- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Fw: Activist DESTROYS 19 Red Light Cameras and Turns Himself In
by Zenaan Harkness 22 Sep '16

22 Sep '16

Hawaii's red light and fixed "speeding" cameras had to be decomissioned not so long after launch - this is where Australia's first batch of traffic cameras came from, the ex-Hawaii cams :/ In America, the ability to just shoot out a traffic camera is easier in general since carrying firearms is quite a bit more common than in Australia. ----- Forwarded message from Jim <jim.sovereign(a)optusnet.com.au> ----- Subject: Activist DESTROYS 19 Red Light Cameras and Turns Himself In He deserves 'Hero of the People' status. http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09/activist-destroys-19-red-light-cameras-…

1 0

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF
by juan 22 Sep '16

22 Sep '16

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:10:27 -0000 xorcist(a)sigaint.org wrote: > > However the idea that a professional seller of jewelry is > > going to make a big sale like that, without even COUNTING the bills > > because he had been chatted up with some nonsense about the > > subway system is...not plausible. > > It's all about misdirection, and subtle cues. Yes, but there isn't anything extraordinary about it. He's simply trying to distract his target. There isn't any profound scientific principle or insight behind that. Or, the insight may be that you better double check facts and evidence. That would be a useful teaching, but not a sound case against rationalism. > I haven't seen Derren's > explanation of this particular example, but from what I know of the > subject, here is my take: > > The chat about the subway is misdirection. > ...etc > It's conceivable he stages some things, too. Like any magician. In that same video he fails to scam a guy who sells hotdogs - as a matter of fact the hotdog guy is rather pissed off. But then he sucessfuly steals $4500 from a jewelry store? Not believable at all, not even as staged entertainment. > > > I do think that Darren is socially engineering people. The > > people who watch their videos, IF they think are real... > > But if you believe a talented magician never manages to fool people > successfully, you're naive. Yes, they'll stage stuff too, but that is > hardly the point. The point is that you are advancing an anti rationalistic view of human nature, and apparently presenting as evidence stuff that...isn't convincing. > The skills of illusion, and "mentalism" are quite real.. and if you > watch more of his stuff, especially the longer videos or full > episodes where he breaks down the hows and whys of it working, > perhaps you'll be less likely to say its fake. It's easy to dismiss a > magic trick as "camera edits" when you just have a 3 minute video. > It's a bit harder when the magician explains the whole thing to you. Magic tricks don't have much to do with this. Magic tricks rely on exploiting shortcomings of perception, "the hand is quicker than the eye", that sort of thing. But indeed nobody believes that those magic tricks are 'real' magic. If anything they prove that people are rational and know that magicians can't make rabbits dissapear - they know it's 'illusion'. If on the other hand Derren is 'staging' the jewelry store video, that means he and the guy at the shop are playing a part and the video isn't even 'illusion', it's outright fake. > > In the videos I linked to, he uses a lot of body language mirroring. > Whatever movements the subject makes, he mirrors with his own body > language. Then, when he feels like he has the person, he'll move away > as a test and do other movements to see if they have begun mirroring > him, in return. > > Then he handed them the water bottle, while asking for something in > return. They continue to mirror, they have received, so they'll give. > This is doubly effective, since there is a subconscious desire for > reciprocity. OK, so maybe handing the bottle of water makes it more likely that they other guy would hand something in return. A neat trick, which might work. Sometimes. Still, this is no sound philosophical principle. > > And then yes, they realize it. Their rational mind kicks back in, and > they'll realize it. But the fact that the rational mind can be so > easily subverted, should give one pause. So he failed 50 times and then tricked one guy for 10 seconds. Is that evidence against rationalism? > > He uses a lot of techniques, but "neuro-linguistic programming" (NLP) > is the bread-and-butter. > > I have some familiarity with the techniques.. book learning, > basically. I've never employed them, at least not consciously, but I > can say that I see a lot of this stuff in advertisements and > politicians speeches. > > Seems to me there is something to it, As in you can trick some people under some special circumstances for a short period? Yes. But I don't think there are wider implications. > whether Derren is 100% above > board, or not. >

4 5

Torgate: Tor’s Branding Pivot is Going to Get Someone Killed
by grarpamp 22 Sep '16

22 Sep '16

Virgil Griffith- Research Scientist in Singapore Sep 4 Tor’s Branding Pivot is Going to Get Someone Killed Aka, human rights activism meets the Cobra Effect Three weeks ago, The Tor Project, Inc. published their Tor Social Contract. The contract was covered by the media, but the media focused on the policy not to backdoor software (as though that were surprising?), and regrettably, missed the real story carefully hidden in the first bullet: 1. We advance human rights by creating and deploying usable anonymity and privacy technologies. ... ... ... Tor’s branding pivot is misguided, damaging for global privacy, and ironically, harmful to Asian human rights. Anonymity requires not just company, it requires diverse company, yet Tor has increased the barrier-to-entry for all non-HR Tor users. This something Tor has brought upon itself, and they are knowingly throwing their most vulnerable users under the bus. After seven years of proud service to Tor including: founding Tor2web, Roster, and Toroken, as well as writing a Tor Tech Report and running several high-performance relays, I am resigning because: •Given my residency in Southeast Asia, Tor’s pivot creates nonnegligible risk for me personally. •I do not trust an organization which prefers reaping modest public relations benefits within comparably cozy jurisdictions over the security of its neediest users risking imprisonment. Tor is carefully positioning itself away from the efficacious privacy promotor it used to be.

1 0

Volunteers
by juan 22 Sep '16

22 Sep '16

------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- This email was sent via Anonymous email service for free. YOU CAN REMOVE THIS TEXT MESSAGE BY BEING A PAID MEMBER FOR $19/year. <http://bit.ly/k37rpz> CLICK HERE => <http://bit.ly/k37rpz> IP address of the sender:85.25.103.119 <http://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip_demo> Message ID= 315861 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- > Sean Lynch: > Of course, this is all unglamorous work > that's hard to get volunteers to do > unless they're really passionate Or getting paid, fucker. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- This email was sent via Anonymous email service for free. YOU CAN REMOVE THIS TEXT MESSAGE BY BEING A PAID MEMBER FOR $19/year. <http://bit.ly/k37rpz> CLICK HERE => <http://bit.ly/k37rpz> Message ID= 315861 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------

4 6

[Fwd: Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF]
by xorcist＠sigaint.org 21 Sep '16

21 Sep '16

Ooops. Sent this to Juan offlist, but meant to copy the list on it too. > However the idea that a professional seller of jewelry is going > to make a big sale like that, without even COUNTING the bills > because he had been chatted up with some nonsense about the > subway system is...not plausible. It's all about misdirection, and subtle cues. I haven't seen Derren's explanation of this particular example, but from what I know of the subject, here is my take: The chat about the subway is misdirection. He makes it a point to start moving his hands, point this way and that about "directions" .. that gets the cashier looking away from what they're doing and subtly distracted, looking at him, and away from what they are supposed to be doing. Then he mentions being uneasy about the subway. This is an important part. Because it will tend to make the listener remember a time they were uneasy or had a bad experience on the subway. This memory, and any associated emotional impact, puts them entirely "within their head" for just a moment. Then comes pay off. "Go ahead, just take it. It's fine." while handing him the paper.. overtly referring to his friend, telling him to take the subway, but covertly a command to accept the "money." The jewelry store guy DID realize it, shortly after, as well as did the guys with the wallets. That is to be expected. The suggestible state doesn't last indefinitely. If you look into his work, he has admitted that he has more failures than successes depending on the complexity of the trick, and that his show is about entertainment, primarily, and so only the successes are shown. It's conceivable he stages some things, too. Like any magician. > I do think that Darren is socially engineering people. The > people who watch their videos, IF they think are real... But if you believe a talented magician never manages to fool people successfully, you're naive. Yes, they'll stage stuff too, but that is hardly the point. The skills of illusion, and "mentalism" are quite real.. and if you watch more of his stuff, especially the longer videos or full episodes where he breaks down the hows and whys of it working, perhaps you'll be less likely to say its fake. It's easy to dismiss a magic trick as "camera edits" when you just have a 3 minute video. It's a bit harder when the magician explains the whole thing to you. In the videos I linked to, he uses a lot of body language mirroring. Whatever movements the subject makes, he mirrors with his own body language. Then, when he feels like he has the person, he'll move away as a test and do other movements to see if they have begun mirroring him, in return. Then he handed them the water bottle, while asking for something in return. They continue to mirror, they have received, so they'll give. This is doubly effective, since there is a subconscious desire for reciprocity. And then yes, they realize it. Their rational mind kicks back in, and they'll realize it. But the fact that the rational mind can be so easily subverted, should give one pause. He uses a lot of techniques, but "neuro-linguistic programming" (NLP) is the bread-and-butter. I have some familiarity with the techniques.. book learning, basically. I've never employed them, at least not consciously, but I can say that I see a lot of this stuff in advertisements and politicians speeches. Seems to me there is something to it, whether Derren is 100% above board, or not.

1 0

The Cypherpunk Revolution
by Cecilia Tanaka 21 Sep '16

21 Sep '16

http://passcode.csmonitor.com/cypherpunk * This article is an excerpt from “ Rise of the Machines : A Cybernetic History ” by Thomas Rid. sea sea :)

1 1

Cyberpunk Derivatives
by Cecilia Tanaka 21 Sep '16

21 Sep '16

Did you already use these classifications, dear all? Never listened about some of them, uh! :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_derivatives Tender kisses! :* sea sea :)

1 0

Even spookier entangled particles.
by jim bell 21 Sep '16

21 Sep '16

https://www.yahoo.com/news/entangled-particles-reveal-even-spookier-action-… [partial quote] Sorry, Einstein: It looks like the world is spooky — even when your most famous theory is tossed out.This finding comes from a close look at quantum entanglement, in which two particles that are "entangled" affect each other even when separated by a large distance. Einstein found that his theory of special relativity meant that this weird behavior was impossible, calling it "spooky."Now, researchers have found that even if they were to scrap this theory, allowing entangled particles to communicate with each other faster than the speed of light or even instantaneously, that couldn't explain the odd behavior. The findings rule out certain "realist" interpretations of spooky quantum behavior. [Infographic: How Quantum Entanglement Works]"What that tells us is that we have to look a little bit deeper," said study co-author Martin Ringbauer, a doctoral candidate in physics at the University of Queensland in Australia. "This kind of action-at-a-distance is not enough to explain quantum correlations" seen between entangled particles, Ringbauer said. Action at a distance Most of the time, the world seems — if not precisely orderly — then at least governed by fixed rules. At the macroscale, cause-and-effect rules the behavior of the universe, time always marches forward and objects in the universe have objective, measurable properties. But zoom in enough, and those common-sense notions seem to evaporate. At the subatomic scale, particles can become entangled, meaning their fates are bizarrely linked. For instance, if two photons are sent from a laser through a crystal, after they fly off in separate directions, their spin will be linked the moment one of the particles is measured. Several studies have now confirmed that, no matter how far apart entangled particles are, how fast one particle is measured, or how many times particles are measured, their states become inextricably linked once they are measured.For nearly a century, physicists have tried to understand what this means about the universe. The dominant interpretation was that entangled particles have no fixed position or orientation until they are measured. Instead, both particles travel as the sum of the probability of all their potential positions, and both only "choose" one state at the moment of measurement. This behavior seems to defy notions of Einstein's theory ofspecial relativity, which argues that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light. It was so frustrating to Einstein that he famously called it "spooky action at a distance." To get around this notion, in 1935, Einstein and colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen laid out a paradox that could test the alternate hypothesis that some hidden variable affected the fate of both objects as they traveled. If the hidden variable model were true, that would mean "there's some description of reality which is objective," Ringbauer told Live Science. [Spooky! The Top 10 Unexplained Phenomena]Then in 1964, Irish physicist John Stewart Bell came up with a mathematical expression, now known as Bell's Inequality, that could experimentally prove Einstein wrong by proving the act of measuring a particle affects its state.In hundreds of tests since, Einstein's basic explanation for entanglement has failed: Hidden variables can't seem to explain the correlations between entangled particles.But there was still some wiggle room: Bell's Inequality didn't address the situation in which two entangled photons travel faster than light.[end of partial quote]

3 2

on communication - [zen at freedbms.net: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)]
by John Newman 21 Sep '16

21 Sep '16

> Sean Lynch: > we already knew social skills > weren't [Zen's] strong suit. > Cecilia Tanaka: > Zen will say you are "bullying". > I [don't] care about his opinion. Because you two do more than cry and use lots of useless words. Stupid fuckers. Bullies XD

6 10

what is a traitor?
by Zenaan Harkness 20 Sep '16

20 Sep '16

Some good points being raised, on sl1shd()t no less: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/09/18/2023216/assange-agrees-to-us-prison… What is a traitor? When is it appropriate to label someone a traitor? When is doing so, an attempt at manipulative propaganda? This reply, amongst others, is on point: > 1. Loyalty to country / oath = precisely not ignoring illegal actions. > > 2. Doesn't really matter what her initial motivation was - she could > have done it because she was a dirty racist who didn't like the > President's color, for all I care. > > 2. Give evidence that she did it "deliberately, willfully to hurt > [her] nation" please. > > She didn't seriously injure her country or try to destabilise it > or encourage war against it. She did not cooperate with a foreign > nation. She was acquitted of "aiding the enemy". To stick the > "traitor" label on her is ridiculous. > > (Also, to stubbornly stick with "him" suggests you're not really > interested in facts and are emtionally clouded.)

3 2