Re: The ghost of Cypherpunks

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake James A. Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [17/09/05 03:56]:
: So when I buy coffee, that is political?

Is it organic, fair-trade, shade-grown coffee?  Locally grown?  Locally
roasted?  Purchased through StarBucks or a local coffee shop?  Do the
growers use their profits to help the growth of coca plants?  Or perhaps to
fund research into genetically modifying said coca plants to make them
resistant to pesticides?

You're damn right it's political.

Re: Tor VoIP, & etc...

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Shawn K. Quinn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [06/09/05 09:22]:
: > TOR can only contact other entry/mid/exit nodes on the ports they're
: > listening on.  The documentation actually requests that people set up nodes
: > on TCP ports 80 and 443, for the exact case that this Houston, TX library
: > seems to be in.
: 
: The bigger problem is convincing the library's computer to run your
: software without getting caught. Even then, there's no guarantee that
: the computers have direct Internet access; it's likely everything is
: funneled through proxies.

Generally speaking, it's not terribly difficult to convince a library
computer to run your software.  Especially if there's anything from MS
Office installed.  And whether or not it's funneled through proxies doesn't
matter one bit: you're submitted a valid HTTP request to a valid HTTP port.
There's no reason the proxy would reject your request.

At this point, I think I'll put my money where my mouth is, and try running
a TOR node (client only) at my local library.  See what happens.

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Tor on USB]

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [02/09/05 19:45]:
: How long will it take the Greater Tor Network to notice the existence of 
: this little node?

A few days after you register.

: In other words, if I go into a Starbucks with this thing, can my laptop or 
: whatever start acting like a temporary Tor node?

Yep.  But I'm not sure you'd want to do that...

AFAIK, TOR can handle dynamic addresses.  So long as you've got a public
address, you can act as a TOR entry/exit point.  So you could, in theory,
set up a TOR entry/exit point on your local Starbuck's network.  All you'd
have to do is register, and jump a few hoops to register your dynamic
address.

I don't know if the same holds true if it's not a public address.

Though, you can just skip all that, walk in to Starbucks, sit down, and
start using your TOR node as your own entry point.  No registration, no
wait, no nothing: just sit down and go.  I just set a node up a few days
ago, and was surprised at how simple it was to get TOR up and going.

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Tor on USB]

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Bill Stewart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [04/09/05 01:27]:
: At 08:53 AM 9/3/2005, Damian Gerow wrote:
: >Though, you can just skip all that, walk in to Starbucks, sit down, and
: >start using your TOR node as your own entry point.  No registration, no
: >wait, no nothing: just sit down and go.  I just set a node up a few days
: >ago, and was surprised at how simple it was to get TOR up and going.
: 
: How does TOR feel about NAT and various firewall things?
: I've been at hotels where I can't even get my ipsec VPN to work.

Well, the running a server won't work well:


<http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#head-802c24d6b147d55961204105863eed70362ed57f>

But given that it's just initiating outbound TCP connections, so long as the
firewall permits connections on those ports, it /should/ work fine.

Give it a shot, see how it works.

Re: Tor VoIP, & etc...

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [04/09/05 21:14]:
: I assume Tor is smart enough to try various open ports

TOR can only contact other entry/mid/exit nodes on the ports they're
listening on.  The documentation actually requests that people set up nodes
on TCP ports 80 and 443, for the exact case that this Houston, TX library
seems to be in.

So yes, TOR *is* smart enough to try various open ports, but it will only
work if something is listening on said ports.

Re: Tor VoIP, & etc...

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [03/09/05 14:03]:
: Well, here I meant after registration, etc...in a "regular" IP network it 
: can take seconds to minutes in order for routing tables (at layer 3) or the 
: local MAC Address tables (at layer 2) to recognize that you're back on 
: line. With a Tor node I'm wondering how long it takes for the greater Tor 
: network to both notice your existence and then trust that you're here to 
: stay...for a while.
: 
: In other words, am I contributing to the greater Tor network if I allow my 
: USB Tor node to function while I'm sucking down a cappucino or two?

As others have stated, no, likely not: bouncing your connection up and down
like that will likely cause great untrust within the TOR routing.  Whether
you will be /harming/ the TOR network or not is a more interesting
question...  I'd suspect not, but it's probably worth looking into.

: In other words, just for me. That, of course, is great.

Good.

: As for simplicity, I need that: I know my way around the BLSR protection 
: switching bytes in an OC-48 4 fiber ring, but I'm a veritable IP dummy (oh, 
: well I DID design parts of a layer 2 GbE switch, but I'm no routing jock). 
: I just don't have time to have to fiddle with the OS myself, so this will 
: be interesting. Think I might get me one of those gizmos and then stick it 
: on my PDA.

It is, quite literally, a matter of installing the binary (whichever OS you
are using will determine the method of installation), setting two, maybe
three configuration parameters -- things like logging levels, interfaces to
use, and other very basic parameters -- starting it up and using it.

So I imagine you can handle it quite easily.

: So: Can Tor support VoIP Yet? I could call up bin Laden from a Starbucks!

In theory, TOR can support anything that can handle a SOCKS connection.  So
if your VoIP program can do SOCKS, then yes, it can.  If your VoIP program
can't, wrappers are readily available.

The question to ask here is: can TOR support VoIP /well/?  I wouldn't put
much faith in maintaining a solid VoIP connection: due to the very nature of
what TOR does, you're introducing a substantial amount of latency to your
connection, and it might be enough to throw off any VoIP connections you try
to make.

But it's worth trying...

  - Damian

Re: Stash Burn?

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [02/05/05 10:18]:
: yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea.
: 
: Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction?
: 
: If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge 
: pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed 
: incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on 
: board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone.
: 
: What's wrong with this idea?

The government would never let it fly?

Re: EncFS

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake cypherpunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28/04/05 18:48]:
: A remailer posted about EncFS. Gerow quoted the first paragraph and
: added the criticism that it doesn't do locking. Dixon saw the quoted
: first paragraph, which said that the link to the program was "below".
: And indeed, it was below, in the first message from the remailer. It
: included this link, http://arg0.net/users/vgough/encfs.html. But Dixon
: apparently didn't understand the notion of quoting partial messages in
: a mailing list conversation. He just saw the part about the link being
: "below", and in Gerow's message there was no such link. So he
: complained: there was nothing "below". But Gerow misunderstood, he
: though Dixon was commenting about EncFS's locking mechanisms. So Gerow
: responded as below, adding to the confusion.

In my defense, I assumed a baseline of understanding when it comes to public
lists.  The last thing I expected was him to quote /me/ and complain about
something that someone /else/ had said, when it was all painfully obvious
from the first message.

I guess I just won't assume that around here anymore.

: Honestly, I don't know how you people generate enough brain power to
: keep yourselves alive.

Breathing comes automatically.  No thought required.

Re: EncFS

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Jim Dixon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28/04/05 09:41]:
: > It also doesn't do locking.
: 
: There was nothing "below".

Someone I know just tried it out three days ago.  He said it flat-out didn't
'lock' the files properly.  It's got nothing to do with having something
"below".

Re: EncFS

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Userbeam Remailer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27/04/05 02:33]:
: EncFS provides an encrypted filesystem in user-space. It runs without any 
special permissions and uses the FUSE library and Linux kernel module to 
provide the filesystem interface. You can find links to source and binary 
releases below.

It also doesn't do locking.

Re: Google prioritises results for firefox and mozilla users

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Sarad AV ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [05/04/05 13:46]:
: hi,
: 
: news below:
: 
: http://www.net4nowt.com/isp_news/news_article.asp?News_ID=2809
: 
: 
: Google is way too fast. Whats the difference seraching
: using google in 10 milliseconds and in 5
: milliseconds?Perhaps they are taking some load off
: their server? I fail to see how it is useful to the
: search client.

The difference is not in the search, but in the clicking on the results.
Say the result you want /is/ the first one: this way, when you click on it,
the page loads up faster.

Re: WiFi Launcher?

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Bill Stewart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [25/03/05 17:23]:
: If you're in range for 100 meters at a 18kph city crawl (or bike)
: that's about 5 meters/sec so you've got 20 seconds, and it can work.
: If you're driving 90kph and catch 10 meters of the edge of a range,
: you've got 0.4 seconds to do the job, which is pretty dodgy -
: lots of mail servers take a few seconds to really sync up,
: especially if you've got to do a DNS lookup or two.

Bike would be more likely than car.  Or even walking.  Modify your mode of
transportation to meet your needs; don't try to cram near-impossible
technological feats to meet your mode of transportation.

In theory, all you're doing is:

- Finding an AP
- Associating with the AP
- this could mean just setting your SSID, it could mean cracking WEP
  keys, it could mean providing authentication...
- Grabbing an address (DHCP)

At this point, you're looking at around five seconds of work.  Which, at the
aforementioned 18kph, gives you another 15 seconds to send off any mail.

If you run a local DNS server (faster), you'll save yourself a few seconds.
The actual MTA transmission only takes a few seconds; that is, unless you're
spamming, in which case it may take longer.

If you're sending out via something that encrypts and authenticates, it
might take a bit longer.  All the same, 15 seconds is plenty time to get off
at least a few messages.  At which point, you just keep on moving, and let
your gear find a new AP, and start all over again.

: Directional Antennas are unlikely to be useful -
: if you've got them aimed right, you might win,
: but you're much more likely to miss entirely
: or have only a few meters that you're in range.

Directional antennas would be pointless.  Go for a high-gain
omnidirectional.  You might lose a little range, but it's highly unlikely
you'd be able to gain anything from the range.

Plus, I'm assuming a secondary goal would be indiscretion: someone walking
down the street pointing three duct-taped together Pringles cans at people's
houses probably isn't terribly indiscrete.  It'd be much better to just keep
a larger omni antenna in the bag on your back (with the
laptop/PDA/whatever).

Re: WiFi Launcher?

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [25/03/05 15:06]:
: >Thus spake Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [25/03/05 10:30]:
: >: Has anyone heard of a utility that can search for a WiFi hotspot while
: >: driving and then launch an email?
: 
: I noticed you did a little editing! Sigh. Few can stand in the light for 
: very long, save the various beautiful women that clamor to spread my DNA...

Editing?  I don't follow.  All I may have edited was the formatting.

: >Someone once said, "Cypherpunks write code."
: 
: Yes but I'd amend this to say, "Cypherpunks in the process of becoming 
: economically successful probably don't have time to write code but others 
: can sure feel free to try..."

..  Well put.

: >Given that there already exists utilities that detect WiFi networks and map
: >them with GPS units, I don't think it would take much to, at that point,
: >run, say, 'postfix start && postqueue -f'.  Or perhaps mixmaster/mixminion
: >might be more appropriate.
: >
: >It sounds not only possible, but plausible.  And I'd be surprised if 
: >someone
: >didn't already have this working somewhere.
: 
: These days one has to act very quickly in order to create something 
: original. The question is, will a TLA do it first and post it, along with a 
: TINY little ID tag?

I'd do it myself, but I have neither laptop nor wireless networks to test it
on.

Until then, I'll throw it on my "List of Nifty Ideas to Develop".

Re: WiFi Launcher?

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [25/03/05 10:30]:
: Has anyone heard of a utility that can search for a WiFi hotspot while 
: driving and then launch an email?

Someone once said, "Cypherpunks write code."

: In other words, say you want to send out a few anonymous emails, and you 
: don't even want to enter a Cyber-cafe or whatever. So you load up the 
: emails in your mail tool and drive down Main Street. The launcher utility 
: detects the presence of open wi-fi hotspots and belches out a few of the 
: emails while the spot's in rangeall the while you don't even slow down.
: 
: Sounds possible to me. the only problem might be the need for 
: authentication, etc...in some hotspots, but given enough hotspots surely 
: there are some that don't need it...

I imagine that, depending on where you're driving, you wouldn't need to
bother with hotspot authentication: you're bound to stumble onto an open
WiFi network at *some* point in your journey.

Given that there already exists utilities that detect WiFi networks and map
them with GPS units, I don't think it would take much to, at that point,
run, say, 'postfix start && postqueue -f'.  Or perhaps mixmaster/mixminion
might be more appropriate.

It sounds not only possible, but plausible.  And I'd be surprised if someone
didn't already have this working somewhere.

Re: WiFi Launcher?

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Damian Gerow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [25/03/05 15:21]:
: : I noticed you did a little editing! Sigh. Few can stand in the light for 
: : very long, save the various beautiful women that clamor to spread my DNA...
: 
: Editing?  I don't follow.  All I may have edited was the formatting.

Ah, you mean the removal of the self-congratulatory cruft at the top.

Yes.  I did a little editing.

Re: What Will We Do With Innocent People's DNA?

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [22/03/05 16:12]:
: Easy to see where that's headed:
: 
: 1. Joe Cypherpunk is doing 54 on Rt 95.
: 2. "Cops" (or guys in a black car claiming to be local cops) stop Joe, make 
: arrest based on "speeding" or what have you.
: 3. Cops take DNA sample.
: 4. 2 weeks later Noam Chomsky is murdered.
: 5. Hey! Joe Cypherpunk's DNA has been found all over the scene of the crime.
: 6. Joe Cypherpunk is executed...that bastard! Murdering such a valued 
: member of societyMIT professor and all that. Papers report that 
: Cypherpunk Joe had once tried to become an MIT professor but never got on 
: the tenure track. Clearly, he had a vendetta.

Uh-oh.  Does this mean that my tinfoil hat isn't good enough anymore?  Will
I have to don a complete neoprene suit to make sure I leave no trace of
myself anywhere from now on?

Re: What Will We Do With Innocent People's DNA?

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Trei, Peter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [23/03/05 09:38]:
: > Uh-oh.  Does this mean that my tinfoil hat isn't good enough 
: > anymore?  Will
: > I have to don a complete neoprene suit to make sure I leave 
: > no trace of
: > myself anywhere from now on?
: 
: Go watch GATTACA (excellent movie) for this scenario.

Yeah, but he eventually got found, didn't he?

Re: Jeff Jacoby: An inglorious suicide

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Anonymous ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [04/03/05 15:18]:
: What does this have to do with cypherpunks?  This is not your personal
: blog.  Most of the list traffic is forwarded or cross-posted news
: articles, but how is HST's suicide remotely on-topic?

Actually, I'm kinda getting sick of reading about his suicide.  Seriously,
enough already.  He's dead.  Let him rest in peace.

Re: palm beach HIV

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Eugen Leitl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [21/02/05 16:57]:
: > For those who hate word wrap...
: >
: >
: 
: 
: Funny, wrapped again!

Not for me.  Neither when I sent it nor when I received it.  Your client,
perhaps?

: > 
: 
: Yes, complain to the Al-Q. node maintainer. The same code which strips my
: digital signatures also wrap the lines.

Funny.  Doesn't wrap mine.

Re: palm beach HIV

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Eugen Leitl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [21/02/05 16:07]:
: > Calling Tim May!  Calling Tim May!
: 
: You rang?
: 
: http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=8NH-JhoA
: AAAfCMh-TnQo0KXFjppET7C1dSi2gjvQCgNblIvwKtcqeQ&

For those who hate word wrap...

Re: How to Stop Junk E-Mail: Charge for the Stamp

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Peter Gutmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [16/02/05 01:04]:
: Hmmm, and maybe *that* will finally motivate software companies, end users,
: ISPs, etc etc, to fix up software, systems, and usage habits to prevent this.

Doubt it'll motivate the ISPs.  They'll be the ones making the 15c/msg.  If
they clean it up, that's lost income.

Re: Jewish wholy words..

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Nomen Nescio ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01/12/04 15:11]:
: Is it true that the jews have these texts in their scriptures?

While it may or may not be true, I sincerely doubt these words are wholy.

Re: Fallujah: Marine Eye-Witness Report

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Steve Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [25/11/04 10:17]:
: You're dreaming.  People simply do not learn from history.

People /do/ learn from history.

But most people never bother learning history, period, and many of those
that do believe that their situation is different.  And...

: Never mind the fact that the historical record is largely incomplete and
: of course written by the victors; what does survive in the history of the
: species entirely fails to teach individuals and cultures the errors of
: primitive and barbaric ways.

Re: E-Mail Authentication Will Not End Spam, Panelists Say

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake R.A. Hettinga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [11/11/04 16:29]:
: Several executives and academics speaking at a forum sponsored by the
: Federal Trade Commission said criminals are already steps ahead of a major
: initiative by e-mail providers to counter those problems by creating a
: system to verify senders of e-mail.
: 
:  In theory, such an authentication system would make it harder for spammers
: to disguise their identities and locations in an attempt to avoid being
: shut down or prosecuted.

(Having watched the IETF group for a while, and spent much time fighting
spam...)

No person who is pushing for SPF believes that it will reduce the volume of
spam.[1]  What SPF *does* do is make it easier to track it down -- the From
address will actually match the domain it was sent from.  This makes the
Abuse department's job *much* easier, as in theory, any spam complaint you
receive about your domain will be *from* your domain.

While this doesn't always mean you have a spammer in your midst, it /does/
mean that the piece of mail in question /did/ come from your networks, hence
it is something you can track down without worry about wasting time that
would be better spent elsewhere.

Arguably, this doesn't gain the anti-spam fighters anything, as the spam
still comes from somewhere.  But if you lay out the seriousness of the
problem to your subscriber, the chances of a repeat offense (which, ideally,
would result in account termination) drop to very close to zero.  This is
also something that ISPs can combat internally, such as forcing SMTP
authentication (which, granted, opens up a whole other bucket of worms), not
allowing outbound SMTP connections (unless explicitly granted), or having
only a web interface to e-mail (thus blocking all outbound SMTP connects,
even to their own mail servers, period).

The 'criminals' aren't necessarily 'steps ahead' -- they're just working
within the SPF framework, and doing exactly what SPF wanted them to do.  SPF
is *one* step towards limiting the volume of spam, but it in and of itself
does not.  There are a great number of other tools that, when combined with
SPF, can and do make a difference in the spam volume being sent.  Yes, each
tool has drawbacks, and I'm not going to claim otherwise.  But for the 95th
percentile, they won't really notice a difference.  Until their account is
cut off, that is.

[1] Any person who claims otherwise just plain doesn't understand SPF or its
goals.  Unfortunately, a few people have claimed that SPF will cut down on
the spam volume, and this take was snapped up by the media and subsequently
pushed out as the primary goal of SPF.  It is, AFAIK, generally agreed that
to cut down on spam volume, we need a whole different protocol from SMTP.

Re: Cell Phone Jammer?

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Tyler Durden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [11/11/04 16:25]:
: Anyone know from first-hand experience about cellphone jammers?

They're legal in France.  That's all I know.

(If you find anything out, please post it to the list.  I'm also
interested.)

Re: Airport insanity

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake James A. Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [16/10/04 14:33]:
: > I've had more than one comment about my ID photos that amount 
: > to basically: "You look like you've just left a terrorist 
: > training camp."
: 
: Nonetheless you can probably start fiddling with your shoes on 
: a plane without the passengers seated near you jumping you.

Perhaps, I don't know.  But we're not talking about the other passengers,
we're talking about screening based on looks, no?

: > For whatever reason, pictures of me always come out looking 
: > like some crazed religious fanatic.  But that doesn't mean 
: > that I'm going to bomb anything.  And I sure hope that I'm 
: > not going to be detained or denied entry because of how I 
: > *look*, alone.
: 
: If you really look like the shoe bomber, then you should have 
: to drive, or use public transport.

So by that rationale, every Arab should have to drive or use public
transport?  Oh, and every white American (recall numerous references to Mr.
McVeigh), too.  Shit, by that rationale, the only people allowed left to fly
will be cats and dogs.

Just not pit bulls.

Re: Airport insanity

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake James A. Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15/10/04 15:19]:
: Has anyone who does not look a terrorist done a suicide mission 
: outside Israel or Russia? Recall the shoe bomber.   You just
: had to look at him. You would think the airport screeners would
: need to be half brain dead to let him on the plane.  Come to
: think of it, they are half brain dead, but laws that require
: them to pretend to be stupider than they actually are do not
: help.

I've had more than one comment about my ID photos that amount to basically:
"You look like you've just left a terrorist training camp."  For whatever
reason, pictures of me always come out looking like some crazed religious
fanatic.  But that doesn't mean that I'm going to bomb anything.  And I sure
hope that I'm not going to be detained or denied entry because of how I
*look*, alone.

Re: Fact checking

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Justin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28/04/04 15:41]:
: > Damian Gerow wrote:
: > >I don't see any way to educate the mass public.
: > 
: > Indeed, why bother? How about a system that removes your right to vote
: > if you haven't exercised it in the last 3 elections?
: 
: Requiring that adults vote is a terrible idea.  While being deathly ill
: or otherwise unable to vote for three consecutive federal elections is
: extremely unlikely, the fact remains that failure to vote is not
: indicative of lack of desire to vote.

Proxy vote.  I did it for two 'invalid' relatives this year.

Besides, this isn't requiring them to vote.

: The above proposal only requires 33% turnout among current non-voters.
: While that's certainly an "improvement" (by your metric), it doesn't
: resolve the core issues.

Not in the first year, no.  And not in the second year, nor in the third.
But in the fourth, you'll see a drastic drop in the number of apathetic
voters -- the ones who don't care.

What this /won't/ have an effect on is mis-informed voting.  People who vote
because they've been paid to do so, or because some other influencing
factor(s) got the voters out there, aside from knowing the candidates and
voting for the one you honestly believe will do the best job.

: If not voting is the sin you seek to prevent, why settle for 33 percent?
: If it is dumb voters you're trying to eliminate, requiring them to drive
: their dumb asses to the polls isn't going to make then any smarter or
: more informed.  It might even increase stupid voting patterns by
: encouraging dumb people to form cliques.  They won't want to appear dumb
: to their friends as a result of voting for the "wrong person," and
: groupthink is bad for elections.

Australia has mandatory voting.  I think that's what you're arguing against
-- this is essentially a way to say, "I'd rather not vote" by not actually
doing anything.  It's perfect for the already lazy and apathetic folks.  It
forces nobody's hand, places no undue expectations on anyone, and doesn't
bend the rules of democracy.  It simply says that if you don't want to vote,
fine, we just won't include you in the valid voters list.

: > Make sure there's a handy "abstain" option for those who want to get
: > the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why,
: > too.  Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable
: > space and eh, instant feedback.
: 
: There is an abstention option.  The poll administrator checks off your
: name when you show up, so someone knows that you "voted."  You don't
: have to choose anyone on your ballot.  You can either toss it in the
: garbage on your way out, or draw pictographs derogatory to politicians
: on non-critical areas of the ballot before feeding it to the
: fiber-starved voting machine.

AFAIK, you can't toss your ballot out in Canada.  And there's a certain way
to mark it to 'abstain' -- not just drawing cartoons on it.

Re: Fact checking

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28/04/04 11:40]:
: > "Hi, Sir, my name is Bob and I'm here to educate you about all the
: > candidates in the upcoming election that your eight second attention span
: > will allow me.  Oops, I guess I've used it all up.  Bye now!"
: > 
: > These things all work in theory, but never in practice.
: 
: You obviously have never done any door-to-door. People are quite often very
: interested. We've had fairly good success organizing people on local issues
: which affect them, like opposition to street widening. Voter registration is the
: same thing.

Actually, I /have/ done door-to-door.  Granted, it's not extensive, but I
have been involved in a few campaigns.  In a good neighbourhood, we'd get
about 3/4 of the people who would care enough or have enough time at that
moment to listen/contribute.

: > Why bother putting something up in a library?  Chances are, if someone's
: > reading it there, they're already somewhat knowledgable about the
: > candidates.  Or heck, maybe they're even there to do /research/ on them!
: 
:The mention was "giving talks in libraries", which works fairly well. The
: local library is the logical meeting place for local groups to hold meetings and
: talks.

Yes, it does, so long as you get people there.  It's the getting people
there that's difficult.  I s'pose a door-to-door campaign advertising a
speaking at the library would be best.

Re: Fact checking

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27/04/04 17:18]:
:All of the above, but mostly door-to-door voter registration. When you
: consider that both klinton and dubbya were elected with only 13%-14% of the
: eligible voters, it wouldn't take all that many new voters to really make a
: difference.

"Hi, Sir, my name is Bob and I'm here to educate you about all the
candidates in the upcoming election that your eight second attention span
will allow me.  Oops, I guess I've used it all up.  Bye now!"

These things all work in theory, but never in practice.

Why bother putting something up in a library?  Chances are, if someone's
reading it there, they're already somewhat knowledgable about the
candidates.  Or heck, maybe they're even there to do /research/ on them!

Grocery store posters?  When was the last time you stopped to read one of
those?

Radio ads?  What group of volunteers would have the dough to cough up enough
to get a spot on a semi-popular radio station?  One that's unbiased enough
to /let/ you play a spot like what you'd want to play?

I don't see any way to educate the mass public.  The best option I've seen
was when a couple of Canadians, frustrated at the options, started eating
their ballots.  They got arrested a few times, but I think the charges were
dropped.  At least that caught /some/ attention.

The more shocking it is, the more attention it will grab, the more effect it
will have, however short-term it may be.  And the more I think of swapping
crack for cracked votes, the more I like it.

Re: Fact checking

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 19:25]:
:And the local elections are no prime pickings either, it's crooks to the left
: of us, crooks to the right of us, ahead and behind, above and below. Extremely
: few real choices. The real problem is -- most people don't vote. What needs to
: be done is a real grass roots effort to educate people and get them to vote. 

So, how does one start a grass roots effort?  I'm Canuck, and I'm not
exactly impressed with this year's pickings up North.  My last vote was a
vote /against/ the in-office party, not for the party I'd like to see in
office.

How do you start motivating a lazy and apathetic public to learn about their
candidates, and vote?  Door-to-door campaigns?  Talks at the local library?
Grocery store posters?

Re: Fact checking

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Pete Capelli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 16:01]:
: > Yes, that's exactly what he said:
: >
: > 
: >
: > That's not saying that he invented the internet, it's saying that he took
: > initiative in creating it.  Two very different things.
: 
: Now take it in context.  Do you really believe that he didn't want people to
: think he was instrumental from the beginning (since he created it) in the
: Internet?  Or that he was simply another GC, working off an architects
: plans?
: 
: I think people took it the right way the first time.  Sure, I agree its
: importance is way overblown; I mean, name one politician who *hasn't* taken
: credit for someone else's work.  But don't be an apologist.  If he wants to
: run for president, he's got to deal with his record, just like kerry (did I
: or didnt I throw away those medals) or bush (i know those national guard
: records are here somewhere).

Agreed, every politician has their own problems.  I /personally/ don't
believe that Mr. Gore was trying to take credit for 'inventing' the
Internet.  His wording is incredibly vague, and I agree that it could be
taken as him trying to take credit for building up the Internet to the point
it is today.

But he'd have to be *incredibly* stupid to actually believe that he could
get away with claiming he invented something that existed (albeit in various
forms) years previous.

My problem lays in the fact that not one person (save Gore himself) can
verifiably know what Gores intentions were with that statement.  The way he
phrased the statement is tricky, and leaves it pretty open to
interpretation.  But I hold fast that he was /not/ saying he invented the
Internet.

Anyhow, I wasn't trying to get into a debate over what he said, although I
guess that was unavoidable.  I'm not trying to apologize for what he's said,
nor am I trying to make excuses.  If he's going to live in the public eye,
he's got to either maintain an impeccable character, or suffer its flaws.

My problem was that the statement /is/ vague, and the vagueness was then
translated into 'inventing the Internet'.  Which, again, isn't really all
that true.  Had sunder said, "Al 'Creating The Internet' Gore", that would
have been spot on, and I'd have chuckled.  But he didn't, so it wasn't, so I
didn't.

: > I took initiative in building a house.  That's not saying that I built it,
: > it's saying that I approved the blueprints, paid the builders, and would
: > check on things every once in a while, to make sure they weren't going too
: > far astray.
: 
: Yeah, he was in there on John Postel's CC: list for RFC evaluations.

No, nor was I there for the developing of the blueprints, nor the chopping
of the trees, nor the mixing of the mortar.  But I still took initiative in
building the house.  Just as Gore took initiative in creating -- or rather,
helping to create, or helping to fund the creation of -- the Internet.

At this point, I concede that there's no way to tell the truth, and that
continued discussion can't really progress anywhere.  Al Gore munged his
words*, and paid the price.  End of story, and at this point, it doesn't much
matter what he really meant -- he's still not the president, nor will he
ever be.

  - Damian

* = More than this once, I might add.

Re: Fact checking

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Pete Capelli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 13:56]:
: > Who you vote for is up to you.  I'm not telling you to vote for him, I'm
: > just correcting a pretty large non-truth propogated by American media.
: 
: B*llshit. From a transcript of an interview of Al Gore by Wolf Blitzer:
: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/
: 
: " During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
: creating the Internet."

Yes, that's exactly what he said:



That's not saying that he invented the internet, it's saying that he took
initiative in creating it.  Two very different things.

I took initiative in building a house.  That's not saying that I built it,
it's saying that I approved the blueprints, paid the builders, and would
check on things every once in a while, to make sure they weren't going too
far astray.

: > Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either.  And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a
: > /good/ choice.  But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser
: evil
: > than the current president.
: 
: Mindlessly voting for anyone but bush is just as ignorant as voting
: midlessly for him.

Yes, that's about what I was saying.  Mindless voting is, in some regards,
worse than not voting at all.  And it appears that's what sunder has done --
not voted, instead of mindlessly voted.

But when all the facts, and the necessities to check the facts, are at your
fingertips, there's no reason to be doing either.

  - Damian

Fact checking

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake sunder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 13:10]:
: >Actually, Mr. Gore didn't once claim to invent the Internet.  Through
: >various mis-wordings and lax fact-checkings, the Mass Media came to
: >represent what he said through that phrase.
: >
: >What he /actually/ claimed (and what he /actually/ did) was recognize its
: >importance, and then push for funding, in the 1980's.  So he didn't 
: >'invent'
: >the Internet, he helped provide the funding for its inventors.
: >
: 
: Yeah so what? I still wouldn't want to vote for him (except as a vote 
: against Shrubbya)

So what?  Please get your facts straight -- you may have good reasons for
not voting for him, just make sure they're valid before spewing them off.

Who you vote for is up to you.  I'm not telling you to vote for him, I'm
just correcting a pretty large non-truth propogated by American media.

: Al's prise pig of a wife, Tipper, helped found the PMRC 
: against lyrics in songs.  See Megadeth's Hook in Mouth for details on this 
: censorious organization: 
: http://www.songlyrics4u.com/megadeth/hook-in-mouth.html
: and http://www.geocities.com/fireace_00/pmrc.html for details about the 
: PMRC.

Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either.  And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a
/good/ choice.  But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser evil
than the current president.

Re: Fact checking

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake sunder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 13:38]:
: >Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either.  And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a
: >/good/ choice.  But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser 
: >evil
: >than the current president.
: 
: THAT, ultimately is the meta-point.  You shouldn't have to vote for the 
: lesser evil, but when your choice is so vastly limited, why even bother 
: voting?

Okay, you've completely missed my point.  I'll repeat it one last time, then
I shall contribute no more to this inane diatribe:

I don't give a flying fuck who you vote for, who the options are, what you
think of them, or even if they're convicted drunk drivers hell-bent on
converting the world to their belief system (...).

I was pointing out that your one presented argument (in the e-mail I read)
was completely not true.  Al Gore did *not* claim to invent the Internet,
and to use that false argument as a reason to dislike him is to be either
purposefully dishonest, or honestly misled.  I was simply correcting your
facts, and suggesting you check them out before you believe everything you
see/read in mass media.

The rest of your arguments are simply your opinions, and all I have to say
is: what little you knew of Bush and Gore /before/ the elections has no
bearing on the amount of information available about them.  Their histories
(criminal, educational, political, and family) were all very publicly
available.  Just because you (and, dare I say, a vast majority of the
American public) didn't want to do your research on your candidates, does
not mean that the facts weren't there.

You're also sadly, sadly mistaken in saying that there's only two options.
I guess it shows that you didn't vote.

  - Damian

Re: BBC on all-electronic Indian elections

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake sunder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 11:31]:
: What do you expect when the previous choice we've had was between Al "I 
: Invented the Innnernet" Gore, and George "Nucular" Dubbya?

Actually, Mr. Gore didn't once claim to invent the Internet.  Through
various mis-wordings and lax fact-checkings, the Mass Media came to
represent what he said through that phrase.

What he /actually/ claimed (and what he /actually/ did) was recognize its
importance, and then push for funding, in the 1980's.  So he didn't 'invent'
the Internet, he helped provide the funding for its inventors.

Re: [cdr] Re: GPG Sig test

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Eric Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [13/09/03 04:32]:
> If someone knows how, please tell me.

Well, according to ,  he says that
demime is /designed/ to break and remove attachments.  So if you modify it,
you'll need to maintain it -- he won't accept patches for it.  Which is
unfortunate.  The very fact that he refuses to accept patches for this, and
doesn't give you the option of not removing it, makes me think you should
use a different MIME cleanser (AlterMIME? Anomy Sanitizer? procmail?).

If you stick some code in at the top that checks for $head{'content-type',0}
containing application/pgp (see around line 1820 for details on matching),
and exit if that condition matches, then you should be able to work around
it.

Re: [cdr] Re: GPG Sig test

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Bill Frantz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [10/09/03 22:27]:
> >[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature
> >which had a name of signature.asc]
> 
> For some reason this mail tickled my sense of humor.
> 
> Try sending the message without MIME.

*Please*, for the sake of all that is good and sane, stick with PGP/MIME
signatures.  Configure your demime to *not* strip attachments of
application/pgp-signature.

I know there's two strong camps, but I *hate* inline PGP with a passion.  It
clutters up the message, and most people (and mail clients) don't have the
sense to strip out the PGP cruft when quoting.

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

[Damian Gerow]

Sarad AV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Seriously, I *highly* doubt that any nation at this
> > time would *seriously*
> > think of bombing another nuclear-enabled nation with
> > a nuclear weapon.  It's
> > just suicide.
> 
> Well-pakistan has been constantly nuclear black
> mailing india.They say that their nuclear options are
> always open and there is nothing india can do about
> it.When the hate grows logic doesn't work.Thats why
> one cannot do any thing about suicide bombing
> either.There are no winners in a nuclear war-thats
> certain.So the uneasy peace will prevail for a few
> more year.Things may change later.

You're leaving out stupidity.  I can only see two reasons for bombing with
nuclear weapons: hate and stupidity.

That being said, you'd have to *really* hate someone (or an entire country)
to actually /use/ a nuclear weapon.  Threatening is one thing.  Doing is
another.

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

[Damian Gerow]

After reading this, I feel like I missed something in my original post...

Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And then the whole world dies, because of ...  what?
> 
> Natural stupidity.



Spot on.

> Which is why MAD works.  But a regular bombing run on a few oil refineries
> would put the US in a world of hurt really quickly, enough for them to
> pull a lot of their troops out of places that happen to be too close to
> Russia and China.  Mexico isn't entirely happy with US policy, I'm sure
> they could be bribed into letting the other powers use their air and land
> space for a "limited" attack.  The US won't use nukes to retaliate, which
> was the origin of this line of argument.

...  Mexico's not happy, Canadians are getting pissed because of threatened
boycotts from American companies/PIRs, Europeans are pissed because America
has threatened to boycott perfume and cheese (yes, this is mostly France,
but they /are/ a part of the EU), Iraq is pissed because they just got
invaded, Korea's pissed because the US is jerking them around ...

The list can go on and on.  The US is *not* a popular country right now.
Not only could I see Mexico turning a blind eye, but I can see a large part
of the world taking the same stance.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying.  The US, I'd like to
believe, isn't dumb enough to actually use its nuclear weapons, especially
on its own continent.  Move across the ocean, and I'm less sure of this,
though.

> If Russia, Chaina and the EU really wanted to, they could use conventional
> weapons and force the US to at least retreat from trying to rule the
> world.  An attack on Syria and Saudi Arabia or Iran could provoke it.

I'd rather see the Green party (and Russian) attempts at having George W.
Bush indicted as a War Criminal for this attack on Iraq.  Much more
peaceful, delivers a much stronger message, and rids the guy of his power
trip.

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

[Damian Gerow]

Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So when the rest of the world retaliates with all their military power that
> > the US fails to appreciate, what strategic war plan does the  rest of the
> > world have for handling a couple thousand nukes?  Just trying to figure
> > their options?
> 
> Russia, China and, France all have nukes and delivery capability.  If
> the US wants to retaliate with nukes, they'll get nuked in return.  MAD
> works.

And then the whole world dies, because of ...  what?

Seriously, I *highly* doubt that any nation at this time would *seriously*
think of bombing another nuclear-enabled nation with a nuclear weapon.  It's
just suicide.

'a couple thousand nukes' later, there's not much left of this planet.  That
which hasn't been blowed [sic] up is exposed to enough radiation to kill, or
to cause some serious mutations.

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

[Damian Gerow]

Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not a router guru, maybe somebody can explain these results:
> 
> $ dig 216.34.94.186
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.2.0 <<>> 216.34.94.186
> ;; global options:  printcmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 2646
> ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;216.34.94.186. IN  A
> 
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> .   86400   IN  SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
> NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2003032700 1800 900 604800 86400
> 
> ;; Query time: 113 msec
> ;; SERVER: 128.104.20.18#53(128.104.20.18)
> ;; WHEN: Wed Mar 26 23:19:48 2003
> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 106
> 
> $ host 216.34.94.186
> 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa is an alias for
> 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.
> 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer redirect.dnsix.com.
> 
> How do I chase this thing down to who actually owns it?

whois aljazeera.net?

Registrant:
Jazeera Space Channel TV station (ALJAZEERA2-DOM)
   P.O. Box 231234
   Doha
   QA

   Domain Name: ALJAZEERA.NET

   Administrative Contact:
  AlaliAJ7476, MJ  (HCSGDXPWTI) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Al Jazeera Space TV Station
  Po Box. 211234
  Doha, QT  7476
  QA
  +974  07 04 17761 +999 999 
   Technical Contact:
  VeriSign, Inc.  (HOST-ORG)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  VeriSign, Inc.
  21355 Ridgetop Circle
  Dulles, VA 20166
  US
  1-888-642-9675

   Record expires on 31-Aug-2010.
   Record created on 30-Aug-1996.
   Database last updated on 27-Mar-2003 14:33:52 EST.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   NS3.ALJAZEERA.NET213.30.180.218
   ALJNS1SA.NAV-LINK.NET217.26.193.15

Do you want to look for the domain registrars, the people who own the
nameservers, the people who own the netblocks the web site lives in, the
people who own the netblocks the nameservers live in... ?

It looks like, from below, the IP address is with dotster...

> Note I do get:
> 
> $ host www.aljazeera.net
> www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186
> 
> So why the original error response if "host" can find it?
>  Interesting!

Because 'host' is doing magic that 'dig' presumes you don't want done.  Try
this instead of your dig command above:

% dig -x 216.34.94.186
; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> 216.34.94.186 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 2
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;  216.34.94.186, type = A, class = IN

;; Total query time: 97 msec
;; FROM:  to SERVER: default -- 
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:34:42 2003
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 31  rcvd: 31

% dig -x 216.34.94.186

; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> -x 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 4
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;  186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1D IN CNAME  186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1H IN NS  dns02.exodus.net.
94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1H IN NS  dns03.exodus.net.
94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1H IN NS  dns04.exodus.net.
94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1H IN NS  dns01.exodus.net.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
dns02.exodus.net.   21H IN A209.1.222.245
dns03.exodus.net.   21H IN A209.1.222.246
dns04.exodus.net.   21H IN A209.1.222.247
dns01.exodus.net.   21H IN A209.1.222.244

;; Total query time: 236 msec
;; FROM:  to SERVER: default -- 
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:34:45 2003
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 44  rcvd: 249

(Remember, 216.34.94.186 when doing DNS lookups is actually
186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa...)

So we take a look at that CNAME...

% dig any 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.

; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. any 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;  186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  23h57m3s IN PTR  redirect.dnsix.com.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1d9h19m32s IN NS  ns1.dotster.com.
160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1d9h19m32s IN NS  ns2.dotster.com.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.dotster.com.23h44m IN A 64.94.117.199
ns2.dotster.com.23h44m IN A 63.251.83.78

;; Total query time: 1 msec
;; FROM:  to SERVER: default -- 
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:47:36 2003
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 51  rcvd: 159

And voila!  

Re: CDR: Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show!

[Damian Gerow]

Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase (because the quote is  not 
> handy): "If the U.S. says they know the locations of secret weapons  
> projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't they simply give the  
> locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can then go to those  sites?"
> 
> Come on now! The Iraqis should have proven that they DON'T have any nukular 
> weapons. They were unable to prove that they don't have any WMDs, so now 
> it's their fault they're getting invaded.

Prove to me that you don't have a pet alligator.  Come on, I want you to
prove it.

No, I don't think the abscence of food, a tank, dirt, and other
alligator-related paraphenalia is good enough.  You can't just say that you
don't have one, and let me in to your home.  You have /another/ home,
where you're keeping the alligator.  Actually, the very fact that your
apartment is clean means absolutely nothing.  Where is your alligator?

(Yes, I'm taking this overboard.  But it's a very similar argument to what
the U.S. pulled.)

That aside, riddle me this: If Iraq does indeed have WMDs, where are they?
Why aren't they using them?  They're about to be slaughtered by the beloved
U.S., so why aren't they defending themselves?  What do they gain by not
using the weapons they're supposedly hiding?