December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Jim Nalbandian
by nobody＠jarthur.cs.hmc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A Detweiler by any other name is still the same.

1 0

Re: Double betting and money laundering
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Peter Wayner wrote: > >>Apparently, casinos are now on the lookout for people who >>are teaming up to play both halves of a bet. One casino >>kicked out two guys who apparently were betting on pass >>and don't pass on the craps table. Why were they bothering? >>Was it laundering? Nope. It turns out that casinos hand >>out free "comps" based on the amount of betting that you >>do. This is called being "rated." They notice that you're >>betting $10 chips and figure that the math shows that you'll >>probably lose x dollars per hour. Then they give you free >>room and food to show their appreciation. > >Forgive me, but I am skeptical. I worked for a short while as a licensed >craps dealer in NJ about 10 years ago. There is no combination of bets >on a craps table that will cancell out the house advantage. When I delt, >the house welcomed any combination of bets any player wanted to make, let >alone worrying about what some confederate on the same table might do. > Yes, there is no combination that will cancel out the house odds. I'm guessing that the two craps players hoped that their small losses would be less than the cost of the hotel room that they would win by being comped. The story just reported that the casino kicked out two people who were engaged in this after one demanded to be comped. The article mentioned that casinos seemed to want to comp people at 30% of their expected losses. I'm sort of skeptical of this working out because the expected losses of two players mirroring their bets with an odd/even strategy on the roulette wheel is twice the expected losses of one person just betting straight odd. But who says that gamblers know everything? -Peter

1 0

Message to Pr0duct Cypher
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been using magic money, the digital cash implementation. I have a few requests that maybe you could think about. 1) any hope for a macintosh version anytime soon? I've had a number of requests for it... 2) it seems possible to write a routine to report on the banks' current money supply; It'd be useful for me, anyhow. Using the info in elist.dat and dlist.dat and spent.dat I think it'd be trivial. Is it? more later.. mt Matt Thomlinson University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. phone: (206) 548-9804 Check my home page -- ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/public/phantom/home.html PGP 2.2 key available via email, or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

1 0

Re:The Value of Money
by f_griffith＠ccsvax.sfasu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >>> GRABOW_GEOFFREY(a)tandem.com asked: >>> >>>>Didn't Nixon take the U.S. off of the gold standard? >>>> > >> >>The US$ was devalued from $35 to $38 /oz gold and the Treasury stopped >>redeeming dollars from anyone other than central banks in '69. >>This created a two tier market. The US devalued again in '70 (0r '71) >>to $45 /oz, and then threw in the towel and stopped backing the >>currency with anything other than "the full faith and credit of the >>US government" [:)]. >>US citizens were permitted to own gold bullion again as of Jan '75, >>under Ford. >> >> Jeff >> trestrab(a)gvsu.edu > Roosevelt eliminated domestic convertibility 1n 1933. Nixon eliminated international convertibility ("closed the gold window" as it's often stated) in August, 1971. The dollar was devalued from 1/35 oz of gold to 1/38 oz in December, 1971. The dollar was devalued from 1/38 oz to 1/42.22 oz in Feb, 1973. Of course, the devaluations didn't really matter since even the international convertibility ha been eliminated. Reynolds

1 0

Another URL for PGP announcement...
by Brian A. LaMacchia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That URL I posted earlier for MIT's PGP announcement won't work after some time today. (The server is/was located in the Hilton Ballroom and had to be moved.) A more permanent URL is: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html This URL will be updated to include information on how to get PGP 2.5 when it is available. --bal

1 0

RADIO SHOW ABOUT CRYPT
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

C'punks, If you are in the Bay Area, tune to 88.5 FM to hear a public radio show on encryption and privacy. I'll be on for the next half hour (till 12:30 pm PDT) S a n d y

1 0

legal rqmt for FAX return phone #
by dat＠ebt.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought I heard somewhere that it was illegal to send anonymous faxes -- namely, that there was some regulation that you had to program your FAX machine with your phone number so it would get sent automagically whenever you faxed anything. Essentially it was ILLEGAL to fax without providing the recipient with a mechanism to find out where it came from. Of course, I suspect enforcement is lax, but still... :-) :-( Can someone please confirm this, or help with a reference? Private e-mail is fine... -- dat(a)ebt.com (David Taffs)

1 0

MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi folks, I just started a MBone cypherpunks session and the discription is: session: cypherpunks descript: We're here to stay... Just say *no* to the clipper... It'll just clip your wings so you can't fly... -lile :) -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 4

Re: MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, if any of you cypherpunks have MBone access, could you see if my session is showing up in sd? I also started a bisex channel. :) -lile

1 0

Re: Anonymous, nobody, lefty and Jimbo
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn writes > >I took it upon myself to poke around a bit and this is what I came up with: > >The phone number and address are indeed belonging to one Jim Nalbandian >in Tempe, AZ. They are listed, published, and publicly available. I >guess the bottom line question is when is privacy the burden of the >user? Is it Mr. Nalbandian's obligation to take steps for privacy? How >much at fault can "nobody" be at for publishing information that Mr. >Nalbandian could have shielded for pennies? Would it be your position then, that, say, any woman who doesn't happen to have an unlisted phone number is fair game to have her name and number written in a toilet stall in Grand Central Station with the notation "For a Good Time, call..."? You wouldn't feel that to be an invasion of privacy? (If indeed it is the same >Jim Nalbandian) Mr. N's signature held his state and city of residence. >It is no great accomplishment for anyone to look up his published >information. Posting it to the net might have been "sleazy" in the eyes >of some, but no worse than circumventing copyright laws with the "Information >Liberation Front." In fact one could argue that "nobody"'s actions were above >this sort of criticism. (I should note that I do not express any >personal opinion on the ILF one way or the other). Sorry, but we clearly disagree here. I view it as a clear incitement to harassment, and, in my opinion, _that_ constitutes an invasion of privacy. >In short Lefty: Privacy comes to those who seek it. No. Privacy is, or should be, the right of all. I don't have to do anything special to enjoy my rights to free speech or free assembly. I should not have to take special measures to enjoy my right to privacy, either. If I don't lock my front door, that doesn't imply that anyone can walk into my house. To do so would _still_ be an invasion of privacy. >Mr. Nalbandian got exactly what privacy he paid for: None. This misses the point entirely. Even the indigent have a right to privacy. >"nobody" saved us all the $0.75 a long distance information call costs. >Multiply that in the aggregate and you have some nice money. > >I think it worth noting that Mr. Nalbandian hasn't posted since "nobody"'s >letter. A considerable social gain in my view. Perhaps Mr. Nalbandian will >take an interest in privacy now, another considerable social gain. "Hey! The ends _do_ justify the means!" -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

2 1