complexity theory and information warfare (was: Re: Two ideas for random number generation)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: The modern name for this outlook is chaos theory, but I believe chaos gives almost mystical associations to something which is really quite understandable: divergences in decimal expansions. Discrepancies come marching in, fairly rapidly, from out there in the expansion. Another way of looking at unpredictabality is to say that real objects in real space and subject to real forces from many other real objects are in the world of the real numbers and any representation of a real number as a 25-digit number (diameter of the solar system to within 1 centimeter) or even as a 100-digit number (utterly beyond all hope of meaurement!) is just not enough. (snip) In short, predictability is a physical and computational chimera: it does not, and cannot, exist. Fascinating post on a fascinating subject, but since I'm too short of time for the kind of reply it deserves, here's a minor aside for anyone interested in developing practical applications of complexity theory on cypherpunk themes: you might find some of the works listed here relevant and useful... Complexity, Global Politics and National Security Complexity And Chaos: A Working Bibliography School of Information Warfare and Strategy National Defense University Washington, D.C. http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/books/complexity/bibliogr.html The fact that NDU is putting so much stock in RD in these areas as part of their information warfare efforts is interesting in its own right. Even if it ultimately proves to be nothing more than a dead-end bunch of hooey, libertarians of all persuasions ought to at least be aware of the kinds of research going on, where analysts are trying to take this field. Especially those with a background like yours who are in the perfect position to make a real open-literature counter-contribution someday if the alchemists of predictability ever do come across their philosopher's stone. Improbable--crazy, even--but when did that ever stop a mathematician: All stable processes we shall predict. All unstable processes we shall control. --John von Neumann. This is what's ultimately at stake. Fascinating, terrifying. The only way to counter math is with better math. Oh well, so it seems to me. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPMXr0fg5Tuca7bfvEQIfJACgz1DxiddKDkm1bw6ZfrGGMUQ6D3wAoMrP lQBfq2Wfh2qMxdFkbHnJnDdr =mCZt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bill Stewart is an alpha cat?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Someone wrote: The actual meaning, less succintly phrased, is that those who define themselves by their position in a hierarchical organizational chart cannot conceive of a social structure (such as a discussion group) which is without a leader. The cypherpunks movement fnord and all that. (If there is a cp movement, it is the raising of the middle finger above the closed fist, in the direction of oppression.) Well put, actually. But don't forget, human beings didn't evolve from cats, we evolved from apes. Our ape nature peeks out in spite of the best of intentions in all social interactions, even here. The true greatness of the Constution as envisioned by the Founders is that it aims for something better than the law of the Yukon. The fact that it hasn't worked out as well as it might is a testament to just how strong our ape legacy is: the weak and stupid are at the mercy of the strong and cunning and always will be. Here there and everywhere, from anarchy to democracy to totalitarian state, like it or not. Read some Schopenhauer... ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLXH8/g5Tuca7bfvEQIr7QCgpbGQqW3Gvas8Qld4Jqi52OGqLF8An3H1 1VQktn/Dy0CYXKgsBSrSkCnH =DmNZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Detectable cash notes a fantasy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Faustine wrote: If, when I came here, I had made the deliberate choice to make an effort at getting along by emphasizing our similarities instead of differences, I dare say the motivation to dissect-and-destroy every last comment I ever make would be nonexistent. You haven't contributed anything interesting that I can recall. Oh of course not, heaven forfend. Even if you discount my comments, surely you must have noticed that rarely do your posts generate significant follow-up. (Which is a small blessing.) Who said generating a lot of follow-up was on my to-do list? Believe it or not, I'm perfectly fine with contributing here and there when I can and learning from everyone else when I can't. If I were as wrapped up in the pecking order dynamic as you seem to be, I'd really be putting a lot more effort into it. But as it is--given how incredibly busy I am--if my peculiar little set of toys is all I feel like bringing to share at sandbox right now, what concern is it of yours or anyone else's? Why not run along now and kick some sand on one of your boring asskisser friends, shake things up a little... Sometimes you natter about about (what) you think the RAND Corporation, your apparent ideal, would do things, Well is that a fact Grampy. Nattering about what interests me, alert the media. and sometimes you praise Herman Kahn Damn straight I do! Anyone interested in libertarian futurism really ought to check him out if they haven't already--and I'm assuming this description applies to quite a few people here...good starting links: http://www.alteich.com/links/kahn.htm I seem to remember your having a few kind words for a work or two of his yourself--so I do hope you won't go running down a great man just for the sake of getting at me. and other O.R. types. Hooey. But you have nothing significant to contribute about anything closely related to list themes. There you go again, defining what's acceptable for people what to talk about. Anyway, as always, it's not what you say or don't say on a list, its what you do. In the abstract, it would be kind of useful to talk to you about it, but in practice that's not really an option. A shame, really. You should think about some of the real issues and come up with some kind of incisive analysis or creative proposal As should we all. Fair enough, but I've written plenty I haven't felt like posting here for a number of reasons. Maybe I will, maybe not, who cares. Even if I left it to others to post significant ideas it hardly matters. even Choate is more on-topic than you've been. You know, I like arguing with Choate: too bad you pissed him off to the point he feels the need to post newslinks all the time. Did you catch how he didn't start up again until you said you quieted him down or whatever it was? Thanks a lot. The lectures from you about how we're a bunch of untrained amateurs are getting old. Oh come on, that's all in your head. Like you're one to talk about being condescending about what people know and dont know! Pot, kettle, look in the mirror. Looking forward to your next significant post, ~~Faustine. *** If you don't like 'em, ignore them or filter them. That's the Cypherpunk way of doing things. Tim May, on the Cypherpunks list, 1995 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLUJAfg5Tuca7bfvEQLdegCg+S2sDHGzsGOTBVPNMf9x8Bn3NWQAoOpF KG4JNBT8BOO+tK0+wjp6qVwn =tFxE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bill Stewart is an alpha cat?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Someone wrote: The actual meaning, less succintly phrased, is that those who define themselves by their position in a hierarchical organizational chart cannot conceive of a social structure (such as a discussion group) which is without a leader. The cypherpunks movement fnord and all that. (If there is a cp movement, it is the raising of the middle finger above the closed fist, in the direction of oppression.) Well put, actually. But don't forget, human beings didn't evolve from cats, we evolved from apes. Our ape nature peeks out in spite of the best of intentions in all social interactions, even here. The true greatness of the Constution as envisioned by the Founders is that it aims for something better than the law of the Yukon. The fact that it hasn't worked out as well as it might is a testament to just how strong our ape legacy is: the weak and stupid are at the mercy of the strong and cunning and always will be. Here there and everywhere, from anarchy to democracy to totalitarian state, like it or not. Read some Schopenhauer... ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLXH8/g5Tuca7bfvEQIr7QCgpbGQqW3Gvas8Qld4Jqi52OGqLF8An3H1 1VQktn/Dy0CYXKgsBSrSkCnH =DmNZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Detectable cash notes a fantasy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Everytime I comment on your citations, you go into a snit about how Gramps is insulting the whippersnappers. No, it's all about the condescending tone you take when you use your many years of experience as leverage against anyone who rejects their place in your pecking order. Whether you choose to admit it or not, you're incredibly easygoing on people here who kiss your ass, flatter you, and never dare contradict you out of a fear of retribution. Like the example from a few months ago when you related how somebody asked you if it would be okay to post certain kinds of articles to the group. Why does this please you--don't you want your friends and compatriots to have a fucking backbone? You think you're the only one here who gets to have a spine? Which isn't to say that if the group is set up a certain way, it's right to be inconsiderate of what most people want and expect: for instance, I stopped posting links to news articles when it was made plain to me that most people found it an annoyance. But it wasn't because anyone bullied me into line. If, when I came here, I had made the deliberate choice to make an effort at getting along by emphasizing our similarities instead of differences, I dare say the motivation to dissect-and-destroy every last comment I ever make would be nonexistent. But then, how interesting would that be. For all I know, in Real Life you're older than me, or you're some guy working a guard job at Lockheed. Or both. Ironically enough--but not that it matters--I haven't manufactured any of the details about myself I've given here. I suppose the prudent thing to do would be to encourage people to assume I'm a man (as if I'd have to do anything besides take a neutral nym!) and keep you all looking for the old Lockheed fart, etc. But I suppose it must the grandiosity or vanity or something that compels me to vent under the guise of myself. Which is a pretty funny way to put it actually, since what I say here is far more real than what most people see of me in the real world in a lifetime. Which is probably part of the point anyway. Not that I've given anyone the slightest reason to believe a word of it, but there it is. Yeah yeah, I know--go tell it to Oprah. Or you may be the grad student at Hoboken State College you appear to be. A slur, eh? Not bad. I suspect you're being a little disingenuous though. (If I really were at Hoboken, where's the sting in it?) Ah well, think what you want--I don't have anything to prove. Or shouldn't, anyway. Whatever, I know that your main method of argument is either a bunch of Bah comments followed with cites apropos of nothing you've dug up. Such as your refutation of category theory by digging up some of the usual computer vision and scene analysis junk that's been going around for 40 years. I did no such thing! You asked what happened to general systems theory and expressed a negative view of OR that, though entirely warranted thirty years ago, isn't true of what some people are doing today. So I gave a couple of cites to papers that show how these concepts have been evolving, I thought you might enjoy them. Entirely tangential to the main point of your post, but it's new and it's not junk, damn it. If it's not interesting to you, fine-- but there certainly wasn't any criticism of anything related to you somehow hidden in it. I stand by my comment that shielding a thread in a $100 bill, for example, is vastly easier than detecting it. Your cites about WiFi frequencies and 3 meter ranges and suchlike don't mean much. No of course not, since they were only meant to give a sense of the volume of related research people are doing--hence my only point that 20 years seems a little generous. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLSLY/g5Tuca7bfvEQLGigCeOjRDe4ApAZLoTIuGFWxdi/pVTTwAnjjx aObuLmF9JjD+8oGJj2Y2zBoX =lfHT -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Detectable cash notes a fantasy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Faustine wrote: If, when I came here, I had made the deliberate choice to make an effort at getting along by emphasizing our similarities instead of differences, I dare say the motivation to dissect-and-destroy every last comment I ever make would be nonexistent. You haven't contributed anything interesting that I can recall. Oh of course not, heaven forfend. Even if you discount my comments, surely you must have noticed that rarely do your posts generate significant follow-up. (Which is a small blessing.) Who said generating a lot of follow-up was on my to-do list? Believe it or not, I'm perfectly fine with contributing here and there when I can and learning from everyone else when I can't. If I were as wrapped up in the pecking order dynamic as you seem to be, I'd really be putting a lot more effort into it. But as it is--given how incredibly busy I am--if my peculiar little set of toys is all I feel like bringing to share at sandbox right now, what concern is it of yours or anyone else's? Why not run along now and kick some sand on one of your boring asskisser friends, shake things up a little... Sometimes you natter about about (what) you think the RAND Corporation, your apparent ideal, would do things, Well is that a fact Grampy. Nattering about what interests me, alert the media. and sometimes you praise Herman Kahn Damn straight I do! Anyone interested in libertarian futurism really ought to check him out if they haven't already--and I'm assuming this description applies to quite a few people here...good starting links: http://www.alteich.com/links/kahn.htm I seem to remember your having a few kind words for a work or two of his yourself--so I do hope you won't go running down a great man just for the sake of getting at me. and other O.R. types. Hooey. But you have nothing significant to contribute about anything closely related to list themes. There you go again, defining what's acceptable for people what to talk about. Anyway, as always, it's not what you say or don't say on a list, its what you do. In the abstract, it would be kind of useful to talk to you about it, but in practice that's not really an option. A shame, really. You should think about some of the real issues and come up with some kind of incisive analysis or creative proposal As should we all. Fair enough, but I've written plenty I haven't felt like posting here for a number of reasons. Maybe I will, maybe not, who cares. Even if I left it to others to post significant ideas it hardly matters. even Choate is more on-topic than you've been. You know, I like arguing with Choate: too bad you pissed him off to the point he feels the need to post newslinks all the time. Did you catch how he didn't start up again until you said you quieted him down or whatever it was? Thanks a lot. The lectures from you about how we're a bunch of untrained amateurs are getting old. Oh come on, that's all in your head. Like you're one to talk about being condescending about what people know and dont know! Pot, kettle, look in the mirror. Looking forward to your next significant post, ~Faustine. *** If you don't like 'em, ignore them or filter them. That's the Cypherpunk way of doing things. Tim May, on the Cypherpunks list, 1995 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLUJAfg5Tuca7bfvEQLdegCg+S2sDHGzsGOTBVPNMf9x8Bn3NWQAoOpF KG4JNBT8BOO+tK0+wjp6qVwn =tFxE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Detectable cash notes a fantasy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Everytime I comment on your citations, you go into a snit about how Gramps is insulting the whippersnappers. No, it's all about the condescending tone you take when you use your many years of experience as leverage against anyone who rejects their place in your pecking order. Whether you choose to admit it or not, you're incredibly easygoing on people here who kiss your ass, flatter you, and never dare contradict you out of a fear of retribution. Like the example from a few months ago when you related how somebody asked you if it would be okay to post certain kinds of articles to the group. Why does this please you--don't you want your friends and compatriots to have a fucking backbone? You think you're the only one here who gets to have a spine? Which isn't to say that if the group is set up a certain way, it's right to be inconsiderate of what most people want and expect: for instance, I stopped posting links to news articles when it was made plain to me that most people found it an annoyance. But it wasn't because anyone bullied me into line. If, when I came here, I had made the deliberate choice to make an effort at getting along by emphasizing our similarities instead of differences, I dare say the motivation to dissect-and-destroy every last comment I ever make would be nonexistent. But then, how interesting would that be. For all I know, in Real Life you're older than me, or you're some guy working a guard job at Lockheed. Or both. Ironically enough--but not that it matters--I haven't manufactured any of the details about myself I've given here. I suppose the prudent thing to do would be to encourage people to assume I'm a man (as if I'd have to do anything besides take a neutral nym!) and keep you all looking for the old Lockheed fart, etc. But I suppose it must the grandiosity or vanity or something that compels me to vent under the guise of myself. Which is a pretty funny way to put it actually, since what I say here is far more real than what most people see of me in the real world in a lifetime. Which is probably part of the point anyway. Not that I've given anyone the slightest reason to believe a word of it, but there it is. Yeah yeah, I know--go tell it to Oprah. Or you may be the grad student at Hoboken State College you appear to be. A slur, eh? Not bad. I suspect you're being a little disingenuous though. (If I really were at Hoboken, where's the sting in it?) Ah well, think what you want--I don't have anything to prove. Or shouldn't, anyway. Whatever, I know that your main method of argument is either a bunch of Bah comments followed with cites apropos of nothing you've dug up. Such as your refutation of category theory by digging up some of the usual computer vision and scene analysis junk that's been going around for 40 years. I did no such thing! You asked what happened to general systems theory and expressed a negative view of OR that, though entirely warranted thirty years ago, isn't true of what some people are doing today. So I gave a couple of cites to papers that show how these concepts have been evolving, I thought you might enjoy them. Entirely tangential to the main point of your post, but it's new and it's not junk, damn it. If it's not interesting to you, fine-- but there certainly wasn't any criticism of anything related to you somehow hidden in it. I stand by my comment that shielding a thread in a $100 bill, for example, is vastly easier than detecting it. Your cites about WiFi frequencies and 3 meter ranges and suchlike don't mean much. No of course not, since they were only meant to give a sense of the volume of related research people are doing--hence my only point that 20 years seems a little generous. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLSLY/g5Tuca7bfvEQLGigCeOjRDe4ApAZLoTIuGFWxdi/pVTTwAnjjx aObuLmF9JjD+8oGJj2Y2zBoX =lfHT -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: all about transferable off-line ecash (Re: Brands off-line tech)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ken Brown wrote: I'd rather have stiff cards than floppy paper ones. At least you can put them into the slot of a machine easily. But with an RF tag you'd not even have to pull it out of your pocket :-) Putting RF Tags in cash is one of those ideas with Unintended Consequences. Muggers would love having a way of determining which victims are carrying a wad, as would many salesmen (and JBTs looking to perform a 'civil confiscation' on 'a sum of currency'.) Not to mention the possibility of a surreptitious centralized database tracking purchases of people on a watch list. Sign up if you want to, but you might do well to remember a point Lt. Gen. Hayden (who really ought to know) once made: all SIGINT can be defeated and destroyed simply by putting the handset in the receiver. Something to keep in mind while you're thinking this through,anyway. As for the counterfeiting problem, nobody's said much about the kind of sophisticated countermeasures used in casino chips, for example. Seems workable. One of many interesting topics covered in a truly frightening pub you might not have come across: Global ID Magazine http://web.tiscali.it/homeglobal/issues.htm Global ID Magazine is a publication describing the activity and the products of the leading Identification (ID) Technology Suppliers in the world. Its scope encompasses state-of-the-art technologies, innovative concepts and trends within the automatic identification systems industry that will have the most significant impact on design and use of ID systems. The editorial focus of Global ID Magazine is on the use of identification systems based on radio frequency, biometrics, global positioning, multifunctional systems, data communication and similar. Global ID Magazine speaks to decision makers, both at a management and at a technical level, within companies that use or could leverage from using ID systems. It suggests innovative solutions, the improvement of existing applications, describing trends and future possibilities. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLNWGvg5Tuca7bfvEQLRzQCg2iSdcpbXf/K+FQRzVNGYa9voHToAn3Jd 35JycT/4X0aUnT7bzWycwYEe =sSz8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: all about transferable off-line ecash (Re: Brands off-line tech)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ken Brown wrote: I'd rather have stiff cards than floppy paper ones. At least you can put them into the slot of a machine easily. But with an RF tag you'd not even have to pull it out of your pocket :-) Putting RF Tags in cash is one of those ideas with Unintended Consequences. Muggers would love having a way of determining which victims are carrying a wad, as would many salesmen (and JBTs looking to perform a 'civil confiscation' on 'a sum of currency'.) Not to mention the possibility of a surreptitious centralized database tracking purchases of people on a watch list. Sign up if you want to, but you might do well to remember a point Lt. Gen. Hayden (who really ought to know) once made: all SIGINT can be defeated and destroyed simply by putting the handset in the receiver. Something to keep in mind while you're thinking this through,anyway. As for the counterfeiting problem, nobody's said much about the kind of sophisticated countermeasures used in casino chips, for example. Seems workable. One of many interesting topics covered in a truly frightening pub you might not have come across: Global ID Magazine http://web.tiscali.it/homeglobal/issues.htm Global ID Magazine is a publication describing the activity and the products of the leading Identification (ID) Technology Suppliers in the world. Its scope encompasses state-of-the-art technologies, innovative concepts and trends within the automatic identification systems industry that will have the most significant impact on design and use of ID systems. The editorial focus of Global ID Magazine is on the use of identification systems based on radio frequency, biometrics, global positioning, multifunctional systems, data communication and similar. Global ID Magazine speaks to decision makers, both at a management and at a technical level, within companies that use or could leverage from using ID systems. It suggests innovative solutions, the improvement of existing applications, describing trends and future possibilities. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLNWGvg5Tuca7bfvEQLRzQCg2iSdcpbXf/K+FQRzVNGYa9voHToAn3Jd 35JycT/4X0aUnT7bzWycwYEe =sSz8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eugene wrote: I have not followed this thread closely, So why bother to chime in with your two cents before spending the five minutes it would take to learn what's been going on? but could clueless posters please shut up, for a change? Instead of talking at length about topics they know nothing about? Sure. As long as you're referring to people who scream disinformation when they can't reconcile a badly-worded paragraph with equations they looked up in a chemistry book, I agree. I'm not an expert on this, Then why aren't you following your own advice? If anyone is interested in learning more about CW, a good intro: Chemical Warfare Agents: an overview of chemicals defined as chemical weapons http://www.opcw.org/chemhaz/cwagents.htm. Biological agents: USAMRIID's MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK http://www.usamriid.army.mil/education/bluebook.html RAND pdfs: Overview of Chemical and Biological Warfare http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.5/MR1018.5.chap2.html from: 2000 MR-1018/5 A Review of the Scientific Literature as It Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses. Vol. 5, Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.5/index.html 1998 DB-189/1 Air Force Operations in a Chemical and Biological Environment. http://www.rand.org/publications/DB/DB189.1/DB189.1.pdf/ 2001 CT-183 Combating Terrorism: Assessing the Threat of Biological Terrorism. http://www.rand.org/publications/CT/CT183/ 2001 CT-186 Anthrax Attacks, Biological Terrorism and Preventive Responses. http://www.rand.org/publications/CT/CT186/ Detailed reference works you can dig up yourself. But hey, if you prefer to stick to your chemistry 101 books and advice from Uncle Fester, that's perfectly fine by me. Just watch out throwing the word disinformation around, that's all. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK96Ofg5Tuca7bfvEQKv9wCgkRJh/EtSTyECcvnhkoisTkpEtz4An1jg 5Eu6iUE9CLJuLAXgxTGDxMzY =Sot5 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eugene wrote: I have not followed this thread closely, So why bother to chime in with your two cents before spending the five minutes it would take to learn what's been going on? but could clueless posters please shut up, for a change? Instead of talking at length about topics they know nothing about? Sure. As long as you're referring to people who scream disinformation when they can't reconcile a badly-worded paragraph with equations they looked up in a chemistry book, I agree. I'm not an expert on this, Then why aren't you following your own advice? If anyone is interested in learning more about CW, a good intro: Chemical Warfare Agents: an overview of chemicals defined as chemical weapons http://www.opcw.org/chemhaz/cwagents.htm. Biological agents: USAMRIID's MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK http://www.usamriid.army.mil/education/bluebook.html RAND pdfs: Overview of Chemical and Biological Warfare http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.5/MR1018.5.chap2.html from: 2000 MR-1018/5 A Review of the Scientific Literature as It Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses. Vol. 5, Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.5/index.html 1998 DB-189/1 Air Force Operations in a Chemical and Biological Environment. http://www.rand.org/publications/DB/DB189.1/DB189.1.pdf/ 2001 CT-183 Combating Terrorism: Assessing the Threat of Biological Terrorism. http://www.rand.org/publications/CT/CT183/ 2001 CT-186 Anthrax Attacks, Biological Terrorism and Preventive Responses. http://www.rand.org/publications/CT/CT186/ Detailed reference works you can dig up yourself. But hey, if you prefer to stick to your chemistry 101 books and advice from Uncle Fester, that's perfectly fine by me. Just watch out throwing the word disinformation around, that's all. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK96Ofg5Tuca7bfvEQKv9wCgkRJh/EtSTyECcvnhkoisTkpEtz4An1jg 5Eu6iUE9CLJuLAXgxTGDxMzY =Sot5 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Major Variola wrote: Absolutely, these are often erroneous and badly written. Yes, you have every right to expect to see disinformation in them. But in this case, there's nothing lethal about adding sodium cyanide to a urea nitrate bomb-- If you're properly removed all the trace acids from the nitrate... fact would likely boost the lethality by at least an order of magnitude An order of magnitude? (...) Yeah, as part of the total payload (e. g. combined with sulfuric acid you get hydrogen cyanide gas.) The heat and dispersal issues in this kind of chemical submunition have already been fully addressed in more serious CW literature, but I'm really not the person to ask. I'm completely and perfectly happy to leave the Ask Uncle Fester gig entirely to you. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK4J1fg5Tuca7bfvEQIZ9gCgkKYBp4oTefPN2EAAQ/cjpJzzSswAn2bC rP+lvuOejUTBc4xrVYDA4OrJ =r0oh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard Fiero wrote: Question for Faustine: Is what is, right? Or is it man-made and can be changed by men? Faustine may want to rethink this. Social Darwinism does not square with the Thomas Paine quote. There's a reason I contrasted the American conception of ideal justice with real justice: the latter has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong, it just is. Read some Nietzsche. As for the rest, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist: see also http://www.lp.org. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK3Jmfg5Tuca7bfvEQL8XACfQrEmti+LST9q0vOIOnOTjRA1qVAAn3Ox LkRCUcXnizNe4D0w9vEX1xUS =MASh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 09:15 PM 4/4/02 -0500, Faustine wrote: And as long as you don't recommend that John call out the Snackycake Posse on the poor schmoe who sent him the manual thinking he was trying to help, I honestly couldn't care less. I don't think anyone has accused JY of intentional disinfo; he is largely a librarian--a very valuable one with enormous cajones-- not the author of the docs in question. Right, sure. Nor did anyone speak against the donor of said document. Well, given how hot he was last month about the idea of someone who seemed to be deliberately feeding him a line of disinformation, I just thought it was important not to throw an accusation like that around which reflects badly on the manual donor, especially when there's a fairly good explanation for the screw-up at hand. I have a hunch the DoD would like nothing better than to see leakees go totally apeshit on leakers as disinformation spreaders. Do their dirty work, save them the trouble: sounds perfectly in line with Rumsfeld's doctrinal emphasis on deterrence by denial to me. Google this phrase with information warfare and you can find some pretty interesting papers online. What we did find worth remarking on is the lethal sloppiness in a doc written by the largest manufacturer-of-, deployer-of-, and trainer-about- explosives in the world. Absolutely, these are often erroneous and badly written. Yes, you have every right to expect to see disinformation in them. But in this case, there's nothing lethal about adding sodium cyanide to a urea nitrate bomb-- and in fact would likely boost the lethality by at least an order of magnitude, maybe more. It's not as if this involved giving a precise formula or anything, just some hack content to put out a sloppy generality. Unfortunately, nothing new. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK3Gnvg5Tuca7bfvEQJTXACgs1xBE3CDgN/QgrFe/DKTg6xhyqMAn2di P5Hyd/q5Am7+cOCeGkEjvzL5 =5E7D -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Morlock: I never mentioned that there are no chemical devices using H2SO4 and NaCN (and it's hardly a bomb, H2SO4 + 2 NaCN = Na2SO4 + 2 HCN is not an explosive reaction, although it does generate some heat.) I said that these two are NOT components of urea nitrate. What is called for here is an example of H2SO4 and NaCN used in an explosive device (like in WTC) designed to destroy by shock wave, not by tying hemoglobin from red blood cells. Either or, is it? Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of coupling high explosives with chemical agents? Good god, no wonder you're so confused. Nobody ever claimed terrorists added sodium cyanide to their urea nitrate bombs for a bigger bang: if you see this as disinformation you're totally missing the point. In this sense, encouraging use of H2SO4 and NaCN for building explosive devices is pure disinformation If you knew a little more about bombmaking, this wouldn't be any great mystery. Bah, as if whoever wrote the manual wanted to encourage anyone. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear you give your expert opinion to everyone here that adding sodium cyanide to urea nitrate bombs is a bad idea, though. And as long as you don't recommend that John call out the Snackycake Posse on the poor schmoe who sent him the manual thinking he was trying to help, I honestly couldn't care less. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK0Iuvg5Tuca7bfvEQJYuACfdlNhMdBCDFVuyWLoQVnRQww8/dkAoNy7 AIaygjoE/s224JFCQjFZ8Gco =/1za -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 One more time: Either or, is it? Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of coupling high explosives with chemical agents? Good god, no wonder you're so confused. 1. Ad hominem is a sign of weakness. But you genuinely seem confused. Just because some hack gets ahead of himself and mistakenly writes Urea Nitrate for urea nitrate bomb (which can contain any number of things, including sodium cyanide) you can't see any way around it being deliberate, willful disinformation. Ridiculous. Why would the government as you say, encourage terrorists to use something which would make them have a weapon with a far greater lethality than if they left it out? Doesn't follow. It's only misleading to someone stuck at the level of reading equations out of a chemistry book. 2.Chemical agent can mean anything. coupling can mean anything. No, actually I'm using the terms in a very specific sense: if you knew the first thing about bomb-making you'd share the larger context and wouldn't need to sit around mystified over word usage and hung up on terminology. Nobody ever claimed terrorists added sodium cyanide to their urea nitrate bombs for a bigger bang: if you see this as disinformation you're totally missing the point. Negating non-events do not make events disappear. Terrorists add sodium cyanide to urea nitrate bombs to achieve chemical effects alongside blast effects. Do some reading. 3. Your statements are empty and with shifting focus. Engaging any further on this topic is a waste of time. Like I don't have anything better to do than baby-step you through a point everyone else in the whole group grasped a long time ago. I should have listened. Yes. You should also do some more reading. While wasting time, for the last time ... few messages back, there was a clear claim that H2SO4 and NaCN are components of urea nitrate: Another fertilizer-based explosive used by terrorists is Urea Nitrate (its components are urea, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and sodium cyanide) One more time: given that terrorists add sodium cyanide to urea nitrate bombs to achieve chemical effects as well as blast effects, I think it more likely this was a simple error made in haste (Urea Nitrate used generically (erroneously) in place of the more precise urea nitrate bomb than deliberate disinformation. For you to split hairs and demand an example of sodium cyanide used as anything other than a chemical weapon shows you are completely missing the point. Do some reading. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPK0vVfg5Tuca7bfvEQKUiQCdE7TnenUd+jB2duZ2Xf9uDykR2a8An0VC rgw227Eko1QiNCxYJSNrWs3L =QIcM -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: mil disinfo on cryptome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Faustine wrote: Morlock wrote: I think someone got careless: terrorists have used sodium cyanide in their urea nitrate bombs--the first WTC bombing, as a matter of fact. Look it up. The compound referred to as an explosive used by terrorists was primarily urea nitrate based, and indeed contained all the components listed. Sloppy writing, quel surprise! Is chemistry a controlled item now ? Will this be considered a deemed transfer ? Not at all, where did that come from. My archived posts make it perfectly clear what I think about research and the first amendment. My point was that clumsy wording on the part of some manual-writing hack doesn't automatically equal disinformation. I still think if you haven't bothered to learn enough to know when you're about to blow yourself to bits, irradiate yourself, infect yourself, etc. you have no right to expect sympathy when your stupidity, laziness, and ignorance get the better of you. Read and believe whatever you want, but don't be shocked, shocked!! at the thought that some tricky bastard out there might have decided he wants to make it a little harder for you. Every man for himself, reader beware. Here's a thought: why not get a real education and quit bitching over how nobody's handing you weapons of mass destruction on a silver platter? How hard can it be. H2SO4 and NaCN are components of CO(NH2)2HNO3 less than Frank Zappa's piss and Elvis' shit are part of Faustine (and she does contain several billion atoms from those two components). Bomb components, silly. Everything was in the bomb, capiche? Common usage, as found on the web: Prosecutors also claim that in the months leading up to the bombing, Nichols stole bomb components such as ammonium nitrate fertilizer and a detonator cord using an alias name. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKvm0fg5Tuca7bfvEQKkHQCgtTlp8y0OsA+V0xAtQnYZV++iVpkAmQHE RZ9YhI81LxWc3POTvsedMhjM =gRlR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: IWAR Threat Model
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: Faustine wrote: Jeez, don't be so polite, it makes me nervous. This is Cypherpunks: vent a little, it'll do you good. ;) ~Faustine. I _WAS_ venting. In some cultures, venting is done in good taste. It just resembles English, but it's quite another language in terms of subtext, (and more so if it's female). Different rules of engagement. Don't mistake it for weakness. Far from it. To my mind, venting and being poisonously polite to achieve an end are diametrically opposed. And believe me, I know from poisonously polite: I just happen to think that anyone who spends the vast majority of their waking life slithering around with their true personality barricaded behind an impeneterable mask of civility (as I do) needs to find a place where, every once in awhile, they can feel free to tell one and all to just go fuck themselves. Cypherpunks is that magical zone. Repressed hostility is a terrible thing. Someone once drew a distinction between the kind of healthy animal hate which consumes itself in a blaze and vanishes, with the thin, poisonous, pallid kind of hate which, over time, gradually distills itself drop by drop into a philosophy and a way of life. Purge that bile, let yourself go, give hate a chance! Either that, or you might want to consider geting a new M.O... Normal ROE: maintain absolute decorum and diplomacy right up to the ambush. Precisely. Hence the operative word nervous. Something to think about. Here, I will summon up an insult for you, brace yourself: ...Faustine, I bet you drink beer directly from the can. Well, I have been known to drink a split of champagne straight from the bottle, so I guess that's close enough. LOL ~Faustine. *** The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage. - --Thucydides. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKoroPg5Tuca7bfvEQI/RgCggD1ywYaWSO0jUaluHItuQZJmMUMAoOrF AgDH/TVEQub00lp+B3EEm7l/ =TNDz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
My current readings in Category Theory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: * general systems theory, a la Bertanlanffy. I knew a guy who was majoring in this as an interdisciplinary self-study program. Whatever became of this? (And this is kissing cousin to Operations Research, which is mostly a high bullshit term for linear programming, decision support tools, a little bit of game theory, etc.) Bah. You might find the following approaches to the above a little more sophisticated and interesting: Exploratory Analysis and a Case History of Multiresolution, Multiperspective Modeling, Paul K. Davis, James H. Bigelow, and Jimmie McEver, Reprinted from Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference, Jeffrey A. Joines, Russel R. Barton, K. Kang, and Paul A. Fishwick (editors), December, 2000 and Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 4026, 2000. http://www.rand.org/publications/RP/RP925.pdf Title: Experiments in Multiresolution Modeling (MRM). http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1004/ Author(s): Paul K. Davis, J.H. Bigelow Abstract: This study describes the motivation for multiresolution modeling (MRM) within a single model or a family of models. After introducing a new measure of consistency for models of different resolution, the study discusses in some depth obstacles to and methods for multiresolution modeling (also called variable-resolution modeling), illustrating issues with a detailed military example involving precision fires. The study highlights the value of visual design, array formalism, formal mathematics to identify natural aggregation fragments, integrated hierarchical variable resolution (IHVR) yielding trees of variables, estimation theory, alternative aggregate representations called out in a user interface, stretcher variables, and computational methods to identify natural phase transitions and facilitate calibrations. *** Not exactly what you were getting at, but this approach certainly doesn't suffer from the mathematicians writing on the board for it's own sake problem you alluded to. Bridging the speculative and the practical couldn't be more central here (as everywhere.) Reminds me of something John Von Neumann once said: The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. This might sound a little off-the-wall, but have you considered sitting in on some graduate classes in the sorts of areas you're interested in at Berkeley, just for the sake of generating more discussion with people in the field? Ill bet bouncing everything in your post off people there would generate a lot a lot of return for a small investment of your time. None of my business but it's at least worth a thought. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKpfg/g5Tuca7bfvEQL4vwCcCA98uyVl36y+61wwsHaNfwNyDZoAoIi/ 5eyWAiN07n/n+fWgidqLxupr =3FWa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: IWAR Threat Model
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: Faustine wrote: http://www.metatempo.com/IWARThreatModel.pdf Seems awfully dated and rudimentary. Current online books which go a lot deeper and put crypto its due place, dead center: snip Well, it says it's an old paper, and the audience could be general. Anyway, I enjoyed one of his other papers, and somebody else considered it worthy enough to pass along. The source that passed it along probably wouldn't ever read a RAND publication, and view the relevance of their materials the same way I view lint. Their loss. One of the most interesting qualities of RAND-style research as opposed to purely academic work--and believe me, I've read a lot of it--is the phenomenal number of practical ideas lurking just under the surface of every pub. All it takes is someone knowledgeable and imaginative enough to extract them and make it happen. I don't know Mr. Wilson's situation, but some people with operational mind-sets are awfully dated and rudimentary, but damn good in operational contexts, whereas some people with contemporary analytical mind-sets couldn't drive a cow out of a barn unless it was a theoretical cow in a theoretical barn, the entire situation transpired on paper, and adhered to game theory, graphs and flow-charts. In contrast, operational mind-sets work best in a continual state of mistake and against the laws of gravity. Even though they might not be especially rigorous, they are especially relevant, and prone to decision-making and risk-taking, rather than analysis and hedging. :P Point well taken, but I think history amply proves that whoever first masters both the operational and the theoretical is going to come out ahead. The problem with the pointyhead/donutchomper dichotomy (or simp/ knuckledragger, if you prefer--or bone lazy visionary/schizo snackycake posse problem, as it manifests itself around here) is that none of these approaches are particularly well-equipped to adapt to a changing reality. Strictly Darwinian, predictable outcomes. Blend the best of both and there'll really be something to write home about. Again, I don't know his bio, but one of his papers kind of struck me that way, and you run across it a lot in military theory. I found his style refreshing and conversational. It was okay, it just seemed to lack the real bite of Networks and Netwars, that's all. I have great respect and appreciation for RAND people, (not just for their work, but for their approachability). My comments aren't slurring the authors you cited, nor their works, nor you. I appreciate the references of interest. Jeez, don't be so polite, it makes me nervous. This is Cypherpunks: vent a little, it'll do you good. ;) ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKi0kPg5Tuca7bfvEQJgIQCg+rZtq2k52nJaOvEpIHQOErCLaeUAnjGE Vc3brVj6pY5Qj05KeMpbujc9 =dbdk -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: E-Gold
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James wrote: It would seem far more sensible, since the US dollar is now far better accepted as a medium of exchange, to have something like e-gold, but providing convertibility to Federal Reserve dollars, based on fractional reserves. Interesting thought, but have you worked out what kind of mechanism you'd use to implement this without undermining your system? Seems problematic, but a lot better than nothing. What Would Mises Do? ;) More generally, it's seems you'll have an uphill psychological battle trying to convince your average gold bug with a closet-safe full of coins to buy into the non-tangible cypherspace version--warranted or not, just the mention of the phrase fractional reserve might be enough to spook them away. What advantages can you offer that will convince Joe Gold Bug he's better off trusting you than keeping his physical gold in his physical hands? Or is this yet another case of designing crypto systems for those who already know enough to appreciate them, the un-Elect be damned? As the owner of a portable closet-safe full of silver myself, I think the trust issues need a little more resolution before I start anonymously turning over my assets online. Actually, a lot more, in light of the recent news. Oh well, any links or pointers that deal specifically with the trust question would be welcome. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKZgx/g5Tuca7bfvEQInLACdFH/zqxTycxRMjTQFD+xicxhDsjYAn0ic FLQbzgbdcohUJBxYihgdTNNF =R0en -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: E-Gold
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James wrote: It would seem far more sensible, since the US dollar is now far better accepted as a medium of exchange, to have something like e-gold, but providing convertibility to Federal Reserve dollars, based on fractional reserves. Interesting thought, but have you worked out what kind of mechanism you'd use to implement this without undermining your system? Seems problematic, but a lot better than nothing. What Would Mises Do? ;) More generally, it's seems you'll have an uphill psychological battle trying to convince your average gold bug with a closet-safe full of coins to buy into the non-tangible cypherspace version--warranted or not, just the mention of the phrase fractional reserve might be enough to spook them away. What advantages can you offer that will convince Joe Gold Bug he's better off trusting you than keeping his physical gold in his physical hands? Or is this yet another case of designing crypto systems for those who already know enough to appreciate them, the un-Elect be damned? As the owner of a portable closet-safe full of silver myself, I think the trust issues need a little more resolution before I start anonymously turning over my assets online. Actually, a lot more, in light of the recent news. Oh well, any links or pointers that deal specifically with the trust question would be welcome. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKZgx/g5Tuca7bfvEQInLACdFH/zqxTycxRMjTQFD+xicxhDsjYAn0ic FLQbzgbdcohUJBxYihgdTNNF =R0en -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gil wrote: Faustine writes: best is write code, write code. The main thing is to DO something, whatever your skills and talents are. Spare everyone the hot air and just do it. What *you* say is hot air; what *I* say is policy analysis. But who's listening? It's all hot air until you start seeing results. I'm rather fond of the billions of taxpayer-dollars saved metric myself; others might be lives saved, strategic assets protected etc. Once again: what matters to you and what are you doing about it? I'll be the first to admit there are few things more intrinsically worthless and boring than policy analysis done for its own sake in a vacuum. It's just a tool to be put to USE, like any other. Tools can be shoddy or well-crafted, simple or complex--but at the end of the day, can you say you really got the job done with it or not. Despite anything certain people around here have said to the contrary, precision and accuracy in analysis matter: I'm sure they wouldn't have any confusion about whether it's better to arm themselves with a bag full of rocks or a FN Herstal 5.7mm Weapons System. Think about it. You have all these fucking idiots on Capitol Hill stumbling around making policy by the equivalent of whacking each other over the head with stones. Crude tools that--despite being messy, ugly and inefficient--get the job done, more or less. I say it's time for libertarians to step up to the plate and start training with the analytic equivalent of precision weaponry. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKN+//g5Tuca7bfvEQIesACg7Hyysg/3KyAVw3+thCM/da1KS+4AoKIs kip/pU0+G5qlCzYTGTi90xTC =cdAv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gil wrote: Faustine writes: best is write code, write code. The main thing is to DO something, whatever your skills and talents are. Spare everyone the hot air and just do it. What *you* say is hot air; what *I* say is policy analysis. But who's listening? It's all hot air until you start seeing results. I'm rather fond of the billions of taxpayer-dollars saved metric myself; others might be lives saved, strategic assets protected etc. Once again: what matters to you and what are you doing about it? I'll be the first to admit there are few things more intrinsically worthless and boring than policy analysis done for its own sake in a vacuum. It's just a tool to be put to USE, like any other. Tools can be shoddy or well-crafted, simple or complex--but at the end of the day, can you say you really got the job done with it or not. Despite anything certain people around here have said to the contrary, precision and accuracy in analysis matter: I'm sure they wouldn't have any confusion about whether it's better to arm themselves with a bag full of rocks or a FN Herstal 5.7mm Weapons System. Think about it. You have all these fucking idiots on Capitol Hill stumbling around making policy by the equivalent of whacking each other over the head with stones. Crude tools that--despite being messy, ugly and inefficient--get the job done, more or less. I say it's time for libertarians to step up to the plate and start training with the analytic equivalent of precision weaponry. ~~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKN+//g5Tuca7bfvEQIesACg7Hyysg/3KyAVw3+thCM/da1KS+4AoKIs kip/pU0+G5qlCzYTGTi90xTC =cdAv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Morlock wrote: And whatever deceptive advantages might possibly come from the *public perception* of rampant incompetence and donutchompery, the drawbacks are Optimism may somatize one against dread of reality, but it will surely impair accuracy of predictions. Sure. But for the life of me I can't see where you ever got the idea I'm an optimist just because I don't think it's time to retreat to a bunker watch the whole world go up in flames. As bad as it may very well be now, you seem to be forgetting it could be a WHOLE lot worse. The more people who care about liberties give up and do nothing, the uglier it's going to get. Should the emphasis be on developing technology instead of fretting over laws? Actually, I agree. Like I said in a previous post, the only way you can counter math is with better math. If what you do best is write code, write code. The main thing is to DO something, whatever your skills and talents are. Spare everyone the hot air and just do it. Take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself: what are you doing that matters to anyone besides yourself? If all you're doing is going to a meaningless job for the paycheck, coming home, watching TV, puttering around and grousing on the Net, you're part of the problem--as useless and irrelevant as the faceless horde of sheep you despise. On that account, my conscience is clear. Maybe when I'm old and tired I'll give up and join you in the bunker. But unlike some of you, I'm not fooling myself that there'll be some magical Galt's Gulch safe-haven to get away to. I'm a libertarian realist. I believe in doing what I can in this world rather than ignoring history and human nature and pining away for an imaginary one. Unless you have some historical examples of well-concealed government competence ? In the main? Not particularly. But I could go on all week with case studies of incompetence, waste, and abuse which could have been avoided if only a decisionmaker-- interested only in staying elected-- had been persuaded to follow sound advice instead of bad. Say what you will, but I think chipping away at the state by facilitating privatization is a bigger achievement than than throwing rocks at pigs in a parade. I'd rather be able to know I did my part to save the taxpayer literally billions of dollars than know I cost the police department a couple of bandaids and a couple of man-hours to write up my criminal record. To each his own. ~Faustine. *** One of the chief sources of cultural paranoia is the ever-widening rift between the beliefs of people and their actual behavior, and the tacit assumption among these same people that this practice---this contradiction between idealism and practice---is a normal state of affairs. Lionel Rubinoff, The pornography of power -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKIT+fg5Tuca7bfvEQI3ngCfV6rJkX9F2XkhSOg83idmDwqH/AcAoI+l G7PVUTU9moLmgcJvA5Hye2lA =x/sW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: signal to noise proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim wrote: On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Faustine wrote: Bah. I say it depends entirely on what the lie is, who's being lied to, and how confident and artistic the confidence artists are. If they were good enough (and their targets comfortable enough), all three could be lying their asses off about anything and nobody would ever be the wiser. Likewise, with three or more targets playing it the other direction. There is a time factor involved. Inconsistencies must accumulate. Maybe, but whether they're picked up on is the only thing that counts. We see what we want to see: if something moves the target from a state of unfocused suspicion to a tightly focused suspicion, they're going to be seeing inconsistencies and drawing inferences where there are none. Which is what makes being hypervigilant so dangerously counterproductive: if you're all wound up and madder than hell about the idea of being fed a line of disinformation, all anyone who wants to damage you and your informant has to do is insinuate you're being taken for a ride: you find the proof yourself and take it out on the innocent person. Classic Iago. Credo in un dio crudel che m'ha creato simile a se. heh. (who says a Wagnerian can't like Verdi? Magificent aria.) And I'm not sure the problem applies to somebody who WANTS to be lied to as you posit by implication with your extension. The most obvious example here is a little kid whose parents feed them a line of crap about Santa Claus. The kid wants to believe, and I never heard of parents who tipped them off by not getting their story straight! Even after they realize they're seeing different-shaped Santa Clauses in the shopping malls etc, they still manage to convince themselves it's real. Why? Beacuse their parents told them so, they saw the NORAD BS on CNN, they like the presents, they take comfort in the the idea of a benevolent father-figure sailing through the sky... He sees you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good So be good for goodness sake! Though this looks like the perfect set-up for a frothing rant on the evils of religion, the state, and how we delude ourselves in the name of security, I'll pass and leave you to draw your own conclusions. ;) There is an implicit 'critical' factor in the original problem as posed, we assume no cooperation between-all- the players, there is at least one 'honest' one. Honest? You mean someone acting in good faith without the expectation of being conned? Think of other games where someone is acting in good faith WITH the expectiation of being conned, or acting in BAD faith without the expectation of being conned. Honest, bah. Right now I'm thinking of the second half of that Iago aria. The game where there is one honest player is -not- the same game as no honest players. Who's the honest player in a game of Chicken? Cooperate Not Cooperate Cooperate2,21,3 Not Cooperate3,10,0 Just a thought... ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKDfAfg5Tuca7bfvEQL+kQCg0yHDglcIIJmKSpWSBTx4oar6sp8An2O7 xt4ncaF0wX3fzyfZBqhpsT/T =tTGs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Faustine: Aimee wrote: Well, I doan' kno' nuttin' 'bout no agents. That fact has been established. Careful parsing is the spice of life... :P So sayeth the academic-researcher-grad student pretext... :P ITS A CONSPIRACY -some poor idiot, right now But, you know, after pondering on that a bit...What if the lie was supposedly really secret stuff? You know, ME LUCKY CHARMS! I know the little boys and girls are after me lucky charms. If 3 or more agents happen to run in the door with me lucky charms, Sounds about right. Yep, they would be lucky and charming. Ha! Look, even if you like the idea of PSYOPS in Afghanistan (for instance), you have to admit whats surfaced in the media has been embarrassingly crude and ham-handed. I suppose the best you could hope for is that its really all part of a play the idiot and look ineffectual strategy while diverting attention from the real business at hand. Risky, at any rate-- since as any good poker player knows, the merest twitch of the eyelid risks being interpreted as weakness, causing your opponent to raise the stakes. Not good. Failing any evidence to the contrary, its likely just wishful thinking though. Im really not in the all feds are incompetent donutchompers camp, but more and more its looking suspiciously like the donutchompers have the upper hand. And whatever deceptive advantages might possibly come from the *public perception* of rampant incompetence and donutchompery, the drawbacks are deadly. Strength is good. I think Ashcroft and co. are making a HUGE mistake playing up the Christian goody goody schtick it plays straight into the Arab fundamentalist interpretation of the US; and the realists wont believe it (and wouldnt give a crap anyway. And never did.) Even more worriesome, though, is that some of them actually seem to believe it. America ought to deserve better than to be run by a bunch of simps. Emphasis on ought. By the way, did you catch the video of Ashcroft singing some cheezy maudlin patriotic gospel song at a theological seminary? At a fake press conference podium, yet. Surreal. Absolutely nauseating, made my blood boil. Didnt know whether to laugh or throw up... John Ashcroft SINGS! Let the Eagle Soar http://www.ifilm.com/ifilm/product/film_credits/0,3875,2424640,00.html AAAAAAaaaAAAGH! Ahem. Where were we. As someone once said, Id rather side with someone who burns the flag and wraps themselves in the Constitution than someone who burns the Constitution and wraps themselves in the flag. What shows that the snowers know they've slowly been snowed? Bet it keeps a lot of people awake at night, that one. Tricky, but fascinating. If anyone knows of any good links to counter-deception detection, drop me a line. Not sure how on topic it is, but something everyone here would do well to read about. Either that, or just default to not trusting anyone, ever. Works for me. Empathy skills in personal matters. You mean like gaydar for bullshitters? On a grand scale: 1. counterdeception teams - multidisciplinary, non-cultured, outsiders -- creatives, narratives, hoaxers, jokesters, emplotters, etc. Yeah but where? In the TLAs themselves? Consultants? Heres my card, Im with Flimflam Inc, an In-Q-Tel startup... Wheres the oversight? Getting a room full of natural-born bullshitters together sounds dangerous no matter whos footing the bill. And put a con in a room full of squares call it personal bias if you want to, but I know where Id put my money as to whod come out ahead. Hm, unless you consider the case of Hanssen, the genuinely square con. Just goes to show you the limits of pigeonholing and profiling. 2. devil's advocacy in the event stream Yep. Complacently blocking out opinions you disagree with is always a bad idea. 3. competitive analysis 4. MUST HAVE: highest-level precision black channels -- requiring nothing short of a resurrection. Close surveillance. Sneaky submarines are not good enough. Catch 22 re. the Deutch prohibition on working with scummy types. I think it points to the need to re-evaluate exactly what it is were trying to accomplish. 5. Cultural change -- a bit of British eccentricity; decision-maker sensitization Reminds me of the classic story about the time Herman Kahn was asked about Dr. Strangelove: Dr. Strangelove would not have lasted three weeks at the Pentagon... he was too creative. 6. Monitoring of foreign open source media and organizational theme variations (quantitative content and textual analysis; inferential scanning) Absolutely; open source analysis is for everyone. 7. Monitoring of internal organizational dissenters, noncomformists and the intuitives (instead of quashing them, solicit them) Hey, Im game. Be sure to file all this under the expectation of being conned category though. the niceties of good faith or bad faith I do believe Ill leave to the discretion
GeoCap: Nietzsche vs. Shakespeare, Tim May vs. Lawrence Lessig, and the definition of actual property in cypherspace (was Re: Henry VI and Lawyer-Killing),
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Taking a little OT gambol down an enticing alley, R.A. wrote: Certainly most people *don't* know that, in the same way that Nietzsche or Wagner immediately influenced the philosophical and political, or the musical and artistic thinking of their time. And they continue to influence us today. (snip) Schopenhauer came first! Not a stretch to say he was the biggest influence on both of them, and others after. Recommended reading: The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy by Bryan Magee, fascinating stuff. If you dont believe me, here's a passage from N's Untimely Meditations... I am one of those readers of Schopenhauer who when they have read one page of him know for certain that they will go on to read all the pages and will pay heed to every word he ever said. I trusted him at once and my trust is the same now as it was nine years ago. Though this is a foolish and immodest way of putting it, I understand him as though it were for me he had written. Thus it is that I have never discovered any paradox in him, though here and there a little error; for what are paradoxes but assertions which carry no conviction because their author himself is not really convinced of them and makes them only so as to glitter and seduce and in general cut a figure. Schopenhauer never wants to cut a figure: for he writes for himself and no one wants to be deceived, least of all a philosopher who has made it a rule for himself: deceive no one, not even yourself! ... And, to say without more ado the highest thing I can say in regard to his style, I cannot do better than quote a sentence of his own: a philosopher must be very honest not to call poetry or rhetoric to his aid. And one of Wagner's letters... I have a friend to whom I am growing more and more attached. It is my old friend Schopenhauer, so sullen in appearance and yet so deeply affectionate a person. Whenever my feelings have ranged most widely and deeply, a unique sense of self-renewal overcomes me each time I open that book of his, for here I find myself a whole person once more and see myself fully understood and clearly expressed...which soon transforms my suffering into an object of understanding...by revealing me to myself, and at the same time reveals the whole world to me! It is a most wonderful interaction, an exchange of the most supremely inspiriting kind: and its effect is always fresh, since it continues to grow in strength. It is this that restores my sense of peace, and even contempt resolves itself as love. --Richard Wagner And the ending of Goetterdaemmerung was Schoepenhauer through and through. I get a little choked up just thinking about it. Yep, cypherpunk-oriented people really ought to see the Ring and read Schopenhauer...pardon the prosetlytizing, I never seem to be able to help myself, ha. People like Wagner and Nietzsche hold their influence regardless of how personally abhorrent and obnoxious some of their other opinions on various contemporaneous issues were -- not unlike Mr. May's quite literally theatrical exhortation above, for instance which is, obviously, pure Nietzsche, and not, has been noted, Shakespeare. :-) Hm. reminds me of when Shakespeare expressed a somewhat related sentiment, in Richard III... Let not our babbling dreams affright our souls: Conscience is but a word that cowards use, Devised at first to keep the strong in awe: Our strong arms be our conscience, swords our law. March on, join bravely, let us to't pell-mell If not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell. ;) ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPJ+LQPg5Tuca7bfvEQJsqQCgyXeFRDDQwR1CRnwI5I+HrDvGgN8AoMev Ba1f7i2Tn6LM+oYpWMAwU8Sg =wF9c -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: signal to noise proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Declan wrote: There may be the germ of an idea here, but I'm hardly convinced an automated mechanism such as you describe will work. Even if it did, getting people focused on improving their popularity ratings rather than contributing ideas is hardly going to improve content. The only thing it would accomplish is promoting conformity of thought: disagree with the group and be punished. It's far too easy to manipulate, anyway: have you considered the possibility of some vindictive loser with nothing better to do or a group of feds orchestrating reputational attacks against key posters? (spoofing, vote-rigging, etc.) As long as nyms unconnected to real names have votes, the system will always be wide open to this kind of thing and the numbers will be meaningless from the beginning. It'll turn into just another way for the offended to disrupt the group: think of all the people who used to post but left, angry and humiliated. They'll be back. Anyone who reads this list on a regular basis has a perfectly good picture in his or her mind of basically what they can expect from any given poster. How is a number going to express anything you haven't already figured out for yourself? Who I like to read most around here is entirely independent of my personal opinion of them, whether I agree with their posts or how nasty I get when I argue with them. I like to think I'd be able to get past the third grade playground mentality and give them a 10 or whatever when they deserve it: sadly I know as sure as I'm sitting here these very same people would do their damndest to obliterate me from the board forever. What a terrible waste of time and talent. This rating system is only going to make people more petty and vicious than they already are. As tempting as getting mickey-mouse revenge on your enemies may be, shouldn't we do what we can to just cut the bullshit squabbling and have an honest exchange of ideas with each other? I don't think the subjects of the list deserve anything less. Perhaps an easier way to do it is to have everyone post their kill.rc files publicly for everyone else's delectation. :) Seriously, a great idea. Quick, dirty, and to the point, everybody vents and moves on. Something else which might be worthwile is for each poster to go to the inet - -one or MARC archives and do a little statistical analysis of his or her own posts. What are you really accomplishing here? Are you an asset or a liability, a help or a hindrance? Are you bickering or contributing? Mee-tooing or saying something original? Are you fixated on anybody? boring the shit out of people? What can you honestly say you bring to the forum? A little more self-examination wouldn't hurt any of us. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPJ40r/g5Tuca7bfvEQIcGACfTCpO+OR8/RXTmMrJ1/eTYDZLrGIAoJuk SzYifCjwdfA709i730GuYVDD =WNvE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Subject: CDR: RE: I'm no agent.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: What happens if you break the laws of mathematics? Do fractions with guns chase you? Do you get put in a random number prison? Well for one, If I broke the laws of mathematics I'd lose time, waste an incalculable number of other people's man-hours, lose face, lose my job, and and whatever we happen to be trying to get done do would fail miserably-- and I'd be held entirely accountable for it. Next question... I don't see a marketplace opportunity in an espionage Black Net. I'll bet people in the business see it differently. Man, if anyone ever needed proof you aren't an agent, there it is... ;) In high-tempo complex event streams with changing decision-makers, shifting goal-setting, interveners, variable resources, etc. -- the advantage to be gained by competitors (of any sort) more truly lies elsewhere. Mere secrets no longer offer the edge, because they offer a short half-life of decision-relevance. I couldn't disagree more. If what you say is correct, why are so many businesses setting up corporate intel divisions? Have a look at the SCIP website, it's a growth industry. In fact, I'd be more surprised if something like BlackNet isn't already fully operational. As if any of the involved parties would have the slightest interest in publicizing it! Won't happen, ever. I have a hunch the real impact of BlackNet-like system(s) will start to be felt be in the next couple of decades. If we aren't already feeling them now. Now, 3 days to 3 months, and it grows shorter. Few competitors have decision-utility in terms of capability and readiness to take advantage of secrets. Most of the information you need is open source, or can be gained by acumen with low-risk. But secrets aren't just unprocessed information; it's precicely this value- added acumen (admittedly in short supply all around) which turns raw information into finished analysis that's priceless. For more on this, you could hardly do better than to read Greg Treverton's Reshaping Intelligence for an Age of Information. He's a friend of Robert Steele, spoke at the OSS conference last year, was on the Church Committee and used to be the top analyst at the National Intelligence Council. I'm pretty sure I put a link to this here before; check the archives if you're interested. Add in the traitor element and the go to jail consideration, and it looks like a no-go to me. Of course it seems that way to you, given your assumptions and motivations. Others have always come to a different conclusion, and always will. e.g. who can ever know what was going in Bob Hanssen's skull--the fact remains that he did a hell of a lot of damage. (Espionage is more traditionally called treason, BTW. It's even in the Constitution.) Actually, I remember my jaw almost hitting the floor when a someone I know once observed that technically speaking espionage as such isn't covered by international law. International economic espionage isn't illegal is a bit hard to swallow, but apparently the way it is. As if the people practicing it-- government patriots, spies, traitors, double agents, merceanries, freedom fighters, and assorted shitheels of all persuasions-- care about illegality one way or the other. For good or bad, for all of them it really does come back to the laws of mathematics. The only way to counter math is with better math, like it or not. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPJ0F2vg5Tuca7bfvEQI5FQCgvnSGNqV1NXb9syEJ266mLQkRNq8AnAuO ApjZK5t4og4wGvX+wBVobxjM =AhhJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
(warning: OT swan-song bickering) Re: Books, Ideas, the List, and Getting Back to Basics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: I can't work up the energy to compose any kind of big article when: Fuck your excuses. You got old and complacent. What have you done lately that matters worth a damn to anyone but yourself? Based on your usenet posts, it appears you've mainly been chitchatting, watching TV and puttering around your compound. Where's that book you keep hinting at? You could be doing so much. What a tragic waste. Read your own posts from a few years ago and see how narrow, hard, and small you've become. You used to say that Cypherpunks had room for people with all kind of beliefs--now, someone like me who shares more of your opinions on a whole range of subjects than 99.9 percent of the population is somehow the enemy, to be shunned. Just filter me, quit whining, and realize people here are going to decide for themselves who to read whether you like it or not. And I must say that regardless of whatever reasons Farr may have had for posting here, at least she brought some life to the threads by giving everyone something to debate against. Personally, I don't give a damn if she's Janet Reno herself as long as she can put a halfway cogent point together. For you to keep on with the Agent smear without ponying up a bit of proof because she disagreed with you is weak. Almost as weak as your bitching about someone who's been gone for months. Pathetic, how you always try to make a personal grudge seem objective with your Madame Mao-like denouncements and repudiations. I don't think it's fooling anybody. (snip) 4) spammers, Choate, Agent Farr, Mattd, Faustine, and dozens of other marginal people, including a slew of halfwits who use remailers to lob silly insults from. This from a man who invited the entire horde of cretinous dullards of misc.bay.area.bored-losers or whatever the fuck it is into his home. With your taste in conversation partners and dinner guests, you really don't have much of a leg to stand on, do you. I never would have dreamed your standards were so abysmally low, go figure. Though that sort of slumming certainly gives you plenty of opportunities for playing the grand man, doesn't it. Oh well, to each his own. If you have the stomach for it. I sure don't. And for you to use my tiny handful of posts here as some sort of excuse for why you won't post original long articles to is the list is bizarre--curious, to say the least. It almost comes across that you're afraid I won't be afraid to pick it apart. hint: that was your cue to start blowing all the hot air you please about what a ignorant whippersnapper I am who NEVER has ANYTHING of the REMOTEST relevance or interest to contribute. Knock yourself out. But I really ought to get back to working on what's important to me rather than wasting time here on off-topic bickering. As should anyone who hasn't given up, like you did. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPJk4lPg5Tuca7bfvEQIsuQCg4npG+bKEQGfWACeItiQumyIVa/IAoKEE EETMHgSYZAd1WL1BJ75XI943 =b45W -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Marc Perkel arrested
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John wrote: Choate mimed: On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Faustine wrote: He's a disgrace to the very ideals he professes. CJ Parker as well. All mouth, both of you, blowing yellow bluster. I can assure you Ive been through the fire in a way none of your death-threat cerebral couch potato friends ever have been. Believe whatever you please, I have a fairly good idea what Im made of. Whats to respect about someone who sponges off welfare or relatives living in a dream world issuing idle death threats they have no intention of following up on? For all their big talk, theyre soft and weak. After all, theyve always said their threats are just harmless jokes and literary exercises, havent they? If not, why is that what theyve been telling the judges. Beneath contempt. Obviously theres got to be something in these men youre seeing that Im missing. Let's see: Taylor puts a bounty on my head and states he's forwarding my posts to intelligence agencies and that's perfectly fine by you, right? I'm not really sure I understand why someone like you would think this is an acceptable way to act in a newsgroup, maybe you can spell it out for me. Not only you, others talk the brave talk, walk from risk. Until the snackycake posse personally experiences real hunger, life on the street, and situations with actual bullets being fired, they have absolutely nothing to say to me about facing risk. Way too rational to be trusted in a pinch. Based on my experiences, I think nobody can truly say they know what theyll do in any given crisis situation until they actually find themselves in it. But the one thing I cant really see myself doing after facing a little heat is cracking up and imagining all-powerful hobgoblin enemies behind every door. The way your three buddies did. People sure about what to do are dangerous for they'll save their ass as if ordered by god, twist logic to claim it takes bravery to be a coward. On the other hand, the upside to rationality and clear thinking is that you never have to have it on your conscience that you whacked the wrong Deforrest Mueller. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPJPoVvg5Tuca7bfvEQLaBQCgu9VD4JtFuCqGAm3xYvOrl2G04DQAmwW/ 7phRsXIIsvmStVmx9HsJWJot =FeEf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RAND UK intelligence, PSYOPS, cybercrime, arms smuggling terrorism seminars
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 For those of you in the UK... RAND Cambridge Office offers seminars on Intelligence and International Security In co-operation with the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (RUSI) This seminar programme -- previously held between 1997 and 2001 at King's College London under the title ICSA Intelligence and International Security Seminar Series -- is intended to foster discussion among academics and professionals concerned with intelligence and security issues in the light of the changing international and technological environment. Recent and previous speakers have included Bruce Hoffman (University of St Andrews), Paul Beaver (Jane's Information Group), Mark Heathcote (British Petroleum), Edna Chivers (Cabinet Office), Nigel West (St Ermins Press), Tom King (Intelligence and Security Committee), Christopher Andrew (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge), Tim Spicer (Sandline International), Roger Gaspar (National Criminal Intelligence Service), Duncan Campbell, amongst others. - Winter 2002 Seminar Series (Two Semesters) Douglas MacEachin Former Deputy Director, CIA (retired) What We Knew Analysis of the Soviet Threat Tuesday 19 February 2002 Nik Gowing Chief Anchor, BBC World Service Information in Conflicts and Emergencies: who really commands the High Ground in this tyranny of real time? Tuesday 5 March 2002 (Date TBC by 26/02/02) Dr Gregory F Treverton RAND Corporation (Santa Monica) Intelligence Sharing In The War On Terrorism: Overcoming Difficulties Monday 25 March 2002 Dr Lorenzo Valeri RAND Europe (Cambridge) Can Europe Really Fight Cyber-crime? Tuesday 16 April 2002 Dr Mark Phythian Wolverhampton University Intelligence and the Illicit Arms Trade Tuesday 30 April 2002 Wing Commander Richard Garston CO, 15 (UK) Information Support Group Psychological Operations: A Contemporary UK Perspective (To be confirmed) Tuesday 14 May 2002 Dr Rohan Gunaratna Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, St Andrew's University Islamist Terrorist Groups: Threat and Response Tuesday 28 May 2002 Dr Bruce Hoffman RAND Corporation (Washington) Re-thinking Terrorism and Counter-terrorism After 9/11 Tuesday 11 June 2002 Air Marshall JC French Chief of Defence Intelligence, Ministry of Defence (UK) TITLE To Be Confirmed Tuesday 18 June 2002 The seminar series is organised by Dr Kevin A. O'Brien of RAND Europe Cambridge, and are held at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (RUSI) in London. Seminars begin at 1730 hours but you are invited to join us for tea and coffee from 1700 hours. Please contact Maria Guida at RAND Europe, tel: (01223) 353329 / fax: (01223) 358845 for further information on all seminars. Further information on the seminars can be obtained from RUSI's Events listings, and RUSI Members may register for the Seminars directly with the Institute. Attendance at the seminars costs #15 each - subscriptions can be paid on the door, but advance registration is strongly encouraged. Members of the RUSI and academics (with proof of status) attend for #10, while students (with proof of status) attend for #5. Annual memberships are available at considerable discount to individual payments (ie. an annual individual membership for roughly ten seminars costs #100 or #10 per seminar; annual corporate memberships are even more cost-effective) -- please download a Membership Application Form for individual, academic or corporate membership, and submit it to RAND Europe Cambridge in advance of registration for seminars. Please make all cheques payable to RAND Europe. Credit cards (VISA/MC only) can only be taken at the RUSI. While we discourage invoicing, such an arrangement can be made with Kevin O'Brien in advance of the individual seminars - invoicing will generally only be considered for multiple attendees. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPI1U/fg5Tuca7bfvEQJUMQCgpx2vAqSmP1y3L6MGBBs5Mefj+14AoO1L gLFiYXa3Vc9ljdbijURWCgt5 =qdf/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Nuclear Posture Review: Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable A secret policy review of the nations nuclear policy puts forth chilling new contingencies for nuclear war. By WILLIAM M. ARKIN LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-arkinmar10.story WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, in a secret policy review completed early this year, has ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the axis of evil--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--but also China, Libya and Syria. In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as surprising military developments of an unspecified nature. These and a host of other directives, including calls for developing bunker - -busting mini-nukes and nuclear weapons that reduce collateral damage, are contained in a still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was delivered to Congress on Jan. 8. Like all such documents since the dawning of the Atomic Age more than a half - -century ago, this NPR offers a chilling glimpse into the world of nuclear-war planners: With a Strangelovian genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which a president might wish to use nuclear weapons--planning in great detail for a war they hope never to wage. In this top-secret domain, there has always been an inconsistency between America's diplomatic objectives of reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, on the one hand, and the military imperative to prepare for the unthinkable, on the other. Nevertheless, the Bush administration plan reverses an almost two-decade-long trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last resort. It also redefines nuclear requirements in hurried post-Sept. 11 terms. In these and other ways, the still-secret document offers insights into the evolving views of nuclear strategists in Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's Defense Department. While downgrading the threat from Russia and publicly emphasizing their commitment to reducing the number of long-range nuclear weapons, Defense Department strategists promote tactical and so-called adaptive nuclear capabilities to deal with contingencies where large nuclear arsenals are not demanded. They seek a host of new weapons and support systems, including conventional military and cyber warfare capabilities integrated with nuclear warfare. The end product is a now-familiar post-Afghanistan model--with nuclear capability added. It combines precision weapons, long-range strikes, and special and covert operations. But the NPR's call for development of new nuclear weapons that reduce collateral damage myopically ignores the political, moral and military implications--short-term and long--of crossing the nuclear threshold. Under what circumstances might nuclear weapons be used under the new posture? The NPR says they could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack, or in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or in the event of surprising military developments. Planning nuclear-strike capabilities, it says, involves the recognition of immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are named as countries that could be involved in all three kinds of threat. All have long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs. China, because of its nuclear forces and developing strategic objectives, is listed as a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency. Specifically, the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons. Other listed scenarios for nuclear conflict are a North Korean attack on South Korea and an Iraqi assault on Israel or its neighbors. The second important insight the NPR offers into Pentagon thinking about nuclear policy is the extent to which the Bush administration's strategic planners were shaken by last September's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Though Congress directed the new administration to conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear forces before the events of Sept. 11, the final study is striking for its single-minded reaction to those tragedies. Heretofore, nuclear strategy tended to exist as something apart from the ordinary challenges of foreign policy and military affairs. Nuclear weapons were not just the option of last resort, they were the option reserved for times
Re: The living _won't_ envy the dead
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Comment on the original thread title: It's bizarre to see politicians saying We should have been told about the nuke suspected to be in NYC! The smuggling of a nuke into D.C., the missing suitcase/demolition nukes, all that stuff, was a hot topic of discussion _here_ and in many places. They were told about it, all right--they must have been too busy chasing votes, pork, kickbacks, blowjobs and free media exposure to bother reading the research product they've been having the citizens pay for over the past three years: The Gilmore Commission Congressional Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/. The Advisory Panel will assess the capabilities for responding to terrorist incidents in the U.S. homeland involving weapons of mass destruction. Response capabilities at the Federal, State, and local levels will be examined, with a particular emphasis on the latter two. The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has entered into a contract with the National Defense Research Institute (NDRI), a federally funded research and development cente r(FFRDC) at RAND, to establish the Advisory Panel in accordance with Section 1405 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-261 (H.R. 3616, 105th Congress, 2nd Session) (October 17, 1998). Interesting reading, if you skip the interpretive blather and recommendations and head for the hard data in the appendices. I thought the methodology was impressively tight and well-documented. Frankly, it's a wonder somebody hasn't pulled it off the web yet. Onward: On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 04:50 AM, Ken Brown wrote: It is a very good film. It won an Oscar for best documentary (which is odd, seeing as it is fiction). Of course it is very precisely targeted against Kahn and his views (there is a parody of him in it) and intended to stress the uselessness of civil defence in a large-scale nuclear war. Close, but not quite. I read that the author relied heavily on RAND research (and researchers) to develop the scenario in the first place; I'm assuming that would have included Kahn himself, given the timeframe. Anyway, it's a gross (but common) mistake to assume Kahn was some kind of stupid optimist about nuclear war, quite the contrary. Read On Thermonuclear War if you want to understand the complexity of his thinking on this and not just the wacky soundbite version. For all its propagandizing, I still think it's entirely possible to come away from that film convinced that as a nation we need more and better preparation, not less. Any CD we've ever had or seriously thought about having wasn't enough - --and as the modern-day RAND analysts demonstrated with the Gilmore report data, our level of national preparedness sucks as it has never sucked before. No matter how much money the government is going to throw away on the chimera of homeland defense, anyone content to sit around whining, whimpering and waiting to be handed safety on a silver platter in times like these is in for a rude awakening. Faustine wrote: Other must see bunker TV: The War Game (1965) ... I saw it about 30 years ago. I recognized it for the lefty Brit (redundant, I suppose) propaganda it was. Of course, the U.S. lefties had their own scary propaganda, including Testament and The Day After. And then there was the utter implausibility of On the Beach. Did you ever see Threads? Just wondering if anyone has an opinion about it being worth tracking down... Those areas that are downwind of the major blast sites would be primarily hit by fallout...which is where fallout shelters make a big difference. (Someone in this thread recently referred to blast shelters...these are expensive to build and were never the thrust of civilian or corporate civil defense.) True, but it has everything to do with where you are--I'd feel better in a blast shelter; if a fallout shelter meets your threat level, fine. (snip) but for a relatively small amount of money a person can be pretty well prepared. I couldn't agree more. But I couldn't help noticing that in another forum you said you haven't been to the doctor in the past thirty years. Doesn't preparedness also include making sure you don't have heart disease, prostate cancer or any of the other illnesses type As of a certain age are prone to? None of my business, but one lousy checkup every third of a century wouldn't kill you. I'm trying to get routine things that are easy to put off (like dental work and eye exams) taken care of now so I don't have to worry about it later. What good are your KI pills going to do you when you're writhing in agony over an impacted wisdom tooth? Fixing
RE: Don't panic the New Yorker sheeple, glowing soon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Blanc wrote: While you're holed up in your own home-grown survivalist bunker, you could watch a movie I just saw made in 1982: Wrong is Right, with Sean Connery playing a television global news reporter It is a satire but is amazingly familiar-looking in today's context; involves news reporting, oil in Arabia, self-destroying fundamentalist terrorists, suitcase nuke bombs planted in NYC Available at Blockbuster Other must see bunker TV: The War Game (1965) Originally made for British television, this semi-documentary directed by Peter Watkins was banned from television because it was considered too shocking and horribly realistic; (the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting)instead after a delay it was released theatrically and won the Academy Award as best feature documentary of 1966 This film shows what could happen in Great Britain if it were under nuclear attack and the after-effects its survivors would suffer in a post - -nuclear-war world Sequence after sequence inscribes itself in memorystirred me to a level deeper than panic or grief It is more than a diagnosis; it is a work of art--The London Observer Unquestionably the most impassioned outcry against nuclear war yeta brilliant accomplishment!- - -The New York Times Now comes a brilliant young English director named Peter Watkins with a 55-minute dress rehearsal for Hell entitled The War Game, and finally we have the full physical and psychological horror at Armageddon and after--The New Republic One of the most powerful anti-war movies ever made; definitely not for the squeamish United Kingdom, 1965, BW, 47 minutes (available on Amazon) its pathbreaking and still-powerful juxtaposition of interview, reconstruction, graphics, titles and the collision of dry data with images of horror still shock, the grainy black-and-white imagery and use of telephoto, sudden zooms and wavering focus creating an atmosphere of immediacy unique in British television Fifty minutes that shook the world *** I'm about as unsentimental as it gets, but my palms started sweating just to remember seeing this You won't forget it ~Faustine *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 171 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc and its affiliated companies (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPIQeU/g5Tuca7bfvEQKEuwCgwio1FaXwzhP/avAY3oxozQ/Ks9YAoN1o 0cSEdczMNY2F4q8AJmM2rw2S =3+k4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Don't panic the New Yorker sheeple, glowing soon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote: UPI: Report: Al Qaida has 'dirty bomb' Drudge (TIME): NYC nukes kept secret from proles AP: yet another cross-border smuggling tunnel, 1000 ft long, with rails and power You do the math Bah, lightweight Herman Kahn did the math, years ago: in order to *really* take out the New York City metro area, you'd need one --twenty-- megaton warhead AND five (!) ten megaton warheads As in actually detonating, not just sitting there fizzing It's going to take a lot more than one lousy dirty bomb to do anything truly significant The main thing you can come away with from his On Thermonuclear War (which if you haven't read yet, you really should) is that things like this are survivable as long as you pull your head out of your ass, calm down and do what you can to prepare yourself Too many people hear the word nuke and assume it must be the end of the world; that the only thing left for anyone to do is just lay down and die Using your head and getting a spine beats freaking out any day Sadly enough, the US government is taking quite good care of its own with the network of underground bunkers, command posts, continuity of government plans etc while letting the general population's civil defense program (something Kahn himself pushed for tirelessly) totally go to shit (Any PR spin you may have heard from various agencies to the contrary, objectively speaking, it's still 100% total shit) The way I see it, there's no reason civilians can't heed the lessons of Herman Kahn personally and put them into practice on their own small scale--after all, he was a civilian himself Having the courage to face up to unpleasant truths and daring to think the unthinkable is a worthy goal If the men and women in charge of continuity of government planning are cold-eyed enough to take the Kahnian approach, why shouldn't you or I be? For a start, you could always download the old FEMA blast shelter plans that for some reason were taken out-of-print: wwwsurvivalringorg/cd-planshtm And if your general survivalist knowledge, food-and-water-storage etc isn't where it should be, try this: http://wwwalpharubiconcom/basicnbc/basicnbchtm Hope that helps somebody or other Unlike some of you, I don't relish the thought of millions of innocent people who never did anything to anyone being killed for nothing As far as I'm concerned, the more people who wake up, think the unthinkable, and take responsibility for the protection of their own lives the better ~Faustine *** The approach of the radical theorist is more appropriate now than it ever has been Herman Kahn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 171 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc and its affiliated companies (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPIKw/vg5Tuca7bfvEQKfIACgmhImoQ439r1uOYJohN7g9xiIDYwAn1rF Q/O4leny/lGUnCOl70uS5QXw =EmkV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Recruiting Agents
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve wrote: Aside from the usual concerns people might have about telling you what they know, unfortunately, your messages this past week just added a whole new level of disincentive: did you ever stop to think that the angrier and more emotional you are about the idea of being fed disinformation, the more of a chilling effect it will have on people who have something legitimate to tell you? This does not follow It sure does to anyone sensitized to being mistaken for being on the wrong side, from either side The problem with anger is that it tends to cloud judgement and warp honest greys into erroneous blacks and whites We always see what we're looking for, but emotionality juices it up to a fevered pitch: a little adverse information turns into evidence turns into proof turns into looking down the wrong end of a 45 magnum The only way to win a game like that is not to play The risk of you mistakenly retaliating against someone because you conclude they're trying to snow you on behalf of the government just won't balance the risk they're putting themselves through from the other end In fact, I thinkif someone really wanted to damage Cryptome, they could hardly do better than to get you whipped up to the point you're so pissed off you start thinking everything is disinformation and end up not running something important Not like there's anything to be done about it, but you're scaring the shit out of people, John: In my opinion people should be scared shitless You know, in the best of all possible worlds, I'd love to be able to come back with something like: But not by each other! Not if you're working toward the same end! But sadly, in this one, statements like that positively reek of the confidence artist's open arms, warm, winsome smile, and gentle hand on the shoulder as they softly murmur: trust me To hell with that So I guess I really don't know what to say Apart from the honest truth that I am, in reality, scared shitless By the government, by you people, damn near anyone whowho can reasonas cold-eyed and deviouslyas I do? Oh shit Ouch Your government (as well as mine) are engaging in not merely illegal, but barbaric practices in so far as 'recruiting' is concerned The longer such practices are permitted to continue, the more that the perpetrators are allowed to become emboldened by their successes lack of criminal sanction True enough Given enough time, these people will, for all intents and purposes, be unstoppable and will come to view their ability and right to subvert, coerce, enlist, steal, threaten, and manipulate as evidence, prima facia, of their natural superiority over the very people they should be protecting from the very threat which they now pose And you think it's not too late now? John is completely correct The current practices as they pertain to 'recruiting' are utterly odious and abhorrent and should be exposed and halted Not at the expense of people honestly trying to help him I just think that if he were a little cooler-headed about the whole thing he'd get more of the results he's really after Just my bias, that's all ~Faustine *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 171 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc and its affiliated companies (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPH/mAfg5Tuca7bfvEQLP7QCeMjt81qhjPNZ0rt9Sg0Emule0EgsAoJVm 3kRMaV5ienCfySotqpX1/Yjx =WgRF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: Chinese Gestapo experience home.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: Should you ever rely on another man for your life, and he relies on you for the same, perhaps you will know what the urge to command, and the will to obey is really about. If you had ever been in a situation in which another man had your life in his hands--and consciously and deliberately made the decision to let you hang in the wind and die, you might understand why the truly prudent want nothing to do with it. Umkay. Well, if we were in this situation, I would be glad that you felt this way. It would give me a better chance at getting in this guy's outfit. ~Aimee Outfit? I suspect we're talking at right-angles to each other again: I wasn't thinking like Bataan and Corregidor, where you're dying for some higher good or other (though if you look at the Special Forces Creed, the Rangers Creed, etc. you'll see that leaving comrades to hang in the wind is anathema). I was referring to the far more banal kind of betrayal where you're left to die for no good reason other than picking the wrong person to piss off. Happens every day. Now whether you a) find being able to promote one's own interests in such cold blood admirable, b) take the cold-blooded approach yourself or c) prefer to asscociate with cold-blooded people, are three --entirely-- different issues. Command, obey...bah. The trouble with getting into power plays with psychopaths is that they're so darned unpredictable. I once heard a story about a quiet mild-mannered young sniper in a government operation which shall remain nameless. That night, everyone was sitting around the dinner table, eating and joking around. Then, the conversation turned to teasing this guy about some unimportant personal bullshit, nothing really. He sat there for a minute and took it, staring at his plate-- and finally, without changing the expression on his face, calmly turned to the guy sitting next to him... WHAM!! With one swift blow, drove his fork deep into the back of the taunter's hand. As everyone was freaking out and the guy howled in pain--finally, he showed some expression after all: he threw back his head and laughed. The moral of the story: Here's to staying the fuck away from people and living to fight another day. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPHwBo/g5Tuca7bfvEQJOJgCeKU6qifsKh3bhvKaQZSUS4oC6tWQAoLwT EYp0xrZ1ABUxS6T43dc++WqR =5K8B -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: Chinese Gestapo experience home.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: Should you ever rely on another man for your life, and he relies on you for the same, perhaps you will know what the urge to command, and the will to obey is really about. If you had ever been in a situation in which another man had your life in his hands--and consciously and deliberately made the decision to let you hang in the wind and die, you might understand why the truly prudent want nothing to do with it. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPHrCgfg5Tuca7bfvEQIACwCeJl8bGbvR/DhkdGUgxIQeNwLlGucAniyl VHy0RB8LsxQguyQYTRq1vAF/ =RjWB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad (fwd),
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Do you _ever_ stop nattering on about RAND? Whatever, old man. Just you keep on sitting in front of that teevee. Nearly every other post practically licks their boots. Nearly every other post of yours bitches about one of mine. Have you explored the option of filtering me so you can get back to your stimulating and rewarding coffeeklatch chitchat with all your mentally retarded Usenet friends? In 1952 Herman Kahn became involved with von Neumann in the design of the hydrogen bomb. To this end, Kahn simplified the Monte Carlo simulation while increasing its accuracy. Modeling a hypothetical hydrogen bomb became possible as a result. Later in his career, Kahn worked for the government's military consultation group, the RAND Corporation. Stan Ulam was the main guy behind Monte Carlo methods. No shit, Sherlock. I don't know why you find the words simplified and increasing its accuracy so mystifying. Three words and a number: Kahn and Harris, 1948. Giving Kahn this kind of credit is comparable to giving Nash the kind of credit for game theory he got in the latest Hollywood biopic. Gee, I wouldn't know. Out of respect for Nash's acheivement, I refused to see it. [Rest of Faustine's Choate/Jei-like forwarded article snipped.] Now there's a stretch. Your little territorial dominance displays are mildly amusing. Bad alphachimp, no banana. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPHVZH/g5Tuca7bfvEQKSxwCgghfl8zA6zoCa9baouaFG/M5jHpwAni1I wfrWwozBKMwIdUUcy3pYqlsX =Nzok -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Slashdot | Americans And Chinese Internet Censorship
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: Then came Kai-shek v. Mao and a war with Japan. A century of bloodshed caused by outside influence. Bah. I don't think it's going out on a limb to lay responsibility for a vastly enormous amount of bloodshed squarely at the feet of Mao and Madame Mao personally-- there's no blaming the West for what happens when ruthless people with a vengeful streak seize power. Read Ross Terrill's Madame Mao: the White- Boned Demon if you'd like some vivid (horrifying) examples of how personality drove policy during the Cultural Revolution. It also makes powerful statement about why giving up on the idea of constitutional democracy is a bad, bad idea. There but for the grace of the Founders, go we. ~Faustine. *** There is no history--only biography. - --Ralph Waldo Emerson. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPHK7XPg5Tuca7bfvEQICIgCgzNb0RNTQlRa2WV13JEXWCT2TleAAnRr1 XOD9wVCnXGyId1Uhsw1beh2I =htXm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad (fwd)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: Our gentlemanly notions of conflict and fair-play, together with Western arrogance -- nearly lost us Europe, laid the foundations for Vietnam, and terms like mutually assured destruction. We ignored the people -- seeing only traditional military force -- a orientation that continued throughout the Cold War. How ironic, then, that a lot of the most vital, interesting (and truly frightening) work on networks and netwars, PSYOPS, surveillance, and the whole nine yards is being done by RAND, the very same research institution that clued-in the Pentagon the first time around. Something else I find fascinating is how many of the original Cold Warrior strategists are still alive, kicking and very much in business-- they're merely changing with the times. Just think of the implications of that. Heavy! The new RAND works are creating the vocabulary we use to think of these things just as surely as the old RAND works did: In Athena's Camp, Strategic Appraisal, Strategic Information Warfare Rising, The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward an American Information Strategy, on and on. The free pdfs are anyone's for the taking at http://www.rand.org. In my opinion, people who care about these sorts of issues can't afford to miss them. ~Faustine. And just for the hell of it, here's a gratuitous dose of history thrown in to tie together loose ends of several things I enjoy going on and on about... *** With the work of von Neumann, Turning, and Wiener, machines that were intended to merely model reality were anthropomorphized into thinking objects that were often considered more reliable than human actors. Such capabilities of computation coupled with the ability to accurately simulate real situations (or at least the strategists' perception that their models were correct) led quickly to the adoption of computers for complex decision making. Researchers at RAND asked, 'If von Neumann's methodology of formalized games can be applied to physics, why not policy judgments?' In 1952 Herman Kahn became involved with von Neumann in the design of the hydrogen bomb. To this end, Kahn simplified the Monte Carlo simulation while increasing its accuracy. Modeling a hypothetical hydrogen bomb became possible as a result. Later in his career, Kahn worked for the government's military consultation group, the RAND Corporation. While working at RAND, Kahn settled in with a group working on nuclear strategy known as the Strategic Objectives Committee. Its members recognized that an all out nuclear war with an initial strategy to attack cities was not feasible. In response to such a strategy, Kahn (only half jokingly) proposed his Doomsday Machine, a massive computer connected to a stockpile of hydrogen bombs. When the computer sensed imminent and intolerable danger from a Soviet attack, it would detonate the bombs and cover the planet with radiation fallout and billions of dead. No one laughed.6 The Doomsday Machine, however, was only a mildly absurd version of existing US policy: If the Soviets scare us, we destroy their cities and provoke them to retaliate. Kahn advanced the strategists' thinking to a new level by suggesting military installations as the next logical target. This work led Kahn to believe there could be such a thing as a winnable nuclear conflagration. Kahn began working intensely with the massive computers at RAND's disposal. Modeling nuclear wars for the Strategic Operations Committee, Kahn proposed a variety of simulations that he claimed proved his theories. At the same time, his work had such persuasive (albeit paranoid) force, it became the basis for the majority of military strategy during the Cold War. Kahn believed that any war plan ought contain a variety of responses. The war had to be controlled so that intrawar deterrence might be practiced to prevent escalation of the conflict. Conceiving of 44 rungs of escalation from Ostensible Crisis to Barely Nuclear War, from 'Justifiable' Counterforce Attack to Local Nuclear War, Kahn saw himself as the great systematizer of nuclear strategies (Kahn, 1961). To control a conflict, the military needed what Kahn called a Credible-First-Strike Capability so that they could suppress Soviet strategic forces in the event that conventional forces failed. Kahn labeled the pure deterrent capability as Type I, a first-strike capability as Type II, and the retaliatory deterrent as Type III. These many types of deterrence, variations on possible escalation scenarios, along with many other variables, were calculated. Using this data in a modified Prisoner's Dilemma simulation, Kahn modeled nuclear wars to determine US nuclear vulnerability: If the Soviet aggressor is reasonable, he will avoid the defender's cities, civilians, and recuperative capability in order to maximize his post-attack blackmail threats (Kaplan, 1983, p. 224). For example, given a Type I deterrence, a rational competitor would most
Re: Protection of the Righteous Act applies to Whole World, Say Prosecutors
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: 2001 is misleading. I got my copy in July 1989 (so my copy says), and the copyright is 1985/86. She added a few items, but basically the book the book is very, very dated. There's nothing dated about the new chapters on events leading up to Sept. 11th. How much has scholarship on the history of the periods adressed changed since 1989, anyway? If you know of a comparable work that's more current and a better introduction to the subject, I'm sure a lot of people here would be interested to hear of it. Ian Lesser's Countering the New Terrorism (which I read when it came out in 1999) was another good, quick read which comes to mind, but really more tactical than historical. Tonight, I was planning on reading Albert Hourani's far more comprehensive History of the Arab Peoples. Any other suggestions would be welcome. An interesting sidenote: when Terry Anderson was being held hostage, the 1985 edition of this book was one of the few things his captors gave him to read. Confirming my point about how old it is. It tells us nothing libertarians didn't already know: butt out. Or, in Washington's paraphrased words, avoid foreign entanglements. Sure. But just because one knows foreign meddling is likely to lead to disaster doesn't mean the particular disasterous consequences of a given policy aren't worth learning about. And learning from. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPHFFSvg5Tuca7bfvEQKvcACg8i0FT/QdjdWx5QB7mIvL4MzJWY4AoIEd R2xlotLXLgn8oCnL6FDfeUN6 =1rne -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Inferno: Con-Sim Suggested Reading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Jim Choate wrote: If you're interested in reading more about modern warfare, theory and practice: future warfare, theory and practice: RAND National Security Research and Analysis http://www.rand.org/natsec_area/ ~F. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPG8Qw/g5Tuca7bfvEQKDwwCg087zDfQIPevA6RsVeIL70Nhdc3cAnA3F +bjyJC/BIsZwMVoCVTcQ6Ckp =U9TN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: Say a goodnight prayer for joshua.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Aimee Farr wrote: Peter wrote: See Clausewitz. See 49 BC Julius Ceasar. See failure to provide context. There's a fine balance between assuming a common background which provides shorthand referents, and being a showoff. Are you serious? It didn't even occur to me that anyone here might have a problem understanding what she was getting at. Thoughtful of you to bring everyone up to speed, but she's no more showing off than anyone else here who absorbed obscure cultural referents into their particular conceptual landscapes. If someone threw around all the buzz phrases cypherpunks take forgranted to a bunch of lawyers, they'd see you exactly the same way. Accusations of showing off tend to be an excellent defense mechanism against the embarassment of feeling left out of the conversation. ~Faustine. I still wish she'd read the Herman Kahn though... ;) *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPGv6t/g5Tuca7bfvEQIeMACePDJ7Tez9lL/tGHgIKR/J/cvrYF0An2If LYtmwDtQA3kvhJ1aay1I0CRs =t6qu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Will the Govt encrypt the 2.5 mill reward for agent anthrax?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 mattd wrote: We all know USGovt. slime infest this site,PJ,Maurice+Faustine and Aimee,the CointelPRO hoes. I've never received a paycheck from the government in my life, you stupid son of a bitch. If someone far more intelligent and enterprising than you took it into his head to publish my 1040s for the past 10 years right here, I'd have absolutely nothing to fear on that account. I've said it before: I'm not an anarchist, I'm a pragmatic-realist libertarian. I defy any of you to cite one single solitary thing I've posted that indicates otherwise. I scored 100% liberatrian on both axes of the Nolan Chart, just like a lot of people here--and in fact went out of my way to attend the 2000 convention in Anaheim. Unlike a lot of people here, I also choose to put my money where my mouth is in terms of the choices I make about my field of work and living arrangements (see the archives.) As I've said, all the shitey whinging in the world about losing your freedom won't change a thing unless you put down the snacky cakes, get off the fucking couch and make something happen. You folks do it your way, I'll do it mine. Some people around here need to get a better sense of perspective. And as far as I can see it, my only great sins have been: 1) not buying into the conventional wisdom that working for the government means you are by definition a retarded donut-chomping incompetent (unless you happen to be a fellow cypherpunk selling your services and crypto to the USG, which is peachy); respecting intelligence and cunning wherever it's to be found; 2) Having independent judgement; demonstrating a failure to know my place in the pecking order; not being throughly familiar with all the clique literature before I came here (reading Applied Cryptography and every single work of Ayn Rand, Stirner and Nietzsche cover-to-cover beforehand somehow doesn't count); eschewing the mandatory ass-kissing of the Resident Alpha Baboon and attendants; 3) Being a woman; not being old. (In which case it would be permissible to give up, retire, watch endless hours of TV, converse with Usenet imbeciles on the most banal bullshit imaginable and hit the snackycakes like there's no tomorrow.) I have three words for you: Fuck. That. Shit. Love me or hate me, I've made this forum a more interesting place for my having contributed to it. Last week, I re-read my posts from the last few months and came to the conclusion I have nothing to be ashamed of in terms of content. If I were someone else, I'd look forward to reading my posts. Narcississtic as hell perhaps, but in the end the only thing that really matters. If you don't get some entertainment out of reading me, for god's sake filter me and shut up about it. When I get too bored, I'm gone. Schopenhauer once said you can always tell your true feelings about someone by your reaction to seeing an unexpected letter from them on your doorstep. Ask yourself: what was your gut response to seeing Faustine in your inbox again? Tell the truth now, to yourself if no one else. If it was anything other than sheer indifference, I won. While I'm at it, I must say that if or when anarchy comes to the West, it will be infinitely just that parasitical lunatics who've sponged welfare and public housing for the past thirty years will starve and die in the streets. The fact that so many intelligent people are forced to waste even five minutes of their time on people like mattd is a capital crime. 100% Darwinian justice. But I suppose that since lunatics cant help themselves about what they say or do, Aristotle was right in saying there's no more reason to be angry at them than you would be an animal. Given that, matt, do feel free to issue empty death threats and make up whatever vile shit you please about me till you're blue in the face. Nobody's going to be hurt by it besides you in the long run. I just felt like setting things straight for the people here who are genuinely worth talking to. What a shame you and your kind have driven so many of them away. One more thing: the sooner you dig your own grave the better. Keep up the good work. Knock yourself out. ~Faustine. *** Our sense of revenge is as exact as our mathematical faculty, and until both terms of the equations are satisfied we can not get over the sense of something left undone. -- Inazo Nitobe, Bushido -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPGmobvg5Tuca7bfvEQJrVQCg0LZ6BbMcR2I/ibo83UZfH/bb/qgAn13T 8hMDfnP+sFMhvfuGF8dUN3ie =NQoY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: Cruel and unusual punishment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: You are the one that seeks to solve a political issue at the point of the sword. That's war, not a Lincoln-Douglas debate. I believe my Gen. Paine is more qualified to speak to the issue. I think between Thomas Schelling's Strategy of Conflict and Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War you can find pretty much everything you need to know. I'll bet both of you would find a lot to enjoy in them. They seemed so very cautious and correct, these deadly words. Soft, quiet voices purring courteous, grave, exactly measured phrases in large peaceful rooms... Powerful stuff. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPGm1vfg5Tuca7bfvEQKySgCg4QDE602KIUdi0jRGeF9gFFRZyA8An32m YW1MZj8SXhyBjgt/MA3zLs7q =kSVJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Faustine's Spherical Poultry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Faustine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : From: Michael Motyka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree; fascinating stuff. Here's a paragraph on deviousness and psychopathy as an adaptive trait you might find interesting: (snip paragraph) Looks like some people around here are ahead of the curve. subspecimens of humanity, now there's a thought... Nonsense. It sounds more like a play to a political audience than to a scientific one. To an audience of research psychiatrists: the former playing at the latter... Part of an engine for classifying dissenters and sending them to the gulags rather than a scholarly work. It's still hilarious though. Offered for your consideration as a counterpart to the recently-offered news story on the study that proves humans had very good reasons to evolve into vindictive conformist sheep. (insert spherical chicken parable here) I've seen plucking machines that worked very efficiently and the chickens were conventional, not spherical. I bet the guys who made them work were better at solving problems than those who tried and failed to bring a machine to market. True, one would hope no spherical chicken pluckers made it to market. Unless the DoD put out a RFP for one, that is. Wouldn't put it past em. There could be a whole warehouse of Defense Department spherical chicken pluckers piled to the ceiling somewhere for all I know... LOL Though you're right that it's vitally important to find an elegant solution to your problem, gotta watch out for those spherical chickens. I would have thought the thing to do next is choose a range of actual drill bits capable of drilling plutonium, note their properties and create a table of values by working through the equation that way. Oh well. It's a geometry problem not a metal shop problem. Geometry first, sure. Without the fundamentals you're lost...but I realized that for no good reason at all I decided to take your answer and turn it into a decision analysis problem--hence the table of values and need for a range of drill bit specs. Showing my bias, I guess. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPFWrk/g5Tuca7bfvEQJN1ACg5iZN0RtHu18VW0li0zu2v9O6uUAAn1nj PfVpFLK1POrIklQ2SBMoATar =BSUe -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: subspecimens of humanity and spherical chickens(was: Thinking outside the box, deviously)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, Faustine wrote: ...by the people you know about. No, by understanding the scale of the problem we're talking about. There simply isn't the data or the people to collect it. If we took the entire GDP of the US for 10 years it wouldn't pay for it. We also don't know what data to collect to verify the models either. You could certainly make some dinky problem and claim to extend it, but it would be like extending 2-body solutions to n-body - don't work. These problems don't scale exponentially, they scale factorally (much faster). All I'm saying is that assuming analysts will somehow decide to give up on trying to solve similarly complex problems via simulation because they're too hard isn't exactly what I'd call a safe bet. More like a sucker's bet. Hell, we can't even manage a few dozen wolves in Yellowstone and you want to seriously postulate some black lab has solved the problem...extraordinary claims... Bah, what claims? Not that anyone has, or ever would--but that if certain people put their minds to it, perhaps--just maybe--they COULD. No need to get your bloomers in a bunch over a rare speck of Kierkegaardian willed-optimism. If I were really out to assert something worth proving, I don't think I would have been quoting Willy Wonka, now would I! Oh well, stay grumpy if you want to. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPFNtWfg5Tuca7bfvEQLCeQCfSH+T4LjfWs3xc6sKJmg7/Z6XpU0AnjzP 4X280MFp01m1vn6eXvltHxgF =+Gim -END PGP SIGNATURE-
subspecimens of humanity and spherical chickens(was: Thinking outside the box, deviously)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Not having read the article, but speculating anyway on the general point, it may be more than just cheating. It may be the form of thinking that encourages probing weaknesses, finding flaws and loopholes (which is often what cheating is), and generally behaving as a tiger team member looking to break in or demolish something. ... I think there's a connection to this kind of problem-solving and cheating, and to getting the juices flowing and 'thinking outside the box. Cheating is a kind of devious thinking, which is essentially what thinking outside the box is. I agree; fascinating stuff. Here's a paragraph on deviousness and psychopathy as an adaptive trait you might find interesting: ...we speculate that evolution designed a subspecies of humans who use deception and cheating to get resources from others but do not reciprocate. The key characteristics of such a subspecies ought to be: skill at deception, lack of concern for the suffering of others, ease and flexibility in the exploitation of others, extreme reluctance to be responsible for others (including, in the case of males, their own offspring), and total lack of real concern for the opinion of others. These are psychopathic traits. The point here is that psychopathy is not a disorder because psychopaths (and their mental characteristics) are performing exactly as they were designed by natural selection. According to this view, psychopathy is an adaptation. ... Our theory is that, although nonpsychopaths are capable of some criminal behaviour under the right (wrong) circumstances, psychopaths form a distinct subgroup of humans who use distinct life-long deception reproductive strategies under all circumstances. *** Looks like some people around here are ahead of the curve. subspecimens of humanity, now theres a thought... My most productive years of crypto thinking were from 1988 to 1992, when I figured out a lot of the undermining things clued-in readers know about. And my best work at Intel was when I was, without any false modesty, Intel's top smoke jumper, parachuting in to crisis situations and bulling my way around looking for weaknesses and points of attack. I solved a lot of problems by being very sneaky. ... Must be why some people here are so impressed by my charm. Oh yeah? Did it ever occur to you that they might just have been sneaky and devious enough themselves to figure out what a wily old puff adder like yourself would want to hear? LOL Interesting puzzle--though your handling of the drill-size issue reminds me of a cautionary tale from my modeling and simulation class: Beaming Engineer 1: You know, I've been working on this all month--I think Ive just invented the worlds most perfect chichen plucking machine! Doubtful Engineer 2: Really? Engineer One: Surewell, under the assumption that the chickens are perfectly spherical. Though you're right that it's vitally important to find an elegant solution to your problem, gotta watch out for those spherical chickens. I would have thought the thing to do next is choose a range of actual drill bits capable of drilling plutonium, note their properties and create a table of values by working through the equation that way. Oh well. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPFIQbPg5Tuca7bfvEQLlBwCffg0cenvw+JQipA4OjJ8Oi7rE62oAn285 6dXPvwcsdHxZgls3/j328DKe =vP/Z -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Herman Kahn on the futility of pansy-left anarchism (was: Responsibility)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Tim wrote: Personally, I think it would be a _good_ thing if a massively violent event were to cut the head off the snake. This would speed up the process. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the current government would be replaced by the one described in the constitution. Too many people wouldn'tlike that. Though the below passage is far more relevant to our pansy-left-anarchist contingent than anyone else, I still think this bit from the 1972 masterwork Things to Come rings true. You can always trust Herman Kahn to cut through the bullshit and tell straight... Effective revolutionaries need intelligence, organization and discipline to conduct effective propaganda, plan sucessful insurrections, and sieze and hold power. What Trotsky unkindly called the vegetarian left and Orwell even more unkindly called the pansy left noticibly lack these virtues. Even if a humanist left leaning government were to come to power, perhaps in the guise of a moderate liberal administration, its program could not be carried out without inciting the mass of the nation against it, including the military, the police and the national guard, and twenty million gun owners. Some of the extreme elements recognise this. Their avowed strategy is to promote disorder to incite backlash leading to facism. This is to expose American repression to all thus uniting the masses for the revolution. By waving their red flags, they hope to provoke the Establishment bull to charge to its death. But they are matadors without swords. A fascist America would wipe them out, together with their sympathisers and apologists, and since this would necessarily have been provoked by terrorism and other assaults on the public order and decency, the masses would cheer. *** Anyone care to tell me why that doesnt apply now, more than ever? ~Faustine. *** It may be that we shall by a process of sublime irony have reached a stage in this story where safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation. - --Herman Kahn, 1955 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjxLMmAXHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8UP rgCfXufcQJhcOG5DKDmw3MVJto9ER6EAn0+mGm2wMVk7PndvKCR4FNe0g4gY =szay -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: nuking the net, and recommended reading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- David wrote: Pg 276 describes the origin of the internet was designed for nuke robustness 'myth' though the 'myth' itself is not mentioned. Not a myth. Here's some history, background, and free .pdfs, in case anyone is interested... *** An electrical engineer by training, Paul Baran worked for Hughes Aircraft Company's systems group before joining RAND in 1959. While working at RAND on a scheme for U.S. telecommunications infrastructure to survive a first strike, Baran conceived of the Internet and digital packet switching, the Internet's underlying data communications technology. His concepts are still employed today; just the terms are different. His seminal work first appeared in a series of RAND studies published between 1960 and 1962 and then finally in the tome On Distributed Communications, published in 1964. Since the early 1970s as an entrepreneur and private investor, Baran has founded or co-founded several high-tech telecommunications firms. He is currently chairman and co-founder of Com21, Inc., a Silicon Valley-based manufacturer of cable TV modems for high-speed, high-bandwidth Internet access. He is also a co-founder of the Institute for the Future. Baran holds several patents and has received numerous professional honors including an honorary doctorate from his alma mater Drexel University (BS '49). He has a master's degree in engineering from UCLA. All papers available as free .pdfs at http://www.rand.org: *** I. Introduction to Distributed Communications Networks, Paul Baran, RM-3420-PR. Introduces the system concept and outlines the requirements for and design considerations of the distributed digital data communications network. Considers especially the use of redundancy as a means of withstanding heavy enemy attacks. A general understanding of the proposal may be obtained by reading this volume and Vol. XI. II. Digital Simulation of Hot-Potato Routing in a Broadband Distributed Communications Network, Sharla P. Boehm and Paul Baran, RM-3103-PR. Describes a computer simulation of the message routing scheme proposed. The basic routing doctrine permitted a network to suffer a large number of breaks, then reconstitute itself by rapidly relearning to make best use of the surviving links. III. Determination of Path-Lengths in a Distributed Network, J. W. Smith, RM 3578-PR. Continues model simulation reported in Vol. II. The program was rewritten in a more powerful computer language allowing examination of larger networks. Modification of the routing doctrine by intermittently reducing the input data rate of local traffic reduced to a low level the number of message blocks taking excessively long paths. The level was so low that a deterministic equation was required in lieu of Monte Carlo to examine the now rare event of a long message block path. The results of both the simulation and the equation agreed in the area of overlapping validity. IV. Priority, Precedence, and Overload, Paul Baran, RM-3638-PR. The creation of dynamic or flexible priority and precedence structures within a communication system handling a mixture of traffic with different data rate, urgency, and importance levels is discussed. The goal chosen is optimum utilization of the communications resource within a seriously degraded and overloaded network. V. History, Alternative Approaches, and Comparisons, Paul Baran, RM-3097-PR. A background paper acknowledging the efforts of people in many fields working toward the development of large communications systems where system reliability and survivability are mandatory. A consideration of terminology is designed to acquaint the reader with the diverse, sometimes conflicting, definitions used. The evolution of the distributed network is traced, and a number of earlier hardware proposals are outlined. VI. Mini-Cost Microwave, Paul Baran, RM-3762-PR. The technical feasibility of constructing an extremely low-cost, all-digital, X or Ku -band microwave relay system, operating at a multi-megabit per second data rate, is examined. The use of newly developed varactor multipliers permits the design of a miniature, all-solid-state microwave repeater powered by a thermoelectric converter burning L-P fuel. VII. Tentative Engineering Specifications and Preliminary Design for a High Data-Rate Distributed Network Switching Node, Paul Baran, RM-3763-PR. High-speed, or hot-potato, store-and-forward message block relaying forms the heart of the proposed information transmission system. The Switching Nodes are the units in which the camplex processing takes place. The node is described in sufficient engineering detail to estimate the components required. Timing calculations, together with a projected implementation scheme, provide a strong toundation for the belief that the construction and use of the node is practical. VIII. The Multiplexing Station, Paul Baran, RM-3764-PR. A description of the Multiplexing Stations which connect
Re: Disease Vectors
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Measl wrote: Truth is seldom funny. Oh? I'm not so sure, actually. Ever hear of Schopenhauer's incongruity theory? He says that humor arises when the seemly and logical abruptly dissolves into the low and absurd--the amused response is a recognition of incongruity between representation and a concept; we encounter a situation where a particular representation is thought through a concept which is in every other respect incongruous with it. Thus, the sudden apprehension of the unexpected incongruity produces an amused response. Another interesting observation from Schopenhauer that Nietzsche took and ran with: humor as the only divine quality of man. Read what he had to say about the Spirit of Gravity...here's another bit from Zarathustra: I bade them laugh at their great masters of virtue and saints and poets and world-redeemers. I bade them laugh at their gloomy sages and at whoever had at any time sat on the tree of life like a black scarecrow. For in laughter all that is evil comes together, but is pronounced holy and absolved by its own bliss. Something to think about. ;) ~Faustine. *** To be self-sufficient, to be all and all to oneself, to want for nothing is assuredly the chief qualification for happiness. - - Arthur Schopenhauer -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjxLWGYXHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8X8 YgCfYMevUrgJRNOAGGhk2FWxBwfJf6oAnj3JQtETrjzBPIOSYQi4Ttxp8cOZ =60eB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Cypherpunk Agitprop.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Aimee wrote: I'm so damn mad, I can't even subscribe to a mailing list. YEAH!!! THAT'S THE SPIRIT! But I have to admit I was rather hoping you'd come back anonymously to mix it up and give everyone a little hell in the grand manner. Oh well. You know, people around here just aren't the same without a sufficient number of convenient targets to flatter their egotistical delusions about being followed around by crack teams of Special Agents who find them so fascinating they can't resist posting replies in their pet forums. (Admitting you have a research interest in people who think they're subjects of surveillance just wasn't important enough, I guess.) You haven't missed much though. Did you know that a lard-assed welfare parasite arsonist lunatic put a four-dollar bounty on your head a month or so ago? I was quite offended mine wasn't any higher--but hey, coming from a nematode leech who's never going to act on any of his bullshit bluster anyway, I guess that's as good as it gets. He's not worth replying to--but it is fun in a train - -wreck sort of way to sit back and watch him dig himself in deeper: I have always been among those who believe that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. - --Woodrow Wilson So welcome back to the conversation, actually. ;) ~Faustine. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjxF7NIXHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8X6 QwCgk+unbqJe49jpb1WS7baE2Jg0wEYAoIyE/csEV1flp3HupQk6irqawCya =HwZf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: True Names reviewed on /.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Tim wrote: Duncan wrote: This is why books are still needed and why Slash Dot readers should think about learning to read them. Tim, It's not so much books qua books but the habits of mind that book reading inculcates. Most of the necessary information is up on the Universal Library these days but many have a hard time reading or writing long form material. The discipline of paper books is a useful one to employ. Better even than free weights. Perhaps those in the best postion are those in our birth cohort who are old enough to have learned to read but young enough to have computed. Bah! You actually think old people are the only ones who read books? When was the last time you asked someone in graduate school about it, must've been awhile. You want to know the last book I read cover to cover? Uncertianty: A Guide to Dealing With Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, (Morgan and Henrion, 1990, 332 p.) You want to know when? Yesterday. Four more on related subjects in the last seven days. All that on top of a 40-hour work week, homework, and and trying to get my head around a new language for an advanced simulation modeling and analysis class. But then, since I don't waste time on vapid TV shows, I have more time than you'd think. The last non-work related hardback: The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy (Bryan Magee, 2001, 397 p.) When? Last week. VCR: the old BBC productions of Shakespeare's Timon of Athens, The Merchant of Venice, Richard II, and Henry IV part 1, one a night. Some C-SPAN, bookTV on C-SPAN 2. So the next time you feel like sniffing at somone else's reading and leisure habits on the basis of age alone, perhaps it would be helpful to trouble yourself to learn the tiniest little bit about what they are, eh? Agh, back to work. :) ~Faustine. *** Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty. - --Samuel Adams -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjxDmUEXHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8Ws SQCfYUbQ50zXnj6T/3KCsn8yFJpA96gAoL7GduoIg7io961Ib5GCHzBzdIHi =f/6r -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: VIVA Agentina LIBRE!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- jamesd wrote: If, as seems likely, the Argentinian economy makes an unplanned and prohibited coversion from pesos to dollars, in defiance of government policy, the likely result is that the value of the peso will drop to zero. Yep. Which reminds me: one of the most fascinating people behind the push for currency boards/dollarization in Argentina (and around the world) has a regular column at Forbes, great stuff. Anyone interested in a comprehensive backgrounder on the whole situation should really start here... ~F. *** Steven H. Hanke: Forbes Column Archives http://www.forbes.com/columnists/col_archive.jhtml aname=Steven+H.+Hankeauthor=steve+and+hanke Steve Hanke Professor of Economics John Hopkins University DR. STEVE H. HANKE is a professor of Applied Economics at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Professor Hanke has been writing a column in Forbes Magazine since 1993, and also advises governments on currency reform, privatization and capital market development. His appointments have included: Senior Economist on President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors (1981-82); Advisor to the Minister of Economy, Domingo Cavallo, Republic of Argentina (1995-96); Advisor to the President of Bulgaria, Petar Stoyanov (1997-present) and Special Counselor to the Economic and Monetary Resilience Council, Republic of Indonesia (1998-present). Professor Hanke is a member of the Steering Committee of the G-7 Council in Washington, D.C. and a Fellow at the World Economic Forum in Geneva. Dr. Hanke's books include: The Revolution in Development Economics (1998), Currency Boards: The Financing of Stabilization (1997), Alternative Monetary Regimes for Jamaica (1996), Currency Boards for Developing Countries (1994) and Russian Currency and Finance (1993). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjxBhM0XHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8Wx CwCeOf1If1w+pPdGg4+kBJT7sv8nkUoAn2AVThP73C19OBVWBlb+wEs7Ipud =qs92 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Detweiler, Vulis, Toto, John Young, and mattd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Tim wrote: And that we often see with your own posts, John. Namely, a mix of schizophrenia, dyslexia, paranoia, and Tourette's Syndrome. Some are more dyslexic than others, and it's likely that with some the word juxtapositions and malapropisms are completely intentional. I used to thing folks were trying to emulate Detweiler, then Toto. Now I'm thinking there's some common miswiring in the brains of these folks. Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! Now that's a fine piece of psychobabble if ever I heard any. You really ought to spend some quality time with the MMPI and the DSM-IVR instead of dismissing it as chick stuff. Not only would your insults be more to the point, youd also figure out what normal people have to say about YOU. Pot and kettle be damned, here you go, you beyond-good-and-evil Overman, you: The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So-Called Psychopathic Personality by Hervey Cleckley (Hardcover - November 1988) *** Philippe Pinel (1745-1826) used the term insanity without delirium to describe behaviour that was marked by complete remorselessness, but the modern concept of psychopathy was put forward by Hervey Cleckley (1903-1984) in his classic work The Mask of Sanity (1941). According to Cleckleys criteria a psychopath is an intelligent person characterised by poverty of emotions, who has no sense of shame, is superficially charming, is manipulative, who shows irresponsible behaviour, and is inadequately motivated. Interspersed in Cleckley's vivid clinical descriptions are phrases such as shrewdness and agility of mind, talks entertainingly, and exceptional charm (Hare, 1993, p. 27). Cleckley also provides a striking interpretation of the meaning of the psychopath's behaviour: The [psychopath] is unfamiliar with the primary facts or data of what might be called personal values and is altogether incapable of understanding such matters. It is impossible for him to take even a slight interest in the tragedy or joy or the striving of humanity as presented in serious literature or art. He is also indifferent to all these matters in life itself. Beauty and ugliness, except in a very superficial sense, goodness, evil, love, horror, and humour have no actual meaning, no power to move him. He is, furthermore, lacking in the ability to see that others are moved. It is as though he were colour-blind, despite his sharp intelligence, to this aspect of human existence. It cannot be explained to him because there is nothing in his orbit of awareness that can bridge the gap with comparison. He can repeat the words and say glibly that he understands, and there is no way for him to realize that he does not understand (Cleckley, 1941, p. 90 quoted in Hare, 1993, pp. 27-28). ...The American Psychiatric Association's category of antisocial personality disorder (introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, 1980) was supposed to have covered psychopathy, but because clinicians were not thought sufficiently competent to assess personality traits the DSM definitions have concentrated on the antisocial and criminal behaviours associated with the condition. This has blurred the distinction between psychopaths and criminals, and of course most of the latter are not psychopaths. Antisocial Personality Disorder (category 301.7) is described in DSM-IV simply as a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dyssocial personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 645). This confusion of terminology is especially damaging for research because whereas DSM-IV describes APD as associated with low socio-economic status (1994, p. 647)psychopathy seems less likely to be associated with social disadvantage or adversity (Rutter, Giller Hagell, 1998, p. 110). Robert Hare has described his attempts to identify true psychopaths as a prison psychologist in the early 1960s. Most of the personality measures or instruments popular at that time, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), were questionnaires based on self-reporting. When administered to psychopaths, who are expert at impression management (Hare, 1993, p. 30) these instruments are less than reliable. One of the inmates in Hares research program even had a complete set of MMPI tests and interpretation manuals and, for a fee, would advise fellow inmates on the correct answers to show the steady improvement more likely to lead to parole. ...Hare decided to construct his own Psychopathy Checklist in order to have a method of separating psychopaths from the rest of the prison population, and this method is now used throughout the world. The Checklist highlights the key emotional and interpersonal symptoms of psychopathy: psychopaths are said
Re: Faustine's paranoia index (or: mindless OT bickering)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Tim wrote: You're a waste of electrons here. Even Agent Farr was more on-topic. Is this some kind of ersatz chick thing? Posting about guns and survivalism is a chick thing? Sure, whatever you say. You conveniently edited my post to leave out what I was commenting on: your psychobabble about the MMPI and how to present oneself as a suitably servile sheeple. It's ironic that a neo-Calvinist Nietzschean would give a damn what people think of him one way or the other. Must be an alpha baboon thing. And for the record, my reference to the MMPI was nothing more than a passing comment until you replied and got me interested me in elaborating on it. Though I'll admit I never should have bothered responding to the thread in the first place, anyone who thinks it ought to die a natural death should for god's sake quit prolonging it. I didn't take issue with your posts about guns, did I? No, but only because it suited you. The alpha giveth a banana and the alpha taketh away... I've yet to see you add anything to the discussion about ostensibly list-related topics. While all of us post off-topic things at times, you are almost completely off-topic. Something I suggested to you last spring bears repeating: read up on some of the basics. I have been. Though somehow I never felt the need to generate and churn unnecessary posts to prove it. I also don't do me too posts; or delight in shooting fish in a barrel by pointing out incorrigible idiots' idiocy, etc. It's not as if my tiny handful of posts each week is anything a filter file couldn't cure. One wonders why you aren't drawing a bead on the high-volume, high-profile nuisances instead. Er, I mean, so to speak, that is. Your stories about living as a homeless person but now being paid to surf the Net (you say) Quite a convenient troll you have there. Not bad. If there's one thing that can get to a person who came from shitty circumstances and bettered themseves through intelligence, cunning and sheer strength of will alone, it's has to be something along those lines. (Did you catch that? Any unimaginative dimwit flunky out there looking to score ass-kiss beta brownie points by baiting me really should be taking notes.) But I would like to take this opportunity to say that if it makes any of you feel better to think I'm paid to surf the net or work as a Special Agent to spy on you or whatever else you happen to cook up in one of your more colorful delusional/alcohol-soaked moments, be my guest. You're on the wrong track and it's win-win all the way: your wasting time is its own reward. But if I'm really as uninteresting as all that, why anyone would bother is less than self-evident. may be fodder for Oprah's Online Chat Room (You go, girl!), but this is not that forum. If you didn't know I'm a woman you wouldn't have taken them that way. ~Faustine. *** When even one American--who has done nothing wrong--is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril. - --Harry S. Truman -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjw3vWYXHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8Vc mACdHBwstaucKoewZv6sNFa3triW25YAn04mpG0t6X6PTuY/lS05PxfUFffq =MuMi -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Faustine's paranoia index (or: mindless OT bickering)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Faustine wrote: Black Unicorn wrote: You should be glad I've managed to avoid polluting the forum by wasting breath responding to most of the gradeschool taunts/death threats losers seem to get off on directing my way these days. Hey! I only asked you to dinner. LOL! I suppose I could figure out a way to meet you sometime so you don't know I'm Faustine...chalk another one up for the Index, I guess. ;) ~F. *** Apemantus' Prayer: Immortal gods, I crave no pelf; I pray for no man but myself: Grant I may never prove so fond; To trust man on his oath or bond; Or a harlot, for her weeping; Or a dog, that seems a-sleeping: Or a keeper with my freedom; Or my friends, if I should need 'em. Amen. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjw3wsgXHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8WZ EACfS9sC1FT4zaJrzww/V5pjn8MrNJwAoLB4DH9GP1YM9LVbwBFe40ngopIL =zerN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Faustine's paranoia index
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- KPJ wrote: It appears as if Faustine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ I'm a firm believer in mobile preparedness: in fact, every day I never leave home without carrying a complete BOB concealed in a Kate Spade bag. And I mean fucking EVERYTHING, the true survivalist nutcase works: first aid kit,emergency rations, flashlight, space blanket, poncho liner, magnesium fire starter, water purifying tabs, mini-entrenching tool, Swiss army knife, NIOSH-95 filter mask, nitrile gloves, monocular, grundig shortwave, passport, etc etc. (Full contents available on request, it would take awhile!) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ I hereby request. Feel free to act. Okay... I'll post it in the following forum today or over the weekend: http://ubb.plainsmanscabin.com/ If I can dig my digital camera out of storage, I'll even put up a picture or two of it. I'll use some other nym, but I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding my post in the Survival Kit section. If you haven't come across it yet, this is a great site--tons of valuable information. There's also a huge archive of old threads you can get to through Google, worth a look. ~Faustine. *** When even one American--who has done nothing wrong--is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril. - --Harry S. Truman -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjw1+mEXHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8Wx xwCgkKxww0eX2uwdD6o5y8DqDn3dXioAniVyW37Hf38WYKcA82h8e6TksaaG =gGF2 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Faustine's paranoia index (or: mindless OT bickering)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Tim wrote: You're a waste of electrons here. Even Agent Farr was more on-topic. Is this some kind of ersatz chick thing? Posting about guns and survivalism is a chick thing? Sure, whatever you say. So I felt like writing about a few things from my experience that were off topic this week, who cares. If you find them fatuous and irrelevant, there's always the filter file. At the very least, you could stop writing substantive replies to them that generate even more off-topic content. And I do happen to think off-topic content is better than no content at all. You know, the kind of post that says nothing apart fron bitching about someone else's. Like this one. You should be glad I've managed to avoid polluting the forum by wasting breath responding to most of the gradeschool taunts/death threats losers seem to get off on directing my way these days. (I was about to include a whole paragraph of inflammatory comments regarding the aforementioned, but thought better of it. What's the point? I'm too busy and life's too short. To each his own. FOAD. Whatever.) ~Faustine. *** When even one American--who has done nothing wrong--is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril. - -- Harry S. Truman -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjw2Qq4XHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8U9 JwCfWJzoz8q0oGz7oNfxL4rtSOBONGoAn2UxCPX45CyaUsJlSZ8EgqbyUEq2 =0K13 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Faustine's paranoia index
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Someone sufficiently paranoid to use a remailer wrote: At 03:27 PM 1/2/02 -0500, Faustine wrote: Concealed carry is the only way to go, after I iron all the permits out. What state do you live in? One would think the more interesting question for you to ask is why I chose the word permit--S--. Pick up the pace, Sherlock. I'm a firm believer in mobile preparedness: in fact, every day I never leave home without carrying a complete BOB concealed in a Kate Spade bag. And I mean fucking EVERYTHING, the true survivalist nutcase works: first aid kit, emergency rations, flashlight, space blanket, poncho liner, magnesium fire starter, water purifying tabs, mini- entrenching tool, Swiss army knife, NIOSH-95 filter mask, nitrile gloves, monocular, grundig shortwave, passport, etc etc. (Full contents available on request, it would take awhile!) Your claimed paranoia level goes beyond most former Intel physicists'. But what's so amusing is how incredibly well I hide it. Of course, the most obvious thing to do would be to give you the standard-issue sermon about what happened to people trapped in various historical crises when they failed to prepare ahead of time, etc. etc. Or give you examples of the many times I've actually used the contents of my bag to help others--you'd probably be surprised. But since I'm sure you don't want to hear it, I might as well cede the point that any normal person is going to think carrying a portable BOB on my person wherever I go is eccentric to the point of being downright nutty. Given that you'd never suspect it of me unless I told you-and you'd never notice anything out of the ordinary even if you were standing right next to me--I suppose there's nothing left to do but for both of us to feel smug at each other. Though you might be interested to note that my employer was the one who issued all its analysts the NIOSH-95 filter mask and nitrile gloves. And the first day I got here, I found on my desk a gift basket containing a black fanny pack with-let me get it out of my file cabinet and see here-a one person three day survival kit; quoting the tag on the side: food rations, water pouches, flashlight, waterproof blanket, radio and batteries, and first aid supplies. Not everyone is as scornful of being prepared as you are. Have you discussed this with your psychiatrist/handlers? Not on your life, baby. But given that I know the L, F, Pd and Pa scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory like the back of my hand, it's something of a moot point. A little recommended reading you might find relevant: Cleckley, Hervey (1903-1984): The Mask of Sanity, Fifth Edition, 1988. Hope that helps! Cordially, ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjw03VoXHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8VP 8QCdH0TTTdB+eL8w2JvHiLrweooh7lQAoKETJpsJoDe2GNr+L/E9Reu/n89B =siKw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
contextual anonymity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim wrote: Depends on what one is meaning by 'anonymous'. Context is quite important. Can somebody go through their entire life completely anonymously? Not likely. Email on the internet? Likely, if they are very careful and nobody has any reason to suspect them of anything for some other reason. It's a set theory sort of issue. Thinks like 'signature analysis' come in handy. When people engage in ANY activity there is 'evidence' left behind. The trick is to understand the (hopefully) distinctive differences in different activities. Then one can 'measure' the sample at the site and (supposedly within some delta of error) determine what did happen. The only way to be truly anonymous would be to never leave any sort of evidence. That's (at least for any practical intent or purpose) impossible. I couldn't agree more. Here's another couple of personal examples to illustrate my point that all anonymity is contextual. A few months ago, I posted about how crazy I am about my job and office-- I usually stay late every night and come in on the weekends--researching, writing, coding, studying, absolutely anything I feel like doing; it's private, comfortable; and in sum, I have complete freedom to work on whatever projects I want while surrounded by excellent resources. I still feel that way, wouldn't change it for the world. Nevertheless, even though it's a private company, the level of security and surveillance around here is absolutely mindblowing. A formidably locked-down facility: Armed guards at the entry, armed guards in the parking lot, armed guards patrolling the roof, security cameras in every hall, every bathroom; high-tech ID badges to be worn at all times, etc. The perfect picture of a dystopian nightmare. But my hours are my own; my opinions are my own, and I feel more free to express them here than I ever have before. No dress code, no internet filters: if anyone ever took exception to my browsing and posting habits they never told me about it. Once you embrace the fact that yes, They probably are looking over my shoulder, and no, They don't really find me significant enough to give a damn...well, it's quite an unusual feeling. But in keeping with being the resident Savage in the land of Alpha Double Plusses, you might find it interesting to know I chose to live in a cash-only hotel suite. It's not about the money: actually, I pay over $2000 per month for rent and storage this way. It would be nice to have more workspace for my computer tinkering projects, but it's a small price to pay. The truly beautiful thing is, every single piece of my ID, tax information, health insurance, and any other form I fill out maps back to a mail drop. No phone line to tap, no physical-location information to surface in a database, the neighbors change every day. Even my work doesn't have my physical address, and my landlady doesn't even know my last name. Anonymity! Freedom! Or is it? A couple of weeks ago, my boyfriend decided to change his hair color. Nothing drastic: light blondish brown to a darker brown. He also had a new coat on, and left his hair down instead of pulling it back like usual since it was still damp. Who cares, right? Less than a minute after he left, my landlady frantically knocked on my door, concerned almost to the point of panic: Oh! I saw a strange man coming out of your apartment! Are you okay? Anything wrong??? After I explained that yes, it really was just the same nice young man she knew with darker hair and a new coat, she relaxed, smiled and wished me a good night. After I thought about it, I got that sickening little feeling in the pit of my stomach again. Jesus christ, I can't even have a visitor without setting off some kind of alarm worth investigating. How much time had she spent watching the front door to pick up on the fact that we never have guests? It was then that I had the epiphany that if I were doing anything I actually needed anonymity for--rather than merely living quietly and making a symbolic gesture--there's not a doubt in my mind she'd have the cops, SWAT teams, and the five o' clock news all over us like a cheap suit. Or: freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPDI7qfg5Tuca7bfvEQLo4gCeO2lt1nriU89L3WnaEl8qaqWJTAEAn21T mkv/cR0TaK1ZMnDTnd0UksYV =lImg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Clarification for cpunks_anon@einstein.ssz.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim wrote: Modify your text style; review favorite words or phrases and avoid them completely. If possible run your text through a translation service (eg source - Spanish - source) and then edit the resultant. If you do use an online translation service use an anonymizing service for this access as well. This is a great point, but it's worth remembering that even your opinions themselves can be used to find you. Real example (details changed for privacy): I have a friend who used to write for a financial magazine whom I wanted to get in touch with again. I had no idea which aliases he was using, so the first thing I did was look up a few keywords related to a current subject that, if he were still posting, he was unlikely to resist: dollarization and the financial crisis in Argentina. I knew his opinions on other subjects well enough to pick him out of a crowd, but chose Argentina first, since not many people posting online are well-informed and passionate enough to get a first-class tirade going about it. Hear somebody rant about something a couple of times and you know what to look for. Sure enough, I found him on the very first search, railing away and breathing fire as anticipated, almost as if on cue. All I had to do was jump right in the conversation and trot out my own crotchety old hobbyhorses in my own style...that afternoon, I got a hey Faustine, is that really you? message. He was quite pleased with himself to have found me! Harmeless enough, but I'm sure you can think of more sinister applications. Anyone who is really passionate about specialist subjects is at a distinct disadvantage to Joe and Jane Sixpack, whose opinions are largely interchangable and indistinguishable within various broad parameters. (How else could marketing turn this sickening conformity and predictability into a science?) Take an inventory of all the unusual things that push your buttons--the opinions that make you unique--and you'll be a step ahead. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPDDZXPg5Tuca7bfvEQLpzgCgjs3DdbAyVjc+PD3iuD7R05naS/0AoKA3 ycqyfa7L9uPDUqqC5epGmOo1 =eNIe -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Choices of small handguns
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew wrote: Keep in mind that Glocks, while excellent, reliable and accurate do lead the pack in accidental discharges, even among trained police. I'd not recommend the Glock to a beginner or to someone who wouldn't put in the necessary practice. Hey now, I might not exactly be Belle Starr, but if I weren't planning on making a serious effort toward doing it right I wouldn't have bothered. Point well taken though. Thanks to all for the excellent advice and recommendations. I'm sure it's worth taking the time to try them all before deciding, thanks again for a more solid place to start. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPDDjj/g5Tuca7bfvEQJD1gCfV5jY1iMbuSOt0yjpY9ctfnHH4wsAoOg8 x0se+9r6JOoiFtV+fsWZk1/8 =6puB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Clarification for cpunks_anon@einstein.ssz.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John wrote: Another person can see your fundamentals but not you, and vice versa. Faustine demonstrated this with her parable about locating a long-lost acquaintance, as did he her, uh, her he. He did not could not recognize what she saw in him, and she did not see how he identified her. What she saw was a secondary appearance he claims to have seen in her writings, not primary. There is no way out of the dilemma of not being able to see in yourself what others do, what they see in you is transparent to you. An unexamined life is the only possibility -- the joke of the opposite canard. Camouflage at will, but it will take another party to check how you blindly failed to protect yourself. But since I did want to be found, it seemed perversely interesting to see if he was the kind of person I could get to find me the same way I found him...somehow it was much more satisfying to let him think my post was a coincidence and he was the one being clever and doing the sleuthing. Sort of a joke at him, at myself, at the absurdity of thinking you can ever be truly anonymous. Whether or not I could I have pulled off posting about the subject without being recognized is an entirely different question: if you disguise your opinion enough, at some point it's not yours anymore. And if you take it even farther and become too deeply enraptured by the perverse pleasures of perception management, you end up deceiving yourself most of all. A joke within a joke within a joke within still another joke that's not that funny, but there you are. I'm not so blind I can't recognize and laugh at some of my more colorful tired old crotchety hobbyhorses...since people are only going to see in you what they want to anyway, I choose to ride them all the same. Or: fuck 'em. ~Faustine. A judgment about life has no meaning except the truth of the one who speaks last, and the mind is at ease only at the moment when everyone is shouting at once and no one can hear a thing. - -Georges Bataille -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPDD75fg5Tuca7bfvEQI9bQCgrUdnvqZ0VAhFOB5qvAC/5cSEdvIAoLcB xO4QdebqTAs2vIkau+6Ry+kw =UzOj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: cell phone guns
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 06:54 PM 12/28/01 -0500, Faustine wrote: Not surprising, since cell phone holster decoys have been around for ages. Why settle for a .22 when you could be packing a Glock 30? Better stealth. I like the NAA .22 belt buckle. Can also fit inside a beeper case. Mossad prefers suppressed Berretta .22 which doesn't need racking. Hm, whatever works, I guess. Sheer stealth isn't as much a factor for me as is accuracy, reliability and being able to avoid the woman with a peashooter image. All rhetoric aside (but with all that in mind) I've actually been thinking of getting a 9mm, something along the lines of a Glock 26, a Kahr P9 or maybe a Sig-Sauer P239. Any thoughts? I know there's no substitute for getting out there and firing them at a range to see what I'm comfortable with, but if anyone has any recommendations, better suggestions, which 9mm to avoid, etc. I'd appreciate it. ~Faustine. *** Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. - --John Adams -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPC5LIfg5Tuca7bfvEQKIyACbBmjXCMeeeYVRJyKZXX1RVM3kUskAoM2S QBFXBjlKLqElf9F9VhRYuReW =82tr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Pay per use remailers and remailer reliability tracking.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 anonymous wrote: Proposing that the remailer network would benefit more from 10 reliable, properly configured and legally secure remailers than 50 mosquito remailers is a pure statement of fact. Mix-nets need stable nodes. You're welcome to design a different system that allows anonymous messages to be transmitted through short-lived temporary nodes, but I doubt it will be anything like what we're using now. But how confident are you in the robustness and integrity of the system as it exists today? If it were a matter of life or death (and you knew your adversaries were more familiar with the intimate details of the system than you are) would you trust it to come through for you? Can't say that I would. I still think some sort of decentralized P2P short-lived mosquito remailer system would circumvent the most serious Mixnet pitfalls: if anyone ever gets one off the ground, it would be a great, great thing. The best way to ensure the mix-net is going to protect you is for you to run a remailer. (Better yet, write your own remailer software). Nice thought, but it's probably a safe bet that a real pro could pick a hole in anything I come up with straight off the bat-- especially if I had used a compromised compiler. How much thought are people putting into that one? Sounds to me like another fantastic place for the government to place trusted insiders. The remailer network should never become an old boy's club. Anyone with the ability to maintain a stable remailer must be permitted to join. Good point, but isn't there a fair amount of danger in a network of a bunch of well-intentioned, otherwise intelligent people setting up nodes while relying on out of the box instructions? It's a terrible way to configure your own operating system, much less becoming part of a network people are potentially trusting their lives to. Government involvement isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd happily include both a remailer run by Hamas and a remailer run my the Mossad in my remailer chains. Who knows, maybe we already do: anything worth getting nervous about is probably totally unmarked as being connected to an agency anyway. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPCPWbvg5Tuca7bfvEQJeDQCeMz0P2HOWB/HR0pgikHgPjPbfQC0AmgM4 4T4psPik7xm4Hdt4s3QT/2ct =9JP6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: CNN.com on Remailers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 From: Faustine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcel wrote: Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them did have nightmares about the Constitution. Not as a piece of paper dancing around on Mickey Mouse legs or whatever the hell you're getting at, but as an idea repersenting the rule of law that was going to lead to them being jailed for murder. Which unfortunately never happened, but so it goes. Thanks for proving my point. (For the intellectually impaired: the Constitution never DOES anything. Your magical belief in its virtues is equivalent to pagan's beliefs in idols: they accomplish nothing. A law must be backed by force - and it's the FORCE that does this or that, not the law.) Of course. I'm not disagreeing with you here at all-- and in fact, I made a similar point in a discussion here a week or so ago. The rule of law is worthless without a mechanism to back it up; what could be more obvious? But without it the weak, stupid, moral and isolated are entirely at the mercy of the strong, clever, ruthless and organized. Without the Constitution, the government would be nothing more (and no better than) an incredibly powerful gang. You think there's abuse of power now, what do you suppose would happen with no law to stand in their way of stamping out whoever they damn well pleased? If there were no law and you opposed such a monstrous supergang, do you really expect you would come out ahead? Or even stay alive? How? Serious questions. I'm not objecting to the language; English is fine. I'm objecting to delusions. Laws don't ACT, no matter what language you're using. I never said they did: through the mechanism of the judicial system (backed up by the aptly named law enforcement) they serve as a check on people acting to destroy society. The Founders had it right all along, you can't blame them for the complete hash subsequent administrations made of the American system. You should rely more on your guns and less on your papers. Isn't that precisely what all corrupt, evil and tyrranical police and statist government officials everywhere say? I'm sure Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and every two-bit petty dictator since the beginning of time would agree with you. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - -Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPB+vo/g5Tuca7bfvEQLSFACcCuN0NM2UEWtPkgou4xXppoAXyisAn33d CLiHC5fnhluRssyTeCE9XGzr =ISWp -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Wired on e-gold
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nomen Nescio wrote: (snip) With most people, if they have nothing to hide, they don't hide it. Why are you posting this from behind a remailer? Only paranoids and extremists will adopt anonymity technologies without nefarious purposes in mind. So why are you posting from behind a remailer? Which of your slurs are you willing to apply to yourself? Anyone proposing to offer new services for privacy and anonymity should be prepared to deal with the onslaught of criminals who will use the system for bad ends. Why are you posting from behind a remailer? Hypocrisy isn't pretty. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPB/xi/g5Tuca7bfvEQJnEwCgt0+BccWxGdBFYckrzsB58rCNPjwAn1wS SBYVZQfjmiYGH9x9TWYBWUd+ =TmJG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: CNN.com on Remailers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 From: Faustine [EMAIL PROTECTED] My point was that without constitutional protection, it would be infinitely easier for innocent people and arbitrarily-determined thought -criminalenemies of the state to be shot right along with the real criminals. In America as it exists today, the Constitution is the only thing that stands in the way of full-scale repression in the name of security. Be careful what you wish for, that's all. I bet FBI agents have nightmares. At least those involved in the Waco and Ruby Ridge cases. I think they were unable to sleep at night, dreaming of a piece of paper jumping between them and their victims and threatening to... whatever. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them did have nightmares about the Constitution. Not as a piece of paper dancing around on Mickey Mouse legs or whatever the hell you're getting at, but as an idea repersenting the rule of law that was going to lead to them being jailed for murder. Which unfortunately never happened, but so it goes. Has anyone EVER saw the Constitution stand in any place, let alone in the way of full-scale represion? People with guns do that, not paper. Why do I have to repeat something this obvious? (No, it was a metaphor doesn't cut it. It was a dumb metaphor. Next time you're arguing something, get rid of metaphors. As an exercise, try rephrasing what you said above without using any. Forget about constitutional protection or Constitution standing in the way. Try to make sense.) I'm sure anyone who speaks English as a first language didn't find it odd or have a problem understanding such a common expression. It's an idiom, not a metaphor. Your English is generally great, but you might want to have a look at various online ESL dictionaries of idiomatic usage if you have time, it probably would make things a little easier for you here. The language issue might also explain why you missed my original point. No hard feelings; I'd rather talk about issues than quibble over this sort of thing anyday. I'm sure if I were trying to do this in French or German instead, I'd be having the same sort of trouble myself. So here's hoping miscommunication doesn't --stand in the way of-- getting on with a perfectly interesting thread. ;) ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA+AwUBPB5Ihfg5Tuca7bfvEQJIBQCY7nWZVLTeUGSRNf3LSXr8TuJW4ACfbJ/2 v2A0B+jivjwGgDMnbsgpeXQ= =VLKD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: CNN.com on Remailers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 From: Faustine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marc wrote: My point was that without constitutional protection, it would be infinitely easier for innocent people and arbitrarily-determined thought -criminal enemies of the state to be shot right along with the real criminals. In America as it exists today, the Constitution is the only thing' that stands in the way of full-scale repression in the name of security. Be careful what you wish for, that's all. I bet FBI agents have nightmares. At least those involved in the Waco and Ruby Ridge cases. I think they were unable to sleep at night, dreaming of a piece of paper jumping between them and their victims and threatening to... whatever. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them did have nightmares about the Constitution. Not as a piece of paper dancing around on Mickey Mouse legs or whatever the hell you were getting at, but as an idea representing the rule of law that would lead to them being jailed for murder. Which unfortunately never happened, but so it goes. Has anyone EVER saw the Constitution stand in any place, let alone in the way of full-scale represion? People with guns do that, not paper. Why do I have to repeat something this obvious? (No, it was a metaphor doesn't cut it. It was a dumb metaphor. Next time you're arguing something, get rid of metaphors. As an exercise, try rephrasing what you said above without using any. Forget about constitutional protection or Constitution standing in the way. Try to make sense.) I'm sure anyone who speaks English as a first language didn't find it the least bit odd or have any problem at all understanding such a common expression. It's an idiom, not a metaphor. Your English is generally excellent, but you might want to have another look at an online ESL dictionary of idiomatic usage if you have time. It might make things a little easier for you around here. The language issue probably explains why you missed my original point as well. No hard feelings; I'd rather talk about the issues than quibble over this sort of thing anyday. I'm sure that if I were trying to do this in French or German instead, I'd be having the same sort of problems myself. So here's hoping miscommunication doesn't --stand in the way of-- getting on with a perfectly interesting thread. ;) ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPB5Mq/g5Tuca7bfvEQLysQCaAg3W3hccGfm96DIAz1GMC1qbW14AoP58 XnRTX/kJ+e9nN6ccqd+9F8X3 =HlQF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Cypherpunk Ban
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nomen wrote: jyaI don't recall the rationale used by the USPO to forbid CJ from posting to cypherpunks. Anybody know the answer to that? Since when is it unusual to forbid parolees from associating with unsavory and immoral characters? Tarring everyone here with such a broad brush hardly seems appropriate. Just a quick reminder: you're as much here as anyone else is, even if you have fooled yourself into feeling a false sense of distance behind that remailer of yours. So unless you see yourself as unsavory and immoral, you might understand how some people here could be interested in an apology. Or at the very least an explicit clarification. More to the point, I think the parole officers were probably as interested in depriving CJ of a stage as anything else. Maybe he isn't as florid or likely to act out if he doesn't have an audience to egg him on. Where else is he going to connect with people who think there's anything more to his case than just that of another pathetic garden-variety washed-up lunatic? If he ever finds such a place, they'll probably ban it too. It could be purely punitive, but I think the encouragement factor is worth considering. ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPB5Yvvg5Tuca7bfvEQIJwwCfVGjnQykxIHm2A0SspH/YxwSt2mYAoIS/ 8kv2oni6+E2fjJLLODIcpzIa =fzCT -END PGP SIGNATURE-
CIA poised for unprecedented involvement in domestic investigations
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 CIA poised for unprecedented involvement in domestic investigations By ABRAHAM McLAUGHLIN, Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON (December 17, 2001 12:09 p.m. EST) - The Central Intelligence Agency has been given new freedom to get involved in domestic surveillance and investigations in ways that are unprecedented in its history. The CIA's intelligence gathering has long been kept as separate as possible from domestic law enforcement, which is bound by strict evidence-gathering rules and legal safeguards protecting the rights of those investigated. But as the nation girds itself against global terrorism carried out on American soil, the barriers between covert, stealthy intelligence and by-the-book domestic law enforcement investigations are beginning to melt. Suddenly, for instance, the CIA will now have access to testimony collected by federal grand juries. And the CIA, FBI, and other federal agencies are, for the first time, being allowed to share vast amounts of information ranging from phone records and credit cards statements to profiles of suspected terrorists. more... http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/196509p-1908209c.html *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPB5kDvg5Tuca7bfvEQKlWwCfcxhgmvY535mHT6mopNj+KVjOy8oAoPJn 6x8w3DmFwaVxMowkYpMZ0EW2 =QyQN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: CNN.com on Remailers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 From: Faustine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcel wrote: I think the Constitution was the biggest curse ever cast on you. Every time something bad happens, you use these magic words like entrapment or protected by the first ammendment and so on, instead of shooting the criminals. And shooting innocent people too. And anyone who opposes those in power whether they're innocent or not. Dumb Faustine, you usually make sense. I'm an anarchist - I am AGAINST those in power. (And I don't believe THEY are ever innocent.) My point was that without constitutional protection, it would be infinitely easier for innocent people and arbitrarily-determined thought-crimanal enemies of the state to be shot right along with the real criminals. In America as it exists today, the Constitution is the only thing that stands in the way of full-scale repression in the name of security. Be careful what you wish for, that's all. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPBpoefg5Tuca7bfvEQKBjQCfdEg/CWmHNM/MuebM+FVHEP00924AoJDG 3lQOIhqNO/5AkC825GO3Ao1p =2qjM -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Professor Punished for Witty Remark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 05:01:11PM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote: OK. How about well-funded? :) I count $1,270,000 in grants to the organization since its creation as the Compared to giants like Brookings? Not well-funded, well-known, big, nor powerful. Few folks even in DC have heard of it. $1M in grants over a period of years is not much by Washington policy group standards. - -Declan Last year, Brookings had revenues of 29 million. The RAND Corporation had revenues of 157 million. One year, one hundred fifty seven million. Their grants and contracts for last year alone totaled 142.7 million. Sort of adds a new dimension to the idea of being giant and well-funded, doesn't it. ~F. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPBlGS/g5Tuca7bfvEQJbJACgpwMX2yolpxFpLAImBj0l3QWYZacAn12z BU19/N1jMfShiZEvzFHKJJwY =9qFa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: CNN.com on Remailers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Meyer wrote: So far, U.S. and European authorities battling terrorism and cybercrime have apparently focused their surveillance elsewhere. The FBI and the National Security Agency, which monitors international telecommunications, declined to comment on what strategy, if any, they have for dealing with remailers. That would have made the article much more interesting.. What *is* the FBI/etc.'s strategy on dealing with remailers, other than ignoring them (and hoping that anti-spam/anti-terror legislation will make them illegal?) I don't know, how about traffic analysis? Exploiting (publicly) undisclosed holes in the remailer software? Exploiting (publicly) undisclosed holes in PGP? That certainly seems like a fruitful place to dump research money. Good old-fashioned deception isn't exactly rocket science, either. How about suckering people into routing traffic through an ever-increasing number of corrupt nodes, either by: 1) running them covertly 2) buying off trusted pillars of the crypto community and trading on their reputation capital? A sobering thought. Or how about this one: enticing people interested in developing cryptography into an closed system based in Canada (international, so using full-blown Echelon technology against it isn't a problem) offering secure messaging, file storage, sharing and transmission etc. while promising them the moon about being a no-compromise information-haven phuck-the-state all-your-eggs-in-one - -basket crypto system? Oh wait, it's called CryptoHeaven. Nevermind. Not that I'm claiming the first thing about them--it's just that if I were trying to come up with a way to gather information on people interested in developing privacy and cryptography technology, setting up a compromised CryptoHeaven-like system on behalf of the United States Government would be IDEAL. Or at the very least,inserting some bad actors into the system to root up the vulnerabilities couldn't hurt. Not to mention cultivating trusted insider informants. At any rate, any company that lays on the trust us!! razzamatazz that thick makes me nervous. The fact that you it gives you zero opportunity for compartmentalization ought to be a red flag. Bad OPSEC makes for shitty tradecraft. I just can't say this enough: one of the drawbacks of viewing all feds as donut-chomping incompetents is that it fosters a false sense of complacency. Underestimating your adversary never did anyone a bit of good. Something to think about, anyway. ~Faustine. *** As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppressionThere is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we must be most aware of change in the air however slight lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPBfQI/g5Tuca7bfvEQIz+gCffs/DSkAHpK/PU2yxx6QcddQSNAoAoOw3 CHApBSii8Tk3bTaeEzr/xdFh =4PZs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
FYI: What the Heck is OPSEC?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 What the Heck is OPSEC? prepared by Zhi Hamby, Executive Director, OPS http://www.opsec.org/who/who02.htm - In a nutshell, OPSEC is a process that teaches you to examine your day-to-day activities from an adversary's point of view, to understand what an adversary can learn about you and/or your organization from these activities (observables), to assess the amount of risk this places on you and/or your organization, and then to develop and apply countermeasures so that the bad guys don't win. Thus, the goal of OPSEC is to control information and observable actions about your capabilities and intentions in order to keep them from being used by your adversary. OPSEC works best when incorporated in the planning stages of any project - don't try to close the barn door after the cow has followed the bull to the pasture! To be successful, the integration of OPSEC into plans and projects should be done by the folks who are the most familiar with the particular plan or project. Those are the people who can best identify the plan's or project's critical information (i.e. information that either makes or breaks the project). OPSEC analysis focuses mainly on open sources information and actions (i.e. unclassified or uncontrolled). The scary word here is uncontrolled. The very fact that the information and activities are open source make the implementation of a good OPSEC plan much more challenging. Okay, let's take a look at the OPSEC Process http://www.opsec.org/who/who03.htm *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPBfSE/g5Tuca7bfvEQI9MACfQzpmqHQarndS7vi7CemH0wEHwjYAoMjf /yvKw9qZ4VtT6x8Nwvul872D =O8d9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Reputation of a Reputation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: This is the reputation of a reputation. As soon as people tumble to the fact that Tom Clancy has sold his nym/reputation to some hack writer, that is, let them put his name on their words, then the reputation of Tom Clancy falls. Nothing new here. Fisher was a respected (high reputation) name in stereo equipment. (I don't like the term reputation, due to issues I've discussed here, but I'm using it in the commonly understood sense.) The name Fisher was bought by a Taiwan maker of equipment, and one can now see Fisher on boxes at Costco and Best Buy. Draw your own conclusions. My own sense is that no one is fooled: those young enough not to know what Fisher once was don't care. Those old enough to know aren't fooled. I expect the brand name Fisher sold for very little money, reflecting all of these issues. Great points, but consider the example Harvard University. People are willing to pay a premium to be associated with it regardless of the academic worth of the individual programs in the eyes of specialists. A lot of students are after the cachet and couldn't care less about the curriculum. But then, I'm sure it's a mistake to assume education for it's own sake has the slightest thing to do with why the majority of people bother going to college at all. Ridiculous how so many employers put such stock in a word on a piece of paper too--pure credentialism. How ironic when you contrast that with the fact that the great Herman Kahn didn't have a PhD. I wonder where he'd end up today. Someone once remarked that the most unimaginitive, laziest Harvard graduate students at the bottom of their class tend to end up at the IMF and UN. Sort of sinkholes of mediocrity. Oh well! ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPAvjEfg5Tuca7bfvEQLJAwCeLOsOt6pEuBELu+p8zN7boPrf9z4AoJeA BVIpjCrxsgAZdMQ9ujYld9NL =1lef -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: in praise of gold
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Morlock wrote: Faustine wrote: Too bad you seemed to have missed the entire point of the passage: if your relationships are making you bitter and miserable, there's no sense in blaming the other half of the human race for whatever weaknesses of your own cause you to keep seeking out the same old archetypically shitty situations. Still, the difference is immaterial. Testosterone stuff on that Y chromosome drive men to seek women and get into shitty situations. There is nothing voluntary there, most men have 'clingy' need for women. Bah. If you've always found that the women who are willing to sleep with you are irritating, at odds with your emotional temperament and after your money, why not spare yourself all the headaches and schedule appointments with an escort, maid service and sperm bank? Seriously, doing a cold-eyed cost/benefit analysis might save you some real misery in the long run. That so many people are driven to go through the motions of the very things that bring them the most unhappiness is a real shame. Or else, you could keep always looking for a woman who has a view of things more to your liking. If you're the kind of man who posts here, I can't imagine you'd have much in common with average people anyway. So why fall back on citing the flaws of the average woman (which, incidentally, I'm not denying) in this case. Characterising not-mine relationships as pathologically-dependent and clingy and others as 'drawn to independent' and noble is nonsense. Who said anything about noble? There are more than enough flavors of psychological pathology to go around--but of the infinite number of problems that can come from dating a woman as strong-willed and unsentimental as you are, being whinily pressured to measure up to an imaginary ideal just isn't one of them. Evolution is not beyond reproach nor Holy Dogma, and I see no reason why wouldn't a sensible male* bitch about this parasitic setup. But nobody's forcing you to shell out cash to goldiggers and breeders: find a woman who doesn't buy into either scenario and you're in business. They're certainly out there, just a lot harder to find. Fit and unfit for human companionship are far to into nacionalsocialist ideology, I'd rather not go there. It doesn't take a judgment by society at large to realize that some people really are better off alone instead of inflicting their destructive fucked-up personality on others (psychotics, alcoholics, etc). On the other hand, if more people refused to cave in to societal pressures and thought about what they really wanted to do with their lives (instead of blindly falling into the spouse, family, 9 to 5 job trap out of conformism and a fear of the unknown) it would be a great thing. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPAxQQfg5Tuca7bfvEQIzIwCdHhJmVj0N0La5AcXyXH7vVxkDnZEAnRwy o5Ne4IpcdxYyZyXa3ykRjOcY =xq/M -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: in praise of gold
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Morlock Elloi wrote: Faustine wrote: Any relationship based on desperation or one partner's dysfunctional clingy need is a complete waste of time. So if you seem to be spending a lot of time around women who want to mash you down into a mold of some cartoonish happy- ever-after ideal, perhaps it's time to look at why you keep choosing and ending up with them. If you were drawn to strong-willed independent women instead, I can assure you that you'd be facing an entirely different spectrum of dysfunctionality. ;) The cpunk relevance evades me, but ... Slim to none, actually. Just my two cents in response to various bitter observations to the effect that all women are money-mad golddiggers hell bent on luring hapless men to their doom in the name of providing for large litters of genetically superior offspring, who eventually nag them to death in the name of changing for a relationship. Or something. The 'relationship' is a product of some need, and classifying that need as clingy or something else is arbitrary and subjective. Of course. Since when was a value judgment ever anything else? You invent 'drawn' as something that is not-clingy-need. Semantic nonsense. Too bad you seemed to have missed the entire point of the passage: if your relationships are making you bitter and miserable, there's no sense in blaming the other half of the human race for whatever weaknesses of your own cause you to keep seeking out the same old archetypically shitty situations. Proclaiming all men are x or all women are y as some sort of excuse for why you've proven yourself unfit for human companionship is nothing more than a cop-out. So it seems to me, at any rate. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPAqlePg5Tuca7bfvEQLZDACffRSyj+BBbaYbYIZvspmsEFZKNZwAn2/O TGNJU1oiUGHRDKiUS5VO3kN3 =KeKr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: in praise of gold
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, November 26, 2001, at 07:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Jim Choate wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Faustine wrote: Not all women are golddiggers. They're called 'old maids'. ALL women who are interested in a 'relationship' are 'golddiggers' in the sense they want to 'change' the other party. Nothing like a good across the board generalization, huh Jim? Well, I hate to be in the position of defending Jimbo, but he's right--in a sense, but not just about women. I'd be willing to bet (should there be a way of proving it to my satisfaction) that in every relationship, one party would like to change AT LEAST 2 things about the other party. Bah! Anyone who goes around trying to force the other person into becoming what they're not probably deserves whatever grief they give themselves over it. I don't change for anyone, nor do I expect anyone to change for me. Integrity and self-respect count for a lot in my book. And if we can enjoy each other for what we are, excellent. If not, time to move on to something more rewarding. Not all women go around with silly notions about perfect soulmates and all that nauseating weakminded crap. I find nothing in least bit attractive about a spineless simp telling me what he thinks I want to hear. What's so interesting about being around a personality-deficient jellyfish, man or woman. Pride isn't a sin, it's a virtue! Any relationship based on desperation or one partner's dysfunctional clingy need is a complete waste of time. So if you seem to be spending a lot of time around women who want to mash you down into a mold of some cartoonish happy- ever-after ideal, perhaps it's time to look at why you keep choosing and ending up with them. If you were drawn to strong-willed independent women instead, I can assure you that you'd be facing an entirely different spectrum of dysfunctionality. ;) ~Faustine. I was going to look for an especially relevant sig quote, but on second thought, think the one I have now will do just fine... *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPAfjCfg5Tuca7bfvEQJWjACg0BMIcZxHbll9XZFj2UodGSDcVZEAoNcb oPV1KVxwrmuG6wtNXv9kFrb/ =v+6/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Moving beyond Reputation--the Market View of Reality
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Declan wrote: Sure, one can say: let's just have a complicated reputation space (think an array of arrays) for each one of these characteristics. To use a silly example: * truthtelling [0-255] * maturity [0-255] * morality [0-255] * netiquette [0-255] * spelling [0-255] * etc. In addition to the interesting points you and Tim made about the value of trying to quantify the subjective, deception and gullibility (or trust, if you're feeling charitable) are factors worth taking account as well. How sensitized are the raters to the possibility that someone is acting in bad faith and taking them for a ride? What specific triggers erode or establish trust, and how easily are the individual factors manipulated? Given that the DoD is putting an ever-increasing amount of money into this sort of research, it seems like any reputation rating system which doesn't address the idea of deception and bad-faith actors is a juicy target for being subverted and corrupted from the foundation up. Deception is problematic enough as it is, offline: I can't think of a more spectacular failure of reputation than the case of good old boring long-faced church-every-Sunday solid-citizen Robert P. Hanssen. If his FBI colleagues had been asked to rate him by your above criteria, he probably would have been in the high 200s all across the board. And maybe deservedly so. But since those factors weren't in any way, shape, or form relevant to the fact that he was also the kind of person who could sell out his country for the sheer pleasure of the game of it, he got away with murder for years until he got careless and his shitty tradecraft finally caught up with him. How many thousands of man - -hours were wasted spinning in circles over suspicious people when the real bastard was nice and comfy right in the middle of their own ant-heap. Absolutely nauseating, how easy putting stock in a good reputation makes it to be compromised beyond repair. Something to consider, anyway. And bad-faith actors aside, if everyone in a group becomes fixated on boosting their ratings, they'll become less and less likely to contradict the wrong (high-status) people and more likely to go for cheap shots at the designated whipping boys to the point that the whole list becomes a pointless pecking - -order exercise in kissing the ass of the alpha baboons. Or something. Here's to saying what you think, popularity be damned. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPAMFDvg5Tuca7bfvEQIAzwCg2T7jO5Piut/3i9+6DJZ0veUEVY4AoJmM PZQUIq5LoYBapWpQlBBrp58p =5nZk -END PGP SIGNATURE-
The generosity of capitalism
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 And now, for a special thanksgiving message from a closet Objectivist- libertarian in the Bush administration... :) *** The generosity of capitalism The US is the world's biggest giver because its ethos of individualism encourages humanitarianism, argues Lawrence Lindsey, Financial Times Published: November 21 2001 19:54 | Last Updated: November 21 2001 22:09 Approximately $1.3bn has been donated to benefit the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. While this is a considerable sum, it is consistent with Americans' generosity. According to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, in 2000 Americans gave $203bn to charitable organisations, or 2 per cent of gross domestic product, far surpassing the contributions of any other nation. Further, those other countries that were runners-up in private philanthropy were nations that share US values and traditions. Why are Americans such big givers? Some say this generosity is merely the outgrowth of the spectacular success of capitalism at wealth creation. And no one should argue with capitalism's success in generating wealth, or that possessing wealth beyond that required to meet one's immediate needs makes contributing to humanitarian causes easier. But surely there is more to the link between capitalism and humanitarianism than wealth creation. After all, there are plenty of things one can do with one's wealth other than contribute it to meeting the needs of others. Humanitarianism rests not just on wealth but on an ethos. And two aspects of the ethos of capitalism - materialism and individualism - are what make humanitarianism possible. Materialism is the belief that the quality of one's life on earth is important: that life should be more than a daily struggle to meet immediate needs. This is important, for if one does not believe that the material conditions of life are important, no value exists in meeting the material needs of others. The individuals who commandeered the aeroplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon did not think the material conditions of life mattered. Indeed, they did not think life itself mattered. They willingly brought death to themselves and thousands of others and suffering to tens of thousands for a non-material purpose. Indeed, their acts and the rhetoric of their leaders are not just non-material, but anti-material. They believe in tearing down. Capitalism, by contrast, is the ideology of building up; it is the best ethos for making our dreams and aspirations concrete that mankind has ever found. Indeed, Man Also Rises, the painting by Frank O'Connor, husband of novelist Ayn Rand, is a rendering of a skyscraper under construction. The symbolism behind our enemy's choice of targets is profound. So, of course, materialism is also necessary for wealth creation, which in turn makes humanitarian acts possible. But materialism as an ethic, as well as materialism in its substance, is a precondition for meeting the needs of others. The second ethic of capitalism that is necessary for humanitarianism is a belief in the individual. Individualism places value on the sin gle person apart from the value of the group. It requires rebuilding an individual's spirit. Humanitarianism is not the act of helping humanity in the collective - indeed, such an act is difficult to imagine. It is the act of helping to meet the needs of an individual or a number of individuals and thereby assisting humanity. This point is lost on the US's new mortal enemy. But it was also lost on that other mortal enemy: communism. Communists often speak of the needs of humanity. But this does not make them humanitarians, for they never care about the needs of a single individual. Indeed, it is communism's lack of caring for the individual that ultimately stopped communism from meeting material needs. As Margaret Chapman, founding president of the US-Russia Business Forum, wrote of the dying days of the Soviet Union: It is often said people are willing to die for their country but not to work for it. Unlike communism or nationalism, humanitarianism is not advanced by anyone's heroic death. Humanitarianism is never that easy. It requires hard work and sacrifice to improve the life of another individual. It requires being there day in and day out. Indeed, the ethic of communism or socialism works to undermine humanitarianism. If one is told that the state will care for the needs of the individual, individuals are absolved from the responsibility of caring for their fellows. The reality of this was brought home to me when I visited Romania in the early 1990s to adopt our daughter, Emily. What we think of as civic society had been destroyed in Romania by years of brutal Communist dictatorship. The elderly were starving in their apartments because they could not leave to get food and no one thought it their duty to help. A neighbour of one of the consulates
Re: in praise of gold
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David wrote: George wrote: 5) Gold makes women sleep with you. I don't know why they like it, but they do. They sleep with you because of your large cattle herd only they have accepted abstracted value and settle for gold or stocks... Not all women are golddiggers. I happen to think any woman who marries for money or sleeps around for gifts and dinners is worse than a whore. As the old saw goes, at least real prostitutes are honest about what they're doing. The only abstracted value I find really intriguing is the quality of a man's mind. Everything else is entirely beside the point. You have no idea how often I get hit on by so-called attractive men--and I'm quite proud to say I've never dated even one of them. I'd prefer a fat cranky old genius over a rich businessman or male model anyday! But if sleeping with golddiggers is good enough for you, to each his own. Though it must totally unsatisfying to know that your golddigger-du-jour will stop valuing you when your cash flow dries up. A shame you couldn't have found someone better instead. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/r/Yfg5Tuca7bfvEQK0YACfQ9sHcAg4LWiF2UWfgztFLMpyyy4AoOiH hAYHtV/KWh7590kzgWfnN0il =3Vyx -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: The Crypto Winter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Companies have been trying to convince the home computer user that they should be encrypting for years. Doesn't work. And for not very surprising reasons. Same thing seen in the home security business, backups, etc. (The average user doesn't make any backups. The average homeowner doesn't do any more to secure his house than what it came with. In other words, the defaults. ) Right. I suppose there's not much that can be done for people who expect security to be handed down to them from the sky on a silver platter. I'm sure it couldn't be more obvious to most here that if you don't put out the effort to take responsibility for your own security, you aren't going to have it--for your computer or anything else. But then, that sounds suspiciously resonant with if they're too lazy or stupid to get it, then screw em, doesn't it. I think the real flaw there--what keeps me so uncomforable with it (even though my gut tells me it's a logical conclusion)--is reflected in the sheer number of people I've seen change their minds once they found out a little more about how insecure they really are. Haven't you ever been in a discussion/argument/presentation about computer security with someone, and at some point you notice that moment when it finally registers, you know that it really penetrated something...and they must have that sickening queazy little feeling in the pit of their stomachs when they say: Oh my God, I had no idea. And at some point, haven't you all felt that sick, queasy shock of recognition yourselves? Maybe from something you read on John Young's site, or in response to being hacked? I certainly did--after that everything was different. It's a great feeling to have someone thank you for giving them the information they needed to wake up and do something to help themselves. The downside is you always risk coming across like a nutcase cyber-Cassandra, but you don't have to if you just let the raw facts do the convincing for you. More generally, I found it puzzling to see everyone getting hysterical over 911 when we're precisely no more and no less vulnerable than we ever were. I didn't learn a thing from it I hadn't already come to terms with on my own. (Having been abandoned as a child and homeless on your own at 17 tends to do an excellent job of ridding a person of any excess sense of security. Not that I'd recommend it...) So maybe for all the people who responded to the shock of 911 with I'd give up all my civil liberties to feel safe again there were enough who were jolted into taking responsibility for their own security to make a difference. Something to consider when thinking about the future of crypto, anyway. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/ltPfg5Tuca7bfvEQL/JwCfQQ52fwi89RCGrb09x7HQZLw3/t4AoKFN 5n8Eq5Nqn8kjDbFLGIonDTzT =ADtX -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: The Crypto Winter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eric wrote: I think the real flaw there--what keeps me so uncomforable with it (even though my gut tells me it's a logical conclusion)--is reflected in the sheer number of people I've seen change their minds once they found out a little more about how insecure they really are. We call these people hobbyists. The size of the hobbyist market will never be more than a fraction of the size of the appliance market. Interesting points, but it might have been useful if I had been more clear that the kind of people I end up affecting aren't granny and sis, rather people I know from work and classes: scientists, mathematicians, engineers, economists, larval policy analysts with any-of-the-above backgrounds. Not sheeple, just uninformed. Not really interested in computers for their own sake (part of what I think you mean by hobbyist), but as a tool to get their analytic work done. Whatever you want to call that, I certainly seem to have met plenty of them who were receptive to crypto, once presented with the right set of facts. Everyone who posts here must have their own stories of how they became passionate about encryption (or at least interested enough to think posting about it is a worthwhile way to pass time). If you remember back to whatever it was that made you take a stand, surely it's not too much of a stretch to figure out what to present to other like-minded people to interest them as well. There's no reason it has to be a waste of time, as Tim implied. If you have the slightest scrap of value for someone, telling them about their vulnerablities when they're completely blind to them is the only decent thing to do. If they don't feel like listening to you, of course they're on their own, but I wouldn't feel right saying nothing. Sometimes just e-mailing a link or two at the right time will do it: it costs me next to nothing and gets more people to use privacy tools and PGP, where's the downside. Give it a try, you might be surprised. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/nN5Pg5Tuca7bfvEQLoyACfYZBl0YF/dvMh9YoinMvyslyv8BkAn2W4 LG28NSGiL1R23cldZdFGnKJ8 =h0Sw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: The Crypto Winter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim wrote: C-A-C-L's would let people die from thirst before interfering in a 'free market'. Others would say screw the market and give that man a drink. I'd give that man a drink out of my last canteen--but I sure as hell wouldn't force anyone else to. ~F. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/nP/fg5Tuca7bfvEQIQPwCgwu5S+/DZHzE7ALAeIgdGWHWeAyUAoOCM gT/c1/jZ9LP12xypqhRZWq0v =NKxm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: The Crypto Winter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Faustine wrote: Tim wrote: Getting away fron digital cash for a moment, If you'd care to point me to any examples of crypto companies really focused and committed to developing applications that are commercially appealing to Joe Sixpack AOLuser, I'd be interested to hear about them. SSL/RSA built into every financial transaction with the common browsers. Visit Amazon, Ebay, etc., and note the secure connections. User-transpaperent, of course, but then, of course, this is precisely what a Joe Sixpack AOLuser [SIC] application _must_ be. You know as well as I do that the real push for improving transaction security is coming from commercial interests, not demand by the average user. Is it really such a stretch to say that most people in the crypto community don't really give a damn about Joe wants or needs? How many times have you heard people here implicitly echo the sentiment: If they're too lazy or stupid to get it, then screw em. Well, you are the one using the expression Joe Sixpack AOLuser. As for me, I'm a neo-Calvinist Nietzscheian. It is of little concern to me whether crypto is dumbed-down to the point where Mr. Rogers uses it. I'm a neo-Schopenhauerian Cynic-Stoic eudaimonist. Which is entirely beside the point that if you or I were trying to _make money_ selling crypto directly to average home users, we certainly ought to put some real effort into hiring people who know what average home users really want and are comfortable with. Even with a whole laundry list of reasons behind the recent troubles (i.e. failures) of ZKS and Network Associates, I don't think you ought to dismiss the intelligence divide problem out of hand. Maybe you can, but I think it's still worth considering. As usual, you just bullshit about things you obviously know little about. Do some serious reading, get up to speed. As usual, you round things off with an rallying cry of whippersnapper!!! No problem, I know the drill. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/gt9fg5Tuca7bfvEQJbOwCgyD72i0wrnrWNf6Z0BXMA40n6lQsAoLQs etKdxKENbexO7K4tWbO+ZifJ =XSKy -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: The Crypto Winter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 declan wrote: Not so with digital cash. It also suffers from deployment problems, of course, but far more substantial regulatory ones. You need two consenting users -- and a tie-in to the banking system (preferable) or at least some exchange of value (like e-gold) that's sufficiently trusted. Crypto may peeve the FBI, but widespread digital cash is far more alarming to governments, which will not permit true digital cash to be deployed in any popular way. One obvious way to limit its utility is to restrict its tie-ins with the banking system, or prohibit businesses within their borders from using it. That's the crypto winter. On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely do you think it is that these problems will be resolved in, say, the next decade? Where are the people most likely to make it happen? Fascinating stuff. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/gzVfg5Tuca7bfvEQK1DwCgyCw1QvZIjie9VIkgLmp00ge9YysAmwcf nqGR0VKxjIUA9rSRh47ggYeK =6Gcw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: The Crypto Winter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim wrote: I think this is the central key problem. To establish any medium of exchange, one faces an enormous critical mass problem, as the stupendous expenditures by paypal and its competitors demonstrate. Maybe once average people become fully comfortable with the idea of online banking and bill-paying services, they'll be more receptive. I think it might just be a question of widespread digital cash being few years ahead of its time. Also, I wouldn't rule out the intelligence divide as a factor here: if half the population has an IQ under 100, what are you doing to make your product accessible to people of average intelligence, and below? AOL is so popular for a reason: ease of use while providing services average people really care about (all that family, community and chat garbage, etc). So maybe it's worth putting a little effort into thinking of ways to AOLize (for lack of a better term) digital cash: a mass market reqires mass appeal. Something that's all-too-easy to forget, especially if you're the kind of person who got all excited over learning how to program BASIC in elementary school, the way most of us probably did. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/cGQPg5Tuca7bfvEQIBiQCdGIYRqJmHFiGK5rUARTN0J/m8qP8AoPnN fUGhS8oVvJayjy0zd4ADCwXE =zSwB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Monkeywrenching
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: I am no longer on the list. My Policeman Inside broke out. He won't let me be associated with silly salad talk, mission orientation, and Levi-Smithing. You need to build an inner jail for your inner policeman! But to make sure that he has due process, you need an inner internal affairs department to look into his complaints! Personally, I think you just need to buy your Inner Policeman an Inner Donut and calm down before charging off in a huff and leaving even less diversity of opinion around here. What was it you were saying about moderate voices on the list the other day? It's not as if anyone is likely to mistake your opinions for anyone else's. Oh well, to each his own. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/dIcfg5Tuca7bfvEQK7fACfa0uZPnt4vK4aPPZBuoEvLM9rkyMAoNJC BGIbgbumRjxcr+nEKxRcSaDQ =TiS9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Rigorous and objective (if at first...)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gil wrote: Faustine writes: Tim wrote: Besides the above points, a rigorous and objective analysis is work for bean counters...and is only interesting to other bean counters. So von Neumann, Kahn, Schelling and Nash are boring, huh. I'd rather follow their examples than spend year after year chitchatting on Usenet. Such an intelligent and creative man, what a waste. Then what the hell are you doing here, chitchatting on the list many critics have characterized as Tim's private cesspool? Good question. I guess it's just that I love to argue, and you could hardly ask for a better assortment of intelligent and colorful characters to mix it up with. I enjoy the back-and-forth; putting out documents people here might find useful and interesting--and most importantly, being able to give my unvarnished opinion without, well, worrying too much about being rigorous and objective. For instance, if anyone wants to tell someone here to go fuck themselves, they just come right out and tell them to go fuck themselves. How refreshing, positively theraputic! Expressing a little heartfelt hostility isn't always a bad thing...LOL Anyway, Usenet is an entirely different animal. Why anyone so intelligent would waste five minutes on that pack of pumpkin-headded God Bless Amerikuh drooling imbeciles is beyond me. It literally makes me want to puke just thinking about it--no wonder Tim always seems so dyspeptic. Yes, Tim. Come on. Faustine will be doing Important Rigorous and Objective Policy Analysis. Her work will have Real Impact. Members of Congress and the Administration will invite her to come give them briefings (at least those with sufficient clearance). Think whatever you please, it certainly suits me fine. She just doesn't want to show her hand yet. You know, all those paparazzi can be so annoying. And it's hard to get important Policy Analysis done when you're being pestered by all those lightweights in Congress. Actually Congress is chock full of lightweights. And all their ratty little undereducated staffers who soak up whatever lobbyists and their shoddy two-bit partisan guess tanks happen to be shilling for this week. I know plenty of quality analysts who loathe testifing before Congress--quite unlike the faceless horde of guess tank media whores scrambling for the spotlight. I'll say this much: getting pro-freedom policy analysts in positions where they don't have to scramble to be heard will be the real accomplishment. Not just knocking their heads against a brick wall as per usual. Besides: Gosh! Just think: we'll be able to say that we knew her when. No comment. LOL Infuriatingly yours, ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/Wkdvg5Tuca7bfvEQJwzACfdbfJz/Xlre/j5ddSBWBsx5ai7NcAnA99 MaOCrYYU4incdfh5jmVZOjXU =t3OS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Rigorous and objective (if at first...)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: The list has only 5% of the content it had in its glory years, 1992-95. And perhaps only 10% of its content in its declining years, 1996-98. It's now at about half the level of its senile years, 1999-2000. This past year has been the worst. There are many reasons for this decline, discussed as early as 1994. Any newbies who think this list is now interesting or exciting has my sympathy. Bah. One can regret having missed the glory days while still feeling like there's a good handful of people worth coming back for. Maybe the upcoming legislation will have the same effect as Clipper and cause the list to reach critical mass again. ~F. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/Xnpfg5Tuca7bfvEQIKUgCghn+7NxKfYPSU2i1JgcZ9Tn9UNWAAn1pO BrBAuzKp7XptKWc/c/8PybT/ =dHzw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Rigorous and objective
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Besides the above points, a rigorous and objective analysis is work for bean counters...and is only interesting to other bean counters. So von Neumann, Kahn, Schelling and Nash are boring, huh. I'd rather follow their examples than spend year after year chitchatting on Usenet. Such an intelligent and creative man, what a waste. What got the Cypherpunks rolling was not rigorous and objective analysis. Good point, but where did you ever hear me say analysis was enough? Faustine has gradstudentitus. She or he will likely get his or her Masters or maybe even Ph.D. and will then vanish into the bowels of the Office of Implementational Policy Assessment, commuting to work each morning on the Metro, hoping to advance to GS-13 level before age 40, and generally living a life of quiet desperation. But her or his analysis papers will be suitably dry and rigorous...and ignorable. For someone who claims not to know whether I'm a woman or not, your overactive imagination certainly got busy on the details. Unlike you, I'm not so easily trolled into showing my hand. So if whipping up some dreary banalities for me makes you feel better, go right ahead. Though you're so far off, it really is amusing. Speaking of straw men and your overactive imagination, did you ever find anything in the archives to support your rant about my interpretation of the first and second amendments? Just wondering. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/QgS/g5Tuca7bfvEQK2MwCePRanghjFPS4exLZq5GwNUW3bNa8AoJ/U C6HUw+/xF1O5fF5B7h9Z/1a0 =G0VA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Cypherpunks Rating System (ws,pms,fn,ic,tl,lh)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anon wrote: Topic categories, which follow the word topics: e Encryption apAnonymity/pseudonymity tcTechnical crypto cob Cypherpunk oriented businesses tpg Threats to privacy by government tpng Threats to privacy by business and NGOs gbguns/bombs btbooby traps ppPolitical parties pePolitical elections Uh, no thanks. Here are some categories I think you missed, though... tgp Threats to government by privacy cop Cypherpunk oriented pornography pi Political incorrectness btr bioterrorism sb stink bombs dm drug manufacture snstale news trtired repost ue underemployed rt retired rtd retarded ps poorly socialized cos chip on shoulder aha ad-hominem attack pms pre-menstrual syndrome tp testosterone poisioning ws whippersnapper of old fart fed federal agent law lawyer nit nitpicker (often redundant) cn clueless neophyte nk net kook tl troll ppb posted from parents basement ppd paranoid personality disorder ctcriminal tendencies cps clinical psychopathy fn flamboyant narcisssist mm megalomania ppv polymorphous perversity psipseudointellectual content ctconspiracy theory lhlame attempt at humor ic irrelevant chitchat ir incoherent rambling so showing off Hope that helps! ~F. apologies to all. ;) *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/Rywvg5Tuca7bfvEQLLHwCdFyz3dEuubU/hmlMXvcYBxWU7/kYAn3Yb bnXggUtFm2log6j2/9ErXbOb =vdvO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
re: Sedition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 08:42 PM, Faustine wrote: Why talk about it though? The sheer satisfaction of imagining feds and sheeple crapping their pants in fearful anticipation? Even if nothing happened at all, you have to realize unsympathetic people who aren't in on your peculiar brand of humor are going to take things like this at face value and hold it against you. You risk getting slapped around with the anti- paramilitary training statutes whether you're kidding or not. I'm not kidding. I was there from Friday morning to last night. Fine. I dont know why you seem to be missing my point: being provoked into incriminating yourself by an anonymous troll is an entirely different issue from discussing the substance of whatever it is you happen to be doing. I just happen to have this gut-level common sense belief that if people might be able to use something against any given person, it's counterproductive and potentially dangerous to broadcast it the way you always do. Having moral courage is one thing, playing straight into the hands of people who wish you ill is quite another. It's none of my business what you do, but I'll be damned if I don't have the right to say I think you're making a mistake by talking about it. As for getting slapped around, I presume you plan to back this up with something more than your intuition? It's not about intuition, just reading the news and putting two and two together. Everything I've seen about what's happening these days indicates that law enforcement will be looking for any excuse they can find to crack down on people they don't like. If they can keep people off planes for moronic reasons like reading Hayduke and Harry Potter, what else are they going to do with what's already on the books? It's probably just a bad case of pantscrapping paranoia, but I still think it's better to think a few steps ahead. (gratuitous ad hominem snipped) - From the Allegiance to the US section of the handbook on reasons for denying clearance: Gee, I haven't sought clearance. If you'll look at the archives, we had this conversation a few months ago. Nothing has changed. (snip) Unconstitutional nonsense. It sure is. That's why I think (and have always openly said, here and everywhere) we need more pro-freedom policy analysts in Washington. I've never misrepresented myself or what I think here, even when it goes against what passes for the conventional wisdom around here. So, Agent Faustine, report me. Agent Faustine? Are you totally out of your skull on crack? Use your reason: if I were with the FBI I never would have bothered. What a slap in the face. Do you always make false accusations to get out of an argument? I wish I'd had your report to distribute to the group on Friday night. Adding your name to the checklist of enemies would have been useful, Unreal. but at the time I didn't think you were quite as much of an enemy as the obvious names. Whatever warped interpretation you may have of me, I'm not your enemy. I'll bet whoever started this thread is laughing his head off about now. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/FyfPg5Tuca7bfvEQLcAACg4D20Vwa/yT/Lf0Ysv/U5RFCPSs8AoO7y Bj3tB4oekrjekb0ePLw0VGoX =Pkvp -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sedition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 11:20 AM, Faustine wrote: Fine. I dont know why you seem to be missing my point: being provoked into incriminating yourself by an anonymous troll is an entirely different issue from discussing the substance of whatever it is you happen to be doing. No, _you_ miss the point: that I was not incriminating myself in any way. I'll bet you all were running the risk of facing arbitrary enforcement of a whole slew of restrictions on firearms, explosives, etc. Talking about organized training in a public forum isn't going to make it any easier for you. You and your kind need to read up on Burroughs' The Policeman Inside. If we do not censor ourselves, others will do it for us. Cypherpunks should voluntarily restrict the topics they discuss. We should impose voluntary self-labeling of all posts, so that Congress will not. I must not think certain thoughts, and I must report others who do. Quite a nice little collection of straw men you have there. Too bad for you they have nothing to do with what I think. The archives speak for themselves; I doubt you can find one post where I said any of that claptrap. I just happen to have this gut-level common sense belief that if people might be able to use something against any given person, it's counterproductive and potentially dangerous to broadcast it the way you always do. Ah, weapons training by me and my friends is somehow counterproductive and dangerous? The fact that the First and Second Amendments protect such activities is counterproductive and dangerous to you? Absolutely not. I've made it crystal clear how I feel about gun ownership, the right to defend one's life and property, and the first and second amendments. I draw the line at initiating force though. What I find dangerous and counterproductive is your repeated escalation and provocation of law enforcement. Surely you knew by responding to the troll you'd be kicking it up yet another notch. What's the point? Aren't you in enough of a balance of terror already? I guess not. Please explain how my one paragraph summary of my weekend activities provided dangerous people with knowledge they didn't already have. The dangerous people I have in mind are all the pissed-off federal agents on the domestic terrorist jihad who are circling the wagons and looking for more rope to hang you with. I have no idea how much they knew about whatever you were doing, but it was the first time I ever saw you speak as if you're getting something in particular organized. That's the way it came across. How much of all this boils down to the fact that you profoundly relish playing high-stakes intimidation games and would love to be known far and wide as a force to be reckoned with? Just a thought. Your policeman inside has been getting way too loud. Stop listening to her or him. Bah, I just believe in taking personal responsibility for my statements and actions in a public forum. Show me where I ever said anything pro-censorship. Having moral courage is one thing, playing straight into the hands of people who wish you ill is quite another. It's none of my business what you do, but I'll be damned if I don't have the right to say I think you're making a mistake by talking about it. Your concern for me is touching, but it is inappropropriate. Some kind of chick thing, I guess. Nah, just a common human feeling called sympathy. Butt out. As you wish. Also, your comments were a lot more than concerns about me. You also implied that my exercise of my fundamental rights of free speech, free association, Second Amendment rights, etc. was somehow putting the list and its members at risk. No, just that due to your wee touch of megalomania, you didn't much mind when the troll was characterizing the entire group as having something rightfully to fear from the sedition laws because of support for encryption itself. That's not right. If you'll look at the archives, we had this conversation a few months ago. Nothing has changed. Why do you continue to waste our time, then? And since you have repeatedly urged that I simply filter you out, I say, Physician, heal thyself. What makes you think I want or need to filter you? Meanwhile, I'll continue to talk about what I think is important. All of you who are calling for restraint, for self-labeling, for installing new moderators...I suggest you either start a new mailing list or set up a CDR node implementing your policies on restraint, labeling, and niceness. Please direct your rant to the appropriate person(s) or anyone remotely connected to the above complaints. Thanks! ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies
Re: Sedition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 declan wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 02:20:28PM -0500, Faustine wrote: It sure is. That's why I think (and have always openly said, here and everywhere) we need more pro-freedom policy analysts in Washington. Of course, if you're a hardcore libertarian (abolish all unconstitutional federal agencies, and that's most of 'em! let's revert back to the firearms laws we had 150 years ago!), then you don't get listened to. Who says all libertarians are obliged to come on like a ton of bricks? There's no reason you can't keep your hardcore beliefs to yourself while doing the most rigorous and objective analysis you can. That's the one real difference between being just another partisan and a serious analyst who commands repsect, when you think of it. Earning a reputation for using only the highest standards and most rigorous methodology comes first, the way I see it. Your principles and priorities never change, but by not revealing them to people all at once, you're able to find your way into projects and situations where they can have a significant impact. That's the plan, anyway. Having more pro freedom policy analysts in Washington won't accomplish much until other things change too. Sadly enough, you're probably right. But isn't it about time somebody started trying? I think so. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/GpGvg5Tuca7bfvEQJ1XQCeJ3efzreFj4YxtvJZr85mv8gyOPoAnR8+ 7sbb9F8lmeMtKq8Lkc3E6Sw1 =XzAW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
