December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by OKSAS 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, blanc wrote: > From: jim bell > > [ on discussing AP on the cpunk list]: > > Because it's on-topic, that's why. Because it's not merely a list > concerning METHODS of encryption, it's also about the _reasons_ for using > encryption, as well as the _effects_ (both small-scale and large-scale) of > using encryption. > -- > [...] > I was thinking the reason that most people don't think of applying AP is > because they're normal. It is not the first thought of a normal person to > kill another human, just because they've been offended - even severely. It > takes an extraordinary circumstance to motivate one to such destruction, > especially if there are a thousand armed troops supporting the object of > the attempt. > Any normal person has potential to kill, why they don't...? They have other thoughts and dreams for a better future. oksas

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul said: > The list has been disentigrating for some time since the disgusting > incident when Dimitri was forcibly unsubscribed from the list. There Bullshit. This list was disentigrating well before that, and Vulis's actions were a part of that disentigration. > > a while." > > So, there would be no intellectual dishonesty in a country claiming > to be a free and open society "trying out" fascism for a month or > two? - After all it`s a private country just as this is a private > list.... As long as they let people leave at any point in the experiment, comment on the experiment, and start their own country if they don't like it. > There is a clear trend easily observable on the list whereby certain > members postings are censored when their content is of a standard > that, if the moderation were objective and based on content alone, > would warrant their being sent to the censored list. Really? Point to this "trend". I only know of 2 articles, and Sandy explained his (IMNTBHO incorrect) reasoning behind that.

1 0

Re: RC5-12/32/5 contest solved
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Any bets on whether the $5000 RC5-12/32/6 contest will be solved before the www.rsa.com contest status web page is updated? :-) Or how long before someone in the government starts talking about how 56 bits takes 65,000 times as long to solve as 40 bits, which is 26 years for a whole building full of computers, and even 48 bits ought to take a month and a half for a whole building full of computers (or supercomputers, if they hype it up....)? At 09:55 PM 1/28/97 +0100, Germano Caronni <caronni(a)tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote: >challenge: RC5-32/12/5 >time: from start of contest until Tue Jan 28 21:54:58 1997 >method: massive distributed coordinated keysearch, details later which was a bit slower than Ian Goldberg's crack, but pretty close. How many machines were you using, on average? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dave Hayes wrote: > Dale Thorn writes: > > I heard years ago that approximately 10% of the people on the street > > are certifiably mentally unstable. > This depends on your standads of "unstable". I'll bet genetic > diversity is now much more of a factor then when those standards were > written. > > Multiply that by two at least for > > Los Angeles (suburban L.A., actually, Hollywood for example is much > > safer than Altadena or Westlake Village). > I beg to differ. Which parts of Altadena and Hollywood are you > referring to? I used Altadena as a generic example of a suburb, although Camarillo would be even better, since it's not so cosmopolitan as most of the 'burbs right next to L.A. Hollywood (to me) is an ideal example of inner city, for a lot of reasons. I love the place, dirt and all. BTW, I was *not* referring to walking around, I was comparing driving, mainly on the freeway. Statistics have come out in major papers that back my experience up 100%. I drive from P.C.H. @ Seal Beach Blvd. to the Ventura County beach area every weekend, and back again. I used to go down the 101 to the 405, then south on the 405 to Seal Beach Blvd. Nowadays I take the 101 all the way into town to the 5, down the 5 to the 605, and down the 605 to 7th Street in Long Beach. It's 3 miles further thru town, and 20 minutes slower on average, but I get only about one psycho per 20 round trips now, as compared to at least one per trip on the 101-405 combo when I went that way. The difference was striking, and I can only surmise that rednecks and their ilk are more fearful of attacking other people in the inner city as opposed to the outlying regions.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aga wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > aga wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I > > > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly. > > > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would > > > > suffice to be immediately terminated. > > No trial, huh? Good question. The law we have right now already assumes that there are situations where a criminal will not go peacefully, if at all. In some countries (years ago?) such as England, bobbies were known to not carry firearms for ordinary street duty. Am I right? But here in the USA, that would be unthinkable. So my proposal doesn't eliminate the responsibility portion of law enforcement. I'd say, if a target were eliminated thru negligence, malfeasance, or other wrongdoing under "color of law" or whatever, let the courts handle that as they do now. My suggestion would give the law enforcers the ability to dispense the first level of justice expeditiously, which they cannot accomplish now due to all of the red tape and the corrupt legal system (lawyers specialize in getting chronic offenders off, particularly "traffic" offenses). By transferring a major portion of the bureaucracy to the pencil pushers, we can free up the street cops to do what they do best, namely bust or eliminate criminals. I dare say that the downside of this is much less pleasant than the virtual anarchy (in the bad sense) we suffer now. If the police get out of control, A.P. will arrive just in time to plug a few of those holes, so to speak. Ideally, future robotics should be able to provide something like Gort (sp?) to take the place of human officers, given advances in the kind of pattern matching needed to deter aggression and the like. Those who don't make it past the robots, well, the rest of us can learn to behave, and we'll be much better off when we do.

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Cc to Dr. John Martin Grubor, Law Systems Institute] Jim Choate wrote: > > It has been asserted by at least one member that the 1st Amendment protects > libelous or other defamatory speech. [I would appreciate if people with better knowledge of law correct me] I doubt that anyone made this assertion. What Greg Broiles and Dr. Grubor asserted was that because of the first amendment, the government can not initiate an action in a libel case. Which means that libel is not a crime. There may be some old statutes that declare libel a crime, as Greg noted, but they are not enforceable because of the first amendment. Suits can be brought by private individuals though. The government, even if it is defamed, cannot sue a private person for libel. For example, I can say that Congress regularly molests small children, and they will not be able to do anything about me. > This is hokem. The 1st most certainly does not protect lies in any form. It ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > protects opinion, this is distinctly different then stating a untruth about > some party or distribution of material with the attributation to them > without their permission. Not exactly. I can lie as much as I want about the government. No one would be able to prosecute me. These particular lies are protected, contrary to what you state. The law does not protect ALL opinions, as well. > No civilized society can exist that permits lies and other defamations of > character and expect to survive for any length of time. Simply for no other > reason than contracts and other such instruments would not be worth the > paper they were printed on. Let alone any laws or other issuances from the > government itself. You are mixing in totally unrelated things, Jim. Enforcement of contracts has nothing to do with freedom of speech. For example, if you borrow $100 from me and fail to return your debt in time, this is an issue of contract law and not of free speech. Contract law is not about speech, it is about promises. > ARTICLE I. > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, > and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. > > > Where in there do you see a right to lie, cheat, or steal? If it did, it > would be a lie because it would not protect the very freedom it says it is. Do you think that all rights should be found in the first amendment? What does the right to steal have to do with what we are talking about? I suggest reading "The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom of the Press in America", by Lucas a Powe, Jr. As for stealing and cheating in contracts, read any textbook on business law for business students. It is very useful to read this stuff, by the way. Not that these books give one a complete picture on law, but they are very informative. - Igor.

1 0

M.M. / Re: Sovreign Right of Lawful Access
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally wrote: > Somebody wrote: > > This morning at the RSA keynote, David Aaron, the US Crypto > > ambassador quoted the "Sovreign Right of Lawful Access" as > > something that goverments were determined to preserve. > > Speaking as a private indiwidual, and not as a drone in the employ > of IBM (don't get me started on the "but wait, key recovery *isn't* > the same as key escrow" hoo-ha), that dude scared the piss out of > me. That plinking sound you hear is the sound of NSA's bloodhounds stamping the phrase, in reverse, on the bottom of their jackboots. "Sovreign Right" has that certain ring to it which suggests the rhetoric of Dictators who imagine themselves to be Kings. "Lawful Access" has that "Of course, we will only use this 'right' against drug dealers.", kind of feel to it. Perhaps the student who popped RSA's test balloon could propose the "Universal Right to Casual Access." Toto

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Richard Fiero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Get it straight Sandy Sandfort. I'm not in your home. I am in my home and I will observe my priorities, not your's. Sandy Sandfort writes: > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mail lists are far >more like private homes, businesses or clubs. When you are a >guest there, you are subject to their rules of behavior. If Dr. Vulis was pushing the envelope in list-abuse as a multi-stage social experiment, Sandy Sandfort has surpassed him by far. In part I refer to a Sandy Sandfort reply to a criticism made by Paul Bradley. The reply was made public two hours before the criticism was. This is not moderation. It is manipulation and interference. Since I have a low tolerance for self-serving pedantry, I never would have noticed the criticism if it had not been preceded by the reply. In the reply, Sandy Sandfort employs the name-calling "sophist" and "hypocrite." Also in the reply is the Freudian slip or obscene proposition: > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Force," my ass. Shouldn't this have gone to cypherpunks-flames? One might wonder just what the rules of proper decorum are. -- Richard Fiero

1 0

Re: East German Collapse (Was: Fighting the cybercensor
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One point I had forgotten. The demonstration took place on the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht. This is one explanation as to why the border guards did not attempt to open fire with firearms or attempt to break up the demonstration with tear gas. Also consider that the Tiennamen square massacre had occurred only a few months before and it did not appear to have settled the issue of who controlled china. Many of the dissidents were still at large, China was a pariah nation. East Germany had recently been visited by Gorbachev who did not appear ready to help keep the regime if things got sticky. The mass defections were taking place at their peak at a rate of tens of thousands in a day. Something like a quarter of the youth between 18 and 25 had defected. Bill if anything understates this point. Certainly if the people decide that the structures of state are not worth supporting change can be astonishing. I think that the spending into bankrupcy thesis might be argued for the case of the USSR and more plausibly the US. The problem is that I don't think that the military spending in either case bore any relation to need, to the threat from the other side or to any rational determination. I think both budgets simply increased to the limit that the economies could support and beyond. There is a similar problem in the third world today. Many third world countries spend more on arms than they do on health or education. Much of the alledged "foreign aid" is in fact subsidies for this trade. The arms are primarily to suppress internal dissent. There are plenty of governments left in need of similar reform. Phill

2 1

Re: East German Collapse (Was: Fighting the cybercensor
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:59 PM 1/28/97 -0500, "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: >>That's it? The system collapsed because the guards left their posts? >>And no mutiny charges? Incredible. >I was there. >The collapse of East Germany was quite spectacular. There >was at most three months of warning. First there was a series >of sit ins at foreign embassies, then a migration of large >numbers of people in their twenties within the eastern block. In particular, people started leaving East Germany by way of still-somewhat-communist Hungary (where the Germans let them go) and from there into Austria (where the Hungarians let them go), and it was getting to be tens of thousands of people per month. Once a system like that starts leaking, it's hard to contain. (ObCypherpunksContent: if substantial amounts of tax money starts escaping into Cypherspace, it's not easy to maintain a modern CorporatistWelfare-for-Bureaucrats state either.....) >Unfortunately US commentators tend to see everything in terms of >US cultural norms, many of which were explicitly rejected by the >protestors. The East Germans wanted West German affluence, they >wanted to be part of Western Europe. They were certainly not >responding to US military spending as right wing theorists claim, >nor was the economy collapsing because of the arms race, it >was collapsing because of the costs of a totalitarian state and >the incompatibility of that state with modern industrial >organization. The US right wing does argue that the Soviets couldn't afford to run a military industrial complex big enough to outrace theirs, and that it was a major contributor to the economic collapse (which it probably was.) Of course, they also consider that Communism isn't an economically viable system, ignoring the similar problems with the Good Old American Patriotic Military-Industrial-Complex, and somehow think that now that there aren't any Russian Commies to kick around any more that we need a bigger army, as well as a supply of easily-kicked-around enemies. Unfortunately, I suspect that sometime soon they'll remember that there still are a billion Commies left, and that Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia. Hopefully the Communist system in China will have fallen apart by then to the extent that it can admit to being a semi-capitalist kleptocracy instead of pretending to still be in charge of anything. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

2 1

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by Z.B. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: [snip] > >EXPORTABLE CRYPTOGRAPHY TOTALLY INSECURE: CHALLENGE CIPHER BROKEN IMMEDIATELY > > > >January 28, 1997 - Ian Goldberg, a UC Berkeley graduate student, > >announced today that he had successfully cracked RSA Data Security > >Inc.'s 40-bit challenge cipher in just under 3.5 hours. > .... > >Goldberg used UC Berkeley's Network of Workstations (known as the NOW) > >to harness the computational resources of about 250 idle machines. > >This allowed him to test 100 billion possible "keys" per hour -- > Good grief...I just remembered that this challenge started today when I read this letter. A question - how does DES differ from the RC5 cyphers that are also up for breaking? Where can I find some software to use on these? Zach Babayco zachb(a)netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available.

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > I am a cyber-revolutionary and the world has bought into > > the chaos of our revolution. I never intended the Web to be a tool > > for confirming the present social order which is manifestly > > corrupt. > > Which of course is why you were in contact with Billy's boys right? We did consider very early on the idea of proceedings of congress annotated with the campaign contributions of the various speakers. Imagine if instead of Newt Gingrich you saw Newt Gingrich ($243,493 Tobbacco Industry) as a speaker note. We were in contact with the Clinton folks because the Bush guys ignored the Web and the Internet completely. They just were not interested. Nor were the Perot folks either - odd since the electronic townhall was a big part of their platform. Even in this campaign the Perot page could not be read with Netscape 6 months before the election. On the other hand have a look at www.buchanan.org If you thought that Pat got a bum rap off the press when they called him a neo-Nazi just take a look at his site. Buchanan Brigade? Look at the choice of topics for the speaches. Phill

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phill wrote: > I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have > "rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of > property you do. > > Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the BULLSHIT. BULL FUCKING SHIT. The origin of property is labor. Claiming that _my_ property is the result of ME stealing, and hence what I OWN belongs to the community IS theft. I work, and as the result of that work something is created. That something is MINE to do with as I will. If I choose to sell that work for money, that money is mine. If I trade that money for shoes, those shoes are mine. THere is no theft involved. > controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property" > from the previous rulers. They "won" it in combat. The people of china obviously prefered new government to the old one, or they would have prevented the takeover. > I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is > a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model > you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every > philosopher since Locke. Practically every philosopher since Locke has recieved their education at a Government or "Elite" sponsored school, and made their livings the same way. I'm not claiming conspiracy here, but those that feed at the trough aren't going to insult it overmuch.

2 1

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >January 28, 1997 - Ian Goldberg, a UC Berkeley graduate student, > >announced today that he had successfully cracked RSA Data Security > >Inc.'s 40-bit challenge cipher in just under 3.5 hours. I just ran out of asswipe. Does anyone have any RSA Data Security, Inc. stock they'd like to sell? Toto

1 0

Re: [noise] RE: Shave the Whales
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mullen, Patrick wrote: > Is there a way we can keep the caricatures w/out getting the rest of the > message > w/ these postings? I like the ASCII art, but... I've just started clipping and saving the characters w/o the text that accompanies them. I've got a dozen so far, so check back in a week or so and I'll forward a set to anyone who wants. Unless, of course, someone has a bucket of them now. BTW, some of the recent ones are pretty amazing: a bat, a scorpion, a cow, etc.

1 0

Altavista
by mjw＠VNET.IBM.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Mark Waddington Subject: Altavista > However, the doubleclick.net ads appear to bear no relationship to the > keywords being searched... Interestingly, I've just noticed over the last couple of days that the in-line ads are directly relevant to the search words I enter. I did a search yesterday on "Quicken" and "security" and all the in-line ads I was shown referred to security or penetration detection products. Mark Waddington Interactive Financial Services | Phone : +61-3-96266574 Business Development Manager | Mobile: +61-412-217316 IBM Asia Pacific | Fax : +61-3-96266273

2 1

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by sameer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://now.cs.berkeley.edu/ > Yee-hah! Congratulations (and enjoy the $1000 check!) > So what did you do interesting cryptographically in the crack, > other than coordinating a bunch of workstations? > Was it just brute force with well-tuned code? > Given the figures in your press release, it sounds like you > tested about 350 billion keys out of a trillion possible, > so you hit the winner a shade early. That's about 400,000 keys/sec/box. > Are the machines mostly Pentiums, Alphas, Suns, etc.? -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 President FAX: 510-986-8777 C2Net http://www.c2.net/ sameer(a)c2.net

1 0

Re: Trolling with Dale (a bite)
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > Subject: Re: overview.htm (fwd) > Dale Thorn hopelessly wrote: > >Let's be realistic about how AIDS is acquired. > Yes, Dale, let's. Dale makes an excellent case for having a moderated > list right here. What do his nutball beyond-the-fringe remarks have > to do with crypto, privacy, security? Cripes, in the old days even an > _accurate_ off-list remark would open a blast furnace of condemnation, > a la Jim B. If the list won't moderate itself to "guide" the Dale's, > it DESERVES to be moderated. He's gotta be trolling to keep it hard. Well, I don't know who you are, so (despite your remarks) I can't really tell what your question is. I suppose if we sat down with a human moderator and a copy of Applied Cryptography, you'd know the XOR's and S-boxes and whatnot better than I. That's why we need people like you on this list, especially the moderated list, since you know the conventional (academic) crypto really well. To be honest, I'm after more important things, but hey, keep plugging away and maybe I'll learn something from you. Hugs and stuff....

1 0

Re: can Sun Tzu be a cypherpunks?
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody(a)nowhere.com wrote: > Quotations from the Art Of War by Sun Tzu > A Military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, > appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective. > Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion. > Use humility to make them haughty. Tire them by flight. Cause division > among them. Attack when they are unprepared, make your move when they > do not expect it. The all-time master was Rudolph Wanderone (sp?), a.k.a. Minnesota Fats. There was an article on him that told how he cleaned the pool champ in Atlantic City circa 1960. In later years, he played Mosconi on TV several times, and had quite a few people convinced he wasn't a very good player, at least "not as good as" Mosconi. The movie Color Of Money shows what this meant, and just how unprepared the public is to believe that someone like Fats could really be the best. Kinda like Tom Wolfe and the pirates thing.

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Richard Fiero wrote: > Get it straight Sandy Sandfort. I'm not in your home. I am in > my home and I will observe my priorities, not your's. Silly things happen when one responds literally to an obvious metaphor. (see, "analogy.") > ...In part I refer to a > Sandy Sandfort reply to a criticism made by Paul Bradley. The reply was > made public two hours before the criticism was. Nonsense. Richard may have read my response on the Unedited list and Paul post on the Moderated list, but I sent my response to each list in the appropriate order, Paul's post, followed by my response. In any event, how would intentionally reversing the order have benefited me? This specious argument makes no sense. > In the reply, Sandy Sandfort employs the name-calling "sophist" > and "hypocrite." Nope, wrong again. I referenced sophistry and hypocracy. I leave the significance of the difference as an exercise to the student. (Hint: one is an argument to the man, the other isn't.) > Also in the reply is the Freudian slip or obscene proposition: > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Force," my ass. > Shouldn't this have gone to cypherpunks-flames? And wrong yet again. Not a personal attack but commentary on wooly thinking. > One might wonder just what the rules of proper decorum are. One might read my posts on this point and pay attention. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

MIT probably has a need-blind admissions policy; they don't care whether or not you have money. When they admit you, at least. Let me plug Carnegie Mellon University, which consistently ties with MIT and one of them California schools for first place in computer science. It's not quite as hard to get into as MIT, though you do have to deal with Pittsburgh winters. The town itself is small enough to be friendly, and big enough to be interesting. Jim Morris, the head of the computer science department, was my instructor for a data structures class and truly seemed to care about his students' well-being. Oh, and I remember we had t-shirts saying: "MIT -- the CMU of Massachusetts." -Declan Rick wrote: >At 12:32 PM 1/28/97 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: >>This is really exagerating. You do not need a 4.0, 1600, etc. to be >>admitted to MIT. Sure, you need good grades, but a 3.6 average and >>1350-1400 SAT scores is perfectly adequate to be admitted to MIT. > >I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT >even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests >with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I >was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in >Drama, and played Tennis. > >The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I >made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need >full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the >Russian front!" > >>For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >>school, too > >Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying >overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess. > >MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most >part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty >assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) >_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ >"He who knows, does not speak. >He who speaks, does not know." ------------------------- Washington Correspondent The Netly News Network http://netlynews.com/

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OKSAS wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, blanc wrote: > > From: jim bell > > I was thinking the reason that most people don't think of applying AP is > > because they're normal. It is not the first thought of a normal person to > > kill another human, just because they've been offended - even severely. It > > takes an extraordinary circumstance to motivate one to such destruction, > > especially if there are a thousand armed troops supporting the object of > > the attempt. > Any normal person has potential to kill, > why they don't...? They have other thoughts > and dreams for a better future. Some people in society are like a bad dream (ok, ok). Anyway, they are a lot harder to get rid of than just waking up and going back to sleep. But AP offers the first practical solution to this problem. Get rid of the bad dreams, have good dreams. What could be better?

1 0

Re: Getting into MIT is impossible
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

can any kind soul tell me, what are the SAT scores needed to be in the top 10%, top 1%, and top 0.1% of all the students who take these tests? thank you igor Anonymous wrote: > > > > According to Rick Osborne: > > "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT > even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests > with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I > was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in > Drama, and played Tennis." > > People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most > intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions > practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. > > In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. > And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I > was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the > way things turned out. > > And I decided not to go to MIT, either. > > "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I > made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need > full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the > Russian front!"" > > My guess is that "other factors" were involved. > > I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT > required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and > had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT > rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." > > ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high > >school, too > > "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying > overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." > > MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, > grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? > > "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most > part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty > assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) > > I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty > asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was > _very_ impressed by this). > > Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. > > Xanthar > > > > > -- > - Igor.

2 1

Re: Machine readable form (was:RE: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7)
by Tobin Fricke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> This seems clear enough. If it's printed on paper, it's kosher for > export. But if we're really overt about it, we may goad the government > into attempting to control printed source code as well. That could > prove most interesting. Hmmm.. Printing out, say, PGP as a book where each page is a 2 dimensional bar code would be rather interesting. Then again, OCR works pretty well for normal text. A printed book or other printed material setting forth encryption source code is not itself subject to the EAR (see Sec. 734.3(b)(2)). However, notwithstanding Sec. 734.3(b)(2), encryption source code in electronic form or media (e.g., computer diskette or CD ROM) remains subject to the EAR (see Sec. 734.3(b)(3)). Does a barcode fall under "electronic form or media" or is it "printed material"? What about punched cards? (-: Tobin Fricke

1 0

Getting into MIT is impossible
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to Rick Osborne: "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in Drama, and played Tennis." People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the way things turned out. And I decided not to go to MIT, either. "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the Russian front!"" My guess is that "other factors" were involved. I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >school, too "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was _very_ impressed by this). Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. Xanthar --

3 2