Re: Singularity ( was Re: Policing Bioterror Research )

[Jim Choate]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote:

> People,
>
> Please don't quote a long article and then bottom-post a few comments.
> Or top-post a few comments. In fact, the best idea is to only quote
> enough to remind other readers what you are commenting on.
>
> It's not a matter of bandwidth, it's a matter of relevance and
> consideration.

If that were true you'd have stopped whining a long time ago.


 --


  We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
  are going to spend the rest of our lives.

  Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

  [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.ssz.com   www.open-forge.org

Re: Singularity ( was Re: Policing Bioterror Research )

[David Howe]

at Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:14 AM, Michael Motyka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was seen to say: 
> financial resources,
> other than those that pass through verified identity
> gatekeepers; 
That's an odd way to spell "Campaign Fund Contributing Corporations"

Singularity ( was Re: Policing Bioterror Research )

[GaryJeffers]

Michael Motyka  writes

>BTW, I think I read somewhere that when the water gets too hot the frog just 
leaves. It was in print, it must be true

Re: Singularity ( was Re: Policing Bioterror Research )

[Bill Stewart]

At 12:42 AM 01/07/2003 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

At 05:14 PM 1/6/03 -0800, Michael Motyka wrote:
>
>BTW, I think I read somewhere that when the water gets too hot the frog 
just leaves.
>
>It was in print, it must be true.

Perhaps it is.  But if you put a TV in the pot with the frog, he gets 
distracted...

And someone else nameless wrote that all you need to do is get
90% of the sheeple to not to watch TV for a month and you'd have a 
revolution too.


So if you legalize pot across the country, everybody would be distracted 
from TV
for at least the first couple of Post-Prohibition-Party Weekends,
or at least till their connection runs out :-)

Re: Singularity ( was Re: Policing Bioterror Research )

[lcs Mixmaster Remailer]

>BTW, I think I read somewhere that when the water gets too hot the frog just 
>leaves. 

Like someone already mentioned, all that is needed for the total collapse of the US 
government is that 90+% of sheeple abstains from TV and newspapers for 30 consecutive 
days (externally induced psychosis needs constant maintenance.) Such detox event would 
be the most dramatic social phenomenon in the last hundred years.

But it's impossible promulgate even that simple idea and therefore the frog stays.


ribbit

Re: Singularity ( was Re: Policing Bioterror Research )

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 05:14 PM 1/6/03 -0800, Michael Motyka wrote:
>
>BTW, I think I read somewhere that when the water gets too hot the frog
just leaves.
>
>It was in print, it must be true.

Perhaps it is.  But if you put a TV in the pot with the frog, he gets
distracted...

Re: Singularity ( was Re: Policing Bioterror Research )

[Tim May]

People,

Please don't quote a long article and then bottom-post a few comments. 
Or top-post a few comments. In fact, the best idea is to only quote 
enough to remind other readers what you are commenting on.

It's not a matter of bandwidth, it's a matter of relevance and 
consideration.

I plan to plonk anyone who keeps doing this. (8 list members are in my 
plonk file right now...I only see their crap through the comments of 
others, though replies seem to be scarce for all but one of them, so 
perhaps others have formed the same opinion as I have.)


--Tim May

Singularity ( was Re: Policing Bioterror Research )

[Michael Motyka]

An Metet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>>
>> On Saturday, December 21, 2002, at 10:07  AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>
>> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/1217/1
>>
>> Policing Bioterror Research
>>
>> One of science's hottest fields is now becoming one of its most heavily
>> regulated, too. The U.S. government last week unveiled sweeping new
>> bioterror research regulations that will require 20,000 scientists at
>> nearly 1000 laboratories to beef up security--or face hefty fines and jail
>> sentences. The interim rules, due to go into effect early next year, could
>> also force scientists to get prior approval for a growing list of
>> sensitive experiments.
>>
>> And where in the United States Constitution is there provision
>> for controlling which experiments may be done, for what research
>> articles may be published, for what thoughts may be thought?
>
>I regret to inform you that henceforth, the Constitution and 
>derivative laws will be used only in a public relations sense as 
>a symbol of the legitimacy of the government, rather than as a 
>written delineation of the firm limitations on the powers of 
>government.
>
>Previously, the United States Government claimed a monopoly on 
>intimidation and violence within its borders, and it 
>occasionally added other locales such as Latin America, 
>Southeast Asia, etc.
>
>Currently, it is extending that claim of monopoly world wide, 
>and it is adding to its proscribed list any "precursors" that 
>could aid, support, fund, hide, protect or otherwise further any 
>power to intimidate and apply violence other than that of the 
>United States and its surrogates, most notably the UK.
>
>The precursors will include privacy, in any form, particularly 
>encryption (unless its use is deemed a worthwhile flag for 
>focused surveillance); associations with others, such as any 
>loyal following or set of like-minded independent people that 
>might be led in some direction not of Washington's choosing; 
>information about the actions and plans of government, since 
>that enables interference and could damage public acquiescence 
>to necessary national security measures; financial resources, 
>other than those that pass through verified identity 
>gatekeepers; knowledge of the law, and the process of capturing, 
>obtaining intelligence through torture, and imprisoning people, 
>as that gives a balance of power and a sympathetic public forum 
>to targets; and so on.
>
>Intersections of those precursors, such as privacy and financial 
>resources, or information and private associations, will be 
>particularly attacked.
>
>Not even a massive database on Americans designed by a former 
>disgraced National Security Advisor who was convicted of 5 
>felonies involving shipping shoulder fired missiles to Iran, 
>lying to Congress, funding US-supported terrorism in Nicaragua 
>that was prohibited by law, seems to earn any concern from the 
>sheep. Not even the selected suspension of Habeas Corpus draws a 
>crowd in opposition.
>
>It is quite interesting to see how the evisceration of the Bill 
>of Rights is essentially accepted unopposed. No marches in the 
>streets, no demonstrations, no uproar from the liberal media, no 
>effective political opposition as the Democrats and Republicans 
>are competing only in which can be most draconian, as they 
>practiced in setting the imprisonment penalties in the "war on 
>drugs".
>
>The frog is being boiled by upping the thermostat a degree at a 
>time, and it is just happily basking in the warming waters, 
>trusting its attendant to protect its interests, in the name of 
>National Security.
>
>Lest one blame this president or his party, consider that there 
>is no daylight between the parties on these measures.
>
>The only debate we hear among our politicians is whether or not 
>to preemptively do a Pearl Harbor on Iraq with or without a UN 
>stamp of acquiescence. A war must be fought to provide a clearer 
>reason for and distraction from the rise of fascism. If the 
>people can be rewarded with cheaper gas at the pump as a bonus, 
>then the highly-favorable body bag count of an imminently-
>videoable war from 40,000 feet and cheaper energy will ensure a 
>continuing grant of carte blanc to the government.
>
>Have you heard Gore or Kerry or Edwards or Daschle or Gebhardt 
>or others bemoan the designation of Americans as "enemy 
>combatants"? Have the Democrats opposed the "USA Patriot Act"? 
>Have the minority members of intelligence commitees demanded 
>information on how powers of grabbing bookseller and library 
>records is b

Re: Make antibiotic resistant pathogens at home! (Re: Policing Bioterror Research)

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 7:42 PM +0100 on 12/24/02, Anonymous wrote:


> create a
> dioxin bomb

Of course, the efficacy of which as a substance of any serious human
toxicity has always been under serious scientific debate, hysterical
government pandering and enviro-socialism to the contrary.

Of course, I wouldn't drink DDT either, mind you...

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
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: Make antibiotic resistant pathogens at home! (Re: Policing Bioterror Research)

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, December 24, 2002, at 09:38  AM, Morlock Elloi wrote:


Expect to hear not of a hausfrau being busted, but of the roundup (so
to speak) of Mohammed Sayeed, Hariq Azaz, and other thought criminals
for buying two many gallons of Roundup at the local Walmart.


I'd guess that the credit card usage among People With Wrong Sounding 
Names is
falling sharply. Will cash survive ?


A fun hack might be for folks to throw away their "Random J. Cipher" 
and "A. Hacker" supermarket "courtesy cards" and get new ones, ones 
with names like "Abdul Ibn Aziz" and "Sharif Bin Laden."

"Thank you for shopping at Safeway, Mr...uh...MrBin Laden...uh...is 
that your real name?"


--Sharif Bin Laden

Re: Make antibiotic resistant pathogens at home! (Re: Policing Bioterror Research)

[Morlock Elloi]

> Expect to hear not of a hausfrau being busted, but of the roundup (so 
> to speak) of Mohammed Sayeed, Hariq Azaz, and other thought criminals 
> for buying two many gallons of Roundup at the local Walmart.

I'd guess that the credit card usage among People With Wrong Sounding Names is
falling sharply. Will cash survive ?



=
end
(of original message)

Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows:
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Re: Make antibiotic resistant pathogens at home! (Re: Policing Bioterror Research)

[Tim May]

On Sunday, December 22, 2002, at 02:27  PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:


At 07:07 PM 12/21/02 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/1217/1
Moreover, prior approval from the Department of Health
and Human Services will be needed for experiments that might make a

select

agent more toxic or more resistant to known drugs, as well as similar
studies that could be added to a restricted list.


So are all the housefrau who ask for antibiotics whenever
they get the sniffles going to be tracked?  The indiscriminate
use of antibios leads to drug-resistant bugs.  See Darwin et al.

And how about them ag antibios (which increase feed:meat ratio)?


As with all of Brother's many confusing and self-contradictory laws, he 
will use the laws against Oceania, which we have always been at war 
with.

Expect to hear not of a hausfrau being busted, but of the roundup (so 
to speak) of Mohammed Sayeed, Hariq Azaz, and other thought criminals 
for buying two many gallons of Roundup at the local Walmart.



--Tim May
"Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little 
bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now 
racing down, with American flags fluttering."-- Tim May, on events 
following 9/11/2001

Re: Policing Bioterror Research

[Mike Rosing]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:

> The main question is - is 1984-type society stable ?

It's locally stable, but not globally stable.  It eventually
has to collapse.

> All this lamenting about hamstringed sheeple and fascist state does no
>good if it cannot motivate some effective resistance.

The state creates the motivation.  Focusing the motivation is
the hard part.

> My take is that via decimation of the middle class, successful
>subverting of the education system and development of the best propaganda
>machinery in the known history, the grounds are ready for a long-term
>stable totalitarian state.

No, it's got too many loose cannons.  It won't be long term.

> The WTC theatre was a masterpiece. I don't know if USG directly,
>indirectly or via simple negligence sponsored that event - but I am
>positive that the mythology of "government is too dumb to do anything
>intelligent" is outright wrong. They are not dumb. The WTC was used with
>extreme efficiency - I don't think that they missed any aspect of
>capitalizing on it.

There may be individuals in government who are smart, but they spend
most of their time outsmarting the other smart people in government
and not too much time worring about the masses.  The majority of
government employees are robots.  If they aren't acting like robots, they
get slapped around a lot.  The bureaucrats have tried to capitalize on
WTC, but now they have another big department to fight with.  That's
not what they expected!

> So, what can be done to blow the brains of the fascist state?

Violence isn't the only way to change things.  So far it seems
a good way to perpetuate the state.

> The small, or better negligible number of intellectuals and desperadoes
>of various kinds (from cypherpunks to militias) are not going to do it.
>Not enough discomfort, balls and guns.

When the NRA and ACLU are fighting the same battle, it ain't so
negligible.  that they aren't focussed in the same direction is
a problem that makes it easier for the state to defend themselves.

> Foreign opponents ? Unlikely. Europe has no military to speak of, and
>60,000 US troops in wiesbaden have tight control of the nuclear arsenal.
>The only semi-independent power is France. Russia ? It's still trying to
>stop the slide into the third world.

Foriegn opponents strengthen the state!  We're letting North Korea build
nukes with the hope that they will actually use them.  When that happens,
the US government becomes *important*.  We need to find a way to prove
they are impotent.

> So that leaves us with china, and it seems that chinese are in a mood
>for having two cooperating fascist governments rather than war.

The Chinese already have a good hold over the US.  Economically anyway.

> Who then ?

The battle is already engaged.  The "liberals" are regrouping, having
had their butts kicked a bit - but they still represent the state.
The libertarians are growing.  In fact, it's one of the main problems
the far right has - many people see the libertarian argument as a way
of removing the state from their desired way of life.  So the answer
is "everybody".  It's not that hard to convince most people that the
facist state doesn't help them at all.

> I see the only hope in some unforeseen development, most likely
>technological, that would disrupt the mechanics of the empire faster than
>the empire can coopt it. This has happened in the fast. Gutenberg's press
>effectively destroyed the church's power.

Unfortunatly the state is paying for all the development, so they
know who can do what.

> I think that this is the main reason behind massive clampdown on
>research of any kind. The empire knows that runaway knowledge and
>intelligence can kill it - therefore it will ban it.

No, they know they have to control all research so they discover things
first.  If they stop discovering things, they die.

> This is not about bioweapons or something known. This is the drive to
>achieve the monopoly on the knowledge and ensure the longevity of the
>empire. Empire knows very well that if someone, in some garage, invents a
>zap gun, that may be the end of it. And this regularly happened in the
>history.

All empires die from corruption.  This one is no different.  That it
can't find 1 or 2 guys who can urge lots of people into suicide missions
is proof of their impotence.  The desire to attack somebody who
can't fight back is further proof of impotence - if the US had real
power we'd have no problems talking to China about clamping down on
North Korea.

> So, read books, do experiments and teach others the same. Don't forget
>to play good consumers during the day - you don't want to get on the
>List. We will know when someone invents the Zap Gun. You'll see heads
>exploding on live TV.

It's nice to dream.  The reality is rather boring.  When enough people
point out the emperor has no clothes and he's an impotent moron, a new
emperor takes his place.  When the corruption

Re: Policing Bioterror Research

[Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer]

The main question is - is 1984-type society stable ?

All this lamenting about hamstringed sheeple and fascist state does no good if it 
cannot motivate some effective resistance.

My take is that via decimation of the middle class, successful subverting of the 
education system and development of the best propaganda machinery in the known 
history, the grounds are ready for a long-term stable totalitarian state.

The WTC theatre was a masterpiece. I don't know if USG directly, indirectly or via 
simple negligence sponsored that event - but I am positive that the mythology of 
"government is too dumb to do anything intelligent" is outright wrong. They are not 
dumb. The WTC was used with extreme efficiency - I don't think that they missed any 
aspect of capitalizing on it.

So, what can be done to blow the brains of the fascist state?

The small, or better negligible number of intellectuals and desperadoes of various 
kinds (from cypherpunks to militias) are not going to do it. Not enough discomfort, 
balls and guns.

Foreign opponents ? Unlikely. Europe has no military to speak of, and 60,000 US troops 
in wiesbaden have tight control of the nuclear arsenal. The only semi-independent 
power is France. Russia ? It's still trying to stop the slide into the third world.

So that leaves us with china, and it seems that chinese are in a mood for having two 
cooperating fascist governments rather than war.

Who then ?

I see the only hope in some unforeseen development, most likely technological, that 
would disrupt the mechanics of the empire faster than the empire can coopt it. This 
has happened in the fast. Gutenberg's press effectively destroyed the church's power.

I think that this is the main reason behind massive clampdown on research of any kind. 
The empire knows that runaway knowledge and intelligence can kill it - therefore it 
will ban it.

This is not about bioweapons or something known. This is the drive to achieve the 
monopoly on the knowledge and ensure the longevity of the empire. Empire knows very 
well that if someone, in some garage, invents a zap gun, that may be the end of it. 
And this regularly happened in the history.

So, read books, do experiments and teach others the same. Don't forget to play good 
consumers during the day - you don't want to get on the List. We will know when 
someone invents the Zap Gun. You'll see heads exploding on live TV.

Re: Policing Bioterror Research

[An Metet]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:22:17 -0800, you wrote:
>
> On Saturday, December 21, 2002, at 10:07  AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/1217/1
>
> Policing Bioterror Research
>
> One of science's hottest fields is now becoming one of its most heavily
> regulated, too. The U.S. government last week unveiled sweeping new
> bioterror research regulations that will require 20,000 scientists at
> nearly 1000 laboratories to beef up security--or face hefty fines and jail
> sentences. The interim rules, due to go into effect early next year, could
> also force scientists to get prior approval for a growing list of
> sensitive experiments.
>
> And where in the United States Constitution is there provision
> for controlling which experiments may be done, for what research
> articles may be published, for what thoughts may be thought?

I regret to inform you that henceforth, the Constitution and 
derivative laws will be used only in a public relations sense as 
a symbol of the legitimacy of the government, rather than as a 
written delineation of the firm limitations on the powers of 
government.

Previously, the United States Government claimed a monopoly on 
intimidation and violence within its borders, and it 
occasionally added other locales such as Latin America, 
Southeast Asia, etc.

Currently, it is extending that claim of monopoly world wide, 
and it is adding to its proscribed list any "precursors" that 
could aid, support, fund, hide, protect or otherwise further any 
power to intimidate and apply violence other than that of the 
United States and its surrogates, most notably the UK.

The precursors will include privacy, in any form, particularly 
encryption (unless its use is deemed a worthwhile flag for 
focused surveillance); associations with others, such as any 
loyal following or set of like-minded independent people that 
might be led in some direction not of Washington's choosing; 
information about the actions and plans of government, since 
that enables interference and could damage public acquiescence 
to necessary national security measures; financial resources, 
other than those that pass through verified identity 
gatekeepers; knowledge of the law, and the process of capturing, 
obtaining intelligence through torture, and imprisoning people, 
as that gives a balance of power and a sympathetic public forum 
to targets; and so on.

Intersections of those precursors, such as privacy and financial 
resources, or information and private associations, will be 
particularly attacked.

Not even a massive database on Americans designed by a former 
disgraced National Security Advisor who was convicted of 5 
felonies involving shipping shoulder fired missiles to Iran, 
lying to Congress, funding US-supported terrorism in Nicaragua 
that was prohibited by law, seems to earn any concern from the 
sheep. Not even the selected suspension of Habeas Corpus draws a 
crowd in opposition.

It is quite interesting to see how the evisceration of the Bill 
of Rights is essentially accepted unopposed. No marches in the 
streets, no demonstrations, no uproar from the liberal media, no 
effective political opposition as the Democrats and Republicans 
are competing only in which can be most draconian, as they 
practiced in setting the imprisonment penalties in the "war on 
drugs".

The frog is being boiled by upping the thermostat a degree at a 
time, and it is just happily basking in the warming waters, 
trusting its attendant to protect its interests, in the name of 
National Security.

Lest one blame this president or his party, consider that there 
is no daylight between the parties on these measures.

The only debate we hear among our politicians is whether or not 
to preemptively do a Pearl Harbor on Iraq with or without a UN 
stamp of acquiescence. A war must be fought to provide a clearer 
reason for and distraction from the rise of fascism. If the 
people can be rewarded with cheaper gas at the pump as a bonus, 
then the highly-favorable body bag count of an imminently-
videoable war from 40,000 feet and cheaper energy will ensure a 
continuing grant of carte blanc to the government.

Have you heard Gore or Kerry or Edwards or Daschle or Gebhardt 
or others bemoan the designation of Americans as "enemy 
combatants"? Have the Democrats opposed the "USA Patriot Act"? 
Have the minority members of intelligence commitees demanded 
information on how powers of grabbing bookseller and library 
records is being used? No. This competition is one between free 
people and government-in-lockstep, and almost all of the people 
accept the ever-warming impositions of government out of custom, 
accepting the terrorism fear-mongering and long practice, 
further advanced by a gross ignorance of history.

We are witnessing the rise of a fascist state unlike any other 
in history, in

Make antibiotic resistant pathogens at home! (Re: Policing Bioterror Research)

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 07:07 PM 12/21/02 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/1217/1
> Moreover, prior approval from the Department of Health
>and Human Services will be needed for experiments that might make a
select
>agent more toxic or more resistant to known drugs, as well as similar
>studies that could be added to a restricted list.

So are all the housefrau who ask for antibiotics whenever
they get the sniffles going to be tracked?  The indiscriminate
use of antibios leads to drug-resistant bugs.  See Darwin et al.

And how about them ag antibios (which increase feed:meat ratio)?




--

"Intended only for lawful uses." -HP Computer Advert

Re: Policing Bioterror Research

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Tim May wrote:

> (By the way, Eugene, I had to snip out a vast chunk of included text 
> from you message. Please include only URLs for very long pieces. If 
> not, I'll have to killfile you as I have done with other serial 
> posters.)

I usually do that. I made an exception in this case because the original
document is in Adobe Acerbat. I transliterated it. I did not expect
somebody would have to excise it when replying. In this case top (or,
rather, middle)  posting does have its merits.

I notice that diverse governmental authorities have been pulling
content in an attempt to improve their PR (witness
http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/iao-logo.htm ).  Since we can't
rely on central depositories like Google cache (which is shallow, anyway)
we should retain copies at individual level.

Re: Policing Bioterror Research

[Tim May]

On Saturday, December 21, 2002, at 10:07  AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:


http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/1217/1

Policing Bioterror Research

One of science's hottest fields is now becoming one of its most heavily
regulated, too. The U.S. government last week unveiled sweeping new
bioterror research regulations that will require 20,000 scientists at
nearly 1000 laboratories to beef up security--or face hefty fines and 
jail
sentences. The interim rules, due to go into effect early next year, 
could
also force scientists to get prior approval for a growing list of
sensitive experiments.

And where in the United States Constitution is there provision for 
controlling which experiments may be done, for what research articles 
may be published, for what thoughts may be thought?

None, of course. The fact that some biological research may be 
dangerous or may be used as a weapon, ultimately, is no different from 
the fact that some physics research may be dangerous or used as a 
weapon, or some computer research, or even some mathematics research.

This just says the Bill of Rights is no longer operative.

(But, hey, EPIC is glad they got the right to distribute union 
pamphlets left in the New Interpretation. Good to know 
non-Cypherpunks-friendly activists are still lobbying in D.C.!)


(By the way, Eugene, I had to snip out a vast chunk of included text 
from you message. Please include only URLs for very long pieces. If 
not, I'll have to killfile you as I have done with other serial 
posters.)


--Tim May