Re: Palm Pilot Handshake
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: Yo! Anyone out there in codeville know if the following is possible? Yes, but there are caveats. What I mean is, Let's say some disgruntled and generic crypto-kook (let's call him, say,...'Tyler Durden') has been signing his (tiring) cyber-missives with a public key. And now let's say there's some guy at a party claiming to be that very same Tyler Durden, but you're not so sure (this real-life Tyler Durden is WAY too much of an obvious chick-magnet to be the same guy that posts on the Internet). BUT, you happen to have your Palm Pilot(TM), and so does he. So you both both engage the little hand-shaking app on your PP (using Tyler Durden's public key) and there's verification. Yep. Same dude. No, not 'same dude'. Same key. -BIG- difference. And for extra credit, when might the chipsets be available for incorporating this functionality into, say, a wristwatch so that the protocol runs automatically (giving you a beep, for instance, only if there's a mismatch)? (This I'm sure the feds must already have.) FPGA, then of course if you're building digital watches you're going to use a proprietary chip and such. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: the news from bush's speech
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 06:00 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: And tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location. Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect our citizens. The _real_ news was, of course, that no one delivered the Sato Solution to that den of statists. Granted, delivering a fully-loaded 767 through the roof of the Capitol dome has become harder than it was when Clancy first proposed it (ironically, Clancy remained a vaunted consultant while those on newsgroups who speculated similarly reportedly got visits from the SS). But each year I keep hoping that my CNN coverage will suddenly go blank and Aaron Brown and Judy Woodruff will say We seem to have lost communcation with the Capitol...Judy, what's that bright orange glow over towards the Capitol? Of course, a true nest-cleaning detonation would probably take out most of Crystal City as well, so Aaron, Lou, Dan, Peter, and Oprah would probably be having the vapors. There's always next year... --Tim May To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists. --John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
RE: the news from bush's speech
Declan quotes: And tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location. Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect our citizens. ...and this year, for the first time, every American will be weighed, and measured, and given a free yearly Rabies shot. .. Blanc
RE: the news from bush's speech
At 8:37 PM -0800 on 1/28/03, Blanc wrote: and this year, for the first time, every American will be weighed Check... http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/01/28/faa.weight/ Besides, you only need rabies every once in a while... :-). Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Big Brotherish Laws
At 05:39 PM 01/27/2003 +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote: That's because non-US licenses constitute automatic permission for minor traffic law violations. The scenario is something like the following: [Driver gets pulled over]. Driver: Gidday mate, hows it going? [Cop asks for license, looks at it] Cop: A, screw it, too much paperwork. Don't do it again. HAND. The being-a-foreigner trick worked for me in Canada (the fact that I was driving a rental car helped.) A friend of mine back in NYC used to respond to traffic stops by speaking German to the cops and saying things about kilometers and the cops were generally already somewhat off-balance when dealing with him because he's got a mechanical arm and an eye-patch. Eventually, however, he encountered a German-speaking cop, and the nicht-spreche-das-Englishe jig was up.
the news from bush's speech
And tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location. Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect our citizens.
Re: DNA evidence countermeasures?
At 07:50 PM 1/28/03 +, Ken Brown wrote: Thomas Shaddack wrote: But now how to avoid leaving random DNA traces? What about giving up on NOT leaving traces and rather just use eg. a spray with hydrolyzed DNA from multiple people, preferably with different racial origin, Get some scurf from expensive D.C. restaurants. PCRAmplify it up if you want, that will create some diversity too. Just a corollary of someone's idea to put Santa on his own naughty-list. Major Variola's Brand Homogenized Human DNA The Finest Homogenized Human DNA CounterForensic Science Can Produce HHDNA From Our *Competitors* Uses the **Same, Well-Known Donors** Over Over **Our HHDNA raw material is collected in the Wild from Unknowing Donors** **We collect in a large urban setting, which has very large DNA marker diversity** All of Major Variola's Fine Products are Not for internal use Available in a Cypherpunke Shoppe near you! See also our line of Martha Bill Stewart spring fashions featuring a special UV-emitting lining on the *inside*.
Re: sql worm part of anti-war protest?
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:29:45AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: At 09:12 AM 01/26/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: There's a report on indymedia that the lastes worm is part of an anti-war tactic which will escalate if Iraq is attacked. http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=231141group=webcast Yup. It's either wanabees talking big about what 31337 h4X0rz d00dz they are because they're feeling inadequate, or people who recognize the availability of a credulous audience they can make fun of by pretending to be serious, or (P=0.01) maybe they actually heard something about what was going on and tried to claim some credit. The claim to be using wireless networks makes the former two somewhat more likely explanations Yes, or the guy who wrote it could have just fabricated everything. OTOH, I'd think anyone launching such a thing these days would definitely *want* to use wifi onto some gov or corp network. Makes it pretty much untraceable. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: sql worm part of anti-war protest?
At 09:12 AM 01/26/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: There's a report on indymedia that the lastes worm is part of an anti-war tactic which will escalate if Iraq is attacked. http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=231141group=webcast Yup. It's either wanabees talking big about what 31337 h4X0rz d00dz they are because they're feeling inadequate, or people who recognize the availability of a credulous audience they can make fun of by pretending to be serious, or (P=0.01) maybe they actually heard something about what was going on and tried to claim some credit. The claim to be using wireless networks makes the former two somewhat more likely explanations
Re: the news from bush's speech
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Declan McCullagh quoted Bush: And tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location. Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect our citizens. Yeah, like Ames, Hanson and Pollard. Definitly the right people in the right places. A friend of mine had a sign in his office that said I can't tell if the world is run by smart men bluffing or idiots who mean it. I think the latter is pretty obvious in this case. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: DNA evidence countermeasures?
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Get some scurf from expensive D.C. restaurants. PCRAmplify it up if you And be sure to open it -only- at the crime scene. If the investigator could grab a sample of the same mix of DNA at some other location that the suspect visits then they'd have a clue that the scene was tampered with. As always, you must look at both 'traffic analysis' and 'signature analysis'. Major Variola's Brand Homogenized Human DNA Some other factors: - With sufficient motivation it would be possible for the police to keep a running sample of most public places. Exactly what would drive such a utility function isn't clear. Perhaps an assassination of a high dignitary or major theft. If they could track a suspects last few days it would be possible for them to take comparative samples. - Never spit or otherwise leave phsical evidence in public (ie trash recepticles as public eating places) so that a sample can be taken without a search (at least technicaly it wouldn't be a search). There are cases of cops following suspects for several years and finally catching them by simply grabbing a spit sample off the sidewalk (there is a real world example I posted in the archives a couple of years ago). - If you're going to commit crimes where physical genetic evidence may be problematic then be sure to have taken a good shower and a fresh haircut (if it wouldn't be incriminating). Make sure your clothing is freshly washed and has been touched by nobody who has regular interaction with you. This means a clothes cleaner you don't normally use (don't use a credit card or a real name/number). If possible get somebody else to pick up the clothes (there are cameras everywhere). - Wear complete coverage clothes, sort of like those sleepers you wore as a kid only with gloves and booties. This would include a face mask. - Wipe the outside of the outfit off with something that is a very good agent at breaking down DNA, carry a spray bottle of this same agent. Spray it liberally. - It might be worth making the outside of the suit slightly tacky so that it tends to pickup instead of shed material. This may imply wearing several layers and shedding them once in a while. - Be sures that there is nothing in ones background that would indicate they have necessary knowledge, motivation, or ability in this regards. - This all implies a lot of preperation and time that is not constrained. Having large gaps in ones schedule at convenient times would be indicative. It's worth noting again that one of the major threats to anyone building such a database of genetic data is the continued denial of that same technology to the public at large. If genetic technology expands until it's reasonably easy to have scans and splices done then keeping a databank of individuals DNA is worthless. Personally, I believe that this is the reason that cloning and such are being hounded into illegality by secular authority. Once somebody has a legally recognized clone walking around (or clones that are unknown or unregistred) any such DNA evidence is worthless. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
RE: the news from bush's speech
...and this year, for the first time, every American will be weighed, and measured, and given a free yearly Rabies shot. From now on, you will be wearing your underwear outside, so that we can check it's clean. = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Oh come on. Its all economics. (With tech changing the params) Fuel cells for cars are too expensive today. There is not enough methanol production/distrib infrastructure, which costs to create. [insert Metcalfe's law (aka fax or network effect) blurb here] And where do you get to strip-mine the coal for the methanol? Even H. Ford was figuring on using hemp for methanol. The problem is that you need a nuke plant to do the final distillation. That's politics, not economics. The economics will make battery + capacitor + constant-rate Otto engine (aka 'hybrid') keep petrol cheaper than alternative energy carriers and sufficiently clean for a while. You'll see 42 volt cars (soon) before you see fuel cells in cars. Yup, the ability to run the Otto at fixed speed maximizes it's efficiency. When the price of fuel for the 25% max efficiency runs into the 90%+ efficiency of more expensive motors, we'll see things start changing. Just gotta kill off a few more arabs to extend the time when that happens is all. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 10:53 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: And don't forget his promise that we'll all be able to buy Hydrogen-powered cars by 2020 or so. Guess that's how long he thinks this war on terrorism Don't get it: onboard fuel reforming with methanol is almost done, fuel cells with polymer proton membranes are already good enough (though still being optimized rapidly, particularly in terms of energy density and platinum group metal content) and GM's on the right track with their recent designs. Don't see why it shouldn't hit the markets by 2005. It's interesting that political science has witheld one of the oldest technologies (Grove started it 1838, Mond and Langer in 1889 attained 6 A/square foot energy density; Bockris publicized it in mid-70s again) from the general public. The interesting part is that we didn't use fuel cell technology on noticeable scale by 1980... Nonsense. What political science do you think was stopping Ford or Honda or Volvo or GM from introducing a hydrogen fuel cell car by 1980? Do you think it was the lack of hydrogen storage technology? Not a Poly Sci problem. Do you think it was the lack of methane fuel at filling stations? Not a Poly Sci problem. Do you think it was the very high cost of fuel cell vehicles even today (in prototype form) compared to conventional fuel vehicles? Not a Poly Sci problem. And so on, for H2 storage tanks, reformers, etc. You are generally free to develop your idea of a fuel cell vehicle and to then try to sell it to customers, modulo some minor issues of safety tests, etc. Don't let weird ideological ideas get in the way of being able to evaluate technologies objectively. Careful with that axe to grind, Eugene. --Tim May
re: handhelds and crypto anarchy
At 11:13 AM 1/29/2003 -0800, Michael Cardenas wrote: While identity verification using handhelds seems to have some use, as has been pointed out, you're really just verifying that they have the same key. A far mroe exciting idea to me is how handhelds like palms, ipaqs, etc, could beused to transfer digital anonymous cash. They seem like perfect delivery vehicles. Say, secret agent X meets congressman Y in a dark alley somewhere to give him a lobbying donation of a million bucks, wouldn't it be great if X could just take out his handheld, point it at Y's handheld, tap a button on screen and transfer that million anonymously and securely? That would be much better than having to lug around a heavy briefcase full of hundred or thousand dollar bills! Does anyone think this is feasilbe? How could this be done? Actually, this was PayPal (then Confinity)'s original business model. It failed for many reasons both technical (no immediate on-line means to verify value of transfer) and hurdle of network effects. http://www.halplotkin.com/cnbcs029.htm So, this approach is probably only viable when either the parties know and trust one another (probably limited market), the receiver of value can immediately affirm the value [e.g., either on-line (wireless) or smart cash card with built-in PDA reader)], or the payor can be located and prosecuted if it can positively determined later that they defrauded the payee (e.g., Stephen Brands approaches). With current technology (PDA's with wireless web access) it is now practical to transfer values from any number of on-line payment systems (e.g., e-gold, ALTA/DMT). ALTA/DMT https://196.40.46.24/ is particularly interesting, as it supports anonymous accounts and digital (though not blinded) bearer certificates. Blinded certificates based on ALTA/DMT deposits should soon be available from third party(s). steve
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: Nonsense. What political science do you think was stopping Ford or Honda or Volvo or GM from introducing a hydrogen fuel cell car by 1980? What I meant is lack of lots of fat federal grants for research on fuel reformers, hydrogen separation, proton membranes, alternative catalysts, and the like. The fund allocation (or, rather, lack thereof) was sure politically motivated. Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). It's about the single most powerful reason for federally funded research to exist.
Palm Pilot Handshake
Yo! Anyone out there in codeville know if the following is possible? I'd like to be able digitally shake hands using a Palm Pilot. Is this possible? What I mean is, Let's say some disgruntled and generic crypto-kook (let's call him, say,...'Tyler Durden') has been signing his (tiring) cyber-missives with a public key. And now let's say there's some guy at a party claiming to be that very same Tyler Durden, but you're not so sure (this real-life Tyler Durden is WAY too much of an obvious chick-magnet to be the same guy that posts on the Internet). BUT, you happen to have your Palm Pilot(TM), and so does he. So you both both engage the little hand-shaking app on your PP (using Tyler Durden's public key) and there's verification. Yep. Same dude. (You then procede to prostrate yourself before this obvious godlet, stating I'm not worthy, Sire.) Is this possible within the memory constraints of a Palm device? What about with a booster pack of memory? If not, is some sort of Public Key Masking possible so that a 'less secure' handshake is possible using a subset of the public key? And for extra credit, when might the chipsets be available for incorporating this functionality into, say, a wristwatch so that the protocol runs automatically (giving you a beep, for instance, only if there's a mismatch)? (This I'm sure the feds must already have.) -TD _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Palm Pilot Handshake
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: Yo! Anyone out there in codeville know if the following is possible? I'd like to be able digitally shake hands using a Palm Pilot. Is this possible? Yes. And now let's say there's some guy at a party claiming to be that very same Tyler Durden, but you're not so sure (this real-life Tyler Durden is WAY too much of an obvious chick-magnet to be the same guy that posts on the Internet). BUT, you happen to have your Palm Pilot(TM), and so does he. So you both both engage the little hand-shaking app on your PP (using Tyler Durden's public key) and there's verification. Yep. Same dude. (You then procede to prostrate yourself before this obvious godlet, stating I'm not worthy, Sire.) Or punch him in the nose :-) Is this possible within the memory constraints of a Palm device? What about with a booster pack of memory? If not, is some sort of Public Key Masking possible so that a 'less secure' handshake is possible using a subset of the public key? It's there. And you have lots of choices of algorithms too. Maybe too many choices... And for extra credit, when might the chipsets be available for incorporating this functionality into, say, a wristwatch so that the protocol runs automatically (giving you a beep, for instance, only if there's a mismatch)? (This I'm sure the feds must already have.) It's there. Check out smart cards. One chip does the job quite nicely. Way too many choices there too. Do a web search for secure cryptographic hardware. Have lots of time to read :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Palm Pilot Handshake
-- On 28 Jan 2003 at 20:54, Tyler Durden wrote: Yo! Anyone out there in codeville know if the following is possible? I'd like to be able digitally shake hands using a Palm Pilot. Is this possible? What I mean is, Let's say some disgruntled and generic crypto-kook (let's call him, say,...'Tyler Durden') has been signing his (tiring) cyber-missives with a public key. And now let's say there's some guy at a party claiming to be that very same Tyler Durden, but you're not so sure (this real-life Tyler Durden is WAY too much of an obvious chick-magnet to be the same guy that posts on the Internet). BUT, you happen to have your Palm Pilot(TM), and so does he. So you both both engage the little hand-shaking app on your PP (using Tyler Durden's public key) and there's verification. Yep. Same dude. (You then procede to prostrate yourself before this obvious godlet, stating I'm not worthy, Sire.) This can be done without a palm pilot. Normally the flesh and blood Tyler Durden would reveal knowledge of information sent encrypted to the net Tyler Durden, or vice versa. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG +OfNblhcCuKIKF5MFg7gpgfNLhp99TtnhvtpjA6D 4yJKSl2sqFg6P1vGn5ClsKRon31LJE1uCGdVuiQEE
RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: And don't forget his promise that we'll all be able to buy Hydrogen-powered cars by 2020 or so. Guess that's how long he thinks this war on terrorism Don't get it: onboard fuel reforming with methanol is almost done, fuel cells with polymer proton membranes are already good enough (though still being optimized rapidly, particularly in terms of energy density and platinum group metal content) and GM's on the right track with their recent designs. Don't see why it shouldn't hit the markets by 2005. It's interesting that political science has witheld one of the oldest technologies (Grove started it 1838, Mond and Langer in 1889 attained 6 A/square foot energy density; Bockris publicized it in mid-70s again) from the general public. The interesting part is that we didn't use fuel cell technology on noticeable scale by 1980... Honi soit qui mal y pense. will last (and its probability for ending!).
Re: Palm Pilot Handshake
From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd like to be able digitally shake hands using a Palm Pilot. Is this possible? I think you mean public key based authentication. Is this possible within the memory constraints of a Palm device? What about with a booster pack of memory? If not, is some sort of Public Key Masking possible so that a 'less secure' handshake is possible using a subset of the public key? I doubt memory is likely to be an issue with this since decade old DOS handhelds ran PGP 2.x fine and if you google for palm pilot crypto you will find 2000 vintage ports of OpenPGP and OpenSSL. The Palms do have fairly slow processors so checking keys may take a while and generating them probably quite a long time. More modern PDAs such as the Zaurus or iPaq have processors which are an order of magnitude faster and run linux so PGP (or GPG or whatever) should work. Also the new generation of mobiles which run Java are probably the future once the standards settle down and the phones become more reliable. I can see little point in trying to use shorter keys which would be a very broken solution to a probably non-existent problem. People should be using longer keys rather than shorter ones, since most of the news about short key lengths isn't good (google DJB RSA). And for extra credit, when might the chipsets be available for incorporating this functionality into, say, a wristwatch so that the protocol runs automatically (giving you a beep, for instance, only if there's a mismatch)? It's more a software issue than a hardware issue. It's not much of a software problem since RSA can be written in a few lines of code. If you have a high level language running on (or compiler) for the hardware then you can easily port open source crypto. This is probably a safer solution from a security aspect than relying on potentially backdoored or legally restricted chipsets. Suitable hardware has been available for 10 years or longer with a lot of publicity for the Java ring and iButtons about 5 years back. (This I'm sure the feds must already have.) It's possible the US Govt. uses iButtoms but I would very much doubt it's used much in production. State agencies tend to be *very* conservative with authentication and rely on physical identity cards, individually issued (and revocable) PIN numbers and the like. They are run by grey men rather than techno-fetishist computer geeks. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
And don't forget his promise that we'll all be able to buy Hydrogen-powered cars by 2020 or so. Guess that's how long he thinks this war on terrorism will last (and its probability for ending!). -TD _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: The burn-off of twenty million useless eaters and minorities is aQ
Tim May wrote on January 22, 2003 at 00:55: I expect 20 million to die. Fortunately, 18 million of them will be the usual Democrat, Commies, welfare recipients, negro activists, and Socialist fellow travellers. The other two million will be the Bushies. And proably most of the remaining Jews will be scourged, as payment for their support of thefts, of Zionism, etc. Sounds fair to me. Ain't gonna be a lot of negroes and Mexicans after this war is over. 20 million sounds a bit low. Given that the current US population is around 281 million, we're talking about only 7 percent of the population. According to the most recent Census data, blacks currently account for around 12.6 percent, or 35.5 million, and Mexicans, 7.3 percent, or about 20.6 million. On top of that are millions of commies, socialists, Demonrats, and welfare addicts that don't fall into the aforementioned minority categories. Even if 20 million are liquidated, there will still be plenty of vermin around to replenish their numbers. -- Tom Veil
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:05:22PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Mike Rossing wrote... Just gotta kill off a few more arabs to extend the time when that happens is all. That gives me a damned good idea. Perhaps we can use Camp XRay to do some research on how to melt down Muslims and convert then directly into fossil fuels, bypassing all the middlemen...Muslim-powered vehicles could sport a cute lil' sticker proclaiming Allah On Board. No research needed. People have been making biodiesel out of any sort of fats for ages, including animal fats, fish oil, etc. As we speak, there are many people in this world driving their vehicles on biodiesel made from rendered beef and pork fat. And the Reich was rendering human fat. Although canola oil is a much better source for fuel. And diesels a much better IC engine for hybrids. Even in non-hybrids, VW builds some pretty nice diesel cars, including the Lupo, on the market for a couple years now, which gets 80mpg. And the prototype that VW's CEO drives around in that gets 280mpg. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: [DIGRESSION] RE: the news from bush's speech...H-power
Mike Rossing wrote... Just gotta kill off a few more arabs to extend the time when that happens is all. That gives me a damned good idea. Perhaps we can use Camp XRay to do some research on how to melt down Muslims and convert then directly into fossil fuels, bypassing all the middlemen...Muslim-powered vehicles could sport a cute lil' sticker proclaiming Allah On Board. -TD _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
At 3:43 PM -0800 1/29/03, Tim May wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 03:18 PM, Bill Frantz wrote: Back a few years ago, probably back during the great gas crisis (i.e. OPEC) years, there were a lot of small companies working on solar power. As far as I know, they were all bought up by oil companies. Of course, only a paranoid would think that they were bought to suppress a competing technology. ... The issues are complex, but have zero to do with leftie fantasies about oil companies suppressing technologies. I agree, as I said above. At most the purchase of these companies may have slowed research by not providing as much funding. More likely it speeded research by providing a sponsor with a longer term view than the public capitol markets. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the Ameican | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: CDR: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: The 2-4 year payback cycle in the electronics industry, from roughly 1955 to the present, was terribly important. Each generation of technology paid for the next generation, and costly mistakes resulted in companies ceasing to exist (Shockley Transistor, Rheem, Precision Monolithics, and so on...the list is long). Successful products led to the genes (or memes) propagating. Phenotypes and genotypes. This same model gave us, basically, the commercial automobile and aviation industries. I agree completely with what you're saying, and I'm not sure that Eugene would agree with what I'm writing here. One of the problems I think is rampant with, for instance, getting alternate fuel sources off the ground is that government subsidies are ensuring they don't happen by distorting the market for fossil fuels. Ethically, the entire situation is absurd. Realistically, if someone actually wants to try to build say, a hydrogen powered car, government interference in your business is a fact of life, and looking for angles to Make It Work are the only way to attempt to compete. There are a metric assload of good ideas that have been killed by government interference in markets. I know this is part of what you were saying. This is important to call out. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 03:18 PM, Bill Frantz wrote: At 2:24 PM -0800 1/29/03, Eugen Leitl wrote: Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). Back a few years ago, probably back during the great gas crisis (i.e. OPEC) years, there were a lot of small companies working on solar power. As far as I know, they were all bought up by oil companies. Of course, only a paranoid would think that they were bought to suppress a competing technology. Some of the leading PV panels are those from BP (British Petroleoum). These can be ordered, along with those from Kyocera, Astropower, Siemens, and others, from many sites. Use Google to find them. My brother worked for one of these companies at their Simi Valley/Thousand Oaks site about 20 years ago. The issues are complex, but have zero to do with leftie fantasies about oil companies suppressing technologies. There is no way to control fundamental breakthroughs, whether PV conversion or caburetors that violate the laws of physics!. Any of the above non-oil companies (and one can add Texas Instruments and others to the list) which develops a more efficient, cheaper to manufacture PV system will find success. --Tim May
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 02:24 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). It's about the single most powerful reason for federally funded research to exist. I should have mentioned in my first reply that you need to spend some time looking into evolutionary learning and markets. For example, the importance of quick feedback and correction, with profits determining which markets are explored. I have strong views on this, having studied the electronics/semiconductor market for many years, having studied carefully the role of intermediate products (such as RTL -- DTL -- TTL -- op amps -- MOS RAMs -- 4-bit microprocessors -- etc.). Products introduced in 1963, say, were generally making the bulk of a company's profits by 1965-66, paying for the 1965 R D and the 1966 product rollouts, which then paid for the 1967-69 cycle, etc. I know this was true of the earlier technologies and it matched everything I saw in my years at Intel and thereafter. The 2-4 year payback cycle in the electronics industry, from roughly 1955 to the present, was terribly important. Each generation of technology paid for the next generation, and costly mistakes resulted in companies ceasing to exist (Shockley Transistor, Rheem, Precision Monolithics, and so on...the list is long). Successful products led to the genes (or memes) propagating. Phenotypes and genotypes. This same model gave us, basically, the commercial automobile and aviation industries. Moon shots, on the other hand, distort markets, suffer from a lack of evolutionary learning, and have almost no breakthroughs (But what about Tang?). I am proud to announce, as your President, the goal of creating our national mechanical brain, a machine which will be built with one million relays and vacuum tubes. I am committing one billion dollars to this noble endeavour. We expect to have the mechanical brain operating by 1970. --President Dwight Eisenhower, 1958. Really, Eugene, you need to think deeply about this issue. Ask your lab associate, A. G., about why learning and success/failure is so important for so many industries. Read some Hayek, some von Mises, some Milton Friedman. And even some David Friedman. Ask why the U.S.S.R., which depended essentially solely on federal funding, failed so completely. Hint: it wasn't just because of repression. It was largely because picking winners doesn't work, and command economies only know how to pick winners (they think). Think deeply about why this list is what it is.
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:18:44PM -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: At 2:24 PM -0800 1/29/03, Eugen Leitl wrote: Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). Back a few years ago, probably back during the great gas crisis (i.e. OPEC) years, there were a lot of small companies working on solar power. As far as I know, they were all bought up by oil companies. Of course, only a paranoid would think that they were bought to suppress a competing technology. All bought up by oil companies? Hmmm -- maybe you should do some googling on solar panels, alternative energy, etc. Solar's been a growing industry for some time, being very widely installed around the world. You can even buy it a Home Depot. It's getting quite cheap, many people are finding it a better buy than paying an electric bill. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
At 2:24 PM -0800 1/29/03, Eugen Leitl wrote: Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). Back a few years ago, probably back during the great gas crisis (i.e. OPEC) years, there were a lot of small companies working on solar power. As far as I know, they were all bought up by oil companies. Of course, only a paranoid would think that they were bought to suppress a competing technology. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the Ameican | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 02:24 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: Nonsense. What political science do you think was stopping Ford or Honda or Volvo or GM from introducing a hydrogen fuel cell car by 1980? What I meant is lack of lots of fat federal grants for research on fuel reformers, hydrogen separation, proton membranes, alternative catalysts, and the like. The fund allocation (or, rather, lack thereof) was sure politically motivated. Well, in your country (Germany, IIRC), perhaps such funding is permissable. In the U.S., it really is not. Constitutionally, that is. The government exists to do certain things, not to pick technology winners. Yes, I realize there was a space program..it was unconstitutional, IMO, as it had nothing to do per se with national defense or other constitutionally-specified purposes of collecting and disbursing taxpayer money. Other programs, like cancer research and diet studies, are even more unconstitutional. See also the next point, about the effects the Moon Shot had on alternatives. Feds are sure inefficient, but the random dispersal of funds does tend to hit the far shots now and then. The private sector tends to ruthlessly optimize on the short run (because the long shot doesn't pay if you go broke before you can reap the possible benefits). The effects are much worse than you imply. Government picking winners means that competitors are undermined and deprecated. Not only does the funding distort the market, but the government often finds ways to actually _ban_ alternatives. (Sometimes the ban is explicit, often it is implicit, in terms of universities and corporations only being allowed to compete in For example, the space program. The Moon Flag Planting cost about 100,000 slave-lives (about $125 thousand milliion in today's dollars) to finance. It distorted the market for things like single stage to orbit, which might have happened otherwise. And it created a bureaucracy more intent on spreading pork to Huntsville, Houston, Canaveral, and other pork sites. (Surprising that Robert Byrd failed to get WVa picked as the control center. He was too junior then, probably.) I don't have time/energy to explain in a lot of detail why you are so wrong here, why your slippage into statism is not only surprising given your subscription to this list, but is also dead wrong. I won't bother responding to your arguments in favor of national socialism. --Tim May, Corralitos, California Quote of the Month: It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. --Cathy Young, Reason Magazine, both enemies of liberty.
Re: CDR: Re: the news from bush's speech...H-power
Tim writes: There is no way to control fundamental breakthroughs, whether PV conversion or caburetors that violate the laws of physics!. Any of the above non-oil companies (and one can add Texas Instruments and others to the list) which develops a more efficient, cheaper to manufacture PV system will find success. Ovshinsky, the amorphous semiconductor guy, developed a relatively efficient photovoltaic film that could be manufactured by continuous extrusion by a simple machine. For some reason, that never hit the big time either. While I will agree with you that fundamental breakthroughs cannot be put back into Pandora's Box, some industries, like automobile manufacturing, have high costs of entry due to regulation and safety requirements. Thus, snidely saying you are free to start your own car company is just a tiny bit disingenuous. As a recent article linked from Slashdot informs us, gadgets sink or swim based on The Whole Product, which includes not only the clever engineering, but the service and support, availability of software, interoperability, consumer culture, the upgrade path, and the perception the company will be around tomorrow. The typical Wintel PC contains not the best microprocessor, not the best bus, most certainly not the best OS. You are free to start your own computer company, of course. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
