great rent-seekers throughout history, they handed it all over to the government because it was cheaper than hiring their own armies. Life is hard. Sometimes, people with guns come and kick your ass. If you don't have guns, you can't kick their ass. More often in history, though, people with swords and spears came to kick the ass of *traders* with guns, who are there just to make a little dosh buying cheap and selling dear, and, strangely enough, the guys with the swords and spears lost, yielding their territory and, surprise, sovereignty. Force is a geographically monopolistic market. Whadda concept. It would be nice to change, but, like I said before, there it is. Cheers, RAH -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQMyuysPxH8jf3ohaEQI6awCdFvUFdrn7FssYaPh+OkmcIgf7tMUAn2h3 /L0Kr5caWMa3hcS5uzggzgzN =TPoK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "...any [network] architecture that can survive a nuclear attack can survive withdrawal of government subsidy..." -- Michael Godwin

3 4

Re: [irtheory] War ain't beanbag. Irony is conserved.
by R. A. Hettinga 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

[irtheory] Re: War ain't beanbag. Irony is conserved.
by R. A. Hettinga 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

Re: [irtheory] War ain't beanbag. Irony is conserved.
by R. A. Hettinga 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

[irtheory] Re: War ain't beanbag. Irony is conserved.
by R. A. Hettinga 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

--- begin forwarded text To: irtheory(a)yahoogroups.com User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 From: "Carmi Turchick" <tribalypredisposed(a)yahoo.com> Mailing-List: list irtheory(a)yahoogroups.com; contact irtheory-owner(a)yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list irtheory(a)yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:37:43 -0000 Subject: [irtheory] Re: War ain't beanbag. Irony is conserved. Reply-To: irtheory(a)yahoogroups.com RAH; Thank you for the perfect illustration of pure evil, and the perfect illustration of how ones altruistic nature and desire to do good can lead one to support crimes against humanity so long as they are committed by "your" side. I respond in detail below. --- In irtheory(a)yahoogroups.com, "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@s...> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 6:11 AM +0000 6/13/04, Carmi Turchick wrote: > >Here is more about the connection between the death squads and the > >policy of genocide and our own American facility, the School of the > >Americas... > > Yawn. War, to paraphrase a famous American income- redistributionist, > ain't beanbag. > > Yes. We taught soldiers, hell, thugs, even, to kill commies. Just how is an unborn fetus a commie? I seem to recall your side being really defensive of fetuses, except, I guess, when they are in the bodies of innocent civilians (well, guilty of being born Mayan) who are unfortunate enough to live in mountainous areas that are where guerrilla fighters (naturally) base their operations? It was a > war. Remember? Oh, well I think Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were fighting wars too. Remember? So, does your line of reasoning suddenly reverse or were their slaughters OK also? And let us see how this war started...oh yeah, WE OVERTHREW THEIR DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT because we did not like its policies. So we started the war and were the aggressors and the fact that a very few of them may have been "communists" justifies a genocide? > > The commies were killing people too, remember? More to the point, > they wanted to kill lots more. Deliberately, or worse, through their > own ignorant mismanagement of the lives they would eventually have > total control of. Well, the Guatemalan truth commission found that 90% of the violations of human rights, the murder, rape, genocide, was done by government forces. They found that 3% was done by the guerrillas, and the rest they could not be sure. And there is absolutely no evidence, or even accusations, that the democratically elected government we overthrew was killing anyone or had policies that would lead to their deaths. In fact there is no evidence that the government we overthrew was a communist government. There just is no place for you to go on this one, you are supporting genocide and mass murder even of fetuses in the name of profits for one US company. This is pure evil and it comes from you. The government we overthrew was doing nothing more than exercising its rights of eminent domain in exactly the way that our own government does. They paid the company for the land, paid what the company had claimed it was worth. How does the exercise of eminenet domain rights by a sovereign government make them Communists? And does this argument not mean that a violent overthrow of the Communist President Bush would be justified? > > > All those "innocent" people were either totalitarians or dupes. So, little children, fetuses, illiterate peasants who never even heard of Marx (and this makes up the vast majority of the victims), all of them were totalitarians or dupes? Based on their living where their ancestors had lived for millenia? So how do you define totalitarian? Must be a very different meaning than any I am familiar with; seems to me that you think it means "anyone we can profit from the murder of." I also have to point out that this "free enterprise by force" conception of yours is a novel usage of the term "free" and also happens to be exactly what totalitarians do; they profit by force, by controlling the means of production with military might. What do you call yourselves, Totalitarians Against Totalitarianism by Anyone Else? > Lenin's "useful idiots". Even the nuns. Even the bishops. Even the > nice Anglo church ladies from El Norte who thought that in a war > between Ghandi and, say, Stalin, Ghandi would win. Bambi vs. Godzilla > is more like it. Of course, like Lenin himself, ultimately, those > "idiots" were like Ghandi joining the war on Stalin's side. > > [Okay, so, in actuality, Ghandi *was* on Stalin's side, economically > and ideologically, at least, the world's most beatified useful idiot > in that regard. Certainly Nehru was on Stalin's team, explicitly so, > creating the world's second largest command economy after China's, > dooming tens of millions of his countrymen to famine, and most of the > rest to destitution -- for *decades* -- in the process, because food > prices were *calculated* by a committee somewhere instead of > discovered in a market like they're supposed to be, and because > cheaper, superior, foreign goods and services were legislated out of > Indian markets entirely. Except for the elite, of course...] It seems to nme that there are quite a few parts of our economy that the government controls, from food to steel to gasoline the prices are manipulated and supply is limited or enhanced by our governmet. And there are foriegn goods that are kept out or taxed heavily. Those damn Communist Republicans! Why, just recently they made it illegal to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, an act that will directly cost some elderly people their lives. So, are the elderly all totalitarians or dupes too? Seems to me that by your own logic we can now justify massacring Republicans, including women, children and the unborn, because they are controlling the economy in a way that kills people. Care to rethink that position before we get started? > > > "Liberation" theology, remember that? ["Liberation" being yet another > communard verbal expropriation, like what they did to the word > "liberal". War is peace. Or, in the case of "liberation", and > "liberal", freedom is literally tyranny.] > > Remember Aristide's little ditty in praise of the "necklace"? Ummm, and Aristide, who we backed, was a communist how? > > Remember Ortega and the people whose property he expropriated, who he > jailed, and those small-businessman "counter-revolutionaries" he > eventually killed? He would have killed more if we'd let him. If > Reagan had let him. > > Don't think the "innocent" Allende would have been any different, > he'd already started the process of expropriation and confiscation of > people's livelihoods, and eventually, their lives, when, yes, > Pinochet took him out. Life is hard. War sucks. People die. Again, the overthrow of a Democracy that was the one stable one in Latin America, by the CIA,...was a blow against Communism? And it is OK because it was a "war" and never mind that we started it? Does it matter that this "war" was against an unarmed population that never even revolted or went into the hills to fight? Does it matter that this "war" meant that ten thousand people we had picked out were put into a soccer stadium and massacred? There was no uprising in Chile and yet somehow you claim there was a "war?" I have to assume that you think it is somehow far worse to leave people unemployed than to massacre them. So then Bush again must be seen by your own argument as a Communist that must be overthrown (for confiscating people's livelihoods by subsidizing the export of their jobs) and Republicans must be rounded up into footbal stadiums and massacred. When do we start? > > And of course, there's the Sendero Luminoso, the "Shining" Path. Real > humanitarians. Ah, back to the "he did it too" argument. Well, then it must be OK, right? Would that argument still hold after we have all of the Republicans rounded up? > > Oh. That's right. Butchers like the Sendero's Guzman, like Ortega, > or, these days, Chavez and Castro, are *heroes* to people like you. > "Freedom fighters," or some such emetic nonsense. I'm a functional > atheist (okay, a Unitarian; there's some pyroclastic irony for > you...), but one of the best things the Pope did -- after helping > first Thatcher and then Reagan *free* three-quarters of Eurasia, if > you now count India, and start what is an irreversible process in > China -- was to kill "liberation" theology in its metaphoric crib, > before it literally killed tens of millions of people, much more than > centuries of ignorance and cryptofeudal tyranny hadn't done already > in South America. (See, speaking of Guzman and Sendero, the works of > Hernando de Soto for more on that...) "See above for completely unsupportable accusations of what might have happened if, if, if, but did not." > > > A nation-state, if you remember your first political "science" class, > is about force and geographic monopolies thereof. Politics is about > who controls and spends the economic rents that a force-monopoly violently expropriates from its citizenry [and in our case from the citizenry of other nations as well] and about buying > non-violent acquiescence in that expropriation through "social" > programs and other forms of fraud, thus lowering the transaction cost > of what would have been a more violent act of theft. > > As Mancur Olsen said in "Power and Prosperity", a prince is a bandit > who doesn't move. > > Absent any *physical* brakes on his power -- be they economic or > violent -- whoever is in charge of a nation state, and whatever elite > he needs to keep himself in power, can do whatever they damn well > please. It is only an armed (first) and educated (second), and thus > *free* population that prevents them from turning into tyrants. An excellent description of America today and how our poorly educated (at the very least in political realms) population has allowed the Republicans and Democrats to loot and pillage at will. Thank you. > Stalin, the subject of "Power and Prosperity" -- and ultimate model > for erst-and-proto-tinpots from Santiago to Managua to Havana to > Caracas, from New Delhi to Baghdad, from Phnom Penh to Pyongyang -- > being the canonical example. > > Your heroes, from the "liberation" theology Church Ladies to Castro, > were about selling oppression to the masses. > > My heroes, certainly the people who ran, and, yes, those who > graduated from, the School of the Americas, thugs and all, were, > ultimately, on the side of good and right. So, by "good and right" you mean what exactly? The policy that any attempt to stop the forced expropriation, "the economic rents that a force-monopoly violently expropriates from its citizenry" when done by us to a foreign population is evil? That any attempt by a foreign population to stop us from ripping them off and controlling their economy by force is justification for mass murder and genocide? How then do you define good and right? And ultimately, by the > count of democracy versus tyranny in this half of the world -- more > important, by the count of free versus confiscatory > crypto-and-neo-feudal markets -- it looks like they won, so they were > on the right side of history as well. Hold on, so I can only conclude that you are saying LESS DEMOCRACY is a win for us? How does the violent overthrow of TWO DEMOCRACIES by the CIA and the USA mean more democracy and less tyranny? How does the installing of a brutal military dictator equal more Democracy? Perhaps I just have never seen the term "Democracy" applied to an unelected military dictator with total unchallenged power before, could you reference this usage for me? > > War ain't beanbag. Until we solve the problem of force-monopoly with > free markets someday, Yes, how will we end the American force-monopoly in the third world? That is indeed one of the keys. war, and monopolistic violence, is, > paradoxically, how we protect free markets, If by "free" you mean "completly controlled for our own interests." and, through them, > freedom itself. If by "freedom" you mean "the right to be massacred by us for disagreeing, or even for just looking like someday you might disagree should we ever allow you to be born alive." > > Irony, apparently, is abundant in the universe, and, like matter and > energy, force and fraud, it is conserved as well. Yes, it is indeed remarkably present in this post of yours where you espouse how good it is that we commit unthinkable evil acts on complete innocents so that they may be "free." None of those you hold to be evil, Hitler, Stalin, etc, would have said anything very much different from what you just did to justify their own horrific acts. How does it feel to be evil? Carmi Turchick > > > Cheers, > RAH > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP 8.0.3 > > iQA/AwUBQMxbPcPxH8jf3ohaEQIV1QCg3WCvUqbISoWl83PYkCi04IflyJsAoI8p > /FuTkpzHwSDUaTG392g2yuB1 > =nx0v > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > ----------------- > R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@i...> > The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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' ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/_tgrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/irtheory/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: irtheory-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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

RE: [irtheory] War ain't beanbag. Irony is conserved.
by R. A. Hettinga 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

War ain't beanbag. Irony is conserved.
by R. A. Hettinga 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:11 AM +0000 6/13/04, Carmi Turchick wrote: >Here is more about the connection between the death squads and the >policy of genocide and our own American facility, the School of the >Americas... Yawn. War, to paraphrase a famous American income-redistributionist, ain't beanbag. Yes. We taught soldiers, hell, thugs, even, to kill commies. It was a war. Remember? The commies were killing people too, remember? More to the point, they wanted to kill lots more. Deliberately, or worse, through their own ignorant mismanagement of the lives they would eventually have total control of. All those "innocent" people were either totalitarians or dupes. Lenin's "useful idiots". Even the nuns. Even the bishops. Even the nice Anglo church ladies from El Norte who thought that in a war between Ghandi and, say, Stalin, Ghandi would win. Bambi vs. Godzilla is more like it. Of course, like Lenin himself, ultimately, those "idiots" were like Ghandi joining the war on Stalin's side. [Okay, so, in actuality, Ghandi *was* on Stalin's side, economically and ideologically, at least, the world's most beatified useful idiot in that regard. Certainly Nehru was on Stalin's team, explicitly so, creating the world's second largest command economy after China's, dooming tens of millions of his countrymen to famine, and most of the rest to destitution -- for *decades* -- in the process, because food prices were *calculated* by a committee somewhere instead of discovered in a market like they're supposed to be, and because cheaper, superior, foreign goods and services were legislated out of Indian markets entirely. Except for the elite, of course...] "Liberation" theology, remember that? ["Liberation" being yet another communard verbal expropriation, like what they did to the word "liberal". War is peace. Or, in the case of "liberation", and "liberal", freedom is literally tyranny.] Remember Aristide's little ditty in praise of the "necklace"? Remember Ortega and the people whose property he expropriated, who he jailed, and those small-businessman "counter-revolutionaries" he eventually killed? He would have killed more if we'd let him. If Reagan had let him. Don't think the "innocent" Allende would have been any different, he'd already started the process of expropriation and confiscation of people's livelihoods, and eventually, their lives, when, yes, Pinochet took him out. Life is hard. War sucks. People die. And of course, there's the Sendero Luminoso, the "Shining" Path. Real humanitarians. Oh. That's right. Butchers like the Sendero's Guzman, like Ortega, or, these days, Chavez and Castro, are *heroes* to people like you. "Freedom fighters," or some such emetic nonsense. I'm a functional atheist (okay, a Unitarian; there's some pyroclastic irony for you...), but one of the best things the Pope did -- after helping first Thatcher and then Reagan *free* three-quarters of Eurasia, if you now count India, and start what is an irreversible process in China -- was to kill "liberation" theology in its metaphoric crib, before it literally killed tens of millions of people, much more than centuries of ignorance and cryptofeudal tyranny hadn't done already in South America. (See, speaking of Guzman and Sendero, the works of Hernando de Soto for more on that...) A nation-state, if you remember your first political "science" class, is about force and geographic monopolies thereof. Politics is about who controls and spends the economic rents that a force-monopoly violently expropriates from its citizenry, and about buying non-violent acquiescence in that expropriation through "social" programs and other forms of fraud, thus lowering the transaction cost of what would have been a more violent act of theft. As Mancur Olsen said in "Power and Prosperity", a prince is a bandit who doesn't move. Absent any *physical* brakes on his power -- be they economic or violent -- whoever is in charge of a nation state, and whatever elite he needs to keep himself in power, can do whatever they damn well please. It is only an armed (first) and educated (second), and thus *free* population that prevents them from turning into tyrants. Stalin, the subject of "Power and Prosperity" -- and ultimate model for erst-and-proto-tinpots from Santiago to Managua to Havana to Caracas, from New Delhi to Baghdad, from Phnom Penh to Pyongyang -- being the canonical example. Your heroes, from the "liberation" theology Church Ladies to Castro, were about selling oppression to the masses. My heroes, certainly the people who ran, and, yes, those who graduated from, the School of the Americas, thugs and all, were, ultimately, on the side of good and right. And ultimately, by the count of democracy versus tyranny in this half of the world -- more important, by the count of free versus confiscatory crypto-and-neo-feudal markets -- it looks like they won, so they were on the right side of history as well. War ain't beanbag. Until we solve the problem of force-monopoly with free markets someday, war, and monopolistic violence, is, paradoxically, how we protect free markets, and, through them, freedom itself. Irony, apparently, is abundant in the universe, and, like matter and energy, force and fraud, it is conserved as well. Cheers, RAH -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQMxbPcPxH8jf3ohaEQIV1QCg3WCvUqbISoWl83PYkCi04IflyJsAoI8p /FuTkpzHwSDUaTG392g2yuB1 =nx0v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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

Re: (SOT) [Full-Disclosure] Possible First Crypto Virus Definitely Discovered! (fwd)
by Adam 12 Jun '04

12 Jun '04

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:25:36 -0500 (CDT) "J.A. Terranson" <measl(a)mfn.org> wrote: > Submitted primarily for it's entertainment value, but with a crypto > nexus. > > Yours > J.A. Terranson Is this Bilano guy serious? Or is it pulling some inane prank? Notice that he claims to be an 'MSCE' .. Moron I really have to wonder about people like this -- Adam "satyam, shivam, sundaram"

2 1