December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

legislation -- read
by bob＠tokensystems.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Fellow Webmaster: The recent events and pending legislation that have rocked the web are sure to place new restrictions on the business. We think this is a very good solution. Check it out http://209.203.80.254/exe/tpromo1.cgi?7026131 Or call us if you have any questions. Bob 818-559-3484

2 1

ISPs now responsible for Pirated Material
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Authentication-Warning: lpma.la-ma.org: majordom set sender to owner-general(a)la-ma.org using -f X-Sender: dkrick(a)pobox3.bbn.com Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 07:29:38 -0500 To: general(a)la-ma.org From: Doug Krick <dkrick(a)bbnplanet.com> Subject: ISPs now responsible for Pirated Material Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-general(a)la-ma.org Precedence: bulk http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28357,00.html?st.ne.fd.mdh Summary: IF a local ISP doesn't register with the goverment, per a new law Clinton signed this week, the ISP can be held legally responsible for any pirated material that may be on their site. Doug --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:45:29 -0800 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: TEMPEST laptops > Radio waves scatter...they don't just travel in pure line of sight. And > even if they travelled only in line of sight, the reflections from inside > the box and then into the room and then off surfaces.... It depends on the frequency. Last time I checked a laser or a maser (both are radio waves strictly speaking) travel LOS. The scattering comes from beam divergence and incidental refractions and reflections from the molecules in the air and supported detritus. > Microwave ovens work by having the waves bounce around inside a box. Any > significant hole or crack (up to roughly half the wavelength) would let the > waves out. Depends on the size of the hole and location. In most microwave ovens there are definite dead-spots (corners and the exact center of the area are notorius). > An open top box will not work. If the microwaves (for example) are transmitted parallel to the open side it might very well work just fine. It's going to depend on a variety of factors that will preclude such a blanket statement from being valid. > Unlikely to prevent someone from figuring out what the real signal is. It's > very difficult, generally, to hide a signal with another signal. Noise > won't work, because noise can be filtered or autocorrelated out. A "spoof" > signal can be corrected for. For these to work there must be a time-correlated aspect to the signal that doesn't appear in the noise. If you mask the signal with the same sort of time correlated cover (eg phase shifting) it also might work. > And we are talking about 100 dB sorts of suppression. Mere factors of a few > with fake signals and noise are meaningless on this scale. The absolute magnitude isn't really important. Most of the signals that are emitted by a computer are not in the 100dB dynamic range (@2x=3db that's a signal range of 1:33) , more likely 40-50db if that. For a TTL (5V) signal it barely covers 3dB (LOW is <2.5v and a high is >=4.75). There simply is no way in hell a signal with a 3dB range is going to emit a rf signal that is 100dB. There are other logic families with wider dynamic ranges (eg CMOS w/ 18V Vcc can be nearly 18V or approx. about 12dB). ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:34:34 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > Assuming your definition of "free market" is "a market without > regulation", you can't have a black market in a free market since a black > market is trade in violation of regulations. Actualy a black market is usualy goods gotten through theft or other illegal means, not necessarily anything related to how or what is sold. If you don't corrupt free-market to include legitimizing theft as a viable market strategy then yes, you can in fact have a black market in a free-market. Let's consider auto-theft. The issue isn't that you can't buy the car through legitimate means, it just means you have to have more resources than you have. So what do you do? You find somebody whose stolen a vehicle and is willing to sell it to you at a discount. > In other words, a Black market is when you trade either illegal > goods illegally, or legal goods illegally. Too strict and unrealistic a definition of black market. > If there are no illegal goods, and there is no regulations limiting > trading, then the black market cannot exist. Of course not since we've now legitimized theft and murder with your definition. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

FYI: Digicash bankruptcy
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: "Nahum.array" <nahum.array(a)csci.ca> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:32:51 -0500 To: ibc-forum(a)ARRAYdev.com From: Nahum Goldmann <Nahum.Goldmann(a)ARRAYdev.com> Subject: FYI: Digicash bankruptcy Mime-Version: 1.0 I believe this kind of information is invaluable. Personally, I do not subscribe to Agre's doom and gloom. For years I'm saying that there is a very little "i" and a very large "C" in iCommerce. Chaum might be many bright things but an entrepreneur he definitely ain't. But than it's quite difficult in this new paradigm for all of us. Of course, Bob Hettinga could have saved quite a lot of energy and avoid much disappointment if he did pay for that my trip to Antigua. I always believe that unpaid advice is not listened to, and here is a good prove of this concept. Have fun. I'm sure it will come. Eventually. Nahum Goldmann ARRAY Development http://www.ARRAYdev.com ======================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:36:52 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)alpha.oac.ucla.edu> To: "Red Rock Eater News Service" <rre(a)lists.gseis.ucla.edu> Subject: [RRE]Digicash bankruptcy Sender: <rre(a)lists.gseis.ucla.edu> List-Software: LetterRip Pro 3.0.2 by Fog City Software, Inc. List-Subscribe: <mailto:rre-on@lists.gseis.ucla.edu> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rre-off@lists.gseis.ucla.edu> [With the bankruptcy of Digicash, it is time to assemble the definitive list of underperforming Internet technologies. The received wisdom is that the Internet lies at the vortex of a historically unprecedented era of intensive and disruptive technological change. A sober reading of the evidence, however, supports something much closer to the opposite thesis, viz, the Internet is a modest and useful new tool that, despite itself, has given rise to an astonishingly wasteful mania whereby perfectly good capital is plowed into one ill-conceived technology after another. Consider: interactive television, VRML, Active X, network computers, "push" technology, agents, "social" interfaces, resource visualization, cryptographic payment mechanisms (aka "electronic commerce"), and others that I hope you'll remind me about. Each of these has been the object of a frenzy that has compelled all manner of smart people, and a whole lot of dumb ones such as myself, to say things like, "boy oh boy, the world is going to be completely different a year from now". This has been going on continuously since the PR hype that accompanied the run-up to the (failed) Communications Act of 1994 and then the (passed but then catastrophically failed) Communications Act of 1996. It has been fanned by Wired magazine, whose capitulation to Conde Nast has ended an era that should never have begun, and now it is marked by the bankruptcy of David Chaum's Digicash. All right-thinking people were in favor of Digicash, whose technologies were as intellectually elegant as they were socially responsible. The problem is that the Digicash people were living in the world of Alice and Bob -- a place where a mathematical proof can change the world in perfect defiance of the dynamics (if you can call them that) of large, highly integrated institutions. Like many Internet-related startups, Digicash existed only to the precise extent that the press was writing about it, and now it doesn't exist at all. So right now would be an excellent time for us to renounce the false idea that we are living in a time of unprecedented technical change. Yes, the Web has been going through a period of exponential growth. But no, that growth is not at all unprecedented, and in fact it is running behind the penetration rates that earlier technologies such as the radio and gas cooking achieved once they started being adopted on a mass scale. (See, for example, Ronald C. Tobey's scholarly and absorbing "Technology As Freedom: The New Deal and the Electrical Modernization of the American Home", Univ. of California Press, 1996.) Nor has the underlying Internet changed at all quickly. The Internet protocols that we use today are unchanged in their essentials from about 1982. In fact, once the real history of this era is written, I think that 1982 will shape up as the true annus mirabilis, and 1994 will simply be seen as the era when the innovations of ten to fifteen years earlier finally caught public attention and reached the price point that was needed to achieve the network externalities required for its large- scale adoption. If we get out the rake and drag away all of the detritus of the underperforming technologies that I listed above, and compare our times on an apples-for-apples basis with other periods of technological innovation -- including the Depression era, for heaven's sake -- then I think we will have a much healthier perspective going forward. As it is, people the world over have been propagandized into a state of panic, one that encourages them to abandon all of their experience and common sense and buy lots of computer equipment so that they will not be scorned by their children and left behind by the apocalypse that is supposedly going to arrive any day now. No such apocalypse is going to occur, and all of the TV preachers who have been announcing this apocalypse should apologize and give the people their money back. Yes, the world is going to change. Yes, information technology will participate, and is already participating, in a significant overhaul of the workings of most major social institutions. But no, those changes are not going to happen overnight. The sad line-up of underperforming technologies should be understood not as serious attempts at innovation but as a kind of ritual, an expensive and counterproductive substitute for the chants and dances that healthy societies perform when they are placed under stress. Maybe once we get some healthy rituals for contending with technological change ourselves, we will be able to snap out of our trance, cast off the ridiculous hopes and fears of an artificially induced millennium, and take up the serious work of discussing, organizing, and contesting the major choices about our institutions that lie ahead.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html or send a message to requests(a)lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:02:08 -0500 From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs(a)philodox.com>, dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu, e$(a)vmeng.com, cryptography(a)c2.net, cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net Subject: Re: DigiCash Inc. to File Reorganization, Seeks Partners to Drive eCash Forward -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Okay. Contrary to my own previous -- and painfully recent -- opinions on the matter, Digicash, Inc., is, more or less, in play again, or it will be if there is enough money chasing it. Whatever "enough" means. Putting on my Gordon Gekko hat, here, I'm interested in finding out a few things. Yes, I have seen the greater fool theory of the blind signature patent operate more than a few times, but I am, nonetheless, driven to think about this, and I might as well be public in my musing, at least for the time being. For expenses of any new company, it should be pretty clear by now what I would do with the DigiCash technology portfolio. I would put a real good intellectual property lawyer on the payroll, keep the cryptographers who would still consent to stick around, keep or improve whatever software test people they have left, and do nothing but sell licenses and implementation certifications, using the the underwiting model at <http://www.philodox.com/modelpaper.html> as a roadmap. For this imaginary company's revenue, aside from direct fees for validating a developer's, and possibly an underwriter's, implementation of the protocol, the trustee would be the only point of patent royalty collection and payment from the underwriters and developers to the new patent holder. As far as the current installed base is concerned, I would probably spin off a company to support those customers, and give it a non-exclusive license as if it were any other developer. This assumes, of course, that DigiCash BV/Inc. didn't issue exclusive-by-country licenses. While it appears on the surface that they have done exactly this, I have been met with what seems like incredulity from various DigiCash folks when I talk about it, so, for the time being, I'll take them at their word when they tell me it isn't so. Actually, when I think about it, it may be immaterial, as there are lots of countries on the internet to park underwriters and trustees in, and they can denominate their bearer cash instruments in any currency they want. One way or another, the software side of DigiCash would be gone. We figure out what the net present value is of the current licenses, and hope that a company can be formed around that cashflow and spun off into a separate software development company. If we're lucky, we make money on the spinoff and keep the patent. If we're not lucky, DigiCash will probably have to get rid of it's current obligations before *anyone* clueful would step in to pick up the patents, and just the patents, alone. Obviously, what has been spent so far building DigiCash, BV or Inc., is immaterial to any discussion of the future. Just like what happened to Chaum, et. al., when Negroponte and companies um, executed, the purchase of last version of DigiCash, we have to completely forget the all the money which has been spent on Digicash BV, now Digicash Inc., so far, and ignore the howls of the current investors, as painful as that may be to listen to. :-). They knew the job was dangerous when they took it, anyway... Okay, that's a nice story. How about some actual data? I expect the best way to get a handle of royalties is to start soliciting actual projected royalty estimates from potential developers and underwriters, but, frankly, I think that most developers and underwriters, like the rest of us, have no real idea how much money they're going to make. Nonetheless, if anyone's interested in telling me, offline, what they think they would would be fair royalty payments, either as an underwriter or as a developer, I'd like to hear their estimates. My PGP key is attached. My own rule of thumb, for cash anyway, is that an underwriter can probably charge no more than a bank charges to one of their non-customer ATM transactions. That's probably no more than $3.00 a withdrawl. They also get to keep the interest on the reserve account, if any, of course. Frankly, if the royalties are low enough, that may be more than enough revenue to bootstrap a business with, and I would personally lobby for as low a royalty structure as possible. That, of course, is driven entirely by the cost/revenue picture, but it might be that a majority of the short-term operations can be bootstrapped out of validation fees. That leaves all the other potential markets for blind-signature macroscale digital bearer settlement, everything from long-duration bandwidth purchases for IP or voice dialtone on up to actual securities transactions themselves. Most of these potential applications will occur after the patents expire, but whoever owns these patents should allow not only licenses to all comers, but, more to the point, should allow all *licensees* to worry about the legal ramafications of the patents' use. If a particular licensee can find a legal jurisdiction to offer utterly anonymous digital bearer instruments backed by totally anonymous reserves, then, as long as the licensee pays up, god bless 'em. The patents should be licensed within the law, certainly, but, other than that, their use should be considered value neutral, like all technology. As in all bearer markets before them, the digital bearer trustee will be the point of maximum legal compliance, and, as such, will be the functional "policeman" of the system. I leave the interesting solution of bearer-backed trustees for some other day, probably after the patents have long expired. Okay. There's lots more to talk about, of course, but I'm kind of tapped out on this for the time being. If you're an intellectual property lawyer, and you fancy yourself running the DigiCash patent portfolio, contact me directly. I'm not sure exactly what I can do, if anything, but I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on this, as the potential core person of this as yet imaginary enterprize, up to, and including what it would cost for you to sign on for this much fun as at least in-house counsel, if not the actual CEO. :-). In addition, if someone has a reasonable non-proprietary(!) estimate of the projected revenues on all those outstanding ecash contracts, that would be nice to know as well. The terms of those contracts, are, of course, probably unknowable at the moment, at least until someone has enough known scratch to belly up to the table, sign an NDA and take a peek. Of course, then they couldn't tell us anything anyway... Isn't this fun? Cheers, Bob Hettinga [Public keys ommitted] ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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' --------------160D55EEEBD38D036F141A24-- --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

5 5

Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** forwarded as requested ** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:04:57 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> To: Jim Burnes <jvb(a)ssds.com> Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) If you want a responce post it publicly. > > On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > I am willing to pay for fire protection. I am not willing to pay > > > for "universal health care", "welfare", and other such nonsense. > > > > The Constitution happens to mention that the federal government is detailed > > with taking care of the general welfare. If you don't like that sort of stuff > > then get a Constitutional amendment passed. > > > > Wow. He said it. This proves that Jim hasn't really read any history > since public high school. > > Actually this is the central fallacy of those that haven't bothered to > actually read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers or the > constitution, much less say how it should be amended. > > If a constitutional amendment had to have been passed it would have been > to give the federal government unlimited power to do what they believe is > in the interests of our general welfare. Madison explicitly addressed > the issue of unlimited federal power emanating from the welfare clause. > > Had the supreme court bothered to read the founder's writings on this > they would have found it in a week or two. That's assuming their > conclusion was not already decided. > > The constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of the federal > government. It is very specific. As Madison stated, if the general > welfare clause meant what the socialist engineers wished it meant, there > would have been no need to enumerate the specific powers of the federal > government. In fact, it would have been as if the founding fathers had > said: > > "The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it > feels necessary." > > "The powers of the federal government are as follows" > > (1) > (2) > (3) etc > > Which would be ridiculous on its face. > > The reality of the situation is that Roosevelt kept trying to stack the > Supreme Court. He eventually suceeded in appointing his socialist > crony judges to "reinterpret" the constitution. The first result > of this was that Social (in)Security was ruled constitutional because > it was in "the general welfare". > > This was probably the last nail in the coffin of the Republic. The first > nail was imposing huge export duties on cotton in order to limit demand > outside the country -- in effect driving down cotton prices so it could be > had cheaply by the northern industrial (clothing/textile) markets. > Southern states saw this as blatant price controls. In their inability to > change the taxes they sought to leave the union. A prime example of the > old adage -- "the power to tax is the power to destroy". In this case it > was destroying the union itself. Only after the war was on did the north > use the anti-slavery propaganda to peddle their cause. And use it to good > advantage they did. I'm glad the slaves were emancipated, but I wish > it were done with less blood and more foresight. > > Bear in mind that as a libertarian I view slavery as one of the ultimate > evils. However, the northern industrialists had no leg to stand on > because they were one of the prime beneficiaries of cheap labor and thus > cheap cotton prices during the era of westward expansion. Never mind that > only the wealthy in the south owned slaves. If that was so, why was the > opposition to the feds so virulent? > > By 1913, Jekyl Island was a done deal. The income tax and the federal > reserve banking system were unleashed. A concise discussion of this is > beyond the scope of this posting. Needless to say centralized federal > power was on the move. The system of institutionalized fiat currency was > one of the main causes of the 1929 crash that put Roosevelt in power. It > was that "government breaks your leg, government hands you a crutch, > government becomes savior" mentality that resulted in the endless cycle > of market distortions and power grabs that put us where we are now. > > Does this mean that Roosevelt was "evil". No. Just that, as one > playwrite once said, "the conflict of good against good is much more > interesting". Well-intentioned "good people" have contributed more to the > misery of the human race that any other factor alone. I'm sure that > Roosevelt felt he was doing "good" when he undid the Republic. His > crowning achievment was his stacking of the Supreme Court and the > resulting unlimited expansion of federal power. If this country survives > Y2K it will have to contend with the issue that the scope of the federal > government's power is not unlimited. Something has got to give. Y2K > seems as likely a bifurcation and surfaction point as any. > > Maybe Hettinga is right. Economics, like physics obeys the "reality is > not an option" rule. When centralized bureacracy becomes too expensive > the invisible hand will select something more efficient. > > jim > > > > > >

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:23:43 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > So leaders should be able to do whatever they want within their own > borders w/out the possibility of being held responsible for what they do to > citizens of other countries who just happen to be visiting? Absolutely. It's what is meant by indipendent nation. It's between the leaders and the citizens. > What about rule by law? What about it? I don't believe in one world governments, it's a bad idea. Within the confines of a given country there should be a rule of law, that rule should not necessarily be the same as any other country. And other countries should most definitely NOT have a say in it. Do you want Germany having a say in our laws (for example)? > That was not the point, the point was about black market goods. No, the point was about freedom of choice. > So then you admit you were lying about the deaths and blindness > being the cause of regulation, since you claimed it happend in the late > 1800's & early 1900's, but the regualtion and taxing went all the way back > to the middle ages? Taxing went on, the regulation of alcohol production didn't occur in this country until after the Civil War. Taxing alcohol is a whole different issue than regulating the quality and methods of production, and is most certainly not equivalent to regulations on where it might be sold and under what conditions. > It prevents businesses from using the Press to manipulate the > government into doing something about a problem that doesn't exist. No it doesn't. The press is a business, and if you don't think they don't try to manipulate more than the government you're in for a surprise. There are cases of the press being manipulated because of the impact of certain story presentation lines on their income. > >whistle-blowers and 'social do-gooders' to get their message out (unless > >they're well heeled and don't mind loosing it all in the process). > > That is already/still the case. You piss off the wrong people, you > die. Actualy not, there are a variety of whistle-blower laws on the book at every level. Also the number of whistle-blowers who are killed currently are pretty small (name 3). A lot of them loose the jobs they blew the whistle on but that is many cases is to be expected (after all if the issue is important enough the business will cease to exist). > >put any sort of limit on its expression. > > It INHERENTLY recognizes it, and inherently limits it. No it doesn't, it does not in any way prevent abuse and further provides no mechanism for the restitution or correction of that abuse. > No one has the power. > > THAT'S THE POINT. No, the point is that whoever is the most ruthless will get ahead. If you don't think that is power then you should sit and think. > Some agendas can't be pushed thru business, or at least not the > same way. Such as? Greed and profit always can be pushed through business, it's what they do. > If I got them legally, they were a legal commodity, if I dispose of > them legally, they move from the "white" market, to the "black" market. Which requires that yot mislead the doctor as to why you want them. > The fact that not everything on the black market was stolen ISN'T > the point, the point is that there can be things on the black market that > aren't stolen, and aren't inherently illegal (tomatoes, vicadan, alcohol) > but are still part of the black market because of the nature of the market > and the legal system. Why would anyone buy a commenly available item on the black market when they could go to the corner store and purchase it? They won't. People who are involved in the black market are there for profit. If they go down to the store and buy say tomatoes at $2/lb. whey would they sell them to you at $1.75/lb? They wouldn't. The alcohol and cigarettes you buy on the black market lack tax stamps are have bogus stamps. Why? Becuase the cost is much lower without the added tax and legitimate distribution expenses. > FUCKING BULLSHIT. YOu JUST brought introduced your thesis that even > if most stuff isn't actually stolen, then it is bought with money gained by > theft in your last post on this issue. Before that you were maintaining > that everything on the black market had to be stolen, and in fact this No, go back - I never said that. I have continously said that the majority of items on the black market are related to a stolen service or product. I stand by that statement. I'd go on but it's been a long day and I'm in no mood for this petty bickering. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:59:11 -0500 (EST) > From: Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> > Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] > Why would this be "unconstitutional?" Juries are to be composed of your peers taken from the community in which the crime occurred. A single judge doesn't make a jury of ones peers. > Are you at all familiar with the case? There seems to be a fair amount of > evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that would indicate a certain > politically and financially powerful family used its influence to keep > the two prime suspects in the case from coming to trial for over 20 > years. Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have been abused. One wrong does not justify another. > One judge is better than nothing. OTOH, maybe a football, a few pine > trees, and some vertical slope would do justice. Actualy 10 guilty men walking free is better than one innocent man in jail, or a justice system that gets abused. > (Or do you think there should be a statute of limitations involved?) Irrelevant. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

ANNOUNCE: SATURDAY Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting - Stanford University
by Hugh Daniel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The November Cypherpunks Meeting will be Saturday 11/14 from 1-5pm at Stanford, at the tables outside Tresidder Union, near the bookstore. The tables are on the west side, which is the inside of the U-shape. Coffee and food are available in the building. If the weather is uncooperative, we will also be inside the building. Lucky Green will be talking about his latest work. Hugh Daniel will update us on the new alpha of Linux FreeS/WAN. Bagels and Bagel Parephrenalia will be provided. Directions to Stanford Tresidder Hall Stanford is between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Blvd, which are between 101 and 280. The Tresidder Parking Lot is on Mayfield Ave, off Campus Drive East. http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/search_map.html?keyword=&ACADEMIC=Tresidde… http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/stanford_zoom_map.html?234,312 The upside-down map of Stanford&Vicinity is at http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/vicinity.html Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

update.401 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:30:13 -0500 (EST) > From: physnews(a)aip.org (AIP listserver) > Subject: update.401 > INFLUENCE OF COSMIC RAYS ON EARTH'S CLIMATE. Do > SUREFIRE QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT, the ability to > interlink two quantum particles with practically 100% certainty, has > been achieved by a NIST group (Quentin Turchette, 303-497-3328), > advancing hopes for ultrapowerful quantum computers. Previously, > physicists obtained entangled particles as a byproduct of some > random or probabilistic process, such as the production of two > correlated photons that occasionally occurs when a single photon > passes through a special crystal. Receiving entangled pairs in this > way is fine for tests of quantum nonlocality (Update 399), but > entangling a large number of quantum particles--essential for > building a practical quantum computer--becomes much less likely if > it is dependent on a probabilistic process. In their "deterministic > entanglement" process, the NIST researchers trap a pair of > beryllium ions in a magnetic field. Using a predetermined sequence > of laser pulses, they entangle one ion's internal spin to its external > motion, and then entangle the motion to the spin of the other atom. > The group believes that it will be able to entangle multiple ions with > this process. (Turchette et al, Physical Review Letters, 26 October > 1998.) > THE PETAWATT is the name for what is currently the world's ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0