Leech politics could be bad for your health
Could your political beliefs determine how long you live? New research from sociologist Dr William Cockerham and colleagues from the University of Alabama in the United States has found that differences in attitudes to looking after your body and your health are predicted by your political allegiances. It seems those who believe the state should take responsibility for most aspects of life also tend to eschew personal responsibility for taking care of themselves. As a result, they are more likely to engage in lifestyles hazardous to their health, including drinking to excess and not exercising. http://thescotsman.co.uk/health.cfm?id=765012003 steve Il dulce far niente The sweetness of doing nothing My unemployment motto
Re: Fwd: [IP] Gilmore bounced from plane; and Farber censors Gilmore's email
At 09:18 2003-07-23 -0400, Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean, a 1 inch button, for Christ's sake. They must have had to use a magnifying glass to read the slogan. Actually, that's an interesting point. Let's first of all remember that Gilmore was allowed onto the plane in the first place, so airport security didn't care or notice. And it doesn't seem that onboard Gilmore was causing a ruckus or creating the sense of insecurity. And I'm willing to bet that none of the staff actually felt/believed that the guy was a threat (let's assume they have the right to remove somebody that perceived to be a threat). So clearly this was punitive. Yes, but who was being punished? No don't get me wrong, I would have thought the guy was a little bit of dick for spooking the straights, and I would have been tempted (note the word tempted) to punch that button off of him so we didn't have to turn around. Right, all the passengers were being punished. The captain was the dick. But it sounds like a rehash of the mall incident...had he walked onto the flight with a button that said I support our troops, he wouldn't have been thrown off. Thus everyone has become a kind of thought copbut what they're enforcing is not the collective perceived reality, but what most people believe the collective perceived reality is supposed to be. There're cracks already though, and the fact that NY Times ran that photo on the front page the other day means a lot, actually... Anyone have a deep link to the photo? Looks like this is a good opportunity for a airline DoS attack. Perhaps a organization like the ACLU (or a new group) should actively enlist those who support a expansive view of free speech and fly infrequently (so it won't impact their livelihood should they be put on the CAPPS exclusion list) to don buttons and other benignly expressive (and 1st Amendment legal) apparel, etc. once aboard airline flights. steve Il dulce far niente The sweetness of doing nothing My unemployment motto
SKY-HIGH SURVEILLANCE HITS AIRLINE INDUSTRY
I think I'll be looking elsewhere for air travel. Unless, of course, I can wear a mask :) SKY-HIGH SURVEILLANCE HITS AIRLINE INDUSTRY Southeast Airlines is pioneering an in-flight surveillance program that will use digital videocameras installed through the cabins of its planes to record passengers' activities throughout the flight as a precaution against terrorism and other threats. The charter airline, based in Largo, Fla., says it may use face recognition software to match faces to names and personal records, and plans to store the digital data for up to 10 years. From a security standpoint, this provides a great advantage to assure that there is a safe environment at all times, says Southeast's VP of planning. The airline says that while such security measures are not required by the FAA, it expects other airlines will adopt similar systems soon. That prediction alarms privacy advocates who especially question the need for retaining the video after the flight is over. What's the point of keeping track of everyone when nothing happens on the flight? asks Lee Tien, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who points out that the video system could record conversations between passengers as well as capture the titles of passengers' reading material. (Wired.com 18 Jul 2003) http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,59652,00.html steve
Software radio article in Guardian
GNURadio gets a nice mention. http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,994679,00.html There is no protection or safety in anticipatory servility. Craig Spencer
Grey-World
An excellent site for those interested in tunneling, covert channels, network related steganographic methods developments. http://gray-world.net/ There is no protection or safety in anticipatory servility. Craig Spencer
Re: [Brinworld] Car's data recorder convicts driver
At 11:45 2003-06-18 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: Anonymity (strong or not) is vastly important to secrecy. Medical data is a great example of this. It may be private, for some (weak) values of private, right now. Being John Doe at the doctor's office and paying cash, though, is vastly better in terms of assurance, at least until the doctor's business-cam interfaces with other databases. Too bad that works so poorly with insurance, but then worker insurance in the US is nearly a government program, anyway. There may be a viable opportunity for an off-shore private medical insurance carrier which does not use your social security number as your identifier to the medical service provider. Due to excessive U.S. fed and state insurance regulations many/most doctors might refuse to accept it (at least initially) it may be necessary for this insurance to operate off network so that subscribers would have to pay the care giver and be reimbursed. steve
Fremont could denounce Patriot Act
Fremont could denounce Patriot Act Human Relations Commission supports local Arabs By Jennifer Carnig STAFF WRITER FREMONT -- In an attempt to show solidarity with local Arab, Muslim and South Asian Americans, a city commission may formally denounce the Patriot Act and ask the City Council to do the same. The Fremont Human Relations Commission voted unanimously to draft a resolution that would condemn federal laws that give the government greater power to tap phones, conduct secret searches, indefinitely detain non-citizens, and give the attorney general better ability to label domestic groups as terrorist organizations. http://www.theargusonline.com/Stories/0,1002,1971%257E483116,00.html
Re: Shilling for Keynes
At 05:25 PM 5/4/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: Faustine grumbled (among other blather): Nothing good enough to get mentioned at NBER, the veritable gold standard (if you'll allow) of academic research in economics. I think Friedman's popularity must have something to do with having a ready- made audience for his works--people who care more about the fact that he's a libertarian theorist than whether he's a responsible economist. I get to hear enough bad economics like this used to justify trammelling my liberties. Enough. bad economics like this? Like what, publications from NBER? You just insulted William Vogt here on the list, you know. It almost sounds as if you believe everyone who cares about being responsible is out to trammel liberties. And where you got the idea that I support Keynes, I'll never know. Whether or not Friedman is a responsible economist is a separate issue from whether or not people read him primarily beacuse they decided they agree with his basic premises ahead of time. I just have a real problem with the kind of mentality that says it's okay to let other people pre-digest the issues for you as long as you know they have good premises and their heart is in the right place. It's just not enough. How do you know good analysis from bad unless you know the technical means to put it to the test? Nobody gets a free pass. Earlier in this thread, another poster said that any good theory has to promote human life, that a sound philosophical basis has to come first. I certainly agree--but without facts and data to signal how it's being implemented in the real world, the best theory in the world doesn't mean much: it can be interesting, but not truly useful. Rome had a very sound economic policy based on slavery and military might. It lasted about 1000 years. Few would argue this was not a success story. steve
Re: layered deception
At 12:04 AM 4/30/2001 -0500, Kevin L Prigge wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:13:01AM -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote: i agree...unless you're specifically directed to do so, maintaining log files is completely optional. there are no regs requiring isps or websites or mail providers to do so, other than the standard 'you need to comply with a court order or search warrant, etc.' From recent experience, LE provides us with an order to preserve certain logged information. The order is in advance of obtaining a search warrant, and specifies what information will be requested in the warrant. In an incident earlier this year, we received the order six weeks before the warrant was issued. The existance of the order was sealed. What if the sysadmin is intentionally located in an offshore location so that they cannot be kept from notifying all users of the logging order? steve
Re: layered deception
At 10:56 AM 4/30/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:24:09PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote: What if the sysadmin is intentionally located in an offshore location so that they cannot be kept from notifying all users of the logging order? Then we pass a cybercrime treaty to require them to follow U.S. laws. Ahhh, but who is the them? My understanding is that under state and Federal law only executives and those with signature authority can be held criminally responsible for their actions. U.S. corporations can be created and administered solely by non-residents (only an in-state legal service point is generally required.). Nevada corporations can be held in bearer form shielding beneficial owners. steve
