March 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

HR 726: Ban on Internet firearm trading..."obtain, dispose, offer to obtain or dispose"
by Aimee Farr 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

http://thomas.loc.gov HR 726 [Feb. 26] To ban the use of the Internet to obtain or dispose, or offer to obtain or dispose of, a firearm. Rep. Patsy Mink (D-HI) http://www.house.gov/mink/ -Aimee

3 3

Re: Microsoft Trial Judge [blah blah blah]
by George＠Orwellian.Org 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

"James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: # At 11:23 PM 2/27/2001 -0500, David Stultz wrote: # > Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" # > or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread? # # It appears to me that this rule is most commonly invoked by those whose # ideology and program has a marked resemblance to Nazism, and derives from # Nazi philosophers. Nonsense. This rule is alive and well in Usenet. -- Jim Chaote's Questionable Science For Kids, #285311 # # Hey kids, wanna see something cool??? Pick up # a roll of magnesium from the appropriate supply # store and set it on fire using a blue-flame # lighter or torch. And watch it burn! It has # a hypnotically bright white light, something # you can watch for hours on end.

2 1

FAQ? how to set up a cross-platform encrypted mailing list/forum
by Rachel Willmer 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

This might be a FAQ. Or it might just be a question with a really obvious answer that I can't see for looking. How can I set up a mailing list or online forum with encrypted traffic? The clients are varied platforms: Win98, WinNT, OpenBSD, FreeBSD. I thought about tweaking the listserver to send out encrypted mails. But that doesn't help the inbound traffic. I thought about using some online forum. But the only one I can find which looks to make any mention of the word security is Groove. Which is Windows only. I thought about setting up a VPN between the various mailservers. But we'd have to secure all the MX hosts to be sure, and some of them aren't adminstratively accessible by me. and anyway one of the potential users uses a public ISP, so um, help! is this a FAQ with no answer? or is this a question with an answer so obvious I'll blush when I'm told what it is... All suggestions welcome... Rachel

14 23

Re: [Re: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts]
by LUIS VILDOSOLA 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

It's all in the timing. If the censors are the last to judge, they self proclaim the right to punish or take corrective action. So justice is held in a pyramid scheme where those not fortunate or not able to be on top are by definition the only liable to be judged by terrestrial powers. The odd thing about this is judgments are punitive in nature, so those at the bottom slip further down; distancing the judging party from the judged. Kind of a reinforcing cycle. Can you think of mechanisms to trigger this cycle Jim? Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> wrote: > > > On 27 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote: > > > Your last paragraph is a little too complicated for me Jim, > > I'm interested in what you have to say but please break it > > down for me. > > Somebody does something. As a consequence another party is considered to > have contributed to the first persons act, without actually participating > in the act. > > So, if the first person is not fully responsible, why is the second > party fully responsible? How do you test this? > > If a party whose actions contribute is responsible for the consequences > then isn't the censor themselves, since they take an active role, also > responsible? > > Doesn't this put a party in the defence in the role of presecutor and > judge? That seems to be a considerable conflict of interest. > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a > smaller group must first understand it. > > "Stranger Suns" > George Zebrowski > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

2 1

[Resend]
by jimmythetulip19＠earthlink.net 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

[Resend] Was Not Able To Take Last Entry.. Please Fill Out Again. Hey... We Haven't Talked In So Long!! How Have You Been? Thought I would Forward you this email! I usually delete these but I opened this one, like what I saw, and thought you would like to see this. http://www.geocities.com/newest8989/ IF THE LINK IS NOT HIGHLIGHTED OR YOU CANNOT CLICK ON IT. COPY AND PASTE IT IN YOUR BROWSER.

1 0

RE: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On
by David Theroux 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

Flawed Theory, Not Facts Cc: freematt(a)coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Dear Mr. Hallam-Baker, If you knew anything about the academic debate over "path dependence" ("network externality") theory you would know that the work by our research fellows, Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, has been appearing in the leading, scholarly, peer-reviewed, economics journals for the past ten years. They have conclusively shown that "network externality" theory has absolutely no empirical evidence. And, no economists or any others have been able to show any errors in the devastating Liebowitz/Margolis analysis. Indeed, hundreds academic economists have signed our Open Letter agreeing with this analysis. As a belief system without any scientific evidence and with people such as yourself who accept this urban legend without proof, "path dependence" is a house of cards that is being used to advance the corporate welfare ambitions of various major business and government interests. In so doing, the Microsoft case has nothing to do with consumer welfare and everything to do with corporate welfare. (For your information, it was the acclaimed, New Left historian Gabriel Kolko who first showed how antitrust has been used repeatedly for corporatist purposes since its initial adoption.) So, since you have obviously not even seen the Liebowitz/Margolis book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, and you apparently prefer to defend the blatant campaign for corporate welfare (antitrust protectionism), who indeed is the crank and right-winger here? Incidentally, so you do not continue to embarrass yourself, I would suggest you first learn the difference between the terms, "network effects" and "network externalities." Reading the book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, would make an excellent way to do so. David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux(a)independent.org http://www.independent.org >> Microsoft won because of superior reviews? Come on, how stupid do you >> think we are? So if a company pays for glowing reviews that would be >> okay? > >Matthew's argument is that 'network effects' do not exist, based on a >tendentious piece of propaganda pushed by a right wing crank tank. The crank >tank is attempting to proove that the free market is perfect, unsullied by >the possibility of monopoly that obviously ignorant writers such as Adam >Smith wrote at great length about. > >Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the >best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is >historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology. > >Positive feedback exists, get over it. > >>Obviously they have never tried to sell a product. It's very >> dificult to get consideration such that you could prove the technical >> merits when there is a large existing supplier. > >That is only a weak network effect. People buy from Amazon because they have >a well known brand name, have established a customer reputation etc. But >there is no intrinsic advantage buying from a large online bookseller than a >medium sized one. > >There is a big advantage having a VHS video over Betamax however. If you >have VHS you can rent movies from stores, you can send tapes to friends who >have equipment to play it. The fact that a modern day VHS recorder is >technicaly superior to any Betamax machine made is irrelevant. At the time >the standard was set Sony and Betamax had the clearly superior technology. > > >A network effect exists when there is an intrinsic advantage to join the >bigger network. Operating systems have been understood to have strong >network effects since the 1950s. My company only supports one version of >UNIX for certain products because the cost of QA on each O/S variant is >significant. If we were choosing the technically best O/S platform we would >probably look at of the stripped down, hardened BSD variants, but we choose >the platform that most of our customers are already familliar with - >Solaris. > >When I wrote video-games for a living I wrote for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum >with a market of several million users, not the vastly more sophisticated >BBC computer - even though the spectrums would die after about 100 hours use >and need replacement. I would typically replace a spectrum three or four >times within the guarantee period. Writing a game for the bigger market gave >bigger returns. Customers bought the machines supported by the most games. > > >Network effects are the alpha and the omega of Internet business strategy. > >Ironically despite paying for the tendentious propaganda Microsoft appears >to be benefitting from the argument that network effects and 'tipping' >explain the emergence of a single operating system. > >I don't know if the DoJ should interpret recent events in Seatle as a divine >attempt to breakup Microsoft. If so it is really time for the DoJ to give up >since it evidently failed. > > Phill -- David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux(a)independent.org http://www.independent.org ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0

RE: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On
by David Theroux 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

Flawed Theory, Not Facts Cc: freematt(a)coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Dear Mr. Hallam-Baker, If you knew anything about the academic debate over "path dependence" ("network externality") theory you would know that the work by our research fellows, Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, has been appearing in the leading, scholarly, peer-reviewed, economics journals for the past ten years. They have conclusively shown that "network externality" theory has absolutely no empirical evidence. And, no economists or any others have been able to show any errors in the devastating Liebowitz/Margolis analysis. Indeed, hundreds academic economists have signed our Open Letter agreeing with this analysis. As a belief system without any scientific evidence and with people such as yourself who accept this urban legend without proof, "path dependence" is a house of cards that is being used to advance the corporate welfare ambitions of various major business and government interests. In so doing, the Microsoft case has nothing to do with consumer welfare and everything to do with corporate welfare. (For your information, it was the acclaimed, New Left historian Gabriel Kolko who first showed how antitrust has been used repeatedly for corporatist purposes since its initial adoption.) So, since you have obviously not even seen the Liebowitz/Margolis book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, and you apparently prefer to defend the blatant campaign for corporate welfare (antitrust protectionism), who indeed is the crank and right-winger here? Incidentally, so you do not continue to embarrass yourself, I would suggest you first learn the difference between the terms, "network effects" and "network externalities." Reading the book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, would make an excellent way to do so. David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux(a)independent.org http://www.independent.org >> Microsoft won because of superior reviews? Come on, how stupid do you >> think we are? So if a company pays for glowing reviews that would be >> okay? > >Matthew's argument is that 'network effects' do not exist, based on a >tendentious piece of propaganda pushed by a right wing crank tank. The crank >tank is attempting to proove that the free market is perfect, unsullied by >the possibility of monopoly that obviously ignorant writers such as Adam >Smith wrote at great length about. > >Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the >best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is >historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology. > >Positive feedback exists, get over it. > >>Obviously they have never tried to sell a product. It's very >> dificult to get consideration such that you could prove the technical >> merits when there is a large existing supplier. > >That is only a weak network effect. People buy from Amazon because they have >a well known brand name, have established a customer reputation etc. But >there is no intrinsic advantage buying from a large online bookseller than a >medium sized one. > >There is a big advantage having a VHS video over Betamax however. If you >have VHS you can rent movies from stores, you can send tapes to friends who >have equipment to play it. The fact that a modern day VHS recorder is >technicaly superior to any Betamax machine made is irrelevant. At the time >the standard was set Sony and Betamax had the clearly superior technology. > > >A network effect exists when there is an intrinsic advantage to join the >bigger network. Operating systems have been understood to have strong >network effects since the 1950s. My company only supports one version of >UNIX for certain products because the cost of QA on each O/S variant is >significant. If we were choosing the technically best O/S platform we would >probably look at of the stripped down, hardened BSD variants, but we choose >the platform that most of our customers are already familliar with - >Solaris. > >When I wrote video-games for a living I wrote for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum >with a market of several million users, not the vastly more sophisticated >BBC computer - even though the spectrums would die after about 100 hours use >and need replacement. I would typically replace a spectrum three or four >times within the guarantee period. Writing a game for the bigger market gave >bigger returns. Customers bought the machines supported by the most games. > > >Network effects are the alpha and the omega of Internet business strategy. > >Ironically despite paying for the tendentious propaganda Microsoft appears >to be benefitting from the argument that network effects and 'tipping' >explain the emergence of a single operating system. > >I don't know if the DoJ should interpret recent events in Seatle as a divine >attempt to breakup Microsoft. If so it is really time for the DoJ to give up >since it evidently failed. > > Phill -- David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux(a)independent.org http://www.independent.org ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

1 0