- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

The Independent Institute's take on PAM
by Freematt357＠aol.com 06 Aug '03

06 Aug '03

THE LIGHTHOUSE, the weekly e-mail newsletter of The Independent Institute, the non-politicized public-policy research organization. "Enlightening Ideas for Public Policy..." http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/Lighthouse.html. Excerpted via :Vol. 5, Issue 31, August 4, 2003 PENTAGON SCRAPS INFORMATION MARKET Even those who understandably scorned the Pentagon's recently cancelled Policy Analysis Market (PAM) -- a.k.a. the terrorism futures market, as some detractors called it -- should admit that it was innovative in a badly needed way. In proposing a virtual market to help predict contingencies in the Middle East and elsewhere, PAM set out to achieve what years of pseudo-reform of U.S. military and intelligence agencies had failed even to attempt -- to bypass the hierarchical bureaucracy that has led to numerous deadly intelligence failures. By making use of the knowledge of thousands of people willing to put their money on the line (maximum bet: $100), PAM was based on the insight that markets, driven by economic actors with powerful incentives to guess correctly, often know better than a handful of professional prognosticators. This point has been well illustrated by the web-based Iowa Political Stock Market, a virtual market that has consistently predicted election outcomes more accurately than pollsters. Because PAM was controversial for more than one reason, it should not be surprising that it was misrepresented by politicians and the media. "Contrary to impressions in the media, the primary purpose of the PAM was not to predict individual events of terrorism but rather to predict inputs into terrorism such as the economic growth rates of countries in the Middle East, political instability, and military activity," write Alexander Tabarrok, research director of the Independent Institute, and Robin Hanson, the principal architect of the Policy Analysis Market, in a new op-ed. Rather, write Tabarrok and Hanson, PAM was to help answer such questions as "What would happen to unrest in the Middle East if the US withdrew its troops in Saudi Arabia" and "How would Jordan fare politically if the 'roadmap' were successfully implemented?" Recent history suggests that traditional approaches to such questions, even if well-informed, can become ignored or politicized. "The yes-man phenomena means that information doesn't rise from the field to the decision-makers," write Tabarrok and Hanson. "And sometimes the bosses don't want to hear what the field has to say. Remember the CIA and FBI analysts who repeatedly tried to signal their worries about terrorism to their superiors but were rebuffed? In contrast, a PAM would produce a public and easily understood number that would be difficult to ignore." Fortunately, the future of such "information markets," "prediction aggregators," or "idea futures" doesn't rest on government funding and would be managed better without it. A few visionary institutions, such as Hewlett-Packard, have already used them to aid in decision-making, and many more will be adopted. But as with so many innovations, don't expect the government to employ them effectively for a long, long time. See "Another Intelligence Failure," by Alexander Tabarrok and Robin Hanson (8/4/03) http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030804Tabarrok.html Also see, "Decision Markets," by Robin Hanson. Chapter 5 in ENTREPRENEURIAL ECONOMICS: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science, edited by Alexander Tabarrok. Information on ENTREPRENEURIAL ECONOMICS can be found at http://www.EntrepreneurialEconomics.org.

3 2

Re: Teen arrested at Logan for alleged sarcasm in his bag
by Eric Cordian 06 Aug '03

06 Aug '03

Sunder posts: > http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/214/metro/ Teen_arrested_at_Logan_for_alleged_bomb_threat_in_his_bag+.shtml > According to the police report, the note, which was placed on top of > clothes in a black gym bag read: ''[Expletive] you. Stay the [expletive] > out of my bag you [expletive] sucker. Have you found a [expletive] bomb > yet? No, just clothes. Am I right? Yea, so [expletive] you.'' Not every sentence containing the word "bomb" is a bomb threat. Apparently this concept is lost upon the cretins guarding our airports. While this kid is probably screwed for using the B-word, one wonders what the boundary is that one has to cross with a note in ones luggage to get arrested. For instance, which of these sentences, written on a note in ones luggage, would get one arrested and/or booted off a flight. "Don't wrinkle my clothes, you minimum wage douchebag" "Bush lied to start a war" "R.I.P. First Amendment" "There is only one God, and Mohammad is his Prophet" "Hang Israeli War Criminal Ariel Sharon" "The 9/11 Martyrs are in Paradise" "Proud NAMBLA Member since 1979" "John Walsh is an expert on everything, except watching his kid at the mall" "Death to AmeriKKKa" "Free Jim Bell" "What the world really needs is a fifty dollar weapon that sinks aircraft carriers" "Founding Member, Aryan Nations" "Support Strong Crypto" Perhaps John Gilmore, in his copious free time, could place these one by one in his gym bag, and report back on the results. :) -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

3 2

RE: What happened to the Cryptography list...?
by Rayburn, Russell E. 06 Aug '03

06 Aug '03

For what it's worth, I had the same experience and would like to know what happened to the wasabisystems list... Anyone out there know? -----Original Message----- From: R. A. Hettinga [mailto:rah@shipwright.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:01 PM To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com Subject: What happened to the Cryptography list...? --- begin forwarded text

2 1

RE: Year in Jail for Web Links
by Mac Norton 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

There was a weapons charge as well, which will always complicate matters considerably. The unconventional life is a more or less fine thing until it gets perpendicular to the conventional life, usually in the form of law enforcement agents. When that happens, and it almost surely will, what is necessary is a relatively big bunch of money, or a plea bargain. What happened here is happening to young men (yes, usually men, and as in this case, of color) all over this country all day long every day who are found in possession of light amounts of controlled substances. You people think being an anarchist makes you special? Sheesh, gimme a break. MacN -----Original Message----- From: Eric Cordian [mailto:emc@artifact.psychedelic.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:04 PM To: cypherpunks(a)minder.net Subject: Year in Jail for Web Links An anarchist has been sentenced to a year in jail for having links to explosives information on his Web site. AmeriKKKa is further fucking the First Amendment by restricting whom he may associate with in the future, and what views he may espouse. As is usual in most criminal cases today, the defendent was forced to plea bargain to avoid the threat of worse charges if he went to trial. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/05/anarchist.prison.ap/index.html ----- LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal judge sentenced a man to a year in prison Monday for creating an anarchist Web site with links to sites on how to build bombs. U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson sentenced Sherman Austin to more than the prosecutor had recommended under a plea bargain. Austin, 20, pleaded guilty in February to distributing information related to explosives. ... -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Re: [eff-austin] Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?
by mindfuq＠comcast.net 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

* Sunder <sunder(a)sunder.net> [2003-08-05 17:29]: > > > > Why is it forbidden by law? > > > > I can think of hundreds of reasons DoS attacks are illegal. Now I'm > > not sure if it's illegal everywhere; I'm only familar with the way > > it's written in the California Penal code, which is where Mallory is > > located in this case. But to answer your question, just look at all > > the damage that's caused by DoS attacks. Look at the Slammer worm. > > It would be a seriously neglectful to allow such damaging attacks on > > people and businesses. > > No, you're ignoring my whole entire arguement - and that is telling. You > realize you're wrong, but just refuse to admit it. I didn't ask why > denial of service attacks are forbidden by law. That's obvious. This is exactly what you asked- just read the quote. > I asked why would AOL's policies in terms of their service > agreements be forbidden by law when their customers agreed to them? I answered this several times already. Listen up. Getting people to sign a contract excusing illegal activity does not make that activity legal. If it did, you would see drug dealers asking their customers to sign contracts stating that they're not to be held accountable. People cannot agree via contract to violate a law, then expect to be able to enforce such a contract. This is a concept you need to acquire. Contracts are not enforceable simply because there was an agreement. There is other criteria that must be adhered to, one of which is law. > They're not necessarily considered a common carrier since they > decided a long time ago to police the content of their service. And? It certainly doesn't matter to me whether we define these bozos as a "common carrier." What does matter is that they have a large piece of the market share, and their illegal practices have a significant impact on the internet community. > > > Bob signed a contract with Mallory waiving certain rights in > > > exchange for the service provided by Mallory. Mallory provided full > > > disclosure of it's rights to Bob along with Bob's responsabilities, > > > etc. Bob chose to accept those terms, how is this illegal again? > > > > First of all, Bob was coerced into this contract because Bob had no > > idea that the fine print said there may be cases where he doesn't get > > the service he thinks he's paying for. Specifically, Mallory didn't > > tell Bob that she would be filtering his mail for him, and certainly > > didn't tell Bob that she would take the liberty of blocking some > > non-spam mail as well. Such a contract is quite questionable, and I'd > > like to see it put before a court for fair analysis. > > Not at all. Bob agreed to the terms of service and was asked to both read > and acknowledge that he read them. AOL's terms of service are available > for anyone to read at any time. Regardless, should Bob not live up to his > end of said agreement, the contract would be null and void, as would his > access. This is just a restatement. I already explained that this is a predatory and misleading contract. If you don't accept this, then you must make an argument to the contrary. You would have a difficult time arguing that AOL users are aware of the TOS. Not a single AOLer who I convinced to leave AOL was aware of the AOL TOS. > Your claim that Bob was coerced is exteremely dubious. Care to support that statement with anything? > There is no proof of this, we do not have Bob here claiming this. We > have, only you, a third party uninvolved in Bob's agreement with AOL > making such claims because you cannot communicate with Bob. This is because Bob isn't a real person. Bob is a hypothetical character used to analyze security threats and activities, and Bob lives in a hypothetical world. So to summons Bob to this forum is quite a silly idea. You'll have for find a better way of making your point. > Either way, if Bob is unsure of what he agreed to, he (and you) can check > these pages: http://www.aol.com/copyright.adp and > http://www.aol.com/copyright/rules.html Why would Bob be motivated to check these pages, when Bob doesn't even know there's a problem? Remember, Bob is ignorant here; as Bob is not informed that legitimate mail with his name on it is being trashed. > Some relevant quotes addressing your dumb arguements: These quotes only prove my point that the contract is predatory. Again, you made my point for me. > These are the terms to which Bob has agreed to. It clearly states that > AOL may if it chooses to remove access to content it deems harmful for > whatever reason. It does not list what those reasons are, therefore, they > are at its discretion - NOT AT YOURS. Predatory- my point exactly. Again, you have made my case. > There is no need for any law to change this. Bob and AOL both voluntarily > agreed to these terms. End of story. Bob did not give his *informed* consent to these terms, only his consent. > > > If the service Mallory provides Bob is inadequate, that's between Mallory > > > and Bob, not between Alice and Bob. Alice and Mallory have no contract > > > what-so-ever. It's upto you, Alice, to convince Bob of this fact. If you > > > can't, that's Bob's choice, not yours. And you have no business to > > > interfere between Bob and Mallory. > > > > The problem with this argument is that Mallory is not just denying > > service to Bob, but Alice as well. Furthermore, Alice may not even > > have the option of explaining the service problem to Bob, because > > Mallory is preventing Alice from talking to Bob. > > Stop right there. AOL's contract is with Bob. NOT WITH you, ALICE. You > have no claims to make. You have no contract with AOL, it is under no > obligation whatsoever to deal with you. Again, this is just a restatement of what you already said, and it does not address my statement. Companies do not exist in an isolated vacuum with their customers. They affect others- people who have absolutely no contract with them. Does this lack of contract make the company immune to legal liabilities? Not at all. I sue telemarketers on a regular basis, and I win, and collect. I have absolutely no contract or business relationship with these companies, but they still manage to cause me damage, and they must deal with me when I serve them with court papers. In fact, if I did have a business relationship with these companies, it would weaken my case, because the law allows companies to telemarket their own customers. So this argument that I must be paying them money in order for them to be able to damage me is absurd. > If you don't like that, sign up with AOL, agree to their terms, and > file a complaint - if those rules will allow you to do so. This isn't necessary. > Otherwise, you have no way to interfere with the agreement between > Bob and AOL. Correct, Bob's contract with AOL does not involve me. What I'm talking about is AOL committing a DoS attack on me, which is actionable regardless of Bob's contract. > > Mallory is everyone's business, because a malicious attack on the > > Internet affects everyone. The fact that Bob is paying Mallory money > > doesn't make it okay- in fact, it worsens the problem, because the > > perpetrator is being compensated by her own victims. > > No. There is no such legal entity as "The Internet." The Internet doesn't have to be a "legal entity" for it to be attacked, and have an impact on society. Take the Slammer worm, for example. This thing attacked the Internet and had a huge impact on Internet users. If you try to explain to these users that they don't have a claim against the attacker because the Internet is not a "legal entity" by your terms, you'll have a very unconvincing point. The internet can be attacked, we've seen this. > AOL, like all other ISP's (I'm stretching the term here) has > contractual agreements with other ISP's from which it obtains > service. Depending on what those rules allow, AOL may or may not be > playing by the rules. That's up to whomever feeds AOL to decide, > not you. You are not AOL's ISP. You have no contract with AOL on > that level either. Again, no one is arguing that AOL isn't playing by these rules that they created. However, AOL must still abide by the law. And yes, I see your restatement that I don't have a contract with AOL. This statement isn't effective. It doesn't matter that I don't have a contract with AOL. > > Such a contract is predatory, and has no business in this country. It > > prays on ignorant users, and provides a false representation for what > > the user is signing up for. FYI- you can't put anything you want in > > fine print, and expect it to be legally enforceable. Even if two > > parties agree that an illegal activity is okay, this does not legalize > > the activity. > > That is not upto you to decide. That is upto Bob. Since you haven't > entered any business agreement with AOL, you cannot make such claims > against them. Again, there's this constant ineffective restatement that you make. I don't need to have a contract with AOL to press charges against them. > > > No. Either you have agreed to live in said house by purchasing it, and > > > have therefore become a citizen of said city, and by such actions agreed > > > to abide by it's laws, or pre-existing laws allowed the city to run such > > > water services through your propery. This too is by contract. > > > > This is just what I said. You're making my point here. > > > I am? So, then you understand that you have no claims whatsoever against > AOL since you aren't using their service, nor have any contract whatsoever > with them? Then why all the BS? This argument suffers from the Straw Man fallacy. You're misrepresenting my argument, then attacking the misrepresentation. > > Absolutely, I > > cannot sabotage the city water line that goes through my property. > > Of course, because they're providing you with water service. Therefore, > you have agreed to those implict or explicit terms. You have a contract > with the city, or the water company. Either because that's what the laws > of the city state, or because you've signed a contract with the water > company agreeing to their terms. Just like Bob signed a contract with > AOL. So what's your beef??? Again, I agree with the fact that I cannot sabotage the city water line. But here inlies a flaw in the way you approach these problems. You then state that I can't sabotage the water line because I have some kind of contract with the city or water company. This is not the reason. This idea that you can only make a claim against someone you have a contract with is bogus. What if someone who has no contract with anyone in my state enters my property and destroys the water main- they can still be held accountable, even without a contract. This is the concept you are missing. > > > Where, Ms. Alice, is your contract with Mallory again? > > > > No contract necessary; criminal law is enforceable w/out a contract. > > Even more so, actually, because there is no chance of a contract > > removing the effect of Alice's claim. > > Where's the crime again? Denial of service crime, located where the servers are. > > > So, in that case if you need a red stapler, you should be able to break > > > into AOL's offices and steal one????? Since fucking when? > > > > Certainly not- there is no superceding free speech right or anything > > of the kind that would entail stealing a stapler. > > Hey, you're the one that claimed that the needs of humans outweigh those > of a corporation. So by that logic, not that I agree with it, should you > need a stapler, you should be able to take one from AOL. Of course it's > assinine. That's what I'm trying to show you. That your arguement is > full of shit. Straw man fallacy. Attack my statements, not your distorted re-presented versions of them. > > Blocking email, > > OTOH, violates multiple rights: free speech, right to assemble and > > petition the government, freedom of enterprise.. it could even run > > into public safety issues. So this stapler analogy doesn't really > > work here. > > The 1st ammended prevents >CONGRESS< from limiting the freedom of > speech. More precisely from creating laws that do so. It does not limit > private or public companies from doing so. The 1st has nothing to do with > this. You're clueless. The state must protect my freedom of speech. So when I make a claim against AOL for conducting a DoS attack against me, the state must rule in my favor, or else they are failing to protect my free speech rights. > > While I have gotten all but one friend and all family members to drop > > their AOL/Earthlink services, this still remains an issue for users > > whome I don't know personally. > > And you have no contract with either AOL or that friend. Like I said, you > have no right to interfere in AOL's business. There's your repeated ineffictive argument we keep seeing. I've shown that I do have a valid claim against AOL, and it seems you can't argue this without the restatement fallacy. > If you can convince their subscribers that AOL sucks, and they chose > to cancel their service, that's fine, that's wonderful - though if > AOL finds out, they may sue you for loss of business. They can only do this if they can show libel. However, showing AOL users the very contract they agreed to can't really be considered libel. > > > No, dumbass, you placed those packets on said network repeatedly after you > > > have discovered that they will be dropped in the bit bucket, that's too > > > bad for you. You've vandalized your own packets. > > > > I didn't do this, I created them- AOL is the one destroying things. > > I'm the aaahteeest, the creator.. AOL is the destroyer, using their > > property destructively. > > Yes, you did. As soon as you hit the send button in your mailer and had a > To:, CC:, BCC: header containing @aol.com. Your actions caused your email > to be sent to AOL's mail servers, which - as you already expected since > you knew, caused them to be deleted. I did not know AOL would destroy my packets. I sent them fully expecting them to arrive in the recipients inbox, and found that AOL took an action against it. This is how I discovered the problem to begin with. > Further, I would urge you read your ISP's terms of service. There's no > place in there that they guarantee delivery of email to an end user of > another ISP. Because they can't. So you have no such expectation. My ISPs contract does not state that they would blacklist my IP address, so I have a claim there as well, but that wasn't the point of this thread. > I'm done with this, you're too clueless to continue. Come back when you > get some brains. What I suggest to you is that you take a class in your local university on argumentation theory 101. Most of what you say has no effect because it has one logical fallacy or another. Study these fallacies before posting; you'll find that you have to scrap most of what you say before hitting send.

2 1

RE: Secure IDE?
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

"Trei, Peter" <ptrei(a)rsasecurity.com> writes: >It's a move in the right direction, but I wish they had followed through and >done the right things: > >* [AES | 3DES]/CBC I get the feeling they use ECB for speed (heavy pipelining) rather than cluelessness. >with a good distribution of IVs Where would you store them? The feature of this is that it's fully transparent, so you can't store IVs anywhere. >* User-generated keys (before initial disk setup, of course). That one's the only thing I can't find a good technical reason for... perhaps it's just commercial, since they see the dongles as a revenue source and will sell you software to set up n dongles yourself, where price is proportional to n. >* Some kind of PIN or password protection on the dongle. How would you do this without a custom BIOS (remember that their general product is for dropping into any PC)? >40 bit DES is not secure against your kid sister (if she's a cypherpunk :-), >much less industrial espionage. I'm more worried about key backup - it's bad enough having cheapest-possible- components IDE drives without complicating it further with a second point of failure. In the meantime a better option is still the triumvirate of: - Sensitive data saved only to RAM disk. - 3DES-encrypted volume mounted as a filesystem, which I can back up in encrypted form if necessary, and with all crypto done in software with per- sector random IVs, user-generated keys, and all the other stuff you asked for. - Encrypted swap. (Oh yeah, and a UPS so you're not tempted to temporarily save stuff to disk elsewhere in case the RAM drive goes away suddenly). >"40-bit DES (US Data Encryption Standard) is adequate for general users" > >Yeah. Right. If you're worried about Joe Burglar grabbing your laptop (for the value of the laptop) and your business data being leaked as collateral damage, or someone stumbling across your warez or pr0n, then it's probably adequate. Since this is what general users would be worried about, I'd agree with the statement. Anyone worried about more than that (probably about 0.01% of the market) isn't a general user any more. Peter.

2 1

Re: [eff-austin] Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?
by Thomas Shaddack 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Sunder wrote: > That is not upto you to decide. That is upto Bob. Since you haven't > entered any business agreement with AOL, you cannot make such claims > against them. Sometimes you don't have an effective choice. According to a friend, there are still areas (especially rural) in the US where AOL is the virtually only game in town. > The 1st ammended prevents >CONGRESS< from limiting the freedom of > speech. More precisely from creating laws that do so. It does not limit > private or public companies from doing so. The 1st has nothing to do with > this. You're clueless. There is an emerging potential problem linked to continuing privatization of virtually everything, and - the most important - to consolidation of owners. You can easily end up with the situation when everything around is owned by one of a handful of Big Corps, all with virtually the same restrictions, if the Market allows them that (eg, there will be enough consumers that won't care, and the rest will be the commercially uninteresting fringe). Then - tough luck. > > While I have gotten all but one friend and all family members to drop > > their AOL/Earthlink services, this still remains an issue for users > > whome I don't know personally. > > And you have no contract with either AOL or that friend. Like I said, you > have no right to interfere in AOL's business. If you can convince their > subscribers that AOL sucks, and they chose to cancel their service, that's > fine, that's wonderful - though if AOL finds out, they may sue you for > loss of business. Now this is an interesting question. Can AOL really sue the one who tells their customers the truth about the drawbacks of AOL's service? Isn't the existence of those drawbacks - including their refusal to correct them - ultimately THEIR OWN fault?

2 1

Teen arrested at Logan for alleged sarcasm in his bag
by Sunder 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/214/metro/Teen_arrested_at_Logan_for_alle… <SNIP> Socha was arrested by State Police and his mother, father, and sister, were ordered off United Airlines Flight 171 to Honolulu via San Francisco, which was set to depart at 7:07 a.m. According to the police report, the note, which was placed on top of clothes in a black gym bag read: ''[Expletive] you. Stay the [expletive] out of my bag you [expletive] sucker. Have you found a [expletive] bomb yet? No, just clothes. Am I right? Yea, so [expletive] you.'' <SNIP> I hope to see more and more of these until the public is outraged enough to not put up with this horseshit. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ <--*-->:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD. \|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! --------_sunder_(a)_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------

1 0

Re: Trouble at HavenCo?
by Freematt357＠aol.com 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

HavenCo's error was not initially raising the necessary cash to buy Sealand outright from the Bates, or if that didn't work they could have done it the old fashioned way by marrying into the family. Not having total control led to this outcome. As they say it's good to be king. Regards, Matt-

2 1

The last detritus of the dot bombs
by Tim May 05 Aug '03

05 Aug '03

As I'm feeling chatty this morning, I'll comment on another trend I've been seeing a lot of. While reading the Andrew Orlowski piece on Robin Hanson and the PAM/terror futures thing ( the URL is <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32170.html> ) I got to thinking about "What ever happened to Max More?" (the founder of the Extropians group) I did some Googling and found out he and his wife (Natasha Vita-More...the Extropians often change their names to more future-sounding monikers) are some kind of "motivational coaches" or involved in software to do the same. Then while Googling on Omnivora Policy Systems, or whatever that "disappearing ink" company is, I ran across the name Jeff Ubois, the guy who attended some of my parties. His resume is chockfull of references to "motivational' and "coaching" and similar squishy-soft consulting gigs. Way too many people think they can become the next Tony Robbins, that Neanderthal on late night t.v. selling motivational tapes. The good ideas, the good companies, the good technology...it comes from good ideas and good products, not from EST nonsense, not from motivational coaches, not from late night hucksters. Having talked to some of these folks, though not for the past few years, it really bugs me to see them going down this bullshit path. --Tim May "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." --John Stuart Mill

1 0