December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: US Power Outages
by ericd＠shop.internet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:02 PM 8/11/96, Bill Stewart wrote: >It surprises me how little these systems appear to be monitored. >It took some hours for them to decide that the brush fire on the >California border didn't cause the system to shut down; >you'd think they'd know quickly that the subsystem shut itself down >or disconnected from the grid or whatever because of reason #17... The fire "story" was, I guess, a result of excessive media fodder. (whatever sells the headlines....) Example: This morning (Monday 7:00am PST) STATION A: Replayed a recorded press briefing, with a head from PG&E, stating that the cause is *not* yet known, however it *MIGHT* have something to do with the excessive loads/demands on the system during the high temp season. (AC units running, etc..) -- minutes later -- STATION B: A newsperson *read* the news. This person stated, "At a recent press briefing, a PG&E official said the outage *WAS* caused by excessive loads. (quoting the same briefing that I just heard, from the source, on STATION A) Thank you Mass Media! Eric Reminds me of the aftermath of the last large SF quake. I lived in Santa Cruz at the time. After the quake we all kicked back and had a large yard party to kill the time. An, un-named, news network was broadcasting, nation wide, live telephone calls from people in the SF area. One call was from a person in Santa Cruz, or so he said. He told the news network, and at the same time live to the nation, that Santa Cruz was completely leveled, dead bodies everywhere, and only a handfull of people seemed to have survive. Needless to say my Grandparents in Tennessee were not to excited... ----------------------------------------------------- Eric Davis ericd(a)cyberfarm.com Co-Founder MediaCast: http://www.mediacast.com/ -----------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Unmetered Net Usage
by Yanni 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> So it seems to me that within 5 years or so, there ought to be a > powerful incentive to wire up apartment complexes and business parks > with alternative Internet/Internet-telephone connections, ones > which bypass the phoneco for at least the first few hundred feet. > This, possibly in concert with a ISDN-driving concentrator or > a cable-modem, should reduce the cost of the customer-to-the-ISP line to > a very low value. > > Jim Bell > jimbell(a)pacifier.com I can see it now. Apartments full of geeks because the apartments were originally built with 100BaseX to each place and a T3 in the basement going direct to the local ISP. Tack on another $200/month or whatever to the apartment cost ( geeks can afford that for sure ) and one might end up having a pretty nice online melrose place. I wonder if anybody has done that yet... -jon Jon (no h) S. Stevens yanni(a)clearink.com ClearInk WebMagus http://www.clearink.com/ finger pgp(a)sparc.clearink.com for pgp pub key We are hiring! http://www.clearink.com/clearink/home/job.html

5 6

Re: Read; NOW
by Chris Adams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 11 Aug 96 23:24:24 -0800, unix_code(a)geocities.com wrote: > Hi I'm Unix Code and have a few things to ask...(it may not go with >Cryptography but go ahead and read) I won't say anything if you won't... # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> - Webpages for sale! Se habla JavaScript! # Automatically receive my resume or PGPKEY by sending email with a subject # of 'send PGPKEY' or 'send resume'. Capitalization counts so be careful! # Web site: http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp

1 0

Re: US Power Outages
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:15 AM 8/12/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >This morning, I read the new claim: extreme heat (presumably assisted by >heat dissipated in the power line itself) cause the power cables near The >Dalles (about 100 miles east of Portland, along the Columbia river) to >stretch and sag, eventually shorting themselves out to trees near the ground. The real cause was inadequate supply of nuclear power plants caused by technophobe agitation. DCF

2 1

Name search -- Enigma owner
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was a person in .ch with with several Enigmas, including a four-rotor Naval model. I think his name was ?Fro....? Does anyone recall the person I mean? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: Rumors of death of Anguilla Data are greatly exagerated.
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:22 AM 8/12/96 -0400, Vincent Cate wrote: > > >Think your lawyer would be willing to give his name and a statement on >this? If a cypherpunk ever got in trouble and could say, "I was told by >the lawyer XYZZY this was legal", it might help. :-) > > -- Vince I didn't say it was legal. I said it wasn't fraud. DCF

1 0

Re: Article on Electronic Commerce with a few too many assumptions
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:32 PM 8/11/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >[Permit me to recommend that you read this very interesting draft paper >and send its author, Andrew Odlyzko, detailed comments.] > Andrew Odlyzko > AT&T Labs - Research > amo(a)research.att.com > Preliminary version, August 9, 1996 [lotsa stuff deleted] > >There are many examples in the marketplace of behavior that appears >even less fair. For example, in 1990, IBM introduced the LaserPrinter >E, a lower cost version of its LaserPrinter. The two version were >identical, except that the E version printed 5 pages per minute >instead of 10 for the regular one. This was achieved (as was found by >independent testers, and was not advertised by IBM) through the >addition of additional chips to the E version that did nothing but >slow down processing. Thus the E model cost more to produce, sold for >less, and was less useful. However, as Deneckere and McAfee show in >their paper [DeneckereM], which contains many more examples of this >type (referred to as "damaged goods"), it can be better for all >classes of consumers to allow such behavior, however offensive it >might be to the general notions of fairness. Consumers who do not >need to print much, and are not willing to pay for the more expensive >version, do obtain a laser printer. Consumers who do need high >capacity obtain a lower price than they might otherwise have to pay >since the manufacturer's fixed costs are spread over more units. I too find this concept offensive, at least to the extent that it is kept a secret from the marketplace. Even so, as a libertarian and free-market capitalist, I certainly see nothing wrong with "allowing such behavior," and indeed I'd see something wrong with NOT "allowing" it. Nevertheless, to the extent it occurs it should be well understood and identified for what it is. You might recall the Intel 386SX microprocessor, which was the 16-bit-bus version of the 386 DX, which itself had a full 32-bit bus. At the time the DX was selling for many hundreds of dollars, probably about $3-400 or so, Intel sold the SX for about $80. However, chances are good that the only difference internally between these devices is the bus interface unit, so the size and complexity of these two chips would have been virtually identical, and thus their costs would likewise be the same. The reason for their vast difference in price was this "damaged goods" concept. (A similar situation occurred with the 486SX versus the 486DX.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: A ban on cryptography?
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:53 AM 8/12/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > > `(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the >use of cryptographic systems, or to distribute by any means information >pertaining to, in whole or in part, the construction of digital ciphers, >if the person intends or knows, that such cryptographic materials or >information will be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that >constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal purpose affecting >interstate commerce.'. Luckily, the nature of the Web is such that publicly placing something on a server would probably never be held to fulfill your or Di Fi's intent language. You are clearly making it available to all comers. No specific customer at all since anyone can read it. DCF

1 0

A ban on cryptography?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know anything about the status of this bill? --begin bill excerpt-- S.1666 Department of Commerce Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Passed by the Senate) SEC. 1042. PROHIBITION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO USE OF CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR A CRIMINAL PURPOSE. (a) UNLAWFUL CONDUCT- Section 875 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: `(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to teach or demonstrate the use of cryptographic systems, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the construction of digital ciphers, if the person intends or knows, that such cryptographic materials or information will be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a criminal purpose affecting interstate commerce.'. --end bill excerpt-- --Tim May (P.S. it may not be real, but it _could_ be real.) HOW TO MAKE A PIPE BOMB: "Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container." (more information at http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~m1lopez/pipe.html, or by using search engines)

2 1

re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy Sandfort wrote: >On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Bart Croughs wrote: >> If American companies are moving capital to Third World >> countries because of the low wages in these countries, then the >> workers in the Third World will of course be better off. But in >> the US, the amount of capital will be lowered. So the American >> workers will be able to get other jobs, but these jobs will pay >> less, because of the diminished amount of capital in the US. >The fallacy in this argument is the assumption that because some >American capital moves overseas, there will be less capital >available in the US for investment/wages. It doesn't contemplate >infusion of foreign capital investments in American industries >that have a competitive advantage over their foreign competition. At least you agree that wages are determined by the amount of capital invested! As to your argument, I don't see why the movement of American capital overseas would lead to the infusion of foreign capital investments in American industries. It seems to me that these two processes work independently. If they do work independently, then the movement of American capital overseas will lead to less capital in the U.S. Bart Croughs

1 0