December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: No Subject
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-04-17 02:35:51 EDT, you write: >Knowledge about TCP/IP is alot easier to control than knowledge about the >Berlin Wall (ie, how many Chinese will even know of the existence of TCP/IP >-- in the US, where this is freely available, how many citizens know of it's >existence)? I bet this would change if people saw knowledge of TCP/IP as the "key to the Berlin Wall."

1 0

META: Having the last word
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:58 PM 4/17/96, rick hoselton wrote: >I am enjoying this discussion, but I feel like I'm running out of >useful new ways to try to express this idea. If I don't reply, >it doesn't mean you have convinced me. :) I have long used this principle. All discussions have to end at some point, and I have no problems with others having "the last word." If they think that by having the last word, or by my non-response to their points, that they have "won," or that I am speechless before their eloquence, then of course they were not worth arguing with in the first place. No point in arguing with the preterite. (My neo-Calvinist stoicism showing.) Recall the recent absurdity of one of our list members repeatedly saying "I see that Joe Blow has still not responded to my arguments, so I guess he has conceded defeat! Hee Hee." The more likely explanation is that his opponent simply realized what he was dealing with. --Tim May THE X-ON CONGRESS: INDECENT COMMENT ON AN INDECENT SUBJECT, by Steve Russell, American Reporter Correspondent....You motherfuckers in Congress have dropped over the edge of the earth this time... "the sorriest bunch of cocksuckers ever to sell out the First Amendment" or suggesting that "the only reason to run for Congress these days is to suck the lobbyists' dicks and fuck the people who sent you there," ....any more than I care for the language you shitheads have forced me to use in this essay...Let's talk about this fucking indecent language bullshit.

1 0

Re: A possible problem with more regulation possible?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:17 PM 4/16/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > This proposal would appear to increase vulnerability to regulation. > -Allen > >From: IN%"educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" 7-APR-1996 18:42:00.83 > >>MORE ROUTERS = MORE INTERNET BROWNOUTS >>As businesses and Internet operators keep adding routers to speed electronic >>content on its way, the proliferation of routing devices actually begins to >>slow traffic, causing Internet "brownouts" -- when the response time slows >>to a crawl. The solution could be an updated Internet, redesigned for >>fewer, more powerful routers, so that data packets need fewer hops. "The >>U.S. Internet is about as reliable these days as the phone system in >>Russia," says NetStar's VP for sales and marketing. (Business Week 8 Apr 96 >>p82) I'd like to hear of some estimates of the cost (total, and per-user) of installing the system, and running Internet on a daily basis. They are spread out over a large number of entities, but I'd think they could be estimated with at least a factor-of-two precision. What are the costs of laying fiber? Switching equipment? etc.

1 0

Re: "STOP SENDING ME THIS SHIT"
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This rash of postings reminds me of a technique to harass someone by telephone. You note that pager companies are usually assigned a block of telephone numbers. So you program your auto-dialer to dial each in turn and then send your target's number. Result: your target gets a lot of, "Why did you page me?" calls. (My collage roommate had fun in high school by dialing two "random" numbers on his two line phone and then connecting them together and listening to the result.) The analogy here is to spoof mail addresses to subscribe your target to high-volume mailing lists. If you want to attack the list as well, even better. Can someone be subscribed to cypherpunks and not get the welcome message? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re[2]: "STOP SENDING ME THIS SHIT"
by Adam Pingitore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've got news for you all. This 'jerk' was spammed by some ass out there. I've canceled by subscription so would you all quit whining already. Sorry if I sent you people inappropriate mail, but I just wasn't very happy getting 2000 e-mails a day.

2 1

Re: i want off
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > can someone help me off this mailing list > > Mathew Ellman > > (DEAL WITH IT) > > 15 N WASHINGTON ST APT 1 > > VALPARAISO IN 46383 > > Smooth move. You just published your home address to about 1000 people, > all of whom are suspected of being involved in a nation-wide moon pie > theft clique. Expect weirdness. Ignore the knocks on your door late at > night. Do not feed or water the on-going Cypherpunks meeting and party > that is about to manifest itself in your front yard. If you do, they'll > never go away. > > [...] Check out http://catalog.savvy.com/ for added juvenile fun with this person. ;-) Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: Bernstein case decisision (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:00 PM 4/17/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote: >reposted with permission. > >A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 05:23:47 -0400 >>From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)well.com> >The following summary is from my colleague Shari Steele: > >What Judge Patel said. >First, the judge ruled that Bernstein could bring his case even though the >Arms Export Control Act specifically precludes judicial review, because what >we are asking the judge to review (i.e., the constitutionality of the >statute and its regulations) was not what had been precluded (i.e., the >government's determination in a particular instance whether or not something >was exportable). "With respect to constitutional questions, the judicial >branch not only possesses the requisite expertise to adjudicate these >issues, it is also the best and final interpreter of them." [stuff deleted] >The judge, therefore, did not throw out any of our claims (the ITAR acts as >a prior restraint on speech, the ITAR is overbroad, and the ITAR is vague). >She looked at each of them one by one and determined that each of them had >merit. > >What this decision means. >Most directly, it means that we can continue on with our lawsuit. The >government had brought a motion to dismiss the case, contending that the >court lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter because it was a matter of >national security. The judge struck that down and said that we can go >forward with our suit. > >More indirectly, the judge's ruling sets the stage for us winning at trial. >She clearly "gets it," and isn't intimidated by the government's use of >precedential cases that aren't on point. It looks like this judge is well on her way to throwing out the portion of ITAR which deals with software of all kinds, not merely digitized source code originally from books. That's progress, of a sort. I'm still waiting to see what that "Burns bill" will be all about. Since that bill is supposed to deal directly with the issues this judge has already shown sense on, I think that this bill ought to be no less generous with computer software exports than an anticipated court decision WRT ITAR will be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Re[2]: "STOP SENDING ME THIS SHIT"
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Perry E. Metzger > >Remedial english composition courses are available at virtually all >community colleges, and are a great help in making yourself understood >in writing. ....................................................................... Suvcrivers, Look Out - Perry is on a roll!!! (as he smiles quietly to himself.........) .. Blanc >

1 0

Fw: CWD-Pool Cool
by Lou Zirko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thought some of you might enjoy this. I sure some of you have already read it, and if so, sorry for the excess noise. - -----Begin Included Message ----- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 05:34:40 -0700 From: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock(a)well.com> To: cwd-l(a)cyberwerks.com Cc: CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1996 // Note: This is a re-issue of Dispatch. An earlier attempt to send to the CWD list was tanked by a glitch in the software. You may have seen this as reposted from another Newsgroup. If so, disregard and accept our apologies for the redundency; however, lots of CWD list subscribers have asked for this reposting and we are compl=07=01=D46=82 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMXVkqRKvccEAmlQ9AQHihwf7BItG4dpM564IQAUtbaQzFfjkJcfLvnrn 4OVJ98LgWEKa1mjqU728hp4g32lBfjYqcHC1Teh1vs4KTWSSM+Oz9fHA6NUNrgdX MgZkNqSqOx7J+QRfssIb9GgBoh/WA51cjU3r6LZcI4vviuTBx/+tBXkvmpDs3txS DJYKejwwKorOc3rq0Ro3BrSRDcC2aQdgkyetOwDA26uSC0tqp0OX2FLGi7XTmmqX mdE5gIs+OflImRBV23L+bTGy47C5qOQ5MaqYiSw5ka7360O1g5PHXZ/yCguyHCwd Dnx2hr4L7PbHi91Dg0EdYHUhyhRH9CFAm9xJ4Few5znrqI6kCqKAiw== =AcaM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Oklahoma City - One Year Later - The Coverup Continues !
by ssalgaller＠CCGATE.HAC.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Suggested Reading: Oklahoma City - The Suppressed Truth By Jon Rappoport Blue Ocean Press 2633 Lincoln Blvd., Suite #256 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 243-9005 copyright 1995 $12 (post paid) At 9:02 AM on April 19, 1995, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was damaged in an explosion that also left 168 dead and 600 injured. If you look closer at this case, as investigative reporter Jon Rappoport has, you start asking some questions about the "official' story: The damage was supposedly caused when thousands of pounds of a fuel oil and fertilizer mixture was ignited in a truck parked near the building. Talk about "oil and water never mixing". This mixture would have to be either stirred or mixed just before use. It would also have to be detonated without any air spaces, such as the gaps between the fuel drums, in order to work. Even if the mixture detonated, it should leave traces of oil. none was found. Even if it detonated perfectly, the explosion was 3 times too weak to damage the building's reinforced concrete support columns. Especially column "B3". This column was sheared off at the 3rd floor level. Only a shaped charge placed directly on the column at that level would be able to cause this to happen. That section of the column was cut out and removed as evidence. Will we ever see it again at the trial ? Local seismometers noted *two* explosions, 10 seconds apart. This was "explained away" as reflections of the explosion by underlying rock strata. Ask a geologist if this sort of time delay has ever been observed before you decide if someone is "underlying". What ever happened to "John Doe #2", seen with Tim Mc Veigh that morning ? What happened to John Doe's #3 and #4, seen leaving the area soon after the explosion? Speaking of Tim, why (if the official story is true) did he advise the officer who stopped him that he had a concealed weapon ? Supposedly, he just killed 168 people, including 19 children. What's one more if it means he could get away ? And what about Terry Nichols ? He was advocating killing Federal employees at a public meeting in Estes, CO a year before the bombing. The FBI is very efficient, yet no one seems to have paid any attention to Terry to prevent loss of life. What about the reported financial links to the bombing, not from right wing causes, but from the Brittish Government ? Finally, what happens if and when the truth comes out in open court at Tim and Terry's trial ? One could guess that the real suppressed story will be one more casualty of the bombing. Unless we demand that someone explains column "B3". It *can* happen here - and it *did* a year ago ! Book "review" by Stephen S. salgaller(a)aol.com

3 2