- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Mailing list
by PyroDaft＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want to be on your mailing list

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Only for the moment we are saying nothing. - A'Tak A'Tdorn

1 0

Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 00:04:51 -0500 (CDT) > From: Mac Norton <mnorton(a)cavern.uark.edu> > Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits > Perhaps so, but that says nothing about the federal gov't > enforcing the First Amendment to the US Constitution against > the states, irrespective of the provisions of their constitutions > or other laws. It is a difficult thing to get from "Congress > shall make no law" to "No gov't anywhere in this country > shall make any law," but we've managed to do it, probably to > our credit on the whole. If that was what he had it would truly be great, unfortunately we don't have that. What we DO have is the feds and the state governments doing everything they can to get around limitations such as this. In effect we have exactly the opposite of your supposition. The fed's are currently deciding on just exactly how federal employees can express their religous beliefs. Do you really think the founding fathers were so stupid that they wouldn't have thought of this if their intent was to truly prevent any government from enacting such laws? ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If you really believe what you state above I have a few of questions: [well actualy I have a lot of questions, but it would be pressing the point I suspect] * How does the federal government justify their limitations on the Native American Church or the Coptic Church when federal laws relating to religion are clearly prohibited? * If we truly have freedom of speech and the fed's respect that, just exactly who passed the CDA? * If we truly have freedom of speech and the fed's respect that, why is the fight for strong encryption being fought so hard? * If we truly have freedom of press AND the feds are the only agency per the Constitutio to regulate inter-state commerce then how can one state arrest citizens of another state when the 'crime' in state of the accussed isn't a crime? * Why has the federal government NEVER passed a law detailing the process we may use to petition the government for greivences? It clearly is not meant as a reference to the courts. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 97 22:37:02 -0400 > Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd) > >Would you be so kind as to explain exactly what the 14th brings to the > >table that was not already covered in the original document? We didn't > >need the 14th and still don't. It was, and still is, a political ploy to > >get people to willingly (through ignorance) comply with a bunch of > >schills. > > Nice try but it was you who brought up the 14th in your original reply to > my message. An intresting debating technique present and argument then > blame your opponent for brining up that argument. You're the one trying a straw-man, I was simply asking a question based upon several comments you have made both in this exchange and in others as well. It had nothing to do with your original question but rather an attempt on my part to expand the discussion to include the 14th which it must to be whole. Or is your view that you are the only party who may bring other issues into this discussion? Because, my personal opinion is that I don't need your permission to include other issues in the argument as long as I feel they are relevant and can justify them. > Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which > shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall > be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme > Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any > Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary > notwithstanding. > This trumps any argument you have made on this issue so far. Not really as it clearly states in the first clauses where that authority comes from and the 10th clearly puts limits on what expansions the courts and legislature can do with the Constitution. The last clause also clearly states that the constitutions and laws of any state are not superior (but does not deny equality as granted in the 10th) to the laws and treaties of the federal government. The last clause also provides even less reason for the 14th. Face it bud, you ain't got a foot to stand on. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 00:58:55 -0500 (CDT) > From: Mac Norton <mnorton(a)cavern.uark.edu> > Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd) > Well, quite a bit actually, as interpreted by the SCt. It makes > many, perhaps all, of the Bill of Rights prohibitions on Congress > applicable to state gov'ts as well. Art. VI, to which I think > you refer, does not do so of its own accord. * From the original Constitution: Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. * The 14th: ARTICLE XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Sections 2-5 deleted * Now please be so kind as to explain the following: - Where in the 14th does it mention the Bill of Rights or apply them to the states in such a manner that is not done in the original Constitution? - Why does the last section of the last item prior to my quote of the 14th not apply said Bill of Rights since it is clearly a part of the Constitution and worded much stronger than the 14th? - Why does section 2 above not apply considering it is copied practicaly word for word in the 14th and clearly equates the states under federal law? Especialy since the wording of section 2 is much stronger than the wording of the 14th? - Section 4 above clearly equates the states and a citizens expectation of equal protection under the law, how does the 14th extend this? - Section 1 does something even stronger than 'equal protection' as it forces recognition and support of each states laws by the other states even if a given state makes a law that makes an action in one state a crime in another, how does the 14th add anything to this? - Is your claim that the rulings of the SCt apply to citizens instead of being the final arbiter for government agencies? If so, how can this be considering that the SCt can't instigate any legal actions on its own but must act in a reactive manner? - And finaly, why should we as citizens accept the rulings of the SCt as the final word since we and not the federal government are the ones granting the power to govern? Add to this that Constitutionaly the role of the SCt is to limit Congress and not the citizenry. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: lack of evolutionary pressures
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >(And not even the infamous "But what if _all_ smart and educated people >thought this way?" applies. First, what Adam or Tim or Blanc does about >having children will not affect the decisions of others. [...] ........................................................... I look up, startled - what; me, worry? <g> There are actually quite a lot of "determining factors" which do not affect the decisions of others. For instance, the Constitution of the U.S., or good genes from one's ancestors. A lot of people read, but do not appreciate the meaning of, the Constitution. Too many depend upon it to determine the choices on what is right or wrong about government activity, without considering the reasoning behind the document or without applying their own reasoning to its meaning. Humans are pretty complicated, fragile creatures and there are many things which will affect our success or lifespan; unforseen elements can overwhelm ones's biological system (like an AID virus) or one's circumstance, (like encounters with Nature - unexpected floods, forest fires, tornadoes, etc.). Many things which we do to ourselves will weaken us - taking drugs, malnourishment, incorrect responses to events which challenge our psychological makeup, etc. These discussions on evolutionary pressures, genomes, the intelligence passed on through genes, all reference things which have been given to one, given in the past, given to a passive creature at a time when they exercise no influence in their own existence (i.e., at the time of conception). There is a factor being left out of these discussions as if it didn't exist or had no influence, and that is the particular individual who is in the act of living their given Life. That person must maintain a rightful state of mind which can understand the requirements of their own existence. Although people may receive benefits of all kinds, they may yet fail to live a successful life: some people grow up in rich families and end up drug addicts living in the street. Many people are super intelligent (at least in school) but seem to have no wisdom of judgement, making very unwise decisions which affect their success (the latest big-name killer Cunnanan comes to mind. He was credited for being brilliant; he took drugs and this influenced his mental state, but that in itself was an unwise, self-defeating thing to do). A person's decisions, their self-advancing or self-defeating responses to life's exigencies, also determine the direction & quality of a their life, not only what they have been given by others. One thing which can't be passed on very well (yet) is the *desire* to live on a certain plane of "intelligent" life, once one has it. (And who appreciates so well the struggle to stay on such a high level plane? Sometimes there's a lot of "pressure" to evolve in the future, but not much empathy with efforts in the present.) .. Blanc

1 0

Stealth Helicopters
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > There is no conspiracy by a secret government to destroy > > the Constitution, enslave the people, and rule the world. > > "Like them new Stealth Helicopters, equipped with devices to drown out > the sound." I was watching a 'crop' in Humbold County, CA, in the early 80's and was standing near the top of a hill one day when I heard a slight "whoosh, whoosh" for about three seconds before a helicopter came over the hill, scaring the living shit out of me. I imagine that in the 15 or so years since then, the govt has managed to make them invisible, as well. The Campaign Against Marijuana Production (CAMP) was interesting, with the Federal government supplying the toys, and the heavily armed troops consisting of 'volunteers' from various agencies and LEA's. At the time, I wondered if one of the purposes of CAMP was to enable local law enforcement personnel from around the nation to do 'male bonding' with Big Brother. Now I believe that history has proven me correct. A varitey of other Federal policies, laws and regulations also seem aimed at drawing local and regional LEA's into Big Brother's spreading web. The confiscation of drug-related assets, for instance, allows the LEA's in Louisianna to confiscate the vehicles of a multitude of out-of-state visitors under the slimmest of pretexes. The Feds have basically put local LEA's in their back pocket by letting them play with their hi-tech toys and sharing the spoils of the War Against the Citizens. One of the people who have had their vehicle wrongfully seized under the drug-related confiscations laws received the car as a gift. Now the IRS is still demanding that he pay a 'gift tax' on the vehicle, even though he only had it for a few days. The increasing cooperation between Federal, State and local LEA's has brought a whole new meaning to the words, "The line forms to the rear." DisgustedMonger

1 0

Re: Welfare Solution #389
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tom Mix wrote: > I could imagine that a junkie who takes some old lady's purse to buy > heroin is victimizing the old lady, but is a student smoking marijuana > and drinking a beer victimizing anyone? What about a heroin junkie who > is rich, though unpopular, and never committed any other crime? Have > they made themselves a victim of something? Maybe so...the needle, > the darkness, the overwhelming Love Which Cannot Be Real. But the > state shouldn't recognize "mystical entities" like this as perpetrators. > The person in this case is making a choice; they will do no harm but > to themselves. Are they then a victim, or a perpetrator, or both? -- Excerpt from "Victim" (c) County Mountie Productions -- {Passage sung by purse snatcher who is mugging little old lady.} "I knocked her dowm, stepped on her face, Slandered her name all over the place. Hit her with my fist, kicked her with my shoe, "I said, "Lady, I'm a victim. A victim, just like you. I'm a victim of a Bad Attitude." -- When this song was recorded, it was somewhat tragically ironic, but it proved to be prophetic. I believe that "Bad Attitude" is now a recognized psychiatric illness, allowing one a reduced sentence and monetary support from the government while the poor victim of "Bad Attitude" takes "the cure" on the beaches of the Hawaii. I know a man in Tucson who worked all his life, spent all of his money recovering from an accident, and then couldn't get welfare money when he needed a few more months of recuperation before returning to work. The lady who turned him down made the mistake of commenting that it was a shame he wasn't a drug addict, because then he would "qualify" for welfare. The man lived on the streets for several months, barely surviving, until he was healthy enough to work, and he has never paid a dime in taxes since then. What is even more atrocious is that a church that he attended occasionally turned down his request for minimal assistance, because their policy was to only help those who qualified for government benefits (in order to help weed out the "bums"). He wasn't "entitled" to the church's help as a Christian, but he would have been, as an agnostic junkie. I met the man in the park, and gave him a place to live for the last month of his recuperation, so he could shit, shower, shave and use it as a base to look for work. In the next two years, the company he went to work for bought around $50,000 worth of computers from me. Before this experience, the man was a "God and Country" type of individual who probably would have turned in anyone he found was "cheating" on their taxes. Now he is perfectly willing to go to jail rather than give the robber barons their booty.

1 0

Oct 13-14 IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers(ISWC)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 03:22:15 -0500 From: <testarne(a)media.mit.edu> To: technomads(a)UCSD.EDU Subject: Oct 13-14 IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC) Actually, Steve, can you use this one instead? Thad Starner MIT Media Laboratory Wearable Computing Project -------------------------------------- Oct 13-14 IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC) The International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC) is the first annual conference on computers that are worn as clothing. The conference is peer reviewed and sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society. The purpose of ISWC is to bring together researchers, product vendors, research sponsors, and other interested persons to share information and advances in wearable computers and augmented reality. The conference will include paper presentations, exhibitions, and poster sessions. Registration is now open at http://mime1.marc.gatech.edu/wearcon/ Reserve your space before SEPTEMBER 1ST for the best hotel rates. A list of topics from the CFP and the advance program is below. Please forward! Thad Starner MIT Media Laboratory Wearable Computing Project -------------- >From the CFP: CONFERENCE TOPICS The topics for ISWC may include: o Applications, including affective computing, augmented reality, computer-supported collaborative work, computer-supported cooperative living, ubiquitous computing, personal imaging, consumer applications, industrial applications, medical applications, military applications, and software agents o Ergonomics o Future of wearable computing o Hardware, including head-mounted display technologies, batteries, power management, heat dissipation techniques, industrial design techniques, and manufacturing packaging issues o Human interface issues, including hands-free user speech recognition, mobility-challenged users, user modeling, user evaluations, and health issues o Networks, including wireless networks, on-body networks, the World Wide Web, and networked vs. standalone computers o Operating system issues o Social implications o Software architectures o Training, including performance support systems ---------- International Symposium on Wearable Computers Advance Program Monday, October 13, 1997 8:00 - 8:30 Coffee, Put Up Posters I 8:30 - 8:40 Opening Remarks 8:40 - 10:10 Evaluation Studies Evaluation of three input mechanisms for wearable computers by B. Thomas, S. Tyerman, and K. Grimmer Wearable computers for performance support by J. Ockerman, L. Najjar, and C. Thompson A field usability evaluation of a wearable system by J. Siegel and M. Bauer 10:10 - 10:30 View Posters I, Demos, Coffee 10:30 - 12:00 Industrial and Business Applications Mobile approach support system for future machine tools by R. Daude and M. Weck Factory Automation Support Technology (FAST): A new paradigm of continuous learning and support using a wearable by C. Thompson, L. Najjar, and J. Ockerman Wearable computers for three-dimensional CSCW by M. Billinghurst, S. Weghorst, and T. Furness III 12:00 - 1:30 Lunch 1:30 - 3:00 New Hardware, Software Technology Eyeglass-mounted displays for wearable computing by M. B. Spitzer, N. M. Rensing, R. McClelland, and P. Aquilino Intrabody buses for data and power by R. Post, M. Reynolds, M. Gray, J. Paradiso, and N. Gershenfeld Software organization for dynamic and adaptable wearable systems by S. Fickas, G. Kortuem, and Z. Segall 3:00 - 4:00 View Posters, Demos, Coffee 4:00 - 6:00 Invited Talks Dick Urban, DARPA Rick Satava, DARPA Jerry Bowskill, BT David Mizell, Boeing 6:00 - 6:30 Take Down Posters I, Demos ---- Tuesday, October 14, 1997 8:30 - 9:00 Coffee, Put Up Posters II 9:00 -10:00 Personal Applications An historical account of wearable computing by S. Mann A touring machine: Prototyping 3D mobile augmented reality systems for exploring the urban environment by S. Feiner, B. MacIntyre, T. Hollerer, and A. Webster 10:00 - 10:30 View Posters II, Demos, Coffee 10:30 - 12:00 New Sensors, Displays Tactual displays for wearable computing by H. Tan and A. Pentland Affective wearables by R. W. Picard and J. Healey A sensate liner for personnel monitoring applications by E. Lind, S. Jayaraman, R. Rajamanickam, R. Eisler, and T. McKee 12:00 - 1:30 Lunch 1:30 - 3:00 Communications Canard: A framework for community messaging by P. Chesnais Metronaut: A wearable computer with sensing and global communication capabilities by A. Smailagic The wearable remembrance agent: A system for augmented memory by B. Rhodes 3:00 - 4:00 View Posters II, Demos, Coffee 4:00 - 5:30 Using Wearable Sensors A wearable computer based American Sign Language recognizer by T. Starner, J. Weaver, and A. Pentland Stochasticks: Augmenting the billiards experience with probabilistic vision and wearable computers by T. Jebara, Cyrus Eyster, J. Weaver, T. Starner, and A. Pentland Towards situated computing by R. Hull, P. Neaves, and J. Bedford-Roberts 5:30 - 6:00 Take Down Posters II, Demos --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

NYT on Draft Crypto Regs
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Wayner reports in the on-line New York Times today on the draft BXA encryption regs being circulated among government agencies for comment. Peter highlights the proposed new restrictions on electronic distribution of crypto. Adam Shostack is quoted: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/082497encrypt.html For those unable to access the NYT site, we've put a copy at: http://jya.com/bxa-nyt.htm We remind that a July 25 version of the draft regs is available at: http://jya.com/bxa-ei-rule.htm

1 0