December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> wrote: >Uhh, "fail to save" isn't a moral judgement; it's an observable >phenomenon. Either somebody does save money or they don't. I >don't see in Tim's wording any judgement being made. It's a >numerical thing. >If you replace "drink too much," with "drink enough that they", you >get another observable phenomenon. As is the observable phenomenon that some people focus on the details and miss the point. You may also consider this to be a moral judgement. To argue that the cited examples - out of the universe of possible examples - did not imply a moral judgement is an argument useful only for its humour. James

2 1

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

And my point is that you obviously have no clue about running a sizeable net. It looks like you are trying to propose Fidonet. Go ask one of them how much it costs for them to run a node. Any sort of dialup service is pretty much going to limit you to store-and-forward items. Any full-time links attempting to mesh "a few thousand" users is going to quickly exceed my paltry $400K. You might want consider using the main Internet, and looking into encryption... Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: Ryan.Russell, cypherpunks cc: From: Scottauge @ aol.com @ smtp Date: 07/29/96 06:49:45 PM Subject: Re: Just some comments on what I've read here In a message dated 96-07-29 18:28:06 EDT, you write: > It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 > people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US > per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't > include any of the networking equipment or cost of the > machines....is this a troll or what? > I dunno, are you a nob? As I recall I said the expenses where going to be in the switches (or public networks). Plus I'm thinking the most basic services of telnet, ftp, smtp, and some nnp... Plug two network boards (whether ethernet or X.25 or ATM) into a UNIX computer and you have a router. You cannot tell me that hardware (minus the hardcore ATM/X.25 stuff) is not inexpensive enough to put something together. At least for a few thousand users all sophisticated enough to know how to install a UNIX or Linux system... I'm talking about a club here - not a replacement for the internet. Open up your mind, dude....

1 0

New Internet
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-29 19:16:30 EDT, you write: > Any sort of dialup service is pretty much going to > limit you to store-and-forward items. Any full-time > links attempting to mesh "a few thousand" > users is going to quickly exceed my paltry $400K. I agree... but I am also thinking that not one person is picking up the tab. Undoubtedly some systems are going to go up and down also... so - at the beginning - it could be like fidonet. But hopefully it would be more than a bunch of machines calling each other up an bursting information, some may backbone for a while.

1 0

RE: e$: The Demographic "Transaction"
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Let them eat cake. Earlier, in: Re: "Soft Targets" as Schelling Points tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Keep your head down. Are you consciously trying to compare yourself with Marie Antoinette? With so many sans-culottes around, you could succeed. I'd rather be left than dead right. James

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. Perhaps the judgemental tone of these descriptions are clearer to you. Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> wrote: >So you're saying that you made a response to Tim questioning his use of moral judgements just to introduce your own moral judgement? Tim can and does make moral judgements. So do I. So do you. I was curious as to why Tim brought them into an argument that did not need moral judgements to make its point. I suspect that it is more reflexive than carefully thought out, and I think may reflect on some of his core assumptions about society in general. But I don't know, so instead of making my own assumptions, I asked. James Feel free to respond by private e-mail.

1 0

Re: International Standards
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 29 Jul 96 at 6:38, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Mr. Freeh, [..] > clearly impossible -- but to prevent such high-level code > from becoming the international standard, with architecture [..] > Looks like the fibbies (FBI) haven't been reading the "Proceedings of the > IETF". Strong crypto is already an international standard. Methinks they regard as international standards what's built into something like MacOS or Windows. Rob --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:19 PM 7/29/96 EST, jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality >of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. > >The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall >behind. Think: Soylent Green. > >Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say. > >James But many of us believe that coercive "solutions" to life's problems whether right or wrong are no longer possible because technology is in the process of making individuals and small groups "ungovernable" by force. If this is true, whatever the morality of coercive solutions, they will not be able to be applied to the real world. Thus if we designed the Internet (Ver.6) rather than Louis Freeh, his opinion of our design is meaningless. Perhaps the communitarians in the audience will have to fall back on disfellowship as the ultimate sanction (like the early Christians). They won't be able to apply any more advanced weaponry. DCF

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >But many of us believe that coercive "solutions" to life's problems whether >right or wrong are no longer possible because technology is in the >process of making individuals and small groups "ungovernable" by force. Basically, I agree. But as earlier essays have suggested, our current government may just be a Schelling point of sorts among the possible social organizations that can exist. Thus, technology is mearly a different lens to view the same basic interaction among players. The players may move into different equivalence classes, but the basic roles are the same. In other times, alphabets, industrialization, and nuclear weapons could have played similar roles in the upsetting of the status quo. In this context, right and wrong do not need to enter the discussion. However, optimizing each individual's situation does not necessarily result in an optimal situation for the group. This is the basis of the classic prisoner's dilemna from game theory. I understand that for the iterated version, Tit-for-Tat is a stable strategy in that no other strategy will do better and thereby displace it over time in a large population. Tit-for-Tat: Start co-operating. Co-operate if the other party co-operated on the last round. Defect if they defected on the last round. So, how do *we* get crypto widespread? James

1 0

Re: "Soft Targets" as Schelling Points
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:05 PM 7/29/96, eli+(a)gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu wrote: >Tim May writes: >>The connection should be clear, but in case it is not: many soft targets >>are Schelling points for terrorist actions. > >I see no coordination problem here. Schelling points are a useful >concept when you have several actors, each of whom benefits from >making the same choice as the others. Here, I think you want to say >"soft targets are easy to attack". There are _many_ "soft targets," of course. Millions, in fact. But some are "more likely" than others to be hit, a la Schelling points. Schelling points need not involve "coordination" between actors, though Schelling points provide one means of coordination without communication (e.g., where does each think a meeting will occur). Schelling points are like "The Match Game" (an old t.v. show largely written by one of the main contributors to "Mad Magazine"). Namely, "Name a place likely to be attacked by terrorists." Coordination is not the issue. Rather, the Olympics was (obviously) a likely target, for a variety of reasons. --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."

1 0

Clinton must like terrorists...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Clinton must like terrorists... because his most recent proposals will end up making more of them. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1