December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Fwd: How true this is
by John C 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

it's rare that i do this... >>Perfect Days >> >> >>The Perfect Day For HER >> >>8:15 Wakeup to hugs & kisses >>8:30 Weigh in 5lb lighter than yesterday >>8:45 Breakfast in bed, fresh squeezed orange juice & croissants >>9:15 Soothing hot bath with fragrant lilac bath oil >>10:00 Light work out at club with handsome, funny personal trainer >>10:30 Facial, manicure, shampoo & comb out >>12:00 Lunch with best friend at outdoor cafe >>12:45 Notice ex-boyfriends wife, she has gained 30lbs >>13:00 Shopping with friends, unlimited credit >>15:00 Nap >>16:00 3 dozen roses delivered by florist, card is from secret admirer >>16:15 Light work out at club, followed by gentle massage >>17:30 Pick out outfit for dinner, primp before mirror >>19:30 Candlelight dinner for two followed by dancing >>22:00 Hot shower (alone) >>22:30 Make love >>23:00 Pillow talk, light touching & cuddling >>23:15 Fall asleep in his big strong arms >> >> >>The perfect day for HIM >> >>6:00 Alarm >>6:15 Blowjob >>6:30 Massive shit, while reading sports section of paper >>7:00 Breakfast, Fillet mignon & eggs, toast & coffee >>7:30 Limo arrives >>7:45 Vodka Bloody Mary en route to airport >>8:15 Private Jet to Augusta, Georgia (en route Coffee, Cigar & Wall >>St Journal) >>9:30 Limo to Augusta National Golf Club >>9:45 Front nine holes at Augusta (2 under par) >>11:45 Lunch, 2 dozen oysters on the half shell, 3 Hienekens >>12:15 Blowjob >>12:30 Back nine holes at Augusta (4 under par) >>14:15 Limo back to airport (Vodka Martini) >>14:30 Private Jet, Augusta to Nassau, Bahamas (nap) >>15:15 Late afternoon fishing excursion with all female (topless) crew >>16:30 Land world record light tackle Marlin (1249lbs) >>17:00 Jet back home, massage & hand job en route by naked Elle >>Macpherson >>18:45 Shit, shave & shower >>19:00 Watch CNN newsflash: Clinton resigns, Hillary and Al Gore farm >>animal sex video released. >>19:30 Dinner, Lobster appetizers, Dom Perignon (1963), 20oz New York >>Steak >>21:00 Wild Turkey & Cuban cigar >>21:30 Sex with three women >>23:00 Massage & Jacuzzi >>23:45 Bed (alone) >>23:50 12 second, 4 note fart, dog leaves room >>23:55 Sleep ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:26:05 -0800 > From: Michael Motyka <mmotyka(a)lsil.com> > Subject: Re: Grounding (fwd) > Yeah I've got my old copy of Jackson. MTW too, for all the good it did > me. Maxwell's equations can be used to form a wave equation too. I only > bring up the Schroedinger equation because the solutions to simple > particle-in-a-box examples are easy to generate and easy to visualize. The problem is we're not discussing a particle in a box. We're discussing the statistical mechanical behaviour of a group of particles. Apples and oranges. One, you're scale of distance between the two is off by orders of magnitude. Secondly, you're considering an electron carrying a photon as a single wavicle, it ain't. It's a superposition of several wavicles (3 quarks and a lepton to be exact under the standard model). Thirdly, you're trying to model a group of particles as a single instance of Schroedengers Wave equation, a big no no. Fourthly, you're failing to take into account the interactions between the particles and those consequences because of mass charge, which after all is the engine that drives this model. In reference to your particle-in-a-box model, the point you seem to miss is that the scale of the box is on the order of a few Planck distances. That behaviour is grossly different than a ball 10 in. in diameter filled with a gas of electrons (and potentialy protons if it's not a vacuum) all carrying short-wavelength photons around. > DC, Yes. AC, things are happening. Where did the AC come from? We're talking about a spark gap that is only going to emit electrons *and* is run by a battery (it's your baby). Where the hell do I buy an AC battery pray tell? Where? Under your example there is no mass charge flow because ground is irrelevant. So we're left with only the gas like behaviours. Now it's clear that the individual particle paths are going to be modelled via a drunkards walk. So, where does this coherent flow come from? If there is a flow it implies, because of the behaviour of like/dislike charges, that there is a difference in charge. > To solve the diffeq's for an EM wave incident on a conducting surface > you have to make the solutions !inside! the conductor match the > solutions outside the conductor. Only if the conductor is *perfect* does > your assumption of nothing going on inside the conductor make sense. What the hell are you talking about?.... Here's what we're discussing: A generator emits electrons which carry a negative charge. These electrons each also carry a photon of some quantity. Like charges repel. When a photon strikes an atom it will be absorbed if it's wavelength matches one of the Bohr radii. This may cause one or more secondary photons to be emitted as a result. The assumption was the spark gap is in the center of the ball. Because the spark gaps emission of electrons is random the resultant cloud of particles can be modelled as a gas that is expanding from a point source. The expansion is driven by the repelling effect of the charges. This causes the the particles at time tau to, on average - remember we're talking statistical mechanics here, expand at an equal rate, in effect forming a bubble of particles coherent with tau. That rate is usualy related to k * sqrt ( s ). As the charges expand some will emit photons. Some of the atoms in the shell will emit photons. Some of each will absorb photons. At some point (tau + delta) the charge impacts the shell. This will in effect increase the charge of the shell by 1 -e. Now, by Gauss's Law, this charge in the gas will induce an opposite charge on the inside surface of the globe. Unlike charges attract. Therefore the gas of electrons are attracted to the inside surface. Now since the globe is neutral it must follow by conservation of charge that there is a negative charge equal to the charge held in the gas on the *OUTSIDE* of the ball. This is in addition to the charge that steadily builds up in the shell as the electrons accrete over time. This can be modelled with an integral of the flow rate of the current in the battery (it after all is Coulombs/s). It's not too hard (k * I). (I'm not going to go into what happens as the charge on the shell builds up as we're discussing here the applicability of wave equations as a reliable model). So what do you get? A hell of a charge that will go bang at some point when some insulation give way. See: Physics J. Orear ISBN 0-02-389460-1 pp. 304 "Electrical Induction" He uses your exact model except for the tether. It's a classic in Freshman Physics and science museums. > BTW - the skin depth for Cu at 100MHz is about 0.00026". The skin depth > is proportional to f^(-0.5). So what if the electron gives it's photon up to another which causes it to bounce around through the Cu lattice till it gets to the other side knocking an electron free (conservation of momentum) or emitting a free photon (which is what we're *REALLY* talking about reducing with TEMPEST - you could think of it as cooling the laptop at rf frequencies if you like, you could model it with a spin-glass based cellular automaton). It's called charge migration and there are also effects at high voltage which is called charge tunneling. If you examine the literature of Japanese hi-v researchers they have become adept at causing ball lightening to tunnel through insulators. It's pretty interesting. There are also quite a few cases where the inducement fails and the result is a broken ceramic plate because of the heating effects. [rest deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Hey there...................
by Kevin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Get yor own DotCom ! or transfer yours now ! FREE SETUP, FREE TRANSFERS, HOSTING INCLUDED ! Digital Global Networks =>> NO SPOOKY HIDDEN COSTS ! =>> On the net since it's birth. ALL DOMAIN HOSTING AND SETUP IS INCLUDED: ONLY $15.95/mo. Call NOW, on our toll-free registration line. It's FREE ===> 1-800-549-6542 8am-8pm est. or 407-622-2172 For ONLY $15.95/mo. You receive ALL of these services and MORE ! 1. Your own domain name www.AnyNameYouChoose.com 2. Starter 6pg website template with graphics. 3. 20 megs of quality triple DS3 (digital) webspace. 4. Total FTP access 24/7 5. POP E-mail box. 6. Unlimited e-mail addresses(a)AnyNameYouChoose.com 7.TOLL FREE! WARM BODY helpline with no hold buttons! 1-800-549-6542 8. 100megs of traffic/day! 9. Support forum with all the tools you will ever need from HTML to Perl. 10. Guaranteed 99% uptime. 11. Ongoing pledge to price freeze! 12. FREE SETUP ! NO HIDDEN COSTS ! 13. FREE TRANSFERS ! 14. One of the oldest and largest hosting and network providers in the world. Don't miss this 1-time 10-day opportunity from Digital Global Networks ! CALL NOW It's FREE====> 1-800-549-6542 or 407-622-2172 *Front page support available ! **E-commerce, secure server service available ! ***Webmaster accounts available ! *****This is the only message you will receive. Your address has been automatically deleted. CALL NOW It's FREE====> 1-800-549-6542 or 407-622-2172

1 0

ASHCROFT 2000 RIP?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:04 PM -0500 on 11/6/98, National Review DC wrote: > ASHCROFT 2000 RIP? > Gov. Mel Carnahan (D., Mo.) has announced he will challenge Sen. John > Ashcroft's (R., Mo.) re-election. It's an ominous move for the freshman > senator's presidential bid. Sen. Phil Gramm had a tougher race than > usual following his disastrous 1996 run for the presidency, and he was > running against a political nobody. Gov. Carnahan is politically > formidable, and could give Ashcroft a run for his money even without the > distractions, missed votes, and potential embarrassments of a > presidential campaign. Ashcroft now must worry about the Dornan effect. > > On the other hand, Ashcroft would be able to convert any funds raised in > a presidential campaign to his Senate race if he lost the former. But > handicappers already question how much he can raise. ----------------- 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'

1 0

verisign digital id's for outlook <shudder>
by jkthomson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A quick question for all you security-savvy people. Our IT instructor has asked the class to sign up for verisigns' 60-day trial of a class 1 digital id. pfaugh. give me a copy of PGP anyday! at least I can (easily) take my keys with me! I also understand that a well (poorly?) written activeX applet can grab my key basically without my knowledge (to speak nothing of the other myriad holes in win98/95) My question is, where the hell is the private key kept on the users box? How is it protected against attack? I had to voice my displeasure with the instructor that I could not take the ID with me on a floppy so that the night class would not have potential access, but got the usual 'it is secure enough, let it be' attitude. Thanks in advance for any information! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:354111 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "You shouldn't overestimate the IQ of crooks." - Stuart Baker, of NSA explaining why crooks and terrorists who are smart enough to use data encryption would be stupid enough to choose DES =======================================================================

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> >Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd) > >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) > >> 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. I would add the clause illegal goods (apparently) legally. This covers the case where stolen property is moved through legitimate channels. Even if the government doesn't restrict and legitimize the channels there must be restrictions on theft and inappropriate acquisition (fraud) of goods (and services) otherwise the result is not free-market, but rather barbarism and brute force rule. Under the "free-for-all" definition of free market, the final result would actually be slavery (since you wouldn't produce the items that I keep stealing from you unless I hold a gun to your head), and war (in order to get resources I can pay or I can steal, since I don't like to pay, I'll just get a bigger army and steal it from you). Sounds drastic? There are a few examples today in the parts of Africa controlled by warlords. > >> 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. > Nothing is EVER black and white. And free-market can never be 100% free or it will cease to be a market. APF

1 0

RE: Quick, Dear -- Beat Me
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: "Lynne L. Harrison" <lharrison(a)dueprocess.com> >Subject: RE: Quick, Dear -- Beat Me >At 10:47 AM 11/5/98 -0500, Petro wrote: >>At 12:08 AM -0500 11/5/98, Blanc wrote: >>>From Duncan Frissell: >>> >>>I just went to the bank I do business with this week to open a new account. >>>They wanted my social security number, (which they actually already have on >>>record), and during a search on her handy database, the Customer Assistance >>>clerk informed me that there was another person in Florida using the same >>>number. Long list of problems which could result from someone using your SSN snipped... >All in all, you should seriously reconsider your decision of not reporting >the problem. > > So much for the SSN "never" becoming a national ID number! Since your SS account and pension can be negatively impacted, this tends to reinforce the idea that your SSN should be a secret. But how can we keep it a secret if they keep putting it on public documents such as drivers licenses? Seems to me that when they are all done making the SSN the official National ID number they will need to give us a NEW SSN that is secret, kind of like a PIN to unlock and validate our National ID and SS accounts. ...and latter a PIN to protect the PIN... APF

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 01:33:18 -0500 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd) > No government can protect individual rights. That isn't a reasonable statement. There is nothing in the definition or application of 'government' or 'individual rights' that preclude this. The issue becomes in a practical sense how the practitioners of a government system respect individual rights. If they are willing to do away with them to protect them (as we seem to be moving toward in this country) then of course there are no individual rights. Of course, this implies there are no collective rights either. > The only way one could do > so would be if it: (a) could predict the future, and act to prevent > certain futures from happening; or (b) it controls every aspect and > motion of each individual's life, thereby ensuring that nobody steps out > of line. What has that to do with protecting individual rights? Clarify please. > All any state can do is threaten to "retaliate" against (why not just > say "attack") people who disobey its edicts. In order for this threat > to be credible, the state must wield sufficient power to kill any > individual (or group of individuals) who would stand against it. If it > does not have this power, it cannot govern. This is a quaint and completely artificial distinction. > citizens. As often seems the case today, for example. We also see quite a few situations where the opposite occurs as well. > The system you suggest, which I assume consists of a state with a > "minimal" amount of power, run by enlightened people, is in a state of Anyone who assumes noble oblige is an idiot. There are no enlightened people, intelligence and wealth no more prepare an individual for a position in government than they prepare them for anything else. Rich/intelligent people don't make less mistakes than those who aren't. > extremely unstable equilibrium (if it is indeed in equilibrium). If it If you're talking of Hayek's equilibrium, it's nothing more than a bastardization of a thermodynamics term to represent the status quo. Equilabrium in the economic sense simply means that people do today what they did yesterday. In general they do about as often as they don't. > wields just enough power to enforce its will, that power can be used by > evil men to increase its power. Evil? Where did religion come into this at? > Just look at what happened after the Constitutional coup took place in > the fledgling USA. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? When we lost the > Articles of Confederation, we were taking the first steps down the road > to the tyranny of today. The anti-federalists predicted this, although > they sorely underestimated how far it would go --assuming that it would > be stopped by another revolution. There have been several since then. The Civil War and the civil rights movement in the 60's are two good examples (on the opposite end of the 'use-of-violence' scales). > The minimalist state has been tried. No, that was a non-federalist state where the individual states acted as individuals in a collective. Because of the collective nature of the state governments it didn't work. A minimalist state would be anarchy. > The only truly free system is one in which there is no body of people > calling itself a government which can enforce its will over the > individual. The only way people can seem to be free living under such a > body is entirely dependent upon the good will of their masters, and this > is a shaky assumption to make. No it isn't the only way. The only way is to clearly define the duties of each level of government and build a system of checks and balances that prohibit them from moving outside their domains. A good first attempt at this was the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (in particular 9 & 10). The problem is that there are individuals who don't want to be limited in their authority. It's a person problem not a government problem. > How about: Any action that involves the initiation of force against the > property of another person (the person belongs to himself, of course) is > immoral. Morality? Why do you keep bringing religion and individual beliefs into it? A person is, they don't belong to anyone. It should be: Any act that harms a person or their property without their prior permission is a crime. There are no exceptions other than immediate personal self defence, which terminates upon the application of minimal force to guarantee the threat will not reoccur (in many cases this means kill the attacker). This should apply to all individuals participating in a governmental role as well. > This neatly tidies up the obvious question of exactly what "individual > rights" are. There's a partial list of them in the bill of rights, but > it is not complete, by its own admission. By it's own admission they are protected from denial by the 9th and 10th so they don't need to be listed (unlike the 10th lists the duties of the government system). The problem is conservatives and liberals alike don't respect those boundaries. They want more. > Furthermore, the above > definition excludes such dubious rights as the "right to an education", > the "right to welfare", etc. Now you're doing exactly what you are complaining about. Your defining others rights when you don't want them defining yours. People may very well have a right to welfare and an education (I believe people have a civil right to medical and legal advice gratis - stems from the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness). The issue isn't that. The issue is *what are the duties of the government as defined in its charter*. If those duties are not in there (and they're not) then it shouldn't be doing it without an amendment from the charter. > All of the above involve the initiation (or threat of initiation) of > force. Hence they are immoral, and the victims and any bystanders would > be morally justified in using force against the initiators. Of course, > this would not be true in a governed society, where the state must hold > a monopoly on the use of force, if only to maintain its own position. > Much less efficient. Go read the Constitution, it's true here in our governemnt though many people don't want it to be so. As a result they find all kinds of childish and inane reasons to deny the obvious. Like it or not the federal governments panapoly of current powers are as vacous as the king is naked. It's like executive orders, unless you happen to work for the executive branch they aren't worth the paper they're written on. Why? Because at no point is the office of President given this authority over anyone other than executive branch employees. He has no more authority to dictate general behaviour via that mechanism than you or I do - zero. Per the 10th there is not one sentence in the Constitution that delegates that authority to the office. > We've all got our pet peeves. Would you like to live under mine? Would > I like to live under yours? Can I trust you to be tolerant? Can I > trust your successors, 20 years from now? Can my descendants trust > subsequent successors, 200 years later? Experience tends to show the > contrary. There is more at stake than toleration or trust. You paint with too narrow a brush. If you're saying we should have anarchy then you're as kooky as the people who don't literaly interpret the Constitution. > The anarcho-capitalist free market is not one where "everything goes," > and there is indeed a strong concept of individual rights. What is > moral and not moral is defined by society on an individual basis. The > first and only rule is: First, it is one of everything-goes because there is no mechanism that will stop anybody from doing anything. There are NO concepts of *rights* in such a system, let alone individual rights. If anything the only rights are who has the capitalist backing to stave off the anarchic forces. That's not justice, equality, or respect for rights. > No one has the right to initiate force against another or another's > property. Attack me with your body and property and watch it happen junior. > This is the fundamental and only "social contract" we make. Anyone who > disagrees with this is obviously antisocial, and nobody's going to want > to live with him (or allow him to continue living, if he attacks > someone). Oh bullshit. There is much more involved like not stealing which isn't the use of force and allowed by your anarcho-capatilism as well as your definition of valid use of force above. It's gibberish. > >From this, morality follows. If X does Y to Z, and if Y is perceived as > immoral, then X is not going to be very popular with Z or anyone else, > unless he can make amends. No one will want to trade with him, be near > him, etc. This is a very strong motive to avoid doing immoral things. Will you get religion the hell out of here please. Y is obviously popular with X or else they wouldn't have used it. It further follows that there are more than one X-type out there. So your premise falls down on its face in the dirt. > If Y is really nasty, such as the initiation of force, then X is going > to be in *deep* trouble. With who? In an anarcho-capitalist society as you paint it the optimal strategy is to allow others to reduce your competition opening up the market for you. Let's take an example. Imagine we live on a street and we notice a person going from house to house down the other side of the street. What is our optimal strategy? It isn't to call the cops (there aren't any) and it isn't to immediately kill the intruder (it isn't our property after all) since there is an opportunity to make a considerable gain here improving our status in the society as a whole. The optimal strategy is to wait and let this bozo kill our neighbors up to our house and *then* kill the intruder. At that point we have just inhereted an entire street of houses and its included properties. You put up a fence across each end of the street and wallah, your own little fifedom. If you're really lucky something similar will happen on the next street over and they won't be as lucky at killing the intruder. Then after they are all dead and the intruder has consolidated their gains (probably by fencing their street in) you can begin to scheme ways of taking that property since its obvious yours is next. > Z may well shoot him out of self defense, and > even if he survives his action, he'll have to pay a *lot* of restitution > before people will trust him again, if ever. Law enforcement by > ostracism --read L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach", for a more > detailed description. Wait a second, there is no law to enforce here outside of make money, obtain property, keep somebody else from taking it. > In summary, a free market is far from being an immoral market. In fact, > it is the most moral market there is, since there is no state which > holds the "right" to initiate force. In summary a free-market is a anarchy of kill or be killed, take or get taken. He with the most goodies wins until somebody with a better strategy comes along. There is nothing to moderate the use of force, especialy when its the optimal strategy to increase ones holdings. Your spouting gibberish. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Stip club plays by rules and wins...for now [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:34:45 -0600 > X-within-URL: http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=3130419&p_section_n…. > STRIP CLUB FINDS WAY AROUND CITY RESTRICTION: LET KIDS IN > > AP > 06-NOV-98 > > NEW YORK (AP) -- A New York City strip club has found a loophole that > allows it to wriggle past the mayor's crackdown on sex-oriented > businesses. > > The club says its policy is to admit kids -- if they're accompanied by > adults. > > Therefore, it argues, it's not an adult business. > > A judge agrees. > > Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is livid. [rest deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

A question about the new ISP ruling and email...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I was pondering the draconian implications of the requirement to register ISP's. Would an email only site be an ISP under these regulations? What I had in mind was a box sitting here on a link to the Internet and several local dial-ins. When a user logged in they could start pine, elm, slip, or ppp. It would support inbound only telnet. The only commands that would execute besides the above would be exit, quit, bye. There would not need to be any directory access or related issues. The only storage avaiable would be quotas on email buffer size. Would such a commercial entity require registry to be protected? I have to talk with a lawyer and find out if TAG needs registered. If so then I'd be interested in participating in a civil liberties suit. ____________________________________________________________________ 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