December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: A favor re Detweiler
by dmandl＠lehman.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: hfinney(a)shell.portal.com (Hal Finney) > > I'd like to expend some "reputation capital" here and ask people for a > favor. I am worried about Larry Detweiler's obvious mental anguish. We > tend to forget that we are dealing with real people on the net, flesh > and blood human beings. Larry is obviously going through genuine > difficulties here. As a member of our virtual community, I ask that we > show him some compassion and consideration. I agree. I was just about to post a message saying the same thing. At this point, some of the anti-L.D. posts are becoming downright cruel, and in my eyes amount to kicking a man when he's down. Why don't you give it (and him) a little rest? --Dave.

1 0

Thanks for the exposure
by jamie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Still posting my phone number, asshole? Are you really trying to pick a fight? Do you truly want to see how I can squash a bug like thee? Better start looking over your shoulder. Don't forget, gutless wonder, I CONTROL YOU. You will never forget me. You can't touch a keyboard without thinking of me. I control you. And always will. You no longer have any independent thought. I lead my life of wonder; filled with friends and play. You are insignificant, and don't cross my mind until someone tells me of your posts. But you have no choice but to sit and think of me. I control you. Everytime you see the word "cypherpunks" you'll know I control you. And I always will. Everytime you hear a modem or see an ethernet cable, you'll know I control you. Soon, you'll be able to think of nothing but me, and then the control will be complete. Get a life, asshole. ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: Subliminal Channels
by George A. Gleason 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One last point on subliminal advertising... (yeah this is a digress but anyway)... Subliminal stimuli can be considered an induction procedure for an individual behavior change. Nondrug inductions of every kind (i.e. meditation, hypnosis, lucid dream techniques, concentration and memory techniques, progressive relaxation, biofeedback training, etc....) produce variable results on a population sample; typically the results fall along a normal curve wherein some people are strongly affected, some are moderately affected, and some are affected very little if at all. The relevance to advertising is, if a technique can reach perhaps 5% of your readership and then cause 5% of those to alter their behavior favorably toward your product, you've got a quarter of a percent of the market who at least try your product once. In the world of mass marketing, that small number adds up. If you were an ad executive, would you voluntarily give up a tool that can add market share...? Also, the heaviest users of certain categories of products, notably alcohol, are also people who are notoriously suggestible, in the sense that they are already over-reacting to their environment and are using large amounts of alcohol in part to self-medicate against that. Heavy users of any product are usually seeking to fulfill some psychological need, a secondary need which can be manipulated far more easily than can the simpler needs of the average consumers. This increases the effectiveness of any psychologically-loaded selling technique. I believe Key goes overboard in his own writings, but on the other hand I've discovered so many examples of this kind of thing that there's no denying it's going on. Some of these are so blatant I can show the picture to an untrained observer and say "what do you think of this?" and s/he immediately spots the embedded item. On the other hand, these days there are other techniques, some far less subtle; for instance, the ads (particularly billboards) for beverages which show them spurting ejaculatorily from very phallic bottles... advertisers use anything which works, and that leaves a whole lot to choose from. anyway, back to our regular channel... -gg

1 0

Re: Subliminal Channels
by George A. Gleason 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Okay, one last post from me on this subject.... An academic text was published in the late 70s or early 80s on this, the title was _Subliminal Stimulation_ if I remember correctly. Most decent university psych libraries should have a copy. I don't recall the author or editor's name, though I did read it while an undergrad. The gist of it was that there *is* an effect but it's *fairly small* in terms of the subject population. As I said before, any induction procedure will work for some segment of the population, so it's not surprising. I have to put myself in the middle on this arguement. On one hand I think Key went overboard; it would seem that what happened was he spent his professional life doing advertising and then someone pointed out something that was going on, and he over-reacted in the manner of anyone who suddenly finds he's unwittingly been violating his own morals. I would suggest that some of the stuff he's trying to point to is valid, but a lot of it is improbable to the point where I think a clinically trained observer might see signs of paranoia. Now on the other hand, I've found too many really blatant examples of psychologically devious advertising techniques to write this stuff off entirely. The point isn't whether Key is a great whistle-blower or a raving loonie; it isn't even whether there are forests of hidden genitals growing in ad illustrations... the point is whether the effect of saturation in psychologically-loaded high-production media aimed toward promoting passive consumerism is healthy for a culture or for the free will and dignity of its members. And I would say it certainly is not. -gg

1 0

TRAITORS to the CAUSE
by dinkelacker＠cypherpunks.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The latest LD rant talks about the great cypherpunk cause, to which he has lent his time, and how it has been "contaminated", "tainted", and "poisoned" by EVIL TREACHEROUS individuals on this group. These individuals have misrepresented "basic cypherpunk goals" Finally, he demands reparation for his "mental anguish" from Tim May to be posted to talk.politics.crypto. I have a sudden urge to say "Get a Life" for some reason. I think Detweiler was operating under some kind of delusion when he joined this list which is responsible for his anguish. From my analysis, it seems LD was under the impression that he was joining some great social activist movement similar to all the other fringe groups out there, and that the cypherpunks had some noble cause of liberation/crypto-ethics. However, when I first subscribed to the list (roughly a few weeks after it was set up), I was told the purpose of this group was to simply discuss crypto, implications of it, and coordination of crypto-projects like remailers, digicash systems, pgp, etc. Could it be that Lance is looking for ethics on a mailing list whose motto is "cypherpunks write code" (with no limitations on what kind of code that will be, including even pseudospoofing software) [ All of LD's points are technically incorrect anyway because crypto can be used for both authenication and privacy. (e.g. digital signatures being "accoutable" legally to the authority which certified/signed them. Contrary to his rants, digi-sig nyms can be as tracable as real signatures, even more so depending on how strict you are on your trust model)] We've been accused of being conspirators, evil traitors, exploiters, abusers, and who knows what else, and I'm getting annoyed by it. So I'm making a proposal. Let's implement Detweiler's philosophy of having everyone accountable. Using the Extropian's list software, this list could prevent anyone who isn't voice validated from posting to the list. And as a first step to improving S/N ratio, I recommend we use the list software's filtering features to outright censor Detweiler, and any other idiot ranters (plus all anonymous posters) from the list. I also recommend a list justice code similar to the Extropian's list where anyone can be PUNISHED for not obeying the Great and Holy Cypherpunk's cause. As a requirement of the NEW ORDER (under the new software), all new subscribers will be required to take a pledge of denouncing pseudospoofing in talk.politics.crypto before their posting priveleges are turned on. Sam Will The Cypherpunks Pledge: "I hereby proclaim that pseudospoofers are the most vile and disgusting criminals on the face of the earth. As a cypherpunk, I pledge to fight for a world where children go to sleep at night secure in the knowledge that anyone they meet will be who they claim they are."

1 0

The Anonymous service needs your help.
by Johan Helsingius 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry to interrupt the Detweiler thread, but... As of last week, my server has been sending the following message to active users of my anonymous service. I am turning to you, fellow cypherpunks, not for monetary support (albeit that is of course welcome, too) but to ask for ideas on how to arrange the payment mechanism - and to avoid taxes, currency export problems etc. Maybe I should seek the help of a non-profit organisation such as EFF to handle the transfers? Julf - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Subject: The Anonymous service needs your help. Hi! You have just used the anonymous server at anon.penet.fi. When I set it up, almost a year ago, I definitely could not foresee how popular it would become. It now has something like 45.000 registered users, wuth maybe 10.000 active users. Thousands of mesages are handled each day. Unfortunately, the popularity of the server might also be it's downfall. At the start, it was easy to handle all the problems and the queries, and to pay for the network connection. But now I spend 4-5 hours every day trying to answer questions, fix problems and deal with abusers - but I keep getting further and further behind on my mailbox. And the traffic is overloading the 64K international connection - I already had to cut out the binary postings. It now costs me something close to USD 1500/month just to keep the machine connected. I'm afraid I can't afford the time and the money much longer. And unless there suddenly turns up some benevolent big sponsor, the only hope for survival for the service is contributions from individual users. If all the 10.000 active users would each contribute $5, it would pay for the costs of running the service for a full year, as well as allowing me to employ one or two part-time students to reply to mail queries, improve the service, and report abuse - allowing me to concentrate on improving the software and dealing with the abuse cases. So I'm asking you - how much would you be willing to contribute? Use of the server will always be free, but continuing the service needs soem funds. At this stage, I only need to know how much you are willing to contribute - $1, $5, $25, $100? The replies will determine the need to set up some kind of money transfer system. Please send your replies to donations(a)penet.fi. Julf

1 0

how to sign on to the cypherpunks listserver
by John M. Keaty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can you give me instructions on how to sign on to the cypherpunks listserver? Thanks John Keaty keaty(a)vnet.ibm.com

1 0

updated text of the MTTF paper
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What I sent out was dashed together last June and never polished. Here's text after one re-write... - Carl (Equations haven't changed...) -------------------------------------------------------------------- \documentstyle[12pt]{article} \begin{document} \title{MTTF of Various Systems} \author{Carl M. Ellison \thanks{Stratus Computer Inc., 55 Fairbanks Blvd., Marlborough MA 01752. Email address: {\tt cme(a)sw.stratus.com}.}} \date{October 25, 1993} \maketitle \begin{abstract} Expressions are presented for the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) of various redundant systems, as a function of the number of nodes in the system, N, and the minimum number of nodes in a working system, K. Failure of a system is defined as having fewer than K working nodes. \end{abstract} \section{Expressions} Redundant systems are employed both to increase availability and to achieve preservation of data. Expressions for the availability of a redundant system are to be found in normal probability and statistics texts. [See for example, Kishor S. Trivedi, "Probability and Statistics with Reliability, Queuing, and Computer Science Applications" from Prentice-Hall, 1982.] These assume that once a system has recovered from total failure, it is as usable as it was before the system failure. Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) is concerned with the case that once a system has achieved total failure, something is lost. This might apply to redundant disks, for example. The expressions presented below are for the MTTF of various redundant systems, as a function of the number of nodes in the system, N, and the minimum number of nodes in a working system, K. Failure of a system is defined as having fewer than K working nodes. Often, K=1 and each node has a complete copy of each database. However, sometimes the data can be kept on multple nodes (as in a RAID-5 disk array) which will tolerate some failures, down to a given threshold, K > 1. It is assumed that as soon as a failure occurs, a repair cycle will be started. There is then a race to see if the repair can be completed before enough additional nodes fail to drop the working number below K. The expressions below were derived from custom Markov chains, each built to model a given choice of N and K. It is assumed that both failures and repairs are exponentially distributed random events (so that the Markov chains remain memoryless). This is a reasonable model for failures but not for repairs. Therefore, these expressions are approximations. The expressions also assume that all failure events are independent. For example, a multi-node system in which all nodes are on the same power grid would not have completely independent failure events. N: number of nodes in a full system K: number of nodes in a minimally functional system $\lambda$: rate of failures (e.g., number of node failures per year) $\mu$: rate of node repair (in the same units as $\lambda$) Each fraction below is the MTTF of the whole system: the mean time until a system drops to (K-1) working nodes. N = 2 ; K = 1 \begin{equation} \frac { 3\lambda + 1\mu }{ 2\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 3 ; K = 1 \begin{equation} \frac { 11\lambda^2 + 4\lambda\mu + 1\mu^2 }{ 6\lambda^3 } \end{equation} N = 3 ; K = 2 \begin{equation} \frac{ 5\lambda + \mu }{ 6\lambda^2 } \end{equation} N = 4 ; K = 1 \begin{equation} \frac { 50\lambda^3 + 18\lambda^2\mu + 5\lambda\mu^2 + 1\mu^3 }{ 24\lambda^4 } \end{equation} [etc.] \end{document}

1 0

Re: ADMIN: proposed new policy
by koontzd＠lrcs.loral.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I like the idea of encouraging people to digitally sign messages. I >also decided to try out ripem to see what its signed documents look >like. It seems if transmissions to a list must pass through a server, then the server should be used for authentication. Otherwise, the entire thing is nothing but wasted bandwidth and `visual noise`. (Unless it is meant as make work for a three letter agency).

1 0

Stupid childish crap cluttering the list
by nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello, out there? The list is getting really badly cluttered with all this "lets rag on LD since he doesn't agree with us" shit. "Operation Medusa" -- come on, it was a little bit funny for a while, but I think that you can find better things to do with your time than dedicate yourself to the annoyance of someone, based on the fact that they hold different views about certain topics near and dear to the hearts of some subscribers. Some of us are here to try and change things - remember that clipper thing that so many (I think it damn near all of us) of us were up in arms about? It's still out there. LD is not the enemy, he's just one of us who holds a different view... So what if he thinks there should be no pseudospoofing.... let's kill him? I think not. I think that most of the list is in agreement with the idea of _not_ requiring signatures on messages. Fine. There, that's it. Done. Some of us, me included, try to sign mail whenever possible. Maybe it's to set an example, maybe it's just to verify that we are who we say we are. I even sign some of the mail that doesn't go to the list, just to get people to ask what the hell it is -- it's raising the public awareness. But, I digress. LD has told me that he is leaving the list. Some of you may cheer, some (the more intelligent of you, IMHO), will mourn the loss. LD could, at times, rant a bit, but he was a contributing member of the list. He had _many_ good things to say, and he is a very dedicated to privacy (read the "Privacy and Anonymity on the Net" FAQ?) and changing things. It _really_ pisses me off to see the little armchair Cypherpunks all gang up when they see someone down. "Oooo, oooo, LD's not in good favor with the rest of the guys, let's lick 'em" Sounds like a bunch of fucking Beevis and Butthead fans (pardon my french). Maybe if you guys were spending more time writing code or making the public more aware of what the problem is and who's here to fix it, you wouldn't have the time to organize campaigns for annoyance. For a while, everyone thought that LD was objecting to people being able to post anonymously (wheather it be through anon.penet.fi or bounced off of a remailer)... that was not (I believe) his point. He objected to people posing as other people (who had established reputations, etc). He wanted to outlaw (in a sense) this act. I disagree with him here, since I cannot think of how to absolutely outlaw it (since saying "don't do that, it's against the law" seldom works), but I can think of how to prevent it. Sign messages. Don't do it if you don't want to, and don't complain when people spoof as you because you don't ever sign the messages. I agree with LD on the idea that posing as someone else with intent to confuse (LD's "evil black posts" as he calls them) is wrong. If you are trying to pursuade someone (or confuse them), you should be smart enough to do it by being anonymous (again, through anon.penet.fi or through a remailer) or by being yourself. You should not need to hide behind someone else's identity. Well, there's my opinion, please get off the subject of ragging on LD, and get back on the track of changing the world. - -nate - -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nate Sammons email: nate(a)VIS.ColoState.Edu | Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory | Finger nate(a)monet.VIS.ColoState.Edu for my PGP key | Key fingerprint = 2D CD 07 CA 7B EC A8 4A 86 7F F3 A8 1D 15 65 46 | Title 18 USC 2511 and 18 USC 2703 Protected --> Monitoring Forbidden +--------+ Guerrilla Cryptographer Always remember "Brazil"

2 1