- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Your new password
by sixdegrees 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Name: Joe Cypherpunk sixdegrees Password: rollflip In response to your request for a new sixdegrees(tm) password, we have sent you the following temporary password: rollflip. As soon as you come to the site, http://www.sixdegrees.com , and use it to log-in on the home page, it will become your official password, and your old password will be deactivated. (If you end up remembering your old password and use that to log-in at the site before using this new temporary password, the temporary password will be deactivated.) This may seem wacky, but it's for your security. And, either way, once you successfully log-in at the site, you can go to your personal profile and choose whatever password you like - in fact, we encourage you to do so. If you never requested a new password and got this message in error, just continue using your old password and e-mail us at issues(a)sixdegrees.com. ==================================================================== PLEASE NOTE: All replies to this address are processed by a computer. If you have any problems, questions or requests send an e-mail to issues(a)sixdegrees.com and someone will get back to you as soon as possible. ==================================================================== E.SI.REQPW.1

1 0

Re: Clinton still doesnt get it
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Frondeur writes: > Why do you believe the perjury case has `reasonable doubt' problems? Watch TV and learn the answer. It's only perjury if it's material, and the judge said it wasn't material. > And the abuse of power case seems thin even to a non-lawyer. But > where does the `executive privilege stuff' come in? I don't see > that Starr listed that among his possible grounds for impeachment. Among the grounds Starr listed was Clinton's attempt to delay the investigation by raising many legal objections. He claimed privilege, for example, with respect to Secret Service testimony. Most of his efforts were ultimately overruled.

2 1

Re: Democracy...
by Richard.Bragg＠ssa.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

mmotyka(a)lsil.com on 16/09/98 00:48:25 Please respond to mmotyka(a)lsil.com To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com cc: Subject: Re: Democracy... >Vivek Vaidya wrote: > Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights of > the individual? While you certainly have the right to practice your > religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that everyone > else > does, or that the president of the us of ais subject to you PERSONAL > faith decisions is outragous > > Vivek Vaidya > But whoever said I'm in the US? Where did I make any such demand? However, if you believe in something to be life changing and beneficial to both the idividual and society you'll want or be compelled to "pass it on". I can't and do not wish to force any one to any point of view, that's pointless. What I wanted to illustrate is that there are absolutes, to say there are no obsolutes is in itself an absolute and so is self defeating. We must have absolutes. These are often agreed on and applied through the legal systems but they are still there. Thus, when examining the behaviour of people in power we apply rules to encompass that power ie you can go so far and no further. When we are talking about national leaders in the west that do represent a wide range of views this can become more difficult but there still must be a yard stick agreed. PS If ol' Bill claims to be a Christian then he himself is setting the yard stick against we should measure him.

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The magic word is totocus. -----BEGIN PGP SECRET KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Comment: 4 lQFwAzX4QxUAAAEDAOVKclQNZ3wdYS6mLvrfzZIKBCcjDEmjyw9DzXYUqqWbfoby ex+WMPyvYctHecHZyTyWPR/B7Nn1wx0FI8KTC33O7GqrhaFfXXyhRn1VAJbibL7g O4123prR91OxIZmdNQAFEQFllMHKKfsiYAL8yA9nOEYQriDdduVXNCu/JMaSAyJC NEdCQVOFFYture82kp1fZJkwk5eegH06NBEkyX7Uo11EbUHYJa/ozTNUpE628RBV VtpwNcI1jbTHfbMwpIC3NBf4yFScb1ZpH49dAYCfqeL5sq+vPY1uaPQ8ZuPYR5z8 XGkDuYIx8RJickonaME8JF8CWB51k65mFP6wGfgBgLJSCmlx+gI75D5395lne2Go KAZkKkfQNMkghXQAlRxMUOiXCPMB+9ZksY1+thjrngGAQSm6+JK1us4MggXp+4ux rfhmD3sz9jFVDfuJUT0Ql0VAyrNkyL+4q5Erx1A8RwMbe/e0B1RPVE9DVVOJAHUD BRA1+EMV0fdTsSGZnTUBAdLwAwDK51iax96YezcrSdB1h2menS0m3gjzzluzzRxQ y56rD0ZCkLtOBZVoCty7hwLW9ot1h1wkVeaaqUGv1We0BG/6iw8i05FBv/A5D+kV NafvNDnoYjUZts+0Io0MrfVtRf8= =qp7F -----END PGP SECRET KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: 128 bit or 40 bit?
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <67ee9e3cc8499f9d72a11a2df56c48fe@anonymous> you wrote: : Being outside North America, I have an "export" version of : Internet Explorer/Netscape Navigator. These offer 40 bit : encryption. (40 bit RC4, I understand). : My financial institution has a 128 bit Verisign certificate. : To my surprise, they claim this offers 128 bit encryption to /me/. : [in transactions to https://secure.mybank.com.xx] : I thought my 40 bit client limited the security to 40 bits. : Who is right? Please explain. All browsers have the 128 bits encryption inthem, but in the non-US version it can only enabled by a 'special cert'. Banks are the only institutions that are currently allowed to recieve such an cert. This is also why fortify.net works as it does, anyways, we also offer 128 bit versions of the popular browsers *g* -- Alex de Joode | International CryptoRunners | http://www.replay.com 'A little paranoia can longer your life'

1 0

RE: Democracy... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: Democracy... > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:00:09 -0700 > Unless you can show me a religion that does not involve a god or gods, > and although etymologically unjustified I would claim one that does not > involve *faith*, then I would say you could NOT be both an atheist and > religious. Agnostic perhaps, but not an atheist. You can be > contradictory and hypocritical and claim you are many things, but we are > talking about a coherent philosophy. Try pantheism. If one fundamentaly believes that god does not exist, which clearly involves faith, then yes it is a religion. A religion is a belief system that provides a relationship between the individual and the totality of all else (the cosmos if you'll allow me). By your view an agnostic can't be religion since it is the recognition of a *lack* of faith, clearly something you require to be religous. An atheist says that god could exist but doesn't - clearly an act of faith. There are fundamentaly two types of religions, those that recognize some for of transcendance and those that don't. Quibbling over what is the 'correct' form of transcendence is as irrelevant as arguing over the 'correct' religion. In either case the same failure to understand human psychology is committed. In short it is the axiomatic assumption that there *is* a single anything that will satisfy everyone. > You can be both spiritual and an atheist. Spirituality does not require > faith in any external mystical element or being. What do you mean by 'spiritual'? Are you refering to a ghost-in-the-machine either at the individual or cosmological level? Whether one believes that mystical element is external (which if you understood God would clearly be seen to be a non sequitar with the rest of your argument) or internal is irrelevant. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Your new password
by sixdegrees 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Name: Jolly CyberSnot sixdegrees Password: fishmelt In response to your request for a new sixdegrees(tm) password, we have sent you the following temporary password: fishmelt. As soon as you come to the site, http://www.sixdegrees.com , and use it to log-in on the home page, it will become your official password, and your old password will be deactivated. (If you end up remembering your old password and use that to log-in at the site before using this new temporary password, the temporary password will be deactivated.) This may seem wacky, but it's for your security. And, either way, once you successfully log-in at the site, you can go to your personal profile and choose whatever password you like - in fact, we encourage you to do so. If you never requested a new password and got this message in error, just continue using your old password and e-mail us at issues(a)sixdegrees.com. ==================================================================== PLEASE NOTE: All replies to this address are processed by a computer. If you have any problems, questions or requests send an e-mail to issues(a)sixdegrees.com and someone will get back to you as soon as possible. ==================================================================== E.SI.REQPW.1

1 0

Re: Clinton still doesnt get it
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous writes: > > Frondeur writes: > > > Why do you believe the perjury case has `reasonable doubt' problems? > > Watch TV and learn the answer. It's only perjury if it's material, > and the judge said it wasn't material. This doesn't speak to `reasonable doubt' which was the subject under discussion. Or are you arguing that a defense to perjury is that there is reasonable doubt that a question was material? Go watch TV and report back with the answer. > > And the abuse of power case seems thin even to a non-lawyer. But > > where does the `executive privilege stuff' come in? I don't see > > that Starr listed that among his possible grounds for impeachment. > > Among the grounds Starr listed was Clinton's attempt to delay the > investigation by raising many legal objections. He claimed privilege, > for example, with respect to Secret Service testimony. Most of his > efforts were ultimately overruled. Yes, but I assumed Mac had included this under the `abuse of power' heading since he explicitly cited that topic in his message to which I was responding, and since that appeared to match one of the broad headings under which Starr classifies his possible `grounds for impeachment': "...that President Clinton's actions ... have been inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. " I see nowhere that Starr claims that it was illegal/impeachable for Clinton to have claimed executive privilege. He merely notes that Clinton used it (extensively) along with a bunch of other tactics to delay and impede the investigation. - Frondeur

1 0

Re: Democracy... - an extension of speculation
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: [related stuff deleted] > Every state shall respect and protect the rights and priviliges of any > citizen of another state who is resident within the boundaries of the state. > The state shall further protect those rights even if they are in direct > conflict with the laws of that state. > > So if a Texas DPS officer pulled over a car from Louisiana he couldn't > hassle them in regards to the pot they had in the car. Even though it was > illegal for Texas citizens. One way that Texas could address this issue is that the instant somebody enters the state of Texas they are instant citizens. The downside is that they could then vote. This leads to the potential of having persons spin-loop through states gaining citizenship and voting. So Texas would probably require 30 days or such, retaining the original intent of the Constitution and the Amendments. The founding fathers were strong believes in voting with ones feet in regards discussion and expression of personal beliefs. The United States are supposed to be a haven for personal freedom. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Democracy... (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> So if a Texas DPS officer pulled over a car from Louisiana he couldn't > hassle them in regards to the pot they had in the car. Even > though it was illegal for Texas citizens. Wow, you learn something new every day. I had always thought state laws applied to anyone in the states borders, not solely to those people declared citizens of that state. In fact if this were the case, why then would it be necessary for the recently bill/proposal allowing people with a valid concealed weapons permit in the jurisdiction in which they work to carry that home (different jurisdiction). In fact wouldn't he need a permit in his home jurisdiction and NOT his work jurisdiction? How could he get a concealed weapons permit in his work jurisdiction if the laws can't apply to him? Surely there is something amiss. Matt

1 0