- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation (fwd)
by proff＠suburbia.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From terry(a)lambert.org Thu Jan 23 00:20:21 1997 Return-Path: <terry(a)lambert.org> Delivered-To: proff(a)suburbia.net Received: (qmail 11676 invoked from network); 23 Jan 1997 00:20:09 -0000 Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (198.17.250.211) by suburbia.net with SMTP; 23 Jan 1997 00:20:09 -0000 Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA22488; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:04:17 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <terry(a)lambert.org> Message-Id: <199701230004.RAA22488(a)phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation To: proff(a)suburbia.net Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:04:17 -0700 (MST) Cc: nate(a)mt.sri.com, terry(a)lambert.org, chuckr(a)glue.umd.edu, hackers(a)freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <19970122141820.16633.qmail(a)suburbia.net> from "proff(a)suburbia.net" at Jan 23, 97 01:18:20 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Length: 6273 > > Terry Lambert writes: > > > > > A weighted democracy would be one open-ended growth solution, as > > > > > long as parametric changes could be made within the system. I have > > > > > suggested this before. A trivial napkin drawing version: > > > > > > I have doubts about such a system. How are the weights chosen? By core team fiat. It is they who will be giving up power, it is they who have the power to enforce initial disbursement. After that, it *should* be metastable. If it isn't, it can be reigned in. > - Should all weights be votable - dynamically adjusted according > to votes * current weights? This one: yes. > - Which is more stable? w1+w2+w3+w4=1 or w1*w2*w3*w4*w5=1? +, if we are talking probabilities applied to strange attractors. > - How a new weights created? Constitutionally, there must be a method for doing this within the system. Mostly, the weight values are the time rate accumulation vs. the spend rate on voting issues. If you are actively positive, you affect change; the stronger you feel about something, the more likely you are to code it (which every direction the strength of your feeling goes. The catch is that positive votes are inherently more valuable than negative votes, since to obstruct progress requires a number of votes equal to the outstanding proposals, but to move forward a proposal only requires a number of votes equal to the proposal. Blind obstructionism (and blind advocacy) are uneconomical. That's the point of having more than one vote to potentially spend on an issue, with potentially more issues than you can vote on all of them. You will have to pick you battles carefully if you want to avoid being lost in the noise. > - How does one prevent factional deal making? It won't, really, if there are places for deals to be made, and there are accurate vote tallys published (promoting last minute bid frenzies, auction-like behaviour). > - Should weights decline over time in the same manner as > an infinitely trainable adaptive neural network? There is a limit on the amount of weight you can throw around in a given time because of the high water mark on the number of tokens it's possible to build up on account. Again, you have to pick your battles or you will be lost in the noise. > What about retrospectivity? On the one hand you entrench a > pre-democratic feudal power structure and end up like Mandela's > South Africa; a constitutionally reformed non-racially discriminatory > capitalist society in which the blacks have all the votes, but > the whites have all the capital. On the other (FreeBSD) hand the > whites did all the work. In the abstract, if you are willing to do the work, you are more likely to throw three votes than one for a given topic. If you are just being obstructioninst, you will likely throw only one vote so that you can keep being obstructionist later. For reciprocity, it's possible to charge off percentages in the win/lose case to bias the power concentration: if your side wins, it costs you one less token then you voted, etc.. Again, initial bylaws are established through constitution provision: "we have the power that is being shared, therefore, these are the weights". > Certainly a very interesting social engineering experiment; there > is room here for long excursions into probability theory, game > theory, cryptographic voting protocols (extending to protocols > not traditionally seen as voting protocols such as Rabin's m/n > secret sharing scheme), all excellent paper fodder. Heh. I was thinking more in terms of its value as a cascade trigger to increasingly complex social organisms in the Internet implementation space. Representational democracies (republics, really) came about because of rate limits on communication. The US could not elect a president by popular vote because there were no methods of verification, and communication rates were limited by travel time. Therefore, the US has an Electoral College. But a side effect of this structure is a bias for bipartite seperation of interests, instead of seperation into as many interest groups as it takes to do the job of mapping the interest space. This bias is not removed because the bipartite interests have (and must continue to have) the power concentration. This leads to continued "wasted vote syndrome", where people vote for the lesser of two evils instead of voting their conscience... an effect of mass psychology. Similar pressures prevent the polling times from being changed to opening at 8am EST and closing at 8am EST to prevent early returns from earlier time zones influencing the outcome of elections before people in later time zones have even voted. For example, Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote in the 1992 election, but 0% of the electors. He would still have lost, given the actual values. There is actually a case in US history where the winner of the electoral vote lost the popular vote... the president was not chosen by the people, but by the electors. > It would definitely attract a lot of welcome attention to FreeBSD. It would be worth one or more articles in WIRED, actually, as well as more scholarly sociology journals. Maybe even "Wall Street Journal" would run "Multinational Democratic State Declares Independence in Cyberspace" or a similar silly headline. > When viewed strictly as an experiment this idea has a lot > of merit. If it actually pans out, then well and good, if not, > then it could be used as some kind of Sawick poll. Yep. The reason I went weighted, by the way, was the volunteer nature of the project. In theory, number of vote tokens spent should be proportional to willingness to actually volunteer. As you point out, there could be feedback here as well: for instance, if a proposal passes, if it is completed, the tokens spent on the vote could be refunded to those who voted for it. If it dies on the vine, the tokens could be refunded to those who voted against it. Being right would give you more license to participate, and being wrong would not, etc.. Again, a matter for the initial bylaws. Regards, Terry Lambert terry(a)lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.

1 0

greed and the internet
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- greed and the internet our network provider (MCI) has been gradually burying our T1 trunk and the effective feed has been reduced to 1200 baud from 1.56 Megabaud; that, and add 20 seconds to 5+ minutes of packet hold, and it is now worthless. they claim they will have increased capacity, but there are no pressing big money commercial interests on this feeder --so when? Problem is not just here --everywhere; the greedy commercial bastards have oversold their network space intentionally as they are bucking for per packet and timed usage charges which are currently prohibited by the FCC and the state PUCs. The FCC is the key since other than the local network, which is burdened with the costs of the trunk, everything is regulated by the FCC which is trying to totally eliminate the state PUCs in the 105th Congress, Newt's mouth not withstanding. The FCC agreed to review the matter, capitulating to big greed interests, which will make the Internet a rich man's toy. $19.95/month plus access charges will increase to thousands of dollars per month; slow networks make toast of the free hours and overtime kills. Without the creative input of the multitude, there will be no content, so why have a net other than for commercial purposes? suites the misinformation cabal just fine. Well, the FCC granted a reprieve --for the moment. but will come up again, and again, until it passes. The Internet will no no longer be the peoples net, and the commercial greedies are establishing a faster, more secure network with controlled access points; leaving the common man's access in the mud, still paying the exorbitant rates on a pay before play basis. That, and it gives control of information to the government --which, as we all know. is 'heavenly white' -above sin. Universities are being bought off with the 'Internet II' proposal which provides super trunks of over 600 Megabaud capacity, a 400 times improvement. All of this feeds into five stategically placed super-hubs where Uncle's shadow government can monitor everything. The Internet was supposed to be our freedom: freedom of information and government in the sunshine, but government is proving it is still bigger, faster, and badder by using draconian rules of illegal regulatory agencies. agencies which are usurping rights limited to the legislative branch. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMubOW704kQrCC2kFAQE0gQQAxrkUhyX5wl+dZ/i6ajMJXAD7f+gpvc6Z CBik+g62RqWrMbOblfLRubhEIWUfK2FQxIBRJ+0cQezCH4IfM1CxbytJ4Cx3BBBs GwHGuhTfLnGVnuCAugguRdNUrd/tXaN47pAVqmg330XvLlTJqha8ODPsi2b+7qst 2z8qbOW0cqo= =M9c5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Commerce Sec. Hearings and Encryption
by Bill Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been watching the confirmation hearings for William Daley, and I was amazed at the number of references in the questioning to encryption. I have been watching confirmation hearings for a long time and have never noticed this much attention being placed on such a (formerly?) obscure topic. It appears that encryption is definitely a big blip on the governmental radar screen now, although whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is definitely a debatable question. It's interesting to me that all this interest is coming up in a confirmation hearing for a *commerce* secretary. Maybe the commercial aspects of encryption can have a positive impact on the current restrictions; privacy rights certainly haven't had any impact. =Bill=

1 0

justice for cryptography, US style
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Looks to me like Carl needs to understand justice, U.S. federal court style. In the first place: "ignorance is no excuse under the law" -then: ask yourself why the U.S. continues the drug war when it is obvious to the perverted, ignorant, and bought-off Congress- person that it will never be won. the answer is simple: it's MONEY. First, the government makes a fortune by importing drugs, which they can use for unaccountable programs which are illegal under law. The money is controlled by the CIA, administration, and the power brokers in the deal which basically states it all; and, secondly, there is money in imprisonment. Oh? so then ask yourself why the federal prisons have tripled in size the last 10 years with the dope wars. coincidental? now, what does that have to do with crypto? very simple: as the US heads closer and closer to the UN Constitution under Bubba's guidance with Hillary's hands on his balls, crypto can bypass political thought control. That will not be acceptable to those who rule: in the US, or anywhere else. "Intimidation is just another form of communication." (attila) and they have intimidated federal judges, and they are intimidating federal judges, and they will continue to intimdate federal judges. and, they will continue to feed the media what they want known. so, what does that have to do with it? a) the federal government is disenfranchising felons with certain types of convictions, including drugs, and all offenses against the federal government --cryptography is an offense against the federal government since it falls under ITAR. do you know what disenfranchisement really means: well, start with fact you have lost your civil rights --ALL of them. the man never needs a warrant to take you, anywhere. anyplace, including your home without knocking --he has automatic probable cause. all federal convictions of the type described carry a tail --extended probation. in other words, a sadistic, sadonic, and automatically suspicious federal civil servant OWNS you. He can visit your employer; he can tell you exactly how to run your business if you are self-employed; he can tell you if you can move; he can tell you who you will see or talk with; and if tells you to polish his apple, get on your knees and smile while you labour. b) no vote --that is the principle meaning of franchise which is defined as "suffrage." you are history on that score unless you manage to convince Bubba to grant you a federal pardon. c) the federal govenment, through one of their federal money giveaways is forcing the criminal records onto the drivers' license. So far, no state has a check box on the sealed photo ID, but they will, including a coded offense block. d) now, the big credit bureaus, TRW, Equifax, etc. have added the collection of data for traffic convictions; so far they have not added either misdemeanor and felony >>arrests<< and convictions to the _available_ information, but they will. Did you know that you can have a 3 or 4 page rap sheet for a single arrest/offense/conviction by the time they rewrite charges, which is common in, you guessed it: dope cases, and propably will be in crypto cases as the Federales discover more evidence (planted, decoded, whatever?). e) You know, I'm beginning to like Mississippi's statutory rape laws better all the time. The age is 18, as high it goes in all 50 states --but it only applies if the minor female is over 12 and can prove she is a virgin... yeah, right, where the only virgin over eight can run faster than her brothers... e) prisons are big business; and, government has undertaken a program of privatization of the prison system --in other words, the big government oriented contractors, like SAIC chaired by Bobby Inman, are planning to make a profit housing government misjustice. do they like to make money? does this sound like slave labour to you? sounds like government 'letting' of business. P.J. O'Rourke has the definitive result of that: "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators" well, I'm too old for the civil disobedience game or deliberately begging the law; I do not wish to head for the 3 hots ad a cot of federal hospitality wearing more years than I can carry. but you'd better believe and if you wish to even try to beat the government back, don't think you have any rights in America. Just remember Judge Roy Bean is sitting in his large $1,500-2,000 comforatable chair about a meter above you, smiling down on you as you sit in the hard, cold, flimsy chair of the dock, after our esteemed judge got drunk last night with his cronies. After all, Judge Roy, who's only human, suffers from an inferiority complex, and needs a power rush. And after this poor excuse for a human lays 3 fives running wild (15) and 6 tail on you, try smiling at the judge; then say: "thank you your honor, but you're just another fuckin' drunk." == <attila out> ====== ORIGINAL MESSAGE ====== In <32C27B88.558(a)sk.sympatico.ca>, on 12/26/96 at 05:20 AM, Carl Johnson <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> said: ::jim bell wrote: ::> ::> However, if being "on the Internet" is automatically presumed to be ::> an export, why can't we program using remote-control editors which ::> might, someday, be available on the Internet? :: If I wanted to export an unexportable program, I would put it on my :: machine as 'happyface.zip', and then make sure that everybody :: spread the word that it was available under that title. I don't :: believe there is a prosecutor alive that can convince a jury of :: twelve mostly non-technically oriented people that someone should :: be put in prison for not knowing the content of every single :: non-text file on their machine. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMubSx704kQrCC2kFAQHaZwP+LZe99M0ntnj0za+TSAG6TtMr55MH7VBG y0PLMkKLQGb7Gi5mt72BBZ8XNoVLlBHqxsdpWdI0u812aVj78+L0hQojeuyzyUph 4hJo3N7U5ITscNeks8IbClzl8UNkoKaW5UH0bQlL6EaU7AvmmB15g6nQ4C59rBos l2AQiOZZtwU= =QJSj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

seeds of our own destruction
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- the pieces of our own destruction by a universal government of a few are all there, many fully documented as bits and pieces; someone who does not have a well known interest in the conspiracy groups to prevent the press from thundering "conspiracy theory" needs to compile a graphical presentation for the monkeys. good luck trying to deliver the message to joe couch potato. the controlled media networks would never sell you time. It is not so much a conspiracy as it is separate, or even UN, groups, working for their own interests --who has the stick?-- Unfortunately, too many of them have overlapped by their common need for a common army, a common taxation system (obviously not balanced by equity) and the right to non-representative taxation after they destroy freedom of speech/privacy and take away the hardware. worse than middle period Marx utopian liberated socialism! The UN's _printed_ statement of the conclusion of the wealth distribution was a UN tax authority to redistribute the wealth.... What intrigues me the most is that even the very rich can not survive in the cesspool they will create. there will be no distinguished caste, no educated caste, etc. You will see the attitude with just barely educated type administrators who will say: "gifted?" Or, she can fend for herself, and eventually just sending the gifted child off to the vegatable farm. Despite all the utopian talk about social order, politically correct unisex, socialism will never deliver enough exceptional individuals to be able to povide all the pyschologists and social workers they envision. Obviously, the fact the white man is probably less than 15% of the total population and has over 80% of the industrial wealth tells you where it starts. The UN is talking about master agricultual product control warehousing and distribution. If 20% of the population is well fed, does that include the US, Canada, Russia (that's a joke), and the grain producing areas of the world? or will the white man be just part of the rest --hungry? == Tyranny Insurance by Colt Manufacturing Co. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMuby9704kQrCC2kFAQFi2QP/RUQibIsyslYso5y7C84fJk3DN/Dn6jqI F4WI2kG0m4nw+rsS97mBJYKzh8V/I8rJd+OPzTwyreVqwPIa9O1E+e9TY2pF+M89 IP/heC/B9Wb3+ZKsJT1+CpWRmIWI0PAHxGSgWkMnIxyl+QajSeDXZMNJ9IVhfpLA zcBo1zfXRCk= =lbD1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

JUSTICE: foolish confrontations therewith
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Looks to me like Carl needs to understand justice, U.S. federal court style. In the first place: "ignorance is no excuse under the law" -then: ask yourself why the U.S. continues the drug war when it is obvious to the perverted, ignorant, and bought-off Congress- person that it will never be won. the answer is simple: it's MONEY. First, the government makes a fortune by importing drugs, which they can use for unaccountable programs which are illegal under law. The money is controlled by the CIA, administration, and the power brokers in the deal which basically states it all; and, secondly, there is money in imprisonment. Oh? so then ask yourself why the federal prisons have tripled in size the last 10 years with the dope wars. coincidental? now, what does that have to do with crypto? very simple: as the US heads closer and closer to the UN Constitution under Bubba's guidance with Hillary's hands on his balls, crypto can bypass political thought control. That will not be acceptable to those who rule: in the US, or anywhere else. "Intimidation is just another form of communication." (attila) and they have intimidated federal judges, and they are intimidating federal judges, and they will continue to intimdate federal judges. and, they will continue to feed the media what they want known. so, what does that have to do with it? a) the federal government is disenfranchising felons with certain types of convictions, including drugs, and all offenses against the federal government --cryptography is an offense against the federal government since it falls under ITAR. do you know what disenfranchisement really means: well, start with fact you have lost your civil rights --ALL of them. the man never needs a warrant to take you, anywhere. anyplace, including your home without knocking --he has automatic probable cause. all federal convictions of the type described carry a tail --extended probation. in other words, a sadistic, sadonic, and automatically suspicious federal civil servant OWNS you. He can visit your employer; he can tell you exactly how to run your business if you are self-employed; he can tell you if you can move; he can tell you who you will see or talk with; and if tells you to polish his apple, get on your knees and smile while you labour. b) no vote --that is the principle meaning of franchise which is defined as "suffrage." you are history on that score unless you manage to convince Bubba to grant you a federal pardon. c) the federal govenment, through one of their federal money giveaways is forcing the criminal records onto the drivers' license. So far, no state has a check box on the sealed photo ID, but they will, including a coded offense block. d) now, the big credit bureaus, TRW, Equifax, etc. have added the collection of data for traffic convictions; so far they have not added either misdemeanor and felony >>arrests<< and convictions to the _available_ information, but they will. Did you know that you can have a 3 or 4 page rap sheet for a single arrest/offense/conviction by the time they rewrite charges, which is common in, you guessed it: dope cases, and propably will be in crypto cases as the Federales discover more evidence (planted, decoded, whatever?). e) You know, I'm beginning to like Mississippi's statutory rape laws better all the time. The age is 18, as high it goes in all 50 states --but it only applies if the minor female is over 12 and can prove she is a virgin... yeah, right, where the only virgin over eight can run faster than her brothers... e) prisons are big business; and, government has undertaken a program of privatization of the prison system --in other words, the big government oriented contractors, like SAIC chaired by Bobby Inman, are planning to make a profit housing government misjustice. do they like to make money? does this sound like slave labour to you? sounds like government 'letting' of business. P.J. O'Rourke has the definitive result of that: "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators" well, I'm too old for the civil disobedience game or deliberately begging the law; I do not wish to head for the 3 hots ad a cot of federal hospitality wearing more years than I can carry. but you'd better believe and if you wish to even try to beat the government back, don't think you have any rights in America. Just remember Judge Roy Bean is sitting in his large $1,500-2,000 comforatable chair about a meter above you, smiling down on you as you sit in the hard, cold, flimsy chair of the dock, after our esteemed judge got drunk last night with his cronies. After all, Judge Roy, who's only human, suffers from an inferiority complex, and needs a power rush. And after this poor excuse for a human lays 3 fives running wild (15) and 6 tail on you, try smiling at the judge; then say: "thank you your honor, but you're just another fuckin' drunk." == <attila out> ====== ORIGINAL MESSAGE ====== In <32C27B88.558(a)sk.sympatico.ca>, on 12/26/96 at 05:20 AM, Carl Johnson <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> said: ::jim bell wrote: ::> ::> However, if being "on the Internet" is automatically presumed to be ::> an export, why can't we program using remote-control editors which ::> might, someday, be available on the Internet? :: If I wanted to export an unexportable program, I would put it on my :: machine as 'happyface.zip', and then make sure that everybody :: spread the word that it was available under that title. I don't :: believe there is a prosecutor alive that can convince a jury of :: twelve mostly non-technically oriented people that someone should :: be put in prison for not knowing the content of every single :: non-text file on their machine. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMucAh704kQrCC2kFAQFVzwQAs1HyC04QqpFa0QG5OiS5FwKvW3rP0xWd RGLSEVgyHkub/ecVlha5XMKQBhprGkyACxfwWs1QzjFGPxWd/0uW670eaf4e8ALK a7sANK1rFLDO001Gyep55qduGX+HzU5KEW8JhiB+iXisle76/Ek5Vntyq9i9iS9s soeyDvea8LI= =AqZU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

YEEHAW! Tobacco argument heats up in AZ
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- summary: AZ AG filed for an injunction in the public interest to stop the sale of tobacco in AZ. tobacco company response claimed he was infringing on legislative rights... full story is below. pure warmed-over buffalo chips --the tobacco interests. ...create a conflict between the judiciary and the legislative branches since the judiciary can ban the sale of something the legislative branch has decided to regulate and collect taxes from ... ? where did this boy learn his logic, let alone his law (of course, who ever said any lawyer used logic any more than statistics are used to defend lies?) big tobacco will spend at least $200 million, maybe even $1 billion in advertising and diversions to avoid this one --this is not a tort issue with delayable appeals --this is injunctive relief which could stop the sale of tobacco in a single hearing. bravo! and, I'll bet AZ never passed legislation which states the death merchants have a mandated "right" to sell tobacco products, even though the legislature did elect to pass a law to "regulate" the sale of tobacco. a mandated right implies endorsement, and places the endorser in the product liability chain. A fine line maybe for the tobacco companies to hang their hats on, but a Grand Canyon worth of the state if there has no "right" to sell granted --granting a "right to sell" would be tantamount to endorsing the sale of tobacco products. this may be the perfect shot. let's see how long before the ACLU jumps in! and, on which side will they jump?!? Is 'smoking' a libertarian privilege cranted unconditionally to the people despite the side effects, and collatgeral damage, even if you do not smoke? This case should draw enough amicus curiae to require an entirely new complex of libraries just to hold the pleadings, and an army of law clerks with a massively parallel database to catalogue and service the briefs. I can see the fine hand of the Association of Attorney Generals driving this one. Arizona is constituted just mean enough to take this kind of action. Let's see how long it is before the Feds try to step in on the possible Constitutional grounds of regulating trade between the states, or claiming "jurisdiction" under rule 10 FRCP where the combatants are of differing 'citizenship' AND the amount is more than $10,000 (the injunctive relief has no monetary value in and of itself) can be moved by any party to the Federal court having jurisdiction (that was how I prevented AT&T from moving from NV to NY or NJ where they could stall forever and indulge in the usual payoffs). --as an aside, I wonder if we could ban tobacco sales in Utah by referendum? if the population is 70% LDS, the rural more likely to follow the word of wisdom active members might be enough to tip the vote on a referendum. hmmm. that would send a message even McCaffey and Reno would have a problem with --there is no medical defense for tobacco. As for the loss of revenue argument, the excise taxes the state collects from the sale of tobacco certainly does not cover the increased health costs and the collateral economic and social costs associated with tobacco related health problems. the state might have a net loss position initially, but over the long run, the reduced health costs will more than cover the loss of tobacco excise tax. meanwhile, back to prohibition: rolling your own from back yard weeds is a lot harder than making bathtub gin! == "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators" --P.J. O'Rourke. == "hunt lawyers, not big game! lawyers are more numerous, you can not become attached to them, and they taste just like chicken." --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMubQI704kQrCC2kFAQFeFgP+MUBbpn9yNDi2NmSZd2D5qlUvYIyobPd7 ppVxG2Wne5cywM9NWRYGCUA4g2QxlYRA7+sAxbxKa0kLpjhW38IAe8ea/0NnkH+P exTvtUTD35sAU6bl5ypGsFF/1Nuzy7+UWIKdm7LROPjiNMp+C/TEQQrHR5jF1x5A EoWkoBzrwTs= =1+2g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- :: 06:30 PM ET 01/14/97 :: Tobacco industry seeks dismissal of Arizona case :: :: PHOENIX, Arizona (Reuter) - The tobacco industry filed :: motions on Tuesday in a bid to dismiss the Arizona Attorney :: General's law suit which seeks to ban the sale of tobacco in the :: state. :: Lawyers for two of the defendants, Brown & Williamson :: Tobacco Corp. and Philip Morris Cos Inc. (MO.N), said in a :: statement the proposed ban would eliminate tax revenue from the :: sale of tobacco which is used to fund healthcare and education :: programs statewide. :: "We have filed motions asking the court ... whether these :: claims should be permitted to proceed,'' said William Maledon a :: lawyer at Osborn Maledon which represents Philip Morris Inc. :: "We believe it is clear that the Attorney General has no :: authority to initiate at least six of the 11 claims he has :: brought,'' he said. :: The tobacco industry on Tuesday filed eight motions to :: dismiss the suit in Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona. :: The Arizona lawsuit against the tobacco industry was filed :: in August and amended by the state's attorney general in :: November. :: The suit seeks to ban the sale of tobacco products statewide :: and recover increased healthcare insurance premiums the state :: alleges to have paid for ``tobacco-related illnesses'' by state :: employees and their dependents. :: The suit also seeks ``corrective'' advertising and funding :: of programs to help people give up smoking as well as :: unspecified damages for alleged consumer fraud, restraint of :: trade and civil racketeering. :: Paul Eckstein, an attorney with Brown & Bain which :: represents Brown & Williamson, said Arizona would suffer should :: the attorney general win the suit. :: "If the Attorney General prevails on this public nuisance :: argument, the tobacco tax revenue source would be eliminated :: without legislative input,'' he said. :: "This raises the question of which state programs would be :: eliminated for lack of funding,'' he added. :: The lawyers said Arizona collected $650.5 million in tobacco :: excise taxes from 1980 through 1993 and that the state will :: collect another $167.5 million in fiscal 1996. :: "The Arizona Legislature has not chosen to ban the sale or :: use of tobacco, but rather regulate and profit from it,'' :: Eckstein said. ``This lawsuit would create a direct and :: irreconcilable conflict between the judicial and legislative :: branches of government.''

1 0

Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation (fwd)
by proff＠suburbia.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From terry(a)lambert.org Thu Jan 23 00:20:21 1997 Return-Path: <terry(a)lambert.org> Delivered-To: proff(a)suburbia.net Received: (qmail 11676 invoked from network); 23 Jan 1997 00:20:09 -0000 Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (198.17.250.211) by suburbia.net with SMTP; 23 Jan 1997 00:20:09 -0000 Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA22488; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:04:17 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <terry(a)lambert.org> Message-Id: <199701230004.RAA22488(a)phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation To: proff(a)suburbia.net Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:04:17 -0700 (MST) Cc: nate(a)mt.sri.com, terry(a)lambert.org, chuckr(a)glue.umd.edu, hackers(a)freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <19970122141820.16633.qmail(a)suburbia.net> from "proff(a)suburbia.net" at Jan 23, 97 01:18:20 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Length: 6273 > > Terry Lambert writes: > > > > > A weighted democracy would be one open-ended growth solution, as > > > > > long as parametric changes could be made within the system. I have > > > > > suggested this before. A trivial napkin drawing version: > > > > > > I have doubts about such a system. How are the weights chosen? By core team fiat. It is they who will be giving up power, it is they who have the power to enforce initial disbursement. After that, it *should* be metastable. If it isn't, it can be reigned in. > - Should all weights be votable - dynamically adjusted according > to votes * current weights? This one: yes. > - Which is more stable? w1+w2+w3+w4=1 or w1*w2*w3*w4*w5=1? +, if we are talking probabilities applied to strange attractors. > - How a new weights created? Constitutionally, there must be a method for doing this within the system. Mostly, the weight values are the time rate accumulation vs. the spend rate on voting issues. If you are actively positive, you affect change; the stronger you feel about something, the more likely you are to code it (which every direction the strength of your feeling goes. The catch is that positive votes are inherently more valuable than negative votes, since to obstruct progress requires a number of votes equal to the outstanding proposals, but to move forward a proposal only requires a number of votes equal to the proposal. Blind obstructionism (and blind advocacy) are uneconomical. That's the point of having more than one vote to potentially spend on an issue, with potentially more issues than you can vote on all of them. You will have to pick you battles carefully if you want to avoid being lost in the noise. > - How does one prevent factional deal making? It won't, really, if there are places for deals to be made, and there are accurate vote tallys published (promoting last minute bid frenzies, auction-like behaviour). > - Should weights decline over time in the same manner as > an infinitely trainable adaptive neural network? There is a limit on the amount of weight you can throw around in a given time because of the high water mark on the number of tokens it's possible to build up on account. Again, you have to pick your battles or you will be lost in the noise. > What about retrospectivity? On the one hand you entrench a > pre-democratic feudal power structure and end up like Mandela's > South Africa; a constitutionally reformed non-racially discriminatory > capitalist society in which the blacks have all the votes, but > the whites have all the capital. On the other (FreeBSD) hand the > whites did all the work. In the abstract, if you are willing to do the work, you are more likely to throw three votes than one for a given topic. If you are just being obstructioninst, you will likely throw only one vote so that you can keep being obstructionist later. For reciprocity, it's possible to charge off percentages in the win/lose case to bias the power concentration: if your side wins, it costs you one less token then you voted, etc.. Again, initial bylaws are established through constitution provision: "we have the power that is being shared, therefore, these are the weights". > Certainly a very interesting social engineering experiment; there > is room here for long excursions into probability theory, game > theory, cryptographic voting protocols (extending to protocols > not traditionally seen as voting protocols such as Rabin's m/n > secret sharing scheme), all excellent paper fodder. Heh. I was thinking more in terms of its value as a cascade trigger to increasingly complex social organisms in the Internet implementation space. Representational democracies (republics, really) came about because of rate limits on communication. The US could not elect a president by popular vote because there were no methods of verification, and communication rates were limited by travel time. Therefore, the US has an Electoral College. But a side effect of this structure is a bias for bipartite seperation of interests, instead of seperation into as many interest groups as it takes to do the job of mapping the interest space. This bias is not removed because the bipartite interests have (and must continue to have) the power concentration. This leads to continued "wasted vote syndrome", where people vote for the lesser of two evils instead of voting their conscience... an effect of mass psychology. Similar pressures prevent the polling times from being changed to opening at 8am EST and closing at 8am EST to prevent early returns from earlier time zones influencing the outcome of elections before people in later time zones have even voted. For example, Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote in the 1992 election, but 0% of the electors. He would still have lost, given the actual values. There is actually a case in US history where the winner of the electoral vote lost the popular vote... the president was not chosen by the people, but by the electors. > It would definitely attract a lot of welcome attention to FreeBSD. It would be worth one or more articles in WIRED, actually, as well as more scholarly sociology journals. Maybe even "Wall Street Journal" would run "Multinational Democratic State Declares Independence in Cyberspace" or a similar silly headline. > When viewed strictly as an experiment this idea has a lot > of merit. If it actually pans out, then well and good, if not, > then it could be used as some kind of Sawick poll. Yep. The reason I went weighted, by the way, was the volunteer nature of the project. In theory, number of vote tokens spent should be proportional to willingness to actually volunteer. As you point out, there could be feedback here as well: for instance, if a proposal passes, if it is completed, the tokens spent on the vote could be refunded to those who voted for it. If it dies on the vine, the tokens could be refunded to those who voted against it. Being right would give you more license to participate, and being wrong would not, etc.. Again, a matter for the initial bylaws. Regards, Terry Lambert terry(a)lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Nurdane Oksas <oksas(a)asimov.montclair.edu> writes: > But think about this: suppose there is a couple, bob(a)household.com, > and alice(a)household.com. Suppose that Rev. Mallory does not like bob. > Mallory forges a lot of emails like "I can still taste your sperm > on my lips", that appear to originate from Cindy(a)phonesex.org. > Then, promptly, Mallory sends an anonymous alert to alice(a)household.com, > warning her about naughty email activities of bob. Alice gets mad at him > and divorces him. > How would bob protect himself against such developments? Frame-ups are as old as time. The ones that work the best are those that are the most believable. O.J., for example. Unless Alice is unusually flaky or paranoid, she'll consider her options against the time she has invested in Bob.

2 1

House Science Subcommittee...
by Lile Elam 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi folks, I am looking for more info on the ongoing House Science subcommittee which is about computer technology and national security. I heard they have folks talking about encryption and why it's important to use technology and not legislation to protect people's privacy... Theres a short article in the nando.net paper today about this committee at URL: http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/info/021197/info5_430.html Dan Farmer talked yesterday... thanks, -lile

1 0