- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

European Commission proposal on legal framework for e-commerce (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 23:45:00 -0500 > From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> > Subject: European Commission proposal on legal framework for e-commerce > A proposal for a Directive to establish a coherent legal framework for the > development of electronic commerce within the Single Market has been put > forward by the European Commission. That's pretty gutsy, put your goal in plain english in the first sentence. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:06:30 -0500 > From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> > Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory > (RAM) under Windows") (fwd) > >1. Is it OpenSource? > Is this a religious argument? I think he said it was copyrighted freeware, > so use it and leave the copyright notices in and you're ok. Where does he say that Bill? And while it ain't religious, there are some perferences to having it open source versus controlled source. > >2. I assume since it never swaps to disk the memory requirements for the > > computer are large. What is the minimum suggested if one runs say > > 5 apps that each require 16M each, 5*16M & OS overhead? > > Bad Assumption. The memory requirements are whatever you want; Wrong, since the ENTIRE OS is run under this it's not nearly that simple. The OS's internal swap page as well as by extension the contexts they point to are going to be sitting in there. The app should also encrypt the address spaces of the system structures. > if you're storing a few private keys, or intermediate calculation results, > the requirements are very small; if you're storing 16MB databases, > they're much larger. For today, 16MB seems large enough that > I'd think you'd use a crypto-disk or instead of nailing it into RAM, > but the boundaries between huge, routine, and small keep moving > in this business, so maybe you do now, and you will soon enough. Where in that description does it say it allows particular apps to use this product? > Does anybody know if Win95/98 keeps RAMdisks in RAM, or swaps them > out to real disk along with other least-recently-used data? You don't know this but you're willing to try to rake me.... Talk about unprepared. > > And what is the suggested OS overhead with no swap to disk? > > (OK, that last one might be a 3rd question) > > That's a good question. My guess is that it's probably 0-2KB, > plus however big the drivers are, might be as big as 64KB, > but presumably isn't 1MB. In other words, too small to worry about > on recent machines, where an extra 16MB RAM costs $10, > but if you're using that spare 4MB 386 as a remailer, > you've got to be more careful. Your guess is pretty much worthless. What we'd like is an aswer from the person who wrote it. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:00:07 -0500 > From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart(a)pobox.com> > Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd) > The most recent amendment (27th?) sat around for nearly 200 years > before 3/4 of the states ratified it, (preventing Congress from > raising their salaries during their current term.) > The power to specify a time limit doesn't need separate mention; > the time limit is either part of the proposed amendment, or it isn't, > and it's part of the negotiations for getting Congress to pass it. Really? Where do you see that in the Constitution? > The more dangerous problem is that people keep suggesting a > Constitutional Convention, which has basically no limits on its scope And where do you see unlimited power assigned at under Article V? > (especially given the one previous precedent, which substantially > increased Federal power beyond the limits of the Articles, > and didn't require unanimous consent to adopt its product, > though the Articles required it for changing them.) That isn't a precedence. > Even if the states _say_ they're limiting their delegation to > specific tasks, that doesn't mean the ConCon won't exceed them, > and if it gets sufficient media/public support, it can get away with it. Sure it does, then the states remove their support and it isn't a convention anymore. ARTICLE V. [Constitution: how amended; proviso.] The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions of the three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which shall be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

native onani
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:24 AM 11/27/98 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > Obviously >neither homosexual nor homophobic, both groups >prefer the chaste option of onani (onanism) to the perceived compromises of >marital consummation. Worse than that, they use a geijing word for masturbation... --If the spice girls mud-wrestled shonen knife, who would win?

2 1

Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate misses the point, as usual: > Wrong, since the ENTIRE OS is run under this it's not nearly that simple. > The OS's internal swap page as well as by extension the contexts they point > to are going to be sitting in there. The app should also encrypt the address > spaces of the system structures. The original message said: > From: "Jim Adler" <jadler(a)soundcode.com> > The SCNSM driver supports allocation of non-swappable memory on Windows > 3.x/95/98. The principal design goal of SCNSM is to provide memory that will > not be swapped to disk, under any circumstances. Typically, security > applications require such memory to store private keys, passwords, and > sensitive intermediate results of cryptographic calculations. What is Choate thinking when he says the ENTIRE OS is run under this? This is a driver which is used by the application to allocate specific memory buffers in non-swappable memory. It allows the app to lock down those buffers so that they won't swap to disk. These buffers can then be used to hold sensitive data. It is neither possible nor desirable to run the ENTIRE OS out of such buffers. It is not possible because the OS is already written. It is Windows 3.x/95/98 (see above). That OS does not make the special driver calls which would be necessary to allocate non-swappable memory. You would have to rewrite Windows to use the special calls, which isn't possible for a luser like Choate. And it's not even desirable. There is no reason to make the ENTIRE OS use non-swappable memory. Most memory is simply not that sensitive. It holds public data, or data which is already on the disk in some form. Putting the ENTIRE OS into non-swappable memory gives up much of the advantage of having virtual memory in the first place. It would be a giant step backwards in OS architecture. Here's what Choate had to say when Bill Stewart tried to politely help him out: > You don't know this but you're willing to try to rake me.... > Talk about unprepared. > Your guess is pretty much worthless. It's bad enough to have to endure more of Choate's idiocy, but it is especially offensive to see him hassling Bill Stewart, one of the most consistently informative and valuable list members. Bill's a thick- skinned guy and it's probably no big deal to him, but it further illustrates what a negative contribution Choate makes here.

1 0

Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 17:41:53 +0100 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd) > What is Choate thinking when he says the ENTIRE OS is run under this? My mistake. Since it really does only handle individual apps it's of limited utility in the Windows world because of the numerous ways to get system level access. > This is a driver which is used by the application to allocate specific > memory buffers in non-swappable memory. It allows the app to lock down > those buffers so that they won't swap to disk. These buffers can then > be used to hold sensitive data. Considering that this doesn't prohibit apps from getting access to that memory, it only prohibits that memory page from being written to disk, it has limited utility. It's only real protection is against disk scans. For example a bogus service could gain system level and initiate a DMA transfer of that non-swappable ram into their own address space. > It is neither possible nor desirable to run the ENTIRE OS out of > such buffers. Sure it is. It's the entire reason to have big online memory pools. Idealy you'd have a computer with nothing but gig's and gig's of ram and no hard drive at all. > It is not possible because the OS is already written. > It is Windows 3.x/95/98 (see above). That OS does not make the special > driver calls which would be necessary to allocate non-swappable memory. > You would have to rewrite Windows to use the special calls, which isn't > possible for a luser like Choate. No, simply provide it enough ram it never has to swap out to disk except in the case of updates to files. If ram's that cheap we could do away with the drive completely. > And it's not even desirable. There is no reason to make the ENTIRE OS > use non-swappable memory. They why do I (and you unless youre using a tty) keep adding ram to my Win/Linux/Solaris/AIX/HP/etc. boxes to reduce the swapping that is taking place? It's slow, we put up with it because we can't afford those hundreds of meg's of ram to hold our app and the entire database file (for example). > Most memory is simply not that sensitive. > It holds public data, or data which is already on the disk in some form. > Putting the ENTIRE OS into non-swappable memory gives up much of the > advantage of having virtual memory in the first place. It would be a > giant step backwards in OS architecture. No, it wouldn't. The question of swap or virtual space is one of economics and not computer architecture. If it were economicaly feasible there would be no drives just fast main ram. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Cheap Travel Service
by za＠fz.ml.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This message complies with the PROPOSED United States Federal requirements for commercial email bill, Section 301. For additional info see: www.senate.gov~murkowski/commercialemail/EMailAmendText.html Required Sender Information:SDCT,6006 Greenbelt Ed, Suite 340, Greenbelt, MD Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further transmissions to you by the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to you by clicking To be taken off our list please hit reply and put delete as the subject. Taking a $3.5 Trillion Industry by Storm >>>The Demand is Outrageous >>>The Profits are Spectular >>>The Clients are happy. >>>Let me show you how to Make $2-3,000 Per week to Start. This is not MLM >>3 Min. Overview 888 220 6954 >>3 Min. Marketing Plan 888 540 0942 >>Testimonial Line 716 720 6951 >>Fax-on-Demand 716 720-2776, Doc. 1 For sign-up information, Send email to: >>mailto:merchantman-info@autoresponder.freeyellow.com

1 0

Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> > Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd) > Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 11:44:04 -0600 (CST) > > Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 17:41:53 +0100 > > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > > Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd) > > > What is Choate thinking when he says the ENTIRE OS is run under this? > > My mistake. Since it really does only handle individual apps it's of limited > utility in the Windows world because of the numerous ways to get system > level access. I forgot to add that I'd still be interested in knowing if the utility would support the entire OS being run under this and what the memory constraints would be. If I had 2 of the Samsung 4G memory modules w/ battery back-up I could run an entire machine without a hard-drive. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

Re: Pi(x) - How many primes below x?
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here are a couple of overdue Choate blooper corrections. Regarding the Prime Number Theorem, Choate originally wrote: > I had typed x/ln(x) as the asymptotic limit for the number of primes less > than x. > > This is incorrect. It should be, > > x/log(x) It should be noted that ln(x) is the logarithm to the base e of x. log(x) is somewhat ambiguous as to the base, but when it is contrasted with ln(x) as Choate does here, it implies that the base is 10. In fact the correct formula uses the base e, and x/ln(x) is not "incorrect" as Choate is claiming. When Choate's error was pointed out, he responded by quoting http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/howmany.shtml, which says that the formula is x/log x. What Choate failed to notice is that the web page clearly states that its logs are to the base e. In other words, the "log x" on that page is equivalent to the "ln(x)" which Choate originally wrote. Choate's original formula was the right one, and in writing that his formula was incorrect, he only displays his own confusion. With regard to his ludicrous model of a spark gap inside a conductive sphere, Choate originally wrote: > The spark gap generates sparks and that builds up free electrons in the > space inside the sphere (whether it is gas filled or a vacuum is > irrelevant). As that charge builds up it will be all of one type, electrons. > Now the electrons repel each other and therefor move in a circular motion > with the spark gap as the center. They strike the surface of the sphere and > tunnel through to the outside surface where they reside. The amount of > charge at any one point is related to the curvature of the surface at that > point. Since a sphere is constant curvature the charge will be evenly > distributed. It will continue to build up so long as you supply power to the > spark gap. In an ideal world it will get bigger and bigger. In the real > world at some point insulation breaks down and normal current flow takes > place. He believes that the spark gap emits electrons, which strike the inside surface of the sphere and "tunnel through" to the outside. He says that the charge will continue to build up so long as you supply power to the spark gap. Here is another message in which he made the same point: > This is in addition to the charge that steadily builds up in the shell as > the electrons accrete over time. This can be modelled with an integral of > the flow rate of the current in the battery (it after all is Coulombs/s). > It's not too hard (k * I). (I'm not going to go into what happens as the > charge on the shell builds up as we're discussing here the applicability of > wave equations as a reliable model). > > So what do you get? A hell of a charge that will go bang at some point when > some insulation give way. When it was pointed out how ignorant this idea was, and how it violates Gauss's Law, Choate tried to backpedal by proposing that the battery itself was charged in the first place. He even drew a picture: > 2N e- 1N p+ > > | | > | | > |-------------| |--------------| > | | | | > | | | | > | | > | | > |------0 0------------------0 0--| > \ > \ > spark gap switch It should be obvious that this device fails to generate the phenomena which he describes above. In the first place, since it has a net negative charge, the charge will appear on the outside of the sphere BEFORE THE SWITCH IS THROWN. There is no spark active, no electrons being emitted, yet a negative charge appears on the outside of the conductive sphere. This is an elementary application of Gauss's Law. Then, when the switch is thrown, there will be a spark, and some of the charges will neutralize each other, but of course the net charge will stay the same, by conservation of charge. The phenomenon Choate described of electrons being emitted by the spark gap, moving outward and striking the sphere, and then tunnelling through to make charge appear on the outside, will occur only in Choate's deluded imagination. Furthermore, there will be no "build up" of charge. The charge will be there from the moment the device is put into the sphere, long before the switch is thrown. Throwing the switch will have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the outside of the sphere. Michael Motyka spent several days trying to patiently explain all this to Choate, to no avail. He finally gave up in frustration. Choate is almost completely immune to enlightenment. He has certainly proved that patience and politeness make no dent in his thick skull. We shall see whether blunt frankness is any more effective.

1 0

govt/business incest
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

on the incestuous relationship between govt and business... heh doesn't mention the DEFENSE industry, #@&%^* also for anyone interested, noam chomsky has many good books out on these subjects ------- Forwarded Messagone Subject: [exploration] Corporate Welfare: A Media Issue At Last? (fwd) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 08:24:26 -1000 From: Jonathan David Boyne <boyne(a)hawaii.edu> To: Undisclosed recipients:; By Norman Solomon / Creators Syndicate For many years, across the United States, huge quantities of >tax breaks and subsidies have been going to corporations. >Occasionally, the media spotlight falls on an example of how >government policies stand Robin Hood on his head -- shaking down >the poor and middle class while handing over the proceeds to >wealthy individuals and big businesses. > > Sometimes called "corporate welfare," this pattern of >legalized rip-offs has been widespread -- yet little of the story >seems to emerge in major news outlets. Overall, the coverage is >sporadic at best. In mass media, the broader picture has been >missing -- until the last few weeks. > > November brought a series of breakthroughs, thanks to two >gifted reporters and a news weekly that allowed them to engage in >rigorous journalism. All month, beginning with a cover story on >"What Corporate Welfare Costs You," Time magazine featured >extraordinary exposes by Donald Barlett and James Steele. > > Corporate welfare, they write, is "a game in which >governments large and small subsidize corporations large and >small, usually at the expense of another state or town and almost >always at the expense of individuals and other corporate >taxpayers." > > Barlett and Steele report that "the federal government alone >shells out $125 billion a year in corporate welfare." Meanwhile, >"a different kind of feeding frenzy is taking place" at the state >and local level -- where "politicians stumble over one another in >the rush to arrange special deals for select corporations." > > In theory, the giveaways create jobs. In practice, the >theory is hogwash: "Time's investigation has established that >almost without exception, local and state politicians have doled >out tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to businesses that are >in fact eliminating rather than creating jobs." > > Often, when localities roll out the gold carpet for firms, >government coffers shrink -- and services for the public >diminish. As Barlett and Steele document in excruciating detail, >one of the common results is health-threatening pollution that >goes unchallenged. The most vulnerable neighborhoods tend to be >where low-income people live. > > The big hogs at the tax-funded trough include popular brands >-- Intel and Dow, General Motors and Mercedes-Benz, Exxon and >Shell, UPS and Procter & Gamble, to name just a few. Some are the >parent companies of media empires, such as Walt Disney (ABC), >General Electric (NBC) and -- as the Time series acknowledges -- >Time Warner. > > "The king of corporate welfare may be Archer Daniels >Midland," according to Time. "The global agricultural-commodities >dealer has artfully preserved one of the more blatant welfare >programs -- a subsidy for ethanol that has already cost taxpayers >more than $5 billion in the 1990s. Some $3 billion of that has >gone to ADM." > > Year after year, Archer Daniels Midland has poured several >million dollars into the nightly PBS "NewsHour" television show >hosted by Jim Lehrer. ADM is also an underwriter of National >Public Radio news. And the savvy firm buys a lot of image ads on >commercial TV network programs that discuss political issues. Not >surprisingly, ADM hasn't been subjected to much tough reporting >on the national airwaves. > > Corporate welfare is an important issue. But it can easily >be spun in dubious directions. For instance, in an article >addressed "To Our Readers," Time's editor-in-chief Norman >Pearlstine throws a wide curve that breaks sharply downward and >to the right. > > "Ending corporate welfare as we know it is essential," >Pearlstine contends. But then comes the english: "Rather than >give corporations uneven and unfair exemptions, it may make more >sense to simply do away with both corporate welfare and corporate >taxation." > > Now there's an idea that Time Warner can get behind: Stop >taxing corporations! > > Another hazard is the temptation to put all forms of >government assistance in the same "welfare" category. It would be >a big mistake to equate government aid to dependent corporations >with safety-net subsidies for children, seniors and others >struggling at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. > > Government should not be using tax dollars to help the rich >get richer. But government has no business refusing to help >Americans get the nutrition, health care, housing and other >basics that are everyone's human right. > > Welcome as it is, the occasional blockbuster expose of >corporate abuses -- even in a media outlet as influential as Time >magazine -- won't accomplish very much. Without an "echo effect," >these issues are likely to remain muted. > > The need to speak up and take action is a burden that falls >on people in every community. Large corporations have been >ripping us off for decades. Our initial efforts to force >restitution will not be televised. > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > >DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER >========== >CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic >screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters >and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright >frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects >spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL >gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; >be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and >nazi's need not apply. > >Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. > >======================================================================== >To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: >SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM > >To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: >SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM > >Om > - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't lose your email when you move, change jobs, or switch ISP's. Click here to get free and permanent email from NET@DDRESS! http://ads.egroups.com/click/153/0 Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

1 0