December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Grounding (fwd)
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems so pointless to correct Choate. The guy is almost totally impervious to enlightenment. But a couple of whoppers have to be pointed out... > 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). Electrons don't "carry" photons. An atom can absorb a photon, raising an electron to a higher energy level, but the photon is then gone. And a single moving electron certainly doesn't carry a photon. Photons move at the speed of light, always. Quarks are constituents only of baryons. There are no quarks in electrons or photons. Choate's bizarre description of a "spark gap" inside a conductive globe culminates with this: > 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. The net charge within the sphere will not change. If the box in the middle with the "spark gap" is spraying out electrons, this can only mean that the box is itself becoming positively charged. The sphere sees a constant charge within itself; at best, the charge can be redistributed. There are no net changes of charge within the sphere and so there will be no changes in any charge appearing on the outside of the sphere. Choate's whole model of how a spark gap transmitter works, and why it emits electromagnetic radiation, is so bizarre that it is hard to believe. Someone else can bang their head against the brick wall of his ignorance on that topic. Choate is, by far, the worst poster on the cypherpunks list today. He posts off-topic material, he is argumentative, and 90% of the time, he is simply wrong.

1 0

Milton Friedmann get's pied....
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems the Mayor of San Fran and Milton have something in commen.... ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ps I didn't forward anything from this so that nobody'd get upset they missed their meal-train.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 00:18:26 -0500 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd) > You missed my point. What I'm trying to point out is that no government > (or any other body, for that matter) can prevent someone from doing > something. Of that we agree. Which is why I will continue to believe the issues we deal with are not government problems but people problems. > All the state can do (and does, if you look closely) is > offer to punish anyone who disobeys it. It doesn't matter whether that > state is protecting individual rights or not --it can only punish, not > prevent. Well to be even more exact, they offer a guarantee of retribution if they can catch or prove somebody broke a law. Of course we could posit a government that pairs everyone up in groups of two (a perpetual no-lone zone), the ultimate police state. > I'm explaining why it is impossible for the state to protect individual > rights. I suspect we're playing word games here with 'protect'. I am not refering to what my neighbor does to me when he gets pissed off that my stereo is too loud. That obviously the government (local, state, or federal) can do nothing about a priori. Where the governemnt (at all levels) *CAN* in fact protect individual rights is the way they create the laws they enforce on all citizens (eg tax laws or dope-smoking laws). Those most certainly can be crafted to prevent abuse of civil liberties. Our own Constitution is a perfect example. The problem is the *people* who we elect believe they are above it and instead of asking "Do the laws we pass conform to the letter and intent of the Constitution?" instead state "It's a flexible document that is hard to interpet because of wording and changes in society". They want an out to not have to play by the rules. Nothing more and nothing less. > I offer two mechanisms by which the state *could* _protect_ > individual rights, and then point out why they are impossible. It is > something of a strawman argument, but if you disagree, I'm willing to > tear down any mechanism you might propose. :) See above. It isn't the rules that matter, it's the respect the arbiters of the rules have *for* the rules that matter. With that clearly in mind *any* mechanism is doomed to fail from the beginning. > > > 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. > > Is it really? Then could you please explain to me exactly why I would > have to pay taxes (or otherwise make submission) to a state which did > *not* have the power to kill me? So you wouldn't have to stand there and watch your house burn to the slab. So you would have help finding the perpetrator who raped your daughter last night. So when you drive down the street it isn't a whole filled muddy tract through a economicaly impoverished wasteland. So when you write a check you know there is something behind it that is trustworthy. So when you have that wrech late some rainy night there is an ambulance and a hospital to take you to. As to your (and others) particular focus on taxes, all it would take to resolve that issue is a single law: No citizen may have their home, personal property, or their liberty infringed or removed because of tardy taxes. Of course I'd add a section in there that would direct the tax accessor of the appropriate local to send a note to all relevant services to refuse to provide services to you. I'd even them impound vehicles that were operated on public streets without the appropriate licenses. Don't want to let your house burn down, fine. Let the fucker burn to the slab. Your daughter gets raped, fine. You figure out who did it on your own. Don't want to pay vehicle and related taxes, fine don't drive your vehicle on public streets. Just face it. It isn't the threat of violence that pisses you off. It's that you have social responsibilities to those around you. Taxes represent a responsibility that you don't want and to hell with the consequences. > this in a physical sense, not a legal one-- then what is to stop me or > anyone else from telling it to fuck off? Such a state cannot govern > those who do not wish to be governed, and so would not be a government. No state can govern those who don't wish to be governed, violence or no. [I've deleted a great gob of this since it's the same just rehashed in different sentences.] And to answer a specific question, I'm familiar with Dawkins work. > When two bears approach the same berry bush, they do not immediately > start fighting over it. What time of year is it? If we're talking in the spring when they're just out of hibernation they will begin to attack immediately. If it is two males in rut in the fall they will attack immediately. If you examine the way Alaskan Browns share the Salmon runs in the spring you will find ample evidence why Dawkins example isn't worth the paper it's writ on. > Instead, they each stick to one side of the > bush, and do not disturb one another. Malarcky. I'm familiar with the way bears and other mammals work and this is gibberish. Unless the bears are related one of them will be finding another bush pronto. > pretty good at attacking things. It would be pretty easy for a > exceptional bear to break this rule, and become dominant over the other > bears, if what you say is true. Except your forgetting the nature of bears. Except in heat bears are solitary animals. They don't like groups and avoid them. They defend their territory to whatever level of force is required. In most cases (Alaskan Brown are a well studied example you can find tons of literature on) they will not even approach each other closer than several hundred feet. So the question of them sharing a berry bush is a contrived example that is irrelevant and doesn't occur in nature outside of family groups that are transient and only last 1-2 years depending on the type of bear and the food supply. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

6 5

Re: verisign digital id's for outlook <shudder>
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 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. > >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? It's protected by Microsoft asserting that it's protected. There's also some sort of attempt at encryption (easily broken, see http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/breakms.txt) but in any case there are enough security holes there that anything which manages to run on your system (ActiveX, as you've mentioned) can grab your keys without a lot of trouble. Peter.

1 0

Re: Response to Anonymous re: Zero-Knowledge Freedom
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous, [..] : >FREEDOM servers in their home country (example: if terrible laws are : >passed like in the Netherlands requiring logging and storage of all : >packet info., etc.). In this manner, a local user in a restrictive I'm not aware of any law that requires "logging and storage of all packet info". (I presume you mean 'Wet Computercriminaliteit II' ?) There is a part that makes ISP liable if they cannot point to a 'user' but the law explicitly states that you have to be in the business of being an ISP, running a remailer is not my business, it is a 'not for profit' hobby, so it will be fun to see how "they" will 'manouvre' to bring that also under the law ... Anyways could you please sent me the relevant parts of this law that lead you think this way ? bEST Regards, -- Alex de Joode | International CryptoRunners | http://www.replay.com 'A little paranoia can lengthen your life'

1 0

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED TUE NOV 10 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + FAST LOADING XXX HARDCORE + WHITE CHOCOLATE + BLOW BABY BLOW + NYMPHO9 + ASIAN SLUTS + SAVING RYAN'S PRIVATES + PLAYSX + BLONDES WITH BIG TITS + BITCHES IN HEAT + MIDNIGHT PASSION + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/13204.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/18769.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/10668.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/19144.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/24117.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED MON NOV 9 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + LESBIAN FRIENDS + TECHNOPORN + SOUTHERN BELLE BLOWJOBS + HOT PICS II + NAKED 4 U + ORGASM 4 ALL + JACK IN THE BOX PORNO + SAVING RYAN'S PRIVATES + STIFF ONE EYE + CHAPO'S SEX PAGES + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/20001.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/3051.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/15393.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/16985.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/24093.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

Re: IP: Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 00:35:04 -0500 > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: Re: IP: Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers > Seems to me that it would have been just as easy for "believer" to send the > URL to the story as the whole thing. Same with ol'VZ. > > Not only is it in poor taste, but it means less people will read the > article on wired.com, which is what pays the rent. True, but since when is freedom of speech, association, and press related to wired (or you) making a profit? I feel zero social responsibility to tell people to go there and read it when I can send a snippet of it to them directly and save them the time, effort, and bandwidth. I personaly absolutely *HATE* to recieve a piece of email that contains nothing but a URL, it's worthless - lacks all context. Don't like folks sending partial or whole articles to foster discussion, learn to love it or live with it. ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ah, what the hell. It's a good day to practice the golden rule. Forwarded message: > Date: 8 Nov 1998 04:40:03 -0000 > From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> > > It seems so pointless to correct Choate. The guy is almost totally > impervious to enlightenment. But a couple of whoppers have to be > pointed out... Speakin of pointless anonymous know-it-all bullshit .... > Electrons don't "carry" photons. Actualy they carry the probability wave for the photon (which technicaly could be anywhere in the universe at any given time because of space contraction caused by relativistic effects), but for this particular discussion which concerns ionized or non-correlated electrons carrying a unit charge and Joules of energy (which is where the photon comes in you anonymous fucking ignoramus) saying the electron is carrying a photon is sufficient. > An atom can absorb a photon, raising > an electron to a higher energy level, but the photon is then gone. Well actualy to be absolutely exact the photon is locked between the protons and the electron. It is *NEVER* gone or destroyed. You can't destroy energy, only transform it's form. The photon is *NEVER* absorbed by anything. Now exactly how is the 'higher energy' level expressed? By a *PHOTON* of shorter wavelength (E=hv) you know-nothing smart-ass anonymous dick-muncher. > a single moving electron certainly doesn't carry a photon. Photons move > at the speed of light, always. Only when they are not correlated to a particle such as a proton or an electron. When an electron or a proton carry a packet of energy (measured in Joules) it most certainly carries a photon. Let's look at the electrical characteristic called voltage (you probably haven't heard of this since the rest of your pseudo-science is as full of bullshit as your mouth) which is measured in Joules/Coulomb. Now a Coulomb of electrons moving past a given point in a unit second is an Amp of current. Want to explain how those electrons manage to carry those Joules of photons if their isn't a correlation? I didn't think you did you anonymous lying sack of horse sperm. Since photons *ARE* light (you fucking anonymous ninny) your last point is irrelevant and redundant. Of course they ALWAYS travel at the speed of light, it's how we define light in the first place. > Quarks are constituents only of baryons. There are no quarks in electrons > or photons. Quarks are constituents of hadrons you dumbass prick sucking gay boy. Protons and Neutrons are hadrons built from 3 quarks and some other bosons (some vector and some not) that glue the nucleus together. Electrons and photons are called Leptons (because they are their own vector boson). Electrons carry electrical unit negative charge and photons carry EM fields. A Baryon is a distinction based on the type of quarks that make up the hadron. If the paticle is made up of no anti-quarks it's a baryon, othwise it's a meson. God, what a load of quantum mechanical horse hockey you spout this fine Sunday morning. I can't hardly wait to see what other anonymous drivel you spew out of your syphilis infested mouth next. > The net charge within the sphere will not change. Then you need to go back to school and learn Gauss's Law all over again. It's ok, you'll probably get it in the first semester unless they recognize what a dumb-ass you are and put you in the remedial section. Then I believe you'll be scheduled to cover those topics your Junior year. > If the box in the > middle with the "spark gap" is spraying out electrons, this can only mean > that the box is itself becoming positively charged. The sphere sees a > constant charge within itself; at best, the charge can be redistributed. Which is the whole point to this exercise. The simple fact that I can put a battery powered radio in a metal sphere as described and *STILL* receive the signal proves the model works within the constraints of the original thesis. Don't believe me? Try it at home with a couple of collanders soldered together. The charge is re-distributed to the surface of the sphere, the total charge of the entire system does stay constant (at least until the insulation breaks down). > There are no net changes of charge within the sphere and so there will > be no changes in any charge appearing on the outside of the sphere. If that were so we wouldn't have a spark in the ball to begin with. > Choate's whole model of how a spark gap transmitter works, and why it > emits electromagnetic radiation, is so bizarre that it is hard to believe. > Someone else can bang their head against the brick wall of his ignorance > on that topic. Who said anything about a spark gap transmitter? We were talking about a battery powered spark gap. Not the same thing at all you anonymous weenie sucker. > Choate is, by far, the worst poster on the cypherpunks list today. He > posts off-topic material, he is argumentative, and 90% of the time, he > is simply wrong. Oh, your just jealous I want let you suck my dick junior. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ____________________________________________________________________ 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

Re: Electric power generators ?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're talking about the wired.com article I wrote. I carefully did not say there is a "shortage" of generators, diesel or otherwise -- that's your own misreading of it. I did say that the largest U.S. distributor of diesel generators has half year delays on the most popular model. Same with bulk food suppliers like Walton's. Solar power companies also report vastly increased demand. You can buy cheaper gasoline generators at Home Depot, but there are reasons people want to pay three or four times as much for a diesel model. These differences and the other answers to your questions have been well-documented elsewhere; I'm not inclined to list them for you here, though others might be. -Declan At 05:52 PM 11-7-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >Hi there, > >I saw an article posted about "shortages" of electric power generators >and other Y2K "survival" goods, such as grains in airtight drums. My >reading of the article gave me a feel that those products are bullshit >products geared towards naive losers, and can be easily replaced with >much cheaper products that can be bought at discount stores. > >More careful reading of the article showed that only certain high power >diesel generators are scarce. > >A visit to my local discount retailer has shown that there are 10KW >gasoline generators available for as little as $500. 10KW is far more >than I would need in an emergency. (I will probably need about 2KW). > >Questions: > >1) Aside from probably lower power, are those cheaper generators somehow >worse? > >2) How reliable are those cheaper generators? > >3) What is their expected lifetime, in hours of operation? > >4) How hard is it to service them? > >5) How do you connect them to the electric system, to properly use >them as backup? (this may be a stupid question, but I am not very >familiar with American system of electric wiring). > >6) How much gasoline do they consume if you draw 2KW power from them? > >Thank you. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} > > \=/, _-===-_-====-_-===-_-==========-_-====-_ > | @___oo ( )_ > /\ /\ / (___,,,}_--= ) > ) /^\) ^\/ _) =__ Anything is good and useful if ) > ) /^\/ _) (_ ) > ) _ / / _) ( it's made of chocolate. ) > /\ )/\/ || | )_) (_ ) >< > |(,,) )__) ( http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov ) > || / \)___)\ (_ _) > | \____( )___) )___ -==-_____-=====-_____-=====-___== > \______(_______;;; __;;; >

1 0