An Essential War
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Figuring out what happens after the state is probably the most important thing to work on in the coming century, I figure. Sooner or later, the state, that is, politically controlled transfer-priced geographic force-monopoly, isn't going to work anymore. Given Moore's Law and its effects on communications networks and resultant social structures, the first step, which is already happening, will be more, and not fewer, states. As price discovery costs fall, this will probably result in non-geographic control of force, and, most likely, non-monopolistic markets for same. With sufficiently lowered transaction costs, the end-state, if you will :-), will probably be the complete commercialization of force. Not in monopolistic competition using laws for control and organization, using incorporation, patents and brands (Ford vs. Diamler-Chrysler) but in perfectly competitive auction markets, like those for graded fungible commodities, using network and financial cryptography protocols for transaction execution and proof of performance, and much more focused applications of force than modern warfare entails. We live in interesting times, with interesting problems to solve. In the meantime, the ability to fight distributed violence rests with nation-states, who are finally getting the idea that it is, in fact, a military problem, and not something to leave to lawyers. The threat of terrorism and other geodesic forms of warfare is just that, a permutation of war, and, though now can and should be fought at the level of the state, ultimately, it must be fought at a scale much smaller than that. Ultimately, terrorism is a form of individual violence, and will be fought individually. Think of it as a form of responsible anarchy, informed more by markets at the device layer of a society's architecture than by ideology at the human. Cheers, RAH - http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB108052892146167601,00.html The Wall Street Journal March 29, 2004 COMMENTARY An Essential War By GEORGE P. SHULTZ March 29, 2004; Page A18 We have struggled with terrorism for a long time. In the Reagan administration, I was a hawk on the subject. I said terrorism is a big problem, a different problem, and we have to take forceful action against it. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan agreed with me, but not many others did. (Don Rumsfeld was an outspoken exception.) In those days we focused on how to defend against terrorism. We reinforced our embassies and increased our intelligence effort. We thought we made some progress. We established the legal basis for holding states responsible for using terrorists to attack Americans anywhere. Through intelligence, we did abort many potential terrorist acts. But we didn't really understand what motivated the terrorists or what they were out to do. In the 1990s, the problem began to appear even more menacing. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were well known, but the nature of the terrorist threat was not yet comprehended and our efforts to combat it were ineffective. Diplomacy without much force was tried. Terrorism was regarded as a law enforcement problem and terrorists as criminals. Some were arrested and put on trial. Early last year, a judge finally allowed the verdict to stand for one of those convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ten years! Terrorism is not a matter that can be left to law enforcement, with its deliberative process, built-in delays, and safeguards that may let the prisoner go free on procedural grounds. Today, looking back on the past quarter century of terrorism, we can see that it is the method of choice of an extensive, internationally connected ideological movement dedicated to the destruction of our international system of cooperation and progress. We can see that the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 2001 destruction of the Twin Towers, the bombs on the trains in Madrid, and scores of other terrorist attacks in between and in many countries, were carried out by one part or another of this movement. And the movement is connected to states that develop awesome weaponry, with some of it, or with expertise, for sale. What should we do? First and foremost, shore up the state system. The world has worked for three centuries with the sovereign state as the basic operating entity, presumably accountable to its citizens and responsible for their well-being. In this system, states also interact with each other -- bilaterally or multilaterally -- to accomplish ends that transcend their borders. They create international organizations to serve their ends, not govern them. Increasingly, the state system has been eroding. Terrorists have exploited this weakness by burrowing into the state system in order to attack it. While the state system weakens, no replacement is in sight that can perform the essential functions of establishing an
Re: Liquid Natural Flatulence
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 11:31 PM -0800 3/28/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Bob, stick with obfuscated economics and playing with boats. Yea, I know. Think of it as me clearing the pipes for more stuff, or something. I haven't written much lately, and I'm starting to do that again. They just pissed me off, is all, and the thing wrote itself. So, now I feel better for my own bit of spontaneous combustion, which I probably shouldn't have sent here, since, of course, it wasn't topical. ;-). It's like two things I saw every day for several years apiece collided in meme-space, and I didn't even know I was even pissed off until I saw just the barest hint of those idiots being re-deified in the Globe Sunday morning. Whole decades of their sanctimony just became too much to abide anymore. Like nuclear power (or nuclear weapons), genetically modified foods, air travel, and lots of other progress, LNG is safe enough even in the worst-case scenario, and FUD-mongers like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are the worst kind of Luddite charlatans. But I bet you figured that out, right? :-). The non-exploding fireball from a refinery or storage facility will be sufficient to destroy the facility, and make nice video, which is sufficient. If Allah smiles, maybe you get a big bang too. The trick is to do more than one place in the same day, so it can't be written off as an industrial accident. Like I said, you would need a full-on military operation to do the job, a battalion for the main tank, or a smart bomb and air-superiority for one tank on a ship, which would be kind of obvious. And, of course, if that's what happened, you'd have more problems than a whole bunch of flaming fart-gas lighting up the Tobin Bridge... Anyway, to paraphrase John Astin's character in Night Court, I feel *muuch* better now, though I can't promise there won't be more later. :-). Cheers, RAH -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQGgt8MPxH8jf3ohaEQKrnQCgjOzwlyuCZRTivxeOggcK7GBqgiIAn1Z1 XoOV+pfZ2Yzl2Sj0Y94SBSp9 =Cffy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
RE: Sttop Spreading Hatred
Variola wrote... What the fuck are you ingesting tonight? extreme tolerance to opinions?? Its only because it would be self-parodying that accusations of nazihood don't fly. Even with Tim gone, praise be unto him. Uh, it was Spaten Octoberfest, ON TAP. Consider Tyler Durden justifiably bitch-slapped, though there was at least a WEE bit of trollin' mixed in there. As for May, I don't miss his killing, but I definitely miss his edge and occasional insite. _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Liquid Natural Flatulence
At 06:44 PM 3/27/04 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote: And, remember again, you have to *enclose* a burning gas to make it explosive first place. Bob, stick with obfuscated economics and playing with boats. Many gases are explosive in certain ratios to air. Gasoline vapor, acetylene, in a wide range of ratios to air. Others have narrower ranges. But within these ranges you don't need enclosures. Except maybe for shrapnel. You don't need enclosures for explosive gas mixtures any more than you need an enclosure to get a boom from nitro. (This is the diff between a brisant, like nitro, RDX, PETN, TNT, even NI3, etc and something that merely burns fast like black powder or smokeless, which indeed must be enclosed to explode.) PS: if a diesel vehicle is tailgating, acetylene will nicely stop its engine in a rather expensive way. Can you say predetonation? A pound of calcium carbide and some water makes a nice vehicle stopper BTW, the .mil has looked into it. The non-exploding fireball from a refinery or storage facility will be sufficient to destroy the facility, and make nice video, which is sufficient. If Allah smiles, maybe you get a big bang too. The trick is to do more than one place in the same day, so it can't be written off as an industrial accident.
Re: Sttop Spreading Hatred
Tyler Durden (2004-03-29 14:50Z) wrote: As for May, I don't miss his killing, but I definitely miss his edge and occasional insite. Insight. Don't ask who pissed in my wheaties. -- If you don't do this thing, you won't be in any shape to walk out of here. Would that be physically, or just a mental state? -Caspar vs Tom, Miller's Crossing
[Politech] Judge dismisses John Gilmore's ID-required lawsuit [priv]
--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:25:29 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Macintosh/20040208) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Politech] Judge dismisses John Gilmore's ID-required lawsuit [priv] List-Id: Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list politech.politechbot.com List-Archive: http://politechbot.com/pipermail/politech List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: http://politechbot.com/mailman/listinfo/politech, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] x-flowed GILMORE v. ASHCROFT JOHN GILMORE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; ROBERT MUELLER, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; NORMAN MINETA, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; MARION C. BLAKEY, as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration; Admiral JAMES M. LOY, in his official capacity as Acting Undersecretary of Transportation for Security; TOM RIDGE, in his official capacity as Chief of the Office of Homeland Security; UAL CORPORATION, aka UNITED AIRLINES; and DOES I-XXX, Defendants. No. C 02-3444 SI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA March 19, 2004, Decided March 23, 2004, Filed .. Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss n1 and DENIES plaintiff's request for judicial notice. .. BACKGROUND Plaintiff John Gilmore is a California resident who is suing the United States n2 and Southwest Airlines for refusing to allow him to board an airplane on July 4, 2002 without either displaying a government-issued identification consenting to a search. Plaintiff alleges that these security requirements imposed by the United States government and effected by the airline companies violate several of his constitutional rights, including his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. n3 .. LEGAL STANDARD The Court may dismiss a complaint when it is not based on a cognizable legal theory or pleads insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. Smilecare Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan, 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996). DISCUSSION Plaintiff's complaint alleges that as a result of the requirement that passengers traveling on planes show identification and his unwillingness to comply with this requirement, he has been unable to travel by air since September 11, 2001. Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action challenging the apparent government policy that requires travelers either to show identification or to consent to a search which involves wanding, walking through a magnetometer or a light pat-down. Whether this is actually the government's policy is unclear, as the policy, if it exists, is unpublished. However, this Court for the purpose [*6] of evaluating plaintiff's complaint, assumes such a policy does exist, and reviews plaintiff's complaint accordingly. Plaintiff asserts the unconstitutionality of this policy on the following grounds: vagueness in violation of the Due Process Clause; violation of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; violation of the right to freedom of association; and violation of the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The federal defendants and airline defendant both brought motions to dismiss. As plaintiffs' claims are common to both sets of defendants, this Court treats them collectively. While there are questions about the private defendant's liability as a state actor and about the federal defendants' liability for the private defendant's actions, as this Court has not found plaintiff's complaint to have alleged a constitutional violation, those issues need not be addressed at this time. .. 1. Standing As a preliminary matter, the federal defendants have objected to all of plaintiff's claims other than plaintiff's challenges to the identification requirement. It is unclear from plaintiff's complaint whether he intended to plead any [*7] other claims, but he did allude to the government's plan to create huge, integrated databases by mingling criminal histories with credit records, previous travel history and much more, in order to create dossiers on every traveling citizen, including creation of no fly watchlists. Complaint, P8. He pointed to newspaper and magazine articles and internet websites describing various activities and directives issued by various federal agencies, including the increased use of the Consumer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Complaint, PP35-50. The federal defendants argue that as a threshold matter, plaintiff has standing in this action
UI expert?
Telegraph. Telephone. Tell Hettinga. Ben Laurie, of Apache SSL, The Bunker, and Lucre fame, among other stuff, is looking for UI help on something, and I'm passing it along. Contact him directly. Cheers, RAH Who's been Pre-killfiled already. Blacklists? Blacklists??? We don' need no *steenkin'* blacklists... -- At 3:26 PM -0500 3/29/04, Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote to his Orkut friends: friends of friends subject: UI expert? message: OK, since the purpose of Orkut is to send spam without getting blacklisted, here's my bit of spam - does anyone know a really good UI person who'd like to work on free software (no, that doesn't mean its unpaid)? If so, send 'em my way... -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
You can't hide your lying eyes
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Mar-28-Sun-2004/opinion/23416639.html Sunday, March 28, 2004 Las Vegas Review-Journal VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: You can't hide your lying eyes I see where the people of Haiti finally got sick of defrocked collectivist priest and all-around necklace killer Jean-Bertrand Aristide, took up arms, and kicked him out. So what are U.S. forces doing there now? About 1,800 of our guys have been sent in to -- in the words of Associated Press reporter Paisley Dodds -- rid the nation of guns. Hey, good plan. In the great tradition of George Washington, Francis Marion, and young Jim Monroe, the Haitian people just used firearms to throw out a vicious tyrant, and the immediate goal of Big White Brother is to rebuild a shattered police force and disarm militants who began the insurgency. At least back in 1994, when the freedom-loving Bill Clinton sent in 20,000 troops to install Aristide the murderous dictator, U.S. troops offered to buy these weapons of freedom in order to better enslave the natives. This time (Mr. Dodds reports) Haitians ... are being asked to give up their guns with little or no incentive and in a very insecure environment. The only good news? U.S. forces, Mr. Dodds reports, have so far recovered two shotguns. Their Chilean counterparts have confiscated three weapons. Washington City has no constitutional authorization whatever to spend our tax dollars sending troops into Haiti to disarm uppity Negroes who dared fight to win their own freedom. And also for the record, there were no organized police departments in this country until the 1850s. That's right: From 1776 until at least 1850 America was a nation of armed insurgent militants with no government police. And we got along just fine. How do you think the people of the proud, young, free United States of America would have reacted if some foreign army had arrived here in 1783 with the declared the goal of ridding the nation of the guns that had just been used to win America's freedom? Why does our Second Amendment say a well-armed citizen militia is necessary? That's right, it's necessary to the security of a free state. After all, as early as 1785, our own Southern states were passing laws that No slaves shall keep any arms whatever, nor pass, unless with written orders from his master or employer, or in his company, with arms from one place to another. Whereas, in his proposed constitution for the state of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote: No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Notice the definitive difference there between free men and slaves? In 1788, debating the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, a great patriot and friend of Washington named George Mason stood in Richmond and recalled: When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was Governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should do it not openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. ... I ask, who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. And it was no less a freedom-fighter than Mohandas Gandhi who said, in 1927: Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of its arms as the blackest. And this conspiracy to attack and remove the very tools of freedom is not isolated. There isn't even any Second Amendment in the new Iraqi constitution, according to World Net Daily. In a March 10 piece bearing the sub-headline Colin Powell hails prohibition on arms while emphasizing 'liberty,' WND correspondent Ron Strom writes: Iraq's new interim constitution sounds many of the same themes as the U.S. Constitution in guaranteeing freedom of the people -- with one stark difference: There is no right to keep and bear arms in the new charter. The document does indeed promise a whole bunch of freedoms. (So did the Soviet Constitution.) But when it comes to civilian ownership of military-style arms -- which our founding fathers warned us was the last and only real safeguard of the rest of our liberties? The only reference to individual ownership of arms is in Article 17: It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law. And Article 27 further addresses the formation of militias: Armed forces and militias not under the command structure of the Iraqi Transitional Government are prohibited, except as provided by federal law. America's leading gun-rights organization quickly registered strong opposition to this nonsense. It's a very big mistake, said Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America. What
Re: Anonymity of prepaid phone chip-cards
Thomas Shaddack wrote: [...] Suggested countermeasure: When true anonymity is requested, use the card ONLY ONCE, then destroy it. Makes the calls rather expensive, but less risky. Make sure you can't be traced back by other means, ranging from surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the phone booths to the location data from cellphones (because, as it's well-known but often overlooked, the cellphone networks know the location of every active phone). In local pubs round where I live it is not at all uncommon to find people buying selling SIM cards, swapping them, or just handing roudn to friends family members. If these persons are involved in activities which would be disapproved of by the law, I imagine that they would be very unlikley to be anything that could be called terrorism. More likely doing casual work without paying tax, using drugs deprecated by governments, trading in unauthorised DVDs, perhaps employing illegal immigrants. (Allegedly that is - as far as I am aware the apparently oriental gentleman who walks round pubs and clubs late at night offering DVDs and CDs for a pound is in full complience with all local copyright laws) There was a notorious murder locally (Damilola Taylor) which the police took a logn time to charge anywone for. When they finally got round to it, some of the evidence turned on mobile phone records. One piece could not be used, because the court was satisfied that the family and friends of the accused persons swapped and shared phones so frequently that there was no way to connect the use of a phone with an individual.
