December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: PLONK
by David Sternlight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Plonking is an outrageous abuse of net courtesy. Shame on you! David

1 0

Kill Files and Plonking
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A predictable round of "Public Plonkings" and "You're in my kill file, nyah, nyah, nyah!" postings. Personally, I regret ever mentioning adding anyone to my filter file, as it then generated the expected "But Tim won't see this...." nonsense. I shouldn't have done it. Public plonkings rarely accomplish anything. I move names and topics in and out of my filter files as the mood strikes me. I have the option of looking at the mail that's ended up in one of my various filter files, and deciding to move someone out of that file and back into the main list file. (With Eudora, I filter _every_ incoming message into one of a dozen or so files. It's just a question of which one. For a few really obnoxious people, I filter their stuff into Eudora's "Trash" file; when I empty the trash (Macintosh TM), their message is irretrievably gone.) I think it's best _not_ to publicize who is in one's filter or kill file for a couple of reasons: 1. It cuts down on the acrimonious plonkings and couter-plonkings. 2. It leaves open the door for gracefully reversing the process. 3. The filtered or killfiled person never really knows if he's being filtered, so there's a "random reinforcement" element which may, I am guessing, have an effect on posts. To satisfy any curiousity aroused, at this moment there are 12 names which I filter into a file called "Kill File" (but which is persistent, and can be looked at by me at any time) and only 2 names which I filter into "Trash" (which gets emptied fairly often, usually without my having looked to see what went into it). (No name I have ever mentioned publically in this context is in this Trash file.) Some people who write to me and get no response may of course be left wondering....this is the beauty of random reinforcement. --Tim Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

The wisdom of Mark Twain
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove any doubt. ObCypherpunk: Mark Twain was a pseudonym. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

CDA Yes Votes; Collection
by Tim Cook 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Find out if yours ( or any ) representative or senator voted for the CDA. Send me email with the subject CDA-YES. Put their name and where they are from in the body. I'll compile the list and post it. When this is over they'll wish they realized how powerful the internet REALLY is. Besides, what makes the US Congress think they have any control over a worldwide network? PS. Repost this msg where appropriate. I'm only posting to cypherpunks. Another "Logical Conclusion" by: Tim Cook <twcook(a)cts.com> Support THE US Constitution... Vote Alexander in '96 and '00!

1 0

[NOISE]More meaty CDA material
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded: The article starts with "SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- You motherfuckers in Congress have dropped over the edge of the earth this time." and gets better. >The American Reporter, working in conjunction with other groups opposed >to the CDA, commissioned a writer to produce a special article to >celebrate Clinton's signing of the new the law. > >Steve Russell, the author, retired after 16 years as a trial judge >in Texas and is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at the >University of Texas at San Antonio. > >This article was specifically and carefully designed to be completely >and utterly in breach of the CDA. If you are opposed to the CDA and >you are not offended by the "seven bad words", you'll probably find >it highly entertaining and insightful. > >OTOH, if you are easily offended and don't like bad language, JUST >DON'T READ IT. > >If you are easily offended and like to be offended and then like to >file Police Reports, please go ahead. After all it was written to >help ensure that the CDA gets challenged in the courts as soon as >possible. > >Here's the URL and don't tell me I didn't warn you: > >http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html > > >-- >|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| >| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". | >| malch(a)malch.com Gary Player. | >| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. | >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | "The Internet, of course, is more | than just a place to find pictures | of people having sex with dogs." stevenw(a)best.com | -- Time Magazine, 3 July 1995

1 0

Why ? You really want to know =>
by A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> The Administration has repeatedly stated its belief that those parts of >>the bill are unconsitutional, and does not intend to enforce them. >So why the fornicate did they include them? What's the point of passing >laws that they say they're not going to enforce, unless it's either to >enforce them later, or soften up the public for something _slightly_ more >tolerable later. If you already knew the answer, why ask ? It also could be that under our system of laws, once a rider is attached to a bill (in this case the telecommunications bill) it is almost impossible to remove. Congress has been using this quirk to provide pork-barrel & special interest thingies for years. I would prefer to think that some, realizing the impossibility of removal, increased it to the point of obvious unconstitutionality so that it would be separated as soon as possible. I suspect that both the three-judge special panel and the following supreme court decisions are already known and time is just needed to craft the SC decision so finely that this never happens again. (ever the optomist but believe that while the congressional agenda may be different and unobvious, it is rarely stupid.) - Pick almost any chapter in the Old Testament. Read it halfway. Look at how the famous figures look *at that point*. Just do not quote the "Song of Solomon" (KJV) on the net. Today. Warmly, Padgett

1 0

Re: Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:27 AM 02/9/96 -0800, Simon Spero <ses(a)tipper.oit.unc.edu> wrote: > The Administration has repeatedly stated its belief that those parts of >the bill are unconsitutional, and does not intend to enforce them. So why the fornicate did they include them? What's the point of passing laws that they say they're not going to enforce, unless it's either to enforce them later, or soften up the public for something _slightly_ more tolerable later. feh. Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRsSBMVrTvyYOzAZAQHm0AQAtEjLduasFOvLKpFPXmkqLjQS+6pnj4Sp NoLVGNUiV3xIGzMHSgCxYCYVQ8h5X7OreSxo6R4x4RGpgG6tadGkwvr6GUBbWg+W j9+0/dsiIhlCfe2dv7pSGBjgLeXIp4jSb9BniMbiebdov/VLvEUs47fffzsui9vm mBecJhZk0S4= =HAa3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> My web page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1148

2 1

Re: Reasons in support of crypto-anarchy
by Dr. Rich Artym 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message <199602070213.UAA03036(a)einstein.ssz.com>, Jim Choate writes: > If the intent is to motivate others to kill or otherwise harm others simply > because you don't agree with them or their actions is reprehensible and > moraly or ethicaly undefensible. I agree, but not for your reasons. "Reprehensible" and "ethically undefensible" both presupose that *you* can make an objective moral judgement that you are right and others are wrong, which is no better than the moral judgement that the politicians are making. A better reason for agreeing with your position is simply that value judgements of any kind are subjective, and therefore they cannot apply to everyone and hence it is a clear coercion to try to apply them to everyone. Coercion of one man's subjective views onto another is the fundamental fault in the position of the censors; it's a very fundamental attack on perhaps the most basic freedom we have, regardless of whether there is a Constitution or Ammendments in the country in which we live. > > 2. How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital > > cash, and other systems that will improve our freedom? > > > > By making shure they don't have the authority to make the decision in the > first place. It might well be too late for that: they've already taken the authority. Now we're starting a process of taking it back, and we can do so without bloodshed by moving the source of their power (monetary transactions and the consequent taxation) beyond their reach. That's where crypto comes in, and that's why many of us are here. > Every citizen of this country is a 'government employee' in one sense or > another. It is important that we adopt this overtly innocent view of civil servants and governments as our *servants*, because it is on the grounds of service that they justify their positions and actions on the single day every few years that we get to vote them in. Shoving the term "servant" down their throats at every opportunity is an excellent attack on their positions of power over us. Rich. -- ########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available # galacta # Internet: rich(a)galacta.demon.co.uk DNS 158.152.156.137 # ->demon # rich(a)mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org DNS 44.131.164.1 # ->ampr # NTS/BBS : g7exm(a)gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu # ->nexus # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng # ->NTS # More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London ########### Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."

1 0

OK, how *do* you spell it?
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I got a spelling ping this morning. I'd never really thought about it, before. Is it infocalypse or infoclypse? Cheers, Bob --- begin forwarded text Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:22:47 -0500 To: rah(a)shipwright.com X-URL: mailto:rah@shipwright.com X-Personal_name: David R. Conrad From: ab411(a)detroit.freenet.org Subject: Spelling glitch Robert, On the e$ home page, "Infocalypse" is misspelled "Infoclypse". Regards, -- David R. Conrad, conrad(a)detroit.freenet.org, http://www.grfn.org/~conrad Hardware & Software Committee : finger -l conrad(a)grfn.org for public key Key fingerprint = 33 12 BC 77 48 81 99 A5 D8 9C 43 16 3C 37 0B 50 No, his mind is not for rent to any god or government. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

At 05:34 PM 2/8/96 -0600, you wrote: > >avatar(a)mindspring.com writes: > > I have a six year old boy I am trying to raise and it is hard > > enough to teach him respect and values... > >What does your six-year-old have to do with my TV? > > > 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 > >But what about *my* TV? Why should I be forced to pay for something I >don't want just because you want it for yourself? [ Why does this >seem so obvious? 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. > > > All I'm saying is it's tough to raise a child these days without the added > > distortion of modern programing ... > >"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." > > > ... and parents need not be denied any tool that can help them > > achieve success. > >Oh, OK then. Parents should be given access to incendiary equipment >as a tool to destroy the studios that produce offensive material. > 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! 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||

2 1