December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[CRYPTO] Sphere packings
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May's police record is many times longer than his prick (well, that's not hard). /\ __/__\__ | 00 | Timmy May |: \ :| | \_/| \__/

1 0

Apropros of labeling systems...
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yahoo has a Reuter's story covering a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics. They're concerned about record content description labels; they don't think their "strong" enough. If the industry does not develop a stronger voluntary system, it said, Congress should impose one. (I wonder if they really said that Congress should impose a stronger voluntary system?) I wonder when people will realize that the threat of Congress imposing a ratings system seems functionally equivalent to Congress imposing a ratings system? -- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com http://www.io.com/~m101 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

1 0

FW: Hoax: the "Deeyenda" virus (was ... VIRUS ALERT ...)
by Morbid Angel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

found in a Usenet posting: ----------------------------------- >From Melvin Klassen <KLASSEN(a)UVVM.UVIC.CA> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:00:00 PST Newsgroups: bit.listserv.help-net MIKE R BLAKE <> writes: >>> FYI... >>> **********VIRUS ALERT********** >>> There is a computer virus that is being sent across the Internet. If >>> you receive an email message with the subject line "Deeyenda", DO NOT >>> read the message, DELETE it immediately! Nonsense. Your message is a **HOAX** ! Instead, check the "Computer Virus Myths Home Page", and the specific page describing "Deeyenda", at: http://www.kumite.com/myths/myth027.htm >>> FCC WARNING!!!!! -----DEEYENDA PLAGUES INTERNET The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) does not issue such messages. It's not part of their mandate to do such. -- returning to lurk mode...

1 0

Virus?
by Aaron Burnett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anybody heard of the Monkey_B virus? If so what does it do exactly? Also does anybody know where I could find a downloadable Win95 upgrade upgrading Windows 3.x to Win95?

1 0

Are accountants smart or stupid?
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

xx

1 0

Re: Redlining
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: (snip) >I, personally, find racial discrimination to be a problem in the USA. > >Not only do I find it a moral problem, but it has adverse effects on >markets and the efficiency of these same markets. > >It is costly not only in personal measures, but in economical terms as well. > >As a way to address these concerns, holistically, moral concerns as well as >economic concerns, I do support limited regulation specifically tailored to >address this problem. > >One of the means of addressing only one specific aspect of this problem is >to legislatively restrict the practice of redlining. (snip) Many people of good will find racial discrimination to be abhorrent. OTOH, I'm sure that as an attorney you are cognizant of the fact that financial institutions have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. In any case, have you given any consideration to taking your well-meaning but off-topic thoughts to any one of a number of perhaps more appropriate fora?

1 0

Deeyenda, is a fucking hoax...
by Vincent M. Padua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deeyenda is not a virus, it's a hoax (like "Good Times" and "Irina") A warning about a virus called Deeyenda is being distributed around the internet. However, the virus does not exist and this is yet another example of a growing trend: hoax virus alerts being mistakenly sent all around the internet. If you receive the warning about Deeyenda (which has many similarities to another hoax, "Good Times") be sure to tell the person who sent the warning to you that it is in fact a hoax, and they should take care not to pass the hoax warning on to anyone else. Please quit propogating this bullshit. //Vince

1 0

verysign
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.verisign.com/cgi-bin/authdb/search.cgi Click defense industries, enter a site url of www. I suppose #2 can be seen as a vital part of the defense establishment.. ;) This really should be listed as 'under test.' Enjoy yourselves. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: Redlining
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:37 PM 12/10/1996, Jim Wise wrote: >On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote: > >> The logical implication here is that a thousand people "getting >> together" and doing something is no different in principle than one >> person doing that something. Not a valid implication, although the >> result is not necessarily false on a per-case basis. > >Actually, I think this is a very valid implication. One of the main >ways in which statist societies justify their restrictions on >individuals is by reifying large bodies of individuals and giving >them their own rights and responsibilities _as_a_seperate_entity_. >To speak of a mass of individuals, whether you call it a corporation, >a collective, or a government, as having a different set of rights >than the individuals who make it up, is the heart of statism. Naturally, I agree with Jim. To expand on his comments, if it is acceptable to lend your money to whomever you like, surely it must be acceptable to lend your money to other people on whatever terms you like. These terms could be "I will lend you this money on the condition that you lend it only to pure-blooded Albanians." The reason organizations are subjected to controls has only to do with what is feasible. The people who want to control these organizations would be quite happy to dictate to individuals what they may do with their money. Fortunately, this is not practical. Historically, many societies have not allowed the formation of organizations without governmental approval. For instance, in pre-Revolutionary France, it was not even possible to form a club without official sanction. The Monarchy made a major concession when it permitted the free formation of clubs. It may also have been a strategic blunder, as the clubs immediately became the focus of Revolutionary political activity. I believe that in many Medieval and Renaissance societies, even something as simple as a market could not be established without approval. One of the great ideas of the modern age is that people have the right to form organizations. It should probably be in the Bill of Rights. (We do have the right to "peaceably assemble", but that is not as general as the right to organize.) You are completely correct that control of human organizational activity is the hallmark of a totalitarian state. Back to redlining, it is typically minority groups which are the most prone to lending only to their own group. This has been said about Jewish people, although I haven't seen it in practice. (Perhaps this was true a few centuries ago?) An excellent modern example is the Korean-American community. There is a custom to form pools of capital between small numbers of friends, five would be a typical number. One friend is appointed to set up and run the business. There are very powerful social prohibitions against failure and consequent loss of capital. Very seldom is one of the group anything but Korean. My understanding is that this works quite well. It is hard to find anything objectionable in the practice. >> Ironically, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, hate, etc. are often >> judged by the public on a "gut level" as well. It's just a matter of >> how to "educate" the public to see these things. > >Exactly. Like most, I have a strongly visceral negative reaction to >bigotry. I wish there could be a system of law which contained it. >There cannot, or at least not without doing even more harm. But what is it that we want to make illegal? Bigotry is not a well defined term. Generally what we object to is people drawing the "wrong" conclusions about other groups of people. Certainly, we do not believe that we should dictate what conclusions people should draw, any more than we believe we should dictate what they may say. Do we then believe that we should outlaw the actions they take based on these beliefs? So long as the people in question are doing no harm, I propose we leave them alone to live their lives. Ironically, I have found that those who are most vocal on the subject of bigotry are most prone to it themselves. It isn't okay to make statements of your belief regarding Albanians - especially poor Albanians - but it is okay to make any statement about yuppies, preppies, geeks, nerds, Libertarians, Objectivists, or any other sort of approved "those people" groups. I'm sure many readers of this list have had conversations which abruptly end with "Are you a Libertarian?", which is generally completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. What is happening is that the other person is more interested in knowing your tribal identification than what you believe. A pity. Red Rackham

3 2

Re: [OFF-TOPIC]Re: PICS is not censorship
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> and I don't agree there are universally valid truths. I defy you to >> explain how you know that to be so. > Simple. Let us consider all religions: Your argument has grown tiresome. Now is the time on cypherpunks when we dance.

1 0