December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Building Pro-Monopoly Judges
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks, Charles, for the attached rant. Very amusing. Me, I prefer to tell the truth, and if that means that I don't abide by your standard of "graciousness," so be it. I've run into the Federalist Society a few times before. I occasionally go to their conferences, and I know they've been active in such HEINOUS dealings as: -- arguing against the Communications Decency Act -- arguing against state-by-state content regulation of the Internet -- arguing for your right to speak anonymously … [View More]online -- arguing for your right to use and distribute encryption freely Yes, folks, you heard it here first. These folks are evil and must NOT be allowed to hold seminars for judges. (Only leftists are allowed this particular trick.) BTW, if Charles had half a clue, he'd know George Mason's law and economic schools are not particularly conservative, but are instead free-market and libertarian. (How many conservatives opposed the CDA?) The Federalist Society is also generally libertarian. Libertarians are not pro-big business; they oppose corporate welfare and special-interest lobying. Such as what Charles seems to endorse. -Declan At 18:49 -0500 12/21/97, charles mueller wrote: > Declan McCullagh, still displaying a reluctance to debate with >graciousness (below), now wonders if I've heard of the Federalist Society. >"PS: I wonder if Mueller knows about the Federalist Society, which is a >group of libertarian-leaning lawyers and law professors. Among other things, >they make a point of educating judges about (gasp!) economic theory and this >concept of a government strictly limited in its powers..." > > I've been reporting on this propaganda mill for roughly 2 decades-- >and have published hundreds of pages on it. (See my January post on the >subject, below.) > > Charles Mueller, Editor > ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW > http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller > > ** > >>Return-Path: <antitrust(a)essential.org> >>Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 19:04:50 -0500 (EST) >>Errors-To: antitrust-owner(a)essential.org >>Reply-To: cmueller(a)metrolink.net >>Originator: antitrust(a)essential.org >>Sender: antitrust(a)essential.org >>From: cmueller(a)metrolink.net (cmueller) >>To: Multiple recipients of list <antitrust(a)essential.org> >>Subject: GMU's "Law & Economics Center" >>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >> >> Perhaps I can add some information on the "Law & Economics Center" >>at George Mason. My journal first reported on its teach-in with the federal >>judges in 1981 (Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 70-71) and the following year I >>physically visited the University of Miami campus (where it was then housed) >>and did extensive interviews with several of the Center's people. Those >>interviews, plus another interview series I did at Emory University in >>Atlanta when the Center moved there, and finally at George Mason itself >>after the 3rd move, fill a number of my issues, beginning with Vol. 14, No. >>2 (1982). I've also reported on a couple of the legal challenges >>(unsuccessful) to the Center's indoctrination of the federal judges. >> For example, U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams presided over a >>predatory pricing case against ITT Continental Baking (Wonder Bread) some >>years back. The day after the jury began its deliberations, Judge Williams >>left San Francisco to begin attendance at a 2-week "economics" seminar >>presented by the Law & Economics Center at the Royal Biscayne Hotel in >>Miami. While he was gone, his jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in >>the amount of $5 million which, under the law, he was bound to triple to $15 >>million. Instead, he returned from Florida, overturned the jury's verdict, >>and wrote a letter to Henry Manne in Miami that read in part as follows: >>"As a result of my better understanding of the concept of marginal cost, I >>have recently set aside a $15 million antitrust verdict. I will send you a >>copy of the memorandum [opinion] as soon as it is prepared." (See my >>journal, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1985), p. 13.) >> Nan Aron and her colleagues at the Alliance for Justice in >>Washington published a monograph on the subject--Justice for Sale In >>America--in 1993 and I reprinted the key chapters in my journal, beginning >>with Vol. 24, No. 3 (1993). For earlier background, see Fortune, May 21, >>1979; Washington Post, January 20, 1980; and The Nation, January 26, 1980. >> Put simply, this "Center" is a right-wing propaganda mill >>masquerading as a purveyor of academic "economics." The "teachers" have >>been Harold Demsetz and others from the University of Chicago and its major >>academic outposts (paid at an hourly rate commensurate with the up to $600 >>per hour commanded by George Stigler and the others as antitrust "experts" >>in court). No opposing economists have ever been allowed to appear before >>the judges. When I asked the Center's people why they didn't permit >>distinguished non-Chicago economists to share the podium at these judicial >>teach-ins, they laughed and said, "Let them go start their OWN seminars for >>the judges!" >> I asked to be allowed to just sit in as an OBSERVER with the judges >>and/or the 200 antitrust law professors (who have been run through a similar >>indoctrination program) and Henry Manne himself responded to my request (by >>telephone), No, "We keep it all in the family." (Manne, who had been a law >>professor at the University of Rochester, founded the "Center" in 1974 at >>the University of Miami, then moved it to Emory and finally to George Mason. >>A federal judge--Judge Hoffman, as I recall--helped him get the approval of >>the judiciary's executive body in Washington, headed by the Chief Justice of >>the Supreme Court. The money to finance these sessions at luxury resorts >>(mostly at Key Biscayne and other Florida beach towns) was originally gotten >>directly from Fortune 500 companies who had experienced the sting of >>antitrust prosecution; in response to some criticism of that obvious >>conflict of interest, Manne, with some creative accounting, arranged it so >>that the seminars for the judges themselves--in 1981, the cost was $5,000 >>per judge per 2-week seminar--were thereafter paid for exclusively by the >>corporate foundations, e.g., Schaife, Olin, etc., rather than by active >>firms that frequently appear before the judges as antitrust defendants. >>With this accounting twist, the judiciary gave its full blessing to the >>operation.) >> I also did an interview with a federal appeals judge in Washington >>(DC Circuit). He saw nothing wrong with Manne's program, even assuming it >>was pure propaganda designed specifically to bias the federal judiciary >>against the antitrust laws and in favor of corporate monopoly. Why? (1) >>First, he said, judges are, by the nature of their work, "immune" to >>propaganda of all kinds. They hear so much argument on so many sides of >>every issue that it's simply impossible to "bias" them via argument. (2) >>Second, he told me, federal judges have every RIGHT to be as intellectually >>"biased" as they like and to DEVELOP those intellectual biases with the help >>of WHOEVER they please. >> For example, he said, suppose I go to the beach for a weekend with 3 >>volumes of Karl Marx's writings in my briefcase. I find Marx so persuasive >>that I come back to my chambers on Monday, throw away an opinion I had just >>written on one of the cases before me, and proceed to write a new one >giving my >>decision to the opposite party. Karl Marx "biased" me to change my >>decision. He had every right to do it--and I had every right to LET him >>do it. >> George Mason University law school and its economics department >>aren't scholarly enterprises at all; they're hired propagandists, awash in >>corporate money awarded precisely for the purpose of making a contrived >>"economic" case for laissez-faire monopoly. They get away with it for one >>reason and one reason only: Manne's operation had the approval of Reagan's >>Justice Department (rember Ed Meese?) and now it has the blessing of >>Clinton's. All it would take to bring it to a halt would be a couple of >>speeches by, say, the Attorney General and, if necessary, by Clinton >>himself. If Justice treated it as the outrage that it plainly is, the >>press--and the ensuing public condemnation--would purge the judiciary of >>this 20-year scandal within a matter of weeks. >> Charles Mueller, Editor >> ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW >> http://www.metrolink.net/~cmueller/ >> >> > *********** [View Less]

1 0

Coercive Monopolism vs Wimpyness
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attila T. Hut quoted Tom Steinert-Threlkeld: "So, it can't coerce computer makers to license the IE browser as a condition of licensing the Windows operating system, forcing them to install both onto the machines they sell to the public." ................................................... How do computer makers get "coerced"? How, specifically are they "forced" into doing something they don't want to do? Are they incapable of just saying "no"? Is there a gun put to their head? Does … [View More]

2 1

Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for "Criminals"? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva)
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- gburnore(a)netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > On 19 Dec 1997 23:01:59 +0100, Charlie Comsec wrote: > :Actually in the case of anonymous e-mail you have one additional > :safeguard. You can ask to be blocked from receiving anonymous e-mail. Try > :telling the telephone company that you want to be blocked from receiving > :calls from any pay phone! > > It's available now. The first to use it are pager companies. Why would a … [View More]

14 16

Civil War Crypto Question...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I have been reading [1] regarding the beginning of the modern martial traditions and methods. In chapter 2, 'Tactical and Strategic Reorganization', in which the birth of the Signal Corp under Myer (by order of McClellan) and the ensuing conflicts with Military Telegraph under Stager are discussed. On pp. 43 - 44 there is a discussion on some processes that Myer implimented including a 'cipher disk' whereby the Union was able to change their telegraph codes on an hourly schedule. It was … [View More]

1 0

Re: Civil War Crypto Question...
by jim＠mentat.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate skribis: > On pp. 43 - 44 [of Hagerman's "The American Civil War..."] > ... a 'cipher disk' whereby the Union was able to > change their telegraph codes on an hourly schedule. It was apparently very > effictive in dealing with taps and such. > > Anyone know of another source that discusses this disk? I looked in Applied There's a very brief mention of a disk in "Masked Dispatches: Cryptograms and Cryptology in American History, 1775-1900", available from the NSA … [View More]

1 0

Increase SAT Math Scores!
by 9fX7Q8JNZ＠pobox.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please pardon this 1 time e-mail intrusion. (This information may be very important to you or someone you know taking College Entrance Exam!!!) "Math Shortcuts to Ace the SAT* and PSAT" For the US College Entrance Exam ISBN: 1-882228-00-6 (100 pg. book) Traditional SAT* math preparation materials & courses emphasize a review of math fundamentals, practice exams and general strategies. Our book uniquely SUPPLEMENTS these approaches with 34 specific math … [View More]strategies & shortcuts to specific SAT* math problem types. Highlights of this Book: ---34 specific math shortcuts & strategies to the SAT* and PSAT ---Step-by-step examples ---Answers to all exercises ---Extensive glossary and index ---Concise summary of geometry formulas and concepts ---Easy to understand explanations Educator's Testimonials: "This SAT Math Shortcuts Manual is proving to be an excellent resource to our students preparing for the SAT & PSAT. Thank you for developing this invaluable resource." Carolyn W. Jacobs - Guidance Dept. Head - JFK High School, Richmond, VA "This is one of the best collections of SAT Math Shortcuts that I have come across. My students found it especially helpful. I highly recommend this book to anyone teaching an SAT Prep. class or workshop." Judy Edwards - Math/SAT Prep. Teacher - North Buncombe High School, Weaverville, NC "The book format is great. The sections on shortcuts was easily understandable and to the point." LaVerne McKesson: President, Educational Connections Math Dept. Head (retired) Detroit Public Schools "This book covers it all! It is compiled in a manner which holds the student's attention as it guides the student through math strategies and shortcuts to the SAT." Nanci S. Boice Admissions Dept. - St. Thomas Episcopal School - Houston, TX Author Bio: ---15 years: SAT Math test prep. instructor & College Algebra Teacher ---Columbia University grad.: BA, MBA Distributors: ---Ingram Book Co. (bookstores) ---Baker & Taylor (bookstores - pending) ---Independent Publishers Group (bookstores) ---Quality Books, Inc. & Unique Books, Inc. (libraries) ---Adams Book Co. (schools) ---Independent Sales Reps. (schools) To Purchase: Contact our shipping company: BookMasters, Inc. Order Dept. P.O. Box 388 1444 Rt. 42 Ashland, OH. 44805 USA Phone Orders: 1-800-247-6553 (24hrs/7days) Fax Orders: 1-419-281-6883 Outside USA phone: 1-419-281-1802 (24hrs/7days) Web-Site Orders: www.apluspublishing.com (Shortcut #21 on-line) www.bookzone.com/achieve (Shortcut #33 on-line) Price: $12.95/book for orders of 24 or less $11.95/book for orders of 25 - 49 $10.95/book for orders of 50 or more. Add Postage/Handling:$4 for single book order (1 book) 7% of purchase price for orders of 2 or more books. Ohio residents add 6% sales tax or supply state sales tax exempt #. Alabama residents add 4% sales tax or supply state sales tax exempt #. Check, Credit Card & School Purchase Orders accepted. Allow 1 week for delivery. Checks Payable to: BookMasters, Inc. or Achievement Publishing, Inc. To order have: Title, Publisher & ISBN available. For questions and comments to Achievement Publishing, Inc.: Voice mail: 1-800-499-6284 Fax: 1-888-581-2211 US Mail: Achievement Publishing, Inc. P.O. Box 1357 New York, NY 10013-0877 USA *SAT is a registered trademark of the College Entrance Examination Board which is not associated with this product. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This email was sent to you by S. Direct Marketing. If you would like your ad sent to thousands or even millions...Please call 510-653-4709 9am to 9pm (PST) 7 days a week. [View Less]

1 0

Get your Anthrax shots
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Those of you in urban soft target areas, expecially any of you living or working in DC or NYC, may want to consider getting vaccinated against Anthrax. It might come in handy before long. >From an US Army (?) press release: | The immunizations, requiring six shots over 18 months followed by annual | booster shots, will begin next summer with 100,000 American troops in the | Gulf region and Korean peninsula. -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred. … [View More]

5 5

Re: Is Unix dying--or even dead?
by S. M. Halloran 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 19 Dec 97, Bill Stewart was found to have commented thusly: > At 12:08 PM 12/19/1997 GMT, phelix(a)vallnet.com wrote: > >>Silicon Graphics Inc.'s plan .... Windows NT > > >Does this mean that Unix is dying? > >No, it means that graphics professionals are buying Wintel boxes > >instead of SGI's expensive workstations. ( a shame really, > > SGI make some damn nice workstations, but that > >pesky price/performance ratio is pushing people into &… [View More]gt; >high end Wintel boxes) > > It's not just price/performance ratio - > it's affordable price for adequate performance. > Now that Wintel boxes can crunch integers as well as a Cray-1, > a $2K box has enough horsepower for all but really cutting-edge graphics, > and you're going to buy the same monitor regardless of CPU. > Sure, a $10K SGI probably has far more than 5x the performance, > but not many people need it, especially if they're developing > applications for other people to use on cheaper boxes (games...) > as opposed to producing TV shows, music videos, or running > scientific visualization. > > That's been a problem for the accounting and office-work for years > - while Microsoft can bloat away any CPU you've got, > an 8086 or 286 box could run spreadsheets, simple chart graphics, > WordStar, a database, BASIC, and Flight Simulator as fast as a PDP-11 > for a lot less money, letting the business bootstrap itself > in spite of the ugly excuse for a program loader MS sold for it, > because any developer could afford the $5K (1982) or $2K (1997) box > it takes to develop cool commercially viable applications > (and, yes, you can use a $500 box today, but you wouldn't.) > [....] > > If you must run MSware, NT is at least an operating system. > And it's easier to get graphics board manufacturers to write > their drivers for Windows than Linux. Assuming developers and users of "alternative" systems (including Unix family) are concerned about how MS is consolidating its position as the complete manager of the business/academic affairs of the entire globe, I suggest to the members of the free Unix groups (developers, administrators/superusers) that they develop their own turnkey "office suite" and try to give MS a run for its money. There is no time like now to get the X-Windows (or GUI-free-from-copyright) Complete Office bundled together and have a media gathering to make sure that all the important news organizations are informed. You should get decent press exposure, since MS-bashing seems to be in vogue. The Linux or FreeBSD people should select a mediagenic spokesperson from the group--one with fire in the belly--and then do the hard work of putting something together that a 25-year old free-Unix developer's 72-year old grandmother can install to a x86 box. In fact, your press conference would have real pinache if, in fact, you put someone's 72-year old grandmother before a PC with an empty disk drive, run the install, then type a short letter on the fancy word processer, addressed to Bill G., with the message "Up yours!" By attacking Bill G. from the flank in this matter, you may possibly take his mind off his successful campaign to own the Internet. I admire BillG, really. He was rather late in anticipating how a network developed largely by universities and their students could be a medium that intruded upon the everyday world, and yet despite the efforts of well-meaning individuals and not-for-profit groups to keep the Internet from being owned, Bill G. just has too much savvy not to be able to own the important parts of the Internet too--not the cables and wires, of course, but the content as well as the software that drives it. And soon. (Look for the next version of TCPIP, if it is called that, to be a copyright of Microsoft. After all, Microsoft has its roots in writing OSes.) Mitch Halloran Research (Bio)chemist Duzen Laboratories Group Ankara TURKEY mitch(a)duzen.com.tr other job title: Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy Mitch Halloran Research (Bio)chemist Duzen Laboratories Group Ankara TURKEY mitch(a)duzen.com.tr other job title: Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy [View Less]

1 0

Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 19:58:05 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks (fwd) > >Wrong, the LOC is for the people. It is there (originaly) to provide a > >reference listing of all documents published and therefore claiming copyright. > >Currently it is open to any legitimate research project. I have used it on a > > Any idea on what they define to be a "legitimate" research … [View More]project? Something related to a project you're working on is my guest guess. I had a clear problem description and goal in mind both times I dealt with them. My experience is that just about any research organization like that simply wants some assurance of legitimacy regarding the use of resources in that institution, they got a bottem line they have to toe. In my various diggings I have *never* been turned away from any reference stack if I could provide them with clear descriptions and goals. Then again, I don't go in raving and ranting and making lot's of demands either... The first time I had reference to them was when I worked for the DoD during college ('80-'83 @ UT) when I had to do some research on a RTL project for Capt. Gene Barton of the US Army. Not that he would necessarily know anything about it. I made the requests for specific information through the engineering library at UT and they contacted both LoC and the Patent Office on prior art. I was designing a non-Von Neumann router from TTL random gates and needed to see how some folks had resolved some similar addressing (very sticky wicket that in regards RTL architectures) issue. The second time was when I was working for Austron here in Austin doing time reference standards (1210's, 2055's, 2000 & 5000 LORAN recievers - it you got one and it was done by triangle-nine it's mine) and needed to do some reference requests for one of the engineers (I unfortunately don't remember his name) into rf propogation models in the 10kHz range because of some problem the US Navy was having off Korea. Past that I don't know as there was some sort of security issue involved. Neither time did it take more than a couple of phone calls (numbers provided for me) and some faxes. I also don't believe that anyone on the other end know anything more about my projects other than the librarian on my end saying something like "I have a user who wants to request ...". YMMV of course. > hate to travel 3000 miles to research the Holocaust Lie, only to be told > that my research on how the Holocaust Lie was sold to support FDR and > Truman is an _illegitimate_ research project. You don't have to travel farther than your local public library. Now whether the librarian wants to spend their time working on your project is a whole 'nother (personal) issue. If you want to know more specifics I suggest you call information in DC and ask for the main number. From there you're on your own. I'm working on a small book proposal & ASL expansion pack regarding the Japanese parachute invasion of Palembang on Feb. 14, 1942 and it's possible I may need to see records there since the US Navy was part of the combined British-Dutch-French-US command in that area. If so, I'll be shure to pass along any experiences that I might have. I certainly hope to arrange an actual trip to Palembang in a couple of years. But I digress... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| [View Less]

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendm
by David Magnay 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 19 Dec 97 at 11:58, Jim Burnes wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, David Honig wrote: ... > > > If one ever questions this in public, as Tim did, the liberal response > > is to show that unPC 'discrimination' is possible if humans are free, > > and then the dutiful citizen gladly sacrifices employers' liberty for > > their warm and fuzzy feelings. The first amendment is about what > > government can't do to you, not what your neighbor can or can't do. … [View More]

1 0