December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: IQ and age
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Have we had an influx of fuzzy-thinking liberals lately? Not that this is a bad thing, it is hard to argue with people who agree with you on everything :-) At 06:49 AM 11/28/96 -0600, Lurker wrote: >>I would. If you look at who has the oppertunities to go college you will >note that those who are good at taking tests (SAT, ACT, or IQ) are those >who get to go. You will also note that money also breeds success, or can >someone give me an argument for the fact that there are more rich kids >going to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and the like than poor kids. (These >schools almost gaurentee success.) The ability to spell helps to gaurentee success as well. Seriously, you ignore the correlation between performance in college and standardized test scores. There is a reason these are used in admissions - they are actually pretty good predictors of the ability to perform college level work. >If you want to find a correlation look for it in money not tests. And if >you are insistant on finding it in tests, ask why the scores are as they >are (was the test written to the advantage of one group over another or can >one group buy the "A" with special courses which teach the skills needed to >score high.) Oh, I forgot. Only certain racial/ethnic groups are capable of understanding basic mathematical concepts. Of course, caucasians are one of these groups (since they consistently are outperformed by immigrants from other countries). I know it makes you feel good to believe that all that is wrong is caused by conspiracies led by the EVIL RICH in this country. I happen to feel better believing in the potential for any individual in this country to succeed through hard work. Clay ******************************************************* Clay Olbon olbon(a)ix.netcom.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. **********************************************tanstaafl

1 0

RE: Re: wealth and property rights
by jc105558＠spruce.hsu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: MX%"dave(a)kachina.jetcafe.org" 22-NOV-1996 00:41:58.20 To: MX%"aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk" CC: MX%"freedom-knights(a)kachina.jetcafe.org",MX%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: Re: wealth and property rights Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com> Received: from toad.com by spruce.HSU.EDU (MX V4.1 VAX) with SMTP; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:41:55 EST Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA04549 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:36:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (jetcafe.org [207.155.21.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA04544 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:36:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([127.0.0.1]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA02028; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:35:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <199611220235.SAA02028(a)kachina.jetcafe.org> X-Authentication-Warning: kachina.jetcafe.org: Host [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> CC: freedom-knights(a)kachina.jetcafe.org, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: wealth and property rights Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:35:49 -0800 From: Dave Hayes <dave(a)kachina.jetcafe.org> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk > Btw, people of your mentality (communists/socialists) already make it > very difficult for me to accumulate, due to the exhorbitant tax rates > to support those who chose to blow their money as soon as they have > it I don't necessarily want to support "socialism" nor "capitalism". Both are extremes of a situation which does no one any good to exist. However, I would question the implication that "socialists" are responsible for the higher tax rates you currently experience. For example, I could make a strong case that you really have some clever "capitalists" who have learned how to express their "capitalism" quite effectively across the space of all people in a "country". 8-) ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet It is the wise bird who builds his nest in a tree.

4 3

RE: Counterproductive Dorothy Denning Flames
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote: >It is perhaps a point in Dr. Denning's favor that her most >vitriolic detractors can spell neither "Dorothy" nor "fascist". > >I must admit that I am at a loss to understand the heat which >Dorothy Denning generates on the Cypherpunks list It should not surprise you too much, as people have often vilified those they disagree with. The more you accept the other person as a human being, the more difficult it becomes to dismiss their view without first confronting the issues. It's easier to treat them as an idiot, and then their views becomes idiotic by association. I know all this, and still I do it. Ciao, James

2 1

Re: Dorthy Denning is a boot-licking fasicist!!!
by Robin Whittle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William H. Geiger III <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> wrote: > Dorthy Denning is a boot-licking fasicist!!! > Dorthy Denning gave the most pro-government speech I have ever > heard. Is this clueless bitch on the government payroll?!! Spelling please! "Dorothy". She is a US academic. It may be emotionally satisfying to rail against (what for us may be evident as) the wickedness and stupidity of our opponents. I did not see the testimony, so I can't comment on it. However I believe that Dorothy Denning is motivated as much as many of us by the desire for a healthy society. The sharp difference in crypto policy can probably be explained by a differing understanding of: 1 - The likely behaviour of professional criminals, normal people, government officials and criminal government officials in the future with various forms of crypto system. 2 - Different levels of trust and fear regarding crime in general, big-time crime in particular and the use and abuse of law enforcement and other government powers. 3 - Probably other things too. I think that there are different personality types at work here. Adding to that is the tendency for governments to employ people who generally trust governments, their desire to perpetuate their former abilities to detect and deter crime and especially the problem of *groupthink*. Groupthink is the tendency for like minded individuals to reject uncomfortable notions, and so develop a seriously inadequate understanding of reality. JFK admitted they were stupid to commence the Bay of Pigs invasion. Clinton will probably say the same thing about crypto export controls. There is clear evidence that, being surrounded by like minded advisers, both presidents were the victims of groupthink. If we nod our heads to "Dorthy Denning is a boot-licking fasicist!!!" then we too are succumbing to groupthink. See: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~firstpr/crypto/oecd_dr.htm for Dorothy Denning's response to my challenge for justifying costs of key-escrow/recovery against the likely benefit in crime reduction. I don't think it is a very strong response, and while many on this list will know more about her than I do, her response does not strike me as the work of someone who is unintelligent, uninterested in the future of society or a fascist. The net result of various misunderstandings (such as Clinton and Co. must have about the freely available nature of strong crypto) may well be stupidity on a grand scale. There are personality types who lean away from privacy and towards dangerous levels of government control. I think this can be amplified by the circumstances in which these people work - and groupthink is a big part of that. oecd_dr.htm is a recent draft of some OECD crypto work, with my comments, especially concerning the likely behaviour of criminals communicating both with other criminals and with non-criminals. It also has some information on an essay by Irving L. Janis called "Group Think" which I recommend to everyone who is involved in policy debates. - Robin . Robin Whittle . . http://www.ozemail.com.au/~firstpr firstpr(a)ozemail.com.au . . 11 Miller St. Heidelberg Heights 3081 Melbourne Australia . . Ph +61-3-9459-2889 Fax +61-3-9458-1736 . . Consumer advocacy in telecommunications, especially privacy . . . . First Principles - Research and expression - music, . . music industry, telecommunications . . human factors in technology adoption. . . . Real World Interfaces - Hardware and software, especially . . for music .

7 6

Re: Dorthy Denning is a boot-licking fasicist!!!
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> writes: > > >I don't know if anyone watched the House Subcomitty on Computers & > >Technology today on C-Span. > > No, we watched 'Dorothy does Georgetown" on C-Spam. > > >Phil Zimmerman, Dorthy Denning, William Reinsch & others were disscussing > >computer security. > > > >Dorthy Denning gave the most pro-government speech I have ever heard. Is > >this clueless bitch on the government payroll?!! > > Yes. > > >William Reinsch is a lying bastard. Fucking politions!! Fucking > >goverment!! They all deserve a long rope!! > > Start with Socks the queer cat. > > >Phil Zimmerman was quite good at attacking the government policies. > > > ><sigh> We are truly a country of fools to have put these jackbooted > >facisit bastards back into office. > Don't worry about it. Doctress Neutopia can suck Bill's dick, and all will be fine. {;-)-~ > "Dorothy Denning" is a man in drag. "She" has a bigger dick that > "her" boyfriend John Gilmore, the cocksucker faggot from EFF. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is that cocksucker AC/DC or what? Is it true that him and John Perry Barlow do 69 on video? > > >----------------------------------------------------------- > >"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------- > > Just say GAK to chicks with dicks! > > diGriz > Please define "GAK" and leave the headers intact. -a

1 0

Bountyserver Round2
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you all for you comments and input. I am in the process of rewriting the propsal to make things clearer, and to revise some of the procedures. The original draft will, and the revision will be up at <http://www.bounty.com/proposal.draft.html> by the time most of you get this. I am making a single reply, rather than one at a time to save time and bandwidth. I wrote these replies before I started working on the revisions to the proposal, so things might have changed a bit. Matt: > > This mechanism should be as simple as possible, and as easy to use as > I assume you will make it all web based? Make sure you are using a Yes. It is going to be web based, with (hopefully) email and Usenet access. > secure server. Pay close attention to security of the underlying OS. I am planning on using Apache-SSL or Stronghold, if I can afford it, with Linux as the underlying OS. I plan on disabling telnet access as soon as the server starts accepting credit card numbers. Anyone who then need shell access will have to use SSH. > > Originally I proposed this to apply to software, but I don't see why > > it should stop at software. Initally the server will be restricted > > to software, but I hope that this will work out, and be expanded > There is no reason that it should only apply to software, so I am > glad you are thinking this way. Realize that your costs will go up Software is my main objective, and software is easier. > if you applythis to non-software related industry. You may need to > hire experts in other industries, etc. Of course, it may all pay off > anyway for you. Yeah. There is that. The other technologies I was thinking of were more in the realm of algorythms and protocals rather than hardware. Hardware is possible, but difficult, and may (would) be better suited to Ian's proposal. >> The proposal: >> What I am going to attempt to do is to set up a "Bounty Server" where >> send their initial "bid" to the organization. > Presumably web forms that generate a standard piece of output so that > developers dont have to sift through "original" specs. I have > questions about bids, but ill get to that later. Prozactly. >> This is the "bounty". Other people can add to this bounty, allowing the >> and the server operators. Other technology will be figured out as it >> becomes necessary. > You will need to make several things clear here. When people "add" <snip> > not. It is not impossible to solve this problem, it just takes a bit > of good wording in the Contract. I understand that. If you are willing, I will ask for your opnion on the wording. >> The initial bounty contract gets posted to the WWW server, (possibly) to >> a "developers list" of interested people, and (possibly) to an >> appropriate UseNet Newsgroup. >This may not be a popular point but you asked for legal tips >(/disclaimer BTW, this is not to be relied upon as legal advice. I am > giving it only to make you aware of some issues that you may want to look > into.disclaimer/). You need to be aware of possible discrimination > claims. There is a theory called disparate impact which you may have > a problem with. You should find a way to distribute these > announcements as widely as possible. This is a tricky area and one > you should be aware of. The final decision, of course, is yours. I don't really understand this. I plan on spreading the word as far as possible, but if I only post information in one or two places, isn't that my choice? If I am tryind to hire someone am I required to place adds everywhere I can, or can I choose my medium? >> Once the bounty is posted, other people can "bid up" or add to the bounty, >> and their contribution will be added to the total bounty as well as their >> accepted by credit card, check, money order, and possibly ecash >> (e-cash will be taken at some point, but it really isn't important >> at this point since almost no one uses it.) > > It would be good to accept ecash and maybe contact MarkTwain to see > if you can set up discount accounts for your developers. The people > involved in this project would be familiar enough to give the system > a boost. Why do you think the amount people give is not relevant? I wasn't refering to the amount, but rather ecash being not-relevant AT THIS POINT <runs and hides behind asbestos sheild> Not many people have ecash accounts, so it isn't a priority. It would be nice tho'. As to the amount: It really doesn't matter, but I am thinking of making a minium of $5, just because anything less really isn't worth the book keeping, but I really haven't made up my mind. >> The first developer to upload a _working_ package to the server will >> be cut (or ecash mailed if that works out). > Why do you think you need to keep an archived copy? If you deal with > Copyrighted material you MUST get a license up front. That shouldnt > be a problem for you since the developers are benefiting, but I am > just curious as to your thought process here. Archival copies are for legal reasons. Copyrighted material other than that uploaded by the authors is not going to be allowed, and part of the agreement is that they allow the Server to keep a copy for historical/legal reasons. >> The Server Adminstrator will also do an cursory check to make sure that >> there are no obvious copyright violations. > This needs to be much more than cursory. If you put a copylefted > piece on an open ftp site and it winds up to be copyrighted guess who > could get named in the suit. Not only should you vigorously research I will have the name of the submitter, and I will make a "good faith" effort to detect copyrights. I think that is enough. I don't (in fact I doubt any one person does) have enough knowlege to know every peice of software out there. I am more worried about people decompiling commercial products. >> In the event that there is a conflict between the initiator and the >> developer, the claim will go into adjudication. The server adminstrators >> decesion is final, and he will make every effort to settle the claim >> fairly. Adjudication will incur an additional fee (see the fees section). > appearance of impropriety is important but more important to you is > the need to have someone other than yourself to blame. You dont want > to be held responsible for an "anti-developer" decision if you dont > have to. I am hoping that reputations will handle this. > > Writing the bounty: >> The bounty specifications should include the following: >> else will contribute), owned by the programmer (well someone might >> be that magnanomous), or "copylefted". > > This will be up to the writer. It might not be a good idea for the > initiator to have input here as it will be a wedge causing more > adjudication than it is worth. I disagree. The iniator (hence forth known as Alice) is establishing the rules, it is up to that person to set forth the conditions. If the writer doesn't like it, they don't write it, and Alice looses her money. If enough people add to the pot, someone will bite, and Alice gets what Alice wants. >> 6) Where the initiators money is to go if the bounty is not claimed: >> choice. > Why not give it back to the initiator (minus a fee for the > opportunity). While I am sure you have good charities in mind, > people on the net dont like being forced to do anything. Keeping the > charity donation as an option is a good idea. To keep Alice from reniging once the money is given, it is gone. It means that you have the choice of software or nothing. > > Adding to the bounty: > > Fees: >> The Organization will get 2% of any bounty where the software or >> Technology that is copylefted. 20% of any other scheme. > 20% seems steep. You might want to at least start out with a > discount on this percentage. I like the discount for copylefting. 20% is an 18% penalty for not Copylefting the software. It means that I am going thru a lot of work, and not getting what I want, so I am going to get something. I want this server to produce Free Software. >> Adjudication will incur an additional fee of 2 to 5% depending on the >> difficulty in judging the claim. > This needs to be a certain percentage not a range. If need be assign > it via hourly charges. It is not easy to get people to stay out of > also encourage you to include the amount in all of the bids. You can > spread exposure and lower the rate. You are probably right. I really want to charge each equally. > > Where I need help at this point: >> Legal issues. Any lawyers want to talk to me about this? > Let me know if you have any questions. None of this is legal > advice...blah,blah,blah. Fine. > Looks like a good start. Keep me informed. Thanks. ========================================================================== Omegaman: >> The objective is to actually bring this system online. > "cypherpunks write code." good. Soemthing like that. > > Background: >> graphics editing software, easy to use Graphic Design Software (TeX >> is NOT easy to use) and easy to use Cryptographic software. > many would pay good money for Linux native versions of programs like > Wordperfect, Corelpaint & draw, Pagemaker , etc. I think "pay for" might be a little strong a word. "Assist" is more accurate. >> 4) Desired "quality" level: Proof of Concept, Alpha, Beta, Release etc. > Needs flesh. What defines "alpha" or "beta" for purposes of bounty > or is that up to the person initiating the bounty? If I can find good working defininations (sp?) I will use them. Otherwise I will insist that Alice document what it wants. >> 6) Where the initiators money is to go if the bounty is not claimed: >> honest, as well as the server. Each contributor will also get this >> choice. > Do you have the charities in mind? They should be listed in the > abstract, I think. March of Dimes, NORML, NRA, ACLU, GNU Foundation, FSF, SPLC. As the time gets closer this will get more exact. > Who will be publicize the initial bounty offer -- the server or > bounty initiator? Information about a specific software project will > need to be disseminated beyond bounty.org. Automated positing to relevant newsgroups, and maybe a mail list for those interested. > More details on conflict resolution are needed in a final draft. The > process and priorites the server administator will use to make his > specific hypotheticals detailed. Ok. ======================================================================= Peter Allan: > Snow, I know, Spell Check. >> Abstract: > "new technologies" doesn't seem to be what you mean later on. > I suspect you will get _higher_ overheads with this. For instance > suppose 2 people start work on something, and one wins the bounty, > the other goes unrewarded. To compensate each coder for this risk That is life. First to market means a lot. Look at Lotus. I am contemplating adding in a place for developers to meet and collaborate, sharing the bounty. >> community of users to decide which projects should have priority, >> and which shouldn't. > Hmmm. What about people ahead of the game - like PRZ. He get a VC or two and goes commercial. >> award to be paid to the developer. They then post it on the server and >> send their initial "bid" to the organization. > > Where is the scope for iterative discussion of the spec ? > This is _the_ killer stage for most work. This is Alices responcibility. >> This is the "bounty". Other people can add to this bounty, allowing the >> totals to add until someone claims that bounty by providing proof of > What about proof to the satisfaction of other contributors ? > How do I know Bill and Ben aren't cheating by starting and claiming > a bounty to which I contribute ? (Bill and Ben are fictitious in this > example. <g> ) Good point. Solututions? >> I will provide a short (8 or 10) list of charities that the money >> honest, as well as the server. Each contributor will also get this >> choice. > How does this keep anyone honest ? Keeps them from reniging (sp?) on the bid. =========================================================================== Ian: > Hi, Snow, >> I have started drafting a proposal statement for the Bounty server. > Wow, you've gotta move fast in this game :)) If I don't keep the inertia up, I will never get it done. > [chop where agreed or not disagreed] > > Background: >> It is the "Copylefted" software that interests me at this point. > OK, although for my model, I am assuming that all forms are covered. As I pointed out in private email, I think our model serves different objectives. > > The proposal: >> What I am going to attempt to do is to set up a "Bounty Server" where >> someone can iniate a "bounty" on a peice of technology. The initator > Separate this out, for clarity of model. The initiator (I used > Proposer, and called her Alice coz Alice always initiates) proposes I will do that. > BTW, bid to do what? Using market terminology, I have assumed thay > bid is to buy, that is provide cash. Offer is to sell, that is provide > software. Ah, yes, bid is add to bounty. Think if it as a bet. Kinda like Mr. Bells AP proposal, Alice is betting that the software _won't_ get written. Once the bet is high enough, it _will_ get written. >> This is the "bounty". Other people can add to this bounty, allowing the >> development to the initiator of the bounty. In software terms they would >> and the server operators. Other technology will be figured out as it >> becomes necessary. > This is where I have put most of my efforts, because I need to design the > microstructure that is built into our market. I am going to try to keep it simple, and let the thing evolve as necessary. As Alex (a former reader of this list) put it, the first anonymous remailer was a perl hack done in an afternoon, and improvements came from that. Things will improve as needed, I am just trying to think things out as thoroughly as possible first. >> Originally I was going to put the stipulation in that the software written >> rather simply desired. To aid in that desire, I am going to build in >> an initative to releaseing the software "copylefted". > Absolutely - let the market decide. Some of us, for example, do not like > copyleft. What do you have against "copylefted" software? Is it the specific GNU copyleft, or the concept? > > To get more specific: > [chop] >> The first developer to upload a _working_ package to the server will >> be awarded the total bounty, ... > This worries me. If I, as a junior programmer, am looking to enter the > market, I will have the daunting task of beating everyone else. Real life > doesn't work that way - there are ways in which I can pick up some newbie > tasks for low money, so as to build up experience and/or reputation. 1) As a junior programmer, you take on simpler bounties first. 2) Team up with a more advanced programmer, pool efforts and split the bounty. > I guess the notion of bounty is just that - first one takes all. > However, I think that the solution might be a bit limited in the > long run. It isn't intended to solve all problems, just some. > Interesting in that my proposal leads to task distribution by awarding > contracts, your proposal leads to task incentives by rewarding speed. Yours seems suited for longer and more involved tasks. Mine to shorter. >> "First" will be soley determined by the time stamp of the server. As soon >> as the package is uploaded, the initiator and the server adminstrator >> will be notifed, and the bounty marked "claimed". If the package is >> be cut (or ecash mailed if that works out). > OK, my proposals specifically assume no need for a "decision" by Alice. > That's not to say either is right, it's just that I prefer to design > something that eliminates the individual decision rather than cope > with the complexities. I believe it will result, in the end, in a > more efficient market. It might be more efficient to have a "paid" staff to evaluate the product to make sure it meets the specs. I don't have the funds to set up that infrastructure. >> The Server Adminstrator will also do an cursory check to make sure that >> fairly. Adjudication will incur an additional fee (see the fees section). > Same as above, no adjudication in my system. > Although, it is possible to add underwriters, > by simply making the task offerers (Bob and Carol) > into bond writers who front for programmers. I am hoping that it doesn't come up too much. Honesty and reputation should help. > > Status: >> At this point in time I am (obviously) still in the process of developing >> the procedures. I have registered a Domain Name (bounty.org) and I have >> a couple promises off assistance in certain areas. As well, I have >> a server to start off with. > Wow, *gotta* move fast. As I say, our stuff is based on a lot of > pre-existing software, so we make a lot of assumptions. Given our You are starting with the software, and then figuring out the rest. I am doing it the other way. > different approaches we may end up with competing systems rather > than one, but that's fine, indeed highly valuable as an experimental > approach. I don't think that the two proposals will necessarily compete. > What's financing you in this? Or should I say, monetarily enthusing? Financing? ======================================================================== Blake: > I missed the original discussion of this idea, but it sounds delightful to me. > A couple of thoughts on your most recent post: > What counts as a copyleft should be explicitly defined, i.e. just the GPL, > or how about Perl's artistic license... or Aladdin's GhostScript agreement? Ok. I will put up examples of each, and let Alice choose. > Public domain software should incur no larger percentage fee than copylefted > works. True. > How is the expiration for a bounty determined? I am thinking either 2 years after initial, or 12 months after last contribution, With a 1 year one time extension if someone claims to be "working on it". > Adjudication fees should be split in some fashion between parties. (Otherwise > the initiator has nothing to lose from disputing. (Unless of course you'd > like to > handle that on a reputation basis.)) I am hoping that reputation and the threat of adjudication will prevent it from happening. That is one area that does need work tho'. ========================================================================== Jim Cook: > be awarded the total bounty, minus "brokerage" fees (discussed later) > "First" will be soley determined by the time stamp of the server. <SNIP> I don't like this way of picking a winner ... because I think it would encourage fast and dirty work ... instead of quality ... better I think would be a process analogous to peer review for grants and publications ... with the added feature that the submission of a product is announced ... so that competitors who are almost done can get their entry in also ... and the initiators can evaluate several products simultaneously <SNIP> My reply: In a way it _does_ encourage quick and dirty work, like the first cpunks remailer, hacked together in an afternoon, then came the rest. It is a way to get _more_ software out there, hopefully some of it will be good, some bad. It really can't be much worse than the dreck comming out of some of the commercial houses. I am thinking of a way of implementing checks tho'. ===================================================================== Thanks for the comments. Keep them coming. The original draft will be up at <http://www.bounty.com/proposal.draft.html> later tonight.

1 0

Re: wealth and property rights
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:08 PM 11/26/96 -0500, Stephen Boursy <boursy(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > I sincerely don't believe that. If you look at your above >examples, or Bill Gates below, much of their motivation is not >the accumulation of weath per se but rather power and performance. >I know I would do much the same job (not that I'm in the wealthy) >even if the salary were more or less--I enjoy it (I'm a programmer). >Same is true for education--much of the motivation is either >intrinsic or status oriented and has little or nothing to do with >marketablity. This is provably bullshit. Look at the HUGE numbers of people in this country who make the economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs. going to work. Examine carefully the economic performance of the US vs the Soviet Union - two countries with quite similar natural resources and population. To believe as you do belongs in the same category as believing in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. It requires complete ignorance of reality. >> In a capitalist society, I have to provide something that you want >> more than your wealth in order to obtain it. > > That's true--as with all labor--but it is a matter of scale. >Gates would do the same thing if you limited his income just >for the sake of power accumulation--he's got all the money >he could ever consume. That's not his real motive. More bullshit. You don't know what anyones motives are. To ascribe your motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic. What is your defined limit on what people should earn? A thought experiment. The govt decides that the maximum anyone can earn in a lifetime is $10M. Bill Gates earns his $10M, he then decides that he doesn't feel like working for free, so he quits. Pretty soon, the people most effective at creating wealth in society will all "reach their limit" and quit. Then the economic growth rates in this country can approach those of the socialist societies that you seem to adore. Either that or the best and brightest will leave. >> 5. Government is the least efficient means of resolving the problem. The > > As inefficeint as it is it is really the only effective means. A >simple 100% inheritance tax would be very helpful as would limitations >on how much property a given individual (and a corporation is a virutal >individual) may own. See my above points. Implement this and prepare the for US to become a third world country. 100% inheritance taxes would probably be the largest incentive for people to leave (they leave now with ONLY a 50% inheritance tax). And who would get the money? Those who are producing nothing, giving them even greater incentives for producing nothing (heck, get welfare payments up around $50K and I would quit work - I could find lots of enjoyable and intellectually stimulating ways to keep myself busy!). > As to your other issue here--earnings and limitations on accumulation, >much would be equalized without inheritance. But yes--there would >still be accumulators--most would still produce regardless of >limits because as I said their motives are not simply income--power, >prestige, etc. all come in to play as well as the gratification that >comes with winning. Gates enjoys his cover on Time Mag. much more >than a few extra million a day. Bullshit. See above. > But the basic answer to your argument--from my standpoint--is that >some people are extremely intellegent, others very gifted in other >ways, others very dull witted, etc. Some possess artistic genius >that can pay off immediately, others have none that is valued dollar >wise by society. I sincerly don't believe one has the right to >live better than the other--that the rewards, if different, sould >be negligable. > > If I could make as much as I do know programming by working as >a clerk in a convenience store or whatever I would still choose to >do what I am doing. If you are in a different situation you're >in the wrong career. You are extremely idealistic. Try coming back to reality. Examine the "test cases" for the policies you advocate (and there are plenty of examples of socialist policies both in this country and others) - and realistically assess the consequences. If you do this, you will find that these policies are unworkable, and lead to lower - not higher standards of living for everyone. Clay ******************************************************* Clay Olbon olbon(a)ix.netcom.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. **********************************************tanstaafl

5 6

Sound card as a random number source ??
by Pavel Korensky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, when I read about hardware random number generators in this mailing list, I got one idea. Maybe it sounds crazy, but is it possible to use soundcard (SoundBlaster for example) as a source for really random numbers ? What if I connect the input line of the soundcard with some external source of noise, like FM receiver or Dolby Surround decoder (with built-in white noise generator) or tape recorder with blank (erased) tape. It is possible to sample the sound (noise) and use the sampled values as a random numbers ? And how much random is this source ? I tried to find some mentions about this method with altavista, but I didn't found anything. Bye PavelK -- **************************************************************************** * Pavel Korensky (pavelk(a)dator3.anet.cz) * * DATOR3 Ltd., Modranska 1895/17, 143 00 Prague 4, Czech Republic * * PGP key fingerprint: 00 65 5A B3 70 20 F1 54 D3 B3 E4 3E F8 A3 5E 7C * ****************************************************************************

4 4

IQ and age
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Contrary to popular armchair psychology, there is no significant evidence >that IQ and age are inversely related. In general, however, the older we >get, the less we use our brain, and it becomes like a muscle that we no >longer use. Contrary to popular belief there is no sound evidence for believing many of the claims made for IQ tests. IQ measures ones ability to do IQ tests and little else. They were originally invented as a means of measuring the response of mentally defective patients so that their progress under different treatment regimes could be compared. There is no evidence to support the many claims made that IQ measures "innate" intelligence. If you practice IQ tests your score will increase. When I was 10 I used to spend each Friday afternoon practicing IQ tests for the entry examination to the upper school. My "IQ" increased by 30 points over that time, an most of the people in the class managed to improve their score by at least 10. >The point: Yes, you can improve your brain, and you can take proactive >steps to increase your IQ. Absolutely, it may not be the best idea if you want to be able to fit in socially however. You will then have to leave in a world where everyone you meet has a lower IQ. Phill

4 4

re:PGP263UI
by Steve Crompton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back posted re PGP 2.63ui >I was under the impression that with the Legal_Kludge option for >pgp263i, that it already was compatible with old versions of pgp using >the version byte of 2. We kept the control structure of the original ui version by "Matthew". But the compatibility of 2.63ui has been expanded to allow it to Export public keys generated with Version=3 (Legal_Kludge=on) to old versions (2.3a) of PGP. >What else does pgp263ui offer? The GNU license? What about pgp3? >Some people aren't going to be very happy if you do a GNU version of >that, as GNU doesn't preclude selling commercially provided that >source is provided. See the original announcement for the numerous fixes & enhancements not currently available in 2.6.2 or 2.6.3ia including Added CONFIG.TXT parameters/functions LabelEncrypt and PrePendSigV Expanded disk write error checking Ability to edit other people's keys's UserID's. We have no current plans re PGP 3.0. Probably a GNU version of it is not legally possible. But if source is released independent enhancements would be, depending on the license. It also remains to be seen if or how fast PGP 3.0, if it ever comes, will supplant previous versions of PGP in public acceptance. >PS Steve and friends: I've got some stealth code close to usable in >the form of a patch to pgp263 if you want it :-) Yes. Please send me a copy and we'll take a look at it. But the external stealth utility currently available is quite adequate in my view. Steve Crompton <sunray(a)globalnet.co.uk> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later. iQEVAwUBMp11UxRHWQsRmI2RAQE/EggAwtnT312Wmi7dWn4sYK/GxVJDqbKpuGuh yVekVPRsrBRQlhcQqm1ICzucGMOd+uDNTNqoxx82tBzjAphN2adANayin3I7FpW1 mkvdCj77pzkEwqc60OcPjqRg5q9xKsPCczAmaHBVmuyKjCDJemEzLMUQsrllohha c3v4WcRgB+epnDpF0hpdDYH7aiIo/FmN59ItcMEvrytkt5Hv7GjZq974UC/1ALik sFsML7QWp6bpVNzDeE8H7FmrT7kKVBddQwQcwFP2dPHOaFdqMRPjVcIxxjiOs5/o I3sCaH8L5VAF/WivcRCvYOBV+kklbTQsJIdt/eTrCGtTpoWtjVhyyw== =VPSl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0