December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

true in the near term: "Why M$ has won" (I@week)
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> this echos my feelings on what actions Gates will take in the near term. frankly, the sooner he does it, the better off we will be --this needs to be done before the special master makes his recommendations in May and Gate$' actions will hopefully incense enough people that they will ask for his head on a platter. --the issue in my mind is that the wheels of justice turn too slowly. Why Bill Gates won By Tom Steinert-Threlkeld December 12, 1997 5:11 PM PST Inter@ctive Week Online Netscape Communications Corp.'s stock finished up 6 percent Friday and Microsoft Corp.'s fell 1.7 percent. While still early in the game, it may be that Netscape's shareholders are applauding U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson too soon. In the meantime, Microsoft's owners may be the ones that should be shaking his hand. Best as these eyes can tell, nothing in the 19-page ruling issued late Thursday says Microsoft can't bundle its Internet Explorer browser with its Windows operating system. Nor does anything in the ruling say Microsoft can't integrate its browser into its operating system. Instead, it says it can't use licensing tactics to achieve a dominance in browsers. "Whether or not the government has correctly defined Microsoft's intentions, the probability that Microsoft will not only continue to reinforce its operating system monopoly by its licensing practices, but might also acquire yet another monopoly in the Internet browser market, is simply too great to tolerate indefinitely until the issue is finally resolved." So, it can't coerce computer makers to license the IE browser as a condition of licensing the Windows operating system, forcing them to install both onto the machines they sell to the public. If "licensing practices'' turns out to be the crux of all this, big deal. That simply gives Jim Barksdale and his jubilant troops a few months in which to try and work new deals with computer makers before Microsoft gets really aggressive. After all, what Judge Jackson has done is given Microsoft a better view of the playing field before it. It clearly will not be able to argue effectively that a product that it also sells as a stand-alone product to PC users can be considered an "integral element'' of the machine's operating system. Duh. So, now, if you're in Bill Gates' typically ultra-aggressive shoes, does this slow you down? No, it could speed you up. You simply come out with your fully integrated operating system, where the features of the browser are built-in essentials. You dissipate demand for the browser as a separate product. Of course, this puts, as SoftLetter publisher Jeffrey Tarter puts it, "tremendous pressure on them [Microsoft] to integrate the products fully, so there's no question that IE is not a separate product.'' But, if you're Mr. Bill with a 90 percent share of the desktop operating system market, isn't that the goal anyway? As soon as you release Windows 98, you simply stop selling IE as an independent product. Cede, for a while anyway, the Unix and Mac markets to Netscape. And then see whether the market does marginalize the market for an independent product called a browser - where there already are no margins today. Then, to keep up with Netscape's "high-performance'' browser (which you start to call a "utility"), you simply update your operating system more often. Windows June, perhaps? Microsoft simply achieves, over a longer period of time, the dominance it sought anyway. Only the clock starts ticking sooner than if it had left IE as an independent product. Computer makers are not going to stop providing their customers with an operating system. The Department of Justice and Microsoft's Silicon Valley opponents, of course, will try to push the point that browsers must stay separate. But it's unclear how strong the legal lineage is behind the idea that once a product is an independent product, it always must stay an independent product. If you're Bill Gates, do you sit back and wait to see how this issue resolves itself in court? Or do you push down the pedal in the marketplace. You'd have to believe he's shown his inclination many times in the past. And his shareholders count themselves the beneficiaries. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNJfkD7R8UA6T6u61AQFTTAH9Fh/Mp/QluofgTSebYMRTz+t5eie3KEu6 3xM7nC7SPAUZPA0z4mlrWkdnKm+IPwRGqWbCDo/cAO0bnFipdDFr6Q== =0Xyp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: "The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- unfortunately, Stallman's "The Right to Read" is no longer science fiction. Clinton signed the revised copyright law, with the abridgement of fair use, punishable by rather draconian fines, the 16th. technically, it is quite feasible to force the use of the "thin client" which can contain unmodifiable firmware identification and authentication. add an LCD minicam to the CPU coded monitor and retinal identification can be employed. Dan and Lissa joined the Luna revolution when they were unable to read the research papers after their student grants expired and the thin client workstations banned their own writings without a captive association. MicroSoft refused to store their data without a government license, and paper copies were banned. Dan and Lissa were aboard the last passenger capsule before the government initiated non-consenual innoculation with a temperature variation powered data ID microchip under the skin of your right wrist. notes: 1. _if_ history is written accurately (even if it is slanted to be Clinton correct), it will show that FDR changed the American government and financial management, and Clinton destroyed the freedom of information. inevitable, I suppose, since Hillary communes with Eleanor. 2. Microsoft actually has a proposal out to major companies to provide massive data farm banks... just adding another chink in Billy's drive to control information --the ultimate aphrodisiac. - - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:41:21 -0500 From: Richard Stallman <rms(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: Feb CACM Here is my CACM story. It is my first published work of science fiction. Copyright (C) 1996 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying is permitted provided this notice is preserved. This article appeared in the February 1997 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 40, Number 2). The Right to Read by Richard Stallman (from "The Road To Tycho", a collection of articles about the antecedents of the Lunarian Revolution, published in Luna City in 2096) For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college--when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan. This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do. And there wasn't much chance that the SPA--the Software Protection Authority--would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishment--for not taking pains to prevent the crime. Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from a middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her reading fees. Reading his books might be the only way she could graduate. He understood this situation; he himself had had to borrow to pay for all the research papers he read. (10% of those fees went to the researchers who wrote the papers; since Dan aimed for an academic career, he could hope that his own research papers, if frequently referenced, would bring in enough to repay this loan.) Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory. There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger. Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison. Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises. It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers--you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that. Dan concluded that he couldn't simply lend Lissa his computer. But he couldn't refuse to help her, because he loved her. Every chance to speak with her filled him with delight. And that she chose him to ask for help, that could mean she loved him too. Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable--he lent her the computer, and told her his password. This way, if Lissa read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It was still a crime, but the SPA would not automatically find out about it. They would only find out if Lissa reported him. Of course, if the school ever found out that he had given Lissa his own password, it would be curtains for both of them as students, regardless of what she had used it for. School policy was that any interference with their means of monitoring students' computer use was grounds for disciplinary action. It didn't matter whether you did anything harmful--the offense was making it hard for the administrators to check on you. They assumed this meant you were doing something else forbidden, and they did not need to know what it was. Students were not usually expelled for this--not directly. Instead they were banned from the school computer systems, and would inevitably fail all their classes. Later, Dan would learn that this kind of university policy started only in the 1980s, when university students in large numbers began using computers. Previously, universities maintained a different approach to student discipline; they punished activities that were harmful, not those that merely raised suspicion. Lissa did not report Dan to the SPA. His decision to help her led to their marriage, and also led them to question what they had been taught about piracy as children. The couple began reading about the history of copyright, about the Soviet Union and its restrictions on copying, and even the original United States Constitution. They moved to Luna, where they found others who had likewise gravitated away from the long arm of the SPA. When the Tycho Uprising began in 2062, the universal right to read soon became one of its central aims. Author's Note: The right to read is a battle being fought today. Although it may take 50 years for our present way of life to fade into obscurity, most of the specific laws and practices described above have already been proposed--either by the Clinton Administration or by publishers. There is one exception: the idea that the FBI and Microsoft will keep the root passwords for personal computers. This is an extrapolation from the Clipper chip and similar Clinton Administration key-escrow proposals, together with a long-term trend: computer systems are increasingly set up to give absentee operators control over the people actually using the computer system. The SPA, which actually stands for Software Publisher's Association, is not today an official police force. Unofficially, it acts like one. It invites people to inform on their coworkers and friends; like the Clinton Administration, it advocates a policy of collective responsibility whereby computer owners must actively enforce copyright or be punished. The SPA is currently threatening small Internet service providers, demanding they permit the SPA to monitor all users. Most ISPs surrender when threatened, because they cannot afford to fight back in court. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1 Oct 96, D3.) At least one ISP, Community ConneXion in Oakland CA, refused the demand and was actually sued (https://www.c2.net/ispdc/) The SPA is said to have dropped this suit recently, but they are sure to continue the campaign in various other ways. The university security policies described above are not imaginary. For example, a computer at one Chicago-area university prints this message when you log in (quotation marks are in the original): "This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals using this computer system without authority or in the excess of their authority are subject to having all their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized user may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University regulations system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to University authorities and/or law enforcement officials." This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure most everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it. References: The administration's "White Paper": Information Infrastructure Task Force, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (1995). An explanation of the White Paper: The Copyright Grab, Pamela Samuelson, Wired, Jan. 1996 (http://www.hotwired.com/wired 4.01/features/whitepaper.html). Sold Out, James Boyle, New York Times, 31 March 1996 (http://www.ese.ogi.edu/sold.out.html) Public Data or Private Data, Washington Post, 4 Nov 1996 (http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/displaySearch?WPlate+33653+%28databas… geneva%29%3Adescription%26and%2619961102%3Cevent%5Fdate). Union for the Public Domain--a new organization which aims to resist and reverse the overextension of intellectual property powers. For more information, see http://www.public-domain.org/. Bio: Richard Stallman received the 1990 ACM Grace Murray Hopper award for developing GNU Emacs. He is also the author of the free symbolic debugger GDB, and founded the project to develop the free GNU operating system. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNJ1Q1LR8UA6T6u61AQGpJwH+IZSj9oeAsjl3o9ikGH8a/BESVPNqew94 bHJkfS6+CA9n79GZhgZ6goej4z023gx/evuHHqqTL9UQDNroOWQFHA== =d7kR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Completely anonymous communications ARE only for "Criminals"
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > :That's the whole point of using remailers -- so that some country that wants > :to be tyrranical can't hunt down someone in another country that does something > :it considers "politically incorrect". If something annoys you, then stop > :reading it. Killfile the author. Killfile all remailers if you like. Don't > :use dynamite (pun intended) to exterminate cockroaches. > > So what do you do in those instances where you're slandered continously in > USENet by someone posting anonymously. In the non-cyber world, the speaker > would be held responsible. Who's held responsible when it's commited in > USENet? I'm assuming that you really meant to refer to libel (written) rather than slander (verbal). I suspect that there is very little that can be done, and that holds true for non-anonymous posts as well. Just looking at some of the massive cross-posts with subject lines that say "So-and-so is a pedophile" (some of them with Netcom addresses who seem to be able to hang onto their accounts despite making such accusations), I'd say that usenet is a different ballgame from the print media where for-profit publishers have deeper pockets. The problem with tort laws is that to successfully sue for libel you have to prove damages as well as prove that what was said was false. Thus, you'd have to prove to a jury that someone made a defamatory statement about you that was false, that people believed it, and that your reputation has suffered measurably as a result. Identifying the person who posted the message is only a small part of the problem. Moreover, if the plaintiff has attained the status of a "public figure", he has to prove additionally that the defendant KNOWINGLY and MAILICIOUSLY published FALSE information. Thus, if you said that Clinton sexually harassed Paula Jones, it's unlikely that the President could sue you and win. He'd have to prove that you knew the accusation was false and made it anyway with malicious intent. The problem with libel via usenet is that in order to win you'd have to prove that you had an impeccable reputation until someone defamed you with a usenet post, people believed the post, and now your name is mud because of it. An anonymous post would be even more problematic, since you'd have to persuade a jury that people who'd previously believed you to be a fine upstanding netizen were convinced otherwise by a nameless accuser. Usually the people who will believe dirt about someone are those who already suspect he's a no-good-so-and-so, so it'd be hard to make a legal case for his reputation being diminished. > :Are you offering to donate the disk space? If you can convince Hotmail and > :other providers to do what you're suggesting, and provided they properly > :inform all new and existing users of this new policy far enough in advance > :to make other plans if they so desire, I would not object. > > Hotmail DOES know who signs up and uses their mail service (at least the > connection information such as IP and provider. That's probably reason enough for someone who truly needs anonymity to avoid such a service. The problem is that once it's known that the identifying information exists somewhere, the keeper of that information becomes a target for coercion, bribery, hacking, burglary, etc. > :And if the remailer stored no information to tempt litigious individuals, > :firms, and governments, then that problem would be solved altogether. > It's the same principle that stores > :use when they leave their cash registers EMPTY and UNLOCKED at night. A thief > :will often cause more damage to the cash register breaking into it than the > :amount of the money that it contains. What you're suggesting is that the > :person's privacy be violated BEFORE any law is broken, just in case he MIGHT > :break a law later. > > There's still no way to do something even if the law has already been broken. If someone has already been convicted of an offense that involved the internet, it might be possible to suggest that one condition of any probation or parole be to avoid using the internet, similar to what happens when one is convicted of drunk driving. Many jurisdictions allow victim input into the sentencing/parole process. (I'm not advocating this, merely pointing out that it's possible.) > :It's your choice. Go visit the list of remailers currently in operation and > :count how many there are. If it's too much trouble for you to send a single > :block request, CCed to a dozen or so addresses, then you probably don't have > :a strong enough case to go to court, obtain a warrant or subpoena, either. > :By the time you go through that process, you'll have invested far more time > :and effort than sending an e-mail or two to prevent the problem. > > He's saying someone's harassing him. (Sounds like in USENet and Email) > Blocking your address only helps the email part. Not USENet. No, actually he was saying that he wasn't worrying about someone doing it TO HIM, but he was worrying (vicariously) about other potential victims. Yes, usenet is a different story and by its very nature it can never be totally offense-free. The best remedy there is to use a killfile, or even avoid some NGs altogether, especially unmoderated ones, where one is likely to be offended by what he reads. The problem is that devising workable solutions to problems that don't yet exist is much more difficult that resolving problems that do already exist. And that's doubly true if the person refuses to implement the preventive measures already suggested. It's sort of like saying, "Why should I be careful with that hot coffee? I'll just wait until it spills and injures me, then I can sue someone!" > :If it's not serious enough for you to request that your e-mail address > :be blocked, then why should the authorities think it's serious enough to > :devote the resources to hunt down your harasser? > > Blocking all remailers means you get _NO_ anonymous posts. Pretty serious when > you've only a problem with one abuser, no? It wasn't intended as universal advice. But since his premise was that 'Completely anonymous communications ARE only for "Criminals"', it seemed a wise precaution FOR HIM to take if he wanted to prevent any of those "criminals" from bothering him. > :If the only purpose of anonymous e-mail is to break the law, then why > :WOULDN'T you want to block it? Do you have some reason you'd want to hear > :from people you consider lawbreakers? > > I still think he's mistaken by thinking that all who post anonymously are > lawbreakers. I do too. But his premise was used to support his suggested remedy. If an anonymous user is NOT presumed to be a criminal, then you can't justify treating him like one. > It's like anything else in life, a few assholes ruining things > for everyone. So true ... of remailers, of Netcom and AOL accounts, usenet, and the internet in general. But they'll only ruin it if you let them. Trolls and flaming predate the internet itself and go back to Fidonet and BBSes in general. (I wouldn't doubt that people were lamenting the misuse of free speech back in ancient Greece.) It's sort of like cable TV. There's enough bandwidth (excluding outright spammers for the moment) that you can choose the "channels" with what you perceive to have a sufficient signal to noise ratio, and avoid the rest. Everyone has his own threshold. That's why many NGs come in both moderated and unmoderated flavors. > :> If someone really wants to send me email, there > :> is no way I can prevent it short of not allowing any untrusted > :> accounts to email me. And that's reducing my lifestyle. It's giving > :> in. > : > :That's your choice. The solution exists if you choose to use it. > > It's a lousy solution that only cures part of the problem. In an imperfect world, you often have to settle for the best you can get, being careful that you don't enact a cure that's worse than the disease. > :> Only within a single country. With an international network like this > :> one, it is ridiculously easy to get around the laws of any one > :> country. Getting around the laws of EVERY country on the net is a lot > :> harder, and should rightly be so. > : > :So if somebody in Argentina decides to harrass someone in England, how would > :what you're proposing solve that problem? > > If they weren't posting anonymously, there'd be things that could be done. > But if they're posting anonymously, how wouyld you know they were in > Argentina? You wouldn't. But if you'd jumped through all the hoops to hunt down the anonymous annoyance and the trail led to Argentina, then the spirit of non-cooperation between the Brits and the Argentines might well mean that the trail ends right there. Or take it a step further. Suppose the Argentine remailer cooperated, and told the authorities that the message in question was chained through a remailer in Germany. And so on... Politas' solution is conditioned on an ideal world where everyone cooperated with everyone else. What he cited as the protection an anonymous poster would have against an oppresive regime is also why his scheme would not work. Very little in the way of abuse goes on on the Internet that would be universally recognized as criminal by EVERY country. Not all countries deem copyright violations, posting kiddie porn, libel, blasphemy, sedition, posting birth control information, or even bomb-making recipes as actionable offenses worthy of governmental intervention to identify and prosecute the culprit. Take "libel", for example. Let's suppose a law were enacted today to make defaming the President of the United States a criminal offense. How much success do you think you'd have in forcing a remailer in Libya or Iraq to aid in hunting down such an offender? - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ1P1wbp0h8ZvosNAQFaRAf+NfkhWJpic1Ha6d7V5qmf5OmJ3GFTcTdw FFfaC+fIG2SD2I/lJ7Oe1zDengWLFCdr+N25TT5H0zUhjm22NUDc9A1JVH0J4Xes haSNeA8XhON2f2SF9XS8EQebfXyIAj0m7c8f2HeecRVZC+MBCR1uXqotL5l8J4bA 1WXG/GCIId9JLMC0oi5W26XHwefu1UP3uYd13Z1AFOVfi7lTFh15YOOTfwlRjgl2 Aion64yujcjq6z7voNuidaz3HQVQmgwmeZKGeYJ935HzpA0XTYu/xr9L5p+gbmE3 S33fzHwgljymm6joJzUK8x/u3rrChp5a6O7qL07U5ZmgotQv7I0YDw== =tkvg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Why I Support Microsoft
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Over the years I've sometimes joined in on the jokes about Microsoft and Bill Gates...the jokes about the Borg, assimilation, and the habits of Gates. And I've lately really enjoyed the "Saturday Night Live" skits involving Bill Gates interrupting the Pope to announce that Microsoft has merged with Christmas, and so on. As a longtime Macintosh user, and only occasional user of MS products, it's mostly of entertainment value to me to see what MS is doing. (Caveat: I used Microsoft Basic on Intel MDS systems (8080-based), circa 1977-78, bought a PC in the early 80s, bought "Microsoft Word" Version 1.00 when most people were buying Samna Word, Wordstar, and other such vanished products, and even bought the execrable, terrible, crufty, horrible "Windows 1.0" when it first came out, circa 1984. And for my Macintosh, I bought Microsoft Word 1.05 and used it for many years in various versions. I currently use no Microsoft products on a daily basis.) Anyway, the recent government actions against Microsoft are reprehensible to any person who values liberty. Microsoft is being punished for its success. The appearance of Ralph Nader, Jamie Love, and executives of Netscape (who are miffed that _their_ attempted monopoly is being threatened by MS!), in the (ironic) "Microsoft Bash," along with opportunistic actions by various states' attorney generals, and with judges imposing million dollar a day fines..... Well, it's all a familiar pattern. I hate to say it, but read parts of "Atlas Shrugged" to see this piling on, this "taking down the successful a few notches" behavior. Attila T. Hun is, for some reason, bashing MS a lot. I'll use one of his posts to make some specific points: At 10:15 AM -0700 12/21/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: >> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge Friday told Microsoft >> Corp. he easily uninstalled the company's Web browser >> without breaking Windows 95 and ordered company officials to >> explain why they could not do the same. "Windows 95 >> functioned flawlessly" with Internet Explorer uninstalled, >> U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson told Microsoft. >> > mistake #1: dont piss off a federal judge --let alone > try to show that he is ignorant. PC makers like Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc., are in fact perfectly free to bundle Netscape Navigator (or whatever the Do Everything version is called) with their systems. Microsoft is then perfectly free, in a free society, to say "Fine, then don't put Windows on your machines." Right? Customers can then make their choices. Or can buy Windows in the nearest software store. The way it used to be done. Yielding to pressure from the court, MS is now allowing PC makers to also include Netscape Navigator. Well, none have yet elected to do so...quite probably because Netscape is _charging_ for this, and MS is not. (To Ralph Nader, and perhaps even to Attila, that MS is _giving_ away its browser, free for the download and free to the PC vendors, is itself a crime.) ... > this is my one big fear: the DOJ will accept a plea > bargain like they did last time and it will be back > to business as usual for M$ --and they will be back in > court within a year having gained even more horizontal > and vertical control of the entire communications > and information industries --and claiming again that > they are misunderstood --and complying with the order, > etc. Customers are voting with their pocketbooks. They like the MS offerings more than they like the competing offerings...of which there are still many. (Macintosh, Unix in several flavors (incl Linux), and loyal followings for older OSes. Sun and Oracle and others are pushing for Java-based systems to obsolete the MS products. This is a major struggle which analyses about Microsoft's "domination" seem to ignore.) > > there is only one solution to organizations like M$ > which are operated without ethics: treat them to the > pleasures of not only the antitrust laws but the > exquisite delights of RICO. I cannot understand how Attila can so enthusiastically support this. His "exquisite delights" even recalls Torquemada and the Inquistion. A suitable term for what is being to MS, in my view. > M$ is a cancer; it has fully metasticized and is gorging > itself at the banquet of the vanquished. Ralph Nader would probably be interested in hiring ATH as a speech writer. .... > anyway, just think where M$ would be with Royce today! > Gate$ and Ballmer might be down at the local MCC for a > few free 3 hots and a cot, all expenses paid, "enjoying" > a well earned vacation from screwing all of us. I take it that ATH means that because something like 20 or 30 million Americans chose to buy Windows 95 (and thus gain the benefits we Macintosh users have had for many years :-}) that this means "we" were screwed? > Other than the usual ills of a monopoly, what really > irks anyone with a modicum of intelligence is that Gate$ > intends to migrate the entire package for the benefit of > the couch potatoes; Gate$ intends to dictate not only > what we use to view his trash, but that only his trash > is splashed. Why not pick on Intel? Intel is, if anything, even more of a "monopoly" than MS is. While customers have some reasonable choices in OSes (Windows/NT, Unix, Linux, Macintosh, AmigaOS, Inferno, Java-based developments, etc.), the fact is that all of the surviving OSes are being ported to the Intel platform (pace recent announcements by Sun that Solaris will be on Merced at its rollout in 1999, and earlier announcements by H-P, DEC, and IBM along the same lines). But neither MS nor Intel are "monopolies." They are just the People's Choice. Which always tends to cluster...the big really do get bigger. For awhile, at least, until the paradigm shifts and the big can't adapt quickly enough. Of the 10 biggest chip makers in 1970, all are distant seconds to Intel, the world's largest producer of chips, in dollar amount. (And in total square meters of silicon output.) .... >> After the hearing Friday, Christine Varney, a former Federal >> Trade Commissioner now representing Netscape, was jubilant. >> "I think the judge has understood the seriousness of the >> issue," she said. >> > she had every reason to be jubilant --so far. even if > the judge did not fully understand the technological > bullshit M$ was trying to slide on by, the judge fully > understands that M$ was trying to blind pitch him --and > insulting him to boot. Of _course_ she's jubilant! Netscape wants its "rightfully-earned monopoly" back! Has anyone forgotten that in 1995 it was looking like Netscape would be on 95% of all desktops, Windows, Mac, and Unix, and that it was turning into the Big Bad Monopoly? Are memories really that short? Netscape has been using its legal manouvers to attempt to stop Microsoft from horning in on _its_ monopoly. (I hate using the term "monopoly," but if critics of MS are going to use it, hey, when in Rome....) >> Microsoft stock closed at $128.69, down $2.19 on NASDAQ, >> where it was among the most active issues. > yes, down almost 20 points since their fiasco with the > DOJ started. before it's over, I hope to see M$ listed > with the junk bonds and issues --in the penny stocks. > Yep, sort of the way Netscape stock went from its IPO price of around $25 (in today's shares) to $80 when it looked like Netscape Navigator and related products were going to be the Next Big Monopoly....and then plummeted down to the $30-40 range as it appeared this was not the way things were going to turn out.... Netscape stock is currently at $27 3/4, just about where it began trading in '95. Even so, Navigator remains popular on many platforms. Microsoft Explorer is by no means a monopoly. And MS announced a long time ago, in '95 if I recall correctly, that the Web was such a big deal (let us not forget that some were saying Gates had missed the boat on the Web and MS would falter) that the URL addressing scheme would be _built in_ to future versions of its OS so as to make Web browsing and file browsing identical, and to facillitate intranets. "One big file system." Like this or not, it makes a certain amount of sense. Ah, but now we face the spectacle of a judge or panel of Nader-pandering bureaucrats telling Microsoft what features it will be allowed to include in its operating system. Perhaps the graphics chip companies facing extinction as Intel puts massive graphics capabilities into new chips can sue on antitrust grounds and get a "special master" to dictate to Intel what features it may put into chips? (Certainly the long-departed Weitek might have survived a few more years had Ralph Nader turned his unsafe at any speed attention to the floating point processing market and gotten an injunction against Intel putting onboard floating point instructions into the 486.) I cannot understand how any Cypherpunk can be advocating interference in the market the way Attila and a few others are doing. Making jokes about Bill Gates is one thing, just harmless fun. But advocating the Men with Guns (TM) seize control of the products he offers to uncoerced customers is simply wrong. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

8 12

Re: Automatic Translations
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

bureau42 wrote: >Just out of curiosity I ran a paragraph of one of Bob H's wordy >pieces through a few translations and, son of a bitch! if it didn't become clearer! Now this is truly helpful advice to get what's being miscommunicated by deranged brute-forcers spit and shined and pinstripped like truetext masterblasters. If some dingdong's spew comes through translation unchanged then it is the plain vanilla-est, the most unshaded, unnuanced, unbiased, untrickery, unimaginative, and thus the most omnipotent of all possible upchuckery aimed to infect the globe with toenail jam passing as troot juice. If these lies (aka blackheart pus-drip) remain unchanged by translation and unmangled by retranslation through all spitbucket languages and all Earth's cheese-bowels bent on misconstruance and prejudicial warp to fit preconceptions of perfectly slit-minded right to disembowel and deny life and liberty to those of opposing views, then it is the word of You Know Who, and your way-behind clan better believe it, and copy it, and bray-pray in it and bet your bed-watering, unwavering Clone Constitution Bible Koran Hit Man Browser on it. Seattle-shrouded in this Kelvar-asbestos cloak, napalm those east of the Rockies (and west) who question the Macrosoft Word, PR sizzle those who mock it, and Jesus-crowbar the infidels who mess with mismarketing PICS to the world's DoJs and 1st Amend lingo freedom-futzing bill-mauling mud-doggies. Sez Iggy, plain and simple.

1 0

Re: Making them eat their words... (while they watch!)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:15 PM 12/21/1997 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > there is only one solution to organizations like M$ > which are operated without ethics: treat them to the > pleasures of not only the antitrust laws but the > exquisite delights of RICO. Nonsense, and I'm surprised to hear this from you. Treat them to the pleasures of the free market - if you don't like them, start a Boycott M$ campaign, and see if people stop buying their lousy software. The direct democracy of the free market is far more appropriate than government here - it's $1/vote, and if enough people vote against M$ they'll get the hint, and it enough people vote _for_ M$, it's none of your business. It _is_ funny to see the Feds hiring a big corporate lawyer to run their case; I guess they don't think Federal Prosecutors are good enough. Surely if a low-level prosecutor can't hack it, they should use their boss, and on up the hierarchical chain. If Janet Reno can't do it either, they should replace her with someone who can :-) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Don't lie to the marketers or Feds! from ZDNET
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/print/971215/264108.html >For Social Security Number, the EPIC page recommends using >a number, which won't be reprinted here, used on "sample" >cards decades ago. The figuring: "Most clerks probably >won't recognize it as a fake" and it won't interfere with >other Social Security numbers. > >For addresses, the EPIC page suggests using hometown parks, >city halls and police stations. It specifically suggests >the address of Comiskey Park in Chicago. Makes one wonder >how White Sox officials feel about the prospect of getting >extra junk mail and spam really destined for disciples of >EPIC's peculiar freedom of information act. What crime >against the common good did Jerry Reinsdorf commit except >to sign Albert Belle to an ungodly contract undermining >baseball owner solidity against rising salaries? > >For telephone numbers, the recommendation is >1-202-224-3121. That turns out to be the switchboard of the >U.S. Congress. If this is intended to send some sort of >message to solons about the loss of control of personal >information, it's likely to be wholly lost. The only people >it will punish are operators handling incoming calls at the >Capitol. They will only regard the extra calls as more >wrong number calls they have to handle. They will have no >way to figure out that this is some sort of subgrassroots >effort to gum up the works. And they will certainly have no >way to provide statistics to Congress on the result. > >The EPIC page is, in that last case, urging Americans to >waste taxpayer dollars, for no clear purpose. > >On a larger scale, the EPIC document only exacerbates the >issue it tries to solve. The answer to the loss of control >of personal information on the Internet is not to >contribute instead to a boom in unreliable data. >

2 1

Disection of Politics
by Douglas Decicco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is that word "FREE" which has a scope similar to the other massively abused word "LOVE". As far as I'm concerned the term "FREE WORLD" is as ambiguous as the sentence "I LOVE YOU." Sometimes people mean by freedom that the government penalizes those who impinge upon the civil rights of others or the attitude of the people under that government tends to uphold such civil rights willingly because of the prevalent ideology of that social group. This freedom is important to me, and why I am grateful to have been born into this century under a fairly civil-minded constitutional government. When it comes to monopoly issues it is not civil freedom that is under question, not the rights of free speech, belief system, assembly or the simple choices of spouse or educational objective. It is the right to secure control over hoards of assets that is in question. I think that successful business people who seek monopolous control are actually sick with an insecurity which underlies their apparent love of money. It is clear to me that even though the human mind does not appear to be up to motivating itself for the good of the whole which many of the non-free-enterprise economic systems have proposed, free enterprise has many deficiencies. It is inefficient and it encourages lack of humility, greed, theft, dishonesty and, above all, gluttony. Take a walk through a shopping area in a Christmas-celebrating country at this time of year and just watch. People are buying hoards of useless items. The fallacious conjecture is that this "stimulates the economy". No, it distracts the workforce from work that could benefit people in meaningful ways. The reason I believe in the dissemination of cryptographic technology and mailing lists like this one is that it assists the continuance freedom of speech, a freedom which invites me to practice restraint and exercise responsibility. I am torn between joy over Internet communication and disgust in the ugly creatures that free-enterprise has nourished while funding this communication mode. When I find myself reading the manipulative legal statements of any of the large corporations I loath myself for being so willing to purchase their products, even if it pays my bills.

2 1

Why Linux Users Support Microsoft
by David Miller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: >Over the years I've sometimes joined in on the jokes about Microsoft and >Bill Gates...the jokes about the Borg, assimilation, and the habits of >Gates. And I've lately really enjoyed the "Saturday Night Live" skits >involving Bill Gates interrupting the Pope to announce that Microsoft >has merged with Christmas, and so on. That last skit was lame ass -- I like the monkey-boy ones. > Anyway, the recent government actions against Microsoft are reprehensible > to any person who values liberty. Microsoft is being punished for its > success. No shit. I've been fighting the 'free-thinking' Linux crowd for weeks on this. Just because MSFT sucks is no reason for the gov to start this shit. If MSFT sucks, they should be brought to court on those charges, and not because everyone in the world was stupid enough to use their OS. Further, just becuase MSFT sucks is no reason to give the gov the power to regulate software content. Jesus christ, get out of my pants. > Making jokes about Bill Gates is one thing, just harmless fun. But > advocating the Men with Guns (TM) seize control of the products he offers > to uncoerced customers is simply wrong. Yes. This is not a case of "biting the hand that Fed you." It is a case of government power to control a free market. I don't fear Bill Gates, I fear the gov. Who will you fear in 20 years? Linus? Give me a break. --David Miller Windows '95, a dirty, two-bit operating system.

1 0

Building Pro-Monopoly Judges
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Hmm. Apparently Charles is reluctant to defend his position here on cypherpunks. Small surprise. --Declan] ========== Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 18:49:41 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: cmueller(a)metrolink.net Originator: am-info(a)essential.org Sender: am-info(a)essential.org Precedence: bulk From: charles mueller <cmueller(a)metrolink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <am-info(a)essential.org> Subject: Building Pro-Monopoly Judges Declan McCullagh, still displaying a reluctance to debate with graciousness (below), now wonders if I've heard of the Federalist Society. "PS: I wonder if Mueller knows about the Federalist Society, which is a group of libertarian-leaning lawyers and law professors. Among other things, they make a point of educating judges about (gasp!) economic theory and this concept of a government strictly limited in its powers..." I've been reporting on this propaganda mill for roughly 2 decades-- and have published hundreds of pages on it. (See my January post on the subject, below.) Charles Mueller, Editor ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller *************************8 ** > >>Return-Path: <antitrust(a)essential.org> >>Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 19:04:50 -0500 (EST) >>Errors-To: antitrust-owner(a)essential.org >>Reply-To: cmueller(a)metrolink.net >>Originator: antitrust(a)essential.org >>Sender: antitrust(a)essential.org >>From: cmueller(a)metrolink.net (cmueller) >>To: Multiple recipients of list <antitrust(a)essential.org> >>Subject: GMU's "Law & Economics Center" >>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >> >> Perhaps I can add some information on the "Law & Economics Center" >>at George Mason. My journal first reported on its teach-in with the federal >>judges in 1981 (Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 70-71) and the following year I >>physically visited the University of Miami campus (where it was then housed) >>and did extensive interviews with several of the Center's people. Those >>interviews, plus another interview series I did at Emory University in >>Atlanta when the Center moved there, and finally at George Mason itself >>after the 3rd move, fill a number of my issues, beginning with Vol. 14, No. >>2 (1982). I've also reported on a couple of the legal challenges >>(unsuccessful) to the Center's indoctrination of the federal judges. >> For example, U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams presided over a >>predatory pricing case against ITT Continental Baking (Wonder Bread) some >>years back. The day after the jury began its deliberations, Judge Williams >>left San Francisco to begin attendance at a 2-week "economics" seminar >>presented by the Law & Economics Center at the Royal Biscayne Hotel in >>Miami. While he was gone, his jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in >>the amount of $5 million which, under the law, he was bound to triple to $15 >>million. Instead, he returned from Florida, overturned the jury's verdict, >>and wrote a letter to Henry Manne in Miami that read in part as follows: >>"As a result of my better understanding of the concept of marginal cost, I >>have recently set aside a $15 million antitrust verdict. I will send you a >>copy of the memorandum [opinion] as soon as it is prepared." (See my >>journal, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1985), p. 13.) >> Nan Aron and her colleagues at the Alliance for Justice in >>Washington published a monograph on the subject--Justice for Sale In >>America--in 1993 and I reprinted the key chapters in my journal, beginning >>with Vol. 24, No. 3 (1993). For earlier background, see Fortune, May 21, >>1979; Washington Post, January 20, 1980; and The Nation, January 26, 1980. >> Put simply, this "Center" is a right-wing propaganda mill >>masquerading as a purveyor of academic "economics." The "teachers" have >>been Harold Demsetz and others from the University of Chicago and its major >>academic outposts (paid at an hourly rate commensurate with the up to $600 >>per hour commanded by George Stigler and the others as antitrust "experts" >>in court). No opposing economists have ever been allowed to appear before >>the judges. When I asked the Center's people why they didn't permit >>distinguished non-Chicago economists to share the podium at these judicial >>teach-ins, they laughed and said, "Let them go start their OWN seminars for >>the judges!" >> I asked to be allowed to just sit in as an OBSERVER with the judges >>and/or the 200 antitrust law professors (who have been run through a similar >>indoctrination program) and Henry Manne himself responded to my request (by >>telephone), No, "We keep it all in the family." (Manne, who had been a law >>professor at the University of Rochester, founded the "Center" in 1974 at >>the University of Miami, then moved it to Emory and finally to George Mason. >>A federal judge--Judge Hoffman, as I recall--helped him get the approval of >>the judiciary's executive body in Washington, headed by the Chief Justice of >>the Supreme Court. The money to finance these sessions at luxury resorts >>(mostly at Key Biscayne and other Florida beach towns) was originally gotten >>directly from Fortune 500 companies who had experienced the sting of >>antitrust prosecution; in response to some criticism of that obvious >>conflict of interest, Manne, with some creative accounting, arranged it so >>that the seminars for the judges themselves--in 1981, the cost was $5,000 >>per judge per 2-week seminar--were thereafter paid for exclusively by the >>corporate foundations, e.g., Schaife, Olin, etc., rather than by active >>firms that frequently appear before the judges as antitrust defendants. >>With this accounting twist, the judiciary gave its full blessing to the >>operation.) >> I also did an interview with a federal appeals judge in Washington >>(DC Circuit). He saw nothing wrong with Manne's program, even assuming it >>was pure propaganda designed specifically to bias the federal judiciary >>against the antitrust laws and in favor of corporate monopoly. Why? (1) >>First, he said, judges are, by the nature of their work, "immune" to >>propaganda of all kinds. They hear so much argument on so many sides of >>every issue that it's simply impossible to "bias" them via argument. (2) >>Second, he told me, federal judges have every RIGHT to be as intellectually >>"biased" as they like and to DEVELOP those intellectual biases with the help >>of WHOEVER they please. >> For example, he said, suppose I go to the beach for a weekend with 3 >>volumes of Karl Marx's writings in my briefcase. I find Marx so persuasive >>that I come back to my chambers on Monday, throw away an opinion I had just >>written on one of the cases before me, and proceed to write a new one >giving my >>decision to the opposite party. Karl Marx "biased" me to change my >>decision. He had every right to do it--and I had every right to LET him >>do it. >> George Mason University law school and its economics department >>aren't scholarly enterprises at all; they're hired propagandists, awash in >>corporate money awarded precisely for the purpose of making a contrived >>"economic" case for laissez-faire monopoly. They get away with it for one >>reason and one reason only: Manne's operation had the approval of Reagan's >>Justice Department (rember Ed Meese?) and now it has the blessing of >>Clinton's. All it would take to bring it to a halt would be a couple of >>speeches by, say, the Attorney General and, if necessary, by Clinton >>himself. If Justice treated it as the outrage that it plainly is, the >>press--and the ensuing public condemnation--would purge the judiciary of >>this 20-year scandal within a matter of weeks. >> Charles Mueller, Editor >> ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW >> http://www.metrolink.net/~cmueller/ >> >> > ***********

1 0

Re: Building Pro-Monopoly Judges
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks, Charles, for the attached rant. Very amusing. Me, I prefer to tell the truth, and if that means that I don't abide by your standard of "graciousness," so be it. I've run into the Federalist Society a few times before. I occasionally go to their conferences, and I know they've been active in such HEINOUS dealings as: -- arguing against the Communications Decency Act -- arguing against state-by-state content regulation of the Internet -- arguing for your right to speak anonymously online -- arguing for your right to use and distribute encryption freely Yes, folks, you heard it here first. These folks are evil and must NOT be allowed to hold seminars for judges. (Only leftists are allowed this particular trick.) BTW, if Charles had half a clue, he'd know George Mason's law and economic schools are not particularly conservative, but are instead free-market and libertarian. (How many conservatives opposed the CDA?) The Federalist Society is also generally libertarian. Libertarians are not pro-big business; they oppose corporate welfare and special-interest lobying. Such as what Charles seems to endorse. -Declan At 18:49 -0500 12/21/97, charles mueller wrote: > Declan McCullagh, still displaying a reluctance to debate with >graciousness (below), now wonders if I've heard of the Federalist Society. >"PS: I wonder if Mueller knows about the Federalist Society, which is a >group of libertarian-leaning lawyers and law professors. Among other things, >they make a point of educating judges about (gasp!) economic theory and this >concept of a government strictly limited in its powers..." > > I've been reporting on this propaganda mill for roughly 2 decades-- >and have published hundreds of pages on it. (See my January post on the >subject, below.) > > Charles Mueller, Editor > ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW > http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller > > ** > >>Return-Path: <antitrust(a)essential.org> >>Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 19:04:50 -0500 (EST) >>Errors-To: antitrust-owner(a)essential.org >>Reply-To: cmueller(a)metrolink.net >>Originator: antitrust(a)essential.org >>Sender: antitrust(a)essential.org >>From: cmueller(a)metrolink.net (cmueller) >>To: Multiple recipients of list <antitrust(a)essential.org> >>Subject: GMU's "Law & Economics Center" >>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >> >> Perhaps I can add some information on the "Law & Economics Center" >>at George Mason. My journal first reported on its teach-in with the federal >>judges in 1981 (Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 70-71) and the following year I >>physically visited the University of Miami campus (where it was then housed) >>and did extensive interviews with several of the Center's people. Those >>interviews, plus another interview series I did at Emory University in >>Atlanta when the Center moved there, and finally at George Mason itself >>after the 3rd move, fill a number of my issues, beginning with Vol. 14, No. >>2 (1982). I've also reported on a couple of the legal challenges >>(unsuccessful) to the Center's indoctrination of the federal judges. >> For example, U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams presided over a >>predatory pricing case against ITT Continental Baking (Wonder Bread) some >>years back. The day after the jury began its deliberations, Judge Williams >>left San Francisco to begin attendance at a 2-week "economics" seminar >>presented by the Law & Economics Center at the Royal Biscayne Hotel in >>Miami. While he was gone, his jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in >>the amount of $5 million which, under the law, he was bound to triple to $15 >>million. Instead, he returned from Florida, overturned the jury's verdict, >>and wrote a letter to Henry Manne in Miami that read in part as follows: >>"As a result of my better understanding of the concept of marginal cost, I >>have recently set aside a $15 million antitrust verdict. I will send you a >>copy of the memorandum [opinion] as soon as it is prepared." (See my >>journal, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1985), p. 13.) >> Nan Aron and her colleagues at the Alliance for Justice in >>Washington published a monograph on the subject--Justice for Sale In >>America--in 1993 and I reprinted the key chapters in my journal, beginning >>with Vol. 24, No. 3 (1993). For earlier background, see Fortune, May 21, >>1979; Washington Post, January 20, 1980; and The Nation, January 26, 1980. >> Put simply, this "Center" is a right-wing propaganda mill >>masquerading as a purveyor of academic "economics." The "teachers" have >>been Harold Demsetz and others from the University of Chicago and its major >>academic outposts (paid at an hourly rate commensurate with the up to $600 >>per hour commanded by George Stigler and the others as antitrust "experts" >>in court). No opposing economists have ever been allowed to appear before >>the judges. When I asked the Center's people why they didn't permit >>distinguished non-Chicago economists to share the podium at these judicial >>teach-ins, they laughed and said, "Let them go start their OWN seminars for >>the judges!" >> I asked to be allowed to just sit in as an OBSERVER with the judges >>and/or the 200 antitrust law professors (who have been run through a similar >>indoctrination program) and Henry Manne himself responded to my request (by >>telephone), No, "We keep it all in the family." (Manne, who had been a law >>professor at the University of Rochester, founded the "Center" in 1974 at >>the University of Miami, then moved it to Emory and finally to George Mason. >>A federal judge--Judge Hoffman, as I recall--helped him get the approval of >>the judiciary's executive body in Washington, headed by the Chief Justice of >>the Supreme Court. The money to finance these sessions at luxury resorts >>(mostly at Key Biscayne and other Florida beach towns) was originally gotten >>directly from Fortune 500 companies who had experienced the sting of >>antitrust prosecution; in response to some criticism of that obvious >>conflict of interest, Manne, with some creative accounting, arranged it so >>that the seminars for the judges themselves--in 1981, the cost was $5,000 >>per judge per 2-week seminar--were thereafter paid for exclusively by the >>corporate foundations, e.g., Schaife, Olin, etc., rather than by active >>firms that frequently appear before the judges as antitrust defendants. >>With this accounting twist, the judiciary gave its full blessing to the >>operation.) >> I also did an interview with a federal appeals judge in Washington >>(DC Circuit). He saw nothing wrong with Manne's program, even assuming it >>was pure propaganda designed specifically to bias the federal judiciary >>against the antitrust laws and in favor of corporate monopoly. Why? (1) >>First, he said, judges are, by the nature of their work, "immune" to >>propaganda of all kinds. They hear so much argument on so many sides of >>every issue that it's simply impossible to "bias" them via argument. (2) >>Second, he told me, federal judges have every RIGHT to be as intellectually >>"biased" as they like and to DEVELOP those intellectual biases with the help >>of WHOEVER they please. >> For example, he said, suppose I go to the beach for a weekend with 3 >>volumes of Karl Marx's writings in my briefcase. I find Marx so persuasive >>that I come back to my chambers on Monday, throw away an opinion I had just >>written on one of the cases before me, and proceed to write a new one >giving my >>decision to the opposite party. Karl Marx "biased" me to change my >>decision. He had every right to do it--and I had every right to LET him >>do it. >> George Mason University law school and its economics department >>aren't scholarly enterprises at all; they're hired propagandists, awash in >>corporate money awarded precisely for the purpose of making a contrived >>"economic" case for laissez-faire monopoly. They get away with it for one >>reason and one reason only: Manne's operation had the approval of Reagan's >>Justice Department (rember Ed Meese?) and now it has the blessing of >>Clinton's. All it would take to bring it to a halt would be a couple of >>speeches by, say, the Attorney General and, if necessary, by Clinton >>himself. If Justice treated it as the outrage that it plainly is, the >>press--and the ensuing public condemnation--would purge the judiciary of >>this 20-year scandal within a matter of weeks. >> Charles Mueller, Editor >> ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW >> http://www.metrolink.net/~cmueller/ >> >> > ***********

1 0

Coercive Monopolism vs Wimpyness
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attila T. Hut quoted Tom Steinert-Threlkeld: "So, it can't coerce computer makers to license the IE browser as a condition of licensing the Windows operating system, forcing them to install both onto the machines they sell to the public." ................................................... How do computer makers get "coerced"? How, specifically are they "forced" into doing something they don't want to do? Are they incapable of just saying "no"? Is there a gun put to their head? Does someone threaten them with DoJ action if they don't participate in the game of monopoly? Why do they continue to lie down and roll over when MS comes around - don't they know they're contributing to the demise of Netscape and the other better-than-thou companies, which are *much* more deserving of success than Gates is, since they're kinder & gentler? Whose side are these people on, anyway; how can they renege on the right to choose and instead just _give_it_up_ to Microsoft? And, since Windows OS is so pitifully lousy, why do people continue to buy it, even without the computer attached; why do they continue to upgrade, even if it's so slow and bloated? Don't they realize Unix is better? Don't they realize they're just making Billg richer? What's the matter with all these people, anyway (Attila)? .. Blanc

2 1

Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for "Criminals"? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva)
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > On 19 Dec 1997 23:01:59 +0100, Charlie Comsec wrote: > :Actually in the case of anonymous e-mail you have one additional > :safeguard. You can ask to be blocked from receiving anonymous e-mail. Try > :telling the telephone company that you want to be blocked from receiving > :calls from any pay phone! > > It's available now. The first to use it are pager companies. Why would a pager company want to block calls from pay phones? Haven't you seen that commercial (for MCI?) where the kids crowd into that phone booth and page someone to pick them up from school before the big storm hits? Imagine if they had gotten a recording saying "I'm sorry. You can't page this number from a pay phone." Really bad PR! - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJvy7Abp0h8ZvosNAQHvxgf+K2qymGG+uDduMJbDHw94OhAWioubIXHe KK7dXYstS1qFpoG7zJgbcJprYWMsdOQD9c/GD68CmzOj+BYLRQ+7cMLyFWmvIylJ pVMBIuocLKFo2CXU5m5aHNb6MUoTkqAZA4ZOP6HlWVFbXdOlrzyD689qpDTNOwsH DEJtlF4Iu1wogZN5D1rh4Obr1hTPgihJH4cXqkfpwsaAnGKB0uHn8akhgGVFP0rL ovDLmiCGoCUFTTOgKGPv1Z3+dZ07TEy3yhLEbJPrEfw6Cua8F8C7fD0+ZymErJoJ qvr51KoxKp5LJAgZgAgYgCcmTEhVoiPiO6Hafyu6x5r4QKYxe+ONMA== =yaoP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

14 16

Civil War Crypto Question...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I have been reading [1] regarding the beginning of the modern martial traditions and methods. In chapter 2, 'Tactical and Strategic Reorganization', in which the birth of the Signal Corp under Myer (by order of McClellan) and the ensuing conflicts with Military Telegraph under Stager are discussed. On pp. 43 - 44 there is a discussion on some processes that Myer implimented including a 'cipher disk' whereby the Union was able to change their telegraph codes on an hourly schedule. It was apparently very effictive in dealing with taps and such. Anyone know of another source that discusses this disk? I looked in Applied Crypto as well as several other books including a Dover reprint of a book from the 30's w/o success. I would in particular like to see a photo or other diagram of its operation. Thanks for any help you can provide. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| [1] The American Civil War and the Origins of Modern Warfare: Ideas, Organization, and Field Command Edward Hagerman ISBN 0-253-30546-2

1 0

Re: Civil War Crypto Question...
by jim＠mentat.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate skribis: > On pp. 43 - 44 [of Hagerman's "The American Civil War..."] > ... a 'cipher disk' whereby the Union was able to > change their telegraph codes on an hourly schedule. It was apparently very > effictive in dealing with taps and such. > > Anyone know of another source that discusses this disk? I looked in Applied There's a very brief mention of a disk in "Masked Dispatches: Cryptograms and Cryptology in American History, 1775-1900", available from the NSA Central Security Service. (Series 1, Pre-World War 1, Volume 1, United States Cryptologic History), Center for Cryptologic History, by Ralph E. Weber, 1993. On page 110 he says: "The North, on the other hand, adopted a handy "on-line" means of changing the basic flag code by prearrangement or at will, even within the act of transmission. This was done with a disk, in which the alphabet on the inner disk revolved against an outer ring of flag combination, enabling an instant change of code." My impression from this and from the chapter summary is that the disk was used for flag codes but not telegraphy. For telegraphy the Union apparently used a word-based route transposition that Friedman found unimpressive. It's clearly different from the brass cipher disk used by the Confederates, which used letters rather than flag positions as the ciphertext alphabet. Weber doesn't include pictures of the disk. Jim Gillogly Sterday, 2 Yule S.R. 1998, 05:45 12.19.4.14.0, 10 Ahau 18 Mac, First Lord of Night

1 0

Increase SAT Math Scores!
by 9fX7Q8JNZ＠pobox.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please pardon this 1 time e-mail intrusion. (This information may be very important to you or someone you know taking College Entrance Exam!!!) "Math Shortcuts to Ace the SAT* and PSAT" For the US College Entrance Exam ISBN: 1-882228-00-6 (100 pg. book) Traditional SAT* math preparation materials & courses emphasize a review of math fundamentals, practice exams and general strategies. Our book uniquely SUPPLEMENTS these approaches with 34 specific math strategies & shortcuts to specific SAT* math problem types. Highlights of this Book: ---34 specific math shortcuts & strategies to the SAT* and PSAT ---Step-by-step examples ---Answers to all exercises ---Extensive glossary and index ---Concise summary of geometry formulas and concepts ---Easy to understand explanations Educator's Testimonials: "This SAT Math Shortcuts Manual is proving to be an excellent resource to our students preparing for the SAT & PSAT. Thank you for developing this invaluable resource." Carolyn W. Jacobs - Guidance Dept. Head - JFK High School, Richmond, VA "This is one of the best collections of SAT Math Shortcuts that I have come across. My students found it especially helpful. I highly recommend this book to anyone teaching an SAT Prep. class or workshop." Judy Edwards - Math/SAT Prep. Teacher - North Buncombe High School, Weaverville, NC "The book format is great. The sections on shortcuts was easily understandable and to the point." LaVerne McKesson: President, Educational Connections Math Dept. Head (retired) Detroit Public Schools "This book covers it all! It is compiled in a manner which holds the student's attention as it guides the student through math strategies and shortcuts to the SAT." Nanci S. Boice Admissions Dept. - St. Thomas Episcopal School - Houston, TX Author Bio: ---15 years: SAT Math test prep. instructor & College Algebra Teacher ---Columbia University grad.: BA, MBA Distributors: ---Ingram Book Co. (bookstores) ---Baker & Taylor (bookstores - pending) ---Independent Publishers Group (bookstores) ---Quality Books, Inc. & Unique Books, Inc. (libraries) ---Adams Book Co. (schools) ---Independent Sales Reps. (schools) To Purchase: Contact our shipping company: BookMasters, Inc. Order Dept. P.O. Box 388 1444 Rt. 42 Ashland, OH. 44805 USA Phone Orders: 1-800-247-6553 (24hrs/7days) Fax Orders: 1-419-281-6883 Outside USA phone: 1-419-281-1802 (24hrs/7days) Web-Site Orders: www.apluspublishing.com (Shortcut #21 on-line) www.bookzone.com/achieve (Shortcut #33 on-line) Price: $12.95/book for orders of 24 or less $11.95/book for orders of 25 - 49 $10.95/book for orders of 50 or more. Add Postage/Handling:$4 for single book order (1 book) 7% of purchase price for orders of 2 or more books. Ohio residents add 6% sales tax or supply state sales tax exempt #. Alabama residents add 4% sales tax or supply state sales tax exempt #. Check, Credit Card & School Purchase Orders accepted. Allow 1 week for delivery. Checks Payable to: BookMasters, Inc. or Achievement Publishing, Inc. To order have: Title, Publisher & ISBN available. For questions and comments to Achievement Publishing, Inc.: Voice mail: 1-800-499-6284 Fax: 1-888-581-2211 US Mail: Achievement Publishing, Inc. P.O. Box 1357 New York, NY 10013-0877 USA *SAT is a registered trademark of the College Entrance Examination Board which is not associated with this product. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This email was sent to you by S. Direct Marketing. If you would like your ad sent to thousands or even millions...Please call 510-653-4709 9am to 9pm (PST) 7 days a week.

1 0

Get your Anthrax shots
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Those of you in urban soft target areas, expecially any of you living or working in DC or NYC, may want to consider getting vaccinated against Anthrax. It might come in handy before long. >From an US Army (?) press release: | The immunizations, requiring six shots over 18 months followed by annual | booster shots, will begin next summer with 100,000 American troops in the | Gulf region and Korean peninsula. -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

5 5

Re: Is Unix dying--or even dead?
by S. M. Halloran 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 19 Dec 97, Bill Stewart was found to have commented thusly: > At 12:08 PM 12/19/1997 GMT, phelix(a)vallnet.com wrote: > >>Silicon Graphics Inc.'s plan .... Windows NT > > >Does this mean that Unix is dying? > >No, it means that graphics professionals are buying Wintel boxes > >instead of SGI's expensive workstations. ( a shame really, > > SGI make some damn nice workstations, but that > >pesky price/performance ratio is pushing people into > >high end Wintel boxes) > > It's not just price/performance ratio - > it's affordable price for adequate performance. > Now that Wintel boxes can crunch integers as well as a Cray-1, > a $2K box has enough horsepower for all but really cutting-edge graphics, > and you're going to buy the same monitor regardless of CPU. > Sure, a $10K SGI probably has far more than 5x the performance, > but not many people need it, especially if they're developing > applications for other people to use on cheaper boxes (games...) > as opposed to producing TV shows, music videos, or running > scientific visualization. > > That's been a problem for the accounting and office-work for years > - while Microsoft can bloat away any CPU you've got, > an 8086 or 286 box could run spreadsheets, simple chart graphics, > WordStar, a database, BASIC, and Flight Simulator as fast as a PDP-11 > for a lot less money, letting the business bootstrap itself > in spite of the ugly excuse for a program loader MS sold for it, > because any developer could afford the $5K (1982) or $2K (1997) box > it takes to develop cool commercially viable applications > (and, yes, you can use a $500 box today, but you wouldn't.) > [....] > > If you must run MSware, NT is at least an operating system. > And it's easier to get graphics board manufacturers to write > their drivers for Windows than Linux. Assuming developers and users of "alternative" systems (including Unix family) are concerned about how MS is consolidating its position as the complete manager of the business/academic affairs of the entire globe, I suggest to the members of the free Unix groups (developers, administrators/superusers) that they develop their own turnkey "office suite" and try to give MS a run for its money. There is no time like now to get the X-Windows (or GUI-free-from-copyright) Complete Office bundled together and have a media gathering to make sure that all the important news organizations are informed. You should get decent press exposure, since MS-bashing seems to be in vogue. The Linux or FreeBSD people should select a mediagenic spokesperson from the group--one with fire in the belly--and then do the hard work of putting something together that a 25-year old free-Unix developer's 72-year old grandmother can install to a x86 box. In fact, your press conference would have real pinache if, in fact, you put someone's 72-year old grandmother before a PC with an empty disk drive, run the install, then type a short letter on the fancy word processer, addressed to Bill G., with the message "Up yours!" By attacking Bill G. from the flank in this matter, you may possibly take his mind off his successful campaign to own the Internet. I admire BillG, really. He was rather late in anticipating how a network developed largely by universities and their students could be a medium that intruded upon the everyday world, and yet despite the efforts of well-meaning individuals and not-for-profit groups to keep the Internet from being owned, Bill G. just has too much savvy not to be able to own the important parts of the Internet too--not the cables and wires, of course, but the content as well as the software that drives it. And soon. (Look for the next version of TCPIP, if it is called that, to be a copyright of Microsoft. After all, Microsoft has its roots in writing OSes.) Mitch Halloran Research (Bio)chemist Duzen Laboratories Group Ankara TURKEY mitch(a)duzen.com.tr other job title: Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy Mitch Halloran Research (Bio)chemist Duzen Laboratories Group Ankara TURKEY mitch(a)duzen.com.tr other job title: Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy

1 0

Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 19:58:05 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks (fwd) > >Wrong, the LOC is for the people. It is there (originaly) to provide a > >reference listing of all documents published and therefore claiming copyright. > >Currently it is open to any legitimate research project. I have used it on a > > Any idea on what they define to be a "legitimate" research project? Something related to a project you're working on is my guest guess. I had a clear problem description and goal in mind both times I dealt with them. My experience is that just about any research organization like that simply wants some assurance of legitimacy regarding the use of resources in that institution, they got a bottem line they have to toe. In my various diggings I have *never* been turned away from any reference stack if I could provide them with clear descriptions and goals. Then again, I don't go in raving and ranting and making lot's of demands either... The first time I had reference to them was when I worked for the DoD during college ('80-'83 @ UT) when I had to do some research on a RTL project for Capt. Gene Barton of the US Army. Not that he would necessarily know anything about it. I made the requests for specific information through the engineering library at UT and they contacted both LoC and the Patent Office on prior art. I was designing a non-Von Neumann router from TTL random gates and needed to see how some folks had resolved some similar addressing (very sticky wicket that in regards RTL architectures) issue. The second time was when I was working for Austron here in Austin doing time reference standards (1210's, 2055's, 2000 & 5000 LORAN recievers - it you got one and it was done by triangle-nine it's mine) and needed to do some reference requests for one of the engineers (I unfortunately don't remember his name) into rf propogation models in the 10kHz range because of some problem the US Navy was having off Korea. Past that I don't know as there was some sort of security issue involved. Neither time did it take more than a couple of phone calls (numbers provided for me) and some faxes. I also don't believe that anyone on the other end know anything more about my projects other than the librarian on my end saying something like "I have a user who wants to request ...". YMMV of course. > hate to travel 3000 miles to research the Holocaust Lie, only to be told > that my research on how the Holocaust Lie was sold to support FDR and > Truman is an _illegitimate_ research project. You don't have to travel farther than your local public library. Now whether the librarian wants to spend their time working on your project is a whole 'nother (personal) issue. If you want to know more specifics I suggest you call information in DC and ask for the main number. From there you're on your own. I'm working on a small book proposal & ASL expansion pack regarding the Japanese parachute invasion of Palembang on Feb. 14, 1942 and it's possible I may need to see records there since the US Navy was part of the combined British-Dutch-French-US command in that area. If so, I'll be shure to pass along any experiences that I might have. I certainly hope to arrange an actual trip to Palembang in a couple of years. But I digress... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendm
by David Magnay 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 19 Dec 97 at 11:58, Jim Burnes wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, David Honig wrote: ... > > > If one ever questions this in public, as Tim did, the liberal response > > is to show that unPC 'discrimination' is possible if humans are free, > > and then the dutiful citizen gladly sacrifices employers' liberty for > > their warm and fuzzy feelings. The first amendment is about what > > government can't do to you, not what your neighbor can or can't do. > > Yeah. The real question is what humans are free to do. The freedom > to do something is also the freedom *not* to do something. The > freedom to conduct a transaction (employing someone) must also be > the freedom not to conduct that transaction because the transaction > is voluntary. > Who said humans are free ? Which page is that written on ? Ooops, lost my copy. Your version must be wrong. Probably a spelling error. The _real_ question is HOW to determine what humans are free to do. Without a common acceptance of right, wrong and definition of freedom, it only comes from the sharp end of a gun. Just having a cosy chinwag in Congress, the UN or the European Parliament and agreeing on a code of conduct is not enuf if it is not accepted by the active parties. Many people sqeal about rights (and wrongs) but they are only right or wrong by some measure. If your enemy has a different measure, or refuses to accept your right/wrong criteria, you are stuffed. For some people, that measure is the US Constitution, for others the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc. However, all of these are only ARBITRARY agreements on commonly accepted points of view. If I disagree, they are absolutely worthless. So, but unless you stop me, I'll play by MY set of rules. If I want Kuwait, I'll take it. If I want Grenada, Chekoslovakia, Afghanistan or the Marshall Islands, I'll just take it. If I want to tap your phone, monitor your Bank account or stamp your licence with 666, I'll do it Oh buts that wrong, u cant do that. Well, who says I cant. You ?? Laugh..laugh..laugh. Where does it say that. Did God tell you ? Prove it then. No, well POQ. So if we have a Government OF the people, BY the poeple, FOR the people, we may have a chance of getting somewhere. (Oh well, we can always hope) DM --------------------------- David Magnay email: sdh(a)crafti.com.au ---------------------------

1 0

Coercive Monopolism vs Wimpyness
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>And, since Windows OS is so pitifully lousy, why do people continue to buy >it, even without the computer attached; why do they continue to upgrade, >even if it's so slow and bloated? Don't they realize Unix is better? >Don't they realize they're just making Billg richer? I use Linux primarily. People still buy Winblows for the same reasons I bought Winblows 95. Want to play a game from the store? Windows 95. Want to install a new image in your Flash RAM on your motherboard? DOS (Windows 95). Want to have vendor-produced drivers? Windows 95. Want to parse MS Turd documents? Windows 95 and MS Office. Want to use a Windows-specific bullshit class registration system at your university? Windows 95. Want to run that program your mother sends you and wants you to run? She uses Windows 95 because it was preinstalled on her machine, so you must use Windows 95 too. Some kind of bizarre hardware which the manufactuers won't release specs for? (The AWE32 is a good example. Eventually somebody got pissed and reverse engineered it.) Windows 95. Happened to buy a printer? It won't say "Yes! It works with Ghostscript!" In fact it won't say anything about hardware compatability. It'll just say "Windows drivers included" along with a list of a bunch of software that I don't want and don't need. So if it happens that the printer is nonstandard...Windows 95. Have a bunch of people in the office who don't care about platform compatability and pass around Windows-specific document types or programs? Windows 95. Have a bunch of people in the office who, simply because Windows and sometimes MacOS are taught as "computer education" in many universities and public schools can't use anything else? Windows 95. Have to use a university computer lab? The machines are probably running Windows 95. So you wind up with an incentive to use Windows 95 elsewhere. So...again, Windows 95. Want to have a working copy of PGP 5.0 while everybody else has started sending out DH-encrypted/signed messages and rolled DH keys? Windows 95. (Yeah, yeah. The source was released in book form.) This goes on and on and on. Sure there are counter arguments for these but it gets real touchy real quick. Ever try to pressure a game company into releasing Linux versions? Ever try to pressure an applications company to release Linux versions? Explanation and analysis: Microsoft spends millions on marketting. Linux, BSD, et al. simply don't have a massive marketting machine. The PC rags and TV shows like CNet are supported by Windows applications, Windows games, Microsoft, and platform-specific web sites. Microsoft has no qualms about outright lying in its marketting material. Look at the messages which display during Windows 95 installation for a good example. "What you want to do, and more, is now possible." Yeah. What if I want to have a decent telnet client? What if I want to have tons of free software? They don't qualify the statement, yet the Microsoft lackies think that Microsoft would never lie and it must be true. The Windows interface is "point and drool." This has the effect of attracting every lazy person possible. I say "lazy" because it's basically no work to remember "rm" rather than "left click and drag to the recycle bin." These people don't know how *anything* works on even the most basic level. The Linux/BSD/whatever developers aren't going to make an interface like that because they're competent, aren't trying to make money, don't want to cripple their platform with it, and they don't necessarily want to attract these people. Generally speaking, as "da web" has proven, if it takes no brains to use something people with no brain will be attracted to it in great numbers. Microsoft, their friends, and some of their enemies did everything they possibly could to break the web. HTML was designed as a relatively simple, platform independant method of storing information. The idea was that you could go throw in an image, but it was supposed to *augment* the message, not *be* the message. And regardless of what you did the page was supposed to be viewable from a text terminal. Netscape started by adding non-standard extensions to HTML, in effect encouraging people to make Netscape-specific web pages. Netscape Gold and other "web page designers" encourage people to release platform-specific web pages -- they *should* throw an error if somebody puts in an unnamed link. Then of course we had stuff like server-side image maps. And we have pages with frames which are impossible to correctly display in a text mode, and which bitch and moan and suggest you download Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator/Communicator to read it. And I've seen pages which are nothing but graphics files -- but hey, they're okay because they display correctly in MSIE or Netscape. Microsoft continues its little jihad by perverting Java, which is supposed to be another platform-independant language, into a Windows-specific language. While they were at it both Microsoft and Netscape decided to start slinging HTML and nonstandard MIME types all over email and news postings. When you buy a prebuilt computer in most cases you don't have a choice. You have to get Windows 95, MSIE, and whatever other crap they decide to pile on. Normally this wouldn't be a problem and you would just go to another vendor but just about every single vendor is like this. When you buy hardware you pay for all sorts of Windows software. So now you have all kinds of (bad) Windows software, so there's another reason to use Windows. Microsoft knows this. For example, when you buy a scanner you get Windows software for it, absolutely no design specs, no compatability list, and in many cases they flat-out *won't* release design specs. When you call for technical support many (most?) places tell you to do something like this: "Okay. Go click on the 'My Computer' icon--" "Uh, I run Linux." "Uh, we don't support that." (Hint: It was a *hardware* problem, *not* a software problem, but go boot up into Windows just so we know it was broken. Oh, and you better have the latest version because that's all we support.) Many vendors only release drivers for whatever the latest and greatest version of Winblows is going to be. Windows 3.1 drivers are starting to get scarce. DOS drivers are basically nonexistant. Say, for instance, you purchase or receive Windows NT Workstation 4.0. You then go out and buy an AWE64. Creative Labs has stated that they aren't releasing a decent AWE64 driver for NT 4.0, but instead are targetting it at NT 5.0. Compare this with the UNIX world where, for the most part, things are platform independant and people like platform compatability. Most of the time I can run something on Linux which I can run on BSD which I can run on SunOS, etc.

1 0

heres your free web site!
by coufuojee82＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a "ONE-TIME MESSAGE" you were randomly selected to receive this. You will be automatically deleted from this mailing list. ONLY REPLIES WILL BE KEPT. There is no need to reply to remove, you will receive no further mailings from us. NEW IMPROVED with FREE internet software! FREE bulk e mail system, two FREE web sites to use as you wish! (free space 2 - 6 K) one of your Free web sites is in this letter!, ongoing support (optional), and a lot, lot more! all included!, this, all when you order all four reports. That's worth $20 dollars alone ! PLUS act now and you will recived via e mail from 50,000 To-1000,000 !!! FREE filtered E-MAiL addresses!. ALL FOR YOU! This is not a pyramid! This is NOT a chain letter, and I did not send this in the post office mail! there is product, support, news letters and more! This is new and revised! ALL via e mail! \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\$\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ you are about to make at least $50,000 USD In about 90 days or less! Read the enclosed program...then read it again...then print it out to review. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Dear friend, The enclosed information is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. My name is Christopher Erickson. Two years ago, the corporation I worked at for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends, and creditors over $35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just couldn't seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. I truly believe it was wrong for me to be in debt like this. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life and I am writing to share my experience in hopes that this will change your life FOREVER....FINANCIALLY!!! In mid-December, I received this program via email. Six months prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they worked or not. One claimed I'd make a million dollars in one year...it didn't tell me I'd have to write a book to make it. But like I was saying, in December of '92 I received this program. I didn't send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly, I couldn't believe my eyes. Here was a MONEY-MAKING PHENOMENON. I could invest as much as I wanted to start, without putting me further in debt. After I got a pencil and paper and figured it out, I would at least get my money back. After determining that the program is LEGAL and NOT A CHAIN LETTER, I decided "WHY NOT". Initially I sent out 10,000 emails. It only cost me about $15.00 for my time on-line. The great thing about email is that I didn't need any money for printing to send out the program, only the cost to fulfill my orders. I am telling you like it is, I hope it doesn't turn you off, but I promised myself that I would not "rip-off" anyone, no matter how much money it cost me!. In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13th, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. When you read the GUARANTEE in the program, you will see that "YOU MUST RECEIVE 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN TWO WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO!" My first step in making $50,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30th, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. If you go back to the GUARANTEE, "YOU MUST RECEIVE 100 OR MORE ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN TWO WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $50,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2, 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 19th, of my emailing of 10,000 packets, I received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much needed new car. Please take time to read the attached program, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER! Remember, it wont work if you don't try it. This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It doesn't work, you'll lose out on a lot of money! REPORT #2 explains this. Always follow the guarantee, 20 orders for REPORT #1, and 100 or more orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $50,000 or more in about 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS !!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I'm sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and you are in financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! Sincerely, Christopher Erickson PS Do you have any idea what 11,700 $5 bills ($58,000) look like piled up on a kitchen table? IT'S AWESOME! "THREW IT AWAY" "I had received this program before. I threw it away, but later wondered if I shouldn't have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get a copy, so I had to wait until I was emailed another copy of the program. Eleven months passed, then it came. I DIDN'T throw this one away. I made $41,000 on the first try." Dawn W., Evansville, IN "NO FREE LUNCH" "My late father always told me, 'remember, Alan, there is no free lunch in life. You get out of life what you put into it.' Through trial and error and a somewhat slow frustrating start, I finally figured it out. The program works very well, I just had to find the right target group of people to email it to. So far this year, I have made over $63,000 using this program. I know my dad would have been very proud of me." Alan B., Philadelphia, PA A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM By the time you have read the enclosed information and looked over the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself. I had a profitable business for ten years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn't working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn't me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don't have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate...because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER." The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to "move up" or "get rich", inflation will see to that. You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months than you have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of your money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I have already made over FOUR MILLION DOLLARS! I have retired from the program after sending out over 16,000 programs. Now I have several offices which market this and several other programs here in the US and overseas. By the Spring, we wish to market the 'Internet' by a partnership with AMERICA ON LINE. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to email a copy of this exciting program to everyone that you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 50,000...and your name will be on every one of them!. Remember though, the more you send out, the more potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially independent, IT IS UP TO YOU NOW! "THINK ABOUT IT" Before you delete this program from your mailbox, as I almost did, take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will still make a lot of money! Definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. IT WORKS! Paul Johnson, Raleigh, NC HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU $$$$$$ Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we'll assume you and all those involved send out 20,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a .5% response. Using a good list the response could be much better. Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of 20,000. But continuing with this example, you send out only 20,000 programs. With a .5% response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 20,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. Out of those .5%, 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 20,000 programs each for a total of 2000,000. The .5% response to that is 1,000 orders for REPORT #3. Those 1,000 send out 20,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 total. The .5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That's 10,000 five dollar bills for you. CASH!!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5000 + $50,000 for a total of $55,550!!!! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF ONLY 2,000. Believe me, many people will do that and more! By the way, your cost to participate in this is practically nothing. You obviously already have an internet connection and email is FREE!!! REPORT#3 will show you the best methods for bulk emailing and purchasing email lists. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE,NOW VERY LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY. It does not require you to come in contact with people, do any hard work, and best of all, you never have to leave the house except to get the mail. If you believe that someday you'll get that big break that you've been waiting for, THIS IS IT! Simply follow the instructions, and your dream will come true. This multi-level email order marketing program works perfectly...100% EVERY TIME. Email is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this non-commercialized method of advertising NOW!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using email. Get your piece of this action!! MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING (MLM) has finally gained respectability. It is being taught in the Harvard Business School, and both Stanford Research and The Wall Street Journal have stated that between 50% and 65% of all goods and services will be sold throughout Multi-level Methods by the mid to late 1990's. This is a Multi-Billion Dollar industry and of the 500,000 millionaires in the US, 20% (100,000) made their fortune in the last several years in MLM. Moreover, statistics show 45 people become millionaires everyday through Multi-Level Marketing. INSTRUCTIONS We at Erris Mail Order Marketing Business, have a method of raising capital that REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am sure that you could use $50,000 to $125,000 in the next 90 days. Before you say "Bull", please read the program carefully. This is not a chain letter, but a NOW perfectly legal money making opportunity. Basically, this is what we do: As with all multi-level business, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA allows you to recruit new multi- level business partners, and we offer a product for EVERY dollar sent. YOUR ORDERS COME AND ARE FILLED THROUGH THE MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the GREATEST Multi-level Mail Order Marketing anywhere: Step (1) Order all four 4 REPORTS listed by NAME AND NUMBER. Do this by ordering the REPORT from each of the four 4 names listed on the next page. For each REPORT, send $5 CASH and a SELF- ADDRESSED, STAMPED envelope (BUSINESS SIZE #10) to the person listed for the SPECIFIC REPORT. International orders should also include $2 extra for postage. It is essential that you specify the NAME and NUMBER of the report requested to the person you are ordering from. You will need ALL FOUR 4 REPORTS because you will be REPRINTING and RESELLING them. DO NOT alter the names or sequence other than what the instructions say. IMPORTANT: Always provide same-day service on all orders. Step (2) Replace the name and address under REPORT #1 with yours, moving the one that was there down to REPORT #2. Drop the name and address under REPORT #2 to REPORT #3, moving the one that was there to REPORT #4. The name and address that was under REPORT #4 is dropped from the list and this party is no doubt on the way to the bank. When doing this, make certain you type the names and addresses ACCURATELY! DO NOT MIX UP MOVING PRODUCT/REPORT POSITIONS!!! Step (3) Having made the required changes in the NAME list, save it as a text (.txt) file in it's own directory to be used with whatever email program you like. Again, REPORT #3 will tell you the best methods of bulk emailing and acquiring email lists. Step (4) Email a copy of the entire program (all of this is very important) to everyone whose address you can get your hands on. Start with friends and relatives since you can encourage them to take advantage of this fabulous money-making opportunity. That's what I did. And they love me now, more than ever. Then, email to anyone and everyone! Use your imagination! You can get email addresses from companies on the internet who specialize in email mailing lists. These are very cheap, 100,000 addresses for around $35.00. IMPORTANT: You won't get a good response if you use an old list, so always request a FRESH, NEW list. You will find out where to purchase these lists when you order the four 4 REPORTS. ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS!!! REQUIRED REPORTS ***Order each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME*** ALWAYS SEND A SELF-ADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPE AND $5 USD CASH FOR EACH ORDER REQUESTING THE SPECIFIC REPORT BY NAME AND NUMBER (International orders should also include $2 USD extra for postage) Add your e amil address when sending in for your report this is for updated information and continueing support (optional) that will be handed down by your sponcers pipeline. ______________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "HOW TO MAKE $250,000 THROUGH MULTI-LEVEL SALES" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: A. Siegmund #57 Trakehnenstr. 13 53332 Bornheim, Germany ______________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND MULTI-LEVEL SALES" J. Maze 15774 S. Lagrange Rd Suite #312 Orland Pk, IL 60462 USA ________________________________________________________ REPORT#3 "SOURCES FOR THE BEST MAILING LISTS" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: B. Thompson 13504 Greencaslte ridge Tr. 404 Burtonsville MD. 20866 USA ______________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "EVALUATING MULTI-LEVEL SALES PLANS" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: MUW #2 PO BOX 71442 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84171-0442 USA ______________________________________________________ CONCLUSION One of your free web sites can be registered at http://www.freeyellow.com/ .I am enjoying my fortune that I made by sending out this program. You too, will be making money in 20 to 90 days, if you follow the SIMPLE STEPS outlined in this mailing. To be financially independent is to be FREE. Free to make financial decisions as never before. Go into business, get into investments, retire or take a vacation. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <ziaza99(a)sh.hit.no> Received: from relay01.mail.aol.com (relay01.mail.aol.com [172.31.106.125]) by air21.mail.aol.com (v37.8) with SMTP; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:34:39 -0500 Received: from bonaly.hw.ac.uk (bonaly.hw.ac.uk [137.195.151.5]) by relay01.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with SMTP id MAA09338; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:29:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:29:50 -0500 (EST) From: ziaza99(a)sh.hit.no Received: from 007 (sdn-ts-047mdrelRP11.dialsprint.net) by bonaly.hw.ac.uk (MX V4.2 AXP) with SMTP; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:29:48 +0000 (GMT) To: ziaza99(a)sh.hit.no Comments: Authenticated sender is <ziaza99(a)sh.hit.no> Subject:free web site Message-ID: <19971222246ZAA24605(a)theman.hw.ac.uk> -

1 0

What is Gary L. Burnore Afraid Of? (was: Anon asshole still has no proof)
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) ranted: > Still no proof that I am anti-remailer or support anti-remailers > Still no proof that I am anti-privacy or support anti-privacy You just provided it in the form of the Subject: line that YOU chose for this post -- "Anon asshole still has no proof". > Still accusations with no proof. Continuous for about a year. On and on and > on. Still no explination for why the whole thing started to begin with. > Because what the anon asshole is _REALLY_ upset about is true reason for his > obsession with me. > > > So the anon asshole won't answer. Can't answer. His/Her identity may become > know if he/her reveals the true reason for a year of obsession. Careful, Gary, your bigotry and paranoia are showing. My "accusation" has merely been at *ASK* you and Belinda Bryan why you demanded that Jeff Burchell turn over the user logs from his Huge Cajones Remailer over to DataBasix and what you intended to do with them after you obtained them. It seems to be you that's hiding the "true reason" for your own actions. What "proof" does one need to ask a question or two? Why do you resort to posting silly rants like this just to avoid answering those two questions? You are the one making the ridiculous accusations without proof, that a mythical "AnonAsshole <tm>" has supposedly done all matter of evil mischief towards you. And you conveniently try to discredit anyone who dares to criticize you anonymously of being this evil, mean ogre that you've invented.

1 0

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Lock and Load (fwd) > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 97 01:45:53 -0500 > From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr(a)together.net> > >Would you be so kind as to give a specific example of a bolt action, > >semi-automatic, or automatic rifle that can't be loaded on safe? I have > >never seen a rifle that wouldn't allow this. > > Remington Model 8 semi-automatic rifle (circa 1905-1930+) there is one > (high three digit serial number made in 1906) chambered in .35 Remington > on the wall about 30 feet from where I am sitting. It's safety is right > side mounted and not only blocks the trigger but locks the bolt forward > both internally and externally by blocking track for the bolt handle, it > must be off to draw the bolt back to load the internal five round > pushdown magazine. Right mounted safety? Sounds like a lefties gun. Safeties are usualy thumb tripped which means they are on the left. The idea is you can safety the weapon without taking your finger from the trigger. That could explain the loading problem, guns built for lefties typicaly have all kinds of weird handling issues. It sounds to me like a real nightmare to load and use in the bush since you have to take your hand off the gun in order to get the safety off while you load another round while cycling the bolt through its action - eliminates snap shots that's for shure. Do you know if it is a lefty build? If so then it clearly isn't a military grade weapon since they are ubiquitously designed for right handed firers (at least until the last 20 yrs. or so). Once the clip is in place, top feed since you said "push down", does the safety prevent the cycling of ammo through the breech? Does it use a stripper clip or a carrier? You don't happen to know the type of action? Is this a military grade weapon or sport? > >A parallel pistol example would be nice too, if you're so inclined. > > I don't know of any pistols .... except that in the case of the > ubiquitous military .45 (1911A1) while one can easily insert a magazine > with the gun on safe, it isn't truly loaded til a round is chambered > which involves coming out of safe to rack the slide Interesting since the 1911 I use doesn't exhibit this ... I don't have a problem loading it irrespecitive of the safety. If the safety is on the hammer is blocked from the bottem by a lever. You can put ammo in it, cock it via the slide, etc. Just can't pull the trigger. Will have to look more into this... Thanks for the info. Merry Christmas! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Identity, Persistence, Anonymity, and Accountability--Part I
by Paul Bradley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You Own Your Own Posts: You own your own words. This means that you > are responsible for the words that you post to Nym and that > reproduction of those words without your permission in any medium > outside of the Nym mailing list may be challenged by you, the > author. I am sure I need not outline for the members of the list the reasons why such copyright supporting drivel is not really in the spirit of the list, no-one owns my words, not me, nor anyone else, copyrights and patents infringe true free speech. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

2 1