December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

More on the DES II contest.
by Trei Family 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Douglas F. Elznic and Lucky Green have both written saying that www.distributed.net will not be devoting their full effort to the DES II challenge. This is incorrect. www.distributed.net is a highly centralized effort, in which clients are almost completely controlled by the central site, with which they are in frequent communication. Over the past few weeks, the clients have been upgraded to a version containing dual search cores - they can search either rc5-64 or an arbitrary DES key. On the morning of the 13th, as soon as the DES II challenge data becomes available, their servers will stop issuing rc5-64 blocks and start issuing DES II blocks. The clients will all switch over to the DES II contest without any action by the owners of the client machines. I too would like to see a serious effort made at a 512 bit RSA key. However, the infrastructure for this is quite a bit more complex than a simple bruteforce against a symmetric key, and the organizers of d.n don't seem to be ready for it. My greatest fear with DES II is that if d.n finds the key early in the search, they may decide to sit on it until just before the 540 hour deadline. If they are the only group with a credible chance of finding the key (as far as I know, this is the case), then their payback is maximized by by this tactic, since the time limits for the June contest are determined by the speed with which the key is found in January. My personal impression is that d.n seems more motivated by the money, which they want to further their research on distributed computing, than they are by ideology. The above represent my personal, private views, and should neccesarily be attributed to my employer. Peter Trei trei(a)ziplink.net ptrei(a)hotmail.com (more reliable next week)

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd) > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 98 10:08:56 EST > David, you need to learn to read. > > "Art critic" != art, just like "lit crit" != literature. And you need to pay more attention as well. Being an art critic does not exclude the art in the act of critical review. The expression of emotional and intellectual consequence of the piece under review requires a creative act just as valid as the creation of the piece under review. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >Not just the scientific community... everyone. If an art critic declines >to publish something, its a loss probably only to his fellow art critics, >but if a mathematician or a biologist or a physicist doesn't publish, it's >a loss for more than just his colleagues. ......................................................................... There is a sense of loss of valuable information, once you know that it existed before you knew about it. Of course, there are a million and one things that we don't know today that we wish we knew, and which could help everyone who has the need for that special knowledge. 1) But it is also true that the Truth (the facts of nature and principles on what is possible - in mathematics, or any scientific pursuit) does not "go away" simply because one person's discovery is not conveyed to everyone. It remains true and in existence, waiting for anyone else to do the work of discovery, or for mankind itself to evolve into the kind of creature whose mind can grasp the principles involved. It is a loss not to know the achievements of a great scientist's work, but the facts themselves are not lost, they remain available for anyone who can think as well, to find them. 2) Scientists and other very original, competent people like to think they can do as well as any one else, and I imagine sometimes they consider insulting the proposition that they must depend upon the work of another in order to achieve understanding; that without it they would be unable to do as well. Isn't this one of the reasons for some of the conflicts between scientists over originality, and the jealousy over recognition? I went to an exhibit yesterday of Leonardo da Vinci, where I saw the 400 year old Codex Leicester. He was "a keen observer" of Nature, and from his detailed studies he learned much which provided his inventive mind with much material for creative works. The exhibit brings to mind not only his work, but the methods of such a great mind in reaching those heights and breadths. So in relation to this debate on the morality of not sharing: would it not be as good a thing to look toward method - to value and promote the ability to know how to think, how to observe properly, how to understand what is before oneself - than merely to consider ourselves dependent upon the _result_ of the work of certain others, bewailing their insensitivity when they fail to share with us what they obtained for themselves? Because this does go in the direction of thinking in terms of "obligation", which is rather unappreciative of their unique & separate identity. .. Blanc

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 98 23:48:06 EST > Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> writes: > > Initially your argument had to do with secrecy and the need for scientists > > to publish their work so that the scientific community may benefit from it. > > Not just the scientific community... everyone. If an art critic declines > to publish something, its a loss probably only to his fellow art critics, > but if a mathematician or a biologist or a physicist doesn't publish, it's > a loss for more than just his colleagues. I believe this view to be fundamentaly flawed. Consider that if a particular scientist doesn't publish (ala Fermat) then this does not inherently prohibit or inhibit others from deriving the result (lot's of examples so I won't pick a single one). However, when an artist or other practitioner of human expression fails to publish then an item of unique character is lost. Had T.S. Elliot not written 'Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats' it is *very* unlikely that *anyone* in the entire remaining history of the universe would have written those charming poems and we would be deprived among other things of knowing why a cat has three names. In addition, the fact that a given individual finds no worth in why a cat has three names does not change the worth of the insight provided by the author. So, while a given art critics views may not mean much to you this does not justify in any manner trivializing that worth for others. To do so would indicate a personality of extreme hubris and potentialy a severe sociopathy. Expect them to begin walking around with their hand in their vest at any moment. The distinction is that human expression doesn't assume homogeneity nor isotropy as science requires. Rather it assumes a priori that each activity and it's result is unique in the history of the universe and fundamentaly an expression of that *individual* view of experience. That is what art derives it worth from while science derives its worth from the result being the same irrespective of the practitioner. And before somebody brings it up, while reality *is* observer dependant, this is a recognition that the act of testing is fundamentaly a part of the sytsem being tested. The statistical results *are* homogenious and isotropic for observers - Fire in the Deep not withstanding. The end of our exploring will be to arrive at where we started, and to know the place for the first time. T.S. Eliot ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

3 3

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd) > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 98 09:51:22 EST > You don't seem to realize that the likelyhood of someone independently > rediscovering a "lost" math result is much less than the likelyhood of > two people independently creating substantially similar works of art. Malarky, the history of science (and of human civilizations) is replete with example after example of idividuals discovering the same basic theme and its proof. Just the three examples we have been using (Newton, Gauss, Fermat) are filled with comments about contemporaries discovering the same result. Review Darwin for a moment, he chose to share the fame for evolutionary theory with Wallace because he had reached the same conclusion. Had either Darwin or Wallace not chose to publish the result would still have been found and shared. > For example, all of T.S.Elliot's poetry is substantially similar to > Walt Whitman's poetry. They are, for most intents and purposes, mutually > interchangeable. (Emily "lick my bud" Dickinson is almost interchangeable.) Only in the context that they are both poets who write poetry. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Eternity Services (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 09:39:00 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Eternity Services > under privacy laws, the ECPA, etc. We have not seen any major court orders > directed at remailers, but I expect them soon. Tell that to Julf. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Special Announcement from Intertain and Playgal
by steve＠playgal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Both Richard from Intertain and I ( Dean from Playgal ) are pleased to announce a strategic alliance between the Intertain and Playgal group of businesses. This alliance will take the form of a partnership between the two entities. Intertain was one of the first ever ( arguably the first ) sites to charge a monthly membership fee and has been around from the begining. Playgal came into the industry this year. Both companies are multi million dollar businesses with extensive asset backing and have a great deal of resources. We have a very solid track record of payment and integrity within the adult industry. Our first new joint venture under the partnership is the lateset mega site UNFAITHFUL at http://www.unfaithful.com . We anticpate Unfaithful will be more successful than our current group of sites. To launch our new site we have put together a new click through program "Unfaithful EasyCash" http://www.unfaithful.com/easycash which will give webmasters the best of both worlds : - a high minimum payout guaranteed and conversion rate bonuses over and above the minimum payout. You will be guaranteed a minimum payout of 7.5 cents a unique hit ( not unique visit ) - which means you will be paid 7.5 cents everytime an individual person clicks on your banner each day. We are not filtering hits - you get paid on unique hits to the front page - this should mean your unique to raw ratio should be high. You can earn conversion rate bonuses up to $5 per unique hit - with many entry points along the way to ensure your revenue is maximized. You get paid by check or wire transfer every 2 weeks. Goto http://www.unfaithful.com/easycash to see the full payout table. We are offering: * 3,000 live video feeds, hardcore streaming videos, QT/AVI and LIVE sex shows! * Exclusive pictorial content updated each month! * FREE MEMBERSHIP * The highest quality "HARDCORE" pictures on the planet! How easy is that to sell memberships ? The site and the EasyCash clickthrough has been designed to maximize revenue for both us and your banner partners. If you have good quality traffic then this is the clickthrough that will suit your site. As part of our strategy we will be limiting the amount of traffic sent to this site to avoid over saturation - so today is the day to sign up for unfaithful at http://www.unfaithful.com/easycash while it is new and we have available spaces. Judge for yourselves for today http://www.unfaithful.com is a top class site. Everyone should have an opportunity to increase revenue from their sites by including Unfaithful. Please direct all operational questions to steve(a)playgal.com as i am on my way to IA2000. Thanks for your time and have a prosperous new year. Sign up now http://www.unfaithful.com/easycash Regards Dean CEO dean(a)unfaithful.com or thegeneral(a)playgal.com

1 0

Hi
by telcard＠worldnet.att.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When was the last time you figured out your rate on your long-distance bill? Did you know that 62% of all Americans are on the highest rate plan offered by their carrier? Don't pay more than you have to for your long-distance calls. Telcard is now offering instant access to 14 cent per minute prepaid calling cards!* Compare our rates on prepaid long-distance calling cards: Telcard: 14 Cents per minute AT&T Prepaid: 29 Cents per minute Sprint Prepaid: 25 Cents per minute MCI Prepaid: 39 Cents per minute Pay with credit card, online check, or have it charged to next month's phone bill and receive your card within minutes!. There's no need to wait, send this personal gift now. Visit our site at http://www.telcard888.com for more information or to make a purchase. PS. Refer a friend and receive a FREE 10 MINUTE card with their purchase! * Per minute of calling within the continental US

1 0

A further thought on free markets & anarchy...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Given that anarchist don't support a 'head' in regards to human activities *and* that a free market monopolizes thus creating a 'head' it is clear that if we apply the ideas of human society (ie political systems) to economics we derive a fundamental conflict, that a anarchist in the economic sphere is left with no choice but to agree that economic systems must be managed and creates a 'head' either by plan or monopolistic fiat. Therefore the original thesis that such political models are applicable to economic ones is flawed. It simply is not possible for an economic system to exhist without some sort of 'head' or guiding structure. This is fundamentaly at odds with the definition and spirit of anarchy. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C. Maypole is a pimply dweeb sitting at a computer chortling at his own imagined cleverness. (/T\) _____ (/V\) (-,-) ()====) . + . . + ('.') Timmy C. Maypole \(o)/ -|3 . . . . J\~/L /=' ,OOO//| | .+ . <%%%%%%%%%%%O >|< \ooo, O:O:O LLLLL + . . . . I . //|\\ o:0:o \OOO/ || || . . . + . ~|~|~ \ooo/ C_) (_D _I I_

2 1