1984: Starlink First Partner: Local Cops and State Military
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/washington-emergency-responders-use-spacex-s... News prediction: Starlink Feeds Robot Dogs, Spy Drones, Cameras Microphones Pop-Control Sensors Everywhere Giving 100:1 odds to any buyer.
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 23:36:03 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/washington-emergency-responders-use-spacex-s...
Cool! So Jim Bell was right! Musko is a Libertarian Randroidic Hero and US Technology is making the world even more freer and perfect!
News prediction: Starlink Feeds Robot Dogs, Spy Drones, Cameras Microphones Pop-Control Sensors Everywhere
Giving 100:1 odds to any buyer.
On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 09:14:36 PM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 23:36:03 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/washington-emergency-responders-use-spacex-s...
Cool! So Jim Bell was right! Musko is a Libertarian Randroidic Hero and US Technology is making the world even more freer and perfect!
I think you are (deliberately) misrepresenting what I actually said. That's called a "strawman". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man A good clue is that you don't actually quote me. Go back and quote me. What I believe I DID say, and what I will say again, is that Musk is putting himself into a position where he could do a great deal of good for libertarian causes, in part by bypassing governments' ability to censor or cut off Internet access. If he chooses to do so. And I think, therefore, it is important that "we" (Cypherpunks and pro-freedom people) make sure he is aware that we know what he will be able to do, and what we think he SHOULD do. As grarpamp just posted: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>To:cypherpunks@cpunks.orgTue, Sep 29 at 10:39 PMHow India Censors The Web | | | | | | | | | | | How India Censors The Web Update (11th April 2020): This paper has been accepted at ACM Web Science 2020. A preprint can be accessed on ar... | | | "Nation states around the world engage in web censorship using a variety of legal and technical methods. India is no different in this regard: the Government of India can legally order internet service providers (ISPs) operating in its jurisdiction to block access to certain websites for its users. This makes the situation different from jurisdictions like Iran and China, where internet censorship is largely centralised. Legal provisions in India, namely Section 69A and Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, allow the Central Government and the various courts in the country to issue website-blocking orders that ISPs are legally bound to comply with. Most of these orders are not publically available." https://github.com/kush789/How-India-Censors-The-Web-Data com.censorwatch.netprobesapp https://getintra.org/ Investigating TLS blocking in India
Cool! So Jim Bell was right! Musko is a Libertarian Randroidic Hero and US Technology is making the world even more freer and perfect!
I think you are (deliberately) misrepresenting what I actually said.
What I believe I DID say, and what I will say again, is that Musk is putting himself into a position where he could do a great deal of good for libertarian causes, in part by bypassing governments' ability to censor or cut off Internet access.
There's little to no connection between "libertarian causes" and "internet access". Government 'censoring' the arpanet in iran is not a libertarian cause at all. It is a US military fascist cause. Which you keep advocating. Now go ahead and try to acuse me of 'strawmanning' you. On the other hand, censorship and surveilance on the arpanet are problems caused by the US government and its 'private' facades like google, facebook, amazon and the like. Those companies have to be destroyed, and destroying them IS a libertarian cause.
Musk is putting himself into a position where he could do a great deal of good for libertarian causes
That's a ridiculous, unfounded assertion. Actually musk is a high ranking enemy of freedom like any other high ranking US corporatist. What you're saying is that the most corrupt members of the US oligarchy can "do a great deal of good for libertarian causes", which makes as much sense as saying that eating cyanide is great for your health.
If he chooses to do so. And I think, therefore, it is important that "we" (Cypherpunks and pro-freedom people) make sure he is aware that we know what he will be able to do, and what we think he SHOULD do.
Explain why you think a highly corrupt criminal whose only purpose in life is to advance US fascism is going to do the exact opposite of what he does? Your claim is pretty EXTRAORDINARY, so you have to provide a pretty EXTRAORDINARY explanation as well. I'm all ears. Of course, like anybody else musko SHOULDN'T be a criminal, but that observation applies to any moral agent, so it's irrelevant/useless. You think musko isn't aware of the meaning of his own actions and that you're going to teach him 'libertarianism'? (especially you, who have been constantly parroting US military propaganda). Please.
What you're saying is that the most corrupt members of the US oligarchy can "do a great deal of good for libertarian causes", which makes as much sense as saying that eating cyanide is great for your health.
Well actually, there's a debate about apricot kernels amygdalin (cyanide precursor) being an anti-cancer treatment - see also cyanocobalamin - but the problems are looking less than encouraging (even setting aside the concentration of amygdalin into tablet form): APRICOT KERNEL https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-1190/apricot-kernel Apricot kernel is the hard stone or pit found inside apricots. The kernel is used to produce oil and other chemicals used for medicinal purposes. Apricot kernel is commonly taken by mouth or given as an injection into the veins for treating cancer. But research shows that apricot kernel is not safe to use and does not seem to help treat cancer. Apricot kernel extract is used as a flavoring in liqueur. How does it work? Apricot kernel contains a toxic chemical known as amygdalin. In the body this chemical is converted to cyanide, which is poisonous. There was interest in using apricot kernel to fight cancer because it was thought that amygdalin was taken up first by cancer cells and converted to cyanide. It was hoped that the cyanide would harm only the tumor. But research has shown that this is not true. The amygdalin is actually converted to cyanide in the stomach. The cyanide then goes throughout the body, where it can cause serious harm, including death. [The following has a LOT of information and links not included here:] Can apricot seeds help treat cancer? https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314337 ... There is currently no research to support the claim that apricot seeds can fight cancer. Furthermore, scientists have warned that a compound in the apricot kernel converts to cyanide in the body at levels that could be harmful. ... Can they help fight cancer? Apricot kernels may have some health benefits, and some people have suggested that they may help fight cancer. Scientists have proposed that a compound called amygdalin, present in apricot kernels, may be a way to eradicate tumors and prevent cancer by stopping cells from reproducing. A laboratory study published in 2005 suggested that amygdalin might inhibit genes that lead to cell proliferation. In 2012, a laboratory study found that enhancing amygdalin with β-D-glucosidase may make it useful in treating liver cancer. ... Cyanide kills cells in the human body by preventing them from using oxygen. Cyanide is particularly harmful to the heart and the brain because they use a lot of oxygen. ... Estimates state that eating 50 to 60 apricot kernels could deliver a lethal dose of cyanide. Cyanide poisoning can occur at much lower levels, however. Commercial sources that promote the consumption of raw apricot kernels recommend between 6 and 10 kernels per day. Some recommend more for people with cancer, but this can be dangerous. People who follow these dose recommendations are likely to be exposed to cyanide levels that cause cyanide poisoning. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have warned that a single serving of three small apricot kernels or one large apricot kernel could put adults over the suggested safe levels of cyanide exposure, while one small kernel could be toxic to an infant. The EFSA advise that no one should consume more than 20 micrograms (mcg) of cyanide per kilogram of body weight at one time. This limits consumption to one kernel for adults. Even half a kernel would be over the limit for children. Researchers note that the seeds of bitter apricots have a particularly high level of amygdalin at 5.5 grams (g) in every 100 g. ... “Cyanide poisoning associated with ingestion of apricot seeds is an important poison in children, many of whom require intensive care.” Effects of the Gut microbiota on Amygdalin and its use as an anti-cancer therapy: Substantial review on the key components involved in altering dose efficacy and toxicity https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986699/ Abstract Conventional and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is popularly used due to side-effects and failure of approved methods, for diseases like Epilepsy and Cancer. Amygdalin, a cyanogenic diglycoside is commonly administered for cancer with other CAM therapies like vitamins and seeds of fruits like apricots and bitter almonds, due to its ability to hydrolyse to hydrogen cyanide (HCN), benzaldehyde and glucose. Over the years, several cases of cyanide toxicity on ingestion have been documented. In-vitro and in-vivo studies using various doses and modes of administration, like IV administration studies that showed no HCN formation, point to the role played by the gut microbiota for the commonly seen poisoning on consumption. The anaerobic Bacteriodetes phylum found in the gut has a high β-glucosidase activity needed for amygdalin hydrolysis to HCN. However, there are certain conditions under which these HCN levels rise to cause toxicity. Case studies have shown toxicity on ingestion of variable doses of amygdalin and no HCN side-effects on consumption of high doses. This review shows how factors like probiotic and prebiotic consumption, other CAM therapies, obesity, diet, age and the like, that alter gut consortium, are responsible for the varying conditions under which toxicity occurs and can be further studied to set-up conditions for safe oral doses. It also indicates ways to delay or quickly treat cyanide toxicity due to oral administration and, reviews conflicts on amygdalin's anti-cancer abilities, dose levels, mode of administration and pharmacokinetics that have hindered its official acceptance at a therapeutic level. Physician Beware: Severe Cyanide Toxicity from Amygdalin Tablets Ingestion https://www.hindawi.com/journals/criem/2017/4289527/ Abstract Despite the risk of cyanide toxicity and lack of efficacy, amygdalin is still used as alternative cancer treatment. Due to the highly lethal nature of cyanide toxicity, many patients die before getting medical care. Herein, we describe the case of a 73-year-old female with metastatic pancreatic cancer who developed cyanide toxicity from taking amygdalin. Detailed history and physical examination prompted rapid clinical recognition and treatment with hydroxocobalamin, leading to resolution of her cyanide toxicity. Rapid clinical diagnosis and treatment of cyanide toxicity can rapidly improve patients’ clinical outcome and survival. Inquiries for any forms of ingestion should be attempted in patients with clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of poisoning. ...
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:06:46 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
What you're saying is that the most corrupt members of the US oligarchy can "do a great deal of good for libertarian causes", which makes as much sense as saying that eating cyanide is great for your health.
Well actually, there's a debate about apricot kernels
OK, go eat a few grams of NaCN or KCN and then report back. Your report will make as much sense as Jim Bell's views on musko, 'technology' or the flu farce.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:06:46 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Apricot kernel is commonly taken by mouth or given as an injection into the veins
they must be using a pretty big needle, huh.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:04:54PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:06:46 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Apricot kernel is commonly taken by mouth or given as an injection into the veins
they must be using a pretty big needle, huh.
"Science".
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 11:48:44 AM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
Cool! So Jim Bell was right! Musko is a Libertarian Randroidic Hero and US Technology is making the world even more freer and perfect!
I think you are (deliberately) misrepresenting what I actually said.
What I believe I DID say, and what I will say again, is that Musk is putting himself into a position where he could do a great deal of good for libertarian causes, in part by bypassing governments' ability to censor or cut off Internet access.
There's little to no connection between "libertarian causes" and "internet access". Then you have a poor imagination. Access to the Internet _IS_ a "libertarian cause". The fact that nations such as India are selectiely obstructing its people's access to the Internet should anger you immensely. Authoritarian (and certainly totalitarian!) nations are merely the epitome of such obstruction. Many people might not think mere "India" as being unfree, but nevertheless it's a problem. > Government 'censoring' the arpanet in iran is not a libertarian cause at all. It is a US military fascist cause. Which you keep advocating. Now go ahead and try to acuse me of 'strawmanning' you. Okay, maybe it's BOTH "a libertarian cause" AND "US military fascist cause". A stopped clock is right twice a day. The fact that you can assert some "US military fascist" issue doesn't negate other possible interests that you don't happen to want to talk about.
On the other hand, censorship and surveilance on the arpanet are problems caused by the US government and its 'private' facades like google, facebook, amazon and the like. Those companies have to be destroyed, and destroying them IS a libertarian cause. In other words, you're waving a shiny object, to divert attention to other issues that Cypherpunks ought to be interested in.
Musk is putting himself into a position where he could do a great deal of good for libertarian causes
>That's a ridiculous, unfounded assertion. Actually musk is a high ranking enemy of freedom like any other high ranking US corporatist. Musk is making the technology which could make itt POSSIBLE for a huge number of people in countries around the world to have continuous, uncensored access to the Internet. Which is what I was referring to. Will Musk actually accomplish what I'd like to see him accomplish? He could either deliberately choose it, or deliberately refuse to choose it. Your pessimism is highly uninteresting to me. My goal is ensuring that Musk has little choice but to assist freedom, rather than refuse to assist freedom. What _IS_ interesting is if Musk could be pursuaded to go through with it: The way I see it, there is potentially an enormous difference between Starlink "working hard to prevent the 'guerilla' use of Starlink" and the opposite: "working hard to ASSIST the 'guerilla' use of Starlink. > What you're saying is that the most corrupt members of the US oligarchy can "do a great deal of good for libertarian causes", which makes as much sense as saying that eating cyanide is great for your health. I don't know that Musk is CURRENTLY one of "the most corrupt members of the US oligarchy". But I don't believe in giving up before finding out the truth.
If he chooses to do so. And I think, therefore, it is important that "we" (Cypherpunks and pro-freedom people) make sure he is aware that we know what he will be able to do, and what we think he SHOULD do.
>> Explain why you think a highly corrupt criminal whose only purpose in life is to advance US fascism is going to do the exact opposite of what he does? Your claim is pretty EXTRAORDINARY, so you have to provide a pretty EXTRAORDINARY explanation as well. I'm all ears. How about actually documenting and proving your claims? > Of course, like anybody else musko SHOULDN'T be a criminal, but that observation applies to any moral agent, so it's irrelevant/useless. You are rather useless. > You think musko isn't aware of the meaning of his own actions and that you're going to teach him 'libertarianism'? (especially you, who have been constantly parroting US military propaganda). Please. That's NOT what I said. Use whatever brains you ever had. To me, the issue isn't whether Musk has had enough time to think through these issues. To me, the INTERESTING issue is getting the public to consider the implications of Starlink as a way to break through government censorship. And to make them aware that Musk will have the ability to control whether Starlink helps, rather than stops, 'guerilla' use. If enough people make this an issue, MAYBE Musk will feel he must act on the side of communication and freedom. Your foolish pessimism does not help anything.
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 03:54:26AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 11:48:44 AM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
Cool! So Jim Bell was right! Musko is a Libertarian Randroidic Hero and US Technology is making the world even more freer and perfect!
I think you are (deliberately) misrepresenting what I actually said.
What I believe I DID say, and what I will say again, is that Musk is putting himself into a position where he could do a great deal of good for libertarian causes, in part by bypassing governments' ability to censor or cut off Internet access.
There's little to no connection between "libertarian causes" and "internet access".
Then you have a poor imagination. Access to the Internet _IS_ a "libertarian cause". The fact that nations such as India are selectiely obstructing its people's access to the Internet should anger you immensely. Authoritarian (and certainly totalitarian!) nations are merely the epitome of such obstruction. Many people might not think mere "India" as being unfree, but nevertheless it's a problem. ...
Our right, and more importantly 'freedom' to communicate is absolutely something we should foster, build, encourage, create, live. Juan made it clear "we don't control our lives". There are certain tasks before us in the realm of "modern communication", including #OpenHW, #OpenFabs, seamless peer to peer mesh networks (ethernet between neighbours, mobile phone wifis etc), and given a new properly distributed (etc) overlay net, then there is no reason that some links cannot go via Musk's Starlink satellites - just another rando hop in the mesh, with its own characteristics (bandwidth, cost, latency, etc). There is no -inherent- reason to disclude any particular link type (although yes, satellite-accessing nodes may be well require highly proprietary equipment which ought be "firewalled" in some way, at least from the immediate/ accessing/ paying user, we cannot say the situation is any better with say the ubiquitous Intel ethernet hardware and firmware stack... pot meet kettle). Our primary hurdle in the medium term is hardware, since the software is, from a design perspective afaict, mostly a solved problem ... proof by result still pending of course :) Ultimately, how different types of links are used shall be up to people and their creativity - if folks do nothing towards creating a better world for themselves, then the moneyed powers that be are the only players left on the field. Some of us here ain't that type o' people :D
On Thursday, October 1, 2020, 06:11:21 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 03:54:26AM +0000, jim bell wrote:[snip]
What I believe I DID say, and what I will say again, is that Musk is putting himself into a position where he could do a great deal of good for libertarian causes, in part by bypassing governments' ability to censor or cut off Internet access.
There's little to no connection between "libertarian causes" and "internet access".
Then you have a poor imagination. Access to the Internet _IS_ a "libertarian cause". The fact that nations such as India are selectiely obstructing its people's access to the Internet should anger you immensely. Authoritarian (and certainly totalitarian!) nations are merely the epitome of such obstruction. Many people might not think mere "India" as being unfree, but nevertheless it's a problem. ... [snip] There are certain tasks before us in the realm of "modern communication", including #OpenHW, #OpenFabs, seamless peer to peer mesh networks (ethernet between neighbours, mobile phone wifis etc), and given a new properly distributed (etc) overlay net, then there is no reason that some links cannot go via Musk's Starlink satellites - just another rando hop in the mesh, with its own characteristics (bandwidth, cost, latency, etc).
There is no -inherent- reason to disclude any particular link type (although yes, satellite-accessing nodes may be well require highly proprietary equipment which ought be "firewalled" in some way, at least from the immediate/ accessing/ paying user, we cannot say the situation is any better with say the ubiquitous Intel ethernet hardware and firmware stack... pot meet kettle).
Our primary hurdle in the medium term is hardware, since the software is, from a design perspective afaict, mostly a solved problem ... proof by result still pending of course :)
Yes. Weeks ago, I concluded that Starlink was probably using a "phased-array" IC for the ground station, so that the beam could be electronically steered. (The same IC that is being used for the Walabot sophisticated 'stud-finder'. https://www.amazon.com/Walabot-Imager-Android-Smartphones-Compatible/dp/B06Y... ) This is important, because they don't want the outputs of millions of such devices to be simultaneously emitted in ALL directions. THAT is a major advance, and it makes what they are trying to do practical. Jim Bell
There is at least one other antenna technology useful for aiming RF transmissions: NFDAM (Near Field Direct Antenna Modulation). Typically, a continuous carrier is sent to the antenna and there a digital signal is used to select an element from a 1 or 2 dimensional feed array that modulates the far field direction of the signal with the intended data. When properly applied only the signal in the desired direction (to the intended receiver) can be reconstructed (or even detected). On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 6:55 PM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes. Weeks ago, I concluded that Starlink was probably using a "phased-array" IC for the ground station, so that the beam could be electronically steered. (The same IC that is being used for the Walabot sophisticated 'stud-finder'. https://www.amazon.com/Walabot-Imager-Android-Smartphones-Compatible/dp/B06Y... )
This is important, because they don't want the outputs of millions of such devices to be simultaneously emitted in ALL directions. THAT is a major advance, and it makes what they are trying to do practical.
Jim Bell
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 23:10:45 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
There are certain tasks before us in the realm of "modern communication", including #OpenHW, #OpenFabs, seamless peer to peer mesh networks (ethernet between neighbours, mobile phone wifis etc),
yes, and then there would be little reason to route traffic through networks controlled by the enemy (networks like bell/musko 'starlink')
and given a new properly distributed (etc) overlay net, then there is no reason that some links cannot go via Musk's Starlink satellites - just another rando hop in the mesh, with its own characteristics (bandwidth, cost, latency, etc).
why would you give your enemy access to your traffic even if 'encrypted'? anyway, as you say, there are a few things that need to be done and NSA-internet-satellite doesn't help with any of them.
There is no -inherent- reason to disclude any particular link type (although yes, satellite-accessing nodes may be well require highly proprietary equipment
yeah see above.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 03:54:26 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 11:48:44 AM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
There's little to no connection between "libertarian causes" and "internet access".
Then you have a poor imagination.
My imagination is fine, thank you. Now just re-read what you wrote. You just candidly admited that what you're talking about is not real. It's just your imagination.
Access to the Internet _IS_ a "libertarian cause".
No it isn't. The arpanet is a spying tool that serves the interests of US fascists. Which is the obvious reason why access by US fascists to the national networks of china, iran, north korea and the like is blocked.
The fact that nations such as India are selectiely obstructing its people's access to the Internet should anger you immensely.
No, what angers me immensenly is what pieces of US shit have been doing since 1776. And before. Doesn't it anger you? Do you know nothing about US history and US present?
Authoritarian (and certainly totalitarian!) nations are merely the epitome of such obstruction.
Number one totalitarian nation is the fascist cesspool where you live Jim. Same 'nation' that has military bases all over the world. Same 'nation' that murders people by remote control as if the world was a videogame. Same nation that persecutes assange, its own agent snowden and anybody who isn't an outright fascist. YOU are the #1 enemy of freedom, Jim. This discussion is pointless if you are detached from reality Jim. And you surely sound detached from reality.
any people might not think mere "India" as being unfree, but nevertheless it's a problem.
Less of a problem than you. I now kinda wonder if you're somewhat retarded or what. You are a US military propagandist who is accusing other countries of being the bad guys? Are you for real?
> Government 'censoring' the arpanet in iran is not a libertarian cause at all. It is a US military fascist cause. Which you keep advocating. Now go ahead and try to acuse me of 'strawmanning' you.
Okay, maybe it's BOTH "a libertarian cause" AND "US military fascist cause".
Thanks for showing that you've reached the level of sheer absurdity. Yes Jim. War is Peace. In your mind something can be both a libertarian cause and a criminal operation of the US empire. Again, this discussion is pointless because you are detached from reality and state the most hilarious contradictions as 'fact'.
A stopped clock is right twice a day. The fact that you can assert some "US military fascist" issue doesn't negate other possible interests that you don't happen to want to talk about.
What do you think are these interests I don't want to talk about? I'm precisely talking about them. Your interest in accessing the national networks of the 'enemies' of your fascist government.
On the other hand, censorship and surveilance on the arpanet are problems caused by the US government and its 'private' facades like google, facebook, amazon and the like. Those companies have to be destroyed, and destroying them IS a libertarian cause.
In other words, you're waving a shiny object, to divert attention to other issues that Cypherpunks ought to be interested in.
What the HELL are you talking about. I'm stating the fact that your arpanet is owned by 3 mafiosos, and that they control the communications of 3/4 of the world. If you don't understand what sort of threat google-facebook-amazon-NSA are to anybody with half a passing interest in 'cypherpunk' issues maybe it's time for you to retire.
Musk is putting himself into a position where he could do a great deal of good for libertarian causes
>That's a ridiculous, unfounded assertion. Actually musk is a high ranking enemy of freedom like any other high ranking US corporatist.
Musk is making the technology which could make itt POSSIBLE for a huge number of people in countries around the world to have continuous, uncensored access to the Internet.
That's a stupid lie. The interent is heavily censored and controlled by western fascists. Musk and you want to further extend that sort of control. You-are-an-agent-of-the-US-military-Jim-Bell. Also musk isn't making anything. He's a 'web designer' morphed into corporate scammer.
Which is what I was referring to. Will Musk actually accomplish what I'd like to see him accomplish? He could either deliberately choose it, or deliberately refuse to choose it. Your pessimism is highly uninteresting to me. My goal is ensuring that Musk has little choice but to assist freedom, rather than refuse to assist freedom.
you are making...no sense...at all. Musk is an enemy of freedom. His choice is to be an enemy of freedom. And you seem to believe you have power over the likes of musk? Oh wait, that's because you're detached from reality.
What _IS_ interesting is if Musk could be pursuaded to go through with it: The way I see it, there is potentially an enormous difference between Starlink "working hard to prevent the 'guerilla' use of Starlink" and the opposite: "working hard to ASSIST the 'guerilla' use of Starlink.
there's no 'guerilla' use of starlink(the US arpanet). The 'guerilla' use of starlink exists only in your IMAGINATION. It has no basis in reality. Unless of course by 'guerilla' you mean use it to further advance US domination. Which is what you want, I assume.
> What you're saying is that the most corrupt members of the US oligarchy can "do a great deal of good for libertarian causes", which makes as much sense as saying that eating cyanide is great for your health.
I don't know that Musk is CURRENTLY one of "the most corrupt members of the US oligarchy". But I don't believe in giving up before finding out the truth.
Oh, you are such a master of 'libertarianism' and yet you know nothing about US corporatism, the US being the fascist cesspool where you live. Let me help you with some arpanet links then. https://mises.org/wire/elon-musk-crony-capitalist https://reason.com/2016/04/28/elon-musk-crony-capitalist/ https://spectator.org/elon-musk-king-of-the-crony-capitalists/ Of course this is not the first time I link that stuff and is not the first that I point out that musk is so fucking corrupt that even US FAKE LIBERTARIANS don't bother defending him. So, now go read adam smith, learn the ABC of mercantilism, then learn what 'crony capitalist' means, and then read these, again. https://mises.org/wire/elon-musk-crony-capitalist https://reason.com/2016/04/28/elon-musk-crony-capitalist/ https://spectator.org/elon-musk-king-of-the-crony-capitalists/
If he chooses to do so. And I think, therefore, it is important that "we" (Cypherpunks and pro-freedom people) make sure he is aware that we know what he will be able to do, and what we think he SHOULD do.
>> Explain why you think a highly corrupt criminal whose only purpose in life is to advance US fascism is going to do the exact opposite of what he does? Your claim is pretty EXTRAORDINARY, so you have to provide a pretty EXTRAORDINARY explanation as well. I'm all ears.
How about actually documenting and proving your claims?
How about YOU prove YOUR CLAIMS instead of retorting with a question? Ok, ok, I know your claims exist only in your imagination, which is why you can't 'prove' them. But I can of course 'document' my claims. Here's some 'documents' for you https://mises.org/wire/elon-musk-crony-capitalist https://reason.com/2016/04/28/elon-musk-crony-capitalist/ https://spectator.org/elon-musk-king-of-the-crony-capitalists/ and https://mises.org/wire/elon-musk-crony-capitalist https://reason.com/2016/04/28/elon-musk-crony-capitalist/ https://spectator.org/elon-musk-king-of-the-crony-capitalists/
> Of course, like anybody else musko SHOULDN'T be a criminal, but that observation applies to any moral agent, so it's irrelevant/useless.
You are rather useless.
LMAO! I'm certainly useless to the likes of you.
> You think musko isn't aware of the meaning of his own actions and that you're going to teach him 'libertarianism'? (especially you, who have been constantly parroting US military propaganda). Please.
That's NOT what I said. Use whatever brains you ever had. To me, the issue isn't whether Musk has had enough time to think through these issues. To me, the INTERESTING issue is getting the public to consider the implications of Starlink as a way to break through government censorship.
What are you talkign about, sonny. Government censorship? You mean facebook, google, crapple, microsoft, and all the rest of US monopolies? Why don't you get the 'public' to beat jeff bezos to death, like deserves?
And to make them aware that Musk will have the ability to control whether Starlink helps, rather than stops, 'guerilla' use.
there is no such use.
If enough people make this an issue, MAYBE Musk will feel he must act on the side of communication and freedom. Your foolish pessimism does not help anything.
You're pretty 'optimistic' about the further growth of the US cancer eh. Yeah, science will explain everything, technology will make people free, and we must worry about the poor people of iran not being able to access facebook-nsa. OK, I expect your next reply to either 1)not be posted at all or 2)completely ignore all that I said and just keep parroting US military talking points about 'oppresive regimes'...except your own.
participants (5)
-
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Steven Schear -
Zenaan Harkness