- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:44 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >This time I have opted for a point by point. >At 07:59 PM 2/5/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into >>useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. >>(Those people who still think military spending is really necessary >>obviously haven't read AP.) >This point I can not argue with, at least not directly. I do believe that >the military way is wasteful of resources. Notice, however, that "pre-AP-theory," there was never any "good" way to theorize getting rid of the military: It always appeared that OUR military was needed to protect us against THEIR military. AP fixes that problem. > However, this is one area that >has actually benefitted the lower-income bracket in that it gives them >"inexpensive" (off-chance of death) access to good training. "War is good business...Invest your son!" There's no doubt that militaries look like a good deal to at least some fraction of the population. However, as is usually true, the amount of money that could be saved if we didn't have to buy military junk would do just as well applied to other products or services. >>2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes >>to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the >>non-government private sector. >Three things that promote technological growth, expansion, war, threat of war. >As for expansion. we really have no where else to go. As for war and threat >of war, the computer was invented during a war, atomic energy was harnessed >during war, the internet was created during threat of war. Many >advancements, though not all, come to benefit society later. For that >matter, steel was probably invented during a war as well, but I can't prove it. I think that's a somewhat distorted way to look at it. War drastically changes the economics associated with technical developments: In WWII, millions of dollars became available for development of computers due to their ability to decrypt codes. It is by no means surprising that suddenly making it 10x more affordable to buy computers (not by reducing their costs, but by raising the amount of money provided) would make computers appear to be the product of war. You may recall estimates (which are frequently re-quoted, BTW)that proposed that there would only be a market for (say) 5-10 computers in the world. That estimate is frequently cited as an example of how wrong they were, but in reality that estimate assumed pricing based on then-current costs, and they were probably accurate! It is the _subsequent_ development of transistors which made those original estimates "wrong." Nuclear power, similarly, was born in a flood of money for the same war. Expensive government installations, such as Los Alamos, NM, Hanford Washington, and Oak Ridge Tennessee were built for that purpose. Activities which would have been highly uneconomical during peacetime were suddenly worth doing. If war makes technical development happen, it is only because of how supremely wasteful it is. Useful things still get done, but they get done in a highly uneconomical fashion and _before_ they would normally be done in a non-war world. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP
by Aron Bierbaum 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP

1 0

Re: No Dimitri?
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dead Vulgar K>rust< Of The Moment's police record is many times longer than his prick (well, that's not hard). o_o ( ) Dead Vulgar K>rust< Of The Moment ( | | ) ' " " `

1 0

Passphrase generation
by Internaut 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that didn't add up (no pun intended :). The IDEA algorithm it seems is 2^128 = 3.402823669209e+38 = 16 bytes (charactors). The charactor count seems kinda small (I am presuming the 16 charactors are truely random). Indeed, 128(ASCII charactor set)^16 = 5.192296858535e+33. Is my thinking right here? Is it better to do this- 94(printable ASCII set)^20 = 2.901062411315e+39, yielding 20 charactors? Also, if you come up with a phrase and put enough (perhaps 5 or 6) ASCII nonsense in there for it not to be in any crack dictionaries, how random is that? Is it only as random as the extra charactors you put in? How would you calculate that? Also, how many charactors do you have to add of a set to add its permulations (i.e. Does gibber&sh add all ASCII symbols to the equation)? Thanks, Internaut

2 1

Re: [RANT] WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins
by nobody＠wazoo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Drunkard Virus K}arcass{OTM enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic queer friends. /// (0 0) ____ooO_(_)_Ooo__ Dr.Drunkard Virus K}arcass{OTM

1 0

Re: lead remailer is shut down
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970207:0339 zinc <zinc(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> said: +i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the +plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet +using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. +so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one +year. that is the universal problem. we make the remailer chains so they guarantee privacy, but we cannot filter for spam... unless it is the last mixmaster in the chain. it sounds like we need a postprocessor which can 1) contain addresses and domain numbers of known spammers; 2) log senders to obtain a usage profile (over a very short time, and that is itself encrypted) which can spot enormous expansion headers. for instance, linda thompson is accusing a cypherpunk [more like a cypherpunk hater] of faking her address on threatening material to all 100 senators plus Al Bore; interestingly, the perpetrator left enough information in the header, which was returned for addressing Al Bore incorrectly, to be able to narrow the field; and, 3) most spamming seems to follow a pattern which it should be possible to scan for. the problem, of course, being that "innocent" messages will potentially be trashed. whatever it takes, there are a finite number of sites which can host remailer traffic. for instance, I have been debating whether or not we can afford the load on our single T1 which is currently supporting 200 simultaneous ppp connections plus some high-volume commerical web pages. We are at least a year away from T3 due to lack of circuit facilities. let's figure a way to stop at least some of the abuse; you can not stop the individual abuse, but does a spammer have any rights? --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMv4nxb04kQrCC2kFAQHAngP+J+JRSKLXsLcug00moPK78brGzzmSTRVI BQmHM9845OWXazbQVj6Q9+HiV5I+7wGY2INm7i6PI9ebNRptORfCTlHkmMzrwfmj Ji/WzhDkJ0eRvmDwHxBuq5unqYLe9ACtMrOCGQo+EYywNcscsXKKuMvFKAPC/Bp8 M46FHO9AphM= =NEYd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Corelation
by nobody＠wazoo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dogfucker Vulture KreepOfTheMinute enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic faggot friends. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dogfucker Vulture KreepOfTheMinute

1 0

Who's Censoring Who?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson. Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own pure-blackhearts. Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out Sandy, it was just a drill. It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war gaming.

4 3

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're giong to have to find a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. >

1 0