Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #26966

Re: OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools)

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:

>> Hmm, I never thought about it. For me, all quotes look alright. Could you send
>> me an exact copy and mark where the error is? Maybe I've gotten so used to it I
>> don't notice it?
>
> Omg, it turns out it's *my* fault!  Sorry about that.  I mean---not my
> fault exactly, but Gnus'.  Gnus is messing up my quotes when I M-RET at
> points to reply---it messes up quotes above and sometimes quotes below.
> Incredible.  I must report this.  (It sometimes does and I don't see it,
> so it goes broken up.)

Oh, glad you found the solution! =)

>>> Proving anything is quite useless for regular people.  Proving is useful
>>> in math, less in science and that's just about it, I think.  (By the
>>> way, when I see people saying things like ``scientifically proven'',
>>> they have no idea what they're talking about.)
>>
>> Well, let's make the distinction of proof (math) and evidence
>> (science). Maybe that makes it more clear?
>
> By ``proving anything'' I had in mind any kind of good argument.  It's
> of no use to a lot of people.  People are not making very rational
> decisions.  I mean---they make rational decisions in a certain level,
> but it's not very deep reason.  That's why society is full of apparent
> paradoxes.

Ahh... got it! Yes, I agree with that. It is very fun with the war in Ukraine,
when talking with russians who are only exposed to russian propaganda. It is
very difficult to reason, since there is no baseline for truth.

>> Battle for me is something intentional, and intentional conflict between two
>> groups. Even though it is not good, I don't know if I would categorize it as a
>> "battle" between the sexes. Just a backwards, retarded culture and religion,
>> that will hopefully go away in a generation or two. =/
>
> It's okay---I don't care for the words.  If not war or battle, something
> else.  We're both seeing what's hapenning.  I call it one thing and you
> call it another.  I might find it disturbing and you might call me too
> sensitive.  That's what we're dealing with every day.  Similarly, some
> people might find it's all beautiful and they could be on drugs, say. :)

Haha... true. But I try to be optimistic about the world. Sometimes it is not
easy, but in general I find it a much more productive attitude than other
options.

Yes, my drug is caffeine. ;)

> We need to deal with this.  That's a pretty big part of communication.
> That's why I appreciate some of the art of listening.  I appreciate
> thoughts like those of David Bohm that one would find in ``On
> Dialogue''.  By the way, whatever changes you're seeing, I say it's all
> on the surface.

What is this about? Maybe I should make a note of that text.

>> Well, from one point of view, he is. He is an individual, and I would say that
>> as long as he is open with only looking for certain services, and a woman is
>> looking to provide services, that's good!
>
> Your ``that's good'' here is likely materialist.  You might be saying
> ``if they're happy, what's the problem?''  That's essentially
> saying---it's not my problem.  People can often claim to be happy and
> even appear happy, when in reality...  That's parents worry so much
> about their children (and often others beyond than theirs).

This is true. But they are adults, and beyond pointing out something, at the end
of the day, I have no legal right or any right for that matter, to control their
lives.

It is perfectly true, what you are saying, and you could be right, and it would
be a tragedy, but I prefer to assume things are alright, until proven otherwise.
When it comes to parents and children, there is a different set of expectations,
both cultural and legal, so I don't think it would carry over.

There is a fine line between wanting to help, when it is justified, and being
labeled a "Karen".

>>> too---, I actually say that he has a health problem that makes him quite
>>> insensitive.  Who is suffering the most?  Himself.  His insensibility,
>>> for example, blinds him even to his own nutrition.  He's losing his
>>> health slowly year after year.
>>
>> That is sad. =(
>
> Such is life.  It's difficult.  You can tell people of their symptons,
> but they don't see it---they don't believe it.  When people can't tune
> themselves to intelligence, it becomes quite difficult to do anything
> intelligent.

This is the truth! But I think you have done what you can do, and you shouldn't
feel bad about it. At the end of the day, he is an adult and responsible for his
own life.

>>> open my window to give him a bit of privacy in his little party.
>>> Chatting went on for a while and then suddenly silence.  So I looked and
>>> then his friend was likely inside the house and he was having sex in the
>>> pool.
>>
>> Wow! Brazil, here I come! ;)
>
> Lol.  You could be getting the wrong impression. :) But the real remark
> to be made here, in a more serious tone, is that this is no good.  For
> instance, when I saw them in the swimming pool, the first thing I
> thought was---omg, what a place for that.  And he was in own home---he
> likely left the most comfortable place for his friend.  Of course,
> people might love this kind of stuff.  It's not shameful or obscene or
> whatever---I couldn't care less about any of that.  I'm saying it's just
> a someone trying to get some relief, without much of a clue of what's
> going on.

True. Could be a good example of pleasure now, at the expense of pain later.

> By the way, if I were mildly inclined to the same, I could likely be
> there myself.  When they moved in, they threw various parties and
> invited me to them all.  I had lots of chances to blend in, but I
> couldn't, really: I don't drink; I don't stay up all the night; what I

Haha, well, sounds like you probably did yourself a favour. I am fascinated! In
sweden, it would be exceptionally rare that any neighbour would be invited.

> eat is the nearly the bare minimum and from a very picky selection.
> It's a totally different life style.  And, hey, don't get me wrong: I
> actually like them.  I like both of them.  One of the first things I do
> when I wake up is open up my window.  I love natural light.  I only
> opened my window by midday that day---that's when they had already left
> home (likely to some more fun).  I also spotted my neighbor's friend
> with his head down on a table trying to rest a bit.  In all probability,
> they spent the night out, arrived in the morning with the two girls and
> didn't sleep for a minute.  Of course, with whisky, Red Bulls, beers and
> that kind of nonsense.

Haha... wow! I don't think I could do that in my 30s even. ;) Brazilians are
very well trained! ;)

> That's one of the things I eventually noticed.  The first thing to do to
> put your life in order is to quit all drugs---bad food included.  To
> enjoy a whole night without sleep, you gotta be on something.  The body
> loves to sleep if it's well regulated.

I probably shouldn't tell your this, but I looooove Mc Donalds hamburgers! ;) My
wife forbids me from eating them too often, so I'm probably at about 9 per year
or so. ;)

>> Hmm, I never think I ever experienced anything like it in the far, far
>> north. People are way too reserved for anything like that to happen,
>> at least where I have been living, oh, and of course there's never
>> been any swimming pools close by as well. ;)
>
> I do believe Brazilians are on average less reserved.  There's a lot of
> poor people here.  People who live in the slums, for example.  I have
> never been too close, but they're everywhere so I often observe them.
> One problem I've spent some hours (that is, almost nothing) on is why do
> poor people talk so loud.  My hypothesis is that they grow up in
> space-deprived environments, neighbors are too close by, no privacy and
> so on.  It becomes the normal thing, so they might not feel being
> exposed at all to whoever is around.

Loud? Southern europeans are loud by my standard, so if they are loud by your
standards, then they must be _really_ loud! I once had a brazilian colleague
from Sao Paolo for 2 months, and he was a really nice guy. But once he had some
fellow brazilians over and the volume did increase. =)

I suspect he came from a wealthy family because when he went back to Brazil, his
luggage was full of play stations and electronics that he said he could easily
sell at twice the price. There must have been some very high tariffs at that
time.

>> If all are in on it, who am I to judge? Our dear lord teaches us to "judge
>> not...". On the other hand, if his wife is not in on it, it is very sad and
>> immoral.
>
> I claim she is in on it, not consciously in on it though.  But she's in
> on it in a deeper level.  For instance, I classify her as an alcoholic.
> I don't think her husband is an alcoholic in the same level as she is,
> but technically I do include him in the alcoholism classification, too.
> He surely needs alcohol, for example, to have the kind of night we
> described earlier.  So many people do.

He sounds like he would be right at home in northern europe. No fun there unless
alcohol is in involved.

>>> I know.  But we are not individuals.  Even evolutionary biologists are
>>> getting there already [1].
>>
>> How come we are not individuals? If not individuals, what then?
>
> That's too difficult of a conversation.  We're in comp.misc.  Let's call
> it a thread and end this.  If you're curious, you could look at two
> perspectives: one, which is the evolutionary biology one---there's the
> article I linked in a previous post.  Another perspective, more
> difficult to parse, is that of someone such as Jiddu Krishnamurti---very
> interesting perspective there.

Yes, sounds reasonable. Thank you for the pointers, I'll have a look!

>> The only logical way out of this dilemma, is to continue to shrink the groups
>> until they consist of groups with one member, the individual, and then they can
>> reach the conclusion that we are all individuals, and the only way to
>> sustainably create a society is if all individuals are respected.
>
> Of course.
>
> This stuff is all complete nonsense.  Not even worth a discussion.  I
> don't even use the word you began your paragraph---I never said it out
> loud and never wrote it.  Let's keep it that way. :)

You are a philosopher king!

>>> An expert could likely complicate your life by trying to show that it's
>>> either false or meaningless.  (Don't ask me to do it---I'm just the
>>> student.)  They could attack ``reason for one's existence'' as
>>> meaningless and they could certainly attack ``subjective'' by claiming
>>> that the vast majority of the world is quite objective.
>>
>> Hah... I'll take the challenge! ;) I agree, objectively speaking, that there is
>> no reason.
>
> No reason?  I think there is reason. :)

But can you prove it, objectively? If you can, I think you'll have solved 2500
years of ethical philosophizing. Or, another out, is the way of definition.
Depending on your definitions, it could of course be "made" objective. The
question is then if I accept the definitions or not. =)

>> But since for me, it is moved into the subjective realm, it is safe
>> from any attack from "experts" since science, being descriptive, is
>> not able to "crack" the subjective level.
>
> I've seen this before.  It's typical.  You're putting too much precision
> into things.  For instance, you said (likely below) that we can't know
> for sure; we can infer.  Sure---knowing for sure is too difficult.  We
> can infer and that's good.  We all look and the see the Moon out there.
> We're sure it's there.  End of the story. :)  It's not subjective.
> That's what I mean.

True. When it comes to our senses and using them as "proof" of the external
world, I'm all for it! =)

> But, sure, I read Descartes's ``Discourse on the Method''.  I loved
> seeing him doubting everything and starting from scratch.  I think that
> book has a serious educational philosophy because it gives us the
> example of an independent mind (in pretty ordinary steps) organizing
> itself and preparing itself for more work.
>
> But I also think (in retrospective) it's a bit childish, too.  I don't
> need to doubt so much.  I see the intellect being too precious, being
> considered more than it really is.  For instance, I just sit and feel
> myself.  Here I am---therefore I am.  End of story. :)

Amen! I have an idea where some things, like "the world" don't need proof, since
it happens to you regardless of it you want it or not. It "happens" to you. Same
with time. But it is ill defined. It either clicks with people instantly, or it
doesn't.

> It's not subjective.  We all have seen the same stuff.  Of course, from
> where you look is different from where I look.  But we're seeing the
> same things---evidently.  It's what nearly all of the evidence shows.

Agreed! But boy have I had endless email discussions with people who reject the
proof of their senses.

>> You can infer based on behaviour, but you can never "know". My subjectivity and
>> how I experience things, are "locked" into the processing of my brain, as my
>> cosciousness collides with reality.
>>
>> So yes, you are right, we can infer, but that is not certain knowledge, and in
>> some cases, such as quantum physics, not even knowledge.
>
> You're correct, of course, but see above.

Agreed!

>>> Freud observed himself and made conclusions that apply to everyone else.
>>> Like everyone else, he perhaps made mistakes in the fine details of
>>> things, but he also made huge contributions---from a unitary sample
>>> space.
>>
>> True, but freud these days is disproven. As you say, he did lay a good
>> foundation for psychology however, and it has progress from him.
>
> I don't think he's disproven at all. :) Look, it doesn't matter if a
> mathematician got a conjecture wrong---he did a lot of useful work in
> his life.  Same with Freud---just his independence from public opinion
> makes him a type of Socrates.

I did a lot of good, of course, but his theories about dream interpretation and
the psyche I think are no longer relevant. On the other hand, I am not a
psychologist, so who am I to say? =)

>>> In my notebook, I have no values and no goals, which is all very
>>> liberating.  I've had lots of them.  They were no good.
>>
>> If you have no goals, how do you determine your actions? Surely they are not
>> just random acts?
>
> They're surely not random.  I actually try not to determine.  I listen
> closely on a daily basis.  Then I see something I need to do, then I do
> it.

Sounds very daoist, very intuitional.

>> Well, it seems you do have a goal! Maybe you apply the via negativa?
>> Do not do the wrong thing, and then pursue, at random or based on
>> preference, the actions that remain after the obviously wrong ones
>> (based on your values) are eliminated?
>
> I think you can put it either way.  My agreeing with your words or
> disagreeing won't quite do much of anything to you.  But you can count
> on my honesty here.
>
> I don't mind saying I have a goal, say.  But I think the best choice of
> words is to say I don't.  Because I really don't.  Remember I said I
> really wanna have kids?  You can call it a goal. :) But that would be
> too simplistic to the point of being false.  It's not quite true that I
> want to have kids.  What I want is a healthy life and I think a healthy
> life would evolve towards that too.  But you can likely bet that I
> wouldn't do anything out of the ordinary to make that happen.  If all I
> can see in my life is a disease and death, say, I think I would go down
> with it.  Let me put it in terms of chess---lol.  If all I can see is no
> way out out of the check mate strategy of my opponent, I make all the
> moves that I can until he check mates me.  No desperation.  I think that
> living life as it is is quite a victory---to use words that are siblings
> of ``goal''.

Hmm, I think you make sense to me.

>>> People often ask me---what would you do in that situation?  The answer
>>> is always---I don't know.  I might know *then*, but certainly not now.
>>> ``Oh, come on; please answer it.''  I could give you an answer, even a
>>> serious one; but the fact is that I really only know what I'm going to
>>> really do at the moment I'm doing.  (Humorously, if you want to play
>>> around with fiction, I can come up with lots of answers for you.)
>>
>> It seems, like me, you are not always comfortable with
>> counterfactuals.
>
> A beg your pardon?  I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I agree.  A
> counterfactual is something that goes against the facts.  Surely.  I
> could never deny that 1 + 1 = 2, say.  I can't even ignore evidence.  I
> don't mind leaving questions open at all.  Every now and then it's a
> good idea to hang a question mark on all those things we've long taken
> for granted.  (Is that Bertrand Russell again?)

Not quite. Counterfactuals are questions such as... "imagine you ate an apple
this morning, would that mean that later in the day you would have a stomach
ache". So when those types of thought experiments are not made with the
intention of high lighting something tangible or empirically provable, I find
them to be useless idle speculation. That's what I was trying to get at.

Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 09:26 -0800
  Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:42 +0100
    Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-17 22:23 +0000
      Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:20 +0100
    Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-19 07:32 +1000
      Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-02-18 23:47 +0000
        Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:42 +0100
          Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:10 +0000
          Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:44 -0300
            Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:44 +0100
        Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:23 +1000
          Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:22 -0300
          Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:55 +0100
            Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 17:59 -0300
              Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:01 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:51 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:01 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:29 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:55 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 05:19 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:28 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:55 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:34 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:15 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:06 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:10 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 10:08 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 23:12 +0100
                OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:31 -0300
                Re: OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:52 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-27 21:40 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:48 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 06:40 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 13:39 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 22:12 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 17:54 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:41 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:19 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:16 +0100
                education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:55 +0000
                Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 22:00 -0300
                Re: education Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-08 03:47 +0000
                Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 18:27 -0300
                Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-09 02:08 +0000
                Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 02:58 -0300
                Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-10 18:38 +0000
                Re: education cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 19:13 +0000
                Re: education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 13:30 +0000
                Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:17 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-25 19:12 -0500
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 02:08 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-26 09:06 -0600
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-26 18:09 -0400
                the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:46 -0300
                Re: the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-27 03:31 -0400
                Re: the command line is language Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:10 -0300
                Re: the command line is language D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:41 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:47 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:38 -0500
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 22:34 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 18:50 -0500
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:11 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:18 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:04 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 18:53 -0500
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:41 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:03 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:29 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:16 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 12:36 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:55 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:43 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:07 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:05 -0500
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 15:06 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:47 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:31 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:52 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:15 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:51 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-01 17:15 -0400
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-02 12:34 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-02-26 12:29 +0000
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:04 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
                more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:38 -0300
                Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 19:47 -0500
                Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:55 -0300
                Re: more on broken schools kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:00 -0500
                OT: a personal note to Stefan Ram (Was: Re: more on broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 09:31 -0300
                Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:03 +0100
                Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:30 -0300
                Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:43 +0100
                Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:33 -0300
                Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
                Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:00 -0300
                Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:50 +0100
                Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:46 -0300
                Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:05 +0100
                Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:31 -0300
                Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-14 23:46 +0100
                Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:43 -0300
                Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-17 23:44 +0100
              Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:50 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:21 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 17:06 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:28 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:12 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:08 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:32 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:22 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:34 +0100
                fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 13:18 -0300
                Re: fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:53 +0100
                Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:23 -0300
                Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:31 +0100
                Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:10 -0300
                Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:09 +0100
                Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:41 -0300
                Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:32 +0100
                UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:10 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:54 +0100
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 09:08 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:09 +0100
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:17 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-16 00:03 +0100
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:41 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 10:50 +0100
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 16:26 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems Matto Fransen <mattof@sdf.org> - 2025-03-21 19:53 +0000
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:11 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-21 23:37 +0100
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:34 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 21:49 +0100
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-26 23:24 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-29 22:31 +0100
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:40 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-22 10:11 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-25 17:40 -0400
                Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 23:04 +0100
                Re: UNIX systems Charles Dagny <1800@DEV.NULL> - 2025-03-28 21:41 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-10 15:06 +0000
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-11 11:58 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-11 15:49 +0042
                Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 15:25 +0000
                Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-11 16:24 +0000
                Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 17:30 +0000
                Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-12 22:30 +0000
                Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-12 23:23 +0042
                Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-13 20:40 +0000
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:04 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 21:26 +0000
                Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:23 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 01:24 +0000
                Re: UNIX systems Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-12 01:38 -0300
                Re: UNIX systems snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-03-12 14:03 +0000
                Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-12 22:19 +0100
                Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-11 19:09 -0400
          Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-04 02:44 +0000
            Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2025-03-04 17:50 +0000
      Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:40 +0100
        Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:29 +1000
          Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:56 +0100
        Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:45 -0300
          Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:01 +0100
            Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:22 -0300
              Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:02 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:44 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:43 +0100
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:04 -0300
                Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:01 +0100
                broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:46 -0300
                Re: broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:18 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:34 -0300
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:38 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:45 -0300
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 14:05 +0100
                Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0000
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:10 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:49 -0300
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 07:41 -0300
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 19:52 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:41 -0300
                Re: broken schools yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 02:59 +0042
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:14 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 22:26 -0300
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 22:52 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:39 -0300
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 22:59 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:10 -0300
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-15 23:58 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-17 00:02 -0300
                Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-18 03:00 +0000
                Re: broken schools Eva Lu <evalu@tor.soy> - 2025-03-18 21:20 -0300
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 11:17 +0100
                OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-19 13:51 -0300
                Re: OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-19 23:20 +0100
                Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 11:52 -0300
                Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-23 00:31 +0100
                Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:50 -0300
                Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-01 16:43 +0200
                Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-04 11:20 -0300
                Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-06 23:17 +0200
                Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-10 15:19 -0300
                Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-12 21:05 +0200
                Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-13 13:10 -0300
                lifestyles Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 20:20 +0000
      Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:40 -0300
        Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:57 +0100

csiph-web