- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: 56 kbps modems
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:09 AM 9/13/96, Asgaard wrote: >>U.S. Robotics and Rockwell International are planning new modems with >>speeds up to 56 kbps a second, almost double the speed of the fastest >>rate now available. The new devices should be available by the end of >>the year, although their top speed initially may be less than 56 kbps. >>(Wall Street Journal 12 Sep 96 B11) > >People who seemed to know used to say that 'the Shannon limit' >set an absolute upper limit around 40 kbps. Has Shannon been >proven wrong, or what? > >Asgaard I imagine that both modems in a connection become phase locked with the underlying 8K digital carrier. Then each modem signal element is carried by just one 8 bit digital sample. That carrier moves 8 bit bytes 8000 times per second. Stopping at 56 Kb instead of 64Kb means that a 7 bit DA converter for the sending modem and a 7 bit AD converter in the receiver, plus some fancy analog filters to undo the subscriber loop effects. Going for 64Kb would require twice the signal to noise ratio on the local loops. I think that modern PBXs have a digital link to the phone company. This would mean that an ISP would not have to buy fancy modems. A modified PBX could transmit and receive bits to a computer directly. It will impact the phone compnany's ISDN service but I don't think that they can stop this.

1 0

Re: TWA 800 - Serious thread.
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:30 PM 9/9/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote: >If govt. protects its "sources and methods", however nefarious, to the >extent that the public is never asked to assent to these methods (even >though a few of us know about them anyway), then the public doesn't have >to become overtly cynical about what's going on. But the public *is* asked to assent to those methods - your chance to vote on them is known colloquially as "jury duty". -- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles(a)netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

6 6

Re: common sense (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:33:24 -0700 > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > Subject: Re: common sense > > HipCrime wrote: > > And rather than "dispensing drugs in clinics," why not simply > > scrap the drug laws entirely? People have a *right* to do as > > they please with their bodies. > > Let's hear it for common sense. It's the first decent posting I've > > seen to this list. > > -- HTTP://www.HIPCRIME.com > > A question for you: In the Civil Rights era (1960's mostly), we dealt > with the question of whether people had the "right" to not only choose > their neighbors, but whether they could extend that logic, so once they > move in, whether they could "enforce" the status quo by preventing other > people from moving in if those other people didn't "fit in" somehow. > > If drugs and/or other items of Vice are liberalized, there will be a > tremendous marketing opportunity created, and new stores and new > departments within existing stores will pop up everywhere offering the > newly-liberalized goods and services. So my question is, since there are > "dry" areas in the country now, where the citizens can vote to exclude > alcohol sales, for example, will drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. > fall within the purvey of citizen democracy as in the "dry" county > example, or will there be new problems with this analogy, and will any > of those new problems relate to the Civil Rights issues I mentioned > previously? > History already has examples of such incidences. Alaska, California, and other states have tried various levels of legalization. To date I believe that all such experiments have ended because of federal pressure on the uncooperative states. The Indians 'right by treaty' to operate gambling casino's is another good example of a contemporary situation. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: Internet Drivers' Licenses
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> writes: > I'm crushed. > Seriously, what is the import of the "real identifiable > human" or the "posting under their legal names" point? It's been a bad spam day. If someone offered me a switch that would separate academicians from AOLers, I would throw it. That doesn't necessarily mean I would leave it in the "ON" position forever, or that I would consider such a thing to be the correct Cypherpunks approach to the problem. > If an AI program posts quality stuff, what's the difference? > Why the import of true "legal" names? Why not simply > develop reputation signatures? > The concept that "legal names" are some how a credential is > silly. I have a friend who has four, with matching SSN > cards. These are all good points, but today (as opposed to days when I am in a good mood, and think correct political thoughts), I would opt for the quick and dirty solution. > What your suggestion basically says is "instead of > developing our own decentralized reputations system for > filtering lets use one already in place, i.e. the state > Department of Motor Vehicles. Let's develop our own decentralized reputations system for filtering. Could we have it installed in the "sci" and "comp" hierarchies by tomorrow morning please? > Mr. Duvos' idea is, in my view, a step backwards. Mr. Duvos, like other humans with Net fatigue, is occasionally not in good humour. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

2 1

Re: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children
by ddfr＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> If they were teaching anything, I bet the kid _would_ sit still. >I sure would have been a lot less distracted. Or, as Adam Smith put it: "but after twelve or thirteen years of age, provided the master does his duty, force or restraint can scarce ever be necessary to carry on any part of education." and "No discipline is ever requisite to force attendance upon lectures which are really worth the attending, as is well known wherever such lectures are given." David Friedman P.S. sorry to be so late--I just came across this post.

1 0

No Subject
by zac 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 13 Sep 96 at 13:37, Admin wrote: > > >Also, I charge $500 per message. I've always liked flat fees. :-) > >------- Forwarded Message ------- > >At 21:50 9/11/96, Ross Wright <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> wrote to > >cypherpunks(a)toad.com and remailer-operators(a)c2.org: > >Unsolicited advertising/promotional email proofread for > >$500/message! Your sending such a message to me is an explicit > >request for my services! > Inane, off-thread, unsupported weak analogous attempts at reasoned > argument received, but not read - simply deleted, for $1000/message. > Sending OR posting the above to me or a Newsgroup that I may happen > to read constitutes your accord and acceptance of the above > contract. If I must read them, the fee is $2000/message. Geeee... I am *truly* clueless with my 0.1 g of pure gold per e-mail deleted. As of today, take notice, I'm increasing my rates to 2 ounces of 99.99+ pure gold per received and deleted e-mail. jfa Jean-Francois Avon, Montreal QC Canada "One of theses centuries, the brutes, private or public, who believe that they can rule their betters by force, will learn the lesson of what happens when brute force encounters mind and force." - Ragnar Danneskjold PGP key at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

1 0

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What if someone combined images now generally considered pornographic under current U.S. law, with a pressing political message. For example, a nude pre-teen holding a picket sign saying "F*** Censorship." How would the courts separate the protected speech (content) from the sexual (context)? PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Voice: 1-702-655-2877 Sacred Cow Meat Co. | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 7075 W. Gowan Road, #2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Just say NO to perscription DRUGS.

1 0

Re: Internet Drivers' Licenses
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 13 Sep 96 at 22:51, Rabid Wombat wrote: > When even some on c'punk readers are calling for manditory > identification, where do you think the great unwashed position > themselves? As Auric Goldfinger :) once said: Once is happenstance... Twice is coincidence... The third time is enemy action! jfa Jean-Francois Avon, Montreal QC Canada "One of theses centuries, the brutes, private or public, who believe that they can rule their betters by force, will learn the lesson of what happens when brute force encounters mind and force." - Ragnar Danneskjold PGP key at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

1 0

Re: Internet Drivers' Licenses
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes: > Well, it would seem some are helping to make my point; > M.Duvos is calling for government intervention, in the form > of an "Internet Driver's License." Nothing to do with the government. If people choose to voluntarily obtain a key with which to voluntarily sign their posts, and I set my newsreader to present only articles which correspond to keys having certain criteria, all is well and good. Anyone can still post anything they like, including unsigned articles, and the filter is at the reading end, which is where it should be. A given key could mean "I am Mike Duvos", "I am Tim May", or "I am Dorothy Denning." Or it could mean something more obscure, like "I showed my driver's license to get this key", or "10 leading Cypherpunks think I'm a Nym worth listening to", or even "I donate regularly to the 700 Club." > There goes anonimity, which has, in general, been a "good > thing" on the 'net. Here comes "big brother", to protect us > from the evil anonymous spammer. Bullfeathers. Encouraging people to sign posts, and permitting newsreaders to select based on signature characteristics is about as big a threat to anonymity as a procmail file which filters out everything having an anon remailer disclaimer attached to it. > Here comes more government infrastructure to enforce the > LAWS that "we", as a society, have subjected ourselves to, > so that "the few, the rude, the clueless" can no longer send > out their anonymously sourced spam. They can spam all they want. They can be as rude and clueless as they wish. It hardly requires additional government infrastructure if *I* want to only read posts signed by keys endorsed by persons or organizations I trust. > Less freedom, more taxes. How one moves from a system of voluntarily signing Usenet posts to more taxes is beyond my ability to comprehend. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

2 1