As a foreigner, I'd never heard of Salinger or Catcher in the Rye. When I first made it to the US, my friend gave me the book: "You HAVE to read that". I was underwhelmed and to this day still do not understand what all the fuss is about. A story about a whiney teenager with too much money for his own good ? This describe America pretty well to me !!!
No way, god damn it. I think "The Catcher in the goddamn Rye" is one of the best goddamn books there is. Hell, I think it even won a few o' them fancy goddamn awards, but I can't remember their goddamn names.
The highlight of your post was this: "I have this duty because if I agreed to a search, then I further the normalization of pathetic submission, embolden the authorities, and increase for my fellow citizen the expectation that they, too, should needlessly submit to the whims of dangerous thugs."
The more we accept it, the more brazen they get.
Thank you, and I agree with you succinct addendum.
If you (or someone you know might) want help overcoming intimidation by cops, I recommend Flex Your Rights and especially their online video series (produced in conjunction with ACLU) — their video scenarios use pretty realistic (albeit non-violent) cops that try to be belligerent, verbally coercive, and using threatening body language (at least, as realistic as you'd expect from low-budget actors). I think their videos have more practical/frequent daily utility than the "Don't Talk to Cops" video we've all seen.
Me too — I suspect that either the link I posted drew too much attention, or widespread deployment of wget (in order to copy the site for posterity) is provoked AOL/NS into locking down the site. (Web directory listings are nearly always 403/401 in my experience.)
That link worked for years, and I checked it mere seconds before I posted it. I wish I had copied that directory and put it up as a torrent. I guess I may have thought NS was being "cool" by allowing dir/list access there to those who found it.
I'm really sorry to anyone who didn't get there in time, and for not having created a torrent.:o(
Which part of not entering real information did you miss?
Unfortunately there's a couple of flaws in his plan: a) Facebook is busy asking other people things like: "Did you go to school with JohnVanVilet?" and they're all eagerly answering "Yes!!" b) They've figure out he lies so they're starting to 'confirm' every new account via. mobile phone.
Regarding a), why would someone answer "yes; they know JonValilet (Doe(?)), when presented with an unrecognized name and/or pic? Social media e-penis extension? Or are people actually providing factual data to multi-billion-dollar transnational intelligence agencies?*
Of all of the people I know with landlines, and grand total of one (a grandparent) is to cheap to have that number unlisted. Yet (as indicated by "b)") some people are actually willing to fork over their unlisted-by-default cellular phone number to a multi-billion-dollar transnational intelligence agency?* Tele-hucksters are surely laughing all the way to the bank.
* As this personal information is worth billions of dollars, what cut of the proceeds does a "good" snitch receive for outing their "friends?" My guess: Plentiful corporate propaganda that's more persuasive in its ability to manipulate the actions/behavior/purchases of the recipients, in lieu of about zero dollars.
I recommend Calomel SSL Validation to anyone who's interested in the security of their SSL/TLS connections. It adds a toolbar button, the color of which is determined by a weighted, composite score based on various connections security parameters: Bit-lengths, algos (e.g., AES > RC4), PFS, handshake/protocol, domain matching, etc. Clicking the button displays the complete break-down, including a percentage-score for overall connection security.
There's also a Tools menu dialog that allows one to toggle >=128 bit, >=256 bit, PFS, and/or FIPS connections exclusively, among other security and interface tweaks.
Along the same lines, I also recommend CipherFox, which has a configurable status-bar display of symmetric/asymmetric algos and their bit-lengths, and the hash function used in a secure connection. CipherFox also allows RC4 to be toggled, which is handy in conjunction Calomel.
The above are all freeware that appear to be written and published by individuals lacking a nefarious corporate agenda.
Twitter is completely open to anyone. So, what's the point of encryption?
In my opinion, it's "non-optimal" (at best), to forgo encryption because you deem some traffic of yours to be of low-value. What does that tell your potential adversaries about the nature of the traffic you do encrypt? Regarding the destination, (in this case Twitter), it's unlikely known to many potential adversaries if you're using Tor, I2P, etc., , which (along with TLS with PFS,) add another layer of defense-in-depth.
Your thinking reminds me of people/businesses that own a shredder, but only use them to shred highly-sensitive documents — it makes the job of reconstructing shredded ("unshredding") documents faster, easier, and more fruitful.
In regard to my own data and traffic, I don't ask, "does this need to be encrypted?" I ask, "can this be encrypted? The browser plugin "TrackMeNot" helps in a similar manner, by hiding whatever I may actually search for within ~1,440 phony queries per day. I also shred everything my cross-cut shredder will accept, and I pull the o' Enron trick of mixing in used coffee grounds as an impersonal "fuck you" to any who'd try to unshred my Pennysavers, envelopes, subscription cards, scratched discs, and most importantly, "etc."
Winamp... I don't understand why people think it is going to suddenly disappear. I haven't needed to update winamp in years, I only have a newer version because I sometimes lose the installer.
People like you tend to forget that a drivers licence is a privilege, not a right.
That is bullshit DMV propaganda. Article 13 of the UDHR, which the US signatory to, guarantees the right to intrastate travel.
The paved-wasteland style of suburban development imposed on vast swaths of the US is intentionally designed to require automotive or public transportation, with the latter often non-existent, having been bought and closed by car manufacturers and oil companies in the early to mid-20th century.*
For most of the US: No job, no driving. No driving, no job. No driving, no job, no life.
That state governments treat driving as a privilege is simply another of many violations of US persons' rights.
If a police officer feels you look or move in a way that arouse suspicion, then they have a valid reason - a duty, even - to look into it.
If a cop doesn't have a warrant or probable cause, they have a duty to leave me the alone. If they don't, I have a duty as a citizen to refuse their attempt and remind them about the Fourth Amendment. I have this duty because if I agreed to a search, then I further the normalization of pathetic submission, embolden the authorities, and increase for my fellow citizen the expectation that they, too, should needlessly submit to the whims of dangerous thugs.
I think that your idea that some people should be subject to increased harassment or interference by cops due to the way they "look or move" sounds pretty "suspicious" — that's the same way new people were divided up at Auschwitz.
Blowing in a breathalyzer is not an unreasonably onerous task [...]
I disagree. I want to be on my way without having to fool with a copper pushing an authoritarian agenda I disagree with. Getting a warrant or having probable cause to coerce me in the first place isn't onerous, and the burden belongs on the person accusing another of wrongdoing, not the innocent person minding his or her own business.
[S]o you might say refusing to do so does look a bit suspicious.
I'm sure I might not; I'd definitely say that someone yielding their precious civil rights to some dip-shit with a badge is a hell of a lot more suspicious than refusing a search when one has done nothing to deserve one.
I honestly don't think there could ever be proper cause for that to begin with, since I believe the war on drugs is fundamentally wrong.
Yes — and of course, cops can create probable cause after the fact by "finding" drugs (or another material prohibited by possession laws) they've kept from a prior search and seizure to take down whomever. Great way to get more "collars;" divide up the drugs from one bust amongst as many "criminals" as they want or need. This is also one of the easiest ways for a non-cop to get rid of somebody for a while, since it requires no back-story or anything — the evidence and the "crime" are both the same physical item.
The only thing that I think needs a possession law — that is, the only thing that it is infeasible to simply make illegal to use — is a nuclear weapon. The rest are simply unjust, dangerously ripe for abuse, or both. Further, for many things that are illegal to have or own, no harm is done unless they're actually used in a specific manner, so those actions can simply be made illegal, and save a lot of harmless people a lot of grief; increase liberty; and lower enforcement and rehabilitation costs to the taxpayers.
Random breath tests, when properly implemented, don't fall within the definition of harassment.
Random breath tests or any other random searches or seizures can't be properly implemented, because neither warrants nor probable cause can be assigned randomly.
Who can tell anymore? Wars fought by mercs, prisons run by corps... Corporate municipal police would seem to be the next logical step — they already write our laws. It is fascism defined.
In Australia it is called a 'Booze Bus'. They don't take blood, but they do the rest and it is 100% involuntary. They will block off freeways to test everyone and park cop cars in all the side streets.
Personally I am mostly OK with this. The next morning when you see the huge line of cars left behind because the drivers were drunk justifies it to me.
I prefer the risks of liberty over the certainties of tyranny.
[T]o say "Fuck the police. They are badge wearing gang bangers who murder people and get away with it?" No, that's beyond the pale.
No, it is not. Dishevel is absolutely right — cops are above-the-law, sociopathic killer thugs. They shoot unarmed people multiple times in the back all the time and nothing happens to them. They can and do literally get away with murder on a regular basis. Just search for that stuff... "cops kill unarmed;" "shot in the back," and so on. Protests and vigils — especially in black and Hispanic communities — are happening all over the US these days because of this.
The poor dears... Coppers can never catch a break, can they? Like when they accidentally empty their magazines into some scary/scared-looking family and their trained attack-poodle because they smashed down the wrong... like, 'cause the family was living at the wrong address, even though it was obviously an accident, they still get swapped on deir poow widdle wists... even though they got a suspicious-looking animal off the streets. It ain't right, god damn it.
*sniff*
Now my Boston cream doughnut's turned into a Boston stream doughnut, 'ca... well, 'cause it's all soggy with tears!:o(
*weeps to bagpipe music*
I know... I'll go shatter some poor asshole's life, that always cheers me up!:S
The NYPD has been doing for years under Mayor Bloomberg. They get to keep property values high for the Mayor's real estate developer buddies by pretending crime is going down. Things that would have been felonies get downgraded and written up as misdemeanors and misdemeanors get swept under the rug. Of course the NYPD is also on a strict quota system for giving out tickets in order to raise revenue for the city so if you smoke marijuana outside, ride a bike on the sidewalk or even (if it's the end of the month and the cop is desperate to make quota) a jay walk, expect a ticket.
Now somebody's trying to sweep your message under the rug. FYI moderators: These allegations have been made by NYPD cops themselves. Do your homework before you try to shut somebody up — or better yet, don't censor at all.
Listening and seeing hoe eadily people are swayed by the billionaire controlled media
Spoken like a Liberal who thinks we need to "protect" people from themselves, because gosh, we can't actually trust them to make up their own minds. They just might decide contrary to the way that we know is right, and then where would we be?
You're describing authoritarianism, not liberalism — and authoritarianism can come from both left ("no smoking!") or right ("no abortions!"); libertarianism is the opposition to authoritarians' liberty-crackdowns.
Term limits mean you can't keep the good ones either. It also opens the door to outright bribery (instead of mere campaign contributions), buy offering senators million-dollar-a-year jobs at your company once their terms are up. (Japan has had a huge problem with that.) Though admittedly that's already the norm for congressional staff, who average something like a 15x pay increase when they move to the private sector.
An interesting component to this conundrum I had not considered... Thanks for your reply.
So you want to take away the right of the people to vote for whomever they like?
I wasn't aware we had the right to vote for whomever we like in the first place; I thought Senate candidates had to be vetted by monied interests first. Among those candidates, would I like to see the most-likely-corrupt, pork-barrel politicians removed? Yes. They've had their fun wheelin' & dealin' — a time comes for a newer generation of candidates and voters to have a shot, I think.
Cause that's what term limits mean.
Is that all that term limits mean? Term limits are in place for many elected positions in the United States, all the way from local to federal levels. Have you considered why this might be the case, other than "[taking] away the right of the people to vote for whomever they like?"
A lot of choices and solutions to various problems in life — and in politics in particular — are imperfect, having both pros and cons. Furthermore, you may find that some of the things that are implement are not in the public interest, but are actually instances of those in positions of power acting to expand that power. Someone's signature here said, (paraphrasing,) "Politicians and baby's diapers should both be changed frequently, and for the same reason." I think that this is worthy of consideration.
Well the closest station to me is about 91 miles away, making it a 182 miles and 3.5 hour round trip to fill up my tank. That's not really much of a choice.
Line your trunk with a plastic tarp and fill 'er up.
Ate the plumbing out of my chainsaw, too. It's about to get its second total rebuild in 15 years, and I don't use it that much. Now that I'm where I can get straight gas again, guess what I'll put in it.
Slashdot Mirror
As a foreigner, I'd never heard of Salinger or Catcher in the Rye. When I first made it to the US, my friend gave me the book: "You HAVE to read that". I was underwhelmed and to this day still do not understand what all the fuss is about. A story about a whiney teenager with too much money for his own good ? This describe America pretty well to me !!!
No way, god damn it. I think "The Catcher in the goddamn Rye" is one of the best goddamn books there is. Hell, I think it even won a few o' them fancy goddamn awards, but I can't remember their goddamn names.
https://kickass.to/three-stories-j-d-salinger-pdf-t8257205.html
https://torcache.net/torrent/ED8F9DE4B9151B3B0E5B998CAF7A124E9E7B0E17.torrent?title=%5Bkickass.to%5Dthree.stories.j.d.salinger.pdf
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:ED8F9DE4B9151B3B0E5B998CAF7A124E9E7B0E17&dn=three+stories+j+d+salinger+pdf&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337
Slashdot fucks up magnet links, but the hash is right there: ED8F9DE4B9151B3B0E5B998CAF7A124E9E7B0E17
Thank you, buddy. :o)
The highlight of your post was this: "I have this duty because if I agreed to a search, then I further the normalization of pathetic submission, embolden the authorities, and increase for my fellow citizen the expectation that they, too, should needlessly submit to the whims of dangerous thugs."
The more we accept it, the more brazen they get.
Thank you, and I agree with you succinct addendum.
If you (or someone you know might) want help overcoming intimidation by cops, I recommend Flex Your Rights and especially their online video series (produced in conjunction with ACLU) — their video scenarios use pretty realistic (albeit non-violent) cops that try to be belligerent, verbally coercive, and using threatening body language (at least, as realistic as you'd expect from low-budget actors). I think their videos have more practical/frequent daily utility than the "Don't Talk to Cops" video we've all seen.
Me too — I suspect that either the link I posted drew too much attention, or widespread deployment of wget (in order to copy the site for posterity) is provoked AOL/NS into locking down the site. (Web directory listings are nearly always 403/401 in my experience.)
That link worked for years, and I checked it mere seconds before I posted it. I wish I had copied that directory and put it up as a torrent. I guess I may have thought NS was being "cool" by allowing dir/list access there to those who found it.
I'm really sorry to anyone who didn't get there in time, and for not having created a torrent. :o(
Which part of not entering real information did you miss?
Unfortunately there's a couple of flaws in his plan:
a) Facebook is busy asking other people things like: "Did you go to school with JohnVanVilet?" and they're all eagerly answering "Yes!!"
b) They've figure out he lies so they're starting to 'confirm' every new account via. mobile phone.
Regarding a), why would someone answer "yes; they know JonValilet (Doe(?)), when presented with an unrecognized name and/or pic? Social media e-penis extension? Or are people actually providing factual data to multi-billion-dollar transnational intelligence agencies?*
Of all of the people I know with landlines, and grand total of one (a grandparent) is to cheap to have that number unlisted. Yet (as indicated by "b)") some people are actually willing to fork over their unlisted-by-default cellular phone number to a multi-billion-dollar transnational intelligence agency?* Tele-hucksters are surely laughing all the way to the bank.
* As this personal information is worth billions of dollars, what cut of the proceeds does a "good" snitch receive for outing their "friends?" My guess: Plentiful corporate propaganda that's more persuasive in its ability to manipulate the actions/behavior/purchases of the recipients, in lieu of about zero dollars.
I recommend Calomel SSL Validation to anyone who's interested in the security of their SSL/TLS connections. It adds a toolbar button, the color of which is determined by a weighted, composite score based on various connections security parameters: Bit-lengths, algos (e.g., AES > RC4), PFS, handshake/protocol, domain matching, etc. Clicking the button displays the complete break-down, including a percentage-score for overall connection security.
There's also a Tools menu dialog that allows one to toggle >=128 bit, >=256 bit, PFS, and/or FIPS connections exclusively, among other security and interface tweaks.
Along the same lines, I also recommend CipherFox, which has a configurable status-bar display of symmetric/asymmetric algos and their bit-lengths, and the hash function used in a secure connection. CipherFox also allows RC4 to be toggled, which is handy in conjunction Calomel.
The above are all freeware that appear to be written and published by individuals lacking a nefarious corporate agenda.
Twitter is completely open to anyone. So, what's the point of encryption?
In my opinion, it's "non-optimal" (at best), to forgo encryption because you deem some traffic of yours to be of low-value. What does that tell your potential adversaries about the nature of the traffic you do encrypt? Regarding the destination, (in this case Twitter), it's unlikely known to many potential adversaries if you're using Tor, I2P, etc., , which (along with TLS with PFS,) add another layer of defense-in-depth.
Your thinking reminds me of people/businesses that own a shredder, but only use them to shred highly-sensitive documents — it makes the job of reconstructing shredded ("unshredding") documents faster, easier, and more fruitful.
In regard to my own data and traffic, I don't ask, "does this need to be encrypted?" I ask, "can this be encrypted? The browser plugin "TrackMeNot" helps in a similar manner, by hiding whatever I may actually search for within ~1,440 phony queries per day. I also shred everything my cross-cut shredder will accept, and I pull the o' Enron trick of mixing in used coffee grounds as an impersonal "fuck you" to any who'd try to unshred my Pennysavers, envelopes, subscription cards, scratched discs, and most importantly, "etc."
If they were only trolling posters on the Facebook page, how would they figure out their IP addresses? Impossible unless they hacked into Facebook.
That's one way... Another is to simply pay Farcebook for the data.
Who's going to really whip the Llama's ass now?
Winamp... I don't understand why people think it is going to suddenly disappear. I haven't needed to update winamp in years, I only have a newer version because I sometimes lose the installer.
You can get whatever version you want here: http://download.nullsoft.com/winamp/client/
I kept this URL since I had some problem (I can't remember) with v5.622+.
Then walk. You don't even need a license for that.
You're right — I only need a cure for my neurodegenerative disorder.
People like you tend to forget that a drivers licence is a privilege, not a right.
That is bullshit DMV propaganda. Article 13 of the UDHR, which the US signatory to, guarantees the right to intrastate travel.
The paved-wasteland style of suburban development imposed on vast swaths of the US is intentionally designed to require automotive or public transportation, with the latter often non-existent, having been bought and closed by car manufacturers and oil companies in the early to mid-20th century.*
For most of the US: No job, no driving. No driving, no job. No driving, no job, no life.
That state governments treat driving as a privilege is simply another of many violations of US persons' rights.
* cf. Suburban Nation, Duany, 2001
If a police officer feels you look or move in a way that arouse suspicion, then they have a valid reason - a duty, even - to look into it.
If a cop doesn't have a warrant or probable cause, they have a duty to leave me the alone. If they don't, I have a duty as a citizen to refuse their attempt and remind them about the Fourth Amendment. I have this duty because if I agreed to a search, then I further the normalization of pathetic submission, embolden the authorities, and increase for my fellow citizen the expectation that they, too, should needlessly submit to the whims of dangerous thugs.
I think that your idea that some people should be subject to increased harassment or interference by cops due to the way they "look or move" sounds pretty "suspicious" — that's the same way new people were divided up at Auschwitz.
Blowing in a breathalyzer is not an unreasonably onerous task [...]
I disagree. I want to be on my way without having to fool with a copper pushing an authoritarian agenda I disagree with. Getting a warrant or having probable cause to coerce me in the first place isn't onerous, and the burden belongs on the person accusing another of wrongdoing, not the innocent person minding his or her own business.
[S]o you might say refusing to do so does look a bit suspicious.
I'm sure I might not; I'd definitely say that someone yielding their precious civil rights to some dip-shit with a badge is a hell of a lot more suspicious than refusing a search when one has done nothing to deserve one.
I honestly don't think there could ever be proper cause for that to begin with, since I believe the war on drugs is fundamentally wrong.
Yes — and of course, cops can create probable cause after the fact by "finding" drugs (or another material prohibited by possession laws) they've kept from a prior search and seizure to take down whomever. Great way to get more "collars;" divide up the drugs from one bust amongst as many "criminals" as they want or need. This is also one of the easiest ways for a non-cop to get rid of somebody for a while, since it requires no back-story or anything — the evidence and the "crime" are both the same physical item.
The only thing that I think needs a possession law — that is, the only thing that it is infeasible to simply make illegal to use — is a nuclear weapon. The rest are simply unjust, dangerously ripe for abuse, or both. Further, for many things that are illegal to have or own, no harm is done unless they're actually used in a specific manner, so those actions can simply be made illegal, and save a lot of harmless people a lot of grief; increase liberty; and lower enforcement and rehabilitation costs to the taxpayers.
Random breath tests, when properly implemented, don't fall within the definition of harassment.
Random breath tests or any other random searches or seizures can't be properly implemented, because neither warrants nor probable cause can be assigned randomly.
Who can tell anymore? Wars fought by mercs, prisons run by corps... Corporate municipal police would seem to be the next logical step — they already write our laws. It is fascism defined.
In Australia it is called a 'Booze Bus'. They don't take blood, but they do the rest and it is 100% involuntary. They will block off freeways to test everyone and park cop cars in all the side streets.
Personally I am mostly OK with this. The next morning when you see the huge line of cars left behind because the drivers were drunk justifies it to me.
I prefer the risks of liberty over the certainties of tyranny.
[T]o say "Fuck the police. They are badge wearing gang bangers who murder people and get away with it?" No, that's beyond the pale.
No, it is not. Dishevel is absolutely right — cops are above-the-law, sociopathic killer thugs. They shoot unarmed people multiple times in the back all the time and nothing happens to them. They can and do literally get away with murder on a regular basis. Just search for that stuff... "cops kill unarmed;" "shot in the back," and so on. Protests and vigils — especially in black and Hispanic communities — are happening all over the US these days because of this.
The poor dears... Coppers can never catch a break, can they? Like when they accidentally empty their magazines into some scary/scared-looking family and their trained attack-poodle because they smashed down the wrong... like, 'cause the family was living at the wrong address, even though it was obviously an accident, they still get swapped on deir poow widdle wists... even though they got a suspicious-looking animal off the streets. It ain't right, god damn it.
*sniff*
Now my Boston cream doughnut's turned into a Boston stream doughnut, 'ca... well, 'cause it's all soggy with tears! :o(
*weeps to bagpipe music*
I know... I'll go shatter some poor asshole's life, that always cheers me up! :S
The NYPD has been doing for years under Mayor Bloomberg. They get to keep property values high for the Mayor's real estate developer buddies by pretending crime is going down. Things that would have been felonies get downgraded and written up as misdemeanors and misdemeanors get swept under the rug. Of course the NYPD is also on a strict quota system for giving out tickets in order to raise revenue for the city so if you smoke marijuana outside, ride a bike on the sidewalk or even (if it's the end of the month and the cop is desperate to make quota) a jay walk, expect a ticket.
Now somebody's trying to sweep your message under the rug. FYI moderators: These allegations have been made by NYPD cops themselves. Do your homework before you try to shut somebody up — or better yet, don't censor at all.
Listening and seeing hoe eadily people are swayed by the billionaire controlled media
Spoken like a Liberal who thinks we need to "protect" people from themselves, because gosh, we can't actually trust them to make up their own minds. They just might decide contrary to the way that we know is right, and then where would we be?
You're describing authoritarianism, not liberalism — and authoritarianism can come from both left ("no smoking!") or right ("no abortions!"); libertarianism is the opposition to authoritarians' liberty-crackdowns.
Term limits mean you can't keep the good ones either. It also opens the door to outright bribery (instead of mere campaign contributions), buy offering senators million-dollar-a-year jobs at your company once their terms are up. (Japan has had a huge problem with that.) Though admittedly that's already the norm for congressional staff, who average something like a 15x pay increase when they move to the private sector.
An interesting component to this conundrum I had not considered... Thanks for your reply.
So you want to take away the right of the people to vote for whomever they like?
I wasn't aware we had the right to vote for whomever we like in the first place; I thought Senate candidates had to be vetted by monied interests first. Among those candidates, would I like to see the most-likely-corrupt, pork-barrel politicians removed? Yes. They've had their fun wheelin' & dealin' — a time comes for a newer generation of candidates and voters to have a shot, I think.
Cause that's what term limits mean.
Is that all that term limits mean? Term limits are in place for many elected positions in the United States, all the way from local to federal levels. Have you considered why this might be the case, other than "[taking] away the right of the people to vote for whomever they like?"
A lot of choices and solutions to various problems in life — and in politics in particular — are imperfect, having both pros and cons. Furthermore, you may find that some of the things that are implement are not in the public interest, but are actually instances of those in positions of power acting to expand that power. Someone's signature here said, (paraphrasing,) "Politicians and baby's diapers should both be changed frequently, and for the same reason." I think that this is worthy of consideration.
Well the closest station to me is about 91 miles away, making it a 182 miles and 3.5 hour round trip to fill up my tank. That's not really much of a choice.
Line your trunk with a plastic tarp and fill 'er up.
Ate the plumbing out of my chainsaw, too. It's about to get its second total rebuild in 15 years, and I don't use it that much. Now that I'm where I can get straight gas again, guess what I'll put in it.
2-cycle engine oil?