June 2017 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Stick Charts, Calculators, and Bombs
by grarpamp 25 Jun '17

25 Jun '17

https://calculating.wordpress.com/ http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/world-war-three-by-mistake https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=prepping

1 0

NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!
by Georgio Soros 24 Jun '17

24 Jun '17

> grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com > Mon Jun 12 00:46:39 PDT 2017 > > Would be much cooler if they allowed users to [x] Did you forget what list you are posting your MGTOW cuckery on, realnewsanon ? CYPHERPUNKS Y P H E R P U N K S Not cryptocrappy. >>>/r/faggotry/

3 3

[OT] [song] RASPUTIN - Vladimir Putin - Love The Way You Move (Funk Overload) - Slightly Left of Centre @slocband
by Cecilia Tanaka 24 Jun '17

24 Jun '17

RASPUTIN - Vladimir Putin - Love The Way You Move (Funk Overload) - Slightly Left of Centre @slocband https://youtu.be/YgGzAKP_HuM There lived a certain man in Russia long ago He was big and strong, in his eyes a flaming glow Most people looked at him with terror and with fear But to Moscow chicks he was such a lovely dear He could preach the bible like a preacher Full of ecstacy and fire But he also was the kind of teacher Women would desire RA RA RASPUTIN Lover of the Russian queen There was a cat that really was gone RA RA RASPUTIN Russia's greatest love machine It was a shame how he carried on He ruled the Russian land and never mind the Czar But the kasachok he danced really wunderbar In all affairs of state he was the man to please But he was real great when he had a girl to squeeze For the queen he was no wheeler dealer Though she'd heard the things he'd done She believed he was a holy healer Who would heal her son RA RA RASPUTIN Lover of the Russian queen There was a cat that really was gone RA RA RASPUTIN Russia's greatest love machine It was a shame how he carried on [Spoken:] But when his drinking and lusting and his hunger for power became known to more and more people, the demands to do something about this outrageous man became louder and louder. "This man's just got to go!" declared his enemies But the ladies begged "Don't you try to do it, please" No doubt this Rasputin had lots of hidden charms Though he was a brute they just fell into his arms Then one night some men of higher standing Set a trap, they're not to blame "Come to visit us" they kept demanding And he really came RA RA RASPUTIN Lover of the Russian queen They put some poison into his wine RA RA RASPUTIN Russia's greatest love machine He drank it all and he said "I feel fine" RA RA RASPUTIN Lover of the Russian queen They didn't quit, they wanted his head RA RA RASPUTIN Russia's greatest love machine And so they shot him till he was dead [Spoken:] Oh, those Russians...

2 2

defense against impugning of character?
by Fishy 24 Jun '17

24 Jun '17

> Cecilia Tanaka cecilia.tanaka at gmail.com > Thu Jun 22 06:32:22 PDT 2017 > > "black" activist > Way to rob Mr. Williams of his heritage, c&canon. To reduce a human to a skin color is deplorable. What if we addressed you as "Yellow" Concern-troll instead of Asian-American, or more specifically, Japanese-(country formally known as Brazil)ian ? Are you really that much of a commie ? > not intelligent, is not smart, is not original > or creative... > Is this one of those recursive things you FOSS activists are always on about ? > complete waste of oxygen > With CO2 on the rise, the world is only getting greener, my dear. Plenty of O2 to go around, or across, depending on your (((world view))).

2 1

dnCryptome: Building Snowden Archives, False Tallies, Gitmo
by grarpamp 24 Jun '17

24 Jun '17

Transmediale 2016: Tacit Futures #1 - Building Snowden Archives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEnlc-SYIrc False Tallies - The Prisoner’s Dilemma https://vimeo.com/145453201 Gitmo CIA Torture Huts 2003 and 2017 https://cryptome.org/2017-info/gitmo-cia-14-years.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIb0KsGO4pg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCP7OvHBdag https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nsa+datacenters https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=crypto+dilemmas

1 0

MJR on Atheism+Anarchy [was: antivirus]
by grarpamp 24 Jun '17

24 Jun '17

http://www.ranum.com/stock_content/anarchy.html Huh? Warning: this is about as political as I get Generally, I do not get a lot of satisfaction out of being identified with causes or logos. But - a couple of years ago, when Richard Dawkins started his "out campaign" for atheists, I thought that showing my support was not a bad idea. And, I got a few Emails from people saying "wow! cool!" which is always encouraging. I even lost a consulting gig because of the red 'a' but, well, the customer was clearly an idiot anyhow. Then I realized - "why not be expressive"? And more accurate. It has taken mankind a tremendous amount of blood, sweat, and thinking to begin to shake itself free of the mental imprisonment of superstition. Uncounted deaths during the wars of religion in Europe triggered The Enlightenment - partially as a direct reaction to what happens when you fail to separate church and state. The "new atheism" spearheaded by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens is - as I see it - the end-game for religion; without the sword-arm of the state to defend it in many countries around the world, religion rapidly wanes. In 2001, when I was researching my homeland security book, one of the sources I read was Bernard Lewis' magisterial history of the middle east and Islam. At one point, kind of as an aside, Lewis wrote about the relationship between political power and religion - namely that empire appreciates religion, since religion can serve as a cause for expansion and a justification for wars of aggression. Religion is the best tool mankind has ever invented for dehumanizing the poor bastard that you're about to kill. And religion needs empire, because without a sword-arm of its own, it cannot expand and accrue power.(1) As I read Lewis' observation, I realized that Marx was right: religion is the ultimate tool for political control, and the political class has ruthlessly exploited it throughout history. It was only a handful of men in the 18th century (most of the credit going to Locke, Paine, and Jefferson) who tried to create a nation state without the ticking time-bomb of state-sponsored religion at its core. With the exception of the United Kingdom (whose ruler, as Hitchens enjoys pointing out is not only the monarch but the head of the military and the head of the church) the countries that are the worst to live in are those where the church and state are corruptly entertwined. But all this got me thinking - if religion is a corrupt con-game that seeks to aggrandize its shills in the here-and-now, what is politics? If people are finally waking up to the idea that you do not need to be born into a religion - that you can choose not to have one at all - why are we so complacent about the idea that we are born under a government? Even back when I was in high school, I suspected that government is a con-game, a protection racket - a mafia operation written on a scale that any capo would envy. Now, I realize that I was right. I am incredibly fortunate that dumb luck had me born into membership of the biggest and most powerful national street-gang on the block: The United States of America. Merely by virtue of being delivered in a hospital in New York City I am now a tax-paying member of the gang. Of course I was too young to have answered sensibly if someone had asked me if I wanted to be a US citizen (and looking around at the rest of the world as an adult, I'd beg to be a US citizen) - the people I feel sorry for are the poor unfortunates of countries like Zimbabwe, North Korea, and The Sudan, whose political classes have no qualms about using hunger as a weapon against their own people - people who are born into what is little more than enslavement. I'm not exactly an anarchist, but I am sure as hell not a nationalist. Growing up reading history, I remember thinking "how it must have sucked for those poor peasants in the feudal era." Again, born into enslavement enforced by the sword-arm of the local thug, er, king, blessed by the church. But is nationalism a whole lot of an improvement? It's just tribalism writ large - writ large to the advantage of and by the political class. If mankind survives another thousand years, nationalism will have gone on the chopping block long before - the problems of population, food supply (really: population), global warming (really: population) and energy (really: population) are global problems which require global solutions - it is utter foolishness that progress in matters of species survival are left in the hands of the political class - people who have proved that for them power is more important than anyone else's survival, over and over and over again. I've travelled all over the world and met people of all colors, shapes, sizes, languages, religions, and gender preferences and more or less, they all want the same things: food, family, love, music, and to not be interfered with a whole lot while they're doing it. I remember a few years ago, sitting in Dubrovnik (a beautiful old city that was badly bombed by the Serbs in the 90s) and drinking beers with puzzled and thoughtful people who had been on both sides of the conflict. Puzzled, because they'd gotten along just fine until someone - members of the political class - fanned smouldering embers of ancient grudges into violence that they could use as a means of making themselves, personally, more "important" at the expense of the destruction of the very lives they are claiming to be trying to "help." With help like that, who needs enemies? And "enemies" is really the issue, isn't it? In my life, I've made one or two - but never a country-full. To make a country-full of enemies takes a politician. And I'm fairly sure that the people on both sides of these manufactured conflicts are pretty much the same - without the goads of religion or nationalism to push them forward, they'd just as soon sit home and enjoy another sunset. Everyone I meet around the world is, generally, someone I am perfectly confident I could live next to as a neighbor, with hardly any likelihood of conflict. I certainly do not need the overhead of a massive government like the United States', which spends more than half of the money spent world-wide on "defense" so that it can "defend" itself by being prepared to go on the offensive. I'd be happy to pay taxes to have a local police force and judiciary but I'm a bit frustrated that, like everyone else, I am a tiny trapped gear in the vast protection racket that is "government." In 1992 I was given paperwork to fill out so that I could apply for a security clearance. I got as far as a question concerning whether I had ever advocated the overthrow of the government by force - or something like that. I recall, at the time, thinking "it wouldn't be me using the force!" Frankly, right now I am utterly disgusted with what the cess-pit of the american political class has bubbled to the top and is offering us as choices for our next president. As Lewis Black says, "you have a choice between two bowls of sh*t." So, what would happen if I decided to fire the US Government? That's right. I think they're doing a terrible job and I'd rather stop paying them my taxes. I'd rather spend my tax dollars with my local state police and local services. I do not, did not, and will not need the US Government to prosecute a war on Iraq, Iran, or North Korea on my part. I'd like to send them a pink slip and fire them. Who do you think would start the violence, then? Sure. There would be gun-toting goons showing up to demand their slice of the tribute, to force me to continue paying for their stupid wars, their dumb-ass fence along the Mexican border, and their foolish "faith-based initiatives."(2) Can you believe me that if I had any choice in the matter, my tax money would be going for schools and not smart bombs? I suspect the rest of you feel likewise. Without the implicit coercion of government hanging over us, very few of us would elect to support even a tiny fraction of the ridiculous dumb-ass things that the government's bureaucrats and the political class think up. It is no accident that governments monopolize the weapons of war, mass destruction, and mass violence. They tell us "Marcus, you don't need nuclear weapons..." Well, guess what? If there weren't governments constantly embroiling eachother in pointless attempts to accrue more power for their controlling political classes, nobody'd need them at all. In fact, the early 20th century was an effective testimony to the inevitable consequences of governments growing larger: World War I and World War II, followed by a cold-war that menaced all life on earth and bankrupted economies in the name of a ridiculous interpretation of political science. The larger governments are allowed to grow, the bigger the wars they can and will fight in our names or in the name of peace. Larger economies give governments the resources they "need" to produce the ultimate high-tech tools of destruction. Reining in and controlling nationalism and nationalistic fanaticism is a matter of species survival to the same degree to which reining in religious foolishness is crucial to our ability to think clearly about the challenges that will face our species in the future. You cannot have a sensible energy policy if you believe jesus christ is going to return real soon and make everything OK. (4) Neither can you have a sensible policy about global warming if you're worried about imaginary lines on a map that represent the limits of your personal authority, mister king, president, dictator, or prime minister. Some of my atheist friends are fond of the "imagine no religion" (sung to the tune of the John Lennon song) campaign. Perhaps it's time to start thinking "what bullsh*t do we need to get rid of next?" It's not a hard question to answer. Imagine no government either. ________________________________ (1) Generally, religions with their own armies schism violently really quickly (e.g.: Islam or the Tibetan Buddhists). Give a pope a couple of divisions and next thing you know he'll negotiate with a Hitler... (2) If you really want to puke, follow the links from www.whitehouse.gov to discover that the Bush Administration has funnelled billions of dollars of taxpayer's money to what are largely christian religious organizations. Do we expect those organizations to be pursuing a non-sectarian agenda? Of course not! And neither does the Bush Administration! That's how you get ridiculous absurdities like $400 million spent promoting abstinence (instead of safe sex) as a means of preventing AIDS. Your taxpayers' dollars at work, buying votes by funnelling dollars to The Administration's core constituencies. (3) The anarcho-syndicalists believed that labor unions could effectively replace governments. That sounds like it's only a good idea if you're a union leader. But I like red and black. Eventually I will replace this with an all black flag bearing a black "N" for nihilism, I suppose. (4) "Make everything OK" means killing all the jews and an orgy of destruction, followed by more than 1/2 of the world's surviving population being tossed into the god of love's eternal torture chamber. If you are not terrified by the realization that The President of The United States subscribes to this insane dogma, you need your head examined. > [1]: http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/

2 2

COTS UAV Autopilots
by grarpamp 24 Jun '17

24 Jun '17

https://www.micropilot.com/products-mp2028g.htm

1 0

Scanning through walls using WiFi drones.
by Lil' Droney 23 Jun '17

23 Jun '17

> Steven Schear schear.steve at gmail.com > Thu Jun 22 14:11:54 PDT 2017 > > already protected > "muh spray paint" > "muh foil" > You faggots think we're safe ? wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar A surveying method that measures distance to a target by illuminating that target with a pulsed laser light, and measuring the reflected pulses with a sensor. Differences in laser return times and wavelengths can then be used to make digital 3D-representations of the target."" news.mit.edu/2011/ll-seeing-through-walls-1018 A real-time acquisition and processing architecture for an ultrawideband (UWB) S-band (2–4 GHz) multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) phased array radar system that facilitates greater than 10 Hz imaging rates, providing a video-like radar image of what is behind a concrete wall."" Video framerate imaging is achieved by designing an electronically switched bi-static array using high-performance microwave components, a multi-threaded data pipeline, and efficient hardware-accelerated processing algorithms."" Experiments successfully image low radar cross section (RCS) objects, fast moving objects in free-space, and a human behind a 10 cm-thick solid concrete wall.""

1 0

Re: [Cryptography] 1984! US Senate Doesn't Launch Forfeiture and Crypto / Cash / Assets / Prepaid War
by grarpamp 23 Jun '17

23 Jun '17

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:46 AM, John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: >>Posted on Jun 15, 2017 by Caleb Chen >> >>These are the 4 Senators that want to create a way to track your >>digital currencies at the US border ... > > I'm getting the impression that nobody here but me has actually read > the bill. > > It's really about prepaid debit cards. With your eye on the microscope, yes, but DC's are included too. With a big picture regarding new philosophies, absolutely not. > The US and many other > countries have for a long time required you to... Before the NWO controls of the 1930s and beyond, which is hardly 85 of 245 years of US "money" existance, other than controlling the physical printing / minting of it, the US didn't really give a shit what you did with it, nor care much what you called "money". The philosophy of "money" was more "freedom" oriented and decentralized and having some of Bitcoin's (DC's) fundamental, even "alternative / libertarian / anarchism / independant / multiple" principles. Find some history and things... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System http://www.zerohedge.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money > adding them to the list of cash-like things. > all it does is make them subject to the same rules Status quo apologist copout from those unable to consider working, cohabitant, symbiotic, even better, innovation, empowerment, and alternatives. The point, from many creators, proponents, adopters, users, is that DC's... like the crypto internet so far to free / freedom of communications... are not about seeking "more like". > If I thought bitcoin were important (I don't) I'd be thrilled that the > law was changing to treat it more like real money. So what exactly is *real money*? Do you really think it is compressing only into what some bureaucrats arbitrarily call "cash-like things"? And that arbitrary rule[rs] define the only possible scope of validity? Your ability to use it? Get "real" and dig yourselves and minds out of todays "legal" / political / philosophical strictures. If not you'll soon be forced to report and tax that plate of chicken you grilled for your neighbor who helped you build your patio. "Legally" you probably already are, and are subject to jailing and forfeiture for it.

2 1

Re: [Cryptography] 1984! US Senate Doesn't Launch Forfeiture and Crypto / Cash / Assets / Prepaid War
by grarpamp 23 Jun '17

23 Jun '17

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:12 AM, John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > In article <CAD2Ti2_mMFhXTw0YKcUku03kX-wzjXM4x1nXXgY4tdAeiDJ1kw(a)mail.gmail.com> you write: >>> The US and many other >>> countries have for a long time required you to [declare cash at the border]... > >>> adding them to the list of cash-like things. >>> all it does is make them subject to the same rules >> >>Status quo apologist copout from those unable to >>consider working, cohabitant, symbiotic, even better, >>innovation, empowerment, and alternatives. > > This really sounds like someone who hasn't read the bill, or didn't > look at the words while doing so. It regulates physical things that > one carries through customs. If the only way you can figure out to > transport bitcoins is to print your wallet hash on a physical thing, > you probably have issues beyond the scope of this mailing list. While this *particular* bill may "only" impinge upon some trivial to some readers, parts of DC's... the underlying issue present in the linked posts is that bills are being floated and passed that hamper upon some aspects of these cryptosystems, of which philosophical aspects are forefront and capable of / postulated to being different, by design. And where there is one bill, there will be more, and then it won't be such a trivial side thing to those interests anymore. Further, those people hardly understand the ramifications of even such bills they consider trivial. To do that they'd actually have to read the bills, and hundreds of pages of associated US Code... These links should get actual readers started... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5312 (a)(2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/subtitle-IV "Border" games are least of the change. >>So what exactly is *real money*? > > The working definition for economists is whatever you can use to pay > your taxes. Who says? > There are lots of things that are a step or two away from > money, e.g., a gold coin which you can sell, but that doesn't mean > they're money too. Oh right, Governments banned those in the 1930's too. Can't have other entities (people) digging them out of the ground (printing) and transacting (DC's, blockchain, etc) privately amongst themselves with them, no no no. > (This definition has some fuzz, e.g., are CDs and > savings accounts money Must be, because like their "real money", they lose value to printflation etc just by holding them. It's intentional. > -- they use the same units as cash or current > accounts, but bank rules don't let you use them directly to pay.) CD's... certainly not with their time locked future value, that'd be suicide to banks, so they force holders to liquidate. > I realize that there are people who have faith-based beliefs that > money is something else, and who apparently believe that governments > are all illegitimate and have no right to regulate anything* True, Govt's codes grow very long, and ops very deep upon them, few ever really ch[o]ose that, explictly or implicitly. > but you > can find fringe beliefs about anything. Like that the planets actually revolve around the sun? > * - yet many of them expect someone to show up if they dial 911 Then their beliefs are in conflict there and they need to sort out that discrepancy in their thinking.

2 2