Re: CDR: Are YOU looking for a new website, to develop an existing website, for cheaper hosting or domain names?
Given that you are a Web hosting company, I am surprised to see no URL for further information. Marc de Piolenc Look at This wrote: Are YOU looking for a new website, to develop an existing website, for cheaper hosting or domain names? We are a UK based company who would like to offer you our considerable experience and expertise in the field of website design, eCommerce, web hosting, domain name facilities and search engine positioning.
Re: Tax consequences...
Nomen Nescio wrote: So what you are suggesting is that I might as well take out US citizenship, since the IRS behaves just as piratically and imperially to anyone who gets a job in the US? Considering only taxes, I think that's correct. You do need to consider other things, such as what happens to your citizenship in your native country if you are naturalized in a foreign country. Some governments don't care, while others will treat you as an alien when you return. As for the IRS: Your green card status means you have put yourself squarely in their sights. Giving up the green card apparently doesn't get you immediately off the hook, as they will still try to tax you like a citizen. I recommend getting advice from a good US tax ATTORNEY (not a tax preparer, who is basically an IRS employee paid by you), without disclosing your SSN or any other identifying numbers even to him. You also need to find out about tax treaties between your native country and the US. So much for legalities (which the IRS tends to ignore anyway, when they don't suit them). Tactically, you have probably already disclosed certain things to the IRS, and have immovable and illiquid assets within their reach that are identifiable with you. You have to weigh the advantages of simply moving offshore and telling them to pound salt against what they can grab when/if you do so. You may find you need a period of preparation during which you make your assets less vulnerable and/or less easy to trace to you. Marc de Piolenc -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen
Nomen Nescio wrote: Are you saying that if someone is legally resident in the US for a while, the US IRS will attempt to get his assets all over the world forever? I find this hard to believe. Not necessarily get them, but tax them. Believe! Marc de Piolenc -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen.
Basically, none. A US resident is taxed just like a citizen. In fact, even if you are not a green card holder, but have a substantial presence in the US, you are still taxed like a citizen. Marc de Piolenc An Metet wrote: What are the tax implications of a US resident green card holder, with substantial assets both in his original nation and in the US, of becoming a US citizen? -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: Tax consequences of becoming a US citizen.
Basically, none. A US resident is taxed just like a citizen. In fact, even if you are not a green card holder, but have a substantial presence in the US, you are still taxed like a citizen. Marc de Piolenc An Metet wrote: What are the tax implications of a US resident green card holder, with substantial assets both in his original nation and in the US, of becoming a US citizen? -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: 'Enigma' reviewed in Salon.
Ultra originated in Poland, not Britain. The wartime decryption work was of course carried out in Britain, but without the prewar seed work of the Poles it would probably have been futile. Marc de Piolenc matthew X wrote: It's not the great movie yet to be made on the subject, but I'm sure I'm not the only one grateful to the makers of Enigma for placing the credit for breaking the German code back it belongs: with the British. After the cultural theft perpetrated two years ago by U-571, this modest restoration feels like an act of decency. -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: 'Enigma' reviewed in Salon.
Ultra originated in Poland, not Britain. The wartime decryption work was of course carried out in Britain, but without the prewar seed work of the Poles it would probably have been futile. Marc de Piolenc matthew X wrote: It's not the great movie yet to be made on the subject, but I'm sure I'm not the only one grateful to the makers of Enigma for placing the credit for breaking the German code back it belongs: with the British. After the cultural theft perpetrated two years ago by U-571, this modest restoration feels like an act of decency. -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: Re: overcoming ecash deployment problems (Re: all about transferable off-line ecash)
A. Melon wrote: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2002, at 06:59 AM, Mike Rosing wrote: But the reason we have AC today is because Tesla requested no royalties on his motor/generator. Something for Brands to think about. No, we have AC because AC works better than DC in home wiring situations. Hmmm. I always thought the reason we went with AC was because at the time, DC power couldn't cut it. They couldn't find any way to reliably transfer DC power more than a half mile or so from the power plant, and when trying to demonstrate it in NYC couldn't even get DC power all the way up a multi-story building. You're saying the same thing. AC works for transmission over long distances because it can be cheaply stepped up in voltage for transmission to minimize losses, then stepped down again for safe domestic use. We now have machinery that does that fairly cheaply for DC, but it's still more expensive than a simple transformer with the same capacity. Long range transmission line are now often high-voltage DC, to take advantage of higher average power at a given peak voltage; it is now possible to efficiently reconvert to AC at the end. In Edison's day that was not so. If his commutated DC generators generated 32 volts (and high-voltage DC generators would have been very difficult to build in those days), that was the transmission voltage, and you had to have a powerplant on every block. What held up AC as a distribution format was the absence of practical AC motors - Tesla broke that logjam, asking little in return, and the rest is history. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: Among the Bourgeoisophobes
Gil Hamilton wrote: F. Marc de Piolenc forwards: Among the Bourgeoisophobes Why the Europeans and Arabs, each in their own way, hate America and Israel. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/102gwtnf.asp It may be true that they hate freedom in some narrow sense, but it misses the point: what they really hate is the godless, arrogant, materialistic, undeserved (etc. from the article) appearance communicated by the exports of our culture. It is this hatred of the perception of our culture that is misinterpreted (by shallow and jingoistic analysts on *our* side) as they just hate our freedom. It would be more on target to say that they hate the *consequences of freedom, but I like the simpler formulation better. The absence of fear and awe (arrogance), the rejection of superstition (godlessness), confidence, active pursuit of gain - all are outgrowths not merely of freedom, which we have in only a relative sense - but of the *expectation* of freedom and the responsibility that goes with it. Which leads me to a couple of other comments. The additional security restrictions imposed on Americans since 9/11 clearly play right into their hands. So very true...and very sad. As long as we're putting untrained but heavily armed National Guardsmen in airports and finding new ways to spy on each other, Bin Laden has won no matter what happens to him personally. Another point well made here is the notion that American left-wing intellectuals and politicians, as well as right-wing fundamentalists and their politicians, all fall into this same boat. A point made by Ayn Rand many years ago, but less entertainingly. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: overcoming ecash deployment problems (Re: all about transferable off-line ecash)
A. Melon wrote: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2002, at 06:59 AM, Mike Rosing wrote: But the reason we have AC today is because Tesla requested no royalties on his motor/generator. Something for Brands to think about. No, we have AC because AC works better than DC in home wiring situations. Hmmm. I always thought the reason we went with AC was because at the time, DC power couldn't cut it. They couldn't find any way to reliably transfer DC power more than a half mile or so from the power plant, and when trying to demonstrate it in NYC couldn't even get DC power all the way up a multi-story building. You're saying the same thing. AC works for transmission over long distances because it can be cheaply stepped up in voltage for transmission to minimize losses, then stepped down again for safe domestic use. We now have machinery that does that fairly cheaply for DC, but it's still more expensive than a simple transformer with the same capacity. Long range transmission line are now often high-voltage DC, to take advantage of higher average power at a given peak voltage; it is now possible to efficiently reconvert to AC at the end. In Edison's day that was not so. If his commutated DC generators generated 32 volts (and high-voltage DC generators would have been very difficult to build in those days), that was the transmission voltage, and you had to have a powerplant on every block. What held up AC as a distribution format was the absence of practical AC motors - Tesla broke that logjam, asking little in return, and the rest is history. Marc de Piolenc
Among the Bourgeoisophobes
Among the Bourgeoisophobes Why the Europeans and Arabs, each in their own way, hate America and Israel. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/102gwtnf.asp -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: Re: Julia Child was a Spook
It's very important to distinguish propaganda from fact. It is indeed convenient to lable people you don't like terrorist - the Germans did that with the French resistance - but fortunately there are generally accepted definitions of that term against which propaganda labels can be tested, if you care to... Terrorism has nothing to do with irregular warfare, or what you call not playing fair. It concerns chiefly the choice of target and the ultimate result desired. A warrior - whether guerrillero, résistant or regular - attacks his adversary directly and seeks to damage him, preferably enough to take him out of action. A terrorist attacks a target conveniently designated by him as SYMBOLIC of his chosen adversary; the target is preferably unsuspecting and undefended. The ultimate purpose is to frighten his adversary, or somebody with influence on that adversary, into harming himself. In the case of most current terrorist organizations, the target is liberal western republics, and the aim is to instill fear that will be manifest in repression that will in effect dismantle the freedom that the terrorists hate. Marc de Piolenc Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote: At 02:59 PM 4/6/02 +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: Nonsense. If you can't see any difference between terrorists and risistants you are either wilfully ignorant or confused. Terrorist is what the bigger side of an asymmetrical conflict call the smaller side. Also crazy, and other intended-derogatory labels.
Re: CDR: Re: Julia Child was a Spook
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've been listening to Shrub to much. What makes you think this is about hating freedom? Might this not be about getting us to mind our own fucking business??? I really don't give a fig about the opinions of the current resident of the White House. I've been studying terror and its practitioners for about 25 years and I know their mentality. I'm sorry you've bought the terrorist line that it's all about US support for Israel. I know better. We could withdraw from the Middle East tomorrow, and all that would change would be the excuse. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Julia Child was a Spook
Nonsense. If you can't see any difference between terrorists and résistants you are either wilfully ignorant or confused. A terrorist strikes symbolic targets, preferably undefended ones. A résistant strikes at the occupying power. Of course it is possible for one and the same person to be both - it is behavior that defines the terrorist. So when an al-Quaida member takes on a US patrol, he may define himself as some kind of soldier in that encounter. It doesn't change the fact of his complicity in the murder of innocents, which makes him a terrorist as well. Marc de Piolenc Major Variola (ret) wrote: http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/apr/spies/index.html [Ed: amusing that sleeper agents who infiltrated occupied territories are glorified by the winner of that conflict.. but when the US is the occupier, the resistance agents are terrorists..]
Accolade?
Ask a Booch accolade to define 'simple' and 'complex' sometime. I think you mean acolyte, as in disciple or follower, not accolade as in praise... If you like using ten-dollar words (and I do), keep a dictionary handy. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: PSYOPS/Foreign agent John W. Rendon Jr: Osama Comic?
A few details that make me doubt the authenticity of this news item, or perhaps the accuracy with which it is reported. Major Variola (ret) wrote: General Worden envisions a broad mission ranging from black campaigns that use disinformation and other covert activities to white public affairs that rely on truthful news releases, Pentagon officials said. The terms black and white do not refer to the question of whether the propaganda message is false or true. Instead, they refer to whether the true source of the message is declared or disguised. Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true one. The message itself, however, may be either false or true. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: What Kind Of Government......
Steve Schear wrote: I was having trouble understanding the thought constructs that these judges use to arrive at their application and interpretation of the constitutional issues until I came across a copy of a 1995 treatise by Larry Lessig, Translating Federalism: United States v Lopez. Larry's paper its not on-line that I know, but if any on the list want a copy I'll be happy to send them the .pdf I would be grateful for a chance to download this paper. If it is bigger than 1.5 MB it is an iffy proposition as an attachment to email, so perhaps a temporary posting to a free Web server...? Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: Property Rights
Jim Choate wrote: On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: Jim Choate wrote: Property rights don't exist as absolute human rights. Nonsense. It is impossible to logically separate property rights from the right to life. I disagree. Life Property. One can have life with absolutely no property. One can not have property without life. Simple proof using reductio ad absurdam: Let us assume you are correct, and the right to life does NOT imply any right to property. Consider the following hypothetical (but feasible) scenario: A stalks B. Whenever B acquires food or drink, A deprives him of it. B has no right to property, so A has done no wrong. Eventually, however, B dies of starvation or thirst. A has deprived him of his life by depriving him only of property, thus refuting the initial assumption. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Property Rights
Jim Choate wrote: Property rights don't exist as absolute human rights. Nonsense. It is impossible to logically separate property rights from the right to life. The right to life is absolute, therefore the right to property is, too. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: James Bovard On Fighting Terrorism, Saving Tyrants
Jei wrote: -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:17:53 -0500 From: Matthew Gaylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew Gaylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: James Bovard On Fighting Terrorism, Saving Tyrants Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:21:08 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Jim Bovard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Matt - Fighting Terrorism, Saving Tyrants Matt: Thought you might enjoy this bouquet for the war on terrorism. take it easy, Jim USA Today January 10, 2002 Don't bed down with tyrants to fight terrorism By James Bovard President Bush recently declared: So long as anybody's terrorizing established governments, there needs to be a war. Bush rightfully sought international support for the campaign to put the al_Qaeda terrorist network out of business. But the war on terrorism threatens to become a license for tyranny. The United Nations is concerned that an expansive call for governments to crack down on terrorism - a crime that is not clearly defined - It IS clearly defined - and by the same government that is now ignoring the definition. Marc de Piolenc
The vital private archive
Dear Michael, Wow - two minds with but one set of thoughts. Michael Motyka wrote: Won't it be wonderful if the Court rules in favor of the 1st? OTOH, why trust in a corruptible legal system? Use cash and don't leave the ID information at the goddam bookstore in the first place. If you're going to keep the book and you can't deduct it, peel stickers, destroy receipts. Duh! That's fine for the clued-in folk like us, but what the bookdealers are fighting for is the vital but fragile asset of consumer confidence. Joe Sixpack is going to think twice about buying a book on sexual impotence - not to mention the Anarchist Cookbook - if he thinks Big Brother is going to be following his purchases. So a favorable court decision will mean much to the trade. It is time for books to be published on CD. Using open-source tools and good encryption, then the fascists can't even tell what you read. Unless your OS is corrupted. E-books are already a fact, but most are sold with the same retail machinery as regular books, so changing the medium doesn't change the risk. Hack CD burners to add a SetBurnerIDCode command. Sorry. Could you expand on the significance of this for non-programmers? What does this command accomplish? Is it in firmware? Gather, duplicate and distribute widely state, federal and unpopular information that is quickly disappearing. Yes! I've been doing that for about 20 years, but I'm fettered now by not being able to visit my favorite research libraries in the States. If you have personal contacts at US depository libraries that are now being forced to destroy sensitive material, you will do mankind and freedom a service by arranging to take that material off their hands. Librarians have very strong instincts for preserving books - they don't like to burn them. If they trust you to make the stuff disappear and not reveal their help, you'll get it all. Other stuff turns up in library sales, pawnshops, thrift stores...all of which are currently out of my reach! It's like F451 - private archives are the only way to save proscribed information. The other side of the coin is research/reprinting services like mine, which make the private archives available to others as copies and scans. I also trade 2:1 (for very useful stuff, 3:1) for stuff I want. In other words, you give me 100 pages of stuff I want, and I give you 200 (or 300) pages of stuff that I have and you want. At present, that and downloads are the only mechanisms by which I'm able to expand my collection. Marc de Piolenc Iligan, Philippines http://www89.pair.com/techinfo/ (or see my catalog on ABE)
Re: CDR: Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention
Petro wrote: On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 04:27 AM, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya? Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US government and al-Quaeda in the same category. How about Criminal Conduct meaning Actions violate the laws. The USG *HAS* done that from time to time you know. Maybe not as baldly as al-Quaeda, but it has done so. Okay, let's try a concrete example: A commits the offense of blocking another's driveway with his automobile. B commits murder. Is A in the same category as B? If yes, then I have to concede the argument, because as you say the US government is not Simon-pure. I do, however, make a distinction. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention
mattd wrote: US violates the Geneva Convention The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which specifies the conditions under which such prisoners are to be treated. The Convention covers irregular forces such as al-Qaeda as well as regular armed forces, Al-Quaeda is not a military force by any reasonable reckoning; it is a criminal association whose victims are defenseless and innocent of any involvement (pro or anti) in the cause that the criminal association claims to espouse. and a quick skim suggests that the US are violating it in several ways. Interrogation: the US has publicly stated they will interrogate the prisoners; however this is specificly forbidden by the convention. Interrogation is certainly NOT prohibited by the Convention. Where are you getting this nonsense? Every army of every signatory power has interrogators trained and ready to process prisoners of war. Every infantry leader is trained to rapidly elicit information of immediate tactical value from the enemy soldiers whom he captures. No prisoner is bound to give anything more than the infamnous name, rank and serial number (or equivalent); coercion to gain more information is expressly forbidden No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. (Article 17) Right. Coercion and torture forbidden. Asking questions is not. Use of trickery is not. Many other means of obtaining information are not. Housing: the US are housing the POWs in wire-mesh cages. Unless US troops are quartered in similar conditions, this is a violation: Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The Convention certainly did not envision eliminating security precautions against the escape of prisoners! Trial and punishment: POWs are considered to be subject to the same laws and regulations as soldiers of the detaining power; they may be tried only by military courts (except where jurisdiction would normally belong to civil courts), and sentances must be the same as for soldiers of the detaining power commiting similar acts. POWs tried for acts commited prior to capture retain the benefits of the Convention even if convicted. I'll say it again - these are not prisoners of war! If US prisoners were treated in this manner, the US would be kicking and screaming. Is this another case of US moral exceptionalism? If the US prisoners in question had engineered, or were suspected of having engineered, the deaths of thousands of innocent people, I suspect that even LESS sympathy or consideration would be shown them. They certainly would not get any from me. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: Shoe bomb (fwd)
It will work - provided that you provide a trained anesthetist for every four or so passengers. There's no such thing as a safe, stable anesthetic. Marc de Piolenc Marcel Popescu wrote: The following article is pretty unsettling, in that it makes the case that - the technique is carefully thought out, and - there will be more of these attacks, and - there aren't good ways to stop them. Sleeping gas. Once the plane starts, fill the airplane with something that causes sleep. (Make sure the pilots are isolated, of course). Lots of savings - you don't need stewardesses, you don't need food or drinks... Mark -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: Re: Random Data Compressed 100:1 (Guffaw)
I think they may be referring to a random string of _ASCII characters_. That would be subject to compression because it is not random at the bit level. But 100:1? I have no idea how to achieve that. Marc de Piolenc Declan McCullagh wrote: What exactly is random data? Does it have to appear to be random? Does it have to pass some set of statistical tests to be random? If a string I'm naturally skeptical of this claim (until I can verify it for myself), but I do not believe the claim is we can encode random data at 100:1. They seem to be talking about 100:1 lossless compression of real-world data, which is generally not random. -DEclan -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: Re: End of the IRS??
Hey folks - you need to keep in mind that the not ratified argument is not what will be discussed, and for obvious reasons. The IRS is not competent to comment on whether their marching orders were or were not properly ratified by the People. It is the actual content of their statutory authority that is in question. What WILL be discussed is the simple fact that, to make the current internal revenue code constitutional (two previous attempts having been overturned by the courts), those framing it simply omitted to require people to do any action that government had no authority to require. Instead, taxes are collected from multitudes who don't owe them by suckering them into voluntary self-assessment. Once they have declared themselves taxpayers - usually by declaring themselves US citizens (federal subjects who have no Constitutional or Common Law protection) on an SSN application - the courts use tricks of equity contract law (which apparently doesn't require knowing consent) to force them to file information returns and pay tax. Various strategies for undoing the damage have been tried with varying degrees of success. Irwin Schiff is the most successful of the strategists, having successfully practiced what he preaches for decades. The best strategy for most individuals is not to rely on courts (staffed by beneficiaries of the fraudulent tax), but simply to drop out of the system. Nobody pays any attention to notices of SSN revocation, but if you simply stop using the one assigned you - that does work. Few employers have the courage to refuse an IRS Notice of Levy, however obviously illegal it is - so employ yourself. And so on. As time passes, Atlas shrugs; the smartest and most productive get out first, leaving sheeple as both beneficiaries and sole contributors to the fraudulent system that they inhabit. It has been happening in my lifetime: people who, forty years ago, would have had no choice but corporate employment with all the liabilities that implies, now would not consider working for anyone but themselves. Hang 'em high? Why bother. Make 'em ineffectual! Marc de Piolenc Petro wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2002, at 09:00 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: I've never quite understood how the amendment-not-ratified-properly-in-1913 argument is supposed to play out.
Re: CDR: Re: Who Am I Anyway?
Jim Choate wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: It is clear that whatever ID procedures were in effect, they were not effective. Many enlistees lied about their ages and got away with it. I have zero problem with that assertion. However, lying about ones age and getting away with it is a far cry from not having any security/identity checks at all. How do you figure? If I could lie about my age, seems to me I could lie about just about anything else, with the possible exception of sex. If I were going for a commission, or got roped into a high-security program that required background investigation, then I would need better backstopping than just a set of lies on an enlistment form, but as a plain old grunt nobody need ever know my name was NOT Michael J. McGillicuddy. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: My week in Manila:Dial M for Mayhem.
You need to get away from Manila, Mattd. It just ain't the Philippines, any more than Paris is France. Also: give yourself some time for acclimation before writing. I'm glad I didn't see this piece in '96 before I first came here, because I would have had a completely false impression of the place. We notice the things we're not used to and forget the multiple instances of violence we see in our hometown news in the States because we're used to that. Perspective is needed. Marc de Piolenc living peacefully and happily on Mindanao mattd wrote: Dial M for Mayhem Abduction,melodrama and murder: Just another week in Arroyo's greater Manila.
Re: CDR: Re: Who Am I Anyway?
It is clear that whatever ID procedures were in effect, they were not effective. Many enlistees lied about their ages and got away with it. Marc de Piolenc Duncan Frissell wrote: At 05:10 PM 12/13/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: Which is beside your point. Your statement was that the government didn't do ANY identification for ANY of the soldiers in WWII. Patently wrong. Quit trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Re: CDR: Re: FreeSWAN US export controls
Jim Choate wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: Sigh. Choate on court decisions is like Ashcroft on civil liberties. Neither understands them. Ad hominim, ad hominim, ad nausium. Gee - don't you think that if you're going to use hifalutin terms like ad hominem and ad nauseam, you ought to learn how they're spelled? Not knowing how they are spelled sorta makes people think you might not know what they mean... Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: HDCP break and DMCA
Tim May wrote: Answer: they do! Go to any large copying center near a university and look for professor packs or HistCon 101 Course Materials consisting of copied material out of various textbooks, hard and soft. The deal is that the student takes the professor pack over to a copy machine and runs off a copy of each of the, for example, 400 pages. The student pays $20 or so and saves himself having to buy 10 books to read one or two chapters or sections out of each. The students are happy, the copy shop is happy, the professor is happy, and only the publishers and authors are unhappy. This was very common here in Santa Cruz, as recently as several years ago when I was doing a lot of copying of my own papers. There were signs up about not violating copyright law, but these professor packs were in clear violation. Really? Sounds to me like they fall under Fair Use. That provision specifically exempts copying for research or education. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
And you might mention for the nuclearly impaired that the fuel used in RTGs is not the same as the fissionables used in reactors and weapons. Marc de Piolenc Eric Cordian wrote: Peter Trei wrote: I have a vague memory of seeing a photo of a ?3 inch? ball of Pu (isotopic composition unknown) in one of those old Time-Life books. The ball glowed a dull red with it's own internal heat. Sounds like plutonium-238, NASA's favorite fuel for deep space Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs). It puts out 0.54 kilowatts/kilogram and has a half life of 87.8 years. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: HOWTO Build a Nuclear Device
A couple of corrections from somebody who began studying this threat fifteen years ago. There is little danger to weapons builders from exposure to fissile materials, because they have very little spontaneous radioactivity. The radioactive emissions come when the device goes supercritical during detonation. You can actually hold a subcritical mass of plutonium in your hand for awhile - I'm told it feels warm. Can't say I've tried it myself. Plans for a nuclear device are easy enough to come up with - college kids regularly cause silly-season sensations by publishing plans for hydrogen bombs. You can't classify the basic physics, and the data for controlled nuclear reactions is equally applicable to deliberate fast-prompt-critical runaways, which is what nuclear bombs are. What's difficult is not the material, or the material processing, but the detonator TECHNOLOGY. Even that is not a problem if you have LOTS of U-235 or U-233 (plutonium won't work), because you can than use a gun-type device - very heavy and wasteful of material, but workable as proven by Hiroshima's fate. An implosion device (and only an implosion device can be made small) requires the simultaneous (to within microseconds) detonation of perhaps 32 composite shaped charges surrounding a spherical core and tamper shell. The manufacture of the charges is very demanding, but the manufacture of the detonators and switches (Krytrons) is the province of maybe four or five firms in the entire world, all carefully monitored by their respective governments. With a full set of _Exploding Wires_, lots of time and extensive manufacturing support, you could eventually get a set of krytrons with the necessary specs. Judging by the number of recent attempts to smuggle krytrons from established sources, however, this has not yet been accomplished by Saddam, Bin Laden or any of their ilk. I'm not losing any sleep over this threat. Regards, Marc de Piolenc !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: One thing that is bothering me these days are all the reports coming out of Afganistan that nuclear bomb making plans were found. Big deal. Anyone on the planet can make a nuclear device if they have the appropriate materials. The hard part is staying alive due to exposure while manufacturing the device. If however death is not an issue then the process itself becomes easy to accomplish. Materials - 4 stainless steal salad bowls (5 - 8 inch diameter) 10 pounds of U-235 (Plutonium) 1 containment cylinder in which to fit the salad bowls ? some explosives - C4 platic works best - but TNT or gun powder is acceptable. Assembly 10 pounds of U-235 is required to achive critical mass. However less will work but you will get a sub critical mass on detonation. The difference is taking out an entire city as opposed to a few city blocks. Divide the U-235 into two five pound masses. Beat it evenly into the inside of one of your salad bowls. U-235 is malleable like gold so you should have no problem shaping it. Do the same with the other U-235 mass and shape it into the other salad bowl. Keep the two bowls apart - you don't want an accident to cause your project to go critical. C4 explosives work best. You simply mold the C4 into the other two salad bowls. This is the most dangerous part of the project. Improper handling of C4 can cause an explosion. But gun powder is just as effective. Now fit the U-235 salad bowls into the C4 salad bowls and place them at each end of the cylindrical containment. Connect your explosives to a detonator and close off the ends of the cylynder. Make sure the detonator sets off both explosives at the same time. The trick is to bring the U-235 masses together at the same time. And thats it. I would recommend some form of protection while building the project. The aprons worn by dentists will work. They will protect you to some degree from radioactive poisoning. However - your life is only being prolonged by taking such measures - you still will end up dead due to the U-235 radiation regardless of what you do. And thats it. Conclusion -- Anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device. So the only issue in building the device is the will to die for a cause. And the only thing I find unfortunate in all of this is that there are so many causes that people are willing to die for. And war will not make those reasons go away - it will only encourage them. regards joe baptista -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot-god.com/ The dot.GOD Registry, Limited The Executive Plaza, Suite 908 150 West 51st Street Tel: 1 (208) 330-4173 Manhattan Island NYC 10019 USA Fax: 1 (208) 293-9773 -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They
Re: CDR: Re: Security-by-credential or security-by-inspection
Tim May wrote: I would like to read these papers. Are they available on-line? If they are, search engines will very likely have indexed them. I would do the search for you, but your retainer has expired. Just thought you might know offhand. Search engines it is... Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Security-by-credential or security-by-inspection
Tim May wrote: Nomen Nescio and others should read Chaum's Credentials without identity papers. A true name is just another credential, not necessarily more important than any of several other credentials. People should think deeply about this issue. I would like to read these papers. Are they available on-line? Marc de Piolenc -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: Re: First Polygraphs and Then Torture?
An even more basic point is punishment - for what? These people are SUSPECTS, against whom no criminal act has yet been proven in open court. They are not yet eligible for punishment in any form. Marc de Piolenc Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Jim Choate wrote: You ignoramus'cruel and unusual punishment'. And that's the sticking point, isn't it?
Re: CDR: MATT DRUDGE // DRUDGE REPORT 2001® - Delta Force gets bloody nose, intensity scares the crap out of everybody...
O-kay - the learning process begins. In every war we've ever fought, we've learned from our opponents - if the political leadership gave us the opportunity to do it. Now we know the Talibs have small, heavily armed forces staked out NEXT TO obvious fixed objectives. Our next assaults will be in greater force, and on the CURRENT enemy positions instead of those they've abandoned under bombardment. What that means is that the combination of bombardment and ground assault is WORKING, unless you believe that the positions the Talibs are hastily improvising are better than those they were forced to abandon... Marc de Piolenc Jim Choate wrote: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash33.htm
Re: CDR: re: Using Thermite to Drop Suspension Bridges...and U.S. plansto
I would be interested to see that formula. I thought I knew them all, but all the thermite formulas I know require at least a two-stage initiator or a direct blowtorch flame. Also, the formulas I've seen prescribe much larger particle sizes than the colloidal range used in pigments, to keep reaction rates reasonable. Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are various formulations for thermite. The one I like best uses barium peroxide, sulphur and very finely divided aluminum (paint pigment works great).
Re: CDR: Transperancy Spray?
You can find formulas for this spray in many formularies - it's been used at least as far back as WWI for making an envelope transparent for a few minutes. Actually, translucent would be a better term, as you can only read text that is right up against the inside of the envelope. What is more, the stuff is less useful than back in the fountain-pen days because it tends to smear ball-point and other greasy inks. Marc de Piolenc Max Inux wrote: THe whole cant read someone elses mail thing is out the window it looks like, they can spray this go on the letter and read through the envelope.. It seems implausable but its CNN, they dont lie right? well ANYWAYS, I now have a nice stash of black construction paper... -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: Re: Neverending Cycle ( was : Re: USPS: glowing by leaps and bounds )
Jim Choate wrote: On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you cannot tell the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, you got shit for brains. The revolutionaries killed british soldiers in America. They did not go to england and kill english children. Why is where they were killed important? If you kill people on your land it's ok, kill them on their land it's not? Then the Allies were 'terrorist' when they entered German territory in WWII? I hardly think so. Let's try to spell this out so even you can understand it, Jim. The distinction is between killing combatants and killing noncombatants. Do you get that? Location is incidental. Motive is irrelevant to the definition. American revolutionaries killed British soldiers and their unfortunate Hessian co-belligerents, not office workers in London (or Boston for that matter). That's what makes them something other than terrorists. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: Neverending Cycle ( was : Re: USPS: glowing by leaps and bounds )
Jim Choate wrote: Why? The Americans were most certainly terrorist/revolutionaries/freedom fighters/etc. Again, you make no distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists, which is very sad because there is a rather important difference. Being incapable of making the distinction, you are condemned to hate everybody who fights. Arms should indeed be taken up against those who wantonly murder the innocent. And if a few innocent get caught in the wrath of your vengeance...well, God's on our side, right? Right is certainly on our side. I'm an atheist, so I have no concern for God's opinions. Marc de Piolenc Philippines -- The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: [psychohistory] Two mistakes (fwd)
Jim Choate wrote: Nations with imperial aspirations, invariably, throughout History change their conscript based army in favor of an army of paid soldiers. Today euphimisticaly called 'profesional' soldiers, but know also as mercenaries and soldiers of fortune in the not-so-distant past. (Note: Ligustically a soldier is 'someone-who-is-SOLD' anyway). Psst - your ignorance is showing! The French term soldier refers to a warrior who is paid - solde means pay - as contrasted originally with feudal levies, who were not. Nowadays the distinction is meaningless because even conscripts are paid at regular rates, so we say professional soldier for a volunteer and conscript for a short-term draftee. A . Salary, by the way, refers to a portion of the pay of the Roman legionaire, which was paid in salt. Now this trend is well documented in past history and definately has its own Psychohistorical significance as it's one of the notable 'landmarks' of an Imperium (ie. a nation/state pursuing local/regional/global hegemony - dominance). The US eliminates involuntary military servitude, and you call it imperialism. It develops a career army, and you call it mercenary. I know this won't make any impression on you, but do try to consider the obvious military advantages of having continuity in training, experience and DISCIPLINE. I would just add that by your criterion, Canada must be planning to take over the world because they have always had a professional military in all services! Of course profesional soldiers are in for the money and generally do not look forward to a glorious death in Afganistan, Have you ever actually talked to a US soldier? I don't think anybody looks forward to death in combat, but if you think our military is intimidated by the likes of OBL or the Taliban, you obviously don't know much about the current state of morale in the US military. And your ignorance shows again when you say professional soldiers are in it for the money - you contradict yourself. How much would it cost to convince YOU to put your life on the line? There probably isn't enough money in the world for that, because you are a moral coward, and such people tend to be physical cowards as well. Fortunately, your kind is the exception, something you are naturally incapable of perceiving from your perspective. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: Neverending Cycle ( was : Re: USPS: glowing by leaps and bounds )
David Honig wrote: At 12:42 PM 10/25/01 +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: Jim Choate wrote: We need to send a message that armed propaganda is not an acceptable form of self-expression, no matter what the alleged cause. Review the American revolution and the current news before you follow this little meme very far. ..and your point is...? Obvious to americans ---that sometimes arms *should* be taken up. No argument there - I just have a lot of trouble equating terrorism and the American war of independence. Arms should indeed be taken up against those who wantonly murder the innocent. Marc de Piolenc -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: CDR: 'Privacy Council' in defense of M$
Peter Capelli wrote: If you start at zero, 50% is only 50 cents, Ponemon said. Where did he learn math, I wonder? Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: Neverending Cycle ( was : Re: USPS: glowing by leaps and bounds )
Jim Choate wrote: We need to send a message that armed propaganda is not an acceptable form of self-expression, no matter what the alleged cause. Review the American revolution and the current news before you follow this little meme very far. ..and your point is...? Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: [psychohistory] A Terrorist's Nursery (fwd)
Jim Choate wrote: But Nato's escape clause won't work this time round. For as the Afghan refugees turn up in their thousands at the border, it is palpably evident that they are fleeing not the Taliban but our bombs and missiles. The Taliban is not ethnically cleansing its own Pashtun population. The refugees speak vividly of their fear and terror as our bombs fall on their cities. These people are terrified of our war on terror'', victims as innocent as those who were slaughtered in the World Trade Centre on 11 September. So where do we stop? Let's see - terrorism has to be accepted because it only kills our children on purpose; retaliation is evil because it sometimes kills theirs by accident. If we accept the moral equivalence of terror and retaliation, the question is not where do we stop? but where do we begin? The right of self-defense is as fundamental as the right to life itself. Pacifists may comfort themselves with the fuzzy notion that meeting bin Laden's demands (and presumably the demands of every other two-bit killer with enough cash to buy a Kalashnikov and some plastique) will free us of the threat of terrorism; unfortunately, I have studied terror for 25 years and know better, so that comfort is denied me. The only real alternatives are (1) retaliate against the attackers, no matter who they are or where they lurk, or (2) accept that anybody with a grudge against people who are happier than he is has the prerogative of taking life with impunity. Marc de Piolenc Philippines
Re: Retribution not enough
Jim Choate wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: Elementary - fair is whatever the parties in interest agree to. Period. 'agree' is synonymous with 'free' in this case. All you're doing is playing word games and hand waving. What does it mean to 'agree'? You are the only one here who seems to have a problem with the meaning of that word. Marc de Piolenc
Re: CDR: Re: Neverending Cycle ( was : Re: USPS: glowing by leaps and bounds )
David Honig wrote: Personally I'd prefer a non-colonial foreign policy that doesn't generate such antipathy. And if you believe that WTC had anything to do with US foreign policy, or that we would cease being targets if we e.g. dropped suppport for Israel, you are living in a dream world and have bought the terrorists' propaganda. We need to send a message that armed propaganda is not an acceptable form of self-expression, no matter what the alleged cause. Marc de Piolenc Philippines
Re: CDR: Your papers please
Sounds like we need to be dictating into cellphones, with remote recording! Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When the Terry stop escalated, and I was ordered to follow the officer for more questioning, I asked him, while holding out the recorder for the answer, whether I was under arrest. Answer: no. Followed by Am I free to go?. Answer no. Sir, I believe these two conditions are mutually exclusive: either I am under arrest, or I am free to go. As I have things to do, I need to know which it is, so that I may either go do them, or call my attorney to join us. My reward was a crushed microcassette recorder, a missing cassette (he claimed the recorder was both damaged and empty at the time he first encountered it), and an arrest (and conviction no less!).
Re: CDR: Re: Dealing with Islamic terrorists, and with Afghanistan
YOu need to understand that terrorism has its own ideology, which has nothing to do with whatever the terrorist du jour espouses publicly. All that the actions proposed below would do is infuriate REAL Muslims, who are not yet our enemies and need not be. Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Furlong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shortly after 911 I suggested that the US publicize video clips of its forces dipping bullets in pig's blood and painting pigblood deathheads on cruise missiles and preparing boxcar-sized piggery and slaughterhouse runoff aerosol bombs. Rumors of pork-only meals in US prison camps. The whole dying unclean thing... It may or may not work - I don't know how serious these guys are about their religion. Should the leaders be more worldly they might struggle with their texts to devise a palatable philosophical out for their field soldiers.
