December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

re: Hlep
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Misty Ed the incredible talking horse.

1 0

Re: Singaporean control freaks & CMR (Re: puff pieces vs tough crypto issues)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Harish Pillay wrote: >I don't think the "micro management" is at it's worst in Singapore - not by >a long shot. It is true that the Singapore government tries to do so and >in a lot of what they attempt, they somehow come out smelling roses. But >they have goofed up royally as well. ................................................................... If you don't mind my asking in front of everybody, how do you stand it, living there? Do you get very frustrated (it sounds as though you might), and want to leave for Anguilla? Do you remind yourself not to litter with those gum wrappers you're not supposed to have anyway, what do you think when you're being incentivized to find a sexual partner and produce children, or to Do This and Not do That or risk painful punishments? Do co-workers become critical of each other's petty "crimes", do you feel opressed all around, or is it not as bad as it seems from here? .. Blanc

3 2

Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

harka(a)nycmetro.com wrote: >Further it is a social issue of importance also for Cypherpunks. >Obviously we don't want governments "taking care of people", but >desire individual freedom, self-determination and independence >instead. However, as proven such things are possible in the "free >market" only to a limited degree, i.e not applicable by default to >everybody, IMHO. [. . .] >If anybody _does_ have a solution, that enables _all_ people >(regardless of background) to become truly free and also provides a >realistic way to achieve that (for everybody), then I'll be more >than happy to listen and to adjust my own perspective. .................................................. The concept of a free market is not that it will "make you" free, nor that it shall "provide you" ("you" being any one engaged in the exchange of goods/services) with a perfect life, free of worry and the work of thought and decision-making, creating the "perfect life" solution for everybody. A free market doesn't "do things" for a person in spite of themselves. In a free market scenario it is intended that any individual will be a free agent - free from government interferance, free from government compulsion - to create their *own* life's "solution", satisfactory to themselves (regardless of whether it agrees with, or is at variance to, any one else's standards of living). It is intended that an individual will be left to their own devices, to seek out the methods which they themselves calculate will lead to the achievement of their own goals, according to their own vision of success - that is, not the government's vision of success, nor the vision of their neighbor, or of their mother-in-law, or anyone else who wants to shape one's life for them and tell one what to do with it and how (no, Jim Choate, I am not discriminating against Mothers-in-law, I'm just using them as a stereotypical example of an interfering busy-body. Don't worry about it.). It is way too easy to say that if you don't like something (like working for a certain employer) you should change employers (easier to say than done). But the real aim of this argument is against the attitude of tolerance, of tolerating the unacceptable or uncomfortable; it is that when a person finds themselves seemingly trapped, they should not merely suffer the circumstance (or worse, whine about it to everyone within earshot), but should rather orient themselves towards finding a creative solution and never cease searching for a way out. Because nothing is created or advanced into improvement by merely tolerating the intolerable, by just "taking what was given", or from continuing to bear up under low standards of functioning. The "free market " is not for the purpose of freeing everyone from the work of solving their own problems; the idea is to leave them free to negotiate with others on the terms of their interactive business arrangements (you know - work/pay, hours/compensation, overtime/stock options, your place/my place, etc. Ideally, that is. As everyone knows, we do not live in a "pure" free-market economy, therefore these negotiations are presently all regulated, to force everyone into a standardized success & happiness). There are many obstacles to overcome in an imperfect world, in an imperfect society, in an imperfect economy, under imperfect governments, not to mention all the competition. It is very discouraging and sometimes you want to hug your Teddy Bear for comfort [ :>) ]. But sometimes the first, and largest, obstacle to overcome is one's own pessimism and negativity against mustering up the courage and creativity to "push the envelope". This fatalism is what is being criticized. .. Blanc

2 1

Re: PGP Employee on MKR
by mark＠unicorn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to wrote: > OK, I must be missing something. How can it be more evil if the email > isn't automatically sent to the owner of the MK key than if the email is > automatically cd'ed? Uh, don't understand the question. The issue is that it's being encrypted to multiple keys for one recipient. > Agreed. And so did PGP 2.x and any version of PGP that allows for > encryption to multiple keys. Anybody can take the 2.6 source and hardcode > in a second recipient key. But, for the fifth or sixth time, _that isn't being shipped as standard by PGP_. > I read the recently proposed alternatives > and fail to see how they would prevent GMR any more than PGP's solution. > All I saw were convoluted and frequently hasty designs, many of which > lend themselves even more to GAK then what PGP did. Really? I seem to recall Jon Callas saying my system 'redesigned CMR' but was simpler than theirs. The mere fact that CMR requires an enforcer implies that it's a convoluted and hasty design. > Once, (as many of you know IMHO it is a "once", not an "if") GAK becomes > mandatory, it can be implemented with 2.6 just a easy as > with 5.5. But it can't; for a start 2.6-based GAK won't interoperate with international versions the way that CMR will. Cutting the US off from encrypted mail from the rest of the world would probably not go down too well. Lucky, one question: wouldn't you be complaining if Netscape or Microsoft were shipping a system which enforced encryption to snooping keys? Why should we feel any differently about PGP? Mark

3 2

Re: CMR versus GAK?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lutz wrote: >May be in your (poor) country. There is a world outside US. Good point, and note that there are many other worlds within the US besides the LOOD stud-employer-has-manifest-destiny-control version. But it is good marketing to sell fearful business owners gadgets and to perpetuate their sense of knowing what's going on behind their backs, as with frightened pols, spies, cops, parents and straights, leaky prophylactics supplemented with arms to bear when the hints of betrayal and inadequacy become unbearable. Not that the gadgets and arms work when you can't ID or crosshair the elusive backalley cats aprowl. Same goes for workers and youngsters who think the bosses and oldsters are duncemunge: WSJ, Dilbert and Phrack are funnies to avoid the admitting the deeper complicity of secret crossovers by your favorite peer group into the opposing camps, political, economic, legal, scientific, not to say no longer secure national and sexual borders. LOOD = Long Out Of Date

3 3

Don't Worry, Be Happy
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unix and other OSes were designed for Elite Techno-savvy Info Warriors like yourselves. Windows and the other MS apps are designed to appeal to the "common folk" who would still rather use a pc than a Mac in spite of psychological counseling against it (<g>). They have choices, there are many stores and vendors, they take their pick. As long as you can get what you want, what do youall care what other people use - why do you worry for everyone? .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Orthogonal (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Mark Rogaski <wendigo(a)ne-wendigo.jabberwock.org> > Subject: Re: Orthogonal (fwd) > Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:36:06 -0500 (EST) > An entity claiming to be Jim Choate wrote: > > : I can see the union 'build complicated things out of basic building blocks' > : and the use of Occam's Razor (I'm as lazy as any other programmer) but fail > : to see how this maps to anything relating to the concept of orthogonal. > : Which clearly doesn't have any inherent minimalist cast. > : > > Minimalism is merely a by-product of orthogonality. Which orthogonality are you speaking of? > A language is considered > orthogonal if builtin functions do not provide overlapping functionality. Are you talking linguistics, philosophy, or computer? Consider, historicaly the point of 'orthogonality' was to indicate a *non-overlapping* or reducable structure, something which provides a reference to evaluate other things. > So the term orthogonal probably refers to the fact that there is no > point of intersection in the functionality of the language (or system, as > the thread started out). Orthogonal implies there is intersection, it's hard to have a closed geometric shape (-gonal) or a right angle (ortho-) axis system without them. > And I will not argue about vector spaces until I get bookshelves and actually > dig my Linear Algebra texts out of the boxes around my apartment. Good, I understand how it is used in vector spaces and don't really get my jollies off on arguing on unrelated issues. What I *would* like to know is how a mathematical term related to geometry and right angles got expanded *historicaly* to mean something completely unrelated. I don't think a linear algebra book is relevant to this question, despite the protestations of the techno-masturbatory ot the contrary. There are a whole host of users on this list who live by strawman arguments. I am glad to see you aren't one of them (apparently). ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: CMR versus GAK?
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young wrote, I think: >Same goes for workers and youngsters who think the bosses and >oldsters are duncemunge: WSJ, Dilbert and Phrack are funnies to >avoid the admitting the deeper complicity of secret crossovers by >your favorite peer group into the opposing camps, political, economic, >legal, scientific, not to say no longer secure national and sexual borders. .................................................. John, you should write a book. Light reading. haiku. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Singaporean control freaks & CMR (Re: puff pieces vs tough
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Harish Pillay wrote: >So, now to come back to the first line. Tell me how you can tolerate living >in wherever that it you live in? ....................................................... Well, it's not so bad - I live about 3 minutes drive from Microsoft, with micro-millionaires all around. I live across the street from Crossroads Mall, which has practically everything I need, including free music/jazz concerts on weekends, the weather is nice most of the time (I *like* rain), and I'm not far away from the sea, the mountains, hiking, skiing, biking, boating, snorkeling, whatever, and lots of other genteel entertainment of all kinds. Frankly, I can just barely tolerate it, and I've been contemplating what life would be like in Anguilla. :>) No seriously, I'm referring to the political climate in the U.S. in general (although The East Side, as this side of Washington Lake is called, is considered too conservative by most Seattlites and has a large Libertarian representation, probably because of all those programmers at MS). But then, I'm a real purist and wish for extreme things, and like the princess & the pea in the fairy tale, am highly sensitive to deviations from perfection. :O It's hard to tolerate being moved to act by people (whether in government or otherwise, but of course mostly in political circles) who carelessly and disrespectfully override my personal choices in order to make their social dreams for everyone come true, using any resources they can "legitimize" taking from myself or anyone to accomplish them; it's a pain to contemplate their rationalizations. I read/study in psychology & cognition, and the area of Thinking in general, and it helps me to understand people like them, as well as to maintain a rational, balanced state of mind when contemplating their existence and considering ways to deal with it. It takes a lot of creativity to see beyond collectivist/coercive methods and carry on in spite of having to subserviently respond in "voluntary complicity". I've been mulling the whole situation over, and I think it's a good idea to emulate Bill Gates. "We're not taking over the whole world", he protested in one interview. "I mean, all we do is produce these small boxes that you can buy and put it into your pc, what does that have to do with taking over?" (hee-hee). No, it's just dragging some people, kicking and screaming, to a new level of technological opportunities. I like that. <g> I think they all deserve it. Anyway, thanks for the reply. I wouldn't argue against Singaporean citizens who actually like their way of life. I would only be concerned if they couldn't go in the directions they prefer. Micro-management is not something I myself could laugh off, as my sense of humor isn't that good, although my sense of the ridiculous is easily aroused. .. Blanc

1 0

Tim's worst nightmare.,..
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- here we go again, the AP wire just laid on this morning's action at Roby IL --it sounds to close to Ruby Ridge for my taste. This is beyond police harassment and save face for what was a civil action and will now end up with the poor lady wearing a ciminal jacket longer than her life. October 27, 1997 Woman in Standoff Shoots at Police Filed at 10:12 a.m. EST By The Associated Press ROBY, Ill. (AP) -- Gunfire rang out again at the home of a woman involved in a month-long standoff with authorities who have a court order to bring her in for psychological testing. Shirley Allen shot a police dog through the nose Sunday after officers threw pepper spray into her farmhouse, state police director Terrance Gainer said. well, wouldn't you if the dog is put in your house... She also fired a shot when police used mirrors on long sticks to peer in, but no one was injured, Gainer said. well, wouldn't you? Gainer said sound detection equipment had picked up a conversation Mrs. Allen had with herself on Friday in which she sounded as if she was ``moving closer to suicide,'' followed by a long period of inactivity. 33 days the lady has stood off a virtual army who cut off her power, water, and telephone --wouldn't you talk to yourself for company. hell, who wouldn't commit suicide rather than face the scheiBesturm she faces when they finally "bag" her. That prompted police to drive an all-terrain vehicle around her back yard Sunday, break her windows and a sliding glass door, throw in nine canisters of pepper spray and send in a German shepherd wired for sound. She fired once at the dog, Gainer said. The dog was taken to a veterinary hospital for treatment. shit, let's airdrop her a dozen TOW missles. she can put them to good use. nine canisters of pepper spray --who the hell do the think they are? Los Angeles police beating Rodney King? Mrs. Allen, 51, has attracted the sympathy of many neighbors, and her case has become a rallying point for those who compare it to Ruby Ridge and Waco as an example of overzealous law enforcement. she needs more than sympathy, she needs some action! Gainer said Mrs. Allen's actions show that she is dangerous and prove that state police cannot back off and leave her alone because she is a threat to herself and to others. she wasnt dangerous until the bastards violated her privacy; all over the fact a greedy nephew wants to get control of the valuable 40 some acres. most of the family say she's fine, but the liberal press does not report that fairly. The standoff, about 20 miles southeast of Springfield, started Sept. 22 when she used a shotgun to resist sheriff's deputies serving commitment papers obtained by her family. Relatives said Mrs. Allen, a former nurse, had become increasingly depressed after her husband died of pancreatic cancer in 1989 and recently began refusing to see or talk to her mother and brother. hell, if your relatives are being assholes, you can turn the switch off there, too. a telephone is solely for calling out with --and connecting to the net.... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNFS9zrR8UA6T6u61AQFctgH+OKh2NXtQrujbVnCmIQu7NVcyih66RgKe VdC36i2c30GRxCwLtXWWRKz5FXcAXXoTzlWPQ+7qHS+PtcE7sjiXOA== =HOw2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4