December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: UPSs
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-19 18:48:51 EST, Shane.Pearson(a)tafensw.edu.au writes: << A simple low pass filter made of 2 large inductors and a few high voltage capacitors will do the trick nicely. >> Right. The filtering that's already in the power-supply (except that the switching transformer isn't as big as an inductor as a normal old-style power transformer. Stan

1 0

Re: A little Paranoid, William?
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-19 18:21:57 EST, mgraffam(a)mhv.net writes: << I've heard it said 'Paranoia is reality on a finer scale.' I believe it. If you think that signing messages is paranoia, you may be right.. I, for one, _am_ paranoid. I know the practical attacks that can be made, and I've seen them work and, and demonstrated how easy they are. Worse, I've experienced them. Maybe you haven't .. and thats good. I hope your good luck continues. >> Actually, my presence here amongst the cypherpunks is a direct RESULT of one of those attacks. But I can deal with it without getting paranoid. And you might be correct about paranoia and reality. Stan

1 0

Re: Chicken "anons" and "nobody's"
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-20 15:56:14 EST, nobody(a)REPLAY.COM writes: << Stan, whose mind is held hostage by the heathens at A(h)OL, >> You idiot, AOL is with YOU (AOL is part of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy')! See my political page. Stan, http://members.aol.com/StanSquncr/

1 0

Re: Chicken "anons" and "nobody's"
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-19 16:58:32 EST, n9505834(a)garbo.nepean.uws.edu.au writes: << > << Well, Stan, all of the news you read ultimately comes from the one person > selected by Clinton to drive The Propoganda Machine up in Washington, DC. >> > > And what planet do you live on? Yar, everybody knows that it is Rupid Murdoc who runs all the news. >> Well, he runs a large part of the 'show' (Fox news (which has on all the Republican't favorites on sundays)). Stan

1 0

Re: UPSs
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-19 18:29:55 EST, mgraffam(a)mhv.net writes: << >BUT, even the fastest electronics cannot respond fast enough to the initial >spike, if that spike is too high in the first place (if your incoming power >lines get hit by lightning, for instance), it's already too late. My >suggestion, don't trust a UPS to eliminate spikes, get it if you > anticipate a need for back-up power to shut down your system in case of > black-out (and screw the surge protectors, trust the filtering in your > power supply to do that for you.) See.. now.. you're clearly talking about power protection.. but, you see we _weren't_ talking about power outages, we were talking about compromising emanations being sent through power lines.. and as far as the UPS goes, whether or not a UPS would help such muffle such emanations. >> Right. That's why I pointed out that you shouldn't use a UPS and expect it to prevent large surges (such as the type that occurs when lightning hits your incoming power. So, my statement was NOT stupid, your attack on it was. :-) Stan

1 0

Re: UPSs (yeah, it's off topic)
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-20 16:23:56 EST, spectre(a)anthrax.net writes: << At 16:03 3/20/98 , Bob De Witt wrote: >Stan needs to review his basic electronics. Yes, it will even protect >against lighting if designed for that purpose. Costs vary accordingly ... I think stan just confused UPS's with power strips. >> Obviously, you're just confused. :-) << PGP key available from servers. >> So where's your PGP signiture? Stan

3 4

Re: UPSs
by StanSquncr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 98-03-20 16:04:24 EST, rdew(a)el.nec.com writes: << If your surge protector is a semi-conductor, it probably will be self-limiting. That is, it will reach a maximum block, and pass whatever is above that. >> Yes, but what you fail to point out, is the reason it will pass everything, it will have been blown (shorted, most likely). So, because you failed to point this out, I figure the rest of your response isn't worth responding to. Stan

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > It is only now, in supporting your viewpoint out of sheer > > > contrariness, as opposed to being in agreement, that I have > > > finally figured out that your stance is a true CypherPunk > > > position. I have long held that most of those passing through the hallowed halls of the cypherpunks list are not cypherpunks, but entities who are striving to become cypherpunks--once they succeed, most of them move on to other pursuits and activities. Thank God that there are those who maintain their presence on the list over long enough periods of time to help newbies and neophytes to develop a cypherpunk frame of mind. > > > The InterNet is truly a macrocosm of the many societal > > > microcosms already in existence. It is up to each and every > > > one of us to fit into our environment, strive to change it, > > > or abandon it for a different environment. > > > > Yikes! Profound shit, Toto. How come you didn't post this to the > > list? Are you pulling my cyber-leg? Ross Wright, spam-promoter extraordinare, has become so gun-shy that he can no longer recognize the difference between sarcasm and a post by someone who recognizes that all alleged 'spammers' cannot be lumped into the same stereotypical melting pot. There are those who send 60 million emails out to Dog-and-everybody, without regard to suitability to their sensibilities, and there are those who strive to target their emails toward those who may actually have an interest in their offerings. Life itself is a double-edged sword. To compete with the shotgun spammers, those who wish to target an audience which is likely to have a specific interest in their product or cause have need of a database which will help them to categorize the interests of those who traverse the WWW. In doing so, they run the risk of being lumped in with those who use the same technology to monitor the same users in order to work against their self-interest. > > > "Who will help me be a self-actualized individual?" said the > > > New-Age California Little Red Hen. Nobody. For an extended explaination, read Horatio Alger. PrecedentMonger II

1 0

Re: Does Spamming Really Exist? / Re: Will New Sendmail Blo
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David: Blah blah blah, theft of services, blah, oh mr. government: please deliver us from spam, blah, blah, blah. TruthMonger wrote one on the best pieces on spam, and you come up with the same old SHIT! Just because you repeat "theft of services" won't make it true. Blah blah, make spammers pay blah blah. Shut up, and hit delete! You fucktard. Spam is not crime, it is commerce! On or About 20 Mar 98 at 17:06, David Scheidt wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, TruthMonger wrote: > > > Spamming is an 'imaginary' felony, as are anonymity and > > encryption. > > Spamming is theft of services, sir. I am forced to pay for a > "service" that I did not request. I, and everyone else, pays for > spam either directly in connect time, or because my ISP wastes > bandwidth handling the stuff. I am not that much bothered by that > it is advertising, or pure junk, but that I pay for it. > > > > To really beat spamming we probably need filters that only allow > > > messages from inside our web of trust. Don't you agree? > > Make people bear the true cost of spam, and it will stop. > =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://ross.adnetsol.com Voice: (408) 259-2795

1 0

Re: Does Spamming Really Exist? / Re: Will New Sendmail Blo
by David Scheidt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Ross Wright wrote: > Spam is not crime, it is commerce! Spam is commerce with the costs borne by the wrong party.

1 0