December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Dry Under the Waterfall
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:47 PM 7/31/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >This is provably false. People can learn whatever they have to. (Within >very broad intellectual limits.) If they *choose* not to learn (and you are >not their parent or employer), it is a violation of their autonomy to >browbeat them. You should leave them alone in their ignorance and, of >course, not waste any money helping them since they have demonstrated that >they aren't interested. An economist might say that those who reject >education are making a choice. They are deciding that, for them, the value >of today's leisure (L) plus today's income (I) is greater than the >recreational value of education (R) plus the present value (PV) of future >financial and psychic gains from education. > >L + I > R + PV Indeed. People make tradeoffs all the time. They choose "easier subjects" to major in, to take classes in, etc. They join fraternities, they "party hard," they snort coke, they do whatever they do. (James Bugden will no doubt claim that I am making moral judgments....no, just stating the situation.) >In other words, all those people who were drinking beer or working >construction while TM was going to college, graduate school, studying >physics, and working for Intel were making the decision that *for them* the >value of all that time off, plus current income, plus lack of skull sweat >was greater than the chance of becoming a millionaire and retiring at >30-something. And they may well be right. In any case, we should honor >their choices as we expect them to honor ours. To intervene in a big way in >their lives (or in TMs) to challenge their choices is deeply wrong. We >can't tell from the outside what the value of the education/work/leisure >tradeoff is for an individual. All we can do is observe their actions. And even "education" is not enough. I recall folks around me spending their Intel salaries and stock options about as quickly as they earned them--on speed boats, BMWs, trips to exotic locales, and, yes, on drugs. I opted for the lesson of "The Grasshopper and the Ant," and prepared for the future, purchasing my stock options out of salary savings and "holding" on to the stock. Some of those around me probably wondered why I was still driving my beat up Mazda RX-2 and buying stock in funny companies like Apple, Sun, and Coherent. I hear that "The Grasshopper and the Ant" is no longer considered proper reading material for children, that they need to have their self-esteem raised, that "I Have Two Mommies" is a more important book for them to read. "Feh." --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

Re: Violation or Protection? [OLYMPICS]
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:03 PM 7/31/96, David Rosoff wrote: >I don't have any crypto references, but due to the Libertarian overtones >on this list I believe it is on-topic enough. I think this topic (thanks for raising it) is actually on-topic, as the proposals for "voluntary" escrow are somewhat similar. It all comes back to search warrants, due process, prior restraint, and other constitutional issues. >On the local news I saw footage of a couple schmoozing in the Olympic >(Centennial?) Park after its reopening. The voice-over said that all >bags are being searched, and the couple said that rather than be >alarmed or nervous, they "appreciated" it. > >I'm not quite sure what to think about this. I don't have enough >experience to form a well thought-out opinion. I'd like to hear some >of everyone's thoughts on this: Is this bag-searching a violation, >(which was my immediate reaction) or is it not, because you have to >already be going into the controlled area to get searched? I have mixed thoughts as well. On the one hand, were I to be hanging out in this park, given the recent event and the focus on this park for crazies to attack, I would feel better if bags were at least briefly looked into and "suspicious" bags left unattended covered with explosive-containing shields. On the other hand, a public place is a public place, and searches without warrants are explicity forbidden by the Constitution. (Some dispute exists about this, such as searches of bags on buses...I think the Supremes ruled that cops can search bags on buses without warrants...a bad precedent, I think.) If the Centennial Park is a public place, not a private one, as I believe to be the case, then it seems to me a person is within his rights to turn down the offer to be inspected, frisked, interrogated, etc. (There may be enabling emergency powers covering specific sites. I believe such conditions apply when, for example, the President or other such royal figures are mixing with the proles.) --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

RE: Violation or Protection? [OLYMPICS]
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: tcmay(a)got.net > >If the Centennial Park is a public place, not a private one, as I believe >to be the case, then it seems to me a person is within his rights to turn >down the offer to be inspected, frisked, interrogated, etc. ........................................................ But if the park was a private one, would it make any difference? Between the "right" of being left alone, and the "legitimate needs" of law enforcers to frisk suspicious looking characters - whether in public or in private places - it seems rather difficult to draw that dividing line between allowance and forbearance. I mean, either it is, or it isn't, a "right". When could it really be okay to violate that definition. How are the law enforcers to do their job if they can't intrude into your shopping bag, when it's a critical National Emergency. This is what Denning is always referring to. .. Blanc > >

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 06:34 PM 7/31/96 -0400, John Brothers wrote: >Apparently Mr. Horowitz is one of the tiresome "legalize everything that doesn't >offend me, ban everything else" libertarians. Here's a clue to a true >libertarian thought process: > You offend me, Mr. Horowitz. Your attitude by itself is enough to make >my throat clench in distaste, but the fact that you call yourself a >libertarian is exceptionally galling. From your e-mail, you show no >understanding of what >it means to be a libertarian, and libertarians are extremely ill-served by >your preposterous claims. But I will defend to the death your right to make >them. I think we should all just try and get along. <G> Since there are no "public places" in a free society, none of this comes up because everyone will be in places were they are welcome. There will be many more kinds of places than the two ("public" and "private") we have now. Some will be wide open and some will be highly restricted with all gradations in between. DCF

1 0

Re: Violation or Protection? [OLYMPICS]
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:04 PM 7/31/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >On the one hand, were I to be hanging out in this park, given the recent >event and the focus on this park for crazies to attack, I would feel better >if bags were at least briefly looked into and "suspicious" bags left >unattended covered with explosive-containing shields. On the gripping hand, if you (a generic you not TM) were in a park at 1:15 am listening to Jack Mack and the Heart Attacks in a crowd with infants in strollers, etc and a pipe bomb went off you could just consider it part of the rich stew of punk/pop crossover sensibilities that have become so important in modern life. Those who seek a "Heart Attack" may get one. If you hang out in modern crowds you risk getting blown up by fame seeking cop wanabees (or getting your FBI file read by ex-bouncer political heavy wanabees or getting kneecapped by body-guard-to-the-stars wanabees). Note the physical and psychological similarities among Jewell, Livingstone, and Tanya Harding's boyfriend. Didn't your mothers tell you what happened if you hung out in public parks after midnight. Or as Republicans said to the TV set when Teddy was chanting "Where Was George?" during his speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention; "Sober and at home in bed with his wife." There is something very counter survival about seeking out crowds. It has always been thus. DCF

1 0

Re: ANNOUNCE: 2nd trip to National Cryptologic Museum (fwd)
by root 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it a bar where you can smoke ?? ( the legal stuff ) >>>>> Forwarded message from tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) At 5:15 PM 7/31/96, Zorak Ramone wrote: > Following the lecture, we will be going over to Henckles (10 minutes >from the museum), a local resturaunt reported to be a favorite hangout for >NSA employees. Henckles has amazing sandwiches as well as good beer on tap. Jeez, first they tap our phones, and now they're tapping our beer! --Klaus << End forwarded message Charles E. Sparks In God We Trust, All Others we Encrypt Public Key at: http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/pc_1.htm

1 0

RE: Dry Under the Waterfall
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: tcmay(a)got.net > >I hear that "The Grasshopper and the Ant" is no longer considered proper >reading material for children, that they need to have their self-esteem >raised, that "I Have Two Mommies" is a more important book for them to >read. .................................................... What a difference it would make if along with the mandatory school attendance everyone received a mandatory education in basic economics, starting in Jr. High. Legislators and socially conscious individuals bemoan the lack of jobs, the downsizing of companies, the low salary wages, the imperative need for re-training, etc. as social problems to deal with by government -- yet the very thing which everyone could use the most of, that information which could prepare the minds of "America's future" for dealing with the way things work in a capitalist system and make it easier to transition into a world of uncertainty - while the administrations have the fortituous opportunity to provide it, is not delivered. Not that I expect that classes in economics delivered through the public schools would be all that accurate or therefore of much value, but the point being that those people who publicly complain to the general population about how the poor should receive subsidized support do not consider the disfavor of having the school system take up 12 years of everyone's time memorizing non-pertinent data, when they could have been using that time to good purpose -- *prior to* becoming independent adults needing an understanding of what it takes to make a living. "Knowledge is power", it is said. There are a lot of powerless beneficiaries of public education around. Or that's what a lot of people claim to be (powerless to help themselves). .. >Blanc > > > >

1 0

Re: Jewell is the Militia Bomber!!!!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:49 PM 7/31/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >The security guard Jewell is now confirmed to be the prime suspect. While >NBC News is reporting that no evidence _directly_ links him to the bombing, >the evidence against him is overwhelming: > >1. He is overweight. With the exception of The Unabomber, most perps in >cases like this are fat. Uh, just like that guy in Jurassic Park! ('Course, there's an explanation for this. "The butler did it" went out over 30 years ago. They're running out of butlers, and, well, many butlers were fat, so...) >2. They found a _shotgun_ in his cabin. No, no, Tim. The proper way to deliver this to a TV audience is, "They found an ARSENAL in his COMPOUND!" (see how much more exciting it is?!? BTW, how many wives does he have?) >3. He had an interest in guns. (Back issues of "Guns and Ammo" are bad >enough, but possession of even a single issue of "Combat Handguns" is >sufficient to convict in 39 of the 50 states.) Any copies of that SUBVERSIVE publication Shotgun News? >4. News sources are reporting that authorities who searched his apartment >and his cabin "came up empty," which surely implies that he planned this >crime with the help of others. And he had to have scoured it clean JUST BEFORE the authorities arrived! Yeah, that's the ticket! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Jewell is the Militia Bomber!!!!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The security guard Jewell is now confirmed to be the prime suspect. While NBC News is reporting that no evidence _directly_ links him to the bombing, the evidence against him is overwhelming: 1. He is overweight. With the exception of The Unabomber, most perps in cases like this are fat. 2. They found a _shotgun_ in his cabin. 3. He had an interest in guns. (Back issues of "Guns and Ammo" are bad enough, but possession of even a single issue of "Combat Handguns" is sufficient to convict in 39 of the 50 states.) 4. News sources are reporting that authorities who searched his apartment and his cabin "came up empty," which surely implies that he planned this crime with the help of others. --Tim May (P.S. I, too, was convinced Jewell was the guy. But in recent hours it is looking like a "rush to judgment" could be involved. There is strong pressure to "solve the crime" by the close of the Olympics on Sunday.) 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."

4 3

The "Secure" version of Netscape for Linux is *NOT*
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just installed the "secure" version of Netscape off of the "US Only" download site. Seems that it is actualy the international version and not the 128 bit version. How many people have downloaded this version only to find that they downloaded something that they could have downloaded faster from a mirror site? How many people have had their downloads slowed down due to people downloading insecure Linux versions from the US only site? I think I have a justifiable reason to be pissed. Another waste of my time... --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

3 2