December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

HAYEKWEB: Hackney on Law & Econ History & Hayek
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:56:33 EST Reply-To: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Gregransom <Gregransom(a)AOL.COM> Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: HAYEKWEB: Hackney on Law & Econ History & Hayek To: HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU >> Hayek on the Web << -- Law & Economics "Law and Neoclassical Economics: Science, Politics, and the Reconfiguration of American Tort Law Theory" by James R. Hackney, Jr. on the Web at: http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/lhrforums.html >From "Law and Neoclassical Economics: Science, Politics, and the Reconfiguration of American Tort Law Theory" by James R. Hackney, Jr.: " .. C. The Antistatist Imperative: F. A. Hayek and the Road to Law and Neoclassical Economics The technique of analysis coming out of early twentieth-century Vienna was not linked to any particular ideological position. In fact, Janik and Toulmin illustrate that the fundamental position could be characterized as "apolitical." However, F. A. Hayek independently provided a distinct ideological position shaped by the Viennese experience41 that had a profound impact on ideological debates in post-World War II America and, by extension, on economic analysis. Hayek's migration to England influenced the LSE debates that are crucial to understanding the strands of economic thought that framed Coase's work in particular, and law and neoclassical economics in general. In addition, Hayek directly shaped the law and neoclassical economics project at the University of Chicago.42 Hayek stated his ideological position in The Road to Serfdom.43 He asserted that Serfdom "is a political book" and that "all I shall have to say is derived from certain ultimate values."44 Written while Hayek held a professorship at the LSE, Serfdom was conceived as a direct response to a socialist ethos that permeated the European continent and endangered the liberal underpinnings of English politics. The goal of the book was to sound a "warning to the socialist intelligentsia of England"45 that their program would lead to the very totalitarianism so many had fought against. Despite its focus on the English intellectual scene, the book had an enormous impact in the United States.46 In fact, it produced a more extreme reaction, both positive and negative, in the United States than in England. No doubt part of the consternation on the American left was due to the boldness and scope of Serfdom.47 While the argument that "hot socialism" would poison a society might not have unsettled leftists, Hayek made similar claims regarding the welfare state.48 The problem articulated in Serfdom was that some of the core beliefs of hot socialism had become so embedded in the conceptual framework of intellectual thought that they threatened to undermine liberal society under the guise of the welfar state or egalitarian rhetoric. This would come, for example, in the form of knee-jerk calls for state/bureaucratic intervention in the economy when "judicious use of financial inducements might evoke spontaneous efforts."49 The polemical force of Serfdom stemmed from its evocation of the dangers of totalitarianism, particularly the Nazi Germany variety, manifest in social approaches to the ills that befall society. Hayek boldly and flatly asserted that "[i]t is necessary now to state the unpalatable truth that it is Germany whose fate we are in some danger of repeating."50 The core of the antistatist stance as articulated in Serfdom grew out of the belief in the uniqueness of individual activity and thought ("ethical individualism"). It was unacceptable, in fact impossible, for anyone other than the individual to make decisions for the individual without imposing an alien set of values. At that point, seemingly benign policy prescriptions dissolved into naked, unjustifiable coercion. Thus, "individuals should be allowed, within defined limits, to follow their own values and preferences rather than somebody else's."51 In the antigovernment sentiment and proincentive policies articulated in Serfdom, we see the ideological seeds that helped influence, but were not determinative of, the American law and neoclassical economics movement. The ways in which the antistatist ideal set forth in Serfdom would be reflected in social institutions are clear in Hayek's discussion of the legal system and are fundamental in linking his intellectual project to the law and neoclassical economics movement. Hayek's views on the legal system were shaped by his core belief that "competition" is the central means of "co-ordinating human effort" and the "conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other."52 Thus, in the effort to protect the individual, it is free market competition, not government intervention, that is presumed to be for the good. So, what of the law "[I]n order that competition should work beneficially, a carefully thought-out legal framework is required. ." In particular, some legal structure may be needed in order to accurately reflect the price of goods and services, which is the vital information for individuals.53 In sum, the law serves to facilitate competition, which is the system most conducive to individual freedom. It does so by setting the boundaries of competition. The law should "recognize the principle of private property and freedom of contract." In this regard, it acts as a neutral arbiter facilitating individual preferences and defining the "right to property as applied to different things." The rights associated with property, notwithstanding antistatist ideals, were not absolute, but contingent upon the particular situation. Efficiency was the criterion: the "systematic study of the forms of legal institutions which will make the competitive system work efficiently." Regarding legal rules specifically, Serfdom articulated a system in which "[t]he only question . . . is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs which they impose."54 Hayek's emphasis on legal rules, particularly as they affected social costs,55 is the link connecting him to the law and neoclassical economics movement. Hayek gave a detailed analysis of social costs and the limits of government intervention as a tool for minimizing such costs. However, to the extent that legal rules limiting property rights represent an activist role for government, Hayek stated that, though the scope of this permissible intervention on individual autonomy was not defined, "these tasks provide, indeed, a wide and unquestioned field for state activity."56 I argue below that the possibility of "state activity" within neoclassical economics provides the ground for progressive political appropriation of neoclassical economics. This discussion of postwar antistatism, as represented by Serfdom, and its logical progression to concrete neoclassical analyses of legal institutions, specifically property rights, begins to substantiate the first major claim of this essay: law and neoclassical economics is, at its core, about politics. It also shows how the conservative politics associated with neoclassical economics could be taken seriously if the dangers of progressivism articulated in Serfdom, including progressive ideals espoused by pragmatic instrumentalists, were heeded.57 Now we turn to the connections between neoclassical economics and the science of the analytic turn in order to begin establishing the other claim of this paper: law and neoclassical economics is, at its core, also about science. At the end, we find that there is a synthesis of the politics and science of law and neoclassical economics .. " >From "Law and Neoclassical Economics: Science, Politics, and the Reconfiguration of American Tort Law Theory" by James R. Hackney, Jr. Law and History Review. Vol. 15, No. 2, Fall 1997 >From "'Law and Neoclassical Economics': A Response to Commentaries 163-172" by James R. Hackney, Jr.: " .. I never identify Hayek as a "neoclassical economist" but I think it is (1) fair to say that Hayek, and Austrian economics generally, have had considerable influence on neoclassical theory;16 and, more importantly for my thesis, (2) Hayek has had a profound influence on the strand of law and neoclassical economics coming out of the University of Chicago.17 (footnote 17. Coase's recognition of his intellectual debt to F. A. Hayek and the institutional role Hayek played in establishing law and neoclassical economics studies at the University of Chicago is illustrative of this point. Hackney, "Law and Neoclassical Economics," 284, n. 42, 306, n. 141.) .. " >From "'Law and Neoclassical Economics': A Response to Commentaries 163-172" by James R. Hackney, Jr. _Law and History Review_ Vol. 16, No. 1, Spring 1998. Hayek on the Web is a regular feature of the Hayek-L list. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Re: System
by kozmo killah 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

which system did you want? ---"Adrian J. Otto" <aotto(a)hangar.jetlink.net> wrote: > > Cosmos, > > Ok, I want to buy. Tell me more details. > > Adrian > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

The hax0rz are at it again... check out www.unicef.org
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Although I can't agree with their methods, I really love their motives. In case they fix it sometime soon, go to: http://bureau42.base.org/mirrors/ and click the "unicef" link. dave

1 0

[hey yall DO NOT delete this is the weirdest game....~!]]
by Tina (SingPing) Lai 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: Airheadlin(a)aol.com, SWeeTpny98(a)aol.com, Tlai(a)mystop.com Subject: Fwd: hey yall DO NOT delete this is the weirdest game....~!] From: Alyse4112 <Alyse4112(a)aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:06:34 EST Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) To: Alyse4112(a)aol.com, OhUSoSilly(a)aol.com, Ninavc@aol.com,swimgirl12@hotmail.com Subject: Fwd:hey yall DO NOT delete this is the weirdest game....~!] From: RayRay124 <RayRay124(a)aol.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 03:01:18 EST Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) In a message dated 98-01-05 22:49:10 EST, DimplesF56 writes: << >> To: RayRay124(a)aol.com, VHSmile(a)aol.com, nail(a)home.com, Sak14@aol.com,AZNPL8YBOY@aol.com, ARISTO20(a)aol.com, JILTED76(a)aol.com Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: hey yall DO NOT delete this is the weirdest game....~!] From: DimplesF56 <DimplesF56(a)aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 22:49:10 EST Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) To: Helen Huang <Sweets637(a)AOL.COM>, Jenny Young <kbzxgqgirl(a)AOL.COM>, Jonathan Woo <JWoo516(a)AOL.COM>, Margery Lee <Marg(a)ucla.edu>, Musette Chan <Qui8cow(a)AOL.COM>, Steven Hu <Smartbeans(a)AOL.COM>, Thyda Chhor <thyda001(a)AOL.COM> Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: hey yall DO NOT delete this is the weirdest game....~!] From: Kwan <kwan887(a)jps.net> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 09:09:45 -0800 To: Helen Huang <Sweets637(a)AOL.COM>, Jenny Young <kbzxgqgirl(a)AOL.COM>, Jonathan Woo <JWoo516(a)AOL.COM>, Margery Lee <Marg(a)ucla.edu>, Musette Chan <Qui8cow(a)AOL.COM>, Steven Hu <Smartbeans(a)AOL.COM>, Thyda Chhor <thyda001(a)AOL.COM> Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: hey yall DO NOT delete this is the weirdest game....~!] From: Kwan <kwan887(a)jps.net> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 09:09:45 -0800 -------------------- Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by dry.jps.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA16198 for <kwan887(a)jps.net>; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 19:15:10 -0800 (PST) From: Bar111bie <Bar111bie(a)aol.com> Message-ID: <2e2dd6f8.34ab0a14(a)aol.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 22:14:26 EST To: kwan887(a)jps.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Fwd: hey yall DO NOT delete this is the weirdest game....~! Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_883624466_boundary" Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_883624466_boundary Content-ID: <0_883624466(a)inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_883624466_boundary Content-ID: <0_883624466(a)inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline From: Babytimd13 <Babytimd13(a)aol.com> Return-path: <Babytimd13(a)aol.com> To: Bar111bie(a)aol.com Subject: Fwd: hey yall DO NOT delete this is the weirdest game....~! Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 03:42:58 EST Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_883624466_boundary" --part1_883624466_boundary Content-ID: <0_883624466(a)inet_out.mail.aol.com.3> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part1_883624466_boundary Content-ID: <0_883624466(a)inet_out.mail.aol.com.4> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline From: Babytimd13 <Babytimd13(a)aol.com> Return-path: <Babytimd13(a)aol.com> To: Rndy2(a)aol.com Subject: hey yall DO NOT delete this is the weirdest game....~! Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 03:56:13 EST Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 97-12-28 19:03:18 EST, you write: << Begin... > = > First, write 1-11in a column. > Then in the first and second spaces, fill any two numbers you like. > Write two males names in the 3rd and 7th spaces. > Write anyone's name (like friends or family...) in the 4th, 5th, and >6th spaces. > Write four song titles in 8,9,10 and 11. > = > Finally, make a wish... > = > = > And here is the key for that game... > = > = > > > > > > > >You must tell (the number in space 2) people about this game in (the = >number in space 1) days in order to make your wish come true. > = > The name in 3 is the one you love. > The person in 7 is the one you like but can't work out. > You care most about the person you put in 4. > Fifth is the one you knows you very well. > The name in 6 is your lucky star. > The song in 8 is the song that matches with the person in 3. > The title in 9 is the song for 7. > The tenth space is the song telling you about your mind. > And 11 is the song telling what you feel for sex....... > = >> --part1_883624466_boundary-- --part0_883624466_boundary--

1 0

No Subject
by jalonz＠openworld.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

># SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. ># ># Computer Security - Provide computer security assistance in criminal ># investigations. Tasks include data decryption, recovering erased data, ># password retrieval, data line monitoring, and protected system entry. > >Isn't that last item special? > >---guy > > And a possible reason for heading the other way. guy, tough noogies deal with it... Notice the words "criminal investigations"? God forbid talent could actually be used for a good cause. The incidents in question were actually quite serious (Chinese mafia money laundering via phony real estate deals) and not at all like the porno bbs confiscation crap you'd be thinking of. Besides the DA office reference (I can completely understand about that one), which was consulting work, what's your point in laying someone's life out on a page? Who cares? Yeah, its a lot of stuff, I just happen to work for start-up companies and thus I jump around a lot - given that most of them never make it due to one problem or another. :) jqz

2 1

Television Caller ID
by TVID 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The TVMessenger utilizes the powerful medium of Television to display Telephone Caller ID information. While watching your favorite movie or TV show, the TVMessenger will display incoming callers name and number in the upper left hand corner of your TV screen. This convenient easy-to-read caller display lets you make an immediate decision on how to handle the call. In addition, the TVMessenger keeps track of your calls while your away. The callers name, number, date, time, and the number of times they have called are stored in the callers log for future reference - Ideal for number retrieval! The TVMessenger also works with your voice messaging service - it provides a visual indication that a message is waiting. CONVENIENCE * SECURITY * CALLERS LOG * MESSAGE WAITING/NEW CALL INDICATOR REPLY to this email, visit our Website or CALL US for details TODAY!! _______________________________________________ http://www.promobility.net/tvid/ Tel. 888-632-1310

1 0

Re: How about a Bay Area Cypherpunks meeting 1/17/98?
by Cindy Cohn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:03 PM 12/20/97 -0500, Simon Spero wrote: >On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Bill Stewart wrote: > >The 17th also happens to be just after a W3C meeting in Palo Alto. I was >planning to spend the day hanging at the mall with Chelsea, but this could >be fun too... I'm sorry, I won't be available on January 17th. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 341-2585 (tel) (650)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

1 0

Re: Question on U.S. Postal Service and crypto (fwd)
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>This is for a story for Time on the "new" U.S .Postal Service. I vaguely >recall the USPS trying to set digital signature standards and/or serve as >a CA. I'd like to mention this. > >Can't remember the details, though. Does anyone have 'em (or a pointer to >them) handy? See <http://www.parrhesia.com/po-ca.html> for information about the USPS' plan to act as a CA. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com

1 0

happy?
by cuajuazu＠prodigy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE> QUIT YOUR JOB WITHIN 2 MONTHS ! $1,000,000.00 IN 6 MONTHS ! ALL NEW! 0 0 TAKE MATTERS INTO YOUR OWN HANDS! 0 0 < > \_/ YOU ARE ONE OF THE FIRST TO SEE THIS \_/ HELP OTHERS SUCCEED, A "WIN-WIN" PROPOSITION LIKE NO OTHER! WE HAVE TAKEN A SUCCESSFUL FORMULA AND MASTERED IT!!!!!!! HELP YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY SUCCEED I absolutely disliked my job. Working for someone else was beating me up. I wanted freedom . That is all I wanted. Free of my boss , free of a schedule, free of paying bills .Freedom to spend time with my family. Freedom to do whatever I wanted , whenever I wanted. Sound like a fairy tale? Sound like a pipe dream? Well people, here is your reality check. 18 months ago I was living the normal everyday life. Job, bills,not much time and not entirely happy.Sometimes I was happy, but I wasn't living the life I had envisioned myself living 10 years earlier. Things weren't going as planned. I was happily married with 2 children , but still I felt like life was designing me instead of me designing my life. I reached a point were I decided I needed a jumpstart. I started filling my mind with positive, motivational ideas that I read in books. I started going to seminars to try to stimulate my mind as well as my life. I began believing and KNOWING that things were going to change in a BIG way, but I didn't know from where. Then something funny happenned. While looking through my email, I came across this success program that said I could make a large amount of money in a short period of time rather easily. I decided , "what the hell , it's only $20" and tried it. Little did I realize that I was one of the first to see that message that everyone has seen and deleted hundreds of times. Right place at the right time? Maybe. I think It's more like my mind was ready for an opportunity and there it was. I was barely able to turn a computer on , but I managed and learned and more money flew in than I knew what to do with . I organized . It exploded even more. I made more money in 3 months than I made at my job in the last 5 years! So I quit my job and started doing this full time - a few hours a day. I have never felt more confident and better about myself in my whole life . My life has exceded every expectation, in so many ways, in such a short time that it borders on divine intervention. Well that program has long since reached it's peak and changed so many times that it's almost dead. What we have here is the same formula only accelerated and improved . We have removed the useless reports of the last program and added some that will blow your mind , The reports could literally change your life in many ways and help those around you. But anyway, please read on .You are one of the first to see this . Your opportunity is now. Email has come along way .It is still almost totally free-except for your ISP account. You can literally reach millions of people at no cost. This sure beats postal delivery . Our program will get even the beginner computer user on the path of success. Of course over the last few months a few road blocks have appeared that has hindered many success programs. These are; 1. goverment is trying to pass legislation to limit or stop what has until now been a free way of advertising. Email will be severly restricted, very, very soon.Up until now,this type of program is 100% legal and has no laws governing it. Soon this will change. ******************* 2.Internet service providers ,usch as AOL and Compuserve are really trying their best to end unsolicited Emailing. ******************* 3. Once you have seen a certain program that has "flooded" the internet lines, it is already too late. The People who have made money are on to bigger and brighter things, and the majority of people will just delete the Email because they have seen it hundreds of times already. ******************** 4. OTHER PROGRAMS HAVE PRODUCTS AND REPORTS THAT ARE THERE SPECIFICALLY TO JUSTIFY THE PROGRAM( make them legal). This program has a great product that can change peoples lives and help others around them . $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ IF YOU EVER THOUGHT OF TRYING A PROGRAM , NOW IS THE TIME AND THIS IS THE PROGRAM! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Prior reports from similer programs , were basically there only to justify the program. These NEW reports are - PRICELESS! The reports are unbelivable! The information in the programs alone may change your life; financially,emotionally,spiritually, in every way! If you have tried other Email programs and had limited success, it was because of three things ; 1. EFFORT 2. TIMING 3. PRODUCT THIS PROGRAM TAKES CARE OF ISSUES #2 AND #3 . THE EFFORT IS UP TO YOU. I can not stress how much of the success of a program depends on the product and ease of use. Here is your chance , I do not know how long you will have this opportunity, only the goverment can decide. IT IS A CAN'T LOSE - "WIN-WIN" OPPORTUNITY!! ******************************************************************** THIS PROGRAM ,UNLIKE THE OTHERS , HAS A GREAT PRODUCT AND IT WILL SUCCEED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP OTHERS LIVE AND ENJOY LIFE TO THE FULLEST ********************************************************************* THIS IS THE PROGRAM TO TRY ! YOU MAY NOT GET ANOTHER CHANCE! Here is how the program works; Print this now for future reference*********************** This is a money making phenomenon !!!!!!!!!! You are looking at the most profitable and unique program you may ever see. It is proven to generate large sums of money and it is completely legal. It does not require you to come in contact with people, it doesn't require hard work and you never have to leave the house . We sell thousands of people a product for $10.00 that costs very little to produce on e-mail. We build our business by recruiting new members and partners and selling our products. The product in this program is a series of 4 reports providing tips for financial, emotional and spiritial gain. Each $10.00 order you receive by mail will include the e-mail address of the sender. To fill the order, simply e-mail the report to the buyer, that's it!!!!!!!!!!!! The $10.00 they send is yours simply for sending the report via e-mail. YOU MUST FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY! This is what you do ............................ 1.Order all 4 reports that are listed below. For each report you send $10.00 cash, your e-mail address, return postal address (in case of mail errors) to each person listed below. When you order, be sure to list the specific report you need. You will need all 4 reports to save on your computer for reselling them. 2. IMPORTANT Do not alter the names, or the sequence that they are in or you will not profit the way you should.THIS IS A KEY TO MAKING THE PROGRAM WORK. It is not fair to the others in the program if you do not follow the program exactly. DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO DO UNTO YOU! -the golden rule of life . 3. Replace the name and address under REPORT #1 with your name and move the name that was there down to REPORT #2. Move the name on REPORT #2 to REPORT #3 and so on eliminating the name on report #4. They are well on their way to financial independance by now so don't worry . Copy the names and addresses accurately and do not remove the Report/Product positions. Take this entire text and save it on your computer. Now your ready to start selling your product on the web. Start your campaign as soon as you can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ***********ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME DAY SERVICE******************* ALWAYS SEND $10.00 CASH FOR EACH ORDER (CONCEALED) FOR EACH ORDER REQUESTING THE SPECIFIC REPORT BY NAME AND NUMBER. ALWAYS SEND MAIL FIRST CLASS AND PROVIDE YOUR E MAIL ADDRESS FOR QUICK DELIVERY. ____________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "EMAIL MILLIONAIRES-THE ROAD TO INDEPENDANCE" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: A&L INC. 113 MT. HERMON WAY OCEAN GROVE , N.J. 07756 _____________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "REAL ESTATE -'THE ART OF THE FLIP'" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: SMITH & CO. P.O. BOX 678 KEYPORT N.J. 07735 _____________________________________________________ REPORT #3 "MAKE 10-20% A MONTH IN STOCKS" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: MS INC. 46 W. SHORE ST KEANSBURG N.J. 07734 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "THE STRANGEST SECRET " ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: McCollough 504 13th ave Belmar N.J. 07719 ______________________________________________________ HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PLAN WILL EARN YOU MONEY Let's say you decide to start small just to see how it goes. Assume your goal is to get only 20 people to participate on your first level. (Placing FREE ads on the internet could get a better response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR BUILDING ORGANIZATION gets only 20 downline members. Follow this example for the STAGGERING results below: 1st level -- your 20 members with 10 ($10 x 20) $200 (position 1) 2nd level --20 members from those 20 ($10 x 400) $4000 (position 2) 3rd level -- 20 members from those 400 ($10 x 8,000) $80,000 (position 3) 4th level -- 20 members from those 8,000 ($10 x 160,000) $1,600,000 (position 4) THIS TOTALS-----------> $1,684,200.00 !!!!!!!!! Remember friends, this is assuming that the people who participate only recruit 20 people each. Imagine what the response would be if you only got 10 more people to participate! Some people get 100's of recruits! STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT! By the way, your cost to participate in this is practically nothing. You obviously already have an internet connection and e-mail is FREE!!! REMEMBER: Approx. 50,000 new people get online monthly! ORDER YOUR REPORTS NOW!!! *******TIPS FOR SUCCESS******* TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY, so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $10 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report to comply with the U.S. Postal & Lottery Laws, Title 18, Sections 1302 and 1341 or Title 18, Section 3005 in the U.S. Code, also Code of Federal Regs. vol. 16, Sections 255 and 436, which state that: "a product or service must be exchanged for money received." * ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. * Be patient and persistent with this program. If you follow the instructions EXACTLY the results WILL undoubtedly be SUCCESS! * ABOVE ALL, HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF THAT YOU CAN SUCCEED! *******YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINE******* The check point that guarantees your success is simply this: You MUST receive 10 to 20 orders for REPORT #1! THIS IS A MUST! If you don't within two weeks, advertise more and send out more programs until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT #2. If you don't, advertise more and send out more programs until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because you will be on your way to the BANK! Or, you can DOUBLE your efforts! REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list you are in front of a DIFFERENT report, so you can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by what report people are ordering from you. IT'S THAT EASY!!! ==================================================== ORDER TODAY AND GET STARTED ON THE PATH TO YOUR FINANCIAL FREEDOM!!! Very few people reach financial independence, because when opportunity knocks, they choose to ignore it. It is much easier to say "NO" than "YES", and this is the question that you must answer. Will YOU ignore this amazing opportunity or will you take advantage of it? If you do nothing, you have indeed missed something and nothing will change. Please re-read this material, this is a special opportunity. My method is simple. I sell thousands of people a product for $10 that costs me pennies to produce and e-mail. I should also point out this program is legal and everyone who participates WILL make money. This is not a chain letter or pyramid scam. This is a business! You are offering a awesome product to your people. After they purchase the product from you, they reproduce more and resell them. The information contained in these REPORTS IS UNBELIEVABLE! They will not only help you in making your participation in this program more rewarding, but THEY MAY CHANGE YOUR LIFE AND HELP THOSE YOU LOVE AND CARE ABOUT! . You are also buying the rights to reprint all of the REPORTS, which will be ordered from you by those to whom you mail this program. The concise REPORTS you will be buying are easy to duplicate for your entrepreneurial endeavor. Thank you for your attention. Now make the decision that's right for you. </PRE></HTML> u

1 0

Eureka! Fri Jan 9 '98
by eureka＠eureka.abc-web.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome to Friday's issue of Eureka! KARA'S ADULT PLAYGROUND With 15 live sex shows, 1,300 Hardcore XXX videos, 1,000s of Hardcore and Softcore Pix, the VaVoom monthly magazine, Kara's exclusive monthly centrefolds, adult games, erotic stories and even casino and sports betting, you won't be going out for weeks particularly now that you can get a FREE trial - your eyes will be popping out of your head! Hahaha! Kara's Playground ...... http://www.rjbtelcom.com/eplay.html GAYEUREKA! The gay newsletter is now available. You can get it here! Gay Eureka! ........... http://eureka.abc-web.com/gayeureka/ EUREKA! TRANSLATIONS As well as English you can now choose any of these languages DEUTSCH ....... http://eureka.abc-web.com/eureka/deutsch.htm ESPAÑOL ....... http://eureka.abc-web.com/eureka/espanol.htm FRANÇAIS ..... http://eureka.abc-web.com/eureka/francais.htm ITALIANO ..... http://eureka.abc-web.com/eureka/italiano.htm PORTUGUESE . http://eureka.abc-web.com/eureka/portuguese.htm INFINITE PLEASURES This site is loaded with lots of free pix to say the least! All of the categories are plainly listed for fast surfing. Bingo! They also have some great free videos! Lots of bush! Infinite Pleasures ...... http://www.infinite-pleasures.com/ INNOCENCE LOST "Two beautiful women whom have agreed to "lose" their inno- cence in the presence of our cameras.." Here we have two hot young ladies doing a nice little romp on a daybed. The pix are high resolution, so you can see it all. They start out slow but then it gets going with a mutual hooter connection! Innocence ....... http://www.firstsightimages.com/innocence/ FREE SNATCH Hey, I guess the price is right. At this site they have well laid out pix. These include, anal, blowjobs, cumshots, hot sluts, group sex, lesbians and fucking. Not a bad mix here! Free Snatch ..................... http://www.freesnatch.com/ PORN CENTRAL Way down at the bottom of the main frame you'll find lots of free pix. These are some good ones. One features two babes pouring honey on each other. Sweet and stick nipples, Yummy! Porn Central ................... http://www.porncentral.com/ FREE CONTEST! If you haven't won free 3 month membership to HardCoreSmut yet, today is your last chance. If the competition is too tough, then just give them your money, once you're a member, your accountant will be the last thing on your mind. Visit Hardcoresmut and click on "Free Guided Tour" for the tour. Email the answer (found in Hardcore Games) to this question: "These hardcore games are the ultimate in what?"............ Send answers to ............. mailto:contest@www.usachat.com HardCoreSmut ................... http://www.hardcoresmut.com FREE STREAMING VIDEO Please note that most of these feeds require a Netscape bro- wser in order to successfully view them. Unfortunately Micr- osoft's browser does not have all the features of Netscape's yet. However, many of the feeds use the RealPlayer and will work in most browsers. If you do not have Netscape and want a free copy click here ... http://www.netscape.com/download/ Just 18 ........................ http://204.244.215.7/teens/ CHAT WITH OTHER READERS This chat is growing fast, and already there are a number of regulars you will meet most days. It's good to see Eureka! readers interacting with each other and having a great time! Adult/Sex Chat .................. http://137.39.63.229/chat/ General/Fun Chat ........ http://137.39.63.229/chat/funchat/ THE BEST PHONE SEX NEW!!!! LD Call only! - Live Hot Girls!!!!....1-664-410-3912 LIVE: 1-on-1, 2-on-1, Group, Dateline.........1-800-644-8779 FREE: Live 1-on-1 (international call only)....011-678-77416 AMATEUR SITE OF THE DAY JAMIE WYLDE: A 36 year old Canadian amateur who has the body of a goddess! She loves lingerie - and that is good news for you, because she looks oohh so good in it. She loves to work out and it shows. Jamie could definitely keep you warm dur- ing the cold winter! ............................ http://amateurindex.com/eureka/ EROTIC STORY SITE OF THE DAY Planet Mojo: Mojo brings you the juiciest erotic stories weekly! Every week all new exciting erotic stories are posted for your pleasure. Visit Mojo today! ................ ................................. http://www.planetmojo.com/ DAILY MPEG AND CARTOON These video clips feature the best of Raffaelli's erotic masterpieces, portraying exotic, single girls in autoerotic masturbation. The cartoons are very good for a laugh too! Daily Mpeg & Cartoon .... http://www.erosinorbit.com/eureka/ ADULT STAR PIC OF THE DAY Every day we bring you an exclusive choice pic of a famous adult porn star. And we must tell you - these pix are abso- luletly brilliant! .... http://www.xxxadultstars.com/eureka/ TODAY'S FREE PIX Pic 1 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?090 Pic 2 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?091 Pic 3 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?092 Pic 4 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?093 Pic 5 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?094 Pic 6 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?095 Pic 7 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?096 Pic 8 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?097 Pic 9 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?098 Pic 10 ........................... http://137.39.63.229/?099 PLEASE VISIT THIS EUREKA! PARTNER SITE THE ULTIMATE HARDCORE SITES http://sexplosion.com/adverts.shtml An incredible collection of over 30 sites featuring the hottest free hardcore photos. The pix are easy to find and the sites are all very accessible. You won't be disappointed. =========================================================== TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS NEWSLETTER, USE THE REPLY FUNCTION IN YOUR EMAIL PROGRAM, AND SEND THIS NEWSLETTER BACK TO US. ===========================================================

1 0

MS Server Gated Crypto: strong encryption w/ exportable browsers if the server is US-OK
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The jist of http://eu.microsoft.com/industry/finserv/m_finserv/m_fordev_g.htm is, MS has US permission to export a DLL containing 128-bit SSL *worldwide* since the encryption is enabled IFF there's a Verisign "SGC certificate" on the *server*. This apparently will work with Netscape servers in addition to IIS. This facilitates gov't-trusted banks doing business with clients with generic MS browsers. And it facilitates MS's growth in the web world. Thoughts: Since US law (*) doesn't recognize digital IDs or the authority of Verisign, this implies the government has enforced some arbitrary judgement calls biassed towards this system, no? Additionally, the US would be seeming to trust the implementation in MS's new DLL which checks for and verifies signatures. All in all, some clever/cunning positioning by MS. This is set up for banks, and the certificates are strong. But they seem like the weak point --could a generic certificate be circulated amongst the Undesirables so they could enable this feature in IE browsers with the new DLL? (*) I understand that the government of Utah now recognizes some form of digital signatures. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu "How do you know you are not being deceived?" ---A Compendium of Analytic TradeCraft Notes, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

1 0

Re: Question on U.S. Postal Service and crypto (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 10:45:28 -0800 > From: David Miller <dm0(a)avana.net> > Subject: Re: Question on U.S. Postal Service and crypto > I'm not so sure about this, Robert. I've heard the rumor that it is a crime, > but I have also heard that if something is delivered to your box, it is yours > and you are not required to send it back unopened if it is not addressed to > you. I tend to believe the latter, as it is the side of the story shared by > USPS employees. The way it works is if a company send you (ie addressed to you or your physical address) and *then* attempts to recoup costs for the product or item delivered *and* you did not request the item *then* it is yours. It must be either addressed to you or the occupant of that delivery address, it is important to note that the test in all this is whether you requested something from the company. If the item is specificaly addressed to a 3rd party it is a crime to open it. I haven't looked into what the requirements for re-delivery are, as far as I am aware you could either return it to the post office for dead-letter filing or dump it in the trash. > It certainly is a federal crime, however, for the indended recipient to get > into your mailbox to get a message which was incorrectly delivered to you, > however! Technicaly, it is a crime for *you* to put stuff in your mailbox. When the home pick-up was eliminated a few years ago (supposedly because of the drug and bomb threat) the mailbox on your house or in your apartment was turned into an *exclusive* delivery point for the USPS. When you or I ask somebody to drop it in the box because we are not home we are technicaly committing a crime. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:09 AM 1/8/98 -0800, Jim Gillogly wrote: >Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >> scientists who agree to government secrecy to develop >> their inventions are agreeing to a lot more than >> mere secrecy. they are committing to a paradigm that >> is at odds with science itself, which only advances through >> the open literature. > >Why limit your annoyance to government scientists? Scientists >in private industry are in the same position, developing (e.g.) >algorithms and analytical methods protected by trade secrets. >Society recognizes this tendency and tries to advance science >anyway by offering patent protection. You don't make money by >giving away your intellectual capital. Seems to me that schools >and independently wealthy scientists/foundations are the only >ones who don't merit your censure on this count. >-- Nuri was obviously going through the angst of realizing responsibility as a creative technologist. You are adding antibusiness sentiments to this. The fact is, you choose who/what you work on. And face it, many government scientists think they're wearing white hats. As do those in industry and academia, as well as the independant investigator. The British scientist reporting on his discovery of PK was not *bitter* that others found it too. He was explaining the secretive context of its development in one closed shop. He undoubtably thinks his work was Good. It is only some readers who are thinking that the Brit is trying to usurp something. He's not. I thought the Brit's explanation was helpful for understanding PK beyond the confusing complexity of the RSA-implementation of it. It does not detract from the efforts (or patents) of anyone, that PK has been discovered multiple times. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu "How do you know you are not being deceived?" ---A Compendium of Analytic TradeCraft Notes, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

1 0

Journalism and the Internet conference at Freedom Forum
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:53:34 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Journalism and the Internet conference at Freedom Forum [I'm on the "Online journalism, governments and the First Amendment" panel tomorrow. I expect rating systems will come up. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 10:48:22 -0500 From: Adam Powell <apowell(a)freedomforum.org> Subject: Journalism/Internet conf webcast Tomorrow's "Journalism and the Internet" conference will be webcast in its entirety, so those who cannot join us in person will be able to join sessions on line. Webcast listeners will also be able to submit questions and comments via e-mail for panelists during the webcast. Below is the schedule (all times EST): "Journalism and the Internet" conference Rooftop Conference Center The Freedom Forum 1101 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22209 8:30 a.m. -- Welcome and introduction Charles Overby, The Freedom Forum; Richard Sammon, National Press Club 9 a.m. -- Keynote address Speaker: Steve Case, America Online Moderator: Adam Powell 9:45 a.m. -- "Where are we/How did we get here?" Panelists: Llewellyn King, King Publishing; Sam Meddis, USA TODAY; Stephen Miller, The New York Times; Marc Weiss, Web Development Fund Moderator: Don Brown, QRadio 11 a.m. -- "Standards and ethics online" Panelists: Rajiv Chandrasekaran, The Washington Post; Steven Levy, Newsweek; John Markoff, The New York Times; Jai Singh, CNET Moderator: Lee Thornton, University of Maryland 12:30 p.m. -- Luncheon program -- "Sports journalism online: Special case or leading edge?" Welcome: Peter Prichard, The Freedom Forum Speaker: John Rawlings, The Sporting News Moderator: Gene Policinski, The Freedom Forum 2:15 p.m. -- "Online journalism, governments and the First Amendment" Panelists: Donna Demac, Georgetown University; Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Declan McCullagh, Netly News/Time magazine; Lynn Povich, MSNBC Moderator: Paul McMasters, The Freedom Forum 4 p.m. -- "Politics '98 online" Panelists: Farai Chideya, ABC News; Kathleen deLaski, America Online; Mike Riley, CNN/Time's AllPolitics; Omar Wasow, MSNBC Moderator: Robert Merry, Congressional Quarterly Newseum Broadcast Studio The Newseum 1101 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22209 1 p.m. -- "Journalism and the Internet" public program Journalist of the Day: John Markoff, The New York Times *** We will also have live webcasts of the Saturday programs: Newseum Broadcast Studio The Newseum 1101 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22209 1 p.m. -- "Journalism and the Internet" public program Journalist of the Day: Jai Singh, CNET 2:30 p.m. -- "Journalism and the Internet" public program Technology demonstration: John Pavlik, Center for New Media, Columbia University Discussion: Benjamin Davis, MSNBC Steve Geimann, Society of Professional Journalists Lisa Napoli, New York Times *** Adam Clayton Powell, III Vice President, Technology and Programs, The Freedom Forum 703-284-3553 fax 703-284-2879 apowell(a)freedomforum.org apowell(a)alum.mit.edu http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/welcome.asp

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Honig wrote: > At 05:09 AM 1/8/98 -0800, Jim Gillogly wrote: > >Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > >> scientists who agree to government secrecy to develop > >> their inventions are agreeing to a lot more than > >> mere secrecy. they are committing to a paradigm that > >> is at odds with science itself, which only advances through > >> the open literature. > > > >Why limit your annoyance to government scientists? Scientists > >in private industry are in the same position, developing (e.g.) > > Nuri was obviously going through the angst of realizing responsibility > as a creative technologist. > > You are adding antibusiness sentiments to this. > > The fact is, you choose who/what you work on. I'm not adding antibusiness sentiments -- I'm questioning why the Vladster limited his angst to government. I did, in fact, choose to work in private industry, and I'm not opposed to inventors reaping the rewards of their brain power -- and that goes for the inventors of public keys and RSA, who I feel earned their rewards. -- Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 17 Afteryule S.R. 1998, 17:43 12.19.4.14.17, 1 Caban 15 Kankin, Ninth Lord of Night

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:09 AM -0800 1/8/98, Jim Gillogly wrote: >Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >> scientists who agree to government secrecy to develop >> their inventions are agreeing to a lot more than >> mere secrecy. they are committing to a paradigm that >> is at odds with science itself, which only advances through >> the open literature. > >Why limit your annoyance to government scientists? Scientists >in private industry are in the same position, developing (e.g.) >algorithms and analytical methods protected by trade secrets. >Society recognizes this tendency and tries to advance science >anyway by offering patent protection. You don't make money by >giving away your intellectual capital. Seems to me that schools >and independently wealthy scientists/foundations are the only >ones who don't merit your censure on this count. Scientists even in schools and foundations are often secretive, too. The notion that "science" is about blabbing one's latest discoveries or theories is overly simplistic. Many scholars and scientists choose not to publicize their work for years, or decades, or, even, never. Consider Andrew Wiles, Princeton math professor, and the prover of Fermat's Last Theorem. He labored in secrecy for many years, only going public when he felt his results were complete. (As it turned out, they were not, and he needed another year or two to fill in some gaps.) Corporate scientists now outnumber academic or foundation scientists, and they are quite understandably under various restrictions to keep results secret, at least for a while. Science does not "only advance through the open literature." There are many other checks and balances which accomplish the same effect. I could give dozens of examples of where the open literature either did not exist or was not used...and science still advanced. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 7

Re: cypherpunks and guns
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Final comment: If I find the motivation, I may finish an essay I've been > > working on about how we, the Cypherpunks and the World, are *retrogressing* > > in crypto areas. Most of the exotic applications are no longer being > > discussed, and various mundane commercial products are the main focus. Yawn. > > You mean things like Onion Routers, Crowds & the like? Tim May doesn't know anything about Onion Routers, Crowds, or any of the other new privacy technologies like Adam Back's prototype Eternity service. In truth, he has lost all interest in cryptography and now spends his time talking about guns and making racist comments. He wonders why the cypherpunks list no longer attracts quality cryptographic ideas. He need look no farther than the nearest mirror. His violent rants and his off-topic, offensive posts have done more than anything to drive good people off the list. The single best thing that could happen to the cypherpunks list (and the cypherpunks movement, for that matter) would be for Tim May to leave the list and disassociate himself from the cypherpunks. He would be much more comfortable joining the KKK and the local militia. After him, Paul Bradley, William Geiger and Dimitri Vulis can follow. This will leave fine thinkers with good hearts like Adam Back, Bill Stewart, Wei Dai and others, people who still believe that cryptography can make a strong contribution to our freedom.

2 1

RE: MS Server Gated Crypto: strong encryption w/ exportable browsers if the server is US-OK
by Trei, Peter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Netscape got this deal quite some time ago, so it's hardly a special priviliege for MS. It lets certain (trusted by the US government) servers to use strong encryption with US products outside of the US. Peter Trei Disclaimer: I am not speaking for my employer. > ---------- > From: David Honig[SMTP:honig@otc.net] > Reply To: David Honig > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 12:02 PM > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: MS Server Gated Crypto: strong encryption w/ exportable > browsers if the server is US-OK > > > The jist of > http://eu.microsoft.com/industry/finserv/m_finserv/m_fordev_g.htm > is, MS has US permission to export a DLL containing 128-bit SSL > *worldwide* > since > the encryption is enabled IFF there's a Verisign "SGC certificate" on > the > *server*. > This apparently will work with Netscape servers in addition to IIS. [...] > ------------------------------------------------------------ > David Honig Orbit Technology > honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu > > "How do you know you are not being deceived?" > ---A Compendium of Analytic TradeCraft Notes, > Directorate of Intelligence, CIA > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Search Engines
by Brian Franks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I saw your listing on the internet. Get your web site(s) submitted to over 250 of the worlds best search engines for only $39.95! (Yahoo, Lycos, AOL, Excite, Hotbot, Linkstar, Webcrawler, and hundreds others). A professional will view your site and put together a list of the best key words and submit your site: mailing you the computer print out of ALL the search engines your site(s) were submitted to. (you should have in 5-10 days) To put your web site in the fast lane and receive more traffic, mail your check for only $39.95 to NetWorld at the below address. To start your submission today, fax a copy of the check you are mailing to (760) 639-3551 and be SURE to include BOTH the web site address and email address for each site you are having submitted. This is a one time fee. Mail Checks to NetWorld PO Box 326 Oceanside, CA. 92049 Sincerely, Brian Franks NetWorld http://www.max2001isp.com/networld/submit.htm (800) 484-2621 X5568

1 0

FWD: AES Update - Known Answer Tests, Monte Carlo Tests, syntax, and formats
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: foti(a)csmes.ncsl.nist.gov >Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 16:41:40 -0500 >To: smid(a)csmes.ncsl.nist.gov >From: Jim Foti <jfoti(a)nist.gov> >Subject: AES Update - Known Answer Tests, Monte Carlo Tests, syntax, > and formats > >Folks, > >A Happy New Year to you all! 1998 should be quite exciting and hectic for >all of us involved in the AES development effort. > >Here is the latest news regarding AES. I have just posted Known Answer >Test and Monte Carlo Test documentation on our AES home page. The actual >link is: <http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/aes/katmct/katmct.htm>. > >Information on the API should be made available within several weeks - we >are actively and diligently working on that. When that information is >posted, I will send you a notification message similar to this one. > >In addition, we will soon have a survey for you which will be used to >expedite the exportability of AES analysis packages (which will be made >available when we announce the "complete and proper" submissions later this >summer). More information to follow soon. > >As with past messages, this is being sent to all persons who have expressed >an interest in the AES development effort (one way or another) within the >last year. > >Kindest regards, >Jim > > > >******************************************************************* >Jim Foti > >Security Technology Group >Computer Security Division >National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) > >TEL: (301) 975-5237 >FAX: (301) 948-1233 > >******************************************************************* > >

1 0

Vulis again
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Tim C. May's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated cud is > completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is > cross-ruminated. > > | | > | O | Tim C. May > (--|--) > | > / \ Talk about reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated... Vulis must be getting old. ---guy So, die, already.

1 0

Re: The Digital Society Group
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From jalonz(a)openworld.com Thu Jan 8 02:19:34 1998 > Received: from openworld.com (www.openworld.com [205.157.133.52]) > by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with SMTP id CAA24973 > for <guy(a)panix.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 02:19:34 -0500 (EST) > From: jalonz(a)openworld.com > Received: by openworld.com(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 85256586.00285987 ; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 02:20:43 -0500 > X-Lotus-FromDomain: OPENWORLD.COM > To: Information Security <guy(a)panix.com>, cyberpunks(a)toad.net Cyberpunks? You really know how to score points! > Message-ID: <85256586.00280ED7.00(a)openworld.com> > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 02:22:05 -0500 > Subject: Re: The Digital Society Group > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Status: R > > > ># SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. > ># > ># Computer Security - Provide computer security assistance in criminal > ># investigations. Tasks include data decryption, recovering erased > data, > ># password retrieval, data line monitoring, and protected system entry. > > > >Isn't that last item special? > > > >---guy > > > > And a possible reason for heading the other way. > > guy, > > tough noogies > > deal with it... > > Notice the words "criminal investigations"? God forbid talent could > actually be used for a good cause. The incidents in question were actually > quite serious (Chinese mafia money laundering via phony real estate deals) > and not at all like the porno bbs confiscation crap you'd be thinking of. > > :) > jqz Just curious what your reaction would be to that ambiguous statement. Having done DA support, I expect you are quite serious about heading the other way to give users security and anonymity. How do you justify both, since the "bad guys" would benefit? ---- It's the other stuff: that you flit around (people posting "Where are you Jalon Q. Zimmerman?"), that The Digital Society doesn't have its own domain, but is hosted by some other company called "OpenWorld", which has AOL contact addresses... Who is Mark Frazier, who owns OpenWorld, how long has it been in business, what is your relationship to them, what is your job description? Is OpenWorld another startup that is going to go <poof>? The OpenWorld pages read like any other company BS, and you've given yourself the lofty title "Director". Yeah, and we have Sir Timothy May, Dr. Dim Vulvis, etc. You're about 26, and full of hot air. ---guy You mean well. ;-)

2 1

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by David Miller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > Consider Andrew Wiles, Princeton math professor, and the prover of Fermat's > Last Theorem. He labored in secrecy for many years, only going public when > he felt his results were complete. (As it turned out, they were not, and he > needed another year or two to fill in some gaps.) You may have seen the same TV show I saw on him. I really enjoyed it. Is there any evidence that he got (ahem) outside funding for his project? In the back of my paranoid mind, I wondered that since he was dealing with elliptic curves and modular arithmetic if... I mean, how did he pay his mortgage? The show implied that he was not doing any real teaching most of that time, and if no one at the school knew of his work, then where was the money coming from? --David Miller

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:26 PM -0800 1/8/98, David Miller wrote: >Tim May wrote: > >> Consider Andrew Wiles, Princeton math professor, and the prover of Fermat's >> Last Theorem. He labored in secrecy for many years, only going public when >> he felt his results were complete. (As it turned out, they were not, and he >> needed another year or two to fill in some gaps.) > >You may have seen the same TV show I saw on him. I really enjoyed it. No, I didn't get my information from television. I presume you mean the "Nova" show some months back. >Is there any evidence that he got (ahem) outside funding for his project? >In the back of my paranoid mind, I wondered that since he was dealing with >elliptic curves and modular arithmetic if... I mean, how did he pay his >mortgage? The show implied that he was not doing any real teaching most >of that time, and if no one at the school knew of his work, then where was >the money coming from? Why don't you use the Web and report what you find? I'm not inclined to go out and do this research to answer your questions. (I just found 800 hits on his name, including biographical material.) If, by the way, you are surmising that he may've received NSA funding, this seems dubious. Just because "elliptic functions" are involved.... In any case, his salary was paid by Princeton for most or all of those years. As he had no equipment to buy, no students to support...his costs were low. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

WHY NOT GIVE ME A CALL.......
by 30469616＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

HEY MAN ! THE HOTEST LIVE PHONE SEX EVER YOU CAN CHOOSE FROM 1 TO 1 OR A PARTY LINE.. THE BEST DATING SERVICE EVER. I'M ALL HOT AND WET AND WAITING FOR YOU WE WIL LIVE OUR BEST MOMENTS TOGETHER CALL ME FOR THE BEST PHONE SEX EVER CALL ME NOW AT : 1-268-404-6628 NO CREDIT CARD NEEDED, NO 900 NUMBER, FOR REAL ADULTS ONLY CALL NOW 1-268-404-6628

1 0

Austin Cypherpunks - Physical Meeting - Sat. Jan. 17, 1998
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, The Austin Cypherpunks will be holding a physical meeting on Saturday, January 17th, 1998. It will be from 6-7pm at Flipnotics on Barton Springs Rd. The meeting is open to all. If you would like directions please send a note to austin-cpunks(a)ssz.com. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Fast Elliptic Curve Math
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7 January 1998, Nikkei Industrial Daily Toshiba Unveils Fast Formula For Elliptic-Curve Cryptography Tokyo -- Toshiba Corp. has developed an arithmetic formula which it claims offers the world's fastest processes of elliptic-curve cryptography. The formula cuts processing time by almost half from current methods used in elliptic-curve systems. Toshiba's formula is based on the Montgomery arithmetic system, a special method of calculation which requires no division. Elliptic-curve cryptography is considerably faster than the Rivest Shamir Adleman (RSA) system currently in common use. Toshiba hopes to apply the system in a wide range of fields, including corporate information systems and electronic commerce. ----- Is there other information on this?

1 0

"Trade a Tape, Go to Jail?" from Wired News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:46:37 -0500 From: Steve Silberman <digaman(a)wired.com> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: FC: How long you'll be in jail for copyright violations Declan: An interesting corrollary to the Netly story - I wrote an article for Wired News today that might be of interest to anyone who trades tapes on the Net, especially those who post their "lists" to the Web and accept cash for trades - even when there is no profit involved. "Trade a Tape, Go to Jail?" http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/9532.html Steve ********************************** Steve Silberman Senior Culture Writer WIRED News http://www.wired.com/ ***********************************

1 0

Re: Jalon'sWorld and Evil Money Laundering
by jalonz＠openworld.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>Notice the words "criminal investigations"? God forbid talent could >>actually be used for a good cause. The incidents in question were actually >>quite serious (Chinese mafia money laundering via phony real estate deals) >>and not at all like the porno bbs confiscation crap you'd be thinking of. >And what is morally wrong with "money laundering"? Seems to me a person's >money is his to do with it as he pleases...it's only governments that call >some actions "money laundering." Just as they call some speech "information >laundering." I personally dont see money laundering as a "bad" thing, but fraud definitely is. What you do with your money is your business as long as you dont hurt someone else. This was not the case. (IMHO) >And do you think your "Digital Society" notion (which we've seen many times >before, usually involving floating, offshore entities) will somehow not >attract or involve "Chinese mafia money launderers"? I'm sure it will. >Do you plan to implement key escrow so you can monitor what your residents >are doing with each other? Do you plan to become a floating police state so >as to stop this evil "money laundering"? Hell no, I personally do not think it would not be practical, moral or cost-effective to use key-escrow methods. Key escrow empowers governments, not individuals - at the cost of the individuals right to privacy. >I don't think you've quite grasped the significance of strong crypto and >cyberspace. has anyone? >(For starters, an intentional community in cyberspace, situated in no >particular country, and backed by strong crypto, digital escrow systems >(real escrow, of course), reputation systems, etc. is a far better place to >do business of certain sorts than is "Jalon'sWorld.") Then why doesn't someone do it? Like I said we have to start somewhere. >I suspect that Guy is right, that your "Digital Society" shtick is just the >latest in your long series of "new businesses" started in many places in >the country. Well it definitely is the latest and it definitely is one of many, so your suspicions are correct. BTW, The Digital Society Group has been selected to deploy the entire Digital Society Package within the new Agulhas Bay Free Zone in the People's Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe. I'd advise a look at the new content on the Digital Society website. :) Jalon --------------------------------------------------------------- Jalon Q. Zimmerman, Director The Digital Society Group A division of Openworld, Inc. http://www.openworld.com/ jalonz(a)openworld.com --------------------------------------------------------------- The government is not your mommy. ---------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Schneier's metrocard cracked
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I heard on the radio that the security scheme used in New York City metrocards (designed with much input frm Bruce Schneier) has been cracked and that the "hackers" can now add fare to the cards. Does anyone know any details? What encryption did Schneier use? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Syn-l: Re: White House Or Red Roof Inn? (fwd)
by Michael Stutz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[This message originally appeared on the synergetics-l at <http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/Synergetics-L/synl.html>, a list for the discussion of R. Buckminster Fuller's magnum opus.] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:38:22 GMT From: Kirby Urner <pdx4d(a)teleport.com> Reply-To: synergetics-l(a)teleport.com To: synergetics-l(a)teleport.com Subject: Syn-l: Re: White House Or Red Roof Inn? Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.fbi,alt.politics.org.cia softwar(a)us.net (softwar(a)us.net) wrote: >friends inside the White House. Barth claimed the British were >already selling encrypted radios to China and his new boss, >Motorola, deserved a "level playing field". In fact, according >to Barth, the National Security Agency (NSA) agreed with >Motorola's request for export. > I want to be clear on your position: you are apparently against administration efforts to frustrate domestic access to strong encryption. This makes sense, since that would just put the domestic population behind the rest of the world, which has access to same through other channels. But are you saying companies like Motorola should not sell encrypted radio or television to clients not classified as "domestic"? Or is it just some clients (e.g. the Chinese) but not others that you're saying Motorola should turn away. Sounds to me like you're picking on the Chinese because they're an easy target, after all the brouhaha about where the DNC has been getting its money (are you so sure the British have never helped put their preferred candidate in power through banking channels? Is this really a new game? I think not -- USAers just aren't used to having the Asians playing it, but in retrospect you have to wonder what took them so long). My view is that we're fast coming to (already well passed?) the point where we're going to have to regard lethal-against -humans applications of high technology as uniformly negative wherever they occur -- exceptions will be few and far between. Big money is seeing a secure path into the future, but not if high explosives are factored in as wild cards -- like you're trying to plan the motherboard of a computer and some politician comes in and says "by the way, every now and then we plan to blow a whole section of circuitry sky high, maybe explode a chip or two -- think you can handle that?" The Intel engineers I know would all shake their heads and think this guy must be missing more than a few screws. Computers need it cold. The temperature needs to keep dropping, down, down, down -- to way below what jingoists and knee-jerk patriots of all stripes and coloration find comfortable, but which delicate high technology absolutely must have to operate with any integrity. Motherboard Earth is not some Hollywood movie set, where misguided Rambos can run amuk at will. Save that stuff for the video parlor or the schoolyard, where it's safe to indulge in less than grown-up behavior. If the Qualcomm kid was even inadvertently feeding data to GIS systems bound for the "brains" of Tomahawk cruise missles aimed at "external" (non-domestic) targets in another hemisphere, then Qualcomm is liable to go down in history as a felonious player, a villain. One just can't afford to misrepresent one's true intentions so blatantly and expect to survive as trusted player. Using GIS and GPS to make flying safer is a positive civilian use of the technology, but if those planes are carrying weapons of mass destruction (armed and dangerous), then we're certainly going to follow the chain of command right to the top and find out exactly what logic is driving this design decision -- like why are you wearing a gun coming into a crowded civilian restaurant Mr. CEO President? People who want to flaunt terrifying weaponry had better come clean under interrogation, or own up to a "terrorist" charge -- applied without regard for skin color, creed, or place of origin. The econosphere has become very sophisticated and techno- logical, all the more delicate and sensitive as a result of the human presence. We could have a pretty good world here in fact, if we're willing to treat it with the respect owing any high precision instrument. People who plan to simply barrel ahead with lethal weapons planning, come what may, need to provide some iron clad logic for this course or their trackers and backers simply will kiss them good buy (and good riddance) for failing to offer any credible scenarios worth funding. Big ticket weaponry just doesn't have that same sex appeal anymore, has "boondoggle" written on it even before they get off the drawing board. Like "who's gonna pay for this shit?" is the first question smart money asks. Best to not hide behind "national security" shields as in the past at this point, is what I advise the corporate R&D divisioins -- because now you know that security chiefs don't necessarily buy the company hype anymore. You better have it in writing where you got your orders, if you want to plead "not guilty" and pass the buck on up the line. So if you want to play profitable commerical games in the civilian sector, don't be so sure your weaponry subsidiaries will escape scrutiny, and don't count on preferential enforcement of statutes to protect your namebrand from being utterly trashed if you turn out to be defrauding the very people you make such a noise about wanting to protect. The people are waking up, some of them, and are finding out they don't like what's been taking place in their name. Kirby --------------------------------------------------------- Kirby T. Urner http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/kirby.html 4D Solutions http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ [PGP OK] ---------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 98 16:42:43 -0800 > From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> > every respondent to my post has missed the key points. Not quite. Of course I don't agree with all of them either. There are two rules you should consider: - It's ok to have an open mind, just don't let it slosh out on the ground. - Understanding a view is not equivalent to supporting a view. You might also want to consider that two opposing views might very well *both* be right...it depends on where you sit on the fence as to what the tree looks like. > >Scientists even in schools and foundations are often secretive, too. > > > >The notion that "science" is about blabbing one's latest discoveries or > >theories is overly simplistic. Many scholars and scientists choose not to > >publicize their work for years, or decades, or, even, never. > > if so, they are not SCIENTISTS. a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing > results. science cannot advance without it. name me one scientist > who did not publish an important result, or is considered a good > scientists for doing so! I must agree here. If a technologist (ie one who studies science for profit, hence creating a technology) chooses not to publish their results that is fine. However, a scientist is one who studies nature and its interactions, profit is not and should not be a motive. Simplistic or not; in fact some things are better understood when simplified (ala the scientific principle). A scientist has an obligation to discuss and publish their results for other scientists (and even technologist) when they are reasonably sure their results will stand up to indipendant verification (a critical issue in science, not in technology however). Don't be confused by Timy's claim to be a scientist, he is a technologist at heart. Many of his views and beliefs are motivated by issues of control *not* curiosity. > >Consider Andrew Wiles, Princeton math professor, and the prover of Fermat's > >Last Theorem. He labored in secrecy for many years, only going public when > >he felt his results were complete. (As it turned out, they were not, and he > >needed another year or two to fill in some gaps.) > > but he PUBLISHED his results, he gave a LECTURE on his findings. I am > not saying that secrecy and science are mutually exclusive in this way. > secrecy is a useful tool, I am not in general against secrecy. but > secrecy can be ABUSED, and our government is ABUSING it. Further, the *reason* he was so secretive was because of the history of failed attempts and early 'proofs' that later failed. He was motivated by getting it right and ruining his reputation; not because he thought proving Fermat's Last Theorem would provide him riches and laurels for the remainder of his mortal coil. > have you > been following that Clinton was just fined $286,00 for lying to > a judge? Which means, per the Constitution, that he should be removed from office. He broke a public trust and that means he looses any public station he currently has and is barred from future office. > I could give > >dozens of examples of where the open literature either did not exist or was > >not used...and science still advanced. Of course, this is a specious argument. If it was already in the literature it wouldn't be science advancing (learning something that wasn't known before). The whole point to science is to understand and explain what we see and don't see that creates the cosmos we inhabit. Now if your point is that Intel taking some trade secret only they are aware of and using this to make quicker chips is science then you don't know a damn thing about science. > but science eventually published the results. It is *required* for doing 'science', it isn't for doing 'technology'. As a matter of fact a little perusal of history demonstrates that science requires open and unhindered dialog while technology requires closed channels of communcication and mechanisms of control. A perfect current example is the move to cloan humans. The guy, Creed?, is right "you can't stop science"; you can however stop technology and businesses do every day. Until that oocyte goes viable it's science, from that point on it's technology. > human endeavor. how can you argue with something so obvious? You don't know Timmy very well do you... > all this is uninteresting to me-- I was making a moral point in an > essay that is obviously unintelligable to most people here. its my > big mistake in this world, to pretent that morality plays a role. Actualy your mistake is assuming that there is *one* morality. Don't fret though. Just about everyone wants to jam everyone else into their nice little easily understood molds. It makes it much easier to justify their actions to themselves and potentialy to others if they get them to swallow even once. > of how things should be? things ARE, PERIOD. good lord, no wonder > Ayn Rand is so uninfluential. Reasonable men don't change the world. If we aren't motivated by our ethics and belief that our actions can change the world into the way it 'should be' then what is the motive? Money? Even that is a veiled mechanism to make the world the way we think it should be (ie we have more money or social station than currently endowed with). Changing the world is what *makes* life worth living. The question *is* why do you want to change the world and *who* gets to profit by it? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

5 5

Re: Schneier's metrocard cracked
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr. Dim wrote: > > I heard on the radio that the security scheme used in New York City metrocards > (designed with much input frm Bruce Schneier) has been cracked and that the > "hackers" can now add fare to the cards. > > Does anyone know any details? What encryption did Schneier use? It sounds like a procedural thing. Something like there was a way to swipe cards and have the system wrongly think it updated the card. The city announced that every cardreader in the system is going to be recalibrated, and this will cause problems for "a few" existing cardholders. ---guy

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 19:26:11 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > "Name me one..."? How about Gauss, who didn't publish many of his results. > Or, of course, Fermat, ironically linked to Wiles. True, Gauss didn't publish many of his results and he wasn't famed for that either. He *was* famed because he *did* publish some of his works. In fact, if you study Gauss you find a insecure introvert who in general hated his competition. He lied in his correspondance about work he supposedly did (see his relations with Bolyai who was a friend of his from school - "Non-euclidean Geometry" by Roberto Bonola; Dover ISBN 0-486-60027-0 $5.50). Yes, Gauss was respected for his math, he was hated for his humanity, or lack thereof. If anything Gauss' bahaviour held back science because of his self-interest. Fermat in general published most of his work, however, much of it was lost including his proof. His statement was that it was too long to be written in the margin of the book, not that he didn't write it down. The implication being that he *had* written it down and it got misplaced or lost it. Both of these folks are *very* poor examples of your point. > Not to mention Darwin, who sat on his results for almost 20 years, and only > issued a paper and his famed book because he learned another naturalist was > about to announce similar conclusions. Darwin set on his results because he was aware of the results of his work and the consequence to his career. He felt he needed more stature and as a consequence more security before publishing. He also understood he was right and that the first to publish would go down in history and the second would be an also ran. If you study the others alive at the time there were many people who had suggested similar theories. His own uncle had written similar material several decades before Darwin ever set foot on the Beagle. Darwin didn't invent evolution, he did refine it. Further, Darwin *isn't* know in the scientific community for his two books intended for lay readers. He *is* known for his seminal study of finches and mollusks, both quite clearly demonstrate his beliefs and theories and both had a much bigger impact on the scientific acceptance of evolution than 'Species' ever hoped to have. You are confusing the acceptance by the lay public as equivalent to scientific acceptance. You really should read Mayr. Again, a bad example. > Publication and, more importantly, discussion and challenge, is often very > important to the advancement of science. But is some cast in stone > requirement? Of course not. Actualy the open discussion of hypothesis and the testing thereof in open and unbiased comparison by indipendant researchers *is* most certainly a requirement in science - your protest not withstanding. > Building an artifact which embodies the science, for example. Exploding an > atom bomb was pretty clearly a demonstration that the science done was > correct, regardless of whether there was "open literature" or not. Don't confuse the science of atomic physics with the engineering of building a bomb. They are not the same thing. The majority of the work done to succesfuly understand an atomic bomb was known world wide in the 1920's and early '30's. The engineering to do it along with the money and project management skills motivated by the political where with all to actualy do it didn't. You are confusing affect and effect. > This is just too easy, refuting Detweiler's points. So I'll stop here. Thanks. My smashed finger is starting to hurt and your points are pretty easy to refute as well. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 19:05:21 -0800 > From: David Honig <honig(a)otc.net> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > chooses. The universe owes you nothing. That depends on your personal philosophy, or are you claiming to have found "The Way"? (that's rhetorical, please don't respond since the consequencial discussion leads nowhere that we aren't already) > Your goals and alliances are yours to choose. You got to choose your family and what country you were born in and how much money you have? Cool, you should consider yourself truly blessed, in the several 10's of thousands of years of humanity you are the first so gifted. > Everyone picks what they are comfortable with, and it ain't your business > what they decide. No one is > obligated to agree with you. And everyone is > obligated to let you alone, unless you violate their > right to be left alone. But you know this. No, everyone doesn't pick what they are comfortable with. Only somebody that takes their station in life with its consimmitent spoils as a given would say something this idiotic. Nobody is obliged to let you alone unless they decide to of their own volition. It only takes one to make war (the old saying is wrong) it takes two to make peace. And man being what he is wants his own way even at the expense of somebody elses way. Such is the trials and tribulations of social animals. > On secrecy, Saint Chas. Darwin sat on evolution forever, until he reviewed > a paper that was going to scoop him, you know. Oh god, somebody else who hasn't studied Darwin or Meyr.... I covered the rebuttal to this commen folk tale in a reply to Timmy. Look for it... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Question on U.S. Postal Service and crypto
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 1/8/98 3:26 PM, Robert A. Costner (pooh(a)efga.org) passed this wisdom: >At 10:45 AM 1/8/98 -0800, David Miller wrote: >>> An interesting feature of the digital postmark is that the USPS was making >>> the claim that if you receive an email that the USPS send to you that was >>> not meant for you, then you have committed a federal crime when you read >it. >> >>I'm not so sure about this, Robert. I've heard the rumor that it is a crime, >>but I have also heard that if something is delivered to your box, it is yours >>and you are not required to send it back unopened if it is not addressed to >>you. I tend to believe the latter, as it is the side of the story shared by >>USPS employees. > >I wasn't commenting on the legality, but on the fact that the USPS web page >was making the claim that it was a crime. Apparently whoever wrote the >legal disclaimer felt that email could be misdelivered in the same fashion >in which postal mail could be misdelivered and was making this claim. I >found the claim to be nutty and made me think they didn't know what they >were doing. Maybe they are confusing an electronic mailbox with a snailmail box ... the USPS has always contended that they (the USPS) "own" your mailbox and use that criterion to prosecute people who drive around putting things like circulars etc in mailboxes. Maybe they we on a role thinking that if they got into the e-mail business they would 'own' that piece of your hard drive so to speak. Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> The Windows PC Versus Macintosh Buying Decision: "If you want to encourage your kids to color outside the lines, think creatively and zig when the other kids zag, get the Mac. On the other hand, if you want to teach your kid that life if full of frustration and that anything worth getting takes plenty of patience and hard work, a Windows machine should do quite nicely." - David Plotnikoff in the San Jose Mercury News

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 20:41:47 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd) > Add Choate to the list of dimbulbs who think calling me "Timmy" (or Timy) > is some kind of witty insult. On this list, Detweiler and Vulis seem to > favor this usage. We're awful testy tonite aren't we...believe me junior, if I want to jump in your shit I'll do it direct first person and in your face. Since it seems to have got stuck in your craw, I apologize for not asking you the correct usage of your name prior to typing it into my reply. In the future I think I'll use 'that crazy indipendently wealthy ex-Intel technologist and self-important testy gun nut that lives in California who almost got to see John Denvers plane crash'; is *that* ok with you? (not really, I think my fingers would cramp) > Jeez, and I don't even recall insulting Choate. Perhaps he got his nose out > of joint when I challenged his "all snipers use .223" piece of > misinformation. Unfortunately, for you, I never made that claim (if anything you did regarding some comments I made about some police snipers liking .308's) and therefore you didn't get to refute it. Whatever strategy you're on regarding drugs and alcohol, reverse it; the dementia are back. > Back in my killfile he goes. Incredible that he is even connected with one > of the Cypherpunks distribution points. Been there before, I won't loose any sleep that is for shure. > BTW, nowhere in my piece did I refer to myself as a "scientist." I spoke of > Wiles, and then of Gauss, Fermat, and Darwin. Certainly not directly, but considering your background and past comments it is an assumption that is justified. You most certainly feel qualified to discuss the distinctions and consequences thereof. Me, I consider myself a scientist and have since I was about 6 years old. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NuriLogical is anguished that some people are immoral: >all this is uninteresting to me-- I was making a moral point in an >essay that is obviously unintelligable to most people here. its my >big mistake in this world, to pretent that morality plays a role. >as EH once said, normative philosophies are a waste of time. what >room does the world have for someone who thinks only in terms >of how things should be? things ARE, PERIOD. good lord, no wonder >Ayn Rand is so uninfluential. ................................................................. As your hero and biggest fan, EH, said: cypherpunks do not wait for other people to become moral; cypherpunks create their own reality. (or something to that effect) How can we know which flaw (for there are many possible) causes a person - scientific or otherwise - to behave like a coward and give up their integrity for the sake of safety or money or an undeserved reputation? How can we know how someone could keep a contradiction in their head, maintaining a position of virtue in the commuity while yet depending on the slavery of those whose benefit they purport to be working for? I guess you will tell us this in your forthcoming article. (Perry, where are you when we need you? :>) just kidding!!) BTW, you should consider that when Einstein proposed the creation of a bomb, it was within the context of a war being advanced globally by an evil madman who was gathering every resource to subdue and decimate everything in his way, and that the rest of the world was desperate for a solution. Also you should remember that some brilliant people, like Newton, who was a shy man and didn't necessarily see himself as others did/do, did not care if anyone else saw the results of his work. Once he had solved the problems in his own mind, he was not exceptionally concerned that others were also struggling with the same, nor whether "the community" needed the answer. He was pursuing knowledge for reasons of his own. .. Blanc

2 1

Accounts payable
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[rook] May is just a poor excuse for an unschooled, retarded thug. (_) _____ (_) /O O\ Timmy C[rook] May ! I ! ! \___/ ! \_____/

2 1

Darwin's preface (a short history of evolution) [fwd]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Below is the 3rd preface to Darwin's 'Species', in it he clearly gives credit to Wallace as a co-discover of evolutionary theory. Even to the point of co-presenting the work to the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858. Oh, Erazmus Darwin was Charles' grandfather not uncle. Sorry for any confusion. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:46:47 -0600 > X-within-URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/preface.html > The Origin of Species > Preface to the Third Edition > by Charles Darwin > > I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the > Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists > believed that species were immutable productions, and had been > separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many > authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that > species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are > the descendants by true generation of pre-existing forms. Passing over > allusions to the subject in the classical writers,(1) the first author > who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. > But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he > does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of > species, I need not here enter on details. > > Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited > much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his > views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie > Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his > "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the > doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other > species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the > probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic > world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. > Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the > gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species > and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain > groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to > the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct > action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing > of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the > effects of habit. To this latter agency he seemed to attribute all the > beautiful adaptations in nature; -- such as the long neck of the > giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise > believed in a law of progressive development; and as all the forms of > life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at > the present day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms > are now spontaneously generated.(2) > > Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, as is stated in his 'Life,' written by his > son, suspected, as early as 1795, that what we call species are > various degenerations of the same type. It was not until 1828 that he > published his conviction that the same forms have not been perpetuated > since the origin of all things. Geoffroy seems to have relied chiefly > on the conditions of life, or the 'monde ambiant' as the cause of > change. He was cautious in drawing conclusions, and did not believe > that existing species are now undergoing modification; and, as his son > adds, "C'est donc un problème à réserver entièrement à l'avenir, > supposé meme que l'avenir doive avoir prise sur lui.' > > In 1813, Dr W. C. Wells read before the Royal Society 'An Account of a > White female, part of whose skin resembled that of a Negro'; but his > paper was not published until his famous 'Two Essays upon Dew and > Single Vision' appeared in 1818. In this paper he distinctly > recognises the principle of natural selection, and this is the first > recognition which has been indicated; but he applies it only to the > races of man, and to certain characters alone. After remarking that > negroes and mulattoes enjoy an immunity from certain tropical > diseases, he observes, firstly, that all animals tend to vary in some > degree, and, secondly, that agriculturists improve their domesticated > animals by selection; and then, he adds, but what is done in this > latter case 'by art, seems to be done with equal efficacy, though more > slowly, by nature, in the formation of varieties of mankind, fitted > for the country which they inhabit. Of the accidental varieties of > man, which would occur among the first few and scattered inhabitants > of the middle regions of Africa, some one would be better fitted than > the others to bear the diseases of the country. This race would > consequently multiply, while the others would decrease; not only from > their inability to sustain the attacks of disease, but from their > incapacity of contending with their more vigorous neighbours. The > colour of this vigorous race I take for granted, from what has been > already said, would be dark. But the same disposition to form > varieties still existing, a darker and a darker race would in the > course of time occur: and as the darkest would be the best fitted for > the climate, this would at length become the most prevalent; if not > the only race, in the particular country in which it had originated.' > He then extends these same views to the white inhabitants of colder > climates. I am indebted to Mr Rowley, of the United States, for having > called my attention, through Mr Brace, to the above passage in Dr > Wells' work. > > The Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert, afterwards Dean of Manchester, in the > fourth volume of the 'Horticultural Transactions,' 1822, and in his > work on the 'Amaryllidaceae' (1837, pp. 19, 339), declares that > 'horticultural experiments have established, beyond the possibility of > refutation, that botanical species are only a higher and more > permanent class of varieties.' He extends the same view to animals. > The Dean believes that single species of each genus were created in an > originally highly plastic condition, and that these have produced, > chiefly by intercrossing, but likewise by variation, all our existing > species. > > In 1826 Professor Grant, in the concluding paragraph in his well-known > paper ('Edinburgh philosophical journal,' vol. xiv. p. 283) on the > Spongilla, clearly declares his belief that species are descended from > other species, and that they become improved in the course of > modification. This same view was given in his 55th Lecture, published > in the 'Lancet' in 1834. > > In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and > Arboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the same view on the > origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by > Mr Wallace and myself in the 'Linnean journal,' and as that enlarged > in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew > very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a > different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew > himself drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,' on April > 7th, 1860. The differences of Mr Matthew's view from mine are not of > much importance; he seems to consider that the world was nearly > depopulated at successive periods, and then re-stocked; and he gives > as an alternative, that new forms may be generated ' without the > presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates.' I am not sure > that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes much > influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly > saw, however, the full force of the principle of natural selection. > > The celebrated geologist and naturalist, Von Buch, in his excellent > 'Description physique des Isles Canaries' (1836, p. 147), clearly > expresses his belief that varieties slowly become changed into > permanent species, which are no longer capable of intercrossing. > > Rafinesque, in his 'New Flora of North America,' published in 1836, > wrote (p. 6) as follows:- 'All species might have been varieties once, > and many varieties are gradually becoming species by assuming constant > and peculiar characters'; but farther on (p. 18) he adds, 'except the > original types or ancestors of the genus.' > > In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman ('Boston journal of Nat. Hist. U. > States, vol. iv. p. 468) has ably given the arguments for and against > the hypothesis of the development and modification of species: he > seems to lean towards the side of change. > > The 'Vestiges of Creation' appeared in 1844. In the tenth and much > improved edition (1853) the anonymous author says (p. 155):- 'The > proposition determined on after much consideration is, that the > several series of animated beings, from the simplest and oldest up to > the highest and most recent, are, under the providence of God, the > results, first, of an impulse which has been imparted to the forms of > life, advancing them, in definite times, by generation, through grades > of organisation terminating in the highest dicotyledons- and > vertebrata, these grades being few in number, and generally marked by > intervals of organic character, which we find to be a practical > difficulty in ascertaining affinities; second, of another impulse > connected with the vital forces, tending, in the course of > generations, to modify organic structures in accordance with external > circumstances, as food, the nature of the habitat, and the meteoric > agencies, these being the ''adaptations'' of the natural theologian.' > The author apparently believes that organisation progresses by sudden > leaps, but that the effects produced by the conditions of life are > gradual. He argues with much force on general grounds that species are > not immutable productions. But I cannot see how the two supposed > 'impulses' account in a scientific sense for the numerous and > beautiful co-adaptations which we see throughout nature; I cannot see > that we thus gain any insight how, for instance, a woodpecker has > become adapted to its peculiar habits of Life. The work, from its > powerful and brilliant style, though displaying in the earlier > editions little accurate knowledge and a great want of scientific > caution, immediately had a very wide circulation. In my opinion it has > done excellent service in this country in calling attention to the > subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for > the reception of analogous views. > > In 1846 the veteran geologist N. J. d'Omalius d'Halloy published in an > excellent though short paper ("Bulletins de l'Acad. Roy Bruxelles,' > tom. xiii. p. 581) his opinion that it is more probable that new > species have been produced by descent with modification than that they > have been separately created: the author first promulgated this > opinion in 1831. > > Professor Owen, in 1849 ('Nature of Limbs,' p. 86), wrote as follows:- > "The archetypal idea was manifested in the flesh under diverse such > modifications, upon this planet, long prior to the existence of those > animal species that actually exemplify it. To what natural laws or > secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such > organic phenomena may have been committed, we, as yet, are ignorant.' > In his Address to the British Association, in 1858, he speaks (p. li.) > of "the axiom of the continuous operation of creative power, or of the > ordained becoming of living things.' Farther on (p. xc.), after > referring to geographical distribution, he adds, 'These phenomena > shake our confidence in the conclusion that the Apteryx of New Zealand > and the Red Grouse of England were distinct creations in and for those > islands respectively. Always, also, it may be well to bear in mind > that by the word ''creation'' the zoologist means '"a process he knows > not what.'' He amplifies this idea by adding that when such cases as > that of the Red Grouse are enumerated by the zoologists as evidence of > distinct creation of the bird in and for such islands, he chiefly > expresses that he knows not how the Red Grouse came to be there, and > there exclusively; signifying also, by this mode of expressing such > ignorance, his belief that both the bird and the islands owed their > origin to a great first Creative Cause.' If we interpret these > sentences given in the same Address, one by the other, it appears that > this eminent philosopher felt in 1858 his confidence shaken that the > Apteryx and the Red Grouse first appeared in their respective homes, > 'he knew not how,' or by some process 'he knew not what.' > > This Address was delivered after the papers by Mr Wallace and myself > on the Origin of Species, presently to be referred to, had been read > before the Linnean Society. When the first edition of this work was > published, I was so completely deceived, as were many others, by such > expressions as 'the continuous operation of creative power,' that I > included Professor Owen with other palaeontologists as being firmly > convinced of the immutability of species; but it appears ('Anat. of > Vertebrates,' vol. iii. p. 796) that this was on my part a > preposterous error. In the last edition of this work I inferred, and > the inference still seems to me perfectly just, from a passage > beginning with the words 'no doubt the type-form,' &c. (Ibid. vol. i. > p. xxxv.), that Professor Owen admitted that natural selection may > have done something in the formation of a new species; but this it > appears (Ibid. vol. nl. p. 798) is inaccurate and without evidence. I > also gave some extracts from a correspondence between Professor Owen > and the Editor of the 'London Review,' from which it appeared manifest > to the Editor as well as to myself, that Professor Owen claimed to > have promulgated the theory of natural selection before I had done so; > and I expressed my surprise and satisfaction at this announcement; but > as far as it is possible to understand certain recently published > passages (Ibid. vol. iii. p. 798) I have either partially or wholly > again fallen into error. It is consolatory to me that others find > Professor Owen's controversial writings as difficult to understand and > to reconcile with each other, as I do. As far as the mere enunciation > of the principle of natural selection is concerned, it is quite > immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us, > as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by Dr Wells > and Mr Matthews. > > M. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in his lectures delivered in 1850 > (of which a Résumé appeared in the 'Revue et Nag. de Zoolog.,' Jan. > 1851), briefly gives his reason for believing that specific characters > "sont fixés, pour chaque espèce, tant qu'elle se perpétue au milieu > des mèmes circonstances: ils se modifient, si les circonstances > ambiantes viennent à changer.' 'En résumé, l'observation des animaux > sauvages démontre déjà la variabilité limité des espèces. Les > expériences sur les animaux sauvages devenus domestiques, et sur les > animaux domestiques redevenus sauvages, la démontrent plus clairement > encore. Ces memes expériences prouvent, de plus, que les différences > produites peuvent etre de valeur générique.' In his 'Hist. Nat. > Généralé (tom. ii. p. 430, 1859) he amplifies analogous conclusions. > > From a circular lately issued it appears that Dr Freke, in 1851 > ("Dublin Medical Press,' p. 322), propounded the doctrine that all > organic beings have descended from one primordial form. His grounds of > belief and treatment of the subject are wholly different from mine; > but as Dr Freke has now (1861) published his Essay on the 'Origin of > Species by means of Organic Affinity,' the difficult attempt to give > any idea of his views would be superfluous on my part. > > Mr Herbert Spencer, in an Essay (originally published in the 'Leader,' > March, 1852, and republished in his 'Essays,' in 1858), has contrasted > the theories of the Creation and the Development of organic beings > with remarkable skill and force. He argues from the analogy of > domestic productions, from the changes which the embryos of many > species undergo, from the difficulty of distinguishing species and > varieties, and from the principle of general gradation, that species > have been modified; and he attributes the modification to the change > of circumstances. The author (1855) has also treated psychology on the > principle of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and > capacity by gradation. > > In 1852 M. Naudin, a distinguished botanist, expressly stated, in an > admirable paper on the Origin of Species ('Revue Horticole, p. 102; > since partly republished in the 'Nouvelles Archives du Muséum,' tom. > i. p. 171), his belief that species are formed in an analogous manner > as varieties are under cultivation; and the latter process he > attributes to man's power of selection. But he does not show how > selection acts under nature. He believes, like Dean Herbert, that > species, when nascent, were more plastic than at present. He lays > weight on what he calls the principle of finality, 'puissance > mystérieuse, indéterminée; fatalité pour les uns; pour les autres > volonté providentielle, dont l'action incessante sur les ètres vivants > détermine, à toutes les époques de l'existence du monde, la forme, le > volume, et la durée de chacun d'eux, en raison de sa destinée dans > l'ordre de choses dont il fait partie. C'est cette puissance qui > harmonise chaque membre à l'ensemble, en l'appropriant à la fonction > qu'il doit remplir dans l'organisme général de la nature, fonction qui > est pour lui sa raison d'ètre.'(3) > > In 1853 a celebrated geologist, Count Keyserling ("Bulletin de la Soc. > Gèolog.,' 2nd Ser., tom. x. p. 357), suggested that as new diseases, > supposed to have been caused by some miasma, have arisen and spread > over the world, so at certain periods the germs of existing species > may have been chemically affected by circumambient molecules of a > particular nature, and thus have given rise to new forms. > > In this same year, 1853, Dr Schaaffhausen published an excellent > pamphlet ('Verhand. des Naturhist. Vereins der preuss. Rheinlands,' > &c.), in which he maintains the development of organic forms on the > earth. He infers that many species have kept true for long periods, > whereas a few have become modified. The distinction of species he > explains by the destruction of intermediate graduated forms. 'Thus > living plants and animals are not separated from the extinct by new > creations, but are to be regarded as their descendants through > continued reproduction.' > > A well-known French botanist, M. Lecoq, writes in 1854 ('Etudes sur > Géograph. Bot.,' tom. i. p. 250), 'On voit que nos recherches sur la > fixité ou la variation de l'espèce, nous conduisent directement aux > idées émises, par deux hommes justement célèbres, Geoffroy > Saint-Hilaire et Goethe.' Some other passages scattered through M. > Lecoq's large work, make it a little doubtful how far he extends his > views on the modification of species. > > The 'Philosophy of Creation' has been treated in a masterly manner by > the Rev. Baden Powell, in his "Essays on the Unity of Worlds,' 1855. > Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which he shows that > the introduction of new species is "a regular, not a casual > phenomenon,' or, as Sir John Herschel expresses it, 'a natural in > contradistinction to a miraculous, process.' > > The third volume of the "Journal of the Linnean Society' contains > papers, read July 1st, 1858, by Mr Wallace and myself, in which, as > stated in the introductory remarks to this volume, the theory of > Natural Selection is promulgated by Mr Wallace with admirable force > and clearness. > > Von Baer, towards whom all zoologists feel so profound a respect, > expressed about the year 1859 (see Prof. Rudolph Wagner, a > "Zoologisch-Anthropologische Untersuchungen,' 1861, s. 51) his > conviction, chiefly grounded on the laws of geographical distribution, > that forms now perfectly distinct have descended from a single > parent-form. > > In June, 1859, Professor Huxley gave a lecture before the Royal > Institution on the 'Persistent Types of Animal Life.' Referring to > such cases, he remarks, "It is difficult to comprehend the meaning of > such facts as these, if we suppose that each species of animal and > plant, or each great type of organisation, was formed and placed upon > the surface of the globe at long intervals by a distinct act of > creative power; and it is well to recollect that such an assumption is > as unsupported by tradition or revelation as it is opposed to the > general analogy of nature. If, on the other hand, we view 'Persistent > Types' in relation to that hypothesis which supposes the species > living at any time to be the result of the gradual modification of > pre-existing species a hypothesis which, though unproven, and sadly > damaged by some of its supporters, is yet the only one to which > physiology lends any countenance; their existence would seem to show > that the amount of modification which living beings have undergone > during geological time is but very small in relation to the whole > series of changes which they have suffered.' > > In December, 1859, Dr Hooker published his 'Introduction to the > Australian Flora.' In the first part of this great work he admits the > truth of the descent and modification of species, and supports this > doctrine by many original observations. > > The first edition of this work was published on November 24th, 1859, > and the second edition on January 7th, 1860. > > Footnotes > > (1) Aristotle, in his 'Physicae Auscultationes' (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. > 2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn > grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed > out of doors, applies the same argument to organization: and adds (as > translated by Mr Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to > me), 'So what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having > this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, > grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the > grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they > were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. > And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to > exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things > together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they > were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been > appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity, and whatsoever > things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish. We here > see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little > Aristotle fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on > the formation of the teeth. > > (2) I have taken the date of the first publication of Lamarck from > Isid. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's ('Hist. Nat. Générale,' tom. ii. p. > 405, 1859) excellent history of opinion on this subject. In this work > a full account is given of Buffon's conclusions on the same subject. > It is curious how largely my grandfather, Dr Erasmus Darwin, > anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion of Lamarck in > his 'Zoonomia' (vol. i. pp. 500-510), published in 1794. According to > Isid. Geoffroy there is no doubt that Goethe was an extreme partisan > of similar views, as shown in the Introduction to a work written in > 1794 and 1795, but not published till long afterwards: he has > pointedly remarked ('Goethe als Naturforscher,' von Dr Karl Medinge s. > 34) that the future question for naturalists will be how, for > instance, cattle got their horns, and not for what they are used. It > is rather a singular instance of the manner in which similar views > arise at about the same time, that Goethe in Germany, Dr Darwin in > England, and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (as we shall immediately see) in > France; came to the same conclusion on the origin of species, in the > years 1794-5. > > (3) From references in Bronn's 'Untersuchungen über die > Entwickenlungs-Gesetze,' it appears that the celebrated botanist and > palaeontologist Unger published, in 1852, his belief that species > undergo development and modification. Dalton, likewise, in Pander and > Dalton's work on Fossil Sloths, expressed, in 1821 a similar belief. > Similar views have, as is well known, been maintained by Oken in his > mystical 'Natur-philosophie.' From other references in Godron's work > 'Sur l'Espéce,' it seems that Bory St Vincent, Burdach, Poiret, and > Fries, have all admitted that new species are continually being > produced. > > I may add, that of the thirty-four authors named in this Historical > Sketch, who believe in the modification of species, or at least > disbelieve in separate acts of creation, twenty-seven have written on > special branches of natural history or geology. > > > Contents > Introduction > > > > > > > Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links > The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of > the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates >

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 22:06:38 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > BTW, you should consider that when Einstein proposed the creation of a > bomb, it was within the context of a war being advanced globally by an evil > madman who was gathering every resource to subdue and decimate everything > in his way, and that the rest of the world was desperate for a solution. Um, actualy Einstein didn't propose a bomb. I believe Leo Szilard approached Einstein with a letter asking the President to begin an initiative. The motivation was because most of the really worthwhile German physicists working on the Nazi programs left the Nazi sphere. The fear was that since Germany had the *only* supply of heavy water in the world and the only state backed program in the field that if the US didn't do something they would loose the bomb in a series of bright flashes. I also, don't believe the war had actualy started when Einstein was approaced by Leo on Aug. 2, 1939. > Also you should remember that some brilliant people, like Newton, who was a > shy man and didn't necessarily see himself as others did/do, did not care > if anyone else saw the results of his work. He certainly went to great pains to publish it, even anonymously in some cases and out of his own pocket. > Once he had solved the > problems in his own mind, he was not exceptionally concerned that others > were also struggling with the same, nor whether "the community" needed the > answer. He was pursuing knowledge for reasons of his own. He pursued knowledge for deep religous reasons, according to his notes. Newton was also the Exchequer of England and had 3 peopled hanged for stealing gold from the government mint. He took the job because he had pissed so many people off at the time because of his attitude that he couldn't find work. It was prior to him becoming know as the 'Lion of England' and gaining life tenure. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >The same guy informed me later that he discovered a closed-form solution to >some very interesting problems 9related to Black-Scholes) which according to >the open literature either can't be done accurately at all, or require >incredible amounts of cpu time for monte carlo simulations. he doesn't >wish tio publish it (although it would make him quite a celebrity) and >now he's going crazy trying to figure out a way to sell it in such a way >that he can't get screwed again. How would crypto help if at all? ........................................................... I don't know about crypto, but I just attended a very informative financial forum on protecting intellectual property, presented by two representatives from Arthur Andersen and Preston Gates & Ellis, LLP. I picked up a little brochure which the attorney firm had available for attendees: We counsel and represent inventors, authors, publishers, visual artists, and musicians as they face a host of new and important issues. Preston Gates attorneys negotiate the use of creative expression in the full range of media, from CD-Roms and on-line services to interactive television and video games. We monitor and advise clients on developments in consumer protection, defamation, infringement, and other legal areas that affect their ability to develop and market creative properties. {etc} web site: www.prestongates.com, email: infotech(a)prestongates.com .. Blanc

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd) > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 98 23:45:25 EST > > Janos Bolyai was the son of the math professor Farkas B. in Buda(best). Who also worked with Gauss and probably beat Gauss to any solution to the problem of non-euclidean geometry (see Kurzer Grundriss eines Versuchs, p. 46). > In 1832 he published his findings as an appendix > to his father's textbook. Actualy his father published it as an afterthought to get him to quit working on Euclids Parallels. It was published in Tomus Secundus (1833, pp. 265 - 322) written by his father. > arises if you omit this axiom. According to my sources, the appendix > is "Wronski-like" to the point of unreadability. Apparently no one > actually read it until B. started arguing about who did what first. Both John Bolyai's "The Science of Absolute Space" and Nicholas Lobachevski's "The Theory of Parallels" are included in Roberto Bonola's "Non-euclidean Geometry" (Dover, ISBN 0-486-60027-0 $5.50). I certainly had no problem reading the 3 combined books. I was just looking at the translators notes to Lobachevski, it was done by George Bruce Halsted of 2407 San Marcos St, Austin, Tx. May 1, 1891. > well accepted by his peers. Neither Bolyai nor Lobachevsky knew about > Gauss's work. Not true, Bolyai wrote him several letters as described in his book and the various prefaces. Lobachevski's book was promoted by Gauss as the first and truely critical work on non-euclidean geometry. In a rare show of magnamity Gauss even admits that Lobachevski's work exceeded his own. > I have no idea what Bonola wrote, but if he's just repeating the allegations > Bolyai made about Gauss while suffering from depression and paranoia, they > have no more truth in them than the Timmy May rants on this mailing list. He wrote a classic work on non-euclidean geometry that was quite popular in 1912 when it was printed. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

XXX ADULT SEX!!!
by wogague2＠toyoma-u.ac.jp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The LARGEST selection of Hot Beautiful XXX Live Girls from the U.S.A. & Europe!!! Voted as the 1998 best Adult Site! *LIVE GIRL SEX SHOWS!!! * 10 FREE Live Video Feeds & Chatrooms!!! *FREE Erotic Stories!! *1,000's of Free Pictures of XXX Porn Stars!! *Confessions!!! *Plus Free Pictures of Teens & Men!!! *Live Erotic Chat!!! *Gambling * Tons of free stuff!!! So Much More we can't fit it on this page. See for yourself, go check it out!!! You must be 21 or older. Please copy and paste the link below into your browser, and press enter. http://www.search.com/Infoseek/1,135,0,0200.html?OLDQUERY= pussyclub+&QUERY=pussyclub+&COLL=11&START=10&OLDCOLL=WW If you take offense to this email & wish to be taken off our list, simply e-mail us at: stanleyo(a)hotmail.com We are sorry for any inco

1 0

Re: cypherpunks and guns
by Crisavec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William H. Geiger III typethed the following... > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >In <19980107001651.29456(a)songbird.com>, on 01/07/98 > at 03:16 AM, Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> said: > >>On Wed, Jan 07, 1998 at 01:25:45AM -0600, snow wrote: >>> > I am fairly certain that as an irregular army soldier I could inflict >>> > a substantial amount of damage upon an occupying military. With maybe >>> > $20k in equipment and several hundred hours of training, you could make >>> >>> If you were smart, you could do it for a lot less. > >>That presumes the enemy is dumb. An amusing fantasy. > >The fact that they collect a paycheck from the government is prima facie >evidence of diminished mental capacity. Don't bet on.... There is only one war, and it's not between the whites and the blacks, Labour and the Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, or the Federation and the Romulans, it's between those of us who aren't complete idiots and those of us who are.

2 1

a good example of bad crypto hype
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>at http://www.meganet.com/explain.htm >you can test your critical thinking skills... Bawahahahaha. That's the biggest bunch of complete bullshit I've read in years. Thanks, Meganet, you made my night. They must be smoking crack and a lot of it.

1 0

Re: [Censored] Quote of the Day (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young wrote: >DPS sumbitch ran me down near DFW, me and my crap filled van, >my mangy hide and shaggy hair, my NY plates, my wildly dumped >substances, and sat behind for a few drags of AC in 100 degree heat, >miked in the number, adjusted his mirrors, tilted the vidcam skyward, >and climbed out, a big, very big widowmaker high on his fat ass, >hustled his privates, spat juice, and farted hard enough to quiver the >VW and me. I think John has been skipping his meds again. Come on, John, the pill is your friend!

1 0

a good example of bad crypto hype
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>at http://www.meganet.com/explain.htm >you can test your critical thinking skills... Bawahahahaha. That's the biggest bunch of complete bullshit I've read in years. Thanks, Meganet, you made my night. They must be smoking crack and a lot of it.

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote, regarding Newton: >He certainly went to great pains to publish it, even anonymously in some >cases and out of his own pocket. ............................................................... Okay, just this one reply on this subject, Jim. Taken from "The World of Mathematics", and article entitled "Newton, the Man", by John Maynard Keynes: " His deepest instincts were occult, esoteric, semantic - with profound shrinking from the world, a paralyzing fear of exposing his thoughts, his beliefs, his discoveries in all nakedness to the inspection and criticism of the world. 'Of the most fearful, cautious and suspicious temper that I ever knew', said Whiston, his successor in the Lucasian Chair. The too well-known conflicts and ignoble quarrels with Hooke, Flamsteed, Leibnitz are only too clear an evidence of this. Like all his type he was wholly aloof from women. He parted with and published nothing except under the extreme pressure of friends. Until the second phase of his life, he was a wrapt, consecrated solitary, pursuing his studies by intenese introspection with a mental endurance perhaps never equalled. [...] There is the story of how he informed Halley of one of his most fundamental discoveries of planetary motion. 'Yes', replied Halley, 'but how do you know that? Have you proved it?' Newton was taken aback - 'Why, I've known it for years', he replied. 'If you'll give me a few days, I'll certainly find you a proof of it' - as in due course he did." .. Blanc

1 0

oracle on feds (fwd)
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Selected-By: David Bremner <bremner(a)cs.mcgill.ca> The Internet Oracle has pondered your question deeply. Your question was: > DearOralemostwisepleasetellme... > > Look, I'm sorry to rush this, but the IRS, BATF, IRS, CIA, INS, IMF and > CFR agents (not to mention the black helicopters) are at my front door. > What should I do? And in response, thus spake the Oracle: ENTERTAINING FEDERAL AGENTS with MARTHA STEWART Hello, I'm Martha Stewart, welcome to my answer. Our good friend The Internet Oracle is not able to answer your question right now, and so he has asked me to try to help. Let's take a look at your situation, shall we? Entertaining large groups of Federal agents is always a bit of a challenge, especially when we're pressed for time. Of course, it's always best to be prepared for visitors. You should have a neatly trimmed and freshly painted entryway, with a large Welcome mat and perhaps some cut flowers. A wooden rocking chair on the porch adds a homey touch of camouflage. When Federal agents are expected, I like to take a little time beforehand and knit a large Plywood Cozy for each window to catch some of the broken glass. Don't forget to save the shards! They can be dyed later and arranged into a stunning stained glass mosaic. For autumn, have plenty of hot mulled cider ready. Not only is it healthy and aromatic, it's better than water for extinguishing fires! If your electricity is sabotaged, use your supply of flares in tasteful candle holders. Finally, don't be afraid to think creatively. Although many people think of large-caliber bullets as merely a nuisance, they can be recovered and used as decorative accessories and paper weights, or hammered into distinctive buttons. With a little brown paint, a smoke grenade can also be fashioned into a quaint pineapple arrangement! As always, remember to be courteous and kind, and just relax and be yourself. It takes only a small extra effort to be remembered for your own unique style of entertaining. Enjoy! You owe the Oracle a throw rug woven from yellow "Police Line" tape. -- "So Beck was the hacker and Oda was the backer. The oldest and most troublesome relationship in the technological world." -- "Diamond Age", Neal Stephenson. ================================================================== Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto mail(a)vipul.net | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Virtual Spaces

1 0