December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: odd comment
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sounds like a potential urban legend or at least a misnaming of some comprehensible system. > A friend of mine works in an IT department > for a major tech company. Three of the people in > his department were just transfered to their new contract. > > They are rewiring some of the network for a highway system > in California that monitors for explosives. > What are the techniques that could be used for detecting conventional materials? I can't think of anything likely to work through a vehicle panel on a highway at 65 mph. Doesn't mean there isn't such a system. I guess a neutron counter or other radiation detector might be useful for spotting the scary new SUPERTERRORISTS. > On top of the poles are two > metal boxes about the size large bread boxes. > > Now any idea what those boxes are? > If they have plastic windows they could be speed measurement devices. I'd be interested in driving by some, are there some examples that are closer to Pleasanton? You can always ask your highway department representative - they might talk before thinking even if it's something TOP SECRET. Mike

1 0

RE: Another potential flaw in current economic theory... (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate > Wrong. Socialism is the belief that property is best managed > and owned by the government. Utopian socialism/communism believed that property is best managed and owned by the people -- the people as some abstract collective entity aka proletariat aka BORG. The dictatorial government is the agent of the proletariat to abolish individual rights and transition to communist utopia where government is no longer needed. Of course actual socialism in mixed economies and communism in command economies bear little resemblance to Marx's delusions. Matt

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > Remember, you can't dominate a market that can't be saturated > and you can't saturate a local market unless you find a > mechanism to keep outside competition from moving in. Currently > this is only possible in very strongly regulated markets in > control economies. By golly Jim you almost got it. The only problem is your statement that one can dominate "saturable" markets without some artificial "mechanism." If you mean dominate by market share, then sure that is possible. But that in itself is not bad, ALCOA dominated via low prices and high efficiency. Domination in the bad sense is to be immune from the laws of supply and demand, and hence have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the definition of a coercive monopoly. You will find that that is not possible without an artificial barrier to competition. > Though, it does occur to me that the fact that OS/2 has a > stronger faction in Europe than in N. and S. America in > relation to Microsoft may be an indication that continental > saturation is possible. The conclusions I would draw from that are IBM as the former market giant had a very strong International infrastructure, channels and reputation. Since the US market is the principle industry producer, it was more competitive and less dominated by IBM. Microsoft, therefore, had an easier time in an already competitive US market than breaking in overseas. They also had the underdog phenomenon going for them here, the local competitive market wanting to break IBM's dominance. The fact that OS/2 utterly flopped in the US and found some adopters overseas is credit to IBMs international reputation and little else. Matt

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brown, R Ken wrote: > Jim can look after himself, but the aircraft industry is > certainly monopolistic. There are only 2 serious players > in the market for large long-haul airliners, Airbus..and > Boeing First of all the majority of the market to which they are selling is anything but free. Each government has a monopoly on their military, and many have a monopoly on their commercial airlines as well. Government aren't bound by the same survival rules as consumers, they are able to irrationally spend as the can simply extort more money. Despite this very strong market distortion, competition for defense contracts had been rather competitive in the US, with the recent consolidation due to shrinking demand (note they cannot seek other markets freely to compensate). And despite the strong market distortions, Boeing makes a very slim profit margin on commercial aircraft (~3%) competing with Airbus. The private aircraft industry has had a terrible time not for lack of demand, but because of rampant irrational and overzealous liability claims. This has created a very limited number of vendors and highly inflated prices. Again, none these are natural effects of the free market. > The real problem with monopoly or cartel is not high prices > - many monopolies choose to charge low prices - it is lack > of freedom. So you would force people to pay higher prices so can have more choices? You would force people to support inefficient competitors? > A monopolisitic supplier of some good has a measure > of political power. Political power gums at the mean end of a gun, what political power do monopolies have and how? Matt

1 0

RE: Another question about free-markets...
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: [govt subsidies to transcontinental railroads] > Only *after* it was clear that these companies could not > do it themselves because of a lack of sufficient traffic > to support the business. So if the market could not support it, who paid for it and how, who benefited from the distortion and who paid the price? The market demands the most efficient distribution of capital resources, when the government screws with that and screws with the market, the resulting problems (arbitrary coercive power of Western railroads, and severe lack of quality and safety) are because of that distortion, not the market. The government should have *not* intervened. Which is not my point though, my point is the judgements of an uneducated populace and corrupted government to blame this as a natural effect of a free market should not be carried forward, it needs to be exposed and corrected. [oil mineral rights] >> The placement (ownership) of these rights, their value, >> restrictions and enforcement are the result of a free >> market? No, government intervention. > > Actualy no, try buying a piece of land and enforcing the > title *without* registering it at the country seat or its > likes. Which is not a market instrument, it is a government instrument. Government intervention does not necessarily have to be direct and purposeful. Matt

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Petro wrote: [...snip...] > Other than the Railroads, which have already been shown to > be a government CREATED monopoly, how was the Aircraft > Industry a monopoly? The GARMENT INDUSTRY? > Come on Jim, "Put Up Or Shut Up". Jim can look after himself, but the aircraft industry is certainly monopolistic. There are only 2 serious players in the market for large long-haul airliners, Airbus (explicitly founded and subsidised by government) and Boeing (probably now turning a real profit but in the past cross-subsidised from military spending). Whether or not either of these firms would now exist without government subsidy is unknowable. Whether or not the monopolistic situation would exist if there had been no government subsidy is also unknowable. I do have trouble with the idea of the garment industry being monopolistic. About 2 miles from where I'm typeing this, in Whitechapel and Spitalfields in the East End of London, street after street is packed with small sweatshops, "import export" businesses, tiny fashion houses [...snip...] >>All working for about 5 or 6 companies who actlualy marketed and >> distributed the items. Just get a Dallas Texas phone book for >> that period (it's a distribution hub for the clothing/garment industry >> even today). > That is still 5 or 6 companies in competition. It looks as if the only monopolies you recognise are global ones where one big company supplies most of the market for some good, worldwide. At that level there are damn few monopolies - MS, Boeing, the Murdoch empire. But a monopolistic situation develops when one supplier, or a group of suppliers in cartel can control the market in some locality. Like the breweries in Britain a few years back - there were (and are) hundreds of breweries but the "big six" had carved up large areas of the country between them. So if you went to a bar in one area you got Watney's beer, in another, Bass. The real problem with monopoly or cartel is not high prices - many monopolies choose to charge low prices - it is lack of freedom. A monopolisitic supplier of some good has a measure of political power. They can make people behave in ways they might not otherwise behave. A monopolisitic employer of labour has *huge* political power.

1 0

Yet Again Another Snake Oil Vendor
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Below is a message I posted to the SpyKing mailing list a few months back when Jaws decided to spam the list with their crypto "challange". >From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> >Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 14:41:24 -0500 >To: SpyKing <spyking(a)con2.com> >In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980601033850.0355c350(a)admin.con2.com> >Subject: POST RE: $5,000,000 Encryption contest -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3.0.3.32.19980601033850.0355c350(a)admin.con2.com>, on 06/01/98 at 02:38 AM, SpyKing <spyking(a)con2.com> said: >15)From: SpyKing(a)thecodex.com >Subject: $5,000,000 "Break the Code" Encryption Contest >Friday May 29, 3:00 pm Eastern Time >Company Press Release >SOURCE: JAWS Technologies Inc. >JAWS Launches $5,000,000 ``Break the Code'' Encryption Contest <sigh> Yet another Snake-oil post. Such challenges like this are really meaningless and are designed as a publicity stunt to gain some free press rather than as a legitimate test of the strength of the algorithms involved. The *only* way to test the security of an algorithm is through a process of peer-review of the source code. Until JAWS Technologies decides to go through this process I would stay far away from this and any other products they may produce. It seems quite clear that they have little to no understanding of the cryptology & security fields. I don't know what it is about the list but it seems that we must endure these snake-oil posts on a periodic basis. While I have replied here to many of these snake-oil advertisements I have yet to see one of these companies post a rebuttal (to the list or privately). I have submitted a copy of the Snake-Oil FAQ to SpyKing requesting that he publish it to the list (it's a little long so I don't want to post it directly). It can also be found at: http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.html Security & Encryption are the big buzz-words in the computer industry and many companies are looking to cash-in on it. Be very wary of Johnny Come Lately's who overnight become cryptology "experts". - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgp.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: I love running Windows! NOT! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNXNVXo9Co1n+aLhhAQHr5gP/aghoKztlVP6EjX0FU2v5rkBdu5FbyEWR 6aR/DdOvVYphIIQMk1O1Twy7ZasVUW/dSBPl7uT1/6yfw/NzSonyztmw+WR5d4lg rWOZ8Y1JjbXvLzH3RzA+LXZbShZ/Z5Smdb0yybvldHogo8pYDNeeJ5ZtMJuSgYfI VkoA4SFBDoY= =0m9E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Tag-O-Matic: You're throwing it all out the Windows! ----------------------------------------------------- -- End of forwarded message ----------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: If at first you don't succeed, work for Microsoft.

2 1

FINAL REMINDER: DCS-NY: October 13 Meeting: Stu Feldman of IBM
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text To: "recipient list suppressed" <perry(a)piermont.com> Subject: FINAL REMINDER: DCS-NY: October 13 Meeting: Stu Feldman of IBM Reply-To: dcs-ny-rsvp(a)piermont.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> Date: 06 Oct 1998 15:03:08 -0400 Lines: 105 Sender: owner-cryptography(a)c2.net [If you know of people who may be interested in this meeting, please feel free to forward this message to them.] FINAL REMINDER: The second luncheon meeting of the Digital Commerce Society of New York (DCS-NY), will be held on Tuesday, October 13th at 12:00. If you are interested in attending, please RSVP and send in your check (as explained below) IMMEDIATELY. If we don't _receive_ your check by Friday, we cannot guarantee that we can seat you. (Normally I wouldn't be sending out a reminder this late, but we've had a large influx of inquiries in the last 24 hours.) This Month's Luncheon Speaker: Stuart Feldman, IBM Institute for Advanced Commerce, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Topic: Future Directions in Electronic Commerce Stuart Feldman will delve into a half dozen major themes for long-term research in electronic commerce. These areas will take years to resolve at a research level and even longer to achieve full impact in the world economy. They include privacy, the evolving marketplace on several time scales, the rise of dynamic businesses and electronic haggling, improved relationships to customers, and the systems underpinnings needed to support the vast new opportunities and capabilities of electronic commerce. Stuart Feldman is Director of IBM's Institute for Advanced Commerce. The Institute is dedicated to creating new technologies for support of e-commerce as well as pursuing fundamental issues in e-commerce. He is also the author of the original "make" and "f77." WHAT IS DCS-NY? As some of you probably know, Robert Hettinga has been running a group called the Digital Commerce Society of Boston for over three years. DCSB meets once a month for lunch at the Harvard Club in Boston to hear a speaker and discuss the implications of rapidly emerging internet and cryptographic technologies on finance and commerce -- "Digital Commerce", in short. The Digital Commerce Society of New York (DCS-NY) is a spin-off of DCSB. We intend to meet the second Tuesday of each month for lunch at the Harvard Club in New York, and conduct meetings much like those of DCSB. Our organizing meeting in September was attended by a wide variety of professionals involved in the business, technical and legal sides of the emerging world of digital commerce. If you are interested in attending our next luncheon meeting, please follow the directions located below. If you merely wish to be added to our e-mail meeting announcements list, you may send your e-mail address to "dcs-ny-rsvp(a)piermont.com". Perry PS We would like to thank John McCormack for his invaluable assistance in procuring the venue for our meetings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO RSVP: The meeting will start at 12:00 noon on October 13th at the Harvard Club, which located at 27 West 44th St. in Manhattan. The cost of the luncheon is $49.00. To RSVP, please: A) Send a check for $49.00 (payable to "The Harvard Club of New York") to: Harry S. Hawk DCS-NY LUNCHEON Piermont Information Systems, Inc. 175 Adams St., #9G Brooklyn, New York 11201 Please include along with your check: 1) The name of the person attending 2) Their daytime phone number 3) Their e-mail address B) Send an email message to dcs-ny-rsvp(a)piermont.com indicating that you have sent your check, so that we can inform the Harvard Club of the number of people who will be attending. Please note that the Harvard Club dress code requires jacket and tie for men and comparable attire for women. If you have special dietary requirements, please check with us by email before you RSVP. Making final arrangements for our room requires that we have a good idea of how many attendees we will have. Because of this, it is very important that you RSVP quickly so that we will be able to get a larger room if necessary. We are looking forward to seeing you! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Perry --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:20:41 -0700 > The only problem is your statement that one can dominate "saturable" > markets without some artificial "mechanism." Who said anything about 'artificial'? You have a sneaky habit of sticking terms in there where they don't go hoping somebody won't catch it. We're talking a free-market, there are *only* two participants; provider and consumer. If I allow 'artificial' in there then there is the explicit assumption that a third party is now involved. I won't accept a bastardization of free-market in that manner. If you want to expand your argument by the injection of these spurious terms (they aren't relevant to my argument) feel free. Be warned I will continue to point out the distinction vis-a-vis the impact on conclusions. > If you mean dominate by > market share, then sure that is possible. I mean *dominate* the market. Quit sticking extra terms in there trying to subtly change the meaning. I promise you I will notice so you can quit now. > ALCOA dominated via low prices and high efficiency. Domination in the > bad sense is to be immune from the laws of supply and demand, and hence > have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the definition of a > coercive monopoly. No, that is the definition of monopoly. Now what and how they got and retain that position may invoke coercion but it *isn't* a requirement for monoplies by definition. Don't try to confuse method with type. > You will find that that is not possible without an > artificial barrier to competition. Demonstrate please. The problem with this view is that it implies that given sufficient time *any* market strategy will fail. In other words there is no best or efficient strategy for a given market. In the past when this has been brought up I've asked for an explanation of how this dynamic works and specificaly what prevents such best-of-breed examples from existing. I'm still waiting for such an explanation. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Sad news ... (... or not ;-))
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: Somebody Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 18:02:28 +0100 To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: Sad news ... Mime-Version: 1.0 Hi Bob, I figured you might be interested in today's news: DigiCash Amsterdam has officially gone bankrupt. Even though anyone can access the news (although probably not yet in electronic form), I'd appreciate if you don't mention me as being the one who told you this. I take it that the details will be brought to light in the coming few weeks. Anyway, I believe this is very bad news for all those who believe in "bearer certificates" or whatever one might like to call them. <Somebody's .sig> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

2 2