December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Fire the Boss and Break the Alarm Clock!
by bill301＠success600.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sent from: Success by Design 4974 N Cedar #116, Fresno, Ca, 93705 209 444-0550, bill301(a)success600.com This text is placed here as stipulated in bill S. 1618 Title 3. http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/EMailAmendText.html This is a FREE offer if you wish to be removed from future mailings, put remove in subject and please e-mail to... (remove(a)success600.com) this software will automatically block you from their future mailings. Fire the Boss and break the Alarm Clock! I did! after eleven years, I left a $140,000 a year income for this opportunity. I can truly say it was one of the best decisions of my life!!! Never commute again! make $2000-$5000 per week from home! You can start out in your spare time, work part time or work up to full time if you want to! It's your business! Call 1-888-658-5840. no selling! not mlm! stay home with the family! Proven track record of success! For more info Email to your(a)success600.com

1 0

Ordered to be celibate?
by Rain Dog 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Judge Orders Teen To Be Celibate CAMBRIDGE, Ill. (AP) -- A teen-ager who pleaded guilty to stealing handguns must remain celibate for 2 1/2 years unless he gets married, a judge said. Brandon Stevens, 17, was sentenced Wednesday to 30 months probation, 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine. Henry County Judge Clarke Barnes said Stevens won't have to serve jail time if he completes treatment at a halfway house and meets conditions that include the celibacy rule. ``Certainly he's got no business having sexual relations with people to whom he's not married,'' Barnes said. Prosecutor Ted Hamer said the requirement was based on the judge's learning in court that Stevens was sexually active, not because of any sexually related charges. The American Civil Liberties Union said Stevens' sex life is none of the judge's business. And it's not clear how to enforce Barnes' order. ``It's sort of a self-policing type of order,'' Hamer said. ``Nobody's going to be spying on him or looking in windows. I think the judge just hopes he'll abide by the order.'' ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Brown, R Ken" <brownrk1(a)texaco.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 05:28:08 -0500 > I don't believe there are that many natural monopolies Where there *are* > natural monopolies it is because the entry cost is higher than any likely > profit. There are some additional issues involved other than start-up cost. Such things as market saturation and information hording. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 02:43:25 -0700 > One thing that has changed fundamentally in the Information Age is the > ability for the consumer to get informed -- the ease if information > publishing and retrieval and the inability to control it. Actualy you are ascribing an effect as the cause. The information is there because the holders believe it's in their best interest to dissiminate it. As companies (the US Army' current behaviour is a good example) become to respect the distribution capability of the internet you'll see a reduction of information available. > Reputation has > more value then ever. Malarky. Reputation is irrelevant, just examine the prisoners delima. Those who put reputation over action are setting themselves up for a classic abuse of trust. > Government cannot protect people from their own decisions, and should > not have the right to take those decisions away. > I wouldn't eat at McDonalds even with all the regulation. You've got to be married or have lots of free time...;) > More often than not regulation is a false sense of security, and often > protects companies from legitimate liability (although god knows our > liability/tort system is completely out of whack). More often that not regulation is the result of abuse of the market by a manufacturer and is imposed ex post facto. It's intent is to eliminate future abuses. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 02:26:21 -0700 > > In what way are the resulting markets different from > > either the producers or consumers view? > > Views on intellectual property and the obvious marketplace changes due > to an IP or lack of IP framework would be the major difference IMHO. I Explain further, from your description of the differences there are no fundamental mentionings or views of intellectual property. As a matter of fact the specific role of the individual is never even mentioned in either definition. It's almost like there is something poping out of thin air... > > Explain further what you mean by abolition of force is a > > prerequisite please. > > Basically no person (or entity) can use force (or its derivatives) > against another person (or entity). Your long history of criminal law, > except stripped of all victimless crimes. So people don't have a right to self-defence? I agree consensual crimes are not crimes. > > And what specificaly do you mean by proper role of government? > > "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual > right to lawful defense. Is it? Or is it simply another sort of coercion to cooperate with the collective? Is it not actualy the embodyment of ideals, an attempt at utopia if you will? > Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his > liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of > life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent > upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but > the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an > extension of our faculties? I'm interesting to see how you reconcile the belief nobody has a right to use force yet has a right to defend their life. By facluty I assume you mean our emotional and psychological makeup coupled with our sensory record of them. I'd say that such issues are not a facet of individualism but rather a characteristic of life itself. As to property, it is a consequence of our biology, if that is a consequence of our faculties, and not visa versa, I'd doubt. > If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, > his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have > the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights No it doesn't. You must first prove that a group of individuals have some right that as individuals they don't have. For one thing, even in your definition, rights are a fundamental aspect of birth as an individual. Something I've yet to see. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 22:33:24 -0700 > From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > In america the various mafias get plently of competition, > mostly by means short of actual warfare. Coke is a free > market except for police intervention, and the local church > is most certainly not a monopoly. Coke is a free-market? That's a laugh. I suggest you study the history of the Crips and related gangs, or the international Coke distributors. At no time was there more than a dozen or so groups and they worked cooperatively in many cases. As to the 'various mafias', in case you hadn't heard, they've been organized and integrated for about 30-40 years depending on who you ask. They cooperatively divide up territories and product lines between them to guarantee a minimum of violence and maximize profit for each member. However, I would lay dollars to donuts that if you were to go start your own family there would be very little consideration as to the consequences. Make no bones about it, if we're talking national or international crime it is most definitely organized and cooperatively arranged between a small set of players. That's a monopoly. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 22:33:24 -0700 > From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > market except for police intervention, and the local church > is most certainly not a monopoly. Your local church is a member of a larger international collective that does in fact use coercion in one form or another. Consider the consequences of abortion for a Catholic (true believer). Tell that to the various hospices and clinics that have been blown to kingdom come... Coercion is a much broader stroke than a simple assault. It can include real and imagined consequences to alter or limit the behaviour of others. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

IP: Clear and present danger: FIGHT AGAINST NATIONAL ID CARD (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:42:38 +0200 > From: "Albert P. Franco, II" <apf2(a)apf2.com> > Subject: IP: Clear and present danger: FIGHT AGAINST NATIONAL ID CARD > (fwd) > I think the original message speaks of executive, legislative, and judicial > branches. As defined by the constitution this is, in fact, the federal > government. > As a matter of practice, most if not all, of the states are > also divided this way. Article X which you quoted supports the tacit > understanding that We, the people, are not actually THE government. Really? Please expound... We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- It in fact supports NO such interpretation unless you take it out of context and alone. Much like trying to determine the ecology of a valley by examinging a single fish... In fact what it does say is that the Constitution was implimented by the people and not by a government *granting* rights and privileges. It futher states that it does not limit the rights or privileges of the people (note it doesn't mention federal or state govts.) futher backing up that we the people are implimenting this and not the other way around. Finaly it specificaly states that the order of resolution for any issue is to see if it's specificaly given to the federal govt., if not (and it's not prohibited), then to the states (to resolve via their own representative systems), and finaly if not covered by those two documents (the US Constitution and the individual state constitution) then it is retained by the people. So we find that in fact we the people *are* the initial and final authority. The bottem line is that *the government of the United States* consists of three parties, the federal system, the state, and the people. That is the government of this country and not some figmented heirarchy that has zero basis for support. The reason the federal is broken into 3 seperate sections is so that there is a measure of conflict and confrontation involved. *THE* basis for a working democracy is the limited use of cooperation. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

----> http://stuffed.net/98/10/4/ <----
by STUFFED NEWS DAILY 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Welcome to today's issue of Stuffed. To read it you should click on the URL above. If it is not made clickable by your email program you will need to use your mouse to highlight the URL, copy it and then paste it into your browser (then press Return). This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/98/10/4/ <----

1 0

Court considers cooking cookies' book - THE REGISTER
by Stu Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

http://jya.com/ECHELON-GO.htm
by interception 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: interception <interception(a)ii-mel.com> Subject: http://jya.com/ECHELON-GO.htm french centers of electronic interceptions are in: 1 - Agde 2 - Rohrbach-les-Bitch 3 - Domme 4 - Mützig, 5 - Alluets-Feucherolles 6 - Celar (Army) (fax, scramble,...): 950 people in Rennes 7 - Security Squad and electronic war (4 squads) in Metz 8 - Plateau d'Albion: 150 people 9 - Boat: Cargo le Bercy 10- Bouar (Centrafrican Républic) 11- Solenzara (Corse) 12- St-Barthélemy (Guadeloupe) 13- Réunion 14- Mayotte, Djibouti 15- Kourou Spatial Base (Guyane) 16- United Arab Emirates 17- New Caledonia In spite of Echelon http://www.ii-mel.com/interception/echelongb.htm french electronic interception are practiced in the USA Masson http://www.ii-mel.com/interception

1 0

Increase your website traffic dramitcally!
by tlmjc＠msn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Increase Your Website Traffic Within 72 Hours! We'll put YOUR website at the top of the search engines! If your site isn't getting the traffic it should, chances are it's because it's not ranked well on the major Internet search engines. According to recent studies on Internet commerce, over 90% of consumers find the websites they visit by using "The Big Eight" search engines. If your website isn't located in the top 20 pages of those engines, chances are your site will never be seen. What's the point of having an "invisible" website? The SINGLE most important thing you can do increase your website traffic is to increase your search engine rank. That's what we'll do for you. HUGE RESULTS... LITTLE EFFORT... You can spend hours marketing your site using every technique around, but they will all pale in comparison to getting your site properly ranked. By getting to the top of the search engines, you can have HUGE amounts of visitors at your site in as little as 72 HOURS! HOW THE SEARCH ENGINES RANK YOUR SITE... When you submit your website to a search engine to be indexed in its database, it sends a "robot" out to scan your page. Then, using complex algorithms to rank your page for keyword relevance, the "robot" determines whether you'll be ranked # 1 or 1,000,000 when potential visitors conduct a search looking for sites like yours. Because the search engines are constantly changing their algorithms to help provide users the best possible search results, there's only one true solution to high search engine placement. Us. WIN THE SEARCH ENGINE WARS! We understand these algorithms and will use them very ethically and legitimately to get your website on top. Now you can experience the on-line success you originally built your website for. If you're not happy with your website's performance, let The Search Engine Success Group put YOU on top. IT WILL BE THE BEST THING YOU EVER DO TO IMPROVE YOUR ON-LINE SUCCESS. HERE'S WHAT WE DO... In order to counter the ever changing search engine algorithms, we create an entire series of "entry pages" that is optimized for the search engines - one for EVERY keyword you give us! Each entry page is optimized to do well for a different set of algorithm variables. So instead of having ONE page struggling to rank well, we simply create separate entry pages for each keyword! It's through this unique approach that we're able to help YOU conquer the search engines. Now understand, we don't use "tricks" to fool the engines. That's unethical and something we won't do. After all - it's your reputation we have to protect. What we will do is simply present very relevant keywords for your site to the search engines in the way that they like to see it. Consequently, your pages rank well because they DO contain information HIGHLY relevant to the search query. We NEVER build pages for irrelevant yet "popular" keywords. The "entry pages" act as a welcome screen for your website. They will say a few introductory things about your site and then ask the visitor to "Click Here To Enter," taking them directly to your current homepage. In creating these entry pages we DO NOT make any changes to the existing structure, content, or functionality of your current site. All pages we construct will link directly into your existing site. As a result, you can rest assured that your current website will remain exactly the same. HOW WELL DOES THE SERVICE WORK? We'll send you a detailed report of your current search engine ranking on The Big Eight engines before we begin. Then, once your new entry pages have been indexed, we'll send you a second report showing how they've done. You'll be able to confirm the results yourself. Here's a sampling of some results we've gotten for previous clients. These examples are for COMPETITIVE keywords - not obscure words that nobody's looking for... <> 6 top 10 rankings on Infoseek for DIFFERENT relevant keywords <> 18 top 10 rankings across the major search engines <> 3 top 10 rankings on Alta Vista for ONE keyword <> 16 total #1 rankings (and an astounding 40 top 30 rankings across the different engines!!) <> 1-2 hits per week exploded to 500 per day <> 45,000 hits per month grew to 108,000... (and it's still growing!) CLIENT COMMENTS: "INCREDIBLE!! Our site is now receiving more hits in a day than we used to get in an entire month. [My boss] is still eating his words!" -Bob W. "I knew the search engines were an incredible marketing tool, but my company simply didn't have the time to devote to search engine placement. It has proven to be the best money we've ever spent on marketing. We'll be sending you some referrals for sure! Thanks." -Shelley H. "I worked for weeks to get good search engine placement, but I could never crack the top 80...my site was deserted. Within a month [after using your service], I'd had more hits than I'd had in the last year. I wouldn't believe it if it hadn't happened to me. Please don't mention a word to the competition." -Chris L. WHAT'S THE COST? Our services are just $385. This includes: <> Construction of optimized entry pages for up to 20 keywords - This gives you good "coverage" <> Submission to the major search engines <> A complete report of your search engine rankings before we begin <> A complete report of your search engine rankings AFTER we've finished ****BE SURE TO ASK US HOW TO GET LISTED ON YAHOO!**** WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO GET STARTED? <> Call Us - we'll answer any questions. <> Give us your keywords / keyword phrases (up to 20) <> Pay us $385 <> Sit back and enjoy the show! Your confidentiality is assured; we NEVER release any information about our clients. --Search Engine Success Group-- 410-783-8269 *** Remember - our job is to increase your website's rank. That's what we do. We can't guarantee, however, that this will increase the number of visitors you get. Some highly-ranked websites still don't get much traffic. Much depends on your particular industry and choice of keywords. ----------------------- If you're not interested in any potential future offers, just click reply. Thank you.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 11:37:23 -0700 > From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > At 12:30 AM 10/1/98 -0700, Matthew James Gering wrote: > > Regulation includes much more than licensing and > > registration. Try hiring a couple employees, paying > > freelance individuals, setup office space, get yourself a > > company car and do your fed income taxes. Lightly regulated > > my ass. If they enforced every word of every code strongly > > and literally it would be nearly impossible to conduct > > business. > > To the best of my observation, every single small business is > operating illegally. The situation differs from Russia only > in degree, not in kind Prove it. List he specific rules, regulations, etc. that you believe every small business is breaking.... Put up or shut up. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:50:50 -0700 > From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > At 09:08 AM 10/4/98 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > Your local church is a member of a larger international=20 > > collective that does in fact use coercion in one form or > > another. > > Send me some of whatever you are smoking. That's the best you can come up with? Sheesh. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:48:50 -0700 > From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Except for police intervention, anyone is free to buy coke > from dealers affiliated with the Crips, affiliated with the > Bloods, or affiliated with any one of several smaller > providers of such services. Really? I dare you to wear the colors of a Crip and then sell in the Bloods neighborhood. > Generally competition between these groups mostly resembles > the competition between Visa and Mastercard with shoot outs > being the exception rather than the rule. Shootouts are bad > for business.=20 Somebody should tell them this then since they certainly don't operate that way in the real world. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

> Microsoft got to where it is because of a lack of regulation Microsoft is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. > The railroad industry in the mid-1800's. Railroads were highly competitive in the East. The railroad monopolies in the West were created by exclusive government land grants. Matt

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:42:58 -0700 > From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Microsoft is not a monopoly. In servers, where much of their > income comes from, Malarky, MS makes the vast majority of their money off end-user and single machine licenses. Look at their quarterly or yearly earning statements. > Linux is eating their lunch, It is certainly growing but the fact is that by a factor of orders of magnitude commercial Unix'es own that market. When it comes to mission critical servers Solaris, HP, & AIX own the market still. > and the > desktop is under continual threat. For a monopoly to be a > monopoly, you not only have to have most of the market, you > have to have some means of excluding others, which Microsoft > manifestly does not. Not from a lack of trying on their part and the fact that federal regulators stepped in before it became totaly regulated. > You are totally deluded. None of these are examples of > monopoly, Certainly they were. Each and every example listed (and many more) were industries which were controlled by a small number of companies whose share in the total market was squeezing out competition. The results would have been a growing number of buyouts and thinning of competition to the point that only one or two companies would have survived. except for the railroad industry where government > intervention was for the purpose of creating monopoly, not > preventing it. In the aircraft industry for example, while the number of riders was growing very quickly there was a concommitent increase in end-user ticket prices that was way out of line with the increased cost of business operations as well as a decrease in the overall safety of the industry which was exemplified by a increase in the number of air crashes and aircraft who couldn't pass maintenance inspections yet continued to fly. > The garment and food packing industries were and are a huge > network of innumerable tiny shops, All working for about 5 or 6 companies who actlualy marketed and distributed the items. Just get a Dallas Texas phone book for that period (it's a distribution hub for the clothing/garment industry even today). > and the aircraft industry > had several big companies in fierce competition.=20 Yep, in the mid-50's there were like 5 national/international aircraft operators and the number of commercial avaition manufacturers selling to the national and international carrier market was like 3. There were smaller companies like Ryan for example but they were owned by the larger companies and eventualy merged into the regular operations. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 13:14:16 -0700 > > Microsoft got to where it is because of a lack of regulation > > Microsoft is not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. They own 90% of the desktops in this country, that's a monopoly or a company a hair-breadth's away. > > The railroad industry in the mid-1800's. > > Railroads were highly competitive in the East. The railroad monopolies > in the West were created by exclusive government land grants. Not true until after the 1890's. Prior to that the railroads in the US were owned by a total of like 5 people. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:35:49 -0700 > From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > > Malarky. Reputation is irrelevant, just examine the > > prisoners delima. > > Yet strange to report, the banks have no problem with granting me many tens > of thousands of dollars of unsecured credit. Which is exactly my point, default on a single one of those and watch what happens. > Perhaps your reputation is irrelevant. Mine, however, is obviously= > relevant. Only to you. What is important is the *fact* that you continue paying the bills. Default and all the *desire* in the world won't bring back those loans. > The continued solvency of Informix, rental car agencies, and so on and so > forth looks indicates it is possible to readily distinguish between those > who will defect in a game of prisoners dilemma, and those who will= > cooperate. That's so funny. Please produce the amount Informix lost by employee theft last year for example. If it's zero then you may have a point. I'll bet you it wasn't and isn't. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Find Out Anything About Anyone On The Net !!!!
by abayley＠pop.ihug.co.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

YOU can easily learn how to investigate and learn EVERYTHING about your employees, neighbors, friends, enemies, and or anyone else !!! It is absolutely amazing !!! YOU Must Get This Extraordinary Package today......... + YOU can track down an old friend or a lost love, and, just for fun, investigate your family history. + YOU can screen prospective employees criminal records, look at their driving, or credit history. + YOU can verify test results from drug testing and even look into your children's friends history for any type of record. + YOU can TRACK down and locate an old debtor who is hiding from you and see if he/she is hiding any assets. + YOU can look up "unlisted telephone numbers." Locate social security, birth, adoption or death records. Check Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force service file records. YOU will simply be amazed to learn what sensitive and important information other people and enemies can discover about YOU !!!!! YOU Can Find Out Anything About Anyone On The Net !!! Do background checks on people and charge for it, as you start your own investigative services. Stop guessing about the LAW !!! Look up laws and do much more, direct from famous law libraries. Get this easy to use KIT right away, and then, YOU can become a private investigator. ORDER TODAY !!!!! Send $18.00 cash (wrapped in two pieces of paper), money order, or check to: INFORMATION, Ltd. P. O. Box 515019 St. Louis, MO 63151-5019 USA The Complete Package Will Be Immediately Shipped Prepaid Directly to You With Everything You Will Need In Your Kit to Get Started Right Away !! THANK YOU for your kind attention, and have a nice day !!!! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ YOUR AD IN 333 NEWSPAPERS !!!!!!!!!! *********************************************** Seven years ago, I learned how to place my Classified Ad in several hundred newspapers, with just one telephone call. And, my cost was $0.51 per newspaper. The total circulation was well over 1.5 Million. I could reach just about any market, anywhere in this country. Since then, my small mail-order company has exploded. And, I use this same time tested and true method week after week. I would like to share this powerful information and show you how to save hundreds, even thousands of dollars on advertising that works. The average cost of a classified ad in a newspaper is about $15.00 to $20.00 dollars. Multiply that by 333 and your total cost is well over $6,000.00 Dollars. By using our amazing method, your total cost is only $170.00. Not to mention the time and money you save by placing one call, instead of 333 long distance calls. You can limit your promotion to a Single State or place your ad in Several States around the country, all with just one phone call. You can reach One Million Readers on the East-Cost today and a Million on the West-Coast tomorrow. It's that simple !!!! Your cost for this priceless information, is only $19.00 !!! You will make that back on your first promotion. WE are so confident that this type of advertising will boost your profits, we will guarantee your satisfaction with our Money Back Guarantee !! So, you have nothing to lose. Now, order our amazing classified ad method today !!!!!! PRINT ORDER FORM Ship To: ************************** ********* NAME____________________________________________ ADDRESS________________________________________ CITY______________________________________________ STATE__________________ ZIP_____________________ E-MAIL__________________________________ Don't Delay, ORDER YOUR COMPLETE MEDIA KIT TODAY !!!!!!! ********************************************************************** Mail Payment $19.00 CASH, money order, or check TO: ******************** INFORMATION, Ltd. P. O. Box 515019 St. Louis, MO 63151-5019 U.S.A. WE will ship your complete KIT directly to you !!!! ************************************************************** OPTIONAL / OVERNIGHT SHIPPING - ADD $15.00 ************************************************************** Thank you for your kind attention, and have a nice day !!! YOU MAY ORDER BOTH PACKAGE KITS FOR ONLY $33.00 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Admin Internet Services This message is not intended for residents in the State of Washington, screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical ability. If you are a Washington resident or otherwise wish to be removed from this list, go to global remove site if you want your address removed from future mailing. http://209.84.246.162/remove.htm This Global Communication has been sent to you by: PAVILION ADVERTISING SERVICES Offices: London, Paris, Berlin, Hong Kong

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 12:11:04 -0700 > From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > At 05:28 AM 10/2/98 -0500, Brown, R Ken wrote: > > Nonsense. Most of those businesses became monopolies - or > > local monopolies - in the relatively unregulated 1880-1914 > > period.=20 > > Untrue: Actualy it is. But I'd certaily entertain any evidence you may want to present to your case...other than just saying it over and over. > > In some of them - like rail or oil in the USA - governments > > introduced regulation to *force* competition.=20 > > In the case of the railways, the governments granted and > imposed monopolies. Only after the early 1890's when the situation got so bad they had to do something. Prior to that there was no federal intervention in railroad operations per se (I say that because the US government used the railroads at a very hefty discount). > In the case of oil, I assume you are > referring to "Standard Oil", there was no monopoly, and the > government regulation had little apparent effect.=20 You assume wrong. I am talking of the entire oil industry as a whole. > Also the Standard Oil issue was about refineries, not oil > wells or oil pipelines. There was nothing to prevent any man > or his dog from setting up a refinery, and lots of them did. The issue in the oil industry isn't the refineries or pipelines or any of that other stuff. It's mineral rights. And every drop of mineral rights in this country is owned by oil companies or the US government as a result of the conflicts that took place from the late 1800's to the early 1900's. > > Recently government has forcibly broken up gas supply > > monopolies in this country. =20 > > After first forcibly creating gas supply monopolies. Actualy the local and state regulators did that back in the late 50's and early 60's the federals had no hand in it. The same happend prior to the TVA projects of the late 20's and 30's with the electric production industry. > > What happens much more often is that one company becomes > > dominant and then uses money to undersell rivals. > > Why don't you argue that they conduct sacrifices to Satan? Because then he would be doing what you like to do, change the subject and claim it's the same thing. > A big company has no monetary advantage over a small company. You know nothing of how large businesses work over small ones then. > Suppose Firm A controls 90% of the market and firm B controls > 10% of the market. Artificially low prices cost the big firm > nine times as much as the small firm. Bullshit math. The interactions are nowhere near as simple as you state. The big company has the resources to outlast the smaller company in any industry that can monopolize (an issue you seem to miss, not all industries can monopolize) and if its' smart will buy the smaller company at some point (unless prevented) as the smaller companies becomes resource starved. > Under capitalism, the > small company can duke it out on equal terms with the big > firm, and with great regularity, that is exactly what they > do. Examples please where a small firm dukes it out (sic) on equal terms with a larger one... > Garbage (what we call rubbish over here) collection is > > different again. It's not at all a nutural monopoly and > > there is nothing stopping anyone offering to do it as a > > business. But it is a natural for social ownership, > > You mistake the political adventures of your local elite for > universal laws. In some parts of the world rubbish > collection is private. In just about everyplace in the US the company doing the trash collection and dumping is private, especialy in the bigger cities. They may be working under contract for the city but the company is privately held. My suspicion is that most places on the planet, excluding control markets like Cuba, use private companies under contract for this. > In other parts of the world shoe > production is public. What country produces shoes as a function of government agency and prevents private shoe production? I must admit I nearly hurt myself laughing at this one. > In one of those nordic countries, I think Finland, the phone > system was never made a public enterprise or state regulated > monopoly, but most other things were. Then how does it operate? Who owns the switches and wires? Either it's a public utility or it's some sort of private enterprise (though it may be under contract to the government). > There is no "natural monopoly" that is not somewhere a A 'natural' monoploy, to my mind, is a company that operates in an industry that can be saturated. By saturation I mean that the demand of the market can be met by a small number (approaching 1 if left unregulated over time, usualy by by-outs or business experation) of manufacturers. The VCR industry is a great example of a 'natural' monopoly. Only a few years ago *every* VCR mechanism on the planet was made by one of 5 companies and with the cessation of Curtis-Williams, not one of them was a US company. It is not possible to buy a VCR designed and made in the US today because of this market monopolization. It is also impossible to start such a company because the costs of market entry are too enormous. There is *no* government regulation of the VCR industry outside of EOE issues to this day. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 11:40:34 -0700 > From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> > Subject: Re: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... > Observe that the level of harm is approximately proportional > to the level of government regulation. Please be so kind as to demonstrate by example why you believe that by de-regulating the food industry, for example, we would recieve better quality foodstuffs? Without regulation why would these companies quit mixing their products and making better systems of quality control so that the cases of E. Coli for example would decrease? Why is it that the number of deaths in this country from salmonella and related food diseases have *decreased* since the industry was regulated in the early 1920's when the problem (people getting sick or dying from adulterated foodstuffs) was at its peak? Just look at the current issues related to non-pasteurized fruit juice prodcts for a current example of the consequences of free-market economics lack of regulation and by extension responsibility and the consequences thereof. > You presuppose that government officials will be more > virtuous than private individuals. This is obviously > unlikely, since they have less reason to fear retribution > than private individuals. It's the private companies fearing retribution from the government, not the end user. Your reasoning is faulty. In an industry that is completely unregulated by anyone other than the consumer and the producer the consumer will be taken advantage of. The reason is that there is no real-world market force that will force compliance. Now some are going to scream that the consumer will, the problem is that the consumer is denied the information about/from the producer they require in order to make the reasoned judgement. The bottem line as to why free-market economies don't work is that it isn't in the producers best interest to have a educated consumer. They might buy somebody elses product or start their own company. Both of those are bad for profits. Free-market mavens forget that producers are just as greedy and corrupt as everyone else, there is no fair competition in an unregulated market given the pshychological make up of human beings. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:59 PM 10/3/98 -0400, Michael Motyka wrote: >> There is a desert which is 1000 miles across. There is a camel who can carry >> 1000 bananas maximum. The camel eats 1 banana per mile travelled. The camel >> has a total of 3000 bananas to begin with. What is the maximum number of >> bananas that the camel can get across to the other side uneaten? > >My camels don't understand/can't eat fractional bananas. Why are bananas quantized in the presense of camels? Is this a quantum-computing thing?

8 7

Read Carefully!!!
by greens322＠hotmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Briorex Inc *****Off Shore Report 5599 FREE***** *NO PAPER TRAIL, GLOBAL VISA CARDS REGARDLESS OF CREDIT *PRESTIGIOUS OFFSHORE CHECKING ACCOUNTS *INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATIONS(IBCs) *OFFSHORE ASSET PROTECTION TRUSTS *SECRET OFFSHORE MAIL DROPS *OFFSHORE PHONE ANSWERING SERVICES *OFFSHORE SELF-LIQUIDATING LOANS *OFFSHORE HIGH YIELD TAX FREE INVESTMENTS *OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS - NO ONE KNOWS *FREE OFFSHORE WORK SHOPS *FREE OFFSHORE TRUSTS *INCORPORATE OFFSHORE.... COMPLETELY PRIVATE. *OFF SHORE INVESTORS ANXIOUS!! *UP TO 100% FINANCING ON RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES *BILL CONSOLIDATION NO MATTER WHAT YOUR CREDIT IS LIKE *LINES OF CREDIT UP TO $15,000 REGARDLESS OF YOUR CREDIT *SECRET MONEY...SECRECY IS A THRIVING INDUSTRY *LEARN HOW THE RICH AND POLITICIANS GET EVEN RICHER USING The Briorex report is a complete financial package for those with good or bad credit. It's for all those who know a little about off shore opportunities but don't know how to get started. This is what you get when you order: 12 credit card secrets your bank doesn't want you to know! Learn how to create a new identity legally! BOTH VISA AND MASTERCARD * NO SAVINGS ACCOUNT *BAD CREDIT OK**NO SECURITY DEPOSIT*STUDENTS*WELFARE*OK**NO MEMBERSHIP FEES *BANKRUPTCY OK* We guarantee that you will be approved for both VISA and MASTERCARD. You can receive both Credit Cards within 10 Business Days, via Express Approval and Card Issue. PLUS...GUARANTEED $10,000 INSTANT PRE-APPROVED CREDIT WITH NO CREDIT CHECK, NO SECURITY DEPOSIT, NO ONE REFUSED! We absolutely guarantee you'll receive 3 to 5 new credit cards with credit lines totaling $10,000! You'll receive our exclusive list of 5 "secret" sources that you can obtain instant credit from. With our program you will receive a pre-approved $2500 credit card application. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT CHECK AND NO SECURITY DEPOSIT. NO ONE will be turned down. If you don't get a credit card we will refund your money!!! ERASE BAD CREDIT! ESTABLISH A-1 CREDIT IN LESS THAN 6 MONTHS! 100% legal, and 100% bulletproof protection against liens, levies, judgements, and divorce. International credit cards 100% ACCEPTANCE GUARANTEED! A Social Security Number Is Not Required, And There Are No Credit Checks Or Income Restrictions. Only Proof Of Identification Is Required. Our International Bank Offers VISA GOLD(r), VISA CLASSIC(r), And MASTERCARD(r) Credit Cards. Could you use a Bank Account, without the need for a banking reference to open the account ? You can open the account Instantly from an On-line application form. No banking references or notarization needed Private Bank accounts without banking references or demanding of notarization. Instant account in 10 seconds for immediate use. Learn how to get copies of your: 3 Credit Reports FBI records disclosure form Mailing list removal letter Motor Vehicle records Social Security Records Medical Records Education Records Employment Records Find out how anyone can have a new credit file INSTANTLY OVERNIGHT! This is the very same CREDIT SECRETS that CELEBRITIES use! It works with Bankruptcies, FBI (DUI) and Judgments! It's LEGAL and best of all, the process is FREE! If you or someone you know has had credit problems in the past - no matter how bad, this information is vital. These are the SECRETS that the Credit Bureaus DON'T WANT REVEALED! Learn how to use the Credit Bureaus to get a TOTALLY NEW-CLEAN credit file. ADD AAA CREDIT within WEEKS to your new or existing file that any Bank or Lender would drool over! (This secret alone is worth the price!) Get credit cards, buy a car, buy a house! Learn the WORDS THAT WILL STOP COLLECTION AGENCIES COLD! Legal ways to get the bill collectors off your backs. Discover how to obtain an $800 loan by mail...interest free Raise $20,000 or more in 24 hours Learn your CONSUMER RIGHTS and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Get any credit card you want. Win the credit card game. How to get a Visa/MasterCard with no credit check Learn the starting truth about how credit decisions are made. Learn the secrets on obtaining credit cards, bank loans, and mortgages. How to obtain a Free Copy of your credit report from the Major Bureaus. Understand how credit information is placed on your report...and how FREQUENTLY errors occur. Learn how to include your side of the story in your credit report so that your potential creditors understand how and why blemishes appear on your report. A simple way to turn an initial $300 investment into multiple, desirable credit references that will have credit managers banging down your door trying to loan you money. Learn about a complete range of offshore banking facilities: No Id/no reference electronically managed accounts, anonymous numbered accounts, tax-free investment and multi-currency coded accounts, debit and credit cards. Providing knowledge, freedom, privacy, security and alternatives: alternative ID cards, second passport programs and citizenship, camouflage passports, press passes, international driver permits, university degrees, nobility titles, and more... Offshore Retirement Plans Commercial Asset Protection Estate Planning Tax Planning primary goal can have a number of component objectives, including the ability to: Minimize risk of loss Create artificial poverty Establish asset anonymity Prevent future lawsuits Create incentives for dispute settlement Make work for any opponent Increase litigation odds in your favor Protect your economic and social lifestyle Maintain planning flexibility Preserve financial security Secure privacy Keep peace of mind 2nd Passport Programs & Citizenship Instant Citizenship Camouflage Passports Alternative ID Cards International Driver Permits Genuine Press Passes University Degrees We could easily ask $100.00 or more for this complete valuable information source book and be flooded with orders. However, we want to keep our prices affordable for you. So we are offering this complete valuable credit card source book including your FREE $50.00 Off Shore Report for only $25.00. That's it. If you need more information or won't to order just go to the email address below: magical203(a)hotmail.com

1 0

Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 01:04:20 +0100 > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code) > If your aim is to maximise crypto deployment, use BSD or some other > relatively free distribution license other than GNU, so that we can > more rapidly write and deploy crypto software to undermine the power > of the state. With the proviso that the original author looses all access to profits from that code, effectively doing the R&D for untold numbers of companies without compensation or even recognition (they can claim it's all theirs at that point because they don't have to release the source). ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Blanc" <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: RE: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd) > Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:09:55 -0700 > Free market economices don't "work", simply because they are run by humans, who regularly suffer > psychological breakdowns, envy, and mistakes of judgement, not to mention disreputable marketing > departments. Regulated economies, however, are run by government drones, and are therefore perfect > vehicles which, with unfailing success, make all of their captive customers happy. > Not so, but I appreciate the sense of irony in your comment. > Everyone knows this, as we witness the apparent success of all those regulated economies overseas > which outshine the U.S. by three (maybe four) orders of magnitude. No one over there envies the > U.S. productivity and standard of living, and they never are moved to leave and come live over here, > to give up the benefits which extreme regulation confers upon them, in place of the (admittedly > mixed) free-market fiasco which operates over here, where all things are uncertain and frighteningly > unpredictable. Simply because people see a better place does not imply it is the *best* place. Selecting the lesser of two evils does not magicaly make one a goodness. It's still an evil. > In fact, many people become so disgusted with the monopolies and disfunctional liberty which exists > here, that they regularly expatriate to go live in places like Sweden, Germany, even Canada, where > they have the peace of mind and assurance that State coercion will provide for their every need - > in a most efficient, timely, prompt, and user-friendly manner. > They never have to worry about who has more or less, who is better or worse, or who knows better > than anyone what is best for everyone. It's all been pre-established and exists incontrovertibly in > their national consumer database. It would be nice if you said something other than "I disagree". It would really be nice if you cold describe specific examples and hypothesis, but that obviously is asking too much. Ah well. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Another question about free-markets...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Milton Friedman won the Nobel price in 1976 in economics. One of the questions he asked was: Do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? His answer was 'no', they have no responsibility outside of those two considerations (ie the law, stockholders expectations of profit). Now in a free-market, by definition, there is no law. What then is the responsibility of businesses other than the pure unadulterated pursuit of profit? If this includes lying, denying consumers information, etc. what harm is done, they have fulfilled their responsibility to their shareholders (potentialy quite lucratively) and broken no law. Within this environment it follows that a primary strategy for such executives is the elimination of *all* competition. And since there is no law other than the measure of profit all can be justified. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

6 6

Regarding- Psychic Readings
by rikoso81＠prodigy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML> Boone Psychic Counseling (828)262-3487 Located in Boone,North Carolina "PSYCHIC Readings by Melissa Stone" Psychic Melissa Stone is available to you for the first time publicly on the internet. Psychic Melissa Stone is your ultimate psychic choice in psychic counseling and guidance. Psychic Melissa Stone has joined the ultimate psychic forces for you to obtain your lifes ultimate goals and expectations weather business or personal, Melissa Stone is your ultimate psychic choice.(The items listed below are just a few items the psychic Melissa Stone will psychically guide you to your ultimate sucess and happiness) A. Past Life Readings B. Psychic Readings C. Reunite Your Love Affair D. Psychic Guidance To Your Career Movement E. Dissolvement Of All Occult Activity In Your Life Or A Loved Ones F. Be Relived Of Tension,Depression,Anxiety,Ect. G. Employer Or Co-Worker Problems H. Quartz Crystal Readings I. Tarot Card Readings SPECIAL TO ALL AOL SUBSCRIBERS!!! A FREE SAMPLE PSYCHIC READING TOTALLY FREE NO (900)#'s or Recordings "you WILL speak to Melissa Stone" (828)262-3487 Psychic Melissa Stone offers many more services to you. Stop wishing,praying,and hoping that your life will get better . Call now and let Psychic Melissa Stone assist you in conquering all your life's obstacles and barriers. Have your dreams fulfilled now. All contacts are held with the strictest of your confidentiality. (828) 262-3487 Call NOW !!! </HTML>

1 0

YOUR CLASSIFIED - AD / 333 NEWSPAPERS !!!!
by badibe＠uni-paderborn.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

YOUR AD IN 333 NEWSPAPERS !!!!!!!!!! *********************************************** Seven years ago, I learned how to place my Classified Ad in several hundred newspapers, with just one telephone call. And, my cost was $0.51 per newspaper. The total circulation was well over 1.5 Million. I could reach just about any market, anywhere in this country. Since then, my small mail-order company has exploded. And, I use this same time tested and true method week after week. I would like to share this powerful information and show you how to save hundreds, even thousands of dollars on advertising that works. The average cost of a classified ad in a newspaper is about $15.00 to $20.00 dollars. Multiply that by 333 and your total cost is well over $6,000.00 Dollars. By using our amazing method, your total cost is only $170.00. Not to mention the time and money you save by placing one call, instead of 333 long distance calls. You can limit your promotion to a Single State or place your ad in Several States around the country, all with just one phone call. You can reach One Million Readers on the East-Cost today and a Million on the West-Coast tomorrow. It's that simple !!!! Your cost for this priceless information, is only $19.00 !!! You will make that back on your first promotion. WE are so confident that this type of advertising will boost your profits, we will guarantee your satisfaction with our Money Back Guarantee !! So, you have nothing to lose. Now, order our amazing classified ad method today !!!!!! PRINT ORDER FORM Ship To: ************************** ********* NAME____________________________________________ ADDRESS________________________________________ CITY______________________________________________ STATE__________________ ZIP_____________________ E-MAIL__________________________________ Don't Delay, ORDER YOUR COMPLETE MEDIA KIT TODAY !!!!!!! ********************************************************************** Mail Payment $19.00 CASH, money order, or check TO: ******************** INFORMATION, Ltd. P. O. Box 515019 St. Louis, MO 63151-5019 U.S.A. WE will ship your complete KIT directly to you !!!! ************************************************************** OPTIONAL / OVERNIGHT SHIPPING - ADD $15.00 ************************************************************** Thank you for your kind attention, and have a nice day !!! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Find Out Anything About Anyone On The Net !!! ========================================= YOU can easily learn how to investigate and learn EVERYTHING about your employees, neighbors, friends, enemies, and or anyone else !!! It is absolutely amazing !!! YOU Must Get This Extraordinary Package today......... + YOU can track down an old friend or a lost love, and, just for fun, investigate your family history. + YOU can screen prospective employees criminal records, look at their driving, or credit history. + YOU can verify test results from drug testing and even look into your children's friends history for any type of record. + YOU can TRACK down and locate an old debtor who is hiding from you and see if he/she is hiding any assets. + YOU can look up "unlisted telephone numbers." Locate social security, birth, adoption or death records. Check Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force service file records. YOU will simply be amazed to learn what sensitive and important information other people and enemies can discover about YOU !!!!! YOU Can Find Out Anything About Anyone On The Net !!! Do background checks on people and charge for it, as you start your own investigative services. Stop guessing about the LAW !!! Look up laws and do much more, direct from famous law libraries. Get this easy to use KIT right away, and then, YOU can become a private investigator. ORDER TODAY !!!!! Send $18.00 cash (wrapped in two pieces of paper), money order, or check to: INFORMATION, Ltd. P. O. Box 515019 St. Louis, MO 63151-5019 USA The Complete Package Will Be Immediately Shipped Prepaid Directly to You With Everything You Will Need In Your Kit to Get Started Right Away !! THANK YOU for your kind attention, and have a nice day !!!! YOU MAY ORDER BOTH PACKAGE KITS FOR ONLY $33.00 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Admin Internet Services This message is not intended for residents in the State of Washington, screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical ability. If you are a Washington resident or otherwise wish to be removed from this list, go to global remove site if you want your address removed from future mailing. http://209.84.246.162/remove.htm This Global Communication has been sent to you by: PAVILION INTERNATIONAL SERVICES Offices: London, Paris, Berlin, Hong Kong

1 0

No Subject
by Rod Logic 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

_________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > Only after the early 1890's when the situation got so bad > they had to do something. Prior to that there was no federal > intervention in railroad operations per se Completely false. Traffic to/from the West coast did not warrant the capital investment in transcontinental railway, so the government make *exclusive* lands grants to specific railroads to extend the railways to the West coast (100M acres between 1863-7) . Those subsidies created the monopolies, the source of coercive power over Western farmers. Protest against this arbitrary power was blamed on the market instead of the government subsidies, and resulted in the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, and the Sherman Act of 1890. I should have stated government "distortions" instead of "regulation." That includes subsidies. > And every drop of mineral rights in this country is owned > by oil companies or the US government as a result of the > conflicts that took place from the late 1800's to the > early 1900's. The placement (ownership) of these rights, their value, restrictions and enforcement are the result of a free market? No, government intervention. > Actualy the local and state regulators did that back in the > late 50's and early 60's the federals had no hand in it. Did anyone ever state monopolies result from federal regulations? Government distortion/intervention, that can come at any level. Acts of force or coercion can create a monopolistic situation, free trade cannot. > Bullshit math. The interactions are nowhere near as simple as > you state. The big company has the resources to outlast the > smaller company in any industry that can monopolize (an issue > you seem to miss, not all industries can monopolize) So what is the discriminating factor(s) distinguishing industries that can and cannot be monopolized? Don't forget capital markets; a free fluid capital market can and will support a smaller competitor if potential long term profits will support it. I will qualify that we do not have a very free capital market, it currently favors larger businesses. The answer is to deregulate the capital market. Even with our heavily regulated capital markets this works often. > Examples please where a small firm dukes it out (sic) on > equal terms with a larger one... Equality is about freedom of action, not status or result. Amazon vs Barnes & Noble, Yahoo vs NBC, Red Hat vs Microsoft, etc. I see the egalitarian perversion of "equality" polluting arguments against free market capitalism. Equal states and "game" like fairness and handicapping is not ideal, Freedom is ideal. > > In one of those nordic countries, I think Finland, the phone > > system was never made a public enterprise or state regulated > > monopoly, but most other things were. > > Then how does it operate? Who owns the switches and wires? > Either it's a public utility or it's some sort of private > enterprise (though it may by under contract to the government). However buys and installs the switches and wires. There is no artificial barriers such as right-of-way restrictions, exclusive franchise, utilities commission, or nationalization. There are many competing telecom companies, all the way to local loop. > > There is no "natural monopoly" that is not somewhere a > > A 'natural' monoploy, to my mind, is a company that operates > in an industry that can be saturated. That's a perverted definition of 'natural' monopoly. A 'natural' monopoly involves something where all or none must benefit (e.g. military defense) or something based on a severely scarce resource (e.g. real estate to your house). Market saturation is a natural effect of free competition, the number of firms it takes is irrelevant, and competition is not barred by artificial restraint, only profit. If a firm abuses its position competition can and will capitalize on the opportunity. A coercive monopoly is one that is immune to market constraints (supply and demand) -- that requires artificial barriers. > The VCR industry is a great example of a 'natural' monopoly. You must be joking. I could enter the video recording/playback equipment market tomorrow with sufficient capitalization and turn good profits in 5 years. I didn't say VCR because that is terribly myopic, the market demand is the function not the technology. Technology and innovation is a natural destabilizer to monopoly positions. Matt

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > Explain further, from your description of the differences there > are no fundamental mentionings or views of intellectual property. > As a matter of fact the specific role of the individual is never > even mentioned in either definition. Intellectual property is fundamentally unenforceable in an anarchic state (you have no govt), at least in the manner we have now, whereas a Laissez Faire state could enforce it (you have limited govt). That says nothing about whether IP should exist in current form or at all, simply that it *could* exist under LF. I don't support the current path IP law is headed, but I support the underlying basis for intellectual property rights, as do most LF advocates. There are many different takes on anarchism, from those that include coercion as a market (and marketable) element to those where it is prohibited, but without the state (rational anarchy). Therefore it is difficult to discriminate the differences other than limited government versus no government. > So people don't have a right to self-defence? I agree > consensual crimes are not crimes. No, you certainly have a right to self-defense. >> "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual >> right to lawful defense." > Is it? Is it? No. Should it be? Yes. > Or is it simply another sort of coercion to cooperate with the > collective? Yes. "Nowhere has the coercive and parasitic nature of the State been more clearly limned than by the great late nineteenth-century German sociologist, Franz Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two and only two mutually exclusive means for man to obtain wealth. One, the method of production and voluntary exchange, the method of the free market, Oppenheimer termed the 'economic means'; the other, the method of robbery by the use of violence, he called the 'political means.' The political means is clearly parasitic, for it requires previous production for the exploiters to confiscate, and it subtracts from rather than adding to the total production in society. Oppenheimer then proceeds to define the State as the 'organization of the political means' -the systematization of the predatory process over a given territorial area." -- Murray Rothbard on Franz Oppenheimer's _Der Staat_ > I'm interesting to see how you reconcile the belief nobody > has a right to use force yet has a right to defend their > life. Abolition of *coercive* force. Defensive force I promote. >>"For what are our faculties but the extension of our >>individuality? And what is property but an extension >>of our faculties?" > By facluty I assume you mean our emotional and psychological > makeup coupled with our sensory record of them. > > I'd say that such issues are not a facet of individualism but > rather a characteristic of life itself. That was a quote from Frederick Bastiat, not me. Faculty is a broad term, your cognitive faculty is physiological, but your rational faculty (your mind) is really the essence of individuality. You are more correct, your individuality is derived from your faculty, your faculty is derived from the nature of man. > No it doesn't. You must first prove that a group of > individuals have some right that as individuals they don't have. Absolutely not and no they don't. What part did you miss? A group is simply a collection of individuals, therefore holds no more rights nor less rights than any single member, nor does any member sacrifice any rights by participating in a group. > For one thing, even in your definition, rights are a > fundamental aspect of birth as an individual. Rights are based on the nature of reality (survival). "In order to sustain its life, every living species has to follow a certain course of action required by its nature. The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival... Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man's survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don't. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgement. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man's mind... The social recognition of man's rational nature--of the connection between his survival and his use of reason--is the concept of *individual rights*. ..."rights" are a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context... ...man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life. Without property rights, no other rights can be practiced." -- Ayn Rand Matt

1 0

----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----
by STUFFED MONDAY OCTOBER 5 1998 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

STUFFED HAS EVOLVED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTH, THANKS TO ALL YOUR FEEDBACK. NOW WE HAVE BOUGHT IN THOUSANDS MORE HI- RES PHOTOS FROM TOP SEX PHOTOGRAPHERS, WE SCOUR THE WEB EACH DAY TO FIND LINKS TO SITES WITH 100S MORE FREE IMAGES, AND THERE'S SO MUCH MORE, SUCH AS THE FIVE EXTRA BONUS PICS YOU GET EVERY DAY NOW, THAT YOU WON'T FIND ON THE STUFFED WEB SITE, THEY ARE EXCLUSIVE TO OUR SUBSCRIBERS! AND THERE'S SO MUCH MORE TO COME, SO KEEP COMING BACK FOR MORE EACH DAY! This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > Now in a free-market, by definition, there is no law. A free market is not the absence of law (that is anarchy), a free market is the absence of government intervention in trade and commerce. That does not mean people and businesses are immune from criminal law, fraud statutes, civil liability, etc. > If this includes lying, denying consumers information, The market addresses information disclosure by favoring vendors that disclose. The legal system addresses intentional misinformation. You are confusing Laissez Faire [free market] Capitalism with Anarcho-Capitalism. Matt

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At 12:59 PM 10/3/98 -0400, Michael Motyka wrote: > >> There is a desert which is 1000 miles across. There is a camel who can > carry > >> 1000 bananas maximum. The camel eats 1 banana per mile travelled. The camel > >> has a total of 3000 bananas to begin with. What is the maximum number of > >> bananas that the camel can get across to the other side uneaten? > > > >My camels don't understand/can't eat fractional bananas. > > Why are bananas quantized in the presense of camels? Is this > a quantum-computing thing? > Can the camel increase his miles/banana ratio if he dries out the peels and smokes them??

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

"Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges." -- Tacitus > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Hettinga [mailto:rah@shipwright.com] > Most criminologists will tell that the more corrupt the > jurisdiction, the harder it is to be in compliance with > the law. That way, it's easier for the state's > functionaries to shake you down. > "'If we could just pass a few more laws', we could all be > criminals!"

1 0

One Nation thank you
by Scott Balson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear One Nation supporter in NSW Pauline Hanson would like to personally thank you for the outstanding support that you gave to the party before and during the election. Coverage of the events in Blair - including the One Nation party on election evening can be seen on-line at: <A href="http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/onenation/federal/live">http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/onenation/federal/live --------- PARTIES CONSPIRE TO KEEP IMMIGRATION OUT OF ELECTION, BOOK SHOWSThe author of a new book called "This Tired Brown Land" has accused the majorpolitical parties of conspiring to keep immigration and population off theelection agenda. The book has already attracted good reviews.Author Mark O'Connor today claimed that both the major political partieswere suppressing discussion in order to deny One Nation 'the oxygen ofpublicity'. But it is exactly such bipartisan ignoring of public sentimenton immigration which caused One Nation, and led to the enormous success ofPaul Sheehan's book Among the Barbarianns.Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock recently launched the Coalition'spolicy in Perth-too late in the day for the Eastern media to pick up thestory. Says author Mark O'Connor, 'Clearly the Coalition knows its policyis not what the electorate wants.'Polls show that the electorate has made up its mind. Only 2% or 3% ofvoters want immigration increased; and they are outnumbered, some 30 toone, by the 65% or 70% who want it reduced. Neither ethnic Australians norAborigines support higher immigration. Most Australians supportmulticulturalism, yet want an immediate moratorium on immigration.'My book shows that in 1994-95 (under Labor) our net migration gain (ABSfigures) was 80,100 persons. Last year it was 83,700. Despite this, theCoalition has tried to give the impression of reducing immigration. Somecritics have even accused the government of "racism" for "reducingimmigration". This is false.'The book is available throough bookshops at $16.95, orby cheque or money order from Duffy & Snellgrove for $19.95 (includes p&p) atPO Box 177Potts Point NSW 1335fx 2 9386 1530<A href="mailto:dands@magna.com.au">dands(a)magna.com.au ------------------ GWB Scott Balson Pauline Hanson's One Nation web master

1 0

Re: Another question about free-markets... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 22:58:05 -0700 > From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> > Subject: Re: Another question about free-markets... > > If this includes lying, denying consumers information, etc. > > what harm is done, they have fulfilled their responsibility > > to their shareholders (potentialy quite lucratively)=20 > > While there is a sucker born every minute, the strategy you > describe is for the most part unlikely to be profitable. Then you should begin to check your daily news, example after example is presented. (currently illegal) cell phone cloning, excessive rate levels, sub-standard construction practices, etc. People by their very nature understand and impliment the prisoners delima maximum pay-off strategy. Not only can it happen it deos. Given that such abuse is possible in a regulated market there is no reason not to deduce it will happen in a free market economy as well. If it happens the business enjoys an increased profit if for no other reason than their costs are reduced. Since there is no regulation or other oversight the consumer will be denied this information preventing fair competition. Since a companies strategic leaders have no duty other than maximizing profit they will impliment such strategies. Hence the free-market reduces to an opportunistic anarchy. This leads to one and only one conclusion, in a free-market there is no such thing as 'fair trade' without a third party being involved. This runs contrary to the definition of a free market on two counts (at least) and therefore the free market theory (as applied to human business, not Vulcan) is a circular argument based on faulty principles and a lack of understanding of human psychology (ie assumptions such as rational purchases). ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

725+ Search Engines
by positzzzsu＠yahoo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

!!!LOWEST PRICE EVER!!!!! REGULAR $89......ONE WEEK ONLY...$38 we9 WE WILL SUBMIT YOUR WEBSITE OR HOMEPAGE TO 725+ SEARCH ENGINES AND PROVIDE YOU WITH A REPORT SHOWING ALL SUCCESSFUL SUBMISSIONS!! WORRY FREE INTERNET TRANSACTION---WE WILL SUBMIT YOUR SITE AND E-MAIL YOUR REPORT WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIPT OF YOUR FAXED CHECK....WE WON'T EVEN DEPOSIT IT UNTIL YOUR SUBMISSION IS COMPLETE...IF WE DON'T DO AS WE SAY, YOU CAN ALWAYS STOP PAYMENT ON CHECK....NOW WE HAVE TO TRUST YOU, AS WE WILL HAVE COMPLETED THE WORK BEFORE YOUR BANK HAS EVEN HONERED YOUR CHECK!!!! RESERVE YOUR SPOT NOW!!! DO NOT RESERVE YOUR SPOT VIA E-MAIL, MUST BE FAX!!! YOU CAN FAX US A CHECK TO RESERVE YOUR SPOT AND WE WILL IMPORT IT INTO OUR CHECK PROCESSING SOFTWARE, NO NEED TO MAIL IT. MAKE IT OUT TO K.L. COMPANY AND FAX TO 714 768-3650 WITH THE FOLLOWING INFO YOUR NAME: COMPANY NAME: URL OF SITE: http:// e-mail Address: Title of site(up to 25 words) Description of site(up to 50 words): Keywords(up to 6) Phone# QUESTIONS? ALL ORDERS WILL BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 48 HOURS.... we9

1 0

US Secret Service checking laptops at airports
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone else had this happen to them? I'd love to have two independent corroborations of this, instead of hearing it third-hand... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text From: "Sidney Markowitz" <sidney(a)communities.com> To: <cryptography(a)c2.net> Subject: US Secret Service checking laptops at airports Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 18:26:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-cryptography(a)c2.net A friend of mine recently traveled from one of the Washington DC area airports to Ireland and reports that US Secret Service agents checked her laptop for the domestic 128-bit crypto versions of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer at the metal detector station. She said she saw about six other people who were checked as she was going through. As is now common, anyone carrying a laptop computer was asked to boot it up, presumably to demonstrate that if the case hid a bomb at least it was programmable with a reasonable looking user interface. But in her instance, people who identified themselves as Secret Service agents had her start up her web browser so they could check the encryption level, and made her uninstall her 128-bit Navigator. It didn't seem to matter to them that there are exemptions for devices that are for personal use as long as they are kept with the person while out of the country, or that she is an international banker who was going to conduct business with an overseas office. They didn't bother to determine whether she had a copy of the Navigator install file in a backup directory and could simply reinstall on the airplane. And of course it made no difference that she was going to Ireland where she picked up a locally produced 128-bit crypto plugin for Navigator that she says works just as well if not better than the version from Netscape. (I don't know if her "plugin" is simply one of the scripts that enable the Netscape strong crypto in the export version.) -- Sidney Markowitz <sidney(a)communities.com> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Matthew James Gering wrote: > > Jim Choate wrote: > > I'd say the obvious one, the Unix code tree is more stable > > than the MS tree. > > Sure, but does that mean the MS platform was less suitable than Unix, or > their MS platform programmers were inferior to their Unix counterparts. > I believe Netscape outsourced the Unix development, at least initially. > I would blame insufficient SQA at Netscape, and from what I've heard > that claim is justified. > > Matt My impression is that the instability described is due to fragmentation of the virtual memory space, which happens faster on NT than Unix because of the relative immaturity of NT memory management. The side comment about Mac's being even worse would support this hypothesis (as Mac memory management is a joke). The Netscape SQA theory doesn't explain why other products also become less reliable on NT (and worse again on 95).

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

>From Jim Choate: : The bottem line as to why free-market economies don't work is that it isn't : in the producers best interest to have a educated consumer. They might buy : somebody elses product or start their own company. Both of those are bad for : profits. : : Free-market mavens forget that producers are just as greedy and corrupt as : everyone else, there is no fair competition in an unregulated market given : the pshychological make up of human beings. ................................................................................ ........ Free market economices don't "work", simply because they are run by humans, who regularly suffer psychological breakdowns, envy, and mistakes of judgement, not to mention disreputable marketing departments. Regulated economies, however, are run by government drones, and are therefore perfect vehicles which, with unfailing success, make all of their captive customers happy. Everyone knows this, as we witness the apparent success of all those regulated economies overseas which outshine the U.S. by three (maybe four) orders of magnitude. No one over there envies the U.S. productivity and standard of living, and they never are moved to leave and come live over here, to give up the benefits which extreme regulation confers upon them, in place of the (admittedly mixed) free-market fiasco which operates over here, where all things are uncertain and frighteningly unpredictable. In fact, many people become so disgusted with the monopolies and disfunctional liberty which exists here, that they regularly expatriate to go live in places like Sweden, Germany, even Canada, where they have the peace of mind and assurance that State coercion will provide for their every need - in a most efficient, timely, prompt, and user-friendly manner. They never have to worry about who has more or less, who is better or worse, or who knows better than anyone what is best for everyone. It's all been pre-established and exists incontrovertibly in their national consumer database. .. Blanc

3 2

RE: Another question about free-markets..
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From Jim Choate: : Now in a free-market, by definition, there is no law. What then is the : responsibility of businesses other than the pure unadulterated pursuit of : profit? If this includes lying, denying consumers information, etc. what : harm is done, they have fulfilled their responsibility to their shareholders : (potentialy quite lucratively) and broken no law. Within this environment it : follows that a primary strategy for such executives is the elimination of : *all* competition. And since there is no law other than the measure of profit : all can be justified. ................................................................................ There might be no Law. But there would still be Reality - and for some people, this is *much* harder to deal with. If customers sit around like lumps on a log depending upon the kindness of strangers, well they're not doing themselves any favors. But such a person is not a customer. They are an invalid (or will be, eventually). In a free-market economy, everybody - not only corporations, not only customers - have to be rational about what they're doing. Everybody has to "be on their toes", alert to what truly is in their interest, and prevent themselves from accepting, from supporting, self-defeating offers from Trojans bearing spam. You learn or you die, just like in the movies. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Another question about free-markets... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:03:25 +0100 > From: Steve Mynott <stevem(a)tightrope.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Re: Another question about free-markets... > On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 11:53:28PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > > Now in a free-market, by definition, there is no law. What then is the > > no in a free market there is no state > > there are laws based on natural rights Ok, who writes the laws? Who enforces the laws? Who decides what is natural? Remember, we have *NO* participants in a free market other than the producer and the consumer. Two, and *only* two, parties are involved. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:29:33 -0700 > state (you have no govt), at least in the manner we have now, whereas a > Laissez Faire state could enforce it (you have limited govt). That says > nothing about whether IP should exist in current form or at all, simply > that it *could* exist under LF. [other stuff deleted] Ok, so you're talking out of both sides of your mouth then. On one hand you speak of a free-market (vis-a-vis Laissez Faire) and then in the same breath, with not even a blink of an eye, you speak of limited government. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Sorry. This is gibberish. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Another question about free-markets... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: Another question about free-markets... > Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:34:09 -0700 > > Now in a free-market, by definition, there is no law. > > A free market is not the absence of law (that is anarchy), a free market > is the absence of government intervention in trade and commerce. And how does government intervene and interfere? By making law. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Capitalism and Monopolies (was RE: GPL & commercial software, the (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > To: "Cypherpunks (E-mail)" <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net> > Subject: Capitalism and Monopolies (was RE: GPL & commercial software, the > critical distinction) > Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:01:16 -0700 > Jim Choate wrote: > > Only after the early 1890's when the situation got so bad > > they had to do something. Prior to that there was no federal > > intervention in railroad operations per se > > Completely false. Not totaly. > Traffic to/from the West coast did not warrant the > capital investment in transcontinental railway, so the government make > *exclusive* lands grants to specific railroads to extend the railways to > the West coast (100M acres between 1863-7) . Those subsidies created the > monopolies, the source of coercive power over Western farmers. Protest > against this arbitrary power was blamed on the market instead of the > government subsidies, and resulted in the Interstate Commerce Act of > 1887, and the Sherman Act of 1890. Only *after* it was clear that these companies could not do it themselves because of a lack of sufficient traffic to support the business. I must congratulate you. You're the first person in a long while who actualy took the time to develop an argument based on *fact*. Well done. > I should have stated government "distortions" instead of "regulation." > That includes subsidies. Even better, a distinction between 'law' and a 'grant'!.... > The placement (ownership) of these rights, their value, restrictions and > enforcement are the result of a free market? No, government > intervention. Actualy no, try buying a piece of land and enforcing the title *without* registering it at the country seat or its likes. > Did anyone ever state monopolies result from federal regulations? > Government distortion/intervention, that can come at any level. Acts of > force or coercion can create a monopolistic situation, free trade > cannot. Absolutely it can because it actualy allows a freer hand in developing strategies to decrease the market potential of ones competition. There is *nothing* in free-market definitions or descriptions which will prevent gross abuse of the consumer by the manufacturer. Remember in a free-market there is the requirement for 'fair competition' which is contrary to the very theory of business operation, which is to maximize profit and reduce competition. Now if we lived on Vulcan and we were all logical Vulcans it might work, unfortunately we're not and human beings will specificaly go after their competition, which without some sort of regulation being impossed leads to obvious results; initialy a very fluid and dynamic market that settles down with the survival of the fitest getting bigger and bigger. As these companies get big enough they can no longer react as quickly as they once did (intertia of strategy among other things). At some point it becomes easier to cooperate than to continue to fight. That cooperation leads to a melding and promotes even more monopolization. > So what is the discriminating factor(s) distinguishing industries that > can and cannot be monopolized? Saturation of the consumer market, high start-up costs in either infrastructure or intellectual resources, and others. I posted a list of some characteristics to the list a while back. You can look for it. If I get time I'll post it to the list again. > Don't forget capital markets; Are you speaking of capital markets in the sense of fluid and available funding or of the existance of businesses that produce the capital assetts needed by other businesses (eg creating rail-cars for rail-roads)? a free fluid capital market can and will > support a smaller competitor if potential long term profits will support > it. You can't pay your employees today with tomorrow profit. This isn't a Popeye's hamburger vendor... There is another question I'd like to pose. In a free-market economy there are only two participants, the consumer and the producer, what if anything in the definition prevents one or the other from employing an agent in their stead to 'negotiate' with the other. Does this by definition introduce a third party or is it a permissible extension of the two-party system? ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

FW: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd)
by Trei, Peter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: Blanc [SMTP:blancw@cnw.com] > Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 12:10 AM > To: 'Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer' > Subject: RE: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd) > [...] > > Free market economices don't "work", simply because they are run by > humans, who regularly suffer > psychological breakdowns, envy, and mistakes of judgement, not to mention > disreputable marketing > departments. Regulated economies, however, are run by government drones, > and are therefore perfect > vehicles which, with unfailing success, make all of their captive > customers happy. > [four paragraphs of well written irony removed] For those interested in a thoughtful (though slightly one sided) look at this issue, I strongly reccomend PJ O'Rourke's new book 'Eat the Rich'. He examines several locations (US, Sweden, Albania, Cuba, Russia, Hong Kong, Shanghai) in an attempt to figure out why (economically) "some places suck and others don't" His bottom line is that the rule of law (especially contract law) is critical, as well as democratic government. He's much more interested in on-the-ground economic experience than in government figures, and is the only economics writer who can make me laugh out loud. He does have his blind spots - I would have liked to see what he makes of Singapore. Peter Trei [Excuse the lousy formatting - I'm using a Microsoft product]

1 0

Re: importance of motivation
by Martinus Luther 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From Tim May: > Any trendy new diagnosis always gets some recruits...dyslexia, ADD >(*), the abuse excuse, etc. (* Like any trendy thing, it gets renamed > to keep its panache. ADD has been renamed to something with four > letters, which I now forget (must be ADD).) And it is worse than that, they're scum, Tim. They claim (in last months SciAm) that 5% of kids have ADHD (some sources have it at 15%). This isn't a disease, this is one end of the normal variation in behaviour. It is as if you diagnosed an adult male height of less than 5 foot 4 inches as "dwarf" and prescribed growth hormone. Or as if you operated on any woman over 5 foot 10 to shorten her legs. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/adhd.htm says 3 to 4 times as many boys as girls have it. So they are saying that ADHD affects 15 to 60 percent of all boys! This isn't one end of the normal range of behaviour, this is just plain normal. The psycho-babble establishment is proposing drugging 5 to 15 percent of the population to alter their behaviour. If this "diagnosis" had been around when I was a kid they would have drugged me. I found a 14 point checklist for ADHD on the web at: http://www.docnet.org.uk/autopage/messages/23.html In the last 48 hours my daughter has shown 11 of these. And I've shown 14. This is just normal life they are talking about. This is the misuse of psychiatric medicine for political control, as much as anything that went on in Stalin's Russia. (the personal is political - if one young man behaves in a way unacceptable to their elders that is personal - if 5 million do it is political). I object, strongly, to some guy in a white coat saying the problem with my life is my brain and he wants me to take this little pill and then it will be alright. Which is not to say that some people don't have real problems for which Ritalin is a workaround. But 15%, 10% or even 5% isn't psychiatry it is politics. Large parts of our daily life is tedious, boring, of no direct relevance to anything we are interested in. Most kids in school are made to sit through boring lessons. Bloody hell! They made us do sport. Is anything more shitlike? Most adults at work make themselves do things they have no interest in other than for the money they might get out of it (which is where we cam in with all that discussion about research that shows that people perform less well on tasks done primarily for reward - Marx was right about alienation, you know) A healthy person *ought* to have trouble paying attention to some of the things they are asked to do. Maybe we will have better lives if we drug ourselves (Ritalin, Prozak, E, daytime television) to get through the shit of the day but let it be a decision adults make for themselves, not one imposed on children by parents or the psychatric eastablishment. I could do with a cup of tea... > We've had some nutballs and losers (luser spelling: loosers) on this > list. People who claim the reason they can't make a coherent > argument or hold a steady job is because of something some > psychobabbler told them was their excuse. It's weird how people do that. If a doctor gives something a long name is suddenly becomes alright. Some parents are ashamed that their kids can't read well. Put it in Greek and call it "Dyslexia" and all of a sudden it isn't something you do, or are, or don't do or aren't capable of - it becomes something you *have*, not really part of you, baggage, a burden that could one day be dropped, something that has been done to you, imposed on you, soemthing that is not your fault. Reality hasn't changed, just the words used to describe it, yet it is now less threatening. The germ theory of disease is stretched to the limit. Pasteur showed that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. Simple cause and effect. One baterial disease is caused by pone organism, another by another. That is deeply embedded in our thoughts. So now all disease, all misfortune, has to be given a name, put in a box and traced back to a simple cause. I'm not fat, I have an eating disorder. I'm not stupid, I have a learning disability. I'm not sad, or worried, or bored, or scared - I have depression or an anxiety disorder or an attention deficit disorder. Some societies attribute all misfortune to witchcraft - if your cow dies then someone, somewhere must have cursed you. We now attribute all misfortune to something outside ourselves, not part of us. It wasn't me, it was my syndrome. And its all part of the pressure put on familys by business. Conform, consume, keep quiet. Don't rock the boat. Turn up on time, wear our clothes, work our hours. No alcohol on the premises. Or at lunchtime. Take this here drugs test - we don't want dope fiends and hippies in our office. Stressed out? Bored? Overworked? Tense, anxious, nervous soul-ache? Nothing acts faster than Ritalin. Especially when cut with Prozac to prolong that cool, mellow feeling. Time off to look after the children? Not if you want the job to be open when you come back. Just give them a bite of our magic apple and they will be alright. What's that you say about drugs? No, these are Good Drugs. The men in the white coats say so. And what's more they are patentable and we own shares in Ciba Geigy, Lilly, Fison's and Hoffman La Roche. Good Drugs keep you working until we want to let you go. Good Drugs keep you consuming until you have no more money to pay us with. Good drugs keep you working for our profit. Good Drugs keep you from complaining, striking, joining a union, praying, helping, loving, singing, fighting back in any way whatsoever. Good Drugs keep you from realising that half your work goes into our pockets. Good Drugs keep you scared, scared of poverty, scared of being different, scared of standing out, scared of using your head to think any thoughts we don't want thank. Good Drugs keep you addicted to your job, your country, your government, your boss. The Best Drug is the mortgage. John the Ranter/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Review of TriStrata Public Information
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Review of TriStrata Public Information 1 Introduction Over the past several months, a new company called TriStrata has been getting substantial press for a new "one-time pad" cryptography system. Most of these press reports took at face value the company's claims about their technology and product, and did not try to analyze whether or not they were true. Counterpane Systems believes it is important to dig under the hype and figure out what the real story is behind their technology. We reviewed the publicly available documentation on TriStrata, and found a system whose architecture is that of an early-1970s pre-public-key cryptography security system. Central servers, upon which the security of every message rests, must be kept absolutely secure; yet they run on Windows NT. These servers are all powerful, in that they can forge messages, rewrite audit logs, fake authentication, and lie about anything else in the system. Users cannot access their files unless they are connected to this server. TriStrata does not use a one-time pad at all, and none of the security proofs about a one-time pad apply to their system. Their reliance on this encryption technology forces them to use security protocols long abandoned by the rest of the security industry. Even their performance enhancements bely the fact that encryption is rarely the bottleneck in any communications system. Note: For a less-technical summary of this review, please see sections 4.0, 4.1, and 5.0. 2.0 The TriStrata System 2.1 Structure The TriStrata system uses a centralized server, called the TESS (TriStrata Enterprise Security Server). The documentation is not very clear, but document reference 3 suggests that each company would have its own TESS. Every encryption or decryption operation requires a "permit" from the TESS. To encrypt a file or message: 1. The user contacts the TESS over the network. This can be any type of network, such as the Internet or a local area network. 2. The user and the TESS authenticate each other using a proprietary protocol called Private Access Line (PAL). 3. The TESS sends a permit to the user machine, which is used to encrypt the file or message. The TESS also sends a "seal" to the user. This seal is only readable by the TESS. 4. The user simply stores the seal with the file (if it is encrypted locally), or sends the seal along with the encrypted message (if it is to be transmitted to another user). To decrypt a file or message: 1. The user retrieves the seal and sends the seal to the TESS (along with the authentication data from the PAL protocol). 2. The TESS opens the seal, and determines whether the user is allowed to decrypt the data. 3. If the user is allowed to decrypt the data, the TESS sends a decryption permit to the user. 4. The user's local machine uses this permit to decrypt the file or message. The TESS keeps full audit logs of all operations, and includes procedures that allow designated recovery agents within the company to recover the keys to any file. The system is claimed to provide identification (who is using the system), authentication (who sent a message), access control (restriction of access to authorized users), integrity (assurance message is unaltered), and non-repudiation (sender cannot deny having sent it). They have received an export license for their system. 2.2 Authentication The authentication method used to authenticate the user to the TESS and vice versa is a crucial part of the security architecture. The TriStrata documentation contains no further information than that this is handled by the Private Access Line protocol. 2.3 Encryption Algorithm The Random KeyStream (RKS) encryption algorithm used by TriStrata is hailed as "a new fundamental technology." It is claimed to be very fast, but the documentation only contains raw speeds, without documenting which platform these speeds were achieved on. The encryption technology is also claimed to be unconditionally secure. To quote the web site: "No matter how much mathematical analysis or computing power is applied to the cryptanalysis of RKS, there is simply no algorithm and no underlying pattern to break. As Herbert Yardley foresaw in 1931, cryptography as a profession is dead." 3.0 Our Comments 3.1 The Central Server Structure Cryptographic systems that use a central access control server are nothing new. The Kerberos protocol uses a central server for similar tasks. Using such a central server as the TESS has several advantages and disadvantages. The main advantages are: - There is a central place that administrates all the access rights. This makes various administrative tasks easier. - Revocation of access is automatically supported by the system. No separate revocation mechanism is necessary. - The central server can keep comprehensive auditing logs of security-related operations. The main disadvantages are: - The central server contains confidential information, namely the master keys that can decrypt any file. It is thus a very tempting target for attack. The central server must be very well protected. At the same time, the server must be reachable from across the network, and must be reliable, as nothing can work without a functioning server. The end result is a server that is expensive (due to all the requirements) and that still is an obvious point of attack. - The central server is a single point of failure. TriStrata uses a redundant server structure with fail-over, so that a second server takes over when the first fails. A fail-over structure protects against technical errors, but does not necessarily protect against denial-of-service attacks. The TESS is based on a "security hardened" version of Windows NT, an operating system that is not known for its resistance to malicious attacks. - The system is effectively a closed system. Only users who are registered at the server can partake in the system. It is not clear how two users that belong to different servers would communicate. The TriStrata documentation mentions electronic commerce extensively, but it does not discuss how two users at two different companies can use the TriStrata system to communicate with each other. - Since the server contains crucial confidential information, every company must run its own server. A failure of the server, such as a leak of the master keys from the server, can reveal all of the company's information. This is the kind of task that should not be outsourced. In contrast, the key server of a public-key-based system is much easier to outsource as it can be designed so as not to be critical for security. - The TriStrata solution does not allow a user that is off-line to access any encrypted files. A salesman that keeps his data encrypted on his portable computer cannot access the data without contacting the TESS. If he cannot get network access for some reason (e.g., on an airplane, mismatched phone plug, etc.), he cannot access his own files. The TriStrata solution is a return to a very old style of centralized key management. For some applications this is a good solution, but there are many situations in which a centralized server is not appropriate. For example, one function that a central server cannot do well is non-repudiation between adversarial parties (one of the critical functions in electronic commerce). The TESS system seems to provide non-repudiation through inspection of the logs of the TESS. But if a message is sent between two companies, which TESS do they use? The company that owns the TESS that is used can manipulate the logs in their own favor. The end result is that there is no watertight proof that the message was sent or received. In effect, this solution takes us back to the days before public-key cryptography. Since its invention in the late 1970s, the ideas of certificates, public key infrastructure, decentralized key management, separation of encryption and digital signature functions, etc., have all been implemented in response to insecurities in centralized systems. For example, public-key infrastructures use trusted third parties like the TESS, but in a public-key system, compromise of the trusted third party only allows an attacker to issue false certificates, not to decrypt and read messages. 3.2 Authentication We have no further information on the PAL protocol. The documentation does state that the communication with the TESS consists of a single message from the user to the TESS, and a single reply back. Elsewhere it says that the TESS is stateless, which makes it easy to do a fail-over should one TESS fail. It is not clear to the reviewers how the PAL protocol works, if we assume it consists of two messages and is stateless for the TESS. These two properties together would suggest that an attacker can replay requests to the TESS. If nothing else, this introduces fake entries in the audit log. Some of these attacks can be hindered by the use of local clocks, but every solution along these lines we have ever seen is always troubled by clock synchronization problems. We note that the PAL protocol is critical for the security of the overall system. If an attacker can impersonate another user, then he can request the proper permit from the TESS to decrypt a file, and will get access regardless of the security of the actual encryption algorithm. The PAL protocol deserves careful scrutiny before the TriStrata system is put to use. The most straightforward attack against the TriStrata system is to introduce some hostile code into the client's PC (for example, a virus or Trojan horse). This hostile code can then steal the necessary authentication information and send it back to the attacker. This type of attack is a generic attack against any security system, not just the TriStrata system, but it shows that the "provable security" is at best limited to a small part of the system and does not extend to the whole system. 3.3 Encryption To put it bluntly: the TriStrata system does not use the one-time pad system (Vernam cipher) for encryption. A true one-time pad uses a random key that is distributed through a separate secure channel. While a one-time pad is, in fact, theoretically unbreakable when used properly, the details of using it properly make it entirely unusable in any modern commercial or military setting. A true one-time pad gains its unbreakable security from the fact that the key is as long as the message. Since all keys are equally likely, and a particular ciphertext could represent any message, given a particular key, the ciphertext reveals nothing about the plaintext message without the correct key. These random keys must be entirely random; this usually requires generating them from some external random source (such as thermal noise or radioactive decay). And both the sender and the receiver must have this secret key, which must be exchanged in some fashion which the attacker cannot penetrate. The requirement that the keys be as long as the data to be exchanged and that the key needs to be transported via some secure mechanism makes the one-time pad system entirely impractical. In order to send a 1 MB message, the sender and receiver must exchange a 1 MB-long key. Then the sender could send the message and the receiver could use the key to decrypt it. The key would then have to be thrown away and never used again. If the sender wanted to exchange messages with a hundred people, he would have to pre-agree on different keys between each recipient. For a company with a thousand employees, this means that there are 499,500 different key sets, which need to be replenished any time they are exhausted by message exchange. Because the key has to be as long as the message, there is no way to use an established system to exchange more keys, since in order to securely send as 1 MB key a user needs 1 MB of additional pre-agreed key. (And if users can exchange these keys, why can't they just exchange the messages?) This means that all keys have to be exchanged via some other mechanism (such as a courier). This kind of system was used for the U.S.-Soviet teletype "hot line" and it is occasionally used for paper ciphers and spies, but that's it. There is no way in which a true one-time pad can be implemented over a computer network. From the information provided by TriStrata, we believe that the encryption method used is a keystream method where an algorithm generates a key stream which is then XORed with the plaintext to generate the ciphertext. This is known as a pseudo one-time pad, and is also called an OFB stream cipher. One of the modes of DES works in this manner, as does the RC4 encryption algorithm. This is not new technology. A pseudo one-time pad encryption algorithm can be secure, but claiming that it is secure because it is based on the one-time pad is ridiculous. The strength of the cipher algorithm depends on the method used to generate the key stream. The speed given for the encryption method is fairly fast, but without knowing what platform was used to achieve these speeds, no sensible comparison can be made. To give some comparison material: the leading candidates for the AES block cipher encryption standard can encrypt data in about 18 clock-cycles per byte on a Pentium II. A standard 350 MHz desktop machine thus achieves nearly 20 Mbytes per second. This compares to the TriStrata claimed speed of 36 Mbytes per second for a standard desktop machine. The TriStrata figures are faster, but only by a factor of two. This would be a nice speedup, but it does not present a fundamental breakthrough in speed. Reference 4 is a magazine article report that contains more information about the encryption algorithm. As with any magazine article, the accuracy of the information is hard to judge. Nevertheless, the information it provides fits well with the information we have from TriStrata. The TESS generates a single 1 Mbyte block of random data using a hardware random number generator. This block is distributed to all clients. (A second block is used for authentication, but we have no further information on the algorithm.) The encryption algorithm keeps several pointers into this random block and derives the random key stream from the data the pointers point to. This is a known technique, first used by Maurer in his randomized cipher [Reference 5]. The TriStrata documentation talks about a virtual keystream of over 10^30 bytes, which would correspond to 5 pointers into a 1 Mbyte block. This suggests an effective key size of at most 100 bits. On the other hand, the website also claims that it would take 3.5 x 10^33 years to defeat one TriStrata-encrypted message, which would suggest either a larger key space or a fundamental misunderstanding of the mathematical properties of Maurer's system. The random block is the same for all the clients. It has to be, as the client that does the decryption needs the same random block as the client that does the encryption (and sending 1 Mbyte blocks around in the permit is too slow). Therefore, we cannot view this random block as a secret. After all, a secret shared amongst thousands of users is not a secret any more. If we want a more conventional representation of the encryption algorithm, we can represent the random block as a randomly generated 20 by 8-bit S-box. We have no knowledge about the details of this encryption algorithm, but the most straightforward variants of this type are susceptible to a meet-in-the-middle attack on the pointer space. This could reduce the effective key size to as little as 60 bits. The journalist did a speed test of TriStrata's file encryption utility. On a 200 MHz Pentium Pro, 128 MB RAM and PCI Ultra-SCSI disk subsystem it encrypted a 58 MB file in 18 seconds. This corresponds to a speed of 3.2 Mbytes per second. Presumably this speed is limited by the speed of the disk I/O. On this platform a traditional encryption algorithm such as Blowfish can encrypt at 10 Mbytes per second; the super-fast RKS encryption is presumably faster than this. Although this test does not give us any real speed data, it does show that encryption speed is not the bottleneck in most situations. In this situation, the disk I/O is much slower than the cryptography, making the encryption speed irrelevant. 3.5 Proprietary Encryption Algorithms The nature of cryptography is such that there is no way to prove that a cipher is secure, since this amounts to proving a negative assertion: that there is no way to break it easily. Anyone, from the most unsophisticated amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can't break. What is hard is creating an algorithm that no one else can break, even after years of analysis. And the only way to prove that is to subject an algorithm to years of analysis by the best cryptographers around. Because of this situation, the only recognized criterion for secure cryptographic systems is peer review: having other cryptographers examine a cipher and attack it. Even cryptographic organizations which operate in secret, such as the NSA, have an extensive internal peer review system. >From past experience we know that systems that are kept secret and presented as "provably secure," "unbreakable," "a new fundamental technology," or "one-time pad" are usually not very good at all. Those who say these things generally do not understand the current state-of-the-art of mathematical cryptography, and make fundamental mistakes in their system design. Encryption algorithms that are unpublished have a dismal record. The literature is littered with the corpses of encryption algorithms that were broken once they were published. Until TriStrata publishes its algorithm and it is open to peer review there is no professional reason to presume it is secure. 4.0 The Real Problem in Security Systems It is interesting to note that TriStrata gives a lot of attention to the encryption algorithm. From all the problems that security systems face at the moment, the encryption algorithm is probably the least important one. There are many good encryption algorithms available in the published literature that can be used for free. TriStrata chose to develop their own algorithm. Although this can be a lot of fun, it is a decision that is hard to justify, as new algorithms can only be considered secure after an ample time of peer review. Cryptographic systems are broken constantly, but the attacks are almost never against the algorithms. The really difficult problems in security systems are key distribution, management, reliability, robustness, etc. TriStrata uses the solution of having a central server, as necessitated by its choice of encryption technology. This solution is suitable in some situations, but there are many problems that cannot be handled by this approach. In fact, the problems associated with central servers and centralized key distribution have been driving the development of public-key--based systems for the last two decades. TriStrata, by implementing a Maurer-style randomized stream cipher and the centralized key management it requires, has taken the one piece of the cryptographic puzzle that we can solve--symmetric encryption--and made what they perceive to be security improvements. However, they did this at the expense of the really hard problems in cryptography...ones that their system does not seem to adequately solve. 4.1 Trust and Security Systems Whenever someone buys a commercial product, he is trusting that the manufacturer did a good job designing and building the product. This is especially important with security products. If someone buys a word processor and it does not perform as advertised (e.g., the print function does not work), he will eventually notice (he won't be able to print his documents). If someone buys an encryption product, it can function normally (encrypting and decrypting documents successfully), but that is no indication that it is secure. Security is completely separate from functionality, and no amount of beta testing can ever uncover a security flaw. In the commercial world, we rely on the public review process to evalute the security of systems. Internet security infrastructures, such as IPSec, PKIX, and SSL, have been discussed and debated for years. Versions have been proposed, security flaws have been found, fixes have been implemented, and so on. Cryptographic algorithms in these protocols are ones that have been around for years, and have had extensive cryptographic review by the best in the field. Even this is no guarantee of security--implementation flaws are found (and fixed) in the code that implements these protocols, but it establishes a certain degree of confidence. TriStrata has chosen to ignore all public standards in favor of their own proprietary technology, while at the same time refusing to make technical details of their technology public. In order to use their system, the purchaser must trust that their cryptographers are better than the collective wisdom of the world's academic cryptographers, that their protocol designers are better than everyone who has worked on the open Internet protocols over the last few years, that their implementers are better than everyone who has made and evaluated the public implementations of those protocols. The purchaser must trust that TriStrata's misuse of the academic terminology does not reflect a misunderstanding of that technology, and that their technology is so much better than what everyone else has agreed upon that it makes sense to make that leap of faith. In the end, a star-studded board of directors and upper management does not obviate the need for good science, open systems, and peer review. It's simply foolish to trust a system that has not been evaluated. 5.0 Conclusions A system like TriStrata's can be made to work within its limitations. It is certainly not the universal solution to the world's security problems. However, there is a huge amount of hype and very little substance to the documentation. Many of the statements made are incomplete, vague, or suggest facts which cannot be true. The cryptographic claims are wild and unsubstantiated. Parts are clearly written by someone who does not understand modern cryptography, and who is not well versed in the cryptographic literature. Certain areas of the documentation give the impression that they were written with the intent to deceive the reader, but ignorance is probably a better explanation. Based on past experience with systems that made similar unsupported security claims, we are very skeptical about the security of the TriStrata system. We reviewed the system as we have reconstructed it from various hints in the text, as well as conversations with people who have been involved with the system. Until TriStrata releases technical information about its product, it is not possible to give a complete evaluation of their technology. References: [1] TriStrata web site, http://www.tristrata.com, on Sept. 22nd, 1998. [2] Walter Hamscher, Alastair MacWillson, and Paul Turner, "Electronic Business Without Fear: The TriStrata Security Architecture," Price Waterhouse. [3] "Building a Secure Future with CTR Business Systems and TriStrata Security," leaflet. [4] Dan Backman, "TriStrata: A Giant Step In Enterprise Security," Network Computing Magazine, 15 September 1998. Online, http://www.nwc.com/915/915sp1.html [5] Ueli M. Maurer, "A Provably-Secure Strongly-Randomized Cipher," Advances in Cryptology -- Eurocrypt '90 Proceedings, Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 361--373. ********************************************************************** Bruce Schneier, President, Counterpane Systems Phone: 612-823-1098 101 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55419 Fax: 612-823-1590 Free crypto newsletter. See: http://www.counterpane.com

1 0