December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Safeway + Your Privacy
by rarachel＠prism.poly.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Your last statement about garbage in/out reminds me of a paragraph in the HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy about this one planet where you must shit as much matter as you eat, or it will be surgically removed from your body. :-) This stupid recycling nonsense is pretty out of hand here in NYC too... If they find anything that's not supposed to be in your trash can (ie: a soda bottle in a can of newspapers) you get fined. This means that if some kid walks by your house and decides to throw his soda bottle in your trash can instead of smashing it on the ground as is the (offical method of recycling here in NYC as car tires need lots of glass :-) you will get fined. Idiotic, but true. Also, keep in mind that recycling makes the jobs of FBI agents much easier... What spook wants to read your paper waste if its covered by diapers, coffe grounds, parakeet droppings, etc... <grin> NYC is well known for its shitty subways and lots of "We're really nice" subway ads that are "environmental" in nature. My cynical nature says that the only reason they want us to take the trains instead of the cars is that a) they don't want to pay to repair the pot-holes, b) they want to get more money in the subway system, and to add all the damn emissions and DMV tickets, nonsense help this... Ugh...

1 0

Info Theory Conference
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(fwd from cellular digest) Dear Colleagues. I want to draw your attention to the conference: ISIT 94 - IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory to be held 27th June- 1st July 1994 at ======================== The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway. --------------------------------------------------------- There will be 7 parallell sessions on the following topics: Distributed information processing Stochastic processes Applications of information theory Error-control coding Multi-user information theory Pattern recognition Cryptography and security Data compression Detection and estimation Signal processing Optical communications Neural networks Communication systems Shannon theory Image and speech coding Data networks Source coding There are around 500 presentations, many of which should be of interest for people working in the cellular business. Afterall, cellular technology is a very hot field. A social programme, accompanying persons programme and post conference tours are offered. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advance program, including registration form, is available from: ISIT 94 SEVU Congress Dept Phone: 47-73-595245 The Norwegian Institute of Technology Fax: 47-73-595150 N-7034 Trondheim, Norway E-mail: isit(a)sevu.unit.no --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E-mail copy of the advance technical program only, is available from: knut.grythe(a)delab.sintef.no torleiv.maseng(a)tde.lth.se ===================== Signature: Knut Grythe, SINTEF Delab N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY. Teleph.:+47-73-592683 Fax:+47-73-591099 =====================

2 1

No Subject
by Interworld Police Coordinating Committee 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

gehm(a)merle.acns.nwu.edu, ignatz(a)homebru.chi.il.us, wicker(a)angus.mystery.com, m.yudkowsky(a)att.com, ben(a)tai.chi.il.us Subject: Re: FWD>Science frauds Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if my memory serves me correctly, THE SPOTLIGHT is an anti-Semitic rag; that makes every other word they publish suspect. And if there's a world wide conspiracy of physicists making dough off of all this, how come I never get any money batted my way? Moshe Yudkowsky m.yudkowsky(a)att.com iexist!moshe "Every morning you will see the wolf lying on the pasture side by side with a sheep. The only problem is that every morning it will be a different sheep." -- Mohammed Wattad, M.K.

1 0

Re: Milgram & Authority (+Ethics)
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: tim werner I have been racking my brain trying to remember who is John Barlow. I know I've heard his name come up before this mini-thread. Can someone please 'splain? ....................................... He's one of the revolutionary founders of EFF, and pre-revolutionary lyricist for the Grateful Dead.

1 0

Re: Warrantless searches -- A sign of things to come?
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-> There's another difference between dorms and public housing. Public housing is the tenant's home. In a dorm, the school is acting in loco parentis. That is, the school is acting in the position of a parent, which gives them considerably more latitude. Mike <- This position flies in the face of law on the subject. "Persons who meet the required qualifications and who abide by the university's rules and regulations are permitted to attend and must be presumed to have sufficent maturity to conduct their own personal affairs. We know of no requirement of the law and none has been cited to us placing on a university or its employees any duty to regulate the private lives of their students, or to control their comings and goings and to supervise there associations." _Hegel v. Langsam_, 273 N.E.2d 351_ (1971). "A university is an institution for the advancement of knowledge and learning. It is neither a nursery school, a boarding school, nor a prision." Id. (Granting motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action upon which legal relief may be obtained. Student who was caused to become drug addicted, seduced, and allowed to be absent from dormatory while at defendant university gave rise to no claim of duty of care upon university as duty to university does not includew "parenting.") -uni- (Dark)

1 0

The Spotlight
by dmandl＠lehman.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Interworld Police Coordinating Committee <moshe(a)iexist.att.com> > > gehm(a)merle.acns.nwu.edu, ignatz(a)homebru.chi.il.us, wicker(a)angus.mystery.com, > m.yudkowsky(a)att.com, ben(a)tai.chi.il.us > Subject: Re: FWD>Science frauds > > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if my memory serves me correctly, THE SPOTLIGHT > is an anti-Semitic rag; that makes every other word they publish suspect. Yep, that's right. But not just anti-semitic. It's an extreme right-wing (read: fascist or crypto-fascist) paper affiliated with Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby, an especially slimy racist organization (I mean really racist, as in close pals with David Duke, publisher of pamphlets on the "inferiority of the Negro race," promoters of so-called "holocaust revisionism," etc.). They've been making inroads into the hip marginal milieu recently because of their sensational conspiracy theory reporting, but it's important to keep in mind who they are and what their real agenda is. I'm not telling anyone here whether the Spotlight should or shouldn't be used to spread the anti-Clipper word, or whether you should or shouldn't read it, merely pointing out who they are. Like most organizations of this type, they're less than honest about it. --Dave.

1 0

Re: Milgram & Authority (+Ethics)
by tim werner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Blanc Weber <blancw(a)microsoft.com> >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 94 10:51:31 PDT > >..., how would you maintain your position as one of >Barlow's revolutionary compadres? ~~~~~~ I have been racking my brain trying to remember who is John Barlow. I know I've heard his name come up before this mini-thread. Can someone please 'splain? tw

3 3

Re: Milgram & Authority (+Ethics)
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: sonny(a)netcom.com (James Hicks) > > > > I think that John Barlow and Mitch Kapor co-founded the Electronic > > Frontier Foundation. Yep. -- PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger! JAFEFFM Speaking & Thinking For Myself! * eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com email info(a)eff.org * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace *****

1 0

Re: You Will
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

People seem to be enjoying the AT&T parodies, so here are more that floated back when the originals made the rounds where I work. >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 94 14:02:53 PDT >Subject: Re: You Will ----- Begin Included Message ----- > >I forwarded the You Will stuff around a bit. Got this sent back. > > >----- Begin Included Message ----- > >Subject: Re: You Will >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 94 3:33:27 PDT >X-Lines: 15 > > >Have you ever... > >gotten a bill for an increase in your health insurance rates along with a >form letter saying, "we've noticed an increase in your consumption of >meats, dairy products, and sugars as reflected in the online records of >your supermarket purchasing patterns..." ....? YOU WILL! > >Have you ever... > >had your car impounded as you try to pass through a tollbooth, and the cop >says, "our scanners correlated your license plate number with the database >of unpaid parking tickets..." ...? YOU WILL! > > > > >----- End Included Message ----- > > ----- End Included Message ----- jamie -- "Sure, people mistake me for straight, but when I do get someone in bed,that's when being a femme *really* pays off." -Bryna Bank, on Butch/Femme jamie lawrence jamiel(a)sybase.com

1 0

Gambler's Ruin, 15 out of 16, and a Probability Parable
by collins＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Howdy Peter, OK, though it's been enjoyable, I won't try any further to convince you. I peppered this message with smileys to let you know that I think mathematical debates are about differing observations, not differing values. In such conversations, its easy to lose sight of that and take something the wrong way. Please don't; it has been fun and just because neither of us has convinced the other (yet) doesn't mean I think the less of you (or, hopefully, the reverse... I know to you, I must seem pretty `thick'). I, myself, would like a little more explanation of _your_ point of view (see my question below beginning with "Why?"). I will recapitulate the high points of my problems with your previous arguments so that you can clear them up for me in private e-mail. I also quote some equations that summarize the point I was trying to make, so that you can examine them and offer up alternatives that represent your point. I am cc'ing cypherpunks on this final message so that they can see these equations. Here we go :-) I wrote a conjecture: SC>A.1 As parishoners play and leave, the division of wealth approaches the SC> `odds' of the game. Which you agreed with: PH>I agree with both conjectures. I then repeated the conjecture in my argument: SC> [A.1] predicts that as ... the number of players goes to infinity, SC> ... the fraction of money won by the church approaches ... the probability SC> the church will win a single trial. Which you do _not_ accept as the statement you agreed with: PH>There is a slight difference between [A.1] and PH>this statement. [A.1] predicts that as ... the number of bets PH>goes to infinity the fraction of bets won will approach ... the PH>probability that the church will win a single trial. On the probability of the player's ultimate ruin you say: PH>Each parishioner has a high probability of losing their savings and a PH>low probability of winning everything owned by the church. It is PH>possible for any single parishioner to win everything, but it is PH>unlikely. Why? Why is the probability not almost `even', like the odds of the game, .51 vs .49? What other information influences this _new_ probability, the probability of the player going broke, if it is not---as I say---the difference in cash resources between the player and the house? I didn't ask you this question in my earlier messages---I thought I was supplying the answer---but you did provide an alternate explanation: PH>This player wins because he or she was fortunate enough to place the PH>first bet in the series [of sufficient consective bets lost by the house]. PH>The player needs to be lucky. To paraphrase my "Why?" question above: can you qualify `lucky'? How `lucky' does the player have to be? I submit to you that given individual trials where the players probability of winning a single unit in a single trial is p, the total amount of money at stake in the series of trials is C, the amount currently held by the player is d, the house C-d=D, that the ultimate chance for the players ruin is given by the equation (from [Weaver] cited in an earlier message): 1-p where r = --- p r^C - r^d R_d (prob. of ruin given d capital) = --------- r^C - 1 Though in the limit (a fair game) you would derive a friendlier form as: d R_d = 1 - - C ...and, of course, at the other extremes, where p=1, or p=0, the player never or always goes broke respectively. These equations are consistent the proposition that the probability of ruin depends on both the odds of the game _and_ the initial distribution of capital. Note their behavior as C increases with respect to d. Soon, this difference dominates even in the face of good `odds'. I invite you to experimentally verify, at your leisure, the `fair game' version with two players and different amounts of pennies where each bet is a single penny and decided by a coin toss. Finally, you offer me this comfort :-) PH>This can be very confusing. I've seen two professional mathematicians PH>and a futures textbook make this mistake. Thank you ;-) If I, two professional mathematicians, a textbook, a book I cited to you, and several other cypherpunks all erred similarly, then it must be a treacherously easy mistake to make; I don't feel any shame. But, I would also relate this little probability parable (again, from [Weaver])---of course drawing no comparisons: In the card room of the Quadrangle Club at the University of Chicago, years ago, a hand con- sisting of thirteen spades was dealt. The celebrated mathematician Leonard Eugene Dickson was one of the players. (Those who know his interest in bridge realize that the probability of his being one of the players was not far below unity.) At the request of his companions, he calculated the probability of this deal (It is roughly 10^-13.) A young know-it-all gaily reported at lunch the next day that he had calculated the probability of dealing thirteen spades, and had found that Dickson had made a mistake. Another famous mathematician, Gilbert Bliss, was present; he properly dressed down the youngster by saying, "Knowing that Dickson calculated a probability and got one result, and you had tried to calculate the same probability but got another result, I would conclude that the probability is practically unity that Dickson was right and you are wrong." Be happy and keep wondering---that's what makes us great, Scott Collins | "That's not fair!" -- Sarah | "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis 408.862.0540 | for comparison is." -- Goblin King ................|.................................................... BUSINESS. fax:974.6094 R254(IL5-2N) collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D Cupertino, CA 95014 ..................................................................... PERSONAL. 408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

1 0