- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Accounts payable
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C[rook] May is just a poor excuse for an unschooled, retarded thug. (_) _____ (_) /O O\ Timmy C[rook] May ! I ! ! \___/ ! \_____/

2 1

Darwin's preface (a short history of evolution) [fwd]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Below is the 3rd preface to Darwin's 'Species', in it he clearly gives credit to Wallace as a co-discover of evolutionary theory. Even to the point of co-presenting the work to the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858. Oh, Erazmus Darwin was Charles' grandfather not uncle. Sorry for any confusion. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________| Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:46:47 -0600 > X-within-URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/preface.html > The Origin of Species > Preface to the Third Edition > by Charles Darwin > > I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the > Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists > believed that species were immutable productions, and had been > separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many > authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that > species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are > the descendants by true generation of pre-existing forms. Passing over > allusions to the subject in the classical writers,(1) the first author > who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. > But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he > does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of > species, I need not here enter on details. > > Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited > much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his > views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie > Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his > "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the > doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other > species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the > probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic > world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. > Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the > gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species > and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain > groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to > the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct > action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing > of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the > effects of habit. To this latter agency he seemed to attribute all the > beautiful adaptations in nature; -- such as the long neck of the > giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise > believed in a law of progressive development; and as all the forms of > life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at > the present day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms > are now spontaneously generated.(2) > > Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, as is stated in his 'Life,' written by his > son, suspected, as early as 1795, that what we call species are > various degenerations of the same type. It was not until 1828 that he > published his conviction that the same forms have not been perpetuated > since the origin of all things. Geoffroy seems to have relied chiefly > on the conditions of life, or the 'monde ambiant' as the cause of > change. He was cautious in drawing conclusions, and did not believe > that existing species are now undergoing modification; and, as his son > adds, "C'est donc un problème à réserver entièrement à l'avenir, > supposé meme que l'avenir doive avoir prise sur lui.' > > In 1813, Dr W. C. Wells read before the Royal Society 'An Account of a > White female, part of whose skin resembled that of a Negro'; but his > paper was not published until his famous 'Two Essays upon Dew and > Single Vision' appeared in 1818. In this paper he distinctly > recognises the principle of natural selection, and this is the first > recognition which has been indicated; but he applies it only to the > races of man, and to certain characters alone. After remarking that > negroes and mulattoes enjoy an immunity from certain tropical > diseases, he observes, firstly, that all animals tend to vary in some > degree, and, secondly, that agriculturists improve their domesticated > animals by selection; and then, he adds, but what is done in this > latter case 'by art, seems to be done with equal efficacy, though more > slowly, by nature, in the formation of varieties of mankind, fitted > for the country which they inhabit. Of the accidental varieties of > man, which would occur among the first few and scattered inhabitants > of the middle regions of Africa, some one would be better fitted than > the others to bear the diseases of the country. This race would > consequently multiply, while the others would decrease; not only from > their inability to sustain the attacks of disease, but from their > incapacity of contending with their more vigorous neighbours. The > colour of this vigorous race I take for granted, from what has been > already said, would be dark. But the same disposition to form > varieties still existing, a darker and a darker race would in the > course of time occur: and as the darkest would be the best fitted for > the climate, this would at length become the most prevalent; if not > the only race, in the particular country in which it had originated.' > He then extends these same views to the white inhabitants of colder > climates. I am indebted to Mr Rowley, of the United States, for having > called my attention, through Mr Brace, to the above passage in Dr > Wells' work. > > The Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert, afterwards Dean of Manchester, in the > fourth volume of the 'Horticultural Transactions,' 1822, and in his > work on the 'Amaryllidaceae' (1837, pp. 19, 339), declares that > 'horticultural experiments have established, beyond the possibility of > refutation, that botanical species are only a higher and more > permanent class of varieties.' He extends the same view to animals. > The Dean believes that single species of each genus were created in an > originally highly plastic condition, and that these have produced, > chiefly by intercrossing, but likewise by variation, all our existing > species. > > In 1826 Professor Grant, in the concluding paragraph in his well-known > paper ('Edinburgh philosophical journal,' vol. xiv. p. 283) on the > Spongilla, clearly declares his belief that species are descended from > other species, and that they become improved in the course of > modification. This same view was given in his 55th Lecture, published > in the 'Lancet' in 1834. > > In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and > Arboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the same view on the > origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by > Mr Wallace and myself in the 'Linnean journal,' and as that enlarged > in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew > very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a > different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew > himself drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,' on April > 7th, 1860. The differences of Mr Matthew's view from mine are not of > much importance; he seems to consider that the world was nearly > depopulated at successive periods, and then re-stocked; and he gives > as an alternative, that new forms may be generated ' without the > presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates.' I am not sure > that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes much > influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly > saw, however, the full force of the principle of natural selection. > > The celebrated geologist and naturalist, Von Buch, in his excellent > 'Description physique des Isles Canaries' (1836, p. 147), clearly > expresses his belief that varieties slowly become changed into > permanent species, which are no longer capable of intercrossing. > > Rafinesque, in his 'New Flora of North America,' published in 1836, > wrote (p. 6) as follows:- 'All species might have been varieties once, > and many varieties are gradually becoming species by assuming constant > and peculiar characters'; but farther on (p. 18) he adds, 'except the > original types or ancestors of the genus.' > > In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman ('Boston journal of Nat. Hist. U. > States, vol. iv. p. 468) has ably given the arguments for and against > the hypothesis of the development and modification of species: he > seems to lean towards the side of change. > > The 'Vestiges of Creation' appeared in 1844. In the tenth and much > improved edition (1853) the anonymous author says (p. 155):- 'The > proposition determined on after much consideration is, that the > several series of animated beings, from the simplest and oldest up to > the highest and most recent, are, under the providence of God, the > results, first, of an impulse which has been imparted to the forms of > life, advancing them, in definite times, by generation, through grades > of organisation terminating in the highest dicotyledons- and > vertebrata, these grades being few in number, and generally marked by > intervals of organic character, which we find to be a practical > difficulty in ascertaining affinities; second, of another impulse > connected with the vital forces, tending, in the course of > generations, to modify organic structures in accordance with external > circumstances, as food, the nature of the habitat, and the meteoric > agencies, these being the ''adaptations'' of the natural theologian.' > The author apparently believes that organisation progresses by sudden > leaps, but that the effects produced by the conditions of life are > gradual. He argues with much force on general grounds that species are > not immutable productions. But I cannot see how the two supposed > 'impulses' account in a scientific sense for the numerous and > beautiful co-adaptations which we see throughout nature; I cannot see > that we thus gain any insight how, for instance, a woodpecker has > become adapted to its peculiar habits of Life. The work, from its > powerful and brilliant style, though displaying in the earlier > editions little accurate knowledge and a great want of scientific > caution, immediately had a very wide circulation. In my opinion it has > done excellent service in this country in calling attention to the > subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for > the reception of analogous views. > > In 1846 the veteran geologist N. J. d'Omalius d'Halloy published in an > excellent though short paper ("Bulletins de l'Acad. Roy Bruxelles,' > tom. xiii. p. 581) his opinion that it is more probable that new > species have been produced by descent with modification than that they > have been separately created: the author first promulgated this > opinion in 1831. > > Professor Owen, in 1849 ('Nature of Limbs,' p. 86), wrote as follows:- > "The archetypal idea was manifested in the flesh under diverse such > modifications, upon this planet, long prior to the existence of those > animal species that actually exemplify it. To what natural laws or > secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such > organic phenomena may have been committed, we, as yet, are ignorant.' > In his Address to the British Association, in 1858, he speaks (p. li.) > of "the axiom of the continuous operation of creative power, or of the > ordained becoming of living things.' Farther on (p. xc.), after > referring to geographical distribution, he adds, 'These phenomena > shake our confidence in the conclusion that the Apteryx of New Zealand > and the Red Grouse of England were distinct creations in and for those > islands respectively. Always, also, it may be well to bear in mind > that by the word ''creation'' the zoologist means '"a process he knows > not what.'' He amplifies this idea by adding that when such cases as > that of the Red Grouse are enumerated by the zoologists as evidence of > distinct creation of the bird in and for such islands, he chiefly > expresses that he knows not how the Red Grouse came to be there, and > there exclusively; signifying also, by this mode of expressing such > ignorance, his belief that both the bird and the islands owed their > origin to a great first Creative Cause.' If we interpret these > sentences given in the same Address, one by the other, it appears that > this eminent philosopher felt in 1858 his confidence shaken that the > Apteryx and the Red Grouse first appeared in their respective homes, > 'he knew not how,' or by some process 'he knew not what.' > > This Address was delivered after the papers by Mr Wallace and myself > on the Origin of Species, presently to be referred to, had been read > before the Linnean Society. When the first edition of this work was > published, I was so completely deceived, as were many others, by such > expressions as 'the continuous operation of creative power,' that I > included Professor Owen with other palaeontologists as being firmly > convinced of the immutability of species; but it appears ('Anat. of > Vertebrates,' vol. iii. p. 796) that this was on my part a > preposterous error. In the last edition of this work I inferred, and > the inference still seems to me perfectly just, from a passage > beginning with the words 'no doubt the type-form,' &c. (Ibid. vol. i. > p. xxxv.), that Professor Owen admitted that natural selection may > have done something in the formation of a new species; but this it > appears (Ibid. vol. nl. p. 798) is inaccurate and without evidence. I > also gave some extracts from a correspondence between Professor Owen > and the Editor of the 'London Review,' from which it appeared manifest > to the Editor as well as to myself, that Professor Owen claimed to > have promulgated the theory of natural selection before I had done so; > and I expressed my surprise and satisfaction at this announcement; but > as far as it is possible to understand certain recently published > passages (Ibid. vol. iii. p. 798) I have either partially or wholly > again fallen into error. It is consolatory to me that others find > Professor Owen's controversial writings as difficult to understand and > to reconcile with each other, as I do. As far as the mere enunciation > of the principle of natural selection is concerned, it is quite > immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us, > as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by Dr Wells > and Mr Matthews. > > M. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in his lectures delivered in 1850 > (of which a Résumé appeared in the 'Revue et Nag. de Zoolog.,' Jan. > 1851), briefly gives his reason for believing that specific characters > "sont fixés, pour chaque espèce, tant qu'elle se perpétue au milieu > des mèmes circonstances: ils se modifient, si les circonstances > ambiantes viennent à changer.' 'En résumé, l'observation des animaux > sauvages démontre déjà la variabilité limité des espèces. Les > expériences sur les animaux sauvages devenus domestiques, et sur les > animaux domestiques redevenus sauvages, la démontrent plus clairement > encore. Ces memes expériences prouvent, de plus, que les différences > produites peuvent etre de valeur générique.' In his 'Hist. Nat. > Généralé (tom. ii. p. 430, 1859) he amplifies analogous conclusions. > > From a circular lately issued it appears that Dr Freke, in 1851 > ("Dublin Medical Press,' p. 322), propounded the doctrine that all > organic beings have descended from one primordial form. His grounds of > belief and treatment of the subject are wholly different from mine; > but as Dr Freke has now (1861) published his Essay on the 'Origin of > Species by means of Organic Affinity,' the difficult attempt to give > any idea of his views would be superfluous on my part. > > Mr Herbert Spencer, in an Essay (originally published in the 'Leader,' > March, 1852, and republished in his 'Essays,' in 1858), has contrasted > the theories of the Creation and the Development of organic beings > with remarkable skill and force. He argues from the analogy of > domestic productions, from the changes which the embryos of many > species undergo, from the difficulty of distinguishing species and > varieties, and from the principle of general gradation, that species > have been modified; and he attributes the modification to the change > of circumstances. The author (1855) has also treated psychology on the > principle of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and > capacity by gradation. > > In 1852 M. Naudin, a distinguished botanist, expressly stated, in an > admirable paper on the Origin of Species ('Revue Horticole, p. 102; > since partly republished in the 'Nouvelles Archives du Muséum,' tom. > i. p. 171), his belief that species are formed in an analogous manner > as varieties are under cultivation; and the latter process he > attributes to man's power of selection. But he does not show how > selection acts under nature. He believes, like Dean Herbert, that > species, when nascent, were more plastic than at present. He lays > weight on what he calls the principle of finality, 'puissance > mystérieuse, indéterminée; fatalité pour les uns; pour les autres > volonté providentielle, dont l'action incessante sur les ètres vivants > détermine, à toutes les époques de l'existence du monde, la forme, le > volume, et la durée de chacun d'eux, en raison de sa destinée dans > l'ordre de choses dont il fait partie. C'est cette puissance qui > harmonise chaque membre à l'ensemble, en l'appropriant à la fonction > qu'il doit remplir dans l'organisme général de la nature, fonction qui > est pour lui sa raison d'ètre.'(3) > > In 1853 a celebrated geologist, Count Keyserling ("Bulletin de la Soc. > Gèolog.,' 2nd Ser., tom. x. p. 357), suggested that as new diseases, > supposed to have been caused by some miasma, have arisen and spread > over the world, so at certain periods the germs of existing species > may have been chemically affected by circumambient molecules of a > particular nature, and thus have given rise to new forms. > > In this same year, 1853, Dr Schaaffhausen published an excellent > pamphlet ('Verhand. des Naturhist. Vereins der preuss. Rheinlands,' > &c.), in which he maintains the development of organic forms on the > earth. He infers that many species have kept true for long periods, > whereas a few have become modified. The distinction of species he > explains by the destruction of intermediate graduated forms. 'Thus > living plants and animals are not separated from the extinct by new > creations, but are to be regarded as their descendants through > continued reproduction.' > > A well-known French botanist, M. Lecoq, writes in 1854 ('Etudes sur > Géograph. Bot.,' tom. i. p. 250), 'On voit que nos recherches sur la > fixité ou la variation de l'espèce, nous conduisent directement aux > idées émises, par deux hommes justement célèbres, Geoffroy > Saint-Hilaire et Goethe.' Some other passages scattered through M. > Lecoq's large work, make it a little doubtful how far he extends his > views on the modification of species. > > The 'Philosophy of Creation' has been treated in a masterly manner by > the Rev. Baden Powell, in his "Essays on the Unity of Worlds,' 1855. > Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which he shows that > the introduction of new species is "a regular, not a casual > phenomenon,' or, as Sir John Herschel expresses it, 'a natural in > contradistinction to a miraculous, process.' > > The third volume of the "Journal of the Linnean Society' contains > papers, read July 1st, 1858, by Mr Wallace and myself, in which, as > stated in the introductory remarks to this volume, the theory of > Natural Selection is promulgated by Mr Wallace with admirable force > and clearness. > > Von Baer, towards whom all zoologists feel so profound a respect, > expressed about the year 1859 (see Prof. Rudolph Wagner, a > "Zoologisch-Anthropologische Untersuchungen,' 1861, s. 51) his > conviction, chiefly grounded on the laws of geographical distribution, > that forms now perfectly distinct have descended from a single > parent-form. > > In June, 1859, Professor Huxley gave a lecture before the Royal > Institution on the 'Persistent Types of Animal Life.' Referring to > such cases, he remarks, "It is difficult to comprehend the meaning of > such facts as these, if we suppose that each species of animal and > plant, or each great type of organisation, was formed and placed upon > the surface of the globe at long intervals by a distinct act of > creative power; and it is well to recollect that such an assumption is > as unsupported by tradition or revelation as it is opposed to the > general analogy of nature. If, on the other hand, we view 'Persistent > Types' in relation to that hypothesis which supposes the species > living at any time to be the result of the gradual modification of > pre-existing species a hypothesis which, though unproven, and sadly > damaged by some of its supporters, is yet the only one to which > physiology lends any countenance; their existence would seem to show > that the amount of modification which living beings have undergone > during geological time is but very small in relation to the whole > series of changes which they have suffered.' > > In December, 1859, Dr Hooker published his 'Introduction to the > Australian Flora.' In the first part of this great work he admits the > truth of the descent and modification of species, and supports this > doctrine by many original observations. > > The first edition of this work was published on November 24th, 1859, > and the second edition on January 7th, 1860. > > Footnotes > > (1) Aristotle, in his 'Physicae Auscultationes' (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. > 2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn > grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed > out of doors, applies the same argument to organization: and adds (as > translated by Mr Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to > me), 'So what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having > this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, > grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the > grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they > were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. > And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to > exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things > together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they > were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been > appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity, and whatsoever > things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish. We here > see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little > Aristotle fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on > the formation of the teeth. > > (2) I have taken the date of the first publication of Lamarck from > Isid. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's ('Hist. Nat. Générale,' tom. ii. p. > 405, 1859) excellent history of opinion on this subject. In this work > a full account is given of Buffon's conclusions on the same subject. > It is curious how largely my grandfather, Dr Erasmus Darwin, > anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion of Lamarck in > his 'Zoonomia' (vol. i. pp. 500-510), published in 1794. According to > Isid. Geoffroy there is no doubt that Goethe was an extreme partisan > of similar views, as shown in the Introduction to a work written in > 1794 and 1795, but not published till long afterwards: he has > pointedly remarked ('Goethe als Naturforscher,' von Dr Karl Medinge s. > 34) that the future question for naturalists will be how, for > instance, cattle got their horns, and not for what they are used. It > is rather a singular instance of the manner in which similar views > arise at about the same time, that Goethe in Germany, Dr Darwin in > England, and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (as we shall immediately see) in > France; came to the same conclusion on the origin of species, in the > years 1794-5. > > (3) From references in Bronn's 'Untersuchungen über die > Entwickenlungs-Gesetze,' it appears that the celebrated botanist and > palaeontologist Unger published, in 1852, his belief that species > undergo development and modification. Dalton, likewise, in Pander and > Dalton's work on Fossil Sloths, expressed, in 1821 a similar belief. > Similar views have, as is well known, been maintained by Oken in his > mystical 'Natur-philosophie.' From other references in Godron's work > 'Sur l'Espéce,' it seems that Bory St Vincent, Burdach, Poiret, and > Fries, have all admitted that new species are continually being > produced. > > I may add, that of the thirty-four authors named in this Historical > Sketch, who believe in the modification of species, or at least > disbelieve in separate acts of creation, twenty-seven have written on > special branches of natural history or geology. > > > Contents > Introduction > > > > > > > Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links > The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of > the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates >

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 22:06:38 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality > BTW, you should consider that when Einstein proposed the creation of a > bomb, it was within the context of a war being advanced globally by an evil > madman who was gathering every resource to subdue and decimate everything > in his way, and that the rest of the world was desperate for a solution. Um, actualy Einstein didn't propose a bomb. I believe Leo Szilard approached Einstein with a letter asking the President to begin an initiative. The motivation was because most of the really worthwhile German physicists working on the Nazi programs left the Nazi sphere. The fear was that since Germany had the *only* supply of heavy water in the world and the only state backed program in the field that if the US didn't do something they would loose the bomb in a series of bright flashes. I also, don't believe the war had actualy started when Einstein was approaced by Leo on Aug. 2, 1939. > Also you should remember that some brilliant people, like Newton, who was a > shy man and didn't necessarily see himself as others did/do, did not care > if anyone else saw the results of his work. He certainly went to great pains to publish it, even anonymously in some cases and out of his own pocket. > Once he had solved the > problems in his own mind, he was not exceptionally concerned that others > were also struggling with the same, nor whether "the community" needed the > answer. He was pursuing knowledge for reasons of his own. He pursued knowledge for deep religous reasons, according to his notes. Newton was also the Exchequer of England and had 3 peopled hanged for stealing gold from the government mint. He took the job because he had pissed so many people off at the time because of his attitude that he couldn't find work. It was prior to him becoming know as the 'Lion of England' and gaining life tenure. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd) > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 98 23:45:25 EST > > Janos Bolyai was the son of the math professor Farkas B. in Buda(best). Who also worked with Gauss and probably beat Gauss to any solution to the problem of non-euclidean geometry (see Kurzer Grundriss eines Versuchs, p. 46). > In 1832 he published his findings as an appendix > to his father's textbook. Actualy his father published it as an afterthought to get him to quit working on Euclids Parallels. It was published in Tomus Secundus (1833, pp. 265 - 322) written by his father. > arises if you omit this axiom. According to my sources, the appendix > is "Wronski-like" to the point of unreadability. Apparently no one > actually read it until B. started arguing about who did what first. Both John Bolyai's "The Science of Absolute Space" and Nicholas Lobachevski's "The Theory of Parallels" are included in Roberto Bonola's "Non-euclidean Geometry" (Dover, ISBN 0-486-60027-0 $5.50). I certainly had no problem reading the 3 combined books. I was just looking at the translators notes to Lobachevski, it was done by George Bruce Halsted of 2407 San Marcos St, Austin, Tx. May 1, 1891. > well accepted by his peers. Neither Bolyai nor Lobachevsky knew about > Gauss's work. Not true, Bolyai wrote him several letters as described in his book and the various prefaces. Lobachevski's book was promoted by Gauss as the first and truely critical work on non-euclidean geometry. In a rare show of magnamity Gauss even admits that Lobachevski's work exceeded his own. > I have no idea what Bonola wrote, but if he's just repeating the allegations > Bolyai made about Gauss while suffering from depression and paranoia, they > have no more truth in them than the Timmy May rants on this mailing list. He wrote a classic work on non-euclidean geometry that was quite popular in 1912 when it was printed. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

a good example of bad crypto hype
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>at http://www.meganet.com/explain.htm >you can test your critical thinking skills... Bawahahahaha. That's the biggest bunch of complete bullshit I've read in years. Thanks, Meganet, you made my night. They must be smoking crack and a lot of it.

1 0

Re: [Censored] Quote of the Day (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young wrote: >DPS sumbitch ran me down near DFW, me and my crap filled van, >my mangy hide and shaggy hair, my NY plates, my wildly dumped >substances, and sat behind for a few drags of AC in 100 degree heat, >miked in the number, adjusted his mirrors, tilted the vidcam skyward, >and climbed out, a big, very big widowmaker high on his fat ass, >hustled his privates, spat juice, and farted hard enough to quiver the >VW and me. I think John has been skipping his meds again. Come on, John, the pill is your friend!

1 0

a good example of bad crypto hype
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>at http://www.meganet.com/explain.htm >you can test your critical thinking skills... Bawahahahaha. That's the biggest bunch of complete bullshit I've read in years. Thanks, Meganet, you made my night. They must be smoking crack and a lot of it.

1 0

oracle on feds (fwd)
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Selected-By: David Bremner <bremner(a)cs.mcgill.ca> The Internet Oracle has pondered your question deeply. Your question was: > DearOralemostwisepleasetellme... > > Look, I'm sorry to rush this, but the IRS, BATF, IRS, CIA, INS, IMF and > CFR agents (not to mention the black helicopters) are at my front door. > What should I do? And in response, thus spake the Oracle: ENTERTAINING FEDERAL AGENTS with MARTHA STEWART Hello, I'm Martha Stewart, welcome to my answer. Our good friend The Internet Oracle is not able to answer your question right now, and so he has asked me to try to help. Let's take a look at your situation, shall we? Entertaining large groups of Federal agents is always a bit of a challenge, especially when we're pressed for time. Of course, it's always best to be prepared for visitors. You should have a neatly trimmed and freshly painted entryway, with a large Welcome mat and perhaps some cut flowers. A wooden rocking chair on the porch adds a homey touch of camouflage. When Federal agents are expected, I like to take a little time beforehand and knit a large Plywood Cozy for each window to catch some of the broken glass. Don't forget to save the shards! They can be dyed later and arranged into a stunning stained glass mosaic. For autumn, have plenty of hot mulled cider ready. Not only is it healthy and aromatic, it's better than water for extinguishing fires! If your electricity is sabotaged, use your supply of flares in tasteful candle holders. Finally, don't be afraid to think creatively. Although many people think of large-caliber bullets as merely a nuisance, they can be recovered and used as decorative accessories and paper weights, or hammered into distinctive buttons. With a little brown paint, a smoke grenade can also be fashioned into a quaint pineapple arrangement! As always, remember to be courteous and kind, and just relax and be yourself. It takes only a small extra effort to be remembered for your own unique style of entertaining. Enjoy! You owe the Oracle a throw rug woven from yellow "Police Line" tape. -- "So Beck was the hacker and Oda was the backer. The oldest and most troublesome relationship in the technological world." -- "Diamond Age", Neal Stephenson. ================================================================== Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto mail(a)vipul.net | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Virtual Spaces

1 0

Re: cypherpunks and guns
by Crisavec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William H. Geiger III typethed the following... > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >In <19980107001651.29456(a)songbird.com>, on 01/07/98 > at 03:16 AM, Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> said: > >>On Wed, Jan 07, 1998 at 01:25:45AM -0600, snow wrote: >>> > I am fairly certain that as an irregular army soldier I could inflict >>> > a substantial amount of damage upon an occupying military. With maybe >>> > $20k in equipment and several hundred hours of training, you could make >>> >>> If you were smart, you could do it for a lot less. > >>That presumes the enemy is dumb. An amusing fantasy. > >The fact that they collect a paycheck from the government is prima facie >evidence of diminished mental capacity. Don't bet on.... There is only one war, and it's not between the whites and the blacks, Labour and the Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, or the Federation and the Romulans, it's between those of us who aren't complete idiots and those of us who are.

2 1

Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:01:22 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd) > " His deepest instincts were occult, esoteric, semantic - with profound > shrinking from the world, a paralyzing fear of exposing his thoughts, his > beliefs, his discoveries in all nakedness to the inspection and criticism > of the world. 'Of the most fearful, cautious and suspicious temper that I > ever knew', said Whiston, > The too > well-known conflicts and ignoble quarrels with Hooke, Flamsteed, Leibnitz > are only too clear an evidence of this. Would you or Keynes like to explain how such an aloof character could have had so many 'well-known' conflicts without publishing and discussing his and others work? How can somebody who supposedly never published have become so well know? I guess he got somebody else to stand in for him in the various discourses he partook of at the Royal Society meetings. > He parted with and published nothing except under the > extreme pressure of friends. I would suggest a simple trip to the library and look at what is published by Newton. If I get the chance I'll take a look and catalog some of the anonymous publishing that are attributed to him. It may take a while, this unfortunately can't reside very high on my list of priorities; sorry. > Until the second phase of his life, he was a > wrapt, consecrated solitary, pursuing his studies by intenese introspection > with a mental endurance perhaps never equalled. Would you or Keynes like to explain exactly how a government employee, ,as the Exchequer or as a Professor of Natural Philosophy (Physics) would remain solitary? I guess Newton went to the various mints (if memory serves at the time there were 3) and did his other duties including presenting cases in court related to theft and counterfeiting by proxy? > There is the story of how he informed Halley of one of his most fundamental > discoveries of planetary motion. 'Yes', replied Halley, 'but how do you > know that? Have you proved it?' Newton was taken aback - 'Why, I've known > it for years', he replied. 'If you'll give me a few days, I'll certainly > find you a proof of it' - as in due course he did." Yeah, Halley had just seen the comet and was trying to figure out it's orbit. He approached many people on the issue and Newton was the only one who could resolve the issue in England. Because of the long periodicity and the fact that Halley didn't have 3 sightings he couldn't use the standard orbit calculations. By using calculus, which Newton had invented and Halley didn't know, it was possible to calculate an envelope of orbits. Haley then researched records of sightings and determined that only one comet with a 75+ year orbit could be it. If Newton was so unknown from not publishing why did Halley even care to ask Newton? Halley was a pretty notable character in his own right. He was given a ship to do the first magnetic map of the N. Atlantic, he called it 'Paramour Pink' (Pink Lover). He and the prince of Russia would also push themselves around London in a wheelbarrow drunk as skunks... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0