December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Freedom, Starvation, and Uncoerced Relationships (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Freedom, Starvation, and Uncoerced Relationships > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 98 22:43:04 EST > Evidently some folks on this list do feel that it's possible for the gubmint > to curtail our liberties in some ways and not in others. Phooey. Exactly. And it is as it should be. Consider that speech is *not* equivalent to action (eg. swinging a fist). Running an enterprise or engaging in some activity *is* equivalent to the party swinging their fist. They have a *right* to swing it so long as it *doesn't* interfere in others right to swing their fist *and* the first parties swinging doesn't strike the second party. In short, a party has the right to make as much money as they like, however that right does not extend to the point of inhibiting others from similar opportunities. A free market monopolizes, that monopolization inhibits others from expressing their rights in the same manner that hitting some person in the face inhibits their fist swinging because they are out cold on the floor. As a consequence a free market is inherently inhibiting on free expression - something any self-respecting anarchist won't put up with. So we are left with the very simple conclusion that any anarchist worth the title won't put up with a free market because it creates an environment that creates a monarchy. It is logicaly inconsistent, and philosophicaly nonsensical, to talk about being an anarchist of any ilk *and* talking about supporting free markets. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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

Cute
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May is cute and cuddly! (_) _____ (_) /O O\ Timmy C[uddly] May ! I ! ! \___/ ! \_____/

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:05:20 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > Your original post brought up several separate aspects which can be > considered separately and may not necessarily coexist in the same place at > the same time: I'm not shure who the 'Your' is but I'd like to add some comments on these issues and observations. > 1) secrecy If you don't know something you either can't take advantage of it or else you have to rediscover it on your own. It is clear that if everyone had to re-invent the wheel at every step then not much would get done. > 2) responsibility for publishing Nobody has a responsbility to publish. Science is a completely voluntary pursuit. I would contend personaly that if you don't publish you arent' doing science but rather mental masturbation (a rather selfish pursuit I suspect). > 3) working for the government at the expense of unwilling payors I don't think this is relevant to the issue at all. > 4) the motivations of "true scientists" Who spoke of true scientist? A 3 year old kid poking at a lightening bug on a warm summer eve is as much a true scientist as a Nobel prize winner working on cosmology, the reason is that *both* will share it with anyone they can get to hold still long enough to listen. We have been speaking of the impact of sharing data on the expansion of scienctific knowledge. The actual logic is remakably simple. If you don't let others know of your work then others must recreate it or it gets lost and the consequences of that is that whole areas of knowledge go unvisited potentialy forever. When *they* share it *they* get credit for it not you (which may or may not be a motive of the individual, it certainly has *nothing* to do with actualy doing science however; it's sorta like why some boy asked you out when you were a kid, they either wanted in your pants or had a genuine interest in your company, or perpaps even both. In any case this has nothing to do with the fact that a date is occurring, it's the mechanism and not the motive that is important). > 5) the requirements for the advancement of science To share ones knowledge with others in such a manner that they may indipendantly verify the results to demonstrate some general pattern in the mechanism(s) of the cosmos. Once this is done the next step is to explore the consequences of this new set of general patterns and what the new understanding leads to. > 6) the need of science for the works of great minds I don't think science needs great minds as much as it offers a set of opportunities to apply those talents in a challenging manner that is not present in many other human pursuits. The relationship is like a moth to a flame (hopefuly with less drastic consequences than for the moth). > 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. > I can't disagree that if a scientist is working for the public, that they > should make their work publically available to them, since, after all, they > are supposedly working for the public benefit. To jump from sharing your work with others in the scientific community and equating that community to the public is a bit of a leap. The vast majority of folks wouldn't have a clue what to do with any particular piece of work, let alone how to use it to get something else that wasn't known. Most scientist can't fully apply results from other fields unless they happen to be a polymath or possess some special insight or ability (such as a savante, a good example is Gauss' being able to instantly see how to sum the first 100 numbers by pairings). To do science requires a discipline that even many of those who are trying to do science aren't successful at aquiring. > But you also said that "a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing". I was > only pointing out that, in the context of those who are working for their > own purposes and not under the employment of a government agency, some > scientists are not overly concerned about contributing to this advancement, > as can be observed by their reluctance to publish (even if they eventually > do, "under the extreme pressure of friends", for instance). Then perhaps they aren't doing science. One also has to look at the motivation of why they aren't publishing. It could be that they don't trust their results, feel that nobody will understand them because of the esoteric nature, simple bashfulness gone extreme, or open hostility or asocial tendencies. This last issue raises a whole range of questions and conclusions about 'great minds' and their 'quirkiness' and commen bahaviour. > It may be your conclusion that the advancement of science depends upon > scientists publishing their works, but the fact is that some great > scientists, and many others as well, are not as motivated to contribute as > you think is proper for a "true scientist". It isn't a question of what I think or some definition of 'true scientist'. It *is* a consequence of what is required to do science which requires that the work you do is shared with others so *they* don't have to recreate it and therefore waste time and effort. Science, by definition, is a collaborative effort. Consider the Fermat example from Tim May, had Fermat went ahead and written his proof down *and* it had been found all those people over the last 200 years would have been able to work on other problems. What kinds of changes in our technology and as a consequence our society would have resulted if *that* could have happened. Instead of 2 steps forward and 1 step back we might be 3 steps forward... > I think you should distinguish between those scientistis who have joined > some kind of "scientific community" and have established an obligation to > share the results of their work with that group, and those scientists who > are what they are, and do what they do, from motivations unrelated to such > communities. I think you should be more consistent in your definition in what science is, what it requires from its practitioners, and how that distinguishes them from others. Simply because I slop paint on a canvas doesn't make me a artist though it does make me a painter. And it is clear that, at least for this example, the artist *is* a painter. 'A implying B' does *not* imply 'B implying A'. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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

DES 2 challenge: Are you going to help?
by Trei Family 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's been remarkably little discussion about the DES II contest sponsored by RSA labs. On the 13th, RSA will post another DES challenge, again with a $10,000 prize. There's a new wrinkle: while the prize is still being given to the first person who reports the key, the size of the prize dwindles as time goes by. It's $10k for the first 540 hours (about 3 weeks), then drops to $5k for the next 540, then $1000, and after 1620 hours drops to 0. Next June RSA will release another challenge, with the same prize; however the time limits will ratchet down depending on how fast the key is discovered this time around. Details are at www.rsa.com I've heard of only one organized group which plans to attack it; the one based at www.distributed.net This is the same group which successfully brute forced 56 bit RC5 encryption. My educated guess, based on the speed with which they are currently searching RC5-64 (about 11 Gkey/sec) and the known speed differences between RC5 and DES searching, is that they have a good but not certain chance of finding the key within the $10,000 window. [Interesting factoid - at that speed they could crack 40 bit RC5 keys at better than one a minute.] If you have cycles to spare, you might consider joining for the DES attack. Their clients are quite good, and do not interfere with normal operations. If you don't want to trust d.n's organizers, consider running Svend Mikkelsen's Bryddes for x86 processors. It's quite a bit faster than my DESKR, and full source is available. Peter Trei trei(a)ziplink.net

2 1

RML : New Webmaster Newsletter!!
by ryan＠ntslink.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This List has been purchased by "RML" This is the first webmaster mailing we have done so if you are not a Adult Webmaster, wish to be removed from this list, or have more than one E-mail from us please let us know and we will take care of it! Webmasters contact us at ryan(a)ntslink.net for the price to mail out this newsletter with your Company's information! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranked # 32 on Web Side Story Tight Teenage Nymphos new *Cheater Proof* Top 50 is kicking some serious ass ;-) The site is at http://www.teennympho.com and the webmaster's area is at http://www.teennympho.com/webmasters.html * We were one of the first 10 Top 50's on the net to have the automatically updated script * * We have double CGI to prevent cheaters from getting listed * * You can send hits to our site by opening a console wth our link in it ANY way you want !! Some ideas are 1)Opening it every time someone leaves/enters your site 2) Opening it every time someone clicks on a link to one of your pics 3) Any other way you can think of! * * We average 30-40,000 Uniques a day by Webside Story's Count * * NO Main page BANNERS * * TONS OF BOOKMARK HITS * Click here http://www.teennympho.com to find out more information ;-) We'll see you at the TOP!!!! Sincerely, Ryan Lanane

1 0

Re: Zippo censors are losing customers
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <jai(a)mantra.com> writes: > > From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> > > > >Zippo is now censoring more people besides Colin. It may sound cheap > >but it's not worth $19/year. > > Now many discussion threads (not spam) are missing from DejaNews also. > They claim to be using "technology" developed by Zippo -- the following > press release is located at: It sounds like dejanews is applying nocem on spool, and also applying old nocems to their historical databases. (Does that include chris lewis's "trollcancels"?) Zippo refuses to accept articles where the From: is one of the many people they've blacklisted for content. See the recent article by Russ Allbery on net.config where he promotes panix's patches to nntp for something similar. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Hello, enjoy it..
by hethr＠ntr.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CHECKS PAID TO YOU UP-FRONT 6 DAYS A WEEK! LEARN THE SECRET TO MAKING $1750.00 - $2175.00 A WEEK SITTING AT YOUR HOME COMPUTER FOR JUST A COUPLE HOURS A DAY! PART-TIME! IN JUST 10 MINUTES WE'LL SHOW YOU AN EASY WAY TO MAKE MONEY WITH YOUR COMPUTER. It's fun, it's rewarding, and it's easy. This is so simple most children could do it! All you need is a computer and E-Mail address to begin making excellent money while relaxing in the comfort of your own home. All it takes is a couple hours a day and you can make $1750.00 a week, or even $2175.00 (TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE DOLLARS) There are people doing this every week. Right now there are only a few people around the country who know how to do this. And these few people are having the best time of their lives while their computers make them a high level of income. Even if you are happy with your current job, you can use this easy system in your spare time to create a nice extra income. And let us assure you this system is completely legal. We are so sure anyone can make a great extra income with this unique system, we will even let you try it out for 30 days! And if you're not 100% satisfied, just send it back within 30 days and we will be more than happy to give you a full refund. Once you begin to see how easy it is to make money with your computer, you will wish you had received this letter a long time ago. Anyone can do this, and since very little of your time is required, you will have more free time to spend doing the things you have always wanted to do. So take the first step toward financial freedom and order this powerful money making system today! You'll be glad you did! This system has sold nationwide for as much as $29.95 And in 2 weeks we may be raising the price of our money making system. Send in your order before then to be sure you receive it for only $14.95 To receive your copy of our SIMPLE COMPUTER MONEY MAKING SYSTEM, along with a full 30 day money back guarantee, send a check or money order for $14.95 payable to: Crown Industries 1630 North Main St. Suite# 310 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Allow 4-6 days for delivery (We do not accept orders from the state of Florida) P.S. We guarantee our "Computer Money Making System" is the most complete and incredible money making system for quick success you will ever use. If you are not totally convinced that it's the greatest work at home program anywhere, simply send it back for a fast hassle free refund. Due to the high response rate, we are not able to answer questions or take orders by e-mail. Please direct all business to our postal address listed above. Thank you, Crown Industries

1 0

Head up - Press civil rights spin-doctorism...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Check out the current 'Justice Files' on The Discovery Channle. The general gist is that individual prior to being proven a criminal have too many civil liberties and as a result police are hindered in their duties. It'd be pretty funny if it wasn't serious. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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

Theory Behind USA v. Microsoft
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Cassidy writes in the January 12 New Yorker mag of the controversial economic theory which undergirds DoJ's antitrust action against Microsoft. He cites a seminal 1984 paper by Brian Arthur, "Competing Technologies and Lock-in by Historical Small Events: The Dynamics of Choice Under Increasing Returns." After years of disparagement the theory seems to have caught on, at least at Justice and with others who oppose the theory of free market determination of winners and losers. Arthur argues that market dominance by inferior products is possible, and cites MS-DOS as an example. Arthur is now a scientist at the Santa Fe Institute. He says his theory "stands a great deal of economics on its head." One critic said to Arthur, "If you are right, capitalism can't work." For those unable to get the magazine, we offer a copy of Cassidy's essay: http://jya.com/arthur.htm (33K) A side note: the same issue has a short piece noting that the early charges of militant conspiracy behind the OKC bombing have disappeared from the trials of McVeigh and Nichols, and proposes that an apology is due militants, militia and other paranoiac targets.

3 2

Anger Crimes Up 442% In Bay Area
by Bezerkeley Nutly News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Bezerkeley Nutly News: Special Report by Defcon McCullagh Chainsaw] AT AN EMERGENCY CYPHERPUNKS PHYSICAL MEETING AT THE W&S TAVERN AT 5 a.m. in south Berkeley this morning, a lone gunman held police at bay for several hours before escaping with a carton of cigarettes and several bottles of cheap scotch. While W&S Tavern owners explained to reportwhores that they had no plans to seek charges against the unknown gunman, since he used to be a regular customer and a good tipper, a police spokesperson told the same reportwhores, under promise of UnAnonymity, that they would be seeking the death penalty for the gunman, if caught, under the recent Criminal Emotions legislation passed last week by the Politically Correct Peephole's Party at a recent Bezerkeley City Council meeting. "Although the PCP leaders have only had time to train and deploy a few hundred volunteers trained to recognize the signs of the new Criminal Emotions," said Anonymous Badge #356, "it has already become apparent that Anger and Negative Attitude crimes are skyrocketing out of control in the Bay Area." "The physical gunshot wounds suffered by several officers tonight will heal, with time," the gender-neutral individual continued, in a monotone voice, "but the anger expressed toward them by the gunman will remain with them forever, or until the gunman apologizes, if caught." Several hundred Postal Workers have already been detained and sent for pschological testing in the Berkeley area under the strict new laws governing restriction of expressions of disgruntlement within 500 feet of a mailbox by federal postal employees. A US Postal Service spokesperson told reportwhores, "I'm certainly not happy about this..." and was immediately arrested and whisked away by a group of homeless people helping to enforce the new legislation in return for Bezerkeley City Council's promise to add shopping cart lanes next to the current bike lanes on city streets. A member of "The Disgruntled Postal Workers", a Tucson-based muscial group exempted from the new legislation under the "artistic license" provisions, said, as he went through the pockets of the dead fans who failed to escape during the climax of the performance, "I think the gunman at the W&S Tavern was a member of 'The Angry Young Men' who opened for us, so it is unlikely any charges can be laid in the incident, unless he actually smoked some of the cigarettes in the bar during the shooting spree." The owner of the W&S Tavern, when asked by reportwhores if he was unhappy with the damage done to the bar during the shootout, consulted briefly with his attorneys regarding the new Criminal Emotion laws in the Berkeley area, and replied, "No. I'm perfectly happy with the situation." A nearby Berkeley policeman immediately shot down the bar owner, saying, "He looked a little *too* happy, if you ask me." The attorneys merely shrugged as the man lay dying on the sidewalk, telling reportwhores, "The laws are clearly written not to allow deviation of emotionally legal expression too far in *any* direction, and we find that to be... uuhhh...acceptable." Every bar owner contacted by this reportwhore in regard to the new law prohbiting drinking, as well as smoking, in Bay Area bars, said that they were "cautiously optomistic" that their business would not suffer as a result of the legislation. "What we lose in volume, we can make up with lower overhead costs by not needing to stock any of the products we sell." said one bar owner as she placed a 'For Sale' sign in the front window.

2 1