- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CDR: Re: I created the "Al Gore created the Internet" story
by Craig Brozefsky 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > >>By 1986, numerous clones of the IBM PC and AT existed. > > > >Its quite simple. In 1995 MS released a version of Windoze which > >included a TCP/IP stack by default. Previously you had to acquire > >one and figure out how to install it. While fortunes were made > >on this, the collection of routers known as the Net was unavailable > >to Joe Sixpack until then. > > I don't buy this at all. Maybe there is some subtlety I am missing > completely. I don't buy it either. Prior to that release of Windows I was doing tech support for an ISP in Chicago using MacPPP for the mac and WinSock on Windows. We had several thousand subscribers prior to the time that TCP/IP came installed with Windows, and we had already hit the major upswing in our growth curve at that point. The explosion had more to do with Mosaic and Netscape than with the TCP/IP stack. The default stack in MS just allowed MS to strike deals with bigger ISPs, it didn't significantly streamline our installation process for new customers. The difference between installing from a cab file on your HD or CDROM, and installing from our CDROM, which came with a browser and the other applications that people were actually interested in, is trivial. I suppose one could say that the bundling of ISP services with the default Windows install increased the rate of new internet users significantly, but the explosive growth has already started by then. -- Craig Brozefsky <craig(a)red-bean.com> "the sacrifice of real, immediate life is the price paid for the illusory freedom of an apparent life." Vaneigem

2 1

CDR: RE: why should it be trusted?
by Trei, Peter 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

> ---------- > From: Ken Brown[SMTP:k.brown@ccs.bbk.ac.uk] > Reply To: k.brown(a)ccs.bbk.ac.uk > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:21 AM > To: Trei, Peter > Cc: Cypherpunks; 'Nathan Saper' > Subject: Re: why should it be trusted? > > "Trei, Peter" wrote: > > > Nathan, have you ever actually looked at socialized medicine? It's > > fine for some things, but not for others. Illnessess which can be > > cured and which curing will return a person to productive labour > > get treated - after a while. Illnessess which strike late in life and/or > > require expensive treatment get much shorter shrift. > > This isn't really true. The NHS tends to be quite good at big stuff, > serious interventions. The UK is also quite good for fixing small 1-off > problems (the poor wait in line, the less poor just pay same as anywhere > else). What it isn't so good at is chronic but not life-threatening > problems. In other words, just the ones "which curing will return a > person to productive labour". Of course these are also the exact same > health problems that private health insurance is worst at. > I've read various stories (mostly in New Scientist and The Economist) about people being refused expensive chemotherapy by the NHS. > > Why do you > > think Austin Power's teeth were a running joke?[...] > > Dentistry in the UK is almost entirely private & sometimes used as an > example of why publicly provided healthcare is supposed to be better! > Except for the poorest, we pay for it out of our own pockets (as adults > anyway, there is a certain amount of public provision for children). > Same applies to opticians & so on. > I stand corrected. The fact remains that bad teeth are part of the American stereotype of Britons. > There are a lot of problems (particularly local ones in London because > nationally set budgets don't reflect the cost of provision here - the > district I'm in has over 20% shortfall in the number of nurses on the > staff because they aren't paid enough), but on the whole I think you'll > find few Brits who would give up the idea of the NHS. After all we live > longer than you do, on average (assuming you are USAn), are slightly > poorer to start with & spend a *lot* less on healthcare per head, public > & private combined. In fact you spend almost as much on "socialised" > medicine as we do, far less cost-effectively. > ... and you have a continuous brain drain of doctors to the greener fields of the US. > Ken > Peter Trei

1 0

CDR: Nathan's fear of nothingness
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Amusing. >Here is my last post in this thread, because I feel that it is going >nowhere: > Isn't that a CP thread hallmark? Is this a preview of item 2) ? >My views are irreconcilable with those of the libertarians on this >list. Here's the way I view the world: > > 1) Life has no inherent value. Our being here is random, and > there is no purpose to our lives. > All 100% true and anyone who disagrees is full of shit but you seem to have missed subparagraph a) where people in their wonderful and surprising variety have filled the void by assigning their own personal values to their lives and the world around them. Values which they hold dearly and do not have to justify to anyone unless they choose to. > 2) "Human progress" is bullshit. We are no further along as a > species now than we were in Plato's time. Basically, we're > going nowhere fast. > Again, an accurate but useless observation. At least the accomodations are good and we don't usually have to work on weekends and can get out to the occasional ballgame or fishing trip while we wait for the confirmation of our ultimate meaninglessness. > 3) People have no essential "rights." Rights don't exist. > This is a theme often found in the work of many modern > philosophers, such as Foucault. > Here we go again. 100% true and 100% useless. People have those rights which they choose and are able to guarantee themselves either individually or as a tribal group. > 5) Taking all three premises above, the only way I can find to > evaluate what is right and what is wrong is "do what causes the > least pain." > Aha! Now we see the arbitrary values inherent in the system. Fleeing from nihilism you have arrived at your current Pain Avoidance Value Set. It is one of many possible sets. You would impose impose these values on others as far as possible ( power thing ). Standard human behavior. Nothing new or profound. > I guess this is basically pragmatism. For > example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the > world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate > this, because this would lead to less pain in the world. (And > I don't consider some people having to sell their Ferraris > "pain." ;-) Someone here said that each time taxes are raised, > we lose freedom. So what? First of all, what is "freedom"? > Second of all, what is so great about it that it should be > evaluated before everything else? > Arbitrary value set #1 vs. Arbitrary value set #2. Actually more of a continuum where self-interest, and community interest ( and sometimes looniness ) defines the camps and the players are free to choose. >So I guess when people say "but by making the insurance companies pay >for the medical care, you are stealing from them," my answer is "So >what?" > Steal from them if you can but keep in mind that they will try to protect themselves from your attempts to impose your arbitrary values on them. >I understand that this way of viewing the world is not shared by many >on this list, so it seems that it would be damn near impossible for us >to reach agreement. > yawn. Since when has Agreement of any sort been a desired outcome? Mike

1 0

CDR: vmware
by Alan David Zoldan 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Hello, Do you know how I can get a valid license for my vmware for linux? Alan.

2 1

CDR: RE: why should it be trusted? TYPO!!
by Trei, Peter 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

I wrote: [...] > The solution to this problem is not to propose different ways to > slice up the too-small pie - it's to expand the pie. The greater the > wealth, the more people who can afford good care. People who are > responsible for their own welfare (and enslaved to the welfare of > ^NOT! > others) have the best chance of acheiving wealth. > > Peter Trei > > > > > > >

1 0

CDR: jhkhb
by ahmed moha 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

fucing woman

1 0

Re: CDR: Re: Illicit words
by brflgnk＠cotse.com 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Re: the Echelon bait list. I get most of them, but what is provocative about "POM PARK ON METER"? Google and AltaVista only seem to turn up pages that quote the list.

1 0

CDR: voteauction moves offshore
by anonymous＠openpgp.net 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Will the Austrians treat the US injunction like Cryptome treats letters from HRH? Monday October 23 07:00 PM EDT Vote auction site attempts to skirt shutdown order By Patricia Jacobus, CNET News.com A rogue Web site purporting to sell votes for the upcoming U.S. presidential election is back in operation after being shut down last week under a federal court order. The Web site, formerly Voteauction.com, reappeared on the Net over the weekend under a new address run from outside the United States and beyond the easy reach of election officials. "The Web site may have started as a parody, but we dont think its a joke," said Thomas Leach, spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections, which last Wednesday won an injunction ordering the site taken down. "Its encouraging U.S. citizens to break the law." The idea for the site, now Vote-auction.com, is to capitalize on undecided voters who planned on sitting out the November presidential election. Uncommitted voters can sell their votes to the Web site. The votes are then auctioned to the highest bidder, who decides which presidential candidate gets them. About 1,131 Illinois voters have participated in this questionable practice, according to the Web site. In California, 2,546 voters have so far taken part in the auction. Selling votes carries a maximum three-year federal prison term. It is unclear whether the votes being auctioned are legitimate. But with the balance of the presidential election hanging on a thin margin, the authorities arent taking any chances. "Could it affect the outcome of the elections? Yes," Leach said. "Should it? No." Created by James Baumgartner, a graduate student in New York, and later sold to a group of investors in Austria, the Web site has U.S. election officials up in arms. Authorities in New York, Illinois and California moved to shut down the site, with Chicagos election commission winning an injunction last week against Baumgartner, Austrian entrepreneur Hans Bernhard and three others, as well as Domain Bank, the registrar that provided the Internet address. As part of the court order, the judge specifically said Voteauction.com could not appear on the Net under a different name. After the order, Bernhard found a foreign registrar that issued a new, but slightly changed, Web address. Bernhard could not immediately be reached for comment, but information on his site declares that bidding on votes "works for, not against democracy." It also says he had huge reader support to keep the site in operation. Leach said the Chicago election commission has asked for help from the Austrian Embassy in Washington, D.C., to permanently shut down Bernhards business. The court injunction has also been delivered to the Ministry of Austria. "Theyre in defiance of a legitimate court order and in contempt of the American judicial system," Leach said of Bernhard and the others involved in Vote-auction.com.

2 1

CDR: RE: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives
by Lucky Green 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

> -----Original Message----- > From: cypherpunks(a)openpgp.net [mailto:cypherpunks@openpgp.net]On Behalf > Of Ray Dillinger > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 17:06 > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: RE: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives > I think that filtering software is an interesting case. > > While most of us would not use filtering software, I honestly think > that it's important to freedom. > > If nobody comes up with some filterware that works, then there will > probably be continuing pressure to regulate content. Hogwash. "We must censor ourselves (a little, for now at least) or the government will censor us (harshly)". Get in the game, --Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> "Anytime you decrypt... its against the law". Jack Valenti, President, Motion Picture Association of America in a sworn deposition, 2000-06-06

1 0

CDR: RE: why should it be trusted?
by Lucky Green 25 Oct '00

25 Oct '00

Nathan Saper wrote: > I think the government has a right to do whatever it needs to do > to maintain > the health and well-being of its population. That is the purpose of > the government. What is going on? Where are all these communists and fascists coming from that are populating our list nowadays? Why don't they crawl back under whatever rock they used to be? You are forgetting that government has some clear defined duties in this country. The duties are spelled out in the paragraph below: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". No, meeting one of the requirements (life) at the expense of the others does not count. --Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> "Anytime you decrypt... its against the law". Jack Valenti, President, Motion Picture Association of America in a sworn deposition, 2000-06-06

1 0