- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Reefer madness
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Sandy Sandfort Ever seen a Turkish prison film, Reuben? ......................................................... I don't get it. (I haven't seen one) Blanc

3 2

New Cypherpunks, New Danger
by Simon Spero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paranoid rants have their place; however, if they keep bursting into cypherpunks without knocking first, there could be an accident. Lithium.... it's not just for watch batteries anymore.

1 0

Re: Game Theory and its Relevance to Cypherpunks
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:57 20/07/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Fortunately, the goal of MAD was to >not have to be used, and it appears now to have worked quite well (albeit >at high cost). My problem with applying game theory to complex situations like the competition between powerful nations is that it is too simplistic. IANAE, of course, though I have done some control theory, and know how complex the modelling of any system becomes if it contains non-linearities, delays, etc. In a closed-loop system, i.e. with feedback, trying to predict behaviour without the foggiest notion of how to quantify the impact of Kennedy's grandstanding on the Kruschev mind (for instance) is questionable. To suggest that MAD worked well on the basis of the limited tryout we gave it has little validity. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here, would we? We are trying to draw general conclusions based on a biased sample of one. Reminds me of this committee of the British Royal Air Force, trying to find ways to protect its planes better against German anti-aircraft guns. Someone proposed putting an extra layer of armour on those areas that received the most shelling, and most people seemed to like the idea. One upstart suggested the exact opposite: putting extra armour on those areas which had received the least shelling. "Remember," he said, "we can only examine the planes that came back." I also have a problem with the cost you mention. What is "winning" in the context of nations? The arms race wiped out the Soviet Union, and arguably seriously hampered the competitiveness of American industry (which was No.1 at the end of the war), allowing countries like Japan and Germany, with far smaller defence budgets, to overtake industrially. >Useful sources: Thank you for the tips: I will check them out. Game theory is fascinating -- I'm just not sure how applicable it is in formulating policy. Didn't work too well in Vietnam... Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

2 1

Re: Game Theory and its Relevance to Cypherpunks
by Llywarch Hen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy May wrote: >Game theory is terribly important to Cypherpunks. Definite agreement here. Wait ... it gets better. > . . . Creating a terrifying image, >an image of crazed indifference, is a useful thing. Certainly the S.S. >understood the power of their frightening uniforms and the "myth" of their >bloodthirstiness. (Note: I am not saying their bloodthirstiness was a myth, >but that they deliberately cultivated this image. Intimidation works, >game-theoretically.) What Timothy May espouses is not the appearance of craziness but actual insanity itself. > . . . Even the "MAD" policy of "mutually assured >destruction" has game-theoretic justification. (Indeed, this is virtually a >truism, given the role game theory and the RAND Corporation played in the >devising of the MAD strategy.) While humanists and liberals may cluck at >the admittedly horrible consequences of MAD, were it ever implemented, it >is solidly grounded in these "games." Fortunately, the goal of MAD was to >not have to be used, and it appears now to have worked quite well (albeit >at high cost). Recall that during the time MAD supposedly worked that both of Reagan and Brezhnev were comatose much, if not all of the time. The crazies were out of the picture. Who was in charge? Let's suppose it was the generals. Who would know better their systems were shit? Recall on the day that Reagan was shot that Alexander Haig appeared on national TV and announced 'I am in charge here.' Haig was not constitutionally in charge of anything. Did he mean 'we' not 'I'. Who would that 'we' be? The twentieth century is drawing to a close as the world's most bloodthirsty by far: 40 mil under Stalin, 25 mil under Mao, 8 mil under Hitler, and so on. There are no heroes. Timothy May suggests that we continue to play his stupid game. Much of the cold war for public consumption was predicated on the notion that ends do not justify means. It was rather profitable for some interests however. The numbers speak for a strong info-war capability. But what we are asked to do is to refight the last war with grandpa, who we find out stayed home and watched it on TV but gets off on all this scary shit. Especially the uniforms. Perhaps Timothy May through luck, manipulation and hard work has made it up toward the head of the line to feed at the public trough and then declare to the rest of us that we have a free and competitive market. He will cite Hudson, Heritage, RAND, ... AEI, and Cato whose shining lights best understand who it is that is signing their paychecks. These are the folks that bought us Vietnam, did not pay for it in lives or money, but profited immensely. He cites Kahn whose best game is the consulting game. Wanna buy a hot stock? Buy Steven Emerson -- guy's gonna take off. -- Llywarch Hen

4 3

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by David Sternlight 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:10 AM -0700 7/20/96, Vinnie Moscaritolo wrote: > On 19 Jul 1996 19:51:39 Hallam-Baker wrote >>It is no coincidence that the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with >>blood on occasion. > >As a native Bostonian, I have to tell you that the original "Tree of >Liberty" was cut down many many years ago and in it's place now stands a >storefront, if you look up onto the second floor you will notice a frieze >of a tree. This is all that stands to commemerate the "Tree of Liberty". > > >oh btw that storefront is in the comabat zone of boston, and the last time >I checked that store was called either the "Naked I"or the "Pussycat >lounge", can you guess what they sell? > This is too good to pass up. The modern version, then is: "The tree of liberty must be titillated with the money of sex-seekers." David MIT '54

2 1

LPF Statement on the GIF controversy
by Dean Anderson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ Please repost this wherever you think is appropriate! ] Until now, most computer professionals and companies have ignored the problem of software patents. The GIF format for graphical images was adopted widely on the net, despite the Unisys patent covering the LZW data compression algorithm. The patent dates to 1985, but its enforcement has been carried out with private threats; most victims are afraid to talk about it. Now the patent has shown its teeth. For a few days, the Internet community was shaking with anger at the surprise demand to pay license fees for the use of GIF format. It turns out that the license being offered today is only for Compuserve users. Compuserve accepted an offer from Unisys that they couldn't refuse. Compuserve users can accept this offer now, or face Unisys later on their own. The rest of us don't have a choice--we get to face Unisys when they decide it's our turn. So much trouble from just one software patent. There are now over ten thousand software patents in the US, and several thousand more are issued each year. Each one may be owned by, or could be bought by, a grasping company whose lawyers carefully plan to attack people at their most vulnerable moments. Of course, they couch the threat as a "reasonable offer" to save you miserable years in court. "Divide and conquer" is the watchword: pursue one group at a time, while advising the rest of us to relax because we are in no danger today. Software patents may not seem like an urgent problem until you find one aimed at you. We all have other fires to fight, and most developers have hoped that the patents would never blaze up. In an ironic way, Unisys has done us a favor--by showing that the problem is too serious to ignore. What people first feared, could just as well have happened. Each of the thousands of software patents has the potential to devastate a segment of the community, both software developers and users. There will be more nasty surprises. They are part of a system. Unisys has given us a chance to work together to change the system--rather than waiting to be sued one by one for this patent or that. We can win the fight against software patents, if we speak loud and clear against them. What can people do? * Express your disapproval to Unisys by writing a letter to its CEO. Tell him what you think of his company's actions: James Unruh CEO UNISYS Corp. PO Box 500 Blue Bell, PA 19424 fax: 215-986-6850 Please use snail mail--a physical pile of letters is more impressive, psychologically, than a big file of email. Keep it short--ten lines is enough. Don't spend hours composing your letter; there's no need. But do write it in your own words, because sending a form letter written by someone else is not impressive. Make it clear that the usual excuses--"We're just exercising our property rights; look how reasonable we are being (compared to what we _could_ have done)"--won't wash with you. Avoid saying anything nasty that would give Unisys a chance to paint itself as the victim. Cold condemnation is more powerful than flames. Please email a copy of your letter to the League for Programming Freedom at gif-letters(a)lpf.org. We might ask you for permission to publish your letter. * Don't sign a license--stop using GIF. The World Wide Web consortium at MIT will probably be coordinating the move away from GIF, and offering advice and assistance. See `http://www.w3.org/'. * Join the League for Programming Freedom. The League is a membership-based organization whose aim is to bring back the freedom to write software. The League says that no one should be able to dictate what kinds of programs you can write. You can contact the LPF by email to lpf(a)uunet.uu.net, or look at its Web pages at `http://www.lpf.org/'. ** Note: the recent license demand came in the name of Compuserve; but the impetus for it came from Unisys. Compuserve developed the GIF format many years ago, not knowing there was a patent on LZW. (Most programmers have no idea what patents their programs are vulnerable to--there are too many patents to keep track of.) When Unisys threatened to sue them, Compuserve had to give in to Unisys's demands. Compuserve arranged to be allowed to offer Compuserve users a sublicense, but the "offer" was formulated in a way that was tantamount to an ultimatum. Compuserve may bear responsibility for some of the details of how this was handled, but the main responsibility falls on Unisys. It is Unisys that claims the power to dictate what kinds of software you can write. Unisys decided to use the power for aggression; Unisys forced Compuserve to participate. =++=+=+=+++==++=+=+=+++==++=+=+=+++==++=+=+=+++==++=+=+=+++==++=+=+=+++= Dean Anderson Dean(a)hi.com President League for Programming Freedom

1 0

Tom Broken interviews Pres Scrotum [NOISE]
by Vinnie Moscaritolo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY TOM BROKAW OF MSNBC The Roosevelt Room, July 15, 1996 MR. BROKAW: .... You and I have been looking at another question from the Internet: Does Chelsea net surf and, if so, how do you protect her from inappropriate material? Does she use the computer pretty handily? THE PRESIDENT: She does. I don't think she net surfs a lot, simply because, at least during the school year, she has too much homework at night, for several hours every night. But she does some. And, honestly, I can't protect her in that sense because she knows so much more about it than I do. But one of the things that we're trying to do -- I think with the support of everyone -- is, first of all, get a case up to the Supreme Court so that they can define what the First Amendment requires us to do and not to do in terms of legislation here. And then we need to find some sort of technological fix. During the break you said that Mr. Gates, Bill Gates, said that there's at least a possibility of developing a log -- MR. BROKAW: Yes, they've got a log built in now that you can go in and check on. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, so the parents can see what's been called up. And, of course, we're working on this V-chip with television and with the entertainment industry supporting us with the rating system. So there probably will be some sort of technological responses here. But then parents like me are going to have to assume the responsibility of becoming literate enough with the technology to work with our children and make sure that we and they make responsible choices. Vinnie Moscaritolo "Law - Samoan Style" http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

1 0

RE: regulating the internet
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Jennifer DePalma <jdepalma(a)cato.org> wrote: > > >Anyone have any opinions on the feasibility of regulating the internet? > Of course you can regulate the Internet, the Internet is *made* of regulation. All it is is an agreement between people who run computers to send and receive messages, and pass them on to other computers, according to certain rules. It is like the treaties between supposedly sovereign nation states - you play by the rules if you want people to talk to you. The Internet is the best living example that you don't need governments to have regulation (although the US government certainly helped a lot. Maybe the Net or the Moon landings will go down in history as your pyramids or Stonehenge, the one thing your civilisation will be remembered for). The regulations will be made and broken and kept and changed by the people who use the Net and no-one will ever know what they all are at any one time but a lot of us will have a good idea of most of them, most of the time. The Internet doesn't depend on telephone companies or governments or undersea cables or satellites or university computing departments or cable TV or copper wires or carrier pigeons (that reminds me - time for my annual check up on the new RFCs :-) or fibre optics or anything else, although it uses all those things. It is software, not hardware, it is a set of rules, treaties, agreements, protocols, words, comments, jargon, ideas, thoughts. The Internet is like money, or marriage, or table manners - while people act as if they believe in it, then it will continue to exist. Of course if what the question was really about the feasibility of regulating what people use the Internet *for* - well, that's a different question...

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Robert Hettinga wrote: > At 2:32 AM -0500 on 4/2/98, David Honig wrote: > > http://braggbbs.bragg.army.mil/libs/utils.htm > > has a link to ftp://bbs.bragg.army.mil/library/utils/pgp262.zip > > This is really nothing new. My understanding is that when Kelly Goen posted > the original PGP to USENET, he set the distribution to US only, or at the > very least North America only. With a *.ca address, I'm wondering, in all situations do I follow the US guidelines? Or are some different? As for the "regulation" post, I was going to reply until I realized it was just so she could donate email addresses to her book. -confused cdn-

1 0

Farewell for a bit
by dfloyd＠io.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I need to work on the DH code, so I am unsubbing for a while. Please can the cheers, allright? ;-)

1 0