December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Sorry for the "TWIT" messages
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Well seems I had a rather intresting morining. :) After receiving several "Phreak messages I went to modify my "twit" scripts. Unfortunatly the changes I made caused ~50 "twit" messages to go out. My appologies to anyone who received these messages. Thanks, -- ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!! Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of PGPMR2 - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice Look for MR/2 Tips & Rexx Scripts Get Work Place Shell for Windows!! PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii(a)amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info ----------------------------------------------------------- *MR/2 ICE: OS/2: Logic, not magic.

1 0

PRIVACY: X-No-Archive and mail.cypherpunks
by varange＠crl.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home <ichudov(a)algebra.com> writing [ 1422] bytes in <$m2n26165-.199612031615.KAA03400(a)manifold.algebra.com> said: > This is primarily addressed to the person who supports cypherpunks > mail-to-news gateway. If you know who such person is, please send > his/her address to me. > > Please modify your reposting program so that it does not remove the > > X-No-Archive: yes > > header line from email messages. This particular header line is an > indication to USENET search engines that the author of the message would > not like it to be stored in these engines. It preserves the author's > privacy and enforces the copyright protection. "X-No-Archive: yes" is for idiots. Who wants to censor their own posts? -- Cheers!

3 2

No Subject
by logos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An anonymous poster wrote: >Timothy C[*] May, a product of a* birth, appeared with >coathanger through his head. >/o)\ Timothy C[*] May >\(o/ I respectfully ask that the author of this post contact me. I am curious about his or her motives and would appreciate it if he or she would address these questions: 1) Why are you attacking Tim May? Has he harmed you in some way? 2) Do you think such posts harm Tim May or help you in some fashion? 3) What do you hope to accomplish by these posts? 4) Do you favor the use of strong cryptography to preserve privacy? 5) If Yes, do you think such posts are constructive to that end? If No, is it your intent that your posts harm the cause of strong cryptography and privacy? 6) Why have you chosen to hide your true identity? Logos out

4 3

Angel and Javier can't unsubscribe!
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:46 PM -0400 12/3/96, Angel Luis Ortiz Ruiz wrote: > > Friend: Thank's for your asnswer but I already do that. The server say >that I'm not in the list but I still reacive the messages. Thankx And then there was another message: At 6:00 PM -0400 12/3/96, Javier Rivera wrote: > Friend: Thank's for your asnswer but I already do that. The >server say that I'm not in the list but I still reacive the messages. >Thankx again! Both seemed to come from "zeen(a)caribe.net". One under the Ruiz name, the other under the Rivera name. And similar messages, both in broken English. I suggest Angel and Javier get together and decide which one of them is the name they or it subscribed under, and use that. Oh, and I have a sneaking suspicion they sent in the increasingly-canonical "unsuscribe" or "unscribe" misspelling. I'm beginning to think that Cypherpunks appeals especially to morons. --Tim May To subscribe to the Cypherpunks mailing list: -send a message to: majordomo(a)toad.com -body message of: subscribe cypherpunks To unsubscribe from the Cypherpunks mailing list: -send a message to: majordomo(a)toad.com -body message of: unsubscribe cypherpunks

2 1

Re: The Rise and Fall of Cypherpunks WAS [Re: the Dennings]
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

attila(a)primenet.com writes: > > we, and I mean all of us, who contribute the bulk of the > > "opinions" to cypherpunks gave the mainstream press the biggest > > possible hole to run straight over us, declaring us anarchists > > and wild-eyed fanatics. unless we as a group mend our ways, and > > turn out intelligent reasoning for the advance of cryptography as > > a mainstream way of life, we will be forever consigned not only to > > the dustbin, but subject to the ridicule of both the press and the > > government. Quite surprising. This proves (to me) that cypherpunks is nothing more than lipservice, covertly contributing to the death of the human spirit which most people seem to want. "Unless we as a group mend our ways", indeed. By whose standard of "mending"? If they construct the proper standard can they not control you by that choice? Is your goal in life to be controlled by the press and the government? > > None of us are above a little sarcasm --but let's get the > > vituperative effluent out of the system. do whatever you wish in > > private mail, but keep the profane rantings off the list. The very existance of the "profane" keeps the "sacred" in existance as well. If you cannot see that, then John Grubor's lesson is wasted on you. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet It is only knowledge that will destroy bias.

4 4

(no subject)
by Andrew Fairbanks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsuscribe cypherpunks

2 1

Re: Culling the proles with crypto anarchy
by Jeff Ubois 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The numbers quoted in the press were based on a study by the Cato Institute, "The Work Welfare Trade-Off: An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare Benefits by the State" by Michael Tanner, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman, September, 1995. It's at <http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html>. Extracts: * To match the value of welfare benefits, a mother with two children would have to earn as much as $36,400 in Hawaii or as little as $11,500 in Mississippi. * In New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Alaska, and Rhode Island, welfare pays more than a $12.00-an-hour job--or more than two and a half times the minimum wage. * In 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00-an-hour job. In 17 states the welfare package is more generous than a $10.00-an-hour job. * Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare provides the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York City, $12.45 in Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit. * In 9 states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a secretary. In 47 states welfare pays more than a janitor earns. Indeed, in the 6 most generous states, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a computer programmer. At 01:27 AM 12/3/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 4:06 PM -0500 11/27/96, Clay Olbon II wrote: >>At 12:46 PM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea <security(a)kinch.ark.com> wrote: > >>>I am not in a position to argue with you, I simply don't have the facts. >>>My question is, do You? can you cite where this figure came from, it >>>sounds like Republican rhetoric to me. Of course, I will point out, that >>>minimum wage is simply not enough to feed a family. It is (or at least >>>it should be) reserved for single folks just starting out. >> >>Can't give you the exact date, but it was an article in our local paper (The >>Detroit News). The $10 figure is not exact, as the actual number varies >>from state to state, I remember that number as being about average. > >I can confirm the gist of Clay's point: I saw a table listing "effective >hourly welfare pay" for the 50 states and D.C. This was in the "San Jose >Mercury News," at least 8-10 months ago (and presumably elsewhere, as it >was a major story). I used it in one of my articles, and gave the reference >then (sorry, not handy, and my own welfare rate does not pay me enough to >spend hours sifting through past articles for something so minor, an old >cite, that is). >

6 6

Re: Logos here
by logos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> wrote: > LOGOS <logos(a)c2.net> writes: > > > Sovereign collegues, > > You already sound like a jerk. Perhaps you should suspend judgment until you have the opportunity to evaluate the content of my posts. What are you antagonistic to the use of honorifics? > > I am Logos. I have adopted this pseudonym to conceal my > > 'true name'. I want the ideas which I shall be espousing > > to stand or fall on their own merits and not on the basis > > of biases that my name, sex, ethnicity, etc. might otherwise > > sexual preferences... Yes, that and other catagorizations which are irrelevant to the primary focus of this list. > That's right. You lack the decorum to spell either my > first name or my last name correctly. 'Decorum' has to do with polite behaviour. While I was certainly remiss in my hasty spelling of your name, it was not intentional, therefore not a lack of decorum. I do apologize for my negligence. I shall endeavor to spell you name correctly in the future. > "Cypher punks" are a gang of uncouth juveniles I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this comment. Was it made in response to my error in spelling? In any case, it is a good example of the informal logical fallacy of 'over generalization'. As I understand it, there are circa 1000 people subscribed to Cypherpunks. To paint an entire group with such a characterization is both illogical and unfair. I also question your use of the word 'uncouth'. I have seen no posts on Cypherpunks that were any more 'uncultured; crude; or boorish' than those posted by you. I am not saying that uncouth posts have not been made by others, but it is disingenuous for one to judge others by a standard that one does not apply to one's self. > What logic? "Cypher punks" such as Paul Bradley are incapable of > discussing a technical topic (such as Don Wood's IPG proposal) without > putting "(spit)" after Don's name I could be wrong, but I believe this was done as an intentional parody of your own similar posts. If it is illogical for Paul Bradley to do this, does it not follow that is was illogical when you did it as well? It is obvious to me that you are an intelligent person. I am concerned, however, with your apparent intellectual dishonesty. It would appear that you know perfectly well that your posts serve no purpose in the cause of promoting privacy through the use of cryptography. It is hard to draw any other conclusion then that you are intentionally being provocative for the purpose of disrupting the work of this list. If this is not so, I apologize, but how else can we judge your actions? Please step outside of yourself for a moment and give us an honest self-assessment of your behavior and the motives behind it. Respectfully yours, Logos out

2 1

PRIVACY: X-No-Archive and mail.cypherpunks
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, This is primarily addressed to the person who supports cypherpunks mail-to-news gateway. If you know who such person is, please send his/her address to me. Dear gateway maintainer, Please modify your reposting program so that it does not remove the X-No-Archive: yes header line from email messages. This particular header line is an indication to USENET search engines that the author of the message would not like it to be stored in these engines. It preserves the author's privacy and enforces the copyright protection. I am opposed to seeing my articles showing up in DejaNews and other search engines. All my emails and usenet postings have this header line. However, when cypherpunks-to-newsgroup gateway reposts all articles, it strips this header line. I believe it to be a mistake and hope that it will be corrected. Thank you. - Igor.

3 3

RE: Modulating the FM noise spectrum considered infeasible
by Charley Musselman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:38 AM 12/3/96 -0500, Bob Hettinga wrote: >At 9:52 am -0500 12/3/96, James A. Tunnicliffe wrote: >> At 2:55 am -0500 12/3/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >>> [...]Having said this, Johnson noise makes a superior noise source, > ^^^^^^^ >>> if a physical source is desired. ><snip> >>Yours makes NOISE? Impressive... >> >>In this case, I guess entropy is preferable to atrophy, though. :-) > >Indeed. > >I've found that my Johnson only makes noise with the proper, er, >peripheral, though... Geez, guys, what's this? Pound the physicist day? Johnson noise is the Brownian motion of electrons in an electronic circuit. It is the irreducible noise, often measured in temperature (obvious?) Cheers, Charley "We accomplish what we work at." | Rules from "We get better at what we practice." | childhood.

2 1