Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: > SNIP > In "austin powers", they make the spy sound sixties by > depicting him as expecting the victory of the Soviet Union, and > perhaps rather favoring that outcome. If they had him quote > Ayn Rand, he would not have sounded sixties. > > When the mass media want to cash in on nostalgia for the > sixties and early seventies, it is the young commies they > remember. That's because the sixties commies sold out as quickly as they could when they were no longer threatened with compulsory military service. The sixties commies are the worst of the "how much is enough" crowd out there whipping slave kids harder to make more nikes and gap clothing. The folks doing the heinlen/randian ranting haven't sold out yet.
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
Let's look at some real-world metric of cpunkish issues: 1. Surveillance and data harvesting. The main reason many "joined" cpunks (including me) was the issue of wide-spread surveillance and sophistication of data harvesting that computer networks enabled. I could protect my traffic no problemo. And I couldn't care less if some moronic consumer/sheeple type could not. That was not the issue. The issue was that government(s) (there used to be more than one in old times) had too good take on the pulse of the population, and would make less mistakes due to this feedback. Well, they succeeded and cpunks miserably failed. There was no way to jam the crypto down the throats of the unwashed. Today most of them keep their e-mails and http pages on disks that belong to LEA-friendly corps - there is no need to intercept - all TLA needs to do is search. There is more data harvesting today than ever before. It's not even mentioned any more. It's not a news item or a sexy maillist topic. 2. Crypto tools Widely available. This is a big success. One can readily download PGP or ssh. Seldom used. I don't count "protect-your CC # with SSL" kind of use. Only NSA knows, but I'd guess that the number of PGP users is pretty stable in the last decade. The biggest win of the government was removing surveillance from the focus. My guess is that all the early fuzz about crypto tools was fear that they will be widely used. When it became obvious that it will not happen the fuzz stooped. ECHELON? ITAR? No one even bothers to mention these any more. But you can safely assume that *all* mail traffic through MAE nodes is archived, along with google queries and that most net users have "files" with histories of search strings and similar. I would be disappointed with the waste of my tax dollars/euros/pounds if this is not the case. The only way out is new communication technology. Internet is too old and has been completely coopted. We need the Next Thing, now. I don't know what it is but these things seem to come up quite regularly. So forget about Internet doing anything for the cpunk agenda. Tune in the Next.
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Dec 7, 2003, at 6:54 PM, Greg Newby wrote: On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 07:37:26PM -0800, John Young wrote: ... What I like about the ring-in-the-flesh crowd is their pleasure in grossing out the stodgers. Makes me wish I still had that knack instead of only the memories. Hey, John -- wear some of that shit, and I promise to be grossed out. But seriously, has anyone considered that maybe the problem is Tim May? His hate-filled ignorance is a real impediment to anyone who might otherwise be interested in "the cause." His spews are pretty distasteful, and to him, anyone who didn't start cp a zillion years ago is just an ankle biter come-lately. Fuck off and die, along with all of your fellow travellers. You have contributed _nothing_ here. I've only been on the list for 3 years, but I'd say that things were a lot more interesting before (In-) Choat jumped ship. In your three years here, nothing. And a big "fuck you, too" to anyone who thinks otherwise. -- Greg I hope you and your family are some of the first of the tens of millions who will die in the Great Burnoff of Useless Eaters. --Tim May "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound"
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
In a message dated 12/8/2003 8:27:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >As for writing for "Reason," they haven't asked, and their editorial > >focus is increasingly statist. Cf. Cathy Young's quote at the bottom of > >this post. > > I disagree. I went to a Reason gathering in Washington last Thursday > and found the staffers there definitely not statist. > Reason has improved mightily after Nick Gillespie took over from Postrel as editor. After the Cathy Young statement I raised holy hell with Reason and to their credit both David Nott (President, Reason Foundation) and Mike Alissi (Publisher) both wrote me and promised, which they delivered, pro encryption articles. Around ten years ago I had a heated argument with one of the deep pocketed Trustees of the Reason Foundation about what I considered the magazine's divergence from libertarian thought. He basically said that if the magazine went into a more overtly libertarian direction, they'd lose subscribers- I thought then that was bs, and even let my subscription lapse. I resubscribed a couple of years ago and have found the magazine much improved. Regards, Matt Gaylor-
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:27:38PM -0800, James A. Donald wrote: > Everyone agrees that big corporations are oppressive, > bureaucratic, inefficient, etc. No one more so than the > management advisers to big corporations. I'm not sure I'd agree that big corporations are oppressive. How? I once worked at Xerox and had a splendid time. Didn't feel "oppressed" at all. As for bureaucratic and inefficient, perhaps, but I've seen 50-people organizations devolve quite well. I suppose it all depends on your frame of reference. If you mean, "I can find perceived inefficiencies," I'm sure you can. But if they become too inefficient, well, over time competitors will rise to take advantage of those inefficiencies. Xerox can be an example here as well. This is just common sense. -Declan
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:27:38PM -0800, James A. Donald wrote: > the business as old fart pinko activists of today. And if the > same is true of the libertarian party, well it has been walking > dead for some considerable time, but its death does not reflect > the health of libertarianism. The latest issue of Liberty Magazine (which I have started reading again) has an excellent article by Bradford about the death of the Libertarian Party. Uses the California election as a tool for analysis, or dissection. -Declan
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 01:45:43PM -0800, Tim May wrote: > You need to read my long, long essay in "True Names," then. This is > more widely available than anything I would waste my time doing for > "Body Peircing" or "Skate," even if I wanted to. > > As for writing for "Reason," they haven't asked, and their editorial > focus is increasingly statist. Cf. Cathy Young's quote at the bottom of > this post. I disagree. I went to a Reason gathering in Washington last Thursday and found the staffers there definitely not statist. But they were Cato-type libertarians. This is not meant to be critical of the Cato Institute. What I mean is that the folks at the Reason event worked at Cato and other groups like IHS, CEI, AEI, and so on -- groups that have adopted a mode of advocacy that is more academic and scholarly than activist. Instead of saying: Fuck big government. They'll say: As decades of scholarly work in the public choice arena has shown, government entitlement programs at the federal level result in continued inefficiencies and rent-seeking. It's a matter of how you say it. I don't know if that crowd is as interested in the edgy kind of state-wrecking disruptive technologies (that will have a greater long-term impact). -Declan
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
-- On 7 Dec 2003 at 21:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > many here likely would not be happy if I called myself > libertarian, because I feel that corporations are titanic > forces unfriendly to the vast majority of human beings and > unworthy of human liberty. Everyone agrees that big corporations are oppressive, bureaucratic, inefficient, etc. No one more so than the management advisers to big corporations. Trouble is when you say they are unworthy of liberty, the implication is let us transfer power to something a great deal bigger. This is the "big tobacco' rhetoric -- a restriction supposedly on corporations must always necessarily manifest as restrictions on individual people, and usually, as in the case of the "big tobacco' rhetoric, it was quite obviously the intent of those using this rhetoric to impose restrictions on individual people. Those using this rhetoric believe they know better than other people what is good for those other people, and intend to whack those other people for their own good. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG h0PDSIpmiXP6g+EXs3how/E0TY9et8gJKr2+nS0w 4z3+n+3NXrRvBDk0BaUUE8TzqII22OrrXWgqmSfhP
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
-- Tim May: > >> And, as many have noted, very few of the "kids" today are > >> libertarians (either small L or large L). James A. Donald: > > When you were a teenager, everyone thought that Ho Chi Minh > > was the greatest, had a picture of Che Guevera on their > > wall, and thought the Soviet Union was going to win. Tim May > Nonsense. "Everyone" did not think this. Far from it. YAF was > going strong back then. Well, not everyone, but that was surely the way the wind was blowing. The Che Guevera poster symbolizes that era. In "austin powers", they make the spy sound sixties by depicting him as expecting the victory of the Soviet Union, and perhaps rather favoring that outcome. If they had him quote Ayn Rand, he would not have sounded sixties. When the mass media want to cash in on nostalgia for the sixties and early seventies, it is the young commies they remember. > Still think most of the baldies of today, with rings through > their noses, marching against Coca Cola and Intel and Big > Business, and arguing for affirmative action are "more > libertarian"? Go to the mall: observe the mall rats. See any baldies or nose rings? (Come to think of it, you probably would, but I do not.) Nip down to that park in San Jose where all the young people get their drugs. See any baldies or nose rings? You are further out of it than Doonesbury. The leadership of the Death-to-coca-cola crowd are old farts. These days Chomsky needs an interpeter. The could-pass-as-young pinko activists of the sixties are still in the business as old fart pinko activists of today. And if the same is true of the libertarian party, well it has been walking dead for some considerable time, but its death does not reflect the health of libertarianism. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG kHn9sx1THFU+pOMZQFj1k0jU7RnUtA877TClsJYB 4KSl9qDarOhEujymWANpT3Le2YbPsr5NOMfIblUzm
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Dec 8, 2003, at 12:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/8/2003 2:46:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, you are free to be "Matt Gaylor, Activist!" and to try to get articles published in "Liberty" or "Gold Currency Times" or wherever you get published, but I have other things I'd rather be doing. Preaching to me that I ought to be sacrificing my time for the betterment of some skatepunks by publishing in "Piercing Magazine" is the silliest kind of altruistic thinking. No Tim, not altruistic. My reason for wanting you to write is a selfish one. Self preservation. You are able to tie technology into the bigger picture, and you do have something valuable to say. You already sacrifice your time in pointless diatribes about the good ole' days on CP- I'm just making a plea that you do something more useful- You need to read my long, long essay in "True Names," then. This is more widely available than anything I would waste my time doing for "Body Peircing" or "Skate," even if I wanted to. As for writing for "Reason," they haven't asked, and their editorial focus is increasingly statist. Cf. Cathy Young's quote at the bottom of this post. As for my diatribes here, the references to the archives and to how Sarath shouldn't be posting homework questions and all, well, these take very, very little of my time. I spend much more time trying to get XEmacs to do a smarter job of recognizing Haskell keywords! (And thinking how the integrated development environment I had nearly 20 years ago with my Symbolics Lisp Machine, with integrated debuggers, browsers, inspectors, and an editor (Zmacs) was so far ahead of anything I can now get with any combination of Emacs, XEmacs, OCaml, Mozart/Oz, or Haskell. The one good and integrated environment I have, that is not proprietary to some company, is Squeak, the Smalltalk environment. But for various reasons I am not doing Squeak at this time...lazy evaluation is the kind of executable mathematics that is where it's at, as we old farts used to say.) More will change, and _has_ changed, by writing code than by trying to convince the nosering set that they should be learning Perl or Python. And it's not as if there isn't a vast sea of material already out there at everyone's fingertips! One of the reasons I don't place high value on writing "new" articles anymore, unless new topics come up, is that I believe strongly that an article written a year ago, or five years ago, is just as meaningful as a "current" article (which may actually have been written earlier, pace the usual delays). This is closely-related to my reaction to people attempting to predict "future" stock prices: I'm more interested--to the extent I ever am in such schemes--in the behavior on past series, which can then be quickly tested. A subtle point, but an important one. So if I get interested in some topic--let's pick Haskell and crypto, to stick with this example--I will spend literally several hours per day for several weeks reading from the vast number of articles and postings which have been written on the subjects. This search takes me off into a bunch of different directions. And this is the way to do it, not get on sci.crypt and ask some question like "Hey, has anyone ever tried Haskell here?" And not getting on the Haskell mailing list and asking if anyone has every used it for crypto. The answers are already out there, possibly a few months old, but so what? Now when we started (ObOldFartMode: On), no one had much discussed things like "the dining cryptographers problem." So people like me and Hal Finney and a few others spent many hours a week writing articles linking the problem to things like digital money and anonymous remailers. Why should any of us rewrite those same articles today? (I also spent many thousands of hours working on the FAQ which everybody else was complaining about but which no one who volunteered to do it was either qualified to do it or was committed enough to get beyond the usual two-page kind of summary. My version, the one I chose to write, I dubbed the Cyphernomicon. It is widely available and Google has no problem finding parts of it. One need not even download and read the whole thing. Just type in something like "timed-release crypto" and off you go. Those who want it, can get it. Those who still don't know how to use Google or other engines are preterite anyway.) I'm not sure what it is Matt thinks I need to be doing for the good of the herd. Writing a weekly column in "Newsweek" so that the great unwashed masses will learn about the importance of crypto? Writing a monthly column in "Skatepunk" or in Starbucks' in-house newsletter about prime numbers and bit commitment? Laughable, for various reasons. News flash: I have no desire to write on a deadline. I write when I feel like writing. And a good chunk of what I write gets spidered by Google. What can be
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
In a message dated 12/8/2003 2:46:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, you are free to be "Matt Gaylor, Activist!" and to try to get articles published in "Liberty" or "Gold Currency Times" or wherever you get published, but I have other things I'd rather be doing. Preaching to me that I ought to be sacrificing my time for the betterment of some skatepunks by publishing in "Piercing Magazine" is the silliest kind of altruistic thinking. No Tim, not altruistic. My reason for wanting you to write is a selfish one. Self preservation. You are able to tie technology into the bigger picture, and you do have something valuable to say. You already sacrifice your time in pointless diatribes about the good ole' days on CP- I'm just making a plea that you do something more useful- Regards, Matt Gaylor-
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 10:37:04PM -0500, John Young wrote: > When I got censored by [EMAIL PROTECTED] a couple > of weeks ago I tried to subscribe to these nodes: > > Algebra > Infonex > Lne > Minder > Sunder > Pro-ns > Openpgp > Ccc > > Subscription was successful only on: > > Algebra > Pro-ns > > Both of thse provided a "who" response on 11/10/03 of > > Algebra 122 > Pro-ns 14 Thanks to John for pointing out that subscribing was broken for the minder.net node. It's now working again. Thanks, -Brian -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]1024/8C7C4DE9
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
Hello, I am 23 years old and I am quite proud to be on cpunks. I have been on and off cpunks since i was sixteen, but I have never been active. I run a mixminion remailer, get excited at key signings, and I was extremely excited when I read about the recent development with mental poker that was mentioned on boingboing. I do not have a bald head, tattoos or piercings. I am decidely not libertarian, I did not realize that was a requirement for being a cpunk:) Libertarians do not have a monopoly on the belief in autonomous individuals and or civil liberties. I think that the supposed downfall of cpunks has to do with two big issues, none of which have to do with something radically different about my generation. No offense, Mr. May but you sound like a stodgy old man complaining about "the kids these days." You are not the first and not the last person that has reached middle age and decided that the kids these days are different. I think that cpunks has dropped in popularity because of two things: 1. There is not a lot to come here for. A quick perusal of the messages that I have archived since Oct 12, 2002 does not yeild a great number of goodies. Despite what you think mailing lists are still very popular with us "crazy linux kidz" (debian-devel is quite busy and informative) these days. A large amount of my internet time is spent reading "personal diaries" but an equal if not greater time is spent reading mailing lists. I have found that the blogs are good for announcements where as the mailing lists are for discussion. I think that a lot of the old cpunks content has moved to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the various p2p lists. I think that a lot of the social talk has moved elsewhere because it appears to be a more hospitable environment, see #2. 2. This is not a friendly/fun place. I don't mind RTFM but I have seen a number of responses on this list that made me feel like the new middle class italian guy at the rich WASPy old boys golf club. With all due respect your post about not forwarding the initial message to other list was telling (and in all caps). Why not forward a good cpunks message to other places? I thought we were meant to share? I do not think cpunks is dead, I agree that the number of forwards here that are merely reprints from other lists or daily blogs is obnoxious. However, I thought that you had a lot of good points in your reply about the lessig/declan argument (which has continued on lessig's blog if you care) and it is posts like your lessig post that I am still subscribed. In light of that it seems crazy to limit who gets to see that message. Instead of keeping it in the secret clubhouse it seems that it would be beneficial for cpunks to let others know that good discussions still happen here. Filters coming in is a great idea, but filtering what leaves here sounds moronic. Thank you for your time. I hope that I have not offended you, I have respected you for some time now. As I said I am 23 so take the following discussion about YaF with a grain of salt. On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 22:55, Tim May wrote: > On Dec 7, 2003, at 7:15 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > > > >> And, as many have noted, very few of the "kids" today are > >> libertarians (either small L or large L). > > > > When you were a teenager, everyone thought that Ho Chi Minh was > > the greatest, had a picture of Che Guevera on their wall, and > > thought the Soviet Union was going to win. > > Nonsense. "Everyone" did not think this. Far from it. YAF was going > strong back then. I have never read or heard that Young Americans for Freedom, or the John Birchers were "strong" during the sixties. From what I have read and heard there were definitely some right wing activist groups but they were not strong compared to the leftist groups. The existence of a "strong" right wing activist camp seems to go directly against the notion of the silent majority and contradicts the commonly held belief that there was a strong politicization of the population during the 60s. -- --dfc Douglas F. Calvert http://anize.org/dfc/ GPG Key: 0xC9541FB2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
From: "Brian C. Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Clay Shirky has some good thoughts on this in his essay 'The Group Is > Its Own Worst Enemy', found at > http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html "So we're back, and we're taking wizardly fiat back, and we're going to do things to run the system. We are effectively setting ourselves up as a government, because this place needs a government, because without us, the place was falling apart." Interesting motivation for setting up a government. Mark
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 16:11, J.A. Terranson wrote: > On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Tim May wrote: > > > I have several theories/conjectures about what is happening to mailing > > lists. > > > > First, a lot of the younger folks--who used to be some of the fresh > > blood for lists like ours--are not users of mailing lists. I expect > > some of them don't even know such things exist. For them, IM is the > > norm. (And IM is mostly an interpersonal, chat format.) > > Not true. I personally run several mailing lists with heavy political > bents. One in particular, "antisocial" (the name is a play on a post someone > made a long time ago) is vibrant and continually growing. But they need to > be nurtured - this is the failing of this list. We no longer take care to > bring in new blood. We have failed utterly to encourage new ideas. And any > new blood which may test the waters with a posting that doesn't follow median > doctrine is likely to find themselves and their deviant ideas under heavy > attack, rather than discussion. > > People won't post ideas that conflict with the mainstream (which obviously is > different in each unique forum) if these ideas are either dismissed out of > hand or attacked ad hominem. > Clay Shirky has some good thoughts on this in his essay 'The Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy', found at http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html [big snip] I've been on and off the list for years, mostly as a lurker, occasionally as a poster. Up until last month (or so) I thought the list had died. I remember that the S/N radio went way down and toad.com was going to drop the list a few years back. Some of the list 'goals' have been achieved, we now have good solid crypt that we can use. We have operating remailers (although they really need to be more user friendly). For me personally the biggest obstacle is time. As I've gotten older I don't seem to have the time to focus on following discussions in 10 different lists, or work on dozens of projects. Brian ---[Office 72.2F]--[Fridge 34.4F]---[Fozzy 90.3F]--[Coaster 63.4F]--- Linux Software Developer http://www.brianlane.com [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
At 03:26 PM 12/7/03 -0800, Tim May wrote: >But even if crypto got trendy again, I just don't see the young >students of today flocking to our particular mailing list. Too many >other choices. Probably they'll read someone's daily blog A few observations. Nowadays, colleges offer courses in crypto. This was not the case when I started reading this list. And 'net social issues were not widely discussed; now there are many fora and public organizations that one can look at. Probably college courses on that, too. So *perhaps* neophytes interested in these things have many more places to learn. Just an optimistic possibility. I did much like your "the nose rings of the followers" comment though. -- "When I was your age we didn't have Tim May! We had to be paranoid on our own! And we were grateful!" --Alan Olsen
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
At 07:55 PM 12/7/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote: The Libertarian Party started at about this time, in 1972, and nearly all of the volunteers, spear carriers, etc. were in their 20s. This is very well known. (And today most of the LP volunteers and spear carriers are in their 40s and 50s. A correlation here.) Yes, and one of the LP's problems is that we've largely turned into old farts there also
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Dec 7, 2003, at 7:15 PM, James A. Donald wrote: And, as many have noted, very few of the "kids" today are libertarians (either small L or large L). When you were a teenager, everyone thought that Ho Chi Minh was the greatest, had a picture of Che Guevera on their wall, and thought the Soviet Union was going to win. Nonsense. "Everyone" did not think this. Far from it. YAF was going strong back then. Of 8 of us who rented a place, 6 were fairly extreme libertarians, one was confused but went along, and one was apolitical. (One of these guys wore a dollar sign pin and subscribed to Nathaniel Branden's newsletter.) This, was, by the way, when we were 18-20 years old. The Libertarian Party started at about this time, in 1972, and nearly all of the volunteers, spear carriers, etc. were in their 20s. This is very well known. (And today most of the LP volunteers and spear carriers are in their 40s and 50s. A correlation here.) I would say that the kids of today are a damned lot more libertarian than when you and I were kids. Quite likely you, as you have said you were a Marxist. I never went through such a phase, having started reading Heinlein and that crowd when I was around 11 or so. It always seemed self-evidently silly to think that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" could be taken seriously by anybody. And I remember taking some cheer that day in November, 1963 when the Big Government guy was zapped. My family left the U.S. that afternoon and did not return for 13 months. I was a Goldwater supporter in 1964, when I was 12. (Goldwater was way too liberal for me in many ways, but he was against the "Civil Rights Act" and other such Marxist nonsense, so I supported him. I didn't care for his Vietnam views, except I agreed with him we should either fight to win it very, very decisively, or get out. Still think most of the baldies of today, with rings through their noses, marching against Coca Cola and Intel and Big Business, and arguing for affirmative action are "more libertarian"? Again, apparently more so than you. In any case, saying "everyone thought that Ho Chi Minh was the greatest" is silly. This shows up in the fact that protests against global capitalism draw vast crowds of young people, and even several subscribers to our list have nattered on about the dangers of globalism and free trade. The cartoonist in "reason" (or perhaps "liberty" not sure which) depicts these protests as being dominated by old farts about your and my age, with the young folk in reluctant tow. I suspect if you and he attended the same demo, he would see a crowd of old farts, and you would see a crowd of young punks with nose rings. This is certainly so. But it doesn't dispute my point. In fact, it supports it. My generation was very active, on all sides. The droids born after about 1980 are mainly followers. Probably what the nose rings are for. --Tim May, Corralitos, California Quote of the Month: "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks." --Cathy Young, "Reason Magazine," both enemies of liberty.
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
-- On 7 Dec 2003 at 15:26, Tim May wrote: > Whatever, I find when I talk to these newcomers with their > bald heads, their piercings, their Linux geek talk, I have > almost nothing in common with them. The change is in you, not them. Your postings now sound like old fart postings. A similar transformation is visible in Doonesbury. I don't know the cure for it. I don't think it has hit me yet, but I suppose I will be the last to know. It is probably incurable, like going bald. It does not strike everyone. Some, like Feynman, never become old farts, but it strikes a lot of people. > And, as many have noted, very few of the "kids" today are > libertarians (either small L or large L). When you were a teenager, everyone thought that Ho Chi Minh was the greatest, had a picture of Che Guevera on their wall, and thought the Soviet Union was going to win.I would say that the kids of today are a damned lot more libertarian than when you and I were kids. > This shows up in the fact that protests against global > capitalism draw vast crowds of young people, and even several > subscribers to our list have nattered on about the dangers of > globalism and free trade. The cartoonist in "reason" (or perhaps "liberty" not sure which) depicts these protests as being dominated by old farts about your and my age, with the young folk in reluctant tow. I suspect if you and he attended the same demo, he would see a crowd of old farts, and you would see a crowd of young punks with nose rings. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG /JGPIvI11TGnJc6gE6/w/g6k0rZwAOZZoka0PiIJ 4DnWpX4iPZy18KuWpdzmsERHsIS6O34J+itCHGsE2
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
I'm still quite new to this list, so if you find this interesting, please take it as from a newbie ;-}. On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Tim May wrote: > > Read the archives and note the drop-off in certain kinds of > > political discussion. Even some of the former nodes have vanished; my > > hunch is that many of those subscribed to the vanished nodes never > > bothered to find another node. (I have no idea how many subscribers the > > list has. The nodes I know of don't allow listing the subscribers. I'd volunteer GNU-Darwin.org as a new node, but we are having issues with SMTP, dynablocker, spews list, etc. (BTW, if anyone can recommend a reliable and inexpensive closed relay service, that would be a big help.) Anyway, is there a FAQ, HOWTO, volunteer person, where I can learn how to set up a new Cpunks node? I'd love to do this, if it would help, and I'm sure that most of our users would also love the idea of GNU-Darwin assisting the Cypherpunks list, which seems quiet apt. I frequently post to other forums crypto-related items, which could include a link to the Cypherpunks list. > > bothered to find another node. (I have no idea how many subscribers the > > list has. The nodes I know of don't allow listing the subscribers. > On 7 Dec, J.A. Terranson wrote: > None of mine will allow it either, with the reason being the protection of > the list contributors. A partial solution would be to list the number of subscribers in the list info, which reveals the info that is important to the community without revealing the identities of the subscribers. > CP has always been so much more than crypto. The history here is political, > with crypto not always playing a part. Even the non-crypto discussion is > almost completely lost. Here is an old post of mine. I was worried about being off-topic, so I did not continue with it. http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00722.html I'm a person who could post a ton of political stuff, which some might find interesting, but some of it may not be related to crypto at all. I support crypto against a government which would like to be called libertarian, which prats vacantly about democracy, free trade, and globalism while undermining freedom and constitutional liberties. This is the situation which necessitates private crypto. Conversely, many here likely would not be happy if I called myself libertarian, because I feel that corporations are titanic forces unfriendly to the vast majority of human beings and unworthy of human liberty. In short, I think that the libertarian position has been entirely undermined, coopted , and lost conceptual utility. The whole libertarian debate has become distasteful, trollish, and counter-productive, and it is driving people out of forums like this one, not attracting them. I would probably get labeled as a political spammer or a troll myself. I'm not sure this is what you want here. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBOULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
This mighty wind header of Pro-ns outblows most messages, and appears to confirm that only Algebra, Lne and Pro-ns are in the X-loop: Status: U Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from hq.pro-ns.net ([208.200.182.20]) by strange.mail.mindspring.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1at9tm1Nu3Nl3oW0 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:42:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from hq.pro-ns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hq.pro-ns.net (8.12.9/8.12.5) with ESMTP id hB80dcTW026480 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:39:38 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by hq.pro-ns.net (8.12.9/8.12.5/Submit) id hB80dcCZ026479 for cypherpunks-list; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:39:38 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: hq.pro-ns.net: majordom set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f Received: from hq.pro-ns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hq.pro-ns.net (8.12.9/8.12.5) with ESMTP id hB80daTW026468 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:39:36 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by hq.pro-ns.net (8.12.9/8.12.5/Submit) id hB80dabs026465 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:39:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from slack.lne.com (gw.lne.com [209.157.136.81]) by hq.pro-ns.net (8.12.9/8.12.5) with ESMTP id hB80dQom026459 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:39:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from slack.lne.com (slack.lne.com [127.0.0.1]) by slack.lne.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB80dMTf003847 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-DSS-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:39:22 -0800 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by slack.lne.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB80dMDV003842 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:39:22 -0800 Received: from ak47.algebra.com (algebra.com [216.82.116.230]) by slack.lne.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB80dGTe003829 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:39:19 -0800 Received: from ak47.algebra.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1]) by ak47.algebra.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id hB80dGLG031103; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:39:16 -0600 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by ak47.algebra.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id hB80dGqU031100; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:39:16 -0600 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by ak47.algebra.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id hB80dELG031089 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:39:15 -0600 Received: from user-0ccetrj.cable.mindspring.com ([24.199.119.115] helo=JY09) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AT9Qg-0005IG-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:39:14 -0500 X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:37:26 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Old-Subject: Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19 X-Algebra: http://www.algebra.com>Algebra Approved: LISTMEMBER CPUNK Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk X-Loop: ds.pro-ns.net - And here's Algebra's substantial verbosity: Status: U Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from ak47.algebra.com ([216.82.116.230]) by samuel.mail.atl.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1at8UH24t3Nl3pv0 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:06:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ak47.algebra.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1]) by ak47.algebra.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id hB7LmNLG009486 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:48:23 -0600 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by ak47.algebra.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id hB7LmNXw009485 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:48:23 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: ak47.algebra.com: majordom set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f Received: from slack.lne.com (gw.lne.com [209.157.136.81]) by ak47.algebra.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id hB7LmGLG009442 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:48:19 -0600 Received: from slack.lne.com (slack.lne.com [127.0.0.1]) by slack.lne.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB7LmDTf002878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-DSS-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:48:13 -0800 Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by slack.lne.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB7LmD
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
When I got censored by [EMAIL PROTECTED] a couple of weeks ago I tried to subscribe to these nodes: Algebra Infonex Lne Minder Sunder Pro-ns Openpgp Ccc Subscription was successful only on: Algebra Pro-ns Both of thse provided a "who" response on 11/10/03 of Algebra 122 Pro-ns 14 I get the same messages from Algebra, Pro-ns and Lne, though Lne still refuses mail from me. How many other subscribers are exluded by the censorious and dead nodes is not known. Eric calls his Lne block a result of spam from my provider, to me it's no different than censorship, a perfect imitation of how government justifies its suppression of dissent. Tim didn't mention as a cause of cpunk decline the fucking with the list by shitheads who thought they knew best how to run things, the first goal being censorship of those who didn't behave. Once, Tim was a prime target of such shit and he did a nice job of killing the controllers. Now if you kill the bureaucrats, and the youngsters, for overreaching, or indifference to authority, you got to figure out how to do the dirty work of cleaning up after the masters' spiteful running the country, the firm, the estate, the family, the ideology into the ground. What I like about the ring-in-the-flesh crowd is their pleasure in grossing out the stodgers. Makes me wish I still had that knack instead of only the memories.
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Tim May wrote: > I have several theories/conjectures about what is happening to mailing > lists. > > First, a lot of the younger folks--who used to be some of the fresh > blood for lists like ours--are not users of mailing lists. I expect > some of them don't even know such things exist. For them, IM is the > norm. (And IM is mostly an interpersonal, chat format.) Not true. I personally run several mailing lists with heavy political bents. One in particular, "antisocial" (the name is a play on a post someone made a long time ago) is vibrant and continually growing. But they need to be nurtured - this is the failing of this list. We no longer take care to bring in new blood. We have failed utterly to encourage new ideas. And any new blood which may test the waters with a posting that doesn't follow median doctrine is likely to find themselves and their deviant ideas under heavy attack, rather than discussion. People won't post ideas that conflict with the mainstream (which obviously is different in each unique forum) if these ideas are either dismissed out of hand or attacked ad hominem. > Second, blogs seem to have taken over for many formerly active mailing > lists. Not really. The blogs tend to be more of a "pulpit" that an idea exchange point. > In some of the areas of interest to me, a dozen blogs are > frequently read, including the ones with fairly active followup. And > example is "Lambda the Ultimate," http://lambda.weblogs.com/, just one > of many similar language and programming blogs. Yes, but these suffer from the same malaise of everyone having the same opinion :-( > (Personally, I think much is being lost in the shift away from Usenet Usenet is the perfect example of an inherently hostile arena. Even worse, its a perfect example of what true anarchy really is - usenet has been lost to the disruptors. > and mailing lists towards these blogs. For while follow-ups exist for > many of them, there is always the sense that one is participating in > Dave Winer's blog, or Mitch Kapor's blog, or whatever. Further, many of > the blogs take on a "my daily diary" and "random musings" tone. Precisely. > By the > way, though I read the good blogs, like LtU, I don't post to any of > them.) > > Third, the explosion of mailing lists, Yahoo discussion groups, > "pipermail" groups (such as the E language and "capabilities" folks > tend to use), etc., has made many groups "subcritical." (Something we > began to see half a dozen years ago, when Cypherpunks had a bunch of > close competitors (cryptography, coderpunks, etc.), plus several lists > run by Hettinga, plus a couple by Declan, and so on. Cross-posting to > Usenet newsgroups was bad enough, but cross-posting to many mailing > lists was a major pain. Especially as most lists are closed to > outsiders, who can sometimes posts, sometimes not, but where context > and followups are lost.) > > Fourth, 9/11. A lot of people got very scared of saying what they > think. Totally agree, however, CP has been going "subcritical" since long before 9/11. > Read the archives and note the drop-off in certain kinds of > political discussion. Even some of the former nodes have vanished; my > hunch is that many of those subscribed to the vanished nodes never > bothered to find another node. (I have no idea how many subscribers the > list has. The nodes I know of don't allow listing the subscribers. None of mine will allow it either, with the reason being the protection of the list contributors. > I > would not be surprised if the subscription total has dropped below a > few hundred. And of these, clearly only a few dozen regular posters > come to mind.) > > Fifth, relevant for our list, "crypto is tired." As in Wired's old > "wired/tired" joke column (and of course "Wired" is _especially_ > tired). Not that crypto is less important now than it was, but, > plainly, some things expected have not yet happened, with little > prospect of happening soon. And since the basic ideas have been > discussed so many times before, in so many ways, not much excitement in > discussing "dining cryptographers" for the 7th time, or "how to make > PGP more popular" for the 16th time. CP has always been so much more than crypto. The history here is political, with crypto not always playing a part. Even the non-crypto discussion is almost completely lost. > Sixth, the lack of news about crypto. No prosecutions of a "folk hero" > like Zimmermann to pull in newcomers. No Clipper chip. No bans on > crypto (at least not yet). > > But even if crypto got trendy again, I just don't see the young > students of today flocking to our particular mailing list. Too many > other choices. Probably they'll read someone's daily blog Unless someone goes out of their way to try and introduce them to the list. We regularly solicit for antisocial - especially from areas that are anathema to the posting-c
