December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Dr. Vulis
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > the main theory [Mill's book _On_Liberty_] advances is of the *balance* > between the rights of communities and the rights of individuals. Two words: Schelling Point. James

1 0

RE: Dr. Vulis please read this.
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Butler, Scott" <SButler(a)chemson.com> writes: > Dr. Dimitri Vulis (KOTM) > > Do you think that it would be possible for you to leave this mailing > list quietly WITHOUT sending mail to it again unless you have anything > that may be found interesting / useful regarding cryptography. Thank you, Scott, for your advice, which reminds me of the following story: One day the Germans were about to shoot two Jews, named Abram and Moisha. The Germans offered the Jews blindfolds. Abram bravely declined, to which Moisha said: "Take it, Abram, don't make trouble!" --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: [NOISE] If the shoe fits, wear it [VULIS]
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > I've pointed out already that apparently John is not, so far, > filtering out my submissions to the c-punks list. Correct. It's just a formal way of saying you're unwelcome, really. Shoo. > However I'd like to take exception with the two claims made in > the articles cc'd to me so far: > > A that only governments can censor; > > B that post-factum punishment for "inappropriate" speech is not > censorship. I agree with your objections, probably because you're attacking straw men. > Certainly Disney owned WABC and was within its rights to censor it. > Likewise John Gilmore is within his rights to destroy his own > credibility and to expose his own hypocricy. Yes, this gets to my point. Private censorship tells more about the censor than about the censored. In this case, John acted properly, and his credibility has only been enhanced. You are of course free to rant and rave about his hypocrisy, but expecially since you'll always be able to post to the list, at least under a nym (the only thing he's prevented is your reading the list under your own name), you're only proving yourself to be an idiot. - -rich - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMn+0UioZzwIn1bdtAQE+DwF/YHGRdPpQ3JqotsUWw303aYCmKn7d9il1 4sCKaEIMy7NHT1uvRR1DL8oBgZGsVUwH =acPs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 Phill wrote: > Of course the two sentences don't say exactly the same thing, > otherwise I would have written one. That never stopped academics before. > I don't think we have a problem with the statements conflicting, > there is an interaction. What a Hegelian would call dilectic. > I prefer to use a different term for much the same reasons as > Sorros, the misuse of the term has created garbage that one > does not want to associate with (eg Historical materialism). Please eschew the obfuscation. The sentences Phill hastely wrote are simply contradictory. It's fatuous to claim, after the fact, that he intended some sort of dialectic (i.e., a system of arguement in which conflicting ideas are resolved). Intellectual honesty isn't required on this list, but it is appreciated. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks [RANT]
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:20 AM 11/4/96 -0800, you wrote: : :So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include :and who to reject? Since it IS private, the owner has to justify NOTHING, vis-a-vis the list. We _choose_ to supplicate to join; we are _allowed_ to join (or not allowed) by the owner's grace; we may always _choose_ to unsubscrive [sic]; if we do it correctly, we are off the list. Let me repeat, the onus is NOT on the owner to justify the use of his property. Cordially, Alec PGP Fingerprint: pub 1024/41207EE5 1996/04/08 Alec McCrackin <camcc(a)abraxis.com> Key fingerprint = 09 13 E1 CB B3 0C 88 D9 D7 D4 10 F0 06 7D DF 31

1 0

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [VULIS]
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > I guess libertarian philosophy permits operating a private mailing > list and imposing whatever rules the host deems necessary to invent. Clearly. And contractural principles suggest that there should be transparency in those rules. > The question is, can this ist be called a free medium for exchange of > ideas, or not. My answer is no. I say you're wrong. Vulis has been denied nothing but the dignity of reading the list under his own name. He still has freedom to read under a pseudonym, and he still has freedom to post under his own name, or any other. > Moderated forums might create some utility (by saving the time of > their participants, for example), but they should identify themselves > as such. Such as by notifying the list that exactly one particularly obnoxious member has been kicked off, and allowing *unlimited* discussion on the list about the impact of doing so? I think this is working. - -rich - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMn/BzSoZzwIn1bdtAQGk+wGAgv2SrJzetHEzgs9DxahGvB8ReGWi8mDB aEGj8o8aW2DNGrDSx4f8DBDS4a8605Tc =oQeM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[rant] Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Obviously many voluntary religious organizations have quite strict rules >for their members and are compatible with libertarianism. Government >monopoly regulations that cannot be opted out of are not compatible with >libertarianism. May I remind you that if you want to leave this country, all you have to do is board a plane. Many people have suggested similar things about various groups for about two centuries. The major difference between this list and this government is that it is easier to start a new list.

1 0

[noise] Re: Sliderules, Logs, and Prodigies
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Trei wrote: > >When I was in high school, slide rules and log tables were standard >equipment - calculators started to come in towards the end. There >was a *lot* of controversy over their use in exams, and in homework >('show your working...'). At one point, you could use a calculator, but >only if you noted the fact (and model) on your exam paper. If I remember my history right, the order that math was done often depended on the model of calculator it was done on. I remember being warned as late as 1991 how some calculators may still still add before they multiply, and to use those parenthesis for good measure, just to be safe. >I still treasure one of the heirlooms from my grandfather - a 12 >inch bamboo rule, with his name carefully engraved in engineering >lettering ( which he used during his 50+ years at Ma Bell). I know where there used to be a basic model slide rule that spans about 10 feet, it was mounted on the wall of the math room where I spent junior high. My dad actually taught me basic arithemetic on it. (Ironically, on the opposite wall were the computers, an Apple IIe, a Commodore 64, two TI99/4a's and about 4 Tandy 1000/tx's, this did all take place before 1989) Sean Roach

10 13

News: Europe Wants Stronger Encryption
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From C/Net News (http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,5076,00.html) Europe wants stronger encryption By Alex Lash November 5, 1996, 5:30 a.m. PT The European Electronic Messaging Association has told the European Commission that European companies are at a competitive disadvantage without access to strong American-made cryptography, according to the organization. ....

2 1

"censorship in cyberspace"???
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't understand why people rant so much about censorship in cyberspace, given the ease of buying a new tentacle. a long time ago getting a new internet account was a big deal, but now they are as prolific as flies. you can now buy them for $7/mo from Community Connections, courtesy of another cypherpunk (Sameer Parekh) on this list. you even get a 5mb web site at this price, as I understand it. I'd be interested in hearing of any other "tentacle havens" out there if anyone has any comment. <g> my main point is that it's merely a semantic concept to say that someone is "censored" from a mailing list. it's not really possible to do such a thing anymore given how easy it is to get new internet account with no ID necessary. you can fight it or you can surf on it!! it's quite ironic that to have the ability for a moderator to have a "civilized" forum with a guaranteed ability to obstruct certain individuals, would require what cpunks would consider an orwellian identification system. (tying a human to their cyberspace posts. it could be done.) p.s. one of these days I wonder if someone is going to mount a really concerted attack against a mailing list using a full tentacle arsenal instead of only a single email address or anonymous remailers, just for the kicks of it. the "automatic prose generator" technology out there leaves a lot of other interesting ideas. an ingenious software engineer with a flair for writing could create some pretty sophisticated grammars that automatically generate text yet are impossible to detect over perhaps even dozens of messages output by them. they could even have their own personalities and writing styles, if the software engineer were creative and devious enough. it's just a matter of time, and really every mailing list in the world is defenseless against it. does anyone have a technical solution? you'd solve one of mankinds most pressing and difficult problems ever encountered: "spam". on the other hand, maybe such a thing has already happened and no one knows about it. or maybe its happening right now on this list. it would be absolutely impossible to detect in all the typical noise if the "graffiti artist" were crafty enough. (hee, hee)

3 2