January 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

weight loss
by mose_thegreat＠mail777.net.cn 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

Dear Friend, This last fall, our family had a reunion at which time we had a Professional Photographer take pictures, and I wanted to use those pictures of our immediate Family on Christmas cards that we were going to send to Friends and family this Christmas. In November, we got the proofs back so that we could pick our favorite Picture. Everybody looked wonderful and the background was spectacular but I could not Find myself in the picture. I looked and looked and finally got out a magnifying glass.To my horror, I found this woman with a face and body that looked like it was 100 Pounds overweight. I fell off the chair I was sitting on and began to cry. http://www.nat-dat-info.com My body resembled an oversized blimp that would takeoff should a heavy wind arise... it was HIDEOUS! I had mirrors in my house but most of them were designed to only reflect from the waist up and I honestly hadn't noticed that my cheekbones had totally disappeared and that my face looked like a shapeless clump of flesh. Well, I was in a terrible situation and I was at a loss as to what to do. My willpower, well, Basically Sucks and I had so- so -so- much weight to lose that I wasn't sure I'd live long enough to get it all off. Plus, I hate diets and can only stick to them for a very short period of time before I fall off the food Wagon and I always hated to work out!!! My goal to slim down seemed totally hopeless. http://www.nat-dat-info.com AND THEN IT HAPPENED. I received fabulous information about a product called Beverly Hills fat burners. It seemed to contain everything I needed. ; It curbs your appetite, increases energy, burns fat at the fastest rate possible, no special diets are required, you don't have to exercise. It Doesn't make you feel nervous AND Its ALL-NATURAL WITH NO ADVERSE SIDE EFFECTS. It also was priced well below other products and I received a second bottle for being afirst time customer. I figured that if it didn't work I wouldn't be out much money. It also has 100% money back guaranteed. It's been about 5 weeks now but I swear I'm beginning to look like that famous movie star. My cheekbones are absolutely glorious. I have dropped 4sizes and I see the results each and every day. http://www.nat-dat-info.com I swear I look like a new person and a good one at that. I promise you that this product works. It does everything it promises and then some. Just losing the weight alone, makes you feel so much better and younger. It puts zest back into your life and assures you that you'll achieve your weight loss goals. In another few 6 weeks I will reach my goal...something I had given up on a long time ago. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRODUCT. I FINALLY FOUND SOMETHING THAT REALLY WORKS. Sincerely, Jenny PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://www.nat-dat-info.com Should you need to unsubscribe, please call Within the UK: 0845-127-5586 Outside The UK: +44-845-127-5586 Under Bill s.1618 Title III passed by 105th U. S. Congress this mail can not be considered Spam as long as we include contact information and a remove link for removal from our mailing list.

2 1

copyright: moral right or outdated convention
by Adam Back 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

This is a response to Eric Flints comments in http://www.baen.com/library/home.htm Eric: While I agree with your conclusion -- that in the short term by putting your books online that will not lose you sales, I disagree with the statements you make to the effect that copying is immoral. And I am not optimistic for short sighted publishers and distributors financial well being in the longer term. This applies more immediately to digital media, or easily digitised media such as music, software and video. Firstly the issue of morailty. You don't seem to hold borrowing or libraries to be immoral. The distinction between photocopying and borrowing seems minor to me. In both cases two people enjoy a book that only one person paid for in a way which reimburses the author. So photocopying is time-consuming, the result is not convenient, and it's cheaper and more convenient for most people when they consider their time to be worth anything to buy the book instead of copying it. Which is why photocopying entire books is not common. (I've seen cash starved students do it to save a couple of bucks, though). Copyright, and copyright enforcement (which is very patchy) are societal conventions -- fairly recent ones too in the big picture. They are not moral rights. Practically, anything that is published (has left your control) is now freely copyable. This is clearly a statement of reality. People pay for convenience -- they prefer a paper copy -- and that is fine and it will likely take some time and technological change to move away from that. But the coercion that the premise that copying is immoral and must be prevented at gun point is immoral itself -- it's ultimately threatening the copier with physical harm for copying defacto public information. Whether or not it's the current law -- a very weakly and patchily enforced law -- or not is not the issue; the law is unenforceable, and people can and will copy. Anonymity, and privacy technology and the distibuted and decentralised control of the internet mean that people can do these things with impunity. Unless we turn the internet into the biggest tracking and police state in the history of man, where if you copy the wrong bits you'll get hauled off to jail, the physics and economics of the internet mean that free and convenient copying of copyrighted works will increase. Consider for a moment what would be implied to have near 100% electronic copy enforcement. Privacy of any kind would have to be outlawed on the internet. Peoples computers and hardware would have to be turned into paid informers against their interests. The escalation of copyright enforcement you talk about if it were to happen would lead to a very undesirable society. Another technological reality which acts against the concept of copyright is that all attempts at computerised software and content copyright enforcement are fundamentally flawed at a conceptual level: if your computer can display a digital bit stream to you, it can be recaptured and re-encoded in a format of the re-distributors convenience. This leads to preposterous suggestions like a monitor or TV screen that decodes the content, or CPUs that run software that the owner and user of the computer can't read. Electronic copying will increase. I don't see how it can be any other way. This applies especially to works which are convenient to use on a computer: music, video. And to works which are convenient to digitise or are already digital. Recreational books are more convenient to read on paper. Reference books perhaps more convenient on computer (search functionality, frequent updates). We don't see many instances of electronic copying of books -- because it takes a lot of time to scan, correct errors formatting etc, and the original copier already has the book so has little incentive. Were it to become possible for the copier to make money from the subsequent electronic copies made perhaps we would see it increase. So the physics and economics of the internet space is that people will copy and redistribute whatever they wish. Anyone in the publishing industries who wishes to survive and thrive in this environment needs to adapt to this reality. It will be entirely feasible to make money. But the author and his distributors will need to aggresively strive to provide their customers with convenience. The content distributors just have to compete with the competition -- electronic copying, rather than viewing it as illegal pirating which they somehow have a moral right to prevent. And you can compete -- there are real costs of copying (which vary depending on the type of work) -- bandwidth costs, and the competition doesn't have unlimited bandwidth. The price will stabalise. It will be possible to charge more based on convenience as people value their time. It may be possible to charge a small amount more based on goodwill -- consumers willing to pay a few cents more given equivalent convenience if they know some proportion of that goes back to the author, producer etc. So the distributor will need to provide fast bandwidth, make his copies easy to find in search engines, have prominent domain names, brand name, and negotiate deals for share of bandwidth cost, advertising revenue with the competition. So the key is not to fight electronic copying, but to work with it, and use it to make money. I don't think many people understand this yet. mojonation.com seem to, but I haven't seen much indication that any other businesses does. Certainly the music industry largely has their collective heads in the sand at this point. The movie industry hasn't felt the pressure much yet due to bandwidth, but give it a bit of time. It's clear that publishers should be able to make money in this economic landscape, and those able to adapt and not let near sighted views on copyright and outdated distribution stand in their way, will win in this space. It's all about user convenience vs cost. Adam

2 1

biochemcyberterror update
by Declan McCullagh 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

today... FOREIGN AFFAIRS Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (PIPS) News briefing on "Terrorism: Review of 2000 and Outlook for 2001." A special report on Osama bin Laden will also be released Location: National Press Club, Lisagor, White and Murrow Rooms, 14th and F St., NW. 1 p.m. Contact: Erin O'Connell, 703-525-0770 ext 241

1 0

(no subject)
by BMowatt394＠aol.com 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

1 0

Re: "REMOVE"
by Joel M Fulton 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

"REMOVE"
by BLUE BIRD TECHNOLOGIES 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

1 0

Miraculous Weight Loss Almost Over Night!!!!!!!!!!
by tigger554＠linkusnow.net 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

1 0

Highest Payout On The Net!!
by achamblin＠linkusnow.net 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

1 0

Re: Confirmation Receipt
by Abuse at Microsoft 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

Hello, Thank you for contacting Microsoft. Thank you for taking the time to report this issue to us. Microsoft takes internet forgeries very seriously. I am forwarding your issue to our Security team for investigation. There is a possibility that they may contact you with follow-up questions. I appreciate your patience in this matter. If you have any additional questions, please let us know by replying to this message. Thank you, Leamon Microsoft Online Customer Representative Original Message Follows: ------------------------- Hello, Thank you for contacting Microsoft. We received your email, but other than a copy of the initial Confirmation Receipt we sent you previously, your email did not contain any information about your issue. If there is an issue we can assist you with, please let us know. Thank you, Matt H. Microsoft Online Customer Representative Original Message Follows: ------------------------- From: Abuse at Microsoft <cypherpunks(a)ssz.com> To: Abuse at Microsoft <abuse(a)microsoft.com> Subject: CDR: Confirmation Receipt Thank you for your inquiry to Abuse(a)Microsoft.com Your e-mail was received on Sun, Jan 7, 2001 at 4:25 PM and will be handled personally by one of our Customer Service Representatives within 12 hours. Our Customer Service Representatives can answer general policy questions, validate your support eligibility, or refer you to the appropriate phone, e-mail, or Web resource. To explore online support options, please visit http://support.microsoft.com/directory/default.asp. Thank you, Microsoft Product Support Services

1 0

RE: RE: Re: authenticating Real Life(tm) - rhetorical bogosity
by Carskadden, Rush 17 Jan '01

17 Jan '01

This still seems sketchy. I will take a stab at definition, and we can work from there. Keep in mind that my definitions are rough draft and completely off the cuff. Let us say that "trust" is the reliance of any existent upon the integrity of any other existent. Let us say that "integrity" is the state of subject when the value of each element within the set of all observable elements of subject is a member of the pre-determined element-respective statical set of values. Let us say that a "proof" is the evidence or argument by which an assertion is shown to be true. Are these definitions acceptable for the purposes of this discussion? Suggestions? > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom [mailto:tom@ricardo.de] > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 2:11 PM > Cc: 'cypherpunks(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com' > Subject: Re: RE: Re: authenticating Real Life(tm) - > rhetorical bogosity > > > > "Carskadden, Rush" wrote: > > > > From a rhetorical standpoint, this argument is completely bogus. If > > you want to be reckless with logic, then you might be able > to say that > > in a perfect world, trust of the proof may result in > implicit trust of > > that's proof's application to an ideal (though this is technically > > flawed), but the trust is not transitive, nor commutative. > Trust of a > > proof may result in trust of a proven concept, but the two are not > > indistinguishable. > > that is a good point, but I am not quite convinced. let's > first say that > of course a proof does not create trust in anything but the subject of > it. so if I prove that I am me that means you can trust THAT > part of my > words, but not necessarily anything else. > > > > Further, the colloquial connotation of the word > > trust, which seems to me to be the major rhetorical nightmare here, > > appears subjective, and thus hard as hell to do anything with from a > > logical standpoint. > > yes, we should really define the words we are using first. >

2 1