December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Redlining
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Allen Smith wrote: > From: IN%"dthorn(a)gte.net" "Dale Thorn" 13-DEC-1996 00:55:54.44 > >It is possible to understand intelligence as "pattern matching" skills, > >without having to have attendant math and statistics to define it more > >precisely or clinically. This understanding (if you have it) is the key > >to knowing that Black persons do *not* have less IQ than White persons, > >regardless of the standardized tests. Something I know about, as I've > >scored in the top 1/1000 of one percent, etc. > Umm... so have I, and I've also done some extensive reading on > the subject. The IQ tests in question do a good job (better than any > other tests - to study & compare you've got to have some sort of test, > and an IQ test doesn't see what color you are) at correlating with > things such as job performance, educational success (e.g., GPA), > likelihood even within given racial groups of being in poverty, etcetera. I have not associated closely with any Black persons since 1981-1983, but at that time, when I had worked with several such persons in Los Angeles, in close quarters (me being the only White person), I was profoundly impressed with the diversity and complexity of the issue (I was curious about the issue due to my circumstances, although I certainly did not mention it) in dealing with real people. My experience tells me that persons who administer intelligence tests and other related tests, or persons who subscribe to study of such things, should get up close to (for example) Black persons for an extended period of time, and I think they (the White persons) would then seriously question any test results which showed a consistent superiority for Whites. > >Nice that you have good intuition on this point, however, the big question > >in your paragraph is not wherefore the genetic determinant, rather, it is > >the understanding of intelligence in its overall context, which I dare say > >most researchers in that field are probably ill-equipped to grasp. > Actually, my conclusions re: genetic differences are an educated > guess... just one that isn't currently testable. My guess comes from such > factors as that some groups that, to all appearances, have high IQs are > actually pretty closely related to some groups that have low IQs; take > hispanics (mixed caucasian and (via American Indian) asian ancestry). > The debates over what is intelligence, etcetera are quite > thoroughly ongoing in the field in question; multiple books have been > written on the subject. I have recently (Oct. 1996) more-or-less inherited three half-Navajo children, upon the death of their father (mother died 1993). The kids are 9, 11, and 13. I have described to various people (schoolteachers, parents, computer programmers, and so on) that raising kids of this age, at this point in my life, is no more difficult than just living my own life without them. Getting past the emotional weaknesses that can hobble you as a parent or guardian is paramount, and once you do that, the rest is a cakewalk. But what I really wanted to say was that my experience with these children now (whom I didn't know until mid-1996) has convinced me more than ever that intelligence is not only not primarily genetic, but may also be recoverable to a large extent up to the beginning of the teen years, if not beyond that. I would guess that children from most any background, young enough and lacking actual physical brain damage or extremely severe psychological trauma, can probably be brought up to the point where they can perform on an equal level with the best our society has to offer. The main and overwhelming factor in developing children who can accomplish at a superior level is the personal attention of a caregiver, and what that attention consists of. There are some things you can read about in a book and guess what they mean, and there are some things you can know when you're staring them in the face...

1 0

[Meeting] Cypherpunks wanking club.
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There will be a meeting at my place for all cypherpunks so we can pull each other dicks about how clever we are and bag all those non-entities who aren't. All gun lovers are of course welcome and we can exhibit our manhood paranoia by seeing who has the biggest calibre weapon. Having a deadly weapon after all proves we are grown up, right kiddies. Sufferin' Sam

1 0

Re: Laptops and TEMPEST
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:18 pm -0800 12/5/96, Joel McNamara wrote: >Thinking that LCD screens reduce the risks of emanation monitoring is a >dangerous misconception [elided] the gotcha with current laptops is their >backlighting. Electric and magnetic fields are considerably higher >compared with a low-res/contrast device. [elided] An interesting point, but the fluorescent is mostly a constant signal, really, but Hugh pointed out that most laptops have a video chip radiating far more useful data than the flourescent backlight. Just a thought. dave ____________________________________________________________________________ "I mixed this myself. (holds up glass of water) Two parts "H," one part "O." I don't trust _anybody_!" --Steven Wright

1 0

Re: Redlining
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Allen Smith wrote: > From: IN%"dthorn(a)gte.net" "Dale Thorn" 13-DEC-1996 01:53:17.65[snip] > >the rest is a cakewalk. But what I really wanted to say was that my > >experience with these children now (whom I didn't know until mid-1996) > >has convinced me more than ever that intelligence is not only not > >primarily genetic, but may also be recoverable to a large extent up to > >the beginning of the teen years, if not beyond that. > Actually, IQ tests in childhood up until about age 12 aren't > particularly well correlated with adult IQ; they would thus agree with > you on that environment can heavily influence IQ until that point. Again, as a statistical exercise, this might be OK, but, quite a bit of what you would see in the exceptional areas of the curve in childhood would be rather obvious in adulthood as well. The fact that this doesn't seem so obvious across the statistical curve is only evidence of poor granularity in the data. > It is possible to raise IQs somewhat with various environmental > interventions; the question is how much. Research such as that > discussed in Herman Spitz's "Raising Intelligence" (_not_ a conservative > or racist by any means) appears to show that such does, unfortunately, > have some points at which one gets to diminishing returns; see below > for more discussion. A typical researcher or team of same would not be proper candidates to lead an interventionist study such as this. You'd need people with proven track records. As I keep telling my wife again and again, when we go into a book store and she picks up some book on a "health" topic: What's the author's track record, not only for him/herself, but in leading others? > Regarding the "physical brain damage," I have earlier mentioned > prenatal traumas such as lead; other instances would be inadequate > maternal nutrition and the intake of alcohol (signifigantly more harmful > to a child than crack). These are among the factors, other than racism, > making studies showing differences in IQ between black adoptees and > white adoptees difficult to interpret; cultural influences (racism, > white adoptive parents trying to hard to raise black children in their > "own" culture, etcetera) are another major group of factors. > In other words, we don't know yet. > >The main and overwhelming factor in developing children who can accomplish > >at a superior level is the personal attention of a caregiver, and what > >that attention consists of. There are some things you can read about > >in a book and guess what they mean, and there are some things you can > >know when you're staring them in the face... > > Certainly, extremely intensive care can help children who do not > have physical brain problems. This does not mean that genetics does not > play a considerable role; neither I nor (so far as I know) Mr. Chudov > are claiming that genetics sets an unoverridable barrier. It is more a > matter of that it will take a lot more to get a genetically unintelligent > child to a given level than it will a genetically intelligent child. It's just that in my personal experience, I've found that the vast majority of children fall into the category of "exceptional potential". I guess what I'm saying is that the accomplishment/test norms for most children are far enough below where I could get them to with personal attention, that 1) The norms are useful (to me) only as a stasticical exercise, and 2) The differences between typical children and typical children performing at or near their potential obscures the differences found amongst the norms. > In the larger, societal context, it is not possible to have > intelligent parents with ample resources taking care of every child > unless the number of children is considerably reduced. Quite simply, > resources are limited (otherwise we would have no need for an > economic system); money, time, etcetera spent on less intelligent > children is not being spent on other pursuits (such as raising > more intelligent children, who will be able to accomplish more in > later life with the same investment of resources). This is, I believe, what I and others feared from studies which provide material for books such as the Bell Curve. Knowing that the potential of an allegedly unintelligent (or less-than-average) child might be so great that that child (if lucky enough to get the opportunity) could actually develop to be a significantly better performer than another child with 40 more IQ points, even if the child with the higher IQ has a reasonably good environment to develop in. Those kinds of possibilities are (I think) near and dear to what some of our more enlightened founding fathers in the USA had in mind when they wrote what they did, way back when. I value the writings of all philosophers, BTW, but I reject the notions of any that I or any other autonomous individual (a human is more-or-less autonomous by definition, yes?) could be defined, limited, or otherwise constrained by studies such as we've discussed. I say constrained since these studies do not happen in a vaccuum, and there is always going to be some kind of fallout.

1 0

Re: Elliptic curves
by Jill014＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-12 23:47:15 EST, nobody(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) writes: > Subj: Re: Elliptic curves > Date: 96-12-12 23:47:15 EST > From: nobody(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > Admin(a)bexcol.demon.co.uk writes: > > > You are all a bunch of faggots. Faggot cannot be allowed on usenet as > > dictated by the great dr. Grubor. > > Does dr. Grubor read this list? I never see any postings from him here. Just who is this anonymous poster; does anyone know or have any idea? > > Fuck you all. > > 1. Cypherpunks is not on usenet. > > 2. Faggots created and run Usenet, and there's nothing a pathetic, > powerless little boy like you can do about it. > This is strange. I mean, how do you know who is a faggot? And is this why you all are so sexist? Are all of the faggots so sexist? Just what is it about these queers that makes them hate women so much anyway? Are they jealous of us sexy women because their boyfriends may want us? I have been watching this for a long time here, and this is a very perplexing situation. Just who are these faggots who "created and run Usenet?" Can you give me a list of names? > 3. I enjoy your pathetic little displays of despair about not having > any control over usenet. Please keep whining to the mailing lists > to remind us all of what a pitiful little loser you are. > Yes, but just who is he? Do you know who he really is? With all of you guys always posting through these "nobody" addresses, you can not tell who is who? I mean, how do you know that the anonymous poster is in "despair about not having any control over usenet?" Maybe he does have control. Just who has all of the Usenet control now anyway? Please tell the faggots to stop being so sexist. Jill

2 1

[ADMINISTRATIVIUM] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a jerk-off competition Tim Mayhem finishes second, third and fifth. \\\|||/// ======= | O O | Tim Mayhem \`___'/ _| |_

1 0

Re: Credentials without Identity--Race Bits
by Jill014＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-13 02:03:26 EST, cmcurtin(a)research.megasoft.com (C Matthew Curtin) writes: > Subj: Re: Credentials without Identity--Race Bits > Date: 96-12-13 02:03:26 EST > From: cmcurtin(a)research.megasoft.com (C Matthew Curtin) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Reply-to: cmcurtin(a)research.megasoft.com > To: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > CC: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > >>>>> "Tim" == Timothy C May <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > > Tim> While it has been claimed by some that "crypto anarchy" means > Tim> that race won't matter, that cyberspace interactions will be > Tim> color-blind, this is misleading. > > Race bits, gender bits, etc., are all interesting possibilities. I > never thought about anyone wanting to do such a thing, but I suppose > that's likely. > > I've tended to think that as we become increasingly digital, issues > like race become less significant (perhaps because it generally isn't > immediately obvious in this medium). This doesn't mean that prejudices > go away, it means that they shift to stay with what is obvious. For > example, people who are unable to spell well (and don't spellcheck > email and usenet posts), or use excessively poor grammar are often > ridiculed for their lack of mastery of the language in which they're > writing. Basically, the prejudices and such continue with us, but > change, so as to remain based on things that are easily discernible. > > Tim> While many--probably most--users will care only for cyberspace > Tim> personna issues, and not meatspace personna issues of race, > Tim> color, height, weight, etc., this is not something built in to > Tim> anonymous transactions. > > As I'm replying, it's occurred to me that we've already got some sort > of persona "certificates" floating around now. (Such as the Geek > Code.) Imagine a field there to include race. Wouldn't take a lot to > do that, after all. > What is the "Geek Code?" > Of course, the implementation of a race bit system that can be trusted > is another issue altogether. Would the White Boyz Club then need to > have its own trusted arbitrator to introduce people of the same race > to each other? (AryanSign?) Is a more elaborate PGP-style web > of trust used? Hmm. So white Boyz Club excludes women to, is that correct?

2 1

Re: Redlining
by Jill014＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-13 02:36:46 EST, dthorn(a)gte.net (Dale Thorn) writes: > Subj: Re: Redlining > Date: 96-12-13 02:36:46 EST > From: dthorn(a)gte.net (Dale Thorn) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > To: EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) > CC: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > E. Allen Smith wrote: > > From: IN%"dthorn(a)gte.net" "Dale Thorn" 12-DEC-1996 14:56:52.69 > > >Actually, there is not only good evidence for the environmental argument, > > >but you can reason it out yourself if you give attention to some things > > >that don't make it into most discussions on this topic. > > > Yes, there are strong arguments for the environment being the determining > > factor. there are also strong arguments (such as interracial adoption > still > > leaving blacks below the average IQ of adopted siblings) for it being > genetics. > > It is possible to understand intelligence as "pattern matching" skills, > without having to have attendant math and statistics to define it more > precisely or clinically. This understanding (if you have it) is the key > to knowing that Black persons do *not* have less IQ than White persons, > regardless of the standardized tests. Something I know about, as I've > scored in the top 1/1000 of one percent, etc. > Are you black?

1 0

KRA_gak
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

12-12-96 "High-Tech Leaders to Facilitate Recovery of Encrypted Information Globally. Key Recovery Alliance Welcomes 29 New Members" The key recovery alliance has more than tripled its membership and identified its charter objectives. + expediting the widespread, global use of strong encryption + evaluating technologies that are flexible and scaleable to meet various changing commercial needs and policies + promoting interoperability between different key recovery and non-key recovery solutions + defining a commercial infrastructure for worldwide development of strong encryption + maximizing security for business To facilitate meeting these and other objectives, the alliance identified a series of working committees targeted to meet within the next 60 days. Soon after this 60-day period, the now 40-member alliance will re-convene to mark the progress of these committees and to identify future benchmarks and deliverables. The new members of the alliance are: America Online, Inc., Certicom, Compaq Computer Corporation, CygnaCom Solutions, Inc., Cylink Corporation, Data Securities International, Inc., First Data Corporation, Digital Signature Trust Company, Gradient Technologies, Inc., ICL, McAfee, Mitsubishi Corporation of Japan, Motorola, Mytec Technologies, Inc., Network Systems Group of StorageTek, Nortel, Novell, Inc., PSA, Price Waterhouse, Racal Data Group, Rainbow Technologies, SafeNet Trusted Services Corporation, Secure Computing, SourceFile, Sterling Commerce, Telequip, Unisys, Utimaco Mergent, and VPNet Technologies. "IBM SecureWay Framework To Accelerate Growth of Electronic Business" IBM announced a new framework which will advance secure electronic business by making it possible for diverse security offerings to work together. The IBM SecureWay Key Management Framework will let businesses use encryption products interchangeably. The new framework will provide for the easy adoption of new and existing key recovery technologies, while not disturbing existing cryptographic and other security functions and operations. It will effectively isolate the application from the unique properties of a specific key recovery implementation. A white paper describing the SecureWay Key Management Framework is available at http://www.ibm.com/security ----- KRA_gak (19 kb)

2 1

Re: Elliptic curves
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Fri Dec 13 00:43:05 1996 > Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) > via UUCP; Fri, 13 Dec 96 01:34:42 EST > for dlv > Received: from toad.com by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via SMTP; > id AA22158 for cypherpunks; Fri, 13 Dec 96 00:43:05 -0500 > Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA05349 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:07:54 -0800 (PST) > Received: from zifi.genetics.utah.edu (zifi.genetics.utah.edu [155.100.229.31]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA05344 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:07:47 -0800 (PST) > Received: (from bin@localhost) by zifi.genetics.utah.edu (8.8.3/8.6.9) id UAA13495 for cypherpunks(a)toad.com; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:07:52 -0700 > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:07:52 -0700 > Message-Id: <199612130307.UAA13495(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: nobody(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) > Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to <complaints(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> > References: <850408570.510393.0(a)bexcol.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Re: Elliptic curves > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > Admin(a)bexcol.demon.co.uk writes: > > > You are all a bunch of faggots. Faggot cannot be allowed on usenet as > > dictated by the great dr. Grubor. > > > > Fuck you all. > > 1. Cypherpunks is not on usenet. > The fuck it ain't. They are at least two newsgroups out there that carry every piece of e-mail that goes to the cypherpunks list. > 2. Faggots created and run Usenet, and there's nothing a pathetic, > powerless little boy like you can do about it. > This may be true, up until now, but the faggots are now getting kicked off of the new UseNet. There are just TOO MANY faggots like Peter Berger and Tim May and John Gilmore runnung around to allow this faggot subculture to continue. > 3. I enjoy your pathetic little displays of despair about not having > any control over usenet. Please keep whining to the mailing lists > to remind us all of what a pitiful little loser you are. > These faggot cypherpunks are not worth wasting your time on, unless you are ready to take their fucking ass to court and cross-examine them. ARE YOU A FAGGOT, Peter Berger? -- ANSWER THE QUESTION !!! (The faggots must answer this question when you get them on the stand.) That Tim Skirvin is also a faggot, so I have been told by his schoolmates. Has he been fucked in the ass by anybody on this list?

1 0