Re: Speaking of Reason
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:05:29PM -0800, Tim May wrote: > Since Eric Murray has expressed distaste with my views I pretty much agree with your views, minus the racism and misogny. On days that the brilliant thoughtful Tim posts, I'm in awe. When Tim the asshole posts, I'm disgusted. Unfortunately these days the latter Tim isn't letting the former Tim near the keyboard very often. > Fuck you dead. Fuck all of you Bolshies dead. Ok, bye! Eric (just to make it crystal clear, Tim's going in my _personal_ killfile)
Re: Is Matel Stalinist?
Tim May wrote... "This is silly, socialist nonsense. I know some of the book buyers at the "Borders" store in Santa Cruz (the very one that the "anti-bigness" lefties tried to ban from opening in Santa Cruz). Not only do they have a "local authors" section which is larger than the similar section at the "local" bookstore, but they have a sophisticated system for re-ordering books based on sales. If a title sells, they know it. And can order replacements." Nothing particularly socialist about my original statement. I was trying to point out how the knee-jerk mimicry of top-down structures prevented even big companies from making as much money as they could, by awarding and leveraging local talent and information. It would be nice to think that part of Border's success is from doing some of this. As for the small, independent bookstores, I personally helped trounce one in particular...the owner was not only a know-it-all DICK he really wasn't a very good businessman. He tried to tell his customers that they should want what he was selling and it didn't work. (Every now and then I'd try to send a customer or two his way to get the kind of books the Central Office wouldn't let us carry, and on several occasions the reply was "No thank you, I'm never shopping THERE again..."). So I'm not advocating 'requiring' big retail companies to get smarter, nor am I advocating non-shopping at the big Borders and Barnes and Nobles. My point was that a lot of corporate cultures blindly mimic hierarchies even when that's not appropriate, because it just about the only social model anyone's ever experienced. And being a shareholder in a bunch of non-Silicon Valley companies, I can also assure you that their 'high-level strategic decisons" are NOT "made almost entirely in the vacuum of power." Well, I'm thinking of the Lucents, Nortels and Alcatels of the world. Oh, and all the big old financial houses as well. Those two sectors I can claim some decent familiarity with (I too am a shareholder in various companies). When Lucent bought Chromatis, or when Sandy Weil told Jack Grubman to uppe his rating on AT&T or...well, these major, corporation-shaking decisions were pretty much made in a vacuum of power. There's no way shareholders could give the thumbs-down to those absurd deals, or even (really) chuck out those responsible. Of course, you'll argue that the shareholders could vote with their feet until something was done, but that's besides the point. The point here is that shareholders, Boardmembers, and upper management alike are so used to an environment where little or no feedback is possible that something like this happens so often. I'm not saying "there should be a law"...it's a cultural thing, and the culture sucks, because we're used to being told what to do by somebody else who's "in charge". You silly Bolshies are obviously on the wrong list if you think strong crypto is going to help your cause. Not so fast my fine, crypto-fascist friend. Let's look at Grubman. At the time Sandy Weil gave him his marching orders he probably had (at least) 10s of millions of dollars-worth of immature Citigroup options. You can also bet he was paying out the friggin WAZOO for whatever upper-east-side space he had (as well as whatever East Hampton 'bungalo' he had). So in a way, he was on the hook, and stood to make a hell of a lot more on the AT&T deal. So he probably didn't really WANT to put lipstick on that pig, but he didn't have a lot of choice. (OK, he had plenty of choice, but that's a different matter...) Now let's say some kind of really sophisticated blacknet were available, able to support even short-selling and whatnot. In that case Grubman might have secretly shorted the AT&T deal and then given Sandy the finger, all the while preserving his tattered (but then still-salvagable) reputation as at least an "honest" pump-and-dump analyst, while being able to keep himself afloat in high-end hookers and other goodies (that's what I would have done!). From this perspective, crypto would have allowed enough holes to be punched in the deal so that real market forces could tear it apart like pirana, which is what should have happened. -TD _ Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
Re: Speaking of Reason
On Dec 9, 2003, at 4:57 PM, Eric Murray wrote: On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:05:29PM -0800, Tim May wrote: Since Eric Murray has expressed distaste with my views I pretty much agree with your views, minus the racism and misogny. On days that the brilliant thoughtful Tim posts, I'm in awe. When Tim the asshole posts, I'm disgusted. Unfortunately these days the latter Tim isn't letting the former Tim near the keyboard very often. Fuck you dead. Fuck all of you Bolshies dead. Ok, bye! Eric (just to make it crystal clear, Tim's going in my _personal_ killfile) I hope he killfiles me in his lne.com files, as I am fed up with these Bolshies, fellow travellers, censors, and "why haven't you done more for the Cause!" whiners. --Tim May
Re: Anti-globalization
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:18:37 +0200 Anatoly Vorobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That was a rhetorical question. In the "old Soviet oligarchy", you > would get into real trouble for publicly speaking against it. In > "today's corporate oligarchy", this is obviously not true. Therefore > the comparison is flawed, and it's not at all true that "just the names > and titles are different". > > -- > avva Oops , my bad Thanks Anatoly Declan O'Reilly
Re: Speaking of Reason
On Dec 9, 2003, at 12:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim's whine (complaint) withstanding, I just got the January issue of Reason in the mail and of interest is Mike Godwin's interview of Bruce Sterling- Cybergreen: Bruce Sterling on media, design, fiction, and the future (p 42-50). It's worth a read. Regards, Matt- All of you creeps complaining about my "whines" and "rants" should find a list to your liking. Perhaps a few of them could spring from this list: --the Bolshies could create a "Crypto Progressives" list or somesuch, and could explain earnestly (though dishonestly) that strong crypto will make people of color happier. --the appeasers who want to work with Cato, Cathy Young, the EFF, the CPSR, and other Washington "get along by going along" people could call themselves "Crypto Enthusiasts for Social Responsibility," or somesuch term which renders unto Caesar that which is CESRs. Since Eric Murray has expressed distaste with my views, and says he is also looking to stop hosting the lne.com node, perhaps these groups can be distributed from his node. As for you, Gaylor, you subscribe for a while, contribute nothing, vanish from the list for a couple of years, then resubscribe and immediately start ranting that I am not doing enough for the cause. Fuck you dead. Fuck all of you Bolshies dead. --Tim May 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: cypherpunks discussions
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 07:22:19AM -0800, Eric Murray wrote: > > I'm getting tired of running the list. As it is now it doesn't provide > much value and I could use my time for something else. Could someone > please set up another node? I'll send you all my scripts etc. But I > won't maintain it on a machine you provide, you'll have to do it. > Maybe some of our list members from the government would like > to step forward with some homeland security $$. :-) > Eric hasn't formally abdicated, but let me remind everyone and the archives that there's an alternative node, [EMAIL PROTECTED], that runs in a substantially similar way to Eric's. It even uses some or most of the same scripts that Eric uses on lne.com. (The functionality that we're referring to here is that spam is mostly kept off list by only allowing posts from members of the list plus known anonymous remailers, known members of other nodes, etc. Posts that don't make it initially get forwarded by the node owners, and then posts from that user make it automatically from then on.) The ds.pro-ns.net node is hosted at the ISP that I own, so it doesn't suffer from any dialup connectivity issues. (I volunteered to take over for Eric in private email. He suggested that I remind everyone of the alternative, first.) -Bill
Re: (No Subject)
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:47:27AM +0100, edo wrote: > As far as I'm concerned, true anonymity in finacial affairs (and > secure communication channels) is the only real method open to > peacefully combat the all seeing [etc.] We have anonymity in Web browsing (more or less, thanks to Lance & co). It's not NSA-proof, but it's probably subpoena-proof. We have anonymity in email thanks to remailers (to the extent they're still around). We have anonymity in publishing, and to some extent, document retrieval, thanks to Freenet. We have anonymity in one-way communications/dead drops thanks to remailers gatewayed to Usenet newsgroups (if any still even do that). We do not have anonymity in financial transactions. In fact, we have less anonymity than we did a decade ago, thanks to amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act and the USA Patriot Act. And the OECD's efforts in this area too. Instead of a Chaum or Brands payment system, we ended up with ebay/Paypal -- which has made clear its policy of intimate cooperation with police. Strong anonymity in online financial transactions is something like a linchpin in deploying better strong anonymity solutions in other areas because people like to get paid for developing and maintaining such systems, especially if they are in any way controversial. The problem IMHO is obtaining an interface with the banking/financial system, probably the most-regulated industry in the U.S. -Declan
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.
Speaking of Reason
Tim's whine (complaint) withstanding, I just got the January issue of Reason in the mail and of interest is Mike Godwin's interview of Bruce Sterling- Cybergreen: Bruce Sterling on media, design, fiction, and the future (p 42-50). It's worth a read. Regards, Matt-
Re: Is Matel Stalinist?
On Dec 9, 2003, at 9:39 AM, Tyler Durden wrote: Well, I wouldn't apply the word "oppressive" across the board to the cultures of big companies, but the fact is that modern American coporate culture more often than not imitates a top-down, 'statist' culture that is so universal we rarely recognize it. Yes, a company/corporation/enterprise is owned by its owner(s). Sometimes that owner is a single person, sometimes the owners are a family, sometimes the original owners sold pieces of ownership to other people. Sometimes the net result is that millions of individuals own small pieces of the company. In any case, either the single owner or the small group of owners or the large group of owners then chooses some method by which decisions are reached on what products to sell, how to make them, and so on. The difference with government is that we do not have "polycentric" governments. We have a single entity, a single "corporation," which brooks no competition, which brooks little or no "shareholder dissent." Many here miss this point and focus on the superficial aspect that corporations typically have a hierarchy and that this hierarchy supposedly makes them like governments. Yes, in this respect. But the tens of thousands of corporations, the ability to form new partnerships, new companies, new corporations, and for some of these entities to become as large as past corporate giants, is what makes all the difference. For instance, high-level strategic decisions are made almost entirely in the vacuum of power. And often, that's appropriate. But many times, the actual people who do the work and know the most about the subject are completely out of the loop. Silicon Valley at its best operates in a very different way...companies are far more driven from the product/technology/service perspective, instead of imagining that balance sheets can make a Lucent into a Cisco. (And at its best, if some hot engineers along with a couple of useful management types feel strongly enough about a missed opportunity, they just split off and start doing it.) Having worked at the largest Silicon Valley company, I can assure you that its management methods and its corporate set up is not nearly as different from the Rest of Business as you fantasize that it is. And being a shareholder in a bunch of non-Silicon Valley companies, I can also assure you that their 'high-level strategic decisons" are NOT "made almost entirely in the vacuum of power." Sure, some non-SV companies make colossal mistakes. So do a lot of SV companies--I could launch into a list of the Big Errors of the past 20 years, but why bother? History gets written by the winners. So people know about Intel, but not about AMI or Monolithic Memories or Intersil. So people know about Apple, but not about Convergent or Fortune Systems or Processor Technology. So people know about Sun, but not about Apollo or Daisy or MAD Computer. Retail is the absolute worst. FOr whatever reason (and I don't believe it has anything to do with competitiveness), big CD or Book chains never empower or reward employees on their ability to purchase books for their store that sell well. In fact, almost zero real purchasing decisions are done locally. This is silly, socialist nonsense. I know some of the book buyers at the "Borders" store in Santa Cruz (the very one that the "anti-bigness" lefties tried to ban from opening in Santa Cruz). Not only do they have a "local authors" section which is larger than the similar section at the "local" bookstore, but they have a sophisticated system for re-ordering books based on sales. If a title sells, they know it. And can order replacements. So, what's missing? Local authors?--check. Books that sell?--check. A wider selection of books than the 'locally-owned" store?--check. The selection of books at the Borders in Santa Cruz is wider than the selection at the other bookstore. For example, history, or the Greek and Roman classics. I was looking for a book on the pre-Socratic philosophers recently (Heraclitus and that cohort). The locally-owned bookstore (which I like a lot, by the way) had a small selection of classsics, less than a shelf or two. No pre-Socratic philosophy that I could find. So I went down the street to Borders. A floor to ceiling (well, top of their shelves, which are tall) selection of books on the Greeks and Romans, including two of the standards on the pre-Socratics, plus a couple of books just on Heraclitus. An experience I've had many times. Borders usually has it, the smaller bookstores (in Aptos, Watsonville, Capitola, and S. Cruz) tell me "No, but we can order it for you." Gee, I can order it myself, too. Now tell me that Borders is deficient in selection? And the Barnes and Noble stores I sometimes go to over in the Valley are vast collections of books as well. This is the real reason why the smaller stores are complaining. Exactly what was heard 60 yea
Re: Got.net and its narcing out of its customers
On Dec 9, 2003, at 12:07 PM, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 01:57:00PM -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: Then one of them claimed he had arranged to have my account yanked, for "violation of the DMCA." He claimed he had sent copies of my "criminal" admissions to Got.net, to the RIAA, to "law enforcement" (shudder!), and so on. I gather that the denizens of alt.video.dvd have yet to read the Betamax case. Perhaps they should expand their reading before they opine on the state of IP law. He was just trolling, being intentionally vague so that they'd assume he was copying from one DVD to another. Which they did, and which they raved about. There isn't any profound insight to be derived from a tired old picture of a newsgroup being provoked by trolling. No, not a conventional troll. Disinformation was being spread about how "making a copy of something" is the "same as stealing." Some of the apologists for DMCA were saying that anyone who copies a CD is the same as a shoplifter. I casually volunteered that I made an average of one DVD of a Hollywood movie per day. The kneejerks by the apologists for DMCA were illuminating, including the claim that the RIAA would be "investigating" this as a case of piracy. Frankly, I had hope for one of the several hundred lawsuits the RIAA has been tossing out like confetti (including to people who have never owned a computer...sounds like some due diligence malpractice cases are in order). Even better would be a process server trespassing on my property...no point in having a pig farm if you have nothing to throw to the pigs. The revelation that Don Frederickson is one of those who needs to be dealt with eventually was rewarding. --Tim May "You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged." - -Michael Shirley
Re: (No Subject)
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:47:27AM +0100, edo wrote: > With the USA > becoming the world's most totalitarian state in disguise... That's a pretty silly thing to say. Sure you don't want to educate yourself on those other states in the world? > As far as I'm concerned, true anonymity in finacial affairs (and secure communication > channels) is the only real method open to peacefully combat the all seeing, > all powerful government. You can't combat an all-powerful government, because it's all-powerful. And you can't manage anonimity against an all-seeing government, because it is all-seeing. -- avva
Re: Anti-globalization
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 06:41:21PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: > > > However, I don't see the strong support for Soviet or Maoist-style state > > control these days...these are vaguely romantic notions once in a while, but > > they don't have any deep ideological support like they might have in the > > 60s. > > I don't know about that. Today's corporate oligarchy behaves an awful lot > like the old Soviet oligarchy. Just the names and titles are different. Do you expect to get in real trouble for publicly saying that? -- avva
Re: Got.net and its narcing out of its customers
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 01:57:00PM -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: > > Then one of them claimed he had arranged to have my account yanked, for > > "violation of the DMCA." He claimed he had sent copies of my "criminal" > > admissions to Got.net, to the RIAA, to "law enforcement" (shudder!), > > and so on. > > I gather that the denizens of alt.video.dvd have yet to read the Betamax > case. Perhaps they should expand their reading before they opine on the > state of IP law. He was just trolling, being intentionally vague so that they'd assume he was copying from one DVD to another. Which they did, and which they raved about. There isn't any profound insight to be derived from a tired old picture of a newsgroup being provoked by trolling. -- avva
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"
Strong Crypto is about the Burnoff of Useless Eaters
On Dec 9, 2003, at 7:45 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: 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. Indeed, the fact that James Donald starts off with the chestnut that "everyone agrees that big corporations are oppressive, blah blah" fits with his earlier comment that everyone in the 60s supported Ho Chi Minh and had posters of Che Guevarra on their walls. Maybe in _his_ world, this was so. Many of the former leftists now on the list have claimed that they have left their leftie baggage behind...others have not even made this claim, saying they remain committed to "social justice" (a code phrase for using force to take the property of some to redistribute it to others). I say that in most cases, "once a leftist, always a leftist." The taint of thinking in terms of "social justice" never fully leaves them, hence the nattering about "big corporations as oppressors" and "monopolies" and "fair trade, not free trade." It's just socialism in another guise. More to the point, this shows why the libertarians and futurists who started having meetings and a mailing list as the "Cypherpunks" really do have nothing to do with the "anti-globalists" and "big corporations are oppressive" people of today. I don't recall any of the attendees in 1992 claiming they were "forced" to use Sun computers (which many of them were doing), or Unix (ditto), or Intel (some of them), or Apple (a few of us). True, we hated the software patent which had been granted to RSA, but this is an issue of patent and intellectual property issues (and software patents had just started to be granted only a few years earlier, marking a change in how things had been done for centuries in America and most of the developed world). Arguing that the RSA algorithm should not have been patentable is not the same as lefties arguing for social justice and restrictions on who one can buy or sell from! Intel is a very big corporation. If people don't want to buy their flash memories and support chips and microprocessors, they are not forced to. Apple is a big corporation...ditto. Microsoft is a big corporation...ditto (and yes, it is easily done...I do it). (I don't any of my work on either Intel processors or Microsoft products...I do own a copy of Microsoft Office, but I rarely use it, and could quite easily _never_ use it.) Coca-Cola is a big, global corporation. Don't like Coke? Don't drink it. Don't like sugar being fed to kids via Coke? Mount an advertising campaign about the dangers of sugar water. Don't like the idea of Coke being introduced into China and thus corrupting a billion Chinese? The anti-globalists want governments to step in and interfere with choices. They are social planners. And so on, with Ford, Siemens, Toyota, Daimler-Benz, Olivetti, Great Wall Computer Company, Red Hat, Costco, AMD, Aerosptatiale, Procter and Gamble, Boeing, etc. Nattering about patents and copyright is a secondary issue. Nothing Microsoft currently "owns" as intellectual property (and I am putting "owns" in quotes because I'm not claiming that their ownership claim is either valid, is supported by anarcho-capitalists, or would survive in a strong crypto world) stops _me_ in any way from doing what I am doing. As I said, I don't use either Intel or Microsoft products. (Ironically, some government agencies now _require_ that submissions and contractees use Microsoft products! The same too-powerful government which tried to use the legal system to break up Microsoft--and only succeeded in collecting a shakedown tax of billions of dollars to be spent by the burrowcrats!--is requiring the use of MS Office. The City of Sunnyvale, to name one example, requires that all members of the public, and corporations, submitting items to City Council meetings must present them as PowerPoint files.) Nor does Intel's 83% market share of the desktop/laptop microprocessor market stop alternatives. Intel has an 83% market share because people buy that many desktop and mobile systems. Duh. No one is holding a gun to their heads (the anti-globalist lefties, including many here on this list, argue otherwise...they are wrong). People are free to buy processors from Motorola, IBM, NEC, Fujitsu, AMD, Thompson, TI, etc
(No Subject)
Lne is on dialup? Wow. Anyhow, I'm a newbie who has been lurking a while. Privacy concerns and what intelligent people think about it is what got me on this list.With the USA becoming the world's most totalitarian state in disguise... The sheen on the illusion of liberty here will wear thin soon, IMHO.People think that they enjoy liberty here because they can buy a gun. Yes the libertarians can claim that the guns protect them, and Afganistan and Iraq have been demonstrations of how it prevents a hostile takeover (just like someones sig about an RPG a day...) What good does it do inside the USA unless civil war breaks out? How does it protect the war protestors in NYC or those in Miami? I don't oppose guns, but just want to point out that the govt has been rapidly diminishing our civil liberties despite all the guns... As far as I'm concerned, true anonymity in finacial affairs (and secure communication channels) is the only real method open to peacefully combat the all seeing, all powerful government. I'm sure the interest in this will first focus on things like e-gold when common people see their life savings evaporate as the dollar continues its plunge. Any one with thoughts on this? Of course only a small percentage of the general public will be bright enough to see that a fiat currency does not last forever... and is dependent on the ever increasing projection of power by a nation state, which is not a stable sort of situation.The majority of them will want federal bailouts etc. What I'm curious about is digital currencies. Can anyone speak about the Digital Monetary Trust or DMT? I'm sorry I have not read the last upteen years of mail archives, but I'm interested in what people think NOW about Orlin Grabbe, DMT, e-gold etc. Anyone with anonymous or otherwise stories? People who've been part of the battle? Sorry for the ramble, but the most interesting comment recently was about David Chaums patents expiring soon... any word on its potential impact? Peace and liberty.
Re: Got.net and its narcing out of its customers
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Tim May wrote: > It happened in one of the "movies" groups (rec.arts.current-movies), > when the thread was on DVD copy protection and the (claimed) illegality > of making DVDs of movies. > > I explained how I was cheerfully making an average of a DVD a day of my > favorite current movies. > > A couple of "nyms" went ballistic and foamed that they had forwarded my > "admissions" to the RIAA and how I would face civil penalties and jail > time, oh my! > > Then one of them claimed he had arranged to have my account yanked, for > "violation of the DMCA." He claimed he had sent copies of my "criminal" > admissions to Got.net, to the RIAA, to "law enforcement" (shudder!), > and so on. I gather that the denizens of alt.video.dvd have yet to read the Betamax case. Perhaps they should expand their reading before they opine on the state of IP law. This is one of several times that the readers of Tim's posts have reported him to the authorities. I recall the Santa Cruz sherrif's office call of the early '90s occaisioned by a simple admission that Tim legally posessed weapons at home. I'm constantly amazed by the things that people think are illegal that aren't. Reporting people to the authorities is such an impolite thing to do. In a less enlightened era it would have led to an unfortunate breach of the peace. If you have a problem with someone's behavior speak to him nicely, first. And make damned sure that he's doing something wrong before you complain. Remember -- "Since Sodomy is a Virtue, can anything be a Vice?" DCF
Re: cypherpunks discussions
On Dec 8, 2003, at 11:13 PM, Sarad AV wrote: hi, Asking questions is part of learning. Unless one learns how is he expected to participate and make once in a while intelliget discussions? 1. You never contribute anything that indicates you have actually learned. 2. Your questions, such as the ones I gave as examples of your recent ones, are phrased as if they were lifted directly from algebra and number theory books. The conclusions are obvious. You are either a bot or a noob. Give noobs some space and time to learn and over time they will contribute to the list. Yep, a noob, whatever that is. Start contributing or leave. You've been posting textbook paragraphs and asking us to fill in the next line for way too many months. --Tim May
Is Matel Stalinist?
Well, I wouldn't apply the word "oppressive" across the board to the cultures of big companies, but the fact is that modern American coporate culture more often than not imitates a top-down, 'statist' culture that is so universal we rarely recognize it. For instance, high-level strategic decisions are made almost entirely in the vacuum of power. And often, that's appropriate. But many times, the actual people who do the work and know the most about the subject are completely out of the loop. Silicon Valley at its best operates in a very different way...companies are far more driven from the product/technology/service perspective, instead of imagining that balance sheets can make a Lucent into a Cisco. (And at its best, if some hot engineers along with a couple of useful management types feel strongly enough about a missed opportunity, they just split off and start doing it.) But the best of Sillicon Valley is a rare exception. Most of the time "they" make decisions and people who are the technical experts must merely quietly implement those decisions. It's interesting to imagine what would have happened to Lucent if, for instance, the employees could have voted on the acquisition of Chromatis. They would have quickly realized that they were getting a raw $3B deal on a mediocre product, AND that they already had something equivalent ready in-house. Retail is the absolute worst. FOr whatever reason (and I don't believe it has anything to do with competitiveness), big CD or Book chains never empower or reward employees on their ability to purchase books for their store that sell well. In fact, almost zero real purchasing decisions are done locally. But nobody seems to notice...we're completely used to being passive cogs in a big, fat machine-state. So in a sense, it's gone way beyond 'repression'...no need for that rat-cage around our heads anymore. -Tyler Durden From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:45:33 -0600 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 _ Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year six months @$9.95/month. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Re: cypherpunks discussions
On Dec 9, 2003, at 4:57 AM, John Young wrote: Nomen Nescio wrote: I find it strange that some people here so often wants to intimidate those that dares to ask some questions. Eric put it very well in his post about dicksizewar. Very true indeed. I find it very *l*a*m*e* to all the time tell people to RTFM when something comes up that happened to be have been dealt with like five years ago. Brain rot is the cause of impatience with what is mistakenly perceived to be repetition of old stuff. But brain rot leads to wars which pointlessly kill young people by the thousands, so watch out believing what the brain pre-dead spout as wisdom. PLONK. I've had it with years of these e.e. cummings bits of zero content. --Tim May
Re:
On Dec 8, 2003, at 1:23 PM, Keith Ray wrote: who end It might help if you sent these requests to the corresponding administrivia/majordomo/etc. sits instead of to the list distributions. (But probably not.) --Tim May --Tim May "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams
Re: Type III Anonymous message
> Does anyone have a reasonably complete cypherpunks archive available > for FTP? Perhaps I could host them on my server and let Google index > them. That might be useful. There are only two live ones. Someone knows more ? The second one is FTP-able: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypherpunks-lne-archive/ http://lists.lab.net/archive/cypherpunks-exploder/ = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
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: Got.net and its narcing out of its customers
On 8 Dec 2003 at 13:17, Tim May wrote: > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF > -8&safe=off&threadm=220820032357238678%25timcmay%40removethis.got.net& > rn um=1&prev=/ > groups%3Fq%3Dfrederickson%2Bgot%2Btim%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_en%26ie%3D > UT F-8%26oe%3DUTF > -8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D220820032357238678%2525timcmay%2540removethis > .g ot.net%26rnum%3D1> > > Searching GG on "don frederickson got tim" is maybe more reliable than > pasting this URL. For long urls, compress with tinuyurl.com http://tinyurl.com/yc3s
Re: cypherpunks discussions
I find it strange that some people here so often wants to intimidate those that dares to ask some questions. Eric put it very well in his post about dicksizewar. Very true indeed. I find it very *l*a*m*e* to all the time tell people to RTFM when something comes up that happened to be have been dealt with like five years ago.
Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
Here's one younger person who follows cypherpunks very closely. I do not post because I have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Someday, when I've learned enough to be useful, then I will contribute what I can. Tim's postings re:crypto are the most thought-out, insightful writings you could ask for. What is there for a young person to say that has not been said?
Marijuana once again legal in Ontario, Canada
An unforeseen consequence of government incompetence. http://ontario.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=25324 TORONTO - Ontario Consumers for Safe Access to Recreational Cannabis is happy to inform consumers that, because of Health Canada's failure to implement constitutional Medical Marijuana Access Regulations, wide-open marijuana legalization is back in Ontario! "The police will likely still have their 'business as usual' public relations line, but since Health Canada has defied the order of the Ontario Court of Appeal by not allowing a grower to supply multiple patients, as ordered, the MMAR is unconstitutional," said Tim Meehan, communications director of OCSARC. "Because it's unconstitutional, that means that according to the Parker decision by the same court in 2000, the possession of marijuana law is dead once again." OCSARC reminds people that while they might still be arrested and prosecuted by police and prosecutors who refuse to acknowledge the status of the law, they may seek substantial financial compensation later. "This is a notice to police that while they do have the power to arrest harmless marijuana smokers, they will be doing so at their own peril. Cannabis consumers will not allow themselves to be treated as second class citizens, and many will be armed with legal information and representation in case the harassment continues," said Meehan. OCSARC (Ontario Consumers for Safe Access to Recreational Cannabis) is a Toronto-based organization working to end prohibition and promote reasonable and responsible regulation and quality assurance in the cannabis market.
Re: Anti-globalization
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: > However, I don't see the strong support for Soviet or Maoist-style state > control these days...these are vaguely romantic notions once in a while, but > they don't have any deep ideological support like they might have in the > 60s. I don't know about that. Today's corporate oligarchy behaves an awful lot like the old Soviet oligarchy. Just the names and titles are different.
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 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: Type III Anonymous message
'92-'94 here: http://www.cybershamanix.com/punk.html with a link to the later stuff here: http://cypherpunks.venona.com/ On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 06:56:07PM -0800, Morlock Elloi wrote: > > Does anyone have a reasonably complete cypherpunks archive available > > for FTP? Perhaps I could host them on my server and let Google index > > them. That might be useful. > > There are only two live ones. Someone knows more ? > > The second one is FTP-able: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypherpunks-lne-archive/ > > http://lists.lab.net/archive/cypherpunks-exploder/ > > > > = > end > (of original message) > > Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > http://photos.yahoo.com/ -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Marijuana once again legal in Ontario, Canada
Yeah - might want to hold off on that for now ... http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1070925607028&call_pageid=968332188492 -p - Original Message - From: "Tim Meehan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:54 PM Subject: Marijuana once again legal in Ontario, Canada > An unforeseen consequence of government incompetence. > > http://ontario.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=25324 > > TORONTO - Ontario Consumers for Safe Access to Recreational Cannabis is happy to > inform consumers that, because of Health Canada's failure to implement > constitutional Medical Marijuana Access Regulations, wide-open marijuana > legalization is back in Ontario! > > "The police will likely still have their 'business as usual' public relations > line, but since Health Canada has defied the order of the Ontario Court of > Appeal by not allowing a grower to supply multiple patients, as ordered, the > MMAR is unconstitutional," said Tim Meehan, communications director of OCSARC. > > "Because it's unconstitutional, that means that according to the Parker decision > by the same court in 2000, the possession of marijuana law is dead once again." > > OCSARC reminds people that while they might still be arrested and prosecuted by > police and prosecutors who refuse to acknowledge the status of the law, they may > seek substantial financial compensation later. "This is a notice to police that > while they do have the power to arrest harmless marijuana smokers, they will be > doing so at their own peril. Cannabis consumers will not allow themselves to be > treated as second class citizens, and many will be armed with legal information > and representation in case the harassment continues," said Meehan. > > OCSARC (Ontario Consumers for Safe Access to Recreational Cannabis) is a > Toronto-based organization working to end prohibition and promote reasonab le and > responsible regulation and quality assurance in the cannabis market.
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: cypherpunks discussions
hi,
Asking questions is part of learning. Unless one
learns how is he expected to participate and make once
in a while intelliget discussions?
Give noobs some space and time to learn and over time
they will contribute to the list.
I think when I was a kid, it took me quite a few
months to learn to walk. I beleive you also learned to
walk taking as much time as did. But nobody chopped
off my leg or your leg when we couldn't walk.
Sarath.
--- Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for you, I have dumped on you because most of
> your posts to the list
> look a lot like you are asking for help on a
> homework problem or have
> just semi-randomly pulled an example out of a crypto
> or algebra book
> and have decided to "participate" in the list by
> asking if anyone knows
> the answer to some puzzle.
>
> "hi,
>
> Table shown is completed to define 'associative'
> binary operation * on S={a,b,c,d}.
> ...
> So can (a*d)*d=a*(d*d)=d considered as associative
> over * for this case as per definition?"
>
> and
>
> "hi,
>
> If we are to convert a k-bit integer n to a base b
> number,it takes us O(log n) if the base b is a power
> ...
> Is there an algorithm with time complexity O(log n)
> which allows such conversion to base b ,when b is
> not
> a power of 2?"
>
> are just two of your more recent examples.
>
> Now if you had told us you were implementing a
> crypto system for use in
> India (where I think you are from...), and had run
> into a tough
> problem, these might be interesting for people to
> comment on.
>
> A more fruitful sort of post might be for you to
> But to post snippets of problems out of textbooks is
> NOT participation
> in the topics of the list. Think about it.
>I wish you no ill-will, but you should find ways to
>participate which
>suggest you are actually reading what others are
>saying and giving your
>own views or responses to them.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: cypherpunks discussions
Nomen Nescio wrote: >I find it strange that some people here so often wants to >intimidate those that dares to ask some questions. >Eric put it very well in his post about dicksizewar. Very >true indeed. > >I find it very *l*a*m*e* to all the time tell people to RTFM >when something comes up that happened to be have >been dealt with like five years ago. Brain rot is the cause of impatience with what is mistakenly perceived to be repetition of old stuff. But brain rot leads to wars which pointlessly kill young people by the thousands, so watch out believing what the brain pre-dead spout as wisdom. Old battles refought by subservience to faulty memory is what got us into Iraq, only the latest conceit of wise ones who ache to impose their will on the world, deep inside understanding they are dying and will never accomplish what they set out to do years before. This accounts for the vainglorious repetition of past accomplishments, and worse, aggrieved insults, real or fanciful (again, failing memory mixes the two with truth abandoned). Fortunately most of the pre-dead don't have access to the levers of power and go to the grave without a blip, save grossing out grandkids with tales of doom and gloom. Still, if you put up with the grey-matter meltdown you might get your hands on the mattress savings -- and all the near dead stuff war booty for the endless trip upcoming, being certain their enemies will pursue for all eternity as they will the bastards that kept them from glorious immortal recognition. Eternally Young sez history sucks, history in the making moreso. Lose perspective or you're doomed to die before your time. Reason is death welcomed.
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: Got.net and its narcing out of its customers
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:37:44AM +, Michael Shields wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Searching GG on "don frederickson got tim" is maybe more reliable than > >> pasting this URL. > > > > For long urls, compress with tinuyurl.com > > > > http://tinyurl.com/yc3s > > If you do that, you have to rely on both the Google URL not changing > and on tinyurl not going away. I usually convert a Google Groups URL to a query using only the Message-ID: before posting it publicly. E.g. in the case of the message Tim May referred to, that'd be http://groups.google.com/groups?oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=%3C220820032357238678%25timcmay%40removethis.got.net%3E Then the URL won't be _too_ long, and if Google changes the URL scheme or is replaced by some other archve, you've got the original Message-ID, the best identifier you could hope for. -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/avva/
Re: Got.net and its narcing out of its customers
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Searching GG on "don frederickson got tim" is maybe more reliable than >> pasting this URL. > > For long urls, compress with tinuyurl.com > > http://tinyurl.com/yc3s If you do that, you have to rely on both the Google URL not changing and on tinyurl not going away. -- Shields.
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
