Re: "Terror in the Skies, Again?"
At 03:52 AM 7/26/2004, ken wrote: Assuming its true (*) the one security breach is the action of the cabin crew member who tried to reassure this woman by going on about air marshalls. That security breach should certainly get them sacked, and probably interrogated by the men in cheap suits. Or does she assume that apparently nervous middle-aged middle-class white women can't be bombers? The flight attendant didn't identify which six people were air marshals, and since the normal number of them ranges from zero to two per flight, she was almost certainly just lying to calm down the troublesome passenger (who definitely had no class, middle or otherwise.) One of the entertaining followup items from this event was that, yes, the group of ~14 Syrian musicians were really just musicians on tour, but in fact their visas had expired about 3 weeks earlier, though the TSA thugs who interrogated them after they arrived didn't notice it. I was surprised they were musicians - I'd expected them to have been a soccer team, and I've been on enough airplanes with sports teams on them that their behavior sounds totally typical. And Middle Easterners flying out of Detroit? What a surprise! (Detroit's one of the main places that Arab immigrants move.) Anne Jacobsen, prejudiced white columnist, wrote > What I experienced during that flight has caused me to question > whether the United States of America > can realistically uphold the civil liberties of every individual, > even non-citizens, and protect its citizens from terrorist threats. And she's obviously in favor of "protection", whether or not it takes a police state to do it.
Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004, Bill Stewart wrote: > Cap'n Crunch may have bad teeth, but his eyes were fine the last time I saw > him. Yeah, but what's left of his mind is more like what's left of his teeth :-( -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF "...justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out about them." Osama Bin Laden - - - "There aught to be limits to freedom!"George Bush - - - Which one scares you more?
Re: "Terror in the Skies, Again?"
Tyler Durden wrote: Sounds to me like Al-Qaeda is just getting the most mileage they can out of their little PR Event a couple of years ago. They don't even need to blow up anything to get the most bang for their buck. Hell, in this story the biggest threat was the incompetence of the airline. Assuming its true (*) the one security breach is the action of the cabin crew member who tried to reassure this woman by going on about air marshalls. That security breach should certainly get them sacked, and probably interrogated by the men in cheap suits. Or does she assume that apparently nervous middle-aged middle-class white women can't be bombers? (*) (which it might be, US print journalistic standards are higher than our British ones - if I read this in a UK paper like the Dally Mail or the Sun I'd assume it was some rambling racist fantasy put ion as political propaganda - on the other hand our broadcast journalism is mostly better than yours, so there)
Re: Mexico Atty. General gets microchipped (fwd)
On 2004-07-25T13:44:39-0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:20:44PM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > > "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, > > nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under > > God." -GW Bush > > Do you have a good cite for that? One source attributes it to George > Bush I, not Bush II. I've seen it more than once identified as a quote by Bush I (GHWB, #41). http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm The quote was (allegedly) reported by Robert I. Sherman of the American Atheist News Journal, at an informal outdoor news conference at O'Hare on August 27, 1987. -- "When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking. Those who talk this way are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant professors." -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112
Re: "Terror in the Skies, Again?"
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, ken wrote: > > Sounds to me like Al-Qaeda is just getting the most mileage they can out > > of their little PR Event a couple of years ago. They don't even need to > > blow up anything to get the most bang for their buck. > > > > Hell, in this story the biggest threat was the incompetence of the airline. > > Assuming its true (*) the one security breach is the action of the > cabin crew member who tried to reassure this woman by going on > about air marshalls. That security breach should certainly get > them sacked, and probably interrogated by the men in cheap suits. > > Or does she assume that apparently nervous middle-aged > middle-class white women can't be bombers? > > > (*) (which it might be, US print journalistic standards are > higher than our British ones - if I read this in a UK paper like > the Dally Mail or the Sun I'd assume it was some rambling racist > fantasy put ion as political propaganda - on the other hand our > broadcast journalism is mostly better than yours, so there) The article was reprinted in the News Review section of yesterday's Sunday Times (which Americans seem to prefer calling "the London Times"). -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
At 04:44 PM 7/24/2004, J.A. Terranson wrote: > [1] the original phone phreaks were blind, This is a ridiculous statement, and even worse, leaks information about your nym: [young enough to have not been there]. You are thinking of Joe "Whistler" Joe Egressia (sp?), and the kid form New York whose names escape me at the moment. These two do not even com close to "the original phone phreaks were blind". More like "at least two of the original batch of phreaks were blind". Cap'n Crunch may have bad teeth, but his eyes were fine the last time I saw him.
Re: cypherpunks-digest V1 #13888
> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 15:39:47 -0700 > From: Bill Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto > proxies > > At 04:44 PM 7/24/2004, J.A. Terranson wrote: > > > [1] the original phone phreaks were blind, > > > >This is a ridiculous statement, and even worse, leaks information about > >your nym: [young enough to have not been there]. > >You are thinking of Joe "Whistler" Joe Egressia (sp?), and the kid form > >New York whose names escape me at the moment. These two do not even com > >close to "the original phone phreaks were blind". More like "at least two > >of the original batch of phreaks were blind". > > Cap'n Crunch may have bad teeth, but his eyes were fine the last time I saw > him. Who stole the Cap'n's mind? was it the Fedz?? :?) TimB
