Re: Questions of size...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Ray Dillinger wrote: (RAH might have called it a geodesic political culture if he hadn't got this strange Marxist idea that politics is just an emergent property of economics :-) Just by the way, how widespread is this use of the word 'geodesic'? Not very, I think. It seems it's RAH's specialty. It's quite poetic, actually. Offhand, I'd refer to many of the things I've seen it used for here as 'distributed' or 'fractal'. Is 'geodesic' an accepted term of art for a network or protocol in which all the parts work roughly the same way? Although 'geodesic' does have, through its use in general relativity, some faint echo of 'operates purely based on local information', I think it's a misnomer. People should rather use the term 'distributed' literally, as it's used in computer science. That's the meaning RAH is after, not true? Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Fractal geodesic networks
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Carol A Braddock wrote: So say you -could- estimate a fractal dimension for the internet. What would the number be good for? If it could be shown that a consistent estimate exists and it was calculated, it would probably affect the scaling properties of the Net - after all, what are fractal dimensions but numbers relating linear scale changes to changes in measures? Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Close Elections and Causality
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Kevin Elliott wrote: This is why people who don't know statistics should not be allowed to think... By no means is that number, by itself, of any significance whatsoever. How many got canceled last election- one number I heard said 14,000. If so then 19,000 is about what one would expect considering increased voter turnout and normal statistical fluctuations. Quite. The problem here is what happens when the mean expected error of the estimate given by the ballot starts to get significant with respect to the mean popularity difference being measured. There is always some error, but it is not often that the actual difference in votes given to the main participants shrinks too low for the error to have any relevance. Simply put, we are faced with the scourge of binary decision problems based on noisy data. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Close Elections and Causality
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote: In close elections, as in close sports games, as in the golf example, there will be many events which are later claimed to be "hinge points," or forks. Which is pretty much caused by the count being seen as an advancing 'race' with a definite order. I've never understood what the hell is a direct broadcast all about when all the votes have already been cast. Again, a misuse of the term "causation." Yep. People tend to have trouble with things causal. Second, at the time of the "approximately simultaneous" vote on Tuesday, no particular state, no particular county, and no particular precinct had any way of "knowing" that it would be a hinge site. In even simpler terms, if there is an actual draw, every single vote is precisely as much the fork as any other. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: FW: BLOCK: ATT signs bulk hosting contract with spammers
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Tom Vogt wrote: You know, I don't like spammers any more than the next guy, but come on. Unethical? we're not talking genocide and it's not like it cause significant (heck, even measurable) harm. as a matter of fact, it does. the quantity of it, you know. if your 1 mio spam mails cause every receipient half a sec (on average) to discard, you've just wasted roughly a week of worktime. I think it's more about the principle of it. No sane, sensible, tolerant person would go as far as to try to regulate spam. Or, indeed, UBE-friendly ISPs. But bulk mailing is such reprehensible behavior that it surely deserves a pile of social and technological sanctions. Blacklisting, shunning, DoS attacks and teergrube-kinda software immediately spring to mind, a combination of the first and last perhaps being the least intrusive. I totally fail to grasp why governments seem so intent on criminalizing most such measures. To me they seem like the essential ingredients of basic cyber-hygiene. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Hard Shelled ISP?
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote: For another, most people have not themelves experience a security problem. While they understand how neighborhood thieves can break in and steal their stuff, they have no similar experience for their computer data. Unless and until this changes, they just won't care very much. Of course, a substantial part of real privacy problems never manifest themselves as such. The bits leak and do their damage (Men with Guns mysteriously knowing precisely on whose door to knock, companies suddenly not having a job opening after all, competitors making highly informed decisions etc.) without people even realising what hit them. It's no wonder few people ever come to think of privacy, expect perhaps with financial transactions. Given the widespread habit of spreading VISA numbers around, even that isn't a given. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Parties
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Eric Murray wrote: Why should I vote for someone who doesn't stand for what I beleive in just because the media says that they're "not electable"? That's the kind of loser attitude that's gotten us a contest that'll assuredly elect either an idiot (Bush) or a fool (Gore). Unfortunately Americans are more interested in voting for a "winner" than they are in voting their concious. That's commendable idealism, but in most modern countries the electorial process is practically guaranteed - and in fact mostly designed - to in essence round out dissent. The fact that voting for the loser implies casting your vote for nothing, *even in matters which had nothing to do with the winner being elected*, simply means that there is absolutely no point in voting for someone who cannot win. It's a nasty side effect of the present implementation of democracy based on a mix of representative democracy, political parties, the relative voting system (dunno if you guys have this) and what have you. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Risk and insurance
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote: recant "Recount", right? So right it hurts. GOD! Asking Tim, or anyone else here for that matter, me included, to recant something, is, of course, an invitation to verbal violence. :-). You can say that again. For less, even, as I well know. Every once in a while I just hate not being a native. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Niiice kitty....
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, James A.. Donald wrote: Chomsky is hardly a reliable source. He routinely fabricates or falsifies quotes. I suggest you check his alleged sources. Do you have some past examples at hand?` Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty
ve to be tolerated even though they infringe on your rights is to a degree arbitrary and subject to change. It's a gray area and should be left as such. There will always be such a gray area, though. E.g. you cannot expect to shut people up based on the acoustics of their speech violating your right to be left alone. Not even when you have no way to escape the sound. "Oppress"? Where did that come from? Again, your words are slippery and seem to mean whatever you want them to mean from moment to moment. I don't consider my failure to do as you wish I would "oppression". A hypothetical: I own everything around you for some 100 miles. Let's say that 100 miles happens to be desert. Your failure to comply with my wish of transportation the hell out of there or sustain me is equivalent to killing me. I call such incompliance oppression. Webster for oppression: 'To impose excessive burdens upon; to overload; hence, to treat with unjust rigor or with cruelty'. First "oppress", now "exploit". You've been reading your Marx again, haven't you? Again, my failure to satisfy your every whim does not constitute "exploitation". Webster for 'exploit': 'To utilize; to make available; to get the value or usefulness out of; as, to exploit a mine or agricultural lands; to exploit public opinion'. I'm not talking about satisfying whims, but basic needs. If you have in your power to fulfill such a need, I cannot myself, and I will be rid of a fundamental right (like the right to life) otherwise, you should satisfy the need. If you take this as a premise, as I try to, not complying fits the above description. Could you explain how this differs from fascism? Fascism? I don't see the relationship. Indeed, it is your notion that people must be forced to act in certain ways by an all-powerful government, not mine. Who said anything about a government. Or all-powerful. Who said anything about forcing (persuasion can have equivalent results, as the Drug War demonstrates). What I'm talking about is oppression by majorities, which can very well happen with or without a government. Certainly not I. Liberty is another word you could stand to look up. Webster: 'The state of a free person; exemption from subjection to the will of another claiming ownership of the person or services; freedom; -- opposed to slavery, serfdom, bondage, or subjection.' Nothing here to suggest certain limitations cannot be made. Liberty does not equal equality. Nor is equality a goal I would espouse for the kind of society I believe in, since that inevitably means taking from those who have more and giving to those who have less (without regard to whether they "deserve" it or not). In my books, freedom/liberty also does not equal the right to limit other's respective freedoms/liberties. Both words are defined as the absence of a condition which in all practical situations to so degree applies. They cannot be interpreted absolutely. You will also have a lot of explaining to do if you assume that those who have automatically deserve to. I'm not going to turn Marxist on you, here, but I consider inequality something that should be limited (though not abolished). Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Jodi Hoffman wrote: AIDS/HIV: $39,172.00 Diabetes: $ 5,449.00 Cancer: $ 3,776.00 Heart Disease: $ 1,056.00 Stroke: $ 765.00 What's wrong with this picture? You don't get cancer by engaging in promiscuous sex. Nope. You get it by smoking. You likely get diabetes by leading an unhealthy life - overweight is a primary factor. The same goes for cardiovascular conditions as well. 'Advocate taxing girth? Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Whipped Europenas
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, No User wrote: Nuh. I think they should be happy about biology education - might one day give them a nice young crackpot with the talent to create a drug user killing flu... Or better yet, a flu that killed everybody without sufficient THC residue in their body. Or a modified influenza (which I think is a retrovirus - anybody?) which actually splices your THC gene into the subject's own genes for good, perhaps with a promoter area borrowed from some suitably chosen selectively activated gene (say, the gene controlling lactic acid metabolism which could make for a high every time the person engages in anything physical). Whatever. Of course there are lots of variations. Actually I think that the post about THC producing oranges is a bit far flung. From what I know about THC, it's pretty far from a protein, which are the only things produced under the control of a single gene. I also think that oranges are not very close relatives of hemp, so it is unlikely that close enough precursors to THC would be present to enable us to produce THC with the addition of a single enzymatic cleavage stage or some such simple step. And from what I know about genetic technology, it isn't quite on the level of enabling complicated (i.e. considerably more than a single gene) biochemical syntheses to be transferred from species to species. In a word, I think the magic oranges might be legend. Of course, there might be shortcuts - instead of using recombinant DNA techniques, we could perhaps try to get cells with both orange and hemp cellular nuclei to divide. I don't think either of these particular plants is prone to accepting such a treatment (unlike, I think, rye). Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Re: Is kerberos broken?
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, petro wrote: Of course, a *simple* substitution of one word (or even spaces) would make this *much* harder. As I said, people on this list hardly have a problem with dictionary attacks. "Friends, Romulans, fellow countrymen, lend me your beers..." (I probably buthered the hell out of that, never having heard or read the original, but I think it gets the point across) Wasn't that your whole point? ;) Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Whipped Europeans
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Tim May wrote: And when Denmark and Norway, say, decide to leave the Union, look for the fascists to dust off the speeches of Lincoln. Nitpickin': Norway never joined. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Good work by FBI and SEC on Emulex fraud case
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Eric Murray wrote: A small note: IW digitally-signing the releases would not have made a difference in this case-- the guy used his knowledge of IW's procedures to social-engineer IW into accepting the fake release without doing their usual checking procedures. So essentially what you are saying is that this was not computer crime. We do not need a Big Brotherish society to thwart computer crime, especially if it's not computer crime in the first place. When/if we do ever have the common use of digitally-signed PR, documents etc, I wonder how much people will be fooled into thinking that the contents must be correct, because after all, they're signed? Well at least in that case, assuming those holding the authentication keys know what they're doing and guard their bits, the source of the information is attributable to someone, which enormously facilitates plain old police work. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: :If they truly believe in getting rid of guns, why don't they start with the :guns of their body guards? They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in getting rid of OUR guns. I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is tightly watched. The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their toes. Somewhat like the situation with drugs - no problem if 10% of the population does something sometime, a big problem if 90% does everything all the time. "police" who care not if they have the right house, or even the "right" to "search" in this way; "forfeiture laws" which allow the state to take whatever they want, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF DUE PROCESS; etc..) Are you talking about the same liberals as the original poster? Throughout history, every dictatorship has practiced arms [gun] confiscation and regulation in order to impede reactionary / revolutionary backlashes from their crimes - from Ceasar through Hitler, Stalin, and Clinton. On the other hand, everyday drive-by shootings and such aren't exactly pointed towards the powers that be. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
