December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Harka wrote: > -=> Quoting In:anon@anon.efga.org (Monty Cantsin) to Harka <=- > > In> The government is not Janice's friend. It takes away $18,000 > In> from her each year and plunges her into poverty, sort of. If > In> you are appealing to the government to assist Janice, first > In> ask it to get the hell out of the way. (I realize you may > In> just be saying that Janice's plight is unavoidable, not that > In> she should be helped with government money.) > >Hmm, we all agree, that the government is not somebody to be trusted >to be your friend. However, we also know the amount of laws possible >to "violate" and the consequences that would have. And one of the >worst things you can do is evading taxes. At least when they clamp >down on you. Not something, I'd recommend to a mother of four kids >(that she really doesn't want to give up to >government-so-schill-workers). Jim Choate commented on that already, >so I save further words. Ignoring the ethical issues (Is it ethical to lie about your income? Is it ethical to break the law?), the consequences would probably not be too severe, if there were any consequences at all. We've seen several cabinet level people conspire to shield their employees from paying income tax and at least one of them (Ron Brown) did not even leave office. Nobody went to jail. Or, consider the record for prostitutes. How often do they go to jail for neglecting to pay income tax? Never, I believe. Prosecution would be hard after all, they receive cash and they spend cash. You could also do other low risk or even legal things like trading services. Maybe a discount is given to parents who will watch Janice's kids once in awhile. Maybe they trade services for food. Etc. Etc. > In> Janice should be baby sitting. Were she to take in 4 kids at > In> $500/month, she would make as much as her job and be able to > In> watch her own kids during the same time. > >True in short-term. But after 8 kids have been rummaging around in >your apartment every day (even without licence and off-the-books and >all that stuff) you can definitely expect to spend a couple of grands >on repairs in a matter of a month. You would be of more help to your friend Janice if you did not try to find reasons for her to fail. The reality is that 8 kids will not cause thousands of dollars of damage every month. Also, I left some play in my calculations. She doesn't actually have to make $2000 a month to break even because she already "makes" $1000 by watching her own kids. That means she only has to make $1000 each month to break even with her job. Let's say the tax rate is 50% (it's much lower), and she charges $500/month per kid. Then, 4 kids will result in an income of $1000/month. There's still some fat there. We haven't computed how much she'll save in work related expenses. You mentioned $120/month in mass transit costs. How much for clothing? If she has to dress professionally, $1000/year is quite a conservative figure. (Don't forget dry cleaning.) And we haven't considered the fact that she can charge more money because she is a babysitter and not a daycare center. > In> The food is generous because four of the five are kids, the > In> oldest only being 12. Kids don't each much. > >You're confirming my suspicion about not having kids :) Seriously, I don't think my figures are inaccurate. How much can a three year old eat? And, incidentally, I doubt very much that you or Janice even know with any accuracy what her actual expenses are. Janice should be tracking every expense to the penny. She should review her spending on a regular and scheduled basis to see where she could be spending it better. An adult who is not all that careful can comfortably buy enough food for $200/month. But, Janice should be more than careful. She should be fanatic about lowering this expense. This will work better if she looks at as an interesting puzzle to work out rather than a chore. She should practice vegetarianism. Not only that, she should be carefully studying other poor people for ideas on how to get by on just a little income. Peasants of India, Mexico, and China will all have interesting tricks. For instance, the stereotypical Mexican diet of corn and beans just turns out to be an optimal combination. The amino acids missing from the corn are found in the beans and vice versa. (How a bunch of "ignorant" peasants figured this out is a mystery to me.) There are many books on living inexpensively on a vegetarian diet. They tend to have titles like "Chinese Cooking on 25 Cents a Day". These books may be found at the library, or at a used bookstore, or even be borrowed. It is somewhat ironic that you can spend much less money and eat better than most Americans. Also, she should hunt up a food coop. I am sure there is one in her area. Usually you can volunteer some nominal amount of time and receive at least a 10% discount. Sometimes more. Also, buying staples in bulk can dramatically lower costs. (Best to make sure you like lentils before buying a fifty pound sack, though.) Food coops usually have people around who know a whole lot about living inexpensively. They may also have a lending library. Anyway, you will find (hopefully) that there are thousands of ways to improve one's situation. They (usually) aren't painful - when you find a new one it's fun. After awhile you discover you are not in a bad situation any more. Isn't that exciting? >Talking about freedom at the same time then is an oxymoron and you're >confirming my "criticisms about the free market" (Yes Tim, I have >re-considered my position without changing my perspective in the >end). Capitalism in it's current form does not allow for individual >freedom for most people (exceptions apply), because they have to make >the money to be free (independent). If that requires doing for >years, what you don't want to do (working in computers, although you >hate them and all you really want to do is paint and live as an >artist but can't afford to, for example), then that means by >definition, that freedom has to be given up. At least temporarely and >as mentioned before, that can be a _very_ long time for most people >(who have been born into the "wrong" families, for example). But of course you have to do things you don't want to do to put food on the table! This is true everywhere. The key question is this: why should somebody else labor all summer so you'll have food in the winter? All a "free market" advocate is saying is that you should not force the other guy to raise your food. You have to persuade him to do it for you, perhaps by doing something for him in return. If you think about it for awhile you will realize that this is a profoundly pacifistic belief. And a very reasonable and realistic one. If nobody else values your natural painting talent it won't be of much use getting food on the table. You'll have to find something else you can do for other people which they want and which you don't mind doing. How could this possibly be unjust? >Cypherpunks sometimes tend to become somewhat theoretical about >things, neglecting the possibility, that it may not apply on a >larger (real-life)scale. No, you don't understand the idea. You are looking at it like this: "How can we engineer this system so that everybody will do just fine (by my definition.)" The Cypherpunk point of view, to the extent there is such a thing, is something like this: "It is not right to dictate to other people what their life choices should be." People will make mistakes. People will get unlucky. Some people will get very unlucky and die (early). Most Cypherpunks prefer this to a world where we all live in little cells and have food brought every day. One way to solve the problems of the Janices in the world is to tell them what to do: Do not raise four kids. Do not get a lame degree. Do not get divorced. This would solve Janice's "problems". So what's wrong with the picture? Well, Janice apparently wanted four kids. She apparently wanted a degree in education instead of computer science. How can we judge whether getting married wasn't a worthwhile risk? How can we judge the value Janice places on her children? The answer is: we can not and should not. But, likewise, just because Janice took some chances and it led to minor problems, that does not mean that anybody else is obligated to worry about them. The problems Janice has are called "real life". Things may not be what she wants right now, but they result from her choices and her decisions. To me, and most Cypherpunks, that is preferable. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFOteJaWtjSmRH/5AQFy4Qf9FwMV1Swp0YSwuaSNhaSnaUGpIe9B6Ndf m3eaSiiOhcQXaJH88CUUYUz2RvYqxqFpjfDp7Wzik9yncwuOHR1sd+LKzcAcD437 5DehzEhxnRSLBwVGVXy94FmLUXaEJCw5woedEhOa9GOPw2e8LUYkKOjG074Od1V1 Gs6XnBMnx/oa0lI1RNBi2oWbfBFzNSCiv24pp5PeMZVkb4e/MB51HOhv8FhH/f2J Te1SF/w2awXbv0BU8B4bZAc660DMVaXgi+uqMs2gUB6HRqmOjek3fuVK0cS8YRzC TMJSMehCZJbcoPEI+RkK2mnTqoivqdRdnYD4CnjiJ4KuSsqmGDWVNw== =oSqR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Choices
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >However, having a choice in matters does not imply the guarantee of >making the _right_ choices. That is exactly correct. >In fact, even society acknowledges that fact by making certain >choices available only after a certain point in life, such as voting, >marriage, driving, drinking etc.etc on the ground, that making such >decisions requires a certain level of insight and maturity. FYI, these discussions are about free adults. Not about dependents like children. >But there's _still_ no guarantee for making right choices even after >the "magical" age of 18 (or 21). Yep! >The only thing one can do is to gather enough information in order to >make the best choice based on available information and conditions >_known_ to you _at that time_. Right on! >And here's also the catch. By making a certain choice, one does >usually _not_ choose the consequences of his/her actions consciously! >In fact, the possible consequences may not even be foreseeable, >predictable or expected in any way! I guess we have to do our best anyway! But, seriously, most of the possible outcomes we are aware of. You gave the example of driving. Everybody knows that having an accident is a possible outcome of driving. >Let's take the example of Janice one more time (violins for Monty:)): >certainly her decision to get married and have 4 kids was her >personal and free choice at that time. >But it was not foreseeable nor expectable for her, that her husband >would take off after a while for another chick, leaving her with the >kids and a bunch of bills to pay! She obviously knew it was a possibility. I mean, look around you! It happens all the time. This used to be the reason people formed marriage contracts. They used to be respected and when not respected enforced. (Incidentally, Janice's child support payment is absurdly low. This is a situation where a marriage contract would really have some value. Funny how the government isn't protecting women and children anymore - you would almost think they didn't really care.) >Thus she married him and later did what every wife would do: >supporting him while he went to school instead of keeping the money >for herself as a backup-cushion in case he leaves. Her decision, though. Too bad it didn't work out better. It is a great tragedy of our society that marriage contracts cannot be freely made and that the terms and conditions are not enforced. For the most part women and children pay the price. (Also, the fact that pre-nuptial agreements are not consistently followed by the courts is tragic. Obviously, if you are wealthy you should be able to marry without exposing yourself to gold diggers.) >Is that really so out of the ordinary a choice?? Just because you go with the herd does not mean you did not make a mistake. But, really, I'm not convinced that Janice did make a mistake. Some people really want to have children. Some people really want to have a nice stable marriage which lasts decades. To get that you have to take chances. Sometimes it won't work out. That's life. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't worth a try. >But even if one is able to make fairly good decisions overall in >life: you may not have previous conditions necessary to make certain >choices. > >If you're born into a poor family, who just can't afford to send you >to College, how much of a choice to study will you have in that >event? More likely is, that you'll have to work and aid in the >support of the family instead of going to College. > >But are you to be held responsible for the conditions that you are >born into or grow up under? Ummm....who else should be responsible? >Clearly not. As you go along in life, one's personal ability to >influence your surroundings, conditions and overall life increase >(with right effort). But to expect everybody to be able to make >certain choices in a certain (right) way, or even expecting those >choices being available, is not based on the realities of life but a >mere projection from _your_ reality onto "theirs". But, what you are on your way to imposing is your reality on everybody else. This is implied by your skepticism of the "free market". If people are not allowed to freely make choices and arrangements with each other, it is implied that somebody else will be making choices and arrangements for them. >So is the statement of "screw 'em all" (if they weren't able to make >certain choices for reasons we don't know about). The "screw 'em all" statements usually arise when people begin to claim that because somebody has done well they should help other people who have done poorly. Often, perhaps in Tim's case for example, the person making the statement also started in a less than ideal situation and through stubborness and years of hard work, investing, and luck managed to do quite well. To have some worthless rotter come along and claim they are somehow entitled to your hard work and perseverance can be known to cause great anger. Try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes. >Not only does it lack basic notions of humanity, such as caring for >other people,... Actually, most of humanity only mildly cares, at best, about people they do not know. Consider those poor people. Many of them spend many tens of hours each week watching television when they could be learning new skills, fixing up the house, or making their lives better. They could also be cleaning up their neighborhood, helping the people that live around them, or just volunteering in the soup kitchens. For the most part, poor people don't spend any time to speak of helping out other people. It isn't because they can't - it's because they are not inclined to do so. >...but also devalues the human ability to learn and change. I completely disagree with this. The "screw 'em all" statement is actually an exhortation for these people to take responsibility for their own lives. It's a recognition that people do have the ability to learn and change but that other people can't do it for them. It's also a recognition that if they will not learn and change that they better not show up at the May house looking for handouts! >Just because you were young and careless (out of lack of >understanding at that time) or you were born in a slum in Rio de >Janeiro (or NYC) shouldn't mean, that you should still get "screwed" >for it when you're fifty or you now deserve the dis-respect of >society and no chances anymore. You may have never had them... There are very few people who never had a chance. But, let's say you do manage to find somebody who fits that description. Who do you believe should help them? In my opinion, since you claim to care, you should help them. >While technically it is probably correct to say, that current >conditions are caused by previous actions (different people have >different expressions for that: karma, choices, fate etc.), there's >no justification for suffering and certainly none for watching it >passively and saying "they deserve it", IMHO. BTW, do you actually express your care for other people by helping them in any way? My guess is that you don't. (By "help" I mean actual help such as giving them food or shelter or something like that. I do not mean helping by belonging to some political party or other.) >While technically it is probably correct to say, that current >conditions are caused by previous actions (different people have >different expressions for that: karma, choices, fate etc.), there's >no justification for suffering and certainly none for watching it >passively and saying "they deserve it", IMHO. There is plenty of pain and suffering in the world and instead of working hard every day from morning to night alleviating it you are living in New York City and sending messages to the cypherpunks list. Wrong? By your standards it should be. In my case, I prefer writing these little essays to helping poor people. Most people make this sort of choice all the time. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFPBeJaWtjSmRH/5AQHAzgf+LlwFk/ZuRwhF02fcnfmHqGyd5477FIkC FSYCdVBPX/g6270tgCJw0sGbJTOrpVncPWNQzVCQp8tQZAsWMfWDO6rMFmCthWQy CAnjA4xWbh6GlcV28wEGlv55C134FAin9GiJU+D87Zn+p1WRVzPKBPOAe8AXQtde a467+TGJtBDVLEcgI5GdjD2VLlo600oNti2kWSyr9G5yRTKhOglm9F0y8antP5Hq td9bjXEUX7Debd8Vb5Y4DJfkdQnYXQztsMDfdgr7XRLZKhdIVbrMbkXBcCVsyP7m Y7S2h3p/fdyDD8gPXrJWr3Dhm393MGW8BraO6zONz0TBf9cJI0Wsug== =jgE6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Kent Square and TiennaChinc State
by Yoshiwara Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BillyJ, the sex criminal, picking up where RichardM, the B&E artist, left off, is badmouthing the Chinese over their version of Kent State. Our Ambassador to the Home of the Orange Mennace (Led + Yarrow) is badmouthing the Chinese forced-labor camps, ignoring the US pigmentation criminals working for the Telecos and the Silicos for dimes on the dollar of what they would have to pay non-prison labor. In private conferences, these world fuckers/leaders are undoubtedly sharing a monstrous laugh over their public rhetoric. BillyJ: "See, first we kick them off welfare. Then, after Sprint turns down their job application and they turn to dealing drugs to feed their children, we put them in prison. Then we sell their labor to Sprint for a fraction of what their work is worth. "Everyone wins! Except for the taxpayer....HAHAHAHAHA!" Bonus Question: "What do you call a fat Chink?" Bonus Answer: "A 'Chunk'!" RacistLibertarianMonger

3 2

Location of PGP 5.0
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Where can I find a copy of PGP 5.0 which handles this "SHA1" hash extension, and the new forced incompatabilities? I'm looking for a Linux distribution. All I've found are Windoze versions, really old betas which break *everything* which calls PGP from a script or command line, and betas which have a lame expired timebomb in them. Source is prefered for obvious reasons. Any ideas? (Yes, I'm in the U.S.)

4 3

Re: Killing those who need killing
by Killfile Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > (Personally, were I to be arrested and held on such false charges, I'd > consider it necessary to kill those who illegally held me. Preferably from > a safe distance, with a sniper rifle. But then I'm a right wing libertarian > whacko.) Been there..done that...stole the T-shirt...got out of Dodge, without getting killed or caught. The Usual Suspect

1 0

Re: [cpe:3185] Re: rescue Mrs Allen from the Feds (Re: Tim's worst nightmare.,..)
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back wrote: >The Gandi style walk in, in numbers walk off with Mrs Allen :-) What are >they going to do, shoot 1000 unarmed citizens? You could probably do it with one church congregation's worth of people. >This kind of tactic works quite well for tyrants who have become too >civilised. Or, perhaps the basis of political power is a general acceptance of the rulers among the ruled and acts which would disrupt this acceptance are more dangerous to the government than you would think. Amnesty International has been successful just by organizing massive letter writing expressing disapproval of the treatment of particular political prisoners. The regimes affected could not reasonably be described as "civilized." For that matter, the U.S. and British governments have not always been so nice when they didn't think anybody was looking. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFeNCpaWtjSmRH/5AQFadgf+KpU2Vb9nvVH4HZVz4wuRo+NQ+Z4mH6DS Z7OKthsTnikIOINtApRCyq9OhmwvQ/5mJa5mVFBj/GTH90DCK/vyajjF/61AOFsC 6np45kDapHlYp1naCDi3WZwuthbOgJfsCN/66s/1ql9FsaoBoMn7MAn6K81SauOW duZ8QpSIFhighF1f717Pj2vnypswJIwIGwr6XIRoyNLYZBUh/mFvMbHSoq6TH9FG lNuOV7ZSNMqKJji7yNHylQ6PtOZvH1wNJqNplzyfBumq1yenQ9I1kbq8udruDcRt Snn6kVuDfRwMHZ3Bihro+QvLmd89jCcOFh25DJMTMJf8eKJ6207Sww== =Laph -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: <<Vitamin B>>(October 28, 1997) The Power of Ecobabble
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- While I know nothing of Bionomics, Professor Krugman's ill-tempered essay intrigues me. Robert Hettinga wrote that VitaminB(a)bionomics.org wrote that Paul Krugman wrote in Slate: > Take, for starters, his assertion that "orthodox economics describes > the 'economy as a machine.' " You might presume from his use of > quotation marks that this is something an actual economist said, or > at least that it was the sort of thing that economists routinely > say. But no economist I know thinks of the economy as being anything > like a machine--or believes, as Rothschild asserts a bit later, that > because the economy is like a machine, it is possible to make > precise predictions. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." While hard core economists may not describe the economy as a machine, the popular literature, such as that found in news stories on "the economy", almost always uses machine metaphors. "The economy was in danger of becoming overheated, so the Fed raised interest rates." The metaphors which people choose often have powerful political implications. After all, if the economy is sort of like a machine, then it makes sense to have trained professionals who tune that machine to operate with optimal efficiency. It is not hard to figure out why the ruling elite prefers this metaphor to some others that could be chosen. For instance, you could say the economy is an elaborate network of relationships based on trust. You could say that employment occurs when two or more people agree to exchange goods or services. Let's say unemployment figures are up. If you believe the economy is like a machine, then you will believe that there should be a central planning organization like the Fed that should lower interest rates. If you believe that the unemployment goes down when people form employment relationships, you may think about ways to remove obstacles to the formation of these relationships. Note that the second more reasonable approach does not promote the interests of a national ruling elite. > In just the last two years, I've learned that I believe that gross > domestic product is the sole measure of economic welfare... In popular economics GDP is used almost exclusively as a measure of success. I strongly suspect that when Krugman says he himself does not believe this, that he has some other set of statistical measures which he considers to be better measures of success. If this is the case, then he has completely missed the point. Such statistical measures are sensible when one accepts that the purpose of economics is to best instruct the rulers of a society in their economic policy decisions. In such a framework, the rulers decide what is good and then decide how to cause that good to increase. The only problem with this is that it neglects to consider the preferences of individual people. It is highly unlikely that their economic behavior is dictated by the authorities for their own best interest because the authorities have no way of knowing what that best interest might be. People have their own beliefs and preferences on that subject. For example, a small island nation in the Pacific is highly regarded as an "economic success". One of the features of this society is that government provided or subsidized housing is widely available. People who wish to spend their money on having a nice apartment like this. But, many people may prefer to live in less expensive surroundings and spend the money they save on other things, or to simply work less. Krugman supports my theory about his beliefs later when he says: > But it does not deify the market system, and it even offers a number > of fairly well-defined ways in which markets can fail, or at least > could be helped with government intervention. And that, for some > conservatives, is just not good enough. We do not see any examples of "market failures" and, indeed, the people Krugman refers to would probably not see them as failure at all. It seems highly likely that Krugman has committed the sin he accuses the Bionomicists of committing: he doesn't truly understand the philosophy he is criticizing. Also interesting is Krugman's obvious discomfiture with people who would explore the ideas of the Bionomicists. It may be the case that the Bionomics crowd does not thoroughly understand classical economics or evolutionary biology. This would not be the first time that people on the fringes of several disciplines came up with new ideas which transformed the field. (Take J. Kepler, the professional astrologer. Kepler had many totally wacked out theories. He believed completely in astrology. He believed the Earth was a living organism and the tides were related to its breathing. He believed the orbits of the planets were distributed in relationship to the Platonic solids. And, get this, he believed that the area a planetary radius swept out in time was constant.) Obviously, Bionomics might be fraught with errors, oversimplifications, and misrepresentations. In spite of this, there may be ideas that would interest an open minded professional. Even Marxists occasionally come up with an interesting observation, after all. So, Krugman's hostility to the exploration of ideas strikes me as a little odd for a professor. Take his final paragraph for an example: > Anyway, I guess I won't attend the conference. I would have liked to > meet Benford; but I couldn't stand to watch the author of _Great Sky > River_ demeaning himself by consorting with such disreputable > company. Somehow I can hear an upper class Victorian mother telling her son: "You should not be seen with that girl. She's much too common." Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFebtJaWtjSmRH/5AQEKUQf7B0XnUn1xwIbIcLFMDUDpL8HEaDb3bclO syR2QJCvMa4BsjPKHWGRa5pEDNLdXfiQt0bXYZ+9WzVrr18VlAFJ2pqWoxv3PW76 YqDbfhGCwmseo8EzoRen5PEnxkZuNN+KKN92dEaEfj8NJMwBVZ2V5443HlPXxTWA TXxZIeFYgldndpgIdqFxIc4qnVtrJbsGI1YrzbCNeeTgTKg8d1oZlDVDMbLDGeyx wyb3hwzTB2wiLiLsTjhlcONEdbu0bwGUu7F3l60+C9JZjn3DWgl/+y562kejfcKP LgdSplUSc8gFrR3bCFufpyOOGFDgp0keV3SRWOaO8i/N2N+l/XhI3w== =iy9O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Clinton's Bigger Gun Ban
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote: --- The Klinton Klan has already effectively banned imported SKS ammo (7.62x29, as I recall, given that I don't have any rifles chambering this popular round). --- Before you rush to correct me, I _meant_ to write "7.62x39" of course. (A round used by the Chinese, Soviet, and East Bloc nations, and roughly equivalent to the American M-16 round, known either as the .223 or 5.56mm. The NATO "7.62" is in a longer case length. 7.62x54, as I recall. Known in America as .308. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

new intel verification circuit & crypto
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Dvorak has an interesting column in a recent PC magazine on the possibility that Intel has created some new circuits in its new chips that would allow alteration by software. this is to deal with a "verification crisis" in which the complexity of their large chips is outstripping their ability to test for flaws and make them perfect. according to Dvorak the scheme would allow Intel to release a software program that would actually alter the circuitry of the chip. information at this point is very limited; Dvorak says that Intel doesn't want to announce the scheme for fear that it may not work in an embarrassing scenario. he says that the scheme is protected using cryptographic algorithms, so that hackers would be prevented from altering the chip. he raises the spectre of a virus that could do permanent, irreparable damage to the chip. however, I have some big red flags going off in my brain the more I think about this. it seems to me that no matter what kind of cryptography is used on the chip, there is the possibility of reverse engineering via dissassemblers & debuggers etc. if the software is distributed widely. hackers have long experience with this, and I suspect if a fix was released, the code could be cracked quite readily. the only other possibility is that Intel would require people to bring the chip into a service dealer. but this would decrease the utility and convenience of the fix feature, and I doubt they could protect the distribution of the software in this case either. anyway, an interesting topic of conversation for this list, no?

1 0

Infowar circa 1850
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Blood Meridian: Or the Evening Redness in the West" by Cormac McCarthy The Reverend Green had been playing to a full house daily as long as the rain had been falling and the rain had been falling for two weeks. When the kid ducked into the ratty canvas tent there was standing room along the walls, a place or two, and such a heady reek of the wet and bathless that they themselves would sally forth into the downpour now and again for fresh air before the rain drove them in again. He stood with others of his kind along the back wall. The only thing that might have distinguished him in that crowd was that he was not armed. Neighbors, said the reverend, he couldnt stay out of these here hell, hell, hellholes right here in Nacogdoches. I said to him, said: You goin to take the son of God in there with ye? And he said: Oh no. No I aint. And I said: Dont you know that he said I will foller ye always even unto the end of the road? Well, he said, I aint askin nobody to go nowheres. And I said: Neighbor, you dont need to ask. He's a goin to be there with ye ever step of the way whether ye ask it or ye dont. I said: Neighbor, you caint get shed of him. Now. Are you going to drag him, *him*, into that hellhole yonder? You ever see such a place for rain? The kid had been watching the reverend. He turned to the man who spoke. He wore long moustaches after the fashion of teamsters and he wore a widebrim hat with a low round crown. He was slightly walleyed and he was watching the kid earnestly as if he'd know his opinion about the rain. I just got here, said the kid. Well it beats all I ever seen. The kid nodded. An enormous man dressed in an oilcloth slicker had entered the tent and removed his hat. He was bald as a stone and he had no trace of beard and he had no brows to his eyes nor lashes to them. He was close on to seven feet in height and he stood smoking a cigar even in this nomadic house of God and he seemed to have removed his hat only to chase the rain from it for now he put it on again. The reverend had stopped his sermon altogether. There was no sound in the tent. All watched the man. He adjusted the hat and then pushed his way forward as far as the crateboard pulpit where the reverend stood and there he turned to address the reverend's congregation. His face was serene and strangely childlike. His hands were small. He held them out. Ladies and gentlemen I feel it my duty to inform you that the man holding this revival is an imposter. He holds no papers of divinity from any institution recognized or improvised. He is altogether devoid of the least qualifications to the office he has usurped and has only committed to memory a few passages from the good book for the purpose of lending to his fraudulent sermons some faint flavor of the piety he despises. In truth, the gentleman standing here before you posing as a minister of the Lord is not only totally illiterate but is also wanted by the law in the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Oh God, cried the reverend. Lies, lies! He began reading feverishly from his opened bible. On a variety of charges the most recent of which involved a girl of eleven years - I said eleven - who had come to him in trust and whom he was surprised in the act of violating while actually clothed in the livery of his God. A moan swept through the crowd. A lady sank to her knees. This is him, cried the reverend, sobbing. This is him. The devil. Here he stands. Let's hang the turd, called an ugly thug from the gallery to the rear. Not three weeks before this he was run out of Fort Smith Arkansas for having congress with a goat. Yes lady, that is what I said. Goat. Why damn my eyes if I wont shoot the son of a bitch, said a man rising at the far side of the tent, and drawing a pistol from his boot he leveled it and fired. The young teamster instantly produced a knife from his clothing and unseamed the tent and stepped outside into the rain. The kid followed. They ducked low and ran across the mud toward the hotel. Already gunfire was general within the tent and a dozen exits had been hacked through the canvas walls and people were pouring out, women screaming, folk stumbling, folk trampled underfoot in the mud. The kid and his friend reached the hotel gallery and wiped the water from their eyes and turned to watch. As they did so the tent began to sway and buckle and like a huge and wounded medusa it slowly settled to the ground trailing tattered canvas walls and ratty guyropes over the ground. The baldheaded man was already at the bar when they entered. On the polished wood before him were two hats and a double handful of coins. He raised his glass but not to them. They stood up to the bar and ordered whiskeys and the kid laid his money down but the barman pushed it back with his thumb and nodded. These here is on the judge, he said. They drank. The teamster set his glass down and looked at the kid or he seemed to, you couldnt be sure of his gaze. The kid looked down the bar to where the judge stood. The bar was that tall not every man could even get his elbows up on it but it came just to the judge's waist and he stood with his hands placed flatwise on the wood, leaning slightly, as if about to give another address. By now men were piling through the doorway, bleeding, covered in mud, cursing. They gathered about the judge. A posse was being drawn to pursue the preacher. Judge, how did you come to have the goods on that no-account? Goods? said the judge. When was you in Fort Smith? Fort Smith? Where did you know him to know all that stuff on him? You mean the Reverend Green? Yessir. I reckon you was in Fort Smith fore ye come out here. I was never in Fort Smith in my life. Doubt that he was. They looked from one to the other. Well where was it you run up on him? I never laid eyes on the man before today. Never even heard of him. He raised his glass and drank. There was a strange silence in the room. The men looked like mud effigies. Finally someone began to laugh. Then another. Soon they were all laughing together. Someone bought the judge a drink. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFf3Xj7jyGKQlFZpAQFAVwgAnY5GGhOnj97T7fUzmNF1fSthVoVOSLr7 8pVFBUOdTXgKGtDmlr+TqaEzkdEzxJMUE+ACA6uGb/LwmyIhxnPYwRqfhWBjOHD3 /Y1uDVan81uVAtCgIZeOxOTskoM0hE3N3qxNSiITutbM2fxZiiUH1kWTs1+JuyLp h1sfwyzV4UL4sG6fZRKdf+4Mtg7jZvOJNbjKtzp7A19zxfLuLawM6DC31OlnDduw wdSWvv3CG/rOyExeCUtD/sTunPF4a7nsRb7mZQfj564ibvhbrKFcUv/z1lo7X06I yCC4JTOshBBmkzc6PNuUGc7hRGeghoXjHw1cClGjiOlr1HDoxdVVvg== =hKGE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0