December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Internet drives productivity [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > INTERNET TO RELENTLESSLY DRIVE PRODUCTIVITY > > Reuters > 24-OCT-97 > > > By Neil Winton, Science and Technology Corresdpondent LONDON, Oct 24 > (Reuters) - Information technology is being lauded as the surprise > provider of ever increasing wealth without inflation. > > Economists in the United States are scratching their heads to solve a > problem which the busineses schools suggested was impossible. > > How is the U.S. economy still powering ahead in top gear with low > unemployment without incurring inflation? > > Information technology is getting the credit, but productivity gains > notched up from the use of computers have been overlooked by > government statistics. > > As the Internet age gathers momentum companies around the world will > be able to slash costs and gain access to markets which would have > been impossibly expensive before. > > Last week Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said real > productivity gains associated with computers and telecommunications > may not have been fully realised yet. > > Information technology experts agree. ``The Internet makes smaller and > remote companies look big and next door,'' said Bill Rosser, research > director at the information technology consultancy Gartner Group in > Stamford, Connecticut. > > ``You can put up your website and your products and bring a presence > to a much broader market. Because of its rich delivery capacity a > small company in Lichtenstein can win business from General Motors,'' > Rosser said. > > ECONOMIC IMPACT DIFFICULT TO PINPOINT > > The economic impact of information technology is undoubted, but > difficult to pinpoint. > > The problem for economists is how to accurately measure output and > productivity in service industries such as banking, law firms, > software and services companies generally, which account for an ever > increasing percentage of the U.S. and other wealthy economies. > > It was relatively easy to add up the number of widgets produced and > divide the cost by the number of workers employed, but it's not so > easy to measure the impact of information technology. > > ``It's hard for economists to figure this out. I think it's really > based on problems with measuring how companies use IT to reduce the > number of people needed to do certain tasks,'' said Eilif Trondsen, > research director at consultants SRI International in Menlo Park, > California. > > ``Companies like GE (General Electric Co ), and Cisco Systems Inc are > finding ways of doing things with a fraction of the people they used > to need, using the Internet,'' Trondsen said. > > GE is one of the U.S.'s biggest companies with major businesses in > power generators, appliances, lighting, plastics, medical systems, > aircraft engines, financial services and broadcasting. GE earned net > profits of $7.28 billion in 1996. Revenues were $79.2 billion. > > Cisco provides the ubiquitous equipment which links computers across > telephone lines over the Internet, pumping electronic mail and digital > data around the world. Last year revenues jumped 80 percent to around > $4 billion. > > Bob Chatham, senior analyst at technology researcher Forrester in > Cambridge, Massachusetts, points to novel ways that costs can be cut > using computers. > > ``GE in its procuring of supplies and materials can save 15 to 20 > percent buying online. Some firms can reduce the cost of a purchase > order from $45 to around a dollar fifty. New companies like Free > Markets Online will run an (virtual) auction for you and cut costs > about 22 percent,'' Chatham said. > > Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania based Free Markets Online targets markets > such as plastic injection moulding or metal casting in which hundreds > of companies compete for contracts, and sets up virtual auctions using > its software to make the cheapest possible deals. > > HOW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HELPS BUSINESS > > SRI's Trondsen said the use of information technology can create a > seamless flow of information through a company so that it can become > more productive. Orders flow in and automatically trigger inventory > and production decisions which have a big positive impact on > productivity. Bills are settled electronically. > > ``The Internet helps companies find suppliers they didn't even know > existed,'' according to Trondsen. > > Gartner's Rosser said IT can make more information available to > workers to let them make decisions on their own where supervisors > would have needed to intervene previously. > > ``It makes them smarter. It enlarges the jobs because they've got the > data. You don't have to talk to the supervisor, you see it (the data) > and bingo, take action,'' Rosser said. > > ``This is bringing huge improvements, but we are not seeing this in > economic statistics. Now the future is with the Internet, that's what > Greenspan was talking about,'' said Rosser. > > ``This is all about maximising the use of your intellectual > capacity.'' > > But won't all this labour saving technology result in huge swathes of > unemployment around the world, and leave the competition in places > like Europe in permanent second place? > > SRI's Trondsen said Europe will catch up, but more bureaucratic > organisations which lack the necessary corporate culture will have > problems. > > According to Rosser, short term upheavals will become long term > benefits for all. > > ``Well yes, the buggy-whip makers will always go out of business. Most > long term studies show lots of temporary problems, but ultimately we > will get workers applied elsewhere to produce more goods and value > added services,'' Rosser said.

1 0

Hi-tech sell-off drowns Dow [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Dow drowns in tech sell-off > Blue chips shed over 130 points in second straight day of steep > declines > October 24, 1997: 5:37 p.m. ET > NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Tumbling technology stocks and lingering concerns > over the fate of the Hong Kong market dealt a heavy blow on U.S. stock > markets Friday with the Dow industrials suffering severe losses for > the second day in a row. > [INLINE] Dow Jones industrial average closed 132.36 points lower at > 7,715.41 after starting the day as high as 7,939.61. The blue-chip > index lost 0.75 percent Friday and ended the week 1.69 percent, or > 132.61 points, below last week's close. > [INLINE] In broader markets, the technology-laden Nasdaq was down > 20.33, or 1.22 percent, at 1,650.92, 15.96 points lower on the week. > The S&P 500 index fell 9.06 at 941.63, ending the week 2.54 points > down. > [INLINE] On the New York Stock Exchange declines led advances, 1,508 > to 1,337, with almost 680 million shares changing hands. > [INLINE] Friday's market collapse was triggered by a heavy sell-off in > technology stocks after several downgrades in semiconductor stocks and > a plant-delay announcement by Intel. > [INLINE] Spectrian (SPCT) led losers trading on the Nasdaq, plunging > 15-7/8 to close at 26-1/4. The stock was downgraded by Morgan Stanley > to "neutral" from "outperform" and by UBS Securities to "hold" from > "buy" on concerns over future orders. Those worries appeared to > outweigh the company's report of 60 cents per share in quarterly > earnings, beating Wall Street estimates of 53 cents. The company makes > power amplifiers for wireless communications firms. > [INLINE] UBS downgraded several other semiconductor stocks, because of > concerns over the Asian currency crisis' effect on sales. Among these > stocks, Applied Materials (AMAT), closed 3-3/4 lower at 33-1/4, > topping the most actively traded list on Nasdaq with over 61 million > of the company's shares changing hands. Novellus (NVLS), down 3 at > 48-3/8, and CFM Technologies (CFMT), off 5-5/8 at 23, were also in the > list of downgraded companies and suffered declines. > [INLINE] Other technology stocks that took a beating Friday included > Intel (INTC), down 1-7/8 at 80, after the company said it would > postpone the opening of a $1.3 billion Texas semiconductor plant. > Intel said a decline in demand for "flash" memory chips was the reason > behind the delay. The plant is now expected to open in late 2000. > [INLINE] Earlier in the day, an almost 7 percent gain in Hong Kong's > Hang Seng index following Thursday's record point decline spread over > into European markets and later also on Wall Street. The Hang Seng > gained 718.04 points to close at 11,144.34 in what was its > second-biggest one-day point gain. > [INLINE] But the good news from Asia was soon outweighed by concerns > over the future direction of the Hong Kong market. This, coupled with > Wall Street's technology woes, led to a tumble in other world markets > too. In London, the FTSE 100 index closed off 21.3 at 4,970.2, and in > Paris the CAC-40 ended down 7.84 at 2,849.03. Frankfurt's DAX, the > only major index to finish the day in positive territory, gained 73.61 > to 4,050.87. > [INLINE] U.S. bond markets also had a choppy day Friday as the Hong > Kong-inspired flight to quality came to an abrupt end. The benchmark > 30-year Treasury closed 12/32 higher to yield 6.28 percent after > testing both sides of unchanged. > [INLINE] Gold company shares weighed on the market as well, down > steeply following news of a Swiss proposal to sell 1,400 metric tons > of gold as part of an overhauling of the Swiss constitution. Shares of > Newmont Mining (NEM) fell 3-3/8 to 41-9/16, Barrick Gold (ABX) dropped > 1-15/16 to 21-5/8, and Homestake Mining (HM) was off 1-7/16 at > 13-13/16. > [INLINE] Among other market movers, cosmetics giant Avon (AVP) was up > sharply after its stock was upgraded by several Wall Street firms. > Smith Barney raised its rating of the company to "buy" from > "outperform," Goldman Sachs raised it to "outperform" from "perform" > and PaineWebber raised it to "attractive" from "neutral." Avon shares > closed 6-7/8 higher at 73-3/4. > [INLINE] Other net gainers included Amazon .com (AMZN). Shares in the > on-line book retailer rose 6-5/16 to 60-5/16 because its third-quarter > loss was lower than expected. > [INLINE] Topping the NYSE's most-active-shares list: Boeing (BA), > which slipped 9/16 to close at 48-1/2. The company reported an > expected loss of 72 cents a share in the third quarter, compared with > a profit of 48 cents in the third quarter last year. Boeing's loss > included a $1.6 billion charge related to severe production delays. > [INLINE] IBM (IBM), after posting gains early in the day, succumbed to > the technology sector's decline and lost 2-1/4 to 98-1/8. Among other > stocks that took a hit were Texas Instruments (TXN) which plummeted 9 > to close at 111-7/8. > [INLINE] Computer retailer Gateway 2000 (GTW) shares were down 1/2 at > 30-3/4 after the company reported a loss of $107.1 million, or 68 > cents a share, after the market close Thursday. The loss included a > $113.8 million pre-tax charge and compares with a profit of $60.7 > million, or 39 cents a share, in the year-ago period. Link to top > [INLINE] --by staff writer Malina Poshtova Zang > djia > Dow Industrials

1 0

Capital hill looking to spend budget surplus [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Capitol Hill Looks Ahead To Budget Surpluses > > Lawmakers are already talking about what to do with dollars that haven't > materialized yet > > [INLINE] > > WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Oct. 24) -- With the economy cooking along > and government analysts forecasting budget surpluses, lawmakers on > Capitol Hill have begun debating what to do with the windfall: cut > taxes, pay down the nation's $5.4 trillion national debt, or boost > spending. > > House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a proposal that may please everyone: > Do some of each. > > Gingrich, who appeared before the House Budget Committee on Thursday, > said he favors a budget policy that produces surpluses and tax cuts > every year, even during the next recession. > > "We should sustain ... the commitment to get to a balancedbudget and > to stay balanced every year," Gingrich said. He addedlater, "It ought > to be a surplus large enough that a reasonablerecession won't stop > it." > > Gingrich also favors targeted spending increases, for transportation, > science and defense. gingrich > > Of course, no surpluses have actually materialized yet, so it may be a > case of premature giddiness. This year, officials expect a fiscal 1997 > year-end deficit of $20 billion, the smallest since 1974. > > White House budget chief Franklin Raines has urged a cautious > approach, with no new spending until projected surpluses actually > become real. Gingrich, in contrast, said he is willing to put new > dollars into defense and science earlier than that, if the economy > produces enough tax revenue to accelerate the schedule in the > balanced-budget agreement for reducing the deficit. > > Rep. John Kasich, the Ohio Republican who heads the House Budget > Committee, also has said lawmakers should hold off on any new tax cuts > or new spending until the budget is actually balanced. > > In a related development, President Bill Clinton has signed > legislation to keep the federal government running until Nov. 7, while > Congress finishes work on remaining spending bills for the 1998 fiscal > year.

1 0

Re: GMR in the talked-about form here would be unconstitutional
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >Will a "must encrypt to government key" provision pass constitutional >muster? I don't think so. > >So long as the First and Fourth (and the Fifth may apply, too) >Amendments remain in force, compelling a person to speak in certain >ways and monitoring what he says privately without a proper court >order is unconstitutional. > >At least the convoluted stuff in Clipper about "LEAF" fields, >splitting of keys between agencies, proper court orders, etc., had >the "fig LEAF" of protecting some basic constitutional rights. A >straight "encrypt to the government's key" is too crude to withstand >any court scrutiny. In practice it could be implemented as "any government key" where there are, perhaps, a few thousand to choose from. Each key is administered by a small group of "trusted" bureaucrats. No one person need control the secret key. There are key splitting systems so that the key is active only when N number of people insert their cards into a secure box, for instance. And, of course, we will be told that the "trusted" bureaucrats will only collude to decode messages when a warrant has been issued. This would be enough to eliminate most of the concerns regarding warrantless searches for any court which was more sympathetic to GAK than the Constitution. As for free speech issues, if certain thoughts and images are illegal, such as those deemed to be "pornographic", it shouldn't be much harder to claim that a bunch of bits of the wrong form is actually a technology issue and unrelated to free speech. The same goes for source code. There are all sorts of rules about what kind of "technical data" may be exported which are certainly far away from the original Constitutional vision. Hopefully, the courts will protect the Constitution if the other two branches are unwilling to do so. 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 iQEVAwUBNFEnGpaWtjSmRH/5AQFWXgf+Km1k8RW4qmipiMxu1yjDYRq5TOkdyk6H o9PJWaRKCMmBzMRSq7efdBpGxHIW7OClwr77mOKPhXGqNz+OTfhkF7RiVnMUTEVG 4lzRZyh1YgEtxGh+vNz1JgUHhUVMb6Ol/Qj8/FtiG4+/1IALPhzlQxASNtDqGFMf L1kPkHGgKbi0NrDKULRtzO5+tsiuF41BKrE483pcPUjDltUjHlZmMjPwFGy3sGjS mzQlQUCR6OJ7zOm3s7pXxdOu+q8CWD0OQeF+VdnlhPg+YFra1ZE7ORCYDAP6vk54 C68c7r5ZWoFS8RTKSWdm69LmXYL3GLXose4l2xfOHY0EPnsvyYXtCw== =6f4R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

M$ coercion -anyone doubt my previous claims of Gate$' immorality
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- from ZDNET > As shocking as this [IE requirement] is, the most > unsettling revelation is the news that Microsoft required > its {OEM } "partners" to report any planned contact with > government officials. If that's not illegal, it should be. It > implies a threat of reprisal if OEMs so much as inquire > about their rights. like I have said again and again: Gate$ has the basic TS trait of "the rules dont apply to me" in spades. lawyers will add their wildest dreams to contracts; Gate$ carried the responsibility to exercise common sense --he did not. his overwhelming drive: "veni, vidi, vici" is all consuming. his temper tantrums are legendary: classic TS. yes, the restriction on planned contacts with the government is illegal: it constitutes "obstruction of justice" -in fact, I would say it is probably the most prima facie case of it I have ever seen. it is a slap in the face to our basic concept of fairness and the rule of law. I vote that the DOJ initiate the criminal phase of the Sherman and Clayton acts. I have always accused Gate$ of having lower morals, and dirtier hands, than Cornelius Vanderbilt or Jay Gould. the argument that dismembering M$ will throw the computer industry into total disarray is bullshit. No, it will permit other operating systems and software to enter the market. the divested software components can be distributed in much the same way the seven Baby Bells were value and AT&T stock was split with each AT&T share being worth so many of each component and the shareholders could pick. Meanwhile, with Gate$, "to heck with Janet Reno" Ballmer, and their lawyers in federal prison where they are prohibited from running a business, the software industry might return to some well needed diversity since Gate$ will not be able to swing his mighty hatchet. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNFFmzrR8UA6T6u61AQFSxQIAiVGb4cdMplUNZdlDw15jNl8bZdX5Lzz+ 9teI7hbjJbe8WSZqm85EAH0Q9TfWL3k1b5VS4FAAVHtzaRrFzJlrQQ== =X4G/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Office of the Secretary of Defense vs the First Amendment
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:07:23 +0000 From: "Glen L. Roberts" <glr(a)glr.com> To: declan(a)well.com, noah(a)pathfinder.com Subject: Office of the Secretary of Defense vs the First Amendment From: Glen L. Roberts, PO Box 1533, Oil City, PA 16301 (814) 676-2345 re: Office of the Secretary of Defense vs The First Amendment Attn: Seema Singh Dear Senator Arlen Spector: I am in receipt of correspondence from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, dated October 7, 1997. (Copy attached) They appear to be asking me to stop quoting certain parts of the U.S. Congressional Record. Obviously, citizens of the United States have a First Amendment right, if not an obligation, to express their opinions on matters relating to the operation of the Government. The DoD, it would appear, is requesting that I not express my opinions, when such expressions include certain portions of the Congressional Record, or that I "excise" my commentary to help cover up their mis-deads. Does the First Amendment give me the right to express my views, or to express my views only in accordance with the desires of the DoD? I can understand the concern and embarassment the DoD may feel by my highlighting certain portions of the Congressional Record and taking issue with them. However, I would think that for any government accountibility to take place, such commentaries are not only proper, but also a necessity. The First Amendment clearly setsforth my right to take issue with governmental polices and actions. I do not think it is within the proper bounds of the DoD to suggest how I may express myself, or what words might be appropriate or inappropriate to use in such expressions. If I were to read between the lines, I would conclude that the DoD is attempting to place the burden of their improper activities upon my shoulders. That is, if I stop reprinting the Congressional Record; no one will understand the problem and it will go away! Completely disregarding the public nature and purpose of the Congressional Record. For if I cannot freely quote from the Congressional Record, why has the Library of Congress moved to increase public availablity and access to it: "Acting under the directive of the leadership of the 104th Congress to make Federal legislative information freely available to the Internet public, a Library of Congress team brought the THOMAS World Wide Web system online in January 1995, at the inception of the 104th Congress." There are a number of possible ways that the DoD might seek to resolve the underlying problems of which I have brought attention to on my web pages, radio broadcasts and publications. I fail to understand how adjusting my commentary to meet the desires of the DoD will correct a stupid mistake they made years ago, and continued for years. Eliminating the attention will serve only to cover up and avoid any resolution of the problem. I request your assistance in supporting my First Amendment rights. ------------------------- (any typeos in the following are mine) Office of the Secretary of Defense 1950 Defense Pentagon Washington DC 202301-1950 Adminstration & Management Octover 7, 1997 Mr. Glen L. Roberts P.O. Box 1533 Oil City, PA 16301 Dear Mr. Roberts: This Department has taken the position in a wide variety of contexts that disclosure of the social security number constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's personal privacy. Therefore, the Department is as concerned as you are regarding the public availablity of the SSN and strongly believes that the general public should not have access to such numbers. As you have said, teh Department no longer provides the full social security number to Congress because we recognized and correct what was then a problem. Unfortunately, the numbers currently exact in print and at public websites. But this fact does not mean that we should not minimize, when possible, the proliferation of such lists. Although your apparent goal to obtain greater privacy protection for the individual is certainly laudable, publishing consolidated listings on your website perpetrates and exaverbates the very problem you are attemping to address. Put differently, such publications disregards the very privacy interests you are seeking to protect. Though the lists are available elsewhere, you are making it much simpler to find them because the other sites are not always easy to locate. Therefore, consideration should be given to the deletion of the lists, or in the alternative, excision of the SSN, from your webpage. Either action on your part will demonstrate, not only by word, but by deed, a sensitivity that others have ignored, in that, you have elected to pursure an approach where your advocacy requirements have been balanced against the privacy interests of the individual. Sincerely, //s// Aurello Nepa, Jr. Director Defense Privacy Office

2 1

Declan speaks out on NAMBLA and TIME
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~ SECONDS: Is there any activity that should be forbidden? DECLAN: I'm not in the business of making laws like that. I don't know exactly how to define what's underage and what's intimidation. Kids have to be protected and I sympathize with those who want to write a law. I'm just saying you have to control the bureaucracy and be extremely careful about demagoguery. At the moment, there's too much demagogic hysteria for people to be thinking sensibly about it. SECONDS: Does it help the government get further into people's houses? DECLAN: Another pretext for extension of police apparatuses. Another excuse for the government desire to be able to snoop in on any electronic conversation. It's a useful thing to get votes. I would say where force and violence are involved, where mental violence is involved, there's a fine line. What about some thirteen-year-old kid whose parents have beat him up and rejected him and is out on the street looking for love, hungry, taken in by some pederast who treats him nicely, gives him an education, sleeps with him - what are you gonna do? What humanely should be done? How are you going to make the distinction? The cops don't make the distinction. The law doesn't make the distinction. NAMBLA's good for making public discussion on this issue, discussing what should be the right laws. People want to scapegoat the discussion. They're willing to talk about it publicly all the time and bust people but sensible discussion seems to be out of the question. I've been accused of being a child rapist simply because I went on the air and said I was a member of NAMBLA. Ten years ago, I saw in Time Magazine an attack on NAMBLA saying it was a group involved in "the systematic exploitation of the weak and immature by the powerful and disturbed." At first reading, it struck me as a precise characterization of Time's own assault on the American mind. ~~~~~~~~~ OK, so it was really Alan Ginsberg who said the above. I'll try and put the universe back in balance, later, by attributing some of Declan's comments to Ginsberg.

2 1

Re: Saving money
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > At 2:38 PM -0700 10/24/97, harka(a)nycmetro.com wrote: > The "just don't work for them if 'ya don't like it"-argument > will last about 4 weeks...the approximate time a human can > survive without eating. (or a couple of weeks less, if you have > kids) -=> Quoting In:tcmay@got.net to Harka <=- In> By my third year out of college, I had a big enough cushion of In> saved cash and other investments [american dream deleted] While I am glad for your achievements, you have not addressed my point: all this doesn't apply to the larger mass of people. You were fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time...one of the founding-members of a company in an industry, that pays way more than average and thus brought you into the position, that you're in now. Great...more power to you and I encourage everybody to try the same. But that's not applicable to the larger percentage of the population. Besides, it's a supply and demand question. Computer-jobs only pay that much because it's a booming industry right now and there are less people than needed. Fortunate for those who were/are able to ride the wave. But if the available work-force exceeds the demand for it, such jobs wouldn't pay nearly as much as they do right now. Hence, achieving financial independence to the point of freely choosing employers would become much harder again. But this is the reality for MOST people (outside of the elite-industries) already! Especially if they start out with student-loan-debts amounting to several ten thousands of dollars. Add a family/kids to that and you tell me how easy a task it will be to quickly become independently wealthy. (Some people will be able to pull it off somehow, most people won't - - despite their wishes to the contrary. Should they make their best effort? Absolutely! Will everybody succeed? Absolutely not.) The background of this discussion is the free choice of employers (based on their policies). My point is, that for the large mass there is no such thing as a free choice (of employers), not necessarely because they're not willing to improve their financial standing to such a degree (who doesn't want to have more money?), but because they don't have the time, resources and conditions to do so. But even IF you were able to "make yourself more marketable" (as WHGIII eloquently composed)...if ninety percent of businesses in the country use the GAK/CAK-feature of PGP 5.5 how much free choice will then remain for you? > I.e. unless you are the super-duper, three-times > nobel-prize-winner (with lots of money in stocks), who can > AFFORD to choose employers that freely, you will be DAMN GLAD to > have a job AT ALL, regardless of their policies! In> More nonsense. Move out to the Bay Area, if you have any In> talent at all in software or hardware or biotech or Web design In> or multimedia, and you'll find jobs galore. I'll invite you in return to move to Brooklyn, NY to find out for yourself how easy life is for the non-elitists. Or maybe just take a walk around your own town. The truth is, that there are many people outside of Cypherpunks, who get barely through life _despite_ making efforts. They may get enough salary in their 9-5 job to maintain themselves to a degree, but not nearly enough to have the complete freedom, that is the issue here. And to say, "they get what they deserve" (if they don't have the abundance of dollars/freedom) is rather narrowminded and out-of-touch with most people's reality. But these are the people determining if GAK/CAK ever becomes widespread. If companies employing it would face extinction, because nobody would work for them anymore, GAK/CAK wouldn't succeed. However, capitalism doesn't work that way, despite of the few who made capitalism work for them. Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNFF8ijltEBIEF0MBAQFvFAf/TtywGVY8r6JKPljBzQjFAUZuDTrQiISZ qxUAMN6PhXz/fvDHqAJAPSnGiUkMf1goEI0NNG7cpZkdIaayz8PI33JzV9g5dypl lrUGb65+qzuMBi4+RhYbwWJQe44NOUzNDaZJdc0q3m6LDhXOrMLUoCt/i0b+KdB+ E68FAPBkOsYAgU8ooi4EeQkgabsEJRx5Hf4VB0Y0r3xcY5DBm7AbIpResU2xg9Xm ySZPsOpRA/PmFS3wOqoSJQIyZeeOx0k2rKVVNGsRYrtsfvVXj8wGegujRACXnGJF wL+7IIwkosOUESs93LWCQ6CwqsefpQBCrKE0mACxP9F03P4rXEXaGA== =rRS/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

3 3

Re: PGP, Inc.--What were they thinking?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin wrote: >I understand what Lucky meant when he said that PGP had pulled the >greatest hack ever on corporate America. It's so good that you have >to conceal your mirth, for fear of screwing it up... Yes, yes, it's great that the bosses bought the fool's tool, as they ever are doomed to do, unable to escape that the underlings are forever disobedient and disloyal, for right and good reasons: too little pay, as employers are forever rightfully and reasonably paranoid: too little Shut the FU labor. The eternal conflicting interests of the two -- whether gov/cu, he/she, them/us -- is what generates economic enterprise between competitive groups. Each is doomed to fall victim to peddlers of "this will ease your insecurity for sure, trust me," selling to both sides, betraying both sides, bragging to insiders "what clueless jerks, more born every day". The braggarts whistling in the dark at their own terrors. Call them leaders, pols, priests, journalists, scientists, wonks, seers, agony aunts, talking heads, headless tadpoles, all wise asses who are convinced they know what's what when they actually don't know S from S but are mesmerized by their latest foolhardy intellectual conceit, their copyrighted IP IPO for orchestrating a cheating win they don't deserve, doped max on auto-delusionary what were they PGProzacking. Damn, Geiger, was it you snatched my Rx?

1 0

Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Harka <harka(a)nycmetro.com> wrote: > That may indeed work for some people, but the argument of > "self-discipline and sacrifice" usually goes overboard once > people _other than yourself_ are severely affected by that. > "Sorry hun, you can't have a new winter-coat. Mommy has to save > enough money so that she can choose the people she works for. > And no...no christmas this year either". -=> Quoting In:aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk to Harka <=- In> That is indeed a sad financial state to be in. I have trouble In> believing it though. [examples of well-fares deleted] In> So if any kids are being deprived of winter clothes or In> whatever, it's not because their parents don't have enough In> money, it's because their parents are stupid, or selfish. Although my statement was deliberately somewhat exaggerated, it is not that far from reality for quite a few people I know. A real-life example: A single (divorced) mother, 4 kids (3-12 years), working full-time and making in theory $42 000/year. After taxes that comes down to $2000 cash per month. In order for her to be able to work her two youngest kids go to a day-care-center. Wham! $1000 per month (hiring a baby-sitter would amount to even more). Her apartment costs $800/month excluding utilities. That leaves $200 (+ $800 she gets in child-support) per month for _five_ people to live on (clothes, food, utilities, school-books, gas for the car, etc.etc.) One thousand dollars per month for five people!! And that in New York City! She is not entitled to any support such as free school-meals for the kids etc., because she "makes too much money" (_before_ taxes, of course!) What efforts has she made to make "herself more marketable"? She has been working ever since the age of 16, went 8 years to College (paid by herself and paying rent at the same time) and now has a Masters Degree in teaching. What has it brought her? Bill-collectors calling every day! She made a calculation and (confirming your statement) came to the conclusion, that she indeed would have _more_ money by not working at all and simply going on welfare. However, that is not a choice she wants to make. Is she to be called "stupid" and "selfish" because she's poor despite her efforts??? I don't think so. She, btw., is not the only person I know struggeling in this manner from one month into the next, barely being able to even catch up on bills. Neither does she have a free choice of employers. There is only one board of education in the City. Changing for a private school would come with (at least a temporary) pay-cut, that she obviously can't afford. Therefore: Since she isn't the only person I can think of, who is in such a position, the argument formerly known as "If 'ya don't like the company-policy [employing GAK/CAK] just leave and work for somebody else" may now be called: "Ad Acta". Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... Don't you hate it when the pessimists are right all the time? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNFJRbDltEBIEF0MBAQFAGgf+PoTI/+900uSojxfC/xKFPsEnco5fp+df Etn4uJ23l9ZB7QczEuP96JMo+5vmFXc9Tabh5nMkNCRrA3QaAwxFh2+Boc8RvzAv SBLbjeqnCkvca1EgfOO+eZKv/YcRAZ47JH/w6/g/ggSx3vyM9quFeOqGzljG21au JdjFhtcdvWP2R79ldGnjswjjuT8MntSGwfx+wiKVQtt6YcK81/OKCBFMaZ8o7JTr gzYRzv6y+622Z97rUItmdEwQtDqq8k9wtRfmV1xPloqAHJ65VcJ3HI1LoItTmase oEWPiy6NBIeyN+Nbn+aK/egOalOHev8nX/LqTPxN3TawmxnESldEsg== =u2Q5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

3 2