December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ah, what the hell. It's a good day to practice the golden rule. Forwarded message: > Date: 8 Nov 1998 04:40:03 -0000 > From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> > > It seems so pointless to correct Choate. The guy is almost totally > impervious to enlightenment. But a couple of whoppers have to be > pointed out... Speakin of pointless anonymous know-it-all bullshit .... > Electrons don't "carry" photons. Actualy they carry the probability wave for the photon (which technicaly could be anywhere in the universe at any given time because of space contraction caused by relativistic effects), but for this particular discussion which concerns ionized or non-correlated electrons carrying a unit charge and Joules of energy (which is where the photon comes in you anonymous fucking ignoramus) saying the electron is carrying a photon is sufficient. > An atom can absorb a photon, raising > an electron to a higher energy level, but the photon is then gone. Well actualy to be absolutely exact the photon is locked between the protons and the electron. It is *NEVER* gone or destroyed. You can't destroy energy, only transform it's form. The photon is *NEVER* absorbed by anything. Now exactly how is the 'higher energy' level expressed? By a *PHOTON* of shorter wavelength (E=hv) you know-nothing smart-ass anonymous dick-muncher. > a single moving electron certainly doesn't carry a photon. Photons move > at the speed of light, always. Only when they are not correlated to a particle such as a proton or an electron. When an electron or a proton carry a packet of energy (measured in Joules) it most certainly carries a photon. Let's look at the electrical characteristic called voltage (you probably haven't heard of this since the rest of your pseudo-science is as full of bullshit as your mouth) which is measured in Joules/Coulomb. Now a Coulomb of electrons moving past a given point in a unit second is an Amp of current. Want to explain how those electrons manage to carry those Joules of photons if their isn't a correlation? I didn't think you did you anonymous lying sack of horse sperm. Since photons *ARE* light (you fucking anonymous ninny) your last point is irrelevant and redundant. Of course they ALWAYS travel at the speed of light, it's how we define light in the first place. > Quarks are constituents only of baryons. There are no quarks in electrons > or photons. Quarks are constituents of hadrons you dumbass prick sucking gay boy. Protons and Neutrons are hadrons built from 3 quarks and some other bosons (some vector and some not) that glue the nucleus together. Electrons and photons are called Leptons (because they are their own vector boson). Electrons carry electrical unit negative charge and photons carry EM fields. A Baryon is a distinction based on the type of quarks that make up the hadron. If the paticle is made up of no anti-quarks it's a baryon, othwise it's a meson. God, what a load of quantum mechanical horse hockey you spout this fine Sunday morning. I can't hardly wait to see what other anonymous drivel you spew out of your syphilis infested mouth next. > The net charge within the sphere will not change. Then you need to go back to school and learn Gauss's Law all over again. It's ok, you'll probably get it in the first semester unless they recognize what a dumb-ass you are and put you in the remedial section. Then I believe you'll be scheduled to cover those topics your Junior year. > If the box in the > middle with the "spark gap" is spraying out electrons, this can only mean > that the box is itself becoming positively charged. The sphere sees a > constant charge within itself; at best, the charge can be redistributed. Which is the whole point to this exercise. The simple fact that I can put a battery powered radio in a metal sphere as described and *STILL* receive the signal proves the model works within the constraints of the original thesis. Don't believe me? Try it at home with a couple of collanders soldered together. The charge is re-distributed to the surface of the sphere, the total charge of the entire system does stay constant (at least until the insulation breaks down). > There are no net changes of charge within the sphere and so there will > be no changes in any charge appearing on the outside of the sphere. If that were so we wouldn't have a spark in the ball to begin with. > Choate's whole model of how a spark gap transmitter works, and why it > emits electromagnetic radiation, is so bizarre that it is hard to believe. > Someone else can bang their head against the brick wall of his ignorance > on that topic. Who said anything about a spark gap transmitter? We were talking about a battery powered spark gap. Not the same thing at all you anonymous weenie sucker. > Choate is, by far, the worst poster on the cypherpunks list today. He > posts off-topic material, he is argumentative, and 90% of the time, he > is simply wrong. Oh, your just jealous I want let you suck my dick junior. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Electric power generators ?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're talking about the wired.com article I wrote. I carefully did not say there is a "shortage" of generators, diesel or otherwise -- that's your own misreading of it. I did say that the largest U.S. distributor of diesel generators has half year delays on the most popular model. Same with bulk food suppliers like Walton's. Solar power companies also report vastly increased demand. You can buy cheaper gasoline generators at Home Depot, but there are reasons people want to pay three or four times as much for a diesel model. These differences and the other answers to your questions have been well-documented elsewhere; I'm not inclined to list them for you here, though others might be. -Declan At 05:52 PM 11-7-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >Hi there, > >I saw an article posted about "shortages" of electric power generators >and other Y2K "survival" goods, such as grains in airtight drums. My >reading of the article gave me a feel that those products are bullshit >products geared towards naive losers, and can be easily replaced with >much cheaper products that can be bought at discount stores. > >More careful reading of the article showed that only certain high power >diesel generators are scarce. > >A visit to my local discount retailer has shown that there are 10KW >gasoline generators available for as little as $500. 10KW is far more >than I would need in an emergency. (I will probably need about 2KW). > >Questions: > >1) Aside from probably lower power, are those cheaper generators somehow >worse? > >2) How reliable are those cheaper generators? > >3) What is their expected lifetime, in hours of operation? > >4) How hard is it to service them? > >5) How do you connect them to the electric system, to properly use >them as backup? (this may be a stupid question, but I am not very >familiar with American system of electric wiring). > >6) How much gasoline do they consume if you draw 2KW power from them? > >Thank you. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} > > \=/, _-===-_-====-_-===-_-==========-_-====-_ > | @___oo ( )_ > /\ /\ / (___,,,}_--= ) > ) /^\) ^\/ _) =__ Anything is good and useful if ) > ) /^\/ _) (_ ) > ) _ / / _) ( it's made of chocolate. ) > /\ )/\/ || | )_) (_ ) >< > |(,,) )__) ( http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov ) > || / \)___)\ (_ _) > | \____( )___) )___ -==-_____-=====-_____-=====-___== > \______(_______;;; __;;; >

1 0

Re: Advertising Creepiness (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Information Security <guy(a)panix.com> > Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 12:59:09 -0500 (EST) > Subject: Re: Advertising Creepiness > Would you like to know whether it is "fair use" to repost entire articles? > > I would. When it is non-profit, and is equivalent to my neighbor bringing his morning paper over to show me a story (I don't subscribe to the paper so I haven't a license with the copyright holder in principle or practice) he wants to talk about. With the way the law is going that will soon be illegal for me to even look at the paper, though we can probably still talk about it. Though the probable next step is to make even that verbal recitation illegal. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

TEMPEST Laptop from Wang
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry to not post the article, but Wang just announced a TEMPEST compliant portable computer. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28483,00.html?st.ne.fd.mdh -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: IP: Discover Alien Life With Your PC And SETI (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 20:39:58 -0800 > From: Steve Schear <schear(a)lvcm.com> > Subject: Re: IP: Discover Alien Life With Your PC And SETI > Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that if I were an alien > civilization and wanted to send out a beacon, in as wide an angle as > possible, across the vast reaches of space and overcome as much of the path > losses as possible using the least energy I certainly wouldn't use a narrow > band signal. Quite the contrary, I'd want to spread a low bandwidth > information signal across the widest practical spectrum. Its much easier to > increase process gain (the ratio of the baseband information signal to the > final carrier bandwidth) than transmit power. The problem becomes the 1/r^2 losses. The receivers on this end have fixed lower end to their sensitivity that sets a minimal effective energy output at the transmitter. If you do the math you find that the entire Earth doesn't generate enough energy to send a spread-spectrum wide-band signal more than a few light-years out, not worth the effort or the social costs (nobody'd know about it because radio and television and such wouldn't be available since we're using all *that* energy for sending the signal). This might work for a hive mentality society but not for people. > While a narrow band signal from Arecibo's powerful transmitter/antenna > combination can be detected at a distance of about 300 light years. Since it's only been transmitting intermittenly about 30 years that's more than a tad moot. > Switching to a spread spectrum approach could allow broadening the antenna > pattern, and thereby its chances of detection, significantly without > reducing its effective range. Spread spectrum won't effect the beam angle of the dish, that's set when the dish is designed - spread spectrum or not. Also you'll need to build a new set of LMB's since the old ones won't be able to handle the frequency range or the gross power input required to keep the new signal at a given frequency at a respectible power level with the other frequencies we're now operating on in parallel. That baby's gonna get hot. > Notice how 63 dB (or over 2,000,000 fold > effective increase in transmit power) of process gain enables handheld GPS > receivers to pull in signals from satellites, sent using only a few watts > of transmit power, without much of an antenna. It's amazing how much you can pull in when you increase the sensitivity of the front-end and use mechanisms to reduce noise. > If all this seems to make sense, then why are the SETI people apparently > seaching the skies with lots of narrow band receivers? They don't seem to > be employing any broadband correlator techniques, so spread signals will > probably be missed. Then you haven't been keeping up with the Million Channel Receiver system that has been operating at Aricebo for several years. You also haven't been keeping up with the folks out at White Sands either who also impliment receivers of the same spread-spectrum type. Just about all the current big money (there ain't any since the feds cut the budget several years ago) projects use this system and the small-money and individual projects also impliment it but at a lower range of bandwidth sampled. It isn't that these folks don't want to use the latest technology it's that they can't.....$$$. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

BOOST YOUR WEB SITE'S TRAFFIC--GET LISTED ON YAHOO!
by trgz941＠netscape.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BOOST YOUR WEB SITE'S TRAFFIC--GET LISTED ON YAHOO! ---------------- THE MARKETING BENEFITS OF HAVING A YAHOO! LISTING FACT: Yahoo! is the most important search engine/directory on which your Web site can be listed. FACT: Independently conducted Internet studies show that 42% of all Internet traffic and 70% of all business-to- business Web site traffic is generated from Yahoo!. FACT: Getting your Web site listed on Yahoo! is without question the single most important marketing step you can take to promote your Web site. EXAMPLE: For some of our clients, a Yahoo! listing is the only Internet advertising they have--and the only advertising they need. EXAMPLE: Some of our clients now receive over 20,000 hits per *day* and do well over $100,000 in Internet sales per month--not from expensive advertising, but all from a single Yahoo listing. ---------------- YAHOO! REJECTS 90% OF ALL SUBMITTED WEB SITES--BE IN THE 10% PROBLEM: In case you didn't know, Yahoo!'s staff rejects over 90% of the submissions they receive. SOLUTION: Our R&D division has studied hundreds of sites-- both those that have been successfuly indexed and those that have been rejected. SOLUTION: Based on our findings, we've helped hundreds of clients not only get their site into the Yahoo! index, but into a very prominent place within that index. The Yahoo! Project Team can do the same for you. ---------------- MY SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY YAHOO! WHAT CAN I DO? PROBLEM: "I submitted my site to Yahoo! but it was rejected. What can I do now?" SOLUTION: If your site has already been rejected--don't despair. We've helped many clients' sites get into Yahoo!'s index even after they've been rejected. ---------------- THE YAHOO! SITE SELECTION PROCESS--IN A NUTSHELL "I can just submit my URL and be considered for a listing, right? It's easy, isn't it?" No. It's not. Read on to learn why. PROBLEM: Every site that gets accepted into the Yahoo! directory is scrutinized by a Yahoo! "editor." The first step in the submission process is to get an already overworked editor to look at your site. SOLUTION: We have a carefully-researched technique to help your site's chances of being examined. PROBLEM: Before submitting, your site *must* be prepared for the Yahoo! editor's "10 minute lookover." In order to grab that editor's attention--and get listed--you need to understand what he or she will be examining to determine if your Web site gets a Yahoo! listing. SOLUTION: Our R&D division has studied hundreds of Yahoo! rejection letters and learned why Yahoo! editors commonly reject sites. In short, we can *tell* you ---------------- SOLUTION: THE "SECRETS TO GETTING A TOP YAHOO! LISTING" REPORT We offer an information-packed "Secrets to getting a top Yahoo! listing" report that will tell you exactly what Yahoo! editors will be looking for when they evaluate your site. You can learn from hundreds of other people's mistakes so that you won't make them when submitting--or resubmitting-- your site. Here's what's covered in the report: <> A general overview of Yahoo! and how it works <> The technical details of what they look for <> What *specific* types of content you *must* have <> What *never* to do before submitting to Yahoo! <> Why looking at your competitors is so important before submitting <> The specifics of how to submit properly to skyrocket your chances <> The best-kept secret on the net: this single submission technique alone has achieved top rankings for many of our clients! ---------------- FOR THE SERIOUS SITE OWNER--THE CUSTOMIZED YAHOO! EVALUATION We also offer a "Customized Evaluation" service where we'll examine your site like a Yahoo! editor will--and tell you, step-by-step, each of the changes you'll need to make before submitting to Yahoo!. The "Customized Evaluation" includes all of the information from the "Secrets to getting a top Yahoo! listing" report *plus*: <> A customized evaluation of your competitors' sites and why they are so important to consider before submitting <> An evaluation of your site's technical specs. and recommendations for improving them <> An evaluation of your site's content and recommendations for improving it ---------------- SUMMARY: WHY YOU NEED A GOOD LISTING ON YAHOO! (1) If you're thinking of submitting your site to Yahoo! --or have already tried and failed--put our research and the failure of others on your side. (2) Let us help you dramatically improve the effectiveness of your on-line marketing efforts. Preparing your site for Yahoo! is worth the extra effort. (3) Remember: Yahoo! is the only *free* Internet marketing resource that can help you to increase your long-term goals of widespread exposure and profitability. (4) Best of all, once your listed in Yahoo, you're there forever. This one-time effort will be rewarded with years of residual benefits. benefits ---------------- PRICING "Secrets to getting listed on Yahoo!" report -- $99 Customized Web site evaluation (incl. report) -- $249 ---------------- CONTACT US: Call us at: (314) 994-1286 <> Learn more about the Yahoo! project and us. We'll explain exactly how we can maximize your particular site's chances of a top Yahoo! listing <> We'd love to answer any questions you might have! <> It could be the single most important phone call you'll ever make when it comes to the on-line success of your website! (314) 994-1286 ---------------- If you've received this E-mail in error, or do not desire to receive any further mailings from the Yahoo! Project Team, please REPLY to this E-mail with the word "REMOVE" in the E-mail's subject line. Thank you.

1 0

BOOST YOUR WEB SITE'S TRAFFIC--GET LISTED ON YAHOO!
by trgz941＠netscape.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BOOST YOUR WEB SITE'S TRAFFIC--GET LISTED ON YAHOO! ---------------- THE MARKETING BENEFITS OF HAVING A YAHOO! LISTING FACT: Yahoo! is the most important search engine/directory on which your Web site can be listed. FACT: Independently conducted Internet studies show that 42% of all Internet traffic and 70% of all business-to- business Web site traffic is generated from Yahoo!. FACT: Getting your Web site listed on Yahoo! is without question the single most important marketing step you can take to promote your Web site. EXAMPLE: For some of our clients, a Yahoo! listing is the only Internet advertising they have--and the only advertising they need. EXAMPLE: Some of our clients now receive over 20,000 hits per *day* and do well over $100,000 in Internet sales per month--not from expensive advertising, but all from a single Yahoo listing. ---------------- YAHOO! REJECTS 90% OF ALL SUBMITTED WEB SITES--BE IN THE 10% PROBLEM: In case you didn't know, Yahoo!'s staff rejects over 90% of the submissions they receive. SOLUTION: Our R&D division has studied hundreds of sites-- both those that have been successfuly indexed and those that have been rejected. SOLUTION: Based on our findings, we've helped hundreds of clients not only get their site into the Yahoo! index, but into a very prominent place within that index. The Yahoo! Project Team can do the same for you. ---------------- MY SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY YAHOO! WHAT CAN I DO? PROBLEM: "I submitted my site to Yahoo! but it was rejected. What can I do now?" SOLUTION: If your site has already been rejected--don't despair. We've helped many clients' sites get into Yahoo!'s index even after they've been rejected. ---------------- THE YAHOO! SITE SELECTION PROCESS--IN A NUTSHELL "I can just submit my URL and be considered for a listing, right? It's easy, isn't it?" No. It's not. Read on to learn why. PROBLEM: Every site that gets accepted into the Yahoo! directory is scrutinized by a Yahoo! "editor." The first step in the submission process is to get an already overworked editor to look at your site. SOLUTION: We have a carefully-researched technique to help your site's chances of being examined. PROBLEM: Before submitting, your site *must* be prepared for the Yahoo! editor's "10 minute lookover." In order to grab that editor's attention--and get listed--you need to understand what he or she will be examining to determine if your Web site gets a Yahoo! listing. SOLUTION: Our R&D division has studied hundreds of Yahoo! rejection letters and learned why Yahoo! editors commonly reject sites. In short, we can *tell* you ---------------- SOLUTION: THE "SECRETS TO GETTING A TOP YAHOO! LISTING" REPORT We offer an information-packed "Secrets to getting a top Yahoo! listing" report that will tell you exactly what Yahoo! editors will be looking for when they evaluate your site. You can learn from hundreds of other people's mistakes so that you won't make them when submitting--or resubmitting-- your site. Here's what's covered in the report: <> A general overview of Yahoo! and how it works <> The technical details of what they look for <> What *specific* types of content you *must* have <> What *never* to do before submitting to Yahoo! <> Why looking at your competitors is so important before submitting <> The specifics of how to submit properly to skyrocket your chances <> The best-kept secret on the net: this single submission technique alone has achieved top rankings for many of our clients! ---------------- FOR THE SERIOUS SITE OWNER--THE CUSTOMIZED YAHOO! EVALUATION We also offer a "Customized Evaluation" service where we'll examine your site like a Yahoo! editor will--and tell you, step-by-step, each of the changes you'll need to make before submitting to Yahoo!. The "Customized Evaluation" includes all of the information from the "Secrets to getting a top Yahoo! listing" report *plus*: <> A customized evaluation of your competitors' sites and why they are so important to consider before submitting <> An evaluation of your site's technical specs. and recommendations for improving them <> An evaluation of your site's content and recommendations for improving it ---------------- SUMMARY: WHY YOU NEED A GOOD LISTING ON YAHOO! (1) If you're thinking of submitting your site to Yahoo! --or have already tried and failed--put our research and the failure of others on your side. (2) Let us help you dramatically improve the effectiveness of your on-line marketing efforts. Preparing your site for Yahoo! is worth the extra effort. (3) Remember: Yahoo! is the only *free* Internet marketing resource that can help you to increase your long-term goals of widespread exposure and profitability. (4) Best of all, once your listed in Yahoo, you're there forever. This one-time effort will be rewarded with years of residual benefits. benefits ---------------- PRICING "Secrets to getting listed on Yahoo!" report -- $99 Customized Web site evaluation (incl. report) -- $249 ---------------- CONTACT US: Call us at: (314) 994-1286 <> Learn more about the Yahoo! project and us. We'll explain exactly how we can maximize your particular site's chances of a top Yahoo! listing <> We'd love to answer any questions you might have! <> It could be the single most important phone call you'll ever make when it comes to the on-line success of your website! (314) 994-1286 ---------------- If you've received this E-mail in error, or do not desire to receive any further mailings from the Yahoo! Project Team, please REPLY to this E-mail with the word "REMOVE" in the E-mail's subject line. Thank you.

1 0

Re: A question about the new ISP ruling and email...
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:29 PM 11/7/98 GMT, phelix(a)vallnet.com wrote: >Is an anymous remailer needs to register, what will the implications be? Armbands next, bubby.

1 0

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Sat Nov 7 16:04:32 1998 > To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com, cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: IP: Re: A question about the new ISP ruling and email... > Cc: believer(a)telepath.com > > Now *this* should be fun. Someone who claims to be a cypherpunk is now > going to call the copyright police on a non-profit, volunteer news list. Would you like to know whether it is "fair use" to repost entire articles? I would. > When the going gets tough, the "tough" rat out the innocent, it appears... "Innocent" is hardly an accurate description of Michele Moore. Would you like Information Security to cough up more color on his netcopping move? Hey, you ratted me out to the IP list! ;-) ---- > From: Steve Mynott <stevem(a)tightrope.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Re: Advertising Creepiness > > On Sat, Nov 07, 1998 at 11:50:05PM -0800, Tim May wrote: > > > Myself, I try to mostly just snip out a few paragraphs of a story and > > comment on them, fair use and all. > > > > My guess is that nearly all of us skip this junk > > completely, and I think marketing studies will someday confirm this. > > Click through rates are something like 2%, so most are screening them out. > I rarely noticed what the ads actually said. > > > (Yes, I tried the utilities which purport to flush banner ads, but they > > didn't work well (long delays, cruftiness).) > > I don't know which ones you have tried but junkbuster > > http://www.junkbuster.org/ (a proxy on port 8000) > > works _very_ well on my linux system, particularly with the "blank gif" > patch. > > It blanks out 99% of banner gifs, which makes pages like metacrawler and > wired look more visually attractive and load faster. But, when sites get smarter about using server-side includes, the I/O delays will still be there. I think ISPs should offer a proxy service for WWW access. They have bigger pipes. This could include an opt-in (configure through an ISP-local WWW page) adbuster. At the same time, it would to a certain extent anonymize access. And let's say cable-modem access becomes wide-spread, and legislation forces the cable companies to allow ISP choice. I think ISPs that offer some privacy in user access over this shared medium will have a leg-up on their competition. That would involve software residing local to the user's box that would encrypt access between them and the ISP for WWW, email, ftp, etc. More than just ssh. Hey, then you would finally have ads that make clear what encryption is for the average user: picture two neighbors going to work in the morning meeting in the elevator, and one starts hinting he knows what the other was receiving for email, which sites he was surfing... Maybe the Anonymizer.com people will release/sell such software for ISPs, and, of course, sans GAK. ---guy

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 12:39:33 -0800 > > You missed my point. What I'm trying to point out is that no > > government (or any other body, for that matter) can prevent > > someone from doing something. All the state can do (and does, > > if you look closely) is offer to punish anyone who disobeys it. > > Again that is simply incorrect, or do you wish to tell me that our military > has not prevented the invasion of the continental US in this century, or > that it did not prevent the Soviet Union from expanding across Europe? You > cannot completely discount *deterrent force*, although it is greatly > overrated. Woah. This extension into foreign powers and such is an entirely different venue. The entire discussion is based around the question of a government and those citizens within it. When we start talking about multiple government and multiple citizen sets the whole issue is orders of magnitude more complex. > Nor can a government use *retribution force* if it does not know the > perpetrator. Tell that to the hostages that were killed during the occupation of France. > Your statement boils down to the government is not omnipotent. Well duh! Agreed. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You missed my point. What I'm trying to point out is that no > government (or any other body, for that matter) can prevent > someone from doing something. All the state can do (and does, > if you look closely) is offer to punish anyone who disobeys it. Again that is simply incorrect, or do you wish to tell me that our military has not prevented the invasion of the continental US in this century, or that it did not prevent the Soviet Union from expanding across Europe? You cannot completely discount *deterrent force*, although it is greatly overrated. Nor can a government use *retribution force* if it does not know the perpetrator. Your statement boils down to the government is not omnipotent. Well duh! Matt

1 0

Attract men and/or women
by swedegirl＠tracor-es.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ecstasy - The Seduction Audio Cassette Tape! Can Modern Technology be used to put women into a more "receptive mood?" Can Modern Technology be used to make women "more attractive" to men? Can Modern Technology make you a better lover, a more satisfied lover, a more confident lover? YES IT CAN! Read what just two customers said: "I never met so many women so happy to sleep with me!" JK, Des Moines IA "WOW. Thanks for a sexual experience I did not dream possible without drugs." HP Manhattan, NY According to Dr. Martin Feinberg: "This is an amazing and unique tape. The sounds were designed to stimultate brain centers. To enhance pleasure. Reach new levels of sexual experiences without any chemicals or drugs but rather by allowing you mind to be stimulated by audio signals. The velvet voice provides a hypnotic-like state that produces a flow of intense pleasure and satisfaction. All that you need to do is listen." Hundreds of Tapes have been sold -- and rarely has one been returned. It is fully guaranteed to work as advertised or your money is refunded. You have NOTHING to lose. The Ecstasy tape was designed by a licensed Mental Health Counsellor specifically for her clients who had problems meeting the opposite sex, attracting the opposite sex, and having great sex with the opposite sex. Clinically tested, and set to digital music specifically designed to enhance the effects of the tape, you may never find another tape like it. Not yet sold in stores, it is only available on the Internet. Listen to the Ecstasy Tape alone or with a lover or friend. Listen to the Ecstasy Tape and change the way you meet women/men. Listen to the Ecstasy Tape and change the way women and men feel about you. Listen to The Ecstasy Tape and change the way you experience sex forever. 100% Legal. Is it mind control? You'll have to listen and decide for yourself. GUARANTEED* TO: Have potential lovers be attracted to you. Be a Great Lover. Maximize Your Sexual Pleasure. Satisfy any lover. *GUARANTEED or your money refunded! As you listen to the tape your body will feel what it never felt before. Listen alone. Or with a lover. It is a most unbelievable, indescribable experience. 100% Legal. Not a drug. But as powerful as drugs. Not an aphrodisiac. But as powerful as one. Not subliminal but more powerful. This tape, this experience is 100% legal, however, you must be over 18 to purchase it. No exceptions. Absolute satisfaction or purchase price refunded. Listen to the Ecstasy Tape. Experience True Sexual Ecstasy. For 6 months. If you can bear to return the tape after trying for up to 6 months, we will refund your payment. This may be your first and last opportunity to experience Ecstasy possibly the only seduction tape you'll ever find that really works. The digitally prepared Audio Cassette is $19.47 shipped to you. ($17.12 plus $2.45 shipping/handling). Florida residents add sales tax. It is easy to order. You must be over 18. No exceptions. The digitally prepared Audio Cassette is $19.47 shipped to you. ($17.12 plus $2.45 shipping/handling). Florida residents add sales tax. To order with your MasterCard, Visa, Discover or American Express card. Call our operators (24 hours) at (520) 453-0303 Extension - 222 And say "I'd like to order the Ecstasy Tape." OR mail a check or money order for $19.47 to: Euphoria Products 1859 No Pine Island Rd. Suite #133 Dept.222 Plantation, FL 33322 Include your name and street address and write "I would like __ copies of the Ecstasy Tape # 222." Get extra tapes as gifts: add $9.50 for each additional tape. No additional shipping. The Mailing List that you are being mailed from was filtered against a Global Filter List. If you would like not to recieve any other mailings of this type please goto: http//3625362989/

1 0

test5
by Igor Chudov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test5

1 0

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: Re: Advertising Creepiness > > Something that came across our Reuters feed over the weekend is a lawsuit > by the whitehouse.com folks -- they're pissed that a new version of > Netscape has some "intelligent" guessing features that, when someone types > in "whitehouse," automatically take 'em to whitehouse.gov. > > Which interferes with the rights of the whitehouse.com porn site, or so the > argument goes. At least it doesn't cost $40 million to get porn from whitehouse.com. Sounds like a pro-consumer move to me. ;-) > At 12:59 PM 11-8-98 -0500, Information Security wrote: > > > From owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Sat Nov 7 16:04:32 1998 > > > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > > > > > > Now *this* should be fun. Someone who claims to be a cypherpunk is now > > > going to call the copyright police on a non-profit, volunteer news list. > > > >Would you like to know whether it is "fair use" to repost entire articles? > > > >I would. > > > > > When the going gets tough, the "tough" rat out the innocent... > > > >"Innocent" is hardly an accurate description of Michele Moore. > > > >Would you like Information Security to cough up more > >color on his netcopping move? > From declan(a)well.com Sun Nov 8 20:15:48 1998 > > Whether you love or hate current copyright laws, it's a stretch to argue > that it's legal to republish (by forwarding) articles in full. > > Willfully redistributing copyrighted material in violation of fair use > principles is, depending on the value, also a federal crime. Redistributing > a $1 article to thousands of people would be a felony. (Note I don't > endorse this law, but it's useful to know what the law is.) I guess that qualifies as a request for more color. In the local Panix Usenet groups, I've reposted quite a few whole articles, often from the IP list. Finally, a couple people made a stink, and officially complained to Panix. Carl Fink <carlf(a)panix.com> wrote: : On 11 Sep 1998 23:54:58 GMT, Information Security <The(a)NSA.sucks> wrote: : Okay, I've been tolerating this for a long time, but: this is a : violation of both Federal and international law. Post URLs, not articles. My inelegant response: Eat me. The local posters kept applying pressure: : But beyond whatever legal consequences this may entail for you : personally, I wonder what consequences it could conceivably entail for : panix. Posting copyrighted material to general Usenet newsgroups is : one thing -- panix's staff could reasonably claim that they cannot : monitor or filter every Usenet newsgroup. But they could not : reasonably make that argument about the local panix newsgroups. The thread grew full of legal claims, and Panix consulted with lawyers. In the following post by the owner of Panix, the references to "sections 1,3,4" are from the IP list's fair use declaration URL http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml # Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail # From: alexis(a)panix.com (Alexis Rosen) # Newsgroups: panix.announce,panix.policy,panix.chat,panix.questions # Subject: Determination on copyright issue # Date: 17 Sep 1998 11:28:27 GMT # Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC # # # This message is in response to the discussion/flamewar in several groups # over the posting of copyrighted material by guy(a)panix.com. Please read it, # think about it, read it again, and think again before posting in response. # This is a pretty nasty subject. # # In the wake of the postings and complaints to staff about guy's postings, # I consulted with two lawyers about this issue. One was a BLM, and the other # is a BLM and RIPE too. (Those are extremely technical acronyms for Brilliant # Legal Mind and Recognized Intellectual Property Expert. :-) # # [snip] # # I'm not going to go into the details much, because IANAL. But in short, # here's the answer: Fair use is a VERY fuzzily-defined concept, not in # principle where it's stated clearly in the law (as quoted here several # times recently), but in practice, where the courts try to interpret it. # Guy's claim for fair use could easily be correct, according to the BLMs, # because it may well qualify under sections 1, 3, and 4. I didn't think # so, but then again, I'm not a BLM, much less a RIPE. It would be a truly # terrible idea for us to take action, given the reasonable possibility that # there is no violation. # # It was also pointed out to me that Panix can not act against Guy's posts # without threatening its own position in any future case that might hinge # on whether Panix were an Editor of panix group contents. This might or # might not be the case were someone to start posting large quantities of # commercial software, but the two cases aren't similar, since guy's # postings aren't obvious and uncontestable violations. # # In any event, the BLMs' opinion was that I should very definitely leave # guy alone. This ruling extends to the one or two others that occasionally # post copyrighted material of similar nature, including one of Panix's staff. # # Of course, were the volume of such posts to rise substantially, things might # be different. So this should not be seen as an invitation for all Panixians # to start posting their favorite copyrighted material here on a regular # basis. # # Lastly: In an ideal world, everyone would learn from this and leave the # topic, wiser if sadder. In this less-than-ideal world, if you really want # to post a followup, I suggest that you consult a lawyer. If I hadn't, I'd # surely have stuck my foot in my mouth all the way up to my knee the first # time I posted about this topic. # # /a So, I was allowed to continue posting whole articles. That's what the lawyers advised. Then, the Digital Copyright Massive Federal Interference Act... > Fair Use vs. Intellectual Property: The U.S. Congress > passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a bill designed to > distinguish between fair use and protected intellectual property > in cyberspace. > > <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:s.01146:> I chose the IP list as the next-level test case... ---guy snipped source: http://www.wcco.com/news/stories/news-981106-144532.html Suspicious Object Found On Capitol Mall Was Not A Bomb ST. PAUL, Updated 8:35 p.m. November 6, 1998 -- Police hauled away a package with the words "Impeach Clinton Now" and signed by "the Mad Bomber" from the state Capitol on Friday, but temporarily lost when it flew out of a bomb squad trailer. A KSTP-TV helicopter was following the bomb squad van as it drove off towing a trailer containing the suspicious package. The station was taping as the package flew out of the open trailer in the wind and at least three cars ran over it. It took police about an hour to find the remains in the highway median. Some 200 employees, including Gov.-elect Jesse Ventura, were forced to leave the Capitol...

2 1

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠Algebra.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From ichudov Mon Nov 9 10:27:22 1998 Received: (from ichudov@localhost) by mail.video-collage.com (8.9.1a/8.8.5) id KAA16394 for cypherpunks; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:27:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:27:22 -0500 (EST) From: Igor Chudov <ichudov> Message-Id: <199811091527.KAA16394(a)mail.video-collage.com> To: cypherpunks Subject: test5 Reply-To: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov) Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com X-List-Admin: ichudov(a)algebra.com X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com test5

1 0

Wang touts spy-proof portable
by Petro 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28483,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh Wang Global has introduced a new portable computer, but it's not going to be winning any svelteness contests. Wang's Tempest Mobile Workstation, 3 inches thick and weighting 14.5 pounds, is designed for government officials who need spy-proof computers that don't leak any telltale signals to electronic eavesdroppers. ... I want...

1 0

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "X" <xasper8d(a)lobo.net> > Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:56:29 -0700 > I hope against hope that you are being sarcastic, here. Obviously our > F**KED up red-tape spewing government could never pull off such an endeavor. > Unless, of course, there was a simple way to tell the tax-payers apart from > those wretched NON-payers. Maybe something like an ARMBAND? Embedded > sub-cut microchip? Bar-code tattoos? > > Now you've got a workable plan! How do they tell if you pay taxes now? They keep records. The taxpayer could also be issued a receipt as proof. Make it DL sized and it'd go right in your wallat. It would actualy reduce the amount of paperwork because the vast amount of enforcement labor and resources wouldn't be needed. Then there is the obvious observation that folks such as yourself wouldn't lie about not-being a tax-payer if asked by the nice fireman who just saved your house (after all it would be a serious crime). Me thinks you protest too much. It isn't that you don't want to pay taxes, or that you object to paying higher costs for services than a regular tax payer. You simply want somebody else to pay for the services you use at no cost to yourself. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "X" <xasper8d(a)lobo.net> > Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:54:00 -0700 > ~> Me thinks you protest too much. It isn't that you don't want to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ~> pay taxes, > ~> or that you object to paying higher costs for services than a regular tax > ~> payer. You simply want somebody else to pay for the services you use at > ~> no cost to yourself. > ~> > > I think that remark was unfair, uncalled-for, and rude. No where in my post > did I say anything about not wanting to pay. I thought my post was humorous > and in the same sarcastic vein as yours. It was a reply to your statement. If you don't want people to ask questions or draw conclusions from your statements then perhaps you should rething even making those statements. As to sarcasm, there was none in my original posting. > You have insulted me publicly while having no knowledge of who you were > slighting. No, I expressed an opinion as to your motivation. Opinions never insult except when presented as fact. I did not do that. Me still thinks yo protest too much. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Petro 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:50 PM -0500 11/9/98, Tim May wrote: >I'm glad I'm not a lawyer. Why, so you don't have to shoot yourself? -- "To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather naïve, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust" http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com

1 0

Accept Credit Cards
by foreclosure-world＠foreclosure-world.cc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ACCEPT CREDIT CARDS!! PRE-APPROVED APPLICATION Good Credit/Bad Credit/No Credit NO APPLICATION FEES For a Limited Time Only! Regular $195.00 Application Fee Waived For This Offer! Increase Your Business Up To 100% Or More, Just By Accepting Credit Cards! This Means More Customers...More Orders...More Money! We Specialize in Home Based Businesses - Apply Today! Accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover! Apply Now by visiting our Online Application Site! We are overwhelmed with Responses... http://209.215.68.186/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If you have received this message in error, please accept our apology as a responsible e-mailer, and reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1 0

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "X" <xasper8d(a)lobo.net> > Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:22:00 -0700 > So you are one of those people that truly believes you can insult someone in > public, then say, "I was responding to you" and cap it off with "it's my > opinion" ? You have formed an opinion about me already? And that opinion > includes the fact that I want other people to carry my weight? How absurd > you are, little man! I simply based it on your apparent motivations based on your statements. > If I had thought you were serious about your article, I would have pointed > out the huge flaws in your theory. I gave you credit for well-thought > sarcasm when apparently it was neither. I'm waiting... ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:04 AM -0800 11/9/98, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I didn't see Tim's original post, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see >such a right "emerge" in claims by media company lawyers. (Probably not the >advertisers.) > >Something that came across our Reuters feed over the weekend is a lawsuit >by the whitehouse.com folks -- they're pissed that a new version of >Netscape has some "intelligent" guessing features that, when someone types >in "whitehouse," automatically take 'em to whitehouse.gov. > >Which interferes with the rights of the whitehouse.com porn site, or so the >argument goes. Seems to me there are numerous variants and angles: * If the adbuster is user-controlled, it's like handing a copy of "Time" to a butler and saying "Please clip out the articles and throw away all the ads." * And "clipping services" do this and redistribute the results to clients, perhaps with some "copyright remuneration" to the publisher (I just don't know). The ads are obviously not retained. * If a content supplier (Web page, magazine, etc.) has the power to stop adbusters from removing ads, does it also have the power to stop font changes? Or colors? Can a television commercial maker sue to stop viewers from disabling color when viewing his commercial? (Of course this wouldn't happen, for various logistical and common sense reasons, but it seems to me analogous to where users disable dancing Java applets....if disabling dancing Java applets is ruled a violation of the advertiser's leasing of the original copyright, why not block anyone who interferes with a television ad?) * The "whitehouse.com" --> "whitehouse.gov" thing is just another skirmish in the whole Namespace War. Corporations will try to get browsers and search engines to turn spelling errors or perceived errors to their favor. "intek.com" --> "intel.com" I'm glad I'm not a lawyer. --Tim May Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.

1 0

Re: IP: NSA Threatens To "OUT" Republicans Over Hubbell Investigation
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OOH: Oh, I suppose so. Part of the Yet Another Conspiracy Conspiracy Theory. OTOH: 1) The people who run NSA are powerful people in their own right. I would be surprised if they could be easily made into a simple political tool 2) If there is ONE country in the world that the US would like to set up for another "Crypto-AG", another "Softwar"( ok early computer spy story I read long ago ), which country might that be? And why might NSA not want media attention? Could it be that someone spoke before thinking? Ready, fire, aim. That's why I don't go into the woods during deer season. It would be damn nifty to be able to snoop ( and override ) the target country's police and military communications networks and air traffic systems wouldn't it? Now they're wise before we've got'em mainlining our trash. Mike Newt Gingrich - There are some good people in the Republican party. Newt is not one of them. Good riddance to bad rubbish. ******** The seemingly crazy Clinton policy shows our President to be crazy like a fox. Clinton did what Pollard and Walker could not do. President Clinton sold national security secrets for cash by writing his own legal waivers. Clinton's secret crypto policy served to line the pockets of politicians and greedy corporate executives with red money. The Clinton export policy has significantly upgraded the nuclear strategic and tactical firepower of the Chinese Army. Clinton, like Walker and Pollard, sold military code secrets for cash. America knows more about AREA-51 and UFOs than Ft. Meade and Webster Hubbell. Bill Clinton and his China crypto-tale will never be declassified for the American people. The Clinton scandal cover-up is backed by the NSA library of greatest intercepts against Republicans. *********

1 0

Fwd: [ISN] Wang touts spy-proof portable
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Authentication-Warning: enigma.repsec.com: majordomo set sender to >owner-isn(a)repsec.com using -f >Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:35:22 -0700 (MST) >From: mea culpa <jericho(a)dimensional.com> >To: InfoSec News <isn(a)repsec.com> >Subject: [ISN] Wang touts spy-proof portable >X-NoSpam: Pursuant to US Code; Title 47; Chapter 5; Subchapter II; 227 >X-NoSpam: any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address >X-NoSpam: is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. >X-NoSpam: E-mailing to this address denotes acceptance of these terms. >X-Copyright: This e-mail copyright 1998 by jericho(a)dimensional.com >Sender: owner-isn(a)repsec.com >Reply-To: mea culpa <jericho(a)dimensional.com> >x-unsubscribe: echo "unsubscribe isn" | mail majordomo(a)repsec.com >x-infosecnews: x-loop, procmail, etc > > >Forwarded From: William Knowles <erehwon(a)kizmiaz.dis.org> > >[News.com] (11.8.98) Wang Global has introduced a new portable computer, >but it's not going to be winning any svelteness contests. > >Wang's Tempest Mobile Workstation, 3 inches thick and weighting 14.5 >pounds, is designed for government officials who need spy-proof computers >that don't leak any telltale signals to electronic eavesdroppers. > >The boxes are designed to meet the U.S. government's "Tempest" >specification, which requires a computer to release extremely low amounts >of electromagnetic emissions that could reveal what information the >computer is processing. > >To protect against such emissions, Tempest-compliant machines must be >encased in a lot of metal. Wang's portable looks like a thick laptop, said >Wang spokeswoman Loretta Day, "but it's really so heavy, you can't really >call it a laptop" --all that metal would make it quite a burden for your >lap. > >As an added bonus, all that metal shields the computer from the >electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generated by an exploding nuclear bomb that >wreaks havoc with anything electronic. > >When it's running, the machine can withstand a shock of five Gs--that's >five times the acceleration caused by the Earth's gravity. But when it's >switched off, it can take a 60-G shock. > >Aside from being spy-proof, the new Wang system has some features that are >familiar to ordinary buyers: a 15.1-inch LCD screen, a 233-MHz or 266-MHz >Pentium II processor, a CD-ROM drive, and your choice of a 4GB, 6GB, or >8GB removable hard disk. > >Wang also makes Tempest-compliant desktop computers, printers, routers, >switches, and servers. It's one of a handful of such companies that supply >the equipment to the government. Day said the chief customers are the >State Department and intelligence agencies. Wang also makes computer >equipment that complies with the Zone standard, similar to but less >stringent than the Tempest standard. > >Pricing on the Wang portable wasn't available, but a competitor's Tempest >portable computer with more lesser features was listed at one government >Web site as costing more than $10,000. > > >-o- >Subscribe: mail majordomo(a)repsec.com with "subscribe isn". >Today's ISN Sponsor: Repent Security Incorporated [www.repsec.com]

1 0

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:50 AM -0800 11/9/98, Tim May wrote: >Seems to me there are numerous variants and angles: > >* If the adbuster is user-controlled, it's like handing a copy of "Time" to >a butler and saying "Please clip out the articles and throw away all the >ads." > >* And "clipping services" do this and redistribute the results to clients, >perhaps with some "copyright remuneration" to the publisher (I just don't >know). The ads are obviously not retained. By the way, the White House and Pentagon are major forwarders of clipped material. The daily intelligence briefing, for example, clips from newspapers, magazines, wire services, etc. I can understand Declan trying to be a loyal reporter by urging people to buy the magazine or go to the ad-laden site, but clearly a lot of folks are already bouncing stuff around cyberspace, including the White House. It is _remotely_ possible that the gov't. is paying some token amount to Time Warner, CNN, WSJ, etc., but I doubt it. Speaking of the gov't. conveniently ignoring what it expects private players to do, a few days before the California election I got a telephone phone solicitation from a male voice identifying himself as the Calif. Secretary of State. Ordinary advertising, right? Well, it was a) left on my answering machine, and b) was itself a recording. California officials not subject to the "robot's rules of order" laws, which forbid the practices above, especially in combination. You can bet that if J. Random Corporation was using robot dialers and leaving recorded messages on answering machines there would be the threat of prosecution. (Actually, most threats to corporations are just shakedowns, and are considered discharged when the corporation makes the appropriate campaign contribution.) Of course, in a system where the Chief Executive can perjure himself with impunity, can suborn perjury, can tamper with evidence, and can use public monies to cause his subordinates to suborn perjury and perjure and tamper with evidence.... (Not to mention violating the export laws and committing high treason by supplying the Red Chinese with ICBM technology....and kiling Vince Foster for his attack of conscience and his plans to meet with a reporter....) Ah, Amerika. --Tim May Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.

1 0