December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: CD Prices and Inflation
by mike＠fionn.lbl.gov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Jul 26, 5:06am, Timothy C. May wrote: > Something not being talked about in any of the messages I've seen is the > role of _inflation_. Those claiming CD prices are "too high" should > consider inflation. Good argument, but I think you're still paying more. Some have made the argument that the cost of manufacture of a CD is less (I wouldn't know). Most people pay considerably more taxes for that new platter, too. Sales tax is 6% or more now, was 2-3% then for most people, other taxes have gone way up too. You probably had to earn $28 to bring home that $16 cd.

1 0

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:03 PM 7/25/96 -0400, Simon Spero wrote: >On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, jim bell wrote: >> My guess? They all agree to kill whoever made that suicidal rule. >> Otherwise, all but two would end up dead. > >But the people at the start of the line know that if they don't >hang together, they will end up dead, and if that they act purely >selfishly only the last two will benefit. Because they want to stay >alive, a better solution for the first person to propose equal shares, >which would be opposed by the last two players, but supported by the rest. >He could also split the money only amongst the first half of >the gang, since he only needs half the votes. Yes, my answer was quick, flip, and partly wrong. It turns out the answer is probably indeterminate, because the amount people want to live is indeterminate. Consider: If two were left, #2 would get everything by the rules. (he would propose, "I get everything!" The vote would be 1-1, or 50%, which would win.) If three were left, #2 knows that if #3 is eliminated, he would win as above. #1 knows this as well, and is motivated to make a deal with #3 to prevent this. #3 is also motivated to deal, because if he can't get an agreement he's not only out of the money, he's dead. How they choose to split up the money is unknowable, I suspect, because of the "death" aspect. #3 could also deal with #2 if #1's terms were onerous. This problem would be simpler to analyze (and probably determinate) if anyone whose proposal was rejected was simply out of the game, rather than dead. There's another complicating aspect. Voting order is important. According to the rules, #3 must make a proposal, which needs to be voted on. Obviously, #3 will vote for it. But even if he's come to some agreement with #2, will #2 vote yes? If #2 votes no, 3's gone and #2 wins everything. So #3 couldn't trust #2 to vote yes. particularly if #2 voted last. If #1 voted last, and #2 defected, #1 might vote for it, _IF_ it was more desireable than "zero" for him. Could #3 make a proposal like this: "I propose that the money be split up among all who vote for this proposal." #1 would have to vote for it, else he'd get nothing. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Produce 7 Hertz Frequency
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know how to produce a 7 hertz frequency?

1 0

Re: CD Prices and Inflation
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:06 AM 7/26/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >So, what do we have now? Salaries are 2-4x higher, gold is at $375 an >ounce, a new 3-br house averages about $100K (and is 2x that in many >places), hamburger is at $2-3/pound, "Scietific American" sells for $3.95 >or $4.95, and paperback books go for $4.95. > >Roughly, then, everything on this list is 3-4 times more expensive than it >was in the late 60s. So, those LPs I was buying for $4-5 should now cost >$12-20, correcting for inflation/price rises. > >And yet I am able to find many CDs I want for $8.67 (Tower Records: "3 for >$25" sales). And they never wear out. And they usually have 60 minutes or >more music on them--at least the CDs I buy do--, compared to the paltry >35-40 minutes on most LPs of the past. >So, while I "wish" CD prices were even lower, I'm paying a lot less in >"real dollars" for more music today than I was paying 15 years ago or 30 >years ago. I think you're trying to hide a 5-year effect by immersing it in 30 years of change. Yes, we've had inflation, but the large spurt of post-Vietnam inflation was basically over by about 1983, when the CD was introduced. At that time, the explanations for the higher expense of CDs included the fact (then true) that they were costlier to manufacture due to the lower volume and lesser competition, as well as a lower production capacity. (all of these effects were essentially eliminated within 5 years or so.) At the time, I recall that most vinyl was around $7 or so, and CD's typically sold for $15. By 1988, therefore, CD prices should have dropped to the same as vinyl, plus whatever inflation had occurred in the 1983-1988 time frame. (20% total?) $9. Maybe. You'll respond, as you did, that SOME CD's are available for $9.00 Yes. A few. (But it's now 1996, and 1988 was 8 years ago, and back then $15 pricing rule was not frequently broken.) When they're on sale. But the vast majority are stuck, as if by glue, to the $12-$15 price range. I think most people understand, implicitly, that "there's something going on." We don't pretend to be able to quantify it, exactly, but it's there. Here's a proposal that I think would fix the problem. What if the copyright laws were amended to allow _anyone_ (individual or a company) to copy and sell any CD, paying the artist a royalty 20% greater than he'd get from the contracted record company, _and_ paying the originating record company, say, 50 cents royalty per CD. The company doing the "legal bootlegs" would still have to pay for its own production, distribution, and any other costs. This wouldn't be practical if the pricing by the main record company is reasonable; it becomes quite profitable for them if they are in competition with $15 discs. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:)
by Erle Greer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:09 AM 7/25/96 -0500, you wrote: >Here's a puzzle for our game theorists. > >Twenty cypherpunks robbed a bank. They took 20 million bucks. Here's >how they plan to split the money: they stay in line, and the first guy >suggests how to split the money. Then they vote on his suggestion. If >50% or more vote for his proposal, his suggestion is adopted. > >Otherwise they kill the first robber and now it is the turn of guy #2 >to make another splitting proposal. Same voting rules apply. > >The question is, what will be the outcome? How will they split the >money, how many robbers will be dead, and so on? > >igor > Here's my guess: Eache robber is going to want the largest share of the money possible. Therefore The first guy dies automatically because that increases the share size. This continues on until there are only two robbers left. Robber #19 suggests that he receives the full 20 million and since his vote is 50%, he receives it all. 18 robbers dead. vagab0nd(a)sd.cybernex.net http://ww2.sd.cybernex.net/~vagab0nd/index.html Visit web page for public key.

8 8

Re: remailer network/winsock remailers
by Joey Grasty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sam wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been unsubscribed from the list for a while, and only recently > rejopined, so this issue may well have been addressed in my absence. If > not, though, here: > > It occurs to me that, with the invention of the winsock remailers, we > have the potential to establish a very widespread and distributed network > of part-time remailers. Specifically, it seems like there are a lot of > users who are only connected to the internet for short periods (PPP/SLIP) > or who only have full control over their machines for short periods. > These computers could not normally be used to run remailers as mail > would bounce when the computer/remailer software is down. > Actually, the way the WinSock Remailer works is that the user's ISP spools the mail and the remailer fetches it from the mail spool via the POP3 protocol. Thus, as long as the mail spool does not overflow, messages will not be lost. As I develop the remailer, one of the features I'm adding is the ability of the remailer to fetch only the messages with valid remail headers and leave the remaining messages in the mail spool. In this way, the mail spool is shared between the user and the remailer. The only disadvantage is that all of the improperly formatted messages end up in the user's mailbox. An annoyance. Another feature I'm adding is the ability to remail outgoing messages through another remailer to hide the origin of the message. This is to hide the presence of the remailer or to provide a discardable account that takes all the heat for spams, harrassment, etc. Thus, a limited stealth capability is achieved. A third feature is to accept inputs from a message pool, say alt.anonymous.messages, and remail them through another remailer. These are both attempts to increase the number of available remailers and to develop some way to make remailers more resistant to governments and other speedbumps on the internet. Regards, -- Joey Grasty jgrasty(a)gate.net [home -- encryption, privacy, RKBA and other hopeless causes] jgrasty(a)pts.mot.com [work -- designing pagers] "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann PGP = A7 CC 31 E4 7E A3 36 13 93 F4 C9 06 89 51 F5 A7

1 0

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:03 PM 7/25/96 -0400, Simon Spero wrote: >On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, jim bell wrote: >> My guess? They all agree to kill whoever made that suicidal rule. >> Otherwise, all but two would end up dead. > >But the people at the start of the line know that if they don't >hang together, they will end up dead, and if that they act purely >selfishly only the last two will benefit. Because they want to stay >alive, a better solution for the first person to propose equal shares, >which would be opposed by the last two players, but supported by the rest. >He could also split the money only amongst the first half of >the gang, since he only needs half the votes. My previous answer was incomplete, of course. I continue to believe that the problem is unsolveable as stated, if for no other reason than the "weight" of the negative represented by dying is not stated. It's a VERY complex problem, unless there's some trick I'm not seeing. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Apps: Unix for Windows 95
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I want to play with Unix or at least be familiar with Unix. Unfortunately, Unix systems are expensive, if possible, is there any software that can be run in Windows 95 that makes you run Unix in your system?

1 0

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- solution (?)
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:13 PM 7/25/96 -0500, Igor Chudov wrote: >Igor Chudov wrote: >> >> Here's a puzzle for our game theorists. > >I forgot to say what the GOALS are. The goals of every individual >cypherpunk are (in from highest to lowest priority): > >1. Stay alive >2. Get as much money as possible >3. Keep as many cypherpunks alive as possible, all other things being equal. The first cypherpunk should propose a 10-way split: #s 11-20. It's the best offer #s 10-18 will be assured of getting without having to kill anyone. Once any one dies, I think the results will always boil down to #19 getting 100% of the money (when #s 1-18 are dead, #19 proposes that #19 gets 100% of the money and his vote is 50%, so he "wins". #20 kills him out of spite and takes it all anyway, though. No honor amongst thieves.) John -- J. Deters "Captain's log, stardate 25970-point-5. I am nailed to the hull." +-------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: jad(a)dsddhc.com (work) jad(a)pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'33"N by 93^16'42"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | PGP Key ID: 768 / 15FFA875 | +-------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

Limbaugh and "Soul Train"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:20 PM 7/25/96, Paul S. Penrod wrote: >On Wed, 24 Jul 1996 hallam(a)Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: >> And why did the networks put Rush on so late? Could it be that >> he did not pull in the viewers? > >Syndicated shows are scheduled by the local broadcasters. They decide >when and if to run them. It only makes sense that if you have control >over your material but are at the mercy of the broadcaster, that is not a >sound business position to remain in. As an interesting point of comparison, the program "Soul Train," featuring predominantly black music, has been in syndication for more than 25 years. And it usually aired late at night. (I learned this by watching a "Best of 'Soul Train'" program on VH1. The show's creator and director pointed out that being on at 11 p.m. or 1 a.m. made it tough for many of the show's fans to watch it.) My point? Controversial material is often shoved to the end of a programming schedule. This makes room for the "Wheel of Fortune" and "Adam-12" shows in prime time. I'm obviously not arguing for regulatory intervention in scheduling, for either Limbaugh or "Soul Train," merely noting that shows with strong-but-limited appeal often find themselves playing second fiddle to "The Dating Game." Yes, I think Limbaugh has "limited" appeal. I watched him a few times. Sometimes funny, often controversial. But mostly for "dittoheads." --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1