On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:19:05 -0600
John Hasler wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
> > Hmm. In my lexicon, crimes are defined by statute. How does your
> > definition differ?
>
> Crimes are acts that intentionally harm people (with a few exceptions
> and special cases).
Maybe we need a different wo
The Wanderer writes:
> Hmm. In my lexicon, crimes are defined by statute. How does your
> definition differ?
Crimes are acts that intentionally harm people (with a few exceptions
and special cases). Statute violations are acts or states (e.g,
possession of certain substances or objects) that a go
On 2019-12-10 at 08:07, John Hasler wrote:
> Andrei writes:
>
>> "Criminals" are what the law defines them to be. Laws can be
>> created and / or changed as needed.
>
> In my lexicon criminals are people who commit crimes, not people who
> violate statutes.
Hmm. In my lexicon, crimes are defin
Andrei writes:
> "Criminals" are what the law defines them to be. Laws can be created
> and / or changed as needed.
In my lexicon criminals are people who commit crimes, not people who
violate statutes.
Not restricting my emailing to sending encrypted messages to people in
my web of trust and doi
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:29 PM John Hasler wrote:
> Nicholas Geovanis writes:
> > You are safe (now) so others' freedoms need not be respected. Your
> > first jump down the slippery slope :-) Jefferson the slave-master
> > would have said that you have taken one hand off the wolf's ears.
> > Goo
Charles Curley (12019-12-09):
> Archaeological record.
Are not history.
Can we close this useless subthread now?
On Lu, 09 dec 19, 14:28:39, John Hasler wrote:
> Nicholas Geovanis writes:
> > You are safe (now) so others' freedoms need not be respected. Your
> > first jump down the slippery slope :-) Jefferson the slave-master
> > would have said that you have taken one hand off the wolf's ears.
> > Good luc
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 20:01:04 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Maybe you have studied a lot of it, but apparently not in depth enough
> to know that we have less than 5500 years of it.
Archaeological record.
--
Does anybody read signatures any more?
https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.
Charles Curley writes:
> How do you know that? Mr. Snowden, among others, has made it
> abundantly clear that the US government is perfectly willing to do
> mass surveillance and other intrusions without the slightest notice to
> the Congress, never mind the public.
Read what I actually wrote. I
Nicholas Geovanis writes:
> You are safe (now) so others' freedoms need not be respected. Your
> first jump down the slippery slope :-) Jefferson the slave-master
> would have said that you have taken one hand off the wolf's ears.
> Good luck :-) don't let go the other ear or you become the slave
On Lu, 09 dec 19, 11:16:32, John Hasler wrote:
> Charlie writes:
> > Over many years, although, I may not ever be in possession of anything
> > of interest to anyone?
>
> There are two distinct "security" condsiderations here that are often
> munged together:
>
> 1) Our ethical/moral/political ob
On Mon 09 Dec 2019 at 19:50:21 +, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 09 Dec 2019 at 11:58:57 -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:17 AM John Hasler wrote:
> >
> > > The data trawling activities of my
> > > government[2] angers me but when I think about it objectively I realiz
On Mon 09 Dec 2019 at 11:58:57 -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:17 AM John Hasler wrote:
>
> > The data trawling activities of my
> > government[2] angers me but when I think about it objectively I realize
> > that it does me no actual harm: I'm simply not someone the
Charles Curley (12019-12-09):
> Having studied more than ten thousand years of history
Maybe you have studied a lot of it, but apparently not in depth enough
to know that we have less than 5500 years of it.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 11:16:32 -0600
John Hasler wrote:
> The data trawling activities of my
> government[2] angers me but when I think about it objectively I
> realize that it does me no actual harm:
How do you know that? Mr. Snowden, among others, has made it abundantly
clear that the US govern
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:17 AM John Hasler wrote:
> The data trawling activities of my
> government[2] angers me but when I think about it objectively I realize
> that it does me no actual harm: I'm simply not someone they care about.
>
You are safe (now) so others' freedoms need not be respec
Charlie writes:
> Over many years, although, I may not ever be in possession of anything
> of interest to anyone?
There are two distinct "security" condsiderations here that are often
munged together:
1) Our ethical/moral/political objections to being tracked and snooped
on.
2) Our actual ris
Received from Curt on Sun, 8 Dec 2019 14:54:15 - (UTC) Re:
[OT] Google security
> I am waiting to be convinced, though I do infer from a certain number
> of factors, including my personal experience and the experience of
> those around me, that the claim
On 2019-12-08, John Hasler wrote:
> Curt writes:
>> Yet the confirmation bias of certain ideologues will get them to
>> believing...
>
> Confirmation bias of *all* ideologues and ideologies. Including yours.
How devastatingly clever. But you inverse the roles. I made no
unsubstantiated claim, no
Curt writes:
> Yet the confirmation bias of certain ideologues will get them to
> believing...
Confirmation bias of *all* ideologues and ideologies. Including yours.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 10:33:42AM -, Curt wrote:
> Also my understanding and experience. Yet the confirmation bias of
> certain ideologues [... ]
Ideologue. Noun. Anyone with views differing from Curt's
> [...] being trigger-happy fanatics) any and all FUD
Fanatic. Noun. Anyone whose views
On 2019-12-08, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 7 déc. 2019 à 18:06 de jdash...@panix.com:
>
>> [...] google accounts whether two-step or not are routinely hacked
>>
> You are probably mixing up different notions here: cracking VS privacy
> VS social engineering (phishing). AFAIK, Google account security
> poli
Hi,
7 déc. 2019 à 18:06 de jdash...@panix.com:
> [...] google accounts whether two-step or not are routinely hacked
>
You are probably mixing up different notions here: cracking VS privacy VS
social engineering (phishing).
AFAIK, Google account security policy has very high standards towards ext
23 matches
Mail list logo
