- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

i
by nobody＠jarthur.cs.hmc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lassie!jim%lassie(a)netcom.com (Jim Nalbandian) says: >AH your fuckin' mother is a clueless twitt!! >Yeh obviosly all crypto is week, let's write a new program to >replace the new crypto program we write next week. Fuck everybody >Knows only cool people on Internet deserve crypto. Everybody else >is CLUELESS oh omnipotent one. >I think if cryptography is illegal it does't mater a FUCK what >version the program is. Insure against the inevetable by >distributing to the DUMM FUCK CLUELESS COMPUTER USERS THAT ARE NOT >AS FUCKIN' COOL AS YOU ARE. Power to the people/power in the people should you be interested in congratulating jim nalbandian for his recent well thought out and highly intellectual contributions to the list feel free to contact him personally jim nalbandian (602) 968-4540 his adept and comprehensive instructions on the use of payphones will be educational for those on the list who are too modest to take credit for their constructive feedback and are thus included below >Wow, FUCKIN' hard to figure out. The little round things you have >in your pocket are called coins. If you pick up a phone an ask the >operator to call Fort Yukon alaska she will ask you to put some of >those round things in the phone. Believe it or not, she will now >when the phone has a nuff round things and let your call go thru >for three minutes maybe. Be sure to wipe your fingure prints of >the round things before depositing them in the phone (This is like >doing a file wipe in PGP) or for those more inclined to use the postal services 1241 west university drive tempe, arizona 85281

1 0

Re: Double betting and money laundering
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Peter Wayner wrote: > >>Apparently, casinos are now on the lookout for people who >>are teaming up to play both halves of a bet. One casino >>kicked out two guys who apparently were betting on pass >>and don't pass on the craps table. Why were they bothering? >>Was it laundering? Nope. It turns out that casinos hand >>out free "comps" based on the amount of betting that you >>do. This is called being "rated." They notice that you're >>betting $10 chips and figure that the math shows that you'll >>probably lose x dollars per hour. Then they give you free >>room and food to show their appreciation. > >Forgive me, but I am skeptical. I worked for a short while as a licensed >craps dealer in NJ about 10 years ago. There is no combination of bets >on a craps table that will cancell out the house advantage. When I delt, >the house welcomed any combination of bets any player wanted to make, let >alone worrying about what some confederate on the same table might do. > Yes, there is no combination that will cancel out the house odds. I'm guessing that the two craps players hoped that their small losses would be less than the cost of the hotel room that they would win by being comped. The story just reported that the casino kicked out two people who were engaged in this after one demanded to be comped. The article mentioned that casinos seemed to want to comp people at 30% of their expected losses. I'm sort of skeptical of this working out because the expected losses of two players mirroring their bets with an odd/even strategy on the roulette wheel is twice the expected losses of one person just betting straight odd. But who says that gamblers know everything? -Peter

1 0

Re:The Value of Money
by f_griffith＠ccsvax.sfasu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >>> GRABOW_GEOFFREY(a)tandem.com asked: >>> >>>>Didn't Nixon take the U.S. off of the gold standard? >>>> > >> >>The US$ was devalued from $35 to $38 /oz gold and the Treasury stopped >>redeeming dollars from anyone other than central banks in '69. >>This created a two tier market. The US devalued again in '70 (0r '71) >>to $45 /oz, and then threw in the towel and stopped backing the >>currency with anything other than "the full faith and credit of the >>US government" [:)]. >>US citizens were permitted to own gold bullion again as of Jan '75, >>under Ford. >> >> Jeff >> trestrab(a)gvsu.edu > Roosevelt eliminated domestic convertibility 1n 1933. Nixon eliminated international convertibility ("closed the gold window" as it's often stated) in August, 1971. The dollar was devalued from 1/35 oz of gold to 1/38 oz in December, 1971. The dollar was devalued from 1/38 oz to 1/42.22 oz in Feb, 1973. Of course, the devaluations didn't really matter since even the international convertibility ha been eliminated. Reynolds

1 0

Another URL for PGP announcement...
by Brian A. LaMacchia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That URL I posted earlier for MIT's PGP announcement won't work after some time today. (The server is/was located in the Hilton Ballroom and had to be moved.) A more permanent URL is: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html This URL will be updated to include information on how to get PGP 2.5 when it is available. --bal

1 0

Re: MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>What is the point here? The MBONE isn't like usenet. Sessions aren't >free. Personaly, I'd say that frivolous use of the mbone will alienate >people. > >Perry I disagree. The MBone is here for us to use. Sessions do cost traffic but not actual dollors to individuals who actually bring it up. You may be limited by the connection you have to the Internet or by the router you have that interconnects you to the Internet though, which will determine what you can see and do on the MBone.. I also feel that such a message that I sent will be well received on the net. I doubt it's going to alienate folks. People are human and like alittle humor with the salt. :) Sad news though. I just found out that the MBone sessions I brought up are not seen outside of my site due to router setups. But I will be able to do such things in the future and you can bet I will. :) Prehaps you would feel better if I didn't actually use the term cypherpunks as you feel it might represent the cypherpunks on this mailing list. I think this is not so. Isn't that term a general one for folks who like to work with encryption and are hackers? -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re:
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >lefty(a)apple.com (Lefty) says, > >lef> and then treats us to what he purports to be Mr. Nalbandian's phone number >lef> and address. >... >lef> Whoever you are, nobody, you're a hypocrite and a coward. > >Well, it wasn't me, but in any event I dispute this. The use of anonymous >remailers does not make one a coward, any more than the use of a pseudonym >does (or is your given name "Lefty")? Certainly the use of an anonymous remailer in and of itself it doesn't make one either a coward or a hypocrite. However, invading someone's privacy by posting their telephone number and home address is a hypocritical act for anyone who expects others to respect their own privacy. Moreover, doing so anonymously is cowardly. And, yes, my using my long-standing nickname, "Lefty", is _quite_ different from posting anonymously. You can reply directly to me using my email address, <lefty(a)apple.com>, which appears in the header of everything I post; moreover, I am responsible for what I post using that ID. See it up there? You can easily determine who I am from that information. <lefty(a)apple.com> is, in effect, a True Name. <nowhere(a)bsu-cs.toad.com> is not. <nobody(a)jarthur.cs.hmc.edu> is not. >As for the privacy aspect, I believe it may serve the interests of those >who desire privacy to point out privacy lapses. Not all the time, but >sometimes you have to say, "the emperor has no clothes". It is not the case that anybody "pointed out a privacy lapse" here. On the contrary, someone _committed_ a privacy lapse by obtaining and posting Mr. Nalbandian's phone number and address _specifically_ as an incitement for people to harass him. This _is_ an invasion of privacy. Are you somehow failing to see that? >For example, would you object to this: > >an4544(a)anon.penet.fi = Eric Robison <ericr(a)Solbourne.com> >an68863(a)anon.penet.fi = Derek M. Harkins <harkinsd(a)solix.fiu.edu> > * >an51751(a)anon.penet.fi = Joe Baptista <baptista(a)planet.org> > >The anonymous remailer is not so anonymous, is it? Should I have kept >the information to myself, or am I right to publicize it? What you have supplied represents an invasion of privacy as well, in my opinion. If you were to explain how you came by this information, _that_ might be worth sharing, but simply presenting a mapping of anonyms to truenyms is not. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: FW: MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gosh, I think I posted this to cypherpunks earlier... Check to see if your site has a tunnel.... If you have multicast packets coming over your subnet, you can access them via sd and other tools... To ftp them, ftp to: ftp.ee.lnl.gov The audio (vat), whiteboard (wb) & session directory (sd) tools are on ftp.ee.lbl.gov in conferencing/{vat,wb,sd}/*. The most widely used video tool (nv) is available on parcftp.xerox.com in pub/net-research. -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: MBone cypherpunks session...
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Evil Pete says: >> > >> >What is the point here? The MBONE isn't like usenet. Sessions aren't >> >free. Personaly, I'd say that frivolous use of the mbone will alienate >> >people. >> >> just cause everyone does not have phone does not mean we shalt not >> use telephones. >> >> just cause everyone does not have email does not mean we shalt not use email > >You completely misunderstand. The MBONE is a very scarce resource at >the moment. Setting up teleconferencing sessions that aren't, say, >multicasting a conference (like, say, a Cypherpunks meeting) but are >just being used to let people do what they do on mailing lists at >500,000 times the cost in network bandwidth isn't social. > >Perry > Perry, I think you are not quite clear on how the MBone works. It uses the bases of broadcasting a session once which can be received by the many. Only a few of those many will get involved with the session in the since of retransmitting... There are some WWW sites that have alot of MBone info which you might check out. Urls: http://www.research.att.com/mbone-faq.html http://eitech.com/techinfo/mbone/mbone.html http://www.eit.com/techinfo/mbone/mbone.html http://info.arl.army.mil/ACIS/ACD/MBONE/index.html http://info.brl.mil/ACIS/ACD/MBONE/index.html http://www.gatech.edu/aimosaic/faculty/catrambone.html enjoy! -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Re: Putting new PGP on company machines.
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Has anyone asked the company shysters about the legal status of MIT- PGP? > I'd really like to have and use pgp at work, but have hesitated abou t > putting it our machines here, as we are so prim and proper (in publi c) > about intellectual property. Asked them what? When PGP 2.5 is released (what you call MIT-PGP), it *WILL* be legal in the US. It will use RSAREF 2.0, so there will be no question as to its legality in the US for non-commercial purposes. Two things come to mind. First, some company lawyers may not like the provisions of the RSAREF license. At the very least, most companies with on-staff lawyers would want them to glance at it. Second, I've never seen a comparable piece of electronic ``paper'' about IDEA. Have you seen something from the patent owners themselves? Not that I have any doubts -- but I've seen cases where lawyers demanded a paper trail of agreements from the patent assignee of record as listed in the Official Gazette. The answers may be obvious to some folks on this list -- but most of us aren't lawyers.

2 1

Re: legal rqmt for FAX return phone #
by Randy Antler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Begin forwarded message: > > Date: Fri, 6 May 94 12:38:30 PDT > From: dat(a)ebt.com (David Taffs) > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: legal rqmt for FAX return phone # > Content-Length: 539 > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > > I thought I heard somewhere that it was illegal to send > anonymous faxes -- namely, that there was some regulation > that you had to program your FAX machine with your phone > number so it would get sent automagically whenever you > faxed anything. Essentially it was ILLEGAL to fax without > providing the recipient with a mechanism to find out where > it came from. Of course, I suspect enforcement is lax, but > still... :-) :-( > > Can someone please confirm this, or help with a reference? > Private e-mail is fine... > > -- > dat(a)ebt.com (David Taffs) I was _just_ speaking with a few technicians at various FAX management software vendors. A couple of them were saying that identifying the return telephone number on incomings FAXes is highly problematic. There are no established standards regarding the format or presentation of the return FAX number information. Also, some older FAX machines may or may not have the feature at all. I wonder, however, because it seems to me that whenever I've received FAXes in the past (not exactly commonplace) they have always had the return FAX number somewhere at the top of the page. -- randy(a)pilot.com (home address) NeXTMAIL randy(a)nacm.com (work address) Welcome! *Out* and _proud_ of it! (public key on keyservers) ________________________________________________________________________ "We are here! We are here! We are here!" -- Horton and the Who ________________________________________________________________________ GCS(GAT): d--(---/-d+) p-@ c+++@ l u++@ e* m+/++ s/+ n+(---) h(--) f* g+ w++/+++ t++ r(-) y+(*)

1 0