December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: A Libertine Question
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:21 PM 7/29/96, Charley Sparks wrote: >My opinions are just that, MINE but here's a question .. > >In the event that drugs are legalized like alcohol ( also a drug >) and tobacco and cafeine, who will take responsibility for >housing and feeding those, who are now blameless, individuals >who can't or won't take responsibility for themselves and work >or whatever. With freedom and liberty come a lot of >responsibility. Too many people today balme every damn thing in >the world for their problems - and get away with it.... "No one." Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on. Drugs are no different from ethanol. We tried outlawing ethanol, and eventually came to our senses. Many of us--on all sides of the ideological spectrum--think the same is inevitable with other drugs. The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. (Though there are pathological examples of cases where insurance companies are trying to sue tobacco companies for the costs incurred because of smoking by policyholders. A bad, and, I think, dreadfully abusive, use of the court system.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: e$: The Demographic "Transaction" (was Re: Schelling Points...)
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At monday 29 july, Arun Mehta wrote: >As I see it, having more children makes sound economic sense when >you have child labor. You feed the child for 4-5 years, after >which it contributes financially to the family for the rest of >its short life. More stringent enforcement of anti child-labor >legislation would help. Increase in life expectancy is also good, >because then you need fewer children as insurance. The only effect of more stringent enforcement of anti child-labor legislation is to harm the children involved. You may think that the millions of families in Third World countries who are too poor to provide for their children, will be magically become rich enough to send their children to school once the anti child-labor legislation will be enforced. This is not the case. When the factories don't want the children anymore because of the government regulations, the children will simply be working in other places - at home, in the streets. And this is work that pays less. Child labour in the West didn't stop because of anti child-labour laws; it stopped the moment the people became rich enough to provide for their children, thanks to the capitalist revolution in the 18th & 19th century. The same path will have to be followed by the Third World countries today. >The spread of the Internet, and the ability to post anonymously >should help in exposing instances of violation of child-labor >laws, and increasing outrage. Hopefully, it will also make it >easier to spread literacy, which is arguably the best way to keep >population down. Instead of posting to the net to increase outrage about the violations of harmful child labour laws, you better begin posting to the net to increase outrage about the socialist governments in the Third World that keep their populations in poverty. I suggest you read the books of C. Nardanelli: 'Child labour and the industrial revolution' , and F. Hayek (ed): 'Capitalism and the historians'. Bart bart.croughs(a)tip.nl

1 0

Re: Usenet Conference on Security
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:34 PM 7/26/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >As an aside, the stuff Datafellows is selling is, I believe, a >commercial version of SSH, which is very good stuff. Its a full >replacement for the whole berkeley "r" utilities using strong crypto >(public key and conventional) for authentication and privacy. Does >rlogin, rsh, redirects X sessions, slices and dices, etc. Really >spiffy. In addition to SSH, I also picked up a flyer for "F-Secure Desktop", a disk encryption package for Windows. Sorry I didn't pick up their "what we sell" flyer. You should be able to get that information from http://www.datafellows.com or f-Secure-sales(a)datafellows.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

what's a weapon? (fwd)
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message ==================================================================== Newsletter of the IEEE Computer Society's TC on Security and Privacy Electronic Issue 16 July 28, 1996 Carl Landwehr, Editor Hilarie Orman, Assoc. Editor ==================================================================== ... Drawing an analogy with encryption and US ITAR, a poster reported that A piper is being taken to court for practicing on Hampstead Heath, which has a by-law forbidding music. Mr Brooks, the piper, has denied the charge. He claims he wasn't playing a musical instrument, but practicing with a weapon. In 1746 in England, bagpipes were declared to be instruments of war, not musical weapons, and a subsequent Act of Parliament specifically stated that they were weapons. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: Feinstein wants controls on Internet, Books
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Feinstein today introduced an amendment revisiting her 1995 net-censorship amendment tacked onto the anti-terrorism bill. Seeks to ban bomb-making info from the Net and is being marketed in those words, but is not Net-specific. -Declan >One of my senators, Senator Dianne Feinstein, is now arguing on CNN for >controls on information put on the Internet, on censorship of books and >articles describing how pipe bombs work, and for making it easier to get >wiretaps against those suspected of committing thought crimes. > >One or two more major incidents on top of the recent ones (World Trade >Center, Oklahoma City, Dharan, TWA 800, and Olympic Village) and I suspect >Congress will simply vote to repeal the Bill of Rights and just be done >with this whole experiment in liberty. > >--Tim May > >Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! >We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: e$: The Demographic "Transaction"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Before I get started, let me point out that the "demographic transition" is standard fare in sociology classes. Lots of stuff on the Web about it (do a search of that string with Alta Vista, for example, and you'll see 1000 hits). At 7:37 PM 7/29/96, Bart Croughs wrote: >At monday 29 july, Arun Mehta wrote: > > >>As I see it, having more children makes sound economic sense when >>you have child labor. You feed the child for 4-5 years, after >>which it contributes financially to the family for the rest of >>its short life. More stringent enforcement of anti child-labor >>legislation would help. Increase in life expectancy is also good, >>because then you need fewer children as insurance. > >The only effect of more stringent enforcement of anti child-labor >legislation is to harm the children involved. You may think that the >millions of families in Third World countries who are too poor to provide >for their children, will be magically become rich enough to send their >children to school once the anti child-labor legislation will be enforced. >This is not the case. When the (end quote...Bart, your lines are apparently way longer than 72-80 characters!) What I want is for the world's billions of children to have mandated benefits comparable to what the children of the elite in America have! And if there is not enough money to pay for this standard of living, we can just print more! (I would never let _my_ children, Biff and Buffy, interrupt their tennis camp experiences by working a job for less than what they will eventually earn as management coaches and wellness advisors, and I will work to ensure that children in Third World nations are not similarly disgraced by doing manual labor. And if they and their families go hungry as a result of my principles, they will have won the moral victory. And a few of them might even advance to the finals at Forest Hills!) --Tim May P.S. Since many on the CP list seem to miss signals, this piece reflects my views that the current outrage over "child labor" will merely end up killing a bunch of children who otherwise might have earned enough to eat. Food is not simply distributed for free, and if children cannot find work in Kathy Lee's Sweatshop Apparel Factory, and assuming that "tennis camps" are not the alternative, the effect of First World holy righteousness will be killing off a lot of these kids. Maybe not such a bad thing, given the 7 billion world population. Even better, of course, would be adopting a laissez-faire approach. Me, I wear linen/cotton shirts produced in Bangla Desh, probably by hordes of poorly-paid Bengalis. But, since the likely alternative for them is sitting in the mud swatting horseflies and watching the water buffaloes until starvation eventually claims them, I feel great about wearing "slave labor-produced" goods! And why can't we work to outlaw the "manufacturing sector jobs" in the U.S. economy, the ones that only pay $22 an hour for boring labor? After all, $22/hour is hardly enough to send Biff and Muffy to tennis camp, let alone the proper prep schools, let alone the $250K needed to send them to a good Ivy League school. These blue-collar workers are being exploited by the capital class and need to be liberated from these jobs. Let them eat cake. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: "Soft Targets" as Schelling Points
by eli+＠gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May writes: >The connection should be clear, but in case it is not: many soft targets >are Schelling points for terrorist actions. I see no coordination problem here. Schelling points are a useful concept when you have several actors, each of whom benefits from making the same choice as the others. Here, I think you want to say "soft targets are easy to attack". -- Eli Brandt eli+(a)cs.cmu.edu

1 0

CBO study of electronic payment systems now on Web
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:16:31 -0400 From: PHILIP WEBRE <philipw.nrd(a)cbo.gov> To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: CBO study of electronic payment systems now on Web The new Congressional Budget Office study on electronic payment systems (ASCII or Word Perfect Formats available) is now available at: gopher://gopher.cbo.gov:7100/1 The Executive Summary Follows: July 1996 EMERGING ELECTRONIC METHODS FOR MAKING RETAIL PAYMENTS Financial intermediaries such as banks and credit card companies are developing products that will enable consumers and businesses to pay for retail, or small-dollar, purchases electronically. Increasingly cheaper computing power and advances in data communications technology have made those new payment methods possible. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study Emerging Electronic Methods for Making Retail Payments examines the effect the new forms of payment will have on the market for retail payments and the issues they will raise for federal policy. The two primary types of payment being advanced for use in retail purchases are prepaid stored-value cards and on-line payments made with personal computers through the Internet. Stored-value cards will function much like prepaid mass transit or phone cards but could substitute for cash in small-dollar purchases. Payments proposed for use over the Internet will include both familiar and new methods. Familiar methods use existing credit cards and checking accounts that are suitably modified for secure on-line use. Breaking new ground, several companies have proposed or issued types of on-line scrip, which essentially functions like privately issued traveler's checks. This study assesses the market potential for stored-value cards and on-line payments by analyzing both the current use of cash in the economy and the specific markets commonly cited as likely candidates for such payment methods. An eventual market for stored-value cards of $20 billion yearly is not inconceivable but will develop gradually. The introduction of electronic payment methods raises a number of policy issues. Existing laws and regulations, for example, do not clearly cover some of the new methods, or cover them only under certain circumstances. Questions arise as to whether the balances of stored-value cards and on-line scrip will be covered by deposit insurance or be subject to reserve requirements, and whether consumers will be protected by current regulations that limit liability for unauthorized use of credit cards and electronic fund transfers. Even in areas that existing laws cover--such as antitrust policy and law enforcement against money laundering, fraud, and tax evasion--applying and enforcing those laws may be more difficult. Two major concerns are the effect of the new payment methods on monetary policy and the effect of having nondepository institutions issue them. Issuance by firms other than federally regulated depository institutions raises competitive issues and concerns about the safety and soundness of the financial system. Given the expected small size of the market for electronic payments, however, monetary policy and the financial system are unlikely to be seriously affected. Questions about the study should be directed to Judith Ruud or Philip Webre of CBO's Natural Resources and Commerce Division at (202) 226-2940. The Office of Intergovernmental Relations is CBO's Congressional liaison office and can be reached at 226-2600. For additional copies of the study, please call the Publications Office at 226-2809. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

Re: Secure drive?
by Geoffrey C. Grabow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:56 07/29/96 -0700, Alan Olsen wrote: >At 11:31 AM 7/29/96 -0400, you wrote: >>Greetings all, >> Does anyone know if the 1.4a version works correctly with Win95? If not, >>is there an updated version? If not, will there be one anytime soon? If >>not, will PGPLIB (aka PGP3.0) provide a similar function? If not... heck! > >My understanding is that is does. I need to test if the new version also >works with the Zip Drive. (It used to not, but it was supposed to get fixed...) > >I will be trying it soon and will post my results to the list... > > I assume that when you say that "it does", this means that I can access the encrypted drive from Win95. If so, can you tell me how. I have a 50mb partition that's encrypted and if I boot to DOS everything works perfectly, but from Win95, the drive is always encrypted. I've tried entering my passphrase prior to Win95 loading... no effect. If I try to enter my pp from a DOS box, it says that the SECTSR isn't loaded, but MEM says that it is. Any thoughts? G.C.G. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Geoffrey C. Grabow | Great people talk about ideas. | | Oyster Bay, New York | Average people talk about things. | | gcg(a)pb.net | Small people talk about people. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | PGP 2.6.2 public key available at www.pb.net/~wizard | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | That which does not kill us, makes us stranger. - Trevor Goodchild | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

2nd CDA decision in....
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just heard: Us folks 2, Ralph Reed & the Thought Police, 0. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: Secure drive?
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I assume that when you say that "it does", this means that I can access the >encrypted drive from Win95. If so, can you tell me how. I have a 50mb >partition that's encrypted and if I boot to DOS everything works perfectly, >but from Win95, the drive is always encrypted. I've tried entering my >passphrase prior to Win95 loading... no effect. If I try to enter my pp >from a DOS box, it says that the SECTSR isn't loaded, but MEM says that it >is. Any thoughts? Sort of. Open "Control Panel." Open "System." Click the "Performance" tab. Click the <V>irtual Memory radio button. Check/select "Let <m>e specify my own virtual memory settings." Check Di<s>able virtual memory (not recommended). Click the "OK" radio button. Ignore the warning dialog box which appears and click "Yes." Reboot WIN95 and your encrypted partition should be accessible (if you log into it under DOS before loading Windows), and all your drives will be operating at 16-bit speeds. DCF

1 0

Re: DES-Busting Screen Savers?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:28 AM 7/24/96 -0700, Steve Reid wrote: >On the subject of choosing keys randomly, rather than dividing up the >keyspace... > >This seems like a very good idea to me. > >One potential problem is actually choosing the random keys. Have to be >able to get entropy at a fast rate, and/or use a good PRNG. I think you chose your starting place in the key space and then proceed sequentially from there. However, if it turns our that gray code increments of the key can reduce the key setup time, then you would want to use that ordering of the key space for the "next" key to try. Another possibility is to work in randomly chosen blocks of 1000 to 1,000,000 or so keys. This approach would reduce the cost of getting good random numbers to manageable levels. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Parsing JYA; now others?
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Say, Duncan - you can do John Young, but can you make any sense of this? >From: doghead(a)psyclone.com (Blowjob Jesus) Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc Subject: Re: ! Blacklist Spammers and Rogue ISP's !!!!!!!!!! Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 01:08:56 GMT Organization: The Mighty Psyclone - Gonna Blow Yer Mind Lines: 56 Message-ID: <31f6c6d2.439333(a)news.alpha.net> References: <4t59aq$3n0(a)park.interport.net> Reply-To: doghead(a)psyclone.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.104.253 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 On Wed, 24 Jul 96 13:41:28 GMT, tonyb(remove this garbage to email me)(a)interport.net (tony brower) wrote: >Conventional response to spam is completely ineffective. Farflung was the offense, easy is the time spent drinking salad dressing. Christian Dior, well-known parking ticket, adds his pickle fork. >Nothing currently prevents the abuser from getting another account in >another name and continuing the practise. Wendigo spake in gruff pebbles, like unto a Timex! Reginald Denny left the room with scanners on full auto. >Even ISP's spam their adverts across newsgroups. Freedom, paged in 4k chunks, permeates UDP. There never was a governor. The double nickle blowed up good. >Why can't people who spam and otherwise abuse Usenet for commercial purposes >be blacklisted? Approved for your convenience, in sterile jello molds. The Lawnboy nods assent. >e.g. after first warning, no more accounts allowed from that Credit Card or >other payment source. The sun, a gaseous ball of tomato paste and model trains, is lost among clouds of thankfullness. >Why can't providers who refuse to curtail abuse from their customers also be >blacklisted and shut out from the net? >e.g. If ISP's are held responsible for abuse by their customers they'll >enforce nettiquette ("abide by the rules or lose your account here and >anywhere for one year"). Irresponsible ISP's will lose customers to those >ISP's who care. Hell, let them make their own net for cycling and recylcing >commercial, make money fast and sex #'s posts. OJ Simpson skirvined the net and was clarified. When failed and not sanguine, there was no response to the 'sturm und drang.' >Isn't this the fastest way to clean out all the junk that has permeated the >newsgroups posted by inconsiderate, greedy assholes (who have NOTHING to fear >by conventional response)? Response time is minimal. Lost among oceans of billiard balls made of styrofoam - tiny marmots build complicated nests of velveeta. Regroup? --

2 1

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I find it funny that I'm considered Conservative by most people who know me. Your opinion may vary. ;-) tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their >paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when >people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on. One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much". I know the social psychology explanation that people who view the world as ordered attach these types of judgements to situations which violate their ordered view of the world. "She was just asking for it dressed like that..." However, now I'm puzzled. From what I've read of Tim May, he does not hold such an orderly view of the world. The "rules" of existence may prove to be deterministic, but the results are chaotic. So Tim, where are these moral judgments coming from? >The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or >who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being poor or indigent a crime. Curfews being a recently discussed example. If the equation is one of economics, then "who takes care of" people does indeed enter the equation. I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall behind. Think: Soylent Green. Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say. James

4 4

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sure, we'll just set up our own [i/I]nternet...(We need a letter between upper and lower case...) It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't include any of the networking equipment or cost of the machines....is this a troll or what? Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: From: Scottauge @ aol.com @ smtp Date: 07/28/96 04:39:39 PM Subject: Just some comments on what I've read here 1) Seems to be some excitment about banning information on the internet here... Setting up a set of computers for a private net is not that big a deal (just some money involved and with the availability of Linux - a UNIX variant - for free make it hardware and telephone costs.) Do it for companies all over (hence the aol address - just a local phone call from anywhere!) and it works just fine. So if people want to play by different rules.. it's possible. Think of it as a members only social club. (I can make computers real hard to get into, but social engineering kicks my butt all the time.) 2) Whats wrong with America? I've been leaning towards Libertarian for some time now. Voted for Ross last time as a message I ain't happy with how things are going over there. Likely gonna vote Harry Brown - my first vote for a Libertarian. (He is seems to have it together versus the others) - but hey, gettin off the subject here.... Seems we are no longer United in these United States... A stranger is not a potential friend or ally but a potential robber, baby raper... you fill in the blank. We're all scared of each other! Something has been happening where rich are pitted against the poor, the working against the non-working, races vs other races. Is it a conspiracy as some of my friends who look for black helicopters say, or a natural reaction of politicians and "leaders" seeing a formula that works and then implementing it. To much Hard Copy and Extra reporting out there too. I don't give a rat's a*s about most of the sh*t their putting out (censorship mine for those with delicate eyes). But US culture has become very valuable and ya gotta get them foreign markets ya know. There was a time when a famil could have a picnic on the white house lawn. Then it got gated, now the street is closed. Our leaders seem to be no longer among us. But it doesn't matter. Some beuracrat (sp) gets a bug up their butt to give you trouble, your f*cked. With a seconds thought and a signature on a peice of paper ya can have your land gone or your bank account cleared or you name it. One second and on to the next thing as far as they are concerned. Can we impeach them? Can we vote for someone else next time? They're a buffer between the ones we can give trouble too. Plus Laws are so damn big these days. It takes a ream of paper (sometimes a whole 3000 page box of paper) to print these things out. You can bet the leg. not reading these things! They got advisors to read over sections and say this is good, this is bad. The real representatives and senators are out looking for campaign money. So damn, I now speculate these guys and gals are letting the advisors put the laws together - again someone not answerable (or even known) to the public. So now, you got legislators not reading the bills they are working on and there is a whole army of serfs ready to make some regulations that are in effect the same as law and ready to start looking for people to bother so they can look busy - and these serfs are not answerable to the public. Sorry, but congress is a part time job as far as I'm concerned. These laws are the result of people with nothing to do. I listen to the TV set and I hear "Oh we gotta law comin to fix this". Bullsh*t. There are plenty of other laws out there to hassle trouble makers with. They didn't nab Capone on murder, but on tax evasion. People fix stuff, not laws. Somebody is measuring their prouctivity by the amount of paper they can spew out of their office. 3) I'm a keen believer in Social Evolution A quick definition: If your a drug addict and your stupid enough to OD, you deserve to die. Another example: Your a drug dealer and ya get shot - oh well. Goes with the choice , dude. We keep protecting people from their choices. We think we are doing a favor for ourselves but I POSTULATE we are not. We keep on fightin nature and it just ain't possible. There just might be a reason for this weedin out process. But I'll admit it - I have a prejudice against stupid people - not mentally hadicapped, but stupid people. Well, thanks for reading my ranting and raving....

1 0

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-29 18:28:06 EDT, you write: > It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 > people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US > per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't > include any of the networking equipment or cost of the > machines....is this a troll or what? > I dunno, are you a nob? As I recall I said the expenses where going to be in the switches (or public networks). Plus I'm thinking the most basic services of telnet, ftp, smtp, and some nnp... Plug two network boards (whether ethernet or X.25 or ATM) into a UNIX computer and you have a router. You cannot tell me that hardware (minus the hardcore ATM/X.25 stuff) is not inexpensive enough to put something together. At least for a few thousand users all sophisticated enough to know how to install a UNIX or Linux system... I'm talking about a club here - not a replacement for the internet. Open up your mind, dude....

1 0

Denning vs. Gilmore
by rod＠wired.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today, Monday, July 29, Dorothy Denning begins her debate vs. John Gilmore over The Absolute Right to Privacy on Wired Online's Brain Tennis site. Do citizens of the world have an "unalienable right" to privacy - or are there reasons why governments ought to have access to our communications? This debate will run daily through August 7. Follow along at http://www.wired.com/braintennis/. To get into the debate yourself, go to: http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.21655 An excerpt of Dorothy's first post today: "I'm not ready to accept 'the cat is out of the bag.' Let's look for a way of enjoying the benefits of encryption without unnecessarily hindering the ability of law enforcement to perform its mission. Let's use encryption for privacy, but also give law enforcement access to communications and computer files when there is probable cause and a judge has issued a court order. In some cases, that access must be surreptitious. Imagine the FBI calling a family boss and saying 'Give me your keys so I can wiretap your phone!'" John Gilmore's first post follows tomorrow. See you there. Best, Roderick Simpson rod(a)wired.com Wired Online

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> wrote: >Uhh, "fail to save" isn't a moral judgement; it's an observable >phenomenon. Either somebody does save money or they don't. I >don't see in Tim's wording any judgement being made. It's a >numerical thing. >If you replace "drink too much," with "drink enough that they", you >get another observable phenomenon. As is the observable phenomenon that some people focus on the details and miss the point. You may also consider this to be a moral judgement. To argue that the cited examples - out of the universe of possible examples - did not imply a moral judgement is an argument useful only for its humour. James

2 1

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

And my point is that you obviously have no clue about running a sizeable net. It looks like you are trying to propose Fidonet. Go ask one of them how much it costs for them to run a node. Any sort of dialup service is pretty much going to limit you to store-and-forward items. Any full-time links attempting to mesh "a few thousand" users is going to quickly exceed my paltry $400K. You might want consider using the main Internet, and looking into encryption... Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: Ryan.Russell, cypherpunks cc: From: Scottauge @ aol.com @ smtp Date: 07/29/96 06:49:45 PM Subject: Re: Just some comments on what I've read here In a message dated 96-07-29 18:28:06 EDT, you write: > It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 > people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US > per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't > include any of the networking equipment or cost of the > machines....is this a troll or what? > I dunno, are you a nob? As I recall I said the expenses where going to be in the switches (or public networks). Plus I'm thinking the most basic services of telnet, ftp, smtp, and some nnp... Plug two network boards (whether ethernet or X.25 or ATM) into a UNIX computer and you have a router. You cannot tell me that hardware (minus the hardcore ATM/X.25 stuff) is not inexpensive enough to put something together. At least for a few thousand users all sophisticated enough to know how to install a UNIX or Linux system... I'm talking about a club here - not a replacement for the internet. Open up your mind, dude....

1 0

New Internet
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-29 19:16:30 EDT, you write: > Any sort of dialup service is pretty much going to > limit you to store-and-forward items. Any full-time > links attempting to mesh "a few thousand" > users is going to quickly exceed my paltry $400K. I agree... but I am also thinking that not one person is picking up the tab. Undoubtedly some systems are going to go up and down also... so - at the beginning - it could be like fidonet. But hopefully it would be more than a bunch of machines calling each other up an bursting information, some may backbone for a while.

1 0

RE: e$: The Demographic "Transaction"
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Let them eat cake. Earlier, in: Re: "Soft Targets" as Schelling Points tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Keep your head down. Are you consciously trying to compare yourself with Marie Antoinette? With so many sans-culottes around, you could succeed. I'd rather be left than dead right. James

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. Perhaps the judgemental tone of these descriptions are clearer to you. Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> wrote: >So you're saying that you made a response to Tim questioning his use of moral judgements just to introduce your own moral judgement? Tim can and does make moral judgements. So do I. So do you. I was curious as to why Tim brought them into an argument that did not need moral judgements to make its point. I suspect that it is more reflexive than carefully thought out, and I think may reflect on some of his core assumptions about society in general. But I don't know, so instead of making my own assumptions, I asked. James Feel free to respond by private e-mail.

1 0

Re: International Standards
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 29 Jul 96 at 6:38, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Mr. Freeh, [..] > clearly impossible -- but to prevent such high-level code > from becoming the international standard, with architecture [..] > Looks like the fibbies (FBI) haven't been reading the "Proceedings of the > IETF". Strong crypto is already an international standard. Methinks they regard as international standards what's built into something like MacOS or Windows. Rob --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:19 PM 7/29/96 EST, jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality >of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. > >The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall >behind. Think: Soylent Green. > >Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say. > >James But many of us believe that coercive "solutions" to life's problems whether right or wrong are no longer possible because technology is in the process of making individuals and small groups "ungovernable" by force. If this is true, whatever the morality of coercive solutions, they will not be able to be applied to the real world. Thus if we designed the Internet (Ver.6) rather than Louis Freeh, his opinion of our design is meaningless. Perhaps the communitarians in the audience will have to fall back on disfellowship as the ultimate sanction (like the early Christians). They won't be able to apply any more advanced weaponry. DCF

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >But many of us believe that coercive "solutions" to life's problems whether >right or wrong are no longer possible because technology is in the >process of making individuals and small groups "ungovernable" by force. Basically, I agree. But as earlier essays have suggested, our current government may just be a Schelling point of sorts among the possible social organizations that can exist. Thus, technology is mearly a different lens to view the same basic interaction among players. The players may move into different equivalence classes, but the basic roles are the same. In other times, alphabets, industrialization, and nuclear weapons could have played similar roles in the upsetting of the status quo. In this context, right and wrong do not need to enter the discussion. However, optimizing each individual's situation does not necessarily result in an optimal situation for the group. This is the basis of the classic prisoner's dilemna from game theory. I understand that for the iterated version, Tit-for-Tat is a stable strategy in that no other strategy will do better and thereby displace it over time in a large population. Tit-for-Tat: Start co-operating. Co-operate if the other party co-operated on the last round. Defect if they defected on the last round. So, how do *we* get crypto widespread? James

1 0