At 03:33 PM 4/15/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
Ah shit I hate hearing this. Is it possible to retroactively re-cast a
terrorist attack (eg, World Trade Center) into regular old, 'valid'
warfare? Bush policies seem to be doing this.
We are freedom fighters.
They are terrorists.
Any questions?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 06:41:14PM +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
Of course, most of this discussion revolves around one word: is. If you
said the Internet _can be seen_ as a tree, few would disagree with you,
especially if you allowed for the fact that that tree is continuously
changing its shape.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have one word for all of you.
Equity.
:-).
I expect that someday we'll vote shares for the application of
non-monopolistic force just like we now vote for the application of
monopolist force.
I think statists -- including most cryptographers
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:43:57 -0700
From: Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: voting
David Jablon wrote:
I think Ed's criticism is off-target. Where is the privacy problem
with Chaum receipts when Ed and others still have the freedom to refuse
theirs or throw them away?
The
Ed Gerck[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Kelsey wrote:
At 11:05 AM 4/9/04 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
1. The use of receipts which a voter takes from the voting place to
'verify'
that their vote was correctly included in the total opens the way for
voter
coercion.
I think
David Jablon wrote:
I think Ed's criticism is off-target. Where is the privacy problem with
Chaum receipts when Ed and others still have the freedom to refuse
theirs or throw them away?
The privacy, coercion, intimidation, vote selling and election integrity
problems begin with giving
I think Ed's criticism is off-target. Where is the privacy problem with
Chaum receipts when Ed and others still have the freedom to refuse
theirs or throw them away?
It seems a legitimate priority for a voting system to be designed to
assure voters that the system is working. What I see in
| Currently, voter privacy is absolute in the US and does not depend
| even on the will of the courts. For example, there is no way for a
| judge to assure that a voter under oath is telling the truth about how
| they voted, or not. This effectively protects the secrecy of the ballot
| and
Major Variola (ret) writes:
What is bizarre about offering a contract? Get your filthy hands off
my desert xor suffer for not doing same The US said the same (with a
more temperate piece of real estate) to the UK, once. Apparently some
need to be reminded that gentlemen don't occupy
