- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Gun Control brings on a New Arms Race
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >All I bought were some lasers, some .223 vest-piercers, and a few special >parts for my Colt HBAR. Oh, and I took delivery on a so-called "assault >pistol"--30 rounds of .223 rifle ammunition in a package that fits under an >overcoat. I'll be ready for the November Raids. .............................................. If we ever get into a real domestic war, I wanna go stay with Tim, what with that arsenal stocked in his closet. :>) .. Blanc

1 0

NAMBLA embattled -- mirror sites?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Folks on f-c and cypherpunks have mirrored holocaust revisionist web pages, banned books, and censored newspapers. Now I understand that NAMBLA is in danger of losing its home on the web. Anyone up for mirroring the (text-only) publications of perhaps the world's most controversial organization? -Declan

5 5

Re: CMR versus GAK? (fwd) > Right to monitor (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 97 09:00:38 -0500 > Subject: Re: CMR versus GAK? (fwd) > Right to monitor > >The bottem line is: > > >Does the owner of a resource have an inherent right to control that > >resource and if so what are the boundaries? > > Yes, and the boundaries should be very few. Things like just because you > own a hammer doesn't give you the right to hit people over the head. But > as far as setting policies on how a resource can be used and what > conditions must be met before using them it should be without limit. If > you don't like it the don't use it and go get your own. But what are the boundaries? How do you tell when a particular action has crossed them? > >Does the user of a resource have rights outside the purvue of the owner > >of that resource and if so what are the boundaries? > > No they do not. If the user of a resource does not like the conditions set > by the owner for the use of that resource then they should not use it. They don't? What if the resource is a requirement for a normal life? Is simple ownership a license to steal or abuse? How do you even describe them in a general sense? What if the owner of a resource decides to change the fair use policy? Shouldn't the user have a say in what those conditions are? Is simply agreeing to be a user of a resource license for the owner to use that dependency to manipulate the user? No, your answers are better than the other persons but not by much. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ 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: PGP Employee on MKR
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > at 05:38 PM, harka(a)nycmetro.com said: > The "just don't work for them if 'ya don't like it"-argument > will last about 4 weeks...the approximate time a human can > survive without eating. (or a couple of weeks less, if you have > kids) > I.e. unless you are the super-duper, three-times > nobel-prize-winner (with lots of money in stocks), who can > AFFORD to choose employers that freely, you will be DAMN GLAD to > have a job AT ALL, regardless of their policies! -=> Quoting In:whgiii@invweb.net to Harka <=- In> Sorry, your sloth and lack of ambition is no excuse to deny me In> my rights. An employer only owes you to what is agreed on when In> you enter into a contractual agreement of employment. For you In> clock punching 9 to 5'ers that means you show up to work, you In> do your work, and at the end of the week you get your check. In> You don't like the company, or their policies, or the color of In> the bosses tie, too bad don't let the door hit you in the ass In> on the way out. In your excitement you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say: Implying, that the freedom of an (average) person does not get infringed by (privacy-intrusive) policies "because they can always choose a different company" is IMHO plainly incorrect and out of day-to-day reality for most people. (Also note, that I am not saying companies don't have the right to have such policies) The truth is, that even with proper (college and beyond) education and sincere effort to make something happen for yourself, it takes quite a bit to get to a point of being totally free to choose your employer based on mere policies. And that will probably not change for most people. [glorious deeds deleted] In> The reason people like you are "DAMN GLAD to have a job AT In> ALL" is because you don't do anything to make yourself more In> marketable in the corporate world. Do you really expect single mothers with 3 kids to have the time to do it to the degree of being able to _freely choose_ their employers?? Or even Joe Average, who just came out of College and has $100 000 school-loan-debt? My point being, that not everybody is in a position to make themselves "more marketable" to the point of having companies begging for you, even if they wanted to. And that applies to most people. (Congrats to the fortunate exceptions.) Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... I have a byte, and I'm not afraid to use it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNFEsrTltEBIEF0MBAQGb+gf+KsL58w0CKuLLA1h2q62QNarQGjWzfi/u zdgdoNE1+29VHt3wuJ1ybCp6fcTg0RPjXagDb/kwh5WMCSCice7KnFNx9SKdLuPn /9/eRjjKyP+YWjM3zBILMRzf58HqNVy333CZRk7RtJcYt6e6aqlxrIh7T1F/ujMb wYP9n+teDuy0dxh1i3n8354Kg99lfndDS5VTMPCBoS1TmSHbtIGdvmJpc00VuTiw Kk3gJ0l53j4fC/hmWuXacqCypnCqh9M8s4j+6MzTY/tGcs2YJQuAeQ9gVzvSYBKf Oi+lHYxd4rTBGALYf6SOk+k92YvIA8zP99w401So9v9rLYvf7V9+yA== =H2nX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

None
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't think you know who I am, but I wrote this message. These are "my" words, but "I" am anonymous. So I am wondering - who owns these words? Who owns the words of an anonymous author, who is responsible for the actions of an unknown party, and who is to say that this is so?

2 1

Re: PGP Employee on MKR
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Kent Crispin wrote: > Indeed. It's just as idiotic as people being killed for > receiving encrypted mail in Iraq. It is, however, just as > possible, and anyone who believes the contrary obviously hasn't > worked for a big company before; I've seen them do far, far, > more idiotic things in the past. -=> Quoting In:whgiii@invweb.net to Harka <=- In> There is a simple solution to that don't work for one if you In> don't like their policies. Sometimes it seems, as if the people advocating the "business-reality" are furthest removed from it. The "just don't work for them if 'ya don't like it"-argument will last about 4 weeks...the approximate time a human can survive without eating. (or a couple of weeks less, if you have kids) I.e. unless you are the super-duper, three-times nobel-prize-winner (with lots of money in stocks), who can AFFORD to choose employers that freely, you will be DAMN GLAD to have a job AT ALL, regardless of their policies! Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... The facts, although interesting, are usually irrelevant. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNFEPMzltEBIEF0MBAQFKogf+MyQ/DGjqtDzS/zFJzl1YX75OgDMi313x r4SJcWam4VW2fgSQ6Jq1CsX8IgTKJZkIJOWzf2HojFS6FLsdL5cRrf6O+dBcBa8t 2i+P5ZIi8zM6G5HqoHr+nGEPlT0MnoYqjeSVIMSdGVugBRuSzZV0R7trxXSvZkUc 9cDu5eOdUsfG3KB3LRy5puktfYhY/YQUwidqJz2TuICpj41EFtzLnHKgjBZ/B1eL 8i7uZCGD77oImmD7Cs3gzmYEwcjyw94lPgHZbory+J+CScFUddmLC8HsyVjUKytQ HPOqV0TOP828FVz/JrZ5KS+oZgvKSMPLY/Rv75XhIZB7uUGTnCt89w== =TL8Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

4 3

RE: Hair loss? Check this out!
by biz＠t-1net.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NEW - NEW - NEW You have seen this add and wondered if it works. Indeed it works! So well that we are proud to say 90% of our customers who put their trust in our product are extremely satisfied. So if you too have a hair problem just contact us and we shall provide you with this amazing formula. =========================================================== We are now offering a unique, well-kept secret, simple to make formula to stop your hair loss. Origin of the formula: Middle-East Ingredients: 3 (very unexpensive) Application: At night, on scalp, rinse hair in the morning. Repeat for 3-4 days, every 3 months. Results: Stop hair loss, healthier hair. Re-growth possible in some cases. Try it! Now! Price: US$5.00 Mail US$5.00 (cash or international postal mandate) to: Distribution R.B. Inc. 2605 Cote-Vertu #505 St-Laurent / PQ / Canada H4R 2A9 Mention one of the following for us to send formula: 1. E-mail address or 2. Fax number or 3. Mailing address Try it now, you'll be amazed at the results. Simple but efficient. JMD Bery - President /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This Message was Composed using Extractor Pro Bulk E- Mail Software. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1 0

Re: PGP Employee on MKR
by mark＠unicorn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

whgiii(a)invweb.net wrote: > There is a simple solution to that don't work for one if you don't like > their policies. I agree; that's why I don't. But I see an inconsistency here. PGP keep telling us that CMR isn't so bad because you can work around it, or superencrypt, or otherwise avoid the company's right to snoop on all communications. Yet you, who believe in this right, support CMR, which can be used to defeat that right, over simple escrow of employee's corporate communication keys. Why? Again, I'm not saying that the companies have no such right. Personally I'd rather escrow my corporate key than see widespread CMR in its current form. Mark

2 1

Re: Proof IE4 not an OS, was Re: Bill Gates, the Bully Savior
by Paul H. Merrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James Love wrote: > > Nifty comment by Michael McMain on JavaLobbyCafe(a)iceworld.org > list: > > -------------------------- > > A friend at work made an interesting point about MS's claim that IE4 is > simply an OS extension and not an application. All the DA has to do is > turn on a Power Mac, start IE4, turn to MS and say "So what other parts > of your OS run on the Macintosh exactly?". The MS assertion is not that IE only works within the OS. Just that it is a part. PHM

3 2

Re: Proof IE4 not an OS, was Re: Bill Gates, the Bully Savior
by Paul H. Merrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James Love wrote: > > Nifty comment by Michael McMain on JavaLobbyCafe(a)iceworld.org > list: > > -------------------------- > > A friend at work made an interesting point about MS's claim that IE4 is > simply an OS extension and not an application. All the DA has to do is > turn on a Power Mac, start IE4, turn to MS and say "So what other parts > of your OS run on the Macintosh exactly?". The MS counter-assertion is not that IE is not a stand-alone piece of software, just that it is a part of the OS. (Personnally I can't stand it.) PHM

1 0