Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159496 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 317 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 09:54 -0800
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-16 19:41 +0100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 21:11 +0100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 02:16 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 22:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 23:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 04:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-17 14:01 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:09 -0800
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 20:45 -0700
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-17 22:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 11:16 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:00 +1100
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-18 02:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-17 22:47 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:10 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 21:29 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:56 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 23:15 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:35 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-18 17:58 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-17 20:44 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 08:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 19:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 20:13 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:26 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 18:21 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 23:32 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:34 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 19:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 07:25 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 10:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:25 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 17:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:01 +1100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 16:26 -0800
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-21 13:52 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-21 18:51 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 15:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-20 16:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 15:59 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:36 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 17:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 18:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 19:48 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 16:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 18:17 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 21:33 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:23 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:48 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:56 -0800
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 23:18 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 15:33 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 20:00 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 01:51 -0700
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:40 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 23:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 10:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:56 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:50 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-19 16:54 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 17:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-20 08:30 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-20 15:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-20 10:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 11:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:27 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 09:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:53 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:15 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 17:55 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:19 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:46 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-18 18:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 14:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 09:28 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:19 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 10:24 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 12:27 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 00:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 18:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:41 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 07:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 08:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:50 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 13:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:33 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 21:04 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:03 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 19:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-18 20:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 21:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 14:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:43 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 04:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-21 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:08 -0800
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 18:10 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:52 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-19 16:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:13 -0600
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-16 17:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 14:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-17 12:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 07:38 -0700
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 16:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 16:11 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-17 12:05 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:39 -0800
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-16 16:44 -0400
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-16 15:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:20 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-17 18:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 16:46 +0100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0800
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 14:43 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 15:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 15:36 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:30 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 19:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 00:51 +0100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:45 +0000
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:01 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 10:16 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:19 -0700
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 17:46 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:08 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-23 16:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:58 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:40 +0000
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:06 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:44 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 17:08 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:41 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 09:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-21 10:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:48 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-21 18:40 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 01:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 18:36 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 00:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 09:37 +0100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:17 -0500
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:42 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:52 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 10:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-22 17:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 20:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 21:31 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-22 17:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 14:41 -0600
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:16 -0700
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 17:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:34 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 11:11 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 18:25 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 15:15 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:28 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 21:46 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:31 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-18 13:56 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-19 17:09 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:55 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-22 14:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 07:15 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:30 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-23 01:49 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:09 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:29 -0500
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:30 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:11 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 11:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 14:04 +0100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 13:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-21 23:28 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-21 12:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 14:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-17 15:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 21:31 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-18 08:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 17:04 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-17 04:08 -0400
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:04 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:57 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 16:43 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600
Page 5 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 Next page →
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 21:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31319a9bee8be887989f98@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159874 |
In article <1414466790.477624574.988255.peter_flass- yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > > JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0600, Stephen Sprunk > > <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > >> On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: > >>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be > >>> dead. > >> > >> Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to > >> violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. > >> > >>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. > >> > >> The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, > >> and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. > >> > >>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, > >>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's > >>> privacy is in trouble. > >> > >> What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version > >> with the backdoor? > >> > >> You can't un-ring a bell. > > > > Come up with iPhones that cannot be downgraded. > > > >>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of > >>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep > >>> them and their alleged privacy. > >> > >> The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, > >> without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" > >> actually means. > >> > >> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison > >> and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring > >> them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, > >> much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed > >> (or planned to commit) any crime at all. > > > > Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of > > immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They > > probably don't see the conficy of interest. Or maybe they just want to > > remove the US Constitution ? > > All USians are the children of immigrants - including you if you go back > far enough. Most of us are the children of _legal_ immigrants - although > some may argue whose laws apply. I don't even have anything against > illegal immigrants - go home, apply for a visa, and immigrate like everyone > else. I'm not sure most would want to, or would be able to, deport US > citizens. By that reasoning all everythingians except certain-parts-of-africa-ians are children of immigrants. Going back that far renders the term meaningless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 10:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pl4hcbti4duelfkroamg7a5ehf0meumf80@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159885 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 21:33:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <1414466790.477624574.988255.peter_flass- >yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... >> >> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0600, Stephen Sprunk >> > <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> >> On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >> >>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >> >>> dead. >> >> >> >> Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >> >> violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. >> >> >> >>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. >> >> >> >> The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, >> >> and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. >> >> >> >>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >> >>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >> >>> privacy is in trouble. >> >> >> >> What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >> >> with the backdoor? >> >> >> >> You can't un-ring a bell. >> > >> > Come up with iPhones that cannot be downgraded. >> > >> >>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >> >>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep >> >>> them and their alleged privacy. >> >> >> >> The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >> >> without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" >> >> actually means. >> >> >> >> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >> >> and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >> >> them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >> >> much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >> >> (or planned to commit) any crime at all. >> > >> > Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of >> > immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They >> > probably don't see the conficy of interest. Or maybe they just want to >> > remove the US Constitution ? >> >> All USians are the children of immigrants - including you if you go back >> far enough. Most of us are the children of _legal_ immigrants - although >> some may argue whose laws apply. I don't even have anything against >> illegal immigrants - go home, apply for a visa, and immigrate like everyone >> else. I'm not sure most would want to, or would be able to, deport US >> citizens. > >By that reasoning all everythingians except certain-parts-of-africa-ians >are children of immigrants. Going back that far renders the term >meaningless. What is being pointed out is that Republicans are pretending they aren't the children of immigrants, which they all are. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 14:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diq5vuF7dc5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159874 |
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1414466790.477624574.988255.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... > JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0600, Stephen Sprunk >> <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >>>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >>>> dead. >>> >>> Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >>> violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. >>> >>>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. >>> >>> The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, >>> and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. >>> >>>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >>>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >>>> privacy is in trouble. >>> >>> What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >>> with the backdoor? >>> >>> You can't un-ring a bell. >> >> Come up with iPhones that cannot be downgraded. >> >>>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >>>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep >>>> them and their alleged privacy. >>> >>> The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >>> without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" >>> actually means. >>> >>> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >>> and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >>> them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >>> much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >>> (or planned to commit) any crime at all. >> >> Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of >> immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They >> probably don't see the conficy of interest. Or maybe they just want to >> remove the US Constitution ? > > All USians are the children of immigrants - including you if you go back > far enough. Most of us are the children of _legal_ immigrants - although > some may argue whose laws apply. I don't even have anything against > illegal immigrants I do, they clearly have chosen to flout the law. > - go home, apply for a visa, and immigrate like everyone else. > I'm not sure most would want to, or would be able to, deport US > citizens. I bet plenty of them would if they were moslems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 19:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3bac49d7-0534-4a7e-8f41-45cf52fba1e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159874 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 8:43:39 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > ... I'm not sure most would want to, or would be able to, deport US > citizens. During the communist witch-hunt era, many people urged that anyone accused of being a communist ought to be deported to Russia--and most were US native-born citizens. In today's climate of hysteria, undoubtedly many folks--and candidates for public office--would deport U.S. citizens if they were of dubious 'loyalty'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 23:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1602192312080.27857@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #159874 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Peter Flass wrote: > JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0600, Stephen Sprunk >> <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >>>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >>>> dead. >>> >>> Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >>> violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. >>> >>>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. >>> >>> The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, >>> and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. >>> >>>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >>>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >>>> privacy is in trouble. >>> >>> What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >>> with the backdoor? >>> >>> You can't un-ring a bell. >> >> Come up with iPhones that cannot be downgraded. >> >>>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >>>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep >>>> them and their alleged privacy. >>> >>> The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >>> without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" >>> actually means. >>> >>> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >>> and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >>> them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >>> much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >>> (or planned to commit) any crime at all. >> >> Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of >> immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They >> probably don't see the conficy of interest. Or maybe they just want to >> remove the US Constitution ? > > All USians are the children of immigrants - including you if you go back > far enough. Most of us are the children of _legal_ immigrants - although > some may argue whose laws apply. I don't even have anything against > illegal immigrants - go home, apply for a visa, and immigrate like everyone > else. I'm not sure most would want to, or would be able to, deport US > citizens. > Emma Goldman was deported after WWI, she was a citizen. The excuse used was that the man she married had lost his citizenship. I thought some others were deported around that time, but I'm not certain they were US citizens, and some like Big Bill Haywood went to the USSR on their own choice (though in his case it was to avoid something in the US). Not everyone is descended from immigrants, at least not completely. My great, great, great grandmother was born in 1798, in the pacific northwest. No US, no Canada, no France or England. She saw that rise up, and the only reason she might be considered a Canadian citizen is because she and her husband moved to the Red River colony (where Winnipeg is today) and lived long enough for Canada to become Canada and bring that area into Confederation. Along that line, nobody had to do anything, they were just Canadian citizens by default when the time came. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 10:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dd5hcbd8r32p5kpgth4kjm1v8j0b62vfph@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159903 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 23:18:33 -0500, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Peter Flass wrote: > >> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0600, Stephen Sprunk >>> <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>>> On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >>>>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >>>>> dead. >>>> >>>> Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >>>> violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. >>>> >>>>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. >>>> >>>> The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, >>>> and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. >>>> >>>>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >>>>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >>>>> privacy is in trouble. >>>> >>>> What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >>>> with the backdoor? >>>> >>>> You can't un-ring a bell. >>> >>> Come up with iPhones that cannot be downgraded. >>> >>>>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >>>>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep >>>>> them and their alleged privacy. >>>> >>>> The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >>>> without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" >>>> actually means. >>>> >>>> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >>>> and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >>>> them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >>>> much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >>>> (or planned to commit) any crime at all. >>> >>> Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of >>> immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They >>> probably don't see the conficy of interest. Or maybe they just want to >>> remove the US Constitution ? >> >> All USians are the children of immigrants - including you if you go back >> far enough. Most of us are the children of _legal_ immigrants - although >> some may argue whose laws apply. I don't even have anything against >> illegal immigrants - go home, apply for a visa, and immigrate like everyone >> else. I'm not sure most would want to, or would be able to, deport US >> citizens. >> >Emma Goldman was deported after WWI, she was a citizen. The excuse used >was that the man she married had lost his citizenship. > >I thought some others were deported around that time, but I'm not certain >they were US citizens, and some like Big Bill Haywood went to the USSR on >their own choice (though in his case it was to avoid something in the US). > >Not everyone is descended from immigrants, at least not completely. > >My great, great, great grandmother was born in 1798, in the pacific >northwest. No US, no Canada, no France or England. She saw that rise up, >and the only reason she might be considered a Canadian citizen is because >she and her husband moved to the Red River colony (where Winnipeg is >today) and lived long enough for Canada to become Canada and bring that >area into Confederation. Along that line, nobody had to do anything, they >were just Canadian citizens by default when the time came. > > Michael The 'go back far enough' is likely in reference to the Bering Strait migration around 13,000 years ago. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 10:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <014hcbp7o22mioje79eeptatifsg71a0tm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159874 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:43:38 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0600, Stephen Sprunk >> <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >>>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >>>> dead. >>> >>> Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >>> violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. >>> >>>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. >>> >>> The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, >>> and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. >>> >>>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >>>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >>>> privacy is in trouble. >>> >>> What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >>> with the backdoor? >>> >>> You can't un-ring a bell. >> >> Come up with iPhones that cannot be downgraded. >> >>>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >>>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep >>>> them and their alleged privacy. >>> >>> The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >>> without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" >>> actually means. >>> >>> Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >>> and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >>> them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >>> much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >>> (or planned to commit) any crime at all. >> >> Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of >> immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They >> probably don't see the conficy of interest. Or maybe they just want to >> remove the US Constitution ? > >All USians are the children of immigrants - including you if you go back >far enough. Most of us are the children of _legal_ immigrants - although >some may argue whose laws apply. I don't even have anything against >illegal immigrants - go home, apply for a visa, and immigrate like everyone >else. I'm not sure most would want to, or would be able to, deport US >citizens. I understand all of that, but some folks apparently think their European ancestors have always been here. Stupid, but its what they sound like. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 15:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naalti$1fi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159874 |
On 19-Feb-16 19:43, Peter Flass wrote: > I don't even have anything against illegal immigrants - go home, apply > for a visa, and immigrate like everyone else. Most _have_ applied for a visa; many have even been approved. However, due to the race-based quota system, there is a 30+ year wait for said visas to actually be _issued_, i.e. longer than the typical applicant's remaining life expectancy--and if the rest applied, it would climb to 50+ years overnight. You can't rig a game so it's impossible for players to win and then complain when they refuse to play. > I'm not sure most would want to, or would be able to, deport US > citizens. Most Republican candidates--and all of the leading ones--have _stated_ they will deport US citizens of a particular religion. None have said where they plan deport them _to_, of course, particularly those who have no other nationality. What's next, deporting US citizens for unpopular political views? S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 12:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dish5sFpugcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159984 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:naalti$1fi$1@dont-email.me... > On 19-Feb-16 19:43, Peter Flass wrote: >> I don't even have anything against illegal immigrants - go home, apply >> for a visa, and immigrate like everyone else. > Most _have_ applied for a visa; I don’t believe that. many have even been approved. However, > due to the race-based quota system, there is a 30+ year wait for said > visas to actually be _issued_, i.e. longer than the typical applicant's > remaining life expectancy-- And that is why so many don’t bother to apply and have themselves identified to the system. > and if the rest applied, it would climb to 50+ years overnight. And that blows your most claim out of the water. > You can't rig a game so it's impossible for players to win and then > complain when they refuse to play. Well, you can, but look pretty silly when you do that. >> I'm not sure most would want to, or would be able to, deport US citizens. > Most Republican candidates--and all of the leading ones--have _stated_ > they will deport US citizens of a particular religion. Yes. > None have said where they plan deport them _to_, Presumably back where they came from or to anywhere that will accept them. > of course, particularly those who have no other nationality. > What's next, deporting US citizens for unpopular political views? That's the silly slippery slope argument. Most countries deport those who have entered the country illegally and who don’t qualify for refugee status there is no slippery slope for those who have applied for and received refugee status before arriving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1901581193.477624904.698525.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159860 |
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: > > I can see speaking out for anyone but people who shoot up a holiday > party. Some of my ancestors were put on reservations. So, I guess they > could have been seen as terrorirsts. > Some were. Maybe not most tribes, but someone made the point that the Comanches used terror as a means of controlling their territory - not just terror against whites but against the neighboring tribes. They committed atrocities similar to what ISIS is doing today, and their tactics worked. They succeeded in pushing back settlers in Texas for many years. Only the Rangers and the repeating rifle turned the tide - the Comanches could fire several arrows in the time it took to reload a single-shot rifle, so troops who went against them looked like pincushions in no time. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 20:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5a33cc88-96aa-4600-8e9d-017c574f83dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159875 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 8:43:40 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > Some were. Maybe not most tribes, but someone made the point that the > Comanches used terror as a means of controlling their territory - not just > terror against whites but against the neighboring tribes. They committed > atrocities similar to what ISIS is doing today, and their tactics worked. > They succeeded in pushing back settlers in Texas for many years. Only the > Rangers and the repeating rifle turned the tide - the Comanches could fire > several arrows in the time it took to reload a single-shot rifle, so troops > who went against them looked like pincushions in no time. Some might look at that Indians as defending their land against an invasion. Even in our very conservative public school system, we learned that the Indians were treated like crap. The white men and government frequently broke treaties, exploited them in all sorts of ways, and took their land.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 01:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1847078970.477650488.582712.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159901 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 8:43:40 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Some were. Maybe not most tribes, but someone made the point that the >> Comanches used terror as a means of controlling their territory - not just >> terror against whites but against the neighboring tribes. They committed >> atrocities similar to what ISIS is doing today, and their tactics worked. >> They succeeded in pushing back settlers in Texas for many years. Only the >> Rangers and the repeating rifle turned the tide - the Comanches could fire >> several arrows in the time it took to reload a single-shot rifle, so troops >> who went against them looked like pincushions in no time. > > Some might look at that Indians as defending their land against an > invasion. > > Even in our very conservative public school system, we learned that > the Indians were treated like crap. The white men and government > frequently broke treaties, exploited them in all sorts of ways, > and took their land. > > No argument here. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 10:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <585hcb5hipjej7ipdloabbd191ur3f4jpg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159901 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:00:17 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 8:43:40 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Some were. Maybe not most tribes, but someone made the point that the >> Comanches used terror as a means of controlling their territory - not just >> terror against whites but against the neighboring tribes. They committed >> atrocities similar to what ISIS is doing today, and their tactics worked. >> They succeeded in pushing back settlers in Texas for many years. Only the >> Rangers and the repeating rifle turned the tide - the Comanches could fire >> several arrows in the time it took to reload a single-shot rifle, so troops >> who went against them looked like pincushions in no time. > >Some might look at that Indians as defending their land against an >invasion. > >Even in our very conservative public school system, we learned that >the Indians were treated like crap. The white men and government >frequently broke treaties, exploited them in all sorts of ways, >and took their land. Yup. And the schools I attended during Segregation did this at a time when African-Americans were being poorly treated. I don't know of any instance of anyone seeing the similarities. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 10:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <v44hcbhbhm7e3jcnlbqdnr6b9950f1e3lk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159875 |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:43:39 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I can see speaking out for anyone but people who shoot up a holiday >> party. Some of my ancestors were put on reservations. So, I guess they >> could have been seen as terrorirsts. >> > >Some were. Maybe not most tribes, but someone made the point that the >Comanches used terror as a means of controlling their territory - not just >terror against whites but against the neighboring tribes. They committed >atrocities similar to what ISIS is doing today, and their tactics worked. >They succeeded in pushing back settlers in Texas for many years. Only the >Rangers and the repeating rifle turned the tide - the Comanches could fire >several arrows in the time it took to reload a single-shot rifle, so troops >who went against them looked like pincushions in no time. True. When they first encountered a Ranger with one of Colt's revolvers, they were shocked. Also, they ran the Apache out of what is now the Texas Panhandle area. But the Comanche were not one nation, they are now. Back then, one band would be attacking the Anglos, trading with the Spanish, attacking other tribes. Another band would be trading with the Anglos, trading with the Spanish, attacking other tribes. On and on with a number of different scenarios. I've read where they weren't thought much of by other native tribes until the Comanche got horses. Then they came into their own. Of course, my Scot ancestors were not seen as 'nice pople' by the Brits either. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 19:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7dbb492-f5c8-4673-9581-fad0fb579f46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159860 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:02:29 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote: > I can see speaking out for anyone but people who shoot up a holiday > party. Some of my ancestors were put on reservations. So, I guess they > could have been seen as terrorirsts. I don't think anyone is speaking up for those who up a holiday party. Indeed, even if they weren't killed, I don't think anyone would be speaking up for them. Anyway, they aren't the issue. The issue is the government demanding a very powerful tool that could be used to break the privacy of others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C34FBBB302F@aca405fb.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #159860 |
JimP wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0600, Stephen Sprunk > <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >>> dead. >> >>Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >>violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. >> >>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. >> >>The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, >>and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. >> >>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >>> privacy is in trouble. >> >>What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >>with the backdoor? >> >>You can't un-ring a bell. > > Come up with iPhones that cannot be downgraded. > >>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep >>> them and their alleged privacy. >> >>The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >>without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" >>actually means. >> >>Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >>and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >>them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >>much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >>(or planned to commit) any crime at all. > > Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of > immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They > probably don't see the conficy of interest. Or maybe they just want to > remove the US Constitution ? > >>With absolute power to oppress anyone they don't like, how long do you >>think it'd take for them to apply the same against other groups? >> >>We've seen this play out before; if you don't speak out for others, >>there will be no one left to speak out when they come for you. > > I can see speaking out for anyone but people who shoot up a holiday > party. Some of my ancestors were put on reservations. So, I guess they > could have been seen as terrorirsts. Yup. In a Muslim country, you would also be considered one. I'm also thinking about the time another Hoover would be in charge of the FBI or NSA. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 03:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dirjieFiiacU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159933 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C34FBBB302F@aca405fb.ipt.aol.com... > JimP wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:59:13 -0600, Stephen Sprunk >> <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>>On 19-Feb-16 09:34, JimP wrote: >>>> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy after I die, I'll be >>>> dead. >>> >>>Most privacy protections _do_ survive death because it's difficult to >>>violate one person's privacy without violating others' in the process. >>> >>>> And its the terrorists who are doing the supression. >>> >>>The govt oppresses and even kills far more people than terrorists do, >>>and it does so in the name of "protecting" them from said terrorists. >>> >>>> And if Apple upgrades the iPhone OS after providing the backdoor, >>>> disabling the backdoor in all other iPhones, I don't see as anyone's >>>> privacy is in trouble. >>> >>>What is to stop them from downgrading a target's phone to the version >>>with the backdoor? >>> >>>You can't un-ring a bell. >> >> Come up with iPhones that cannot be downgraded. >> >>>> I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the privacy of >>>> terrorists. The terrrorists chose to be that scummy way. Bleep >>>> them and their alleged privacy. >>> >>>The problem is you're trusting the govt to decide who is a terrorist, >>>without any independent review--or even agreement on what "terrorist" >>>actually means. >>> >>>Several leading candidates for POTUS in 2016 believe they can imprison >>>and/or deport millions of people (including US nationals) by declaring >>>them to be "terrorists" without any requirement to show probable cause, >>>much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of them committed >>>(or planned to commit) any crime at all. >> >> Those are all Republican candidates. Some of whom are children of >> immigrants. Or children with dual citizenship. Sad, yet funny. They >> probably don't see the conficy of interest. Or maybe they just want to >> remove the US Constitution ? >> >>>With absolute power to oppress anyone they don't like, how long do you >>>think it'd take for them to apply the same against other groups? >>> >>>We've seen this play out before; if you don't speak out for others, >>>there will be no one left to speak out when they come for you. >> >> I can see speaking out for anyone but people who shoot up a holiday >> party. Some of my ancestors were put on reservations. So, I guess they >> could have been seen as terrorirsts. > > Yup. In a Muslim country, you would also be considered one. BULLSHIT. They aren't that homogenous, just like Xtian countrys aren't. > I'm also thinking about the time another Hoover would be in charge of the > FBI > or NSA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 23:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na6ajn$8b3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159733 |
On 2/18/2016 5:14 PM, JimP wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:03:10 -0600, Lawrence Statton > <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>> In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. >>> >>> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds >>> had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing >>> those plans would save significant lives? >> >> The ends never justify the means. >> >> Ever. >> >> If they can't make their case some other way -- then the case does not >> need making. > > That makes no sense. If the phone could contain info on additional > terrorist activity then Apple should get off their collective ass and > fix the phone so the info can be read. Of course, ANY phone COULD contain info on terrorist activity. You surely realize that governments (including ours, from the FBI down to the county sheriff) will make ample use of that possibility. "Oh shucks, it turned out that Jim wasn't involved in terrorist activity, but while we were checking we found evidence of something else illegal." or "He claimed he was buying stuff from AliBaba, but we thought he was financing terrorists." And the governments of any country that Apple does business in, too. I'd give it a month before the software (or at least the functionality of it) that Apple writes is in the hands of all sorts of parties, including the Russian mob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 10:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnncdsng.196.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #159763 |
On 2016-02-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > On 2/18/2016 5:14 PM, JimP wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:03:10 -0600, Lawrence Statton >> <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >>>> In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. >>>> >>>> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds >>>> had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing >>>> those plans would save significant lives? >>> >>> The ends never justify the means. >>> >>> Ever. >>> >>> If they can't make their case some other way -- then the case does not >>> need making. >> >> That makes no sense. If the phone could contain info on additional >> terrorist activity then Apple should get off their collective ass and >> fix the phone so the info can be read. > > Of course, ANY phone COULD contain info on terrorist activity. You > surely realize that governments (including ours, from the FBI down to > the county sheriff) will make ample use of that possibility. "Oh > shucks, it turned out that Jim wasn't involved in terrorist activity, > but while we were checking we found evidence of something else > illegal." or "He claimed he was buying stuff from AliBaba, but we > thought he was financing terrorists." > > And the governments of any country that Apple does business in, too. > > I'd give it a month before the software (or at least the functionality > of it) that Apple writes is in the hands of all sorts of parties, > including the Russian mob. > > I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There was a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most little devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably intertlccompany rivalry, "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a debate in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that even traffic wardens could access 'secure' data. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 05:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3130befbf86c8795989f97@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159774 |
In article <slrnncdsng.196.mausg@smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says... > > On 2016-02-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > > On 2/18/2016 5:14 PM, JimP wrote: > >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:03:10 -0600, Lawrence Statton > >> <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: > >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >>>> In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. > >>>> > >>>> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds > >>>> had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing > >>>> those plans would save significant lives? > >>> > >>> The ends never justify the means. > >>> > >>> Ever. > >>> > >>> If they can't make their case some other way -- then the case does not > >>> need making. > >> > >> That makes no sense. If the phone could contain info on additional > >> terrorist activity then Apple should get off their collective ass and > >> fix the phone so the info can be read. > > > > Of course, ANY phone COULD contain info on terrorist activity. You > > surely realize that governments (including ours, from the FBI down to > > the county sheriff) will make ample use of that possibility. "Oh > > shucks, it turned out that Jim wasn't involved in terrorist activity, > > but while we were checking we found evidence of something else > > illegal." or "He claimed he was buying stuff from AliBaba, but we > > thought he was financing terrorists." > > > > And the governments of any country that Apple does business in, too. > > > > I'd give it a month before the software (or at least the functionality > > of it) that Apple writes is in the hands of all sorts of parties, > > including the Russian mob. > > > > > > I think that it is a given that the NSA can read everything. There was > a story a while ago that `eavesdropping' is built into most little > devices (phones, etc). After that, its probably intertlccompany rivalry, > "Son, Sob, the ??? can read phones, and we can't". there was a debate > in the UK a while ago about data, and it turned out that even traffic > wardens could access 'secure' data. If the NSA could read everything then the FBI would be getting their boss to talk to the NSA boss, not threatening Apple. Simple fact, there is encryption strong enough that the NSA cannot break it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web