December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Defendants adopt Freemenspeak [CNN]
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

All right, Jim, a truly uplifting thigh-slapper. All right, Freemen, go for the ranting, belching, farting lingo jumbo, it's how the law fogs who's complicit in police power ebonics.

1 0

Re: Saving money
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Harka wrote: >Do you really expect single mothers with 3 kids to have the time to >do it to the degree of being able to _freely choose_ their >employers?? Or even Joe Average, who just came out of College and has >$100 000 school-loan-debt? Certainly there are people who will give up their privacy rights for money. Some of them will not perceive it as a problem. Some will have put themselves into a bad situation where the money is worth more than their privacy. In almost all cases their problems do not exist outside their minds. The mother with 3 children did not get into that situation by accident. Certain choices and actions were taken that put her into that "bad" situation. ("Bad" in quotes because if one really really wants to have children, the situation may be preferable to the alternative.) The kid who borrows $100,000 and can't find a good job did not receive good advice. It is terribly important to recognize when people are in situations of their own creation if we wish to advise people in ways to avoid such situations or avoid them ourselves. >While I am glad for your achievements, you have not addressed my >point: all this doesn't apply to the larger mass of people. I completely disagree with this. Read "Your Money or Your Life" by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. This book describes a method which anybody can use to make good decisions in managing their life. The purpose of the book is to teach ordinary people how to become independently wealthy. There are few people who would not benefit from this method and who are incapable of applying it. >You were fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right >time...one of the founding-members of a company in an industry, that >pays way more than average and thus brought you into the position, >that you're in now. Great...more power to you and I encourage >everybody to try the same. You should also look at "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko. This is a study of millionaires in the United States. To quote from "Money" magazine: "To learn what today's millionaires have in common and how they accumulated their wealth, Stanley and Danko sent questionnaires to affluent Americans and conducted focus-group interviews. They learned that about two-thirds of those millionaires who still work are self-employed - versus one in ten for all Americans. The types of businesses they own tend to be mundane, such as welding and dry cleaning. The overwhelming majority aren't trust-fund babies; eight out of ten accumulated their riches themselves. Most are extremely frugal. Although their average net worth is $3.7 million, they generally live so modestly that even their neighbors don't have a clue about their wealth." The article has these five bullet points to recommend: "1. Live below your means. 2. Launch a savings and investing plan. 3. Take on debt sparingly. 4. Pay as little as possible to Uncle Sam. 5. Start your own business." Standard Ben Franklin stuff, but it works. >But if the available work-force exceeds the demand for it, such jobs >wouldn't pay nearly as much as they do right now. Hence, achieving >financial independence to the point of freely choosing employers >would become much harder again. Actually, it doesn't cost much to change employers. All you have to do is find an employer who will hire you. Mostly this is a question of time and effort. >But this is the reality for MOST people (outside of the >elite-industries) already! Especially if they start out with >student-loan-debts amounting to several ten thousands of dollars. >Add a family/kids to that and you tell me how easy a task it will be >to quickly become independently wealthy. (Some people will be able >to pull it off somehow, most people won't - - despite their wishes to >the contrary. Should they make their best effort? Absolutely! Will >everybody succeed? Absolutely not.) I agree most people will probably not pull it off, but that's too bad. The reason they won't pull it off is that they won't make their best effort. Sure, you can dig up people who appear to have really tried and then failed anyway, but they are rare. You can easily see that most poor people are not making their best effort by studying how much money they spend on alcohol, tobacco, or other recreational substances. You can also study TV watching habits. Poor people watch a lot of TV instead of making themselves useful. >The truth is, that there are many people outside of Cypherpunks, who >get barely through life _despite_ making efforts. They may get enough >salary in their 9-5 job to maintain themselves to a degree, but not >nearly enough to have the complete freedom, that is the issue >here. And to say, "they get what they deserve" (if they don't have >the abundance of dollars/freedom) is rather narrowminded and >out-of-touch with most people's reality. Gee, I don't know about that. When I was in school there was tremendous peer pressure to not study, to not get good grades, to not program, to not study electronics, to not master calculus, etc. etc. etc. If those people end up poor, I have no hesitation in saying they deserve it - at the very least! >That may indeed work for some people, but the argument of >"self-discipline and sacrifice" usually goes overboard once people >_other than yourself_ are severely affected by that. "Sorry hun, you >can't have a new winter-coat. Mommy has to save enough money so that >she can choose the people she works for. And no...no christmas this >year either". I think I hear violins! ;-) In practice, these are very seldom the choices that are being made. Winter coats are available second hand for almost nothing. When I was a kid my parents made many of our presents by hand to save money. Christmas need not be expensive, and it's not clear that it is improved in any meaningful way by spending lots of money. People are perfectly capable of living economically and making good decisions, even when their children are involved. (In> is Tim May, quoted by Harka.) > In> If they won't make these spending tradeoffs and have not even a > In> buffer sufficient to carry them through a month or two or three, > In> I say screw them. >How about you adopting a person/family of your choice instead and >providing them with enough startup-money, so that they can at least >make an realistic effort to work towards a position of becoming >financially independent themselves? :) Uh, excuse me, but I didn't see Tim volunteering for Santa Claus duty. Why should he help out people who will, in all probability, fail to take his advice, squander any money he gives them, and resent him for his efforts? For that matter, why should he help out people who will be eternally grateful if he doesn't value that gratitude? And the claim that all that is needed is a little startup money is a standard lame excuse that has probably been used for millenia. Making excuses is not how the job gets done. >I suggest in return you reconsidering the myth, that a free market >means equal opportunities and thus quick self-reliance for everybody. The term "equal opportunities" is a curious one. A free market does mean that everybody has the equal opportunity to make agreements with each other. But, clearly some people will have more success making these agreements for reasons which are not under their control. Somebody might have parents who introduce them to the right people and show them the ropes, for instance. This is one reason why the free market does not eliminate the formation of elites. But, so what? Are we really going to claim that people shouldn't help their children to succeed? In the sense that I think you mean the term, "equal opportunities" are exceedingly undesirable. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFIxl5aWtjSmRH/5AQFjQAf9GlFXsJQ1Iyii7Ch26a38Xi80Q1QMcbq4 rJPVzncFntQjfau99j6jUiNdsjk2Zr8XhLZtyP95yQX3VcaAmsyY7imXImWyH1uU r2OezEg5S9+e/mi7knTsOfzlYOBhKklMTprKo2K539g05B9xJCOqb8S9CyX9/Ie6 5ZH2gss2jANWM6cWsCmZ0nRtG3Rc1fKXJDl5DgsdceCzkVRGms6r7WMzvwUxTTFC wlaWUwjyUcnEK+cqnvsq4rBW/Bh4dvCwzUnEHbyckukO5wOsYxDFb9kuWaIufMJh ukvif/SP9SGzLsqpJ/Iv2pqdRL7B/C4DP+gFP1iODkaER0a7/wUR9A== =9Kt3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Harka wrote: >A real-life example: Violins coming! ;-) Let's call the mother Janice. >A single (divorced) mother, 4 kids (3-12 years), working full-time >and making in theory $42 000/year. After taxes that comes down to >$2000 cash per month. Below you mention she receives $800 in child support, so she is seeing $2800/month in cash. The government is not Janice's friend. It takes away $18,000 from her each year and plunges her into poverty, sort of. If you are appealing to the government to assist Janice, first ask it to get the hell out of the way. (I realize you may just be saying that Janice's plight is unavoidable, not that she should be helped with government money.) >In order for her to be able to work her two youngest kids go to a >day-care-center. Wham! $1000 per month (hiring a baby-sitter would >amount to even more). Janice should be baby sitting. Were she to take in 4 kids at $500/month, she would make as much as her job and be able to watch her own kids during the same time. This income need not be reported. The parents of the other kids would be getting a good deal because their kids would get much more attention than at daycare. Some might even consider it a good deal to be able to hire someone with a Master's Degree in Education! >Her apartment costs $800/month excluding utilities. That leaves $200 >(+ $800 she gets in child-support) per month for _five_ people to >live on (clothes, food, utilities, school-books, gas for the car, >etc.etc.) Uh, doesn't this mean $1000/month for five people after rent has been paid? Telephone: $20/month Electricity: $40/month (?) Heat: $100/month (?) Food: $600/month (generous) Goodwill Clothes: $100/month (generous) Total: $860/month The food is generous because four of the five are kids, the oldest only being 12. Kids don't each much. The actual amount should be much lower. If Janice joins a food coop and optimizes her buying choices for cost and nutrition, the actual cost of food could be dramatically lower. If Janice does not practice vegetarianism, she should start. Clothing at the Goodwill costs next to nothing. $1200/year should be more than enough, not even considering that the younger kids can wear clothing cast off by the older kids. Janice should not be driving - she cannot afford it. The cost of schoolbooks is negligible. (Aren't they provided by the school, anyway?) >One thousand dollars per month for five people!! And that in New York >City! Of course, there is no law that requires one to live in New York City. >What efforts has she made to make "herself more marketable"? She has >been working ever since the age of 16, went 8 years to College (paid >by herself and paying rent at the same time) and now has a Masters >Degree in teaching. It seems pretty clear that making money was not her top priority. It's never been a secret that teachers are not top earners. I'm not seeing a description of somebody who really tried to make money in a serious way. Being "more marketable" does not mean "obtain a masters degree in a field which is renowned for low pay." >She made a calculation and (confirming your statement) came to the >conclusion, that she indeed would have _more_ money by not working at >all and simply going on welfare. >However, that is not a choice she wants to make. Good for her. It sounds like Janice may have the strength of character to turn her situation around. >Is she to be called "stupid" and "selfish" because she's poor despite >her efforts??? You should both read "Your Money or Your Life" from cover to cover. This book will help teach Janice and yourself how to live efficiently. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFJ8f5aWtjSmRH/5AQHU+Af9HWEadTH/x62ZZ8E8XLhJLS9ZxZm8Jkvh LvtdKxq/xI4KHVehL6EqghjvbpndyEByaRNm1D18Hd0Ug3Iy/Ateq69ky2mV7MT6 tCKwaVJEMVH8FYE7HyVHSQs394ID8yGPEnNT79d+VHhaSsFnd349QvQlaHQom6Di ksdNqe+n8WD7ewj2xXaZcZCfE8ESlY2KQ62yHlO/qRR0h8AzOw75B4Vft75r/5Df XHZVSNx1UhP2B1P4rb3IV2XdD6m+xzqSARYO4p9aTCyH588/wS62tMfs8LT54hnu KOFcte8wavQlEdQPFX+JCkOr6woCdjqUeR3ZPrprh2iegq222Ql5Sw== =vyWR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Doubts about Smith legislation (Falk & Allberry)
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In news.groups, Cipher <cipher(a)mindspring.com> wrote: * In article <62oshu$pov(a)news1.panix.com> Information Security, * The(a)NSA.sucks writes: * >To further rub in things, the UCENET II proponents are coming * >out with a "munging FAQ" that lists three times as many * >"reasons" not to munge versus to munge. * > * >What a bunch of assholes. * > * >On top of that, Mozena couldn't even state in plain English * >in the CFV for comp.org.cauce that it will require your * >real email address to post...it just kinda mumbles it * >while talking about robomoderation and tokens. * > * >Someone should give Mozena a hard kick in the balls. Let us give the anti-privacy, anti-munging, and anti-anonymity proponents a collective kick in the ass by voting against comp.org.cauce in its present form. To get a ballot and vote, send email to bostwick(a)cas.chemistry.gatech.edu and ask him for comp.org.cauce ballot. -- - Igor.

1 0

[Fwd: Fwd: (Fwd) Fw: THIS IS MY KIND OF CHAIN LETTER!!! =)] (fwd)
by goddesshera＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> here you go! no need to thank me! ;-) > > Since We are ALL so Tired of those Chain Letters!!!!!!!!!! > > THE DEAL IS: THIS LETTER GIVES YOU THE POWER TO NEVER HAVE TO SEND > ANOTHER CHAIN LETTER EVER AGAIN. YOU SEND THIS TO 10 PEOPLE > WITHIN > 7 > DAYS OF > THE TIME THAT YOU READ IT, AND FROM THAT POINT ON YOU CAN IGNORE, > > OR > READ > AND DELETE, ANY CHAIN LETTER SENT TO YOU. THE BEST PART > OF > THIS > DEAL > IS, > YOU WILL STILL GET ALL OF THE LUCK, LOVE, OR GOOD SEX > GUARANTEED > TO > YOU > BY > ANY CHAIN LETTER YOU READ! > EVENTUALLY THIS WILL STOP THE CIRCULATION OF ALL CHAIN > LETTERS. > SO, > IT > IS > VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU SEND THIS OUT ON TIME!!! AND THE > CATCH > IS, > THAT > IF > YOU END UP NOT SENDING THIS ON TIME, OR NEVER SENDING IT > AT > ALL, > YOU > WILL > GET ALL OF THE BAD LUCK, NONE OF THE LOVE, AND NONE OF > THE > GOOD > SEX > FROM > ANY CHAIN LETTER YOU GET. THIS IS FOR ALL OF THE > SUPERSTISIOUS > PEOPLE > THAT > HATE CHAIN LETTERS, AND ALL OF THE EVIL PEOPLE THAT WRITE > THEM. > GOOD LUCK, LOVE AND SEX TO ALL OF YOU!!!!!!! > This message was automatically remailed. The sender is unknown, unlogged, and nonreplyable. Send complaints and blocking requests to <goddesshera(a)juno.com>.

1 0

Re: Elliptic Curves
by semprini＠theschool.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found good online documentation. No need for further help. Just as a side note: TruthMonger's command of the English language is incredible. :) -- Dylan

1 0

Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:24:20 -0400 > From: Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> > Subject: Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa > >In order for her to be able to work her two youngest kids go to a > >day-care-center. Wham! $1000 per month (hiring a baby-sitter would > >amount to even more). > > Janice should be baby sitting. Were she to take in 4 kids at > $500/month, she would make as much as her job and be able to watch her > own kids during the same time. This income need not be reported. Wrong, this income not only must be reported but in every state that I am aware of you need a license to legaly do baby-sitting for hire. Many states, such as Texas, won't let you do it from your home. You even need one in Texas to baby-sit peoples pets, though you can do that from your home if your yard is big enough for the number of pets you are licensed to sit. Have Janice go to jail for tax-evasion and lack of a license isn't going to do her or her kids a lick of good. > >Her apartment costs $800/month excluding utilities. That leaves $200 > >(+ $800 she gets in child-support) per month for _five_ people to > >live on (clothes, food, utilities, school-books, gas for the car, > >etc.etc.) > > Uh, doesn't this mean $1000/month for five people after rent has been > paid? > > Telephone: $20/month Not counting long-distance to grandma and grandpa, other relatives. > Electricity: $40/month (?) > Heat: $100/month (?) Let's combine electricity and gas into a single bill, since this will cover both of these. You're probably looking at $150 - $200 a month with 6 kids. You're also leaving out water and waste-water which adds another $50-$100 considering 6 kids and their baths and such. > Food: $600/month (generous) Hell, I'm single and come close to this and food costs in Texas are a LOT lower than in New York. Though I do eat out at lunch every weekday. And no, I don't go partying regularly at all. Way too busy with work (>16hrs/day 5 days a week & 16-20 on weekends) to do that other than a couple of times a month. I went to the store today and bought enough food for 4 days and it cost me $30. So that comes to something like $250 - $300 for me not counting lunches, and that's for just a single person. Multiply that for 6 and the numbers are considerably higher. > Goodwill Clothes: $100/month (generous) > Total: $860/month > > The food is generous because four of the five are kids, the oldest > only being 12. Kids don't each much. Man, you must not know the kids I know. Not only do they eat a lot they waste a lot because they seldom finish 'adult' size portions. > Clothing at the Goodwill costs next to nothing. $1200/year should be > more than enough, not even considering that the younger kids can wear > clothing cast off by the older kids. Not exactly true. The hand-me downs are 1-gen old when the first kid gets them. By the 2nd or 3rd kid the clothes will be too worn out and soiled to wear. My parents were dirt poor and I got lots of hand-me-downs as a kid and can speak from personal experience here. They might last two kids. While we're at it let's not forget the various school supplies and other things the kids will need, medical and dental costs (my experience is that government agencies don't cover 100%), then there's toys, books, music, etc. Even considering buying everything used and using the public library this is going to be a very tight budget. You also left out auto costs such as gasoline, oil, normal maintenance, insurance, registration, etc. Birthdays, Christmas, Mothers Day, Fathers Day, movies with friends and such, hair-cuts (it's clear she won't have time to do that herself), pets, kids hobbies, life insurance, etc. Nope, your figures are WAY off. My guess is that you are either single or if married your wife has her own career and you each make at least $45k. Also, no kids or more than one pet. You don't raise good kids by sticking them in a closet wearing burlap sacks and feeding them scraps. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Buttfucking Bad BillyG
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It looks like the DOJ is getting tired of bungholing the cold, dead carcass of Horatio Alger, and is now looking for a fresh, pink rim to act as a depository for the zygote of the Reptilian Nazis that they are bringing out of their secret underground bunkers to head the FBI Criminal Factory/Crime Laboratory and the IRS. I've spent more than my share of time on the front-lines of the computer industry, throwing rocks at the windows of the MS-DOS code-writers, but I also spent a fair amount of time searching out tools, such as 4DOS, which allowed me to route around the damage caused by a PC market base of end-users whose biggest concern was not chipping their nails while typing, so they would look good when flirting with the guys in suits who showed up to charge their bosses outrageous sums of money for making all of the dichotomous software enemies of the MS-DOS operating system play nicely with one another without leaving blood on the hard drive. As 'The World's Foremost Computer Expert', I tried to talk some sense into Unix and Xenix producers and vendors. "Give the shit away!" I told them, time and time again. "You're not going to go broke having everyone in the fucking world using your product, and counting on you for support." They wouldn't listen. Usually, they just bought a few copies of my Country Porno albums and sent me on my way. I wanted to provide my individual customers with UNIX/XENIX OS's and applications, but the producers and vendors didn't want my individual customers' business. They wanted a Grand to say 'hello' and a million bucks worth of software and support sales so that even their janitors could buy a new suit in this year's latest 'power color.' So I put my corporate customers into UNIX/XENIX and my individual customers into MS-DOS. And I am not interested in hearing Sun Microsystems or anyone else whining about Bad BillyG capturing the market that he was going after while they captured the market that they were going after. SCO finally came out with a single/double user GUI product (can't even remember it's name) which was years ahead of what Windows finally became after M$ legally ripped off Apple's face mask. I screamed at them to provide it at a price that was simply outrageous instead of totally outrageous, so that I could sell it to people who were willing to put off buying a second Ferrari so that they could work with a decent operating system. SCO told me to fuck off. The DOJ seems deathly concerned that M$'s customers are going to get an InterNet browser "basically, for free." Oh horror, oh horror. I got M$ Explorer for free. I use Nut$crape. I got Nut$crape for free too. ($19.95 with 100 hours of Net time on Sympatico) I installed it, and it worked for me. I installed M$ Explorer and didn't want to take the time and trouble to learn all the fancy shit it does, so I uninstalled it. (My ISP tweaked their version of Nut$crape so that it works fine out of the box) My lifelong dream is to have Bad BillyG show up on my doorstep to install all of the M$ products I have so that they will work without me having to pull out my hair figuring them all out, and to bring MickJ with him, so I can get a blow-job from those fat, sexy lips while I watch BBG at work. Now my hopes are dashed, because Nazi Cunt Reno, child-murderer, is afraid that I might be a lobotomized, brain-dead idiot with no free-will and she wants to protect me from the Bad Man. Fuck Nazi Cunt Reno (with _your_ dick, not mine)! At least Bad BillyG hasn't burned any children to death recently (though he did give a couple of them 2nd degree burns as a result of learning how to freebase from Richard Pryor). Even when doing all of my serious bid'ness on UNIX/XENIX OS's, I still did all of my writing with a PC, using M$ Word. Because I *like* it! When lying awake at night, plotting my armed assault on the Micro$oft Corporate office, for all of the pain and suffering they have put me through over the years, I always planned to let those working in the M$ Word division off with just a sound thrashing, for making the pain bearable. Now Janet Reno wants to jump my claim to revenge against the Big M$ and she likely wants to whack out my pals in the M$ Word division, as well. This means war! Fresh From the Clue Server!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The upcoming Millennium is going to usher in a battle between Big Brother/Governments and Medium Brother/Corporations. Big Brother has control of most of the weapons, and the serious firepower is in the hands of their armed thugs. Medium brother has control of most of the electronic weapons, but the serious firepower is in *our* hands. We *ARE* the electronic armed forces. The Corporations can 'take' the government in the upcoming battle, and we can 'take' the Corporations if they decide they want to move up a notch, to Big Brother status. Reality is that M$ is a fraction of the size of other industry players such as IBM, etc. Reality is that if the Corporate Giants want to oppress us, we are in a much better position to tell them to go fuck themselves. We can use pirated software and pirated hardware. I can't give you a Nuke if the government wants to fuck you over, but I can give you a copy of Win2000 if M$ wants to fuck you over. Reality is that our best chance for getting the Government to fall into line with true freedom and democracy is to back the rise of Corporations in the Net World Order. Reality is that the Government doesn't really need our votes, but the Corporations need our bucks. Reality is that many more of us are in a postition to say "No" to Corporations than are in a postition to say "No" to Governments. Our power lies in the workplace. We can still rule our workplace. {We are all guerilla warriors, under the leadership of Che Dilbert.) The Millennial War is InfoWar. It will take place in CyberSpace and in MindSpace. We need to fight for control of our Virtual Reality. It is InterActive, and *we* need to *act* from our end of the Inter. Micro$oft/Nut$crape/$un Microsystems? Who do we 'back'? We 'back' anyone who will make our access to and control of information stronger, and the Governments' electronic contol of us weaker. Scream loud and long at the DOJ Fascists for their attack on M$, and then go out and buy Nut$crape. Scream loud and long at the DOJ Fascists for their anti-trust actions against Intel, and then go out and by an Apple/Mac. (And get M$ Word for Macintosh! Keep 'em confused!) InfoWarMonger "It's not InfoWar until *you* realize it's InfoWar!"

1 0

Re: Elliptic Curves
by Dylan N. Vitt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 25 Oct 97 at 22:12, MJ S wrote: > > Could you send me this information too... thanks. > > Mark > > A good explanation of elliptic curves, their application, etc. can be found at http://www.certicom.com/ecc I found this site was mislinked in numerous places as http://www.certicom.com/html/ecc, for those of you with web-sites having links to this site. --Dylan

1 0

Orthogonality and Disaster Recovery (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:52:05 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Orthogonality and Disaster Recovery > One of the themes of modern computing I strongly support is that of > "orthogonality," or clean functionality. Any idea how a term meaning 'at right angles' came to hold all the various interpretations it now does?... I see this word in a lot of my reading and it almost never implies any sort of 'indipendent multi-variant reference system'. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1