December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Fwd: Re: wealth and property rights
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:54:51 -0800 (PST), Dave Kinchlea wrote: >On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote: >> >> 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 > >I don't know how much people get on welfare in your country but I >suspect that it is even less than in this country (Canada). Anyone who >truly believes that people make the `economic decision to do nothing and >go on welfare vs. going to work' has, in my opinion, no &^%* idea what >they are talking about. Just try to *live* on a welfare wage for a few >months to see how silly this thought is. While there may well be a few Hmmm, only a few years ago the Finacial Post did a report on welfare in Ontario. The maximum benifit package (for two adults, two children or something like that) came to about 34 000 dollars. YES 34 000 dollars. Actually, the figure the Post published was wrong. Welfare Ontario said they were a couple of hundred dollars UNDER the true value. Of course that isn't all in cash. It comes as subsidies houseing, free diapers, free baby food...... Are you telling me that it would be hard to live on 34 grand? I wasn't aware that our dollar was so weak.... And then there is the B.C./Alberta fiasco. The final check welfare recipients get in Alberta just happens to be the exact amount it costs to buy a bus ticket to B.C. The B.C. govn't gave up ALL federal funding of their welfare program to impose a rule that required 3 months of residence before benifits would be given. I don't even want to start talking about the newfys. What it comes down to is this. Eventually we as a society will have to make a choice. We will have to chose between hurting the people who work and hurting the people who don't work. You can't have it both ways. IF you MUST make the choice, who will you choose? mhayes(a)infomatch.com It's better for us if you don't understand It's better for me if you don't understand -Tragically Hip

1 0

Re: Dorthy Denning is a boot-licking fasicist!!!
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"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. "Dorothy Denning" is a man in drag. "She" has a bigger dick that "her" boyfriend John Gilmore, the cocksucker faggot from EFF. >----------------------------------------------------------- >"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> >----------------------------------------------------------- Just say GAK to chicks with dicks! diGriz

8 9

Is /dev/random good enough to generate one-time pads?
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subj sez it all. Thank you. - Igor.

3 2

Re: First Contact
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: allyn(a)allyn.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Thu Nov 28 23:40:50 1996 > I think that the character Data uses either PGP or some > sort of crypto system to lock up the ship's computer. The term used is "fractal cypher." It's not a terribly significant plot point IMO (although, for longtime fans of ST:TNG, there is some juicy humor with Data and the Borg "Queen" when she tries some, er, unconventional tactics to try to get him to reveal it.) > At least if you spend any reasonable time here in > cypherpunks, coderpunks, or other crypto related > areas, you should recognise what he uses. AFAIK the "fractal cypher" is just a couple of clever technobabble words thrown together for effect. > I have not seen seen it; I am guessing that maybe > they are using something to excite the juices of > us Internet folks. If they are, they're not doing a good job. :) > Mark dave - ----- David E. Smith, P O Box 324, Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 dsmith(a)prairienet.org http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith send mail with subject of "send pgp-key" for my PGP public key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMp53b3EZTZHwCEpFAQHZQQf9HCh0nR44oSTGZDYCeElkqUfSUX759F2M WoUCuJ10EGO6L1euUiwpyg1eBcgicscOliwf0KNYMSdwj2hfAp/gXhWUR8o0XydU NvnCrOSu2iTvvkzZixB4uuIhKUB8z5Rfzv2Sz0EHWK2XKcBvRhht96uKR7mi+wIg QSfBgdx+RVFIVbFCIA6PWJ3NhRU6p/c+5ptm0fVAJOJJ4uHWswP58l3aimI6Ormu TrxEgFs+BezsqvJLNw3ZcAWCYSkOUKJiCC//w/e210RBEJKZOgiht7sSUTJqQDsx 6Z7mnU0hPfOE2Eco+b0zL4U/B7xskUX22OCuDlcsgLsoK1kggsZgjw== =ciV0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: SMTP import error #-5
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

No Alias Created wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > The biggest influence on IQ are the so-called "engrams" (fears, super- > > > stitions, anxieties, etc.) planted in your brain early in life. > > > Some of this can be overcome with mental exercise, and awareness of what > > > negative influences are holding you back. Much easier said than done! > > > IQ as they attempt to measure it can probably be most easily explained > > > as pattern matching skills. Unfortunately for testing, and although you > > > can be every bit as intelligent at 70 as at 10, your pattern-matching > > > skills change and evolve over time, so any given tests will only apply > > > (more or less) at the age group they are optimized for. > > > Would you dismiss strong correlations between IQ and success in life > > and academia as something irrelevant? > > Not at all, and I think you could make some interesting equations out of > this if you wanted to spend the time. > > Factors for raw intelligence, i.e., pattern matching skills. > Factors for aggressiveness, assertiveness, self-confidence, etc. > Factors for manipulative ability (to manipulate people, etc.). I don't > know how to properly categorize this last item, but perhaps a professional > psychologist would. > > In sum, I think you could observe successful people and establish most > of the relevant factors, but be aware - if you are not an insider in > several of these "success circles", you might miss one or more key > factors, particularly those that would be denied by successful people, > such as willingness to do things people don't like to talk about openly. Another new error message! Seems like a new one every couple days now.

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: > Another anecdotal example is in the opening chapters of "Surely You're Joking, > Mr. Feynman" by Richard Feynman, the late Caltech professor and general bon > vivant. He describes how his mother introduced a doctor, a general and a > professor with the same respectful tones indicating to him that a career in > academia was as highly valued as any other high position in society. Your lower middle class slip is showing.

1 0

Re: IQ and age
by Lurker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:47 PM 11/27/96 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Dale Thorn wrote: >> The biggest influence on IQ are the so-called "engrams" (fears, super- >> stitions, anxieties, etc.) planted in your brain early in life. >> >> Some of this can be overcome with mental exercise, and awareness of what >> negative influences are holding you back. Much easier said than done! >> >> IQ as they attempt to measure it can probably be most easily explained >> as pattern matching skills. Unfortunately for testing, and although you >> can be every bit as intelligent at 70 as at 10, your pattern-matching >> skills change and evolve over time, so any given tests will only apply >> (more or less) at the age group they are optimized for. >> > >Would you dismiss strong correlations between IQ and success in life >and academia as something irrelevant? > 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.) 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.)

2 1

Re: IPG Algorith Broken!
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Ahh... an OTP isn't unbreakable. Its just so encredibly breakable that > > you never know which break was the correct one ;) > > Note that Schneier says "perfect", not "unbreakable". yes, Perfect is a better term. Strictly speaking it is because there is no finite unicity distance (the amount of ciphertext with which the cipher can theoretically be broken). So, stricly speaking, for a given message C and a prospective pad, P, out of a set of N pads which may or may not be correct: P(P|C) = N^-1 The length of C and the amount of ciphertexts given have no effect in determining the key, nor is there any prospect of a know plaintext attack as the pad is true random and the next bits are totally independent of any others before them. Of course the reason it is perfect is because there are many different pads which give valid decryptions and there is no way of knowing which one is correct. IPG`s algorithm is definitely NOT an OTP and Don Wood is a snakeoil merchant. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

3 4

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

17 Dec '03

At 10:54 AM 11/27/96 -0800, Dave Kinchlea wrote: >On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote: >> >> 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 > >I don't know how much people get on welfare in your country but I >suspect that it is even less than in this country (Canada). Anyone who >truly believes that people make the `economic decision to do nothing and >go on welfare vs. going to work' has, in my opinion, no &^%* idea what >they are talking about. Just try to *live* on a welfare wage for a few >months to see how silly this thought is. While there may well be a few >`welfare-moms' (which is not necessarily a bad thing, taking care of >children is an investment for society), the vast majority of people on >welfare (at least here) would *much* rather get a decent job and work >for their money. There are, perhaps, a few people who would rather not >work for minimum wage (who find it impossible to feed their family on >that) but I suspect that those folks are few and far between. The average welfare benefit (including food stamps, medicaid, and all the other myriad programs) is $10/hr. Compare to a minimum wage of $5/hr. Offer most welfare recipients a minimum wage job and they will laugh in your face. (In fact, here in Michigan most employers are already paying several $$ above minimum wage, and often these jobs are unfilled). >> More bullshit. You don't know what anyones motives are. To ascribe your >> motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic. > >But you claim to know the motives of those on welfare: pot->kettle->black I don't claim to know the motives. I am examining empirical evidence. As the welfare benefit increases, more go on welfare, as it decreases, less go on welfare. Someone is making economic decisions, consciously or unconsciously. Clay ******************************************************* Clay Olbon olbon(a)ix.netcom.com engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. **********************************************tanstaafl

3 2

Re: Is /dev/random good enough to generate one-time pads?
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Subj sez it all. > Yes, as a matter of fact it is. /dev/random is based on an entropy pool > taken from hardware interrupts and such, thus is a RNG, not a PRNG I expect it would be "good enough", but it is not _perfectly_ random, and so it wouldn't be a true one-time pad. Because it uses MD5, the bits are not all provably independent. You get (very strong) cryptographic security instead of perfect security. The one-time pad is easy to explain in theory, but implementing it perfectly is extremely difficult. Many people believe that quantum events are the only source of perfect randomness, but most methods for harvesting that randomness could introduce statistical properties. For example, a radioactive substance may have exactly a 50% chance of emitting a particle given a certain amount of time, but what happens if your timer isn't perfect? One-way hashes are good at removing such obvious and not-so-obvious statistical properties, but like a PRNG, you can't prove that the bits it produces are all completely independent. It's definately "good enough", but it's not perfect.

2 1