Re: Pricing Mojo, Integrating PGP, TAZ, and D.C. Cypherpunks
At 6:00 PM -0500 11/20/01, dmolnar wrote: Does anyone happen to know of real-world current examples like this, in which some aggregator buys and sells a commodity on an exchange, then turns around and offers it at a flat rate to end users? I think my electric company does this each month with my power and gas.
Re: MS Product Activation for Windows (licensing)
At 5:23 PM -0500 1/9/01, Ray Dillinger wrote: But if Microsoft and its ilk do in fact successfully create systems that prevent "piracy", it won't be possible to be a hypocrite about it any more. And with commercial software flatly refusing some kinds of use, perhaps a fair number of people who now *think* they are not doing any piracy will have to face some harsh facts. Or you can realize that you were exercising "fair use" and the software companies are now going to use technical means to prevent you from exercising your right on copyrighted works. It will only me a matter of time before some hacker provides the necessary tools to exercise our "fair use" right again. -- Matt ElliottHigh Performance Data Management Team 217-265-0257mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A very brief politcal rant
It's called "Straight Party", and IIRC it is a box on the Missouri ballots. I *know* it was on the Illinois ballots. Saves dead people time you understand, they only have a limited amount of time. They removed it from the Illinois ballots 4 years ago. It now takes me 10 times longer to vote.
Re: why should it be trusted?
As to care, as I've said a lot before, care is most often more expensive than coverage. Clearly this can't be true or every health insurance company would be going out of business. Coverage has to be more expensive than care of they wouldn't be in the business of providing coverage.
Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
would not affect my position one bit. These people have the right for their information to be put into the public forum. One small correction Kevin, they have the right to put their information into their own public forum. I don't have to allow them to put their information in my newspaper or allow their bits to travel across sections of the Internet that I own. I don't have to make it easy for them to spread their nonsense.
Re: family of russion sub victims drugged
Something's fishy. If you voluntarily check in, you can check out any time you want. Same with a regular hospital; all the MDs do is write Against Medical Orders in your file and their asses are covered. This isn't the case in Illinois. If you check in voluntarily and wish to leave before the Docs want you too you have to request a leave AMA and the doctors have 72 hours before they have to legally let you go. Don't ever admit your self to a Psych hospital. If they can't help you outpatient you don't want their help.
Re: Breaking eggs
Yes. That would be what I believe. Let's turn the question around- is it morally correct to throw someone in jail for a year or more for an action which has not caused the slightest injury to anyone based on the argument that the action MIGHT cause injury to someone? If that action was randomly shooting a gun into a crowd of people and by some act of God didn't actually cause the bullet to strike any person or property causing damage. I say yea, lock them away and a year wouldn't be long enough. Some actions while not actually causing injury shouldn't be tolerated. -- Matt ElliottHigh Performance Data Management Team 217-265-0257mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony
The 3rd amendment argument is a losing argument. The purpose of that amendment is to prevent repeating something that happened during the Revolutionary War. It pertains to soldiers shacking up in civilian's houses, not to a civilian law-enforcement organization hooking a computer up to your ISP's network. Wrong. The 3rd amendment was about stopping the Government from shifting the cost of the Army from the Government to individual families. It was about not taking people's resources without representation and due process. It certainly applies in this case. Now whether some brain-dead Supreme Court agrees is a separate unrelated matter.
Re: Fw: (Fwd) Statement from Janet Reno
The only problem is is doesn't check out when you go talk to the 60 Minutes people. At 5:48 PM -0400 6/20/00, Marcel Popescu wrote: Interesting indeed :) Mark Read this statement from Janet Reno: "A Cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these may qualify a person as a cultist but certainly more than one of these would cause us to look at this person as a threat and his family as being in a risk situation that qualifies for government interference." - Janet Reno, Attny. General of the United States during an Interview on CBS "60 Minutes" on June 26, 1999.
