The Negative Entropy Reverse Distribution Society™
Archive from 12/09/02001 to 06/23/02002

A Forum of FreshSpace™

Back to NERDS

---

Wall St. Awaits Return of Small Investor

©Copyright 06/23/02002 Fresh Ink
Sounds like the sharks are hankering for more minnows (no wonder they're chowing on the surfers)... how can we "trust" Corporate America when we see how quickly it is willing to sell us out? (when ya can't trust Martha Stewart, who can ya trust?) when the laws designed to protect us have been dismantled and ignored? When Enron, Halliburton, Global Crossing, Tyco, ImClone, Merrill Lynch, Charles Schwab, KMart, etc. represent only the tip of the iceberg? how do we know when this is Great Depression stuff? are we there yet? ...got gold?

I know I don't. I don't even know where to buy gold, or how to buy it, or even if I should. I don't know if you buy coins, shares, stamps or what. Gold shares sound vague and vacuous, part of what I feel is the problem in the stock market in the first place (The Stock market appears to reach a point where stocks becomes over inflated and begging to be pillaged by corporate execs, like Fastow.)

I think this constant war mentallly is seriously affecting the economy. Sure it helps a few but at the expense of the many. It certainly does not appear to be helping Wall Street. You've got to believe in a future to invest in it. All this talk of terrorism and fear of attack does not empower the investor to risk his money in the markets. Couple that with all the scandals rocking the boat and you've got a bad scene for everyone up and down the food chain. I dunno what the answer is... I only wish someone would invest in me.

I could make people lots of money if they just helped fund the Peace Trail Project. But what's more, beyond everyone making money, they'd be doing something of tremendous value as well. The Peace Trail Project perpetuates a win-win situation for everyone and saves the world! It will even help to strengthen the economy by linking it with something tangible and real, ecology. The Peace Trail promotes econo-ecology. Ecology connected to economy and vice versa are the yin and yang of harmonious existence and sustainable growth.

If your crop destroys the soil, it's only a matter of time before you're out of business. If your factory pollutes the water and air, it's only a matter of time before there is no clean water or air left. If your waste destroys the plankton in the ocean, it's only a matter of time before we all suffocate to death. If we continue to burn fossil fuels and defoliate the earth, it is only a matter of time before the planet is habitable only by cockroaches and lizards. This is the law of cause and effect. This is the law of Karma. The choice is yours. It is made through your investments.

Peace, Love and Freshness,

Düg Fresh

Pootie-Poot Knew Too!

©Copyright 05/19/02002 Fresh Ink
It's looking more and more like everyone knew but the American people! Not really altogether shocking but discomforting none the less. The best spin they can give is that, "no one could have imagined hijackers using commercial airplanes as weapons." Meanwhile, Our Man in Arizona imagined this months earlier, even as reports from around the world all but spelled out the flight path and route number... Vladimir Putin (aka Pootie-poot in Bush's lexicography) informed Bush weeks before the attack, as did President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, exactly 12 days before the attacks (when Bush was 'laxin' on vacation in Craford). Also, a top-secret briefing memo from the CIA presented to President Bush on Aug. 6 carried the headline, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Perhaps he didn't read it? After all, if he did, wouldn't he have done something like warn the American people, make sure any hijacked aircraft would be quickly met with F-16s as in instances in the past? If we knew, why weren't we better prepared? These planes could have been blown out of the sky, well before reaching NYC, if they had an F-16 escort. Yet according to reports, where it usually takes under 10, it took over 55 minutes to scramble jet fighters. That right there calls for an investigation!

Besides, what kind of grown man goes around calling the leader of Russia Pootie-poot? I think this scares me the most!!

---

Replies:

This is more rehashed garbage. We have all seen it before, certaintly in the months right after the bombings. Again, these threats go back to 1993. This is like [sic] Noustrodomous's predictions. Predict something and eventually it will come true. (put an envelope up to your head)... HUUUUMMMMMMMM I predict that the Eiffel tower will come down one day. I also predict that a US president after the year 2020 will be shot outside. I can also predict that a tunnel in the US will be bombed. Fast forward say 50 or 100 years and all of these things will have come to pass through normal course of events.

Indeed, I predicted that the would be back in 1993 at the first bombing. I also predicted that whatever they did would likely bring them down beause of the previous failure. Predicting a day, flight, airport, etc is extreamly hard to do unless you have the intellegence that Clinton got rid of in 1994 (it is documented, look it up. He didn't want informants being paid because the informants were "questionable characters").
RWT

---

Knew, Did Nothing!

©Copyright 05/19/02002 Fresh Ink
It all boils down to the fact that Bush couldn't imagine an Airplane being used as a weapon of Mass Destruction. Even though, you do not need to know how to fly an airplane to be a highjacker!! But you do if you want to be a terrorist... You do need to know how to fly an airplane if you want to use it as an instrument of war (something which we do as well, we call it the Air Force). Indeed Planes have been weapons of war for so long, it seems patently obvious that a commercial jet liner would be used to further the goals of lunatics and criminals. Obvious enough to publish a 150 page report about such a possibility back in 1999!! Yet Bush certainly would have acted if he thought for an instant that the reports he had been given were possible. "Had I known the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people," he said. Even though it was the plot of a best-selling novel. Even though a study (The Hart-Rudman report) issued to Bush not a month into his administration) warned of such possibilities. Even though after catching the ringleader/VIP, Ramzi Yousef, involved with the first attack on the WTC, he was found with plans which detailed just such an attack, using planes to crash them into the WTC. Even after, MOSAD, Echelon, Germany, Spain, Israel, the Philippines, etc. all warned of such a threat. Even though, Bush was briefed on just such possibilities months before. And when Bush received word, did he notify the airlines? Did he increase security around the airports? Did he warn the people like he has done every other week since? No. He disregarded it! He went to a classroom in Florida to read a children's book! Then flew around the country like a scared rabbit while Guilliani strode around like a real leader. Where's the outrage?

---

Reply:

Hindsight is 20/20 and the President of the United States is always put on Airforce One in a State of Emergency that threats an attack which may result in the death of the President. I am not happy with Bush in the White House...as many are...but somethings are not his fault.
HM

It isn't that hindsight is 20/20. It's that plenty of foresight was ignored! (Read Maureen Dowd). Even if he didn't think they'd use these planes as weapons, he still knew about the terrorist activity, he still should have at least notified the FAA, etc...There was planty of credible reports before hand from around the world. France, Spain, the Philippines, Germany, Italy, and Israel were all sending us reports, while Bush vacationed in Crawford, about immanent terrorist activity. Yet did Bush warn anybody? Everyday since he has cried wolf; why couldn't he have cried wolf one day before? Bush knew, that is not hindsight. In hindsight it seems obvious that he did know. How else could he remain so calm when he is told the second plane hit? He doesn't even flinch or stop what he is doing. He has shown that he has known every day he has kept silent about his knowledge until now, eight months later, when it was exposed by investigation. Finally, if you knew the brakes on your car were faulty and yet you let your mother drive the car anyway and she gets into a horrible accident because of the brakes, wouldn't you be at fault? Similarly, if you have information warning you of an impending attack do you sit back on your ranch for a month and do nothing? Or do you inform various agencies. Maybe even tell the Airlines, implement some of the recommendations in the Gore report which you poo-pooed so strongly mere months earlier, or even gasp, inform the people? See, part of it is that they do not want us to imagine that they had foreknowledge that they even knew they planned to use these planes as weapons of mass-destruction. How do we know? Because Ascroft wouldn't allow the FBI to search Moussoi's hard drive days before the attack. To do so would have exposed the plot before it happened. But when Bush went to the G8 summit last year in Italy, the Italian police took serious reports that Osama Bin Laden was going to crash commercial airliners into the summit. Bush knew. Thats not hindsight, that's criminal negligence.

---

Religious Conundrums

©Copyright 04/21/02002 Fresh Ink
In Christianity there are many. Right on page one, for instance, God says, "Let us Create Man in our image" (Genesis 1:26). Does this mean God is schizophrenic or that Monothesism is wrong? Is there more than one God and if so why is this not explained in a way that would make sense? For example, some have sought to explain this by saying God is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit and that this is what he meant when he referred to himself as "us". But that is strictly New Testament stuff. Nowhere in the Old Testament is God described in terms of the Trinity. Rather, in the original Hebrew, the word Elohim is used instead. In Hebrew, the word Elohim is both singular and plural. Obviously, in this context the word Elohim was taken to be plural. But what does that mean from a Christian point of view and why, if the Bible is the only book we need, are we required to look outside of the Bible for answers?

Another quite obvious conundrum revolves around the virgin birth of Jesus. In the Old Testament, it was the prophecies of a Messiah which set in motion all of the events which led to Jesus. The three wise men all went to visit Bethlehem as a result of those prophecies. In essence, the Messiah was predicted to be born of the Davidic Line, that is, to be a descendent of King David. Yet if he was born of a virgin, then he was not born of his father's seed and could not have been a descendent of David! Perhaps his mother was? But then, why do all the lengthly geneological records, of which the Bible is full, fail to mention this fact? Instead, these records purport to show that it was not his Mother, but his Father that was of the Davidic line. Does this mean that Jesus is not the Messiah or does it mean that Jesus was not born of a virgin Mother?

In Tibetan Buddhism, the biggest conundrum is a bit harder to grasp. In the Mahayana and/or Madhyamaka view (as presented in the Ge-luk-ba tradition), Buddhism quite clearly espouses the doctrine of Emptiness. What this means is that all things are "dependent arisings." That is, all things are interconnected and interwoven and "empty" of anything which is independent, anything which exists apart from everything else. So far so good. But then Buddhism also emerged within the historical context of a belief in Kharma and re-incarnation. Furthermore, Buddhism shares in those beliefs. Yet, if all things are dependent-arisings, then what re-incarnates? The whole idea of re-incarnation, as it is explained in Buddhism, implies the very existence of something which is independent, something we may call the soul. The soul then, as an independent-arising, is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of Emptiness!

In Judism, of which Christianity is heavily influenced, God is described as all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient). Yet God is also said to have given Man Free-Will. That is, Man is responsible for his actions and has the power of choice. Yet if God is omniscient, then this freedom of choice is only an illusion! In essence this conundrum boils down to the concept of determinism and the idea of a strictly deterministic universe. If God is omniscient, then the Universe is strictly determined. That is, God knows where everthing is and where everthing is headed. God knows both the position and the momentum of every particle in the Universe. Yet, thanks to Heisenberg, Man has learned that there is a fundamental uncertainty to the Universe. It is not just that Man cannot know both the position and the momentum of even a single particle, it is that both the position and momentum of even a single particle is fundamentally unknowable! This is good news for advocates of free will but bad news for advocates of God's omniscience. Put simply, for Man to have Free-will (or even the mere possibility of it) there must be risk. Without the element of surprise, without hazzard nothing Man could do would be unknowable or unpredictable. Without uncertainty, all of Man's actions would be strictly determined and any foolish notion of Free-will would be just that, a foolish notion!

Another conundrum of many religions in general is the whole concept of Good and Evil. If God is Omnipotent then he could vanquish evil with the blink of an eye. Yet evil, at least as it is portrayed by these religions, exists. Christians, Jews, and Moslems alike are all told that evil is caused by the Devil, by Satan, Lucifer etc. Yet God, quite clearly allows this to exist. Furthermore, if God is all things he must by nature be both Good and Evil. If he is not, if he is just Good, then he is not all things and the Devil is not merely a creature of his creation but a force in it's own right! That is, either we accept the Devil as a part of God, or we accept that there are two seperate but equal forces in the Universe which we may label as Good and Evil!

But perhaps the most dangerous conundrum of all lies in the books of prophecy which foretell the coming Apocalypse. In the New Testament this is called the Book of Revelations. In it, it says, all those who accept Jesus as their savior will be wisked away before the end in what is called the Rapture. One problem with this is that every generation of Man born of this Earth has believed this Rapture would come in their lifetimes. Even Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28). The problem is, how can you plan for the future if you harbor notions that there isn't one? How can man evolve to become an Interplanetary Species if this very notion is in direct contradiction to a belief in the end? Furthermore, might not the belief in the Rapture incline one to act in such a way as to hasten it's arrival? Might not the next World War be an effort to hurry armageddon? The conundrum of the Rapture and of all prophecies of doom is not just that they limit our options, they quite often become self-fulfilling prophecies! In an all out Nuclear War, the rapture would be those lucky enough to be atomized at ground zero. Everyone else would not be so lucky. Thus, we should never act as if the Rapture will occur in our life time! We must always act as if the Apocalypse is, at least, millions of years in the future. And, we must never act to hasten it!

While it may be true that , "the future's uncertain and the end is always near..." we must never act as if it is so. To do so would be a great dis-service to all who have come before, to all our ancestors who suffered and labored long and hard to bring us to this very moment now.

Things I Don't Understand

©Copyright 04/20/02002 Fresh Ink
Two days after a fatal train derailment, Federal investigators are well on their way to determining the causes. This makes sense to me. Lets find out how this happened. Yet, six months after the most devastating attack on US soil in history, there is yet to be an investigation into how and why such a tragedy could occur. But, when someone like Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney comes out and asks why hasn't there been an investigation?, she is labelled as a conspiracy-monger or someone too stupid to serve in public office (this from a woman who writes, "Every time I hear of another Palestinian 'suicide bomber,' I think: Darwin Awards..."). This does not make sense. Don't we want to know how and why this occurred? Don't we want to know how to prevent this from happening again? Why does it make sense to investigate a train derailment but not a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

Another thing I do not understand is how Bush can call Sharon a man of peace even as evidence mounts that the devastation left by Israeli forces in the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin is "horrific beyond belief"? Furthermore, there is talk of nominating Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize! How can a man who does not hide plans of invading Iraq be even remotely considered for the Nobel Prize for Peace?

And what in the world happened in Venezuela? Aside from a two day coup, apparently nothing. Yet immediately after the ouster of democratically elected president Chavez, the Bush administration was a tad too quick to assert that Chavez did this to himself! But barely a day later, with Chavez back in power, many questions remain unanswered. Why didn't the Bush people oppose the unlawful overthrow of an elected President? What was the US involvement in Venezuela? And why were the military leaders who took over after removing Chavez graduates from the School of the Americas?

Bush has said, in the war against terrorism, you are either with us or against us. He spelled it out in black and white. There was no middle ground. Yet, does this only apply to our war against terrorism? Right or wrong, Israel's incursion/invasion into the west bank was in response to similar acts of terrorism. It is the equivilent of our invasion of Afghanistan. In similar respect, the Israeli act was a response equally justified (at least in their eyes) of similar rhetoric, either we are with them or against them. Israel has been one of America's strongest allies. yet we told Sharon to do something he couldn't do, something we wouldn't do. We told him to pull out. It was like someone telling us to pull out of Afghanistan. Is this a double standard or are we dangerously close to something far worse? Iran has urged China to intervene in the Palestinian situation. Is Bush trying to prevent WWIII or is he trying to rush headlong into it? Is it OK for us to invade Afghanistan to root out terrorists and "evil-doers" but not OK for Israel to do the same? Or is it that there is far more at stake here than just rhertoric? Is there any difference between the way Israel has responded to terrorism and the way we responded to terrorism? Or is there a limit to what you can see in a world of black and white? Is the Bush Doctrine a double standard or are there limits to what you can solve by painting the world with simplistic points of view?

These are just a few of the things I do not understand...

Deep Linking Returns to Surface

©Copyright 04/20/02002 Fresh Ink

Uh oh. Always someone out there ready to gum up the works and ruin it for everybody. What kind of web will it be when every site becomes an island? Not a web at all...

Replies:

> i don't see how a law against publishing urls could be
> enforced: too many cats, not enough bags.
>
> - jbd

no bad cat jokes! yeesh. as for what you don't see: it's a case of being sued. I put a link to a site and the site owner doesn't like it. her lawyer sends me a letter saying get rid of it or else (I'll see you in court) - what's not to understand? there are plenty of tools out there that make lists of sites linking to and from your site (in fact it's how bloggers work) Say I have a page of info you want to link to but I want you to visit another page first. I don't want you just stampeeding to the clitoris before giving me a kiss so rather than create an area on my website that limits (eg requires a password) access (too hard) I get to put my expensive lawyer (kept on retainer) to good use... -D

> this is problematic for litigation:
> 
> it is an international law issue.  and it is kind of
> hard to sue the caymen island web sites.
> 
> you can't sue someone for knocking on your door.
> you can sue whomever gave them your address.
> but there's no way to find out.
> 
> - jbd

More replies:

I hope they go down in flames. This is crap. In response, the rest of the world should tell the Danish court that if they decide for the paper, we will unlink the entire country from the rest of the web and form boycott's against trade from there (also, tell the court judge that his mother needs to wax her mustache and wear a tee shirt that says "one cock at a time"). -R

lol!!! You are too funny! On the other hand, I do think deep linking in Frames should be illegal. To wit:

From Article:

"...The most recent case, Kelly v. Arriba, was decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in February. The court found that a search engine that linked to copyrighted material by "framing" it in a new Web browser window infringed on the copyright owner's rights..."

There was a site www.disinfo.org that would deep link all sorts of interesting content and it was generally a site worth visiting but they linked it in frames so it looked like everything came from their site, when quite clearly it didn't. Furthermore, they made it very difficult to extract the relevant URL so that you could visit the real site proper. I always thought this was very bad and an infringement on the creativity of others...

U.S.: No Lawyers for War Captives

©Copyright 04/20/02002 Fresh Ink

This is truly terrifying to anyone who believes in and/or cares about freedom, justice, and the American way. We are telling the world that quid pro quo, if you detain an American they do not have a right to consult with a lawyer, see the charges brought against them or defend themselves in court over these charges. With no end in sight on the war on terrorism, we are basically saying these people are facing life in prison without any form of due process or without ever being brought to trial. This is an abuse of any system claiming to be a system of justice. If these people are guilty, then we should not fear putting them on trial and letting a court decide. Of course, then that would mean they would get a chance to defend themselves! How can we get away with this?

From Article:

The U.S. government says under international humanitarian law "the detainees have no right to counsel or to have access to courts. If and when a detainee is charged with a crime, he will have the right to counsel and fundamental procedural safeguards."

This says to me that as long as you do not charge someone with a crime, you can "detain" them as long as you want without giving them access to lawyers or any form of due process. That to me is terrifying. It sounds like Russia under Stalin...

Replies:

Whoa! Man you are off the deep end. This has nothing to do with the American way, freedom nor justice. It also has nothing to do with how American's are treated while visiting other countries. Those people were captured while engaging our troops knowing that they were engaging our troops and that they were at war. They are not American citizens, so none of our indiginous laws apply. If they are accused of comitting a crime, they can and are being tried for those crimes and sentenced appropriately. That they can bring the legal system to bear on. The fact that they were fighting us lends themself to the process of war. If you or I as a citizen of the US were to fight in some other foreign war - like a number of American's did for England in WWII before we entered the war, you are treated accordingly. That is, God help you.

There is no problem here. Just some whiners who would be the first to complain if one of these people do some terrorism in the States. Why didn't we keep them detained they would say. They were captured fighting us so we "should have known better." Besides, those detainees are being cared for very well. Indeed, they are probably being treated and have access to better medical care and such than they have been for their entire lives. They should be lucky we didn't kill them or worse, do what the taliban liked to do - cut off the right hand and left foot.

-R

How do we know? They have not been charged with anything! They are simply being detained. For what? If we do not charge them with a crime then how can we say they are guilty of anything? It's as semantically obnoxious as BC [Bill Clinton] saying it depends on what the definition of 'is' is. If they were at war, then they are war criminals and fall under that rubric. If not then they don't but then they are being illegally detained. Laws of justice apply to everyone or they are not just. Personally, if half of what is said about these people is true, I think they should be punished (I dunno, maybe even the death penalty, although I am rarely for that for spiritual reasons) but that should come out through a trial. Put yourself in this situation. Wrong or right, you are now stuck in Guantanano Bay , detained indefinitely without being charged and are unfortunately not a US citizen. Sucks to be you? I dunno, I can't help but feel that this kind of cavalier attitude towards justice is anything but just. Try 'em and fry 'em sounds hella more just than indefinite detention for a crime we won't even charge them with. If they are criminals why don't we charge them with a crime? I don't think that is too off base...

-D

What do you mean how do we know? We do know that they came from over there and the Army has gone out of its way to sort out bad guys from good guys to the extent of letting a number of bad guys go free. I haven't seen nor even heard anybody disputing the fact that these guys were combatants. Surely it would get out if that were the case. Again as we discussed before, they cannot be prisoners of war because these guys are from many countries not just Afghanistan, they also made no claim to be agents of a government etc. - no serial number. So they don't fall under international war laws though we have extended that courtesy which I think is very generous on our part. No comparison to BC's definition of is. Their status has been decided by international leaders/law and they agree on what we are doing. Again they went back into history and looked at what happened to people of other countries who were not part of the conflict and their disposition therein. That is how it was decided and they were criticized for taking the time to make a right decision. Regardless, when you are locked up does it really matter if you are convicted of something that you may not have done and spend an indefinate time in jail or you are not convicted? Many a man has spent years in jail for stuff they didn't do. I'd say let them sit right where they are and let it be a lesson to them to stay the hell away from armed conflicts. I'll sleep well with them being there under Marine guard.

-R

If File Sharing is Outlawed, only Outlaws will Share Files!

©Copyright 03/29/02002
There is tremendous pressure building from certain Democrats, in bed with well-funded corporate lobbyists, to pass legislation essentially banning file sharing. In it's current incarnation it is called the CBDTPA. You can bet with this much pressure from Disney and Warner Brothers that they're not going to rest until they ram this effluvium down our throats...someday, anyone who uses a computer will be a criminal...

If they outlaw file sharing only outlaws will share files!

---

Replies:

the technology isn't do-able; i presume this is why
you are concerned. if the politicians don't realize
this and implement the legislation then the
impossibility of the technology will be apparent.

all telecommunication traffic would have to be
filtered. 

all root access would have to be supervised by the
government.

I really don't think the government is up to the task
if they can't even keep from giving visas to dead
suicide bombers.

basicaly this would amount to centralized control of
all digetal information.  

This would be the government trying to turn off the
internet, which was designed by the government to be
indestructable.

Actually, I hope this legislation passes, because it
would be amusing to watch it fall on its face.

a C compiler is a duplication device; how can this be
made illegal?  the ability to copy a memory segment
prohibited? this isn't banning free speech, it is
banning speech.  which is the last thing politicians
want to do.

- jbd

Hello All,
Potentially it is do-able.  Any content would have copy protection
built into the file.  All of the electronic devices would be required to
honor that protection.  Anything that defeats it would be subject to
punishment and/or fines.  Keep in mind that they cannot necessarily keep
you from copying a given peice of content for example a DVD, they can
stop you from defeating the mechanism to enable you to view or listen to
it without their permission.  On HDTV transmissions for example, they
want to be able to put in protection so that if you record a
transmission then you can view it for a short time, say 1 week then you
can't view it without getting a new key.  This whole fiasco is what is
holding up HDTV here (try to buy a HDTV recorder).  I learned recently
that if you have an HDTV set, you may not be able to use it much longer
because of this.  It would be required to be updated, perhaps even
entirely replaced.  That really sucks since a lot of sets cost $5000.

Unfortunately the bill is more far reaching that the articles I read on
copy protection had addressed.  It is just that the industry keep
telling law makers that they are loosing billions based on very
questionable data.  Yes, certain individuals may have say 300 mp3 files
on their drive.  A fair number of them very well may have been paid for
and were copied via purchased CD.  The ones they downloaded likely
facilitated the purchase of additional CD's that they normally wouldn't
have purchased.  Also, if the cost of CD's were where they should be,
there would be no reason to copy them.  Tapes are cheaper than a CD,
however at somewhere between 2 cents and 25 cents per disk depending on
how they are produced, they are way cheaper than tapes.

Unfortunately, I think that the only way to wake them up would be to
organize a nationwide boycott of commercial media.  Say for 1 week,
nobody buys any CD's, tapes, videos, etc.  Make it known that this copy
protection crap is why, and we can do it for much longer if necessary. 
Cost them a few billion and they will change their toon.  Whoever
organizes it would be a hell of a target though.

-R

---

Google Removes, Later Returns, Anti-Church Sites

©Copyright 03/26/02002
[Note: after tremendous pressure Google replaced the Scientology-offending websites into it's index, but not before a member of the NERDS put in his two cents below...]

This is upsetting on so many levels...where to start! First it directly interferes with open inquiry and open discourse, two things vital to a healthy society. Without the ability to investigate and communicate we are akin to man after the fall of Babel, unable to speak with each other, unable to make informed decisions, unable to avoid predators. Second, just the threat of litigation is enough to shut down the free flow of information, stuff that could help somebody from falling into what many consider to be a dangerous cult. At least by being able to research all angles, someone interested in Scientology will be hopefully better able to make an informed decision. And to use the awfull, unlawful, unconstitutional DMCA is just maximum perfidity. Somehow, someway, we must stop this growing cancer. Only open source can save the open society! Finally, I feel helpless to do more than watch it happen. How can people stand up to the goliaths they've created?

---

Reply:

Hey Doug, 
This is what I was talking about.  The power of the net is about to be
harnessed.  This was sent to bugtraq mailing list.  Very large
distribution.  A fair number of the people who subscribe are activist
types.

-Rob


"Jon O." wrote:
> 
> As we are all aware, bugtraq is not a forum to discuss
> political issues or laws. However, with the continued
> goverment pressure and attempts to reform and regulate
> the hardware and software industries, bugtraq readers
> should be informed and aware of these new laws which will
> no doubt impact all of us.
> 
> Senator Hollings is attempting to regulate hardware and software
> development. The bill can be reviewed here:
> http://cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm
> 
> Concerned software developers can submit comments here:
> http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/input_form.cfm?comments=1
> 
> You can review other peoples comments here:
> http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/input_form.cfm
> 
> The following senators also support this Bill:
> Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii),
> John Breaux (D-Louisana) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California).
> 
> There is a mailing list discussing these issues here:
> http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh  -----
> 
> As a bonus, here's a section-by-section summary of the bill:
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51275,00.html
> 
> And a collection of info on the Consumer Broadband and Digital
> Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA):
> http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/
> 
> -Declan
> 
> ---
> 
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html
> 
>    Anti-Copy Bill Slams Coders
>    By Declan McCullagh (declan@wired.com)
> 
>    1:25 p.m. March 22, 2002 PST
>    WASHINGTON -- America's programmers, engineers and sundry bit-heads
>    have not yet figured out how much a new copyright bill will affect
>    their livelihood.
> 
>    When they do, watch for an angry Million Geek March to storm Capitol
>    Hill.
> 
>    A bill introduced this week by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina)
>    would roil the electronics industry by forcibly embedding copy
>    protection into all digital devices, from MP3 players to cell phones,
>    fax machines, digital cameras and personal computers.
> 
>    But the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act
>    (CBDTPA) would also wreak havoc on programmers and software companies
>    -- both those distributing code for free and those selling it.
> 
>    No more than two years and seven months after the bill becomes law,
>    the only code programmers and software firms will be able to
>    distribute must have embedded copy-protection schemes approved by the
>    federal government.
> 
>    To put this in perspective: The CBDTPA would, if enacted in its
>    current form, have the electrifying effect on computer professionals
>    that the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore did to some
>    Democratic Party members.
> 
>    Legal experts said on Friday that the CBDTPA regulates nearly any
>    program, in source or object code, that runs on a PC or anything else
>    with a microprocessor.
> 
>    That's not just Windows media players and their brethren, as you might
>    expect. The CBDTPA's sweeping definition of "any hardware or software"
>    includes word processors, spreadsheets, operating systems, compilers,
>    programming languages -- all the way down to humble Unix utilities
>    like "cp" and "cat."
> 
>    "The definition will cover just about anything that runs on your
>    computer -- except maybe the clock," said Tom Bell, a professor at
>    Chapman University School of Law who teaches intellectual property
>    law.
> 
>    [...]
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----

---

Blaming the Victims

>©Copyright 12/09/02001 (except where quoted)
Received this yesterday amidst the usual SPAM:

> > >Subject: SOME EMAILS JUST NEED TO BE PASSED ON
> >Finally, The Truth on National TV
> >Billy Graham's daughter was being interviewed on the Early Show and Jane
> >Clayson
> >asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" And
> >Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said
> >"I
> >believe that God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for
> >years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of
> >our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman that
> >He
> >is, I believe that He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to
> >Give us His blessing and His protection if we demand that He leave us
> >alone?"

To which NERDS replied:

We haven't been telling God to stay out of our schools, we have been telling people to keep their version of God out of schools! The founders of this country realized long ago that where religious beliefs are concerned we all share different points of view and a Government which favors one over another does a disservice to all! We simply cannot all agree on what God is, or how we may best serve him (or her). This is obvious when you see so much hatred and war between various believers in God! Just look, this is a Holy War; The Crusades, round thirteen...

The fact is, the greatest threat to the tyranny of zealots is a free and open society. This is why, in the face of extremist fundamentalism, America is so radical. This is why we tolerate and even appreciate the opinions of others even though they may differ from our own. You do not have such freedoms everywhere in the world and that is why they should be cherished and protected, against those who should know better and those that do not. So, to say that someone or anyone is keeping God out of school is as stupid as saying someone is keeping God out of wood. You cannot keep God out of anything. Nor does God turn His back or rescind His blessing or in any way suffer the inadequacies and immaturities of those who would anthropomorphize him in their image and/or dare to suggest that his ways are anything but total love and compassion. Those who would say God is angry, do so only to serve their own ends, to further their own careers, to fit in with the fit in crowd; those who would use god to condemn others in moral righteousness do so to prop up their own worthless self-esteem. These are the people to whom to spread the Good News! These are the people who fail to see their own glass houses (like Pat Robertson being forced to resign from the Christian Coalition). These are the people who deserve our compassion. But the angry people will have none of this. They are too busy being angry. But being angry is not the way of God, it is not the way of Jesus, it is not the way of Mohammed, it is not the way of Buddha, it is not the way of Ahimsa, it is not the way of Brahma, it is not the way of Krishna. It is not the way of sane and rational people.

Thus, since we cannot agree on the definitions to the words we use (nor easily limit the emotional baggage that goes with these words), the founders of this country had the foresight to create a Government free from the tyranny of others, open to the ideas of other belief systems, separate in Church and State. This is what makes our country so special, so truly great. "If you don't like it you can leave" goes both ways. You can put your kids in private school; you can move to a country that suports mandatory prayer in schools (although you would most likely have to convert to Islam) or you can just stay home. No one is forcing you to go outside, to visit the real world. It is a nasty place out there, dangerous, sometimes evil. Stay home. Get a home tutor. If I were raising kids that is what I would do. Children do not get a very good education in public schools anyway (too many other children). But that is not why we have public schools. We have public schools to take our kids away from us so we can go to work. We have schools to teach our children the skills they need so they can go to work too. That's all they need to learn. Anything else is superfluous and potentially dangerous to their future employment opportunities. It has nothing to do with my taxes or how they are spent, with whether or not God is present in the classroom. It has to do the whole plug and play method by which we raise our kids. We outsource everything; very responsible. Then we blame others. Like Clinton... isn't everything his fault anyway?

---

©Copyright 01998-02003

NERDS Archive from 01/29/02001 to 07/25/01999

NERDS Archive 2 from 08/08/02000 to 04/23/01999

NERDS Archive 3 from 12/09/02001 to 06/23/02002

Return to NERDS

Return to FreshSpace

Email: postmaster@freshspace.net