At 08:50 PM 8/4/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010804/pl/tech_governors_tax_dc_1.html
>
>Governors Seeking Internet Tax
>By Leslie Gevirtz
>PROVIDENCE, R.I. (Reuters) - Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer on Saturday urged
>Congress to allow states to tax e-com
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge can
> > > legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order to
> > > enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is,
> > > that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare
> > > to
Unfortunately for your inbox, and fortunately, perhaps, for the
continued viability of procmail, I have no intention of changing my
interactions with Choate or others based on your personal preferences.
-Declan
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:50:28PM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
C'punks,
Coming up with the "canarypunks" concept, has really clarified my thinking.
I'm taking the pledge and will no longer strive to protect the dumbest and
most aggressively ignorant members of this list (the Three Stooges) from the
error or their ways. I finally got it through my head that
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 06:20:13PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> A verbal agreement between two parties that dictate how they will relate
> to each other is a contract.
Could you provide some cites to the U.S. Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, and some recent articles on Slashdot to back up that poi
On Saturday, August 4, 2001, at 12:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --
> On 3 Aug 2001, at 20:59, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>> the point is, that's enough. Both endpoints on such a packet's
>> route are participants, obviously. If they want to shut it
>> down, and they have seen such a packet,
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:00:34PM -0700, Eric Murray wrote:
> Posts that are received (enter the CDR system) at lne and are forwarded
> to the other CDRs are demimed.
>
> Posts originating from another CDR are demimed on the way
> to lne CDR subscribers.
>
> Posts originating from another CDR a
--
On 4 Aug 2001, at 14:54, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Jimbo II wrote:
>
> > You, and Black Unicorn, have taken that
> > extreme position. You were full of shit.
>
> Show me where I took that position. Put up or shut up, Jimbo II.
A few posts back when I pointed out that most businesses engag
On 4 Aug 2001, at 18:29, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Jimbo II has really gone off the deep end. I've asked him
repeatedly to
> quote me directly where I have said the things he alleges that
have said.'
You have asked me once, off list. I replied, off list.
Now I will repost that reply on the lis
Good point J.A., I got my cowards mixed up. I stand corrected. It's you
that sends his son to beat of folks for expressing opinions you don't like.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 August, 2001 18:47
> T
Jimbo II has really gone off the deep end. I've asked him repeatedly to
quote me directly where I have said the things he alleges that I have said.
His cowardice in failing to reproduce those requested passages (or even my
requests for the requested passages) is manifest. Give his intellectual
d
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his son--rolls
> of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his dirty work), I
That's me you're referring to you moron. If you are going to resort to ad
hominem, at least get you
http://home.earthlink.net/~dliske/article1.html
--
--
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.A.
Yip, yip, yahooo
http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm
--
--
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Sandy Sandfort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 4:44 PM
> Subject: RE: Final Words from me about document production requirements and
> remailers.
>
>
> > Black U
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
> I looked, and I can't find the mail we exchanged, though I do remember
> exchanging mail at the time.
Spoliation!! ;)
I don't keep 'em either.
> Spell out what it is that you think we've agreed to, and I'll report back
> with how well I intend
1.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia
Hola que tal:
El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder
realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu
trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio d
--
On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes
> educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are
> NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents.
And as any one can tell you
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-08-04-007-20-SC-HL-SW
--
--
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010804/pl/tech_governors_tax_dc_1.html
--
--
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Tesla be", an
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract
> (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?)
1. Capacity of the parties.
2. Mutual agreement (assent) or meeting of the minds (a valid offer and
acceptance)
3. Consideratio
On 4 Aug 2001, at 13:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My impression is that BU's response to me was based on a
> misundertanding of what I was saying.
My impression is that whatever his original position, in the course
of defending it, he made claims that were ever more unreasonable,
ever more f
Jimbo I wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
> > Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract
> > (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?)
>
> 1. Capacity of the parties.
>
> 2. Mutual agreement (assent) or meeting of the minds (a valid offer and
>
1.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia
Hola que tal:
El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder
realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu
trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio d
On 4 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote:
> But the point is, yes, definitely the judge can demand every single
> copy of a document, and this case clearly demonstrates it in action.
But, in this case (as I've claimed in the past) EACH AND EVERY COPY
represent harm to the plaintiff. Of course it makes sen
I am going to try and be as clear and as slow as possible- knowing full well
that it probably will make no difference and that my words will be twisted,
strawmaned, touted or defamed whatever I do. Regardless:
Hirsch v. General Motors, 628 A.2d 1108 (1993) effectively opens the door for
third p
*** Compliance: see notice at bottom of mail
Are you wasting money EVERY SINGLE MONTH?
Home Mortgage Rates have DROPPED!
Simply fill out our FREE NO OBLIGATION form and find out how much you can save.
It's That Easy!
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Eric Murray wrote:
> There's no CDR contract. At least I didn't sign one.
You don't have to sign it. You only have to agree to it verbally, or in
this case email.
A verbal agreement between two parties that dictate how they will relate
to each other is a contract.
If you d
What's up with voice encryption? I'm ready to use it. I'm ready to
pay money for it. However, this is only if it uses a real crypto
algorithm (AES, 3DES, and not some "proprietary" crap) and if it has a
published protocol, so we can verify that it is actually encrypting
properly. Starium has h
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
> Read the definition of ordinary course of business - it implies good faith
> by nature. You seem to think ordinary course of business means "shred away!"
> Bzzt. Read Lewy. Lewy says you can't hide behind a policy and destroy
> documents you KNEW OR SHOULD
James wrote:
> Harmon Seaver
> > > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all
> > > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it.
>
> At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point
> > you'd s
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: Spoliation cites
> On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:53, David Honig wrote:
> > After MS was busted, it was widely publicized that it was thereafter
> > official policy to des
Malpractice Stooge wrote:
> A verbal agreement between two
> parties that dictate how they
> will relate to each other is a
> contract.
Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract
(you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?) or it violates the Statute of
Frauds or sim
- Original Message -
From: "Black Unicorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 4:08 PM
Subject: Final Words from me about document production requirements and
remailers.
> The trial court
> permits the plaintiffs to sue for spoliation, mostly on t
- Original Message -
From: "Sandy Sandfort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: Final Words from me about document production requirements and
remailers.
> Black Unicorn wrote:
>
> [masterful summation elided]
>
> > My only re
Black Unicorn wrote:
[masterful summation elided]
> My only regret in pointing this
> out is that I think Mr. Sandfort
> might owe someone a house. (I
> note he never put a dollar figure
> on the house bet though).
My offer (not enforceable under contract due to failure of consideration)
was o
James wrote:--
> Black Unicorn's argument seemed to be "Everything is forbidden,
> therefore you need to hire a lawyer who will issue the magic
> incantations to make it legal.
Sadly, that is A DAMN FACT.
> This is nonsense on two counts:
>
> 1. Not everything is forbidden.
While everythi
C'punks,
I've just had a flash of insight into the purpose that Village Idiots I-III,
and Jim Bell serve. (Tim May is a special care which I'll treat separately,
below.)
The are all coal mine canaries. When they succumb, the rest of us know it's
time to get out of the mine (lower our profile)
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/08/04/2150240.shtml
--
--
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.A.
> > Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do, lawyers will
Please do a search for "Negativland" and "U2" on your favorite search
engine. They were ordered to return to the court or U2's reccord
label or whatever, all the copies they had of their U2 album. Every
single copy. Intere
Reading this E-Mail Could Literally Change Your Life!
-Are you being paid what you are worth?
-Are you living the lifestyle you always dreamed about?
-Want to spend more quality time with your loved ones?
-Do you have more bills than income?
-Have you ever wanted to FIRE YOUR BOSS and own your
o
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Spoliation cites
> On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge
> > can legally
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Official Reporters have more copyright rights
Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Why did I ever deprocmail Choate?...
> I expect this will be my only response to Choate in the foreseeable
> future. Sigh.
I certainly hope so. Messages like this move you closer to my
pro
--
James A. Donald:
> > There is a trend to making
> > everything illegal. Your
> > qualifications to read tea
> > leaves are no better than my own.
Sandy Sandfort
> Well James, you got it right once. My qualifications for reading tea leaves
> are no better than your own. However, my quali
VI2 wrote:
> If Microsoft gets busted for
> "spoilation" in their current
> lawsuit, then I will take Sandy
> and Black Unicorn off my loon
> list. :-)
If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" I'll buy James a new house. But
if they get busted for spoliation I don't want to be taken off your
--
who cypherpunks
Members of list 'cypherpunks':
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Hi! How are you?
I send you this file in order to have your advice
See you later. Thanks
Book1.xls.com
--
Harmon Seaver
> > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all
> > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it.
At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote:
> Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point
> you'd see that about every
Poor stupid James wrote:
> If you are making claims about
> what the law might become in
> future, your qualifications for
> undestanding laws and court
> precedents are irrelevant.
No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes
educated assessments about how laws may
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:00:34PM -0700, Eric Murray wrote:
>
> I've also found the source of the wrapped Message-Ids and I'll
> be fixing it soon.
>
>
> Eric
>
That's good news. The duplicated messages were confusing.
-Bill
--
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> You cannot have encryption technologies advancing and leaving the law
> behind, so long as any vital part of the infrastructure you need is
> traceable and pulpable by the law.
Child porn still gets distributed through usenet. Silencing
"alt.ano
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 22:43, Aimee Farr wrote:
> Neither Uni nor I suggested that routine document destruction is
> inappropriate in the ordinary course of business.
I understood black unicorn, and Sandy, to be claiming it was inappropriate, and quite
dangerous.
You, while more cautious than
Yes!
It is your turn to profit from the power of the internet. Anyone and
everyone
can take advantage of this easy to use program. This is so easy, a 12
year old could do it!
Many of our clients earn over $100,000 in just one month. How? Visit our
site and find out!
http://ebprofits.9roc
On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:53, David Honig wrote:
> After MS was busted, it was widely publicized that it was thereafter
> official policy to destroy email after N days. As if Ollie et al. wasn't
> enough.
If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" in their current lawsuit, then
I will take Sandy and
EXPLODE YOUR SEX LIFE!!
A Safe Natural Alternative To Viagra
Same powerful results as Viagra without any harmful side effects!
MEN it will give you a Rock Solid Erection Intensifying Sex Giving You Incredibly
Powerful Long Lasting Orgasms! Men experience more powerful orgasms, strength,
sta
Yes!
It is your turn to profit from the power of the internet. Anyone and
everyone
can take advantage of this easy to use program. This is so easy, a 12
year old could do it!
Many of our clients earn over $100,000 in just one month. How? Visit our
site and find out!
http://ebprofits.9roc
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:30:03AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> You fool. One of the cypherpunks nodes removed the attachment.
> Sending attachments to the distributed cypherpunks list when at least
> one node remove them is about as useful as, well, arguing with Choate.
>
> -Declan
>
>
> O
Yes!
It is your turn to profit from the power of the internet. Anyone and
everyone
can take advantage of this easy to use program. This is so easy, a 12
year old could do it!
Many of our clients earn over $100,000 in just one month. How? Visit our
site and find out!
http://ebprofits.9roc
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, John Young wrote:
> Some of the titles of URLs you offer appear interesting. Could you
> include a paragraph or two for each? Say, at least as much text
> as the skull clutter of your headers and sig.
I won't include text of the original articles, no. I no longer even
includ
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
> Sure. And I could find such a thing...where?
>
> It would seem that I ought to at least read such a thing, if I've
> supposedly agreed to it.
Check the email you and I exchanged when pro-dns.net was put on the SSZ
backbone feed. You agreed to not fil
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 10:07, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Apparently, James did not understand the thrust of Aimee's post at all. The
> important thing to understand about legal precedents is that they may show a
> TREND in the law. ]
There is a trend to making everything illegal. Your qualifica
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As governments become more lawless, and laws become mere desires of the
> powerful, rather than any fixed set of rules, the state is increasing
> less one powerful entity, rather it becomes numerous entities each with
> their own conflicting desires
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 9:48, Greg Broiles wrote:
> Courts have relatively strong powers with respect to controlling the
> possession and disposition of physical things like notebooks or hard disks,
> but relatively weak powers with respect to limiting the dissemination of
> information not in th
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge
> can legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order
> to enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is,
> that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare
VI2 wrote:
> There is a trend to making
> everything illegal. Your
> qualifications to read tea
> leaves are no better than my own.
Well James, you got it right once. My qualifications for reading tea leaves
are no better than your own. However, my qualifications for reading and
understanding
(Title changed to reflect focus.)
At 10:47 AM -0400 8/4/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim.
...
>> > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to
>> > mention many related issues. This is a more plausible att
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:54:35AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:29:55AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> > > Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if
> > > they are removing attachments in general
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 12:07, Tim May wrote:
> A distributed set of remailers in N
> different jurisdictions is quite robust against prosecutorial fishing
> expeditions
As governments become more lawless, and laws become mere desires of the powerful,
rather than any fixed set of rules, the sta
James Donald (Village Idiot #2) wrote:
> I know that for the past several
> hundred years everyone has been
> engaging in what what you call
> "spoilage"...
Pay attention James, I have never discussed "spoilage" (or spoliation, for
that matter) on this list. In the future, please direct your ig
Jim,
Some of the titles of URLs you offer appear interesting. Could you
include a paragraph or two for each? Say, at least as much text
as the skull clutter of your headers and sig.
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 7:35, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> You are wrong. I went and looked up the Caterpillar cite he gave.
> It is real.
I, and everyone else with half a brain, has long known that judges frequently say
"Hey, we are about to seize a truckload of your documents looking for deep
poc
Start getting a response to your ad!
==
For the website, click below:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=EmailInfo10
-->Do you want to start getting REPLIES for your offer?
-->Do you want those replies to be from someone who's
actually interes
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/04/0228234.shtml
--
--
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
You may be right, JamesI fear.
This just in from the criminal spoliation sector (realize the important
distinctions - here, the government is destroying evidence...)
United States v. Wright, No 00-5010 (6th Cir. August 03, 2001)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01a0255
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:29:55AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> > Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if
> > they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the
> > contract.
>
>
> Contract?
Explicit
--
On 3 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> C'punks,
>
> So by my count it looks as though we are now up to at least THREE village
> idiots. Each convinced that he knows the law (not in theory, but as
> practiced in reality) better than the lawyers.
I know that for the past several hu
On 3 Aug 2001, at 6:03, Aimee Farr wrote:
> All we lawyer-types are saying is to engage the law in your problem-solving,
> it's in your threat model. Many of your "solutions" are 100%
> conflict-avoidance, or even ...conflict-ignorance. A strategic error. Where
> there is a corpus, there is a law
--
On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr wrote:
> I wasn't speaking of "security through obscurity," I was speaking of
> "security through First Amendment law suit." Nobody could argue "objective
> chill" in here, that's a legal conceptbut clearly, you aren't
> interested.
With the DCMA and
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:29:55AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if
> they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the
> contract.
Contract?
Declan wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim.
> > YOU are calling ME an Internet rant generator?
>
> Hahahahahaha.
That's the damn truth, isn't it?
> > > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to
> > > mention many related issue
Valid points, though I open for discussion the following logistic issues:
Though the various new policies of various political bodies may have
fluctuated recently, historicly there has been a loophole for which an
attacked entity can respond with due intent to cease the attack via
appropriate me
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote:
> >The point I'm making is that demeanor and attitude (for example) are
> >inextricably linked.
>
> Sure, but for me both are almost entirely separable from my personal
> evaluation of someone's scholarship and competence.
See a comment #1 below...
> Non
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:51:41 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: (certificate-less) digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the
internet
press release ("digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the
Interne
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, John Young wrote:
> Hans Mark, a septugenarian DoD official in a seminar at Harvard
> on "Intelligence, Command and Control," in Spring 2000 said:
>
> "It is as bad to have too much information as it is not to have any.
> Both contribute to Clausewitzs fog of war.
Bu
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote:
> At 08:39 AM 8/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> >On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote:
> >
> >> 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were
> >> a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying
> >> to shape the ne
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Nobody ever said the CDR was Usenet.
You have used that comparison numerous time. Check the archives. In fact
it is the fundamental cornerstone of your 'implied contract' argument.
Once we differentiate the two your assertion has nothing to stand on
Nobody ever said the CDR was Usenet. Choate is tilting at windmills
again, a crazed smile on a manical face as he bounces around his
padded room.
Nevertheless it is similar in one or two respects. People posting to
cypherpunks offer an implied license for people to archive and
redistribute for th
At 08:39 AM 8/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote:
>
>> 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were
>> a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying
>> to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help.
>
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim.
> YOU are calling ME an Internet rant generator?
Hahahahahaha.
> > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to
> > mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on
> > U.S.-based remaile
--- Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> the WWW either.
What the fuck is this? Aren't you a bit email happy?
I suggest you slow down your emails... seriously... 79 emails a day is
a bit much to one list.
Tom
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make i
Hans Mark, a septugenarian DoD official in a seminar at Harvard
on "Intelligence, Command and Control," in Spring 2000 said:
"It is as bad to have too much information as it is not to have any.
Both contribute to Clausewitzs fog of war. It is not good to have a
completely transparent co
Some specific info on 'implied' copyright.
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html
The best that Declan can hope for is a 'non-exclusive' copyright, but even
that would require an exchange (ie a meeting of minds) between the two
parties. However, that won't fly since, as an operator of at l
the WWW either.
--
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.A. Behrend
The Armadillo Gro
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20839.html
--
--
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote:
> 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were
> a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying
> to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help.
Which is that 'freedom' thing, that is a good th
95 matches
Mail list logo
