[sudo-discuss] Chaos & freedom & kids (oh my!)

[Anon195714]

(I'm changing the subject header on this just to keep the conversation
topics easier to follow.)

Conformity & oppression "for their kids' sake":  This points to the need
to hack the social software as it were, liberate parenthood in some
way.  To my mind, liberating economics is the key to that: parents who
have economic security aren't under pressure to conform "or else."

Chaos:  VERY interesting and thought-provoking take you have, on a
subject that sometimes falls prey to cliches.

Assume one axis of measurement from order to chaos, and another axis
from predictability to randomness.  These are not the same thing, in
that "chaos" in the strict mathematical sense can be deterministic and
thus in some cases potentially susceptible to being computable
(predictable and controllable). 

The goal of capital is the same as that of any other dissipative
structure, which is to extract energy from entropy gradients.  The key
advantage capital has is that it is ultimately "pure information" and
thus is orthogonal to thermodynamics (though governed by economic
variables that can have effects similar to those of thermodynamics, for
example "discounting" which is similar to anticipated entropy over
time).  (The thermodynamic cost of transferring a billion dollars across
the globe as compared to a penny, is merely the energy cost of
transmitting the bytes for the additional digits in the dollar amount: a
miniscule energy cost for an enormous increase in the effect of the
outcome.)

However the individuals who control capital are also dissipative
structures seeking to maximize their own net energy gain.  Thus they
often act in ways that are inimical to the interests of their employers
or The Ownership generally.  For example financial executives in the
lead-up to the 2008 crash, acted for their personal benefit at the
expense of their companies and shareholders: this because the benefits
of serving themselves at the expense of capital significantly exceeded
the benefits to be gained as an outcome of serving capital. 

Very often we find individual actors in the oligarchy, who specifically
act to destroy established systems of whatever kind, in order to benefit
from the sudden release of energy from those systems.  For example
corporate raiders who dismantle corporations in order to sell off all
the assets and earn a fast profit at the expense of the other
shareholders and stakeholders.  By analogy as if Bin Laden set up a
scrap metal company before 9/11/2001, to profit from selling the
wreckage of the World Trade Center.  "oooh, look at all that potentially
profitable scrap steel just waiting to be liberated by gravity plus a
couple of jet airliners!"

Very often the proponents of revolutions are operating on a radically
different sense of time than the general population who are the intended
beneficiaries of the revolutions.  For example I've wanted marriage
equality all my life (gay & single here) and when Mayor Newsome in SF
started the ball rolling, I got impatient for court victories right
away.  However what finally worked was the strategy Obama had, of
starting by de-segregating the military (repealing DADT), and then using
that as the lead-in for changing cultural values that would erode the
opposition to marriage equality.  Judging from the outcome of various
state elections in 2012, Obama's methods have been working, and will
probably result in either a partial or complete victory (California or
nationwide) at the Supreme Court. 

What WE have: we the hackers and makers, little and poor though most of
us may be, have some enormously powerful assets:  Being small, we're
faster than the oligarchy and the middlemen.  Being poor we're frugal
and we can make every dollar go much further.  Being committed to
ideals, we're willing to endure temporary hardships that the oligarchs
and middlemen (with their dependence on lives of luxury) are not willing
to endure.  In terms of business activity we tend toward
micro-enterprise and co-ops, which have the advantage of economic
efficiency in not having to generate significant return to capital aside
from repayment of relatively minor debt. 

So the task at hand is basically "same as it ever was":

To shape the overall ecosystem in a manner that is conducive to OUR
advantages, at the expense of the oligarchy's and middlemens'
advantages.  This is part of what makes the conservative version of the
Gaia Hypothesis tick: organisms exert feedback on ecosystems to preserve
the viability of their own niches.  All organisms do it. 

This also explains part of the big push by the likes of Google and
Facebook, for the "transparency" of a world of one-way mirrors where
privacy is "an obsolete virtue."  (Remember back in the Reagan days,
along with "greed is good," we heard "loyalty is an obsolete
virtue"...?)  They want to "predict & control" down to the individual
level, for the purpose (among other things) of shaping the social
ecosystem to their own advantage.  Our defense of privacy creates
liberated zones or temporary autonomous zones where they cannot do that:
zones where they can't predict or control, from which we not only defend
ourselves, but attack our adversaries. 

(And y'all thought that Google's keyword searching of emails & phone
calls was merely to send you targeted advertising?)  

We need to "operationalize the variables" and figure out where the
oligarchy's and middlemens' weak spots are, and attack them there.  To
my mind the most significant things are the financial system and the
marketplace.  Anything we can do to build alternative economics,
strengthens us and weakens our enemies, and builds a world that's more
sane, humane, and sustainable.  But there's also room for guerrilla
actions, such as "bombing" Google, Facebook, and Twitter, with
deliberate misinformation and disinformation on a scale sufficient to
foul up the oligarchy's predictions.  (Though, make no mistake, this
does require sufficient scale, more about which some other time.)

More later, gots work to do...

-G.


=====


On 13-03-05-Tue 4:01 PM, Matthew D. Howell wrote:
>  " The degree of conformity and everyday oppression that people are
> willing to endure "for their kids' sake" is enormous.  "
>
> I quite agree.
> - - - -
>
> Part of what I think contributes to a greater sense of personal
> freedom is, simply put, chaos. Though, (I believe) we need to create
> new cultural chaos at just the right speed. Revolutions that are fast
> enough to confound the use of law to limit them and slow enough to not
> be met with violence and thus be reverted to the oldest and most
> boring thing, war. To shift the places where the middle men posit
> themselves at the right speed to avoid inevitable full resource drain.
> Even better is to create sustainable methods of cultural stagnation
> avoidance and employ ourselves to do it.
> Not sure if its possible..
>
> – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – >8
> /V\ /-\ + +  |–| ø \/\/ ∂ £ £
> –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> Matthew D. Howell
> misterinterrupt, tHe M4d swiTcH, the RuinMechanic
> cell: (617) 755-1481
> –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> If everybody's head-mounted camera was connected to Google, taking video of
>> police misconduct would cause their credit ratings to drop and their
>> employment situation to become precarious.
>>
>> The thing that holds "the masses" down, isn't the threat of a billy-club
>> upside the head or a face full of pepper spray.  It's the threat of losing
>> their job, their house or apartment, and their medical care.  Ask anyone who
>> has kids.  The degree of conformity and everyday oppression that people are
>> willing to endure "for their kids' sake" is enormous.
>>
>> Government largely serves capital.  What capital wants is to surround every
>> person with the equivalent of a Dyson sphere to capture all of their energy
>> output either in the form of work or consumption.
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>> =====
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13-03-05-Tue 3:37 PM, Jehan Tremback wrote:
>>
>> If everybody had a head mounted camera, police brutality would become non
>> existent.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> (Matthew: I see your comment was posted to me but not posted to list, so
>>> I've redacted it from this posting to the list, which is in reply to
>>> you.  If you want to post your comment to the list, feel free.  Everyone
>>> else: it wasn't a scathing criticism or something scandalous, in fact I
>>> think Matthew may have wanted to post it to list but didn't hit Reply
>>> All.  That said, it's up to him.)
>>>
>>> The surveillance ecosystem is already enormous, and the vast majority is
>>> in the private sector.
>>>
>>> General rule:  "Dissipative structures form ecosystems around
>>> entropy-gradients."  Organisms are dissipative structures; work is
>>> energy-conversion.  This explains much of human social behavior as well
>>> as physical ecosystem behavior.
>>>
>>> For example people want music and they're willing to work hard (convert
>>> energy) to get it.  Energy conversion produces an entropy gradient.  The
>>> music industry middlemen (RIAA) insert themselves into the path between
>>> sources & sinks (artists & audiences, and that relationship is two-way)
>>> to tap as much energy out of this process as possible, in the form of
>>> money.  Illegal file downloaders as well as self-produced bands who use
>>> Creative Commons or Copyleft, are seen by the music industry as
>>> short-circuits in the system.
>>>
>>> Consumer behavior in general is an enormous energy source (money
>>> source), and the goal of capitalism is ultimately to surround every
>>> consumer with the equivalent of a Dyson sphere to capture as much of
>>> their work output as possible.  The modern surveillance ecosystem is all
>>> about "predicting and controlling" individual behavior, toward that end.
>>>
>>> So, per Matthew, one way to counter this is to set up a countervailing
>>> ecosystem, with entropy gradients tilted in such a manner as to produce
>>> incentives to fight back against the surveillance.
>>>
>>> As for defending privacy: privacy is equivalent to free speech.  As a
>>> lawyer told us when I was working on "crypto for the masses" in the
>>> early 1980s, the right to freedom of speech necessarily includes the
>>> right to choose your audience.  Today we commonly use the term "chilling
>>> effect" to refer to what happens when you can't choose your audience,
>>> e.g. when your boss and the credit bureaux etc. are likely to be
>>> watching you on "social" networks.
>>>
>>> It's been said more than once, that you can tell when someone's boss is
>>> watching them on Facebook: all of a sudden their comments go totally
>>> bland (not that any of us should be using Facebook unless we're
>>> deliberately using it as a publicity tool for political or other
>>> campaigns).  That's the chilling effect in action.  And if DARPA and
>>> Google have their way, where everyone's every conversation, private and
>>> in-person included, is recorded and archived and made searchable, the
>>> chill will be so total that it will make life in East Germany under the
>>> Stasi look like a picnic by comparison.
>>>
>>> Knowledge is power: when THEY know all about YOU, but you know nothing
>>> about them, who has the power?
>>>
>>> As the old song said, "Getting to know you / getting to know all about
>>> you..."
>>>
>>> Not to mention, "He sees you when you're sleeping / he knows when you're
>>> awake. / He knows if you've been bad or good / so be good for (getting
>>> lots of presents) sake!"
>>>
>>> Going back thousands of years, societies envisioned deities as concerned
>>> with individual "moral behavior" (i.e. sex) as a way of strengthening
>>> tribal cohesion.  Western cultures in particular evolved with the very
>>> strong sense that their deities were keeping a close watch over them.
>>> This gave people a sense of comfort and protection.
>>>
>>> Today as agnosticism, atheism, and various forms of transpersonal
>>> beliefs (in effect religion without personalized deities) are on the
>>> rise in the geek sector, the sense of comfort from "being watched over"
>>> has transplanted itself from the deity to the surveillance
>>> superstructure.  Many people are secretly fond of the idea that Big
>>> Google is reading every word they write, listening to every phone call
>>> they make, and following them around.  This is nothing more than a new
>>> deity taking the place of the old one:  "someone big who watches over us."
>>>
>>> It seems to me that a necessary part of the evolution of rational people
>>> away from the need for personalized deities, is to get away from the
>>> need for the "comfort" of being watched over.  Individuals who are
>>> rational self-aware autonomous moral actors have no need of being
>>> watched over by anything other than our own consciences.
>>>
>>> -G.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =====
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13-03-05-Tue 2:43 PM, Matthew D. Howell wrote:
>>>
>>> (Comment was sent to me in private email, not to the list, so if Matthew
>>> wishes he can repost it to the list.)
>>>
>>>
>>> =====
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Re. Anthony, Rachel, Matthew, re "masking audio."
>>>>>
>>>>> That was the first thing I tried when I found out about NSA's voice
>>>>> recognition back in 1980 (if I recall correctly it was the October 1980
>>>>> issue of _The Progressive_ that referred to the HARVEST program,
>>>>> keyword
>>>>> rec and voice rec, and some stuff in a British paper or magazine also,
>>>>> I
>>>>> may still have copies around).
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea was that instead of using a voice scrambler or crypto (which
>>>>> required a device at each end of a conversation), voice rec could be
>>>>> defeated from one end of a phone call by saturating the channel with
>>>>> just enough noise.  What killed that idea was the fact that long
>>>>> distance telephony used T-carrier that split up the conversation into
>>>>> two different speech paths between telco central offices (e.g. me to
>>>>> you, you to me).  So a device would still be needed at both ends, and
>>>>> one may as well just use a scrambler.  That led me down the trail to
>>>>> details about scramblers (bottom line, analog scramblers aren't any
>>>>> good) and ultimately to cryptography by 1982 - 1983.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re. "every person's voice has a distinct signature that can be
>>>>> recognized...", yes, thus voiceprint recognition, which was 99.6%
>>>>> accurate in 1960 according to an article in _Telephony_ magazine at the
>>>>> time (I may still have that around also).  Fast-forward to today at the
>>>>> speed of Moore's law, and you can be quite sure that voiceprint
>>>>> recognition is used for tracking.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is one of the things I find most pernicious about the decline in
>>>>> the use of landlines and the rise in the number of people with "mobile
>>>>> only":  A landline enables you to design, build, connect, and use any
>>>>> hardware you choose, including digital voice crypto devices, and
>>>>> including computers running digital voice crypto.  And with a landline
>>>>> phone, when the receiver is on the hook, the microphone is physically
>>>>> disconnected by the hookswitch, a visible set of switch contacts inside
>>>>> the phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mobile devices are sealed black boxes, the ultimate revenge against
>>>>> phone phreaks & phone hackers, where you have no final control over
>>>>> what's in the black box.  Just like the bad old days of Ma Bell when it
>>>>> was quasi-illegal to connect "foreign attachments" to your home phone
>>>>> line.  Even a voice crypto app on a mobile device is questionable at
>>>>> best, because you have no way of knowing if at some level it's being
>>>>> undermined by something else in the device that you can't detect.  By
>>>>> analogy, crypto on your laptop, but a keystroke logger hiding between
>>>>> you and the crypto app.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mere possibility of being able to hack the hardware provides more
>>>>> security than any sealed box, and best of all is when you can design &
>>>>> build your own hardware, such as when people build their own desktop
>>>>> machines from components.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I agree with Rachel & Matthew that audio masking isn't
>>>>> sufficient because it can be undone by the watchers.  It may have to do
>>>>> in some situations, but it would be better to design more "aggressive"
>>>>> personal defense tech such as wearable "resonant audio cannons" or
>>>>> something else.
>>>>>
>>>>> -G.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =====
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13-03-05-Tue 11:21 AM, Matthew D. Howell wrote:
>>>>>> @Rachel The state of the technology for recognizing and separating
>>>>>> patterns in audio is advanced enough to overcome that sort of thing.
>>>>>> Every person's voice has a distinct signature that can be recognized.
>>>>>> I would venture a guess that some kind of encrypted digital signal
>>>>>> transmission would be the best way to keep any sonic communication
>>>>>> private in the most extreme of situations. (most interested party with
>>>>>> the best technology at their disposal)
>>>>>> – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – >8
>>>>>> /V\ /-\ + +  |–| ø \/\/ ∂ £ £
>>>>>> –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>>>>>> Matthew D. Howell
>>>>>> misterinterrupt, tHe M4d swiTcH, the RuinMechanic
>>>>>> cell: (617) 755-1481
>>>>>> –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
>>>>>> <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it need to be non-commercially available music, so they
>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>>> just find the audio data of the track, invert its wave, and cancel it
>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>> the recording?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CACOPHONY FOR THE REVOLUTION!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mediumreality.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2013 10:23 AM, "Steve Berl" <steveberl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> You could carry a boombox around playing loud music where ever you
>>>>>>>> go.
>>>>>>>> Perhaps this would be the end of earbuds. :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Anthony Di Franco
>>>>>>>> <di.franco at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> People have rendered surveillance cameras useless with very bright
>>>>>>>>> IR
>>>>>>>>> LEDs in their fields of view.
>>>>>>>>> Could something similar be done for sound recording devices?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2013 6:17 AM, "Anon195714" <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Yo's-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Something I forgot to add re. DARPA's desire for universal
>>>>>>>>>> recording of
>>>>>>>>>> face-to-face conversations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's the ideal device for doing all that recording?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How'bout something you wear?  How'bout something that "everyone"
>>>>>>>>>> wears?,
>>>>>>>>>> or even a significant fraction of "everyone"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like maybe Google Glasses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Always on, camera and mic always "connected" to "the cloud."
>>>>>>>>>> Orwell's
>>>>>>>>>> telescreen gone mobile.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone who wears them will become, in effect, _unpaid
>>>>>>>>>> surveillance
>>>>>>>>>> drones_ watching their family and friends, not from up in the sky,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> from up close where every word can be heard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some will say "oh, there's no stopping technology." People said
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> about the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb.  But public outcry
>>>>>>>>>> led
>>>>>>>>>> first to treaties and then to progressive degrees of nuclear
>>>>>>>>>> disarmament.  We haven't used that technology since it was first
>>>>>>>>>> used in
>>>>>>>>>> WW2.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can stop pernicious tech if we choose.  We can refuse, we can
>>>>>>>>>> withdraw consent, we do not have to press the Buy button.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Technology should liberate and empower people.  "Conveniences with
>>>>>>>>>> a few
>>>>>>>>>> strings attached" are not liberation, they're puppet-strings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's all about control: technology that you can control, vs.
>>>>>>>>>> technology
>>>>>>>>>> that can control you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -G.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> =====
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 13-03-05-Tue 1:50 AM, Anon195714 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Yo's-
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This just in:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "DARPA wants to make [voice recognition/transcription] systems so
>>>>>>>>>>> accurate, you’ll be able to easily record, transcribe and recall
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> conversations you ever have. ... Imagine living in a world where
>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>> errant utterance you make is preserved forever. ... DARPA
>>>>>>>>>>> [awarded
>>>>>>>>>>> U.Texas comp sci researcher Matt Lease]... $300,000... over two
>>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> study the new project, called “Blending Crowdsourcing with
>>>>>>>>>>> Automation
>>>>>>>>>>> for Fast, Cheap, and Accurate Analysis of Spontaneous Speech.”"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The idea is that business meetings or even conversations with
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> friends and family could be stored in archives and easily
>>>>>>>>>>> searched.
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> stored recordings could be held in servers, owned either by
>>>>>>>>>>> individuals
>>>>>>>>>>> or their employers. ... The answer, Lease says, is in widespread
>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> recording technologies like smartphones, cameras and audio
>>>>>>>>>>> recorders...
>>>>>>>>>>> [A] memorandum from the Congressional Research Service described
>>>>>>>>>>> [an
>>>>>>>>>>> earlier DARPA project of this type known as] EARS, as focusing on
>>>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>>>> picked up from broadcasts and telephone conversations, “as well
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> extract clues about the identity of speakers” for “the military,
>>>>>>>>>>> intelligence and law enforcement communities.”"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/darpa-speech/ (Yes, "real
>>>>>>>>>>> geeks
>>>>>>>>>>> don't read Wired," but nonetheless its news pages are useful for
>>>>>>>>>>> keeping
>>>>>>>>>>> a finger on the pulse of Big Brother and his corporate Brethren.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In short:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DARPA is researching the means by which every conversation you
>>>>>>>>>>> have,
>>>>>>>>>>> in-person, whether at work or with family or friends, gets picked
>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> the mic in your smartphone or other portable device, and stored
>>>>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>> server, where DARPA's algorithms and human editors turn all of it
>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> fast-searchable text, that could be used by your employer, the
>>>>>>>>>>> military,
>>>>>>>>>>> law enforcement, and intel agencies. Presumably the credit
>>>>>>>>>>> bureaus,
>>>>>>>>>>> insurance companies, and financial institutions will want "in" on
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> data as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now connect that with this, about cell-site tracking and call
>>>>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>>>>> records:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The government maintained [that] Americans have no expectation
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> privacy of such cell-site records [call detail records or CDR]
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> they are in the possession of a third party — the mobile phone
>>>>>>>>>>> companies."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/gps-drug-dealer-retrial/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The key point is that the gov's current position is that data
>>>>>>>>>>> stored
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> a third party's servers have "no expectation of privacy." What
>>>>>>>>>>> begins
>>>>>>>>>>> with CDR will eventually include voicemail messages stored on the
>>>>>>>>>>> mobile
>>>>>>>>>>> phone companies' servers, and then eventually all of your live
>>>>>>>>>>> in-person
>>>>>>>>>>> conversations that are stored "in the cloud."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Anything you say can and will be used against you..." Mark my
>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile people keep using gmail and Google Voice, and
>>>>>>>>>>> smartphones
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> which they can't remove the batteries. Because nothing is more
>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>> than "convenience," right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As a character in a sci-fi piece I wrote in the mid-1980s said,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Why
>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>> a person in prison, when you can put prison in the person
>>>>>>>>>>> instead?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -G.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> -steve
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>