Slashdot Mirror

esperanto's been indubitably dead since the '50s.

These folks might disagree.

(No, I'm not an Esperantist.)

I would recommend that you ues UseNet for this. Write up your how-to or knowledgebase document so that it CLEARLY explains the problem and the appropriate steps to resolve it. For an example format get a knowledgebase article from Microsoft or Novell. Then post it to the appropriate newsgroup, making sure to use a clear simple title that acurately describes the issue (think about the keywords you searched for when you first encounterd the problem). Google takes care of the rest for you by archiving the message for posterity. Then, whenever you or anyone else needs that information again, it is a simple matter of searching Google Groups for your post.

(I just wish I could remember the proper domain name for Deja-vue, now).

deja.com, the usenet archive, is hardly ever mentioned as a programmer's site even though it holds the answers to nearly any programming question you might have. I use it more often than any other site. Search for a problem and you'll find that a dozen people have experienced it and solved it already.

MonsterHut (aka Beaverhome) has been a well-known spamhaus for at least a couple of years. For further information regarding this rotten outfit, take a look at this link on The Spamhaus Project's ROKSO database. Lots of good history there. Or simply search DejaGoogle on Beaverhome or Monsterhut.

Rich

Why can't they just use DejaNews like the rest of us?

This is false. Money buys protection against punishment for nonpayment of taxes and taxes are not "collectively" collected -- they are collected by sadistic police-power:

Federal Reserve + IRS = The Protection Racket Coup of 1913

by Jim Bowery
Jim Bowery, January 13, 2001 -- The author grants the right to copy, without modification.

INTRODUCTION

Federal Reserve money buys protection from punishment. You are punished if you don't pay taxes. This has become the Federal Reserve's primary monetary authority. The moral hazard of basing monetary authority on punishment has now been realized in the systemic and out-of-control gang rapes of prisoners in the US. All other unlawful acts by US governments are now overshadowed by the murderous, sexually sadistic character of governmental authority that has developed in US penal systems. Federal Reserve money is now protection racket money, or, if you prefer "punishment protection money". Calling it "fiat money", "debt money" or even "legal tender" obscures its true character. The transition to this form of money began in 1913, when the 16th Amendment dramatically expanded the potential need for legal tender in the form of taxes while, in that same year, the Federal Reserve Act started the process of removing from legal tender any backing value other than the protection it affords against punishment. That the redefinition of "legal tender" was unconstitutional(1) has become only a minor dimension of the massive decay in legitimacy and moral leadership during the 20th century triggered by these acts of 1913. These acts were largely in the interest of continental European banking concerns doing business under the name of J. P. Morgan. As vital interests of the United States were sacrificed on their behalf, those foreign interests are reasonably called "enemies of the United States", the acts of U.S. citizens on their behalf "treasons", and all such citizens "traitors".

THE MORAL HAZARD OF GOVERNMENT AND MONEY

Legitimate governments provide assurance that we are secure in our lives and properties by protecting our legal rights in exchange for taxes and other duties. The most legitimate governments will even back up their commitment by providing some sort of compensation if our legal rights are breached, much the same as insurance companies do when they pay out on an insurance policy. But there is a fine line between protection rackets and insurance companies. Indeed, gangsters frequently call their protection rackets "insurance" and the payments they extort from their victims "insurance premiums". That fine line between protector and protection racket is crossed when "moral hazard" tempts the "protector" beyond the limits of his character.

In conventional insurance terminology, "moral hazard" is the temptation to artificially increase hazards. A classic case of moral hazard is an otherwise unprofitable business buying lots of fire insurance and then hiring an arsonist to burn down the place of business.

Insurers, too, can profit by increasing hazards if it is the uninsured who suffer the exposure to risk. A classic example of an insurer's moral hazard is the temptation to parasitize a productive business by threatening it with destruction unless the owners pay regular "insurance premiums".

And that brings us to the morality of governance.

The most profound moral hazard for governance is the penal system combined with taxation.

The framers of the US Constitution included prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. They also made it difficult to parasitize productive States. This they did by requiring that taxation on a State's citizenry be proportional to the State's population under Article. 1. Section. 2. Clause 3. and Article. 1. Section. 9. Clause 4. Making taxes proportional to State population helps control the moral hazard of governance at the Federal level by making it difficult for the Federal government to transfer wealth to States that are politically active from States that are economically productive. Also, States are more capable of defending themselves from the Federal government than are individuals. Unfortunately, the requirement for taxation proportional to State population ("with apportionment" and "with regard to the census") was removed by the 16th Amendment, thereby promoting political porkbarrel at the Federal level and punishing productivity. In the same year the Federal Reserve Act gave license to gradually reduce legal tender's reliance on gold and silver as backing value, leaving the protection legal tender afforded against government punishment it's primary backing value. (Shortly thereafter, the 17th Amendment also removed from the States the power to elect Senators, further eroding the States' ability to protect their citizens from the federal government.)

These acts of treason have produced profound moral hazard at the Federal level, and set the stage for the relentless and radical decay of moral leadership during the 20th century.

WARRIOR INSURANCE

The proper role of government is protection against force and fraud. Therefore, to keep it honest, government's source of revenue should be insurance premiums against loss due to force and fraud. Said premiums could be payable in notes issued by the insurer/protector, but the insurer/protector should merely cancel the insurance policy and cease protecting those who do not pay. An insurer/protector should not generate the market for their own notes by threatening to punish those who do not pay -- as that is a protection racket, even if the insurer/protector honorably indemnifies those who do pay in the event of a covered loss. Such insurance premiums and corresponding insurance coverage would, necessarily, stipulate other conditions under which the insurance/protection continued to be provided at the agreed upon rates. This amounts to taxation on asset value, adjusted for various conditions that may affect risk -- with the added guarantee of indemnification in the event that asset value is lost due to force or fraud.

Such a system actually eliminates governance, as we know it. I call it "warrior insurance".

Under warrior insurance, reinsurance networks take the place of existing international treaties and alliances. Intelligent warrior reinsurance networks will check loss of asset value resulting from gang, or "protection racket" formation well in advance of any need for warfare. Warrior insurance premiums eliminate taxation. Competition between warrior insurance companies creates checks and balances supporting liberty. Formation of mass armies on ideological/political grounds is suppressed by exposing the underlying quid-pro-quo of reciprocal altruism that actually exists between people and their sovereignties -- over-extended kin identification, the basis of political and religious warfare as well as one-world ideology, is rendered less viable. Warrior insurance companies are much like the original sovereignties that defended newly formed civilizations -- they are, in fact, quite traditional. Empires subsumed the original sovereignties because trade, communication and literacy were so centralized. In the information age, this is decreasingly the case. What is increasingly necessary is a strong, distributed militia living lives bonded to their communities and lands from generation to generation, who value honor above their own lives. Unlike systems of taxation, warrior insurers will compensate those who are bonded for conscription in time of war, or deputized in times of civil emergency. Those so bonded would naturally demand a vote, or representation, in declarations of war or civil emergency.

Under warrior insurance, the citizens' militias traditionally enjoy tax relief, since they are in effect, protecting themselves. In Scotland, rather than forming a Yeoman class from the "kindly tenants", "feu fees" were imposed to pay for foreign war debts during the Protestant Reformation, thereby dispossessing ancient families of their lands to make way for revenue generating land use such as wool-producing sheep. Kindly tenants were kindred or clan members who had traditionally been given relief from economic rent/taxation in exchange for sworn allegiance to their clans' militias under the command of their chiefs. But the clan chiefs were corrupted by the royalty which had become more interested foreign adventures than they were in allowing the clans to support and protect themselves and their families on their own lands. The royal war debts began consuming the livelihoods of the folk. Many were forced to flee for their lives. This was the primary origin of the Scotch-Irish pioneers who attempted to create a society in "the New World", free from such betrayals of clan loyalty. The earliest pioneers suffered a 25% mortality rate in the first year of migration in their desperation to create that "New World". This was not merely the moral equivalent of war -- it was death on a massive scale in a struggle with nature herself (war with natives was not the primary cause of these deaths), on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. As usual mostly men went to the frontier to risk everything for their new lands, but many women and children also suffered similar fates. As a consequence, the founders of the United States, folk memory still fresh, thought the avoidance of foreign wars to be common sense. This gave rise to the Monroe Doctrine and the avoidance of foreign wars.

Compare and contrast such a system to the internationally adventurous protection racket posing as a government we have today.


THE MURDEROUS, SEXUALLY SADISTIC BASIS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Forget the Clothes --The Emperor is a Murdering Rapist Run Amok

Many critics of President Clinton accused him of being a murdering rapist. But President Clinton was simply the by-product of an epic perversion that has overtaken the lawful government of the United States. It would be understatement to call this perversion a criminal gang. Criminal gangs only occasionally commit rape and murder against their own community. They don't pretend to be a lawful authorities in public. They don't issue their own currency as protection racket money and then demand it as "legal tender". They may rationalize their criminal conduct, but they don't convince themselves that what they are doing is lawful. They admit to themselves that they are gangsters. At least they are that honest. But, perhaps this is simply because gangsters are afraid to compete with the most massive criminal organization in history, whose roots extend back at least to 1913 when the Income Tax and Federal Reserve were created.

The Federal Reserve was created in the same year as the Income Tax for one simple reason:

The US Federal Government was shifting from Reward to Punishment Protection as the basis for its monetary authority.

Federal Reserve Notes are promises to reduce the bearer's risk of punishment for tax code violation, upon presentation to its collection agency, the IRS, in the form of Income Tax.

Note here that it is impossible to reduce the risk of punishment for violation of the income tax code to a level commensurate to the threat of prisoner gang-rape(5). This has become the foundation of the IRS/Fed's all-pervasive aura of fear(6) upon which their punishment protection money is based. The Income tax code is so complex that not even the IRS with all its private contractors from law and accounting firms, can reliably and reproducibly interpret it. This makes it possible only to _reduce_ the risk of punishment -- no matter how much wealth you turn over to the IRS.

In this manner the federal government creates demand for the Federal Reserve's otherwise worthless paper(7). Under the evil monetary basis of punishment protection, the government's monetary authority is limited only by the degree to which it can create pervasive terror of its prison system in the hearts of nonviolent potential tax code "offenders" -- and that means you.

With punishment protection as the basis of its monetary authority, and therefore its ability to buy votes, it was only a matter of time before the US Federal Government, as though an animal trained by operant conditioning, would find ways of increasing the severity and cruelty of its punishments.

But like rat in a maze, the US Federal Government had a problem to solve:

How to impose cruel and unusual punishment without arousing the wrath of a people whose ancestors had risked a 1 in 4 chance of dying in the first year of migration to the New World in order to escape just such evils?

The solution, reached without conscious intent (conspiracy) of individuals was a form of punishment so cruel and unusual -- SO TABOO -- that no decent human being would even want to think about it, let alone use freedom of speech and the press to talk about it:

Gradually cultivate prisoner rape as the basis of government authority.

By replacing pillory, open corporeal punishments and work restitution, so common before the 20th century, with an environment in which Mafiosi and other gangster types are protected from prisoner rape while the American pioneer cultures, less prone to prison gang formation, are systemically gang-raped, an ethnic bias was created against the very peoples who founded the country to escape government predation. The actual bias is apparent as at least 3 out of 4 prisoner rapes involve blacks victimizing men of Protestant heritage while Mediterranean Mafiosi are somehow immune.

The ruthlessly pragmatic and sadistically sociopathic genius of this is that its very intensity, both as physical trauma and moral outrage, rendered it invisible.

Such is the mentality of the child molester who relies on the traumatic nature of his crime to cover his tracks -- seemingly unable to control his subconscious urges. Such was the mentality of those men who, in 1913, gave us the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax.

CONCLUSION

As with a molested child whose shame and guilt compound his trauma, so the American people have come to accept as, as fated, a life lived with this filthy family secret(8). The US Federal Government, now basing its authority on cruel and unusual punishment, cannot be considered legitimate by any reasonable man . The fundamental role that the application of force against citizens plays in defining legitimacy demands such a radical conclusion.

Warrior insurance will be a crucial tool in the triumph of honor over the political will that has so corrupted the rule of law. But honorable warriors need something to protect. Pioneers risk their lives creating new lands. Women then risk their lives giving birth to new folk. Finally, warriors risk their lives protecting their lands and their folk.

The burden of leadership falls, as it did after the feu fees that so motivated the Scotch-Irish, on pioneers.

The dilemma, facing those of us who value the heritage of those early Americans who risked so much to escape sadistic authority in the old world, is not whether we are willing to risk our lives for freedom from such tyranny, but whether we can pioneer a 'New World' where our love of freedom can bear fruit in the face of death.

References

(1) This is a consequence of the unlawful declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender". "Legal tender" is called such because courts are required to accept it as money for legal purposes (by far, the largest legal purpose of money is payment of taxes). The US Constitution, under Article 1, Section 10 requires the States to use only gold and silver as payment for legally recognized debts. Article 1, section 8 does not give Congress power to make legal tender. Therefore, the declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender for all debts public and private" is unlawful. The best counter arguments to this generally ignore the fact that the paper currency issued by the original central banks were presumed to not be backed by legal tender's value as protection against punishment, let alone cruel and unusual punishment.

(2) See http://www.spr.org/docs/stats.html

(3) The "Scared Straight" program from the 1970s is still going strong as evidenced by this April 5, 1997 article from the Lubbock Avalance- Journal: http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/040697/prison.ht m

An excerpt:

"DALLAS (AP) - A grand jury has refused to indict prison inmates in connection
with a ''scared straight'' prison visit during which several boys claimed to have been molested."

(4) Assistant U.S. attorney Gordon Zubrod from Harrisburg, PA made the following public statement to 3 suspects who fled to Canada (this statement was captured for the public record during a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview):

"You're going to be the boyfriend of a very bad man if you wait out your extradition."

(5) Look at the classic paper on the value of human life by Nobel prize winning economist George Stigler of the University of Chicago School of Business. He measured the effect of danger on wage rates in different professions. Prison is more of a danger in some lines of activity than others. We should be able to apply similar analytic techniques to the relationship between taxation and the prison system.

(6) "Prison Rape: Every Man's Greatest Fear", August 1995, Penthouse.

(7) Although the thesis of this paper does not necessarily predict it, an increase in the rate of prisoner suicide negatively correlating with the rate of inflation would be supportive.

(8) A final anecdote on silence: When the author of this white paper was called in for an audit by the IRS in 1994, he sought a tax attorney to represent him. During an interview with a prospective attorney the author told the attorney he thought the audit might have been politically motivated. When asked for details, the author related that the author had published articles on the Internet advocating a judical review of the legitimacy of the ratification of the 16th Amendment about one month prior to the notice of audit. The attorney then told the author that he could not represent the author. According to this tax attorney, he had attended a seminar given by the IRS in which the distinct impression was given that "tax protesters" were not to be defended and that any attorney who defended a "tax protester" would be subjected to a lifetime of audits. This was later confirmed during an interaction with a prominent southern California tax attorney when it became known that the IRS auditor had verbally admitted to his consulting accountant that the author was being audited because of his advocacy of a judicial review of the 16th Amendment's ratification.

In a related situation currently ongoing in China, a spokesperson for the Falun Gong Practitioners in North America has stated that: "lawyers in China have already been told not to defend these innocent civilians unless they agree with the government propaganda." The U.S. House and Senate unanimously passed resolutions on 1999-NOV-18 and 19 which criticized the Chinese government for its crackdown of the Falun Gong.

Federal Reserve + IRS = The Protection Racket Coup of 1913

by Jim Bowery
Jim Bowery, January 13, 2001 -- The author grants the right to copy, without modification.

INTRODUCTION

Federal Reserve money buys protection from punishment. You are punished if you don't pay taxes. This has become the Federal Reserve's primary monetary authority. The moral hazard of basing monetary authority on punishment has now been realized in the systemic and out-of-control gang rapes of prisoners in the US. All other unlawful acts by US governments are now overshadowed by the murderous, sexually sadistic character of governmental authority that has developed in US penal systems. Federal Reserve money is now protection racket money, or, if you prefer "punishment protection money". Calling it "fiat money", "debt money" or even "legal tender" obscures its true character. The transition to this form of money began in 1913, when the 16th Amendment dramatically expanded the potential need for legal tender in the form of taxes while, in that same year, the Federal Reserve Act started the process of removing from legal tender any backing value other than the protection it affords against punishment. That the redefinition of "legal tender" was unconstitutional(1) has become only a minor dimension of the massive decay in legitimacy and moral leadership during the 20th century triggered by these acts of 1913. These acts were largely in the interest of continental European banking concerns doing business under the name of J. P. Morgan. As vital interests of the United States were sacrificed on their behalf, those foreign interests are reasonably called "enemies of the United States", the acts of U.S. citizens on their behalf "treasons", and all such citizens "traitors".

THE MORAL HAZARD OF GOVERNMENT AND MONEY

Legitimate governments provide assurance that we are secure in our lives and properties by protecting our legal rights in exchange for taxes and other duties. The most legitimate governments will even back up their commitment by providing some sort of compensation if our legal rights are breached, much the same as insurance companies do when they pay out on an insurance policy. But there is a fine line between protection rackets and insurance companies. Indeed, gangsters frequently call their protection rackets "insurance" and the payments they extort from their victims "insurance premiums". That fine line between protector and protection racket is crossed when "moral hazard" tempts the "protector" beyond the limits of his character.

In conventional insurance terminology, "moral hazard" is the temptation to artificially increase hazards. A classic case of moral hazard is an otherwise unprofitable business buying lots of fire insurance and then hiring an arsonist to burn down the place of business.

Insurers, too, can profit by increasing hazards if it is the uninsured who suffer the exposure to risk. A classic example of an insurer's moral hazard is the temptation to parasitize a productive business by threatening it with destruction unless the owners pay regular "insurance premiums".

And that brings us to the morality of governance.

The most profound moral hazard for governance is the penal system combined with taxation.

The framers of the US Constitution included prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. They also made it difficult to parasitize productive States. This they did by requiring that taxation on a State's citizenry be proportional to the State's population under Article. 1. Section. 2. Clause 3. and Article. 1. Section. 9. Clause 4. Making taxes proportional to State population helps control the moral hazard of governance at the Federal level by making it difficult for the Federal government to transfer wealth to States that are politically active from States that are economically productive. Also, States are more capable of defending themselves from the Federal government than are individuals. Unfortunately, the requirement for taxation proportional to State population ("with apportionment" and "with regard to the census") was removed by the 16th Amendment, thereby promoting political porkbarrel at the Federal level and punishing productivity. In the same year the Federal Reserve Act gave license to gradually reduce legal tender's reliance on gold and silver as backing value, leaving the protection legal tender afforded against government punishment it's primary backing value. (Shortly thereafter, the 17th Amendment also removed from the States the power to elect Senators, further eroding the States' ability to protect their citizens from the federal government.)

These acts of treason have produced profound moral hazard at the Federal level, and set the stage for the relentless and radical decay of moral leadership during the 20th century.

WARRIOR INSURANCE

The proper role of government is protection against force and fraud. Therefore, to keep it honest, government's source of revenue should be insurance premiums against loss due to force and fraud. Said premiums could be payable in notes issued by the insurer/protector, but the insurer/protector should merely cancel the insurance policy and cease protecting those who do not pay. An insurer/protector should not generate the market for their own notes by threatening to punish those who do not pay -- as that is a protection racket, even if the insurer/protector honorably indemnifies those who do pay in the event of a covered loss. Such insurance premiums and corresponding insurance coverage would, necessarily, stipulate other conditions under which the insurance/protection continued to be provided at the agreed upon rates. This amounts to taxation on asset value, adjusted for various conditions that may affect risk -- with the added guarantee of indemnification in the event that asset value is lost due to force or fraud.

Such a system actually eliminates governance, as we know it. I call it "warrior insurance".

Under warrior insurance, reinsurance networks take the place of existing international treaties and alliances. Intelligent warrior reinsurance networks will check loss of asset value resulting from gang, or "protection racket" formation well in advance of any need for warfare. Warrior insurance premiums eliminate taxation. Competition between warrior insurance companies creates checks and balances supporting liberty. Formation of mass armies on ideological/political grounds is suppressed by exposing the underlying quid-pro-quo of reciprocal altruism that actually exists between people and their sovereignties -- over-extended kin identification, the basis of political and religious warfare as well as one-world ideology, is rendered less viable. Warrior insurance companies are much like the original sovereignties that defended newly formed civilizations -- they are, in fact, quite traditional. Empires subsumed the original sovereignties because trade, communication and literacy were so centralized. In the information age, this is decreasingly the case. What is increasingly necessary is a strong, distributed militia living lives bonded to their communities and lands from generation to generation, who value honor above their own lives. Unlike systems of taxation, warrior insurers will compensate those who are bonded for conscription in time of war, or deputized in times of civil emergency. Those so bonded would naturally demand a vote, or representation, in declarations of war or civil emergency.

Under warrior insurance, the citizens' militias traditionally enjoy tax relief, since they are in effect, protecting themselves. In Scotland, rather than forming a Yeoman class from the "kindly tenants", "feu fees" were imposed to pay for foreign war debts during the Protestant Reformation, thereby dispossessing ancient families of their lands to make way for revenue generating land use such as wool-producing sheep. Kindly tenants were kindred or clan members who had traditionally been given relief from economic rent/taxation in exchange for sworn allegiance to their clans' militias under the command of their chiefs. But the clan chiefs were corrupted by the royalty which had become more interested foreign adventures than they were in allowing the clans to support and protect themselves and their families on their own lands. The royal war debts began consuming the livelihoods of the folk. Many were forced to flee for their lives. This was the primary origin of the Scotch-Irish pioneers who attempted to create a society in "the New World", free from such betrayals of clan loyalty. The earliest pioneers suffered a 25% mortality rate in the first year of migration in their desperation to create that "New World". This was not merely the moral equivalent of war -- it was death on a massive scale in a struggle with nature herself (war with natives was not the primary cause of these deaths), on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. As usual mostly men went to the frontier to risk everything for their new lands, but many women and children also suffered similar fates. As a consequence, the founders of the United States, folk memory still fresh, thought the avoidance of foreign wars to be common sense. This gave rise to the Monroe Doctrine and the avoidance of foreign wars.

Compare and contrast such a system to the internationally adventurous protection racket posing as a government we have today.


THE MURDEROUS, SEXUALLY SADISTIC BASIS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

> Forget the Clothes --The Emperor is a Murdering Rapist Run Amok

Many critics of President Clinton accused him of being a murdering rapist. But President Clinton was simply the by-product of an epic perversion that has overtaken the lawful government of the United States. It would be understatement to call this perversion a criminal gang. Criminal gangs only occasionally commit rape and murder against their own community. They don't pretend to be a lawful authorities in public. They don't issue their own currency as protection racket money and then demand it as "legal tender". They may rationalize their criminal conduct, but they don't convince themselves that what they are doing is lawful. They admit to themselves that they are gangsters. At least they are that honest. But, perhaps this is simply because gangsters are afraid to compete with the most massive criminal organization in history, whose roots extend back at least to 1913 when the Income Tax and Federal Reserve were created.

The Federal Reserve was created in the same year as the Income Tax for one simple reason:

The US Federal Government was shifting from Reward to Punishment Protection as the basis for its monetary authority.

Federal Reserve Notes are promises to reduce the bearer's risk of punishment for tax code violation, upon presentation to its collection agency, the IRS, in the form of Income Tax.

Note here that it is impossible to reduce the risk of punishment for violation of the income tax code to a level commensurate to the threat of prisoner gang-rape(5). This has become the foundation of the IRS/Fed's all-pervasive aura of fear(6) upon which their punishment protection money is based. The Income tax code is so complex that not even the IRS with all its private contractors from law and accounting firms, can reliably and reproducibly interpret it. This makes it possible only to _reduce_ the risk of punishment -- no matter how much wealth you turn over to the IRS.

In this manner the federal government creates demand for the Federal Reserve's otherwise worthless paper(7). Under the evil monetary basis of punishment protection, the government's monetary authority is limited only by the degree to which it can create pervasive terror of its prison system in the hearts of nonviolent potential tax code "offenders" -- and that means you.

With punishment protection as the basis of its monetary authority, and therefore its ability to buy votes, it was only a matter of time before the US Federal Government, as though an animal trained by operant conditioning, would find ways of increasing the severity and cruelty of its punishments.

But like rat in a maze, the US Federal Government had a problem to solve:

How to impose cruel and unusual punishment without arousing the wrath of a people whose ancestors had risked a 1 in 4 chance of dying in the first year of migration to the New World in order to escape just such evils?

The solution, reached without conscious intent (conspiracy) of individuals was a form of punishment so cruel and unusual -- SO TABOO -- that no decent human being would even want to think about it, let alone use freedom of speech and the press to talk about it:

Gradually cultivate prisoner rape as the basis of government authority.

By replacing pillory, open corporeal punishments and work restitution, so common before the 20th century, with an environment in which Mafiosi and other gangster types are protected from prisoner rape while the American pioneer cultures, less prone to prison gang formation, are systemically gang-raped, an ethnic bias was created against the very peoples who founded the country to escape government predation. The actual bias is apparent as at least 3 out of 4 prisoner rapes involve blacks victimizing men of Protestant heritage while Mediterranean Mafiosi are somehow immune.

The ruthlessly pragmatic and sadistically sociopathic genius of this is that its very intensity, both as physical trauma and moral outrage, rendered it invisible.

Such is the mentality of the child molester who relies on the traumatic nature of his crime to cover his tracks -- seemingly unable to control his subconscious urges. Such was the mentality of those men who, in 1913, gave us the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax.

CONCLUSION

As with a molested child whose shame and guilt compound his trauma, so the American people have come to accept as, as fated, a life lived with this filthy family secret(8). The US Federal Government, now basing its authority on cruel and unusual punishment, cannot be considered legitimate by any reasonable man . The fundamental role that the application of force against citizens plays in defining legitimacy demands such a radical conclusion.

Warrior insurance will be a crucial tool in the triumph of honor over the political will that has so corrupted the rule of law. But honorable warriors need something to protect. Pioneers risk their lives creating new lands. Women then risk their lives giving birth to new folk. Finally, warriors risk their lives protecting their lands and their folk.

The burden of leadership falls, as it did after the feu fees that so motivated the Scotch-Irish, on pioneers.

The dilemma, facing those of us who value the heritage of those early Americans who risked so much to escape sadistic authority in the old world, is not whether we are willing to risk our lives for freedom from such tyranny, but whether we can pioneer a 'New World' where our love of freedom can bear fruit in the face of death.

References

(1) This is a consequence of the unlawful declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender". "Legal tender" is called such because courts are required to accept it as money for legal purposes (by far, the largest legal purpose of money is payment of taxes). The US Constitution, under Article 1, Section 10 requires the States to use only gold and silver as payment for legally recognized debts. Article 1, section 8 does not give Congress power to make legal tender. Therefore, the declaration that Federal Reserve Notes are "legal tender for all debts public and private" is unlawful. The best counter arguments to this generally ignore the fact that the paper currency issued by the original central banks were presumed to not be backed by legal tender's value as protection against punishment, let alone cruel and unusual punishment.

(2) See http://www.spr.org/docs/stats.html

(3) The "Scared Straight" program from the 1970s is still going strong as evidenced by this April 5, 1997 article from the Lubbock Avalance- Journal: http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/040697/prison.ht m

An excerpt:

"DALLAS (AP) - A grand jury has refused to indict prison inmates in connection
with a ''scared straight'' prison visit during which several boys claimed to have been molested."

(4) Assistant U.S. attorney Gordon Zubrod from Harrisburg, PA made the following public statement to 3 suspects who fled to Canada (this statement was captured for the public record during a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview):

"You're going to be the boyfriend of a very bad man if you wait out your extradition."

(5) Look at the classic paper on the value of human life by Nobel prize winning economist George Stigler of the University of Chicago School of Business. He measured the effect of danger on wage rates in different professions. Prison is more of a danger in some lines of activity than others. We should be able to apply similar analytic techniques to the relationship between taxation and the prison system.

(6) "Prison Rape: Every Man's Greatest Fear", August 1995, Penthouse.

(7) Although the thesis of this paper does not necessarily predict it, an increase in the rate of prisoner suicide negatively correlating with the rate of inflation would be supportive.

(8) A final anecdote on silence: When the author of this white paper was called in for an audit by the IRS in 1994, he sought a tax attorney to represent him. During an interview with a prospective attorney the author told the attorney he thought the audit might have been politically motivated. When asked for details, the author related that the author had published articles on the Internet advocating a judical review of the legitimacy of the ratification of the 16th Amendment about one month prior to the notice of audit. The attorney then told the author that he could not represent the author. According to this tax attorney, he had attended a seminar given by the IRS in which the distinct impression was given that "tax protesters" were not to be defended and that any attorney who defended a "tax protester" would be subjected to a lifetime of audits. This was later confirmed during an interaction with a prominent southern California tax attorney when it became known that the IRS auditor had verbally admitted to his consulting accountant that the author was being audited because of his advocacy of a judicial review of the 16th Amendment's ratification.

In a related situation currently ongoing in China, a spokesperson for the Falun Gong Practitioners in North America has stated that: "lawyers in China have already been told not to defend these innocent civilians unless they agree with the government propaganda." The U.S. House and Senate unanimously passed resolutions on 1999-NOV-18 and 19 which criticized the Chinese government for its crackdown of the Falun Gong.

Does the Google version have the classic Deja search engine (http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml) ??? I don't like the new search interface now. :(

Anyone find it? Thanks!

Google and Deja have had different corporate cultures since day one: deja has positioned itself as a bloated portal, wheras google has prided itself on being sleek and lean with inobtrusive ads. Deja tried to be everything to everyone, whereas Google tried to be the useful tool that users reached for when they wanted to get a specific task done.

These are completely incompatible philosophies, so which one can we expect to win out? I'm afraid Google might decide to become more bloated as a result.

But more important than that is how Google will respond to other criticism leveled at Deja in the past. There has been a petition floating around for the past six months demanding that Deja reopen its pre-1999 usenet archives to general access. Can we expect Google to comply with these wishes, now that the archives are in their hands? Or will corporate expediency force them to maintain so many of Deja's odious practices?

This acquisition will be a key test of how open-source culture can survive in the face of extensive funding. Companies like RedHat and TurboLinux have done so with more or less success, but their markets, no matter how much linux users may trumpet their operating system's virtues, have always been constrained to a small number of zealots who are willing to go along with some corporate changes as long as their operating system is improved at the code level. Google, however, is bigger than all the linux companies combined in its user base. It's aimed at the average internet surfer.

How long can we expect Google to stay the same search engine we've always reached for? How long until we have to switch back to Altavista or embrace the next young upstart who can provide what we want and need without the bloat?

Google and Deja have had different corporate cultures since day one: deja has positioned itself as a bloated portal, wheras google has prided itself on being sleek and lean with inobtrusive ads. Deja tried to be everything to everyone, whereas Google tried to be the useful tool that users reached for when they wanted to get a specific task done.

These are completely incompatible philosophies, so which one can we expect to win out? I'm afraid Google might decide to become more bloated as a result.

But more important than that is how Google will respond to other criticism leveled at Deja in the past. There has been a petition floating around for the past six months demanding that Deja reopen its pre-1999 usenet archives to general access. Can we expect Google to comply with these wishes, now that the archives are in their hands? Or will corporate expediency force them to maintain so many of Deja's odious practices?

This acquisition will be a key test of how open-source culture can survive in the face of extensive funding. Companies like RedHat and TurboLinux have done so with more or less success, but their markets, no matter how much linux users may trumpet their operating system's virtues, have always been constrained to a small number of zealots who are willing to go along with some corporate changes as long as their operating system is improved at the code level. Google, however, is bigger than all the linux companies combined in its user base. It's aimed at the average internet surfer.

How long can we expect Google to stay the same search engine we've always reached for? How long until we have to switch back to Altavista or embrace the next young upstart who can provide what we want and need without the bloat?

Google and Deja have had different corporate cultures since day one: deja has positioned itself as a bloated portal, wheras google has prided itself on being sleek and lean with inobtrusive ads. Deja tried to be everything to everyone, whereas Google tried to be the useful tool that users reached for when they wanted to get a specific task done.

These are completely incompatible philosophies, so which one can we expect to win out? I'm afraid Google might decide to become more bloated as a result.

But more important than that is how Google will respond to other criticism leveled at Deja in the past. There has been a petition floating around for the past six months demanding that Deja reopen its pre-1999 usenet archives to general access. Can we expect Google to comply with these wishes, now that the archives are in their hands? Or will corporate expediency force them to maintain so many of Deja's odious practices?

This acquisition will be a key test of how open-source culture can survive in the face of extensive funding. Companies like RedHat and TurboLinux have done so with more or less success, but their markets, no matter how much linux users may trumpet their operating system's virtues, have always been constrained to a small number of zealots who are willing to go along with some corporate changes as long as their operating system is improved at the code level. Google, however, is bigger than all the linux companies combined in its user base. It's aimed at the average internet surfer.

How long can we expect Google to stay the same search engine we've always reached for? How long until we have to switch back to Altavista or embrace the next young upstart who can provide what we want and need without the bloat?

Google and Deja have had different corporate cultures since day one: deja has positioned itself as a bloated portal, wheras google has prided itself on being sleek and lean with inobtrusive ads. Deja tried to be everything to everyone, whereas Google tried to be the useful tool that users reached for when they wanted to get a specific task done.

These are completely incompatible philosophies, so which one can we expect to win out? I'm afraid Google might decide to become more bloated as a result.

But more important than that is how Google will respond to other criticism leveled at Deja in the past. There has been a petition floating around for the past six months demanding that Deja reopen its pre-1999 usenet archives to general access. Can we expect Google to comply with these wishes, now that the archives are in their hands? Or will corporate expediency force them to maintain so many of Deja's odious practices?

This acquisition will be a key test of how open-source culture can survive in the face of extensive funding. Companies like RedHat and TurboLinux have done so with more or less success, but their markets, no matter how much linux users may trumpet their operating system's virtues, have always been constrained to a small number of zealots who are willing to go along with some corporate changes as long as their operating system is improved at the code level. Google, however, is bigger than all the linux companies combined in its user base. It's aimed at the average internet surfer.

How long can we expect Google to stay the same search engine we've always reached for? How long until we have to switch back to Altavista or embrace the next young upstart who can provide what we want and need without the bloat?

According to Leadbeater the "first Internet" failed because the technologists and geeks,

Failed? It was awesome!

I was just talking to a guy on the train about this last week. I was reminiscing about the high-signal-to-noise days of the early days of Usenet over the Arpanet (late 1980's). He was yacking on about some new startup making pay-as-you-go chips that was gonna be the next e-boom, .... yeah yeah yeah. He was telling me that I should "load up" on this stock and that I would be rich.

I was telling this guy that I thought e-commerce was a big capitalist gang-bang, and that it (and advertising) has ruined then internet. And reminded him that the Internet was originally a SOCIALIST program, meaning, government "controlled", funded with tax dollars... and it worked real well!

I couldn't belive that I was saying this, as I'm a Green/Libertarian, and the term "socialism" is anathema to the Libs, (as well as the Dems and the Repubs).

But think about it: Certain things SHOULD be funded by a socialist model. The roads, for example. In a "free market" system, you'd have 2 toll roads going between the same 2 points, with the toll takes competing/colluding for your money. Look at the Cali energy crisis: public utilities should be severely regulated!

Look at the capitalist/commercial media in America. It sucks. It does not inform, it does not provide a balanced view of things, the corporations control the elections... the capitalist media does nothing well, but produce/distribute SPAM.

The socialst media in Canada and England produce some wonderful art (Imagine Monty Python or The Young Ones being produced in America?). The only thing like it in America is Public Access TV, or community radio (like what Pacifica is/was/tries to be) which has a socialist funding model with a decentralized authority (just like DNS).

I say its time for a return to the Socialst (economic) internet model, with the goals of decentralization and free speech, get the profit-seekers off the 'net, and immediately delcare the Deja archive a national treasure, with the goal of an UNCENSORED archive being restored/preserved for the good of mankind.

Call me a dreamer ... ;^)

You can look at it from a strictly theoretical standpoint, which would be that no one would bother to spam if spam did not generate any results. That's a no-brainer. The "no one I know responds to spam therefore no one must respond to spam" conclusion is kind of short-sighted. The reality of it is exactly as NeMon'ess states. The traffic to a spammer's spamvertised web site does increase as a result of spam. I have terminated many a spammer's accounts and have talked with some of them at great lengths. A few of them were hard core spammers, with networks sitting off of RBLed netblocks that hosted both their web sites and their mail services (thus effectively negating the RBL). After speaking with spammers numerous times, I am certain they are seeing significant results from their spam. Many of the individuals I spoke with stated this and their statements were supported by the lengths some went to and the trouble they took to be able to spam repeatedly coupled with the size of their overall operation.

maru

1) It is a fruit bearing Australian tree (referenced here, here and here)
2) It seems to be a game for Amiga (referenced here, here (tried to follow up, no luck), and here) that can be sold in German for 5DM.

In reference to me and without knowledge of the above two meanings, here is an IRC log showing one amusing incorrect interpretation of quadong.
And finally, you may chose between a well written but inaccurate story (free verse psuedo-poem) and a correct, but boring, story (prose) of how I came to use the word.

The conclusion was that the policy that people were reporting then, which sure sounds like what we're hearing here, seemed pretty fishy.

At the time, I figured that they were a little company that was trying just a little too hard to grow a little too fast; the evidence neither supports:

• The thesis that they're a pure "pyramid scam" nor
• The thesis that they're tremendously credible.

Perhaps the most cogent comment was thus:

Real companies pay for your training, and then, if you are good, expand your pay, benefits, bonus, etc. to keep you. What you have here is either a scam, or at the very least, a great big red flag that the company is run like crap.... -- Ken Sodemann

The best way to href a news article is to look it up in deja... Like this. though surely you knew that already...

The best way to href a news article is to look it up in deja... Like this. though surely you knew that already...

Another obvious thing to do is to use deja (no binaries though AFAIK)

HTH

Wroot

Me too. The first machine I ever programmed was a friend's HP25. (I was 9 years old; I couldn't afford my own.) Now I make my living programming.

Thanks, Bill.

I don't believe in an afterlife, but if there is one, I know they use RPN in heaven. God would have taken more than a seven days to create the world if he had to remember how many parentheses he had open.

Was it this or this that killed him? I'm sorry he lived to see what happend to his once-great company.

Yes, this is topmind's stuff. Semi-kook is a good way to put it.

If you take a look at the comp.object archives in the past few weeks there have been a few whacks taken at exactly this article. Try this deja.com link: My thoughts on `topmind@technologist.com` AND his site

Though I'm not a subscriber to Ebay's service, I've seen other people complain about this on news.admin.net-abuse.email. Check out these deja.com discussions and you'll see that it's been a problem at least since early December 2000.

The only difference between spammers and Ebay is that spammers are just a bit more ruthless.

Herbie J.

A quick deja.com search is pretty ugly regarding the Dulux DVD player. Most of the users' stories are similar to Adam's: delays, no response and no refunds. The one user did get his, but due to the problems it has, is shipping it back. (Follow the rest of the thread for more info)

J.J.

A quick deja.com search is pretty ugly regarding the Dulux DVD player. Most of the users' stories are similar to Adam's: delays, no response and no refunds. The one user did get his, but due to the problems it has, is shipping it back. (Follow the rest of the thread for more info)

J.J.

A quick deja.com search is pretty ugly regarding the Dulux DVD player. Most of the users' stories are similar to Adam's: delays, no response and no refunds. The one user did get his, but due to the problems it has, is shipping it back. (Follow the rest of the thread for more info)

J.J.

Ordinarily, I sympathize with cases like his... that was until I found out Mr. Nissan was a punk spamming thief.

In fact, he's been a spammer since late October.

And just like a punk spamming thief, he lies about his spamming too.

Fuck Uzi "scumbag" Nissan and the car he drove in on. I hope Nissanmotors.com's landsharks turn his site into a greasy yellow stain on his ISP's server room floor.

Ordinarily, I sympathize with cases like his... that was until I found out Mr. Nissan was a punk spamming thief.

In fact, he's been a spammer since late October.

And just like a punk spamming thief, he lies about his spamming too.

Fuck Uzi "scumbag" Nissan and the car he drove in on. I hope Nissanmotors.com's landsharks turn his site into a greasy yellow stain on his ISP's server room floor.

Ordinarily, I sympathize with cases like his... that was until I found out Mr. Nissan was a punk spamming thief.

In fact, he's been a spammer since late October.

And just like a punk spamming thief, he lies about his spamming too.

Fuck Uzi "scumbag" Nissan and the car he drove in on. I hope Nissanmotors.com's landsharks turn his site into a greasy yellow stain on his ISP's server room floor.

Obviously eBay's own spam is just fine.

Not only have they been documented spammers for quite some time (reference Dejanews over the past 6 months), they're now resetting members "no, I don't like spam!" settings.

If their crackdown on spam is indicative of their crackdown on offline deals, offline buyers and sellers have nothing to worry about.

(Hey, eBay, you readin' this? I DON'T LIKE SPAM. And calling it "valuable email communications with news, offers and special events" doesn't change the fact that you can't polish a turd. Now go away or I shall taunt your marketroids a second time.)

tysto writes: "Using the same logic, the Authors Guild should logically be against public libraries. After all, people who use libraries can (oh horrors!) read a new book without having to pay for it!"

There are some writers who hate libraries. For example, Tom Clancy has vented some of his frustrations on alt.books.tom-clancy. [I recommend reading a.b.t-c--I'm a regular, and it's a keeper. Katz, here's a "VC" for ya, buddy.]

Clancy writes: Samuel Johnson once wrote that no one but a fool writes for any reason except money, and I will not dispute the words of Dr. Johnson. Libraries purchase books, sure, and lend them out, and they last, typically, 10 readings before falling apart. But, you see, a writer only gets paid for the purchase, not the use, and in the case of computer owners AND internet surfers, it does strike me as odd that such people cannot afford to buy a damned book.

However, I am wealthy, and the wealthy are not allowed to have any opinions at all, and are the one class in America whom it is okay to loathe. Why? I suppose class envy is the usual reason, though, my dad was a mailman, and I am, therefore, working class.

People hate us for having huge houses. Well, okay, I do have a very large house, but I paid workers to build it, and thus my AFTER-TAX money went to workers with wives, families, and pickup trucks. For this I am disliked?

I suppose justice is where one finds it, and one must take the bitter with the sweet. Sniff...

Please do not take this postseriously. I *AM* allowed to have a sense of humor, even if the Washington Post and New York Times hate me. Unlike them, I have no illusions of godhood.

I've been reading a.b.t-c for several years now, and I'm still not always sure how to take TC when he posts to the NG. I've gotten a couple nice emails from him, and, curse my metal body, I came in second [maybe third] in the guess who TC's alter ego is contest. I also know who won. But I ain't sayin'--because, as I've said before, I respect TC's privacy. But I had that particular account killfiled at one point...

tysto writes: "Using the same logic, the Authors Guild should logically be against public libraries. After all, people who use libraries can (oh horrors!) read a new book without having to pay for it!"

There are some writers who hate libraries. For example, Tom Clancy has vented some of his frustrations on alt.books.tom-clancy. [I recommend reading a.b.t-c--I'm a regular, and it's a keeper. Katz, here's a "VC" for ya, buddy.]

Clancy writes: Samuel Johnson once wrote that no one but a fool writes for any reason except money, and I will not dispute the words of Dr. Johnson. Libraries purchase books, sure, and lend them out, and they last, typically, 10 readings before falling apart. But, you see, a writer only gets paid for the purchase, not the use, and in the case of computer owners AND internet surfers, it does strike me as odd that such people cannot afford to buy a damned book.

However, I am wealthy, and the wealthy are not allowed to have any opinions at all, and are the one class in America whom it is okay to loathe. Why? I suppose class envy is the usual reason, though, my dad was a mailman, and I am, therefore, working class.

People hate us for having huge houses. Well, okay, I do have a very large house, but I paid workers to build it, and thus my AFTER-TAX money went to workers with wives, families, and pickup trucks. For this I am disliked?

I suppose justice is where one finds it, and one must take the bitter with the sweet. Sniff...

Please do not take this postseriously. I *AM* allowed to have a sense of humor, even if the Washington Post and New York Times hate me. Unlike them, I have no illusions of godhood.

I've been reading a.b.t-c for several years now, and I'm still not always sure how to take TC when he posts to the NG. I've gotten a couple nice emails from him, and, curse my metal body, I came in second [maybe third] in the guess who TC's alter ego is contest. I also know who won. But I ain't sayin'--because, as I've said before, I respect TC's privacy. But I had that particular account killfiled at one point...

Do you believe everything you read on the web?!

Here's something citing something straight from the horse's... er... IFN.

http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=670664 883&fmt=text

In particular, note the following excerpt of IFN's response to those who dare complain about spam sent by IFN customers or spamvertising IFN hosted web sites

Finally, we reserve the right to charge a fee to the complainant to pursue complaints about email messages not in violation of California or federal law.

Yep, since there's a lot of real spam that isn't considered illegal under current California laws and there are currently no federal laws stating that spam is illegal, that essentially boils down to, "Yes, we know our customers may be responsible for spamming (directly from our network or from elsewhere to promote their IFN-hosted web site), but we really don't want to hear about it or take responsibility for our spamming customers, and we'll do whatever we can to discourage people from even filing otherwise appropriate complaints."

Hey, cool! First post...

But seriously....

I did a quick scan of Deja and came up with this, so it's sorta possible. That might give you a good start.

But, really, at the price of the Digital Elph, why not just go get a nice dedicated webcam?

You mean Scumbag San Khuri from Benchmark Print Supply? He got slapped silly with a couple of lawsuits. One of them from Europe. Currently, he's under a restraining order from sending spam ever again. Deja article here

http://www.deja.com/corp/

The only change I see is that www.dejanews.com once again redirects to the page www.deja.com. The usenet search otherwise looks exactly the same to me -- the same busted article threading, the same crufty featureless search engine, the same hobbled archive only going back about 17 months, the same totally broken "select language" non-feature.

Let's face it -- the usenet news part of deja has been neglected for a looong time now. Only time will show if this move reflects deja's renewed interest in being the best usenet news archive available, or if if its just a pit stop on the road to closing the doors and shutting the lights.

http://www.deja.com/=dnc/home_ps.shtml still seems to be the best way to get rid of the cluttered look associated with Deja's later incarnations. Give it a try if you just want the straight Usenet search from the old-school DejaNews days.

Because it's theft. I don't like being stolen from.

But not just because it's theft. The real fight is how we preserve email as a useful communications medium.

> Add to that the fact that I can block senders,[ ... ]

And how much of your time do you spend doing this, when you could be doing other things? You say you've never had more than 10 a week. Before I started reading headers, I was up to 10 a day. And I'm on the light side. Others I know were in the hundreds per day.

Consider this - if we give Jay Garon net.access in prison, and only 1% of legitimate small businesses (ignoring the MMFools and pr0n-hawkers and snake-oil "pharmacists") in the US spam Jay Garon once a year. Jay will have to "just hit delete" 240,000 times a year. That's 657 a day.

As punishment, I think Jay Garon should have to reply to an email from the warden, three times a day, to get his meals served. Failure to answer the mail within an hour results in no meal service.

Now how long do you think it would be before Jay starved to death, "just hitting delete"?

> Now I just delete and forget.

I used to delete spam. Now I delete spammers.

Speaking of whom... hey Garon, seen any sexy babes lately? How's Premier Financial?

The wheels of justice grind slowly - Garon's spamhaus dates back to early 1999 - but they grind extremely fine. I'm gonna eat an 8-oz filet mignon tonight. I'm sure Jay will be eating meat soon too, but of a different sort.

Buh-bye, Jay. You might as well let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. A little tenderizing might make it easier on ya when Bubba comes a knockin'.

Bad example. Elite is supposed to go into PD (or maybe gpl) open source. I think january 2000 was the date David Drabben wanted it to happen. Still nothing though.

Anyways this dejanews search reveald that Elite is "effectively" public domain Usenet Article

Deja News is an example of using one protocol (WWW, or HTML over HTTP) as a front end to another (NNTP). OP is asking for something similar with a WWW front end to Gopher.

I did searches for 'Dulux DVD' on Dogpile, Google, Lycos, and AltaVista. I came up with *no* relevant links at all.

I did a Deja USENET search and came up with the following results.

Looks like Scotty6004 crossposted a query to a bunch of groups (might be our AC), and ONE PERSON came back with a vague "Yeah, it's great," but of course, that sounds like a corporate shill to me.

I called their 800# just now and spoke to the help desk. They gave me an email address for questions that isn't listed on the website: info@dvd8050.com

I asked if there was any magazine or website reviews of the product that I could reference aside from the gamedvdplayer.com website, and she didn't have any of that information, she was just basically a message-taker.

I'm going to send some mail to the dvd8050 and gamedvdplayer address and request 3rd party info and I'll post my results.

The real reason we don't have infinite TLD's though is that we'd just be moving the problem up a level. Instead of fighting over "foo.com", Foo Inc. and Joe's Foo Emporium will fighto over ownership of the "dot foo" namespace. And now, they'll have to compete with the Foo Foundation (formerly foo.org) and Foo University (formerly foo.edu).

No, the real solution here is twofold. We need

• A Usenet style hierarchy By polluting the top level namespace with ".biz" et. al., we're actually moving away from this goal.
• A Product/Concept/Keyword matching system. Search engines and things like Real Names(tm) are helpful, but the former aren't precise enough, and for the latter, I'd prefer an open system.

here

Weird I was actually playing frogger on my TV last night, was wayyy cool. Even though the 800 was little more than a gaming machine with a keyboard on it, this gave way to many many innovative programming techniques on the atari. Possibly this is a way for the sony developers to find out just what can be done with the system, sorta free R&D if you will. Its going to be interesting to see what Freeware games come from this.

--toq

I'm surprised that there aren't people archiving every UseNet post. It would certainly be an interesting exercise.

I am the Raxis.

and I contributte to the Linux kernel.

Good for you. Since your source isn't closed, there is little chance that a backdoor could be added (and if someone did, it will be found).

Or maybe I'm in a progressive branch. who knows?

You must be an OSA shill*. There is no progressive branch. Being a Scientologist means being 100% "tech" - everything else means you're a squirrel.

* However, the Scientology intelligence branch OSA has a history of adding distracting noise to discussions.

------------------

One issue that is creating a lot of confusion and disagreement and for which RMS or FSF have not officially (at least i have not seen) taken a clear position on is distributing GPLd programs with a proprietary OS.
If a GPLd program links to for example libc on a proprietary UNIX, my reading of GPL says that it is legal at least as long as they are distributed separately. But what is the situation when they are distributed with the OS (for example GNOME with Solaris or bash with MacOSX)? From what I've read, Apple's lawyers seem to think it is illegal and it was used as one of the arguments to why Qt being counted as an operating system library would not make distributing KDE with Linux legal. Even RMS has been claimed to agree on this.
However, many seem to think distributing GPLd works, that link to the proprietary OS libs, with the OS is perfectly legal and for example the possible distribution of GNOME with Solaris in the future make it IMHO an important question that needs to be clearly answered.

Secondly, Bush is doing a good thing by being Opt-In, but it is not Confirmed (or double) opt-in. Alot of Internet users got e-mails they didn't opt-in for. Here's the discussion on it, as done on news.admin.net-abuse.email and reported on n.a.n-a.sightings. To be honest, the Democrats did the same thing, but their list manager (CheetahMail) admitted to it and is changing everything to be confirmed opt-in.

Will we get an intelegent president, or one that will get the White House kicked off the 'net for violating it's upstream's AUP?

--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";