December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Report available: "Minimal Key Lengths for Symmetric Ciphers"
by um＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Anyone who listens to crypto advice from people who's purpose in life >is to listen to *YOU* gets what they deserve. I'll stay with PGP which >has a 2048 bit key. ROTFL. Last time I checked, it was 128 bits. BTW, do you know what "minimal" means? -- Ulf Mvller * E-Mail: <um(a)c2.org> * WWW: http://www.c2.org/~um/

1 0

Re: Nuke em if ya got em "TCMay"
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 05, 1996 06:49:57, 'attila <attila(a)primenet.com>' wrote: > >attila sez: > > It is not whether paralax does not know shit from beans, but that >he proves to all that he would prefer to censor TCMay and James A. >Donald than listen to their opinions, despite the fact he posted his >own rather trivial and absurd point. > >political correctness and the liberal news intrepretations of "all >men are created equal" with reverse discrimination, destruction of >the work ethic for the dole, and the New World Order whose need is >more and more cheaper labor, even to the point of disenfranchising >whole element of America society to achieve a worker's underclass is >the shit part of beans and shit. > > with this, I suppose I have been entered upon your "list" of >enemies of the 'statist' nation along with TCMay and James A. Donald, >and that my prejudged conviction and sentence requires me to write >30,000 lines of debugged C source code before the end of this year. > > how about 30,000 lines of debugged Ada source for you? --while >I add you to procmailrc: > > :0: > * ^[FRST].*paralax > assholes > It seems that the lib'ers on the list continue to behave in their increasingly demagogic style. Instead of dealing with substantive criticism they charge those who disagree with them are "censors". First Atilla charges one critic "paralax" with "not wanting to listen" when it seems obvious that paralax is not only listening but responding. Then Atilla concludes by giving us the code for his mail software whereby he will not listen, thus doing the very thing he accuses others of. Second, instead of discussing the substantive issues he goes off to denounce the various lib'ber horsemen of the "liberal media," "political correctness," "reverse discrimination," "the dole," and "the New World Order." I sense that both groups of lib'bers share the same methodology. The first group (Rush's "lib'bers") around people like Dworkin and other professional "anti-rape feminists" have their Politically Correct Agenda and Politically Correct terminology. If you disagree with it they proceed with a stream of demagogic and vitupertive abuse, followed by another stream of off-the-wall political attacks using words like "stalking," "sexual harassment," "rape," and "male patriarchal [whatever]" followed by statements of their personal sense of "indignation" and "outrage." Then they announce they are no longer going to listen to the very discussion they started. Until they start another. The second group (the lib'bertarians) have their Politically Correct Agenda and Politically Correct Language. If you disagree with them to also get a stream of off-the-wall political attacks featuring terms like those Atilla used. Then they, very much like the radical feminist lib'bers put their electronic fingers in their electronic ears so they do not have to listen. These are the people who have the political agenda, the personal maturity, and the political strategy to make the net and the world a better place? Not from what I've seen. --tallpaul

1 0

Re: Tell me whats wrong with this
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:06 PM 2/8/96, avatar(a)mindspring.com wrote: >Tell me whats wrong with this section of the telecom bill. I have a six >year old boy I am trying to raise >and it is hard enough to teach him respect and values without explaining why >Ned Beatty is being >bungholed in the woods by Billy Bob or why the Terminator splattered this >guys brains all over the >wall. > Tell me why parents should not be able to censor their OWN >television so that they may raise their children the way THEY see >fit...................Did your dad give you his old >playboys?.........NOOOOO............ >Did he take you down to your grandmothers autopsy before her >funeral?...................I Don't Think So..... > Honestly, don't you believe that what a child is exposed to effects >his judgement, perception, > attitude,and character?? I think Avatar is having some kind of fit here, but I will attempt to answer his questions. First, most televisions and VCRs are currently equipped with the "O-Switch," which parents have long been using to turn content on and off. Second, assuming you have televisions and VCRs at this time, you surely must realize that these will not be affected by the V-Chip? There is no retrofit plan (thankfully) and so it will take well over a decade at current replacement rates for most households to have only V-chipped sets. (Perhaps Avatar is different from most of us, and plans to dump his existing televisions and VCRs and replace them with V-Chipped machines.) Third, the main objection most of us have is to the _coercive_ aspect. I have no objection to you and your 6-year-old son buying a V-chip type of gadget, but I don't want to be told in a free society that this is the only choice *I* will have. (Amongst other things, I don't believe the $2 per machine estimate, and neither do the set makers.) Fourth, there are major ambiguities in ratings. Will "Schindler's List" be rated as more violent and sexually explicit than "The Terminator"? Probably, by objective standards (my objective standards, that is). Imagine the uproar. Fifth, there is the general notion that government must screen material and/or act as babysitter. This leads to all sorts of problems. >All I'm saying is it's tough to raise a child these days without the added >distortion of modern >programing and parents need not be denied any tool that can help them >achieve success. "Need not be denied" = "Put this chip in your machines and adopt a ratings service or we will shut your factory down and close your network." Some opinion for a Cypherpunk to have. And quite a contrast with your own sig. In any case, your 6-year-old son will be 8 before the first V-Chip-equipped sets appear on the market, at the earliest (no technical standards have even been proposed, no ratings services proposed, etc., so I doubt V-chips will appear before 1999). However, unless you dump all your existing sets and VCRs (remember that all VCRs act as tuners...that's how I watch t.v., through my VCR tuner), little Johnny will still be able to tune in to Bad Thoughts. And even if you get all V-chipped equipment, by, say, 2002, when Johnny is 12, he'll undoubtedly be able to find some of his buddies who have their own VCRs, DirectTV dishes, etc. They'll have a blast watching "Debbie Does Fort Meade." > >||The government is my shepherd I need not work. It alloweth me to lie > down on a good job. It leadeth me beside stilled factories. It destroyeth > my initiative. It leadeth me in the path of a parasite for politics sake. YEA, > though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficet spending I shall > fear no evil, for the government is with me. It prepareth an economic utopia > for me by appropriating the earnings of my grandchildren. It filleth my head > with false security. My inefficiency runeth over. Surely, the government >should care for me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in a fools >paradise >forever.................AMEN! || nuke'm if ya got'em|| You believe this about the government, and yet you want the government to mandate a chip in receivers to stop Bad Thoughts? Jeesh. --Tim May [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the Communications Decency Act] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and do em right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said. "Dad's getting old. I say we should do him." So the two daughters got him drunk and did him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got em pregnant....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he whacked off first....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

Re: Tell me whats wrong with this
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:49 PM 2/8/96 -0600, Avatar wrote: >You probably had no problem with seat belts being manditory eqiupment , >because they >protected YOU and the people YOU cared about. >You probably had no problem with manditory airbags, public building smoke >alarms, unleaded >fuel, restaurant health codes,etc....Because they protected you and or >people you care about, >even though they cost YOU more money. Gee, there's nothing like false speculations as a basis for attack. I, for instance, have a friend who's been in two serious car accidents in recent years. In one she was belted in, and survived a nasty tumble that otherwise almost certaily would have killed her. In the other, she was in a truck from the pre-mandated-belts era, and was thrown free before the car collided with a pole that pierced all the way through the driver's seat. The mandate could have killed her. Sure, that's rare. I always belt up, or virtually always. Do I approve the mandate? No. ditto with all of the others. I want _information_, not _behavior control_. So. For those of us who do not generally approve of pushing responsibility for our morals (or health needs, for those of us with severe immune problems) onto others, how do you justify compelling us to spend money to make your life easier? >It's obvious that you watch a lot television your an excellent sensationalist. >Besides, we both no that the cost of the chip is insignificant. This device >hurts no one! In the first place, we don't know anything of the sort. Show the chip implemented in a mass-market TV or VCR, and back up your claims. Second, by putting more rating power into the hands of the State, it does emphatically threaten freedom of expression. And remember: anyone with your sig file, assuming you believe its sentiments, has no great ground for confidence that his views, rather than those of the worst and best-organized busybodies around, will prevail. Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

Re: Mailing list
by JOHN MARTIN LEWARS 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When I wrote: > Please make me apart of your mailing list. I meant: Please take me apart on your mailing list. Thanks, Jack.

1 0

Re: Tell me whats wrong with this
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Two things are wrong with the law. 1) Parents still can turn the TV off. They don't need any V-chip or bills from congress to do that. (This obvious fact seems to escape every bug-eyed person) 2) The v-chip would have already been deployed as an option if congress hadn't stepped into the ring. The marketplace saw the demand and had already developed the technology. Congress got it's finger in the pie and it will probably be 2 years now before its actually deployed. Gee thanks Newt. Dan > From owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Thu Feb 8 17:05:13 1996 > X-Sender: avatar(a)mindspring.com > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 17:06:22 -0600 > To: tcmay(a)mail.got.net > From: avatar(a)mindspring.com > Subject: Tell me whats wrong with this > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 4330 > > Tell me whats wrong with this section of the telecom bill. I have a six > year old boy I am trying to raise > and it is hard enough to teach him respect and values without explaining why > Ned Beatty is being > bungholed in the woods by Billy Bob or why the Terminator splattered this > guys brains all over the > wall. > Tell me why parents should not be able to censor their OWN > television so that they may raise their children the way THEY see > fit...................Did your dad give you his old > playboys?.........NOOOOO............ > Did he take you down to your grandmothers autopsy before her > funeral?...................I Don't Think So..... > Honestly, don't you believe that what a child is exposed to effects > his judgement, perception, > attitude,and character?? > > All I'm saying is it's tough to raise a child these days without the added > distortion of modern > programing and parents need not be denied any tool that can help them > achieve success. > > SEC. 551. PARENTAL CHOICE IN TELEVISION PROGRAMMING. > (a) FINDINGS- The Congress makes the following findings: > (1) Television influences children's perception of the values > and behavior that are common and acceptable in society. > (2) Television station operators, cable television system > operators, and video programmers should follow practices in > connection with video programming that take into consideration > that television broadcast and cable programming has established > a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of American children. > (3) The average American child is exposed to 25 hours of > television each week and some children are exposed to as much > as 11 hours of television a day. > (4) Studies have shown that children exposed to violent video > programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent > and aggressive behavior later in life than children not so > exposed, and that children exposed to violent video programming > are prone to assume that acts of violence are acceptable > behavior. > (5) Children in the United States are, on average, exposed to > an estimated 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on > television by the time the child completes elementary school. > (6) Studies indicate that children are affected by the > pervasiveness and casual treatment of sexual material on > television, eroding the ability of parents to develop > responsible attitudes and behavior in their children. > (7) Parents express grave concern over violent and sexual > video programming and strongly support technology that would > give them greater control to block video programming in the > home that they consider harmful to their children. > (8) There is a compelling governmental interest in empowering > parents to limit the negative influences of video programming > that is harmful to children. > (9) Providing parents with timely information about the > nature of upcoming video programming and with the technological > tools that allow them easily to block violent, sexual, or other > programming that they believe harmful to their children is a > nonintrusive and narrowly tailored means of achieving that > compelling governmental interest. > Charles Donald Smith Jr. > > ||The government is my shepherd I need not work. It alloweth me to lie > down on a good job. It leadeth me beside stilled factories. It destroyeth > my initiative. It leadeth me in the path of a parasite for politics sake. YEA, > though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficet spending I shall > fear no evil, for the government is with me. It prepareth an economic utopia > for me by appropriating the earnings of my grandchildren. It filleth my head > with false security. My inefficiency runeth over. Surely, the government > should care for me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in a fools paradise > forever.................AMEN! || nuke'm if ya got'em|| > ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: Mailing list
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:38 PM 2/8/96, JOHN MARTIN LEWARS wrote: >When I wrote: >> Please make me apart of your mailing list. >I meant: > Please take me apart on your mailing list. >Thanks, Jack. I think Futplex _did_ take you apart on the list. --Tim P.S. To have mercy on you, if you want to subscribe to the Cypherpunks list, send a message to: majordomo(a)toad.com with this in the body: subscribe cypherpunks [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the Communications Decency Act] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and do em right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said. "Dad's getting old. I say we should do him." So the two daughters got him drunk and did him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got em pregnant....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he whacked off first....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

Tell me whats wrong with this
by avatar＠mindspring.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tell me whats wrong with this section of the telecom bill. I have a six year old boy I am trying to raise and it is hard enough to teach him respect and values without explaining why Ned Beatty is being bungholed in the woods by Billy Bob or why the Terminator splattered this guys brains all over the wall. Tell me why parents should not be able to censor their OWN television so that they may raise their children the way THEY see fit...................Did your dad give you his old playboys?.........NOOOOO............ Did he take you down to your grandmothers autopsy before her funeral?...................I Don't Think So..... Honestly, don't you believe that what a child is exposed to effects his judgement, perception, attitude,and character?? All I'm saying is it's tough to raise a child these days without the added distortion of modern programing and parents need not be denied any tool that can help them achieve success. SEC. 551. PARENTAL CHOICE IN TELEVISION PROGRAMMING. (a) FINDINGS- The Congress makes the following findings: (1) Television influences children's perception of the values and behavior that are common and acceptable in society. (2) Television station operators, cable television system operators, and video programmers should follow practices in connection with video programming that take into consideration that television broadcast and cable programming has established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of American children. (3) The average American child is exposed to 25 hours of television each week and some children are exposed to as much as 11 hours of television a day. (4) Studies have shown that children exposed to violent video programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children not so exposed, and that children exposed to violent video programming are prone to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior. (5) Children in the United States are, on average, exposed to an estimated 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on television by the time the child completes elementary school. (6) Studies indicate that children are affected by the pervasiveness and casual treatment of sexual material on television, eroding the ability of parents to develop responsible attitudes and behavior in their children. (7) Parents express grave concern over violent and sexual video programming and strongly support technology that would give them greater control to block video programming in the home that they consider harmful to their children. (8) There is a compelling governmental interest in empowering parents to limit the negative influences of video programming that is harmful to children. (9) Providing parents with timely information about the nature of upcoming video programming and with the technological tools that allow them easily to block violent, sexual, or other programming that they believe harmful to their children is a nonintrusive and narrowly tailored means of achieving that compelling governmental interest. Charles Donald Smith Jr. ||The government is my shepherd I need not work. It alloweth me to lie down on a good job. It leadeth me beside stilled factories. It destroyeth my initiative. It leadeth me in the path of a parasite for politics sake. YEA, though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficet spending I shall fear no evil, for the government is with me. It prepareth an economic utopia for me by appropriating the earnings of my grandchildren. It filleth my head with false security. My inefficiency runeth over. Surely, the government should care for me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in a fools paradise forever.................AMEN! || nuke'm if ya got'em||

3 2

Re: [SILLY] Mailing list
by lmccarth＠cs.umass.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I knew this was too good to be true: Forwarded message: > From owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Thu Feb 8 18:42:54 1996 > Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 07:38:08 +0800 > Message-Id: <199602082338.HAA03879(a)infolink2.infolink.net> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > From: JOHN MARTIN LEWARS <jml216(a)psu.edu> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Reply-To: jml216(a)psu.edu > Subject: Re: Mailing list > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > When I wrote: > > Please make me apart of your mailing list. > I meant: > Please take me apart on your mailing list. > Thanks, Jack.

1 0

[Speaking of mail headers] the Zundel 'Censorship' fraud
by Richard Charles Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As recently posted by my close friend rich(a)c2.org. Ingrid could have fired up a mirror site at cts.com any time she pleased. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- wrightd(a)merlin.magic.mb.ca writes: >In group can.politics, article <31152afc.732040(a)news.snafu.de>, >tilman(a)berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote: > >... > >>This info as a reponse to the guy who said that Zündel hasn't access to >>the net himself. > >Tilman, if Zundel has his own web server, he doesn't *need* access to the >internet to get his own web page. He just has to be on a LAN (local area >network). He can fake any part of the internet by having his own server on >his own network, but that doesn't *prove* that he has access to anything - >it just shows that he has a good computer system. N:~> host ezundel.cts.com ezundel.cts.com has address 204.212.157.52 This is not a troll or a masquerade. You will see that genuine authenticated email messages and posts from Zundel's official spokesperson "Ingrid" come from this IP address. The contents of this message were lies too, but hey, I'm not into posting private email. Received: from mailhub.cts.com (mailhub.cts.com [192.188.72.25]) by Networking.Stanford.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id EAA29094 for <llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu>; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 04:15:15 -0800 Received: from [204.212.157.52] by mailhub.cts.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #20) id m0thbRP-000V34C; Wed, 31 Jan 96 04:15 PST Date: Wed, 31 Jan 96 04:15 PST X-Sender: ezundel(a)mail.cts.com Message-Id: <v01530504ad34a8781ca2(a)[204.212.157.52]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Rich Graves <llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu> From: ezundel(a)cts.com (E. Zundel) Subject: Re: I believe we've been conned. Cc: declan+(a)CMU.EDU - -rich Institute for Ernst Zundel Revisionism http://36.190.0.210/~llurch/Not_By_Me_Not_My_Views/ "First, bring down Zundel's suffering in terms of numbers and events, both real and imagined, to what it really was, not what they say it was, what they exploit for their own political, financial, and geopolitical purposes." AltaVista/DejaNews fodder: Zundel Zundel Zundel Zundel Zundel Zundel Zundel Zundel Zundel Zundel Zundel Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Nazi Propaganda Nazi Propaganda Nazi Propaganda Nazi Propaganda Nazi Propaganda Censorship Censorship Censorship Censorship Censorship Censorship Censorship Simon Wiesenthal Center Simon Wiesenthal Center Simon Wiesenthal Center -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRqUJo3DXUbM57SdAQEJ2wP6AvMiAveRWoWJFqcvTO4Q3qFUY1a9iVKN Aw7NkoJJiH21WmRuATODxi9OtQQ9okVrNxJMMIaXPaF5SAm5Lk4Of+1IG1ULhKcx QamSe/NN9z4vZLyaM4j1UVJ09On/0TdyzMdRx6S5yDgpCqzLc+2coDcoINtxCRsr pqmBcsDtAMM= =qUEe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0