Night life

[n Obrien Inc.]

4 unfaithful wives have been matched for you in your area:

1. Alexandra, 124 lbs, 5'9, 36c, 14 miles away, available Jan 6-12th
2. Jessica, 124 lbs, 5'7, 36d, 25 miles away, available most nights (husband 
works midnights)
3. Elizabeth, 131 lbs, 5'7, 34b, 21 miles away, available most week nights ( 
looking for side-fling)
4. Katherine, 126 lbs, 5'8, 36c, 21 miles away, available Jan 8-12th

All 4 women are waiting to speak with you live & have photos. Webcam's are 
available for all 4.

http://hottylaugh.com/d/10.php


If you have found a lady or not to be paired up then continue.
http://hottylaugh.com/out/ 

Re: the steeds tore

[Marshall]

Hi this is Suzie emailing backa friend of the website gave me your email a 
few weeks ago...I'm usually online everyday so we can chat and maybe we could 
hook up after as well considering we live pretty close...Anyways, hope to hear 
from you soon cuz my husband will be out of town next week ;-)
http://www.companionsmile.com/d/2.php

ttyl..
Suzie
P.S. I left you a msg online so use this email when you log in ;-)

Adware for Windows Media Player spreading by P2P

[Bill Stewart]

http://www.theregister.com/2004/12/31/p2p_adware_threat/
According to an article in The Register, Overpeer is spreading
adware-infected Windows Media Audio and Windows Media Video files via P2P.
PC World Magazine did some research, ran Etherpeek, and found that
the adware was going to Overpeer, which is owned by Loudeye,
who strongly defend the practice, saying music pirates deserve what they get.
Of course, what the article isn't mentioning is that
this means that the WMA and WMV file formats have features
that can be used with the Windows Media Player to support adware,
so a good chunk of the blame belongs back in Redmond.
(Remind me again why closed-source DRMware is a good idea?)
Now, it wouldn't bother me if the Windows Media Player's
silly trippy visuals that you get when playing audio
that doesn't have a video track were replaced by
some advertising video, as long as it's all self-contained
and doesn't phone home to tell advertisers what I'm listening to.
But this one seems to be pretty chatty.


Bill Stewart  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Please confirm your request to join hersey-serbest

[Yahoo! Groups]

Hello cypherpunks@minder.net,

We have received your request to join the hersey-serbest 
group hosted by Yahoo! Groups, a free, easy-to-use community service.

This request will expire in 7 days.

TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE GROUP: 

1) Go to the Yahoo! Groups site by clicking on this link:
   
http://groups.yahoo.com/i?i=bWiHJKJAH2K8gI0ZY0zjKOsh1CA&e=cypherpunks%40minder%2Enet
 

  (If clicking doesn't work, "Cut" and "Paste" the line above into your 
   Web browser's address bar.)

-OR-

2) REPLY to this email by clicking "Reply" and then "Send"
   in your email program

If you did not request, or do not want, a membership in the
hersey-serbest group, please accept our apologies
and ignore this message.

Regards,

Yahoo! Groups Customer Care

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

 

Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

[Justin]

On 2005-01-10T15:42:47-0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> And we'll probably have many years of non-Smart-Gun type accidents...eg, 
> Drunk guy at party put gun to his head and blew his own brains out, 
> assuming it was a smart gun, or, trailer park momma gives gun to toddler 
> assuming its a "safe" smart gun.

Some gun "accidents" are suicides reported as such to avoid
embarrassment to the family.  Similarly, I think a few of the gun
"accidents" involving real "children", which are extremely rare to begin
with, go like this...

"Son, why don't you take this gun and pretend to go shoot daddy?  It's
not loaded." Or, "Son, why don't you take the gun, put it to your head,
and pull the trigger?  It's not loaded."

I don't believe the article when it says that smart guns are useless if
stolen.  What do they have, a tamper-proof memory chip storing a 128-bit
reprogramming authorization key that must be input via computer before
allowing a new person to be authorized?  And what's to stop a criminal
from ripping out all the circuitry and the safety it engages?

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

Should Anarchists Take State Money?

[R.A. Hettinga]

Mises Economics Blog


January 10, 2005



Should Anarchists Take State Money?

by Robert Murphy

A discussion on a private email list brought up a familiar topic: When is
it permissible for self-described anarchists (let's restrict ourselves here
to anarcho-capitalists) to take government money? This is a tricky
question, and I have yet to see someone offer a satisfactory list of
necessary and sufficient conditions. Usually when an-caps argue about this,
they end up shooting more and more refined analogies back and forth.

For example, to me it's not enough to say that any money spent in the
private sector is legitimate (vis-a-vis one's anarchism). I personally
would not feel justified in working for a Halliburton. However, what about
the guy who opens a Dunkin Donuts near a police station? Is he accepting
"government money"? Does it matter if he's in a podunk town with a sheriff
and a deputy, versus if he lives in LA and knows for a fact that several of
his customers beat the #$#)($* out of suspects?

A big problem in this area is education: Can anarcho-capitalist economists
take teaching posts at State schools? After all, the State intervenes
heavily in education, which is a perfectly laudable market institution. But
surely there are more teaching posts because of the State than there
otherwise would be. Does the an-cap professor have to estimate whether his
or her post would actually exist in the absence of State intervention, or
is that irrelevant?

Personally, I have decided that I will never work for an official State
school. If I really mean it when I refer (in LRC articles, for example) to
the State as "a gang of killers and thieves," then how can I possibly
associate with such people? Yes yes, there are millions of analogies and
counterarguments, but for me there is a definite line to be drawn at
actually being on the payroll. (I also wouldn't take welfare, for example,
even though in previous years I have put in a lot to the tax system.)

Before closing, I should say that in no way am I taking a holier than thou
stance. For example, I applied for the Stafford (unsubsidized!) loan in
grad school, even though the State technically coerced those lending
institutions into offering me such low rates. And I know a guy who is so
hard core about starving the beast, that he felt like a sellout when he
took a job on the books and had some of his paycheck withheld. (I.e. when
he worked under the table, then at least his money wasn't funding the
State's wars etc.)

But as far as State schools, I think there are a few other things that
people often leave out of the discussion. First, why would I want to throw
my talents into a State school? I would much rather work on the side of the
underdog, and every time I publish a paper or give a talk, I want a private
school to get the credit. (This also applies to whatever influence I have
on students; I don't want to enhance a State school's reputation by
churning out better-than-otherwise students, so long as I could do the same
at a private school.)

A second issue is a bit more subtle: When moderate Americans hear of an-cap
professors berating the existence of the State, while they work for the
State, I think two things happen. (A) They think, "What a hypocrite! These
ivory tower academics need to get in the real world before redesigning
society!" And (B), they think, "Our government is so open and tolerant! It
even employs academics who call for its abolition! I'm so glad I live here
and not under the Taliban."

(Again, this is not meant as a criticism of those who choose to work at
State schools. I'm just explaining my position.)

Posted by Murphy at January 10, 2005 08:08 AM

Comments


You're very lucky that you have private colleges where you live. Many have
no such choice. Then all one can do is firmly bite the hand that feeds.

Posted by: Sudha Shenoy at January 10, 2005 08:40 AM

Ayn Rand had an article that was instructive on this issue. She was asked
whether it was moral for someone to take a government-backed student loan.
She said it was, because the person receiving the loan had no moral duty to
abstain from receiving a benefit the government was giving to others. Rand
distinguished between such benefits and those who choose to work in the
government at jobs that had no function other than to violate individual
rights (I believe she cited the Federal Trade Commission as an example.)
The difference was between using a service that *should* be provided by the
public sector (i.e. the Postal Service) and those that could never exist in
a free market (i.e. monopoly regulators).

 Of course, Rand was only addressing the ethical dilema; whether taking
state money is practical towards advancing one's particular interests or
ideology is a separate question.

Posted by: Skip Oliva at January 10, 2005 08:43 AM

Hans-Hoppe teaches at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada and Murray
Rothbard taught there before him.

RE: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

[Trei, Peter]

Justin wrote:
>
> On 2005-01-10T15:04:21-0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
> > 
> > John Kelsey
> > 
> > > >Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
> > > > By ANNE EISENBERG
> > > 
> > > I just wonder what the false negative rates are.  Seem like a 
> > 
> > A remarkable number of police deaths are 'own gun' 
> > incidents, so the police do have a strong motivation 
> > to use 'smart guns' if they are reliable.
> 
> The NJ law specifically exempts the police from the smart gun
> requirement (which for civilians goes into effect in 2007 or 2008).
> Regardless, the legislature doesn't need to get involved for law
> enforcement to change their weapons policy and require "smart guns."

Cynically, I'm not the slightest bit suprised that the police
are exempted: 'safety for the government, not for the people'.

> False positives may also present a problem.  If the only way to get an
> acceptable identification rate (99%, for instance) is to create a 50%
> false positive rate for unauthorized users, that's reduces utilitarian
> benefit by half.

A 1% false negative rate is too high. A 50% false positive rate is
*much* too high.
 
> "Smart guns" are a ploy to raise the cost of guns, make them require
> more maintenance, annoy owners, and as a result decrease gun 
> ownership.

If it's combined with a rule to ban the transfer and/or
ownership of 'dumb' (ie, reliable) guns, then it's also
a backdoor gun confiscation policy.

I'm afraid that they may get away with it. Here in MA, the
only handguns which can legally be bought new are those on a
fairly short list compiled by the State Attorney General which
meet his arbitrary 'safety standards'. If I wanted, say, a
Pardini (a very expensive special purpose .22short target 
pistol) I'm SOL. In fact, it's almost impossible for MA
residents to participate in some of the shooting sports
competitively, due to the AG's list.

Peter Trei

Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

[Justin]

On 2005-01-10T15:04:21-0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
> 
> John Kelsey
> 
> > >Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
> > > By ANNE EISENBERG
> > 
> > I just wonder what the false negative rates are.  Seem like a 
> 
> A remarkable number of police deaths are 'own gun' 
> incidents, so the police do have a strong motivation 
> to use 'smart guns' if they are reliable.

The NJ law specifically exempts the police from the smart gun
requirement (which for civilians goes into effect in 2007 or 2008).
Regardless, the legislature doesn't need to get involved for law
enforcement to change their weapons policy and require "smart guns."

False positives may also present a problem.  If the only way to get an
acceptable identification rate (99%, for instance) is to create a 50%
false positive rate for unauthorized users, that's reduces utilitarian
benefit by half.

Batteries go dead.  Solder joints break.  Transistors and capacitors go
bad.  Pressure sensors jam.  This is not the kind of technology I want
in something that absolutely, positively has to go boom if I want it to.

For handguns, I'll stick with pure mechanical mechanisms, thanks.
"Smart guns" are a ploy to raise the cost of guns, make them require
more maintenance, annoy owners, and as a result decrease gun ownership.

-- 
"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; 
some he makes slaves, others free." -Heraclitus 53

RE: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

[Tyler Durden]

And we'll probably have many years of non-Smart-Gun type accidents...eg, 
Drunk guy at party put gun to his head and blew his own brains out, assuming 
it was a smart gun, or, trailer park momma gives gun to toddler assuming its 
a "safe" smart gun.

-TD
From: "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Kelsey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"R.A. Hettinga"  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:04:21 -0500

John Kelsey
> >Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
> > By ANNE EISENBERG
>
> I just wonder what the false negative rates are.  Seem like a
> gun that has a 1% chance of refusing to fire when you *really
> need it* might not be worth all that much.  Similarly, one
> that you can't get to work if you've got a band-aid on your
> finger, or a cut on your hand, or whatever, loses a lot of
> its value.  On the other hand, a gun that can't be made to go
> off by your toddler is a pretty huge win, assuming you're
> willing to trust the technology, but a 90% accuracy level
> sounds to me like 10% of the time, your three year old can,
> in fact, cause the thing to go off.  That's not worth much,
> but maybe they'll get it better.   And the "suspect struggles
> with cop, gets gun, and shoots cop" problem would definitely
> be helped by a guy that wouldn't go off for 90% of attackers.
>
> --John
A remarkable number of police deaths are 'own gun'
incidents, so the police do have a strong motivation
to use 'smart guns' if they are reliable.
In New Jersey, there is some kind of legislation
in place to restrict sales to 'smart guns', once
they exist. Other types would be banned. (Actually,
getting a carry permit in NJ is already almost
impossible, unless you're politically connected.)
This particular model seems to rely on pressure
sensors on the grip. This bothers me - under the
stress of a gunfight, you're likely to have a
somewhat different pattern than during the
enrollment process.
Many 'smart guns' also have big problems with
issues which arise in real life gun fights -
shooting from awkward positions behind cover,
one-handed vs two-handed, weak hand (righthander
using left hand, and vice versa, which can happen
if dictated by cover or injury), point vs
sighted shooting, and passing a gun to a disarmed
partner.
There are other systems which have been proposed;
magnetic or RFID rings, fingerprint sensors, etc.
The one thing that seems to be common to all of
the 'smart gun' designs is that they are
conceived by people with little experience in
how guns are actually used.
To look at a particularly ludicrous example, try
http://www.wmsa.net/other/thumb_gun.htm
For a gun to work, it is just as important that
it fires when it should, as that it does not
fire when it shouldn't. A safety system
which delays firing by even half a second,
or which introduces a significant false
rejection rate (and 1% is way over the line),
is a positive hazard.
When the police switch to smart guns, and
have used them successfully for some time
(say, a year at least) without problems,
I'll beleive them ready for prime time.
Peter Trei

RE: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

[Bill Stewart]

At 12:04 PM 1/10/2005, Trei, Peter wrote:
For a gun to work, it is just as important that
it fires when it should, as that it does not
fire when it shouldn't. A safety system
which delays firing by even half a second,
or which introduces a significant false
rejection rate (and 1% is way over the line),
is a positive hazard.
I'd rather not have to rely on a gun that's
acting like typical Artificial Intelligence software
- "Out of Virtual Memory - Garbage-Collecting - Back in a minute"
- "Tea?  You mean Leaves, boiled in water?  That's a tough one!"
- "Low on Entropy - please wave the gun around and pull the trigger a few 
times"

Police have enough problems with situations where guns are too slow,
such as a guy with a knife ten feet away,
and ostensibly smart guns that aren't reliable are really bad.
And slowly-responding guns just encourage cops to pull them out early
and start shooting early just in case,
which is the kind of thing most gun-grabbing liberals want to avoid.

Bill Stewart  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

RE: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

[Trei, Peter]

John Kelsey

> >Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
> > By ANNE EISENBERG
> 
> I just wonder what the false negative rates are.  Seem like a 
> gun that has a 1% chance of refusing to fire when you *really 
> need it* might not be worth all that much.  Similarly, one 
> that you can't get to work if you've got a band-aid on your 
> finger, or a cut on your hand, or whatever, loses a lot of 
> its value.  On the other hand, a gun that can't be made to go 
> off by your toddler is a pretty huge win, assuming you're 
> willing to trust the technology, but a 90% accuracy level 
> sounds to me like 10% of the time, your three year old can, 
> in fact, cause the thing to go off.  That's not worth much, 
> but maybe they'll get it better.   And the "suspect struggles 
> with cop, gets gun, and shoots cop" problem would definitely 
> be helped by a guy that wouldn't go off for 90% of attackers.  
> 
> --John

A remarkable number of police deaths are 'own gun' 
incidents, so the police do have a strong motivation 
to use 'smart guns' if they are reliable.

In New Jersey, there is some kind of legislation 
in place to restrict sales to 'smart guns', once 
they exist. Other types would be banned. (Actually, 
getting a carry permit in NJ is already almost 
impossible, unless you're politically connected.)

This particular model seems to rely on pressure
sensors on the grip. This bothers me - under the
stress of a gunfight, you're likely to have a 
somewhat different pattern than during the 
enrollment process. 

Many 'smart guns' also have big problems with
issues which arise in real life gun fights - 
shooting from awkward positions behind cover,
one-handed vs two-handed, weak hand (righthander 
using left hand, and vice versa, which can happen 
if dictated by cover or injury), point vs 
sighted shooting, and passing a gun to a disarmed
partner.

There are other systems which have been proposed;
magnetic or RFID rings, fingerprint sensors, etc.

The one thing that seems to be common to all of
the 'smart gun' designs is that they are
conceived by people with little experience in 
how guns are actually used.

To look at a particularly ludicrous example, try
http://www.wmsa.net/other/thumb_gun.htm

For a gun to work, it is just as important that
it fires when it should, as that it does not
fire when it shouldn't. A safety system
which delays firing by even half a second,
or which introduces a significant false
rejection rate (and 1% is way over the line),
is a positive hazard.

When the police switch to smart guns, and
have used them successfully for some time
(say, a year at least) without problems,
I'll beleive them ready for prime time.

Peter Trei

Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

[John Kelsey]

>From: "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jan 6, 2005 11:47 AM
>To: cryptography@metzdowd.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire

...
>Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
> By ANNE EISENBERG

I just wonder what the false negative rates are.  Seem like a gun that has a 1% 
chance of refusing to fire when you *really need it* might not be worth all 
that much.  Similarly, one that you can't get to work if you've got a band-aid 
on your finger, or a cut on your hand, or whatever, loses a lot of its value.  
On the other hand, a gun that can't be made to go off by your toddler is a 
pretty huge win, assuming you're willing to trust the technology, but a 90% 
accuracy level sounds to me like 10% of the time, your three year old can, in 
fact, cause the thing to go off.  That's not worth much, but maybe they'll get 
it better.   And the "suspect struggles with cop, gets gun, and shoots cop" 
problem would definitely be helped by a guy that wouldn't go off for 90% of 
attackers.  

--John

A new license fee for every smart card?

[R.A. Hettinga]

: CR80 News




A new license fee for every smart card?
Monday, January 10 2005
Cyptography Research asks chip or card manufacturers to pay for use of its
patented security measures

In the late 1990s, a scare tore through the smart card community when the
media began running articles attacking the security of the cards and
calling into question the vulnerability of chip card-enabled systems. The
threat had a very serious sounding name, differential power analysis (DPA),
and the concern spread quickly.


 The Australian Financial Review broke the story on June 6, 1998 leading
with the ominous statement, "A ruinous security problem has jeopardized the
viability of millions of smartcards in GSM mobile phones as well as the
recently introduced Telstra Phonecard." A series of doom and gloom articles
followed in technology publications and major newspapers and periodicals.

According to the accounts, a group of young cryptographers in San Francisco
had discovered a way to extract the encryption keys protecting data in a
chip, thus opening its contents for unintended use. The ramifications for
the burgeoning GSM market and highly touted stored value programs such as
Mondex, Proton, and VisaCash seemed significant.

The smart card industry attempted to brush off the significance of the
threat pointing to the fact that the attack was confined to laboratory
environments and that no actual issued cards had been compromised. But the
damage was done Š it was another public relations hit to an industry trying
to define itself in the eyes of the average consumer.

Thankfully, the average consumer is fickle. Within months, DPA was
forgotten about by all but the most security-focused in the chip and
related industries. The media was on to the next story and the crisis
disappeared as quickly as it had materialized.

Fast forward to November 2004

San Francisco-based Cryptography Research, which specializes in developing
and licensing technology to solve complex data security problems,
officially announced that it had established a licensing program for its
patented DPA countermeasures Š and, according to Kit Rodgers, VP of
Licensing for Cryptography Research, virtually every chip card issued in
the market uses the patented countermeasures. But wait a minute. To the
casual observer of the smart card industry, it seemed that DPA's "15
minutes of fame" had passed before the millennium. What happened?

It turns out that DPA really was a credible threat to chip security, and it
turns out that Paul Kocher, one of the young cryptographers that discovered
DPA, is the founder of Cryptography Research. At first blush, this might
seem odd - the same guy that discovered the threat is selling
countermeasures to defend against it.

 In reality, this is not uncommon in data security circles. It stands to
reason that the people discovering the weakness are often in the best
position to fix it. If the threat is deemed real following scrutiny by the
industry, the protection against the threat is necessary and has inherent
value to the industry. That is exactly what happened in this case, says to
Mr. Rodgers.
So what happened during the 6-plus years that passed between the Australian
Financial Review article and the announcement of the licensing program?

It turns out that Mr. Kocher and Cryptography Research had shown the
vulnerabilities they discovered to Mondex, Visa, and others prior to the
1998 media storm. These card issuers then brought the silicon and card
suppliers to see the DPA demonstration. According to Mr. Rodgers, "Under
NDA we showed them how to mask and minimize the vulnerabilities. We told
them we would be coming back for licensing once the patents were issued."

In April 2004, the company announced that it had been granted a series of
patents broadly covering countermeasures to DPA attacks. These include:
*   U.S. Patent #6,654,884: Hardware-level mitigation and DPA
countermeasures for cryptographic devices;
*   U.S. Patent #6,539,092: Leak-resistant cryptographic indexed key
update;
*   U.S. Patent #6,510,518: Balanced cryptographic computational
method and apparatus for leak minimization in smartcards and other
cryptosystems;
*   U.S. Patent #6,381,699: Leak-resistant cryptographic method and
apparatus;
*   U.S. Patent #6,327,661: Using unpredictable information to
minimize leakage from smartcards and other cryptosystems;
*   U.S. Patent #6,304,658: Leak-resistant cryptographic method and
apparatus;
*   U.S. Patent #6,298,442: Secure modular exponentiation with leak
minimization for smartcards and other cryptosystems; and
*   U.S. Patent #6,278,783: DES and other cryptographic, processes
with leak minimization for smartcards and other cryptosystems.

So, it seemed, the time had come for Cryptography Research to go back to
the manufacturers wi

Findout anything about anyone

[Secret Investigations]

 

 

  

 	
		
  


			
			

	
		
			
To no longer receive mail from this recurring list:



  Send a blank email 

OR
	Send a postal mail to Good Times, 123 North Congress Avenue Suite 180, Boynton Beach, Florida 33426
	

			
		
	

			
		
	

[IP] The DNA round-up on Cape Cod (fwd from dave@farber.net)

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:27:15 -0500
To: Ip 
Subject: [IP] The DNA round-up on Cape Cod
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- Forwarded Message
From: "Richard M. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:18:42 -0500
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The DNA round-up on Cape Cod

Hi,

I live in the town of Truro on Cape Cod about 4 or 5 months out of the year.
This past week, the Truro has been on the national news because the local
police are attempting to obtain DNA samples of all men of the town in order
to solve a three-year old murder case.  Here are a couple of the articles
that give the details of what is going on in this DNA round-up:

   To Try to Net Killer, Police Ask a Small Town's Men for DNA
   http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/national/10cape.html

   Truro abuzz over 'swab' DNA testing
   http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/truroabuzz7.htm

I am headed back to my Truro house later this week.  If I am approached by
the police to provide a DNA sample for their round-up of Truro males, I am
planning to refuse.  However, I just realized that I already gave a DNA
sample to the Town of Truro recently.  I paid my property tax bill to the
Truro tax collectors office two weeks ago.  My DNA is on the tax payment
envelope that I licked.

Envelopes are apparently a good source of DNA material according to this
article:

   DNA on Envelope Reopens Decades-old Murder Case
   http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_052103_dnaarrest.html

Richard M. Smith
http://www.ComputerBytesMan.com



-- End of Forwarded Message


-
You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl
__
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net


pgpvAsBYLrhL0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Doctorate (PHD and/or MBA, Masters, Bachelors

[John Kruse]

Quickly succeed by getting a Bachelor, Master or Doctorate College Degree in 
Just Days with 
no coursework.  We'll be waiting for u at 
1.206.666.6485

wrote electroencephalogram cotty alder rabat indicter diphthong jesus crony 
cousin

Block Spyware & Pop-Ups

[Protect your PC]

Hello, 

Have you recently noticed that your computer is all of a sudden running slower 
than normal? Or, perhaps you're noticing that you've recently been inundated 
with an inordinate amount of annoying and intrusive "pop up" advertisements. 
The reason this may be happening is because your PC's hard drive is infected 
with Spyware and/or Adware files. 

http://www.fundowntheroad.com/hyewadw_peeezniezq.html

These are files that are installed on your PC without your knowledge and can be 
extremely harmful to your PC and could lead to the crashing of your PC's hard 
drive. 

The only way to check your system for these files is to scan your system using 
our software. You may now scan your system AbsolutelyFree to check for these 
infected files. To do so, simply go here to start the scan: 
http://www.fundowntheroad.com/dazclyz_peeezniezq.html 

It's imperative that you keep a constant check of your PC to ensure these files 
are not residing on your hard drive. If after scanning you find these files do 
exist on your hard drive, it's essential that you remove them immediately. 

Again, please scan your system now (atno cost) by going here: 
http://www.fundowntheroad.com/wcrgqed_peeezniezq.html 

Best, 

MyNetProtectorý
Your Rights, Your Privacy! 






If you no longer want to receive mail from this list:

Send a blank email to 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], 
or write to Good Times
123 North Congress Avenue Suite 180
Boynton Beach, Florida 33426

Momentum Is Gaining for Cellphones as Credit Cards

[R.A. Hettinga]

The New York Times

January 10, 2005

Momentum Is Gaining for Cellphones as Credit Cards
 By MATT RICHTEL


eople already use their cellphones to read e-mail messages, take pictures
and play video games. Before long, they may use them in place of their
wallets.

By embedding in the cellphone a computer chip or other type of memory
device, a phone can double as a credit card. The chip performs the same
function as the magnetic strip on the back of a credit card, storing
account information and other data necessary to make a purchase.

In Asia, phone makers are already selling phones that users can swipe
against credit or debit card readers, in much the same way they would swipe
plastic MasterCard or Visa cards. Trials are now under way to bring the
technology to America, industry executives said.

 Ron Brown, executive director of the Infrared Data Association, a trade
group representing companies pushing the technology for cellphone credit
cards, said that the new handsets could become "a major form of payment,
because cellphones are the most ubiquitous device in the world." He added,
though, that "cash will never go away."

Advocates say that consumers will readily embrace the technology as a way
to pay for even small purchases, because it is less bother than taking a
credit card out of a purse or parting with cash.

The impending changes to the cellphone happen to coincide with major shifts
taking place in the banking industry. Since credit cards are still
considered somewhat inconvenient, particularly for quick, small purchases,
major credit card companies have developed "contactless payment"
technologies for checkout counters that allow customers to wave their cards
near an electronic reader without having to swipe the card or sign their
name.

 MasterCard, for example, has introduced a system called PayPass that lets
cardholders wave a card in front of a reader to initiate a payment, much as
motorists use E-ZPass and similar systems to pay tolls and ExxonMobil
customers use SpeedPass to buy gas. Several major credit card companies
issue PayPass cards;  McDonald's has agreed to accept them at some
restaurants.

And  American Express announced late last year that it would have its
system, ExpressPay, in more than 5,000  CVS drugstores by the middle of
this year. Judy Tenzer, a spokeswoman for American Express, said the
technology made it more likely that customers would use credit cards to pay
for small items.

Cellphone makers are hoping these new payment systems will also make it
easier to market handsets with credit card functions, although they could
just as easily represent competition for the practice of paying by
cellphone.

The marriage of cellphone and charge card poses some significant
challenges, including security problems. To reduce fraud from stolen
phones, consumers may be required to punch an authorization code into their
phone each time a charge is made.

 For more than a year, phone makers, software companies and computer chip
manufacturers have been working to develop secure and reliable payment
technology for cellphones. After the phone's chip is recognized by the
electronic reader, the credit card account number will be verified, as it
is now, and the price of the purchase will be added to the consumer's
credit card bill.

 The new phones may also be capable of being programmed for a prepaid sum
from which payments could be deducted.

But there have been some glitches in the product trials, according to Jorge
Fernandes, chief executive of Vivotech, a cellphone software company based
in Santa Clara, Calif.

 In two trials, one at a corporation in the Midwest and the other at Santa
Clara University, Vivotech used infrared technology for communications
between the phone and the card reader. Participants had to aim the
cellphone at the reader in a certain way for the infrared beam to be picked
up.

"People got very upset," Mr. Fernandes said. "Pointing your cellphone at a
target is very difficult."

Mr. Fernandes said the company believed it might have solved that problem
by switching to a technology that uses low-level radio signals. Last month,
Vivotech began testing the technology, which allows users to wave the phone
within a couple of inches of a reader, at a sports arena in the Atlanta
area.

 Cellphones are becoming mainstream payment devices in Korea and Japan. In
Japan,  NTT DoCoMo, the mobile phone operator, said that it had already
sold more than a million phones equipped with chips that include the
payment function.

More than 13,000 Japanese shops have electronic readers capable of
communicating with the phones. For now, the phones are used mostly to debit
a prepaid amount, which is deposited by plugging the phone into a machine
similar to an A.T.M. that takes cash and credits the handset.

 In South Korea, people are already using cellphones as credit cards, said
Sue Gordon-Lath

Re: was beyond even

[Rosie Reed]

Hi this is Suzie emailing backa friend of the website gave me your email a 
few weeks ago...I'm usually online everyday so we can chat and maybe we could 
hook up after as well considering we live pretty close...Anyways, hope to hear 
from you soon cuz my husband will be out of town next week ;-)
http://www.companionsmile.com/d/2.php

ttyl..
Suzie
P.S. I left you a msg online so use this email when you log in ;-)