- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

2nd CDA decision in....
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just heard: Us folks 2, Ralph Reed & the Thought Police, 0. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: DES-Busting Screen Savers?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:28 AM 7/24/96 -0700, Steve Reid wrote: >On the subject of choosing keys randomly, rather than dividing up the >keyspace... > >This seems like a very good idea to me. > >One potential problem is actually choosing the random keys. Have to be >able to get entropy at a fast rate, and/or use a good PRNG. I think you chose your starting place in the key space and then proceed sequentially from there. However, if it turns our that gray code increments of the key can reduce the key setup time, then you would want to use that ordering of the key space for the "next" key to try. Another possibility is to work in randomly chosen blocks of 1000 to 1,000,000 or so keys. This approach would reduce the cost of getting good random numbers to manageable levels. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Just some comments on what I've read here
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sure, we'll just set up our own [i/I]nternet...(We need a letter between upper and lower case...) It won't be that expensive...lesse....my WAN, for about 5000 people and 15000 machines, only runs me about $400,000 US per month. That's just circuit charges, of course... doesn't include any of the networking equipment or cost of the machines....is this a troll or what? Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: From: Scottauge @ aol.com @ smtp Date: 07/28/96 04:39:39 PM Subject: Just some comments on what I've read here 1) Seems to be some excitment about banning information on the internet here... Setting up a set of computers for a private net is not that big a deal (just some money involved and with the availability of Linux - a UNIX variant - for free make it hardware and telephone costs.) Do it for companies all over (hence the aol address - just a local phone call from anywhere!) and it works just fine. So if people want to play by different rules.. it's possible. Think of it as a members only social club. (I can make computers real hard to get into, but social engineering kicks my butt all the time.) 2) Whats wrong with America? I've been leaning towards Libertarian for some time now. Voted for Ross last time as a message I ain't happy with how things are going over there. Likely gonna vote Harry Brown - my first vote for a Libertarian. (He is seems to have it together versus the others) - but hey, gettin off the subject here.... Seems we are no longer United in these United States... A stranger is not a potential friend or ally but a potential robber, baby raper... you fill in the blank. We're all scared of each other! Something has been happening where rich are pitted against the poor, the working against the non-working, races vs other races. Is it a conspiracy as some of my friends who look for black helicopters say, or a natural reaction of politicians and "leaders" seeing a formula that works and then implementing it. To much Hard Copy and Extra reporting out there too. I don't give a rat's a*s about most of the sh*t their putting out (censorship mine for those with delicate eyes). But US culture has become very valuable and ya gotta get them foreign markets ya know. There was a time when a famil could have a picnic on the white house lawn. Then it got gated, now the street is closed. Our leaders seem to be no longer among us. But it doesn't matter. Some beuracrat (sp) gets a bug up their butt to give you trouble, your f*cked. With a seconds thought and a signature on a peice of paper ya can have your land gone or your bank account cleared or you name it. One second and on to the next thing as far as they are concerned. Can we impeach them? Can we vote for someone else next time? They're a buffer between the ones we can give trouble too. Plus Laws are so damn big these days. It takes a ream of paper (sometimes a whole 3000 page box of paper) to print these things out. You can bet the leg. not reading these things! They got advisors to read over sections and say this is good, this is bad. The real representatives and senators are out looking for campaign money. So damn, I now speculate these guys and gals are letting the advisors put the laws together - again someone not answerable (or even known) to the public. So now, you got legislators not reading the bills they are working on and there is a whole army of serfs ready to make some regulations that are in effect the same as law and ready to start looking for people to bother so they can look busy - and these serfs are not answerable to the public. Sorry, but congress is a part time job as far as I'm concerned. These laws are the result of people with nothing to do. I listen to the TV set and I hear "Oh we gotta law comin to fix this". Bullsh*t. There are plenty of other laws out there to hassle trouble makers with. They didn't nab Capone on murder, but on tax evasion. People fix stuff, not laws. Somebody is measuring their prouctivity by the amount of paper they can spew out of their office. 3) I'm a keen believer in Social Evolution A quick definition: If your a drug addict and your stupid enough to OD, you deserve to die. Another example: Your a drug dealer and ya get shot - oh well. Goes with the choice , dude. We keep protecting people from their choices. We think we are doing a favor for ourselves but I POSTULATE we are not. We keep on fightin nature and it just ain't possible. There just might be a reason for this weedin out process. But I'll admit it - I have a prejudice against stupid people - not mentally hadicapped, but stupid people. Well, thanks for reading my ranting and raving....

1 0

Parsing JYA; now others?
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Say, Duncan - you can do John Young, but can you make any sense of this? >From: doghead(a)psyclone.com (Blowjob Jesus) Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc Subject: Re: ! Blacklist Spammers and Rogue ISP's !!!!!!!!!! Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 01:08:56 GMT Organization: The Mighty Psyclone - Gonna Blow Yer Mind Lines: 56 Message-ID: <31f6c6d2.439333(a)news.alpha.net> References: <4t59aq$3n0(a)park.interport.net> Reply-To: doghead(a)psyclone.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.104.253 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 On Wed, 24 Jul 96 13:41:28 GMT, tonyb(remove this garbage to email me)(a)interport.net (tony brower) wrote: >Conventional response to spam is completely ineffective. Farflung was the offense, easy is the time spent drinking salad dressing. Christian Dior, well-known parking ticket, adds his pickle fork. >Nothing currently prevents the abuser from getting another account in >another name and continuing the practise. Wendigo spake in gruff pebbles, like unto a Timex! Reginald Denny left the room with scanners on full auto. >Even ISP's spam their adverts across newsgroups. Freedom, paged in 4k chunks, permeates UDP. There never was a governor. The double nickle blowed up good. >Why can't people who spam and otherwise abuse Usenet for commercial purposes >be blacklisted? Approved for your convenience, in sterile jello molds. The Lawnboy nods assent. >e.g. after first warning, no more accounts allowed from that Credit Card or >other payment source. The sun, a gaseous ball of tomato paste and model trains, is lost among clouds of thankfullness. >Why can't providers who refuse to curtail abuse from their customers also be >blacklisted and shut out from the net? >e.g. If ISP's are held responsible for abuse by their customers they'll >enforce nettiquette ("abide by the rules or lose your account here and >anywhere for one year"). Irresponsible ISP's will lose customers to those >ISP's who care. Hell, let them make their own net for cycling and recylcing >commercial, make money fast and sex #'s posts. OJ Simpson skirvined the net and was clarified. When failed and not sanguine, there was no response to the 'sturm und drang.' >Isn't this the fastest way to clean out all the junk that has permeated the >newsgroups posted by inconsiderate, greedy assholes (who have NOTHING to fear >by conventional response)? Response time is minimal. Lost among oceans of billiard balls made of styrofoam - tiny marmots build complicated nests of velveeta. Regroup? --

2 1

Clinton must like terrorists...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Clinton must like terrorists... because his most recent proposals will end up making more of them. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally <m5(a)vail.tivoli.com> wrote: >Uhh, "fail to save" isn't a moral judgement; it's an observable >phenomenon. Either somebody does save money or they don't. I >don't see in Tim's wording any judgement being made. It's a >numerical thing. >If you replace "drink too much," with "drink enough that they", you >get another observable phenomenon. As is the observable phenomenon that some people focus on the details and miss the point. You may also consider this to be a moral judgement. To argue that the cited examples - out of the universe of possible examples - did not imply a moral judgement is an argument useful only for its humour. James

2 1

New Internet
by Scottauge＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-29 19:16:30 EDT, you write: > Any sort of dialup service is pretty much going to > limit you to store-and-forward items. Any full-time > links attempting to mesh "a few thousand" > users is going to quickly exceed my paltry $400K. I agree... but I am also thinking that not one person is picking up the tab. Undoubtedly some systems are going to go up and down also... so - at the beginning - it could be like fidonet. But hopefully it would be more than a bunch of machines calling each other up an bursting information, some may backbone for a while.

1 0

RE: e$: The Demographic "Transaction"
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Let them eat cake. Earlier, in: Re: "Soft Targets" as Schelling Points tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Keep your head down. Are you consciously trying to compare yourself with Marie Antoinette? With so many sans-culottes around, you could succeed. I'd rather be left than dead right. James

1 0

RE: A Libertine Question
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >But many of us believe that coercive "solutions" to life's problems whether >right or wrong are no longer possible because technology is in the >process of making individuals and small groups "ungovernable" by force. Basically, I agree. But as earlier essays have suggested, our current government may just be a Schelling point of sorts among the possible social organizations that can exist. Thus, technology is mearly a different lens to view the same basic interaction among players. The players may move into different equivalence classes, but the basic roles are the same. In other times, alphabets, industrialization, and nuclear weapons could have played similar roles in the upsetting of the status quo. In this context, right and wrong do not need to enter the discussion. However, optimizing each individual's situation does not necessarily result in an optimal situation for the group. This is the basis of the classic prisoner's dilemna from game theory. I understand that for the iterated version, Tit-for-Tat is a stable strategy in that no other strategy will do better and thereby displace it over time in a large population. Tit-for-Tat: Start co-operating. Co-operate if the other party co-operated on the last round. Defect if they defected on the last round. So, how do *we* get crypto widespread? James

1 0

Re: what's a weapon? (fwd)
by Wayne H. Allen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 13:33 96.07.29 -0400, David Lesher wrote: >------- Forwarded Message > >Drawing an analogy with encryption and US ITAR, a poster reported that >A piper is being taken to court for practicing on Hampstead Heath, >which has a by-law forbidding music. Mr Brooks, the piper, has denied >the charge. He claims he wasn't playing a musical instrument, but >practicing with a weapon. In 1746 in England, bagpipes were declared to >be instruments of war, not musical weapons, and a subsequent Act of >Parliament specifically stated that they were weapons. > >> If you have ever heard the pipes being practiced you'll know why. Wayne H.Allen whallen(a)capitalnet.com Pgp key at www.capitalnet.com/~whallen

1 0