Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Steve Furlong wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 14:18, Steve Schear wrote: Did you carry and present ID? No. Once it was requested (strongly requested, just short of a demand with threats), but when I demanded his justification he backed down. In NY, at least at the time, citizens were not required to carry or present ID, nor identify themselves on demand without cause. I believe that is no longer the case. Correct. A client/friend recently spent 9 hours in jail for failure to carry a wallet. He was doing something mildly suspicious, but not illegal. NYC has a very entrenched industry dealing with processing people the cops pick up. This has only gotten worse since Bloomberg and his quality of life racket. Breathing Without ID is essentially a crime that costs a day of your life, not less than ~$200, and a lot of humiliation. I thought the San Francisco cops were bad, before I moved here. (My friend was even told by the cops what to expect, and how best to optimize for getting out quickly. Kafka would have trouble doing better.) There was a mildly publicized incident in another part of Brooklyn recently where someone was ticketed after their child's balloon popped in public. A noise infraction. Quality of live, indeed. There are no quotas, but if you don't meet them, you're on report. I'd prefer a good old fashioned Mafia protection scheme. At least that would be straightforward. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] It it ain't broke, let me have a shot at it.
Merry Nondenominational Cooking Event.
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:18:51 -0500, message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED] You said: : : I do care that the US fails to adhere to : : international law. implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international law. You also said; : : knocking over a crippled tyrant. implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair. These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not saying what you claimed you were saying. As the thread title says, I am anti war, you support Saddam. James, you are simply full of shit. I don't believe you're incapable of seeing the difference between calling Saddam a crippled tyrant and support[ing] Saddam. I do believe you're willfully attempting to twist other people's words, and not even doing a good job of it. A equals A reasoning is for high school. If you look at the words I typed, instead of your fantasy-land model of reality, you might notice that you're making a fool of yourself. I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs that would rationalize and justify such an action. I have no idea what you've said in other forums. I merely pointed out what you have said here. There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely pro Saddam, evidence in this mailing list, considerably stronger evidence in the newsgroups, evidence in the streets, and in the editorials of the BBC and the telegraph, and evidence in your own utterances. Let us discuss that. There is ample evidence that you fail to argue about what people have _actually said_, impute motive and behaviour where there is none, and point to a grand Ellsworth Toohey-ish conspiracy that needs to be fought, improbably enough, by a nation-state. Dean at least has a legitimate excuse to be unhappy about the capture of Saddam, since it queers his chances in the election, but there are an awful lot of other people distressed about the capture and coming execution of Saddam. What is your excuse? As I said, you're being boring. I suppose someone had to step up to the task of being the resident Choate. I have some cooking to do. Happy holidays, all! -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] A priest, a bear, and a programmer walked into a bar. And the bartender said, What is this, a joke?
Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald; You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Jamie Lawrence wrote: Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements. You were telling us that the USG's terrible mistreatment of Saddam is a great shame on the US, which whatever it sounds like to you, sounds to me very like poor little victimized Saddam I absolutely said no such thing. You are a liar. Please reference when I said anything about a poor little vicimized Saddam, Terrible mistreatment, or anything even similar. Fact is, you are full of shit. You are not only full of shit, but you are also attempting to further your statist goals by attacking people who might say that you are full of shit. No matter what I say, you will hear what you will hear. Which reaffirms my general conclusion, which is you're not interesting. And you still have not told us your take on the fall of the two towers -perhaps like Chomsky you are going to tell us that it was a great crime -- which Americans should be terribly ashamed for forcing Bin Laden to commit? Simple: the people who want to do things like knock over buildings, should die. That taxpayer funded operations should kill them is silly, for both the base reason and the effect. Getting back to what we were talking about, here's a bit that you didn't want to respond to: As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the ragheads (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse. As far as your babbling and frothing about how I and many others must be Saddam supporters, you're just not making any sense, intentionally ignoring what people say, and just generally acting like a fool. If you want to do something other than bat at strawmen and denounce the commies you keep seeing in your bedsheets, then please, begin to do so. Otherwise... Tim nailed it: you're just a statist who found a new god. Are you going to babble, or respond? Read out loud as: James Donald has failed to respond. Or perhaps, James Donald only reponds when he can score a point. Really, if you want to talk, then talk. Terrorism is stopped at home. (Synonyms abound. Freedom fighters have killed lots of counter-ensurgents.) If you would like to do anything more than promote war profits, then at least be a patriot. At least patriots were statists that were interesting. James: Give up before you really squander your goodwill. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: -- James A. Donald Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers. Jamie Lawrence: Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope. James A. Donald; You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements. Your repeated attempts to impute opinions to others that they don't actually hold, really, is pathetic and boring. As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the ragheads (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse. As far as your babbling and frothing about how I and many others must be Saddam supporters, you're just not making any sense, intentionally ignoring what people say, and just generally acting like a fool. If you want to do something other than bat at strawmen and denounce the commies you keep seeing in your bedsheets, then please, begin to do so. Otherwise... Tim nailed it: you're just a statist who found a new god. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] If it was so, it might be; and it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic. - Lewis Carrol
Merry Nondenominational Cooking Event.
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:18:51 -0500, message ID [EMAIL PROTECTED] You said: : : I do care that the US fails to adhere to : : international law. implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international law. You also said; : : knocking over a crippled tyrant. implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair. These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not saying what you claimed you were saying. As the thread title says, I am anti war, you support Saddam. James, you are simply full of shit. I don't believe you're incapable of seeing the difference between calling Saddam a crippled tyrant and support[ing] Saddam. I do believe you're willfully attempting to twist other people's words, and not even doing a good job of it. A equals A reasoning is for high school. If you look at the words I typed, instead of your fantasy-land model of reality, you might notice that you're making a fool of yourself. I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs that would rationalize and justify such an action. I have no idea what you've said in other forums. I merely pointed out what you have said here. There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely pro Saddam, evidence in this mailing list, considerably stronger evidence in the newsgroups, evidence in the streets, and in the editorials of the BBC and the telegraph, and evidence in your own utterances. Let us discuss that. There is ample evidence that you fail to argue about what people have _actually said_, impute motive and behaviour where there is none, and point to a grand Ellsworth Toohey-ish conspiracy that needs to be fought, improbably enough, by a nation-state. Dean at least has a legitimate excuse to be unhappy about the capture of Saddam, since it queers his chances in the election, but there are an awful lot of other people distressed about the capture and coming execution of Saddam. What is your excuse? As I said, you're being boring. I suppose someone had to step up to the task of being the resident Choate. I have some cooking to do. Happy holidays, all! -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] A priest, a bear, and a programmer walked into a bar. And the bartender said, What is this, a joke?
Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: -- James A. Donald Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers. Jamie Lawrence: Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope. James A. Donald; You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements. Your repeated attempts to impute opinions to others that they don't actually hold, really, is pathetic and boring. As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the ragheads (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse. As far as your babbling and frothing about how I and many others must be Saddam supporters, you're just not making any sense, intentionally ignoring what people say, and just generally acting like a fool. If you want to do something other than bat at strawmen and denounce the commies you keep seeing in your bedsheets, then please, begin to do so. Otherwise... Tim nailed it: you're just a statist who found a new god. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] If it was so, it might be; and it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic. - Lewis Carrol
Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald; You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Jamie Lawrence wrote: Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting to credit me with such statements. You were telling us that the USG's terrible mistreatment of Saddam is a great shame on the US, which whatever it sounds like to you, sounds to me very like poor little victimized Saddam I absolutely said no such thing. You are a liar. Please reference when I said anything about a poor little vicimized Saddam, Terrible mistreatment, or anything even similar. Fact is, you are full of shit. You are not only full of shit, but you are also attempting to further your statist goals by attacking people who might say that you are full of shit. No matter what I say, you will hear what you will hear. Which reaffirms my general conclusion, which is you're not interesting. And you still have not told us your take on the fall of the two towers -perhaps like Chomsky you are going to tell us that it was a great crime -- which Americans should be terribly ashamed for forcing Bin Laden to commit? Simple: the people who want to do things like knock over buildings, should die. That taxpayer funded operations should kill them is silly, for both the base reason and the effect. Getting back to what we were talking about, here's a bit that you didn't want to respond to: As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the '60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine about how if we don't kill all the ragheads (your words, not mine), we'll be enslaved or worse. As far as your babbling and frothing about how I and many others must be Saddam supporters, you're just not making any sense, intentionally ignoring what people say, and just generally acting like a fool. If you want to do something other than bat at strawmen and denounce the commies you keep seeing in your bedsheets, then please, begin to do so. Otherwise... Tim nailed it: you're just a statist who found a new god. Are you going to babble, or respond? Read out loud as: James Donald has failed to respond. Or perhaps, James Donald only reponds when he can score a point. Really, if you want to talk, then talk. Terrorism is stopped at home. (Synonyms abound. Freedom fighters have killed lots of counter-ensurgents.) If you would like to do anything more than promote war profits, then at least be a patriot. At least patriots were statists that were interesting. James: Give up before you really squander your goodwill. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Software protection scheme may boost new game sales
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Sunder wrote: Ok, so I finally bothered to read said article. I assumed that they had [..] a copy of a game from a friend, and it crashes on you all the time, would you think it's because the copy is bad, or because the software is as buggy as a Microsoft product? How is this different than shareware? For a while, and I think still, to some extent, annoying the user was considered marketing for app developers who were too small to get shelf space. At least in the Winows/Mac client markets. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: open WiFi defense to RIAA
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Major Variola (ret.) wrote: We also anticipate someone being sued for downloading a rip of a song they have a vinyl. Ie, that they have legal rights to own a more convenient copy of. RIAA has anticipated this ploy. The argument goes that one only has the right to rip one's own recordings; bits from other's recordings are not licensed. Not commenting on buggy whips, genies, bottles, or the law, -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. -Richard Dawkins
Re: open WiFi defense to RIAA
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Major Variola (ret.) wrote: We also anticipate someone being sued for downloading a rip of a song they have a vinyl. Ie, that they have legal rights to own a more convenient copy of. RIAA has anticipated this ploy. The argument goes that one only has the right to rip one's own recordings; bits from other's recordings are not licensed. Not commenting on buggy whips, genies, bottles, or the law, -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. -Richard Dawkins
Someone at the Pentagon read Shockwave Rider over the weekend
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=514e=6u=/ap/20030729/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_market_10 WASHINGTON - The Pentagon (news - web sites) is setting up a stock-market style system in which investors would bet on terror attacks, assassinations and other events in the Middle East. Defense officials hope to gain intelligence and useful predictions while investors who guessed right would win profits. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] The strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. - Judge Stewart Dalzell
Re: [Brinworld] Car's data recorder convicts driver
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Steve Schear wrote: Indeed 'privacy' and 'secrecy' are often confused and their meanings overlap in many a mind. I think that most, at least in the West, accept that privacy ..is based on rules and trust, for example, records kept on us by our doctors. Because exposure of various aspects of our private lives can do lasting damage, privacy is only effective when controlled by the party seeking it, who may disclose it or not as they see fit and can only be guaranteed when those who would sell you out don't possess the possibly damaging information. For that reason among others, I am really only interested in privacy mediated by personal secrecy and technologies I trust and/or control. I agree with you. Being anonymous is very important here. Privacy is something alluded to by the famous Gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's mail. Secrecy is what other people cannot find out. Anonymity (strong or not) is vastly important to secrecy. Medical data is a great example of this. It may be private, for some (weak) values of private, right now. Being John Doe at the doctor's office and paying cash, though, is vastly better in terms of assurance, at least until the doctor's business-cam interfaces with other databases. Too bad that works so poorly with insurance, but then worker insurance in the US is nearly a government program, anyway. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head.
Re: An attack on paypal -- secure UI for browsers
to be another cost. I'll have to have a real MS box on hand again, and the problem will be how it worms in to other parts of the business, diverting me from my favored platform. You can say you're not forced to use it. You're also not forced to do anything but swear at other people in public. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] In my little way, I'm sneakily helping people understand a bit more about the sort of people God likes. - Larry Wall.
Re: CDR: Re: Maybe It's Snake Oil All the Way Down
On Fri, 06 Jun 2003, James A. Donald wrote: Suppose the e-gold, to prevent this sea of spam trying to get people to login to fake e-gold sites, wanted people to use public keys instead of shared secrets, making your secret key the instrument that controls the account instead of your shared password. Why does e-gold have any interest in what people do on other sites? HTTPS assumes that the certificate shall be blessed by the administrator out of band, and has no mechanism for using a private key to establish that a user is simply the same user as last time. Yes. There's a virtue there. Knowing a secure channel exists is frequently more important than who is on the other line. For example, What's my favorite brand of lighter? You live in a Bob's cold, dark cave, where you hate life. Insert water dripping and scabs until you're amused. You have the chance to contact, and maybe move to, Alice's bright, warm cave. Sounds good to you. How to authenticate the offer? Replay various notions of various fiction writers, here. The problem is interesting. Solved, but interesting. Very few folks have reason to help you authenticate them. Deal. Even if people don't understand what https (and ssl) do, they still serve a purpose. Even if it isn't the one you wanted solved. And if there were a problem worth solving, would it be unsolved? I'll refrain from asking how many people use digsigs, and what that solves. Only because that's rude. None of this solves life for average banking customers, but I think this is something that they are willing to ignore. Most people seem to trust one another. What do you do? -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] The sign that points to Boston doesn't have to go there. - Max Scheler
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
Is it jammed world wide? You're in COW too. Any one from .nl or .de
or .fr who can pick it up still?
Still, www.aljazeerah.info is still accessible if you're feeling
so inclined. Odd though that the Arabic side is down but this one
stays up, if they're aiming for propaganda in their own countries,
mostly English speaking but not much Arabic speaking. Unless they
fear some kind of Arab community backlash from the images ?
I don't believe this is the same site. If the navigation bar weren't
enough to clue you in, perhaps the copyright statement would be:
2002-2003 Copyright \x{00A9} aljazeerah.info aljazeerah.us. All Rights Reserved.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aljazeerah Information Center, P. O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30720, USA
-j
--
Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we're going to be warned about terrorism, can't we be warned
by someone who makes us want to survive?
- Jon Stuart
Re: CDR: Re: aljazeera.net hacked again?
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote: This really is infowar, and I suspect the US government is the hacker. I entirely forgot about another, already-existing, infrastructure: P2P networks! Freenet, Gnutella, Kazaa, WinMX, lots and lots of napsteroids. Get the files - images, webpages, whatever you have, package them into suitably-sized files (if the size is too big, split the files to Basic and [...] Yeah, Cool, etc. But, who cares? Aljazra, at least, people tend to believe. (not saying folks shouldn't. Just think.) Orbit-by-shootings aren't really that interesting. Way too much to falsify. Any other images? any Photoshop-pro can handle that. So... what are you showing me and mine? Yes, I think distribution on Freenet and other tools are a good idea. But who cares? This isn't rhetorical. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] The sign that points to Boston doesn't have to go there. - Max Scheler
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
Is it jammed world wide? You're in COW too. Any one from .nl or .de
or .fr who can pick it up still?
Still, www.aljazeerah.info is still accessible if you're feeling
so inclined. Odd though that the Arabic side is down but this one
stays up, if they're aiming for propaganda in their own countries,
mostly English speaking but not much Arabic speaking. Unless they
fear some kind of Arab community backlash from the images ?
I don't believe this is the same site. If the navigation bar weren't
enough to clue you in, perhaps the copyright statement would be:
2002-2003 Copyright \x{00A9} aljazeerah.info aljazeerah.us. All Rights Reserved.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aljazeerah Information Center, P. O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30720, USA
-j
--
Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we're going to be warned about terrorism, can't we be warned
by someone who makes us want to survive?
- Jon Stuart
Re: CDR: Re: aljazeera.net hacked again?
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote: This really is infowar, and I suspect the US government is the hacker. I entirely forgot about another, already-existing, infrastructure: P2P networks! Freenet, Gnutella, Kazaa, WinMX, lots and lots of napsteroids. Get the files - images, webpages, whatever you have, package them into suitably-sized files (if the size is too big, split the files to Basic and [...] Yeah, Cool, etc. But, who cares? Aljazra, at least, people tend to believe. (not saying folks shouldn't. Just think.) Orbit-by-shootings aren't really that interesting. Way too much to falsify. Any other images? any Photoshop-pro can handle that. So... what are you showing me and mine? Yes, I think distribution on Freenet and other tools are a good idea. But who cares? This isn't rhetorical. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] The sign that points to Boston doesn't have to go there. - Max Scheler
Re: The spam problem (was: re:fwd:re:cdr:etc.)
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: Unless MTAs can reject mail for lack of postage, this approach will not fix a large majority of the problems of spam. Unless clearing is built into the protocol, sender pays is a non-starter. I agree that there are lots of good reasons for sender-pays to be built into the MTA, but for users on broadband connections (like myself) I don't really care that the amount of email bandwidth may increase a bit if I don't see the spam. In the U.S. this amount to about 15% of the user base. Not a bad initial tareget. This seems to be the root of the disconnect. We're trying to solve different problems. I'm enjoying a mostly spam free mailbox right now, thanks to various procmail rules and spamassassin. I'm extremely annoyed that I'm spending real money for spammers to send me traffic that I'm going to toss. It may be a difference in outlook, I'm running a business that requires connectivity. What I was attempting to point out is that adding wealth transfer is not adding any value over request-to-transmit. Sure it does once the stamps have real value and I get to keep them if I don't like the message. If your goal is to stop spam, keeping a penny after allowing transit is not significantly different than any other method of allowing transit. Plug-ins for both Outlook and Eudora plug-in would go a long way toward a solution. M$ and IBM are both looking into real value stamps as a solution. Yes. Involving central servers to collect postage, at least in one case. Which is precisely the scenario I have a big problem with, cf. atrificial scarcity. (I have no idea what IBM is up to. Maybe they're more reasonable, but I doubt it.) Requiring a Passport(tm) account to telnet to port 25 is not my idea of good communication technology. CC aren't a solution. What I want is - a Eudora plugin to check for hashcash stamps, send bounce messages, auto generate my hashcash stamps, and help create and maintain my white list. - a web site which offers a hashcash stamp generator applet and simple instructions for Not what I was offering. I'll write you a front end website tool where people can pay you to accept mail, and a backend filter to verify that you are only accepting mail from people who have payed you or are whitelisted. Vendors need to write software for thier own products. If you are unwilling to run the software, I can't help that. (Never mind the fact that generating stamps would become a sales oppurtunity in that world. Machines are cheap - why wouldn't someone sell cycles to the same folks that bug you during dinner? Sure, 419 and Make.Viagra.Faster might go away, only to be replaced by legitimate MCI and loan-against-your-home spam.) Procmail and a CGI would allow this. I don't run a mail server. As I said, we appear to be attacking different problems. Procmail does not require a mail server, and our theoretical commerce-for-mail tool is web based. If you don't like procmail, there are many other incoming filters you can use until a protocol that limits abusive email emerges. I'll even write the code for you, if you'll promise to use it on all of your mail. Write the above code and I will. I absolutely will, if we can agree on the problem space. Let me know what language you prefer. Java Ick. -j, who maybe gets a little excited about email because I've writing email software for too long. Help get the Camram code working. I like some of the features of camram, but it is fundamentally flawed. (hashcash is neat, but nobody will use it.) steve I think we're reinventing the same goal failure we both saw on ASRG. I'm going to give this up, unless something interesting happens. I'll still write you the code, if we can agree on what the goal is. But I'm not sure this is a worthwhile discussion. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] The sign that points to Boston doesn't have to go there. - Max Scheler
Re: CDR: Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: 1. What makes these lies as you claim commie? Do you think that by impugning US policy in the region we are by implication stating that the forced exit of the Soviets was bad? Quite saying commie all the time. All the commies are dead, except for 1 in Cuba and a couple of really old guys in rural China. Hey, what do you guys want? Not only are we not very useful, but, hell, I don't think we've been *communist* since at least the first attempt around at asian nations. Oh, wait. Commie means not like me. 2. You knowledge of history is as shoddy as your ability to spot communists and their lies. The CIA actively recruited and trained Isalmic religious students and helped build and arm the Taliban. And frankly, despite the fact I've never been a supporter of US foreign policy, I was all for it. The Taliban SEEMED at the time to represent a clear moral force that alone had the power to unify Afghanistan and bring an end to the Chaos. WHat exactly went wrong I have never fully understood, though I DO know that had I been Afghani, and had I seen a foreign Talib slapping around an Afghan woman, I would have done my best to off the punk. ANd Mullah Omar doesn't seem to have been all there on some levels... Mr. Powell, please meet Mr. Durden. Mr. Durden.. oh, hell he isn't European, is he? He is? Fuck it. Kill him anyway. I'm bored. Is there any cake around? -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. - Thomas Jefferson
Re: CDR: Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: 1. What makes these lies as you claim commie? Do you think that by impugning US policy in the region we are by implication stating that the forced exit of the Soviets was bad? Quite saying commie all the time. All the commies are dead, except for 1 in Cuba and a couple of really old guys in rural China. Hey, what do you guys want? Not only are we not very useful, but, hell, I don't think we've been *communist* since at least the first attempt around at asian nations. Oh, wait. Commie means not like me. 2. You knowledge of history is as shoddy as your ability to spot communists and their lies. The CIA actively recruited and trained Isalmic religious students and helped build and arm the Taliban. And frankly, despite the fact I've never been a supporter of US foreign policy, I was all for it. The Taliban SEEMED at the time to represent a clear moral force that alone had the power to unify Afghanistan and bring an end to the Chaos. WHat exactly went wrong I have never fully understood, though I DO know that had I been Afghani, and had I seen a foreign Talib slapping around an Afghan woman, I would have done my best to off the punk. ANd Mullah Omar doesn't seem to have been all there on some levels... Mr. Powell, please meet Mr. Durden. Mr. Durden.. oh, hell he isn't European, is he? He is? Fuck it. Kill him anyway. I'm bored. Is there any cake around? -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. - Thomas Jefferson
The spam problem (was: re:fwd:re:cdr:etc.)
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: What part of the infrastructure is being made scarce? You and I aren't part of the infrastructure. The selection of a value for our time is just another market force at work. Unless MTAs can reject mail for lack of postage, this approach will not fix a large majority of the problems of spam. Unless clearing is built into the protocol, sender pays is a non-starter. But its not cash for email transport. The transport cost is unaffected. Its cash for our eyeballs. I find this a distinction WITH a difference. Perhaps you do not. OK, I see you have a different view from many of the ASRG types. I still don't believe the approach will work, but I'll stop attributing to you views of others. Sorry. This is no different than the various request-permission-to-transmit proposals, aside from adding cost to the mix. Doing so will cut down on normal person to person discourse before it fixes spam. Yes, some Balkination may occur at the outset, but this is something that is recipient controlled not something mandated by ISPsm etc. What I was attempting to point out is that adding wealth transfer is not adding any value over request-to-transmit. The IETF anti-spam discussion seems to have broken down into a different religious camps, with many asserting that nothing that can't immediately be rolled out on a universal basis or isn't fully functional until universally accepted should even proposed. I disagree. Yeah, I agree in general. The list is a waste. I personally think the only way there is going to be movement is for Venema or (more likely) DJB to add an optional new protocol that incrementally moves us towards a Bright, Shiny Future. (As an aside that I haven't bothered to voice on ASRG because I think it is pointless, I'd like to see signed headers. MTAs can choose to validate the path. This does nothing directly to stop spam, does nothing to harm anonymous communications, is backwards-compatible, and reinforces black-holes. Building reputations as a mail server has value. AOL won't do it, but Joe-Random-Small-Business will, so incremental uptake can work. I tend to agree with you that the right approach is to _add_ something to mail to assert it is worthwhile to view. Email, like mugging, can be an opportunistic behavior.) Sender pays can be rolled out using PoW stamps almost immediately. Yes, some early adopters may find themselves cut off from senders who either can't or won't make the effort to create and attach computation stamps. For this reason sender-pays should be serious considered by most businesses until widely adopted. But for individuals inundated with spam it could be a quick and effective solution. Of course, the question they will ask when the spam stops is how many others aren't sending email cause they think I'm fringe. :) steve Unless and until Outlook supports wealth transfer for mail this will never happen. Unless and until MS profits from fixing the problem, Outlook will never support the notion. (and if MS does support it, mutt and evolution won't, because that's M$ hegemony. etc.) Sender-pays won't fly. Put another way, you could deny unstamped mail from me if you wanted, with a bounce asking me to enter a credit card at the web page of your choice. Why are you not doing so? Procmail and a CGI would allow this. I'll even write the code for you, if you'll promise to use it on all of your mail. Let me know what language you prefer. -j, who maybe gets a little excited about email because I've writing email software for too long. -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Re: The spam problem (was: re:fwd:re:cdr:etc.)
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: Unless MTAs can reject mail for lack of postage, this approach will not fix a large majority of the problems of spam. Unless clearing is built into the protocol, sender pays is a non-starter. I agree that there are lots of good reasons for sender-pays to be built into the MTA, but for users on broadband connections (like myself) I don't really care that the amount of email bandwidth may increase a bit if I don't see the spam. In the U.S. this amount to about 15% of the user base. Not a bad initial tareget. This seems to be the root of the disconnect. We're trying to solve different problems. I'm enjoying a mostly spam free mailbox right now, thanks to various procmail rules and spamassassin. I'm extremely annoyed that I'm spending real money for spammers to send me traffic that I'm going to toss. It may be a difference in outlook, I'm running a business that requires connectivity. What I was attempting to point out is that adding wealth transfer is not adding any value over request-to-transmit. Sure it does once the stamps have real value and I get to keep them if I don't like the message. If your goal is to stop spam, keeping a penny after allowing transit is not significantly different than any other method of allowing transit. Plug-ins for both Outlook and Eudora plug-in would go a long way toward a solution. M$ and IBM are both looking into real value stamps as a solution. Yes. Involving central servers to collect postage, at least in one case. Which is precisely the scenario I have a big problem with, cf. atrificial scarcity. (I have no idea what IBM is up to. Maybe they're more reasonable, but I doubt it.) Requiring a Passport(tm) account to telnet to port 25 is not my idea of good communication technology. CC aren't a solution. What I want is - a Eudora plugin to check for hashcash stamps, send bounce messages, auto generate my hashcash stamps, and help create and maintain my white list. - a web site which offers a hashcash stamp generator applet and simple instructions for Not what I was offering. I'll write you a front end website tool where people can pay you to accept mail, and a backend filter to verify that you are only accepting mail from people who have payed you or are whitelisted. Vendors need to write software for thier own products. If you are unwilling to run the software, I can't help that. (Never mind the fact that generating stamps would become a sales oppurtunity in that world. Machines are cheap - why wouldn't someone sell cycles to the same folks that bug you during dinner? Sure, 419 and Make.Viagra.Faster might go away, only to be replaced by legitimate MCI and loan-against-your-home spam.) Procmail and a CGI would allow this. I don't run a mail server. As I said, we appear to be attacking different problems. Procmail does not require a mail server, and our theoretical commerce-for-mail tool is web based. If you don't like procmail, there are many other incoming filters you can use until a protocol that limits abusive email emerges. I'll even write the code for you, if you'll promise to use it on all of your mail. Write the above code and I will. I absolutely will, if we can agree on the problem space. Let me know what language you prefer. Java Ick. -j, who maybe gets a little excited about email because I've writing email software for too long. Help get the Camram code working. I like some of the features of camram, but it is fundamentally flawed. (hashcash is neat, but nobody will use it.) steve I think we're reinventing the same goal failure we both saw on ASRG. I'm going to give this up, unless something interesting happens. I'll still write you the code, if we can agree on what the goal is. But I'm not sure this is a worthwhile discussion. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] The sign that points to Boston doesn't have to go there. - Max Scheler
Re: CDR: Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, James A. Donald wrote: Commie is an explanation for the fact that hostile lies about US allies who fought communists are usually accompanied by favorable lies about the Soviet Union and its servants. --digsig James A. Donald That's an interesting private definition. I'm glad you've finally voiced one. Now, for instance, I no longer have to waste precious cycles thinking that you just use the term for anyone who fails to have an absurd hatred for outspoken professors of language*. -j *The aforementioned statement should not be taken to presume the author has any love for outspoken linguists. -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. -Richard Dawkins
Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not That doesn't follow at all. I consider my limited time very valuble. I simply believe creating an artificial scarcity at the infrastructure level a bad way to address spam. the transport costs sender-pays is trying to price its our time. Sender-pays is trying to enable email recipients to establish a price for their eyeballs and attention. Advertisers do all the time. Cash exchange for mail transport will simply create a new profit center for ISPs. This is no different than the various request-permission-to-transmit proposals, aside from adding cost to the mix. Doing so will cut down on normal person to person discourse before it fixes spam. Presupposing micropayments for a new net.service has been a nonstarter for years, and I fully expect it to continue to be so. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Strangers have the best candy.
Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, James A. Donald wrote: The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent Which in the real world will never happen. Sender-pays, if deployed, will end up being something like MS's Penny Black, where a third party collects a tax to allow sending mail. Those of us who don't care for such things will continue running MTAs that ignore the sillyness, and drop 456 - send more postage messages on the floor. out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list would be accompanied by payment, which would be something considerably less than a cent, which would yield a profit to the mailing list operators. Using our pre-existing, wildly popular micropayment infrastructure, no doubt? Signing messages and skipping the cash redistribution solves the problem without presupposing nonexistent clearing mechanisms. (Demanding message signing creates a different class of problems, of course.) -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, James A. Donald wrote: The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent Which in the real world will never happen. Sender-pays, if deployed, will end up being something like MS's Penny Black, where a third party collects a tax to allow sending mail. Those of us who don't care for such things will continue running MTAs that ignore the sillyness, and drop 456 - send more postage messages on the floor. out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list would be accompanied by payment, which would be something considerably less than a cent, which would yield a profit to the mailing list operators. Using our pre-existing, wildly popular micropayment infrastructure, no doubt? Signing messages and skipping the cash redistribution solves the problem without presupposing nonexistent clearing mechanisms. (Demanding message signing creates a different class of problems, of course.) -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDR: Re: I for one am glad that...
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote: The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future resolutions. The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of previous UN resolutions in 1441. The UN weapons inspector's reports detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to fully cooperate with inspectors. Perhaps you should actually read the documents you reference. The legal arguments the Bush Regime are floating this week are contradicted by statements they've floated in getting the resolution passed. Of course this is to be expected, and they'll have a new batch of fatuous bullshit next week. They fact that you're buying the flavor of the month is amusing, though. Try starting at http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm, and following the references. Colin Powell summarized things best last September. From yesterday's NYT ( http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/international/middleeast/17RECO.html ): France was advocating that a first resolution at the United Nations Security Council, demanding that Iraq promptly disclose its weapons and disarm, must be followed by a second resolution authorizing war if Iraq refused. 'Be sure about one thing,' Mr. Powell told Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister. 'Don't vote for the first, unless you are prepared to vote for the second.' So, I assume you're basing you're views on the New, Improved Powell, not that silly, confused one that spoke pushed the resolution last time around, right? What will you agree with next week? This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. (1) Please explain how a preemptive war against a country under more scrutiny than any other which has utterly failed to make any meaningful threat in the last 10 years is defensive? As others have pointed out, N. Korea is entirely justified in bombing DC under the Bush Doctrine. Please, compare and contrast. (2) Please explain exactly what moral system (which you apparently subscribe to) which states that if 7 out of ten say something, it is a morally correct action? (3) I'm not going to bother with excuses for use of unconventional warfare. The lack of objective difference between freedom fighter and terrorist, the long history of US meddling, and the obvious reasons for this war (Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, personal vandetta) are obviously no match for your inciteful jingoism and moral mandate to inflict peace and freedom on others at gunpoint. For a view into the crystal ball, though, you might peruse opinions from our close allies about our Clear Mandate: Analysis / The U.S. is almost alone in its war on Iraq http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=274223displayTypeCd=1sideCd=1contrassID=2 Think about what it means when international markets switch to the Euro. But this is all pragmatic reasoning, surely nothing you're interested in. Have a fun war. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits. - Chris Klein
Re: CDR: Re: I for one am glad that...
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote: The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future resolutions. The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of previous UN resolutions in 1441. The UN weapons inspector's reports detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to fully cooperate with inspectors. Perhaps you should actually read the documents you reference. The legal arguments the Bush Regime are floating this week are contradicted by statements they've floated in getting the resolution passed. Of course this is to be expected, and they'll have a new batch of fatuous bullshit next week. They fact that you're buying the flavor of the month is amusing, though. Try starting at http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm, and following the references. Colin Powell summarized things best last September. From yesterday's NYT ( http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/international/middleeast/17RECO.html ): France was advocating that a first resolution at the United Nations Security Council, demanding that Iraq promptly disclose its weapons and disarm, must be followed by a second resolution authorizing war if Iraq refused. 'Be sure about one thing,' Mr. Powell told Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister. 'Don't vote for the first, unless you are prepared to vote for the second.' So, I assume you're basing you're views on the New, Improved Powell, not that silly, confused one that spoke pushed the resolution last time around, right? What will you agree with next week? This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. (1) Please explain how a preemptive war against a country under more scrutiny than any other which has utterly failed to make any meaningful threat in the last 10 years is defensive? As others have pointed out, N. Korea is entirely justified in bombing DC under the Bush Doctrine. Please, compare and contrast. (2) Please explain exactly what moral system (which you apparently subscribe to) which states that if 7 out of ten say something, it is a morally correct action? (3) I'm not going to bother with excuses for use of unconventional warfare. The lack of objective difference between freedom fighter and terrorist, the long history of US meddling, and the obvious reasons for this war (Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, personal vandetta) are obviously no match for your inciteful jingoism and moral mandate to inflict peace and freedom on others at gunpoint. For a view into the crystal ball, though, you might peruse opinions from our close allies about our Clear Mandate: Analysis / The U.S. is almost alone in its war on Iraq http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=274223displayTypeCd=1sideCd=1contrassID=2 Think about what it means when international markets switch to the Euro. But this is all pragmatic reasoning, surely nothing you're interested in. Have a fun war. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits. - Chris Klein
Re: CDR: Re: CAPPS II protest - Vandalizing collaborating airlines
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: At 08:49 PM 03/03/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: [...] I wonder. Is there some form of petty vandalism that can be performed by a Delta passenger that would make his flight MUCH less than profitable for Delta? (I mean, one that probably won't get you arrested...) [...] Vandalism is wrong. (Oh, wait, are you the Fed? :-) Education isn't. Anyone want to pay some random schmuck to rant at the SFO free speech stations? I never listened when I lived there, but usually there was someone standing in front of the ranter, trying to get away. It would be amusing, at least. And I'm sure there's an out of work dotcommunist or two left who would fight The Man for $50 a day or so, at the cost of their immortal FBI record. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wealth governs this country, and wealth uses military violence to control the rest of the world the best it can. And we're responsible. And we will pay the price for it. - former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark
Re: CDR: Re: M Stands for Moron? You gotta be kidding...
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: There's a theory that the standard pictures of space aliens have a strong resemblence to what a half-awake human sees when there's a six-month-old kitten staring you in the face from a few inches closer than your eyes' normal focal lengths... Oh. That's a good theory. It ties in well with a (completely insane, but otherwise very good) friend we have. He insists the cat has sampled his flesh, perhaps in order to capture DNA, and has appeared to him hundreds of miles away. I keep insisting some combination of dreaming after visiting and perhaps the stress of his job are responsible. He keeps insisting cats are alien. I see a nice middle-ground developing, if only I can bring him around. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] God created the integers, all else is the work of man. - Kronecker
Re: CDR: Re: M Stands for Moron? You gotta be kidding...
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: There's a theory that the standard pictures of space aliens have a strong resemblence to what a half-awake human sees when there's a six-month-old kitten staring you in the face from a few inches closer than your eyes' normal focal lengths... Oh. That's a good theory. It ties in well with a (completely insane, but otherwise very good) friend we have. He insists the cat has sampled his flesh, perhaps in order to capture DNA, and has appeared to him hundreds of miles away. I keep insisting some combination of dreaming after visiting and perhaps the stress of his job are responsible. He keeps insisting cats are alien. I see a nice middle-ground developing, if only I can bring him around. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] God created the integers, all else is the work of man. - Kronecker
Re: CDR: Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Bill Frantz wrote: I have had one case where taking the train was a big win over driving. I was consulting in San Francisco, about 60 miles from my home. I found that if I rode the train, I could work as I rode, and turn my travel time into billable hours. I also avoided the ruinous parking charges in downtown. Given those facts, I would have taken the train even if the ticket price hadn't been subsidized. I lived in San Francisco for 10 years. One job I had required me to have a car so I could get to a data center in San Jose in cases of emergency (never happened), so I bought a cheap beater. Spent $1000 on the car, $400 a year on insurance, and about $3000/yr on parking and parking tickets. It was eventually stolen, and I was incredibly happy when it was. BART is actually not bad - one can work on the ride. MUNI is miserable, but it usually works, at least. I live in Brooklyn now, and feel the same way. Public transport is the worst way to travel, except for all those others, in dense urban areas. Renting a car when I need one, or flagging a cab, is so much cheaper and less bother, I'm still astounded when people I know continue to keep a car and bitch about it endlessly. (And I don't take jobs involving server manangement anymore.) -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits. - Chris Klein
Re: CDR: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: The 2-4 year payback cycle in the electronics industry, from roughly 1955 to the present, was terribly important. Each generation of technology paid for the next generation, and costly mistakes resulted in companies ceasing to exist (Shockley Transistor, Rheem, Precision Monolithics, and so on...the list is long). Successful products led to the genes (or memes) propagating. Phenotypes and genotypes. This same model gave us, basically, the commercial automobile and aviation industries. I agree completely with what you're saying, and I'm not sure that Eugene would agree with what I'm writing here. One of the problems I think is rampant with, for instance, getting alternate fuel sources off the ground is that government subsidies are ensuring they don't happen by distorting the market for fossil fuels. Ethically, the entire situation is absurd. Realistically, if someone actually wants to try to build say, a hydrogen powered car, government interference in your business is a fact of life, and looking for angles to Make It Work are the only way to attempt to compete. There are a metric assload of good ideas that have been killed by government interference in markets. I know this is part of what you were saying. This is important to call out. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
Re: CDR: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: The 2-4 year payback cycle in the electronics industry, from roughly 1955 to the present, was terribly important. Each generation of technology paid for the next generation, and costly mistakes resulted in companies ceasing to exist (Shockley Transistor, Rheem, Precision Monolithics, and so on...the list is long). Successful products led to the genes (or memes) propagating. Phenotypes and genotypes. This same model gave us, basically, the commercial automobile and aviation industries. I agree completely with what you're saying, and I'm not sure that Eugene would agree with what I'm writing here. One of the problems I think is rampant with, for instance, getting alternate fuel sources off the ground is that government subsidies are ensuring they don't happen by distorting the market for fossil fuels. Ethically, the entire situation is absurd. Realistically, if someone actually wants to try to build say, a hydrogen powered car, government interference in your business is a fact of life, and looking for angles to Make It Work are the only way to attempt to compete. There are a metric assload of good ideas that have been killed by government interference in markets. I know this is part of what you were saying. This is important to call out. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
Re: CDR: Re: [IP] Dan Gillmor: Accessing a whole new world via multimedia phones (fwd)
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Steve Furlong wrote: Jim Choate, in a display of bad judgement and ill temper never before seen on the internet, spewed forth the following blood-libel: Goodness, that's strange. I'm not sure I agree with Odlyzko's point about connectivity vs content. But your prior statement, Bullshit, if there isn't content why do they want connectivity? What is it they are connecting to?, misses the distinction between the two. Well, if we assumed people could talk to each other through a store-and-forward medium, lord knows there would have to be a content provider. Otherwise, it would never get off the ground. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it. - George W. Bush
Re: CDR: Re: Build It Rolling Your Own Tivo (fwd)
On Sat, 07 Dec 2002, Jim Choate wrote: No, actually, for those of us who live in the real world, it isn't as important as you make it out to be. Uh huh... No comment needed. -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] They [RIAA,MPAA] are trying to invent a new crime: interference with a business model. - Bruce Schneier
Re: Build It Rolling Your Own Tivo (fwd)
On Sat, 07 Dec 2002, Lucky Green wrote: It never ceases to amaze me that there are subscribers to this list that don't have Choate filtered. This must be some weird list to read without a Choate procmail filter... Yes, my mistake. I've seen Choate devolve from a strange actor to a net.loon, and I should have known better. I thought an off-list hint might help, and that was my mistake. I promise never again to venture into Choate Prime. And yes, Jim goes back in the spam filter. --Lucky, who probably should go back to filtering on Choate in the body text of emails, not just in the headers. I didn't even need to see that email. Probably for the best. I'm going to sleep now. -j, who shouldn't revisit past choices on spam filters. -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crack don't smoke itself. -Traditional
Re: CDR: Re: Build It Rolling Your Own Tivo (fwd)
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002, Jim Choate wrote: On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Some poser wrote: Jim, you post enough crap from Slashdot to know differently. People are doing it. I have a whitebox machine (AMD, 256M ram, cheap TV card, 20G disk, $300 a year ago) that does it. It isn't a big deal. Speaking of posting crap...and don't send me private email. Don't worry about me sending private email in the future... You're not only a complete idiot, but you're rude as fuck as well. Which is irrelevant, what is the CPU speed of the box? -THAT- is what is important...raw processing power. An old 486dx/80 running Linux will store video but only at a handfull of fps. No, actually, for those of us who live in the real world, it isn't as important as you make it out to be. I'm not going to tell you the processor speed, becuase that would only egg you on. Suffice it to say, I use a cheap PC to record TV shows, with open source and a bit of custom software. It works. Well. You can continue believing whatever you like. I'm reminded of a joke I heard in college. An econ professor and a student are walking over the quad. The student says, Look, there's a $20 bill on the ground!. The professor replies, Nonsense. If there were, someone surely would have picked it up. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets. - Gov. Jesse Ventura
Re: CDR: Re: Build It Rolling Your Own Tivo (fwd)
On Sat, 07 Dec 2002, Jim Choate wrote: No, actually, for those of us who live in the real world, it isn't as important as you make it out to be. Uh huh... No comment needed. -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] They [RIAA,MPAA] are trying to invent a new crime: interference with a business model. - Bruce Schneier
Re: CDR: Re: Build It Rolling Your Own Tivo (fwd)
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002, Jim Choate wrote: On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Some poser wrote: Jim, you post enough crap from Slashdot to know differently. People are doing it. I have a whitebox machine (AMD, 256M ram, cheap TV card, 20G disk, $300 a year ago) that does it. It isn't a big deal. Speaking of posting crap...and don't send me private email. Don't worry about me sending private email in the future... You're not only a complete idiot, but you're rude as fuck as well. Which is irrelevant, what is the CPU speed of the box? -THAT- is what is important...raw processing power. An old 486dx/80 running Linux will store video but only at a handfull of fps. No, actually, for those of us who live in the real world, it isn't as important as you make it out to be. I'm not going to tell you the processor speed, becuase that would only egg you on. Suffice it to say, I use a cheap PC to record TV shows, with open source and a bit of custom software. It works. Well. You can continue believing whatever you like. I'm reminded of a joke I heard in college. An econ professor and a student are walking over the quad. The student says, Look, there's a $20 bill on the ground!. The professor replies, Nonsense. If there were, someone surely would have picked it up. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets. - Gov. Jesse Ventura
Re: CDR: Re: ISP Utilty To Cypherpunks?
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002, Jim Choate wrote: Nei sche szche. The question is, how does one construct a censorship-free search engine. Plan 9 http://plan9.bell-labs.com An OS is not a search engine. Hangar 18 http://open-forge.org A service might be a search engine. Give plan9 a rest, already. Everyone loves the OS they use. (Sorry to respond to Jim, but I'm grumpy this morning. Something about coding until 7AM does that to me...) -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Naturally the common people don't want war . But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. -Hermann Goering
Re: CDR: Re: ISP Utilty To Cypherpunks?
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002, Jim Choate wrote: Nei sche szche. The question is, how does one construct a censorship-free search engine. Plan 9 http://plan9.bell-labs.com An OS is not a search engine. Hangar 18 http://open-forge.org A service might be a search engine. Give plan9 a rest, already. Everyone loves the OS they use. (Sorry to respond to Jim, but I'm grumpy this morning. Something about coding until 7AM does that to me...) -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Naturally the common people don't want war . But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. -Hermann Goering
Re: CDR: Re: Seth on TCPA at Defcon/Usenix
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, AARG! Anonymous wrote: His analysis actually applies to a wide range of security features, such as the examples given earlier: secure games, improved P2P, distributed computing as Adam Back suggested, DRM of course, etc.. TCPA is a potentially very powerful security enhancement, so it does make sense that it can strengthen all of these things, and DRLs as well. But I don't see that it is fair to therefore link TCPA specifically with DRLs, when there are any number of other security capabilities that are also strengthened by TCPA. Sorry, but now you're just trolling. Acid is great for removing all manner of skin problems. It also happens to cause death, but linking fatalities to it is unfair, considering that's not what acid was _intended_ to do. Creating cheat-proof gaming at the cost of allowing document revoking enabled software sounds like a bad idea. -j
Re: CDR: Re: Seth on TCPA at Defcon/Usenix
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, AARG! Anonymous wrote: His analysis actually applies to a wide range of security features, such as the examples given earlier: secure games, improved P2P, distributed computing as Adam Back suggested, DRM of course, etc.. TCPA is a potentially very powerful security enhancement, so it does make sense that it can strengthen all of these things, and DRLs as well. But I don't see that it is fair to therefore link TCPA specifically with DRLs, when there are any number of other security capabilities that are also strengthened by TCPA. Sorry, but now you're just trolling. Acid is great for removing all manner of skin problems. It also happens to cause death, but linking fatalities to it is unfair, considering that's not what acid was _intended_ to do. Creating cheat-proof gaming at the cost of allowing document revoking enabled software sounds like a bad idea. -j
Re: CDR: Re: your mail
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My nose bleeds when she is too cold for a beer in the beach. The country of Antigua trusts in the morals and discretion of all the citizens who choose to do business there. We understand that it is difficult to allow legal council to review all correspondence for possible collision with any given regime around the globe. At the same time, however, we must ask you to please limit your conversations in a way that makes less interesting your business operations. Thank you.
Re: CDR: Expert Warns Coded Pictures Indicate Al Qaeda Planning Major Biological Attack
Sometime around 12:40 PM 10/18/2001 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] opined thusly: http://ebird.dtic.mil/Oct2001/s20011018expertwarns.htm DefenseWatch (SFTT.org) October 17, 2001 Expert Warns Al Qaeda Planning Major Biological Attack Kook. http://www.doctorkoontz.com/philosophy/essays/other_essays/other_essay002.htm Reminds me a little of Ray Kurzweil; looks like there are interesting thoughts bouncing around there, but then you run in to him trying to flirt with a speech synthesizer on stage. (I'm not kidding; I can't find a link now, but it happened at the TED conference last year. A similarly embarrassing thing fills half of _The Age of Spiritual Machines_.) -j
Your papers please
Sometime around 02:50 PM 10/18/2001 -0700, Steve Schear opined thusly: http://cgi.newcity.com/exitlog/frameset.php?close=http://www.citypaper.net/articles/101801/news.godfrey.shtmlback=http://www.newcity.com Does anyone know the legal issues surrounding the act of taking a pocket tape recorder and recording at least my side of this sort of transaction? I know what the likely result would be; I wondered if I had any obligation not to record anything I might happen to say while interacting with airport authorities. -j
