December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NETWORKING ALERT!!!
by Alfred Michael Arzt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NETWORKING ALERT! A Powerful Homebased Money Making Machine Is Sweeping The Country!! LARRY THOMPSON who turned Herbalife into a billion dollar corporation has ended retirement to put together the most duplicable & lucrative 100% Homebased opportunity ever! Traditional Networking is now obsolete! The next MLM giant is LifeTronix! * No meetings, cassette tapes, videos, etc. Our cutting edge marketing tools make "traditional" MLM obsolete! Larry Thompson & the Wealth Building System helps recruit your prospects in their homes & trains you & your organization - FREE over the phone. * Nutritional Breakthrough! The most revolutionary - life changing products ever! Feel results in minutes! Scientific breakthrough! Totally Amazing! Patented product line - no competition! ==> Patented Water Soluable Nutritional Products, 3-5 times Quicker, Better and Faster Results. ==> World's First True Stabalized Oxygen! Ph Balanced. Use it internally or externally. ==> First ever Oxygen-Based Stop Smoking Product. Oxygen based Weight Loss product and Oxygen Based Skin Care product. ==> Liquid Blue Green Algae Super Food and Much More! ==> Unlimited use of 800 #'s & LIVE outbound calls for your training! Never leave home to earn your fortune! ==> Homebased System is 100% Duplicatable - Company Retails product for you! ==> Up to 40% retail profit! Weekly Payouts! A compensation plan that allows everyone to start making serious money FAST! * The most lucrative compensation plan developed ever devised! Weekly Payouts! No group volumes! Unlimited income potential - all from home. P/T - F/T! Plus So Much More! New Ground Breaking Opportunity - Don't Delay!! It Doesn't Get Any Better Then This! Position yourself at the TOP! Call 1-800-678-5522 ext 78679 for more information! Best regards, Alfred Michael Arzt Publisher, Telecommuter

1 0

Re: Timmy's Lost It: [Was Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice]
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:15 AM 1/3/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >As for my "elitism," I've never presented myself in any other fashion. I've >discussed this issue many times. Get used to it, or ignore it, or just keep >foaming at the mouth and ranting about how I need to take "yellow pills" to >avoid being an ally of "Bubba." I don't fault you for being "elitist." However, Rich Graves was right: I think that cryptoanarchy, while obviously eliminating taxation and income redistribution sounds cozy for economic elites, actually also eliminates the basis for those elites to be formed in the first place. To cite just one example that will hit close to home for you, without copyrights or patents (which are, obviously, monopolies enforced by governments) it would be far harder for companies such as Intel to maintain a near-monopoly on the DOS-compatible microprocessor market. And it has long been observed in libertarian discussion circles that far from hating regulation, most large (American; and others) corporations actually receive a net benefit from it as compared with smaller companies: The cost of complying with regulations doesn't increase linearly with the size of company, which means that those same regulations are a way of fighting competition if they are played right. Bring in crypto-anarchy and this effect is no longer operating. Despite all this, I still see nothing inconsistent in even an "elitist" pushing for crypto-anarchy: The current political system has become so dramatically inefficient and keeps so many people (through welfare, Socialist Insecurity, and government employment) well-fed through income redistribution, that I think finally even an "elitist" would be happy to chuck the whole system and adopt a crypto-anarchy-equalized system. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

eJournal
by GroupWeb eJournal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================================================= G R O U P W E B eJ O U R N A L (tm) Vol. 2 No. 1, January 6, 1997 http://www.groupweb.com/your/ejournal.htm - Now serving 45,000 readers. - Send contributions to ejournal(a)groupweb.com --------------------------------------------------------- H A P P Y N E W Y E A R! --------------------------------------------------------- In This Issue: 1. Review '96 AND Preview '97 2. Advertisement 3. Subscribe/Unsubscribe ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -1- Review '96/Preview '97 ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT In 1996, Oprah Winfrey is selected best performer of the year, but who will win in 1997? Will the much advertised Sunset Beach sizzle your TV screens? See Oprah at: http://www.groupweb.com/ejournal/oprah.htm See Sunset Beach at: http://www.groupweb.com/ejournal/sunset.htm BUSINESS & FINANCE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Blacks and Hispanics spent over $630 billions that outpace white spending in such areas as cars, children's clothing and perishable foods. Baby boomers invested over $1.2 trillion in 1996 and the Dow posted a record high. What will become of 1997? Before you say anything, see winners and losers among the big players in 1996 at: http://www.groupweb.com/ejournal/invest.htm How will your business do in 1997? To launch your marketing strategy, see iMarket at: http://www.groupweb.com/ejournal/imarket.htm and GroupWeb Marketplace at: http://www.groupweb.com/buy_sell/market.htm GOVERNMENT/POLITICS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In 1996, President Clinton won the White House, and he promised to build a bridge into the 21st century. His campaign, however, was without complains: fund raising flap and his personal character, to name but a few. At the dawn of this new year is his inauguration. What will become of Clinton's Presidency in 1997 and Gingrich's helm at the House? See Allpolitics at: http://www.groupweb.com/bizdir/links/polnews.htm GENERAL REVIEWS OF '96 AND PREVIEWS OF '97 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ See complete 1996 reviews on the Arts, business, and technology and previews of 1997 by MSNBC at: http://www.groupweb.com/ejournal/msnbc.htm or tell us what you foresee for 1997 at GroupWeb eJournal Forum: http://www.emailhost.com/msgs.html -3- Advertisement ============================================================== Best Seafood 1-800-266-5620 ============================================================== Enjoy high quality Florida seafood at the lowest possible price delivered to you in 24 hours. Enter our monthly raffle to win 5 pounds of lobster tails. No purchase necessary. http://www.best-seafood.com ============================================================ Guaranteed Programs Paying 20% Annual Rate ============================================================ Guaranteed, insured, secured and amortized banking investment programs paying 20% annual percentage rate is now available to investors worldwide. Minimum investment is $24,000 per contract. Minimum number of contracts is one. Additional bonus is available to multiple contracts. Investment can be liquidated with a 60-day notice. Offers are accepted on a first come, first served basis. To contact us, send e-mail to oval(a)groupweb.com ============================================================ Get Your Virtual Server ============================================================= Server Type Setup Charge Monthly Service ----------- ------------ -------------- Basic Service 50.00 20.00 Basic w/Domain 100.00 25.00 Basic w/Domain&Email 100.00 30.00 Virtual Host Service 150.00 60.00 Secure Sever 250.00 Send email to ejournal(a)groupweb.com ============================================================ Advertise in eJournal & GroupWeb Directories ============================================================ Send a 5-line ad to 45,000 readers for only $95.00 per issue of eJournal and get a free banner ad (155 by 55 pixel) for one year. E-mail ads should be 35 words maximum, additional words are priced at $1 per word. Send your ad and payment to InfoResearch Group 5514 La Jolla Blvd La Jolla, CA 92037 You can place your order with your Visa or MasterCard via First Virtual at: http://groupweb.com/your/place_ad.htm ============================================================= -5- Subscribe/Unsubscribe To unsubscribe send e-mail to groupweb(a)yvv.com with the word "REMOVE" as your subject. Thanks. ============================================================== (c) 1996 InfoResearch Group. http://www.groupweb.com

1 0

Make $300 a Day!!
by Peter Sorensen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Our records show that you are an entrepreneur looking for an opportunity. If we have reached you in error, please let us know so we can remove you from our records We are looking for a limited number of entrepreneurs and others who would like to make up to $300.00 a day working with our company. We are not... Multi level matketing a chain letter or any pyramid scheme We are a legitimate company located in Florida who offers an incredibly unique and extremely useful product. If you would like more information on this explosive opportunity, visit our web site at: http://members.aol.com/succeslink but hurry, we only have a limited number of positions available. We look forward to working with you!! Peter Sorensen - President Success Link - Your link to success

1 0

Re: Judge Bork on Ebonics
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:37 PM 1/4/1997, Steve Schear wrote: >The following is from pages 300-307 of Robert Bork's brilliant >book, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah". This is a book which should >be read by everyone--and especially by liberals. > >Here are Judge Bork's thoughts on multiculturalism, bilingual >education, and "Black English", otherwise known as "Ebonics". Thank you for taking the trouble to type in Bork's thoughts. You might enjoy reading the introduction to his book on antitrust law. He eloquently demonstrates how antitrust law is designed and implemented to undermine the rule of law. The participants are fully aware of their actions and Bork documents it. Nonetheless, I have some disagreements with Judge Bork. I believe he is too eager to lump "multi-culturalists" and "revisionists" into one coherent mass. He also seems to ignore the many substantive and interesting points raised by the revisionists. >Bernstein took a two-year leave of absence from the New York >Times to gather the facts of the multicultural ideology and its >opponents. His is not an impressionistic book or one based on an >ideological predisposition; it is a report of empirical findings. He >points, for example, to the remarkable change in attitude towards >Christopher Columbus between 1892 and 1992. Though not a >single new fact about Columbus's life and exploits had been >uncovered, the country's mood swung from one of uncritical adu- >lation to one of loathing and condemnation, at least among the >members of the "intellectual" class. The change was accomplished >by the aggressive ideology of multiculturalism. The Columbus >turnaround is merely a specific instance of more general alter- >ations in our moral landscape. If it is the case that no new facts are known about Columbus, which probably isn't true anyway, then we have to seriously question what people were thinking in 1892. See "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen for a full treatment. The summary: Columbus was a bad man who lead the Spanish government in causing the deaths of about 8 million people. How can we rever such a monster? Why did people in 1892 do so? Less dramatically, Columbus's visionary belief in a round world was not as visionary as claimed. Many people were aware of this fact at the time. There are many similar examples of mythmaking. What has changed since 1892 is intellectual integrity and it has changed for the better. Of course, in 1892 the United States was just completing one of the most successful land grabs in history. One can either concede a strong belief in the right of conquest or one can lie about it. In 1892 they lied about it. >That was the meaning of the radicals' attack on Stanford's Western >Culture program in which students were required to sample the >writings of men who had helped shape Western culture-Shakespeare, >Dante, Locke, etc. A black student who objected to the program said >its message was "Nigger, go home." If Universities were run like businesses serving customers, this question would not even have to be raised. Students may study whatever they are willing to pay for. >That exclusionary inter- pretation is precisely the opposite of the >real message of the pro- gram, which was "Let us study what we have >in common as inheritors of a tradition." This I disagree with. There is nothing magical about promoting "tradition". I much prefer to study the most worthwhile literature and philosophical ideas available regardless of their source. While Shakespeare is certainly worth studying, Sun Tzu is at least as worthwhile, depending on one's goals. >The insistence on separate ethnic identities means that persons in >each group can study their own culture, often in highly flattering >and historically inaccurate form. But this is exactly what the Universities and other "educational" institutions in the United States have been doing for years. >Multiculturalism then means not the study of others but of oneself. This is simply false. When people argue about the curriculum at Stanford University, they are arguing about the education of a group composed primarily of young wealthy European-Americans. >In education at all levels, the substance of the curriculum >changes to accommodate multiculturalist pressures. We have >already seen this in feminist and Afrocentric studies, but it is >everywhere. In New York state it is official educational doctrine >that the United States Constitution was heavily influenced by the >political arrangements of the Iroquois Confederacy. The official >promulgation of this idea was not due to any research that dis- >closed its truth. Nor has any other state adopted this nonsensical >idea. I am very skeptical of Bork's claim. For example, the method of admitting states to the Union and granting them nearly equal status with the existing states does not, I believe, have precedent in European history. However, this is how the Five Nation Iroquois functioned. At first glance, it seems reasonable to suggest that the authors of the Constitution got this idea from the Iroquois. If anybody knows otherwise, I would be most interested to hear about it. "Lies My Teacher Told Me" had this fascinating passage on page 103: "In the 1740s the Iroquois wearied of dealing with several often bickering English colonies and suggested that the colonies form a union similar to the league [i.e., the Iroquois -ed.]. In 1754 Benjamin Franklin, who had spent much time among the Iroquois observing their deliberations, pleaded with colonial leaders to consider the Albany Plan of Union: "It would be a strange thing if six nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a scheme for such a union and be able to execute it in such a manner as that it has subsisted ages and appears insoluble; and yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English colonies.'" Consider this excerpt from page 104: "For a hundred years after our Revolution, Americans credited Native Americans as a source of their democratic institutions. Revolutionary-era cartoonists used images of Indians to represent the colonies against Britain. Virginia's patriot rifle companies wore Indian clothes and moccasins as they fought the redcoats. When colonists took action to oppose unjust authority, as in the Boston Tea Party or the anti-rent protests against Dutch plantations in the Hudson River Valley during the 1840s, they chose to dress as Indians, not to blame Indians for the demonstrations but to appropriate a symbol identified with liberty." Or consider this, also from page 104: "As a symbol of the new United States, Americans chose the eagle clutching a bundle of arrows. They knew that both the eagle and the arrows were symbols of the Iroquois League. Although one arrow is easily broken, no one can break six (or thirteen) at once." The truth is, many revisionists have many interesting things to say. Disturbingly, I have noticed that the anti-revisionists have a marked tendency towards ad hominem attack and seldom address the specific points raised. My belief is that many established historians see themselves as promoting a "tradition" and not as searchers for truth. I would like to hear opposing points of view if backed up by evidence. (Lowewen, for instance, has some squirrelly values and there are a number of errors in his book.) >This sort of thing is happening across the country as various ethnic >groups and feminists demand that history be rewritten according to >their party lines. This not only debases history but pits the various >groups against one another as they struggle for space in the >textbooks. New York's "interest in history is not as an intellectual >discipline," Schlesinger writes, "but rather as social and >psychological therapy whose primary purpose is to raise the self- >esteem of children from minority groups." Loewen claims that Schlesinger wrote an entire book on the Jackson administration in which he omitted any reference to the forcible relocation of the Cherokees from Georgia to Oklahoma. Regardless of whether one cares about such crimes - and one should - this episode is worth studying for its Constitutional implications alone. The Cherokees had a treaty with the United States Government. They took their case to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall ordered that the Cherokees be left alone. Andrew Jackson replied "I'd like to see John Marshall stop me." Jackson, a former general, was presumably popular with the Army. I haven't verified Loewen's claim, but I have read an essay by Schlesinger in which he attacks historical revisionism without actually addressing any claim by the revisionists. Red Rackham

1 0

Re: Modified Token Posting Scheme
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:10 AM 1/4/1997, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: >In list.cypherpunks, ph(a)netcom.com writes: >> In essence, the poster is betting that the moderator will approve >> the post retroactively. >> The "moderator" returns the money to people when posts are worthwhile >> and keeps it otherwise. >> Of course, there's no reason to have just one moderator on the list. > In the case of several moderators, who gets the ecash? And doesn't this > open the list to bidding? "Pass this message, and you can keep the > e$500." The moderator keeps the cash. The moderator is pulled in several directions. He or she wants to keep the money but also wants people to post through him or her. The moderator also wants to be credible or their services will not be required. If it is implemented in a decentralized manner, the list is not up for bidding, but the ability to get past killfiles is. That is, anybody can post to the list, but some people will only read things coming from credible sources. The money you pay gets to those people. This is no different from the original scheme with a limited number of tokens. If the anonymity is preserved, you can always pay somebody $500 to go to the trouble of getting one of the rare tokens distributed or to buy one off a list member who already has one. In the modified scheme, the cost is quantified and easy to express and understand. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

4 3

New rules for Internet sales to CA buyers
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following subsection of California Business & Professions Code section 17538 took effect 1/1/97 and may be of interest to people following state attempts to regulate net sales: [...] (d) A vendor conducting business through the Internet or any other electronic means of communication shall do all of the following when the transaction involves a buyer located in California: (1) Before accepting any payment or processing any debit or credit charge or funds transfer, the vendor shall disclose to the buyer in writing or by electronic means of communication, such as E-mail or an on-screen notice, the vendor's return and refund policy, the legal name under which the business is conducted and, except as provided in paragraph (3), the complete street address from which the business is actually conducted. (2) If the disclosure of the vendor's legal name and address information required by this subdivision is made by on-screen notice, all of the following shall apply: (A) The disclosure of the legal name and address information shall appear on any of the following: (i) the first screen displayed when the vendor's electronic site is accessed, (ii) on the screen on which goods or services are first offered, (iii) on the screen on which a buyer may place the order for goods or services or (iv) on the screen on which the buyer may enter payment information, such as a credit card account number. The communication of that disclosure shall not be structured to be smaller or less legible than the text of the offer of the goods or services. (B) The disclosure of the legal name and address information shall be accompanied by an adjacent statement describing how the buyer may receive the information at the buyer's E-mail address. The vendor shall provide the disclosure information to the buyer at the buyer's E-mail address within five days of receiving the buyer's request. (C) Until the vendor complies with subdivision (a) in connection with all buyers of the vendor's goods or services, the vendor shall make available to a buyer and any person or entity who may enforce this section pursuant to Section 17535 on-screen access to the information required to be disclosed under this subdivision. (3) The complete street address need not be disclosed as required by paragraph (1) if the vendor utilizes a private mailbox receiving service and all of the following conditions are met: (A) the vendor satisfies the conditions described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 17538.5, (B) the vendor discloses the actual street address of the private mailbox receiving service in the manner prescribed by this subdivision for the disclosure of the vendor's actual street address, and (C) the vendor and the private mailbox receiving service comply with all of the requirements of subdivisions (c) to (f), inclusive, of Section 17538.5. --- Legislative history can be found at <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_3320&sess=PREV&h ouse=B> -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.

4 3

ONE MILLION CHILDREN.....
by gary＠safetydisk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

...and pets are lost or turn up missing every year! Protect your loved ones today! Think about all the things you do to protect your loved ones. Isn't there one more thing you should do? Child and Pet ID Kits have been around for years, but most of them haven't changed with the years. Traditional ID Kits allow you to compile valuable information about your child or pet that you can use in the event your child or pet is missing. We are responding to the rapid changes in technology. We know that any ID Kit just isn't good enough. Our ID Kit is quite different! You supply us with up to three photos and pertinent information about your child or pet and we create a SAFETYDISK. In PC or MAC format, SAFETYDISK is a 3 1/2" disk that contains photos and valuable information that could help law enforcement agencies in the search for a missing child or pet. What makes our kit so unique is that each SAFETYDISK is actually pre-formatted for the World Wide Web. SAFETYDISK can be put on any Internet server within seconds and displayed to millions and millions of people who might spot your child or pet! For more information, visit our website at http://www.mvisibility.com/sd/ Thanks, Gary Aikens President, SafetyDisk, Inc.

4 5

Flame Free Bulk E-mail
by Flame Free 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Send 10,000 E-mails E v e r y D a y ... with YOUR Sales Message! These E-mail messages are ONLY sent to people who have REQUESTED info like yours. Don't Risk Getting Kicked Off Your ISP for Sending Too Many E-mails or Getting Flames! Never Chap Your ISP Again. Never Get Another Flame Message! No Flame messages will ever get to YOU again ... For details goto http://www.nettech-resources.com/flamefree.htm

1 0

Re: Experiments on Mailing Lists
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:02 AM 1/4/1997, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 7:49 AM -0800 1/4/97, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >> The moderator keeps the cash. The moderator is pulled in several >> directions. He or she wants to keep the money but also wants people > ...blah blah blah.... > All of these schemes--some of them pretty clever--for posting tokens, > reputation-based killfiles, buying and selling reputation futures, etc., > are almost certainly far too complicated to deploy on a list like ours. > ...[Interesting Extropian history deleted.]... > So, rather than do similar tinkering with the Cypherpunks list--not that > either Hugh Daniel or John Gilmore have given any hint they are willing to > do such tinkering--I suggest those who want to try token-based posting, or > information markets in reputation capital, or herd-consensus killfiles, > etc., set up a separate mailing list and implement whatever they wish. If the point of these schemes is to filter content (*), there is no reason why they have to be implemented for the entire list. They can always be converted to a tag on the message which readers can use, but are not required to. I'm sure Tim would not object to any scheme implemented in this way. (So sure, in fact, that I will give him a dollar if he does object. ;-) (* If the point is to stop spam attacks, then they do have to affect the entire list.) Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

6 5