RE: Destroying PCs remotely?

["JT" <ptourvi1 () twcny rr com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of 
> Shawn McMahon
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:14 PM
> To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:58:51PM -0400, JT said:
> > Yeah, I remember that last Senator who made an "off the 
> cuff remark" I
> > believe he was forced to step down from his position. I 
> read the news
>
> Leadership position, not from his Senate seat.  But, yes; because
> Republicans won't tolerate racism from our folks.  Where're Byrd's
> walking papers?

That's right Shawn, leadership position. As others have stated, and again
that little thing called "history" will show you it's not hard to retain a
senate seat for life, once you've been voted in.  
> > Please reread and comprehend the above statement first. The 
> business/lobby
> > groups control him via campaign contributions and other 
> money. Had I said
>
> Which doesn't prevent you from voting against him, nor make it
> intolerable that others vote for him.

Irrelevant, it was a response to your incorrect comprehension/reply to my
original statemtent.
> > > TEMPORARY
> > > security.  It inconveniences liberties for permanent security.
> >
> > Contradict yourself some more for me would you? Last email you said:
> >
> > "The Patriot Act amounts to short-term inconvenience for a 
> few, that the
> > many might live." 
> >
> > So which is it Shawn, temp or permanent?!?!? By law, it's 
> supposed to be
>
> Well, as both of my sentences clearly state, the restriction of
> liberties is temporary.  The enhancment of security is 
> permanent in that
> if the terrorists are captured and/or killed, they no longer pose a
> threat.

Please explain how the restriction of liberties is temporary if they revoke
the sunset clause, which they are attempting. Also, are you under some
dilusion that there are a finite number of "bad" people out there. You think
you can just eradicate them all? You believe that if they are captured they
pose no threat? Oh boy....you really do live in some sort of dreamworld.
> > someone who is so blatantly idiotic that they border on 
> troll. The Patriot
> > act has numerous problems. Maybe you should read more about 
> the problems
>
> Blowing 3,045 people up with airplanes has numerous problems, 
> too.  It's
> a pity you can't see that.  Fortunately, the vast majority of 
> Americans
> do, so for now I'll be safe against the way people like you would run
> the country.

It's a pity you can't stay on the argument at hand which had to do with
remotely destroying someones pc for copyright infringement. Please relate
that to 9/11 for me somehow cause I see no correlation. My comment about the
patriot act was to demonstrate Hatch's past history, in no way did I relate
it to 9/11. It's already been proven that the reason 9/11 happened was due
to a breakdown in intel. communication between departments. Please explain
how creating more laws stripping rights away allow for easier inter
departmental communications. Unfortunately, most americans DO NOT realize
the amt of rights they have lost, do not mistake this as them sharing your
opinion. Your last sentence sums up the arrogance that lead to 9/11 and
continues to provide a false sense of security. They've already demonstrated
within 1 month of 9/11 that another plane could be taken easily, so it would
seem you are not so safe.  
> -- 
> Shawn McMahon     | Let every nation know, whether it wishes 
> us well or ill,
> EIV Consulting    | that we shall pay any price, bear any 
> burden, meet any
> UNIX and Linux          | hardship, support any friend, 
> oppose any foe, to assure
> http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html