October 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

CDR: RE: why should it be trusted?
by Trei, Peter 26 Oct '00

26 Oct '00

> ---------- > Nathan Saper[SMTP:natedog@well.com] wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:37:42PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote: > > You cannot provide cheap insurance by punishing insurers, any more than > you > > can provide cheap housing by punishing landlords. It has been tried. A > > > law compelling insurance companies to insure the unhealthy will merely > > raise costs for the healthy, resulting in more people going uninsured. > > > > If you want to guarantee insurance for the unhealthy without ill effects > > > the TAXPAYER has to pay, and I suspect that if this proposition was put > to > > the public, enthusiasm would be considerably less. Indeed the Clintons > did > > put something very like that proposition to the public, and there was > > little enthusiasm. > > > > Having socialized healthcare would be ideal. However, I think that > the political atmosphere in this country pretty much removes that > possibility. > [...] Nathan, have you ever actually looked at socialized medicine? It's fine for some things, but not for others. Illnessess which can be cured and which curing will return a person to productive labour get treated - after a while. Illnessess which strike late in life and/or require expensive treatment get much shorter shrift. Britain's NHS record on cancer treatment is a national disgrace. Why do you think Austin Power's teeth were a running joke? The state of British (ie, socialized NHS) dentistry lags *far* behind the US, especially in the area of orthodontics. Canadians like their socialized system, but any Canadian who gets sick knows that (for a price) they can get faster, better treatment in the US. There are more MRI machines in single US cities than in all of Canada, and the waiting lists up there can outlast an Albertan winter. The sad truth is that cost of the best medical care has exceeded the ability of the average person to afford it. (When I say 'average' I mean the arithmetic mean of incomes, so robbing the rich to treat the poor still won't get everyone the best possible care). Regardless of how we choose to finance it, there will remain many people whose lives could have been improved by treatments which were not performed due to reasons of cost. Once you recognize that medical care *must* be rationed, the question is how, and by who. The majority of the subscribers to this list are anarcho-capitalists and/or libertarians, and abhor any taking by force. Your socialist outlook is very much a minority viewpoint, and I don't think you're going to change anyones mind. The solution to this problem is not to propose different ways to slice up the too-small pie - it's to expand the pie. The greater the wealth, the more people who can afford good care. People who are responsible for their own welfare (and enslaved to the welfare of others) have the best chance of acheiving wealth. Peter Trei

6 7

CDR: RE: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives
by Declan McCullagh 26 Oct '00

26 Oct '00

Rush, This is a useful analysis. Thank you. I was considering doing one myself. Let me try to answer your question about how a Libertarian rep would rank. Our rankings were explictly designed to reward "hands-off" votes, so it's a reasonable assumption that one would score highly. But small-l and large-L libertarians disagree among themselves on what the proper role of government should be on tech issues. Consider Ron Paul of Texas. He has been the Libertarian candidate for president and has reportedly never renounced his life membership in the party. Yet he scored just 71 percent, or 5 of 7 votes. That's because he voted against banning states from taxing the Net (probably on federalism grounds), even though libertarian groups such as Cato and Pacific Research Institute liked that tax-ban. (His other negatively-scored vote was an electronic signature law.) This scorecard is by nature brittle. If we had included more votes, it's a near certainty that our two 100-scorers would not have perfect votes. One is anti-porn; we (unfortunately) didn't have any Net-porn votes to include. Neither CDA nor COPA was this session. Adding more votes would have boosted other rankings. Also, the scorecard was designed to focus as closely as possible on votes that only dealt with a narrow issue. We could have included ones such as HR1501, but then we couldn't have figured out whether reps voted for it based on their support of filtering software or firearm restrictions. -Declan At 15:58 10/24/2000 -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote: >Everyone, > Just a quick observation here. According to the Wired chart, it > appears that the Republicans average roughly 49.85058296 and the > Democrats average roughly 47.27853081 on the Wired News scale, with one > representative being independent (Bernard Sanders), and one > representative with an "A" for their party designation (Spencer Bachus). > Here's my Republicans vs. Democrats breakdown of the Wired News chart: > >Party | Republican | Democrat | >----------------------------------- >HR2301 | 0.181818182 | 0.343137255 | >----------------------------------- >HR3615 | 0.153846154 | 0.024509804 | >----------------------------------- >HR3709 | 0.958715596 | 0.697115385 | >----------------------------------- >HR3125 | 0.218009479 | 0.575129534 | >----------------------------------- >HR1501 | 0.440909091 | 0.908653846 | >----------------------------------- >HR10 | 0.522522523 | 0.058252427 | >----------------------------------- >HR1714 | 0.986175115 | 0.695652174 | >----------------------------------- >total | 3.381165919 | 3.203791469 | >----------------------------------- >votes | 6.798206278 | 6.777251185 | >----------------------------------- >score | 49.85058296 | 47.27853081 | >----------------------------------- > >These are all just averages, and I omitted the "A" and "I" designated >representatives. In regards to the "A" designated representative, Spencer >Bachus, I think the "A" is an error. I was under the impression that he >was a Republican. If he is, in fact, a Republican, then that changes our >averages slightly: > >Party | Republican | Democrat | >----------------------------------- >HR2301 | 0.180995475 | 0.343137255 | >----------------------------------- >HR3615 | 0.153110048 | 0.024509804 | >----------------------------------- >HR3709 | 0.95890411 | 0.697115385 | >----------------------------------- >HR3125 | 0.216981132 | 0.575129534 | >----------------------------------- >HR1501 | 0.438914027 | 0.908653846 | >----------------------------------- >HR10 | 0.520179372 | 0.058252427 | >----------------------------------- >HR1714 | 0.986238532 | 0.695652174 | >----------------------------------- >total | 3.375 | 3.203791469 | >----------------------------------- >votes | 6.799107143 | 6.777251185 | >----------------------------------- >score | 49.75558036 | 47.27853081 | >----------------------------------- > > Which still puts Republicans in more of a hands-off strategy for > technology, according to voting history. If Spencer Bachus is not a > Republican, then please tell me what the hell an "A" party designation > stands for. > > If you are interested in seeing TOTALS as opposed to AVERAGES, here > is your chart: > >Party | Republican | Democrat | >----------------------------------- >HR2301 | 40 | 70 | >----------------------------------- >HR3615 | 32 | 5 | >----------------------------------- >HR3709 | 210 | 145 | >----------------------------------- >HR3125 | 46 | 111 | >----------------------------------- >HR1501 | 97 | 189 | >----------------------------------- >HR10 | 116 | 12 | >----------------------------------- >HR1714 | 215 | 144 | >----------------------------------- >total | 756 | 676 | >----------------------------------- >votes | 1523 | 1430 | >----------------------------------- > > Again, it is entirely possible that my information is incorrect. I > do recommend that you do the research yourself, as relying too much on > these numbers means relying on numbers collected by a media source and in > turn sorted and re-calculated by some punk-ass on the cypherpunks mailing list. > > To the best of my knowledge, however, this looks right. What alarms > me is that though there is a slight difference in the overall score > between Republicans and Democrats, neither party has a very strong > leaning one way or the other, which illustrates the frustrations that a > two-party system creates for those of us who would like to see a strong > stance (either way) on the issue of government regulation of technology. > I anxiously await any speculation that might take place on this list > regarding how Libertarian representatives might have voted had they been > in there, but the fact is that we live in a two-party system for the time > being, and if we feel strongly about these issues, we need to accept that > our representation may not be hearing us. Is it because we aren't > speaking loudly enough on these issues? > >ok, >Rush Carskadden > >-----Original Message----- >From: Declan McCullagh [<mailto:declan@well.com>mailto:declan@well.com] >Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11:15 AM >To: Cypherpunks Mailing List >Cc: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu >Subject: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives > >At Wired News, we've compiled a list of the technology voting records of >each member of the U.S. House of Representatives. > >That meant picking seven tech bills and grading all 435 legislators -- at >least the ones who showed up those days -- on their floor votes. If they >chose to take a hands-off approach, they got a "1", while regulatory votes >got a "0." (If you disagree with us, flip the scale around.) > >Here's the list sorted by last name (scoll down to find your legislator): > ><http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39637,00.html>http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39637,00.html > >Sorted by score, with the two California reps with 100 percent at the top: > ><http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39636,00.html>http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39636,00.html > > >And a summary of the results, with some methodology: > ><http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39625,00.html>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39625,00.html > > >Some interesting results: Purported privacy advocates like Democrat Ed >Markey didn't score well, getting a 33% of 100%, in part because of his >opposition to financial privacy legislation. Republican Bob Goodlatte, >Internet caucus co-chair, got just 43% because of his support for speech >and gambling restrictions. > >-Declan > > >The floor votes scored: > >HR2031: A vote to restrict online sales of alcohol. (No is 1) >HR3615: A vote to create a new federal agency to spend $1.25 billion on >rural TV service. (No is 1) >HR3709: A vote to extend a temporary federal ban on Internet taxes. (Yes >is 1) >HR3125: A vote to prohibit Internet gambling. (No is 1) >HR1501: A vote on an amendment to restrict the sale of violent material >such as videogames to anyone under the age of 18. (No is 1) >HR10: A vote on an amendment to protect financial privacy by restricting >government monitoring of bank accounts. (Yes is 1) >HR1714: A vote to allow the use of electronic signatures. (Yes is 1)

6 9

CDR: Re: Insurance (was: why should it be trusted?) cpunk
by Trei, Peter 26 Oct '00

26 Oct '00

Anonymous wrote: > > > I believe that the standard argument is "Eliminate the commons." (by > > > auctioning off to the highest bidder perhaps) > > > > > > > So who gets the bid on the environment ? There are some commons > > that can not be eliminated so easily. > > Generally, this would be water and air. If someone pollutes the air > over their land, that's ok. As soon as the pollution crosses into > your land, you sue for damages. People are concerned about the > long term value of their property, so they will have a disincentive > to pollute. > [...] While by default I hold libertarian positions, doing so sometimes requires uncomfortable contortions. Who, for example, should the inhabitants of Tuvalu sue for rising sea levels? Neighbouring territories for failing to prevent excess seawater from crossing their mid-ocean border? Arctic nations for sloppy handling of the runoff from their melting icecaps? The rest of the human race for burning too much stuff? Me for driving a Suburban? Sometimes ownership is so distant and diluted that individual responsibility is impossible to establish, yet the problems are real, and significant. [This is just an example, ok? Lets NOT fork into a debate over the reality (or lack thereof) of global warming.] Peter Trei

6 6

CDR: Legislative approaches to ID theft?
by Declan McCullagh 26 Oct '00

26 Oct '00

Likely means new criminal laws... (today) SOCIAL ISSUES Social Security Administration (SSA) Office of the Inspector General Identity Theft Prevention Workshop. Panels will discuss victims'views on prevention, Internet issues, workplace ID theft, private industry issues and legislative approaches to preventing ID theft Location: Health and Human Services Department (HHS), 330 Independence Ave., SW, Cohen Building, First Floor Auditorium. 9 a.m. Contact: Rich Rhode, 410-966-1722

2 2

CDR: Re: Insurance: My Last Post
by Tim May 26 Oct '00

26 Oct '00

At 10:09 AM -0400 10/25/00, Declan McCullagh wrote: >It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have >to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that >arguing about rights is going to resolve anything anyway). > >Simple pragmatism can do the same. I mean, Nathan, have you ever >considered what happens when taxes are raised to 95 percent? > >I know you were just speaking hypothetically, but to be realistic, a >hypo will have to includse the negative effects as well as the >positive. For instance, what are the economic effects? What are the >black markets that arise? What punitive measures must nations adopt >to enforce tax collection? What about revolt and the ensuing >bloodshed? What about public choice theory? > >Think these things through, if you really want to be "pragmatic." I've seen nothing from Nathan Saper that warrants the level of response we've been giving him. I regret having wasted my time writing replies to his puerile points. It's not so much that he's "wrong" as that he's "naive." He arrives on the CP list and begins regurgitating socialist blather he heard in his poli-sci and sociology classes. Junk about mandatory health care, feeding the poor, raising taxes to make the world a better place, government doing what it "needs to do" without regard for constitutional restraints, all said with utter disregard for basic economics. As I have said, and as Lucky just said this morning, the list has for some reason attracted a whole set of such naive and puerile people. One theory is that it's the "fall crop" of students. Another is that the noise coming out of "privacy rights organizations" is increasingly leftist and interventionist. (We have a Canadian branch of the Cypherpunks which is apparently led by a neo-fascist civil rights crusader who wants guns banned and is distrustful of free market solutions.) The Saper-Warped Hypothesis. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

4 6

CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?
by Gil Hamilton 26 Oct '00

26 Oct '00

Nathan Saper writes: >In a recent WHO study, the U.S. was ranked (IIRC) 15th in the world >for healthcare (factoring in quality, availability, etc). This was >behind many socialized healthcare countries, such as Canada. Did it ever occur to you that WHO might have an agenda of its own that its rankings are intended to advance? >This assumes that wealth will be achieved by everyone. This is simply >not true. Look at America. The rich are getting richer, and the poor >are getting poorer. That's bullshit. "Liberals" in this country like to bitch and moan about the suffering of the poor and how stingy the rest of us are, even while most of the so-called poor have cell phones hanging on their belts. The poor aren't getting poorer, their expectations are simply getting higher. How many "poor" homes don't have a color TV and a VCR? To the extent that there are things they are "forced" to do without, it largely reflects their own personal choices and/or their lack of ambition. The few that can really be called poor in this country are the homeless, most of whom are either mentally disturbed or simply ambitionless addicts and alcoholics (or both). - GH _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

1 0

CDR: giganetstore.com na Inforpor 2000
by apoio＠giganetstore.com 26 Oct '00

26 Oct '00

A giganetstore.com <http://www.giganetstore.com> vai estar presente na Inforpor 2000, Feira de Negócios e Tecnologias de Informação, na FIL Expo, nos próximos dias 26, 27, 28 e 29 de Outubro. Dias 26 e 27 (5ª e 6ª feira) 14 h - 22 h ( Empresarial ) Dia 28 (sábado) -14 h - 22 h Dia 29 (domingo) -10 h - 19 h Neste sentido temos a decorrer as seguintes promoções: *Ganhe 2.000$00 em compras ao registar-se durante a visita à Inforpor no nosso expositor como cliente giganetstore.com <http://www.giganetstore.com> *Entregamos-lhe no momento um Netpin grátis <http://www.giganetstore.com/index.asp?produtoId=4538> Ao comprar um Computador Compaq à sua escolha na giganetstore.com <http://www.giganetstore.com> , mas terá de fazê-lo na Inforpor Estamos presentes no Pavilhão 1, na àrea profissional com a Microsoft E já agora... QUER CONVITES PARA A INFORPOR? Nós oferecemos-lhe 2 convites Basta dirigir-se à giganetstore.com <http://www.giganetstore.com> , Avenida Defensor de Chaves, nº45, 7º, 1000-112 Lisboa ou então contacte-nos: 808210808, apoio(a)giganetstore.co <mailto:apoio@giganetstore.com> m <mailto:apoio@giganetstore.com> Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http://www.giganetstore.com <http://www.giganetstore.com> ,ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços.

1 0

CDR: Gore's Panopticon State (was ip: "Bush is a mixed bag. But I think Al Gore is the devil.")
by R. A. Hettinga 26 Oct '00

26 Oct '00

Gore, like most communists, apparently doesn't understand von Mises' calculation problem very well... Cheers, RAH --- begin forwarded text

1 0

CDR: Illicit words
by Bruce J.A. Nourish 26 Oct '00

26 Oct '00

I read somewhere that the FBI/NSA/some other Big Bro. organisation has a list of words that they check your email against, and if they find any, they have someone read your mail. Anyone know what they are? TIA & HAND -- Bruce J.A. Nourish (keys - see header) <kode187(a)galadriel.kode187.net>

6 6

ip: "Bush is a mixed bag. But I think Al Gore is the devil."
by VMontgo32＠aol.com 26 Oct '00

26 Oct '00

Ironic Processing By Virginia Postrel http://www.reason.com/0011/co.vp.ironic.html When I give a speech about the big-picture political and cultural ideas in my book <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0684862697/reasonmagazineA/">The Future and Its Enemies</A>, the question and answer period almost always starts with a down-to-earth query: "What do you think of George W. Bush and Al Gore?" "Well," I say, "Bush is a mixed bag. But I think Al Gore is the devil." This line always gets a laugh, but itâ*s not really a joke. Donâ*t get me wrong: Unlike some Clinton haters, who have the same opinion of his boss, I donâ*t mean Gore is literally the Prince of Darkness. I simply mean that he operates according to core principles that work to erode the freedoms of individuals and the progress of the open society. This is true whether you examine the "real Gore"â*the intellectual wannabe who seems like heâ*d rather have my job than Bill Clintonâ*sâ*or the political Gore, who speaks in poll-tested phrases. Both versions share the patronizing world view perfectly expressed in the vice presidentâ*s tendency to address his audiences as though they were dim second-graders. Both want to tell everyone else how to live, to subordinate our diverse, individualized purposes to their own goals. Back before his populist peroration at the Democratic National Convention, the intellectual Gore gave a remarkable interview to Nicholas Lemann of The New Yorker. Lemann was smart enough not to ask routine, soundbite-inducing questions. Instead, he asked Gore about his favorite ideas, and he ran long quotations from their conversations. Goreâ*s responses elicited scorn, derision, and dismay in Washingtonâ*s political-intellectual circles. He was way, way, way too interested in obscure notions about complexity and fractals. He drew strange diagrams. He talked a lot about metaphor. He dropped names of philosophers and physicists. Gore sounded like a New Age version of Newt Gingrich. The pundits were so flabbergasted by his strangeness that they paid little attention to the content of what he said. But Lemannâ*s article revealed more than Goreâ*s interest in odd ideas; it gave readers a peek at his political philosophy. And the substance of Goreâ*s world view is troubling. Gore believes society needs to take ideas from science and apply them to politics and economics, and heâ*s frustrated that scientific ideas are too unfamiliar to the general publicâ*and his political colleaguesâ*to be used that way. He wants to replace the old metaphors of a clockwork universe and machine-age government with something more up-to-date. His favorite metaphor is "distributed intelligence." That sounds promising. The insight that knowledge is scattered through society, and that itâ*s impossible to collect all relevant information (including the knowledge of individualsâ* purposes and preferences) in a single place, is fundamental to understanding why central planning does not work, and why it is incompatible with individual freedom. But Goreâ*s idea of distributed intelligence does not in any way endorse the significance of dispersed, local knowledge. To the contrary, Gore imagines society as a giant computer system, using massively parallel processing to attack a single problem. In such a system, he explained in a 1996 speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "When a problem was presented, all the processors would begin working simultaneously, each performing its small part of the task, and sending its portion of the answer to be collated with the rest of the work that was going on. It turns out that for most problems, this approach is more effective." (Actually, massively parallel processing isnâ*t good for most problems, but thatâ*s a messy real-world detail.) As a metaphor for society, this analogy suggests that someone in charge decides what the problem is and parcels out tasks to individuals. Individuals do not choose their own problems and purposes or respond to the needs and desires of other dispersed individuals. Asked by Lemann to apply this idea to government, Gore imagined members of Congress bringing information from their districts to "assemble it at the center, in the Capitol building." So "distributed intelligence," a phrase that appears to honor decentralized knowledge, turns out to enshrine centralized decision making. This vision is in keeping with Goreâ*s desire, in Earth in the Balance, for a "central organizing principle for civilization," a goal to which all other goals are subordinated. Gore also rebels against the dispersed knowledge that makes an advanced civilization possibleâ*the specialization that lets people do what theyâ*re good at and enables us to benefit from the knowledge of others, the specialization that acknowledges that each of us is inevitably ignorant about most things. To the AAAS, he <A HREF="http://www.aaas.org/meetings/gore.htm"> bemoaned</A> "the increasing segmentation of society," blaming it for the failure of his favorite metaphor to capture the public imagination. The problem of specialization, he told Lemann, was what Earth in the Balance was all about. The book was an attempt, he said, "to understand the origins of our modern world view, and its curious reliance on specialization and ever-narrower slices of the world around us into categories that are then themselves dissected, in an ongoing process of separation, into parts and subpartsâ*a process that sometimes obliterates the connection to the whole and the appreciation for context and the deeper meanings that canâ*t really be found in the atomized parts of the whole." No wonder the pundits scoffed. That Gore doesnâ*t sound like much of a politician. His views can nonetheless be translated into a campaign document. You just have to push the metaphor: The "atomized parts" are citizens, or voters, or taxpayers, or just plain individuals. Theyâ*re the little pieces that donâ*t count for much until theyâ*re brought into the grand scheme, connected to the whole. You connect them to those deeper meanings by deciding what goals they should pursueâ*programming them to solve the right problems. Follow this analogy, and you wind up with a platform that reads something like Goreâ*s campaign document, <A HREF="http://www.algore2000.com/pdf/gore_prosperity.pdf">Prosperity for Americaâ*s Families</A>.Â Filled with grandiose promises and constant repetition, this 191-page "plan" consists largely of prescriptions to add more headache-inducing complexity to the tax code, all in the name of rewarding good behavior. Take retirement savings. Gore wants people to save, but he wants the savings to cost people the same regardless of how much money they make. Todayâ*s IRAs donâ*t do that. A family making $25,000 pays no income taxes, so putting away $2,000 in retirement savings costs the full two grand. A family that makes $75,000 is in the 28 percent bracket, so sticking $2,000 in a tax-deductible IRA costs just $1,440. Thatâ*s not fair, suggests the Gore document. You could, of course, solve the unfairness problem by flattening tax rates, so that everyone faced the same tax hit. You could even eliminate special treatment of retirement savings and let taxpayers decide, in an unbiased way, how to spend their money. But that even-handed approach would let the atomized parts decide on their own purposes. It would offer no deeper meanings. Instead, the current progressivity of the tax code becomes an argument for even greater progressivity. Gore proposes a new Retirement Savings Plus program in which people who save but donâ*t pay taxes will receive matching funds and people who save and do pay taxes will get credits that go down as their tax rate goes up. Having centrally decided that the nationâ*s little processors should all attack the problem of retirement savings, he has to rig the pieces of the problem assigned to each household. Saving for retirement is important to Gore, but the true central organizing principle of his plan is that everyone should be raising children and sending them to college. His plan thus offers a tax deduction for college tuition, establishes tax-sheltered accounts to save for educational expenses, and gives a tax credit for after-school programs. It hikes the child-care tax credit (including a credit for parents who stay home with very young kids) and promises full-time moms who havenâ*t paid Social Security taxes the same benefits as employed women who have. Parents whose kids arenâ*t either in college or young enough for day care are pretty much out of luck when it comes to tax cuts as, of course, are people who make too much money. Prosperity for Americaâ*s Families goes on and on in this vein. To keep the nationâ*s "atomized parts" from pursuing their own, unapproved goals, Gore creates so many new specialized categories that he winds up contradicting his own goals. His plan "corrects" the marriage penalty by doubling the standard deduction, for instance, but that penalizes any couple who itemizes to take advantage of any of its other creditsâ*or of the old mortgage deduction. The overall effect is an irony worthy of any machine-age, old-paradigm manager: In pursuit of deeper meanings and centralized purposes, Gore winds up slicing Americans into ever-narrower interest groups, favoring some and punishing others. Editor-at-Large Virginia Postrel (<A HREF="mailto:vpostrel@reason.com"> vpostrel(a)reason.com</A>) is the author of <A HREF="http://www.futureand.com/"> The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress</A>, recently published in paperback by Touchstone. --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0