August 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Manuf. Production/Contrl Software For $1,495.00!
by Contrl Software 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

(ABE)Job Master, a complete, user friendly Windows based software package, can manage and control your operation from sales quote to shipment. For one week only, Job Master, normally $2,495.00, is on sale for a total price of $1,495.00. In order for you to receive this $1,000.00 savings we must have your order by August 30th. (To reply by E Mail to this message or be removed from our list, Please go to the bottom of this message for an E Mail link. Please do not respond to us by hitting the "Reply" button. Our phone number is also located at the bottom of this message.) Job Master is designed specifically for small to medium sized manufacturers, and costs many thousands of dollars less than any other even remotely comparable software package. Following is a list of features. If you have any questions, would like to discuss the package further, or if you would like to obtain our Web site address for a total walk through of the program, please call me directly at (661) 286-0041. By way of background, we are a software company, which for some years has specialized in the development of custom software, primarily for small to medium sized manufacturers. Job Master is a distillation of over a million and a half dollars of software we have developed to control and manage the production of our manufacturing clients. Job Master contains the following features: 1. QUOTATION MODULE. In this module, quotes are developed, modified, and produced for sending to your client. A history is kept of all quotes for future reference, or modification for other clients. All quotations and revisions are "auto numbered," including versions. The quotes section allows for the entry of parts/processes, and costing of each, including materials, labor, markup, and taxes. Inventory status can be accessed from this section for reference. 2. SALES ORDER. Once a quotation is accepted, the final quotation information can be transformed into a Sales Order for your client's signature on a "point and click" basis. The Sales Order can be modified and re issued if necessary. A history if kept of all Sales Orders for future reference, or modification for other clients. All sales orders and revisions are "auto numbered," including versions. Inventory status can be accessed from this section for reference. 3. CUSTOMER LETTERS can be created from the Quotation and Sales Order sections. 4. SHOP TRAVELER/WORK ORDER. Once a Sales Order is accepted, the sales order information can be transformed into a shop traveler/work order on a "point and click" basis. Each item on the Sales Order becomes a shop traveler/work order, with each step of production of the item then listed on the traveler/work order. Each such traveler/work order is tied back into the Sales Order. The shop traveler/work order allows for the entry of line items, and notes on each line item. The shop traveler/work order contains a "notes" section. The Shop traveler/work order allows for the storing or attachment of drawings to the traveler/work order. The shop traveler/work order also contains a "drop down," from which standard processes can be selected for inclusion on the shop traveler/work order. The shop traveler/work order numbers progress in order of production sequence, and re numbers them if new steps are added. The shop traveler/work order allows for change orders or revisions, a! nd! numbers changes in sequence of he original shop traveler/work order number; i.e., 100, 100-1, 100-2, etc. All shop traveler/work orders and related revisions are retained in memory for future reference. The shop traveler/work order is bar coded for tracking of production step by step, and production of ongoing client status reports. Bar coding includes the ability for an employee to "swipe" their own ID bar code for recording in the system as to who upgraded what step. The shop traveler/work order function also allows for manual update of production status. The shop traveler/work order allows for quality control sign off, and the final production of certifications, either from a "canned" list, or hand typed in on a case by case basis. 5. INVENTORY. The application includes an inventory section, which allows operations to check materials inventory in and out. The inventory section allows for the comparison of inventory received against a P.O., and produces an "overage/underage" report of inventory received as compared against the P.O. The inventory section allows for the setting of minimum (re-order now!) and maximum inventory amounts, and produces reports showing what inventory needs to be ordered, as well as inventory that is at or above the maximum set to have in house. The inventory section also tracks "partially shipped" orders, which are tied in to the shipping function. This section shows how much completed product under a particular order has been actually shipped to a client, and how much remains to be shipped. The balance is adjusted as shipments are made. 6. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE. The application allows operators to produce a Request For Purchase for accounting for any inventory items, which need to be ordered. Inventory items have a drop down of approved vendors for each item. 7. REQUEST FOR BID. The application allows operators to produce a Request For Bid for accounting to send to Vendors for any inventory items, which need to be ordered. Inventory items have a drop down of approved vendors for each item to which Requests For Bid can be sent. 8. INVOICE. The application produces an invoice/invoice detail for all completed items ready to be billed/shipped to clients. 9. PRODUCTION OUTPUT STATUS. The application produces a date range selectable report on how much product, and the value of the product, which was completed during a selected date range. The application also produces a report on how many orders, and the value of those orders, which remain to be completed during a selected date range. 10. The application produces SHIPPING DOCUMENTS as per selected shippers, and produces a PACKING SLIP. 11. The application has a "FIND" FUNCTION in selected sections, allowing for searches by customer name, work order number, etc. 12. The application has "AUTO FILL;" i.e., when an operator starts to type in a name, number, etc. all related information auto fills after the first few letters or numbers are typed in. Job Master is currently being sold in the marketplace for $2,495.00 per package. However, if we receive your order by August 30th, your total price will be $1,495.00 Again, if you have any questions at all, or would like to place your order, please call me on my direct line, (661) 286-0041. Thank you! Mario Chavez Vice President of Sales and Marketing Application Sales, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, To REPLY, if you have questions about our services and wish to respond by E Mail, please click on the E Mail address following and enter "Inquiry" in the subject line. REPLYS please click here: manufsoft99(a)yahoo.com To be REMOVED from our mailing list, please click on the E Mail address following and enter "Remove" in the subject line. REMOVES please click here: jbsptrsft5(a)yahoo.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[psychohistory] Designing a Legal System (fwd)
by Jim Choate 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:42:42 +0800 From: "Chen Yixiong, Eric" <cyixiong(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: psychohistory(a)yahoogroups.com To: sociologistics(a)yahoogroups.com, Extropians(a)extropy.org, msal-politics(a)yahoogroups.com, psychohistory(a)yahoogroups.com, asperger_autism_12up(a)yahoogroups.com Cc: Personal_Discourses(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: [psychohistory] Designing a Legal System The legal system consists of the set of rules that determine apporiate and non-apporiate behaviour in a society, as well as its the people which enforce it. (For this discussion we will only include the rules portion.) It must make (sometimes conflicting) decisions that affect the lives of those it has justification over. A poorly designed legal system, in the worst case scenerio, can wreak a society as much as, or worse than, an outbreak of war or uncontrollable disease. Less extreme cases can usually result in, but not limited, to the following: 1) bureaucratic inefficiency processing legal cases 2) the conviction of innocent parties 3) the non-remedy or incorrect remedy of undisireable behaviour 4) the inability to implement the rules and remedies 5) in the inefficient method of settlements between the wronged parties and the guilty ones. One would also find it difficult to comply with a poorly designed legal system, for a legal system exists to reduce undesirable behavior against the values of society, and not to make as many things as undisireable as possible thus increasing the cost of participating in that society unneccessarily. Our current legal systems operates much like an expert system, with thick rule books and lots of lawyers. The assumption behind this seems that, you can patch all the holes on the legal system if you have enough rules. However, according to G�del's Incompleteness Theorm, such an undertaking would prove furtile because no one set of a system of rules can provide both a consistent structure nor a complete one. This means, if you want a "fair" (as in consistent) laws and yet want these laws to cover everything, then dream on. Yet, the legal system continues, apparently unaware of this contradiction. We had not also figured out the problem of having to learn and memorise such huge rule sets. Who (other than people working directly in the legal system and those with photographic memory, of course) can reasonably remember an encyclopedia's worth of such rules? Yet common law clearly states that ignorance of the law cannot excuse one from legal liability. With each day, as new developments appear in our world that never existed previously which create new legal implications, the rule book only gets deeper. We also have a corresponding book of case laws that get even thicker still. Somehow, it would seem redicious to expect everyone to know all these rules. Hence, I propose using the following systems in combination: - Heuristic System A heuristically based legal system would operate based on objectives instead of rules. First, we have to start from what we want to achieve. We may want to ensure our freedom (such as of the ability to publish freely (i.e. right of free speech)), or we may simply want to prevent overcrowding on buses that could increase accident rates. Firstly, we must determine the fundemental objectives a society wishes to achieve, which we may call a society's value. These should not have too large a number or they will introduce additional complexities and perhaps inconsistents to the legal system. These principles will definitely create ambigulities, because of the "complete" nature. We could include the following varieties: 1) Certain Freedom(s) (e.g. to publish freely, to self-actualise) 2) Persuit of Happiness 3) Preservation of the status quo For each of those we choose or all of them, we must describe a vivid, accurate vision of how a society implementing these rules will look like. We cannot merely declare that one has the "right" to life, or liberty, or happiness, but we must describe and show our vision of a future society operate on these principles to clarify what we mean. Going a step further, we then create a counter-vision, a dystrophic society that implements the opposite rules that we have. We also create a third vision, of someone managing to twist the principles of our society to their opposities, and what syndromes and problems will arrive with this. With this, we fight ambiguity with ambiguity which will hopefully tell us if we had made the right choice. One (usually the founding members) must choose these principles carefully, for to change them would actually mean a change in the entire society and the systems of rules, introducing great instabilities. The same goes for the vision of the society, which one may update in accordance with future technology but not change. Secondly, we have to state our objectives, and then we derive a set of general rules to prevent that. For instance, we could specify a certain formula for the vehicle overloading and allow the owners to compute the exact weight and approximate number of people, instead of declaring an arbitrary and ambiguous amount (such as 150 adults or 300 children). For this case, we may also specify that we wish to reduce pain and suffering by reducing the amount of accidents. For the problem "free speech", we can specify we want free disclosure of information and ideas and then work towards how to make it happen, for instance, by creating a low cost, efficient and non-censored information distribution system that everyone has access to, and then requiring people to publish dually (one copy to the media source they want to publish, and the other to the information system). Note that this concept of "free speech" may again, sound too ambiguous for us to formulate a system to adequately address it. Lastly, the set of general rules must not exceed a certain length and complexity that would in total, take more than a week to learn and understand. They must exist as clearly worded as possible, so that one cannot read multiple interpretions into them. Most importantly, they should exist in the public domain, easily accessible and easily referenced, unlike our current law books. All rules should use this system first, before others. - Expert System A expert system acts as a system of second resort, if heuristics cannot solve an issue. It does not neccessarily alleviate G�del's problem, however, it provides a quick and easy way for one to look up information based on rules without having to consult lawyers and other legal experts who may have a certain bias or incomplete data. It also provides a great substitute to a human judge, which may have biases and insufficient time to handle all cases fast enough. We first assume that we encode our current set of minimum rules into a consistent set of items. We flag ambiguous areas, when we or the system encounters them, and allow users to make a decision about choosing to choose which side of the ambiguity to continue with. The system will also take in decisions made by the legal system previously in helping it to determine the course of action. When the one has a case against him or another, one can simply consult the system, entering the relevant data as the system asks for information. After one has completed the data entry, one should get a rough decision against or for one, or at least probabilistic decision. This decision will also contain summaries and links to full details of the rules explaining the reasoning it uses to arrive at the decision(s). Thus the legal system should also have the aim of reducing the amount of ambiguity in its decisions. This system will demostrate whether a legal system can meet this standard. - Intellicratic An intellicratic system can function in two modes: 1) as a system of last resort, in the absense of a pre-existing legal principles applying to a certain problem In this case the legal system will post all details to the public as an Request for Solutions (RFS). The public will debate and rule over the judgment. After this, we can insert the judgment into the expert system. 2) in the redesign of a system of heuristics or the expert system In the event of the discovery that a certain subset of rules do not further the core values of a society. If a rule does not further the core values, then this rule must crease to exist. The public will rule over the pros and cons of the rule and the remedy, if any, against this problem that the outcasted rule ought to protect. Once a ruling had occured, this information will enter the expert system and help define future related issues. Hence, I had proposed how a possible improved legal system could operate. For more data about Intellicracy, please refer to sociologistics.webhop.org _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/M8mxkD/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/VjIolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-~> to unsubscribe from this group, send a blank message to mailto:psychohistory-unsubscribe@egroups.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

1 0

(no subject)
by FC 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

1 0

STAINLESS STEEL PIPES AND TUBES
by Textiles 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

MUHAMMAD UMAIR HAMEED, M2/E888, SSC-BLK-C, KHI-75730 [PK] Email:- paktrade@khi.paknet.com.pk,bsasteel@aol.net.pk,alfaqar@paknet3.ptc.pk Fax:- 92-21-7775337/7730667/2563698 AND VOICE 2564053/2578624/7777746 Dear, Sir I want some stainless steel pipes and tubes.{AISI304}-{AISI316} Quantity up to 2 to 5 containers. Please give me lowest price FOB base. I will be very thank full to you. WAITING FOR YOUR KIND REPLY. With best regards, UMAIR HAMEED

1 0

Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages.
by Declan McCullagh 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:07:14PM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Now, the above is of course fiction, for now at least. But keeping such > widescale attacks on the infrastructure part of the threat model is not, > IMHO, a bad idea. The discussions on stego, disposable remailers, physical > broadcast technology and the like are part of that, and serve to lay the > groundwork in case shit one day does hit the fan. Last I checked, the vast bulk of remailers were in North America and Europe. Given sufficient provocation (Bush twins kidnapped, Osama talking biochemwomdterror in DC), I could easily see a coordinated set of pre-dawn raids to "gather evidence" and seize computers as part of a criminal investigation. Obviously the servers would have to be held as potential evidence for a trial - did they keep logs? our techs will find out - which could take a decade. This would cripple the current remailer network and generate almost no public outcry beyond the cypherpunks and such. -Declan

6 8

Re: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition
by Eugene Leitl 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > Have you happened to have seen any good papers on constructing do-it- > yourself cheap, effective, portable shielding? Probably might as well > ask for the moon too while I'm at it, but it's worth a shot! Using cast aluminum cases, copper foil shielding, tight glands which preferably transport only optical signals or coax, using low power parts which don't clock too many Hz, and the like. Even if you don't have access to a testing facility, careful work and some thinking will eventually make you very, very silent. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3

1 0

Re: Anonymous Posting
by Anonymous 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

Tim May wrote: > I find it lower. Maybe it's just me. A lot of gibbering, ranting, > and insults-without-traceability. Doesn't mean I don't "support" the > legality and technology of remailers, just a comment on what traffic > I see from them. Not surprising, of course. It may depend on your window. Remailer traffic's been pretty good for the last six months. No spam, for example. Yes, one would expect all sorts of trash, but for some reason that's not happening right now. > The technology won't get there by a particular person using > remailers, inasmuch as the actions of that person don't cause others > to change. Setting a good example is an effective technique. I'm using remailers because of somebody else's example. > This is also known as the "but what if everyone did what you're > doing?" fallacy. I've grokked this since around 1966. Why isn't > this obvious? Fewer people doing it just means the process is slower. It's really a question of whether one wants to participate. > 2) I used the earlier Cypherpunks remailers in their first month of > operation, in 1992. More to the point, I architected the basic > features remailers should have at the first Cypherpunks > meeting. Check the archives if you doubt this. Actually, I consider the Great Timothy May to be beyond my judgment. (No irony intended.) In general, however, it's hard to understand why people who claim to be cypherpunks won't use remailers or even encrypted mail. The "I only use these tools when I'm committing felonies" model is flawed. If people were saying they are not interested in these tools or technologies, then there's no issue. But what I don't understand is people claiming this stuff is interesting but then not even using it. Even worse, many actually disparage those using encryption or remailers and yet remain subscribed to this list. Strange. Using something is the first step to extending and improving it. Even non-coder users are helpful because they can encourage the coders to make things better, as well as sending in bug reports, suggestions for improvement, etc. etc. No technology is developed solely at the drafting board. People need to hammer on it, kick it around, and play with it, before it gets to be solid. > 5) Signing an article is giving away something of value. (For > example, it might be used against the signer.) Absent some reason to > sign, some "consideration," why sign a post? You got me there, pal. (If there was more noise coming from remailers I'd probably sign posts so filtering would be feasible. Hopefully, I'd be filtered in!) > Fuck that. Cypherpunks care about both code _and_ ideology, else why > bother? If Rijndael C code is all that matters, why not just drop > Cypherpunks and join Perrypunks? > Oh wait, it seems most nitwits _have_. Never mind. Many of these people are potentially useful. It is unfortunate that they fled instead of seeking technical solutions. I consider this a serious mistake.

1 0

RE: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messa ges.
by Bill Stewart 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

At 10:30 AM 08/13/2001 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: >I'm aware of exactly two datapoints - Skipjack (which wasn't good enough >that anyone wanted to use it), and the recent 'dual counter mode' snafu. >That's not enough to draw broad conclusions. Dual Counter was a serious crypto product that was broken and failed. But Skipjack was apparently strong enough, within the limits of 80-bit keys, and while the academic whitewash team didn't have time for more than a cursory examination, that wasn't the real problem with the system. After all, it came with a guaranteed wiretap capability, was a clear political scam, and rapidly acquired public hatred and ridicule, plus the only advantage it had was being stronger than 1-DES, which was in practice strong enough for almost all non-money-transfer apps. The whole system reeked badly, but the Skipjack part was the strongest link.

1 0

Gnutella scanning instead of service providers.
by Gary Jeffers 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

My fellow Cypherpunks, It has been stated that Gnutella is completely decentralized. This is not so. In order to get started with a Gnutella search, you need to use a Gnutella search provider to find Gnutella groups. Would it be possible to write some kind of scanner that would look at an ISP, say for example, htc.net and display all the Gnutella users there? We seem to be over the "fax effect" (a Snelling point?) magnitude where automated hunting for Gnutella users would be practical. Also, maybe the scanner could search thru various ISP's as well as particular ones. If it did close ISPs 1st, then it could help with the efficency of file searches. Also, note that Gnutella deals in files - ANY kind of files. I suppose that most? Cypherpunks know that - but just to be sure. If a scanner were written and widely deployed, then I think that the problem of crushing Gnutella would be at least a magnitude harder. Maybe the Gnutella support sites would promote and distribute such a scanner? Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

4 3

None
by Kidsheep 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

-- Yours sincerely Kidsheep <Kidsheep(a)21cn.com>

1 0