- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: THOUGHT: International Electronic Declaration of Rights
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Doesn't the U.N. have some kind of list of basic human rights? (Un- > enforceable, of course.) I thought I saw it in a story about Elanor > Roosevelt. I don't have the UN rights stuff handy, but most of it's non-useful, and is a good example of what happens when you let a committee of governments "define" your "rights" for you. I've spent more time looking at the UN treaty on the Rights of the Child (my church was lobbying our senator about getting the US to sign it, which I had problems with.) Typical "rights" included the right to free speech, subject to the needs of a society to preserve public order, the right to freedom of religion, subject to the needs of a society to preserve public order, the right to free compulsory education through 5th grade, without any particular identification of who would be forced to pay for "free", or acknowledgement of the more important right not to be compelled to be indoctrinated in whatever the government wants to force you to believe (e.g. South Africa forbidding public school students to use their native languages leading to Soweto massacre or France forbidding female public-school students to wear traditional Arab head-coverings), the right to national identity cards, etc. It's a mixture of "rights" that apply unless the government doesn't want them to, "rights" to have other people do things for you, rights that are too watered down to be worth the name, and rights that don't really include enforcement when governments don't honor them. It did have some meaningful parts - forbidding execution of children, forbidding drafting children under some age (I think it was 15 or 16) - and for many governments it would mean positive changes in spite of all the concessions to letting governments do whatever they want in the name of "social order". We can do better than that. Bill Stewart

1 0

Re: Cyberspace, Crypto Anarchy, and Pushing Limits
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sameer writes, in response to Tim: > > - a general move away from "commons"-oriented systems, which breed the > > notions of "fair access" and such. If the "problem" is that poor > > people cannot--it is alleged--afford a $17 a month Net connection > > (what Netcom charges, in about 25 cities and growing), then my > > solution would be to simply _subsidize_ their bill. (I'm not > > advocating this, nor do I think it wise to subsidize anyone's phone, > > Net, or dinner bills, but better this than "nationalizing" networks > > and thus creating more confusion and less efficiency for all.) > > We don't need subsidized bills for cheaper access. > Just cheaper access. It'll happen. Market pressure + all that. Tim's point, though was that we don't "need" cheaper access, and government-regulation solutions to achieve this pressing social need are not only bad, but unnecessary - if the government really wants to provide people with cheaper net access, it can hand them money, with less distortion of the market than regulation. One of the problems with the EFF open access proposals is that they tend to favor, or at least tolerate, regulation of the networks, which is an invitation to disaster, however well-intentioned it may be. Bill Stewart

1 0

Re: How many games of chess?
by GRABOW_GEOFFREY＠tandem.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When "different games" are mentioned, are we talking about any difference a significant difference. Are two 1000 move games different just because they have one move difference, or does the outcome need to be different? And, bye the outcome being different, does that just mean that the King i captured in a different square or does it require more? G.C.G. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Geoffrey C. Grabow | "What we demand are rigidly defined | | Oyster Bay, New York | areas of doubt and uncertainty!" | | | -------------------- | | grabow_geoffrey(a)tandem.com | Clipper, SkipJack & Digital Telephony | | | JUST SAY NO!!! | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | PGP fingerprint = C9 95 0F C4 E9 DD 8E 73 DD 99 4E F5 EB 7A B6 1D | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: THOUGHT: Internation
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:15 PM 04/04/94 -0700, Blanc Weber wrote: >From: Jamie Lawrence > >"....... I just would like to know if >those who object to this object on grounds of practicality or ideology (in >other words, for example do you object because you don't believe everyone >is *entitled* to a job......." > >having a job = making a living using $ >"a living": having an idea of a kind of life to live >pre-requisite: having a purpose in life >requisite: arranging your life to realize (achieve) that purpose > following-through on the work required > adjusting things around you to suit your >interest/sensibilities > >It would be impractical for another person to deliver all of these >things for me at their expense, when they should be spending time on >their own dreams & plans. It does not represent an ideal method to me >to have my lifestyle delivered to me, while aiming to be an >independent, autonomous individual with a mind of my own. Well, I guess we concieve of the meaning of the phrase "'right' to a job" somewhat differently. I see it as meaning everyone has the oppurtunity to earn a living. Whether or not I have the responsibility to follow through or not, I have that chance. (I also don't know that I think my job has anything to do with my purpose in life- If someone can find that to be the case, great, but otherwise it is just a way to stay alive while they are looking for the real thing, so to speak.) >Otherwise I would be obliged to serve the purposes & interests of those >who supply the means, the job, the money, on their schedule; that is, >whenever they could think of something for me to "do" on the entitled job list. I suppose I look at the alternative- that people don't have the right to earn a living, that doing so is a priviledge. How easy is it to get by without a job in this country? It can be done, but it sucks. >Blanc -j

1 0

Re: This List--Public, Private, or Other?
by jim＠bilbo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Who owns the games of volleyball played in my backyard? Since it's my backyard, I could tell everybody to go away, but then the games would also go away. The games could start up again in another backyard. Do I own the games? Effectively, no. The problem is with the term "own". I merely control the existence and character of games within the space of my backyard, but I can't control the existence or character of all games everywhere. I also cannot control the migration of a specific game from my backyard to another backyard. Sure, I can make sure the players don't use my volleyball or my net, but they can get other volleyballs and other nets. What is a volleyball game? Is it a volleyball court, a net, and a ball. No. Is it a group of people? No. Is it a group of people standing in a volleyball court with a net and a ball? No. Is it a group of people playing in a volleyball court with a net and a ball? Maybe. It depends on what they exactly they are doing with the net and the ball. A volleyball game only exists when they are playing volleyball. As soon as they stop, or are prevented from continuing, the specific game dissipates. A volleyball game emerges from specific interactions between the people and the items they manipulate (court, net, and ball). Can anyone own a mailing list? What is a mailing list? Is a mailing list a collection of hardware and software? Is it a bunch of people? Is it one message CC'ed to a group of people? A specific mailing list emerges over time from the specific interactions between an dynamic collection of people and the equipment used to support the interactions. Someone can own the equipment used to support a mailing list. They might also be able to "own" the name of the mailing list (copyrighted mailing list names?), but the name is not the most important characteristic of the list. They can also attempt to control the character of the list as long as the list is hosted on their equipment. However, the people who participate on the list can migrate the list to another host. Conclusion: You cannot own a mailing list because you cannot own the collections of people and interactions that define the mailing list. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

In the latest IEEE Spectrum
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For personal use only -- posted without permission "Classified algorithm for encryption" IEEE Spectrum, April 1994. Federal policy makers should reconsider the Clipper/Skipjack cryptography scheme, which employs a classified algorithm and Government-held keys as the basis of a new encryption standard, according to a six-page statement by IEEE-United States Activities. "Federal cryptography policy should not fight technological progress by attempting to retain outdated techniques of surveillance at the cost of the reliability and the security of the American information infrastructure," the statement concluded. The reasons given for issuing the statement included IEEE-USA's concerns that classified algorithms "cannot be proven secure," that individuals seeking to avoid detection would simply choose another cryptography method that can be downloaded from the Internet, and that law enforcement agencies can use other new methods--from vibration-sensing lasers on windows to keyboard-trapping programs. For more information, contact IEEE-USA at (202)785-0017. mt Matt Thomlinson University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. phone: (206) 548-9804 Check my home page -- ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/public/phantom/home.html PGP 2.2 key available via email, or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

1 0

How Many Games of Chess: Exact answer given!
by collins＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Based on new information I have at last answered the question of `How many games of Chess' with finality. Here is the quote that woke me up to the reality of this problem in combinatorics. Jim choate writes: >The fact is that the end game is what defines a game of chess and >not the infinitude of possible paths between the first and last move. The natural conclusion is that the complexity of the problem depends on how much of the game you consider to be the `endgame'. Thus, the actual number of different chess games: 5 2) White mates 1) Black resigns 0) Stalemate -1) White resigns -2) Black mates Happily, this agrees with observed behavior. In fact, this is the way posterity remembers them, e.g., "Oh, yes, Spasky won." ;-) Scott Collins | "That's not fair!" -- Sarah | "You say that so often. I wonder what your basis 408.862.0540 | for comparison is." -- Goblin King ................|.................................................... BUSINESS. fax:974.6094 R254(IL5-2N) collins(a)newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D Cupertino, CA 95014 ..................................................................... PERSONAL. 408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst(a)netcom.com

4 3

Re: THOUGHT: Internation
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jamie Lawrence: "Well, I guess we concieve of the meaning of the phrase "'right' to a job" somewhat differently. I see it as meaning everyone has the oppurtunity to earn a living." Except that you didn't say that, you said 'right to a job'. To me that means that there is a job in existence to which I have a right, or that one should be created for me so that I may be the beneficiary of it. "I also don't know that I think my job has anything to do with my purpose in life- If someone can find that to be the case, great, but otherwise it is just a way to stay alive while they are looking for the real thing, so to speak." Your basic purpose in life could be simply to maintain it while you or someone else figures out what it's for. Maintaining a life requires work, which is what a job is and does. The reference to a 'right' to a job is usually intended to mean that it should be provided, not just that the opportunity should exist. But in fact, no one is required to maintain another's particular existence; especially if they impress as being a purposeless being with no particular reason for being assisted in the maintenance of their purposeless life (i.e. there being no reason to be even *moved* to provide them with a job). It has been pointed out in my readings, that the Constitution makes a case for the *pursuit* of one's interest, to emphasize that it should not be hampered or prevented, but that it makes no case for the provision of that particular thing which one would pursue (like a house or a job). "I suppose I look at the alternative- that people don't have the right to earn a living, that doing so is a priviledge. How easy is it to get by without a job in this country? It can be done, but it sucks." People don't really have a right to do anything, yet they have the given means and a whole world & beyond, with which to do most of what they can imagine or anything they can manage. It's easy, when you know how. Blanc

1 0

RE: Cyberspace, Crypto Anarchy, and Pushing Limits
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Timothy C. May: "And we'll be moving our trade, our entertainment, and much of our lives into cyberspace a whole lot faster than we'll be slowly moving into low Earth orbit and beyond. In fact, I consider that I'm already half-way in. In a few years, with Mosaic-like one-touch connectivity, with a plethora of network choices, with secure remailers and similar tools to anonymize my transactions, I'll be so far in there'll be [no] turning back." Reach over quietly and s l o w l y *push* the 'Esc' button. Actually, some of us could become quite bored and decide to go to the beach, instead. Sometime, someday (when you least expect it), you'll have to come out and do some 3-dimensional living. Blanc

1 0

Re: Economic assumptions
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

F >There's a piece by Kevin Kelly called "Network Economics" in the F >latestWhole Earth Review, about how better communications tech and F >changed business practices lower transaction costs and (along with F >competition and the pace of things these days) are pushing down the F >optimum size of businesses. F > F >-fnerd F >quote me Likewise "The Incredible Shrinking Company" from THE ECONOMIST of DECEMBER 15, 1990. "Computers were supposed to centralise decision-making and produce ever, bigger firms. They seem to have done just the opposite Peering into its crystal ball in 1958, the Harvard Business Review said that computers would revolutionise American business. By the end of the 1980s they would ensure that American business would be concentrated as never before. The economy would be dominated by a few giant firms. Within each firm important decisions would be made by a handful of executives with access to the firm's single, big computer. The exact opposite has occurred. In America the average number of employees per firm has been falling since the late 1960s; but more and more of those employees have a computer on their desk." DCF --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

1 0