December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: odd comment
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sounds like a potential urban legend or at least a misnaming of some comprehensible system. > A friend of mine works in an IT department > for a major tech company. Three of the people in > his department were just transfered to their new contract. > > They are rewiring some of the network for a highway system > in California that monitors for explosives. > What are the techniques that could be used for detecting conventional materials? I can't think of anything likely to work through a vehicle panel on a highway at 65 mph. Doesn't mean there isn't such a system. I guess a neutron counter or other radiation detector might be useful for spotting the scary new SUPERTERRORISTS. > On top of the poles are two > metal boxes about the size large bread boxes. > > Now any idea what those boxes are? > If they have plastic windows they could be speed measurement devices. I'd be interested in driving by some, are there some examples that are closer to Pleasanton? You can always ask your highway department representative - they might talk before thinking even if it's something TOP SECRET. Mike

1 0

RE: Another potential flaw in current economic theory... (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate > Wrong. Socialism is the belief that property is best managed > and owned by the government. Utopian socialism/communism believed that property is best managed and owned by the people -- the people as some abstract collective entity aka proletariat aka BORG. The dictatorial government is the agent of the proletariat to abolish individual rights and transition to communist utopia where government is no longer needed. Of course actual socialism in mixed economies and communism in command economies bear little resemblance to Marx's delusions. Matt

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > Remember, you can't dominate a market that can't be saturated > and you can't saturate a local market unless you find a > mechanism to keep outside competition from moving in. Currently > this is only possible in very strongly regulated markets in > control economies. By golly Jim you almost got it. The only problem is your statement that one can dominate "saturable" markets without some artificial "mechanism." If you mean dominate by market share, then sure that is possible. But that in itself is not bad, ALCOA dominated via low prices and high efficiency. Domination in the bad sense is to be immune from the laws of supply and demand, and hence have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the definition of a coercive monopoly. You will find that that is not possible without an artificial barrier to competition. > Though, it does occur to me that the fact that OS/2 has a > stronger faction in Europe than in N. and S. America in > relation to Microsoft may be an indication that continental > saturation is possible. The conclusions I would draw from that are IBM as the former market giant had a very strong International infrastructure, channels and reputation. Since the US market is the principle industry producer, it was more competitive and less dominated by IBM. Microsoft, therefore, had an easier time in an already competitive US market than breaking in overseas. They also had the underdog phenomenon going for them here, the local competitive market wanting to break IBM's dominance. The fact that OS/2 utterly flopped in the US and found some adopters overseas is credit to IBMs international reputation and little else. Matt

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brown, R Ken wrote: > Jim can look after himself, but the aircraft industry is > certainly monopolistic. There are only 2 serious players > in the market for large long-haul airliners, Airbus..and > Boeing First of all the majority of the market to which they are selling is anything but free. Each government has a monopoly on their military, and many have a monopoly on their commercial airlines as well. Government aren't bound by the same survival rules as consumers, they are able to irrationally spend as the can simply extort more money. Despite this very strong market distortion, competition for defense contracts had been rather competitive in the US, with the recent consolidation due to shrinking demand (note they cannot seek other markets freely to compensate). And despite the strong market distortions, Boeing makes a very slim profit margin on commercial aircraft (~3%) competing with Airbus. The private aircraft industry has had a terrible time not for lack of demand, but because of rampant irrational and overzealous liability claims. This has created a very limited number of vendors and highly inflated prices. Again, none these are natural effects of the free market. > The real problem with monopoly or cartel is not high prices > - many monopolies choose to charge low prices - it is lack > of freedom. So you would force people to pay higher prices so can have more choices? You would force people to support inefficient competitors? > A monopolisitic supplier of some good has a measure > of political power. Political power gums at the mean end of a gun, what political power do monopolies have and how? Matt

1 0

RE: Another question about free-markets...
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: [govt subsidies to transcontinental railroads] > Only *after* it was clear that these companies could not > do it themselves because of a lack of sufficient traffic > to support the business. So if the market could not support it, who paid for it and how, who benefited from the distortion and who paid the price? The market demands the most efficient distribution of capital resources, when the government screws with that and screws with the market, the resulting problems (arbitrary coercive power of Western railroads, and severe lack of quality and safety) are because of that distortion, not the market. The government should have *not* intervened. Which is not my point though, my point is the judgements of an uneducated populace and corrupted government to blame this as a natural effect of a free market should not be carried forward, it needs to be exposed and corrected. [oil mineral rights] >> The placement (ownership) of these rights, their value, >> restrictions and enforcement are the result of a free >> market? No, government intervention. > > Actualy no, try buying a piece of land and enforcing the > title *without* registering it at the country seat or its > likes. Which is not a market instrument, it is a government instrument. Government intervention does not necessarily have to be direct and purposeful. Matt

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Petro wrote: [...snip...] > Other than the Railroads, which have already been shown to > be a government CREATED monopoly, how was the Aircraft > Industry a monopoly? The GARMENT INDUSTRY? > Come on Jim, "Put Up Or Shut Up". Jim can look after himself, but the aircraft industry is certainly monopolistic. There are only 2 serious players in the market for large long-haul airliners, Airbus (explicitly founded and subsidised by government) and Boeing (probably now turning a real profit but in the past cross-subsidised from military spending). Whether or not either of these firms would now exist without government subsidy is unknowable. Whether or not the monopolistic situation would exist if there had been no government subsidy is also unknowable. I do have trouble with the idea of the garment industry being monopolistic. About 2 miles from where I'm typeing this, in Whitechapel and Spitalfields in the East End of London, street after street is packed with small sweatshops, "import export" businesses, tiny fashion houses [...snip...] >>All working for about 5 or 6 companies who actlualy marketed and >> distributed the items. Just get a Dallas Texas phone book for >> that period (it's a distribution hub for the clothing/garment industry >> even today). > That is still 5 or 6 companies in competition. It looks as if the only monopolies you recognise are global ones where one big company supplies most of the market for some good, worldwide. At that level there are damn few monopolies - MS, Boeing, the Murdoch empire. But a monopolistic situation develops when one supplier, or a group of suppliers in cartel can control the market in some locality. Like the breweries in Britain a few years back - there were (and are) hundreds of breweries but the "big six" had carved up large areas of the country between them. So if you went to a bar in one area you got Watney's beer, in another, Bass. The real problem with monopoly or cartel is not high prices - many monopolies choose to charge low prices - it is lack of freedom. A monopolisitic supplier of some good has a measure of political power. They can make people behave in ways they might not otherwise behave. A monopolisitic employer of labour has *huge* political power.

1 0

Yet Again Another Snake Oil Vendor
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Below is a message I posted to the SpyKing mailing list a few months back when Jaws decided to spam the list with their crypto "challange". >From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> >Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 14:41:24 -0500 >To: SpyKing <spyking(a)con2.com> >In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980601033850.0355c350(a)admin.con2.com> >Subject: POST RE: $5,000,000 Encryption contest -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3.0.3.32.19980601033850.0355c350(a)admin.con2.com>, on 06/01/98 at 02:38 AM, SpyKing <spyking(a)con2.com> said: >15)From: SpyKing(a)thecodex.com >Subject: $5,000,000 "Break the Code" Encryption Contest >Friday May 29, 3:00 pm Eastern Time >Company Press Release >SOURCE: JAWS Technologies Inc. >JAWS Launches $5,000,000 ``Break the Code'' Encryption Contest <sigh> Yet another Snake-oil post. Such challenges like this are really meaningless and are designed as a publicity stunt to gain some free press rather than as a legitimate test of the strength of the algorithms involved. The *only* way to test the security of an algorithm is through a process of peer-review of the source code. Until JAWS Technologies decides to go through this process I would stay far away from this and any other products they may produce. It seems quite clear that they have little to no understanding of the cryptology & security fields. I don't know what it is about the list but it seems that we must endure these snake-oil posts on a periodic basis. While I have replied here to many of these snake-oil advertisements I have yet to see one of these companies post a rebuttal (to the list or privately). I have submitted a copy of the Snake-Oil FAQ to SpyKing requesting that he publish it to the list (it's a little long so I don't want to post it directly). It can also be found at: http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.html Security & Encryption are the big buzz-words in the computer industry and many companies are looking to cash-in on it. Be very wary of Johnny Come Lately's who overnight become cryptology "experts". - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgp.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: I love running Windows! NOT! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNXNVXo9Co1n+aLhhAQHr5gP/aghoKztlVP6EjX0FU2v5rkBdu5FbyEWR 6aR/DdOvVYphIIQMk1O1Twy7ZasVUW/dSBPl7uT1/6yfw/NzSonyztmw+WR5d4lg rWOZ8Y1JjbXvLzH3RzA+LXZbShZ/Z5Smdb0yybvldHogo8pYDNeeJ5ZtMJuSgYfI VkoA4SFBDoY= =0m9E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Tag-O-Matic: You're throwing it all out the Windows! ----------------------------------------------------- -- End of forwarded message ----------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: If at first you don't succeed, work for Microsoft.

2 1

FINAL REMINDER: DCS-NY: October 13 Meeting: Stu Feldman of IBM
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text To: "recipient list suppressed" <perry(a)piermont.com> Subject: FINAL REMINDER: DCS-NY: October 13 Meeting: Stu Feldman of IBM Reply-To: dcs-ny-rsvp(a)piermont.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> Date: 06 Oct 1998 15:03:08 -0400 Lines: 105 Sender: owner-cryptography(a)c2.net [If you know of people who may be interested in this meeting, please feel free to forward this message to them.] FINAL REMINDER: The second luncheon meeting of the Digital Commerce Society of New York (DCS-NY), will be held on Tuesday, October 13th at 12:00. If you are interested in attending, please RSVP and send in your check (as explained below) IMMEDIATELY. If we don't _receive_ your check by Friday, we cannot guarantee that we can seat you. (Normally I wouldn't be sending out a reminder this late, but we've had a large influx of inquiries in the last 24 hours.) This Month's Luncheon Speaker: Stuart Feldman, IBM Institute for Advanced Commerce, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Topic: Future Directions in Electronic Commerce Stuart Feldman will delve into a half dozen major themes for long-term research in electronic commerce. These areas will take years to resolve at a research level and even longer to achieve full impact in the world economy. They include privacy, the evolving marketplace on several time scales, the rise of dynamic businesses and electronic haggling, improved relationships to customers, and the systems underpinnings needed to support the vast new opportunities and capabilities of electronic commerce. Stuart Feldman is Director of IBM's Institute for Advanced Commerce. The Institute is dedicated to creating new technologies for support of e-commerce as well as pursuing fundamental issues in e-commerce. He is also the author of the original "make" and "f77." WHAT IS DCS-NY? As some of you probably know, Robert Hettinga has been running a group called the Digital Commerce Society of Boston for over three years. DCSB meets once a month for lunch at the Harvard Club in Boston to hear a speaker and discuss the implications of rapidly emerging internet and cryptographic technologies on finance and commerce -- "Digital Commerce", in short. The Digital Commerce Society of New York (DCS-NY) is a spin-off of DCSB. We intend to meet the second Tuesday of each month for lunch at the Harvard Club in New York, and conduct meetings much like those of DCSB. Our organizing meeting in September was attended by a wide variety of professionals involved in the business, technical and legal sides of the emerging world of digital commerce. If you are interested in attending our next luncheon meeting, please follow the directions located below. If you merely wish to be added to our e-mail meeting announcements list, you may send your e-mail address to "dcs-ny-rsvp(a)piermont.com". Perry PS We would like to thank John McCormack for his invaluable assistance in procuring the venue for our meetings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO RSVP: The meeting will start at 12:00 noon on October 13th at the Harvard Club, which located at 27 West 44th St. in Manhattan. The cost of the luncheon is $49.00. To RSVP, please: A) Send a check for $49.00 (payable to "The Harvard Club of New York") to: Harry S. Hawk DCS-NY LUNCHEON Piermont Information Systems, Inc. 175 Adams St., #9G Brooklyn, New York 11201 Please include along with your check: 1) The name of the person attending 2) Their daytime phone number 3) Their e-mail address B) Send an email message to dcs-ny-rsvp(a)piermont.com indicating that you have sent your check, so that we can inform the Harvard Club of the number of people who will be attending. Please note that the Harvard Club dress code requires jacket and tie for men and comparable attire for women. If you have special dietary requirements, please check with us by email before you RSVP. Making final arrangements for our room requires that we have a good idea of how many attendees we will have. Because of this, it is very important that you RSVP quickly so that we will be able to get a larger room if necessary. We are looking forward to seeing you! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Perry --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:20:41 -0700 > The only problem is your statement that one can dominate "saturable" > markets without some artificial "mechanism." Who said anything about 'artificial'? You have a sneaky habit of sticking terms in there where they don't go hoping somebody won't catch it. We're talking a free-market, there are *only* two participants; provider and consumer. If I allow 'artificial' in there then there is the explicit assumption that a third party is now involved. I won't accept a bastardization of free-market in that manner. If you want to expand your argument by the injection of these spurious terms (they aren't relevant to my argument) feel free. Be warned I will continue to point out the distinction vis-a-vis the impact on conclusions. > If you mean dominate by > market share, then sure that is possible. I mean *dominate* the market. Quit sticking extra terms in there trying to subtly change the meaning. I promise you I will notice so you can quit now. > ALCOA dominated via low prices and high efficiency. Domination in the > bad sense is to be immune from the laws of supply and demand, and hence > have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the definition of a > coercive monopoly. No, that is the definition of monopoly. Now what and how they got and retain that position may invoke coercion but it *isn't* a requirement for monoplies by definition. Don't try to confuse method with type. > You will find that that is not possible without an > artificial barrier to competition. Demonstrate please. The problem with this view is that it implies that given sufficient time *any* market strategy will fail. In other words there is no best or efficient strategy for a given market. In the past when this has been brought up I've asked for an explanation of how this dynamic works and specificaly what prevents such best-of-breed examples from existing. I'm still waiting for such an explanation. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Sad news ... (... or not ;-))
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: Somebody Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 18:02:28 +0100 To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: Sad news ... Mime-Version: 1.0 Hi Bob, I figured you might be interested in today's news: DigiCash Amsterdam has officially gone bankrupt. Even though anyone can access the news (although probably not yet in electronic form), I'd appreciate if you don't mention me as being the one who told you this. I take it that the details will be brought to light in the coming few weeks. Anyway, I believe this is very bad news for all those who believe in "bearer certificates" or whatever one might like to call them. <Somebody's .sig> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

2 2

Garment industry.....
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Sorry, I'm going to have to back out for the next few days because of work load (I've barely had time to read all the traffic), but ... To answer a qeuestion about the garment industry being monopolistic. Go back, read the original post on that issue *AGAIN*. Pay particular attention to the *PERIOD OF TIME I SPECIFICALY MENTIONED*. If you actualy read it all the way through, and slowly so you can comprehend it, you will find that your protestations about the industry being monopolistic *today* are irrelevant. My point was focused on 60-80 years *IN THE PAST*. In particular the 1920's and 30's. (If you're going to scream "foul", at least be at the correct yard line on the field) My mention of the phone book implied you'd have to go to the library and get a *PERIOD* phonebook (that was my mistake, any true anarcho-capitalist or free-market maven is not likely to actualy use real-world examples - they're so messy). And yes, they had phones then, you could even have them in any color as long as it was black. Though the point *CAN* be made that even today sweatshops are continouly being found in places like Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, etc. Just check your local newspaper. The reason that these are important is that they are indicators of a tendency of manufacturers to cut costs/overhead to the bone when left to their own wiles. This is a *VERY* negative indicator for those who feel that even an unregulated garment industry can exist in a regulated market, let alone a free-market. Again, businesses are run by people with the express intent of making money, in many cases at whatever cost to their employees and society as a whole. With this sort of psychological tendency the argument that free-markets will work is flawed. A commen comment in business classes and boardrooms today is to 'dominate the market'. That means *eliminate competition*. *THAT* means create a monopoly if at all possible and the laws to the contrary (which I hae yet to see anyone bring up a priori in these situations) be damned. Of course it should be pointed out that it's good legal and business practice *NOT* to mention these so that it can't be used against one as a premeditated intent. Something Microsoft seems to have forgotten in their raft of internal memo's about specificaly kludging DrDos. Another point I made several weeks to a couple of months ago regarded companies who *help* their competition in order to limit their ability to enter into specific markets as competitors seems to have born fruit. Over the last few weeks several internal documents from Microsoft were released (check the CNN and other archives) which seem to indicate a clear intent by Microsoft to *help* Novell and Apple with technology with the express intent of keeping them out of niche or target markets as competitors. Economic slight of hand... Course that isn't going to stop you from wailling for the dead (though could you keep it down so I can sleep since the temperature around here has finaly broken and it's not 90F at midnite). ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Brown, R Ken" <brownrk1(a)texaco.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 06:37:43 -0500 > I do have trouble with the idea of the garment industry being > monopolistic. About 2 miles from where I'm typeing this, in Whitechapel > and Spitalfields in the East End of London, street after street is > packed with small sweatshops, "import export" businesses, tiny fashion > houses This is perfect if you don't mind being a participant... Could you get a phonebook and make a list of the sweatshops. Enumerate them and then select 10% (if that isn't too many) and find out how many and to whom they sew their garments for? > It looks as if the only monopolies you recognise are global ones where > one big company supplies most of the market for some good, worldwide. > At that level there are damn few monopolies Remember, you can't dominate a market that can't be saturated and you can't saturate a local market unless you find a mechanism to keep outside competition from moving in. Currently this is only possible in very strongly regulated markets in control economies. This implies that, at least today because of communications and transportation improvement, only markets that are global (though it might also work on a national level) can be dominated. That is an interesting aspect I hadn't hit on so far. I'll add it to the mix and see what brews up... Though, it does occur to me that the fact that OS/2 has a stronger faction in Europe than in N. and S. America in relation to Microsoft may be an indication that continental saturation is possible. Might be explained by the fact that most businesses are continental and not international in scope of sales. I've got to go back to work now...I'll check in as I get the chance... ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Free Market Monopolization Theory...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Here is the note that I made regarding the saturation of free market economies. Note that this is several months old and I haven't been diligent in keeping it fully up to date... Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://einstein/ravage/free.market.monopolization.html > This is the theory in its current working version: > > An unregulated (free-market) economy will inherently monopolize when, but > not necessarily only if, the following are present: > > - the commen assumption by current free market models that consumers > are rational is irrational. A consideration of succesful marketing > mechanisms and human psychology will clearly demonstrate that > consumers are at best partialy rational. This is the fault in all > anarchy models (eg crypto-anarchy), they assume in an axiomatic > fashion that all participants will cooperate for not only their > individual best interest but the cooperatives best interest without > sufficient recognition that these may in many cases be in conflict. > It is the same failing every form of government without a clear and > proscribed list of individual and state rights and limits has, the > assumption that some minimal set of behaviours or goals will satisfy > all participants in all cases. The theory 'What is best for all is > best for the one' is false. > > - the importance of cooperation for mutual benefit that is axiomatic > in current free market theories is false. Mathematicaly the prisoners > paradox provides maximum payoff when defection occurs at a relatively > high rate and in a random pattern. A primary goal of any business is > not to ensure the survival of itself and it competitors but rather to > eliminate competition through more succesful strategies. A rational > consumer will act irrationaly at times because it is in their long > term best interest. Therefore the distinction between rational and > irrational consumers is false. > > - the market is saturated, in other words the number of consumers at > any given time are equal to or less than the service providers ability > to provide that service (or resource). This means the long-term survival > of firms is a function of retained market share and raw resource share > control/ownership. > > - the technology and/or start-up costs are high in material and > intellectual factors. This minimizes the potential for new providers > to start up. Providers will also require non-disclosure and other > mechanisms to reduce sharing of information and cross-communications > except under controlled conditions. Expect an increase in certifications > and implimentation standards required to do business with the more > succesful of these providers. > > - an individual or small group of service providers have a small but > distinct efficiency advantage in technology, manufacturing, or > marketing. Over a long-enough time this market advantage will grow > and as a result widen the 'technology gap' between firms. > > - expect the most efficient firms to share their profit with the > critical intellectual contributors. This further reduces the > problem of cross-communication and new provider start-up. > > - expect to see the more successful providers to join in co-ops with > the less succesful providers. This will be under the surreptitous > goal of 'developing technology'. It's actual goal will be to cause > these smaller firms to commit resources to such enterprises. As soon > as it is strategicaly advantagous the primary providers will break-off > the co-op. This has the effect of further reducing the ability of the > smaller providers to react in a timely manner to market changes or > develop new technology due to resource starvation. > > - expect to see the less efficient providers to combine in an effort > to reap the benefits of shared market share and resources. Unless > this partnering provides a more efficient model and there is sufficient > time for that efficiency to develop these new providers will eventualy > fail or be joined with other providers. > > - expect to see the primary provider buy those less efficient providers > that don't fail completely. These purchases will be as a result of > some new or unexpected technology that will significantly increase > the market share of the primary provider -or- it will be with the > goal of eliminating this secondary technology and forcing those > market shares to do without or use the primary providers technology. > > - initialy prices for services will be low to promote purchasing but > as providers obtain larger market shares their prices will increase > over time and out of step with inflation and other market forces in > order to widen the profit gap. The strategy is one of 'use it or > starve'. > ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brown, R Ken wrote: > Same applies to education - I might be able to pay for my > daughter to go to school but we want everybody else's kids > to go to school as well because my life is better if they do. > So we pay for it through tax. "SHOULD EDUCATION BE COMPULSORY AND TAX-SUPPORTED, AS IT IS TODAY? The answer to this question becomes evident if one makes the question more concrete and specific, as follows: Should the government be permitted to remove children forcibly from their homes, with or without the parents' consent, and subject the children to educational training and procedures of which the parents may or may not approve? Should citizens have their wealth expropriated to support an educational system which they may or may not sanction, and to pay for the education of children who are not their own?" -- Nathaniel Branden Absolutely not. But even if you take a strong socialist/statist position and answer "yes," how can you justify expounding on the evils of coercive monopolies, their arbitrary power, abuse and inefficiency, and then at the same time make Education, one of the most important services to society, a coercive monopoly?! This simply does not make sense. Education needs to be brought into the marketplace so it can be objectively evaluated. VALUED. As an entitlement, education is not valued as it should be, and as a monopoly there is no leverage to choose standards which to value, to discriminate service. The educational system has failed worse than any other industry, not for lack of supply and demand, but for lack of free competition. Matt

1 0

Re: Echelon's Origin
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> writes: >The NSA released during the summer a Top Secret memorandum by Truman in >1952 establishing NSA as the lead COMINT agency for the USG: Located nearby at http://www.nsa.gov:8080/docs/efoia/released/jfk.html are documents related to the Kennedy assassination. Check out the COMINT reports, they were getting information from an awful lot of interesting sources, many of which appear to be telegrams or telexes or similar communications. The Truman memo may show the background behind Echelon, but these things show it (or at least its ancestor) in action. Wow. Peter.

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Political power gums at the mean end of a gun, what political > power do monopolies have and how? err...*comes* from the mean end of a gun. ;) Matt

1 0

Re: Garment industry.....
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> > > To answer a qeuestion about the garment industry being monopolistic. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

1 0

IP: SOROS: Must have economic "third way"
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: SOROS: Must have economic "third way" Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 08:56:17 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: The London Independent U.K. Section http://www.independent.co.uk/ Soros calls for new cash restraints GEORGE SOROS, one of the world's leading financiers, launched a scathing attack yesterday on governments and bankers alike for causing a financial crisis so severe that it could topple the world's economic system. "I am very concerned because it will lead to basically the breakdown of the global capitalist system," he said. Coming from a pre-eminent global capitalist, his words are all the more striking because he advises new restraints on the movement of international cash. He spoke as the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank wrestled with a financial crisis that has wrecked Asia and Russia and now threatens Latin America. Mr Soros, in his speech and in a book to be published next month, attacks free marketeers - or "market fundmentalists," as he calls them - for weakening the world financial system, impoverishing developing countries and threatening democracy itself. Governments have botched their efforts to tackle the crisis. "The authorities have failed to control the situation," he said. "The G7 or the G whatever should have been shut into a room and hammered this out." Mr Soros said that in the future, limits would have to be put on the global casino to prevent it from destabilising states and societies. "Some restraints on capital movements would have been very useful to protect countries against the onslaught of the wrecking ball," he said. "The free movement of capital, totally free flow, is not advisable." Mr Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management, a leading financier who speculated against the pound - and won handsomely - in 1992. But he has become increasingly convinced that pure capitalism is just as dangerous to the world as communism, and has become a leading advocate of an economic third way. "We have been living with and basing ourselves on a false model of how financial markets operate," he said. Markets are capable of tipping into instability so severe that it threatens the roots of democracy itself. "It is market fundamentalism that has rendered the global capitalist system unsound and unsustainable," he writes in his book The Crisis of Global Capitalism, a section of which was released yesterday. So great had financial instability become that "market fundamentalism is today a greater threat to open society than totalitarian ideology", said Mr Soros, who grew up under first Nazi, then Communist rule in Hungary. "Market forces, if they are given complete authority even in the purely economic and financial arenas, will produce chaos and could ultimately lead to the downfall of the global democratic capitalist system." The impact had been particularly hard on developing nations forced to follow the course set by western institutions and banks, he said. "Conditions have tilted too far towards the countries at the centre of capitalist system to the detriment of countries at the periphery. These conditions are unsustainable." The only way to recover from the present crisis was to organise flows of capital back into the developing countries, he argued, but so far the IMF and western governments had been unwilling to meet this challenge. City staff braced for tidal wave of sackings as banks cut back Morale among City high-flyers has reached rock bottom as they brace themselves for a wave of redundancies over the coming weeks as a result of the global financial crisis. Although redundancies have now, so far, been limited, the fear of real collapse and a return to the austerity of the early 1990's when blue chip firms like Goldman Sachs were laying off staff by the thousand, means conspicuous consumption and optimism are becoming a thing of the past. The latest to feel the chill are staff at Warburg Dillon Reed, one of the City's top securities firms who are braced for substantial lay-offs in the wake of last week's disclosures that the bank's Swiss parent has suffered serious losses from its investment in high risk hedge-funds. Insiders say that Warburg's 4,500 London-based staff expect announcements detailing cutbacks later this week. The latest quarterly survey of the UK Financial Services industry by the Confederation of British Industry and consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers yesterday showed business confidence among financial sector firms falling to its lowest for eight years. Firms which have already announced lay-offs since this present bout of turmoil hit financial markets include ING Barings, Robert Fleming and Japanese firms Daiwa and Nikko. One of the larger firms Merrill Lynch has already cancelled its Christmas Party and ordered staff to cut back on overseas travel, entertainment and the use of mobile phones in an attempt to save £150m this year. The firm lent billions to high risk hedge funds. Jobs cuts are expected to follow. It is widely feared that at least one big international bank could go under because of losses to these highly speculative investment operations despite last month's £2.4bn bail-out of Long-Term Capital Management by a consortium of big international banks. With nervous investors sitting on their hands, traders have had more time to spend in City drinking haunts to drown sorrows and swap tidbits about the latest bank to hit trouble. The cutbacks are likely to be even more painful this time round because of the speed with which this crisis has hit. Many firms were still out there trying to recruit until late into August, pushing up salaries for some categories of staff to stratospheric levels. Now those expansion plans have gone on hold. Prestige office developments in the Square Mile are being shelved as demand for space has vanished overnight. "First to rise, first to go," said Joseph Toots, a stockbroker, sipping a glass of zinfandel in a Broadgate winebar. "My job may be a trifle insecure at the moment, but who knows, lets wait until Christmas." Mr Toots knows his bonus which last year was "definitely six figure", will be minimal this time around. "Good thing I bought my house outright," he said. But it is not just sports car dealers and Dom Perignon stockists who are monitoring the situation with gloomy eyes. The downturn in the City is hitting at a time when High Street shops are already deserted as a result of the huge rise in the cost of borrowing since last year. Contrary to common perception the City is not the place where everybody earns a half million pound bonus; many thirty-somethings are pushing themselves to the limit, earning what sound like fat salaries until you hear their commitments. It is these middle-class, high-income people, whose wealth is more a prospect than a reality who may be hit the hardest. "We are going to have to have a serious rethink about everything," said Julia, a consultant. She says she and her husband are delaying the day when they will have to sit down and face financial reality. "We earn almost £100,000 between us, but with the mortgage and the school and the nursery fees (they have three small children) we're not going to survive like this." She says she was depending on her share portfolio to cover the mortgage on their three bedroom terraced house in Islington and it doesn't anymore. "The house may have to be sold," she says, "and god knows how we will afford the school fees." It may sound like a yuppie problem, but smaller things have been known to drive people into domestic conflict. Isobel Thacker, a banker, said the same problem has just made her cancel plans to move house. "I can't afford to move anymore, we're all staying put," she said. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

Re : IP: Microchip implants to foil VIP kidnaps
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> ITALIAN dignitaries who fear being kidnapped are having > microprocessor homing devices planted in their bodies so police can > track them down if they are abducted. > Where can I buy one of these things for my cat? My master password is tatooed inside her upper lip. This brand new GPS system works through a metal barrier? For transport just tuck the subject in the back of an aluminum cargo truck and for long-term storage use a metal wharehouse. Contrary to popular belief there is not a technical solution for every problem. How about -well-paid- bodyguards? Ask an engineer to solve a problem you get Tom Swift and his amazing electrogenerating geodetector. Ask a politician to solve a problem you get a law. Ask a doctor to solve a problem and he'll either cut or medicate. Ask a soldier to solve a problem... And so on... I suppose ridiculous solutions are fine as long as they make money or fame for someone.

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > The only problem is your statement that one can dominate > > "saturable" markets without some artificial "mechanism." > > Who said anything about 'artificial'? I did. I state you cannot have a coercive monopoly without artificial barriers (and hence a free market cannot have a coercive monopoly) and you disagree. I am not sticking any terms where they don't go, you have consistently theorized monopolies can exist in a free market. Perhaps you should re-read my statement and not assume negatives where I clearly did not write them. > talking a free-market, there are *only* two participants; That is a twisted and absolutely unjustified definition of a free market. A free market lacks forceful restriction or prohibition of free [consensual] trade. EXCEPT that which violates individual rights. I will argue that an anarcho-capitalist market that treats force as a commodity is NOT a free market. There can be participants acting as agents, intermediaries and arbiters for the traders. > > If you mean dominate by > > market share, then sure that is possible. > > I mean *dominate* the market. You cannot define a word with itself. What is *dominate* in context of a market, and does that dominance imply the possession of arbitrary power? > > have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the > > definition of a coercive monopoly. > > No, that is the definition of monopoly. The only valid definition, yes. I will gladly accept the invalidation that dominant or exclusive market share necessarily constitute a monopoly, as that does not in itself prove arbitrary power (immunity from market economics). > > You will find that that is not possible without an > > artificial barrier to competition. > > Demonstrate please. The problem with this view is that it > implies that given sufficient time *any* market strategy > will fail. In other words there is no best or efficient > strategy for a given market. There is but ONE market strategy: to price at a point lower than new entrants could sustain their business, and constantly increase productive efficiency and reduce costs. This works great in the short term, especially in emerging industries, but it is statistically improbable for a company to maintain perfection. The market is not static, it is always changing and technology often favors new entrants who are not encumbered with legacy technology. It is less relevant that such a company is unlikely to maintain that position forever, but that such efficient dominance is good for the market. Productive efficiency raises the standard of living. Matt

2 1

IP: Microchip implants to foil VIP kidnaps
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com From: wtberry(a)sprintmail.com To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 20:07:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: IP: Microchip implants to foil VIP kidnaps Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: wtberry(a)sprintmail.com Source: Electronic Telegraph, Issue 1229, 6 October 1998 Microchip implants to foil VIP kidnaps By Bruce Johnston in Rome ITALIAN dignitaries who fear being kidnapped are having microprocessor homing devices planted in their bodies so police can track them down if they are abducted. The microchips - called Sky-Eyes - were originally developed for intelligence use by Israeli researchers. Rome's La Repubblica newspaper described the latest development as a "biological adaptation" of the Global Positioning System, which is already in use to protect luxury cars from being stolen. Sky-Eyes are sold by a company called Gen-Etics, which has patented the device for private use but which is cautious about supplying further details, in order to protect its clients. Sky-Eyes are said to be made of "synthetic and organic fibre". They reportedly run on such a small amount of energy that this can be "borrowed" from the human body. The chip is supposed to be invisible to both the naked eye and to X-rays. A person who carries it is supplied with an eight-digit code by the company. He, or she, is advised to divulge this only to next of kin or a trusted legal representative. In case of the person's disappearance, those in possession of the code are supposed to contact the company's control centre, so that the kidnapped victim's whereabouts may be pinpointed, and the police informed. The Sky-Eye is said to have a margin of error of just 150 yards. Kidnapping is still common in Italy. One recent victim, Giuseppe Soffiantini, an elderly northern industrialist, was wary when asked if he would buy one. At the weekend he said: "As they also know about the discovery, the kidnappers will find a counter system to use against it. They are treacherous." During his long captivity, his kidnappers cut off pieces of his ears and sent them to his family. Mr Soffiantini, was released earlier this year after a £2 million ransom was paid. He said: "But if the microchip worked, then of course I'd get one. © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 1998. ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: Another potential flaw in current economic theory... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 08:51:21 -0600 (MDT) > From: Jim Burnes <jvb(a)ssds.com> > Subject: Re: Another potential flaw in current economic theory... > > It occurs to me that there is another potential flaw in current economic > > theory and business practice. > > > > Currently (ala Friedmann) the parties that reap the benefit of a succesful > > business are the shareholders, this is currently seen to exclude the > > employees in many cases/companies. > > > > Actually not. There are quite a few business that have employees as > shareholders. Most shares of companies are reasonably priced and > easy enough to get a hold of. Selling them on the other hand is > not so straightforward. This doesn't effect the premise under standard economics that the responsibility of managers is to the shareholders *exclusively* in regards profits and business operations. What I am positing is the potential effects of including employees as part of that sphere of responsibility *without* explicit stock holding by the emplyees. You're trying to turn apples into oranges. [other stuff deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Lycos Acquires Wired Digital
by James Glave 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/15437.html Lycos Acquires Wired Digital 6:00 a.m. 6.Oct.98.PDT In a move that continues the trend of consolidation in the Internet industry, Web search and community firm Lycos has acquired Wired Digital, the parent company of Wired News, for approximately US$83 million in Lycos stock. Lycos said in a statement that the combined traffic of both companies will allow Lycos, already the second most visited Web index service, to reach more than 40 percent of Web users. Tuesday's acquisition coincides with the introduction of "The Lycos Network," a collection of service, news, and community sites that now includes Wired Digital properties Wired News, the HotBot search engine, and the Webmonkey developer site, in addition to existing Lycos sites Lycos.com, WhoWhere, Tripod, and others. According to Relevant Knowledge, Wired Digital attracts nearly five million unique visitors a month. The acquisition is scheduled to close by the end of the calendar year and is subject to Wired shareholder approval. Lycos (LCOS) will also assume Wired Digital's stock option plan. Under the deal, Wired Digital will continue to operate from its San Francisco, California, office as a business unit of Lycos, and Beth Vanderslice, president of Wired Digital, will report to Lycos CEO Bob Davis. The Wired Digital brands will remain distinct operating units of Lycos, which Lycos said would allow the company to reach multiple Web audience segments. For example, Lycos said in a statement that Wired Digital's HotBot search engine attracts a "tech-savvy Web veteran," while Lycos.com serves a broader audience. According to Media Metrix, the two search engines attract distinct audiences, with only 20 percent overlap between the two. The Lycos Network and Wired Digital have already taken steps to share each other's content and services. Wired News is available on the headline page of Lycos.com, while Lycos' Angelfire home pages and MailCity e-mail applications are now being offered to HotBot users. Lycos search offers links to HotBot and other Wired Digital properties through top keyword searches. Further, Webmonkey's Web developer tutorials and resources will be available to Tripod and Lycos.com homepage communities. In May of this year, Wired Ventures, the former parent company of Wired Digital, sold Wired magazine to Advance Magazine Publishers. Copyright © 1994-98 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. James Glave, News Editor, Wired News, http://www.wired.com (415) 276-8430

1 0

RE: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 19:22:31 -0500 (CDT) > From: Mac Norton <mnorton(a)cavern.uark.edu> > Subject: RE: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd) > that both sides of this thread are deep into it. I stay on this > list because, just maybe, one of these days, one of you guys > is gonna crack the code of anarchy v. contract enforcement. Until > then, it's cogdis. What makes you thing anarchy eliminates contracts and the concomitent need for enforcement? The question is: "Who does the contract enforcement and arbitrage?" ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Web TV with 128b exported
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: SDN <sdn(a)divcom.slimy.com> > William H. Geiger III wrote: > > David Honig said: > > >http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/981005/ca_microso_1.html > > > > >MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Oct. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Microsoft Corp.'s (Nasdaq: > > >MSFT - news) WebTV Networks today announced it is the first U.S. company > > >to obtain government approval to export nonkey recovery-based > > >128-bit-strength encryption for general commercial use. WebTV Networks > > >pioneered low-cost access to the Internet, e-mail, financial services and > > >electronic shopping through a television set and a standard phone line. > > > > I have my doubts on this. I find it highly unlikely that the FEDs would > > approve this without some form of GAK built in even if it is not in the > > form of "key recovery". > > It's probably a lot closer to the "private doorbell" scenario. The only > thing that a WebTV unit will communicate with is the WebTV service (or > the Japanese variant thereof). > > Since all traffic goes through a point that will likely cooperate with > law enforcement (and has remote control of the boxes, too.), this doesn't > represent much of a loosening in the export controls. Hmmm... # http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/981005/ca_microso_1.html # # ...without fear of interception by unauthorized parties. Said with a lawyer's precision. # http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/981005/ca_microso_1.html # # William Reinsch, U.S. undersecretary for export administration: # ``The WebTV Network provides secure communications for its # customers and partners without posing undue risks to # national security and law enforcement.'' Either it is interceptable and decodable or it isn't. If it isn't, then software browsers (Netscape/IE) should be allowed to do it too. Perhaps Declan could investigate and get a story out of it. ---- Can someone with control of a 128-bit HTTP server see if it can identify 128-bit keys from WebTV terminals? ---guy

2 1