December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Govt. employees get pay raise... [CNN] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From ravage(a)ssz.com Tue Dec 30 11:21:57 1997 From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> Message-Id: <199712301721.LAA06351(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Govt. employees get pay raise... [CNN] To: users(a)ssz.com (SSZ User Mail List) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 11:21:54 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2003 Forwarded message: > Federal Workers Ring In New Year With Pay Raise > > [INLINE] > > WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Dec. 30 -- Government workers will enjoy on > average a 2.8 percent increase in their pay checks starting New Year's > day as President Bill Clinton Monday issued an executive order > authorizing the federal pay raise. > > The order grants members of the military a straight 2.8 percent raise. > > > Civilian employees get 2.3 percent, plus a "locality" adjustment that > varies depending on geographic location. White House spokesman Joe > Lockhart said this adjustment averages at 0.5 percent. > > The vice president, federal judges and members of Congress will also > get a 2.3 percent increase in salary, but with no adjustment. [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

IBM breaks disk-drive bottlenecks... [CNN] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From ravage(a)ssz.com Tue Dec 30 11:20:36 1997 From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> Message-Id: <199712301720.LAA06321(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: IBM breaks disk-drive bottlenecks... [CNN] To: users(a)ssz.com (SSZ User Mail List) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 11:20:35 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1988 Forwarded message: > New technology stores 11.6 billion bits of data on one square inch of > disk > > December 30, 1997: 10:49 a.m. ET > > More related sites... NEW YORK (CNNfn) - IBM announced Tuesday that it > has broken a major barrier in magnetic disk-drive storage density > which could eventually lead to ultra-thin computers. > [INLINE] New developments from the computer company will allow 11.6 > billion bits of data per square inch to be stored on a disk drive, > enabling more information to be stored in the same amount of space. > [INLINE] The new technology will first appear in products in the year > 2001. It will be used initially in 2.5 inch, non-removable disk > drives, which are mainly featured in portable computers. [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ | | | 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 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

RE: Word Processors and GUIs
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The real boom in productivity has to do with users not having to memorize >various command sequences for various programs. This is why I started using Windows 3.0 along with the MKS Toolkit Shell back when. Sometimes a CLI interface is the right tool -- sometimes a GUI is the right tool. It especially seems the case that graphical activities (like word processing (vs. text editing)) gain much from a GUI interface. I also have several CLI utilities for manipulating GUI objects (believe it or not, you can't tell Exchange Mail Client to use '>' (or any other) as the reply character). Nowadays, I run NT 4.0 with an MKS Toolkit Korn Shell loaded at startup as one of my apps. (Microsoft missed a chance when they didn't license MKS Toolkit for NT 4.0 and Windows 95.) >The effect of this all is profound. It means that a manager or secretary or >whatever doesn't need to write down a bunch of funny commands for Wordstar, >or Emacs, or Autocad...he or she can "muddle through" just by going to the >"File" menu item to open files, save them, make copies, etc. Or to the >"Edit" menu item to make changes, cut and paste, alter fonts, whatever. The "ctrl-alt-meta-cokebottle" syndrome was a major pain, one I was glad to separate myself from. >(I started out on a Data General Nova, got a Proc Tech Sol as my first PC, >[...] (I started on Purdue MACE (a CDC 6000 Kronos derivative) with punched cards, quickly graduated to Purdue MESA TTY access to MACE, then was one of the first Unix users at Purdue around 1978. I've created programs for MACE, Unix, CP/M, MS-DOS, WicatOS, Windows 3.1/95/NT, VAX/VMS, and Data General AOS.) >I started typing all my own technical papers into my own IBM PC back in '83 >[...] I started typing my own papers on Unix Version 6 in 1979, using NROFF. Probably why I like styles in Word so much... >>I would take a good multi-threaded, multi-tasking, text mode system over >>the drivile that keeps comming out of Redmond, WA. anyday. Although Windows NT 4.0 is around the quality of Unix circa 1981 or so, that still makes it much superior to any other Microsoft OS. With the MKS Toolkit implementation of the Korn Shell + other Unix utilities, and a recent version of Perl (5.004 or later), I don't feel like I'm underpowered on NT 4.0 relative to when I work on a Sun under Solaris 2.5. >Good writing comes from good writers, not from word processing programs. >Those who can't put a decent argument together will not find solace in some >"good multi-threaded, multi-tasking, text mode system." How true. Although the quality of Windows NT 4.0 is not up to what I get under Solaris or HP-UX, I can use my machine as a light-duty production server as well as a workstation. It is good enough for me to be able to concentrate on the hard work of creating quality prose and programs. ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm(a)indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "Their walls are built of cannon balls, their motto is 'Don't Tread on Me'"

1 0

FREE $600 Worth of Software !!!
by hoket＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"FREE" $600 Worth of SOFTWARE "EXPLODES YOUR BUSINESS" Hello, You don't want to trash this one! I "WILL" give you absolutely "Free" Software that sells for $600. I WILL NOT ASK FOR ANY MONEY at Any Time. The $200 "CHECKER" software program allows you to accept checks by fax, email, or telephone. If you have ever wanted or presently have an internet business.......this is a MUST! BONUS!! Now I also provide you with a "well known" software program that will easily enable you to obtain contact information on potential customers right from the internet. Similar software sells for $400+. You will be able to obtain these sales leads by the thousands while you are "online". Will your business "EXPLODE"? You bet it will! IT HAS TO !!!! You will become a part of a DOWNLINE THAT HAS THIS CAPABLITY! Along with these software programs, I provide you with a "GREAT", "FREE BUSINESS", that you can promote on the internet and off. Additional BONUS - you will receive one of the cheapest long distance rates available today!! NO Sign-up Fees! NO Hidden Costs! For quick and FREE details, just send an email with CHECKER in the subject line to: <mailto:morkim@hotmail.com> and you will receive information about this exciting opportunity right away! I look forward to your response. You may email me at: morkim(a)hotmail.com for an immediate response for more info. Thanks,

1 0

RE: Anonymous IRC (was "Cypherpunks IRC Christmas Eve Party")
by wayne clerke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tuesday, December 30, 1997 7:56 AM, Mark Hedges [SMTP:hedges@rigel.cyberpass.net] wrote: > > > We found IRC users to be so involved in petty information wars -- > ping floods, malicious prank hacking, and the like -- that we directed > policy against use of IRC from the anonymous shell accounts at CyberPass. > > If IRC users weren't so easily lulled by the tempation to crash a server > or run malicious bots or just plain irritate other people for fun, and > if they would gang up and kick out people who did that, then perhaps we'd > switch that back on. > > They were just too much overhead. Everyone else seems pretty nice, really, > as far as the system goes. They're all self-interested in keeping the > anonymous publishing and so on going, so the peace keeps itself. What's the reason behind the policy direction against the use of personal web proxies running in a (paid for) shell account? Seems like less risk than you already accept anyway. Something I've missed? > > Mark Hedges > Infonex and Anonymizer > > Mail: <a href= mailto:wclerke@emirates.net.ae >Wayne Clerke</a> PGP key id: AEB2546D F/P: D663D11EDA19D74F5032DC7EE001B702 PGP key id: 57AA1C10 F/P: 9926BF8918B7EB3623A7 AFA46572C5B857AA1C10 PGP mail welcome. Voice: +971 506 43 4853 If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.

1 0

IPO Alert: King Pharmaceutical available through Wit Capital
by ian＠witcapital.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wit Capital Corporation is pleased to announce that we are able to provide participation in the following public offering as described below: Issuer: King Pharmaceutical, an integrated pharmaceutical company that manufactures, markets and sells branded and generic prescription pharmaceutical products. Security: Common Stock Expected Size of Offering: 8,919,000 shares Expected Price Range: $16.50 to $19.50 per share Lead Underwriters: LEHMAN BROTHERS If you think you may be interested in this Public Offering available through Wit Capital, please visit http://www.witcapital.com or call (888) 4-WIT-CAP. You can view, print or download the Preliminary Prospectus from the New Issues section of our web site. To purchase shares, you must first open an account, which you can do online. Investing in public offerings is speculative, involves a high degree of risk and may not be appropriate for every investor. As with all of your investments with Wit Capital, you must make your own determination of whether an investment in this offering is consistent with your investment objectives and risk tolerance. To learn more about the risks of investing in public offerings please visit the New Issues section of our web site. A REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATING TO THESE SECURITIES HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION BUT HAS NOT YET BECOME EFFECTIVE. THESE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD NOR MAY OFFERS TO BUY BE ACCEPTED PRIOR TO THE TIME THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT BECOMES EFFECTIVE. THIS COMMUNICATION SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER TO SELL OR THE SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY, NOR SHALL THERE BE ANY SALE OF THESE SECURITIES IN ANY JURISDICTION IN WHICH SUCH OFFER, SOLICITATION OR SALE WOULD BE UNLAWFUL PRIOR TO REGISTRATION OR QUALIFICATION UNDER THE SECURITIES LAWS OF SUCH JURISDICTION. NO OFFER TO BUY THE SECURITIES CAN BE ACCEPTED AND NO PART OF THE PURCHASE PRICE CAN BE RECEIVED UNTIL THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT BECOMES EFFECTIVE, AND ANY SUCH OFFER MAY BE WITHDRAWN AND REVOKED WITHOUT OBLIGATION OR COMMITMENT OF ANY KIND, AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO NOTICE OF ITS ACCEPTANCE GIVEN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE. AN INDICATION OF INTEREST IN RESPONSE TO THIS RESPONSE TO THIS ADVERTISEMENT WILL INVOLVE NO OBLIGATION OR COMMITMENT OF ANY KIND. A broker dealer or its agent may only transact business in a state after licensure or satisfying qualification requirements of that state. If you reside in a particular state that Wit Capital is not registered in as a broker dealer or has registered agents in, this message is not directed to you. Wit Capital will not open a brokerage account or sell securities to you until such time registration requirements in your home state are fulfilled. Thank you. Wit Capital Corporation Member NASD/SIPC

1 0

Why use open crypto/commerce source?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Will Price of PGP writes one of the best-organized arguments for open cryptography source code -- and I would extend that to digital commerce code as well -- that I've seen in a while. While I wonder if this may be written more for Will's new colleagues at Network Associates than anywhere else :-), I would reccommend that anyone who asks you "How can you sell open source?" get a copy of this. Excellent, Will. Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text X-Sender: wprice(a)205.180.136.16 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:01:03 -0800 To: ietf-tls(a)consensus.com, ietf-open-pgp(a)imc.org From: Will Price <wprice(a)pgp.com> Subject: Re: Proposed Extensions to TLS for OpenPGP Sender: owner-ietf-open-pgp(a)imc.org Precedence: bulk Rather than quoting the messages on this topic, I'll just reference the other messages on the topic of export algorithms and issues which originated from my exclusion of export algorithms from the TLS/OpenPGP Spec. The debate over exactly what one can export legally usually proceeds under seriously false assumptions in my opinion. It generally starts with what bit level algorithm can be exported, proceeds to discussions about hooks whether general or crypto specific, usually has some mention of MS-CAPI until people realize that the modules have to be signed, those with legal knowledge try to jump in and help, and ends up with people being somewhat confused and feeling fairly helpless leading to less crypto software being written -- exactly the result the US government intended. Not directed at anyone in particular, but let's get back to basics people. There's no sense whatsoever in putting "export" algorithms into a product. It isn't encryption. The time is truly upon us when export algorithms are crackable in near real time by normal people. You might as well include a decoder ring with your product, it will take just as long or longer to decrypt for a casual attacker. At Pretty Good Privacy, we developed a reliable system which will be continued by Network Associates. The outline: write source code for product, print source code in book, distribute book using normal means. Now the process becomes somewhat foggier. In any case, printed source code for product gets exported -- note that this is of course legal. Individuals outside the US scan source code. A legally exported binary version of the product then becomes available internationally. Copyrights, trademarks, and licenses protect the original vendor and revenue can be made off the exported product. This is only one highly functional system for getting this done. One other alternative is to base all R&D outside the US which is infeasible for most US companies -- but Sun did it with SKIP. Finally, the crypto hooks mechanism does work and Commerce does in fact approve APIs that are intended for crypto but have been generalized for other uses, Qualcomm's EMSAPI used in Eudora is a perfect example of this. I can hear the first cry that some people will have now: are you crazy, we can't publish our source code! My response: well then what are you doing in the security business? This sector isn't about proprietary algorithms and code. It is not feasible to achieve secure software without public peer review by many cryptographers. We have seen time and time again how the smallest security bugs have turned into major international crises for some of the larger companies doing this. One can only imagine how many more such issues are left to be found were a quality cryptographic public peer review to take place on such products with access to source code. The majority of users reading the New York Times have no clue what a particular security flaw is about. They just know that the NYT says that product is insecure. Such stories reduce user faith in everybody's security products. The only solution is public code review. Now I can hear not only the cries about publishing source code, but the feathers of some readers getting ruffled believing that I have implied security flaws in their wonderful products. Not at all. I have the utmost respect for any company that makes an attempt to write crypto software in the US. We're all under these silly laws together. I use some of the products which have had reported security flaws in the past, but those products would be that much more valuable if one was able to trust their security from 3rd party review and if their protocol infrastructures had not been infected by 40 bit scrambling algorithms. Some companies will undoubtedly never bring themselves to implementing one of the above systems and will thus be relegated to snake oil security internationally until the laws in the US change. However, there *are* good and reliable ways for even the largest companies to solve this problem legally. Inclusion of "export" algorithms is, IMHO, security suicide. What has happened in many cases is that the installed base of, for instance, S/MIME and SSL users has been so infected by 40 bit clients that the vast majority really have no idea that the security they are using is completely useless. It forces those few with secure clients corresponding with those using 40 bit clients to also use 40 bit and so on -- generally without any warning to either user that their security has been eliminated. Some companies like Wells Fargo have tried to take a stand and require 128 bit crypto SSL and they get major flack from users who don't understand what is wrong with their 40 bit browser. Caving in and using 40 bit algorithms is *not* a solution to anything. We all know this, but the speed of business can make that choice less clear. The argument that "we have to sell it, so we have to include 40 bit" just doesn't wash given that there are all sorts of creative legal alternatives. The bigger the company, the more resources that company has to enable the alternatives -- which is why it is so odd that the smaller companies often produce the more secure software. Mass producing a source code book of >7000 pages for the PGP products isn't something a one person operation would be doing, but is trivial for a normal company. Let's not infect our protocols with such politics. TLS 1.0 is a done deal as far as I'm concerned. SSL3 had export algorithms, so TLS1 does too, fine. There are now many better solutions to the export problem, let's not fall into the trap of using the easiest way out in new specifications. -Will Will Price, Architect Network Associates, Inc. Direct (650)596-1956 Main (650)572-0430 Fax (650)631-1033 Cell/VM (650)533-0399 <pgpfone://clotho.pgp.com> PGPkey: <http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCF73EC4C> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

win 95 pwl crack
by Raico Rosenbeg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

i have tried to crack the win 95 pwl for ages but to no avail, i have used glide but it spews out lots of data on the screen. Please could you send the programme that you made. thanx in advance raico.

1 0

ACM
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone with a fast network link want to suck down as many documents from acm.org as possible and stick them on an Eternity server before they close their free trial? :)

1 0

info
by stefan d. wolf 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0