December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Metcalf and Other Net.Fogies
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

perry(a)piermont.com writes: > Alan Olsen writes: > > Metcalfe may have a valid prediction here. > > Metcalfe is talking out his ass. He's reached the "old geezer who's > impeding his own field" stage. Many of his articles seem to be written > as though no one was trying to fix problems. Well, having talked with people involved with the problems I can assure you that they are real. The net brownouts when MAE-East dumps its BGP core or the fact that when one of the NAPs upgraded to FDDI it soon found that by the time people had installed the upgrades to the routers the bandwidth was already saturated should indicate that there are problems. Most of the problems are in the routers, even the top of the line Cisco boxes can only handle so much. The sky is not falling, but these sorts of problems are cracking the whip behind IPv6 and pushing the companies that make the routers pretty hard (Have you ever tried to buy even a lowly Cisco 2401? Do you know what the wait is on delivery? I really wish I had bought Cisco stock earlier...) > > When I run traceroutes, the blockage is in MCI or Sprintnet land. > > How do you manage to determine where you are losing bandwidth using > traceroute? That must be a mighty powerful traceroute to do that -- > most traceroutes I've seen are hard pressed just to find out what the > connectivity path is. Then you should probably upgrade your traceroute, preferably to one which allows source routing of the packets and then couple the output to a nice udp source routing script which will bounce a few packets between links with slow response times. Most of the problems are at the exchange points where packets go from one company's network to another. It seems that users have the annoying habit of wanting to talk to other people's customers...imagine the nerve :) > > The bandwidth to the net has been oversold. > > Always the case. Big deal. Bandwidth is still increasing pretty > fast. There are, naturally, growing pains, but the outages and > bandwidth situation are pretty good, all things considered. Compared > to the way things were eight or nine years ago they are amazing; > compared to four years ago they are still astoundingly better. Bandwidth may be increasing quickly, but demand for it is increasing even faster with every moron wanting tose the web while the routers to hook it all together and make it work are still very expensive and not being produced fast enough to satisfy the demand. Compared to the way things were even a few years ago the aggregate bandwidth that one person can expect is decreasing, it seems that no one writing internet protocols passed an Intro to Sociology/Poly Sci course and assumed that the tragedy of the commons did not apply to them. The upside of all of this is that it is creating a demand for value-added services which offer users dedicated bandwidth and faster response time in return for a little coin. This will probably push micro-currency on to the net faster than any other consumer demand... jim

2 1

Re: MUD anyone?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:06 AM 9/1/96 +0000, Rev. Mark Grant wrote: >On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Jon Leonard wrote: >Protection Agencies >Escrow Agencies >Private Law Courts (probably controlled by players rather than the computer) >Reputation Agencies > >> What am I missing? Should there be direct support for Jim Bell's >> assasination markets? It'd provide a means of demonstrating its >> ineffectiveness as a means of social control. > >I think it should be incorporated, but I think that people can set them up >easily themselves. Perhaps we should have an NPC-run 'Assasins Inc' which >would run the lottery, and then players could do the actual 'wet work'. > >But yes, I'd really like to see how this would work in the game. As I >said I'm thinking of this more as a semi-scientific experiment than a >pure game. We have some idea of how this stuff should work in theory, but >little of how it works in practice. > >I do think though that we'd have to enforce some kind of rule against >'disposable characters', otherwise people could simply create a new >character every time they were killed trying to assasinate someone. There >would need to be some disadvantage to just going in guns-blazing and being >killed ten times in a row. Wouldn't it be more realistic if instead of representing individual characters, you created composites which had a "weight" based on how many of them exist in the country/world? For example, the character "buggy-whip maker" in 1900 would be weighted in the thousands, while his number would be drastically reduced a few decades later. This would avoid the "going in with guns blazing" scenario, or at least it would put it into perspective: the number of assassins would drop by "1" (or some proportion) if that happened, although correspondingly the number of targets would also drop. With this system, a character would never die, but his number would simply drop to an insignificant quantity. ("Government-thugs" comes to mind...) And that's not the only reason the number of characters would drop: If it suddenly became "unhealthy" to accept a public paycheck, and thus the risk wasn't matched by the rewards, presumably people would shift professions. Again, this would all be part of the simulation. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Metcalf and Other Net.Fogies
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm evolving a hunch that the problems we're seeing with "old fogies" denouncing the Net, and anonymity, and "smut on the Net," are part of a larger cultural issue. Namely, the familiar case of an older generation complaining about the sloth and sin of the younger generations. (Caveat: I'm 44, so I'm certainly a generation older than many of you, and am about the same age, give or take a few years, of Dyson, Metcalfe, Kapor, Denning, and the other Net.Doomsayers. However, 20-25 years ago, when I was in college, I recall of course similar predictions of disaster. (And as it turned out, the predictions that promiscuity would lead to a disaster turned out to be partly correct, viz. AIDS.)) Robert Metcalfe, inventor of Ethernet and founder of 3COM, and how publisher of "Infoworld" and sailing enthusiast, was interviewed on CNBC a few minutes ago. He repeated his prediction of an "Internet collapse" in 1996, based on overuse, on bad pricing models, on lack of controls, and on other concerns. It could be that the Dennings, Dysons, Kapors, etc. of the world are simply growing jaded with the Net and are projecting their own ennui in their comments that the Net may need to be controlled. This may come with age, as I'm sure the Kapor of 25 years ago would not have wanted President Nixon and Attorney-General Mitchell telling him what he could read and write. (In fairness, none of these folks listed have called for censorship. But all have expressed "concerns" of one sort or another. Not that discussing concerns is inappropriate--after all, we do it all the time. But I sense in many of their phrasings of concerns a stereotypical "old fogeyness" emerging.) Just a thought. Maybe the solution to the EFF problem is to "not trust anyone over 30." --Tim May (untrustable since 1981) We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

Re: PRESS RELEASE: GERMANY CENSORS DUTCH WEBSITE WWW.XS4ALL.NL
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>A Modest Proposal: > >* as Germany is bent on blocking sites which carry this subversive >pamphlet, "Radikal," let us mirror it on thousands of sites around the >world. > >* when the Germans went into Danmark and insisted Jews wear badges, >ordinary citizens (and the Danish Royal Family, as I recall) also took to >wearing these Star of David badges. Add this plug to signatures and web pages: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Lebt und lest radikal! http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/radikal/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, your messages are "promoting a terrorist organization" (cf. http://www.anwalt.de/ictf/p960901e.htm) and may no longer be carried in Germany. [It just says to live radically, and to read "radikal". But "radikal" is a terrorist magazine after all.]

2 1

IDC_ard
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

9-8-96. NYP Mag: "The True Terror Is In the Card." Faced with rising crime, illegal immigration, welfare fraud and absentee parents, many bureaucrats and members of Congress insist that the nation would run more smoothly if we all had counterfeit-proof plastic identity cards. Let's be clear that this is a one-way street. Once having established a requirement to carry photo ID, it will be difficult if not impossible to reverse. Don't we realize the dangers of allowing the Government to establish identity and legitimacy? Isn't it, in fact, the responsibility of the citizenry to establish the legitimacy of the Government? ----- http://jya.com/idcard.txt (11 kb) IDC_ard

2 1

Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About: 6 Sep 96 at 18:04, E. Allen Smith wrote: > list-managers list, a consent arrangement would thus be preferable. The > other argument of the Cyber Promotions jerks is nonsense - how does AOL > blocking affect the rest of the Internet? It's affecting the rights of these fine spammers, Cyber Promotions. That affects spammers everywhere. More rules by our government affects all of us. > >PHILADELPHIA, Pa. (Sep 6, 1996 12:23 p.m. EDT) -- A federal judge has = <<<<SNIP>>>>> > >"We feel that America Online has violated the civil rights of their = > >members and has violated our rights to send e-mail through the Internet, = > >which AOL does not own," he said. > > >Although unsolicited mail sent through the post office in the United = > >States is not considered illegal, the rules have yet to be defined in = > >cyberspace. That's the real point I have always made. No rules and we should not want rules. Why are we INVITING the government into OUR internet??? Just cause we have to read spam? That is just plain stupid!!! Just cause we have to read spam, oh well, let the government come on in. Do we let the government into our bedrooms because our wife says no to sex tonight or because we don't like to make our beds?? Everyone on this list seems to want to limit government intervention EXCEPT when it comes to spam, then every one just holds the door open wide and let them in. If they get that inch, they WILL take the whole 9 YARDS!!!!!! Get a clue, delete or killfile those who spam and keep the government out of cyberspace!!!!!! By the way, I get about 2 or 3 spams a day in my mailbox and it is not killing me! Don't get the wrong idea, I don't like it. I like the government WAY LESS!!!!! =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

4 5

Re: Metcalf and Other Net.Fogies
by John Brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:17 AM 9/7/96 -0400, perry(a)piermont.com wrote: > > <snip discussion of internet collapse> > >I'm "involved with the problems" too, you know. Don't teach granpaw to >suck eggs. OF COURSE there are problems. None of them, however, are >signs of "collapse". This whole thing makes me ill - maybe I'm just an idiot. What could possibly cause a collapse? More usage?? No - that would just mean that everyone's access would be slower. Do routers fail because they can't talk to other routers? no - they route around it. I consider myself reasonably educated when it comes to the layout of the internet, and I have never heard _anyone_ ever say what constitutes a collapse, and, if it means 'catastrophic permanent failure of the Internet', what could possibly cause that. These people are acting like one day, something is going to blow up, and the entire internet will follow, and stay down for a long long time. If all the DNS servers died, the internet would stop working for non-local access until they recovered. If there was a bug in Cisco routers that was set to go off on Thursday, September 12th, that would render them inoperable until power cycled, that would cause a major failure. If every building in MCI and Sprint's data network blew up, that would cause a major failure. If the usage increased so that the Internet was 'saturated', that doesn't qualify as a collapse. It qualifies as 'rush hour'. If the internet was in 'rush hour' 24 hours a day, it would be unfun to use, but unlike the highway system, we can add more lanes pretty much at will. (within reason). Will someone please explain to me what I'm missing? Thanks John --- John Brothers Do you have a right not to be offended?

1 0

Re: [RANT] Death of Usenet: Film at 11
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In Cypherpunks, on 08/19/96 at 01:34 PM, mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) said: =If Singapore bans alt.sex.hooters, you could simply post to =alt.culture.singapore.i.got.your.hooters.right.here. [snip] =It would also send the correct message that "newsgroups" are simply =one of many labels on an article, and are not cyberspacial tearooms =where bad people congregate and there is guilt by association. I don't fault your argument on "sending the correct message," but since when has an oppressive government ever been concerned with "the correct message?" LEA's could care less about the message; their only interest is another opportunity to behave like the jack-booted thugs they generally are. but public opinion, certainly the government interests in control, have already determined in the court of small minds that "we" are inherently evil (and beyond redemption without coercion). A repressive government can not afford publications from unredeemed (and unrepentant) cyber-anarchists with a world wide audience. Is the daily comics the last refuge of freedom; witness today's "Thatch:" "cubicle cliches are one of the few things we all share; they're one of the few things that unite us as americans!" "that and utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials." sarcasm has always been a potent weapon, and one of the hardest to silence. ..in bits and pieces it can slowly undermine the target. why is it tolerated? I'm sure our malicious uncle wanted to shut Doonsbury down during Vietnam, but joe-six-pack rarely understood the underlying message. =The alternative to doing something reasonable like this is probably =to see mass migration from "banned newsgroups" to off-topic groups, =like Lolita pictures in rec.pets.cats, when the inevitable crackdown =comes. has not the crackdown arrived? and are not the various skirmishes between governments on one side and the ISPs & users on the other sufficient evidence of governmental intentions? =As long as people can post =anonymously, they will simply switch to another existing newsgroup =when the one they are posting to becomes blocked. Once the =inevitable reciprocal pissing contest between posters and censors =gets going, Usenet as we know it will likely be destroyed. let's put it this way, the first reaction will be to "eliminate" the anonymous remailers, then ban the "alt" groups which can be created at will. if there is migration from alt.sex.binaries to rec.cats, the government will eliminate the entire usenet and we will be forced back to the NWO controlled media conglomerates, or mail lists. of course, then the fascists will block or close down the list servers on some flimsy pretext such as violating the US postal monopoly and regulations.... Many companies block the alt groups; 15 years ago, even I blocked the alt groups during business hours (and usenet was only 1.5 MBytes per day then!), restoring them at 1800. --why? because the office staff spent *at least* all morning reading usenet, occasionally even refusing to talk to customers before their daily dose! My point is simple: I reacted by limiting the **time** of access, ** not access itself. ** On the other side, Reed, Buchannan &c. have decided *they* should judge what is fit (G rated) for our consumption; and, of course, Big Brother has determined they should be the judge of political correctness and all that shit which is numbing the minds of joe-six-pack until America is a controllable homogeneous bowl of putrid gruel. government, in and of itself, may be able to selectively prosecute cyberspace "violaters," but the real danger is big business. Print newspapers receive $64 billion in ad revenue, 80% of which is local. Virtually every major US newspaper (most owned by the group of 5) has a net presence --some very informative. And, even Mexico has more than a dozen of their papers on line. However, in the US the news is still the same collection of what the NWO wants us to hear/see. So far, the foreign press is not so inhibited and is often openly critical of US bumbling in foreign affairs, Bubba's alleged (alledged?) cocaine habit and criminal behaviour, --likewise critical of all fools. Where does this lead? Well, we've probably peaked on freedom; the rest is downhill as our "non-elected" government degenerates to deploying more and more thought control to maintain the oligarchic fascist form of what Jefferson thought they were creating as a representative republic. I for one enjoy tweaking their nose, but it only stiffens their resolve to squash me/us/whatever. How do you show resolve without being in their face? most regulation is created to "eliminate" abuse of a "public" privilege; unfortunately, we all suffer "collateral damage" to use their term. does voluntary compliance work? unfortunately, no. where does that leave us? confrontation, I guess. preserve our advantage as long as we can. we all know from münchen that Clement Atlee made a fool of himself appeasing Hitler for a false peace. might as well carry on with what we do best: rape, pillage, and burn... a scorched earth policy....

1 0

Re: "The Bill of Rights can be dangerous...." (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: "The Bill of Rights can be dangerous...." > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Sat, 07 Sep 96 09:35:38 EDT > > I remember beig surprised to discover that the library computer at City > University of New York (state school where I got all my degrees) had an > (easily accessible) record of every book I've ever checked out in some > 15 years, And by the way you need to present A LOT of ids to take books > out of New York's public libraries, or to use the public-access > computers in them. And by the way you're asked to sign your name and > affiliation (fortunately, no ID is required) if you want to just enter > NYPL's Slavic division and use their reading room. Apparently this was > instituted during the cold war under the assumption that anyone > interested in Slavic Division's materials needs to be watched. In the very early 80's while I was attending UT Austin the FBI approached the libraries and requested access to the loan records. The libraries refused and went so far as to post a warning at each of the book checkout points on the event. Personaly, I was very proud of them for the refusal and the extra step of the warning. > A very good friend of mine does EE for a living, and in particular he > sells some EE equipment by mail order. He told me that every time he > sells something like the gizmo to write magnetic strips on credit cards, > he gets a phone call from los federales saying: you sold X who paid with > Y and shipped it to address Z - do you have any additional details? He > says every time they know as much about the sale as he does. :-) I have been dealing with security electronics for over 10 years and have never been approached by anyone regarding my activities. I make no secret of the fact that I do that sort of work as well as being able to build custom equipment if needed. I would suspect that there is a flag on your friend for something or someone from the past, not on his business in particular. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Choice of Words
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> --Tim May, who hopes he is never identified as the "John Doe" indicted, > tried, convicted, and sentenced in 1979 in Washington County, Oregon, for > the crime of unlawful foddering in a public place. > foddering? why, are you an indiscreet luncher? > 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." -- one of the few things we all share: the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials.

1 0