- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: China's wealthy bypass the banks
by Tyler Durden 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

Ah. A fellow knowledgeable China-hand. As far as I'm concerned, what Kung Tze does ca 5 BCE is really consdolidate and codify a large and diverse body of practices and beliefs under a fairly unified set of ethical ideas. In that sense, the Legalists were merely a refocusing of the same general body of mores, etc...into a somewhat different direction. One might call it a competing school to Kung Tze de Jiao Xun, but I would argue only because, at that time, Kung Tze "authority" as it's known today was by no means completely established. But in a sense, the early legalists weren't a HECK of a lot different from Confucious. As for Mr Donald's ramblings, the are in which they most closely approach reality is where filial obedience to the emperor is developed as an extension to his ethical system, but even here there are significant differences. For one, that filial loyalty is not portrayed as being ultimately political, but almost an extension of family (which is why the emperor was known as the "Son of Heaven"). Also, and this is fairly Cypherpunkish, unlike in the west the notin of Emperor was not ultimately a genetic one. That is, there's a "Mandate of Heaven", and when the mandate of heaven is removed from an Emperor and his line, it's time to bum-rush his show, which was done on a regular basis in China. As for the Taoists this comment by Mr Donald is almost completely nonsensical. -TD >From: "Enzo Michelangeli" <em(a)em.no-ip.com> >To: <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: Re: China's wealthy bypass the banks >Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:53:07 +0800 > >Re: China's wealthy bypass the banks >Tyler Durden >Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:56:08 -0800 > > > Oh No!!!! > > > > > > Way overly simplistic. Also, you are comparing apples to bushels of > > wheat. > > > > [James Donald:] > > However Confucianism vs Daoism/Taoism is rather different from what > > you would get in the west. Confucianism is somewhat similar to what > > you would get if western cultural conservatives allied themselves with > > nazi/commies, in the way that the commies are prone to imagine > > conservatives have supposedly allied themselves with nazis. Taoism > > somewhat similar to what you would get if anarcho capitalists allied > > themselves with pagans and wiccans... > > > > WOW! I'll skip the obvious comments and ask, In which centuries are > > you suggesting this applies? Now? If so, you are clearly NOT talking > > about mainland China. Please re-define the centuries/epochs during > > which you believe this to have been true, and then maybe I'll bother > > responding. > >Actually, that doesn't apply to any century. The ancient philosophical >school that inspired Mao Zedong was actually Legalism, which provided the >theoretic foundations to the absolutist rule of Qin Shi Huangdi (to whom >Mao liked to compare himself). Mao, as many other Chinese reformers and >writers of the early XX Century, hated Confucianism as symbol of China's >"ancien regime" and decay. Which is why the campaign against Zhou En-lai >of 1974-75 had an anti-Confucian theme (see e.g. the posters at >http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger/plpk.html ) > >Legalists and Qin Shi Huangdi himself were pretty nasty types, and their >domination saw widespread confiscation of books, ridiculously harsh rule >(arriving late to work could bring the death penalty!) and large-scale >assassination or rivals: several Confucian philosophers were buried alive. >The ruthless methods of the Qin dinasty ultimately resulted in its >downfall: it only lasted one and half decade (221 - 206 BC), half of what >Maoism did. > >By comparison, Confucianism was remarkably enlightened, which is also why >Voltaire expressed a good opinion of it. Some Confucian philosophers like >Mencius (372-289 AC) were early theorists of people's sovereignty: > >"The people are the most important element in a nation; the spirits of the >land and grain are the next; the sovereign is the lightest [...] When a >prince endangers the altars of the spirits of the land and grain, he is >changed, and another appointed in his place." >[Mencius, Book 7: http://nothingistic.org/library/mencius/mencius27.html ] > >...and of the right to tyrannicide, justified by the loss of legitimacy >brought by misrule: > >"The king said, 'May a minister then put his sovereign to death?' Mencius >said, 'He who outrages the benevolence proper to his nature, is called a >robber; he who outrages righteousness, is called a ruffian. The robber and >ruffian we call a mere fellow." >[Mencius, Book 1: http://nothingistic.org/library/mencius/mencius04.html ] > >Enzo

2 1

Patriot Fixes
by R.A. Hettinga 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

<http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB110022195361672222,00.html> The Wall Street Journal November 12, 2004 COMMENTARY Patriot Fixes By BOB BARR November 12, 2004; Page A12 The most common charge levied against critics of the Patriot Act -- one that Alberto Gonzales, the new face of Justice, is likely to repeat in his days ahead -- is that they're "misinformed." Well, as a former U.S. attorney appointed by President Reagan, a former CIA lawyer and analyst, and a former Congressman who sat on the Judiciary Committee, I can go mano a mano with any law-enforcement or intelligence official on the facts. And the facts say that the Patriot Act needs to be reviewed and refined by Congress. Critics of the Act are not calling for full repeal. Only about a dozen of the 150 provisions need to be reformed; these, however, do pose singular threats to civil liberties. Here's how to bring them back in line with the Constitution. The two most significant problems are sections 213 and 215. The first authorized the use of delayed-notification search warrants, which allow the police to search and seize property from homes and businesses without contemporaneously telling the occupants. The Justice Department often claims that this new statutory "sneak and peek" power is innocuous, because the use of such warrants was commonplace before. Actually, the Patriot Act's sneak and peek authority is a whole new creature. Before, law enforcement certainly engaged in delayed-notification searches, especially in drug investigations. Importantly, this authority was available in terrorism investigations. Courts, however, put specific checks on these warrants: They could only be authorized when notice would threaten life or safety (including witness intimidation), endanger evidence, or incite flight from prosecution. It was a limited and extraordinary power. The Patriot Act greatly expanded potential justifications for delay. The criminal code now allows secret search warrants whenever notice would "jeopardize" an investigation or "delay" a trial -- extremely broad rationales. The exception has become the rule. Congress should remove that catch-all justification and impose strict monitoring on the use of these secret warrants. The other primary problem is the "library records" provision, Section 215. This amended a minor section of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created a specialized court for the review of spy-hunting surveillance and search requests. This "business records" section allowed agents to seize personal records held by certain types of third-parties, including common carriers and vehicle rental companies. The Patriot Act made two changes to this relatively limited power: It allowed the seizure of any "tangible thing" from any third-party record holder (including medical, library, travel and genetic records); and it removed the particularized suspicion required in the original statute. Pre-2001, investigators had to show "specific and articulable facts" -- a standard much lower than criminal probable cause -- that a target was a spy or terrorist. Now, that already low standard has been lowered further. Agents simply certify to the intelligence court that the records desired are relevant to an investigation -- any investigation -- and the judge has no real authority to question that assertion, rendering judicial review meaningless. Reformers on the left and right want two fixes to this section. First, reinstall the individualized suspicion requirement. This reflects the Fourth Amendment notion that the government cannot invade privacy and gather evidence unless it has reasonable suspicion that one has done wrong. The proposed "fix" would retain the section's broad "tangible things" scope, but with a safeguard against abuse. The authorities would still be able to go to a criminal grand jury to demand the production of the same records, providing additional flexibility for counterterrorism work. Second, Congress should require additional reporting requirements. There are other refinements desired by the Act's critics. The new definition of domestic terrorism in Section 802 can be used by prosecutors to turn on an array of invasive new authorities, including broad asset-forfeiture powers, even when the underlying crime does not rise to the level of "terrorism." The preferred legislative reform keeps the definition, but links it to specific crimes like assassination or kidnapping. Reasonable critics of the expansive provisions of the Patriot Act, on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses, have introduced legislation that would implement these modest changes. Far from gutting the Act, these would secure the important powers of the law, but place modest limits on their use. For most of us who voted for the Act, what sealed the deal was the inclusion of provisions that would require us to take a sober second look at the most contentious provisions in the Act by the end of 2005, before reauthorizing them. That time is coming, and the Justice Department does not want to lose the emergency powers it won in the aftermath of 9/11. But Congress should resist its overtures, move forward on the sunsets, and enact additional Patriot fixes if it believes them needed. Mr. Barr is a former Republican congressman. -- ----------------- 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: Cell Phone Jammer?
by Tyler Durden 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

Well, I googled up a whole batch, but I was wondering if anyone had had their grubby little hands on one of these things and could recommend one. Also, I know the standards are very different in Europe as compared to the US. And also, does a 'regular' jammer also jam CDMA signals? (CDMA was actually invented by Heddy Lamar to avoid jamming!) -TD >From: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: Cell Phone Jammer? >Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:08:18 +1300 > >"Tyler Durden" <camera_lumina(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > >Anyone know from first-hand experience about cellphone jammers? > > > >I need... > > > >1) A nice little portable, and > >Try the SH066PL, a nice portable that looks exactly like a cellphone, it's >one >of the few portables I know of. > > >2) A higher-powered one that can black out cell phone calls within, say, >50 > >to 100 feet of a moving vehicle. > >Google is your friend, there are tons of these around, with varying degrees >of >sophistication. These are definitely not portable, taking several amps at >6-12V to power them. > >None of them are exactly cheap. > >Peter.

1 0

RE: The Full Chomsky
by Tyler Durden 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

Now I certainly don't agree with a lot of Chomsky, bvut this dude clearly has an axe to grind. For instance, "After 9/11, he was more concerned about a fictitious famine in Afghanistan than about the nearly 3,000 incinerated in The World Trade Center attacks." What a fucking idiot. The 3000 were already dead, the 'famine' was about-to-be. A Chomsky nut could say Chomsky helped avert complete catastrophe (though there apparently was a decent amount of famine after all, but nothing like 3MM.) But this misses the point. Mr Donald will no doubt chime in yammering on about Chomsky's "lies", but that also misses the point. Chomsky makes very strong arguments supporting a very different view of world events, and he often quotes primary and secondary sources. If you are going to disagree with Chomsky (and in many areas I do), then you've got to actually get off your lazy ass and look up the sources and do some f-in' homework. Only then are you qualified to refute him. -TD >From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: The Full Chomsky >Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:20:43 -0500 > ><http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/chapin/2004/chapin111004.htm> > > MensNewsDaily.com > > >The Full Chomsky > > November 10, 2004 > by Bernard Chapin > > Question: How could a linguist working as a college professor have >omniscient insight regarding the inner-workings of the American government >and exclusive knowledge concerning the hidden motivations of every >government official in our nation's history? > > Answer: There's no way he could. > > Yet, such common sense does little to refute the fact that Noam Chomsky >is >one of the ten most quoted figures in the humanities. He has published >screed after screed deconstructing American foreign policy positions and >never has given any indication that his insinuations may somehow be limited >by lack of connections or first hand evidence (or, in some cases, any >evidence whatsoever). Since the 1960s, he has fully played the role of >Wizard Professor and created an entire library's worth of "pseudo-academic >smog" . > > Until recently, there have been few antidotes for his morass of >accusations and allegations, but now we have The Anti-Chomsky Reader, >edited by David Horowitz and Peter Collier, which offers purchasers the >service of deconstructing the deconstructor. Once you've finished reading >it, you'll be highly grateful as Chomsky's lies are so pervasive and >counter-intuitive that it's a wonder anyone but the paranoid ever read him >in the first place. > > The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a compilation of essays outlining and refuting >the travesties that the M.I.T. linguist has passed off as truth. It does >not confine itself to politics alone. Substantial space is given to the >analysis of his scholarly publications in linguistics. These are addressed >in two chapters called, "A Corrupted Linguistics" and "Chomsky, Language, >World War II and Me." In the area of his chosen field, many have given him >an intellectual pass but this work does not. His linguistic ideas may be as >spurious as his political tomes. All sources give him initial credit for >his core academic assumption about the "biological basis of grammar," but >it seems that he has engaged in little in the way of scientifically >verifiable work over the course of the last fifty years. Chomsky's creative >terminology dazzles admirers but his new theories inevitably amount to >nothing > > Overall, the compendium leaves no region of his reputation left >unexamined. Anti-Americanism is central to his worldview. He never sees >this nation as being superior to any other. At best, we mirror the >pathologies of totalitarian states. We can discern this clearly in Stephen >Morris's "Whitewashing Dictatorship in Communist Vietnam and Cambodia." The >author sums up Chomsky's fetish for defending the Vietnamese and Democratic >Kampuchea aptly when he argues that, > > "As a radical political ideologue, he is crippled by an intense emotional >commitment to the cause of anti-Americanism. Operating on the principle >that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend,' he wholeheartedly embraced the >struggle of two of the world's most ruthlessly brutal regimes." > > Chomsky's hopes for mankind are vested in murderous revolutionaries and >not in his own nation. It is our nation, and never the Khmer Rouge, which >gives its citizens the freedom to vote, the freedom to trade, and, most >obviously, the freedom to spread the type of sedition that Noam Chomsky has >been disseminating for close to 40 years. > > He does not limit himself to Asia, however. The professor has constantly >minimized the acts of many totalitarian states. Chomsky regarded Soviet >control of eastern Europe, when compared to the American presence in >Vietnam, as being "practically a paradise" We see a man who cares far more >about Holocaust deniers than the six million who were exterminated in gas >chambers or desolate Russian ravines. > > After 9/11, he was more concerned about a fictitious famine in >Afghanistan >than about the nearly 3,000 incinerated in The World Trade Center attacks. >He predicted that the toppling of the Taliban would result in 3 to 4 >million famine deaths. When no such famine occurred, he did not issue an >apology or retraction. He simply chose to say nothing. > > There is not much about this world famous ideologue that is genuine. He >has ardently defended the right of free speech for anti-Semitic, >Holocaust-denying cranks like Robert Faurisson and Pierre Guillaume but >chose not to say anything, or sign any petitions, supporting Soviet >intellectuals relegated to the gulag due to their ideas. > > Chomsky's self-proclaimed political orientation is preposterous. He is >enthralled with the socialist ideal but describes himself as a libertarian. >If this were true he would be the first libertarian in history who hated >capitalism and the free market. He also claims to be an anarchist but seems >to love nothing more than strong governments which redistribute the wealth >of its citizens and coerce its people into complying with the socialist >ideal. He is so deeply repulsed by our nation, and so entirely lacking in >perspective, that he holds Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Truman to be war >criminals but Pol Pot, who murdered 25 percent of all Cambodians, as >creating "constructive achievements for much of the population." He has an >easy answer for those who dare argue with him. We do not understand as we >have false consciousness . Only he, the magician, can know the true >workings of the American state. > > Stylistically, Chomsky's works are written with an obfuscating hand and >penned in the language of the opaque. The mechanics of his style: "As a >strategy for creating a Potemkin village of intellectual authenticity, >[are] brilliant; as scholarship it is charlatanism." Chomsky litters his >work with footnotes yet the footnotes are a parlor game because they often >lead to more footnotes citing other assertions he made in earlier works. > > The most egregious passage of them all occurs in John Williamson's essay, >"Chomsky, Language, World War II and Me." It concerns Chomsky's interview >with The New Yorker magazine where he is quoted as saying to one of his >classes that Russian archives proved that Britain and the United States >supported Nazi armies in the hopes of holding back the Soviet's eastern >advance. When questioned about the quotation by Williamson, Chomsky >dismissed the reporter as having manufactured his statement and that she >had printed "a ridiculous gossip column." He then, even though he claimed >not to have said what he did, referred Williamson to a source that did not >support his assertion in the least. Chomsky's statement about the reporter >turned out to be slanderous as the lecture that the reporter quoted from is >available online via videotape. In it, the linguist says exactly what the >reporter says he did. When confronted with his mendacity, Chomsky changed >tactics and pronounced how absurd it was for someone to quote from his >lecture. The real absurdity is that anyone should take him seriously at >all. > > In case one thinks that this was an isolated incident, Chomsky appears to >have learned nothing from The New Yorker scandal as he lied last month in a >speech at the University of Michigan when he said that the United States >had planned an attack on Japan before Pearl Harbor. No evidence was offered >to support his claim as no evidence exists. > > What can one say about Chomsky? As a scholar and shaper of young minds he >is deplorable. He is a Jew hating Jew who views the Israelis as Nazis and >their behavior will result in "a final solution from which few will >escape." His country has made him rich and famous although he discerns no >good in the sea of prosperity around him. His is a most disturbed, jealous, >and depressed mind. Chomsky has tied his life's disappointments to >officials in Washington. If the linguist would merely be content to hate >himself rather than project his feelings upon the government, we would all >be much better off. > > Phrase from "Chomsky and the Cold War" by Thomas M. Nichols, p. 48. > > Nichols, p.61. > > Argument made by Eli Lehrer in "Chomsky and the Media: A Kept Press and a >Manipulated People." p.82 > > Recounted by John Williamson in "Chomsky, Language, World War II and Me." >pp. 236-241 > > Chomsky quoted on page 94 of Paul Bogdanor's "Chomsky's War Against >Israel." > >-- >----------------- >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'

3 3

Re: Cell Phone Jammer?
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

"Tyler Durden" <camera_lumina(a)hotmail.com> writes: >Anyone know from first-hand experience about cellphone jammers? > >I need... > >1) A nice little portable, and Try the SH066PL, a nice portable that looks exactly like a cellphone, it's one of the few portables I know of. >2) A higher-powered one that can black out cell phone calls within, say, 50 >to 100 feet of a moving vehicle. Google is your friend, there are tons of these around, with varying degrees of sophistication. These are definitely not portable, taking several amps at 6-12V to power them. None of them are exactly cheap. Peter.

1 0

Cell Phone Jammer?
by Tyler Durden 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

Anyone know from first-hand experience about cellphone jammers? I need... 1) A nice little portable, and 2) A higher-powered one that can black out cell phone calls within, say, 50 to 100 feet of a moving vehicle. -TD

2 1

Re: The Values-Vote Myth
by John Kelsey 11 Nov '04

11 Nov '04

>From: Eric Cordian <emc(a)artifact.psychedelic.net> >Sent: Nov 6, 2004 5:57 PM >To: cypherpunks(a)minder.net >Subject: Re: The Values-Vote Myth ... >Also, voting is in some sense political manipulation to blame the population for the >actions of their government. Everyone who votes is a co-conspirator, and the >argument is made that those who don't vote have no right to dissent. Yep, I always get a kick out of this line. Alice says "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the outcome." Bob says "if you don't volunteer for a campaign, man the phone banks, go door to door, and give till it hurts, you have no right to complain about the outcome." Carol says "If you don't stockpile weapons, organize into cells, and run a campaign of terror bombing and assassination, you have no right to complain about the outcome." Why is one of these people more obviously right than the others? [I know you weren't agreeing with the quoted statement either.] In practice, Alice's strategy has almost no impact on the result--nothing I did as a Maryland voter could have given Bush fewer electoral votes than he already got, and that's true almost everywhere for an individual voter. This is especially true if you're an individual voter whose major issues are just not very important to most other voters. Kerry spent essentially no time talking about the creepy implications of the Jose Padilla case (isn't he still being held incommunicado, pending filing in the right district?), or the US government's use of torture in the war on terror despite treaties and the basic obligations of civilized people not to do that crap. I see little indication that Kerry would have disclaimed the power to do those things, had the vote swung a couple percentage points the other way. Bob's strategy has more going for it, but it comes down to a tradeoff between alternate uses of your time. You could devote your time to the Bush or Kerry or Badnarik campaigns, or you could improve your ability to survive whatever ugliness may come in other ways--maybe by making more money and banking it against future problems, or improving your standing in your field, so you're likely to be employable even in a massive post-terror-attack recession. Maybe just spending quality time with your wife and kids, on the theory that the bad guys may manage to vaporize you tomorrow whichever clown gets elected Bozo-in-Chief. Carol's strategy seems doomed to fail to me--look how much damage has been done to the pro-life movement by the very small number of wackos willing to shoot abortion doctors and bomb clinics. I'm always amazed at the revolutionary talk from people on this list, as though libertarian/anarchocapitalist ideas weren't an almost invisibly small minority in the US, as though some kind of unrest leading to a civil war would lead anywhere any of us would like. (Is it the secular police state that comes out on top, or the religious police state?) >Eric Michael Cordian 0+ --John

2 1

Collateral damage?
by Major Variola (ret) 11 Nov '04

11 Nov '04

>How does this change if I'm a child whose trust fund contains the stock? Or if I hold a >mutual fund I inherited with a little Exxon stock What part of "collateral damage" don't you understand?

2 1

nyms being attacked by malware
by privacy.at Anonymous Remailer 11 Nov '04

11 Nov '04

I've noticed a very high increase of incoming virii and malicious code of various sorts to one of my nyms. Since the nym is not used anywhere publically I really wonder if these are deliberate attacks to try to compromise the machines of people using nyms to protect their identity. Is this something that's a known strategy somehow? Obviously it could also be that the nym was previously used by someone else online and that's partly why it would be interesting to hear other's comments on this.

2 1

Arafat's last thoughts...
by Tyler Durden 11 Nov '04

11 Nov '04

"Damn! Just when this scrabbly beard was finally starting to grow in!"

1 0