Re: Blood, Bullets, Bombs and Bandwidth
On 2005-10-22T01:51:50-0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote: --- begin forwarded text Tyler and Jayme left Iraq in May 2005. The Arbil office failed; there wasn't enough business in Kurdistan. They moved to London, where Tyler still works for SSI. His time in Iraq has transformed him to the extent that, like Ryan, he doesn't think he can ever move back to the USA. His years of living hyperintensely, carrying a gun, building an organization from scratch in a war zone, have distanced him from his home. His friends seem to him to have stagnated. Their concerns seem trivial. And living with real, known, tangible danger has bred contempt for what he calls America's culture of fear. Tyler likes the high-speed lifestyle so much that he ditched it and moved to London? I doubt he's carrying a gun there. -- The six phases of a project: I. Enthusiasm. IV. Search for the Guilty. II. Disillusionment. V. Punishment of the Innocent. III. Panic.VI. Praise Honor for the Nonparticipants.
Multiple passports?
If I apply for a new one now, and then apply for a another one once the gov starts RFID-enabling them, will the first one be invalidated? Or can I have two passports, the one without RFID to use, and the one with RFID to play with? -- The six phases of a project: I. Enthusiasm. IV. Search for the Guilty. II. Disillusionment. V. Punishment of the Innocent. III. Panic.VI. Praise Honor for the Nonparticipants.
Re: Multiple passports?
On 2005-10-29T21:17:25-0700, Gregory Hicks wrote: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:05:25 + From: Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I apply for a new one now, and then apply for a another one once the gov starts RFID-enabling them, will the first one be invalidated? Or can I have two passports, the one without RFID to use, and the one with RFID to play with? I am not a State Dept person, but my experiences in this are... As for applying for one now, I think the deadline for the non-RFID passwords is about 3 days away (31 Oct 2005), but I could be wrong. (In other words, if your application is not in processing by 31 Oct, then you get the new, improved, RFID passport.) The Department intends to begin the electronic passport program in December 2005. The first stage will be a pilot program in which the electronic passports will be issued to U.S. Government employees who use Official or Diplomatic passports for government travel. This pilot program will permit a limited number of passports to be issued and field tested prior to the first issuance to the American traveling public, slated for early 2006. By October 2006, all U.S. passports, with the exception of a small number of emergency passports issued by U.S. embassies or consulates, will be electronic passports. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-21284.htm (2005-10-25 Fed. Reg.) It sounds like it's fairly safe to get a new passport after Halloween... at least until January. -- The six phases of a project: I. Enthusiasm. IV. Search for the Guilty. II. Disillusionment. V. Punishment of the Innocent. III. Panic.VI. Praise Honor for the Nonparticipants.
Re: Blood, Bullets, Bombs and Bandwidth
On 2005-10-22T01:51:50-0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote: --- begin forwarded text Tyler and Jayme left Iraq in May 2005. The Arbil office failed; there wasn't enough business in Kurdistan. They moved to London, where Tyler still works for SSI. His time in Iraq has transformed him to the extent that, like Ryan, he doesn't think he can ever move back to the USA. His years of living hyperintensely, carrying a gun, building an organization from scratch in a war zone, have distanced him from his home. His friends seem to him to have stagnated. Their concerns seem trivial. And living with real, known, tangible danger has bred contempt for what he calls America's culture of fear. Tyler likes the high-speed lifestyle so much that he ditched it and moved to London? I doubt he's carrying a gun there. -- The six phases of a project: I. Enthusiasm. IV. Search for the Guilty. II. Disillusionment. V. Punishment of the Innocent. III. Panic.VI. Praise Honor for the Nonparticipants.
Multiple passports?
If I apply for a new one now, and then apply for a another one once the gov starts RFID-enabling them, will the first one be invalidated? Or can I have two passports, the one without RFID to use, and the one with RFID to play with? -- The six phases of a project: I. Enthusiasm. IV. Search for the Guilty. II. Disillusionment. V. Punishment of the Innocent. III. Panic.VI. Praise Honor for the Nonparticipants.
Re: [PracticalSecurity] Anonymity - great technology but hardly used
On 2005-10-26T08:21:08+0200, Stephan Neuhaus wrote: cyphrpunk wrote: The main threat to this illegal but widely practiced activity is legal action by copyright holders against individual traders. The only effective protection against these threats is the barrier that could be provided by anonymity. An effective, anonymous file sharing network would see rapid adoption and would be the number one driver for widespread use of anonymity. If I thought I was being ripped off by anonymous file sharing, I'd try to push legislation that would mandate registering beforehand any download volume exceeding x per month. Downloaded more than x per month but not registered? Then you'll have to lay open your traffic, including encryption keys. The reasoning would be that most people won't have any legitimate business downloading more than x per month. By adjusting x, you can make a strong case. Once you get this enacted, you first get the ones with huge download volumes; then you lower x and repeat until the number of false positives gets too embarassing. This legislation would also require mandatory reporting by ISPs of subscribers' traffic patterns? Most people don't have any legitimate business writing for public consumption on blogs. Most people don't have any legitimate business owning cars that can go over 75MPH. Most people don't have any legitimate business for owning more scary-looking black rifles. If you tried to push this hypothetical legislation, you'd end up on some cypherpunk's to-kill list. Of course, those threats are all hot-air. Has anyone who's life has been threatened on cypherpunks-l (since Jim Bell) gotten so much as a scratch at the hands of a threatener? -- This is not the grand arena.
Re: [PracticalSecurity] Anonymity - great technology but hardly used
On 2005-10-26T08:21:08+0200, Stephan Neuhaus wrote: cyphrpunk wrote: The main threat to this illegal but widely practiced activity is legal action by copyright holders against individual traders. The only effective protection against these threats is the barrier that could be provided by anonymity. An effective, anonymous file sharing network would see rapid adoption and would be the number one driver for widespread use of anonymity. If I thought I was being ripped off by anonymous file sharing, I'd try to push legislation that would mandate registering beforehand any download volume exceeding x per month. Downloaded more than x per month but not registered? Then you'll have to lay open your traffic, including encryption keys. The reasoning would be that most people won't have any legitimate business downloading more than x per month. By adjusting x, you can make a strong case. Once you get this enacted, you first get the ones with huge download volumes; then you lower x and repeat until the number of false positives gets too embarassing. This legislation would also require mandatory reporting by ISPs of subscribers' traffic patterns? Most people don't have any legitimate business writing for public consumption on blogs. Most people don't have any legitimate business owning cars that can go over 75MPH. Most people don't have any legitimate business for owning more scary-looking black rifles. If you tried to push this hypothetical legislation, you'd end up on some cypherpunk's to-kill list. Of course, those threats are all hot-air. Has anyone who's life has been threatened on cypherpunks-l (since Jim Bell) gotten so much as a scratch at the hands of a threatener? -- This is not the grand arena.
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
On 2005-10-19T19:59:18+, Gil Hamilton wrote: Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have. It's hard to imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and receive permission from the government. Blame the framers. They separately enumerated freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which suggests at least a little bit that freedom of the press includes something extra. -- Do you know what your sin is?
Re: [Politech] More on Barney lawyer yearning to hack copyright infringers' sites [ip]
On 2005-10-19T10:37:55-0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/17/barney-lawyer-recommends/ Responses: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/19/more-on-barney/ Some of the first-round responses mentioned the iniquities involved in attacking hosted sites, but what if the site that appears to be involved in copyright infringement isn't? There is no assurance that the suspect IP address isn't forwarding illegal (outgoing) traffic from some other machine, or that it doesn't forward incoming traffic to some other machine. Suppose someone has a wireless firewall appliance set up to forward a number of common ports to an interior server. Attacking a suspect IP results in an attack on an uninvolved interior server. The copyright violation might be some unauthorized person connecting through a wireless gateway, so the owner of the interior server might not be in any way connected to the copyright violation. Suppose someone is running a web proxy. An attack on a suspect IP address results in an attack on the machine running the web proxy. An open web proxy, while it may violate an ISP contract, is not illegal, and by itself the proxy is not connected to any illegal activity (except maybe in China, etc.). Suppose someone is involved in copyright infringement, but forwards all incoming connections on certain ports [while dropping traffic to the rest...] to an IP address associated with the Chinese Embassy. Is it clear who's responsible when a copyright holder ends up attacking a Chinese computer? Even if the person who set up the port forwarding is responsible for _connections_ to the Chinese Embassy made as a result, does that make him responsible for willful attacks conducted by copyright holders? If copyright hackers get immunity as long as they attack the public IP address that appears to be distributing copyrighted material, the consequences will be much worse than those of DMCA take-down provisions. ISPs everywhere would police their own networks with a vengeance to mitigate the risk that some copyright holder would find something first, attack the ISP, and cause major damage (not to mention subsequent loss of customers). At least with the DMCA, ISPs get notified and have a chance to act before something bad happens, which generally means low levels of in-house policing.
Re: [Politech] More on Barney lawyer yearning to hack copyright infringers' sites [ip]
On 2005-10-19T10:37:55-0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/17/barney-lawyer-recommends/ Responses: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/19/more-on-barney/ Some of the first-round responses mentioned the iniquities involved in attacking hosted sites, but what if the site that appears to be involved in copyright infringement isn't? There is no assurance that the suspect IP address isn't forwarding illegal (outgoing) traffic from some other machine, or that it doesn't forward incoming traffic to some other machine. Suppose someone has a wireless firewall appliance set up to forward a number of common ports to an interior server. Attacking a suspect IP results in an attack on an uninvolved interior server. The copyright violation might be some unauthorized person connecting through a wireless gateway, so the owner of the interior server might not be in any way connected to the copyright violation. Suppose someone is running a web proxy. An attack on a suspect IP address results in an attack on the machine running the web proxy. An open web proxy, while it may violate an ISP contract, is not illegal, and by itself the proxy is not connected to any illegal activity (except maybe in China, etc.). Suppose someone is involved in copyright infringement, but forwards all incoming connections on certain ports [while dropping traffic to the rest...] to an IP address associated with the Chinese Embassy. Is it clear who's responsible when a copyright holder ends up attacking a Chinese computer? Even if the person who set up the port forwarding is responsible for _connections_ to the Chinese Embassy made as a result, does that make him responsible for willful attacks conducted by copyright holders? If copyright hackers get immunity as long as they attack the public IP address that appears to be distributing copyrighted material, the consequences will be much worse than those of DMCA take-down provisions. ISPs everywhere would police their own networks with a vengeance to mitigate the risk that some copyright holder would find something first, attack the ISP, and cause major damage (not to mention subsequent loss of customers). At least with the DMCA, ISPs get notified and have a chance to act before something bad happens, which generally means low levels of in-house policing.
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
On 2005-10-19T19:59:18+, Gil Hamilton wrote: Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have. It's hard to imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and receive permission from the government. Blame the framers. They separately enumerated freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which suggests at least a little bit that freedom of the press includes something extra. -- Do you know what your sin is?
Re: Wired on Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case
On 2005-09-20T12:14:13-0400, Tyler Durden wrote: Very interesting CPunks reading, for a variety of reasons. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 I'm sick of this mosaic theory being used to justify preventing access to unclassified information. -- War is the father of all and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus DK-53
Re: Wired on Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case
On 2005-09-20T12:14:13-0400, Tyler Durden wrote: Very interesting CPunks reading, for a variety of reasons. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 I'm sick of this mosaic theory being used to justify preventing access to unclassified information. -- War is the father of all and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus DK-53
Re: /. [Intel Adds DRM to New Chips]
On 2005-05-28T21:53:52+0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/28/1718200 Posted by: Zonk, on 2005-05-28 17:37:00 from the get-you-where-you-live dept. Badluck writes Microsoft and the entertainment industry's holy grail of controlling copyright through the motherboard has moved a step closer with Intel Corp. now embedding [1]digital rights management within in its latest dual-core processor Pentium D and accompanying 945 chipset. Officially launched worldwide on the May 26, the new offerings come [2]DRM -enabled and will, at least in theory, allow copyright holders to prevent unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard rather than through the operating system as is currently the case... [3]The Inquirer has the story as well. Is slashdot really a news source? How about posting one of the articles cited instead. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. -William Strom Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: /. [GPS-tracked Clothing]
On 2005-05-29T18:46:43+0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/29/1547234 Posted by: CmdrTaco, on 2005-05-29 16:07:00 from the finally-i-have-to-ask-why dept. [1]Anil Kandangath writes A Japanese firm has shown off new technology that enables GPS units to be embedded [2]in clothing that will enable the wearer to be tracked continuously. The device is thin enough to be tacked on unobtrusively and is powered by a thin watch battery. As opposed to a thick watch battery? It is also capable of taking biometric measurements and [3]transmitting them PCs and handheld devices. Is that english? I don't think the device transmits PCs and handheld devices to biometric measurements. Though marketed as a device to enable people to keep track of spouses, how long before such technology becomes intrusive in our lives? Like tracking your spouse is ok?. What a world! I know that isn't english, and it's only marginally coherent. I would much rather read a summary written by someone literate. References 1. http://www.ecogito.net/anil I don't see it. 2. http://forgetmenotpanties.contagiousmedia.org/ 3. http://forgetmenotpanties.contagiousmedia.org/sensatech.html Uh huh. This looks like a joke or a scam. Even if it's not, I have a hard time believing that a girlfriend/wife/daughter is not going to notice that in her panties, and I doubt sufficiently miniaturized GPS receivers could be made for so little money. Perhaps that's why Anil seems to have removed the entry in his blog? Do you now understand why I hate redistribution of slashdot stories? -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. -William Strom Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
google maps and latitude, longitude
For anyone who doesn't already know, there are several ways to get google maps to display a latitude/longitude. You can enter them in the query box like so: 35.5N 115.5W or 35.5,-115.5 (I think they added those within the last week or two.) Or you can use the original method, a GET-style form (I don't know whether POST works): form id=gooform action=http://maps.google.com/maps; method=get style=margin: 2px; input type=text value= name=q size=30 maxlength=512 / (lat,long input type=text value=33.835,-116.99 name=ll size=14 /) (span input type=text value=.001,.001 name=spn size=9 /) (type input type=text value=k name=t size=1 /) input type=submit value=Go / /form which translates into http://maps.google.com/maps?q=ll=33.835%2C-116.99spn=.001%2C.001t=k -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. -William Strom Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: /. [GPS-tracked Clothing]
On 2005-05-29T18:46:43+0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/29/1547234 Posted by: CmdrTaco, on 2005-05-29 16:07:00 from the finally-i-have-to-ask-why dept. [1]Anil Kandangath writes A Japanese firm has shown off new technology that enables GPS units to be embedded [2]in clothing that will enable the wearer to be tracked continuously. The device is thin enough to be tacked on unobtrusively and is powered by a thin watch battery. As opposed to a thick watch battery? It is also capable of taking biometric measurements and [3]transmitting them PCs and handheld devices. Is that english? I don't think the device transmits PCs and handheld devices to biometric measurements. Though marketed as a device to enable people to keep track of spouses, how long before such technology becomes intrusive in our lives? Like tracking your spouse is ok?. What a world! I know that isn't english, and it's only marginally coherent. I would much rather read a summary written by someone literate. References 1. http://www.ecogito.net/anil I don't see it. 2. http://forgetmenotpanties.contagiousmedia.org/ 3. http://forgetmenotpanties.contagiousmedia.org/sensatech.html Uh huh. This looks like a joke or a scam. Even if it's not, I have a hard time believing that a girlfriend/wife/daughter is not going to notice that in her panties, and I doubt sufficiently miniaturized GPS receivers could be made for so little money. Perhaps that's why Anil seems to have removed the entry in his blog? Do you now understand why I hate redistribution of slashdot stories? -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. -William Strom Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
google maps and latitude, longitude
For anyone who doesn't already know, there are several ways to get google maps to display a latitude/longitude. You can enter them in the query box like so: 35.5N 115.5W or 35.5,-115.5 (I think they added those within the last week or two.) Or you can use the original method, a GET-style form (I don't know whether POST works): form id=gooform action=http://maps.google.com/maps; method=get style=margin: 2px; input type=text value= name=q size=30 maxlength=512 / (lat,long input type=text value=33.835,-116.99 name=ll size=14 /) (span input type=text value=.001,.001 name=spn size=9 /) (type input type=text value=k name=t size=1 /) input type=submit value=Go / /form which translates into http://maps.google.com/maps?q=ll=33.835%2C-116.99spn=.001%2C.001t=k -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. -William Strom Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: /. [Intel Adds DRM to New Chips]
On 2005-05-28T21:53:52+0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/28/1718200 Posted by: Zonk, on 2005-05-28 17:37:00 from the get-you-where-you-live dept. Badluck writes Microsoft and the entertainment industry's holy grail of controlling copyright through the motherboard has moved a step closer with Intel Corp. now embedding [1]digital rights management within in its latest dual-core processor Pentium D and accompanying 945 chipset. Officially launched worldwide on the May 26, the new offerings come [2]DRM -enabled and will, at least in theory, allow copyright holders to prevent unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard rather than through the operating system as is currently the case... [3]The Inquirer has the story as well. Is slashdot really a news source? How about posting one of the articles cited instead. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. -William Strom Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: Anonymous Site Registration
On 2005-05-26T13:17:38-0400, Tyler Durden wrote: OK, what's the best way to put up a website anonymously? Tor? It's not immune from traffic analysis, but it's nearly the best you can do to hide the server's location/isp from clients. Let's assume that it has nothing to do with national security...the Feds aren't interested. BUT, let's assume that the existence and/or content of the website would probably direct a decent amount of law-suits. Hosting in a country that would laugh at lawsuits, like Sealand? Presumably there's no way to hide the ISP from the world, but one should hopefully be able to hide oneself and make legal action basically useless. Egold + fake address for registering agency seems a little problematic. You can try, but good physical anonymity for commerce is difficult unless you construct a fake identity good enough that you can use it to open bank accounts... without leaving any compromising fingerprints that your bank can turn over to the authorities. And there's the question of updating the site... Tor+rsync? -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. -William Strom Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: Anonymous Site Registration
On 2005-05-26T13:17:38-0400, Tyler Durden wrote: OK, what's the best way to put up a website anonymously? Tor? It's not immune from traffic analysis, but it's nearly the best you can do to hide the server's location/isp from clients. Let's assume that it has nothing to do with national security...the Feds aren't interested. BUT, let's assume that the existence and/or content of the website would probably direct a decent amount of law-suits. Hosting in a country that would laugh at lawsuits, like Sealand? Presumably there's no way to hide the ISP from the world, but one should hopefully be able to hide oneself and make legal action basically useless. Egold + fake address for registering agency seems a little problematic. You can try, but good physical anonymity for commerce is difficult unless you construct a fake identity good enough that you can use it to open bank accounts... without leaving any compromising fingerprints that your bank can turn over to the authorities. And there's the question of updating the site... Tor+rsync? -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. -William Strom Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: Jesus Christ Meets Your Papers Please (fwd)
On 2005-05-10T08:53:31-0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: If you think this is stupid, just wait till the Real ID Act takes effect. There is already a Jesus Christ living in D.C. If it's legal for someone named Jesus Christ to move to D.C., it should be legal for a D.C. resident or no-longer resident to change his name to Jesus Christ. It's not technically an equal protection issue, but it strikes me as being some sort of discrimination. That doesn't stop a lot of states from passing discriminatory laws, though, as long as the particular discrimination being sought isn't listed in the CRA. Jesus Christ - (202) 543-9498 - , Washington, DC 20001 and other states: Jesus Christ - (310) 458-9440 - 1328 Euclid St, Santa Monica, CA 90404 Jesus A Christ - (207) 374-2175 - 19 Harborview Ct, Blue Hill, ME 04614 This may be the Jesus Christ in question: Jesus Christ - (304) 897-7727 - , Lost City, WV 26810 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/10/jesus.lawsuit.ap/index.html Jesus Christ in legal battle to get license Tuesday, May 10, 2005 Posted: 7:58 AM EDT (1158 GMT) CHARLESTON, West Virginia (AP) -- Even Jesus Christ can't circumvent the rules for getting a driver's license in West Virginia. ... Described by his attorney as a white-haired businessman in his mid-50s, Christ is moving to West Virginia to enjoy a slower lifestyle. He bought property near Lost River, about 100 miles west of Washington, and has a U.S. passport, Social Security card and Washington driver's license bearing the name Jesus Christ. But he still falls short of West Virginia title and license transfer requirements because his Florida birth certificate has his original name on it and he has been unable to obtain an official name change in Washington. I don't understand this. Washington D.C. doesn't handle birth certificates for people born in Florida. All of his federal documentation lists Jesus Christ as his name. Why is the problem in D.C.? It seems to me to be a little late for the brainless in Washington to try to put a lid on this. They should have done that when he got his SS card, passport, or driver's license. I'm somewhat interested in how he got his SS card, passport, and drivers license in a different name than was on his birth certificate. If he's only been using the name for 17 years, that puts both acquisitions at 1988 or later. Maybe decades before that it would have been possible, but how could he have gotten away with it so recently?
Re: Zero knowledge( ab )
On 2005-05-09T12:28:25-0400, Adam Back wrote: There is a simple protocol for this described in Schneier's Applied Crypto if you have one handy... (If I recall the application he illustrates with is: it allows two people to securely compare salary (which is larger) without either party divulging their specific salary to each other or to a trusted intermediary). Adam On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:00:58AM -0700, Sarad AV wrote: hi, If user A has the integer a and user B has the integer b, can a zero knowledge proof be developed to show that ab,ab or a=b. I don't recall that particular protocol in AC, but it's a mistake to call such a thing zero-knowledge, since it mandatorily leaks ~1.585 bits of information (the first time) about the other person's integer. Perform it enough with enough different integers on your side, and you'll be able to discover the other person's integer. There's the round-table of people who want to know what their average salary is, but that only works if there are more than two people and no two are in collusion. (one person generates a random number, adds that to salary, gives only the sum to the next person. Everyone else simply adds their salary and passes it on. It gets back to the originator who subtracts out the random number and divides by the number of people. Hence it doesn't work with 2 people. Technically, the two-person salary comparison isn't zero-knowledge either, which explains why I didn't find it in the zero-knowledge chapter (or maybe I've lost my ability to skim technical books). Once you know the average, you know something about your salary compared with both the overall average and the average of everyone else. You know that nobody can make any more than the sum. The trouble is that you don't know how many bits of information the other person _doesn't_ have about your salary. If they know you make either A, B, or C, running the protocol Adam mentions and choosing the middle salary will reveal the other person's exact salary.
Re: [IP] Real ID = National ID (fwd from dave@farber.net)
On 2005-05-09T19:55:26+, Justin wrote: What do we need security for? We need security because a lot of people hate the U.S., and because we won't close our borders, and Apparently I have not learned any lessons from the follies of a certain California governor. By close the borders, I mean secure the borders against illegal immigration. I have no interest in doing away with immigration.
Re: [IP] Real ID = National ID (fwd from dave@farber.net)
On 2005-05-09T12:22:22-0700, cypherpunk wrote: We already have de facto national ID in the form of our state driver's licenses. They are accepted at face value at all 50 states as well as by the federal government. Real ID would rationalize the issuing procedures and require a certain minimum of verification. Without it we have security that is only as strong as the weakest state's policies. States should be free to regulate DRIVERS however they want. The DL was not meant to be an ID card, and if it was that intent was unconstitutional. The entire DL scheme may be unconstitutional anyway, but oh well. What do we need security for? We need security because a lot of people hate the U.S., and because we won't close our borders, and because society has become too diverse. There is a significant correlation between cultural diversity/proximity and social unrest. That does not require people of different races; put white klansmen next to white members of the Black Panthers and you have the same thing. None of those three core problems will be solved by RealID. Therefore, while RealID may make some difference at the margins, it cannot be very effective.
Re: Jesus Christ Meets Your Papers Please (fwd)
On 2005-05-10T08:53:31-0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: If you think this is stupid, just wait till the Real ID Act takes effect. There is already a Jesus Christ living in D.C. If it's legal for someone named Jesus Christ to move to D.C., it should be legal for a D.C. resident or no-longer resident to change his name to Jesus Christ. It's not technically an equal protection issue, but it strikes me as being some sort of discrimination. That doesn't stop a lot of states from passing discriminatory laws, though, as long as the particular discrimination being sought isn't listed in the CRA. Jesus Christ - (202) 543-9498 - , Washington, DC 20001 and other states: Jesus Christ - (310) 458-9440 - 1328 Euclid St, Santa Monica, CA 90404 Jesus A Christ - (207) 374-2175 - 19 Harborview Ct, Blue Hill, ME 04614 This may be the Jesus Christ in question: Jesus Christ - (304) 897-7727 - , Lost City, WV 26810 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/10/jesus.lawsuit.ap/index.html Jesus Christ in legal battle to get license Tuesday, May 10, 2005 Posted: 7:58 AM EDT (1158 GMT) CHARLESTON, West Virginia (AP) -- Even Jesus Christ can't circumvent the rules for getting a driver's license in West Virginia. ... Described by his attorney as a white-haired businessman in his mid-50s, Christ is moving to West Virginia to enjoy a slower lifestyle. He bought property near Lost River, about 100 miles west of Washington, and has a U.S. passport, Social Security card and Washington driver's license bearing the name Jesus Christ. But he still falls short of West Virginia title and license transfer requirements because his Florida birth certificate has his original name on it and he has been unable to obtain an official name change in Washington. I don't understand this. Washington D.C. doesn't handle birth certificates for people born in Florida. All of his federal documentation lists Jesus Christ as his name. Why is the problem in D.C.? It seems to me to be a little late for the brainless in Washington to try to put a lid on this. They should have done that when he got his SS card, passport, or driver's license. I'm somewhat interested in how he got his SS card, passport, and drivers license in a different name than was on his birth certificate. If he's only been using the name for 17 years, that puts both acquisitions at 1988 or later. Maybe decades before that it would have been possible, but how could he have gotten away with it so recently?
Re: Zero knowledge( ab )
On 2005-05-09T12:28:25-0400, Adam Back wrote: There is a simple protocol for this described in Schneier's Applied Crypto if you have one handy... (If I recall the application he illustrates with is: it allows two people to securely compare salary (which is larger) without either party divulging their specific salary to each other or to a trusted intermediary). Adam On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 06:00:58AM -0700, Sarad AV wrote: hi, If user A has the integer a and user B has the integer b, can a zero knowledge proof be developed to show that ab,ab or a=b. I don't recall that particular protocol in AC, but it's a mistake to call such a thing zero-knowledge, since it mandatorily leaks ~1.585 bits of information (the first time) about the other person's integer. Perform it enough with enough different integers on your side, and you'll be able to discover the other person's integer. There's the round-table of people who want to know what their average salary is, but that only works if there are more than two people and no two are in collusion. (one person generates a random number, adds that to salary, gives only the sum to the next person. Everyone else simply adds their salary and passes it on. It gets back to the originator who subtracts out the random number and divides by the number of people. Hence it doesn't work with 2 people. Technically, the two-person salary comparison isn't zero-knowledge either, which explains why I didn't find it in the zero-knowledge chapter (or maybe I've lost my ability to skim technical books). Once you know the average, you know something about your salary compared with both the overall average and the average of everyone else. You know that nobody can make any more than the sum. The trouble is that you don't know how many bits of information the other person _doesn't_ have about your salary. If they know you make either A, B, or C, running the protocol Adam mentions and choosing the middle salary will reveal the other person's exact salary.
Re: [IP] Real ID = National ID (fwd from dave@farber.net)
On 2005-05-09T12:22:22-0700, cypherpunk wrote: We already have de facto national ID in the form of our state driver's licenses. They are accepted at face value at all 50 states as well as by the federal government. Real ID would rationalize the issuing procedures and require a certain minimum of verification. Without it we have security that is only as strong as the weakest state's policies. States should be free to regulate DRIVERS however they want. The DL was not meant to be an ID card, and if it was that intent was unconstitutional. The entire DL scheme may be unconstitutional anyway, but oh well. What do we need security for? We need security because a lot of people hate the U.S., and because we won't close our borders, and because society has become too diverse. There is a significant correlation between cultural diversity/proximity and social unrest. That does not require people of different races; put white klansmen next to white members of the Black Panthers and you have the same thing. None of those three core problems will be solved by RealID. Therefore, while RealID may make some difference at the margins, it cannot be very effective.
Re: [IP] Real ID = National ID (fwd from dave@farber.net)
On 2005-05-09T19:55:26+, Justin wrote: What do we need security for? We need security because a lot of people hate the U.S., and because we won't close our borders, and Apparently I have not learned any lessons from the follies of a certain California governor. By close the borders, I mean secure the borders against illegal immigration. I have no interest in doing away with immigration.
Re: Stash Burn?
On 2005-05-02T10:13:50-0400, Tyler Durden wrote: 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? That's rather complicated and unlikely to succeed. A more practical solution would be a pod that can be jettisoned. Dark-colored or camo, rock-like, and indestructable for later retrieval. No cop would notice such a thing fired directly forward after he's pulled in behind you and lighted you up. Add a radio beacon for easy location after the cop has departed.
Re: [Politech] Thumbprinting visitors at the Statue of Liberty (fwd from declan@well.com)
On 2005-04-28T15:37:19-0700, cypherpunk wrote: Matthew's snapshots: one (http://www.boingboing.net/images/Liberty-Locker-Thumbs-2.jpg), two (http://www.boingboing.net/images/Liberty-Locker-Thumbs1.jpg). If this were really as much of a conspiracy as people are making it out to be, wouldn't it make sense to ask for THUMB prints? that's what the subject line says, and that's what the titles of the two jpeg files are. But if you look at the pictures, they plainly ask for the right index finger. I doubt the machine cares which finger visitors use. Since most people in this country are functionally illiterate, the average visitor may well present a thumb rather than an index finger.
Re: Email Certification?
On 2005-04-27T16:09:12-0400, Tyler Durden wrote: Oh...this post was connected to my previous one. Is there some way to make it evident that someone has opened your email? Hotmail could make this evident. - Force deleted messages to remain in the Trash bin for a week after receipt of the message, and display all Trashed mail in the Inbox with red strikethrough. - Record and display login ip addresses, dates, times, in the style of unix last. Each addresses different aspects of the problem. Right now, I can't think of anything you could do aside from suggesting that hotmail (or whoever) offer some kind of encryption service. If you're worried about unsophisticated attackers reading your mail, why not use PGP or S/MIME? That's one of the things encryption is for. Of course that wouldn't prevent an intruder from deleting all your mail, but hopefully the sender would notice your lack of response and contact you out-of-band. Nobody should consider email a reliable communications medium these days.
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
On 2005-03-26T22:35:23-0800, Eric Cordian wrote: Justin writes: Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick. I think we have to divide things we do for disabled people into care and heroic medical measures. I consider a feeding tube to fall into the former category. I like to think that care is doing what the patient wants. If the patient is uncommunicative (following a balloon with her eyes .5 times out of 1000 doesn't qualify as communication imho), the legal decision-maker can end any treatment. That which we may do to ourselves, if we are functioning, exceeds that which we may require others to do to us if we are not. I can deny myself food, water, and air, for instance. I cannot instruct others to deny me those things if I am rendered incapable of making my own decisions. Okay; I accept that. We can assault ourselves, but we cannot waiver in advance another's legal culpability if they assault us. She is not functioning, however. Her rights and the rights of her legal representative are the same. Anything that she could have requested in a living will can be requested by her legal representative, her husband. There is no reason for the feeding tube to be removed at all. It is not That depends on her condition. If she is merely a brainstem attached to a beating heart and a bunch of tissue, there are clear reasons for ending this spectacle. Utilitarian: she's using medical resources that could help people who have a chance at recovery. Utilitarian: the spectacle is diverting time and attention of citizens who should be focusing on increasing their personal wealth, and by extension the GDP. Out of sight, out of mind. Once she's dead, people will quickly become less distracted as the media can only run stories in her wake for so long. Ethical: She wouldn't want to live like this (the court's accepted this, but it's still disputed). Ethical: We don't want to see her live like this (which morphs into she wouldn't want US to suffer like this). I don't think this one's disputed, though Michael may take that view for financial reasons. If Terri were able to be spoon fed by an attendant, would the judge have then ordered spoon and attendant withdrawal? Would the papers report that the spoon is keeping her alive artificially? Can she recover to sentience, or is she merely a braindead automaton capable of swallowing? If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy) that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is willing to pay? Well, I would argue that you do not have a legal right to demand others restrict your air, food, and water, unless they need to be delivered in invasive uncomfortable ways that reduce your human dignity. So I don't get to define my own notion of human dignity? That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either? I think euthanasia is fine if the patient is suffering horribly, has all their marbles, and has less than six months to linger from a terminal illness. Three arbitrary thresholds. Two subjective: horrible suffering and all their marbles; one of them objective: 6 months. Terri Schiavo meets none of these criteria. Explain why your criteria matter and how the subjective ones are to be applied, and I might care. I certainly don't support the right of an adulterous spouse who swore up and down at the malpractice trial that he only wanted to care for his wife for the rest of her natural life, and who didn't mention her wish to not go on until 7 years after her brain injury, to have his brain-damaged wife starved and dehydrated to death solely on his say-so, absent any written indication of her wishes. What, you've never changed your mind about anything? She's been effectively braindead for over a decade. This could be a case of moving on emotionally. Terri's parents supported the adultery, based on news reports I've seen. I'm not saying it's morally right for him to cheat on her, but I take a very dim view of any State involvement in marriage. As far as I'm concerned, the marriage granted him the right to represent Terri in a situation like this, just as if they executed a medical power of attorney and never got married. I consider the marriage contract fully severable. His cheating on her doesn't materially affect any contractual aspect of the marriage, so unless she's around to get divorced, he can still legally represent her. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
On 2005-03-26T11:04:46-0800, Eric Cordian wrote: This just in from CNN: [FBI agents have arrested a North Carolina man on suspicion of soliciting offers over the Internet to kill Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview is accused of offering $250,000 for the killing of Schiavo and another $50,000 for the the elimination of the judge who ruled against Terri.] I wonder how much it is going to cost the taxpayers for the round the clock army this judge is going to need to protect his sorry life for the remainder of it. If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too. If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
On 2005-03-26T20:05:14-0800, Eric Cordian wrote: Justin writes: If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too. Somehow letting someone who has lived 15 years with a significant brain injury live out the rest of their normal life span just doesn't provoke people the same way dehydrating and starving them does. She is a corpse with a heartbeat. Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick. She has become a doll for her parents, who are too immature to grasp the concepts of life, death, and dignity. Presumably they're still stuck on God and selfishness. If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there. I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural, but I certainly wouldn't take water and food away from any human with a functioning brain stem, particularly when there are people to whom that person's life has meaning, and who are willing to provide them with care. If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy) that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is willing to pay? (Even if Terry's parents weren't willing or able to pay originally -- I don't know, and haven't investigated that aspect of the case -- if they manage to keep her alive, they'll probably get enough donations to keep her alive for millenia.) That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either? It would seem to be inconsistent if you did. How can someone choose to die if anyone else can veto that choice? The interesting political lesson here is that one stubborn judge, and his pals who band together to support him, can defy the will of the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and a majority of both houses of Congress. Thankfully, Neither Jeb nor George nor the U.S. Congress have any jurisdiction over this whatsoever. The courts do. Of the three equal branches of government, the unelected branch is more equal than the other two. Of course, we've known that since Marbury vs Madison. That is of course true, but not because of the decisions so far in this case. The law allows her spouse to decide what artificial means should be used to keep her alive. If you don't like it, again, lobby for a change to the law. The strong control the weak. The majority controls the minority. All we have here is a governmental system originally set up by the majority (maybe... at least no internal faction opposed it until 1860), where some people managed to get into positions of influence within the governmental machine despite having unpopular beliefs. I find it amusing that the Republican-dominated national Congress wants Terry kept alive, while Scalia has been quoted as saying, Mere factual innocent is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached. Republicans in general can't get anything right because their belief system is less coherent than any other. At least the supreme court didn't reverse the decision... not yet, at least. That's only because some of the Republicans are not-so-conservative and they all know the decision would be affirmed. Taking the case would just waste time. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
On 2005-03-26T22:35:23-0800, Eric Cordian wrote: Justin writes: Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick. I think we have to divide things we do for disabled people into care and heroic medical measures. I consider a feeding tube to fall into the former category. I like to think that care is doing what the patient wants. If the patient is uncommunicative (following a balloon with her eyes .5 times out of 1000 doesn't qualify as communication imho), the legal decision-maker can end any treatment. That which we may do to ourselves, if we are functioning, exceeds that which we may require others to do to us if we are not. I can deny myself food, water, and air, for instance. I cannot instruct others to deny me those things if I am rendered incapable of making my own decisions. Okay; I accept that. We can assault ourselves, but we cannot waiver in advance another's legal culpability if they assault us. She is not functioning, however. Her rights and the rights of her legal representative are the same. Anything that she could have requested in a living will can be requested by her legal representative, her husband. There is no reason for the feeding tube to be removed at all. It is not That depends on her condition. If she is merely a brainstem attached to a beating heart and a bunch of tissue, there are clear reasons for ending this spectacle. Utilitarian: she's using medical resources that could help people who have a chance at recovery. Utilitarian: the spectacle is diverting time and attention of citizens who should be focusing on increasing their personal wealth, and by extension the GDP. Out of sight, out of mind. Once she's dead, people will quickly become less distracted as the media can only run stories in her wake for so long. Ethical: She wouldn't want to live like this (the court's accepted this, but it's still disputed). Ethical: We don't want to see her live like this (which morphs into she wouldn't want US to suffer like this). I don't think this one's disputed, though Michael may take that view for financial reasons. If Terri were able to be spoon fed by an attendant, would the judge have then ordered spoon and attendant withdrawal? Would the papers report that the spoon is keeping her alive artificially? Can she recover to sentience, or is she merely a braindead automaton capable of swallowing? If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy) that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is willing to pay? Well, I would argue that you do not have a legal right to demand others restrict your air, food, and water, unless they need to be delivered in invasive uncomfortable ways that reduce your human dignity. So I don't get to define my own notion of human dignity? That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either? I think euthanasia is fine if the patient is suffering horribly, has all their marbles, and has less than six months to linger from a terminal illness. Three arbitrary thresholds. Two subjective: horrible suffering and all their marbles; one of them objective: 6 months. Terri Schiavo meets none of these criteria. Explain why your criteria matter and how the subjective ones are to be applied, and I might care. I certainly don't support the right of an adulterous spouse who swore up and down at the malpractice trial that he only wanted to care for his wife for the rest of her natural life, and who didn't mention her wish to not go on until 7 years after her brain injury, to have his brain-damaged wife starved and dehydrated to death solely on his say-so, absent any written indication of her wishes. What, you've never changed your mind about anything? She's been effectively braindead for over a decade. This could be a case of moving on emotionally. Terri's parents supported the adultery, based on news reports I've seen. I'm not saying it's morally right for him to cheat on her, but I take a very dim view of any State involvement in marriage. As far as I'm concerned, the marriage granted him the right to represent Terri in a situation like this, just as if they executed a medical power of attorney and never got married. I consider the marriage contract fully severable. His cheating on her doesn't materially affect any contractual aspect of the marriage, so unless she's around to get divorced, he can still legally represent her. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accommodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
On 2005-03-26T11:04:46-0800, Eric Cordian wrote: This just in from CNN: [FBI agents have arrested a North Carolina man on suspicion of soliciting offers over the Internet to kill Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview is accused of offering $250,000 for the killing of Schiavo and another $50,000 for the the elimination of the judge who ruled against Terri.] I wonder how much it is going to cost the taxpayers for the round the clock army this judge is going to need to protect his sorry life for the remainder of it. If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too. If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
On 2005-03-26T20:05:14-0800, Eric Cordian wrote: Justin writes: If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too. Somehow letting someone who has lived 15 years with a significant brain injury live out the rest of their normal life span just doesn't provoke people the same way dehydrating and starving them does. She is a corpse with a heartbeat. Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick. She has become a doll for her parents, who are too immature to grasp the concepts of life, death, and dignity. Presumably they're still stuck on God and selfishness. If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there. I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural, but I certainly wouldn't take water and food away from any human with a functioning brain stem, particularly when there are people to whom that person's life has meaning, and who are willing to provide them with care. If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy) that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is willing to pay? (Even if Terry's parents weren't willing or able to pay originally -- I don't know, and haven't investigated that aspect of the case -- if they manage to keep her alive, they'll probably get enough donations to keep her alive for millenia.) That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either? It would seem to be inconsistent if you did. How can someone choose to die if anyone else can veto that choice? The interesting political lesson here is that one stubborn judge, and his pals who band together to support him, can defy the will of the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and a majority of both houses of Congress. Thankfully, Neither Jeb nor George nor the U.S. Congress have any jurisdiction over this whatsoever. The courts do. Of the three equal branches of government, the unelected branch is more equal than the other two. Of course, we've known that since Marbury vs Madison. That is of course true, but not because of the decisions so far in this case. The law allows her spouse to decide what artificial means should be used to keep her alive. If you don't like it, again, lobby for a change to the law. The strong control the weak. The majority controls the minority. All we have here is a governmental system originally set up by the majority (maybe... at least no internal faction opposed it until 1860), where some people managed to get into positions of influence within the governmental machine despite having unpopular beliefs. I find it amusing that the Republican-dominated national Congress wants Terry kept alive, while Scalia has been quoted as saying, Mere factual innocent is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached. Republicans in general can't get anything right because their belief system is less coherent than any other. At least the supreme court didn't reverse the decision... not yet, at least. That's only because some of the Republicans are not-so-conservative and they all know the decision would be affirmed. Taking the case would just waste time. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: What Will We Do With Innocent People's DNA?
On 2005-03-22T15:48:19+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/21/1937206 Posted by: timothy, on 2005-03-21 23:11:00 from the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide dept. [1]NevDull writes As creepy as it may be to deal with identity theft from corporate databases, [2]imagine being swabbed for DNA samples as When they take DNA samples, they use a handful of restriction enzymes and then blot the resulting dna chains. How do they digitize that to enable automated searching? What kind of tolerances do they use? Do they shift the blots vertically and compress or expand one of them to get the best match? What kinds of error margins does the digitization process introduce? I think privacy advocates are going overboard. I don't like DNA collection either, but there's no way a criminal can use southern blot profile data from a database to either compromise the individual's privacy or plant evidence at another crime scene. What's disturbing is that most entities that collect DNA keep the original tissue samples in storage. How long will it be until full DNA sequencing becomes cheap enough that they use it in serious cases (murder)? Craig Venter still has a standing offer to sequence wealthy individuals' DNA for $1 mil, doesn't he? Or was it a few million... I don't recall. They'd only need to sequence one chromosome, too, which should reduce costs. What's the actual cost of sequencing, per kb or mb (basepair, not bit)? -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: End of a cypherpunk era?
On 2005-03-06T00:03:01+0100, Anonymous wrote: Ian Grigg writes at http://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000381.html: : Is this the end of an era, a defining cypherpunk moment? It doesn't make much sense to renounce your U.S. citizenship if your relatives, who you care about and who you want to visit, still live there. What did Vince Cate expect? He wants to be free to enter the U.S. temporarily, but doesn't want to be a citizen of a country the U.S. deems sufficiently similar to itself? From the American State's perspective, he is dangerous. He is a near-anarchist, and individuals with that kind of status threaten the existence of the U.S. -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: End of a cypherpunk era?
On 2005-03-06T00:03:01+0100, Anonymous wrote: Ian Grigg writes at http://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000381.html: : Is this the end of an era, a defining cypherpunk moment? It doesn't make much sense to renounce your U.S. citizenship if your relatives, who you care about and who you want to visit, still live there. What did Vince Cate expect? He wants to be free to enter the U.S. temporarily, but doesn't want to be a citizen of a country the U.S. deems sufficiently similar to itself? From the American State's perspective, he is dangerous. He is a near-anarchist, and individuals with that kind of status threaten the existence of the U.S. -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: How to Stop Junk E-Mail: Charge for the Stamp
On 2005-03-03T11:52:59+, ken wrote: Chat is already higher volume (I read somewhere) in raw quantity of messages sent than email. I suspect you don't get much traffic. The beauty of a non-real-time store-and-forward system like smtp (or SMS, or oldstyle conferencing systems with off-line readers) is precisely that it can be automated. I don't have to see mail I don't want. You don't have to see IMs you don't want, either. You can refuse them from people not on your buddy list. A fate for email is that as spam grows to take over more of the share of the shrinking pie, but consumes more of the bandwidth A higher proportion of the snail-mail I get is junk than the email. A higher proportion of the landline phone calls I get are junk. At least 4 out of 5 calls, maybe 9 out of 10. Email is doing quite well. With 3 or 4 RBL blacklists, greylisting, and making sure senders don't ehlo with my ip address, I don't even have to use dspam or Spamassassin I get so little spam. A serious proportion of the rootkits and so on that have been plaguing us for the last few years involves chat instant messaging so on. I'd block it at the boundary firewall. People who use it should just learn how to use mail. They'd get through more. Chat is for functional illiterates. Learn to read at adult speed and you'll prefer mail. Why should they put up with being limited to someone else's typing speed? I don't think email will disappear either, but IM is good for 2-way conversations. Helping someone debug a problem via email gets tedious very quickly. Strangely enough, a good number of people I've talked to over the phone have had their IQ drop by about 100 points when I start using a phonetic alphabet to spell things. I usually end up having to repeat the phonetic spelling several times; it's really strange. IM eliminates that whole problem. Unless communicating in a standard, often-spoken language, phones lose their utility. There's a place for both IM and email. I agree, though, that IM may suffer from a poor S/N ratio. -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: How to Stop Junk E-Mail: Charge for the Stamp
On 2005-03-03T11:52:59+, ken wrote: Chat is already higher volume (I read somewhere) in raw quantity of messages sent than email. I suspect you don't get much traffic. The beauty of a non-real-time store-and-forward system like smtp (or SMS, or oldstyle conferencing systems with off-line readers) is precisely that it can be automated. I don't have to see mail I don't want. You don't have to see IMs you don't want, either. You can refuse them from people not on your buddy list. A fate for email is that as spam grows to take over more of the share of the shrinking pie, but consumes more of the bandwidth A higher proportion of the snail-mail I get is junk than the email. A higher proportion of the landline phone calls I get are junk. At least 4 out of 5 calls, maybe 9 out of 10. Email is doing quite well. With 3 or 4 RBL blacklists, greylisting, and making sure senders don't ehlo with my ip address, I don't even have to use dspam or Spamassassin I get so little spam. A serious proportion of the rootkits and so on that have been plaguing us for the last few years involves chat instant messaging so on. I'd block it at the boundary firewall. People who use it should just learn how to use mail. They'd get through more. Chat is for functional illiterates. Learn to read at adult speed and you'll prefer mail. Why should they put up with being limited to someone else's typing speed? I don't think email will disappear either, but IM is good for 2-way conversations. Helping someone debug a problem via email gets tedious very quickly. Strangely enough, a good number of people I've talked to over the phone have had their IQ drop by about 100 points when I start using a phonetic alphabet to spell things. I usually end up having to repeat the phonetic spelling several times; it's really strange. IM eliminates that whole problem. Unless communicating in a standard, often-spoken language, phones lose their utility. There's a place for both IM and email. I agree, though, that IM may suffer from a poor S/N ratio. -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
palm beach HIV
Given the release of Palm Beach HIV+ patient information via accidental attachment to a widely-distributed email, should agencies with access to confidential information implement mandatory access control and role-based security so that, barring problems with the RBAC/MAC software, confidential data cannot be accessed by roles that have external network access? http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-paidslist21feb21,0,1753763.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines I haven't found the list yet, but I found this: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2005/02/11/a20a_cramercol_0211.html In Palm Beach County, one of every 35 blacks is HIV-positive. That is compared with one of every 492 whites. Calling Tim May! Calling Tim May! -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
MIME stripping
On 2005-02-21T22:40:03+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: Yes, complain to the Al-Q. node maintainer. The same code which strips my digital signatures also wrap the lines. Really? http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=start=0scoring=denc_author=8NH-JhofCMh-TnQo0KXFjppET7C1dSi2gjvQCgNblIvwKtcqeQ; http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=start=0scoring=denc_author=8NH-JhofCMh-TnQo0KXFjppET7C1dSi2gjvQCgNblIvwKtcqeQ; -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936 pgp8pg0P7TPy8.pgp Description: PGP signature
palm beach HIV
Given the release of Palm Beach HIV+ patient information via accidental attachment to a widely-distributed email, should agencies with access to confidential information implement mandatory access control and role-based security so that, barring problems with the RBAC/MAC software, confidential data cannot be accessed by roles that have external network access? http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-paidslist21feb21,0,1753763.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines I haven't found the list yet, but I found this: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2005/02/11/a20a_cramercol_0211.html In Palm Beach County, one of every 35 blacks is HIV-positive. That is compared with one of every 492 whites. Calling Tim May! Calling Tim May! -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
MIME stripping
On 2005-02-21T22:40:03+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: Yes, complain to the Al-Q. node maintainer. The same code which strips my digital signatures also wrap the lines. Really? http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=start=0scoring=denc_author=8NH-JhofCMh-TnQo0KXFjppET7C1dSi2gjvQCgNblIvwKtcqeQ; http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=start=0scoring=denc_author=8NH-JhofCMh-TnQo0KXFjppET7C1dSi2gjvQCgNblIvwKtcqeQ; -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936 pgpJoF0H6htEL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
On 2005-02-16T13:31:14-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Property is like rights. We create it inherently, because we're human, it is not bestowed upon us by someone else. Particularly if that property is stolen from someone else at tax-time. But as long as property rights are generally considered to be a tenet and characteristic of society, excuses for officiated theft, for instance, merely put a veneer of legitimacy over certain kinds of theft. I doubt that RMS will ever be framed, arrested and thrown in to the gulag, his property confiscated; but for someone like myself, that is certainly an option, eh? Is there a difference between property rights in a society like a pride of lions, and property rights that are respected independent of social status? Or are they essentially the same? They seem to be different, but I can't articulate why. Obviously the latter needs enforcement, possibly courts, etc., but I can't identify a more innate difference, other than simply as I described it -- property rights depending on social status, and property rights not depending on social status. I don't think any society has ever managed to construct a pure property rights system where nobody has any advantage. Without government it's the strong. With government, government agents have an advantage, and rich people have an advantage because they can hire smart lawyers to get unfair court decisions. So maybe this is just silly, in which case I believe even more strongly that formal status-independent property rights are not the basis of government. -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
On 2005-02-16T13:18:16-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] As governments were created to smash property rights, they are always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property, and the greatest enemy of those with the most property. Uh-huh. Perhaps you are using the term 'government' in a way that is not common to most writers of modern American English? I think it's fair to say that governments initially formed to protect property rights (although we have no historical record of such a government because it must have been before recorded history began). As I said, I think this is wrong. Mammals other than primates recognize property in a sense, but it depends entirely on social status. There is no recognition of property rights independent of social position. If a lion loses a fight, he loses all his property. Chimp and gorilla communities have the beginnings of monarchy. Yet they don't care about religion, and their conception of property rights still derives from their position in the social ladder. If not primates, do any animals besides humans recognize property rights independent of social position? I think it's fair to say that governments were initially, and still largely remain today, the public formalisation of religious rule applied to the civil sphere of existence. It's more complicated than that, but generally speaking, somewhat disparate religious populations (protestant, catholic, jew, etc.) accepted the fiction of secular civil governance when in reality religious groups have tended to dominate the shape and direction of civil government, while professing to remain at arms-length. I think it's fair to say that religion post-dates government, at least informal government. Maybe the first monarchs/oligarchs came up with religious schemes to keep the peons in line, but I would think that was incidental, as was the notion of property rights. Both property rights and religion depend heavily on the ability for communication, but monarchy can be established without it. All the monarch needs is a big stick and an instinctual understanding of some of the principles much later described by our good Italian friend Niccolo M. 'Fiction' is the operative term here, and I contend that nowhere is this more evident in the closed world of clandestine affairs -- civilian OR military. Religion has always been about 'powerful' and educated in-sect sub-populations organising civil and intellectuall affairs in such a way I think it's fair to say that religion may be more important than property rights for keeping people in line. But I think they're both incidental. When democratic states inevitably fold into tyranny, some of those restrictions remain. Right now most states have a strange mix of property rights protections (e.g. the Berne convention and the DMCA) and property rights usurpations (e.g. no right to own certain weapons; equal protection). Agreements and accords such as the Berne convention and the DCMA, to say nothing of human-rights legislation, are hobbled by the toothlessness of enforcement, pulic apathy to others' rights, and a load of convenient exceptions to such rules made for the agents of state. Okay. So it's fair to say, then, that we have compromises between property rights protections and other (perceived yet imaginary?) property rights protections. Which is really what it boils down to. There's no property rights usurpation without some motive behind it. And motives generally stem from wanting to redistribute property or deny it to another individual, group, or an entire nation. Sometimes that property is land (the excuse for such property redistribution or denial of ownership is called self determination), sometimes it is intellectual property (the excuse is information wants to be free)... sometimes it's explosives (they're TOO DANGEROUS, and only terrorists have them... are you a terrorist?). -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
On 2005-02-16T13:18:16-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] As governments were created to smash property rights, they are always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property, and the greatest enemy of those with the most property. Uh-huh. Perhaps you are using the term 'government' in a way that is not common to most writers of modern American English? I think it's fair to say that governments initially formed to protect property rights (although we have no historical record of such a government because it must have been before recorded history began). As I said, I think this is wrong. Mammals other than primates recognize property in a sense, but it depends entirely on social status. There is no recognition of property rights independent of social position. If a lion loses a fight, he loses all his property. Chimp and gorilla communities have the beginnings of monarchy. Yet they don't care about religion, and their conception of property rights still derives from their position in the social ladder. If not primates, do any animals besides humans recognize property rights independent of social position? I think it's fair to say that governments were initially, and still largely remain today, the public formalisation of religious rule applied to the civil sphere of existence. It's more complicated than that, but generally speaking, somewhat disparate religious populations (protestant, catholic, jew, etc.) accepted the fiction of secular civil governance when in reality religious groups have tended to dominate the shape and direction of civil government, while professing to remain at arms-length. I think it's fair to say that religion post-dates government, at least informal government. Maybe the first monarchs/oligarchs came up with religious schemes to keep the peons in line, but I would think that was incidental, as was the notion of property rights. Both property rights and religion depend heavily on the ability for communication, but monarchy can be established without it. All the monarch needs is a big stick and an instinctual understanding of some of the principles much later described by our good Italian friend Niccolo M. 'Fiction' is the operative term here, and I contend that nowhere is this more evident in the closed world of clandestine affairs -- civilian OR military. Religion has always been about 'powerful' and educated in-sect sub-populations organising civil and intellectuall affairs in such a way I think it's fair to say that religion may be more important than property rights for keeping people in line. But I think they're both incidental. When democratic states inevitably fold into tyranny, some of those restrictions remain. Right now most states have a strange mix of property rights protections (e.g. the Berne convention and the DMCA) and property rights usurpations (e.g. no right to own certain weapons; equal protection). Agreements and accords such as the Berne convention and the DCMA, to say nothing of human-rights legislation, are hobbled by the toothlessness of enforcement, pulic apathy to others' rights, and a load of convenient exceptions to such rules made for the agents of state. Okay. So it's fair to say, then, that we have compromises between property rights protections and other (perceived yet imaginary?) property rights protections. Which is really what it boils down to. There's no property rights usurpation without some motive behind it. And motives generally stem from wanting to redistribute property or deny it to another individual, group, or an entire nation. Sometimes that property is land (the excuse for such property redistribution or denial of ownership is called self determination), sometimes it is intellectual property (the excuse is information wants to be free)... sometimes it's explosives (they're TOO DANGEROUS, and only terrorists have them... are you a terrorist?). -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
On 2005-02-16T13:31:14-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Property is like rights. We create it inherently, because we're human, it is not bestowed upon us by someone else. Particularly if that property is stolen from someone else at tax-time. But as long as property rights are generally considered to be a tenet and characteristic of society, excuses for officiated theft, for instance, merely put a veneer of legitimacy over certain kinds of theft. I doubt that RMS will ever be framed, arrested and thrown in to the gulag, his property confiscated; but for someone like myself, that is certainly an option, eh? Is there a difference between property rights in a society like a pride of lions, and property rights that are respected independent of social status? Or are they essentially the same? They seem to be different, but I can't articulate why. Obviously the latter needs enforcement, possibly courts, etc., but I can't identify a more innate difference, other than simply as I described it -- property rights depending on social status, and property rights not depending on social status. I don't think any society has ever managed to construct a pure property rights system where nobody has any advantage. Without government it's the strong. With government, government agents have an advantage, and rich people have an advantage because they can hire smart lawyers to get unfair court decisions. So maybe this is just silly, in which case I believe even more strongly that formal status-independent property rights are not the basis of government. -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
On 2005-02-15T21:40:34+, Justin wrote: On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] As governments were created to smash property rights, they are always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property, and the greatest enemy of those with the most property. Uh-huh. Perhaps you are using the term 'government' in a way that is not common to most writers of modern American English? I think it's fair to say that governments initially formed to protect property rights (although we have no historical record of such a government because it must have been before recorded history began). They then developed into monarchies which were only really set up to protect property rights of the ruler(s). It seems I've been brainwashed by classical political science. What I wrote above doesn't make any sense. Judging from social dynamics and civil advancement in the animal kingdom, monarchies developed first and property rights were an afterthought. -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] As governments were created to smash property rights, they are always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property, and the greatest enemy of those with the most property. Uh-huh. Perhaps you are using the term 'government' in a way that is not common to most writers of modern American English? I think it's fair to say that governments initially formed to protect property rights (although we have no historical record of such a government because it must have been before recorded history began). They then developed into monarchies which were only really set up to protect property rights of the ruler(s). With the advent of various quasi-democratic forms of government, the law has been compromised insofar as it protects property rights. You no longer have a right to keep all your money (taxes), no longer have a right to grow 5' weeds in your front yard if you live in a city, and no longer have a right to own certain evil things at all, at least not without special governmental permission. There were analogous compromises in democratic Athens and quasi-democratic Rome. When democratic states inevitably fold into tyranny, some of those restrictions remain. Right now most states have a strange mix of property rights protections (e.g. the Berne convention and the DMCA) and property rights usurpations (e.g. no right to own certain weapons; equal protection). -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] As governments were created to smash property rights, they are always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property, and the greatest enemy of those with the most property. Uh-huh. Perhaps you are using the term 'government' in a way that is not common to most writers of modern American English? I think it's fair to say that governments initially formed to protect property rights (although we have no historical record of such a government because it must have been before recorded history began). They then developed into monarchies which were only really set up to protect property rights of the ruler(s). With the advent of various quasi-democratic forms of government, the law has been compromised insofar as it protects property rights. You no longer have a right to keep all your money (taxes), no longer have a right to grow 5' weeds in your front yard if you live in a city, and no longer have a right to own certain evil things at all, at least not without special governmental permission. There were analogous compromises in democratic Athens and quasi-democratic Rome. When democratic states inevitably fold into tyranny, some of those restrictions remain. Right now most states have a strange mix of property rights protections (e.g. the Berne convention and the DMCA) and property rights usurpations (e.g. no right to own certain weapons; equal protection). -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
On 2005-02-15T21:40:34+, Justin wrote: On 2005-02-15T13:23:37-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: --- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] As governments were created to smash property rights, they are always everywhere necessarily the enemy of those with property, and the greatest enemy of those with the most property. Uh-huh. Perhaps you are using the term 'government' in a way that is not common to most writers of modern American English? I think it's fair to say that governments initially formed to protect property rights (although we have no historical record of such a government because it must have been before recorded history began). They then developed into monarchies which were only really set up to protect property rights of the ruler(s). It seems I've been brainwashed by classical political science. What I wrote above doesn't make any sense. Judging from social dynamics and civil advancement in the animal kingdom, monarchies developed first and property rights were an afterthought. -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: Team Building?? WIMPS!!
On 2005-02-13T13:22:43+0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Well, I didn't say it would be easy. We'd definitely need to split up into teams...one to handle the alarm systems, Teamwork is essential here. ... Optionally just add couple more mines and then wait.[4] Why not wait for him to leave the house and then pick him off? If necessary, jam one of his video cameras or shoot it with a silenced rifle from afar. When he ventures forth to determine what's wrong with it, shoot him in the head. Once he's dead, frustrating the alarm company is even easier. Then you have all the time you want to disarm mines, ransack the compound, hold an Iraqi/Libyan hooker party, and prank call the White House and the NSA (just before closing time; no sense in being around when the feds show up, though perhaps they'd give everyone a reward for eliminating TCM). -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire, April 1936
Re: What is a cypherpunk?
On 2005-02-09T22:38:05-0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 09:09 -0800, James A. Donald wrote: -- There is nothing stopping you from writing your own operating system, so Linus did. Linus Torvalds didn't write the GNU OS. He wrote the Linux kernel, which when added to the rest of the existing GNU OS, written by Richard Stallman among others, allowed a completely free operating system. Please don't continue to spread the misconception that Linus Torvalds wrote the entire (GNU) operating system. I think everyone who reads Cypherpunks knows what Linus did and did not do, and that operating system in JAD's post means kernel. -- Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. --Hemingway, Esquire Apr/1936
Re: Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs
On 2005-02-03T22:25:28+0100, Anonymous wrote: The only people endangered by this capability are those who want to be able to lie. They want to agree to contracts and user agreements that, for example, require them to observe DRM restrictions and copyright laws, but then they want the power to go back on their word, to dishonor their commitment, and to lie about their promises. An honest man is No, I want the right to fair use of material I buy. If someone sells DRM-only material, I won't buy it at anything approaching non-DRM prices. In some cases, I won't buy it at all. My fair use rights should not be held hostage by a stupid majority who support a DRM-only market. Maybe the market for music won't support DRM-only products, but I suspect the market for DVDs and low-sales books will. The result is that I won't be able to rip a season's worth of DVDs so I can watch them all without playing hot potato with the physical DVDs. I won't be able to avoid the 15-second copyright warnings, or the useless menu animations. Low-sales books may end up being DRM-only, and I _hate_ reading books on a screen. Since DRM-only rare books will satisfy some of the market, there will be even less pressure on physical book publishers to occasionally reprint them, thus forcing even more people to buy the DRM'd ebooks. I bought an ebook on amazon for $1.99 a couple months ago. The printed book was $20. It was very nearly the worst purchase of my life. I won't buy a similarly DRM'd ebook every again, for any amount. The hassle plus the restrictions aren't worth the $18 savings. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs
On 2005-02-04T23:28:56+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 08:21:47PM +, Justin wrote: They managed with the HTDV broadcast flag mandate. If I film off a HDTV screen with a HDTV camera (or just do single-frame with a good professional camera) will the flag be preserved? I don't think so, I think the flag is in the bitstream and doesn't affect visual output at all. You still run into significant quality loss trying to get around it that way. The point is that HDTV is a popular consumer technology, and the MPAA and TV networks alone managed to hijack it. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs
On 2005-02-03T22:25:28+0100, Anonymous wrote: The only people endangered by this capability are those who want to be able to lie. They want to agree to contracts and user agreements that, for example, require them to observe DRM restrictions and copyright laws, but then they want the power to go back on their word, to dishonor their commitment, and to lie about their promises. An honest man is No, I want the right to fair use of material I buy. If someone sells DRM-only material, I won't buy it at anything approaching non-DRM prices. In some cases, I won't buy it at all. My fair use rights should not be held hostage by a stupid majority who support a DRM-only market. Maybe the market for music won't support DRM-only products, but I suspect the market for DVDs and low-sales books will. The result is that I won't be able to rip a season's worth of DVDs so I can watch them all without playing hot potato with the physical DVDs. I won't be able to avoid the 15-second copyright warnings, or the useless menu animations. Low-sales books may end up being DRM-only, and I _hate_ reading books on a screen. Since DRM-only rare books will satisfy some of the market, there will be even less pressure on physical book publishers to occasionally reprint them, thus forcing even more people to buy the DRM'd ebooks. I bought an ebook on amazon for $1.99 a couple months ago. The printed book was $20. It was very nearly the worst purchase of my life. I won't buy a similarly DRM'd ebook every again, for any amount. The hassle plus the restrictions aren't worth the $18 savings. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs
On 2005-02-04T14:30:48-0500, Mark Allen Earnest wrote: The government was not able to get the Clipper chip passed and that was backed with the horror stories of rampant pedophilia, terrorism, and organized crime. Do you honestly believe they will be able to destroy open source, linux, independent software development, and the like with just the fear of movie piracy, mp3 sharing, and such? Do you really think they are willing to piss off large sections of the voting population, the tech segment of the economy, universities, small businesses, and the rest of the world just because the MPAA and RIAA don't like customers owning devices they do not control? They managed with the HTDV broadcast flag mandate. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs
On 2005-02-04T23:28:56+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 08:21:47PM +, Justin wrote: They managed with the HTDV broadcast flag mandate. If I film off a HDTV screen with a HDTV camera (or just do single-frame with a good professional camera) will the flag be preserved? I don't think so, I think the flag is in the bitstream and doesn't affect visual output at all. You still run into significant quality loss trying to get around it that way. The point is that HDTV is a popular consumer technology, and the MPAA and TV networks alone managed to hijack it. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Dell to Add Security Chip to PCs
On 2005-02-04T14:30:48-0500, Mark Allen Earnest wrote: The government was not able to get the Clipper chip passed and that was backed with the horror stories of rampant pedophilia, terrorism, and organized crime. Do you honestly believe they will be able to destroy open source, linux, independent software development, and the like with just the fear of movie piracy, mp3 sharing, and such? Do you really think they are willing to piss off large sections of the voting population, the tech segment of the economy, universities, small businesses, and the rest of the world just because the MPAA and RIAA don't like customers owning devices they do not control? They managed with the HTDV broadcast flag mandate. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Scientists Work on Software to Scan Arabic
On 2005-01-28T20:03:22-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Arabic-Software.html?oref=loginpagewanted=printposition= The New York Times January 27, 2005 Scientists Work on Software to Scan Arabic By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ``The whole Internet is skewed toward people who speak English,'' said Venu Govindaraju, director of the Center for Unified Biometrics and Sensors at the University at Buffalo, where the software is being developed. Someone give that man a brain, and a cookie. I don't live near NY. The internet has nothing to do with scanning written/printed arabic texts. He obviously intended to squeeze a complaint about the internet into an article about scanning printed/written documents. The reason the internet is skewed is because these idiots want others to fix the internet to accommodate their languages. As a result, much of the non-western-language support in software is done by westerners, and so doesn't work. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Safeway Club Card Leads to Bogus Arson Arrest
On 2005-01-29T13:16:24+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/29/030223 Posted by: michael, on 2005-01-29 11:03:00 from the if-you're-innocent-you-have-nothing-to-fear dept. [1]Richard M. Smith writes Tukwila, Washington firefighter, Philip Scott Lyons found out the hard way that supermarket loyalty cards come with a huge price. Lyons was arrested last August and charged with They do not verify the information you give them. They take the sheet of paper and give you a card. Make up a name, address, and phone number. If they ever discover the fraud (not in a legal sense) and disable the card, so what? Get another one. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Safeway Club Card Leads to Bogus Arson Arrest
On 2005-01-29T13:16:24+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/29/030223 Posted by: michael, on 2005-01-29 11:03:00 from the if-you're-innocent-you-have-nothing-to-fear dept. [1]Richard M. Smith writes Tukwila, Washington firefighter, Philip Scott Lyons found out the hard way that supermarket loyalty cards come with a huge price. Lyons was arrested last August and charged with They do not verify the information you give them. They take the sheet of paper and give you a card. Make up a name, address, and phone number. If they ever discover the fraud (not in a legal sense) and disable the card, so what? Get another one. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Scientists Work on Software to Scan Arabic
On 2005-01-28T20:03:22-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Arabic-Software.html?oref=loginpagewanted=printposition= The New York Times January 27, 2005 Scientists Work on Software to Scan Arabic By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ``The whole Internet is skewed toward people who speak English,'' said Venu Govindaraju, director of the Center for Unified Biometrics and Sensors at the University at Buffalo, where the software is being developed. Someone give that man a brain, and a cookie. I don't live near NY. The internet has nothing to do with scanning written/printed arabic texts. He obviously intended to squeeze a complaint about the internet into an article about scanning printed/written documents. The reason the internet is skewed is because these idiots want others to fix the internet to accommodate their languages. As a result, much of the non-western-language support in software is done by westerners, and so doesn't work. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: MPAA files new film-swapping suits
http://news.com.com/2102-1030_3-5551903.html?tag=st.util.print Hollywood studios filed a second round of lawsuits against online movie-swappers on Wednesday, stepping up legal pressure on the file-trading community. As much as I'd like to be upset, they are driving innovation of p2p software. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: MPAA files new film-swapping suits
http://news.com.com/2102-1030_3-5551903.html?tag=st.util.print Hollywood studios filed a second round of lawsuits against online movie-swappers on Wednesday, stepping up legal pressure on the file-trading community. As much as I'd like to be upset, they are driving innovation of p2p software. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Scientific American on Quantum Encryption
On 2005-01-20T12:16:34+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their nanotechnology retraction). How could they possibly get clue? Scientists don't want to write pop-sci articles for a living. It's impossible to condense most current research down to digestible kernels that the masses can understand. SciAm should close down, requiring those who care about science to learn enough about it to read science journals. Professors who can teach a QM course well in a semester are rare enough. I doubt any one of them could write a 5000 word article on quantum entanglement that would be intelligible to the average cretinous American who wants to seem smart by reading Sci-Am. If they want to be smart, they can start by picking up an undergrad-level book on QM. But that requires much effort to read, unlike a glossy 5000 word article. Journalism should not be a college major. Journalists in the main know little about how to write and interview, and less about the topics they write on. They don't understand that being able to write (and in many cases even that ability is in serious doubt) doesn't qualify them to write on any topic they choose. Many journalists aren't qualified to write on anything, not even journalism. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: Scientific American on Quantum Encryption
On 2005-01-20T12:16:34+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their nanotechnology retraction). How could they possibly get clue? Scientists don't want to write pop-sci articles for a living. It's impossible to condense most current research down to digestible kernels that the masses can understand. SciAm should close down, requiring those who care about science to learn enough about it to read science journals. Professors who can teach a QM course well in a semester are rare enough. I doubt any one of them could write a 5000 word article on quantum entanglement that would be intelligible to the average cretinous American who wants to seem smart by reading Sci-Am. If they want to be smart, they can start by picking up an undergrad-level book on QM. But that requires much effort to read, unlike a glossy 5000 word article. Journalism should not be a college major. Journalists in the main know little about how to write and interview, and less about the topics they write on. They don't understand that being able to write (and in many cases even that ability is in serious doubt) doesn't qualify them to write on any topic they choose. Many journalists aren't qualified to write on anything, not even journalism. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)
Re: panix.com hijacked
On 2005-01-16T09:46:28-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:32:46 EST, Henry Yen said: . panix.net usable as panix.com (marcotte) Sat Jan 15 10:44:57 2005 So let's see.. the users will see this when they log into shell.panix.net (since shell.panix.com is borked). Somehow that doesn't seem to help much. and the hijackers could be, potentially, running a box pretending to be shell.panix.com, gathering userids and passwds :( Object lesson in why using replayable passwords is not a good idea. Allah invented nonce-based password hashes and public key crypto for a reason. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus Kahn.83/D-K.53
Re: panix.com hijacked
On 2005-01-16T09:46:28-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:32:46 EST, Henry Yen said: . panix.net usable as panix.com (marcotte) Sat Jan 15 10:44:57 2005 So let's see.. the users will see this when they log into shell.panix.net (since shell.panix.com is borked). Somehow that doesn't seem to help much. and the hijackers could be, potentially, running a box pretending to be shell.panix.com, gathering userids and passwds :( Object lesson in why using replayable passwords is not a good idea. Allah invented nonce-based password hashes and public key crypto for a reason. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus Kahn.83/D-K.53
Re: Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun
On 2005-01-15T09:38:23+, Justin wrote: On 2005-01-14T15:42:18-0800, Bill Stewart wrote: Seems like scare-mongering to me, not a practical concern. Of course it's not a practical concern. Criminals already have access to handguns that will defeat common soft body armor. This media panic was instigated by a press release from the Violence Policy Center, which has evidently (for now) given up trying to pass a new assault weapon ban, and is instead finding new legislative targets. I didn't remember which group it was, and I guessed wrong. It wasn't the VPC. It was the Brady Campaign/MMM. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41691 -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun
On 2005-01-14T16:54:32-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: http://www.wnbc.com/print/4075959/detail.html Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun I care? Well, perhaps I do... I should go pick one up before they're banned. The most shocking fact may be that the gun -- known as the five-seven -- is being marketed to the public, and it's completely legal The name is Five-seveN. It's made by Fabrique Nationale (FN). Allegedly the U.S. secret service likes the Five-seveN, along with the FN P90 (unavailable to civilians except title 2 firearms dealers because it's only made in a select-fire version). They both use the same 5.7mm rounds, which makes logistics easier. Of course, they also use MP5s and 9mm handguns... Other guns with civilian-legal armor-piercing ammo include the CZ-52, .223 pistols, and most all rifles. At a distance of 21 feet, Trumball police Sgt. Lenny Scinto fired the five-seven with the ammo sold legally to the public into a standard police vest. All three penetrated the vest. The real ammo penetrates CRISAT/PAGST armor at 100m and 300m respectively. Level 2 or 3a armor is really rather pathetic. Back in Trumball, Scinto said his officers would have to rethink how to protect the public and protect themselves. Police have no duty to protect the public. Anyway, most of the public doesn't walk around wearing vests, so protecting the public from these is no different than protecting them from other firearms. Protecting the police from these is no different than protecting them from rifles. Only trauma plates can stop pointy, high-velocity rounds. This is going to add a whole new dimension to training and tactics. With the penetration of these rounds, you're going to have to find something considerably heavier than we normally use for cover and concealment to stop this round, Scinto said. Cool, more LEOs instantly recognizable as beetles, having exoskeletons. I recommend Kafka's Metamorphoses to them as sociological grounding for what sort of reaction they can expect. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun
On 2005-01-14T15:42:18-0800, Bill Stewart wrote: At 01:54 PM 1/14/2005, R.A. Hettinga wrote: http://www.wnbc.com/print/4075959/detail.html NEW YORK -- There is a nationwide alert to members of law enforcement regarding a new kind of handgun which can render a bulletproof vest useless, as first reported by NewsChannel 4's Scott Weinberger. ... The weapon is light, easily concealable and can fire 20 rounds in seconds without reloading. A couple of questions to the gunpunks out there... I've heard that rifles easily penetrate bullet-proof vests, and that vests are really only useful against average-to-small handguns and against shotguns. Is this accurate? There are various levels of body armor specified by the NIJ. In order of effectiveness (lower to higher): Levels IIa, II, IIIa, III, and IV. http://www.nlectc.org/txtfiles/BodyArmorStd/NIJSTD010103.html Level IV typically takes the form of a trauma plate and is put into a pouch in the front (and/or in the back) of soft body armor. III and IV are heavier, bulkier, and as a result aren't used as much. The NIJ standards are based on stopping standard bullets up to certain velocity limits (preventing them from going through the vest), _plus_ backface deformation limits. They put the vests over geletin, and the volume displaced by the vest when it absorbs the shot is measured and must be less than a specified limit. There is a lot of sentiment that this testing method is crap, and all that should matter is whether the bullet goes through the vest. Or at least that backface deformation should be less heavily emphasized. Then there are other specifications outside of the NIJ scheme; for instance, the there's PAGST and CRISAT body armor. I don't recall what they stand for. Any idea how much you can saw off a rifle and still have it penetrate typical cop vests? A lot. 5.56mm pistols (based on the AR-15 and available from olympic arms or bushmaster, among other manufacturers) are perfectly legal and will shoot through IIIa vests. The real jump up is between IIIa and III; the former mainly stops handgun rounds, while the latter allegedly stops standard .223 and .308 loads, but I'm not sure... before I looked it up just now, I thought only level IV trauma plates stopped .308. Cops typically wear level II or IIIa armor. And even trauma plates will not stop repeated hits to the same area. If you expect to be shot at with a rifle, you do not want to be out in the open where many hits are unavoidable. Ceramic plates weaken through chipping, and metal plates weaken through stress/deformation. (And I assume the 20 rounds in seconds is just a scary way to say it has a big magazine and you have to pull the trigger 20 times.) Of course. Otherwise it would be a machine gun, and new machine guns are not available to civilians... and haven't been since the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. The anti-gun forces try hard to associate the assault weapons ban expiry with the availability of machineguns. They are lying. Also, the police expressed worry that criminals might hear about these guns and then the cops would be in big trouble. This gun, the Five-seveN, has been available for years. What hasn't been available for years, I don't think, is the practice non-AP ammunition. And, of course, some FFLs (gun dealers) are unwilling to sell the Five-seveN to private citizens. Sounds silly to me - while some criminals might buy a cop-killer handgun for bragging rights, random criminals presumably only buy weapons useful for the scenarios they imagine being in, Other armor-piercing handguns include .223 pistols and the CZ 52; there are also nasty rounds, though generally unavailable, for 9mm handguns that will penetrate IIIa armor. Ordinary rounds at +P+ pressures may even do it. The Five-seveN bullets have a muzzle velocity about half-way between handgun bullet velocities and rifle bullet velocities. Given the round diameter (5.7mm) and the short barrel (compared to rifles) of the Five-seveN, it's essentially a rifle round. 5.56mm pistols fire rounds with nearly the same diameter, though they weigh more (5.7mm bullets are ~~30gr, standard 5.56mm is 55 or 62gr) and therefore require more powder to achieve the same velocities. Hence the longer cartridges for 5.56mm (I use .223 and 5.56 interchangably; they're technically not the same thing but close enough for government work). Most .223 pistols are based on the AR-15, so their magazines attach outside of the pistol grip and make them look scarier. That also makes them slightly less concealable, which is why they're not being attacked by the anti-gun forces. Perhaps the anti-gunners don't think they're legal. which is Saturday Night Specials for most applications, or whatever currently fashionable Mac10/Uzi/etc. for druglord armies that expect to be shooting at each other, or rifles for distance work and dual-use pickup-truck decoration. Uzis, MP5s, short-barrelled
Re: Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun
On 2005-01-14T15:42:18-0800, Bill Stewart wrote: At 01:54 PM 1/14/2005, R.A. Hettinga wrote: http://www.wnbc.com/print/4075959/detail.html NEW YORK -- There is a nationwide alert to members of law enforcement regarding a new kind of handgun which can render a bulletproof vest useless, as first reported by NewsChannel 4's Scott Weinberger. ... The weapon is light, easily concealable and can fire 20 rounds in seconds without reloading. A couple of questions to the gunpunks out there... I've heard that rifles easily penetrate bullet-proof vests, and that vests are really only useful against average-to-small handguns and against shotguns. Is this accurate? There are various levels of body armor specified by the NIJ. In order of effectiveness (lower to higher): Levels IIa, II, IIIa, III, and IV. http://www.nlectc.org/txtfiles/BodyArmorStd/NIJSTD010103.html Level IV typically takes the form of a trauma plate and is put into a pouch in the front (and/or in the back) of soft body armor. III and IV are heavier, bulkier, and as a result aren't used as much. The NIJ standards are based on stopping standard bullets up to certain velocity limits (preventing them from going through the vest), _plus_ backface deformation limits. They put the vests over geletin, and the volume displaced by the vest when it absorbs the shot is measured and must be less than a specified limit. There is a lot of sentiment that this testing method is crap, and all that should matter is whether the bullet goes through the vest. Or at least that backface deformation should be less heavily emphasized. Then there are other specifications outside of the NIJ scheme; for instance, the there's PAGST and CRISAT body armor. I don't recall what they stand for. Any idea how much you can saw off a rifle and still have it penetrate typical cop vests? A lot. 5.56mm pistols (based on the AR-15 and available from olympic arms or bushmaster, among other manufacturers) are perfectly legal and will shoot through IIIa vests. The real jump up is between IIIa and III; the former mainly stops handgun rounds, while the latter allegedly stops standard .223 and .308 loads, but I'm not sure... before I looked it up just now, I thought only level IV trauma plates stopped .308. Cops typically wear level II or IIIa armor. And even trauma plates will not stop repeated hits to the same area. If you expect to be shot at with a rifle, you do not want to be out in the open where many hits are unavoidable. Ceramic plates weaken through chipping, and metal plates weaken through stress/deformation. (And I assume the 20 rounds in seconds is just a scary way to say it has a big magazine and you have to pull the trigger 20 times.) Of course. Otherwise it would be a machine gun, and new machine guns are not available to civilians... and haven't been since the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. The anti-gun forces try hard to associate the assault weapons ban expiry with the availability of machineguns. They are lying. Also, the police expressed worry that criminals might hear about these guns and then the cops would be in big trouble. This gun, the Five-seveN, has been available for years. What hasn't been available for years, I don't think, is the practice non-AP ammunition. And, of course, some FFLs (gun dealers) are unwilling to sell the Five-seveN to private citizens. Sounds silly to me - while some criminals might buy a cop-killer handgun for bragging rights, random criminals presumably only buy weapons useful for the scenarios they imagine being in, Other armor-piercing handguns include .223 pistols and the CZ 52; there are also nasty rounds, though generally unavailable, for 9mm handguns that will penetrate IIIa armor. Ordinary rounds at +P+ pressures may even do it. The Five-seveN bullets have a muzzle velocity about half-way between handgun bullet velocities and rifle bullet velocities. Given the round diameter (5.7mm) and the short barrel (compared to rifles) of the Five-seveN, it's essentially a rifle round. 5.56mm pistols fire rounds with nearly the same diameter, though they weigh more (5.7mm bullets are ~30gr, standard 5.56mm is 55 or 62gr) and therefore require more powder to achieve the same velocities. Hence the longer cartridges for 5.56mm (I use .223 and 5.56 interchangably; they're technically not the same thing but close enough for government work). Most .223 pistols are based on the AR-15, so their magazines attach outside of the pistol grip and make them look scarier. That also makes them slightly less concealable, which is why they're not being attacked by the anti-gun forces. Perhaps the anti-gunners don't think they're legal. which is Saturday Night Specials for most applications, or whatever currently fashionable Mac10/Uzi/etc. for druglord armies that expect to be shooting at each other, or rifles for distance work and dual-use pickup-truck decoration. Uzis, MP5s, short-barrelled
Re: Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun
On 2005-01-15T09:38:23+, Justin wrote: On 2005-01-14T15:42:18-0800, Bill Stewart wrote: Seems like scare-mongering to me, not a practical concern. Of course it's not a practical concern. Criminals already have access to handguns that will defeat common soft body armor. This media panic was instigated by a press release from the Violence Policy Center, which has evidently (for now) given up trying to pass a new assault weapon ban, and is instead finding new legislative targets. I didn't remember which group it was, and I guessed wrong. It wasn't the VPC. It was the Brady Campaign/MMM. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41691 -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun
On 2005-01-14T16:54:32-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: http://www.wnbc.com/print/4075959/detail.html Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun I care? Well, perhaps I do... I should go pick one up before they're banned. The most shocking fact may be that the gun -- known as the five-seven -- is being marketed to the public, and it's completely legal The name is Five-seveN. It's made by Fabrique Nationale (FN). Allegedly the U.S. secret service likes the Five-seveN, along with the FN P90 (unavailable to civilians except title 2 firearms dealers because it's only made in a select-fire version). They both use the same 5.7mm rounds, which makes logistics easier. Of course, they also use MP5s and 9mm handguns... Other guns with civilian-legal armor-piercing ammo include the CZ-52, .223 pistols, and most all rifles. At a distance of 21 feet, Trumball police Sgt. Lenny Scinto fired the five-seven with the ammo sold legally to the public into a standard police vest. All three penetrated the vest. The real ammo penetrates CRISAT/PAGST armor at 100m and 300m respectively. Level 2 or 3a armor is really rather pathetic. Back in Trumball, Scinto said his officers would have to rethink how to protect the public and protect themselves. Police have no duty to protect the public. Anyway, most of the public doesn't walk around wearing vests, so protecting the public from these is no different than protecting them from other firearms. Protecting the police from these is no different than protecting them from rifles. Only trauma plates can stop pointy, high-velocity rounds. This is going to add a whole new dimension to training and tactics. With the penetration of these rounds, you're going to have to find something considerably heavier than we normally use for cover and concealment to stop this round, Scinto said. Cool, more LEOs instantly recognizable as beetles, having exoskeletons. I recommend Kafka's Metamorphoses to them as sociological grounding for what sort of reaction they can expect. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Ridge Wants Fingerprints in Passports
On 2005-01-13T17:46:39-0800, Bill Stewart wrote: He's smearing his sticky fingerprints all over everything else, and now he wants them in our passports? Oughtta learn to keep his hands to himself. Fine with me if the first person to get a new biometric passport gets Ridge's fingers as part of the deal -- to verify for the world that the prints are valid. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Florida man faces bioweapon charge
On 2005-01-13T17:48:13-0800, Eric Cordian wrote: RAH pastes: She said that on at least one occasion he showed her something he had purchased via the Internet and expressed concern that if their cat inadvertently ate enough of it, the cat would die, according to the affidavit. Obviously this news story is the grand prize winner in an innuendo contest. The article also neglects to mention FEDERAL AGENCIES' pet KILL ratio. I'm not sure about cats specifically, but dog killing is quite popular. The FBI is still investigating who sent two letters that contained ricin in 2003 through the U.S. postal system. Those letters contained threats and complaints about labor regulations in the trucking industry. Evidently the kid was in possession of Envelopes of Mass Destruction as well as castor beans, guns, and books. Envelopes! Everyone knows that civilized people communicate via instant/text message or email (insofar as they are distinct). We have no need for these ENVELOPES, which as well as being used to send toxins to KILL LAW-ABIDING TAXPAYERS also cause untold annual economic damage from paper-cut-caused hospital visits. In 1978, Georgi Markov, a Bulgarian writer and journalist in London, died after a man attacked him with an umbrella that had been rigged to inject a ricin pellet under his skin. And WTF does this have to do with the guy with the castor beans? I spot the beginnings of yet another war. Please excuse me while I go bury my umbrellas. PATRIOTS use hooded raincoats. We have no NEED for barbaric and dangerous implements like UMBRELLAS. Looks like Ricin Theatre has joined Anthrax Theatre in the armory of Weapons of Mass Deception. You forgot the guns! The GUNS! Those terrible and bloody implements of death ARE totally unnecessary! Never mind that they're PERFECTLY LEGAL and they don't make ricin (excuse me, castor beans) any more deadly. He still had guns! -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Ridge Wants Fingerprints in Passports
On 2005-01-13T17:46:39-0800, Bill Stewart wrote: He's smearing his sticky fingerprints all over everything else, and now he wants them in our passports? Oughtta learn to keep his hands to himself. Fine with me if the first person to get a new biometric passport gets Ridge's fingers as part of the deal -- to verify for the world that the prints are valid. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Florida man faces bioweapon charge
On 2005-01-13T17:48:13-0800, Eric Cordian wrote: RAH pastes: She said that on at least one occasion he showed her something he had purchased via the Internet and expressed concern that if their cat inadvertently ate enough of it, the cat would die, according to the affidavit. Obviously this news story is the grand prize winner in an innuendo contest. The article also neglects to mention FEDERAL AGENCIES' pet KILL ratio. I'm not sure about cats specifically, but dog killing is quite popular. The FBI is still investigating who sent two letters that contained ricin in 2003 through the U.S. postal system. Those letters contained threats and complaints about labor regulations in the trucking industry. Evidently the kid was in possession of Envelopes of Mass Destruction as well as castor beans, guns, and books. Envelopes! Everyone knows that civilized people communicate via instant/text message or email (insofar as they are distinct). We have no need for these ENVELOPES, which as well as being used to send toxins to KILL LAW-ABIDING TAXPAYERS also cause untold annual economic damage from paper-cut-caused hospital visits. In 1978, Georgi Markov, a Bulgarian writer and journalist in London, died after a man attacked him with an umbrella that had been rigged to inject a ricin pellet under his skin. And WTF does this have to do with the guy with the castor beans? I spot the beginnings of yet another war. Please excuse me while I go bury my umbrellas. PATRIOTS use hooded raincoats. We have no NEED for barbaric and dangerous implements like UMBRELLAS. Looks like Ricin Theatre has joined Anthrax Theatre in the armory of Weapons of Mass Deception. You forgot the guns! The GUNS! Those terrible and bloody implements of death ARE totally unnecessary! Never mind that they're PERFECTLY LEGAL and they don't make ricin (excuse me, castor beans) any more deadly. He still had guns! -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
On 2005-01-11T10:07:22-0500, Trei, Peter wrote: Justin wrote: I don't believe the article when it says that smart guns are useless if stolen. What do they have, a tamper-proof memory chip storing a 128-bit reprogramming authorization key that must be input via computer before allowing a new person to be authorized? And what's to stop a criminal from ripping out all the circuitry and the safety it engages? The 'stolen gun' problems most of the so-called 'smart gun' proposals are trying to address are the situation when a cop's own gun is taken from him and immediately used against him, or a kid finding one in a drawer. A determined and resourceful person can, given time, defeat them all. from the article: Guns taken from a home during a robbery would be rendered useless, too. The South African Smart gun... http://www.wmsa.net/other/thumb_gun.htm Totally useless. Failure modes and various other complaints: -cannot connect to cellular network -cannot receive GPS signal -out of batteries -laser diode craps out -fingerprint scanner takes more than 0 time to use. -ammunition is more expensive -window in ammunition can be dirty or fogged, causing failure -any sort of case failure will probably destroy the electronics -will never be as small as subcompact firearms -if smartcard is stolen, gun won't fire (other smart guns use rings) -all the electronic tracing capability requires gun/ammo registration I'd almost rather have a taser. What assurance do I have that the circuitry won't malfunction and fire when I don't want it to? What if a HERF gun can not only render the gun useless, but make it fire as well? -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
On 2005-01-11T10:07:22-0500, Trei, Peter wrote: Justin wrote: I don't believe the article when it says that smart guns are useless if stolen. What do they have, a tamper-proof memory chip storing a 128-bit reprogramming authorization key that must be input via computer before allowing a new person to be authorized? And what's to stop a criminal from ripping out all the circuitry and the safety it engages? The 'stolen gun' problems most of the so-called 'smart gun' proposals are trying to address are the situation when a cop's own gun is taken from him and immediately used against him, or a kid finding one in a drawer. A determined and resourceful person can, given time, defeat them all. from the article: Guns taken from a home during a robbery would be rendered useless, too. The South African Smart gun... http://www.wmsa.net/other/thumb_gun.htm Totally useless. Failure modes and various other complaints: -cannot connect to cellular network -cannot receive GPS signal -out of batteries -laser diode craps out -fingerprint scanner takes more than 0 time to use. -ammunition is more expensive -window in ammunition can be dirty or fogged, causing failure -any sort of case failure will probably destroy the electronics -will never be as small as subcompact firearms -if smartcard is stolen, gun won't fire (other smart guns use rings) -all the electronic tracing capability requires gun/ammo registration I'd almost rather have a taser. What assurance do I have that the circuitry won't malfunction and fire when I don't want it to? What if a HERF gun can not only render the gun useless, but make it fire as well? -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
On 2005-01-10T15:42:47-0500, Tyler Durden wrote: And we'll probably have many years of non-Smart-Gun type accidents...eg, Drunk guy at party put gun to his head and blew his own brains out, assuming it was a smart gun, or, trailer park momma gives gun to toddler assuming its a safe smart gun. Some gun accidents are suicides reported as such to avoid embarrassment to the family. Similarly, I think a few of the gun accidents involving real children, which are extremely rare to begin with, go like this... Son, why don't you take this gun and pretend to go shoot daddy? It's not loaded. Or, Son, why don't you take the gun, put it to your head, and pull the trigger? It's not loaded. I don't believe the article when it says that smart guns are useless if stolen. What do they have, a tamper-proof memory chip storing a 128-bit reprogramming authorization key that must be input via computer before allowing a new person to be authorized? And what's to stop a criminal from ripping out all the circuitry and the safety it engages? -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
On 2005-01-10T15:04:21-0500, Trei, Peter wrote: John Kelsey Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire By ANNE EISENBERG I just wonder what the false negative rates are. Seem like a A remarkable number of police deaths are 'own gun' incidents, so the police do have a strong motivation to use 'smart guns' if they are reliable. The NJ law specifically exempts the police from the smart gun requirement (which for civilians goes into effect in 2007 or 2008). Regardless, the legislature doesn't need to get involved for law enforcement to change their weapons policy and require smart guns. False positives may also present a problem. If the only way to get an acceptable identification rate (99%, for instance) is to create a 50% false positive rate for unauthorized users, that's reduces utilitarian benefit by half. Batteries go dead. Solder joints break. Transistors and capacitors go bad. Pressure sensors jam. This is not the kind of technology I want in something that absolutely, positively has to go boom if I want it to. For handguns, I'll stick with pure mechanical mechanisms, thanks. Smart guns are a ploy to raise the cost of guns, make them require more maintenance, annoy owners, and as a result decrease gun ownership. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
On 2005-01-10T15:04:21-0500, Trei, Peter wrote: John Kelsey Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire By ANNE EISENBERG I just wonder what the false negative rates are. Seem like a A remarkable number of police deaths are 'own gun' incidents, so the police do have a strong motivation to use 'smart guns' if they are reliable. The NJ law specifically exempts the police from the smart gun requirement (which for civilians goes into effect in 2007 or 2008). Regardless, the legislature doesn't need to get involved for law enforcement to change their weapons policy and require smart guns. False positives may also present a problem. If the only way to get an acceptable identification rate (99%, for instance) is to create a 50% false positive rate for unauthorized users, that's reduces utilitarian benefit by half. Batteries go dead. Solder joints break. Transistors and capacitors go bad. Pressure sensors jam. This is not the kind of technology I want in something that absolutely, positively has to go boom if I want it to. For handguns, I'll stick with pure mechanical mechanisms, thanks. Smart guns are a ploy to raise the cost of guns, make them require more maintenance, annoy owners, and as a result decrease gun ownership. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Ready, Aim, ID Check: In Wrong Hands, Gun Won't Fire
On 2005-01-10T15:42:47-0500, Tyler Durden wrote: And we'll probably have many years of non-Smart-Gun type accidents...eg, Drunk guy at party put gun to his head and blew his own brains out, assuming it was a smart gun, or, trailer park momma gives gun to toddler assuming its a safe smart gun. Some gun accidents are suicides reported as such to avoid embarrassment to the family. Similarly, I think a few of the gun accidents involving real children, which are extremely rare to begin with, go like this... Son, why don't you take this gun and pretend to go shoot daddy? It's not loaded. Or, Son, why don't you take the gun, put it to your head, and pull the trigger? It's not loaded. I don't believe the article when it says that smart guns are useless if stolen. What do they have, a tamper-proof memory chip storing a 128-bit reprogramming authorization key that must be input via computer before allowing a new person to be authorized? And what's to stop a criminal from ripping out all the circuitry and the safety it engages? -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
On 2005-01-08T12:54:25-0500, Tyler Durden wrote: What else would the PATRIOT act do? That's a particularly malicious That was scarcasm. psychological trick on the part of the miserable bastards who named it. It doesn't so much matter that it's obvious. Somehow, I don't think the bastards were hoping for the kind of Patriotism I have in mind: Large caliber guns to protect our constitutional freedoms, or at least to make it damn costly for individuals to carry out orders trying to take them away. It's the socially conservative public at large who have fallen prey to the association between the PATRIOT act and patriotism. I did not intend to suggest that you or most other cypherpunks members have. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
On 2005-01-06T12:06:40-0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Well, I used to be pro gun-control prior to the Patriot Act. Guess the Patriot Act made me something of a Patriot. What else would the PATRIOT act do? That's a particularly malicious psychological trick on the part of the miserable bastards who named it. It doesn't so much matter that it's obvious. I should like to take this opportunity to remind that it's an acronym, and therefore is properly written in all caps. The taboo against YELLING should carry over to the acronym, making people subconsciously dislike it. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
On 2005-01-06T12:06:40-0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Well, I used to be pro gun-control prior to the Patriot Act. Guess the Patriot Act made me something of a Patriot. What else would the PATRIOT act do? That's a particularly malicious psychological trick on the part of the miserable bastards who named it. It doesn't so much matter that it's obvious. I should like to take this opportunity to remind that it's an acronym, and therefore is properly written in all caps. The taboo against YELLING should carry over to the acronym, making people subconsciously dislike it. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: California Bans a Large-Caliber Gun, and the Battle Is On
On 2005-01-08T12:54:25-0500, Tyler Durden wrote: What else would the PATRIOT act do? That's a particularly malicious That was scarcasm. psychological trick on the part of the miserable bastards who named it. It doesn't so much matter that it's obvious. Somehow, I don't think the bastards were hoping for the kind of Patriotism I have in mind: Large caliber guns to protect our constitutional freedoms, or at least to make it damn costly for individuals to carry out orders trying to take them away. It's the socially conservative public at large who have fallen prey to the association between the PATRIOT act and patriotism. I did not intend to suggest that you or most other cypherpunks members have. -- War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free. -Heraclitus 53
Re: Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife's Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?
On 2004-12-21T10:38:10-0600, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Tyler Durden wrote: put it this way it starts to make some sense. In other words, avoiding travel whenever possible will (when added to sheeple starting to do the same because of all the terible screening stories) eventually start putting some squeeze on the airlines. I expect that eventually in this context would == (hours to [one or two] days) Academic. Everyone will not boycott, so the time frame will increase. (But then again, DC has plenty of our tax dollars ready to bail out an incompetent set of airline managers.) It won't hurt at least. Even DC can't bail out *all* the airlines. That kind of boycott *would* hurt, and hurt badly. And *fast*. Never play chicken with the federal government. They can bail out all the airlines (minus one: they don't need to bail out Southwest Airlines). They'd just need to raise taxes or increase the debt, neither of which is a major impediment. 1) Phone it in 2) Do some kind of lameass video conferencing 3) Fly 4) Get a job at McDonalds First of all, this is a *great* example of why flying is an *option*, and not a requirement. That said, option number 4 is the obvious choice - however, our leggy bimbo's mileage may vary. This is a bit misleading. The leggy bimbo can choose option 4 if she's not smart enough to do something else... like _local_ sales, or even starting up a psychic reading shop and making lots of money from other bimbos.
Re: Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife's Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?
On 2004-12-21T10:38:10-0600, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Tyler Durden wrote: put it this way it starts to make some sense. In other words, avoiding travel whenever possible will (when added to sheeple starting to do the same because of all the terible screening stories) eventually start putting some squeeze on the airlines. I expect that eventually in this context would == (hours to [one or two] days) Academic. Everyone will not boycott, so the time frame will increase. (But then again, DC has plenty of our tax dollars ready to bail out an incompetent set of airline managers.) It won't hurt at least. Even DC can't bail out *all* the airlines. That kind of boycott *would* hurt, and hurt badly. And *fast*. Never play chicken with the federal government. They can bail out all the airlines (minus one: they don't need to bail out Southwest Airlines). They'd just need to raise taxes or increase the debt, neither of which is a major impediment. 1) Phone it in 2) Do some kind of lameass video conferencing 3) Fly 4) Get a job at McDonalds First of all, this is a *great* example of why flying is an *option*, and not a requirement. That said, option number 4 is the obvious choice - however, our leggy bimbo's mileage may vary. This is a bit misleading. The leggy bimbo can choose option 4 if she's not smart enough to do something else... like _local_ sales, or even starting up a psychic reading shop and making lots of money from other bimbos.
Re: pgp global directory bugged instructions
On 2004-12-16T05:50:22-0500, Adam Back wrote: So PGP are now running a pgp key server which attempts to consolidate the inforamtion from the existing key servers, but screen it by ability to receive email at the address. ... So here's the problem: it does not mention anything about checking that this is your fingerprint. What about the fact that they're tying key validity to valid email addresses, when the two have nothing to do with each other? A key does not need to have an associated email address, or the latter could be purposely incorrect. If this is their idea of key verification, they're going to exclude perfectly legitimate keys from this new database.
Re: pgp global directory bugged instructions
On 2004-12-16T05:50:22-0500, Adam Back wrote: So PGP are now running a pgp key server which attempts to consolidate the inforamtion from the existing key servers, but screen it by ability to receive email at the address. ... So here's the problem: it does not mention anything about checking that this is your fingerprint. What about the fact that they're tying key validity to valid email addresses, when the two have nothing to do with each other? A key does not need to have an associated email address, or the latter could be purposely incorrect. If this is their idea of key verification, they're going to exclude perfectly legitimate keys from this new database.
Re: Do 'Ocean's Twelve'-Style Heists Really Happen?
On 2004-12-15T10:14:14-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: This popped up in my bearer filter this morning... Cheers, RAH --- http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1494863/12142004/story.jhtml MTV.com - Movies - News 12.14.2004 9:03 PM EST Reel To Real: Do 'Ocean's Twelve'-Style Heists Really Happen? Sometimes, but the real-life criminals can't possibly be as hot as George Clooney and Brad Pitt. http://home.earthlink.net/~kinnopio/news/news040922.htm (it's gone, but google still has it cached) The Bank Job will have Statham playing a real-life bank robber. The plot is based on the true story of Britain's biggest bank robbery ever: In 1971 the Baker Street bank in London was robbed, no arrests were ever made, and none of the money was ever found. It's a story that hasn't been told in 30 years because of a government-issued gag order. The incident is also discussed briefly here: http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/ross_bell.htm There is some doubt whether the heist was real... if it did happen, it's been covered up for so long that finding any real proof would be difficult. It could be a scam just to make money off of a movie.
Re: Do 'Ocean's Twelve'-Style Heists Really Happen?
On 2004-12-15T10:14:14-0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: This popped up in my bearer filter this morning... Cheers, RAH --- http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1494863/12142004/story.jhtml MTV.com - Movies - News 12.14.2004 9:03 PM EST Reel To Real: Do 'Ocean's Twelve'-Style Heists Really Happen? Sometimes, but the real-life criminals can't possibly be as hot as George Clooney and Brad Pitt. http://home.earthlink.net/~kinnopio/news/news040922.htm (it's gone, but google still has it cached) The Bank Job will have Statham playing a real-life bank robber. The plot is based on the true story of Britain's biggest bank robbery ever: In 1971 the Baker Street bank in London was robbed, no arrests were ever made, and none of the money was ever found. It's a story that hasn't been told in 30 years because of a government-issued gag order. The incident is also discussed briefly here: http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/ross_bell.htm There is some doubt whether the heist was real... if it did happen, it's been covered up for so long that finding any real proof would be difficult. It could be a scam just to make money off of a movie.
Re: Mixmaster is dead, long live wardriving
On 2004-12-11T06:48:41-0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 09:47 PM 12/10/04 -0800, Joseph Ashwood wrote: Now we're back to the MixMaster argument. Mixmaster was meant to be a Napster-level popular app for emailing, but people just don't care about anonymity. Mixmaster is the most godawful complex thing to use, much less administer, around. Even Jack B Nymble is complex. It needs a simple luser interface and something to piggyback servers on. Not necessarily. Mixmaster is trivial to use with Mutt. 1. Compile Mixmaster 2. Put the binary in some directory somewhere. 3. Configure Mutt with --with-mixmaster (sadly not enabled by default) 4. add the line 'set mixmaster=/location/to/bin/mixmaster' to .muttrc 5. mkdir ~user/Mix/ 6. Add a script to crontab that does: cd ~user/Mix/ mv -f mlist.txt mlist.txt.old wget -q http://stats.melontraffickers.com/mlist.txt mv -f rlist.txt rlist.txt.old wget -q http://stats.melontraffickers.com/rlist.txt mv -f pubring.mix pubring.mix.old wget -q http://stats.melontraffickers.com/pubring.mix mv -f type2.list type2.list.old wget -q http://stats.melontraffickers.com/type2.list mv -f pubring.asc pubring.asc.old wget -q http://stats.melontraffickers.com/pgp-all.asc mv -f pgp-all.asc pubring.asc 6.5. And run it once for good measure. 7. When sending email, at the summary page just before sending, hit 'M'.
