January 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Indo European Origins
by Michael Motyka 14 Jan '03

14 Jan '03

Harmon Seaver <hseaver(a)cybershamanix.com> wrote : > You don't even have to read 14th Cent. lit to experience that. Read > "A > Clockwork Orange" -- most folks find they read about 1/3 to 1/2 before > they go back and start over. Gibson, at least the earlier stuff, like > "Neuromancer", is a bit like that, but Burgess really almost invented > a new language. > I read a few Burgess novels as a teenager - A Clockwork Orange, The Eve of St. Venus, One Hand Clapping, The Wanting Seed and I don't remember them that way. I remember them reading smoothly and clearly without a great struggle. Probably time to revisit one or two just to double-check my old brain. > Language evolves more rapidly than the yours (and Tim's) examples > tho -- look > at innercity blackspeak, especially Chicago. Forget the ebonics jokes > -- this is a genuine language change. Or look at other areas of the > country with older language evolution -- Gullah in So. Caroline, for > instance, a much earlier language specialization. When I was at the > Univ. of So. Alabama in Mobile, I came across a group of country > blacks in a grocery store whose language was totally incomprehensible, > at least to me. I asked black friends about it, and they could mimic > it a bit, but confessed that they too had a lot of difficulty > understanding it, and they were native Mobilians. > I was raised, for the most part, in the deep South, but I've also > come > across many whites there whose speech was very difficult to > understand, and which, I'm sure, if one tried to read an accurate > phonetic rendition, without benefit of body language, would seem be > essentially a foreign language. > I know the experience - in the southern US, in Scotland - it's all English. Really? People are probably creating language constantly like a software evolutionary experiment. Much of it probably dies out. What remains appears to be "speciation". Write much Forth lately? Mike

1 0

Re: Indo European Origins (language mutability, efficiency)
by Michael Motyka 14 Jan '03

14 Jan '03

"Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> wrote : >On Ken's >> > All contemporary natural languages, like all biological species, are >> > the same age. > >At first this parsed because I was thinking in the sense of >"all organisms have ancestries going back the same amount of >time". (And humans aren't the 'goal' of evolution.) Not sure >if non-bioheads got this. Anyway others' complaints clarified >"speciation" --if you are willing to identify a bifurcation point >then you *can* age a species or any other fork --Linux 2.4, >Latin, Corvettes, etc. > I guess bifurcation points and speciation seem very clear because of the aliasing problems in our sampling methods. The speciation exists but is prolly ( probably ) often fuzzier than we think. Almost everyone would say that an American Bison and a Scot's Highland are two different species but they can hybridize. Maybe we non-Biologists measure the distance between "species" inaccurately. >At 10:36 AM 1/14/03 -0800, Michael Motyka wrote: >>An interesting question that arises out of the observation that some >languages >>are relatively static and others - like English - have been changing >steadily. Is >>there any connection between the evolution behavior of the language and >the >>vitality of the culture? I think so. > >"Vitality" is fuzzy. > Choose your measure : population? power? innovation? environmental impact? rate of change? The US seems more vital by some measures. Less so by others. More dangerous to the species by others. >Clearly America admitting everyone (cf Japanese) helps. >Clearly not having an Acadamie Anglaise helps (cf surrender-monkeys). >Electronic media probably help. > >There's an even more interesting technical evolution: >English is also undergoing "entropic refinement" or Hamming-like coding, >as speakers prune or invent for efficiency. > >As it is, it takes fewer letters in English to say something than every >other common language. >Look at the instruction manuals for your domestic appliances. > That is interesting. >Forms (memory requirements) get simpler ---can you believe that the >surrender-monkeys retain >a gender-bit for every friggin object-- and phonetically simpler too. >The sounds get more orthogonal. >Also the influence of immigrants and children and lazy native speakers >who can't tell a "v" from a "w" or "d" from "th", >or remember the 150 irregular verbs. > >Some of this is natural. I've adopted the southern "y'all" because >English has no plural third person and this >ambiguity is annoying when you're emailing to several people. Note also >the efficiency of the contraction. >You hear "data" used as singular enough times, you say fuck it, I'll >have a beer, or several beer [sic]. Talk to >Eastern Europeans long enough, you'll start dropping your articles, >though you may miss the FEC/prompting >and flash back to Boris & Natasha cartoons... > Is the evolution towards a more efficient language an active or passive process? Is it driven by an internal inclination towards expansion, freeing up system resources as it were, or is it a coping mechanism for sensory overload? Mike

1 0

Re: Brinworld: Samsung SCH-V310 camcorder phone
by Bill Stewart 14 Jan '03

14 Jan '03

>>... and they lie about it being 3G (which doesn't exist yet.) > >It's a CDMA2000 phone which is 3G. > >3G networks exist in many parts of the world, although behind schedule in >other parts. The whole "Cell Phones - The Next Generation" thing has been a pure marketing scam from the beginning. It's a popular well-funded scam that got lots of mindshare because it promised lots of people marketshare dominance or other political advantages, that they haven't executed well. But it makes a bunch of assumptions that the world can, will, and should have the same cellphone standard everywhere, and that the marketing people coming up with the term know what it is because they work for the people who are [pick hackneyed phrase here: A: the powerful beings creating the One Ringtone To Rule Them All, B: inevitably, scientific-central-planningally historically destined C: The Phone Company which is really in charge of everything D: the capitalist oligopoly conning our democratic central planners ] which everybody in the world will buy into, including manufacturers, system operators, regulators, and last and certainly least, those enthusiastic customers, and we'll all make scandalously high profits while giving consumers what we _know_ they want to pay tons of money for, because we know that the technology developers are ready to ship this stuff Real Soon Now, at the right price point, And of course, it assumes that everybody will believe that the products _these_ marketing people are trying to sell are the ones that will win, as opposed to the other technology developers who are making obviously substandard products unworthy of becoming CellPhones: TNG, and if somehow one of those other developers gets deployed in some significant market, they'll not only be stuck with some hackneyed name like "2.5G", but consumers will realize that those competing technologies are just opportunists who'll be Left Behind By Progress, so they either won't buy it or at least the wireless companies will dump it for Better Stuff Real Soon, or at least if there's more than one cell-phone company in an area, if the first one buys the 2.5G stuff, anybody else coming in with 3G can steal their customers. They're also depending on it taking long enough for 3G to get deployed and paid for and achieve World Domination that nobody's going to sneak in and call _their_ stuff 4G..... In practice, the real issues seem to be how fast a data channel is available, with the interesting values being 9600, 56k, 384k, 2M, how much spectrum space gets burned supporting it, how much distance you get for the voice and data cells, which standards interfere with which other standards, whether voice gets handled as something special or as data, whether data gets handled as something special like WAP or left as open-standard IP with TCP or UDP and HTTP, with or without being forced through filters or able to be sent through optional filters, how to integrate data transmission with texting (e.g. texting using ad-hoc telco standards or internet standards), how much jitter the data has (low values make VOIP possible), who's in charge of each of these services, which is to say "who gets how much of the money, if any", and how to get teenagers to have to buy it to be cool. These aren't the kind of things that easily fit into one linear range of values, and doing so is marketing scam.

1 0

3G Phones (was: Re: Brinworld: Samsung SCH-V310 camcorder phone)
by Meyer Wolfsheim 14 Jan '03

14 Jan '03

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Steve Mynott wrote: > > ... and they lie about it being 3G (which doesn't exist yet.) > > It's a CDMA2000 phone which is 3G. > > 3G networks exist in many parts of the world, although behind schedule > in other parts. Hmm. I actually can't find any specs on that phone's max speed. The CDMA2000 service being offered by Sprint and Verison in the US does not meet the criteria for 3G. CDMA2000 1x as defined by the ITU is, a 3G standard. Keep in mind, however, that in order to be 3G by the ITU definition, a standard needs to deliver data rates of a minimum of 144 Kbps. The top speed I've seen advertised for CDMA2000 deployments is 70 Kbps. Is CDMA2000 being used outside North America? I thought GSM/GPRS was the dominant standard in Europe and Asia. (GPRS is never 3G.) -MW-

1 0

Re: Brinworld: Samsung SCH-V310 camcorder phone
by Major Variola (ret) 14 Jan '03

14 Jan '03

At 01:38 AM 1/14/03 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > data speeds on cell phones are >getting fast enough that if they've designed the phones right, >you can get at least CU-SeeMe quality video and maybe better, >with 64kbps, and ostensibly 384kbps >But it's a start. Its pretty common to see a "reporter" holding a cell phone up to a talking head surrounded by more conventional microphones, tape recorders. When a major news medium first uses a video snip recorded from a phone at the scene, the Brinworld clock will have advanced another second. And then some Nokia yahoo will introduce some more interesting features that used to be found in $10K specialized video/recording equiptment * snap a frame if something moves (security) * FIFO the last N seconds * low light/IR/frame accumulate etc. making the 7segment LED Brinworld clock blick closer to midnight.

1 0

Fw: CONGRATULATIONS!
by Pallag Mihály 14 Jan '03

14 Jan '03

----- Original Message ----- From: "Pallag Mihály" <m.pallag(a)aikawa.hu> To: <marttiina.sairaenen(a)ts-group.fi> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 5:32 PM Subject: Fw: CONGRATULATIONS! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pallag Mihály" <pmpmpcs(a)freemail.hu> > To: "Pallag Mihály" <m.pallag(a)aikawa.hu> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 8:48 AM > Subject: Fw: CONGRATULATIONS! > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Promotions Manager: LOTTO NL" <lottonl21(a)email.com> > > To: <pmpmpcs(a)freemail.hu> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:45 PM > > Subject: CONGRATULATIONS! > > > > > > > > > > LOTTO NL > > > 72657, NL-2115 DB AMSTERDAM, > > > THE NETHERLANDS > > > > > > > > > From: The Promotions Manager > > > International Lotto/ Prize Award Department. > > > REF: DIAQ34761 DATE: 8th > > January 2003. > > > > > > ATTN: pmpmpcs(a)freemail.hu > > > > > > 9TH NOVEMBER 2002 DRAW RESULTS/ WINNING NOTICE > > > > > > Congratulations! We announce with pleasure that you have emerged as one > of > > the two winners of the Lotto NL ballot draws held on 9th November 2002. > > > > > > Be informed that you are among 15,000 individuals/private companies > > selected by our computer ballot system and have scaled through all three > > draws of the Lotto NL. In line with all Netherlands Lottery Regulations, > the > > Lotto NL has just concluded its annual draws for the year 2002. By our > > procedures, you were allocated to NL lottery ticket number 76-1102-103. > > Ballot 1 and ballot 2 numbers are 1102/545 and 1102/73 respectively, with > > serial number AA5/120920 > > > > > > From the results of the final draws, you have emerged as a Prime winner > in > > the "A" category and therefore entitled to a winning payout amounting to > > US$6,500,000.00. This is from the total amount of US$13,000,000.00 for > > allocated to the two "A" category winners. Your prize money has been > insured > > and credited in your name to file Ref. No. DIAQ34761. You are therefore to > > contact our financial agents to immediately claim your prize. Please find > > contact information below: > > > > > > MR. ARENT DAVIS > > > FINANCE DIRECTOR, > > > SPRINT SECURITIES BV, > > > TEL/FAX: 31 619676795 > > > MOBILE: +8821652070052 > > > FAX: 31 205248276 > > > EMAIL: arentdav2(a)sprintsecurities.com > > > > > > Remember, you must contact your claims officer immediately, on or before > > 15th January 2003 to avoid funds being returned as unclaimed. All > > correspondences to Mr. Arent Davis, either by fax or email, should have > this > > email sent along with it and also, your email address to which this email > is > > sent should be clearly and boldly written in your response. You should > also > > include your reference number. Also, should there be any change of your > > address, do inform your claims officer as soon as possible. > > > > > > Be advised that Lotto regulations prohibit you from publicly disclosing > > your win until you have received your prize money. This is for security > > reasons and to avoid cases of multiple claims processing. The Lotto NL > holds > > exclusive right to terminate your claims processing upon any breach of > this > > condition. > > > > > > Congratulations again from all our staff and thank you for being part of > > our international lotto program. It is our hope that with a part of your > > prize, you will participate in our end of year high stakes US$1.3 billion > > International lotto. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > THE DIRECTOR PROMOTIONS, > > > LOTTO NL > > > http://www.lottonl.com > > > > > > N.B: Any breach of confidentiality on the part of the winners will > result > > in disqualification. Please do not reply this mail. This message is been > > sent to your email address pmpmpcs(a)freemail.hu for purpose of > > confidentiality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

info
by safiya nedjma 12 Jan '03

12 Jan '03

is the lotto a scam? are one of the winners? ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary
by Todd Boyle 12 Jan '03

12 Jan '03

Regarding Tim May, Tyler Durden, and Anonymous's stupid thread, Robert, why are you reposting this shit? This is supposed to be a "Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs(a)philodox.com>". Is killing blacks, or racism, a commonly held belief or practice, in the digital settlement industry? Is this somehow, like, business enhancing for you, in IBUC? For that matter, is there any conceptual association between killing people, and payments with digital currencies? What's your point, in mirroring the worst of the crypto lists? There's plenty of good stuff there... are you doing this to be cool? For the shock value or something? What are you doin? Just entertaining yourself? Whiling away the years? I thought you had some goals, or purpose, in what you're doing. Todd At 02:20 PM 1/12/2003, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >--- begin forwarded text > > >Status: U >Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:30:17 -0800 >Subject: Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary >From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com > >On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 12:55 PM, Sleeping Vayu - Vayu >Anonymous Remailer wrote: > > > At 09:33 PM 01/10/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > >> For all I know, I've been posting on a list haunted by a bunch of > >> crypto-white supremists (crypto, as in secret, hidden). And if that's > >> the case, then I want to know. Figured I'd ask for clarification on > >> this issue. (And from some of May's comments in the past, it wasn't > >> clear to me.) > > > > As a matter of fact, I and Tim May regularly go nigger > > hunting in the hills, me with my SKS. Tim May is not so > > keen on those commie guns, and usually has a good old > > American AR15 > >Though I often favor a eurotrash FN-FAL. > >As for being "crypto-white," the Zionist slur used by Seymour >Goldstein, er, "Tyler Durden," he must be confusing me with my group, >the "Crypto Whites Foundation." > >www.cryptowhites.org is devoted to making strong privacy and crypto >tools available to oppressed persons of whiteness in Europe, America, >and ZOG-occupied Palestine. > >Donations to support my salary are welcome. > > >--Tim May > >--- 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

Re: pray daily
by Adam Stenseth 12 Jan '03

12 Jan '03

Any particular reason this time, or just on general principle? -adam On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Anonymous wrote: > > We must all pray daily that someone will kill Bush ASAP.

1 0

Re: Security cameras are getting smart -- and scary
by Bill Stewart 11 Jan '03

11 Jan '03

At 09:33 PM 01/10/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >For all I know, I've been posting on a list haunted by a bunch of >crypto-white supremists (crypto, as in secret, hidden). And if that's the >case, then I want to know. Figured I'd ask for clarification on this >issue. (And from some of May's comments in the past, it wasn't clear to >me.) If that makes me a moron, so be it. Any time you post to a list of a bunch of people you don't know, you might be posting to a list of a bunch of people you don't like. Reading the archives sometimes helps. It's certainly likely to clarify whether everybody on the list agrees with everybody else on everything, unless you think that the arguments here are robo-generated to make it _look_ like we're not all really just different tentacles of Tim May, the Medusa of Crime. (Or was Tim really a tentacle of Eric? At this point I've forgotten :-)

2 1