Ya know, I don't think I've ever voted for anyone that has won in my life. I'm so agaisnt everything that is going on.. Bush, Obama, McCain.. whatever.. none of these idiots believe in my liberty.
Why not just let politicians vote for us.. its cheaper and as far as I can tell it produces the same results. Why bother keeping up the charade that the people control this country?
In whatever you decide to do.. just descent. No, I'm not voting for Obama or McCain.. their solution to every problem is the same.. "more", more government, more programs, more money, more, more, more..
Oh its ridiculous. The Gadsden flag is a US flag and for a time was the OFFICIAL US flag of the 13 colonies. (denoted by the 13 rattles on the snakes tail.)
Domestic Terrorists
Anti-Government Groups
Often associated with unorganized militias, the Anti-Government movement actually embraces a much larger variety of groups and causes. The extreme fringe believes that the U.S. government is either the enemy or has been subverted by the enemy and must be actively defended against.
There is nothing wrong proclaiming that you want to defend your rights from government. The prefatory clause to the second amendment also states that the local militia is a requirement to security of a free state.
Anti-Government Issues and Beliefs
Gun Control is a conspiracy to enslave us starting with the removal of our ability to either defend ourselves or forcefully change our government.
No we wouldn't want people to be able to defend themselves.
The first ten amendments of The Constitution are God given and all others are temporary, invalid or outright fraudulent.
Totally wrong interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is written in negative law. The Constitution does not GIVE the people anything at all. Paper can not grant rights. The first 10 amendments are laws that PREVENT the government from abusing the rights people already have. It is a a restriction on government not on the people and grants nothing to anyone.
All judicial authority resides with the people. The jury, not the Judge, directs trials and can nullify laws they do not approve of.
I can see how law enforcement would screw this up. They worship judges as gods.. you know those lawyers in black dresses. Truth be told a judge is not the *boss* of a trial, he is only the referee between disputing parties. The power does lie with the people, and rightfully so, for is it not right for the people to be especially true for a Representative Republic as opposed to a True Democracy.?
U.S. sovereignty is being surrendered to the U.N., World Court, and World Bank, with the U.S. becoming an economic region of this New World Order.
Anti-Government activists often believe they have never accepted U.S. citizenship or can renounce it.
Federal and State governments do not have the legal authority to levy taxes or interfere with travel or private enterprise by requiring licenses or regulating activity or conduct.
There are people who believe this stuff.. they might even have a point.. Regardless, why does the DHS think someone holding these beliefs is suddenly a "domestic terrorist"?
It's just absurd.. the war on terror is too vague.. it will never end, they will just make up "new" terrorists.
"Much of the security carried out in the name of 9/11 has proven to be infective in the seven years since the attack."
That is right and we can know this for certainty because if we believe Bush and his rhetoric that "Hundreds of terrorist plots have been stopped and the terrorists have been arrested"..then where are the hundreds of trials? If there are no trials, or these plots are military "detainees" (read: "legally not prisoner"). Then why do we need civilian airport checks if civilians are not being arrested?
This HAS to be security theater, it is the only answer. Giving up your rights will not make you secure.. it will just change the threat from one thing to another. In this case you are simply moving the threat of terrorism to the threat of tyrannical state powers. Both are real. The threat of state power is much greater. You see.. our current government is "attempting" to use these powers for good.. they want to protect us.. but that government will not always be the same.. Some day we may see an administration elected that will use these expanded powers for bad things.. it's only a matter of time.
Once upon a time commitment to American principles made one a patriot. Now blind support of all government policies is required.
Yeah, the DHS had a pamphlet out that listed the Gadsden Flag as a symbol of domestic terrorism.
The line between patriotism and nationalism is a thin one.. but I believe that a nationalist is a blind patriot.
It really disturbs me when I hear John McCain talk about "Country first".. That is absolutely UN-American. Americans believe the individual needs are placed about the needs of the state. China is a place where the needs of the state come before those of the individual people, not America.
Zimbra works very well, if your not looking to outsource. (ask the Yahoo guys about it)
It can be run as a domain controller itself using OpenLDAP and Samba to do account authentication, and there are modules in Zimbra to allow it to do that.. So while you are replacing your mail server you can take the PDC out with it.:p
The UN? Are you out of your mind? That is the most corrupt incompetent bunch of unelected bureaucrats that have ever existed.
What you want to do.. is you want to make sure the person who holds the key, does not have the power of force behind them.. that means you have to keep it out of the hands of government. ICANN is probably the best choice..
Verisign preforms intercepts for the NSA. (how exactly they do with with pub/private key is unknown to me.. perhaps they have a copy of the private key).
Look, I could care less but this doesn't logically follow.
Nope, there is nothing in the law that says the actions taken by a judge who has not signed the loyalty are void. The law says basically a) refusal to sign the loyalty oath will result in discharge, and b) until they sign the oath they cannot receive a paycheck. Additionally, while the Florida Supreme Court has held that judges are to sign the loyalty oath, removal of judges is granted solely to the Supreme Court of Florida, after investigation by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Your saying there is no law to take criminal action against them if they don't sign it. That's not the same thing as what I am saying. They didn't "refuse" to sign it and they did receive a pay check. All of that is besides the point.
What I'm saying is it is the law that they must sign it in order to be a judge. How logically could they ever be a judge if they did not sign it? The state of being on the bench without signing that is illegal itself.
Not that these guys care about their own laws or anything tho..
No, in order to be a judge the law states they must sign it. Jack Thompson was arguing not that there was a crime or a forgery, but that they never were judges at all to begin with. That would mean that all the cases they tried would be thrown out.. it's a pretty serious charge.
Jack is a slime bag, he was proven wrong over and over again.. but he might have had something with this and now the state wants him gone and the matter forgotten about.
So wait.. you don't want the smaller group of elected bureaucrats in the United States to run it.. you want the larger un-elected group of bureaucrats at the U.N. to do it?
Bureaucrats will play bureaucratic games with this.. they will make it political and use that political leverage such as was done in this case to outlaw something someone felt was wrong.. I think instead I think this can be done by a private or non-profit and most importantly non-political standards body of some sort with much better result.
(Actually upon checking I found that ICANN *is* non-profit private entity now.. so we just need to keep the government off their toes.)
Extracts from the Close-Out Memo The signature on the loyalty oath taken by Judge Dava Tunis is a forgery. The judge recently recommended that anti-game crusader Jack Thompson be found guilty on several charges of professional misconduct.
According to a report in the Daily Business Review, with supporting material from the Florida legal blog, 'justicebuilding', "The state attorney's office has concluded the signatures of three Miami-Dade judges were forged on their 2000 loyalty oaths, but no criminal charges will be filed."
The reason for the lack of criminal charges is down to the statute of limitations - it's apparently nothing to do with the fact that Florida judges can rule in cases of law, despite forged signatures (which they had nothing to do with and no knowledge of at all).
The forgeries came to light due to Thompson himself requesting an enquiry into the situation.
The 'close-out memo' (a memo summarising the investigation) states that, "Judge Tunis stated to investigators that the signature on the Loyalty Oath document is clearly a forgery, and that she had no recollection of having signed the form."
However, the memo also states, "There is no conceivable criminal motive for a judge to have participated in a forgery of his or her own loyalty oath."
Ya know this might be good news for Apple.. Everyone has seen their ad's before and they are old news but Microsoft trashing on them (and getting the concept wrong in the progress) just made the old ad's popular again.. now we have to wait for Apple's response.
Well besides that the constitution is the highest law in the land. No statute or simple bill by congress trumps the constitution. The 4th amendment is pretty clear about what the government needs to do to search "papers and effects" that logically would apply to data as well.
The Constitution does not have any teeth to actually do anting to someone that breaks it, however if something is found to be unconstitutional then that does not mean it stop being a law at that time.. it means it was never a law to begin with.. so if that is the case then immunity could have never been granted at all.
Cut to the point: you are saying that it is hard to write good laws, and that organizations and institutions can be corrupted.
So. The. Fuck. What.
No, that is not what I am saying.
What I am saying it is impossible to write good laws that work and do what they are supposed to do. There are many reasons for this and you can read the book I cited above for a good run down, but it comes down to the fact that government is a cohesive institution of force. It is simply unable to write a good law that works for most people, so the people that it does work for attempt to use the power to expand its scope and the people it doesn't work for attempt to subvert it.
That seems to be a common theme with Libertarian types. Any asshat can poke holes in anything sufficiently complex. So what? How does that shred of credibility transfer to all of the conclusions?
You never bothered to mention how you propose to have done things differently. Um, let me guess: same thing, but better?
I assume you would be all like "just repeal the old unfair law, no need for a new law, things would work out on their own". LOL.
Why not? Why do you thing you need government to decide for you such a simple thing as who you can buy, sell, and contract with? Have out laws brought peace and harmony between people? No, they can't, they are just words on paper. I think that in a free society you should be able to make choices freely about who you associate with. Anyone so foolish to decide to discriminate solely based upon race will find themselves missing out on a great deal of talents that a wide range of individuals can provide.
Freedom brings people together, it promotes healing, force sets people apart. A good way to describe this is the "battle" over Evolution and Creationism. The reason these groups fight with each other is they need to control the government run school system to teach their children what they believe.. however if the government did not run schools there would be no argument at all.. you could send your kid to say school you like and have them teach whatever vales you wanted. The issue that is whipped up into a furor by government and pits people against each other essentially vanishes in the free market. Now what if government did not play a role in race? There would be no political prize to win, nothing to reform, no battle to be had.. and eventually you would see racism decay and disappear, maybe not completely, but it would be better.
Libertarians have been co-opted by lunatics. Sadly, it's hard to tell them apart. Some of them represent the worst of humanity. The others have the best intentions but are delusional. Which are you?
Of all the ways we have invented to best control billions of humans in any given moment, Libertarians are a joke. Gets funnier as you add more humans.
You will have to make up your mind all on your own. There is however a telling remark in your final statement. the best way to control people? What if.. I don't want to control people? What if I believe it is wrong to use force on another person? Force and control at the hands of government is the cause of some of the great evils of our age including but not limited to war, slavery, murder, rape, and theft.
You may choose to enact force on people for this thing or that, this shinny goal or that one, but I simply choose not to and resist when force is applied to me. I really think it's time man started to realize that we can coexist without instigating force on one another.
Regardless.. you will make up your own mind about me, but remember.. whatever you choose it is absolutely fine with me.
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate each other to deal with one another and help one another." --Milton Friedman
Slashdot Mirror
"Buffer underrun permitting arbitrary code execution != "invisble root account"
You don't know what you're talking about."
No xombo is uber 1337. He must be warning us of a NEW problem.. quick how do I remove the "bgownzyoass" hidden super user account!
Ya know, I don't think I've ever voted for anyone that has won in my life. I'm so agaisnt everything that is going on.. Bush, Obama, McCain.. whatever.. none of these idiots believe in my liberty.
Why not just let politicians vote for us.. its cheaper and as far as I can tell it produces the same results. Why bother keeping up the charade that the people control this country?
In whatever you decide to do.. just descent. No, I'm not voting for Obama or McCain.. their solution to every problem is the same.. "more", more government, more programs, more money, more, more, more..
Oh its ridiculous. The Gadsden flag is a US flag and for a time was the OFFICIAL US flag of the 13 colonies. (denoted by the 13 rattles on the snakes tail.)
Domestic Terrorists
Anti-Government Groups
Often associated with unorganized militias, the Anti-Government movement actually embraces a much larger variety of groups and causes. The extreme fringe believes that the U.S. government is either the enemy or has been subverted by the enemy and must be actively defended against.
There is nothing wrong proclaiming that you want to defend your rights from government. The prefatory clause to the second amendment also states that the local militia is a requirement to security of a free state.
Anti-Government Issues and Beliefs
Gun Control is a conspiracy to enslave us starting with the removal of our ability to either defend ourselves or forcefully change our government.
No we wouldn't want people to be able to defend themselves.
The first ten amendments of The Constitution are God given and all others are temporary, invalid or outright fraudulent.
Totally wrong interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is written in negative law. The Constitution does not GIVE the people anything at all. Paper can not grant rights. The first 10 amendments are laws that PREVENT the government from abusing the rights people already have. It is a a restriction on government not on the people and grants nothing to anyone.
All judicial authority resides with the people. The jury, not the Judge, directs trials and can nullify laws they do not approve of.
I can see how law enforcement would screw this up. They worship judges as gods.. you know those lawyers in black dresses. Truth be told a judge is not the *boss* of a trial, he is only the referee between disputing parties. The power does lie with the people, and rightfully so, for is it not right for the people to be especially true for a Representative Republic as opposed to a True Democracy.?
U.S. sovereignty is being surrendered to the U.N., World Court, and World Bank, with the U.S. becoming an economic region of this New World Order.
Anti-Government activists often believe they have never accepted U.S. citizenship or can renounce it.
Federal and State governments do not have the legal authority to levy taxes or interfere with travel or private enterprise by requiring licenses or regulating activity or conduct.
There are people who believe this stuff.. they might even have a point.. Regardless, why does the DHS think someone holding these beliefs is suddenly a "domestic terrorist"?
It's just absurd.. the war on terror is too vague.. it will never end, they will just make up "new" terrorists.
McCain called Obama a socialist? lol If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
They are BOTH socialists, that is why I can vote for neither.
"Much of the security carried out in the name of 9/11 has proven to be infective in the seven years since the attack."
That is right and we can know this for certainty because if we believe Bush and his rhetoric that "Hundreds of terrorist plots have been stopped and the terrorists have been arrested" ..then where are the hundreds of trials? If there are no trials, or these plots are military "detainees" (read: "legally not prisoner"). Then why do we need civilian airport checks if civilians are not being arrested?
This HAS to be security theater, it is the only answer. Giving up your rights will not make you secure.. it will just change the threat from one thing to another. In this case you are simply moving the threat of terrorism to the threat of tyrannical state powers. Both are real. The threat of state power is much greater. You see.. our current government is "attempting" to use these powers for good.. they want to protect us.. but that government will not always be the same.. Some day we may see an administration elected that will use these expanded powers for bad things.. it's only a matter of time.
Once upon a time commitment to American principles made one a patriot. Now blind support of all government policies is required.
Yeah, the DHS had a pamphlet out that listed the Gadsden Flag as a symbol of domestic terrorism.
The line between patriotism and nationalism is a thin one.. but I believe that a nationalist is a blind patriot.
It really disturbs me when I hear John McCain talk about "Country first".. That is absolutely UN-American. Americans believe the individual needs are placed about the needs of the state. China is a place where the needs of the state come before those of the individual people, not America.
Where Global Big Brother Watches YOU!
Ya know.. That is not as funny as it use to be..
Soo people want to Hack the government, alright.. well your chief of the FBI, you better get on that.. why would I care if they want to hack the FBI.
If I were president I would send every FBI, DHS, CIA, NSA, TSA, and DEA agent in America to guard ANWR Alaska against "terrorism".
Zimbra works very well, if your not looking to outsource. (ask the Yahoo guys about it)
It can be run as a domain controller itself using OpenLDAP and Samba to do account authentication, and there are modules in Zimbra to allow it to do that.. So while you are replacing your mail server you can take the PDC out with it. :p
The UN? Are you out of your mind? That is the most corrupt incompetent bunch of unelected bureaucrats that have ever existed.
What you want to do.. is you want to make sure the person who holds the key, does not have the power of force behind them.. that means you have to keep it out of the hands of government. ICANN is probably the best choice..
Verisign preforms intercepts for the NSA. (how exactly they do with with pub/private key is unknown to me.. perhaps they have a copy of the private key).
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Cox_Communications_Interception_Request_Worksheet_2008
I think it is absolutely a danger to freedom on the internet to have any Government in control of DNS.
There is nothing unique about this other than we know about it.
Power is always sought by those looking to abuse it. We need to get rid of the list, its not effective anyhow with dopes like this on it.
Look, I could care less but this doesn't logically follow.
Nope, there is nothing in the law that says the actions taken by a judge who has not signed the loyalty are void. The law says basically a) refusal to sign the loyalty oath will result in discharge, and b) until they sign the oath they cannot receive a paycheck. Additionally, while the Florida Supreme Court has held that judges are to sign the loyalty oath, removal of judges is granted solely to the Supreme Court of Florida, after investigation by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Your saying there is no law to take criminal action against them if they don't sign it. That's not the same thing as what I am saying. They didn't "refuse" to sign it and they did receive a pay check. All of that is besides the point.
What I'm saying is it is the law that they must sign it in order to be a judge. How logically could they ever be a judge if they did not sign it? The state of being on the bench without signing that is illegal itself.
Not that these guys care about their own laws or anything tho..
No, I don't want bureaucrats at all to control it, not at all. Politicizing it is the wrong thing to do.
However it would be slightly worse if those bureaucrats controlling it are unelected though don't you think?
No, in order to be a judge the law states they must sign it. Jack Thompson was arguing not that there was a crime or a forgery, but that they never were judges at all to begin with. That would mean that all the cases they tried would be thrown out.. it's a pretty serious charge.
Jack is a slime bag, he was proven wrong over and over again.. but he might have had something with this and now the state wants him gone and the matter forgotten about.
Solaris is a great big iron OS. I don't think it will be disappearing anytime soon.
So wait.. you don't want the smaller group of elected bureaucrats in the United States to run it.. you want the larger un-elected group of bureaucrats at the U.N. to do it?
Bureaucrats will play bureaucratic games with this.. they will make it political and use that political leverage such as was done in this case to outlaw something someone felt was wrong.. I think instead I think this can be done by a private or non-profit and most importantly non-political standards body of some sort with much better result.
(Actually upon checking I found that ICANN *is* non-profit private entity now.. so we just need to keep the government off their toes.)
Oh yeah, don't get the impression I like this guy.. I think he is slime, I couldn't possibly defend him.. lol
I'm just saying there may be more to it.
28 May 2008
Extracts from the Close-Out Memo
The signature on the loyalty oath taken by Judge Dava Tunis is a forgery. The judge recently recommended that anti-game crusader Jack Thompson be found guilty on several charges of professional misconduct.
According to a report in the Daily Business Review, with supporting material from the Florida legal blog, 'justicebuilding', "The state attorney's office has concluded the signatures of three Miami-Dade judges were forged on their 2000 loyalty oaths, but no criminal charges will be filed."
The reason for the lack of criminal charges is down to the statute of limitations - it's apparently nothing to do with the fact that Florida judges can rule in cases of law, despite forged signatures (which they had nothing to do with and no knowledge of at all).
The forgeries came to light due to Thompson himself requesting an enquiry into the situation.
The 'close-out memo' (a memo summarising the investigation) states that, "Judge Tunis stated to investigators that the signature on the Loyalty Oath document is clearly a forgery, and that she had no recollection of having signed the form."
However, the memo also states, "There is no conceivable criminal motive for a judge to have participated in a forgery of his or her own loyalty oath."
http://news.spong.com/article/15468/Jack_Thompsons_Judge_Signature_WAS_Forged?cb=842
I don't know.. you make what you will of that..
I believe I heard that Jack Thompson discovered that many of the judges in FL did not sign their oath of office.
Ya know this might be good news for Apple.. Everyone has seen their ad's before and they are old news but Microsoft trashing on them (and getting the concept wrong in the progress) just made the old ad's popular again.. now we have to wait for Apple's response.
Well besides that the constitution is the highest law in the land. No statute or simple bill by congress trumps the constitution. The 4th amendment is pretty clear about what the government needs to do to search "papers and effects" that logically would apply to data as well.
The Constitution does not have any teeth to actually do anting to someone that breaks it, however if something is found to be unconstitutional then that does not mean it stop being a law at that time.. it means it was never a law to begin with.. so if that is the case then immunity could have never been granted at all.
Cut to the point: you are saying that it is hard to write good laws, and that organizations and institutions can be corrupted.
So. The. Fuck. What.
No, that is not what I am saying.
What I am saying it is impossible to write good laws that work and do what they are supposed to do. There are many reasons for this and you can read the book I cited above for a good run down, but it comes down to the fact that government is a cohesive institution of force. It is simply unable to write a good law that works for most people, so the people that it does work for attempt to use the power to expand its scope and the people it doesn't work for attempt to subvert it.
That seems to be a common theme with Libertarian types. Any asshat can poke holes in anything sufficiently complex. So what? How does that shred of credibility transfer to all of the conclusions?
You never bothered to mention how you propose to have done things differently. Um, let me guess: same thing, but better?
I assume you would be all like "just repeal the old unfair law, no need for a new law, things would work out on their own". LOL.
Why not? Why do you thing you need government to decide for you such a simple thing as who you can buy, sell, and contract with? Have out laws brought peace and harmony between people? No, they can't, they are just words on paper. I think that in a free society you should be able to make choices freely about who you associate with. Anyone so foolish to decide to discriminate solely based upon race will find themselves missing out on a great deal of talents that a wide range of individuals can provide.
Freedom brings people together, it promotes healing, force sets people apart. A good way to describe this is the "battle" over Evolution and Creationism. The reason these groups fight with each other is they need to control the government run school system to teach their children what they believe.. however if the government did not run schools there would be no argument at all.. you could send your kid to say school you like and have them teach whatever vales you wanted. The issue that is whipped up into a furor by government and pits people against each other essentially vanishes in the free market. Now what if government did not play a role in race? There would be no political prize to win, nothing to reform, no battle to be had.. and eventually you would see racism decay and disappear, maybe not completely, but it would be better.
Libertarians have been co-opted by lunatics. Sadly, it's hard to tell them apart. Some of them represent the worst of humanity. The others have the best intentions but are delusional. Which are you?
Of all the ways we have invented to best control billions of humans in any given moment, Libertarians are a joke. Gets funnier as you add more humans.
You will have to make up your mind all on your own. There is however a telling remark in your final statement. the best way to control people? What if.. I don't want to control people? What if I believe it is wrong to use force on another person? Force and control at the hands of government is the cause of some of the great evils of our age including but not limited to war, slavery, murder, rape, and theft.
You may choose to enact force on people for this thing or that, this shinny goal or that one, but I simply choose not to and resist when force is applied to me. I really think it's time man started to realize that we can coexist without instigating force on one another.
Regardless.. you will make up your own mind about me, but remember.. whatever you choose it is absolutely fine with me.
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate each other to deal with one another and help one another." --Milton Friedman
Linux version on Ubuntu is rather ugly.
It works alright and I'm posting with it but its missing the correct font encoding.