August 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

(no subject)
by Xeni Jardin 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

unsubscribe xeni(a)xeni.net

1 0

(no subject)
by Xeni Jardin 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

unsubscribe xeni(a)xeni.net

1 0

Riots at G-8 meeting spark special forces -- The Washington Times
by Jim Choate 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20010817-11608154.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

The Register - Music biz patents anti-rip encryption technology
by Jim Choate 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/21092.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Bomb Law Reporter Vol. 1 No. 1
by Secret Squirrel 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

Aimee: > > [Since some remailer-idiots want to talk about bombs in here and grossly > mischaracterize an entire forum.] Amusing, Aimee -- or is it "Amusing Aimee"? But the real discussion was about protected speech, was it not? You previously posted a piece on "842" as if that were an actual statute forbidding the "teaching" of info on explosives and bombs. Where is that law, actually? This case is about someone selling pipe bombs, something totally different in the first place -- but protected activity under the 2nd, nonetheless. And yes, we are aware that undercover LEO's often act as agent provocateur. So what's your point? We also know, from the Judy Barri case that LEO's (FBI in this case) even teach bomb making them selves, and, quite possibly, even plant bombs in the cars of citizens they have under surveillance, even try to kill them. So what's your point? bombmonger

1 0

Bomb Law Reporter Vol. 1 No. 1
by A. Melon 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

Amusing, Aimee -- or is it "Amusing Aimee"? But the real discussion was about protected speech, was it not? You previously posted a piece on "842" as if that were an actual statute forbidding the "teaching" of info on explosives and bombs. Where is that law, actually? This case is about someone selling pipe bombs, something totally different in the first place -- but protected activity under the 2nd, nonetheless. And yes, we are aware that undercover LEO's often act as agent provocateur. So what's your point? We also know, from the Judy Barri case that LEO's (FBI in this case) even teach bomb making them selves, and, quite possibly, even plant bombs in the cars of citizens they have under surveillance, even try to kill them. So what's your point? bombmonger

3 2

Re: Physicspunks
by Anonymous 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

Steve Thompson wrote: >Quoting Anonymous (nobody(a)paranoici.org) >> If a block of a metal is hollowed out and a small port is drilled >> to see in, the radiance of the cavity is substantially higher than >> that of the surface of the metal. As if that weren't shocking >> enough, it turns out that the radiance of cavities is the same no >> matter what kind of metal is used. (This is so counterintuitive >> that I almost don't believe it!) > > This is actually a phenomenal result. If one makes a large enough > apparatus so that the cavity is very, very large with a > correspondingly small port is drilled, you've then got the makings > of a great beam weapon. The radiance of the cavity is only a function of the temperature.

1 0

Digression
by Morlock Elloi 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

Sorry to bother the audience with purely crypto issues, I just wonder if anyone else evaluated this Ferguson's paper on apparent simplicity and therefore insecurity of Rijndael: http://www.xs4all.nl/~vorpal/pubs/rdalgeq.html BTW, where are the archives to that crypto-coding list (whatever the name was) ? ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

2 1

Re: Physicspunks
by Tim May 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

On Thursday, August 16, 2001, at 05:35 PM, Jim Choate wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > >> The photon discussion a few weeks back got me reading about cavity >> radiation. I'm puzzled. Perhaps somebody can point me in the right >> direction. >> >> For those who don't already know, cavity radiation is a surprising >> phenomenon which required quantum theory to model. > > Actually statistical mechanics, not quite the same thing as quantum > theory. But you can't talk about QT w/o SM. No, Anonymous was perfectly correct in saying quanta were required to understand black body radiation. Planck got the Nobel Prize for his work in 1899-1900 on exactly the problem of cavity radiators (furnaces, integrating spheres, black body radiators). --Tim May

1 0

Re: Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity)
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 17 Aug '01

17 Aug '01

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote : >On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> By contrast, Jim Choate was visited by the FBI for one of the show >> trials and offered speculations that I (Tim) am a dangerous person with >> lots of guns and money. The court records show these depositions from >> Choate. No such malicious help came from Declan, at least none in court >> records. > >Liar, check the archives. I never said anybody was dangerous. What I did >say was that I felt the C-A-C-L philosophy was dangerous. I stand by that. >I believe that were the C-A-C-L philosophy to take hold the results would >make the death counts from Nazism and Communism in this century pail in >comparison. > >As to you, the only thing I told them was you worked for Intel, made some >money, retired, live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns, and talked a >lot of crap. > 1 worked for Intel 2 made some money 3 retired 4 live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns 5 and talked a lot of crap. 1-4 you have only read about, not observed 5 is a matter of opinion >Stand by that too. > I guess that I wonder why there was anything more to say than : "I only know what I've read on the net and cannot testify to its accuracy or completeness and any conclusions I've drawn from this reading would be my opinion not facts." with some "I don't recall" s thrown in where appropriate. Mike

4 4