- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs
by Tim May 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

On Jan 1, 2004, at 2:35 PM, Eric S. Johansson wrote: > Tim May wrote: > >> I'm skeptical of this claim. A lot of Intel and AMD and similar >> machines are running full-tilt, "24/7." To wit, Beowulf-type >> clusters, the Macintosh G5 cluster that is now rated third fasted in >> the world, and so on. None of these machines is reported to be >> burning up literally. Likewise, a lot of home and corporate users are >> running background tasks which are at 100% CPU utilization. > > I will admit to a degree of skepticism myself even though I am > describing overheating as a likely outcome. But what is your actual evidence, as opposed to your belief that overheating is a likely outcome? I have said that I know of many machines (tens of thousands of CPUs, and probably many more I don't know about directly) which are running CPU-bound applications 24/7. I have heard of no "burning up literally" cases with the many Beowulf clusters, supercomputers, and 24/7 home or business screensavers and crunching apps, so I suspect they are not common. If you have actual evidence, as opposed to "likely outcome" speculations, please present the evidence. > > First, if you lose a fan on an Intel CPU of at least Pentium III > generation or an AMD equivalent, you will lose your CPU to thermal > overload. This is a well-known and well-documented problem. One > question is can stamp work thermally overload and damage a CPU. > Second question is how much stamp work can you do without thermally > overloading the CPU. This is true whether one is running Office or a stamp program. You are just repeating a general point about losing a fan, not about stamp generation per se. Boxer fan lifetimes are usually about comparable to hard drive lifetimes, which also kill a particular machine. You are not presenting anything new here, and the association with stamp generation is nonexistent. > > Large clusters have more careful thermal engineering applied to them > than probably most of the zombies out there. I have seen one Beowulf > cluster constructed out of standard 1U chassis, motherboards, fans > etc. and frequently 10 percent of the systems are down at any one > time. The vast majority of the failures have been due to thermal > problems. Most clusters use exactly the same air-cooled machines as are available from Dell, Sun, Apple, etc. In fact, the blades and rackmount systems are precisely those available from Dell, Sun, Apple, etc. You are presenting no evidence, just hypothesizing that your stamp protocol somehow burns out more CPUs than render farms do, than Mersenne prime apps to, than financial simulations do, etc. Yet you present no actual numbers. > > so, will we see a Pentium IV spontaneously ignite like a third tier > heavy-metal group in a Rhode Island nightclub? No, you're right, we > won't. I think it's safe to say we will see increasing unreliability, > power supply failures, and failures of microelectronics due to > increased thermal load. Which is good enough for my purposes. Evidence is desirable, belief is just belief. --Tim May "That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David Thoreau

1 0

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks
by Tyler Durden 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

Tim May wrote (and fairly cogently, I might add)... "If a person thought he was not being paid enough, it was his option to go elsewhere, to start his own business, etc. If a business wanted to raise or lower prices, their option. Customers were free to purchase or not." This is an idealization, of course, and to the extent that it was true I agree with some of the main conclusions here. Another idealization is that, once in a while, someone will get caught in a downsizing or without a job for a while. Knowing that some small cushion existed allowed those with fairly minimal capital to take the kinds of risks implicit in what you're talking about. "The meme which Tyler Durden and John Young--not surprising to me that both are Manhattanites, representing the East Coast view of capitalism--are popularizing is the one that says that what made companies successful was *government spending*, not this compact which needed little or no government role, and that this makes government intervention in business justifiable. Even more mendacious is the claim that those who worked hard and risked their capital by investing in companies are profiting at the expense of the "less privileged." " Well. I wasn't exactly trying to say that. At least, "Intel was successful because the government gave it tax breaks..."...that's what I'm NOT saying. However, add my point above to the notion that the whole American social fabric probably can not be separated into small discete chunks, and you get my point. Or at least, the logic that compels one to conclude that the murder of 40 million African Americans is justifiable should somehow make one take those notions with a grain of salt. Intel or National Semiconductor doesn't and never did exist in a vacuum. They were started by great engineers and physicsts that were educated in places like Stanford, or that worked in Bell Labs. And this isn't an argument for tax-and-spend 'statism' per se, but simply that there's a social/political/economic environment that can't be diced and sliced. You'd dice and slice an African American population, but then again it's from these inner cities that much of popular American culture has arisen (ie, between pro sports, various forms of music and so on...). Who knows the impact these people have had in terms of providing 'content' for the chips and TV screens and so on. Am I therefore arguing that this justifies US tax policies? Hell no. I might bother trying if I thought $$$-towards-blacks amounted to anything more than mere mollification and storage. (Hell, my household probably pays more than the whole rest of the Cypherpunks list in annual taxes...including May, I'd bet.) No, blacks aren't the enemy. I'm not even convinced that the basic notion of the "state" is the enemy. But those who currently adminster the state and utilize it for various ends have morphed themselves, and (most likely) the American State into the defacto enemy that billions of people throughout the world are starting to resent. For that reason I'd like to cut out the cancer that eats my hard-earned resources and utlizes them to benefit a preselected few. -TD PS: Is there any comment that Mr May would like to profer on the issue of having been rejected by some hot black tail back in the day? (ie, aside from "I'd like to see you are your infant children stripped of epidermis and dipped in seasalt") >From: Tim May <timcmay(a)got.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:06:29 -0800 > >On Dec 31, 2003, at 10:51 AM, Tim May wrote: >>> >>>Add to that the fact that Mr May seems to lead a fairly bucolic life >>>(from his accounts)...working in his gardens, installing tripwires and >>>landmines and so forth, apparently without worrying about cash or >>>physical needs. So this system has served him pretty well, insofar as >>>there was a place for him to apply his skills in order to make his $$$. >>>That system was payed for by somebody else's taxes, and now it's asking >>>(well, demanding from) him for some $$$ that he apparently can easily >>>afford. >> >>Nonsense. The chip companies were NOT "payed for by somebody else's >>taxes." (Nor was the invention of the IC or the microprocessor paid for by >>DARPA or anyone else in government, despite factually incorrect lore to >>the contrary. I was there, at least for the onset of the micro, and I can >>say precisely what role government contracts played: none.) >> >>Engineers and scientists who work an estimated 8 months out of each year >>to pay their taxes (Federal plus state plus local plus payroll plus >>property plus sales plus.....) see the minority layabouts working not one >>_day_ for their "entitlements" and "benefits" and "social services." > >I'm going to elaborate on this point, as there seems to be a growing meme >in the tech culture (especially amongst the anti-free trade, >twentysomething, self-described "geeks") that somehow government built or >paid for technology, business, high tech, etc. > >What built our "system" was essentially a _compact_, an agreement codified >in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and even centuries of common law that >a bunch of things would happen: > >-- that interference in the business choices of a business would be minimal > >-- that failing businesses would not be bailed out (and, indeed, none of >the leading companies in 1850 last much beyond 1900, few in business in >1900 are still dominant, etc.) > >-- that owners, employers, etc. and their employees, customers, etc. would >themselves negotiate wages, prices, benefits, etc., without a top-down >order about who might be employed, at what rates, etc. > >(This of course began to change when the socialists assumed power in the >1930s, and then dramatically changed when the Great Society socialists >assumed power in 1961. It then came to be seen as the role of government to >set wages, to force businesses to deal with those they wished not to, to >let debtors off without repaying debts or even having their kneecaps >smashed, etc. This was the start of the Era of Entitlements, when some >ethnic groups decided that reading be for whitey and that they would coast >on freebies paid for by the "suckas" still working.) > >This compact, based essentially on voluntary interaction in trade, >employment, and investment, worked quite well for many decades. This >compact, this way of doing things which is usually called "liberty" or >"laissez faire," was not "built" by government...until relatively recent >times the size of government was small and tax rates for most workers and >investors were low. What made the system work was that the system largely >worked on the "non-initiation of force" principle, which is what begets >voluntary transactions. If a person thought he was not being paid enough, >it was his option to go elsewhere, to start his own business, etc. If a >business wanted to raise or lower prices, their option. Customers were free >to purchase or not. > >The meme which Tyler Durden and John Young--not surprising to me that both >are Manhattanites, representing the East Coast view of capitalism--are >popularizing is the one that says that what made companies successful was >*government spending*, not this compact which needed little or no >government role, and that this makes government intervention in business >justifiable. Even more mendacious is the claim that those who worked hard >and risked their capital by investing in companies are profiting at the >expense of the "less privileged." > >"You are successful because of the taxes paid by the less-privileged, so >now it is right that you be taxed at high rates so that welfare benefits >can be maintained." is the essential message here. > >This is hokum. Very few U.S. or even European and Asian businesses were >built with public funds. Neither Sony nor Honda, two examples of post-war >successes, were built by MITI (MITI, in fact, frequently criticized Sony >and Honda for the courses they pursued...meanwhile MITI was funding the >now-defunct TRON microprocessor and the Fifth Generation Computer, utterly >missing out on workstations, PCs, modern microprocessors, CAD, routers, and >the Internet). > >None of Intel's achievements, whether the first dynamic RAM (the 1101), the >first EPROM, the first microprocessor, the first single board computer, the >first...., etc., was paid for by any kind of DARPA or DOD or government >grant. In fact, the military was pissed off at us for not developing their >kind of "mil-spec" components, for not bidding on military contracts. We >made our products by selling to those who wanted to buy them. Period. And >we risked our savings by buying stock in the company and others of its >kind. > >Make a list of companies of the past 50 years, in the U.S., Japan, and >Europe, and virtually none of them had significant U.S. funding. Sure, some >of them had a lot of government purchases...aircraft companies, for >example, will almost always end up selling heavily to national governments. >But Boeing beat out Convair (on the 707 vs. 880 race) for very basic >reasons. Likewise, Boeing again "bet the company" on the 747, between 1965 >and 1970. It succeeded, and only partly because of government purchases. >Mostly it was just competency. > >And so on. The best examples are in Silicon Valley, now being taxed at >cumulative rates exceeding 75%. For what? To pay mostly for things they >will not, and cannot, ever benefit from. > >This is one of the reasons Intel and other companies are expanding so >rapidly in other countries, places where the work force is not made up of >increasingly illiterate high school kids, mall rats, and whiggers. In China >and India and Malaysia they have no translation of "reading be for whitey." > >In 30 years America and Europe are going to be in a precarious position. > >--Tim May > > >"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the >people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some >rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no >majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin of the New >York Historical Society, October 7, 1789 _________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

2 1

Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks
by Tyler Durden 01 Jan '04

01 Jan '04

"Nowhere in Tim's spew is the recognition that the largest beneficiaries of government favoritism are corporations and wealthy individuals like himself, especially those associated with the greeders of the defense industry, rather the national security state." Yes...that's the thing I don't fully get. If we assume that Mr May made a big chunk of $$$ at Intel, isn't it rather naive of him to assume that the same system that helped make Intel the global $$$-generator it is isn't the same system that keeps black folks quiescent and so on? I think it's doubtful that Intel could have become what it is in any other country in the world. Add to that the fact that Mr May seems to lead a fairly bucolic life (from his accounts)...working in his gardens, installing tripwires and landmines and so forth, apparently without worrying about cash or physical needs. So this system has served him pretty well, insofar as there was a place for him to apply his skills in order to make his $$$. That system was payed for by somebody else's taxes, and now it's asking (well, demanding from) him for some $$$ that he apparently can easily afford. This doesn't necessarily annhilate his "arguments" or main thesis, but in this light the call for the killing of millions so that he can afford a few more landmines seems perplexing. As for the middle east and US foreign policy, I'd be more convinced if Mr May and others pointed to that as a main reason to stop paying taxes and back out of the system. In other words, that there may or may not be any 'inherent' flaw to a fairly light form of "statism", but that it's defacto application (in the case of the US) is creating a seriously destabilized global political environment, while decreasingly serving (though a piss-poor education system) those that ought to benefit from taxes and spending. (This was why I became interested in "Crypto-Anarchy".) Of course, I'll add the usual boiler-plate notion invoked by physicists, mathematicians, and hard-scientists almost universally, in their heart of hearts: Only mathematics and experimental physics (as a thought system or philisophy) are truly reliable and able to make definitive conclusions about the world...all other so-called systems of thought (including sociology, political 'science', economics and so on) are half-baked hodge podges at best. Therefore, any thought system that has as a corrollary "...and 40 million negros should die..." should immediately be suspect of having been based on a foundation of non-mathematical muck, likely relating to penis envy and getting rejected by some hot black chick Mr May tried to date back in 1957 or whatever. -TD >From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: Re: Vengeance Libertarianism >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 04:38:04 -0800 > >What's pleasurable about reading the fiction of ideologues like >Tim is the smack-down tone of their prejudices. Fake, fake, >fake. > >Nowhere in Tim's spew is the recognition that the largest >beneficiaries of government favoritism are corporations and >wealthy individuals like himself, especially those associated with >the greeders of the defense industry, rather the national >security state. No US institution has been uncontaminated >by the wealth generated by the illusion of US enemies and the >raping of the economy to simulate battle with such fictional >threats, at home and abroad. > >Welfare is puny by comparison, and Tim's castigation of >it is like the master of the house bitching about health needs >of his servants while requiring them to wipe his ass. Standard >nouveau riche conceit which reveals a fear of again being >a poor asswipe himself, the stench of self-loathing inescapable. > >The favorite mindlessness of the ideologue, is to rehash endlessly >comfortable old prejudices, chanting repetitively the same >accusations, avoiding self-criticism in the manner of the >self-righteous, professing of certainty to conceal doubt, >working hard to present an image of confidence, most often >by blaming and attacking easy targets. > >The rich fear the poor, and rightly so, for they know who pays >for their perks. And the answer to this fear is always threats >of violence, the dominant paradigm of those who reap the >most benefits from house rules of the United States. > >Cloaked, as ever, in blind faith in the "Constitution," or another >rigged fat cat document used to fleece the peasants at home >and abroad, based as they always are on justification of the >supremacy of the over-privileged. > >Eveready to shoot those who disagree, send them up the >chimneys, the teenie-bopper ideologue struts mightily >against imaginary demons. > >Wasn't it a leftist who coined Goldwater's most memorable >phrase? Extremists are all alike, full of shit and hatred, their >own worst enemy. Suicide prone, but afraid to go alone. _________________________________________________________________ Enjoy a special introductory offer for dial-up Internet access limited time only! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

4 4

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Major Variola (ret) 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

At 07:48 PM 12/26/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >Then I guess you better start liberating the world. If I were a neocon asshole, I would. Instead, I regard liberation as a local task, and interfering with sovereignty as the initiation of force, ie an act of war. >Nice... So in the US you have : > >- Walmart which censors music to make it "clean". >- Blockbuster who edits movies (or has in the past, not sure if they >still do) >- TV Stations who edit movies >- Censors at TV stations who "watch" over the programming. >- What about the FCC who restricts what can be aired? You need to be clear: only governments can censor. Walmart etc can do whatever they want. That's what private property means. You don't have a right to put your bumper sticker on my car (compelled speech, see the 1st), or prohibit me from putting my sticker on my car. (I just drove 400 miles in a car with the US flag upside down and "Fucked" written over it. Its a magnetic sticker I remove when I travel with my pharmaceutical of choice.) TV stations which exploit the aetherial commons are a tricky case. The government licensors have to be very careful not to induce censorship. >> Fuck censors dead. > >I agree. Well, ok then :-)

4 3

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism
by Harmon Seaver 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:48:21PM -0500, Sunder wrote: > > > > > No, I have offspring. But what makes you think I'm human? > > > Ok, so, you're not human, you're a lunatic. Well, with an emphasis on the "luna" ... > Howl at the moon much lately? > As a matter of fact, yes. Good for the soul, and "what ails ye". Also often a fairly sociable event, at least among my volken. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com

1 0

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism
by Tyler Durden 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

James Donald wrote... "You just issued the "sovereignty" rationalization for Saddam's crimes," Hey...I just heard that a country that's even MORE free than the US has decided to liberate us from our oppressors in Washington DC. Don't stand on your balcony to cheer for them as they roll through your town, however...some of the "instigators" that support the old regime have been causing trouble, so you're bound to mistaken for one of them and get shot. Just remember: this is so you can be FREE.... -TD >From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com >Subject: Re: Vengeance Libertarianism >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:36:01 -0800 > > -- >On 30 Dec 2003 at 22:49, Tim May wrote: > > I never went through a Marxist phase, never even came close. > >You are real close right now. > >You just issued the "sovereignty" rationalization for Saddam's >crimes, and your peculiar recollection of the speakers at those >Vietnam war demonstrations sounds like a marxist's >recollection, and of course theire are your regular call for >various groups to be sent up the chimney's, which presupposes >some benevolent vanguard group wise enough and virtuous enough >to identify which individuals belong to these undesirable >categories and need to go up the chimneys. > >It is not that you never were close to being a communist, it is >that you have never been close to repenting, except on tax and >spend issues. > >Apart from taxes, you are still as commie as ever. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > n3CKSWZU6+m1x4nkwGwK0eRrgkUtI5TMsXWBKz5E > 4FWnzNBI3XNIbvyHNKS2VTD1t7nF94SM3amrrE8Lu _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize

1 0

Re: [IP] FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers
by Tim May 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:30 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: > My first thought on reading this was that it was from > The Onion, but its real. > > I guess being well-informed is now a cause for suspicion, > as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. > > Well, they've been working on the mountains of skulls in Iraq (of course, we have to destroy the country in order to save the country), so going after eyeglass wearers, the college-educated, and those who watch PBS is the logical next step. Today's news is that analysts are saying a successful prosecution of Saddam on "war crimes" is going to be nearly impossible, given that he was a sovereign leader attacked by a foreign power and that none of the "WMD" were found (not that having WMD has been grounds for war crimes convictions, else the U.S., U.S.S.R., P.R.C., U.K., France, Zionist Entity, and numerous other states would have been prosecuted.). So, I expect that even as I write CIA toxins experts are preparing what will make Saddam go away the quiet way. Look for him to go "of natural causes" before any War Crimes Tribunal can ever actually happen. (This space reserved for former Marxist and now neocon standard-bearer James Donald to foam that I am a Saddam lover and a supporter of Chomsky.) --Tim May, who owns both a Farmer's Almanac and a Rand-McNally Atlas (apparently the illiterates who recorded the Maximum Leader's thoughts on the dangers of "almanacs" may have gotten the two confused, we are now hearing, and the order for the droids to search for "almanacs" apparently got confused...so now they're looking for evildoers who have either of these banned books)

2 1

Re: [IP] FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers
by whellman＠mail.utexas.edu 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

Hrm, apologies for the piss-poor formatting (or so it appears to me) and lack of subject line in my last post (reproduced below with better formatting (I hope)). I'm stuck using a webmail interface for the time being and I've not quite gotten used to it yet. Wes Hellman >Tim May wrote: >>So, I expect that even as I write CIA toxins experts are preparing what will >>make Saddam go away the quiet way. Look for him to go "of natural causes" >>before any War Crimes Tribunal can ever actually happen. >Wouldn't that be completely obvious? If Saddam just happened to die of "natural >causes" it seems to me like anyone with half a brain would be able to figure >out what probably happened. Maybe I'm remembering this incorrectly, but I think >that when he was captured they said he was healthy. Regardless of whether or not >that was actually the case, if it is in fact the official position, it seems >like it would create troubles for a "natural death" scenario. >What would seem more likely to me is a Jack Ruby-style assassination. US forces >let Iraqi security escort Saddam from prison to the beginning of his trial, for >a nice photo-op. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, these Iraqi guards are still >adjusting and what have you, so oops, somehow a vengeful individual gets >through and shoots Saddam in front of all the cameras. Sure, we would have >rather had him tried in a just court, but he /did/ make a lot of enemies over >the years, and you know how that works... >Hell, they might not even have to explicitly hire anyone to do it. Just make >sure security is kind of slack and let word of this slip out, and the problem >takes care of itself...

1 0

None
by whellman＠mail.utexas.edu 31 Dec '03

31 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > So, I expect that even as I write CIA toxins experts are preparing what will > make Saddam go away the quiet way. Look for him to go "of natural causes" > before any War Crimes Tribunal can ever actually happen. Wouldn't that be completely obvious? If Saddam just happened to die of "natural causes" it seems to me like anyone with half a brain would be able to figure out what probably happened. Maybe I'm remembering this incorrectly, but I think that when he was captured they said he was healthy. Regardless of whether or not that was actually the case, if it is in fact the official position, it seems like it would create troubles for a "natural death" scenario. What would seem more likely to me is a Jack Ruby-style assassination. US forces let Iraqi security escort Saddam from prison to the beginning of his trial, for a nice photo-op. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, these Iraqi guards are still adjusting and what have you, so oops, somehow a vengeful individual gets through and shoots Saddam in front of all the cameras. Sure, we would have rather had him tried in a just court, but he /did/ make a lot of enemies over the years, and you know how that works... Hell, they might not even have to explicitly hire anyone to do it. Just make sure security is kind of slack and let word of this slip out, and the problem takes care of itself... Wes Hellman

1 0

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
by Major Variola (ret) 30 Dec '03

30 Dec '03

At 10:52 AM 12/27/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >> So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the >> swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license >> or something? (And let's just assume I have a "politically correct" >> view.) >> >> >To my understanding Historical documents are exempt from this. My "Handbook of Regular Patterns" (Stevens) includes Swastikas under the obvious symmetry group. Do I need a license?

1 0