December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[Meeting] Cypherpunks Shooting Club
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fellow firearms friends, The Cypherpunks Shooting Club will meet this Sunday, 12/14/96, the day after the monthly Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting. From now on, we will meet once a month, on the day after the monthly meeting. Anyone interested in firearms is encouraged to attend. You don't need to own a gun and you don't need to know how to operate one. Of course, if you do, all the better. Various firearms (rifles, handguns, shotguns) will be available. We will gladly provide safety and operations instructions. When: 2:00 pm 12/14/96 Where: United Sportsmen Rifle Range, Ebora Road, Concord, CA, 510-676-1963 How to get there: o From SF, Oakland, the North Bay: [Cross the bridge to the East Bay if applicable]. Take I580 to Highway 24 to WALNUT CREEK. In Walnut Creek, the 24 merges with I680. Follow I680 NORTH. Past Concord, take Highway 4 EAST. Drive for a few miles. Note the nuclear weapons depot on the right. Just past the depot, exit on WILLOW PASS ROAD. Make a LEFT on Willow Pass Road. Cross underneath the highway. At the end of the road, make a RIGHT. Drive 3/4 of a mile. United Sportsmen is the second dirt road on the LEFT. If you reached some homes, you went too far. o From the Peninsula: Take San Mateo Bridge to the East Bay. Go NORTH for a few miles. Take the freeway EAST (number?) to LIVERMORE. At the PLEASANTON interchange, take I680 NORTH. Follow the instructions above. Why we are meeting in the East Bay: Several regular participants are already meeting Sunday morning in Berkeley. What if it rains: The outdoor range is an all weather range. We will meet unless it really pours. Cost: $5 range fee + ammunition. $15 total should suffice for a first timer. What to bring: o Eye protection [mandatory]. Prescription and sunglasses meet the requirements, though I would advise you to use something safer. Chemistry lab glasses work great. o Ear protection [mandatory]. If needed, you can buy some foam type ear protection at the range. It costs less than $5. o Any firearm you might want to bring. Please RSVP if you plan to attend. See you Sunday, -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/justforfun/prime.htm

1 0

Re: Why PICS is the wrong approach
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu" "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." 12-DEC-1996 23:12:04.05 > > More importantly, the "payload" does not carry some particular set of > > fairly-arbitrary PICS evluations. Binding by the censors instead of by the > > originator, which is as it should be. >In which case, I disagree. I think accurate, consistent, "objective" (I >know this is an argument on the other thread, I think one can get >relatively "objective ratings" see my RSAC case study for a break down on >the qualities of rating systems on my ecommerce page (home page below)) >well branded and reputable agents will have a greater weight, and will have >a market motivation for accuracy exceeding regulatory pressure. (Plus, >there is nothing preventing thresh-hold tolerances for use with multiple >ratings.) Umm... I pointed out a while back the considerable problems with the RSAC attempt at objective ratings. See http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-96.05.09-96.05.15/0092.html for a review of my objections. The system in question is obviously much more subjective than, say, one that had: Does this page contain any female frontal nudity? Does this page contain any male frontal nudity? Does this page contain any female rear nudity? Does this page contain any male rear nudity? and so on. The parts on violence are particularly subjective. -Allen

1 0

Re: NEWS: Web Security Hole Revealed (opportunity?)
by msprague＠ridgecrest.ca.us 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>At 11:14 PM 12/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >>X-Sender: okeefe(a)olympus.net >>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 19:32:32 -0800 >>To: N E W S R E L E A S E <IPS(a)olympus.net> >>From: "Steve O'Keefe" <IPS(a)olympus.net> >>Subject: NEWS: Web Security Hole Revealed >> >>BREAKING NEWS >>For Release Thursday, December 12, 1996 >> >>MAJOR WEB SECURITY FLAW REVEALED >> >>(New York) -- Edward Felten, head of Princeton University's >>Safe Internet Programming Team (SIP), today revealed a >>major security flaw in the Internet's World Wide Web. >>Called "web spoofing," the breach allows any Internet >>server to place itself between a user and the rest of the >>web. In that middle position, the server may observe, steal >>and alter any information passing between the unfortunate >>browser and the web. (deletia) Wait a minuite; This sounds like an opportunity! I see a possibility for a machine confugured to tx/rx PGP encrypted packets to re-broadcast them with the machines IP. This would become an anonymous ISP

1 0

Re: Why PICS is the wrong approach
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:51 PM 12/12/96 EDT, E. Allen Smith wrote: > Umm... I pointed out a while back the considerable problems with >the RSAC attempt at objective ratings. See I agree that it is not a purely descriptive system, however it is much moreso than others. I thought the following was a useful breakdown for my own purposes: Caveat on Vocabulary Before proceeding with the analysis we must first discuss some of the terms used in the analysis. The usage of terms "objective" and "judgmental" can be rather contentious. To address this, we disassociate any of these terms with any pejorative meanings ( opinionated gut feelings about Web content can be very useful ) and posit that there are three variables with which content labeling systems can be considered: descriptive/judgmental - does the label describe the content, or provide an opinion about the "appropriateness" of the content. deterministic/non-deterministic - is the previous process a deterministic process, or is it "gut" based, and voluntary, mandatory, or third party - does the author label his works voluntarily, is he required to label his works by some other agency, or can other services label his content. No rating system we discuss is purely descriptive or deterministic. Rather, each system varies with respect to where it falls between extremes. _______________________ Regards, Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress. -Thomas A. Edison Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: Why PICS is the wrong approach
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu" "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." 13-DEC-1996 00:19:47.19 To: IN%"EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu" "E. Allen Smith" CC: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: Why PICS is the wrong approach Received: from RPCP.MIT.EDU by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01ICXWWYIT0GAH4L7K(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:19 EDT Received: from dialup-273.lcs.mit.edu by rpcp.mit.edu with SMTP id AA05830; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:20:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:17:54 -0500 From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu> Subject: RE: Why PICS is the wrong approach To: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu> Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Message-id: <3.0.32.19961213001747.00937d30(a)rpcp.mit.edu> X-Envelope-to: EALLENSMITH Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 At 11:51 PM 12/12/96 EDT, E. Allen Smith wrote: > Umm... I pointed out a while back the considerable problems with >the RSAC attempt at objective ratings. See > I agree that it is not a purely descriptive system, however it is much >moreso than others. I thought the following was a useful breakdown for my >own purposes: The below (from your essay) is a reasonable way to look at it. I would tend to compare a system to obviously possible systems as well as to simply what else is out there, however. >descriptive/judgmental - does the label describe the content, or provide an >opinion about the "appropriateness" of the content. In this regard, I would call the system in question about midway between a truly descriptive system and such obviously judgemental systems as SafeSurf. This partially judgemental nature is probably unavoidable in systems in which one uses a non-binary rating scheme; if the presence of something inevietably means that the system gives a "high" rating, then the system is judging that the something is more important than other factors. In this case, the judgement is pretty obviously that they deem the something in question (such as "hate speech" that calls for "harm" to some class - although I doubt they'd include pro-Affirmative-Action speech in that...) to be worse than the "lower" rated actions. >deterministic/non-deterministic - is the previous process a deterministic >process, or is it "gut" based, and I would agree that RSAC's system is pretty deterministic; the choices of what is labelled are rather arbitrary, but that falls under the description vs judgement category above. >voluntary, mandatory, or third party - does the author label his works >voluntarily, is he required to label his works by some other agency, or can >other services label his content. As currently set up, RSAC is either voluntary or mandatory - a government could require that it be used as a mandatory system, directly or indirectly (e.g., under threat of lawsuits for "corrupting minors"). >No rating system we discuss is purely descriptive or deterministic. Rather, >each system varies with respect to where it falls between extremes. Agreed. -Allen

1 0

Re: Redlining
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Allen Smith wrote: > From: IN%"dthorn(a)gte.net" "Dale Thorn" 13-DEC-1996 00:55:54.44 > >It is possible to understand intelligence as "pattern matching" skills, > >without having to have attendant math and statistics to define it more > >precisely or clinically. This understanding (if you have it) is the key > >to knowing that Black persons do *not* have less IQ than White persons, > >regardless of the standardized tests. Something I know about, as I've > >scored in the top 1/1000 of one percent, etc. > Umm... so have I, and I've also done some extensive reading on > the subject. The IQ tests in question do a good job (better than any > other tests - to study & compare you've got to have some sort of test, > and an IQ test doesn't see what color you are) at correlating with > things such as job performance, educational success (e.g., GPA), > likelihood even within given racial groups of being in poverty, etcetera. I have not associated closely with any Black persons since 1981-1983, but at that time, when I had worked with several such persons in Los Angeles, in close quarters (me being the only White person), I was profoundly impressed with the diversity and complexity of the issue (I was curious about the issue due to my circumstances, although I certainly did not mention it) in dealing with real people. My experience tells me that persons who administer intelligence tests and other related tests, or persons who subscribe to study of such things, should get up close to (for example) Black persons for an extended period of time, and I think they (the White persons) would then seriously question any test results which showed a consistent superiority for Whites. > >Nice that you have good intuition on this point, however, the big question > >in your paragraph is not wherefore the genetic determinant, rather, it is > >the understanding of intelligence in its overall context, which I dare say > >most researchers in that field are probably ill-equipped to grasp. > Actually, my conclusions re: genetic differences are an educated > guess... just one that isn't currently testable. My guess comes from such > factors as that some groups that, to all appearances, have high IQs are > actually pretty closely related to some groups that have low IQs; take > hispanics (mixed caucasian and (via American Indian) asian ancestry). > The debates over what is intelligence, etcetera are quite > thoroughly ongoing in the field in question; multiple books have been > written on the subject. I have recently (Oct. 1996) more-or-less inherited three half-Navajo children, upon the death of their father (mother died 1993). The kids are 9, 11, and 13. I have described to various people (schoolteachers, parents, computer programmers, and so on) that raising kids of this age, at this point in my life, is no more difficult than just living my own life without them. Getting past the emotional weaknesses that can hobble you as a parent or guardian is paramount, and once you do that, the rest is a cakewalk. But what I really wanted to say was that my experience with these children now (whom I didn't know until mid-1996) has convinced me more than ever that intelligence is not only not primarily genetic, but may also be recoverable to a large extent up to the beginning of the teen years, if not beyond that. I would guess that children from most any background, young enough and lacking actual physical brain damage or extremely severe psychological trauma, can probably be brought up to the point where they can perform on an equal level with the best our society has to offer. The main and overwhelming factor in developing children who can accomplish at a superior level is the personal attention of a caregiver, and what that attention consists of. There are some things you can read about in a book and guess what they mean, and there are some things you can know when you're staring them in the face...

1 0

[Meeting] Cypherpunks wanking club.
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There will be a meeting at my place for all cypherpunks so we can pull each other dicks about how clever we are and bag all those non-entities who aren't. All gun lovers are of course welcome and we can exhibit our manhood paranoia by seeing who has the biggest calibre weapon. Having a deadly weapon after all proves we are grown up, right kiddies. Sufferin' Sam

1 0

Re: Laptops and TEMPEST
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:18 pm -0800 12/5/96, Joel McNamara wrote: >Thinking that LCD screens reduce the risks of emanation monitoring is a >dangerous misconception [elided] the gotcha with current laptops is their >backlighting. Electric and magnetic fields are considerably higher >compared with a low-res/contrast device. [elided] An interesting point, but the fluorescent is mostly a constant signal, really, but Hugh pointed out that most laptops have a video chip radiating far more useful data than the flourescent backlight. Just a thought. dave ____________________________________________________________________________ "I mixed this myself. (holds up glass of water) Two parts "H," one part "O." I don't trust _anybody_!" --Steven Wright

1 0

Re: Redlining
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Allen Smith wrote: > From: IN%"dthorn(a)gte.net" "Dale Thorn" 13-DEC-1996 01:53:17.65[snip] > >the rest is a cakewalk. But what I really wanted to say was that my > >experience with these children now (whom I didn't know until mid-1996) > >has convinced me more than ever that intelligence is not only not > >primarily genetic, but may also be recoverable to a large extent up to > >the beginning of the teen years, if not beyond that. > Actually, IQ tests in childhood up until about age 12 aren't > particularly well correlated with adult IQ; they would thus agree with > you on that environment can heavily influence IQ until that point. Again, as a statistical exercise, this might be OK, but, quite a bit of what you would see in the exceptional areas of the curve in childhood would be rather obvious in adulthood as well. The fact that this doesn't seem so obvious across the statistical curve is only evidence of poor granularity in the data. > It is possible to raise IQs somewhat with various environmental > interventions; the question is how much. Research such as that > discussed in Herman Spitz's "Raising Intelligence" (_not_ a conservative > or racist by any means) appears to show that such does, unfortunately, > have some points at which one gets to diminishing returns; see below > for more discussion. A typical researcher or team of same would not be proper candidates to lead an interventionist study such as this. You'd need people with proven track records. As I keep telling my wife again and again, when we go into a book store and she picks up some book on a "health" topic: What's the author's track record, not only for him/herself, but in leading others? > Regarding the "physical brain damage," I have earlier mentioned > prenatal traumas such as lead; other instances would be inadequate > maternal nutrition and the intake of alcohol (signifigantly more harmful > to a child than crack). These are among the factors, other than racism, > making studies showing differences in IQ between black adoptees and > white adoptees difficult to interpret; cultural influences (racism, > white adoptive parents trying to hard to raise black children in their > "own" culture, etcetera) are another major group of factors. > In other words, we don't know yet. > >The main and overwhelming factor in developing children who can accomplish > >at a superior level is the personal attention of a caregiver, and what > >that attention consists of. There are some things you can read about > >in a book and guess what they mean, and there are some things you can > >know when you're staring them in the face... > > Certainly, extremely intensive care can help children who do not > have physical brain problems. This does not mean that genetics does not > play a considerable role; neither I nor (so far as I know) Mr. Chudov > are claiming that genetics sets an unoverridable barrier. It is more a > matter of that it will take a lot more to get a genetically unintelligent > child to a given level than it will a genetically intelligent child. It's just that in my personal experience, I've found that the vast majority of children fall into the category of "exceptional potential". I guess what I'm saying is that the accomplishment/test norms for most children are far enough below where I could get them to with personal attention, that 1) The norms are useful (to me) only as a stasticical exercise, and 2) The differences between typical children and typical children performing at or near their potential obscures the differences found amongst the norms. > In the larger, societal context, it is not possible to have > intelligent parents with ample resources taking care of every child > unless the number of children is considerably reduced. Quite simply, > resources are limited (otherwise we would have no need for an > economic system); money, time, etcetera spent on less intelligent > children is not being spent on other pursuits (such as raising > more intelligent children, who will be able to accomplish more in > later life with the same investment of resources). This is, I believe, what I and others feared from studies which provide material for books such as the Bell Curve. Knowing that the potential of an allegedly unintelligent (or less-than-average) child might be so great that that child (if lucky enough to get the opportunity) could actually develop to be a significantly better performer than another child with 40 more IQ points, even if the child with the higher IQ has a reasonably good environment to develop in. Those kinds of possibilities are (I think) near and dear to what some of our more enlightened founding fathers in the USA had in mind when they wrote what they did, way back when. I value the writings of all philosophers, BTW, but I reject the notions of any that I or any other autonomous individual (a human is more-or-less autonomous by definition, yes?) could be defined, limited, or otherwise constrained by studies such as we've discussed. I say constrained since these studies do not happen in a vaccuum, and there is always going to be some kind of fallout.

1 0

Re: Elliptic curves
by Jill014＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-12 23:47:15 EST, nobody(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) writes: > Subj: Re: Elliptic curves > Date: 96-12-12 23:47:15 EST > From: nobody(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > Admin(a)bexcol.demon.co.uk writes: > > > You are all a bunch of faggots. Faggot cannot be allowed on usenet as > > dictated by the great dr. Grubor. > > Does dr. Grubor read this list? I never see any postings from him here. Just who is this anonymous poster; does anyone know or have any idea? > > Fuck you all. > > 1. Cypherpunks is not on usenet. > > 2. Faggots created and run Usenet, and there's nothing a pathetic, > powerless little boy like you can do about it. > This is strange. I mean, how do you know who is a faggot? And is this why you all are so sexist? Are all of the faggots so sexist? Just what is it about these queers that makes them hate women so much anyway? Are they jealous of us sexy women because their boyfriends may want us? I have been watching this for a long time here, and this is a very perplexing situation. Just who are these faggots who "created and run Usenet?" Can you give me a list of names? > 3. I enjoy your pathetic little displays of despair about not having > any control over usenet. Please keep whining to the mailing lists > to remind us all of what a pitiful little loser you are. > Yes, but just who is he? Do you know who he really is? With all of you guys always posting through these "nobody" addresses, you can not tell who is who? I mean, how do you know that the anonymous poster is in "despair about not having any control over usenet?" Maybe he does have control. Just who has all of the Usenet control now anyway? Please tell the faggots to stop being so sexist. Jill

2 1