Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment

[Tim May]

On Jan 12, 2004, at 7:46 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 15:48, Tim May wrote:

(Though of course this is only the _theory_. The fact that all of the
Bill of Rights, except perhaps the Third, have been violated by the
Evildoers in government is well-known.)
A few years ago I wrote a short paper looking at government-installed
snoopware in terms of the 3rd A. Given that the other BoR amendments
have been broadly interpreted in light of new technology, it's
reasonable to view software as soldiers. In light of the Scarfo case
(keyboard sniffer software installed in a black-bag operation, ca. 
1990)
I'd argue that the Fedz have violated the 3rd A. (My paper was before
Scarfo, so I claim some prescience. Alas.)

During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of 
computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html

The Third Amendment, about
quartering troops, is seldom-applied.
But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI
comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your
place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of
the Third?
This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier 
discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a 
CFP in 1995.

--Tim May

Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment

[Tim May]

On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote:

At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote:

During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of 
computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html

The Third Amendment, about
quartering troops, is seldom-applied.
But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI
comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your
place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of
the Third?
This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier 
discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a 
CFP in 1995.
I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever 
required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the 
U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce 
compliance with the broadcast flag.
In its purest form, I think not.

If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, 
which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has 
been told to quarter troops, abstractly, in her home).

If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs 
he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or 
closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he 
must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured 
would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may  be the case), 
then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice 
then _chooses_ to buy such devices with troops already living in 
them, abstractly speaking, is her choice.

Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of 
manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a 
manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or 
operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ 
is the one being affected by the quartering.

The pure form of the Third (in this abstract sense) is when government 
knocks on one's door and says Here is something you must put inside 
your house.

By the way, there have been a bunch of cases where residents of a 
neighborhood were ordered to leave so that SWAT teams could be in their 
houses to monitor a nearby house where a hostage situation had 
developed. (It is possible that in each house they occupied they 
received uncoerced permission to occupy the houses, but I don't think 
this was always the case; however, I can't cite a concrete case of 
this. Maybe Lexis has one.)

If this takeover of houses to launch a raid is not a black letter law 
case of the government quartering troops in residences, nothing is. 
Exigent circumstance, perhaps, but so was King George's need to quarter 
his troops.

--Tim May
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who 
approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but 
downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. 
--Patrick Henry

Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment

[Tim May]

On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:33 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 02:07, Tim May wrote:

Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego.
Tim is referring to Edward Lawson, arrested repeatedly and convicted
once in the late 1970s for walking around without ID. The appeal made 
it
to the Supreme Court, as Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983). Lawson's
conviction was overturned on grounds that the identify yourself law
was too vague. Not surprisingly, Justice Actual Innocence Rehnquist
felt that the law was good and Lawson's conviction was righteous.

The opinion, with some introductory material, can be found at
http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html
A web page discussing this case in relation to a national ID card is
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/page5.htm
And vast amounts of misinformation are constantly being spread by the 
popular press, and in popular television shows, and in movies. One of 
the most popular t.v. shows, the oxymoronically named Law and Order, 
almost weekly shows someone being told that if he doesn't help the 
police his restaurant will be shut down for a week while city health 
inspectors use a microscope on it. Another meme that is false is spread 
by NYPD Blue, Law and Order, and the Fox show that used to be on: 
Cops (not sure if it still is). Namely, that Fifth Amendment rights 
against compelled self-incrimination only apply after an actual arrest 
(You haven't been arrested yet, so let's not hear about how you can 
remain silent.), or after an attorney has arrived (He lawyered up.)

The right not to be compelled to provide potentially incriminating 
evidence is a broad one, deeply enmeshed in our Bill of Rights. Even 
someone suspected of a crime, even a very serious crime, is under no 
compulsion to talk to the police, whether or not he has a lawyer 
present.

There are regrettable exceptions, such as in our pre-constitutional 
(my view of it) grand jury system, where people can be told to tell all 
they know. Sometimes they get various types of immunity, often the 
claim is that their grand jury testimony will not be used to convict 
them (if they not ostensibly the principals in the crime!), and so on. 
But the fact is that grand jury testimony is often compelled 
self-incrimination.

(And one of the ways the Feds have been getting people they can't get 
in other, more direct, ways is to interview parties in a case and then 
find some subtle contradiction. Then the charge is lying to a federal 
employee (or somesuch...maybe the language is lying in an official 
investigation, to distinguish it from lying to your neighbor the GS-12 
midlevel employee at NASA).

What I've done in several cases where I was stopped by cops is to SAY 
NOTHING. In the Stanford case, I told them I would not be giving them 
either my name or telling them what my business was that day at 
Stanford: it was not their business and I saw no reason to satisfy 
their  curiosity.  In a couple of cases in Santa Cruz, cops have asked 
me my name and asked why i was in a particular area. I told them I 
would be answering no questions.

In none of these cases was I arrested, booked, or charged.

I would, and have, answer questions if I knew there was no conceivable 
way I could become a person of interest in a case. I have answered 
police questions in some crimes I have had knowledge of (and wished to 
see the guilty parties dealt with...I would not lightly aid in a drug 
case, though.

And if one is committing no crime, answering a nosy cop's questions is 
neither required by my reading of the Constitution nor is healthy. (In 
the Stanford case, had I given them my name and/or ID, my name would 
have appeared in a report about threats to the President, and our 
resolution of the case--the SS version of quotas for traffic tickets.

(When one cop blurted out to me that he had seen me planting a bomb 
near the route Clinton would pass by, I _was_ tempted to say I demand 
a lawyer!, just so they'd arrest me, etc. But I didn't, which is 
probably good, as I might have spent a few nights in jail...and felt 
the requirement to stalk the arresting officers and use a sniper rifle 
on one or more of them.)

We are certainly entering a police state era. Interesting that so many 
Jews are so strongly behind the fascist measures...Jews like 
Swinestein, Boxer, Lieberman, and hundreds of others. But, as in the 
ZOG state, the true heirs of the Third Reich are today's Jews...it 
would make a good Outer Limits episode, except the modern OL was 
thoroughly leftist, anti-gun, pro-ZOG, and had several episodes 
involving SS camp guards reincarnated as camp residents, and 
variations. So having the SS reincarnated in the ZOG state would not 
have fit their Zionist biases.

What the Jews think of Goyim is covered in the quotes from the Talmud, 
below.

--Tim May

#1. Sanhedrin 59a: Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild 
animal.
#2. Aboda Sarah 37a: A Gentile girl who is three years old can

Arrest and Identification

[Tim May]

Reminder about talking to cops, being stopped and held by cops, being 
told to produce ID, etc.

As there's much of the old chatter here about these issues, I dug up 
the ACLU card that is recommended to be carried by all persons. Or read 
and understood.

Here's a Web version. A PDF version for efficient printing is also 
available:

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/criminal/bustcardtext.html

A couple of paragraphs relevant to the current discussion about whether 
being stopped for question is arrest, whether ID is required to be 
carried, etc.:

--begin excerpt

2. You don't have to answer a police officer's questions, but you must 
show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. In 
other situations, you can't legally be arrested for refusing to 
identify yourself to a police officer.

3. You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or 
your house. If you DO consent to a search, it can affect your rights 
later in court. If the police say they have a search warrant, ASK TO 
SEE IT.

4. Do not interfere with, or obstruct the police -- you can be arrested 
for it.

IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING

1. It's not a crime to refuse to answer questions, but refusing to 
answer can make the police suspicious about you. You can't be arrested 
merely for refusing to identify yourself on the street.

2. Police may pat-down your clothing if they suspect a concealed 
weapon. Don't physically resist, but make it clear that you don't 
consent to any further search.

3. Ask if you are under arrest. If you are, you have a right to know 
why.

--end excerpt--

--Tim May

'I'm sorry that Tim is being a bother again. He has a long history of
being obnoxious and threatening. So far, he has not broken any laws. We 
have talked to the authorities about him on numerous occasions.
They have chosen to watch but not act.  Please feel free to notify me
 f he does anything that is beyond rude and actually violates any
laws and I will immediately inform the authorities.

Thank You
Don Fredrickson

Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment

[Tim May]

On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:40 AM, bgt wrote:

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 01:07, Tim May wrote:
On Jan 11, 2004, at 2:12 PM, bgt wrote:

On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 13:57, Tim May wrote:
I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the
U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are
driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy 
machinery.
Many states do have laws allowing the police to detain a person for
a period of time (varies by state) to ascertain the identity of that
person, if they have reasonable suspicion that they are involved in a
a crime.
Duh. Yes, arrests are allowed, and have been in all states and in 
all
Perhaps I wasn't very clear. That is (in many states, probably
not all), a cop may stop (detain) someone on reasonable suspicion,
but it would still be illegal to arrest the person (since this would
require probably cause).
This has come up various times on the Net. I'm not a lawyer, but I take 
arrest to mean not free to move on. As in a state of arrest 
(cognate to rest), arrested motion, arrested development. Hence the 
common question: Am I under arrest?, with the follow-up: If not, 
then I'll be on my way.

Arrest is not the same thing as being booked, of course. Many who are 
arrested are never booked. Arrest, to this nonlawyer, is when a cop 
tells me I am not free to move as I wish, that he will handcuff me or 
worse if I try to move away from him.

I expect our millions of lawyers and hundreds of billions of court 
hours have produced a range of definitions, from the cop wants to know 
why you're reading a particular magazine, and will cuff you if you give 
him any lip to all black men within a 5 block radius are being 
detained for questioning, but are not under formal arrest to you're 
under arrest, put your hands behind your back to shooting first and 
Mirandizing the corpse.

I am under arrest if I am in an arrested state of movement, that is, 
not free to move as I wish.


 In these states, at this point the person
is required by law to identify himself, and in some states even to
provide proof of identification.  If the person cannot or will not do
this, it is legal in those states (though as we know, blatantly
unconstitutional) to further detain or even arrest the person until
their identity can be determined.
Again, people need to read up on the Lawson case. And absent an 
internal travel passport, there is no requirement to carry ID. That 
some states haven't heard about the Lawson case, or the Fourth 
Amendment, is no excuse.

You must mean /mandatory/ state ID.  Every state I've lived in have
State ID's that are (voluntarily) issued to residents that can't get
or don't want a driver's license.  All of these states grant their ID
the same status as a driver's license for identification purposes
(anywhere that accepts driver's license as valid ID must also accept
the state ID).
As I said, there is no requirement to carry ID except when doing 
certain things (like driving). Whether some or most states will issue 
licenses to those who don't or can't drive is irrelevant: they are not 
REQUIRED to be carried, so not having one cannot possibly be a crime.



Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego.
(Thanks Steve for the links).
I provided Lawson and San Diego. Plenty of stuff to find hundreds 
of discussions. I favor giving unique information sufficient in a 
Google search, not providing pre-digested search URLs.

--Tim May

We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever
greater instability.
--George H. W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998

Re: Canada issues levy on non-removable memory (for MP3 players)

[Tim May]

On Jan 11, 2004, at 8:24 AM, Adam wrote:

I know this story is quite a bit old, but I really have to wonder how
legal this levy is.
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004nr-e.html

The Board also sets for the first time a levy on non-removable memory
permanently embedded in digital audio recorders (such as MP3 players) 
at
$2 for each recorder with a memory capacity of up to 1 Gigabyte (Gb),
$15 for each recorder with memory capacity of more than 1 Gb and up to
10 Gbs, and $25 for each recorder with memory capacity of more than 10
GBs.

It just seems to me to be a bit sketchy to tax intended illegal usage. 
I
mean, that'd be like taxing condoms b/c of prostitution.

Would something like this go over in the US? I wonder ...


It already has, many times.

Directly parallel to the Canadian tax is the tax on blank media for 
music recording, part of the Home Recording Act of 1991. (Or close to 
that year...Google for details if interested.) This tax was placed on 
blanks ostensibly to recompense recording artists for taped music.

Less directly parallel, but certain sin taxes, are the various and 
very high taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

And the exorbitant luxury taxes on various expensive things like 
certain kinds of jewelry, yachts, expensive cars, etc.  And various 
shakedowns of casinos with special taxes, such as Schwarz nigger's 
demand that Indian casinos in California share their profits with 
the state to help with the deficit.

And various collectivists and fascists have proposed taxes on 
ammunition, ostensibly to recompense victims for being shot. (Ignoring 
the fact that what it would do is penalize those who practice, shooting 
200 or more rounds at a trip to the range, while having no effect on 
the typical gangsta negro or Mexican with less than one box of ammo to 
his name, but still using his piece to shoot several people. The 
recreational shooter ends up paying 99.9% of the tax, the gangsta pays 
a dollar or two per box.)

The point is, the U.S. taxes what political animals call sin quite a 
bit.

--Tim May

Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment

[Tim May]

On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Steve Schear wrote:

At 06:53 PM 1/10/2004, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote:
 What good is a Jury when the judge can pick and choose which 
arguments and
 evidence you can provide in support of your case?

I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside 
the
local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a
raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under
direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors
thinking for themselves, you know.
Did you carry and present ID?

steve

I don't know if he did, but of course there is no requirement in the 
U.S. that citizen-units either carry or present ID. Unless they are 
driving a car or operating a few selected classes of heavy machinery.

When I was surrounded by some cops who accused me of planting a bomb to 
blow up Reichsminister Clinton and his family, I refuse to show them 
some ID. I also refused to let them look in my bag.

Despite their bluster, they had no grounds for their belief, no grounds 
for a Terry stop search of my papers, and no grounds to arrest me. So 
they neither searched my papers forcibly nor arrested me. They did, 
however, order me to leave the grounds of Stanford University, almost 
making me late for a talk before Margaret Rader's cyberspace law class, 
scheduled long, long before the First Fascist scheduled _his_ trip to 
Stanford.

--Tim May

Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment

[Tim May]

On Jan 9, 2004, at 10:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its hard to square the Founder's purpose of providing the common 
citizen, through a militia (which a National Guard), with an effective 
physical deterrent to governmental tyranny with many restrictions on 
the type of weapons a citizen in good standing may keep and bear.  
Though allowing the guy next door to own a nuke or a F-15 may be going 
too far, its not unreasonable for any of us to keep and bear any arm 
that our police forces (including S.W.A.T. teams) field.


Where does this citizen in good standing stuff come from? I see it a 
lot from what I will call weak Second Amendment supporters. They talk 
about good citizens and law-abiding citizens as having Second 
Amendment rights.

If someone has been apprehended and convicted and imprisoned for a real 
crime, then of course various of their normal rights are no longer in 
forced. If, however, they are out of prison then all of their rights, 
including speech, religion, assembly, firearms, due process, security 
of their possessions and property, speedy trial, blah blah blah are of 
course in force.

As a felon, which I am, do I not have First Amendment rights? As a 
felon, and certainly not a citizen in good standing, have I lost my 
other rights?

To all who say Yes, including most of the Eurotrash collectivists 
here, I say your legacy shall be smoke. Tens of millions, perhaps 
billions, need to be sent up the chimneys.


--Tim May
The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able 
may have a gun. --Patrick Henry
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they 
be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton

Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey

[Tim May]

On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:20 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote:

Tim May wrote...

In conclusion, your Bedford-Stuy student who doesn't see the point to
studying math will never be a math researcher, or a physicist, or a
chemist, or anything else of that sort. So no point in trying to 
convince
him to study his math.
Why the BedSty student Tim?


Perhaps because I was replying to Tyler Durden, where he wrote:

I'll tell you a story.

Back in the late 1980s I taught at a notorious HS in Bedford 
Stuyvesant. 90% of my students were black.



You liberals see racism even when people reply to the points raised 
by others.

--Tim May

Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey

[Tim May]

On Jan 2, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Tim May wrote:

So Kennedy's liberals scratched their heads and came up with a new 
plan. Relief would be converted to a series of state and national 
programs, no longer handled locally. And the bad connotations of 
relief would be changed by the new and positive name entitlement.

Money handed out to various folks would be their entitlement, 
something they were _owed_. Other related names would be social 
services and, of course, liberal mention of children and 
nutrition. Ergo programs like WIC (Women, Infants, and Children). 
Ergo, Head Start.
And I should have elaborated on the family system effects of the new 
welfare system:  since the entitlements were not given to families 
with husbands in the household, this made marriage a bad idea for those 
wanting to get welfare.

A young girl could go from the bottom of the pecking order in her 
household to the top in her own apartment, with an income from welfare 
that increased with each baby she had. So we had the spectacle of 
14-year-old girls being given their own apartments by Big Brother, paid 
for with taxes taken from working suckers.

The effects of this are so corrosive as to practically be unexplainable 
to normal people: households solely dependent on handouts from 
government, fathers completely absent (except in sneak visits), a 
disrespect for those who work, the boys in the household anxious to 
hang out on the streets below rather than be with Momma, the crime that 
comes from this kind of hanging out, self-loathing (it seems likely) 
that leads to lashing out at whitey, and a perpetuating cycle as the 
young girls seek to get their own cribs so the process can repeat and 
expand.

This is why so many black families today are into their third or even 
fourth generation of welfare life.

By the way, part of the reason Kennedy wanted to remove the stigma of 
relief was because the decade of the 1950s had been especially bad for 
the urban poor. Many blacks had moved from farms in the south to cities 
like Washington, New York, Cincinnati, Oakland, Chicago, etc. Partly 
they had moved to work in factories during the war, partly because 
automation on the farms had displaced manual laborers, partly because 
they heard of the success of other blacks who had moved north.

But they were moving into the cities just as the whites were leaving. 
(And the whites were not leaving because the blacks were coming 
in...rather, the new jobs were increasingly in the suburbs, and as 
highways and freeways and ring roads were built around cities, and as 
cars became plentiful, and as families grew, many of the city-born 
whites were moving into the massive new subdivisions being built out in 
the suburbs.)

So the blacks got to the inner cities with mostly only manual labor 
skills, just as such jobs were vanishing under automation and through a 
shift to the suburbs.

Now what government _should have done_ circa the early 1960s is this: 
Nothing. Except to cut taxes to encourage even more business, and to 
maybe point out to blacks that they should slow down their move to the 
cities. (By the way, the same move to the cities was happening in other 
countries, which is why Mexico City now has something like 20 million 
residents, most of them very poor.)

But instead of letting the dice fall where they may, letting the bad 
effects discourage other blacks from moving to the cities, Kennedy set 
his advisors to the problem of solving urban poverty. They expanded 
welfare and entitlements, ostensibly because America could afford it 
(the 1950s having been a prosperous period).

Precisely the wrong thing to do. It encouraged even more blacks to 
flock to the cities, and once started, once established, the welfare 
spigot could not be turned off, could not be denied to the newcomers. 
Whoops.

And none of the planners, I expect, saw the effects of the law of 
unintended consequences, that they would disincentive blacks from 
seeking hard jobs, that multigenerational welfare would become the 
norm, and that blacks would be seen by those doing so well in the 
rapidly-expanding, prosperous suburbs as some kind of throwback to 
plantation life. The various demands by black leaders, the reverse 
racism (honkie mofo), the whole hatred for learning (reading be for 
whitey) all combined with the welfare state in these cities to create 
this gutterization of the negro.

Even when the full magnitude of this developing train wreck was obvious 
even to the liberals, they didn't pull back from the brink and say 
Let's stop this train wreck. Nope, they said the problem was not 
enough money. So benefits were expanded in the 1970s, with more 
Medicare, Medical, larger payments...the idea was to pay enough to get 
people back on their feet. But of course, human nature being what it 
is, most took the higher payments and bought nicer stuff, hence the 
color televisions found in every crib.

And the huge influxes of Mexicans during the 70s and 80s

Fwd: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey

[Tim May]

Second of the items lne.com never sent to the list (that I have seen, 
9-10 hours later).

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: January 2, 2004 1:02:20 AM PST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 2, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Tim May wrote:

So Kennedy's liberals scratched their heads and came up with a new 
plan. Relief would be converted to a series of state and national 
programs, no longer handled locally. And the bad connotations of 
relief would be changed by the new and positive name entitlement.

Money handed out to various folks would be their entitlement, 
something they were _owed_. Other related names would be social 
services and, of course, liberal mention of children and 
nutrition. Ergo programs like WIC (Women, Infants, and Children). 
Ergo, Head Start.
And I should have elaborated on the family system effects of the new 
welfare system:  since the entitlements were not given to families 
with husbands in the household, this made marriage a bad idea for 
those wanting to get welfare.

A young girl could go from the bottom of the pecking order in her 
household to the top in her own apartment, with an income from welfare 
that increased with each baby she had. So we had the spectacle of 
14-year-old girls being given their own apartments by Big Brother, 
paid for with taxes taken from working suckers.

The effects of this are so corrosive as to practically be 
unexplainable to normal people: households solely dependent on 
handouts from government, fathers completely absent (except in sneak 
visits), a disrespect for those who work, the boys in the household 
anxious to hang out on the streets below rather than be with Momma, 
the crime that comes from this kind of hanging out, self-loathing (it 
seems likely) that leads to lashing out at whitey, and a 
perpetuating cycle as the young girls seek to get their own cribs so 
the process can repeat and expand.

This is why so many black families today are into their third or even 
fourth generation of welfare life.

By the way, part of the reason Kennedy wanted to remove the stigma of 
relief was because the decade of the 1950s had been especially bad 
for the urban poor. Many blacks had moved from farms in the south to 
cities like Washington, New York, Cincinnati, Oakland, Chicago, etc. 
Partly they had moved to work in factories during the war, partly 
because automation on the farms had displaced manual laborers, partly 
because they heard of the success of other blacks who had moved north.

But they were moving into the cities just as the whites were leaving. 
(And the whites were not leaving because the blacks were coming 
in...rather, the new jobs were increasingly in the suburbs, and as 
highways and freeways and ring roads were built around cities, and as 
cars became plentiful, and as families grew, many of the city-born 
whites were moving into the massive new subdivisions being built out 
in the suburbs.)

So the blacks got to the inner cities with mostly only manual labor 
skills, just as such jobs were vanishing under automation and through 
a shift to the suburbs.

Now what government _should have done_ circa the early 1960s is this: 
Nothing. Except to cut taxes to encourage even more business, and to 
maybe point out to blacks that they should slow down their move to the 
cities. (By the way, the same move to the cities was happening in 
other countries, which is why Mexico City now has something like 20 
million residents, most of them very poor.)

But instead of letting the dice fall where they may, letting the bad 
effects discourage other blacks from moving to the cities, Kennedy set 
his advisors to the problem of solving urban poverty. They expanded 
welfare and entitlements, ostensibly because America could afford it 
(the 1950s having been a prosperous period).

Precisely the wrong thing to do. It encouraged even more blacks to 
flock to the cities, and once started, once established, the welfare 
spigot could not be turned off, could not be denied to the newcomers. 
Whoops.

And none of the planners, I expect, saw the effects of the law of 
unintended consequences, that they would disincentive blacks from 
seeking hard jobs, that multigenerational welfare would become the 
norm, and that blacks would be seen by those doing so well in the 
rapidly-expanding, prosperous suburbs as some kind of throwback to 
plantation life. The various demands by black leaders, the reverse 
racism (honkie mofo), the whole hatred for learning (reading be for 
whitey) all combined with the welfare state in these cities to create 
this gutterization of the negro.

Even when the full magnitude of this developing train wreck was 
obvious even to the liberals, they didn't pull back from the brink and 
say Let's stop this train wreck. Nope, they said the problem was 
not enough money. So benefits were expanded in the 1970s, with more 
Medicare, Medical, larger payments...the idea

Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs

[Tim May]

On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:13 AM, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
actually, we mean burned literally.  the stamp creation process raises 
the temperature of the CPU.  Most systems are not build for full tilt 
computational load.  They do not have the ventilation necessary for 
reliable operation.  So, they may get by with the first 8-12 hours of 
stamp generation (i.e. roughly 2000-3000 stamps per machine) but the 
machine reliability after that time will degrade as the heat builds 
up.  Feel free to run this experiment yourself.  Take a cheat machine 
from your local chop shop, run hashcash in an infinite loop, and wait 
for the smoke detector to go off.

there is nothing quite like waking up to the smell of freshly roasted 
Intel.



I'm skeptical of this claim. A lot of Intel and AMD and similar 
machines are running full-tilt, 24/7. To wit, Beowulf-type clusters, 
the Macintosh G5 cluster that is now rated third fasted in the world, 
and so on. None of these machines is reported to be burning up 
literally. Likewise, a lot of home and corporate users are running 
background tasks which are at 100% CPU utilization.

(Examples abound, from render farms to financial modeling to... Friends 
of mine run a bunch of 2 and 3 GHz Pentium 4 machines in CPU-bound 
apps, and they run them 24/7. (Their company, Invest by Agents, 
analyzes tens of thousands of stocks. They use ordinary Dells and have 
had no catastrophic burned literally failures.)

Further, junction-to-case temperature in a ceramic package has a time 
constant of tens of seconds, meaning, the case temperature reaches 
something like 98% of its equilibrium value (as wattage reaches, say, 
60 watts, or whatever), in tens of seconds. (For basic material and 
physics reasons...I used to make many of these measurements when I was 
at Intel, and nothing in the recent packaging has changed the physics 
of heat flow much.)

We also used to run CPUs at 125 C ambient, under operating conditions, 
for weeks at a time. Here the junction temperature was upwards of 185 
C. Failures occurred in various ways, usually do to electromigration 
and things like that. Almost never was there any kind of fire. Just 
burnout, which is a generic name but has nothing of course to do with 
burning in the chemical sense.

Now I grant you that I haven't tested CPUs in this way in many years. 
But I am skeptical that recent CPUs are substantially different than 
past CPUs. I would like to see some actual reports of burned 
literally CPUs.

By the way, I have run some apps on my Macintosh 1 GHz CPU which are 
CPU-bound. No burn ups.

I'd like to see some support for the claim that running a stamp 
creation process is more likely to burn up a modern machine than all of 
these apps running financial modeling, render farms, and supercomputer 
clusters are doing.

Until then, render me skeptical.

--Tim May

Re: Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs

[Tim May]

On Jan 1, 2004, at 2:35 PM, Eric S. Johansson wrote:

Tim May wrote:

I'm skeptical of this claim. A lot of Intel and AMD and similar 
machines are running full-tilt, 24/7. To wit, Beowulf-type 
clusters, the Macintosh G5 cluster that is now rated third fasted in 
the world, and so on. None of these machines is reported to be 
burning up literally. Likewise, a lot of home and corporate users are 
running background tasks which are at 100% CPU utilization.
I will admit to a degree of skepticism myself even though I am 
describing overheating as a likely outcome.
But what is your actual evidence, as opposed to your belief that 
overheating is a likely outcome? I have said that I know of many 
machines (tens of thousands of CPUs, and probably many more I don't 
know about directly) which are running CPU-bound applications 24/7. I 
have heard of no burning up literally cases with the many Beowulf 
clusters, supercomputers, and 24/7 home or business screensavers and 
crunching apps, so I suspect they are not common.

If you have actual evidence, as opposed to likely outcome 
speculations, please present the evidence.


First, if you lose a fan on an Intel CPU of at least Pentium III 
generation or an AMD equivalent, you will lose your CPU to thermal 
overload.  This is a well-known and well-documented problem.  One 
question is can stamp work thermally overload and damage a CPU.  
Second question is how much stamp work  can you do without thermally 
overloading the CPU.
This is true whether one is running Office or a stamp program. You are 
just repeating a general point about losing a fan, not about stamp 
generation per se. Boxer fan lifetimes are usually about comparable to 
hard drive lifetimes, which also kill a particular machine. You are not 
presenting anything new here, and the association with stamp generation 
is nonexistent.
Large clusters have more careful thermal engineering applied to them 
than probably most of the zombies out there.  I have seen one Beowulf 
cluster constructed out of standard 1U chassis, motherboards, fans 
etc. and frequently 10 percent of the systems are down at any one 
time.  The vast majority of the failures have been due to thermal 
problems.
Most clusters use exactly the same air-cooled machines as are available 
from Dell, Sun, Apple, etc. In fact, the blades and rackmount systems 
are precisely those available from Dell, Sun, Apple, etc.

You are presenting no evidence, just hypothesizing that your stamp 
protocol somehow burns out more CPUs than render farms do, than 
Mersenne prime apps to, than financial simulations do, etc. Yet you 
present no actual numbers.
so, will we see a Pentium IV spontaneously ignite like a third tier 
heavy-metal group in a Rhode Island nightclub?  No, you're right, we 
won't.  I think it's safe to say we will see increasing unreliability, 
power supply failures, and failures of microelectronics due to 
increased thermal load.  Which is good enough for my purposes.
Evidence is desirable, belief is just belief.



--Tim May
That government is best which governs not at all. --Henry David 
Thoreau

Re: Skeptical about claim that stamp creation burns out modern CPUs

[Tim May]

On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:56 AM, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I grant you that I haven't tested CPUs in this way in many years.
But I am skeptical that recent CPUs are substantially different than
past CPUs. I would like to see some actual reports of burned
literally CPUs.
I've never seen a burned literally CPU, but I have tracked the
demise of an AMD K6 (or K6-2, can't remember now) from hot carrier
effects.  If all processors were made like that one, you would see a
lot more load-induced failures.
Just so. A lot of games are close to being CPU-bound, plus the 
screensavers used as Mersenne prime finders and the like, and there are 
few reports of house fires caused by the CPU being smoked.

When I did reliability stuff for Intel, CPUs failed, but mostly not in 
ways that had them catching on fire, as the stamp guy is suggesting is 
common for stamp generation.

--Tim May





#1. Sanhedrin 59a: Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild 
animal.
#2. Aboda Sarah 37a: A Gentile girl who is three years old can be 
violated.
#3. Yebamoth 11b: Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted 
if she is three years of age.
#4. Abodah Zara 26b: Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.
#5. Yebamoth 98a: All gentile children are animals.
#6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: A Jew is forbidden to drink from 
a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made 
the wine unclean.
#7. Baba Necia 114, 6: The Jews are human beings, but the nations of 
the world are not human beings but beasts.

Alt.cypherpunks will be where I do most of my posting

[Tim May]

On Jan 2, 2004, at 1:03 PM, someone wrote:

On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 13:18, Tim May wrote:
Second of the items lne.com never sent to the list (that I have seen,
9-10 hours later).
I saw both articles, both the originals and the reposts, on the LNE
feed. I didn't, however, get the original of either on the pro-ns feed,
but I saw the reposts on pro-ns.
I subscribed to pro-ns after Eric M's announcement, but it seems to 
miss
a lot of articles that I get from LNE. Still searching for a reliable
feed which cuts out the Australian Jackass and other noise posts.
Several operators of Cypherpunks nodes have gotten tired of the topic 
or the running of nodes and have moved on to other things. Even those 
still running nodes rarely have anything to post themselves.

Those remaining on the remaining nodes, or at least the ones posting, 
are mainly eurotrash lefties and American collectivists who just don't 
get it.

As none of the alternatives to lne.com are what I'm looking for in a 
node, I expect to do most of my future posting to alt.cypherpunks. This 
newsgroup has been in existence for a bunch of years and periodically 
gets interesting threads. A few sock puppets have been spamming it, but 
filters are readily available to screen out the crud.

The advantage of a newsgroup is that all the distribution and 
propagation issues are handled more or less automagically, The 
disadvantages are well-known, but are not much worse than with some of 
today's nodes (subject to long delays, dropped articles, etc.).

Another advantage is that the address will be more or less known to 
anyone, at all times.

Also, no friendly chats by Feebs with the operators of a site.  And 
virtually no chance of shutting down a newsgroup.

--Tim May

Sources and Sinks

[Tim May]

The jabber about how poor people are actually paying for the successful 
is beyond belief. All sorts of arguments are being made about how poor 
people somehow pay for the infrastructure the wealthy exploit.

And the chestnut about how tax breaks aid the wealth disproportionately 
is once again brought out.

(Yeah, if Alice was paying $50K in taxes and the taxes are cut to $40K 
she benefits more than Bob the Wino who got no tax benefits because 
he paid no taxes. Which misses the point about Alice's high taxes in 
the first place.)

This is why the Tax Freedom Day approach is more useful. Tax freedom 
day is of course the day when the average American or Brit or whatever 
has stopped working for the government and has the rest of his income 
for himself. For most years, this is estimated to around May-June. That 
is, for almost half of a year a typical taxpayer is working for the 
government.

Not a perfect measure, as it averages together folks of various tax 
brackets, including the many in America who pay nothing (but it doesn't 
assign a negative number to those who receive net net money from the 
government). And it fails to take into account the double taxation 
which a business owner faces: roughly a 50% tax on his profits, then 
when the profits are disbursed to the owners of the corporation, 
another 35-45% tax bite. For a business owner, he is effectively 
working for the government for the first 70% of every year. Which means 
only October-December is he working for his own interests.

Jabber about how poor people are actually receiving fewer tax benefits 
than rich people misses the point of who's working for whom.

Alice, an engineer or pharmacist or perhaps a small business owner, 
works between 40% and 70% of her time to pay money into government.

Bob, a crack addict collecting disability or welfare or other 
government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society. 
(Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!)

Alice is a source, Bob is a sink. Talk about how Alice gets benefits 
ignores the fact that she's working for the government for a big chunk 
of her life. Bob is not. Alice is a slave for the government, and 
society, so that Bob can lounge in his mobile home watching ESPN and 
collecting a monthly check.

(I'd like to know why all of the folks here in California who are 
getting benefits and services are not at my door on Saturday 
morning to help me with my yard work. I'd like to know why finding 
reliable yard workers has become nearly impossible in the past couple 
of decades. Will work for food signs are a fucking joke...try hiring 
one of those layabouts to actually do some work for food and watch the 
sneers, or watch them threatening to fake a work injury if a shakedown 
fee is not given to them. These people should be put in lime pits.)

When you hear John Young and Tyler Durden nattering about the persons 
of privilege are reaping the rewards of a benificent government, think 
about Alice and Bob and ask yourself who'se doing the real work. Ask 
who're the sources and who're the sinks.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his 
need...and I've got a game to watch on satellite...and where's my 
check?

--Tim May
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any 
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm 
to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient 
warrant. --John Stuart Mill

So many statists

[Tim May]

On Jan 3, 2004, at 3:01 PM, bgt wrote:
(Jeez, I just recently got back onto this list after a several-year
hiatus.  How the hell did so many statists ever get the idea that
ubiquitous cryptography would ever further their goals?  Or are they
just here to distract us with statism vs liberty type political
debates so we can't get any real work done??)
Most of those now posting (and maybe most of those subscribed, but I am 
only speculating) are various eurotrash lefties and anti-globalist 
activists who decided that crypto is cool after their anti-corporate, 
anti-choice rallies in Seattle, Milano, and other cities shut down by 
the Yippie marches and barricades. I assume they figured that since 
they were using PGP to communicate with their fellow anti-capitalists, 
that crypto must be cool (I'm not sure if they favor the negro term, 
bad, or the traditional term, good, so I'll use the term of my 
generation, cool.)

Are they confused? Yep.

Welcome to the Gen X and Gen Y (and soon) the Gen Z world. Crypto be 
bad, dog! This nigga be bouncin'!

I'm actually glad to see that Cypherpunks nodes are winding down, that 
we no longer have monthly meetings, and that the Movement is ending. 
Better that than to see it hijacked by the eurotrash lefties, New York 
collectivists, and anti-globalist warriors against free trade.

--Tim May, Corralitos, California
Quote of the Month: It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; 
perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. 
--Cathy Young, Reason Magazine, both enemies of liberty.

Re: Alt.cypherpunks will be where I do most of my posting

[Tim May]

On Jan 2, 2004, at 2:00 PM, R. A. Hettinga wrote:

Okay... At a time like this, I might  as well trot out the Tim May
Google-Stalk URL so everyone can get the full treatment...:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=imagesie=UTF-8oe=UTF 
-8as_uauthors=Tim%20Maylr=lang_ennum=100hl=en

(timcmayatgotdotnet doesn't work because it misses the earlier  
address, but
a Tim May in the author field does enough...)

Thanks for all the fish.

I saw your silly stalking, your incorrect comments about Krakatoa.

Someday you may learn that content matters more than your listen up,  
boys and girls and milk ran out my nose sort of patter. Then you may  
find actual economic success, no longer dependent on your wife to  
support you.

Consider that CPUs have gotten 10 times faster than when you started  
yammering about digital bearer instruments and general programming  
tools have gotten at least a couple of times better. If you can't  
implement what you have been yammering about with this amount of CPU  
power and tools, but instead think you need to raise  to hire a few  
programmers and have a company, you are clearly smoking herb.

Haskell running on 4 GHz of processor(s) gives you vastly more power  
than any 10 programmers had several years ago.

Get on with it, or give up. Your nattering about e$ and Philodex  
and Digital Bearer Instruments is getting really, really old.

--Tim May

Re: Education Be For Whitey

[Tim May]

On Jan 3, 2004, at 9:23 AM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

At 10:41 PM 1/2/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
And until the Liberatarian utopia you speak of comes to pass,
One could close all public schools and voucher tomorrow.
I came up with a plan which is workable immediately and which does not 
require substantive changes:

Put a partition down the middle of a school building. One side is 
Blue, the other side is Red.

Blue and Red have different academic orientations, different goals. 
What the goals are and how they are set might arise in different ways, 
e.g., by a vote of parents, or the backgrounds of the teachers in each, 
and so on. Not so important. What is important is what follows.

As the Blue and Red sides evolve, with perhaps one focusing on academic 
excellence and the other on social skills, parents could move their 
children between the sides (say, on a semester by semester basis, to 
reduce thrashing). As the sizes of the Blue and Red sizes change, the 
partition would be moved.

This gives policy choice within a particular school building, which 
is a lot less expensive than busing students long distances to get to 
magnet schools (science, performing arts, crack dealing, etc.).

--Tim May
They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, 
and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers 
actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members 
before the vote. --Rep. Ron Paul, TX, on how few Congresscritters saw 
the USA-PATRIOT Bill before voting overwhelmingly to impose a police 
state

Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey

[Tim May]

On Jan 1, 2004, at 7:44 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tim May wrote:

A few moments of thought will show the connection between replicators
and general assemblers. A general assembler can make another general
assembler, hence all general assemblers are replicators.  And in fact
this is necessary to make mechanosynthesis nanotech viable, as
otherwise it takes all the multibillion dollar wafer fabs in the 
world,
if they could make nanoscale things, to make some scum on the bottom 
of
a test tube.
Or a few-dollar fermentation tanks with suitable bacteria, once its 
genome
is tweaked in required way. Who ever said that the nanoparticles we 
need
can't be proteins or organic molecules with required shape/properties? 
If
viral particles can self-assemble from host-cell-synthetized proteins, 
if
complicated structures like bacterial propulsion systems - or even 
whole
plants - can be formed, why not nanomechanical systems? Why bother with
assembling machines when they could be grown?

I hope I didn't screw up my understanding of nanosynthesis. If it is
build anything you want by telling the general assembler, then this
won't work and would need a lab; but for mass-producing nnoparticles, 
eg.
surface coatings or elements for camera or memory arrays, biotech 
should
be good enough.

Which is why I was careful to say mechanosynthesis and even to 
qualify the type of replicator as Drexler-style.

We've had systems which can replicate in 25 minutes or so for as long 
as we've existed. But making bread is not the same thing as making 
computers, or Boeing 747s, or non-bread kinds of food.

Specialized biologicals making specialized things is probably where 
nanotechnology will be a commercial success, but it just ain't real 
nanotech.

--Tim May

Re: Sources and Sinks

[Tim May]

On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:26 PM, Justin wrote:

Tim May (2004-01-02 02:42Z) wrote:

Bob, a crack addict collecting disability or welfare or other
government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society.
(Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!)
Do those who have previously been in the workforce, in your opinion,
have the right to reclaim through welfare any amount up to that they've
paid through taxes to the entity providing welfare/unemployment?  Or is
all unemployment money Pluto's fruit?
No, as there is no fund that this money is in. Once taxes are paid 
in, the money has gone out to crack addicts, Halliburton, welfare 
whores (excuse me, hoes), foreign dictators like Mubarek and Sharon, 
and so on.

In fact, the estimated overall debt is something like $30-40 trillion. 
I've outlined how this number is arrived at a few times in the past. As 
there are about 100 million tax filers in the U.S.--the other 175 
million being children, spouses, prisoners, welfare recipients, illegal 
aliens, non-filers, etc.--a simple calculation shows the average 
indebtedness per tax filer is around $300,000 or more. This is far, far 
beyond what the average household owns in total. Because the U.S. has 
been charging it for the past 40 years. Quibblers will say we can 
reduce this indebtedness by selling off government-owned lands, which 
would be a good start. Or be taxing corporations more, but this still 
ends up with the individual tax filers, ultimately. Or by devaluing the 
dollar dramatically, which is the likeliest strategy the kleptocrats 
will follow, after gettting enough advance warning to get their own 
assets out of dollar-denominated vehicles.

So, you see, there IS NO FUND one can withdraw money from.

Anyone claiming new welfare benefits requires even more thefts from 
those still working.

Just because money was stolen from you doesn't give you any right to 
steal from me.

--Tim May

Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey

[Tim May]

On Jan 1, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Tyler Durden wrote:



Tim May wrote...

First, please stop including the full text of the message you are 
replying to. Learn to use an editor, whether you ultimately top-post 
or bottom-post to edited fragments.
I actually do this for a reason. If I'm not doing a line-by-line 
response (or sometimes even if I am), I want the original post from 
which I am excerpting to be visible, so that it can be referred to and 
determined I am not taking this particular quote out of context.
The world has had well over ten years to adjust to using editors to 
supply sufficient context.

However, the fact is that the school system sucks. It's a joke. Repeat 
offenders get bounced from school to school, wrecking classes and the 
environment everywhere they go.
As demanded by the negroes and their Jew speaker-to-negroes 
handlers.

(A high school teacher of mine pointed out that when someone demands 
something, reach for your gun. She left teaching not long after.)

Teachers in most states have 25 classroom hours a week, a number 
matched nowhere in the world (as far as I've ever heard), and THAT'S 
in addition to homeroom and other duties. The cirriculum is a silly 
joke, watered down and watered down so that only someone who never 
shows up couldn't graduate. (And in black schools you'd be suprised 
how many times I've heard 'these kids can't learn...don't try'.)
Because the Jews and negroes have demanded that all students be taught 
stuff they obviously will never use. Most innerr city mutants should be 
taught practical skills, not abstract stuff their previous education 
has been bereft of.

So your whole burnoff of the eaters theme misses one critical 
element: direct contact with kids. If you yourself had seen and met 
kids you KNEW might actually have quite a talent for math, YES EVEN 
YOU might be tempted to give a crap, and see if just one or two might 
somehow be inspiried merely to do some homework. This is particularly 
true when you realize that you actually LIKE some of these kids, which 
are as fully human as you are, by the way.
I don't give a shit whether they're fully human or not. I only care 
that they stop stealing from me, that liberal Jews stop saying that my 
taxes have to be increased to support these fully human bags of shit.

The parallel I like is one we developed (in Ted Kaehler's 
nanotechnology study group in the early 90s) for looking at what a 
society and economy might look like where the costs of material 
production are as close to zero as one might imagine. That is, a 
society with full-blown general assemblers, i.e., von Neumann 
replicators at the molecular, mechano-synthesis, Drexler-type scale. 
How would goods be produced and sold? How would markets exist/
I don't remember reading any von Neumann where he discusses the idea 
of general assemblersI'm still not convinced the general physics 
of that idea works out, and I believe Freeman Dyson has had some 
similar doubts. But despite that there's a point here...
Then your education in physics about von Neumann is sorely lacking. Von 
Neumann spend part of several years investigating self-replicating 
machines, using some ideas of Ulam and others. Well-covered in the 
cellular automata literature.

In science fiction, one will find the general assembler literally 
referred to as the von Neumann probe. Cf. 35-year old fiction by 
Saberhagen on Berserkers, or slightly more recent fiction by Roger 
Macbride Allen and others, for example. Von Neumann machines are more 
than just non-functional bottleneck machines.

As for nanotech, I wasn't endorsing it, just noting the context. My 
skepticism is noted in Crandall's book on nanotech.

* The society we are heading towards is one of an increasingly sharp 
division between the skilled and in demand end of the spectrum and 
the bulk of droids who have few skills in demand.


I've also witnessed this trend, but I currently believe it only holds 
in certain segments. There are various craft industries (as I call 
them) where this equation seems to be held in suspension. Like it or 
not, hip hop is one of those, though I suppose you could argue that 
the number of hip-hop 'artists' that make it is tiny compared to the 
audience. But the point is that in a craft industry, we're really 
referring to specific and local tastes, as opposed to Darwinian 
selection (ie, the 'most fit'). In a craft there may be room for many 
to contribute. (Other examples of craft industries are US high-end 
audio, the wine industry, high-end marijuana, organic foods and 
cheeses, and the current German-centered board game renassaiance.) 
What's desired in such an envornment is not necessarily the 
best/fastest/brightest, but something with a particularly 'quality' 
that corresponds to local vagaries of culture and taste. (At least, 
there's no other way to explain the success of Snoop Doggy Dog...)
Snoop is razzlekamazzled by the negroes, who have the money they stole 
from

Fwd: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey

[Tim May]

I composed and sent this message, and one following it, last night. 
Lne.com has not yet forwarded either, 10 hours later. I checked Eric's 
message and he said new _subscriptions_ will no longer be accepted 
after 04-01-01 and mail will no no longer be forwarded after 04-01-15. 
Perhaps he is halting operations early.

All things must end.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: January 2, 2004 12:03:39 AM PST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Quantum Loop Gravity Be For Whitey
On Jan 1, 2004, at 10:06 PM, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why the BedSty student Tim?
Uhh, read more carefully.  He was responding to a specific point from
Tyler Durden.
You have some incredible moments of lucidity and insight, and 
occasionally,
we are the lucky recipients of these fleeting events - but then, 
just as sure
as the sun coming over the horizon every morning of every day, you 
slip back
into the pseudo-intellectual racist crap.  What's wit dat?
I don't think Tim is racist as such.  He hates everyone equally.  :-)
But seriously, calling it racism seems wrong-headed.  Racism is I
hate black people because they're black.  Tim hates (some, most,
all?) black people because he percieves them as benefitting unfairly
from his hard work.  I'm pretty sure, all other things being equal, he
wouldn't hate a black person who, through his own hard work and
without taking a penny from the government, turned himself into a
successful, tax-paying source.  Or, at least, I'm not convinced he
would hate such a person, which is to say I'm not convinced he's a
racist.
I admire many negroes. Shelby Steele, who wrote The Content of our 
Character, for example. And Thomas Sowell, an even more prolific 
author (and Stanford professor). And Niger Innes (son of the lefty Roy 
Innes...a lot of children of 60s liberal negroes are now libertarian 
or conservative, e.g., Adam Clayton Powell's son). And Clarence Thomas 
(who has argued forcefully that the Supremes ought to do a very 
thorough review of gun laws, with the hint that the right decision 
would be to restore the Second Amendment to first class status). And a 
bunch of others, including Ward Connerly, of California, who has been 
leading the effort to have race removed as the basis for _any_ 
government actions, including hiring quotas, special admissions 
requirements for negroes and Asians (at opposite ends of the test 
score spectrum), and so on.

I don't admire the politics of Condie Rice and Colin Powell, but there 
is little doubt that they are accomplished, bright people.

My problem is that negroes are 80% in solidarity on a bunch of 
disgusting, anti-liberty things: affirmative action, racial quotas, 
minority setasides (but not for successful minorities--they want 
limits on the number of Asians admitted to UC schools), welfare, 
increased benefits, etc.

Further, they, as a whole, have a plantation mentality: always 
demanding that Massa in the Big White House give them more stuff. 
Instead of excelling and grabbing the stuff for themselves, as Chinese 
and Korean and Indian people have done in America, they think 
setasides and quotas and special favoritism is owed to them.

I used to not care much about what they did or thought. When I entered 
college in 1970 I expected to mix with a bunch of different sorts of 
people. What I found was that the negroes all sat at the same tables 
in the dining halls, that whites who sat near them were chased off, 
and that we non-blacks, including Asians, Indians, South Americans, 
whites, etc., could mix with each other, but not with the Panthers.

And they ghettoized themselves into Black Studies, which they had 
demanded a couple of years earlier and had just gotten in 1969.

In 1972 they formed various militant groups on campus. One obnoxious 
woman named Judy became the student association president. When she 
didn't like a decision, she ordered the Panthers, her enforcers, to 
bar the doors and not let anyone out until the decision was reversed. 
It was.

I am not exaggerating. I included this, and the theft of ASU funds, 
and the henchmen, and similar leftist actions by others (including the 
MeCHA Aztlanos), in a letter to the Regents of the University of 
California. It was published in the school newspaper, in a full-paged 
spread, and I got replies from the governor of the state, Ronald 
Reagan. I met with the Chancellor and he agreed that the situation at 
the campus was deplorable, but that in the interests of keeping the 
peace with the negroes and Mexicans, given the time (1973), there was 
little they could do. He promised that his office was looking into the 
allegations and already knew about most of them.

When I joined Intel in 1974, I saw plenty of Chinese, Indians, a 
handful of Koreans and Vietnamese (more later), but only one negro 
engineer. And he had a major chip on his shoulder. When he was let go 
in one of the RIFs, he claimed discrimination on the basis

Vengeance Libertarianism

[Tim May]

On Dec 30, 2003, at 10:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

(This space reserved for former Marxist and now neocon standard-bearer
James Donald to foam that I am a Saddam lover and a supporter of
Chomsky.)
I will say that I was a a former marxist. This is not to bow at the 
feet
of some better method, nor to trivialize the past.

My awakening, as it were, actually happened here, for better or worse.
Tim, Hal, Lucky, Uni and to some extent Detweiler all helped
form my view. More than a few others. This was back in '93, mostly. At
least, the founding, for me was then. I know some things happened later
(I saw Uni present his Coke Presentation in 2002 for the first time),
and I became concerned with business, or at least companies that wanted
cash, and to be a business later.
I never went through a Marxist phase, never even came close. This 
despite entering college in 1970, this despite going to a school where 
the dominant paradigm was leftist (UC Santa Barbara).

I occasionally wonder what my perspective might be had I ever held 
leftist, collectivist thoughts. Oh well, I'll never know.

Thirty years ago I _was_ more charitable about the various groups which 
claim to have been aggrieved, and I dutifully referred to negroes as 
blacks, argued earnestly with doubting leftists about the importance 
of the profit motive, cited semi-leftists who had reasonable things to 
say about capitalism and liberty and the Constitution.

But over the years, as I have seen a huge chunk of money taken from me 
at gunpoint and given to welfare skanks, inner city negro mutants, gay 
activist buttfucker San Francisco queer groups, foreign nations with 
dictators like Hussein (both of them), Mubarek, Amin, Meir, Rabin, and 
a hundred others, and as education has declined while the pigeons 
demand more handouts...I have become what I call a vengeance 
libertarian.

While certain theoreticians of 30 years argued for silly ideas about 
how how it is immoral to land on another's balcony while falling from 
a building, because the property rights had not been negotiated, and 
thus argued that even self-defense is fraught with moral problems, 
another camp of us were developing the idea that vengeance is good, 
that crypto anarchy will not only let some of us withdraw from the 
system, a la Galt's Gulch, but also it will let us execute justice on 
those who stole from us.

For every negro welfare momma who took money for the past number of 
years, tell her to pay it all back, with compounded interest, or face 
time in a labor camp to repay what she stole. And if she cannot, or 
will not, which is ovewhelmingly likely, harvest her organs (if any 
takers can be found) and send the leftovers up the smokestacks.

Ditto for the queers who have collected public health funds to pay 
for their sodomy. (I have no issue with their choices of partners, 
except that the diseases they contract via their habits, and their 
inability to work, is their problem, not mine. And not any 
corporations, except by the choice of that corporation.)

Vengeance libertarianism is the rational kind. It will result in 20-40 
million of the leeches, the bums, the minority grifters, the so-called 
aggrieved, the winos, the addicts, all being sent up the chimneys.

Hitler had only minor reasons to go after the Jews (many of them had 
manipulated the economy to favor Jews while also preaching a no 
defense loser strategy to their untermenschen), we have much more 
reason to go after the tens of millions of underpeople who have been 
using their thugs in government to steal from us. We have much more 
justification today to liquidate the parsites than Hitler ever had.

As for government, I estimate that 99% of those in Congress and 
government agencies in the past 40 years have earned killing. Of 
current Congressvarmints, only two seem to be not guilty. Of low-level 
employees, a bunch are just willing dweebs, and may be able to work off 
their debts in a labor camp for a decade or two. But probably the 
cleaner solution is just to do a thermonuclear cauterization of the 
region surrounding Washington and start fresh from there with a very 
limited government that honors the Constitution instead of catering to 
negroes and queers and welfare addicts.

Crypto anarchy will make delivering justice to  tens of millions a 
reality. The world will learn a lesson when we burn off these 
criminals.

--Tim May
Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.--Barry Goldwater

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks

[Tim May]

On Dec 31, 2003, at 9:27 AM, Tyler Durden wrote:

Nowhere in Tim's spew is the recognition that the largest
beneficiaries of government favoritism are corporations and
wealthy individuals like himself, especially those associated with
the greeders of the defense industry, rather the national
security state.
Yes...that's the thing I don't fully get. If we assume that Mr May 
made a big chunk of $$$ at Intel, isn't it rather naive of him to 
assume that the same system that helped make Intel the global 
$$$-generator it is isn't the same system that keeps black folks 
quiescent and so on? I think it's doubtful that Intel could have 
become what it is in any other country in the world.
What's this nonsense about keeping black folks quiescent and so on/

I saw minorities practically float under the Golden Gate Bridge in 
inner tubes, coming from Vietnam. A few years after arriving, they were 
opening small shops and restaurants, then leading the way to opening 
screwdriver shops for building white box PCs.

As with most past minorities--Irish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, 
etc.--they buckled down and worked their butts off, often living 5-10 
to an apartment, saving for the day when they could buy their own 
house. Huge parts of Sunnyvale and Cupertino, to name just a few of the 
communities where this happened, became largely Asian during the 1980s.

Meanwhile, the black folk kept listening to Rev. Jess Jackson and 
Rev. Al Sharpton tell them that they were owed reparations, that they 
were owed a series of entitlements. No suprise that a large fraction 
of negro teens subscribe to the view that reading be for whitey. In 
fact, negroes have invented a whole series of insult terms for those 
who study too much, for those who break out of the field worker 
status: Uncle Toms, Oreos, etc.

Imagine where the Asians would be if Asian kids who did well in science 
and math were taunted as race traitors?

Today, Intel's engineering staff is about 75% minority, mostly 
Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Pakistanis, and assorted other 
minorities. More than half of all entering students at Berkeley, in 
all majors summed together, are Asian.

At Intel, we had very, very, very few blacks apply for engineering 
jobs. I recall three of them, and one of them was from Sierra Leone, 
not the U.S. All three left after various problems of their own making.

When I was interviewing candidates for engineering, I interviewed a 
bunch of Asians, about the same number of whites, and no negroes. Not 
by my choice, but because the negroes had largely ghettoized themselves 
into Black Studies, Sociology, and Yoruba/East African languages, or 
had not made it to graduation.

There are no negroes in senior high tech positions at any of the 
companies I am in investor in for some very obvious reasons.

Math be for whitey. Reading be for whitey. We be owed repa-ations for 
diskiminashun!!

Add to that the fact that Mr May seems to lead a fairly bucolic life 
(from his accounts)...working in his gardens, installing tripwires and 
landmines and so forth, apparently without worrying about cash or 
physical needs. So this system has served him pretty well, insofar as 
there was a place for him to apply his skills in order to make his 
$$$. That system was payed for by somebody else's taxes, and now it's 
asking (well, demanding from) him for some $$$ that he apparently can 
easily afford.
Nonsense. The chip companies were NOT payed for by somebody else's 
taxes. (Nor was the invention of the IC or the microprocessor paid for 
by DARPA or anyone else in government, despite factually incorrect lore 
to the contrary. I was there, at least for the onset of the micro, and 
I can say precisely what role government contracts played: none.)

Engineers and scientists who work an estimated 8 months out of each 
year to pay their taxes (Federal plus state plus local plus payroll 
plus property plus sales plus.) see the minority layabouts working 
not one _day_ for their entitlements and benefits and social 
services.

Do the math, unless you think math be for whitey.


 Therefore, any thought system that has as a corrollary ...and 40 
million negros should die... should immediately be suspect of having 
been based on a foundation of non-mathematical muck, likely relating 
to penis envy and getting rejected by some hot black chick Mr May 
tried to date back in 1957 or whatever.

You are contemptible.

--Tim May

Re: Vengeance Libertarianism and Hot Black Chicks

[Tim May]

On Dec 31, 2003, at 10:51 AM, Tim May wrote:
Add to that the fact that Mr May seems to lead a fairly bucolic life 
(from his accounts)...working in his gardens, installing tripwires 
and landmines and so forth, apparently without worrying about cash or 
physical needs. So this system has served him pretty well, insofar as 
there was a place for him to apply his skills in order to make his 
$$$. That system was payed for by somebody else's taxes, and now it's 
asking (well, demanding from) him for some $$$ that he apparently can 
easily afford.
Nonsense. The chip companies were NOT payed for by somebody else's 
taxes. (Nor was the invention of the IC or the microprocessor paid 
for by DARPA or anyone else in government, despite factually incorrect 
lore to the contrary. I was there, at least for the onset of the 
micro, and I can say precisely what role government contracts played: 
none.)

Engineers and scientists who work an estimated 8 months out of each 
year to pay their taxes (Federal plus state plus local plus payroll 
plus property plus sales plus.) see the minority layabouts working 
not one _day_ for their entitlements and benefits and social 
services.
I'm going to elaborate on this point, as there seems to be a growing 
meme in the tech culture (especially amongst the anti-free trade, 
twentysomething, self-described geeks) that somehow government built 
or paid for technology, business, high tech, etc.

What built our system was essentially a _compact_, an agreement 
codified in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and even centuries of 
common law that a bunch of things would happen:

-- that interference in the business choices of a business would be 
minimal

-- that failing businesses would not be bailed out (and, indeed, none 
of the leading companies in 1850 last much beyond 1900, few in business 
in 1900 are still dominant, etc.)

-- that owners, employers, etc. and their employees, customers, etc. 
would themselves negotiate wages, prices, benefits, etc., without a 
top-down order about who might be employed, at what rates, etc.

(This of course began to change when the socialists assumed power in 
the 1930s, and then dramatically changed when the Great Society 
socialists assumed power in 1961. It then came to be seen as the role 
of government to set wages, to force businesses to deal with those they 
wished not to, to let debtors off without repaying debts or even having 
their kneecaps smashed, etc. This was the start of the Era of 
Entitlements, when some ethnic groups decided that reading be for 
whitey and that they would coast on freebies paid for by the suckas 
still working.)

This compact, based essentially on voluntary interaction in trade, 
employment, and investment, worked quite well for many decades. This 
compact, this way of doing things which is usually called liberty or 
laissez faire, was not built by government...until relatively 
recent times the size of government was small and tax rates for most 
workers and investors were low. What made the system work was that the 
system largely worked on the non-initiation of force principle, which 
is what begets voluntary transactions. If a person thought he was not 
being paid enough, it was his option to go elsewhere, to start his own 
business, etc. If a business wanted to raise or lower prices, their 
option. Customers were free to purchase or not.

The meme which Tyler Durden and John Young--not surprising to me that 
both are Manhattanites, representing the East Coast view of 
capitalism--are popularizing is the one that says that what made 
companies successful was *government spending*, not this compact which 
needed little or no government role, and that this makes government 
intervention in business justifiable. Even more mendacious is the claim 
that those who worked hard and risked their capital by investing in 
companies are profiting at the expense of the less privileged.

You are successful because of the taxes paid by the less-privileged, 
so now it is right that you be taxed at high rates so that welfare 
benefits can be maintained. is the essential message here.

This is hokum. Very few U.S. or even European and Asian businesses were 
built with public funds. Neither Sony nor Honda, two examples of 
post-war successes, were built by MITI (MITI, in fact, frequently 
criticized Sony and Honda for the courses they pursued...meanwhile MITI 
was funding the now-defunct TRON microprocessor and the Fifth 
Generation Computer, utterly missing out on workstations, PCs, modern 
microprocessors, CAD, routers, and the Internet).

None of Intel's achievements, whether the first dynamic RAM (the 1101), 
the first EPROM, the first microprocessor, the first single board 
computer, the first, etc., was paid for by any kind of DARPA or DOD 
or government grant. In fact, the military was pissed off at us for not 
developing their kind of mil-spec components, for not bidding on 
military contracts. We made our

Re: [IP] FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers

[Tim May]

On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:30 AM, Trei, Peter wrote:

My first thought on reading this was that it was from
The Onion, but its real.
I guess being well-informed is now a cause for suspicion,
as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

Well, they've been working on the mountains of skulls in Iraq (of 
course, we have to destroy the country in order to save the country), 
so going after eyeglass wearers, the college-educated, and those who 
watch PBS is the logical next step.

Today's news is that analysts are saying a successful prosecution of 
Saddam on war crimes is going to be nearly impossible, given that he 
was a sovereign leader attacked by a foreign power and that none of the 
WMD were found (not that having WMD has been grounds for war crimes 
convictions, else the U.S., U.S.S.R., P.R.C., U.K., France, Zionist 
Entity, and numerous other states would have been prosecuted.).

So, I expect that even as I write CIA toxins experts are preparing what 
will make Saddam go away the quiet way. Look for him to go of natural 
causes before any War Crimes Tribunal can ever actually happen.

(This space reserved for former Marxist and now neocon standard-bearer 
James Donald to foam that I am a Saddam lover and a supporter of 
Chomsky.)

--Tim May, who owns both a Farmer's Almanac and a Rand-McNally Atlas 
(apparently the illiterates who recorded the Maximum Leader's thoughts 
on the dangers of almanacs may have gotten the two confused, we are 
now hearing, and the order for the droids to search for almanacs 
apparently got confused...so now they're looking for evildoers who have 
either of these banned books)

Re: [camram-spam] Re: Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project

[Tim May]

(I have removed the various other mailing lists. People, please stop 
cross-posting to all of Hettinga's lists, plus Perrypunks, plus this 
CAM-RAM list.)

On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:11 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:

At 07:46 PM 12/30/2003 +, Richard Clayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 [what about mailing lists]
Obviously you'd have to whitelist anybody's list you're joining
if you don't want your spam filters to robo-discard it.

moan
I never understand why people think spam is a technical problem :( let
alone a cryptographic one :-(
/moan
The reason it's partly a cryptographic problem is forgeries.
Once everybody starts whitelisting, spammers are going to
start forging headers to pretend to come from big mailing lists
and popular machines and authors, so now you'll not only
need to whitelist Dave Farber or Declan McCullough if you read their 
lists,
or Bob Hettinga if you're Tim (:-), you'll need to verify the
signature so that you can discard the forgeries that
pretend to be from them.
I don't have to whitelist anyone. If mail doesn't get to me, less junk 
to read. I certainly won't be running some Pennyblacknet scam 
promulgated by Microsoft.

This pennyblack silliness fails utterly to address the basic 
ontological issue: that bits in transit are not being charged by the 
carriers (if by their own choice, fine, but mostly it's because systems 
were set up in a socialist scheme to ensure free transport...now that 
the free transport means millions of e-mails are charged nothing, they 
want the acapitalist system fixed, they hope, with either government 
laws or silliness about using memory speeds to compute stamp 
numbers...silliness).

I haven't looked closely at the Pennyblack scheme, but I expect 
cleverness with caches and background tasks will fix things. For 
example, maybe people with idle CPU/memory time will sell their time to 
spammers, at suitably close-to-zero rates. (Essentially equivalent to 
Joe Sixpack selling his machine as a spam machine, which is probably 
likely, and still cheap for the sender.)

Fixing the fundamental market distortion is the best approach to 
pursue. Not my problem.

--Tim May

Re: Singers jailed for lyrics

[Tim May]

On Dec 27, 2003, at 10:40 AM, Michael Kalus wrote:
That you have extremists who will use the past as the main argument for
their reasoning can be clearly seen by your own views.
There is no difference between people like you and jews (or any other
extreme zealot) who tries to push his or her own agenda.


There is in fact a _very_ important difference, one you should think 
carefully about: the issue of force.

In Germany, men with guns arrest those who sing songs which are not PC. 
I have no such power to use force to arrest those who use words I don't 
like.

This is the essence of liberty. It's all about the initiation of force, 
versus free choice.

In a free system, those who don't want to see swastikas or here 
prejudiced speech will take steps to avoid concerts where such 
symbols or words are used, will use the OFF switch on their radios 
and televisions when such symbols or speech appears, and will avoid 
visiting Web sites which offend them. Choice. And responsibility.

They may even hire others to act as watchdogs or censors to screen 
material which may offend them. This is what ratings systems are all 
about. And closed communities. And voluntary associations.

However, in a free society they may not use guns or force to stop what 
other people are reading or viewing or singing.

Think about it. Carefully. Read up on some of the basics.

You are on the wrong mailing list if you are as statist as you appear 
to be.

--Tim May

Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam

[Tim May]

On Dec 23, 2003, at 3:07 PM, Jamie Lawrence wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald;
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim.
Incorrect. I said no such thing, and you're being a twit by attempting
to credit me with such statements. Your repeated attempts to
impute opinions to others that they don't actually hold, really, is
pathetic and boring.
Chomsky lies. You repeat the sentiments of Chomsky and thus you are 
support Chomsky and are thus a liar and a supporter of the KGB High 
Command and a lap dog of the running dogs of the Kremlin.

As it stands, you seem only capable of attempting to
impute motives to others that you imagine they might hold, based on
wildy improbable chains of cause and effect in philosophical arguments
and obscure cause and effect based on international relations in the
'60s, bundled together with some sort of New American Century twine
about how if we don't kill all the ragheads (your words, not mine),
we'll be enslaved or worse.
You obviously endorse the views of George McGovern and other pinko(e)s 
who wish to pervert our precious bodily fluids.

As far as your babbling and frothing about how I and many others must 
be
Saddam supporters, you're just not making any sense, intentionally
ignoring what people say, and just generally acting like a fool. If you
want to do something other than bat at strawmen and denounce the 
commies
you keep seeing in your bedsheets, then please, begin to do so. 
Otherwise...
Tim nailed it: you're just a statist who found a new god.
Chomsky lies. and you are obviously a sock puppet for the Trilateralist 
Bilderbergers.

--Tim May, who has noticed for a long time that the cadence and even 
the phrasing that James Donald uses is remarkably like the cadence of 
those who used to talk about the running dogs of capitalism. But he 
uses replacement phrases like sock puppets of the KGB instead. Which 
I guess shows that his indoctrination ran deep, though he is now 
ostensibly infiltrating the libertarian fringe.

Re: I am anti war. You stupid evil scum are pro Saddam.

[Tim May]

On Dec 20, 2003, at 5:41 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
I am anti war.  You lot are pro Saddam.

Back in the sixties, there were lots of good reasons to oppose
the Vietnam war, notably that it was fought by conscription,
and that McNamara's search for measures of war fighting
efficiency and to create incentives for efficient production of
war effort were demoralizing the troops, and instead of
creating incentives to fight effectively, created perverse
incentives to commit mass murder in place of killing the enemy.
But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi
Minh
As usual, you generalize to the point of venality.

I, and many others, were against the war in Vietnam without being 
supporters of Ho Chi Minh or the Soviets or anyone of that ilk. We were 
voters for John Hospers in 1972, who opposed the war in Vietnam without 
being a chanter of Ho, Ho or whatever it is your fantasies had us all 
chanting.

(And, yes, I was at the 1970 Mobe March in D.C., the one in May 1970, 
just after Kent State, where Nixon surrounded the White House with 
buses. I finagled my way into the inner ring, and saw the speakers from 
a few feet away. Essentially _none_ of them were supporters of the 
Soviets or the North Vietnamese qua North Vietnamese.)


Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending
ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of
Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what
became North Vietnam.  He purged 85% of the communist party,
murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted
a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery.
So? Not my problem. And rescuing others by using taxes stolen from 
Americans, or their bodies, is statist. Moreover, rescuing others is a 
moral hazard. Rescuing the Jews from their folly of spinning their 
dreidels and twirling their sidelocks was a particularly heinous moral 
hazardthey had been in favor of victim disarmament for centuries 
prior to the so-called Holocaust and their liquidation was predictable. 
For the American government to send boys to Europe to die to liberate 
Europe was one of the great crimes of the last century.

All of America's alliances have either been based on one-sided use of 
force (the USA always goes to fight in foreign lands, they never come 
here to help us fight our battles with the negroes and Mexicans) or 
have been based on corporate interests (oil companies, manufacturers 
wishing to expand into dangerous countries, etc.).

Not my problem is what the libertarian sentiment embodies. General 
Motors wants to set up a factory in Eritrea? Let them hire a private 
army, not use American cannon fodder. Squibb wants to sell baby formula 
in Paraguay? Intel wants to open a plant in mainland China? The answers 
are all the same: the U.S. armed forces are not clearing operations 
for corporations or do-gooders.

Anyone who opposed the war on Vietnam should have started off
by asking How shall we contain the Soviet Union and eventually
defeat communism, and what is wrong with the way this
administration is doing it.
Containing some political system in some foreign land is NOT MY 
PROBLEM. Nor is it in the U.S. Constitution that foreign wars would be 
launched to save _other_ people from themselves and their foolish 
decisions.

Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by
visualizing himself as the heir of  King John Sobieski, not the
heir of Saladin.  Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose
it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life
should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should
lose, and their way of life perish.
All of you, and I do mean _you_, who take my money to spend on these 
kinds of foreign adventures ought to be taken out and shot...for your 
aggressions, not for your sentiments.

Spend your own money. Become a mercenary. Fight Saddam and Muamar and 
Jacques all you want.

But don't steal my money, either directly or through corporate taxation 
to do it. Use your own money.

Got it?

--Tim May

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, 
and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for 
then it costs nothing to be a patriot. -- Mark Twain

Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam

[Tim May]

On Dec 21, 2003, at 7:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers
had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in
the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and
losers.
Jamie Lawrence:
Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope.
You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Care
to give us your take on the two towers?
Straw man. You keep bringing up the World Trade Center attack as if 
Saddam ordered it, or was involved in some central way. No credible 
evidence has been presented...not even the usually-unreliable 
sources...that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. (Whether some Iraqis 
celebrated or not is beside the point...if that were the criterion for 
launching a war, we'd be at war with Syria, Egypt, France, China, and 
Malaysia, to name a few.)

Going after the actual planners, financiers, and attackers involved in 
the 9/11 attacks is of course justified.

Liberating Afghanistan and letting women in Kabul bare their legs and 
all was not justified (oh, and the women in Kabul are back to wearing 
scarves).

Inasmuch as Iraq and the Baath regime was never linked in any credible 
or substantive way, beyond the merest of maybe they met with Bin 
Laden's guys rumors, and inasmuch as a 9/11 link was never even 
alleged by warmongers like Cheney and Perle and Rumsfield, the claim 
that Iraq was attacked because of the World Trade Center attack is 
ludicrous.

You really are, down deep, a statist. You may have changed your stripes 
from supporting the Marxist variant of statism, but what you now 
support remains statism to the core.

--Tim May

Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?

[Tim May]

On Dec 16, 2003, at 1:50 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

This makes me a bit curious. Tell me, is your opinion then that the 
U.S. has done nothing questionable here? You don't feel that treating 
a former head of state (regardless of what you happen to think of that 
person) in this manner and videorecording it AND transmitting it to 
the entire globe violates the spirit of the convention? You feel this 
was the right thing to do? You would have no problem seing a U.S. or 
European leader being treated the same way?



Who is the you referred to here?

Please quote or refer to comments you (you) are responding to, 
especially when you ask questions.

--Tim May

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?

[Tim May]

On Dec 15, 2003, at 5:36 PM, Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure I agree. I am no expert on this however. I saw several 
people commenting the issue of Geneva convention on CNN during the 
day. Also I saw an expert on this field from another country 
commenting on the issue stating that it was a clear violation of the 
convention. In either of these interviews were there any discussion on 
whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what clothings he 
happened to wear or whattever. I got the impression that it was clear 
that the U.S. treatment wasn't fully appropriate.
The U.S. would have screamed up and down in front of the U.N. and 
threatened severe reprisals if a U.S. prisoner were to have his (or 
her) mouth, hair, and medical exam televised by the Iranians, Syrians, 
Serbians, Iraqis, Panamanians, or any of the other nations we have gone 
to war with.

There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a 
prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of 
Saddam taking his first dump while in custody.

Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. I hope the 
next time a U.S. fighter is captured he is shown publically humiliated, 
with an Iranian or Syrian or French doctor forcing his mouth open and 
checking his hair for lice. The U.S. would be in no position to 
complain. (But they would, of course.)

But, what can one expect of a country which refers to its own 
terrorists who blow up commercial Cuban planes as freedom fighters 
and to Palestinians seeking to expel the Zionist Jew invaders as 
terrorists?

We are in Wonderland and the Republicrats are the Mad Hatters.

--Tim May
We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania.
We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq.
We are at war with France. We have always been at war with France.

Re: cpunk-like meeting report

[Tim May]

On Dec 16, 2003, at 7:50 AM, V Alex Brennen wrote:

Tim May wrote:
On Dec 14, 2003, at 6:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I've been admiring your and Tim's contributions, and I was 
wondering if
either of you were planning to subscribe to the (new) news list.

http://lists.cryptnet.net/mailman/listinfo/cpunx-news
No, we don't need a cpunx-news list. This is what Google and the 
ability to see hundreds of various lists and sites is for.
I don't even plan on subscribing myself.  I just wanted to get
the traffic off of cypherpunks.
Back when I first joined this list, cypherpunks where
known for making news, not reading it. I recognized some
addresses posting here recently from other lists that may
suggest a revival is possible if we can clean things up a
bit.
For the most part, the only people who subscribed to the
new list are the people who tend to forward news
announcements.  There seems to be very few consumers
(4 out of 7 subscribers on the new list - there's 8 total
so far, one person subscribed twice).
This figures. And I doubt subscriptions will ever climb much higher.

We've heard similar clamorings for chat and technical and 
announcement sub-lists many times in the past. Nevermind that the 
main list is not terribly high-volume. Nevermind that sub-lists tends 
to wither away. (As when a relatively small city like Monterey gets 
monterey.config, monterey.events, monterey.forsale, monterey.general, 
and monterey.test, all of which are nearly empty or filled only with 
Usenet spam. But, hey, someone thought that what Monterey needed to 
boost traffic was a bunch of newsgroups. Didn't happen, the traffic, 
that is.)

As for Cypherpunks, this was done. Several Usenet newsgroups, which are 
perfectly fine for news announcements, were created by someone (no 
doubt long-since gone on to other projects). Here they are:

alt.cypherpunks
alt.cypherpunks.announce
alt.cypherpunks.social
alt.cypherpunks.technical
But, hey, I hope the subscribers to the new list send their dumpings 
there.

--Tim May





I think the root of the problem is that we tend to organize ourselves 
into tribes.  Then people in the tribe are our friends, and people 
outside are our enemies.  I think it happens like this: Someone uses 
Perl, and likes it, and then they use it some more.  But then something 
strange happens.  They start to identify themselves with Perl, as if 
Perl were part of their body, or vice versa.  They're part of the Big 
Perl Tribe.  They want other people to join the Tribe.  If they meet 
someone who doesn't like Perl, it's an insult to the Tribe and a 
personal affront to them.
--Mark Dominus, Why I Hate Advocacy, 2000

Re: Idea: Simplified TEMPEST-shielded unit (speculative proposal)

[Tim May]

On Dec 14, 2003, at 8:33 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:

TEMPEST shielding is fairly esoteric (at least for non-EM-specialists)
field. But potentially could be made easier by simplifying the problem.
If we won't want to shield the user interface (eg. we want just a
cryptographic processor), we may put the device into a solid metal case
without holes, battery-powered, with the seams in the case covered with
eg. adhesive copper tape. The input and output can be mediated by 
fibers,
whose ports can be the only holes, fraction of millimeter in diameter,
carefully shielded, in the otherwise seamless well-grounded box. There 
are
potential cooling problems, as there are no ventilation holes in the
enclosure; this can be alleviated by using one side of the box as a 
large
passive cooler, eventually with an externally mounted fan with separate
power supply. If magnetic shielding is required as well, the box could 
be
made of permalloy or other material with similar magnetic properties.

I am not sure how to shield a display. Maybe taking an LCD, bolting it 
on
the shielded box, and cover it with a fine wire mesh and possibly
metalized glass? Using LCD with high response time of the individual
pixels also dramatically reduces the value of eventual optical 
emissions.
I worked inside a Faraday cage in a physic lab for several months. And, 
later, I did experiments in and around Faraday cages. Shielding is 
fairly easy to measure. (Using portable radios and televisions, or even 
using the Software-Defined Radio as a low-cost spectrum analyzer.)

My advice? Skip all of the nonsense about building special laptops or 
computers and special displays with mesh grids over the displays. Those 
who are _casually_ interested will not replace their existing Mac 
Powerbooks or Dell laptops with this metal box monster.

Instead, devise a metal mesh bag that one climbs into to use whichever 
laptop is of interest. To reduce costs, most of the bag can be 
metallized fabric that is not mesh, with only part of it being mesh, 
for breathability. (Perhaps the head region, to minimize claustrophobia 
and to allow audio and visual communication with others nearby.)

I would imagine a durable-enough metallized fabric bag could be 
constructed for under a few hundred dollars, which is surely cheaper 
for most to use than designing a custom laptop or desktop.

Or consider heads-up LCD glasses. These have been available for PCs and 
gamers for a few years (longer in more experimental forms, of course, 
dating back to the VR days of the late 80s). Sony has had a couple of 
models, and so have others. Some have video resolutions (PAL, NTSC), 
some have VGA resolutions. Perfectly adequate for displaying crypto 
results and requesting input.

These very probably radiate little. But of course a lightweight hood, a 
la the above mesh bag, would drop the emissions by some other goodly 
amount of dB. Experiments necessary, of course.

Interface to a laptop or PC could be as you described it, with shielded 
cables. Or just use a small PC (Poqet, etc.) and move the keyboard and 
CPU under the draped hood. Leakage out the bottom, hence the earlier 
proposal for a full bag, like a sleeping bag.

--Tim May

Re: Compromised Remailers

[Tim May]

 
involving coins and parity and selective disclosure with some neighbors 
to show that it can be proved that one of a group paid the bill, but 
not which one.).

Adding reply-block capability significantly raises the risks for 
traceability, in my opinion. I am not casting doubt on the Anonymizer 
and on Mixmaster Type N (whatever is current), but I have not seen much 
detailed discussion here on the Cypherpunks list, and I am unaware of 
peer-reviewed papers on the cryptographic protocols being used. (If 
they exist, pointers here would be great to have!)

When I did the BlackNet demonstration, conventional Cypherpunks 
remailers were used for the sending of a message to a recipient, who 
might be a true name, might be a nym, whatever. Replies were handled 
with message pools, i.e., sending another message via remailers to a 
place that is widely visible (a Democracy Wall sort of thing) such as a 
Usenet newsgroup. The newsgroup alt.anonymous.messages was created 
around that time, as I recall, and served well.

This was not a reply-block approach, just the basically clean 
approach of nesting payloads, a la conventional encrypted Cypherpunks 
remailers. For a significant fraction of messages through remailers, 
replies are not even needed. When replies are needed, message pools.

Note: From 1988-93 I bought the Crypto Proceedings, some of the 
Eurocrypt proceedings, etc. I even attended some of the conferences. I 
followed who was doing what. For various reasons, my interest in the 
guts of crypto declined. Others were following developments, 
fortunately. But I haven't looked at a Crypto Proceedings volume in 
several years, so I'm out of touch with what researchers are publishing 
about mixes and untraceability. I'm relatively confident that the 
points above are general enough to be unchanged, whether the Newest 
Name is Onion Routing or Crowds or whatever.

--Tim May

Re: cpunk-like meeting report

[Tim May]

On Dec 14, 2003, at 6:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 14 Dec, Tim May wrote:
No, we don't need a cpunx-news list. This is what Google and the
ability to see hundreds of various lists and sites is for.
News lists tend strongly to be just dumping grounds for crap from
other lists.
Yea, and I'll admit that I'm a junky, which is why I made the following
pages...
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/update.html
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/applelists.html
More...   info.,   Must have  ...  more...
Lie down and just resist the temptation.

The world already has a dozen crypto/cyber rights mailing lists, 
probably more. And many 'e$, digibucks, digital bearer 
settlement, and cybercurrency types of list just from one single 
person...who also cross-posts to Cypherpunks.

I had a friend who created a new high technology company whenever he 
got bored. Of course, these were not _real_ high tech companies, with 
actual products and actual profits. Rather, they were ventures, 
things that gave him a new business card, Orion X. Altschluss, 
President, Plutonic Transgenics, Inc. A few months later, Director, 
Corporate Relations, the Galt Foundation.

Some people think spinning off new lists whenever they get interested 
in some area is interesting. Most of these lists fail for obvious 
reasons. Sometimes a famous person, especially Net famous, creates a 
vanity list. Hence the Interesting People vanity list. This trend 
seems to be giving way to Blogs, however, as the various 
net.personalities realize that what they really want is a forum for 
blogging their message to an attentive audience.

I have done nearly all of my writing for Cypherpunks since 1992. I have 
watched Lewispunks, Perrypunks, various e-rights and digidollars and 
Geodesic Singularity Lists arise and do whatever they do after they 
arise. I have joined none of the varous other lists (which are usually 
with permission of owner lists--fuck that).

So now we have someone calling himself Proclus, who has not 
contributed anything memorable to Cypherpunks, inviting Cypherpunks to 
join his new cpunx-news list.

Yawn.

Have fun.

--Tim May

#1. Sanhedrin 59a: Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild 
animal.
#2. Aboda Sarah 37a: A Gentile girl who is three years old can be 
violated.
#3. Yebamoth 11b: Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted 
if she is three years of age.
#4. Abodah Zara 26b: Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.
#5. Yebamoth 98a: All gentile children are animals.
#6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: A Jew is forbidden to drink from 
a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made 
the wine unclean.
#7. Baba Necia 114, 6: The Jews are human beings, but the nations of 
the world are not human beings but beasts.

Re: cpunk-like meeting report

[Tim May]

On Dec 14, 2003, at 6:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi, I've been admiring your and Tim's contributions, and I was 
wondering if
either of you were planning to subscribe to the (new) news list.

http://lists.cryptnet.net/mailman/listinfo/cpunx-news

Be sure and check the archive before posting.  It is still small.
No, we don't need a cpunx-news list. This is what Google and the 
ability to see hundreds of various lists and sites is for.

News lists tend strongly to be just dumping grounds for crap from 
other lists.


Otherwise, if anyone could recommend additional good sources for
cypherpunk-related news, I'd be very grateful, because I don't feel
right about cross-posting news items to cypherpunks list.  I'm already
subscribed to the Cryptome rdf channel, Politech, and GNU-Darwin of
course.  I don't think I'm interesting enough for Interesting
People ;-}.
I failed the entrance exam for Interesting People, which is fine, for 
obvious reasons.

--Tim May

Re: Don't worry...it's just one of Saddam's doubles

[Tim May]

On Dec 14, 2003, at 6:33 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:

Spread the word. The adminstration got desparate. In a few weeks 
they'll
announce this isn't the real Saddam, but that rounding up all of the 
clones
is necessary progress in the fight to get the real Saddam.
If I don't remember incorrectly, they said something about identifying 
him
by DNA testing. But it wasn't widely quoted in the mainstream news.
How boring. The DNA confirmation was reported on all of the puppet news 
organizations here.

The Germans and Eastern Europeans, being mostly opposed to the war, 
probably just buried the confirmation.

The Czech Republic supported the war, and sent troops, and now that 
Saddam has been captured, both of them will be returning home, with 
medals.

--Tim May

Re: [linux-elitists] Monday 15 Dec: first all-Open Source System-on-Chip (fwd from schoen@loyalty.org)

[Tim May]

On Dec 12, 2003, at 12:16 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

- Forwarded message from Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
-

From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:32:31 -0800
To: Jason Spence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please STOP forwarding traffic from other lists to the CP list.

--Tim May

The silliness of those who argue that gold is the key to untraceability

[Tim May]

On Dec 12, 2003, at 5:59 PM, James A. Donald wrote:

--
On 11 Dec 2003 at 21:00, Neil Johnson wrote:
Even Ayn Rand weaves this into Atlas Shrugged where the
competitors of Reardon Steel get the government to try and
force him to give them his formula for his high-strength
steel because it's putting them out business and unfair.
Ah yes, recall big steel corporations talking about 'fair
trade in recent weeks.
Tim has been implying that I am a pinko, gold nut, and
randroid, which sort of hints that Ayn Rand is too pink for
him.
Rand supported taxes for the space program and for support of big 
business. So, yes, she was very pinkoid.

And like Rand, you have the same delusions about what's possible and 
what's not.

Your notion that a gold atom cannot be distinguished from another has 
anything important to do with issues at the crypto and traceability 
layers is symptomatic of this delusion. Hint: the alleged traceability 
of Federal Reserve Notes at the serial number level has absolutely 
nothing whatsoever to do with traceability of payments and the reasons 
we need digital money.

When a person deposits $10,000 and then writes a check to another 
person, or wires money, or withdraws cash, and so and so forth, do you 
think some record of the serial numbers was the means by which this 
transaction was traced?

Your foolish faith that E-gold is some significant step because gold 
atoms look like all other gold atoms, because there is only one stable 
isotope of gold is embematic of the delusions which the gold bugs and 
offshore platform silly people have.

And people wonder why the wrong issues are being worked on.

--Tim May

Re: ALTA/DMT privacy [was: Re: (No Subject)]

[Tim May]

On Dec 10, 2003, at 6:20 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:

On 10 Dec 2003 at 15:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 E-gold and other DGCs do not do much if any due diligence in
 checking account holder identification
Unfortunately, they also don't due much if any due diligence in
identifying themselves in messages to real or potential customers,
so it's extremely difficult to determine if I've gotten any
administrative messages that really _were_ from them
as opposed to the N fraudsters sending out mail asking you to
log in to e-g0ld.com or whatever fake page lets them steal
your egold account number and password so they can drain your balance.
A policy of PGP-signing all their messages using a key
that's published on their web pages would be a good start,
though it's still possible to trick some fraction of people
into accepting the wrong keys.  For now, my basic assumption
is that any communications I receive that purport to be from them
are a fraud, and it's frustrating that there's no good mechanism
for reporting that to e-gold.
I receive several messages a month saying I need to re-verify 
information with an E-gold account (which I never recall establishing, 
by the way).

If I ever determine that E-Gold personnel have faked an account on my 
behalf, or are complicit in any way with stealing from me, I will of 
course think that killing their children, their parents, and them is 
moral.

E-gold was never even slightly interesting to me for reasons I talked 
about a few years ago--the notion that a bar of gold moving between 
shelves in someone's hotel room in Barbados or Guyana or wherever is 
equivalent to untraceability is silly Randroid idol-worship raised to 
the fourth power.

The scandals reported--and not meaniingfully rebutted--several years 
ago confirm to me the whole thing is some Randroid fantasy built on 
sand.

--Tim May

--Tim May
Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little 
bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now 
racing down, with American flags fluttering.-- Tim May, on events 
following 9/11/2001

Re: Is Matel Stalinist?

[Tim May]

On Dec 11, 2003, at 1:56 AM, ken wrote:

Corporations have sales tracking software out the wazoo. If it sells, 
they buy more and sell them. Sounds like they're doing precisely what 
their owners want them to do.
Yes, but, it might be that a corporation makes more money for its 
owners by centralising and systematising and reducing the local 
autonomy of business units. It's a lot easier to manage a thousand 
identical stores than a hundred unique ones. So from Tyler 
Durden's's POV there might be more responsiveness from an independent 
 store than a chain.

Though like you said, that doesn't seem to apply to books.  Might to 
food though.

I doubt it applies to food, either.

If my local grocery store runs low on Spam, say, they will order 
more. This is why they track items with POS terminals and UPC labels 
(largely replacing the inventory people who used to be seen in the 
aisles counting items and entering them into a small computer or, 
earlier, onto an inventory log sheet).

It makes no sense to lump or consolidate all of the stores into one 
lump calculation and then issue order to send more Spam in this amount 
to each store. Not only does it not make sense, but clearly this would 
cause pileups at _some_ stores (too much Spam) and shortages at _other_ 
stores (still not enough Spam, even with the latest send more Spam to 
all stores order. The fact that neither shortages nor pileups (that I 
can see) are apparent at any of the stores I visit, and that all of 
them use UPC and POS methods for _all_ sales of ordered products, is 
consistent with the reorder method described earlier.

I repeat: the despised by anti-capitalists Borders store has a deeper 
and broader inventory of books than the cherished by Greens and 
locals locall-owned bookstore. And they also use UPC and POS and 
reorder books dynamically.

(For another list I've been discussing lazy evaluation languages, like 
Miranda and Haskell, and like Scheme can be forced to do, and the 
similarities between demand-driven evaluation of partial results and 
the obviously demand-driven inventory practices of modern businesses is 
striking. There's an essay here for some political thinker, along the 
lines of Phil Salin's Wealth of Kitchens essay drawing parallels 
between free markets and object-oriented systems.)

--Tim May

Re: Speaking of Reason

[Tim May]

On Dec 9, 2003, at 8:46 PM, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 19:57, Eric Murray wrote:

Ok, bye!
plonk
Eric (just to make it crystal clear, Tim's going in my _personal_ 
killfile)
Shit, mine too.  I really don't get what's happened to Tim.  He used 
to be a
great resource.  Now he's even forgotten how to troll well.

Good riddance. You've never contributed an iota to this list.

--Tim May

Re:

[Tim May]

On Dec 8, 2003, at 1:23 PM, Keith Ray wrote:

who
end

It might help if you sent these requests to the corresponding 
administrivia/majordomo/etc. sits instead of to the list distributions.

(But probably not.)

--Tim May

--Tim May
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize 
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of 
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are 
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. --Samuel Adams

Re: cypherpunks discussions

[Tim May]

On Dec 8, 2003, at 11:13 PM, Sarad AV wrote:

hi,

Asking questions is part of learning. Unless one
learns how is he expected to participate and make once
in a while intelliget discussions?
1. You never contribute anything that indicates you have actually 
learned.

2. Your questions, such as the ones I gave as examples of your recent 
ones, are phrased as if they were lifted directly from algebra and 
number theory books.

The conclusions are obvious. You are either a bot or a noob.

Give noobs some space and time to learn and over time
they will contribute to the list.
Yep, a noob, whatever that is.

Start contributing or leave. You've been posting textbook paragraphs 
and asking us to fill in the next line for way too many months.

--Tim May

Strong Crypto is about the Burnoff of Useless Eaters

[Tim May]

 competitors try to wrest control of Intel's dominance 
in several ways:

-- there was the Japanese TRON project, massively-funded by the 
Japanese government and supported by NEC, Hitachi, Fujitsu, Toshiba, 
and all of the other giants of the Japanese chip industry (remember 
when the Japanese were seen as 1- feet tall and invincible and how they 
would swallow up Intel as well as Pebble Beach?)

-- there was the consortium of DEC, MIPS, Compaq, and a bunch of other 
companies to come up with the industry-standard alternative to Intel, 
AMD, Harris, and others in the x86 camp. (BTW, where were the antitrust 
regulators when this collusive attempt to drive a wedge into Intel's 
dominance was being hatched? Answer: government ignores what it chooses 
to ignore and persecutes what it chooses to persecute.)

-- and each of Intel's direct competitors were, without the collusions 
above, fighting intensely to displace Intel. Had one of them succeeded, 
as easily might have been case in some alternate history, the 
anti-globalist lefties would now be arguing for the break-ups of 
Motorola and Sun so that poor little Intel and Microsoft could be given 
a fighting chance.

And so on, for all of the examples. Don't like Ford? Don't buy from 
Ford. Think McDonald's is too global? Don't eat at McDonald's.

Companies are not permanent. They rise and fall, they come and go. In 
fact, of the Dow 30 Industrials, the very measure of Giant Corporation 
capitalism, take a look at how many of those on the list several 
decades ago are still on the list.

Twenty years ago the anti-globalists (such as they were back then, 
before lefties discovered this as their new raison d'etre) would have 
been nattering about the need to break up Digital Equipment 
Corporation, which utterly dominated the corporate minicomputer market 
(crushing the likes of Data General and even IBM, which was seen as a 
dinosaur). But DEC got absorbed in Compaq, a company which barely 
existed back then, and then Compaq got absorbed into H-P, which is 
struggling.

Joseph Schumpeter called this the process of creative destructionism, 
the process of companies forming, evolving, dissipating, dissolving, 
the surviving staff and ideas (memes) forming new companies, new 
ensembles. Long after Boeing and Airbus are gone, new aircraft and 
spacecraft companies will form. Long after Intel and IBM are gone, new 
electronics and nanotech companies will form.

The difference between corporations and governments is vast. 
Governments don't give choices. Governments don't allow competition. 
Governments enslave people and send them to fight wars with other 
governments.

That the anti-globalists have lost sight of this and are instead 
holding their silly rallies and marches to stop job export to China 
and force a living wage and break up Microsoft shows they have 
nothing whatsoever in common with what strong crypto and untraceable 
communication and digital money will do. The official protests against 
the WTO natter about unfair wage practices in the so-called developing 
world, but the real issue is just what it has always been with 
protectionism.



News flash to all the lefties on this list who think these technologies 
will somehow bring about the socialist paradise they want to see: 
strong crypto means no government goon can take money from those who 
work and save and give it to others who failed to study, work, and 
save. Programs like welfare/AFDC/WICC/social programs boondoggles. It 
may mean, if we are lucky, the death and burn-off of tens of millions 
of useless eaters.

This will be a GOOD THING.

Of course, those who choose to participate in the new digital economy 
will do well. To paraphrase the saying, On the Net, no one knows 
you're colored.

This is what strong crypto and a True Names world means. Do the math.

For all the lefties here, you should've known this for years and years. 
Enough of us have talked about it. And it was obvious to me in the 
early days (which predate CP by several years, of course (cf. the 
Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, 1988) that strong crypto would usher in a 
world where no liberal traitor like John Kennedy could steal my money 
to send to some negroes in Washington so they could buy more malt 
liquor and breed more chilluns.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. The Crypto Revolution will burn off tens 
of millions of useless eaters.

--Tim May

Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19

[Tim May]

On Dec 7, 2003, at 6:54 PM, Greg Newby wrote:

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 07:37:26PM -0800, John Young wrote:
...
What I like about the ring-in-the-flesh crowd is their pleasure in
grossing out the stodgers. Makes me wish I still had that knack
instead of only the memories.
Hey, John -- wear some of that shit, and I promise to be grossed out.

But seriously, has anyone considered that maybe the problem is Tim
May?  His hate-filled ignorance is a real impediment to anyone who
might otherwise be interested in the cause.  His spews are pretty
distasteful, and to him, anyone who didn't start cp a zillion years
ago is just an ankle biter come-lately.
Fuck off and die, along with all of your fellow travellers.

You have contributed _nothing_ here.

I've only been on the list for 3 years, but I'd say that things were a
lot more interesting before (In-) Choat jumped ship.
In your three years here, nothing.

And a big fuck you, too to anyone who thinks otherwise.
  -- Greg
I  hope you and your family are some of the first of the tens of 
millions who will die in the Great Burnoff of Useless Eaters.

--Tim May
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose,  is somehow morally superior to a woman 
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound

Re: Got.net and its narcing out of its customers

[Tim May]

On Dec 9, 2003, at 12:07 PM, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 01:57:00PM -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote:
Then one of them claimed he had arranged to have my account yanked, 
for
violation of the DMCA. He claimed he had sent copies of my 
criminal
admissions to Got.net, to the RIAA, to law enforcement (shudder!),
and so on.
I gather that the denizens of alt.video.dvd have yet to read the 
Betamax
case.  Perhaps they should expand their reading before they opine on 
the
state of IP law.
He was just trolling, being intentionally vague so that they'd assume
he was copying from one DVD to another. Which they did, and which they
raved about.
There isn't any profound insight to be derived from a tired old picture
of a newsgroup being provoked by trolling.
No, not a conventional troll.

Disinformation was being spread about how making a copy of something 
is the same as stealing. Some of the apologists for DMCA were saying 
that anyone who copies a CD is the same as a shoplifter.

I casually volunteered that I made an average of one DVD of a Hollywood 
movie per day.

The kneejerks by the apologists for DMCA were illuminating, including 
the claim that the RIAA would be investigating this as a case of 
piracy. Frankly, I had hope for one of the several hundred lawsuits the 
RIAA has been tossing out like confetti (including to people who have 
never owned a computer...sounds like some due diligence malpractice 
cases are in order). Even better would be a process server trespassing 
on my property...no point in having a pig farm if you have nothing to 
throw to the pigs.

The revelation that Don Frederickson is one of those who needs to be 
dealt with eventually was rewarding.

--Tim May
You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some higher 
moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know 
that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged. - -Michael 
Shirley

Re: Is Matel Stalinist?

[Tim May]

 supermarkets came to town and the 
small grocery stores faced competition. Exactly what was heard 30 years 
ago when Wal-Mart and their type came to town and the small five and 
dime stores faced competition.

Corporations have sales tracking software out the wazoo. If it sells, 
they buy more and sell them. Sounds like they're doing precisely what 
their owners want them to do.

But nobody seems to notice...we're completely used to being passive 
cogs in a big, fat machine-state. So in a sense, it's gone way beyond 
'repression'...no need for that rat-cage around our heads anymore.

You silly Bolshies are obviously on the wrong list if you think strong 
crypto is going to help your cause.

Feh.

--Tim May

--Tim May
The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the 
expense of everyone else. --Frederic Bastiat

Re: Speaking of Reason

[Tim May]

On Dec 9, 2003, at 12:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Tim's whine (complaint) withstanding, I just got the January issue of 
Reason
in the mail and of interest is Mike Godwin's interview of Bruce 
Sterling-
Cybergreen: Bruce Sterling on media, design, fiction, and the future 
(p 42-50).
It's worth a read.

Regards,  Matt-


All of you creeps complaining about my whines and rants should find 
a list to your liking. Perhaps a few of them could spring from this 
list:

--the Bolshies could create a Crypto Progressives list or somesuch, 
and could explain earnestly (though dishonestly) that strong crypto 
will make people of color happier.

--the appeasers who want to work with Cato, Cathy Young, the EFF, the 
CPSR, and other Washington get along by going along people could call 
themselves Crypto Enthusiasts for Social Responsibility, or somesuch 
term which renders unto Caesar that which is CESRs.

Since Eric Murray has expressed distaste with my views, and says he is 
also looking to stop hosting the lne.com node, perhaps these groups can 
be distributed from his node.

As for you, Gaylor, you subscribe for a while, contribute nothing, 
vanish from the list for a couple of years, then resubscribe and 
immediately start ranting that I am not doing enough for the cause.

Fuck you dead. Fuck all of you Bolshies dead.

--Tim May

Quote of the Month: It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; 
perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. 
--Cathy Young, Reason Magazine, both enemies of liberty.

Re: Speaking of Reason

[Tim May]

On Dec 9, 2003, at 4:57 PM, Eric Murray wrote:

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:05:29PM -0800, Tim May wrote:

Since Eric Murray has expressed distaste with my views
I pretty much agree with your views, minus the racism and misogny.
On days that the brilliant thoughtful Tim posts, I'm in awe.
When Tim the asshole posts, I'm disgusted.  Unfortunately
these days the latter Tim isn't letting the former Tim
near the keyboard very often.
Fuck you dead. Fuck all of you Bolshies dead.
Ok, bye!
plonk
Eric (just to make it crystal clear, Tim's going in my _personal_ 
killfile)



I hope he killfiles me in his lne.com files, as I am fed up with these 
Bolshies, fellow travellers, censors, and why haven't you done more 
for the Cause! whiners.

--Tim May

Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19

[Tim May]

On Dec 7, 2003, at 7:15 PM, James A. Donald wrote:

And, as many have noted, very few of the kids today are
libertarians (either small L or large L).
When you were a teenager, everyone thought that Ho Chi Minh was
the greatest, had a picture of Che Guevera on their wall, and
thought the Soviet Union was going to win.
Nonsense. Everyone did not think this. Far from it. YAF was going 
strong back then.

Of 8 of us who rented a place, 6 were fairly extreme libertarians, one 
was confused but went along, and one was apolitical. (One of these guys 
wore a dollar sign pin and subscribed to Nathaniel Branden's 
newsletter.) This, was, by the way, when we were 18-20 years old.

The Libertarian Party started at about this time, in 1972, and nearly 
all of the volunteers, spear carriers, etc. were in their 20s. This is 
very well known.

(And today most of the LP volunteers and spear carriers are in their 
40s and 50s. A correlation here.)


  I would say that
the kids of today are a damned lot more libertarian than when
you and I were kids.
Quite likely you, as you have said you were a Marxist. I never went 
through such a phase, having started reading Heinlein and that crowd 
when I was around 11 or so. It always seemed self-evidently silly to 
think that From each according to his ability, to each according to 
his need could be taken seriously by anybody.

And I remember taking some cheer that day in November, 1963 when the 
Big Government guy was zapped. My family left the U.S. that afternoon 
and did not return for 13 months.

I was a Goldwater supporter in 1964, when I was 12. (Goldwater was way 
too liberal for me in many ways, but he was against the Civil Rights 
Act and other such Marxist nonsense, so I supported him. I didn't care 
for his Vietnam views, except I agreed with him we should either fight 
to win it very, very decisively, or get out.

Still think most of the baldies of today, with rings through their 
noses, marching against Coca Cola and Intel and Big Business, and 
arguing for affirmative action are more libertarian?

Again, apparently more so than you. In any case, saying everyone 
thought that Ho Chi Minh was the greatest is silly.



This shows up in the fact that protests against global
capitalism draw vast crowds of young people, and even several
subscribers to our list have nattered on about the dangers of
globalism and free trade.
The cartoonist in reason (or perhaps liberty not sure
which) depicts these protests as being dominated by old farts
about your and my age, with the young folk in reluctant tow.
I suspect if you and he attended the same demo, he would see a
crowd of old farts, and you would see a crowd of young punks
with nose rings.
This is certainly so. But it doesn't dispute my point. In fact, it 
supports it.

My generation was very active, on all sides. The droids born after 
about 1980 are mainly followers. Probably what the nose rings are for.

--Tim May, Corralitos, California
Quote of the Month: It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; 
perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. 
--Cathy Young, Reason Magazine, both enemies of liberty.

Re: cypherpunks discussions

[Tim May]

On Dec 8, 2003, at 12:21 AM, Sarad AV wrote:
I have friends who will help me with my queries. I
prefer not getting flamed like every one else and that
too in quick succesion :-). so my guess is that as far
as newbies are concerned all the discussions are taken
private.


No, I think few topics on the Cypherpunks list are taken private.

I've had several people write to me in private, asking questions about 
things that came up on the list. Sometimes I reply, but usually I urge 
them to stop lurking and post on the list!

My reasons are two-fold: First, to get them to stop lurking and 
participate. Second, to work up the energy to compose an essay (or 
mini-essay, whatever), I need some motivation. I am not energetic about 
writing a long response to some stranger who asks me a question in 
private. If he posts publically, I may (or may not...) decide to use 
his post as a jumping-off point for something that I think needs to be 
said.

As for you, I have dumped on you because most of your posts to the list 
look a lot like you are asking for help on a homework problem or have 
just semi-randomly pulled an example out of a crypto or algebra book 
and have decided to participate in the list by asking if anyone knows 
the answer to some puzzle.

hi,

Table shown is completed to define 'associative'
binary operation * on S={a,b,c,d}.
..
So can (a*d)*d=a*(d*d)=d considered as associative
over * for this case as per definition?
and

hi,

If we are to convert a k-bit integer n to a base b
number,it takes us O(log n) if the base b is a power
..
Is there an algorithm with time complexity O(log n)
which allows such conversion to base b ,when b is not
a power of 2?
are just two of your more recent examples.

Now if you had told us you were implementing a crypto system for use in 
India (where I think you are from...), and had run into a tough 
problem, these might be interesting for people to comment on.

But they sure do look like homework problems.

A more fruitful sort of post might be for you to discuss the general 
crypto situation in India, the telecom infrastructure, and Indian 
government attitudes. Or, if these topics don't interest you, your 
thoughts on implementing DC Nets, or using digital money, or whatever.

But to post snippets of problems out of textbooks is NOT participation 
in the topics of the list. Think about it.

I wish you no ill-will, but you should find ways to participate which 
suggest you are actually reading what others are saying and giving your 
own views or responses to them.

--Tim May

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that worked ...A complex system designed from scratch 
never  works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to 
start over,  beginning with a working simple system. -- Grady Booch

Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19

[Tim May]

, a company in the Beaverton, OR area called Galois 
Connection (a pun, for those who know the math) is doing a crypto 
library under contract to the NSA, perhaps others. Their library is 
written in Haskell, interestingly enough. I don't know how it compares 
or overlaps with Wei Dai's crypto library. But I found it interesting 
that that some of my own thoughts on this were already being developed 
by a company.)

This is a lot more interesting to me that struggling to get the current 
editors of Wired to stop thinking of crypto as tired and write 
another story about us.

Whether my current stuff reaches the 20-year-old dropout skatepunk 
and convinces him to Fight for Liberty! is not of interest to me. Nor 
is it my task to write the Next Great PGP Version.

Life is too short to sacrifice it for the Good of the Herd. Saying I 
should find ways to spread memes to the Gen Y nosering crowd is no 
different than the tired old idea that I should be funding worthy 
Cypherpunks. (Luckily, I don't hear this as much as I did around 
1997-99, during the Bubble.)

--Tim May

Quote of the Month: It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; 
perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. 
--Cathy Young, Reason Magazine, both enemies of liberty.

Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19

[Tim May]

On Dec 8, 2003, at 11:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 12/7/2003 10:58:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My generation was very active, on all sides. The droids born after
about 1980 are mainly followers. Probably what the nose rings are for.
Hey Tim, why don't you continue your activism and make an attempt to 
get your
writing into more places where generation X might find it. If they are 
truly
droids surely you with your grand intellect could be become their pied 
piper,
leading their revolution.

You might feel better venting to the cloistered culture here on CP, 
but what
good does that do?
I'm not interested in trying to get published in Down with WTO Times 
or Skateboard Magazine, or whatever it is that these kids are 
reading. (Actually, I don't think most of them do much reading. I spend 
a lot of time in the great bookstores in Santa Cruz--rarely do I see 
the persons of piercing leave their hangouts out on Pacific Avenue to 
enter the bookstores, except to try to use the restrooms.)

And the problem is not even so much with Gen X but with Gen Y, or 
whatever they are being called these days.

I reach who I reach. Their choice to read what I write.

I see an explosion of Blogs, the daily musings of people involved in 
EPIC, EFF, etc.

This is similar to the explosion of personal Web pages several years 
ago, when home pages had snippets of philosophy, lists of books people 
had read, etc.

(And perhaps just as so many of these personal Web pages fell into 
disrepair and were seldom looked-at by others, the wave of personal 
Blogs will crest and then decline in amplitude.)

So, you are free to be Matt Gaylor, Activist! and to try to get 
articles published in Liberty or Gold Currency Times or wherever 
you get published, but I have other things I'd rather be doing.

Preaching to me that I ought to be sacrificing my time for the 
betterment of some skatepunks by publishing in Piercing Magazine is 
the silliest kind of altruistic thinking.

--Tim May

Got.net and its narcing out of its customers

[Tim May]

On Dec 8, 2003, at 1:15 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 01:59:26PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
This actually fits in with something Lessig is widely known for, his
technology-custom-law trichotomy (*).
(* He may call it something different...I haven't checked in a while.
I was reading some of David Friedman's articles over the weekend and
noticed that he also used the same trichotomy, predating Lessig.
I'm sorry that Tim is being a bother again. He has a long history of
being obnoxious and threatening. So far, he has not broken any laws.  
We
have talked to the authorities about him on numerous occasions. They
have chosen to watch but not act.  Please feel free to notify me if he
does anything that is beyond rude and actually violates any laws and I
will immediately inform the authorities.

Thank You
Don Frederickson  (co-owner and CEO of got.net, Santa Cruz)
When did Don Fredderickson write this?

-Declan



You can Google Groups for any of the unique text to find it, and the  
context.

Or, here's the thread (search on my name for the exact spot, or go to  
August 22nd):

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=lang_enie=UTF-8oe=UTF 
-8safe=offthreadm=220820032357238678%25timcmay%40removethis.got.netrn 
um=1prev=/ 
groups%3Fq%3Dfrederickson%2Bgot%2Btim%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_en%26ie%3DUT 
F-8%26oe%3DUTF 
-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D220820032357238678%2525timcmay%2540removethis.g 
ot.net%26rnum%3D1

Searching GG on don frederickson got tim is maybe more reliable than  
pasting this URL.

(If you are asking did Don write this on or about the 22nd?, I assume  
so, of course, as this is when this Kal nym was foaming and  
threatening to get my account yanked and have the cops raid my house.)

It happened in one of the movies groups (rec.arts.current-movies),  
when the thread was on DVD copy protection and the (claimed) illegality  
of making DVDs of movies.

I explained how I was cheerfully making an average of a DVD a day of my  
favorite current movies.

A couple of nyms went ballistic and foamed that they had forwarded my  
admissions to the RIAA and how I would face civil penalties and jail  
time, oh my!

Then one of them claimed he had arranged to have my account yanked, for  
violation of the DMCA. He claimed he had sent copies of my criminal  
admissions to Got.net, to the RIAA, to law enforcement (shudder!),  
and so on.

The owner of Got.net replied to him and the above got posted (not by  
me).

I consider Don Frederickson despicable, and stupid. To not bother  
before understanding the context of the thread and say, basically,  
Yes, we have narced out this customer to law enforcement, but they are  
just watching is reprehensible.

The earlier owners/operators of Got.net took the stance that what  
people said on Usenet or on mailing lists was of no interest to them,  
save for a few carefully-spelled-out TOS issues (like spam).

The new owner apparently thinks it's his job to narc out his customers  
to law enforcement and then to tell others who are not even his  
customers that he has done so. Were I the litigious sort, I might  
contemplate suing.

(I haven't quit Got.net yet mainly because I am evaluating options for  
broadband in my rural location. Currently, DSL is about half a mile  
away, so may arrive soon--when it does I expect I will get it.  
Cablemodem is available to the top of my hill, but not down my long  
driveway, and the cable company will not allow me to either string my  
own lines or mount a WiFi or IR or similar atop the telephone pole. (My  
utilities are underground, but were laid when the house was built,  
circa 1976. No cable lines. Which is one reason I got a satellite dish,  
DirecTV, shortly after moving in. And, yes, I have looked at satellite  
broadband options like DirectLink...not impressive at all.)  And the  
Pringles can approach is not something I want to spend my time  
engineering or debugging.)

My hunch is that Frederickson and Got.net have been forwarding copies  
of some of my e-mail to law enforcement, which would have put them in  
violation of the ECPA, except that after 9/11 and the Patriot Act and  
all these actions are now considered just good corporate citizenship.

--Tim May

Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19

[Tim May]

 that?

--Tim May

Quote of the Month: It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; 
perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. 
--Cathy Young, Reason Magazine, both enemies of liberty.

Re: Larry Lessig on ending anonymity through identity escrow

[Tim May]

DO NOT FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO ANY OTHER LISTS. I AM GETTING TIRED OF 
SEEING CYPHERPUNKS JUST BE THE DUMPING GROUND FOR STUFF FROM OTHER 
LISTS.

In almost all foreseeable cases, a system which allows identity escrow 
_cost more_ than a system which does not. This is analogous to the 
increased costs of a identity-based money system over an 
immediate-clearing, non-identity-based system.

As an example, consider the network of CP or Mixmaster sorts of 
remailers. To package a payload through N remailers is a relatively 
easy thing for a a sender to do. But to arrange for propagation of 
escrowed identity at each (or most) of these N remailer nodes is 
costly.

Any  of these N remailers, in K different countries/jurisdictions, may 
use the legal warrant access method to open the identity escrow. For 
example, Finland in the Scientology/NOTS case...Finland surely would 
have used their legal warrant method had such an option existed.

This is part of a larger issue, a philosophical one, about who controls 
legal warrants. The Jew can be killed by using legal warrants, in 
Third Reich Germany. The libertarian in Soviet Russia. The pornographer 
in Canada. And nearly anyone who deviates from the official line in 
these beknighted states of america: smut peddlers, drug legalization 
advocates, supporters of Russia vs. Chechnya prior to 9/11, supporters 
of Chechnya vs. Russia after 9/11, liberators of Diebold documents 
showing the weakness of their voting machines, and so on and on. See my 
1995-6 list of our enemies (Catholics, Whigs, Mormons, Communists...) 
for a very long list of those for whom identity escrow would have 
meant death or imprisonment in these beknighted states.

Back to the cost issue. Prof. Lessig argues that voluntary identity 
escrow systems should be encouraged. How/ Through nattering to people 
about how they ought to use a more expensive, less flexible system 
which exposes them to possible danger and which costs them more to use 
than the stronger alternative?

Ha!

Or encouraged in the sense of using state power to make stronger 
systems illegal or artificially taxed at higher rates?

Why doesn't the U.S.G. just set up a Big Brother Remailer with the 
kind of identity escrow proposed?

Let's then see how many freedom fighters working for the overthrow of 
the U.S. government use it. Let's see how many critics of the Church of 
Scientology, threatened with lawsuits and legal warrants, use it. 
Let's see how much child porn gets traded on it.

--Tim May

Re: Larry Lessig on ending anonymity through identity escrow

[Tim May]

On Dec 5, 2003, at 3:53 PM, Tim May wrote:
Back to the cost issue. Prof. Lessig argues that voluntary identity 
escrow systems should be encouraged. How/ Through nattering to 
people about how they ought to use a more expensive, less flexible 
system which exposes them to possible danger and which costs them more 
to use than the stronger alternative?

Ha!

Or encouraged in the sense of using state power to make stronger 
systems illegal or artificially taxed at higher rates?

Why doesn't the U.S.G. just set up a Big Brother Remailer with the 
kind of identity escrow proposed?

Let's then see how many freedom fighters working for the overthrow of 
the U.S. government use it. Let's see how many critics of the Church 
of Scientology, threatened with lawsuits and legal warrants, use it. 
Let's see how much child porn gets traded on it.



And there are so many other points, long discussed here (1992-present), 
which Lessig's proposal would run into:

* what if someone, like me, forwards items sent untraceably to me? (The 
Lessig Escrow remailer does not even know it is from me, or forwarded 
by me, unless and until he gets a legal warrant to open the 
contents...too late, then.)

(If passing on a comment from another is illegal, on what basis? A 
remailer is just as easily seen as an editor or re-commenter.)

* if government controls remailers, what of those plotting against 
government? Is Jefferson supposed to use the King's remailers?

* if the systems Lessig thinks should be encouraged are in fact set 
up--and no doubt some such systems already exist--how can they know 
that they are not themselves being used as part of a chain which 
includes traditionally-untraceable (CP, Mix remailers) upstream? 
Without looking, using their ostensible legal warrants, a Big Brother 
Remailer has no way of knowing that the messages sent through from 
Tim were not just the messages of others.

BTW, an argument I heard years ago from a proponent of an identity 
escrow system, long before Lessig, was that this approach would be 
blocked by making Tim responsible for all words or messages flowing 
into an IE remailer, even those he could not read (because they had 
been encrypted). The idea is to stop this chaining attack by making 
each user responsible for checking all the way back. In other words, 
for an IE system to work, competitors must be banned. Which is the same 
conclusion reached via other paths.

(And, though IANAL, even I know that making Tim legally responsible 
even for messages he has no way of knowing fails the scienter test. 
Absent a ban on encryption, what Tim  has done in passing along to 
Larry's Remailer a message which actually arrived from a non-IE 
remailer is nothing more than passing along something he was given. He 
has no knowledge of the contents (scienter requirement) and is not 
breaking any laws, absent a ban on competitors to IE remailers.)

Anyway, this was hashed out many times in the early 90s and shortly 
after the very similar proposal for Clipper and other similar forms of 
key escrow.

I have nothing against Lessig, but it bugs me that he's considered by 
some to be one of the Great Cyberspace Thinkers when his ideas are so 
easily dismissed...and were argued on both sides so many years ago.

Larry Lessig ought to read, and think deeply about, the first ten years 
of traffic on the Cypherpunks list. Especially the first five years.

--Tim May

Re: Non-Withholding Employer Simkanin Trial Ends: Mistrial (fwd)

[Tim May]

On Nov 26, 2003, at 8:39 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote:

Note the line: the Court denied Simkanin the opportunity present any 
expert
defense witnesses or legal evidence.

This is what our country has come to.  Secret courts; incarceration 
with no
lawyers, trials, or even charges; trials where the defendants are
prohibited from presenting any evidence; Sneak  Peek secret 
searches...

The Terrorists have indeed won: they are running this asylum.

This has been the norm in American jurisprudence for many decades. 
Judges routinely decide which theories of the case may be presented 
and which may not. They dictate the language used, the witnesses 
called, even the legal precedents cited.

For this list, we need look no further than a list contributor and 
meeting attendee from the mid-90s: Keith Henson.

Google on Keith's case with the Church of Scientology and read about 
his conviction in a Riverside, California courtroom. Keith and his 
lawyers were prevented by order of the judge from presenting their 
defense. Basically, he was muzzled. And not because he was acting up in 
court or screaming obscenities. Rather, the Court decided he could 
neither bring up past behavior by the COS nor could he argue to the 
jury that saying he had a Tom Cruise missile aimed at the Gold Base  
facility was obviously a joke and that he did not in fact have any way 
to possess a cruise missile, Tom Cruise or otherwise.

Welcome to the Beknighted States of America, where the free press is 
muzzled (or arrested, as in the New American Republic in Baghdad), 
where judges lay down a narrow track of allowable arguments in a court 
room, and where the police and government are no longer bound by the 
precise document which was created to bind them, the Bill of Rights.



--Tim May

Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)

[Tim May]

On Nov 25, 2003, at 11:21 AM, Trei, Peter wrote:

Tim May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Nov 25, 2003, at 9:56 AM, Sunder wrote:
Um, last I checked, phone cameras have really shitty resolution,
usually
less than 320x200.  Even so, you'd need MUCH higher resolution, say
3-5Mpixels to be able to read text on a printout in a picture.
Add focus and aiming issues, and this just won't work unless you 
carry
a
good camera into the booth with you.

1. Vinnie the Votebuyer knows the _layout_ of the ballot. He only 
needs
to see that the correct box is punched/marked. Or that the screen
version has been checked.
I realize you big city types (yes, Tim, Corralitos is big compared to 
my
little burg) have full scale voting booths with curtains (I used the 
big
mechanical machines when I lived in Manhatten), but out here in the 
sticks,
the 'voting booth' is a little standing desk affair with 18 inch 
privacy
shields on 3 sides. If someone tried to take a photo of their ballot 
in one
of those it would be instantly obvious.

All I want is a system which is not more easily screwed around with 
then
paper ballots. Have some imagination - you could, for example, set 
things
up so the voter, and only the voter, can see the screen and/or paper 
receipt
while voting, but still make it impossible to use a camera without 
being
detected.
But how could a restriction on gargoyling oneself be constitutional? If 
Alice wishes to record her surroundings, including the ballot and/or 
touchscreen she just voted with, this is her business.

(I fully support vote buying and selling, needless to say. Simple right 
to make a contract.)

I wasn't endorsing the practicality of people trying to use digital 
cameras of any sort in any kind of voting booth, just addressing the 
claim that cellphone cameras don't have enough resolution. Even 320 x 
240 has more than enough resolution to show which boxes have been 
checked, or to mostly give a usable image with a printed receipt.

As for creating tamper-resistant and unforgeable and nonrepudiable 
voting systems, this is a hard problem. For ontological reasons (who 
controls machine code, etc.). I start with the canonical model of a 
very hard to manipulate system: blackballing (voting with black or 
white stones or balls). Given ontological limits on containers (hard to 
teleport stones into or out of a container), given ontological limits 
on number of stones one can hold, and so on (I'll leave it open for 
readers to ponder the process of blackball voting), this is a fairly 
robust system.

(One can imagine schemes whereby the container is on a scale, showing 
the weight. This detects double voting for a candidate. One lets each 
person approach the container, reach into his pocket, and then place 
one stone into the container (which he of course cannot see into, nor 
can he remove any stone). If the scale increments by the correct 
amount, e.g, 3.6 grams, then one is fairly sure no double voting has 
occurred. And if the voter kept his fist clenched, he as strong 
assurance that no one else saw whether he was depositing a black stone 
or a white stone into the container. Then if the stones are counted in 
front of witnesses, 675 black stones vs. 431 white stones is a fairly 
robust and trusted outcome. Details would include ensuring that one 
person voted only once (usual trick: indelible dye on arm when stones 
issued, witnesses present, etc. Attacks would include the Ruling Party 
depositing extra stones, etc. And consolidating the distributed results 
has the usual weaknesses.)

Things get much more problematic as soon as this is electronified, 
computerized, as the normal ontological constraints evaporate. Stones 
can vanish, teleport, be miscounted, suddenly appear, etc.

Designing a system which is both robust (all the crypto buzzwords about 
nonforgeability, satisfaction of is-a-person or one-person constraints, 
visibility, etc.) and which is also comprehensible to people who are, 
frankly, unable to correctly punch a paper ballot for Al Gore, is a 
challenge. I'm not sure either Joe Sixpack in Bakersfield or Irma Yenta 
in Palm Beach want to spend time learning about 
all-or-nothing-disclosure and vote commitment protocols.

I know about David Chaum's system. He has gotten interested in this 
problem. I am not interested in this problem. Moreover, I think working 
on electronic voting only encourages the political process (though 
implementing wide computer voting and then having more of the winning 
totals posted before polls close exposures of shenanigans might be 
useful in undermining support for the concept of democracy, which would 
be a good thing.)

I don't say it's not a security problem worth thinking about. It 
reminds me a lot of the capabilities stuff, including Granovetter 
diagrams and boundaries. Probably a nice category theory outlook on 
voting lurking here (e.g., voting as a pushout in an appropriate 
category, or something whacky like that).

Electronic

Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)

[Tim May]

On Nov 26, 2003, at 8:10 AM, BillyGOTO wrote:
I have no problem with this free choice contract.
You can't sell your vote for the same reason that Djinni don't
grant wishes for more wishes.
A silly comment. I take it you're saying Because the rules don't allow 
it. Or something similar to this.

The rules are precisely what we are discussing.

And vote buying is much more widespread than what happens at the 
lowest level we happen to be talking about here, where Alice is paid 
$10 to vote for some particular candidate. In fact, vote buying is much 
more common and more dangerous at the level of political 
representatives.

Appealing to the rules (what your Djinni state as the rules) is 
nonproductive. Payoffs and kickbacks can be declared illegal, but they 
continue to happen in various ways.



You, in the rest of your comments, show yourself to be one of the many
tens of millions who probably need to be sent up the chimneys for 
their
crimes.

Liberty's a mental chore, isn't it?
Maybe I just don't understand Liberty.  I need to meditate on it for a
while.  I'll use your image of tens of millions of criminals going up
in smoke (myself included) as a starting point.
PS: Is support of vote buying consistent with rejection of Democracy?

Liberty is characterized in the .sig below:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. 
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
-- Ben Franklin

Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)

[Tim May]

On Nov 24, 2003, at 8:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 11/24/2003 11:12:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect there may be some good solutions to this issue, but I haven't
yet seen them discussed here or on other fora I run across.



What part of I expect there may be was unclear to you?

--Tim May

The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of. -- Albert Gallatin of the New 
York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)

[Tim May]

On Nov 24, 2003, at 3:52 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:

At 2:30 PM -0800 11/24/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 01:04 PM 11/24/03 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
Thats not how it works. The idea is that you make your choices on
the machine, and when you lock them in, two things happen: They
are electronically recorded in the device for the normal count, and
also, a paper receipt is printed. The voter checks the receipt to
see if it accurately records his choices, and then is required to
put it in a ballot box retained at the polling site.
If there's a need for a recount, the paper receipts can be checked.

I imagine a well designed system might show the paper receipt through
a window, but not let it be handled, to prevent serial fraud.
Vinny the Votebuyer pays you if you send a picture of your
face adjacent to the committed receipt, even if you can't touch it.
[more deleted]

It depends on what happens to the receipt when you say commit.  It 
could
automatically go into the ballot box without delay, so you can't take 
such
a photo.
If it goes in without any delay, without any chance for Suzie the 
Sheeple to examine it, then why bother at all? Simply issue an 
assurance to Suzie that her ballot was duly copied to an adjacent 
memory store or counting box.

When she says Then why did you people even bother?, just shrug and 
say They told us to do it.

As Major Variola said a few messages ago, as soon as human eyes can see 
it, machines and cameras and cellphones and eavesdroppers and Vinnie 
the Votebuyer can see it.

I expect there may be some good solutions to this issue, but I haven't 
yet seen them discussed here or on other fora I run across. And since 
encouraging the democrats has never been a priority for me, I haven't 
spent much time worrying about how to improve democratic elections.

And since a person should be completely free to sell his or her vote, 
99% of the measures to stop vote-buying are bogus on general 
principles.

--Tim May
--Tim May, Occupied America
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.

Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld)

[Tim May]

On Nov 25, 2003, at 9:56 AM, Sunder wrote:

Um, last I checked, phone cameras have really shitty resolution,  
usually
less than 320x200.  Even so, you'd need MUCH higher resolution, say
3-5Mpixels to be able to read text on a printout in a picture.

Add focus and aiming issues, and this just won't work unless you carry  
a
good camera into the booth with you.



1. Vinnie the Votebuyer knows the _layout_ of the ballot. He only needs  
to see that the correct box is punched/marked. Or that the screen  
version has been checked.

Pretty easy to see that Bush has been marked instead of Gore.

(For a conventional ballot. For a printed receipt is likely in the  
extreme that the text will be large, at least for the results.)

2. I don't know about cellphone cameras, but my 1996-vintage one  
megapixel camera has more than enough resolution, even at the not so  
great setting (about 360 x 500) to pick up text very well. (I used it  
to snap photos of some things with labels attached, for insurance  
reasons.)

3. If Vinnie is serious about this votebuying (I'm not even slightly  
convinced this would happen nationally, for obvious logistical and who  
cares? reasons, plus the inability of Palm Beach Jews to punch a  
conventional ballot, let alone work a digital camera and send the  
images to Vinnie), he can provide a camera he knows will do the job.

Google shows that as of May 2003 the high-end cellphone cameras use  
CCDs with 640 x 480. This will become the baseline within a short time,  
certainly long before any of the receipt electronic voting systems  
are widely deployed.

(e.g., this article at  
http://www.what-cellphone.com/articles/200305/ 
200305_Easy_Snapping.php)

But the resolution of today's very inexpensive digital cameras, and  
probably those in today's cellphone cameras, is more than enough to  
handle a ballot or reasonable-font receipt.

--Tim May

Re: e voting

[Tim May]

On Nov 24, 2003, at 9:51 AM, cubic-dog wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is expected to announce today that as
of 2006, all electronic voting machines in California must be able to
produce a paper printout that voters can check to make sure their 
votes
are properly recorded.
Great!
Now when I sell my vote, I can produce this reciept for payment!
What a perfect system!
Umm, weren't voter receipts outlawed some time back
because of this exact issue?
But it will allow unions to enforce compliance in the collective union 
vote.

And wives can hold out unless hubby produces the proof that he vote 
for the feminista-approved candidate.

Voting receipts really open up the democratic process.

Of course, for those who think the problem with the West is too much 
democracy, not a good thing.

--Tim May

Justice

[Tim May]

On Nov 19, 2003, at 6:37 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:31:24PM -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Show off.

;-)
Yeah, I need to find a better way to strip those internal links
when forwarding.
-Declan

I assumed it was stego in long URLs, a staple of the Resistance.

(More comments elided because of the culture, now consumed in eulogies 
of a guy who really, really needed to be whacked in 1963. A real pity 
that other deserving dictators have been too well-protected in the 
decades since. Precisely why freedom fighters are so interested in 
Sarin and nukes...the only real way to reach the guilty.)

END TRANSMISSION...LINE DEAD

Re: Ashcroft's bake sale, no questions allowed, gvt-issued photo ID required

[Tim May]

On Nov 19, 2003, at 8:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

PRESS GUIDANCE
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003
ATTORNEY GENERAL
NOTE: Media must enter the Department at the center entrance on 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., between Ninth and Tenth Street.  ALL media 
MUST PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED PHOTO ID (such as driver's license) as 
well as VALID MEDIA CREDENTIALS.  A mult-box will be available.  Press 
inquiries regarding logistics should be directed to Heather Cutchens 
at (202) 532-5403.

VALID MEDIA CREDENTIALS.

Nice to know the AG is enforcing reporter licensing.

--Tim May

Re: Gestapo harasses John Young, appeals to patriotism, told to fuck off

[Tim May]

On Nov 8, 2003, at 11:06 AM, Anonymous wrote:

Cryptome received a visit today from FBI Special Agents Todd Renner 
and Christopher
Kelly from the FBI Counterterrorism Office in New York, 26 Federal 
Plaza, telephone
212) 384-1000. Both agents presented official ID and business cards.
Good stuff. Pigs getting concerned about cryptome means they are 
scared.


I don't understand how this Anonymous can title a post with the 
phrase told to fuck off when John Young's account clearly said that 
he allowed the Feebs to enter his area and even had them sitting on 
either side of him.

I cannot claim to know what I would do, or will do, if Feds ever visit 
my home, but I hope I will have the presence of mind to tell them to:

a) get off my property

b) or to arrest me

In either case, talking to them will not help. The way the 
Reichssecuritat is getting convictions these days is to charge sheeple 
with lying to Federal agents.

Nothing in the Constitution allows compelled speech, except under 
limited (and I think unconstitutional) cases involving grand juries 
ordering a person to speak. (Or where use or blanket immunity has been 
granted, again, probably an unconstitutional measure, as it is 
compelling potentially self-incriminating evidence which may very well 
be used in either another case or be twisted to provide a basis for 
another case.)

I hope I will have the self-presence to say You are trespassing. Get 
off my property, right now!

Cooperating with cops snooping around looking for either thoughtcrime 
or terrorist aid and support is a lose, a big lose.

Speculating wildly, the real target may be John Young himself. And 
nearly anything he said to these narcs may be construed, by them and by 
their malleable DAs, as lying to a Federal investigator.

People should not talk to the Feds. If the Feds come calling, refer 
them to one's lawyer. For those who don't have a lawyer on retainer, 
tell them that you need to consult with a lawyer first. Whether you do 
or you don't is beside the point. The point is to not talk to them.

Lying to a Federal investigator is how they probably hope to get 
Cryptome shut down and John's kind of dissent quelled.

--Tim May

Campaign contribution limits and soft money...law of unintended consequences

[Tim May]

So the Dems who sought campaign finance reform, via McCain-Feingold 
(*) are now trying to get an exception to allow George Soros to spend 
his soft money to help Dems. It seems the legally collected $160 
million war chest that Shrub has collected is scaring the Dems, who 
have raised vastly less. They are looking with lust at the coffers of 
Soros and others, except the campaign finance reform laws they got 
passed are a problem...

(* McCain is officially a Republican, but is actually deeply statist 
and is to the left of Ted Kennedy on many things)

The Constitutional principle is crystal clear on all of these limits 
on speech: there ain't none.

If Tim May wants to speak out, buy ads, write articles, hire others to 
speak out, he can. Ditto for George Soros. Ditto for anyone else. 
Period.

The fact that the Supreme Court has not said Just what part of the 
First Amendment have you not read? and struck down the laws is 
symptomatic of the sick adhocracy we now live in.

I cannot wait for the mushroom cloud over D.C.

--Tim May
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose,  is somehow morally superior to a woman 
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound

Re: MacOS X (Panther) FileVault

[Tim May]

On Nov 12, 2003, at 5:40 PM, Ralf-P. Weinmann wrote:

Panther's FileVault has already come up in a previous discussion, but 
questions
which I thought were pretty obvious and which I had expected at least 
SOMEONE
on cypherpunks to pose haven't come up... Sigh.

Are there any whitepapers available on the design of FileVault? Except 
for
impressive words from marketing droids (AES-128, industry-standard 
cipher,
yawn) I have seen absolutely zilch on the implementation yet: i.e. is
encryption done on a per-file basis or is rather blockwise underneath 
the
filesystem layer (ala loop-aes under Linux)? AES-128, fair enough; but 
what
mode is used for encrypting the files/blocks? ECB? CBC? CTR?  CCM?

Maybe Apple ported PHK's GBDE [1], MacOS X having FreeBSD 
underpinnings and all
that?

What I'd like for Apple to do is step ahead and release the source 
code of
FileVault for per review...

Loosely related to this, I was at the Hackers Conference this past 
weekend. At my last attendance, two years ago, Mac Titanium Powerbooks 
were fairly abundant, but faced good competition from x86 laptops.

This time, whoah Nelly, hold the horses! There must have been 40 of 
them, from the small iBooks to the mid-sized Al- and older 
Ti-Powerbooks, to the mammoth 17-inch model. It was astounding to me, a 
long-term Mac user, to see the Mac laptops completely dominant. Looking 
into the audience, a sea of silvering Mac laptops with the distinctive 
white, illuminated Apple logo.

A big hit was Etherpeg, from www.etherpeg.com, which intercepts 
packets over a WiFi network and reconstructs the packets into JPEG 
images (if they exist). Since most of the Macs in the audience were on 
a local WiFi/AirPort network, arranged ad hoc, the output was put up 
on the LCD projector during one of the main talks. Images of naked 
chicks, oh my!

ObCrypto: Some of the Linux advocates said they had switched to Macs 
partly because the small form factor x86 boxes shipped only with 
Palladium (or its equivalent...they were referring to IBM, so it's 
whatever IBM is now shipping on its ThinkPads as part of their Digital 
Rights Management b.s.). A few people had Debian Linux installed on 
their Mac Powerbooks, though they acknowledged that with OS X being 
built on BSD Unix, there was no actual need to have Linux.

Interestingly, there were virtually no desktops of any sort at the 
Conference. Partly this is logistical--people have to decide to 
transport their machines. But the reports that laptops are now 
accounting for 50% of Apple's sales are showing up in what I saw at the 
Conference.

I hope Apple realizes the marketing edge they are gaining in some 
circles and doesn't do what Sony and IBM are doing.

AMD would also do well to realize that DRM and Palladium/Longhorn is a 
major marketing clusterfuck.xt

--Tim May
Dogs can't conceive of a group of cats without an alpha cat. --David 
Honig, on the Cypherpunks list, 2001-11

Re: MacOS X (Panther) FileVault

[Tim May]

On Nov 12, 2003, at 7:13 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:

At 6:18 PM -0800 11/12/03, Tim May wrote:
A big hit was Etherpeg, from www.etherpeg.com, which intercepts 
packets over a WiFi network and reconstructs the packets into JPEG 
images (if they exist). Since most of the Macs in the audience were 
on a local WiFi/AirPort network, arranged ad hoc, the output was 
put up on the LCD projector during one of the main talks. Images of 
naked chicks, oh my!
This was done for the hack contest at MacHack 2001, also.
[ I have no idea if that was the first time, either. ]
The following year (2002) it was enhanced to return fake banner ads, 
since
machines on the local net could certainly answer before 
ads.doubleclick.com could. :-)

I didn't mean to give any impression that it was done by the HC 
attendees, just that it was a big hit. And since there were 30-50 Macs 
and PCs in the audience, with many on the ad hoc WiFi/AirPort network, 
and many links to the outside, there were a _lot_ of JPEGs whizzing by. 
Sometimes a blizzard of dozens per second, sometimes just a few per 
second.

The dynamics were interesting, too. The JPEGs started out being from 
porn sites, then became related to whatever the speaker was talking 
about. For example, if someone mentioned the evening's keynote speaker, 
Don Norman, a bunch of sites and photos related to him would appear 
(about 10 seconds later). If someone mentioned snow on the roads (near 
Yosemite), weather maps would appear.

--Tim May

Re: [s-t] needle in haystack digest #3 (fwd from Nick.Barnes@pobox.com)

[Tim May]

On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 09:56  PM, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:22 PM 11/6/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
I heard ten years ago that the National Semi fab on-site was a lowly
2-micron fab. Which was enough for keying material.
And rad-hard circuits for their buddies at the NRO.
Probably not on a CMOS process, though.  For the most part,
rad-hard==bipolar, even nowadays.

Most ULSI today is BiCMOS, but Intel, Harris, and a bunch of others 
were making rad-hard CMOS nearly 20 years ago. The 80C86 rad hard part 
was and is used in a lot of  critical apps.

True enough, a project I consulted on picked the AMD 2901 for the 
Galileo Jupiter mission, and it was bipolar.

And of course the concern with shrinking geometries has moved from 
suntan effects (long exposure) to SEUs. And here the advantages 
mostly are with SOI (as they were with SOS and SOI when I started 
working on SEUs in 1977).

--Tim May

Re: [s-t] needle in haystack digest #3 (fwd from Nick.Barnes@pobox.com)

[Tim May]

On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 09:20  AM, Dave Howe wrote:

No Such Agency doesn't fab much of anything; they can't afford to.  
They
and their ilk are far more interested in things like FPGAs and 
adapting
numerical algorithms to COTS SIMD hardware, such as graphics 
processors
(a la http://www.gpgpu.org/).
Why do they have their own fab plant if they don't fab anything?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/facility/nsaspl.htm
The conventional--and convincing to me--story has been that they had 
National Semi (and maybe others) help them with local fabs. These are 
fabs for things like key chips (the ICs carrying keying material in 
whatever form, for Permissive Action Links, and ultra-sensitive kinds 
of stuff that they wouldn't the usual cranked-up fab workers in 
Sunnyvale or Nampa getting near).

I heard ten years ago that the National Semi fab on-site was a lowly 
2-micron fab. Which was enough for keying material.

Crunching chips, for special purpose computers, don't carry the same 
security requirements, as the secret stuff in the code that is being 
run and not the fuses or links being blown. For this, they would use 
whatever is out there.

--Tim May

Re: Panther's FileVault can damage data

[Tim May]

On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 07:52  AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

In case you've been using Apple OS X 10.3 (Panther)'s FileVault 
(Rijndael128
on ~/) there's a yet unfixed bug. Answer no if requested to regain 
lost disk
space in encrypted directory[1]

Notice that while the screen lock buffer overrun has been fixed, there 
are
still unresolved issues with it[2]

[1]http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/33769.html

[2]http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/8912



It's astounding to me that that Apple failed to do basic QC on its 
major new release.

The problem with the Firewire 800 drives using the Oxford 922 chips is 
inexcusable. Did Apple never bother to run the new version of OS X with 
drives made by vendors other than Apple? (I'm assuming here the 
Firewire 800 problem is not present in Apple drives, about which I am 
not 100% convinced.)

Apple should've had a team of testers running the new 10.3 version, as 
with each new version, on a variety of machine configurations, keeping 
careful track of incompatibilities and gotchas. That something so gross 
as trashing external drives (the very popular ones from LaCie and 
others) went unnoticed is just plain inexcusable.

I have a perfectly new copy of Panther OS X 10.3 sitting ready to be 
installed on the machine I am on right now. But I won't install it 
until Apple does its QC.

And since I'm still on a dial-up connection and cannot easily download 
100 MB of updated versions, I plan to contact Apple when the new fix 
is released and tell them to send me a new CD-ROM.

As an Apple shareholder since 1984, this really sucks. What does Apple 
think they are, Microsoft?

--Tim May

Re: [AntiSocial] Re: FLASH: DHS wants info on store refunds?

[Tim May]

On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 11:41  AM, Keller, Nick wrote:

Thst is BS - I just received cash back from my Grocery Store (Giant) -
No ID asked...
What was the amount?

It's probably B.S., but if it isn't, and HomeSec is actually requiring 
this, then they are doing so without a specific warrant.

Note that similar attempts in the past to get the names of book buyers, 
or other customers, have failed even when general warrants were sought.

A store is, unless the Constitution has been rewritten lately, free to 
tell any Fed that its paperwork is its paperwork, save for matters 
relating to taxation, and that if the Feds want a _specific_ 
transaction or name, they can seek the appropriate search warrant 
before a judge.

--Tim May

Re: Chaumian blinding public voting?

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 04:06  AM, Peter Gutmann wrote:

Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

(I bought _one_ lottery ticket, for $1, just to see how the numbers 
were
done. Lotteries are of course a tax on the gullible and stupid.)
A friend of mine likes to say that lotteries are a tax on stupidity: 
The
dumber you are, the more tax you have to pay.

When California was considering a lottery to 'help the schools, I 
voted against it. On the grounds that if something is illegal 
(gambling, prostitution, copyright violation, etc.), governments 
shouldn't be running casinos or brothels or Napster services.

If governments act as bookies or slot machines, why not you and me?

(And if any private gambling operation used the deceptive bookkeeping 
the lotteries typically use, they'd be shut down for fraud. A slot 
machine which paid $10,000(paid over 20 years, or you can have 
$3481.98 _immediately_!) would be shut down by the Gambling Commission 
in most states.)

And, practically, it led to the inner city welfare mutants and mountain 
hillbillies buying large numbers of lottery tickets every week. Which 
is of course a good thing. Except it causes them to clamor for more 
handouts taken at gunpoint from those of us smart enough to save our 
money and not buy lottery tickets.

But my main objection is that it is never an assigned responsibility of 
government to run gambling operations.

Oh, and the our children benefit, too! never materialized. The 
politicos took in the rakeoff from the deceptive odds, plus the more 
normal rakeoff, and spent it on their usual stuff. Which is why 
California is now nattering about the need for more spending for 
schools.

--Tim May

Re: Chaumian blinding public voting?

[Tim May]

On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 02:44  AM, ken wrote:

Major Variola (ret) wrote:

Currently voting is trusted because political adversaries supervise 
the
process.
Previously the mechanics were, well, mechanical, ie, open for
inspection.
That really is worth saying more often.

If we here can't agree on how to make machine voting  both robust and 
private, then  EVEN IF A PERFECT SYSTEM COULD BE DESIGNED it is 
extremely unlikely that a large number of people could be persuaded 
that it /was/ perfect.
There are already people who are confused by, and in some cases afraid 
of, computer touch screen voting. Some of these  people are the ones 
who refuse to use automated teller machines and insist on deal with 
real bank tellers. Some of them think the government is watching. Some 
of them are just weird.

Trying to educate these people about Chaumian blinding is pointless.

(And don't count on the younger generation...they are often 
less-educated than their parents and grandparents, and in the ghettoes, 
than their 60-year-old great grandparents.)

I can see the PR campaign on WWF wrestling:  Using a combination of 
Diffie-Hellman and holographic mark inspection, Alice is assured that  
Vinnie the Votebuyer cannot interfere, by means of a standard ANDO 
protocol...

Those who propose sophisticated voting systems are sentenced to reread 
Clarke's Superiority.

--Tim May
Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid.  But 
stupidity is the only universal crime;  the sentence is death, there is 
no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without 
pity. --Robert A. Heinlein

Re: Chaumian blinding public voting?

[Tim May]

On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 02:44  AM, ken wrote:
If we here can't agree on how to make machine voting  both robust and 
private, then  EVEN IF A PERFECT SYSTEM COULD BE DESIGNED it is 
extremely unlikely that a large number of people could be persuaded 
that it /was/ perfect.

So if public confidence in the mechanisms of voting is considered 
desirable, no electronic or digital system is viable.

 You can run an algorithm on any subset of codes, including just
 your own,
[...]
you already lost 94% of the electorate.  They are saying huh? and 
going back to whatever they were doing before the election rudely 
interrupted them.

I should have mentioned in my last response that there have already 
been cases where the electronic vote results were accidentally posted 
before the election polls had closed. This did wonders for belief in 
the system.

One of the reported cases was somewhat understandable, not that this 
affected overall suspicion of the system: some or most of the absentee 
ballots had already been counted and recorded into the electronic 
system. They were of course not supposed to be agglomerated with the 
other electronic vote totals until after the polls closed. Someone made 
a typical computer error and the partial totals were released ahead of 
the polls closing. Apparently some number of voters planning to vote 
thought the election was over and didn't vote.

Now with conventional, slow, paper-based systems of the sort we mostly 
still use in the U.S., there are various ontological safeguards, or 
speed bumps, which make this kind of computer error less of an 
issue.

Any computerized system is likely to have glitches like the above, each 
of which will cause some fraction of the electorate to think things are 
rigged. As they probably will be.

(By the way, there are some possible crypto fixes, such as 
timed-release crypto. A beacon could broadcast an unlocking key at 
some time well after the polls had closed, simultaneously unlocking the 
many sealed ballot messages. Of course, Joe Sixpack will not understand 
or trust this kind of complexity, either.)

SSL works because it is transparent (hidden from) to the user. 
Likewise, the crypto used in lottery tickets (e.g., the Scientific 
Games model) is transparent to the user and he doesn't have to pore 
over crypto explanations before buying a ticket.

(I bought _one_ lottery ticket, for $1, just to see how the numbers 
were done. Lotteries are of course a tax on the gullible and stupid.)

I see less chance that a crypto-based electronic voting system will be 
adopted in the U.S. than that Robin Hanson's and John Poindexter's let 
CIA gamble on who gets assassinated betting pool will rise from the 
dead.

--Tim May

Re: Chaumian blinding public voting?

[Tim May]

On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 07:17  PM, Neil Johnson wrote:

On Friday 31 October 2003 12:10 pm, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Is is possible to use blinding (or other protocols) so that all votes
are published, you can check that your vote is in there, and you
(or anyone) can run the maths and verify the vote?   Without being
able to link people to votes without their consent.
Doing this would allow vote buyers to verify a voter voted the way  
they
wanted.

That is one of the main reasons you can't take a copy of your paper 
ballot
home with you now.

One option might be to give the voter a MAC of their ballot and then 
print the
MAC's in the paper. The voter could check to see if their vote had been
altered.

I still think far better methods for improving voter turn out other 
than
Internet voting are:

1.  A National Election Holiday (but in the middle of the work week so 
people
can't use it to extend a vacation).

2. Couple the Election with a National Lottery with local, state, and 
national
prizes. With appropriate delink of voter's identity from the way they 
voted
of course.

(I'm not claiming that this would actually improve things overall, just
increase voter turnout).


Increasing voter turnout is, of course, a Bad Thing. For the reasons we 
discuss so often.

Mandating a National Election Holiday is, of course, statist and 
unconstitutional. If Employer Alice negotiates with Employee Bob that 
he work on a particular day, he works on that particular day. 
Government cannot interfere.

(Or if they try to, those involved have earned a loaded 747 flown into 
their building.)

And, practically, elections come at various times during the year in 
different states, with sometimes several elections in a year. Can't 
have a mandated holiday for each, right?

Further, even on mandated holidays, _some_ people must work just to 
keep the machinery going. Examples are legion, from cops to oil 
refinery workers to election place employees. What, are these people 
especially disenfranchised by having to work while employees of Intel 
and Apple are told the State has decreed they get to skip work? (Won't 
even work for Intel, as the wafer fabs run 24/7 and _cannot_ be shut 
downdon't know about Apple's situation.)

When the fuck will people stop proposing statist solutions?

Or should we just add 20 of the remaining 30 list subscribers here to 
the list of 25 million in these united states who need to be sent up 
the chimneys? Works for me.

--Tim May

Re: If you DON'T use encryption, you help the terrorists win

[Tim May]

On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 08:50  AM, Tyler Durden wrote:

Basically they say things like If you think the government can't 
break all
the encryption schemes that we have, you're nuts.  This guy was a 
math major
too, so he understands the principles of crypto.

Basically, the answer was hinted at by another poster.

For anyone who doesn't trust the government, the point to make is that 
crypto use is currently a red flag. Last year I went through great 
pains on this list to point out that right now the gubmint probably 
doesn't even need to break most encrypted messages in order to know 
something's up. This is only possible because outside of a coporate 
context few individuals use encryption.

If everybody uses encryption, then it matters MUCH less if the 
government can break any one message. What costs us pennies to encrypt 
may cost them thousands to break. That's the assymmetry we asyms can 
exploit. That's where we need to depart from a Tim May lone wolf 
approach to your friendly, smiling America-loving flag-waving 
cypherpunks: If you don't use encryption then you help the terrorists 
win.
I have no patience with If _EVERYBODY_ did foo, then arguments.

Contrary to what many of the newcomers (last 5 years) here have argued, 
crypto anarchy was never about converting the world to one true 
political system--it was, and is, about those motivated to do so to 
find ways to drop out of the system and find ways to sabotage the 
various politicians and socialists and minorities using government to 
steal from them.

Finding ways to destroy large nests of socialists and minority welfare 
mutants is of course consistent with this individualist approach.

But silliness about if everybody used encryption, then... is just 
that, silliness.

First we convert the world to our viewpoint is an empty philosophy.

Tyler Durden, you have never shown a trace of sophistication or 
cleverness in the several months you have been on this list.

--Tim May

Re: If you didn't pay for it, you've stolen it!

[Tim May]

On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 09:00  AM, Steve Wollkind (by way of 
Steve Wollkind [EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 24 October 2003 10:14, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:43:22PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
TM: the last two paragraphs were of course added by me. But the point
is still valid, that much of Hollywood's claims about illegal
listening are not really any different from reading without buying
books and magazines in libraries. The more urgent issue is this crap
   Not to mention all the CDs and movies available in libraries. 
What's the
difference in borrowing CDs from a library and taking them home and 
taping
or mp3ing them and getting them from the net?
There's no differenceboth are illegal.  It's just much easier to 
catch
people who leave a trail by downloading files than people who legally 
check a
disc out of a library and then illegally copy it in the privacy of 
their own
home.

You are incorrect. Both are illegal is not correct. The Home 
Recording Act of 1992 explicitly made home use for noncommercial (no 
renting, no selling, no commercial use in bars or radio stations) fully 
legal. The text can be Googled and the topic has been covered here many 
times.

In shyster terms, it created a safe harbor for home taping.

The HRA even established a blank tape and media tax, which is why 
many CD-Rs sold say Music on them (ostensibly these are the media for 
which the blank media tax was paid by someone, with revenues ostensibly 
given to Hollywood).

The DMCA threw a spanner in the works in various ways, partly rewriting 
the HRA, partly adding new stuff.

But the existence of the HRA and the money sent to Hollywood and 
Nashville through the HRA music taxes make successful prosecution of 
any home taper nearly impossible.

--Tim May

Re: NSA Turns To Commercial Software For Encryption

[Tim May]

On Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 07:37  PM, Neil Johnson wrote:

I dunno know.  It comes down to which of the following slogans you 
believe.

ECC: Our algorithm is so good it has been licensed by the NSA.

or

RSA: Our algorithm is so good that the NSA tried to prevent it's 
publication,
had it classified as a munition and export controlled, tried to get the
government to ban it in favor of a key escrow system, arrested and 
harassed a
programmer for implementing an program using it, etc.

Depending on the orientation of your tin foil hat, either one can mean 
the
algorithm is good or has a backdoor. Oh, the fodder for conspiracy 
theorists.

Other theories:

It's always in NSA's interest to make sure that the current in vogue 
crypto
system require licensing even if it is a commercial license. At least 
it
limits it's use in Open Source and Free Software.



Or my theory:

Part of outsourcing.

I hear yawning. But there's more to outsourcing than simplistic notions 
that outsourcing lets the Pentagon (and NSA, CIA, etc.) save money:

-- outsourcing puts the Beltway Bandits into the loop

-- outside suppliers are a place for senior NSA cryptographers and 
managers to go when they have maxed out their GS-17 benefits 
(sheep-dipping agents is another avenue for them to work in private 
industry)

-- outside suppliers are less accountable to Congress, are insulated in 
various well-known ways

This is not just something out of a Grisham thriller, with a Crystal 
City corporation funneling NSA money into a Cayman account...this is 
the Brave New World of hollowing out the official agencies and moving 
their functions to Halliburton, Wackenhut, TRW, TIS/NAI, and the legion 
of Beltway Bandit subcontractors all around D.C.

(When I left the D.C. area in 1970 the practice was in full swing, and 
even my father went to a Bandit in Rockville when he left the U.S. 
Navy, doing the same job but both better paid and less accountable. And 
he wasn't even a spook.)

Put it this way, if Dick Cheney had worked for the NSA before going 
into private practice for his 8 years out of government, he'd want to 
go to a place like Certicom. And then return to government and help 
mandate that his former company's products be the Official Standard.

Follow the money.

--Tim May

If you didn't pay for it, you've stolen it!

[Tim May]

Hollywood Preaches Anti-Piracy to Schools

Thu Oct 23, 3:09 PM ET

By RON HARRIS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO -  As part of its campaign to thwart online music and 
movie piracy, Hollywood is now reaching into school classrooms with a 
program that denounces file-sharing and offers prizes for students and 
teachers who spread the word about Internet theft.

The Motion Picture Association of America paid $100,000 to deliver its 
anti-piracy message to 900,000 students nationwide in grades 5-9 over 
the next two years, according to Junior Achievement Inc., which is 
implementing the program using volunteer teachers from the business 
sector.

 What's the Diff?: A Guide to Digital Citizenship launched last week 
with a lesson plan that aims to keep kids away from Internet services 
like Kazaa that let users trade digital songs and film clips: If you 
haven't paid for it, you've stolen it.

The program appears to be working, with students in dozens of middle 
schools announcing that they will not enter their school libraries. 
Said one student: These libraries let lots of kids read the same 
books...that's like Kazaa lets lots of people listen to songs!

Another one added that they are joining a Christian Coalition program 
to shut down parties that other students run. They are, like, letting 
kidz listen to music and stuff, said one banner-toting teenybopper.

TM: the last two paragraphs were of course added by me. But the point 
is still valid, that much of Hollywood's claims about illegal 
listening are not really any different from reading without buying 
books and magazines in libraries. The more urgent issue is this crap 
about corporations buying time in public schools. If I had a kid in a 
school and it was proposed that Nike, Time-Warner, Coke, or Intel would 
be buying teaching time, I'd tell them to stop it pretty fucking quick 
or face the Mother of All Columbines.

--Tim May

Re: If you didn't pay for it, you've stolen it!

[Tim May]

On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 08:14  AM, Harmon Seaver wrote:

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:43:22PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
TM: the last two paragraphs were of course added by me. But the point
is still valid, that much of Hollywood's claims about illegal
listening are not really any different from reading without buying
books and magazines in libraries. The more urgent issue is this crap
   Not to mention all the CDs and movies available in libraries. 
What's the
difference in borrowing CDs from a library and taking them home and 
taping or
mp3ing them and getting them from the net?
None, and in fact I have made my own DAT and CD copies of many hundreds 
of CDs I borrowed.

I also burn an average one DVD per day, of movies and suchlike.

about corporations buying time in public schools. If I had a kid in a
school and it was proposed that Nike, Time-Warner, Coke, or Intel 
would
be buying teaching time, I'd tell them to stop it pretty fucking quick
or face the Mother of All Columbines.
   Or even worse the practice of Coke, Pepsi, et al paying money to 
the school
for exclusive rights to market their product. Also sort of like what 
M$ did in
schools and colleges -- gave them some free computers on the condition 
that all
competing software be removed from computer labs. Not surprising at 
all that
megacorps now want to buy teaching time in schools. In Japan the 
megacorp have
long run their own schools for workers kids to ensure the loyalty of 
their
future workers.
This last point I have no problem with, provided Megacorp pays all the 
costs for its own schools. In fact, I support bringing back indentured 
servitude.

The problem is when a public school, which taxpayers have been 
ordered to pay for, becomes the fiefdom of a corporation. If a child is 
compelled to attend school, as he is, he may not be compelled to watch 
commercials or listen to corporate pitches.

--Tim May
Dogs can't conceive of a group of cats without an alpha cat. --David 
Honig, on the Cypherpunks list, 2001-11

If you use encryption, you help the terrorists win

[Tim May]

I predict we'll soon be seeing a new thought control campaign with this 
theme, that if you use encryption, you help the terrorists win.

Similar to the heavy advertising (paid for by Big Brother, and hence by 
money stolen from taxpayers) with the theme that lighting up a doobie 
helps Osama, that taking an Oxycontin (sorry, Rush!) is equivalent to 
flying a plane into the World Trade Center.

Why encryption? Why now?

Perhaps Eric B. can comment on the status of encrypted cellphones, of 
whichever flavor, but it occurs to me that some people in Iraq 
desperately need them. I refer of course to those trying to expell the 
American soldiers occupying their cities and, as Anne Coulter put it 
and as senior Army officials agree, occupy their country, take their 
oil, and convert them all to Christianity.

You see, the landlines and central offices were largely wiped out in 
the War for Oil. So what is now going in is what makes sense for nearly 
all developing--or flattened--countries: cellphones. The U.S. had plans 
for the contracts to deploy cellphones to go to American companies, but 
the local puppets must have had no fear of the Americans, as they went 
with a better bribe: mostly Arabic cellphone providers will deploy the 
initial system.

And of course this is why there are a lot of subcontractors with ties 
to the NSA, DIA, ASA, etc. now in Iraq monitoring communications. 
(Partly to track down Saddam's whereabouts, as he may use a cellphone, 
if he's careless. Recall the tale of Pablo Escobar.)

So, what would happen if even 5% of the cellphones were encrypted with 
a sufficiently-strong system (Eric's 3DES would presumably be enough)?

And if not encrypted cellphones, encryption of the usual sort, over 
networks.

I wonder what would happen to someone found carrying copies of PGP into 
Iraq?

(Which is not to say copies are not already widely circulating, or 
readily downloadable, etc.)

It seems clear to me that the puppet state of Iraq (maybe we could dub 
it The Puppet Republic of Iraq?) will not allow significant use of 
encrypted cellphones, or perhaps even encryption over networks. If the 
daily attacks on the crusaders continue to rise, and there appears to 
be some kind of coordination, the intelligence agencies will be called 
to task on why they are not intercepting (or jamming) the coordination 
channels.

If the expected attacks in Saudi Arabia and other soft targets happen 
on schedule in the next few weeks, we might even see reintroduction of 
crypto ban proposals inside the U.S.

We should not assume the war for crypto is won.

--Tim May
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can 
only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves 
money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority 
always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the 
Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over 
loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. --Alexander 
Fraser Tyler

Re: If you didn't pay for it, you've stolen it!

[Tim May]

On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 02:04  PM, BillyGOTO wrote:

On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:14:03PM -0400, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
Major Variola writes:

What *is* a library?

1. A library is legal.  A library needn't be licensed by any state
entity.
2. Thus, I can declare my computer a library.  The only requirement 
is
that I own a license to what I lend, and that only 1 user exercise
that license at a time.  That is what a library is.
Well stated.
Not really.  Libraries have to pay more than we do for their
subscriptions.
Be careful using the phrase have to in any discussion of legal issues.

Does government force libraries to pay more for some subscriptions? Not 
to my knowledge.

Do some publishers have different rates for individuals versus 
libraries and other institutions? Yes.

Are libraries required by law to reimburse authors and publishers when 
they allow books and magazines to be looked at by patrons or checked 
out by them? No laws that I know of.

In short, some publishers charge some customers more, and others less. 
In this sense, an Intel or a Carnegie Public Library has to pay 
higher rates to these particular publishers, but this is certainly not 
germane to issues of legality of libraries.

--Tim May

Re: Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd on Final Passage of Iraq

[Tim May]

On Monday, October 20, 2003, at 03:21  PM, Steve Schear wrote:

[For all the good it will do, one of the few Senators to stingingly  
rebuff the Administration's Iraq position and demand for tribute to  
support their further misadventures.  However, there are equally large  
lies and tribute being supported by Byrd and others upon which they  
are silent.  Besides its easy to be clamorous when you're vote isn't  
the key vote denying someone as powerful as the President.  Just more  
political rhetoric.]

Senate Floor Remarks

Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd on Final Passage of Iraq
Supplemental Appropriations Bill
http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003october/ 
byrd_speeches_2003october_list/byrd_speeches_2003october_list_3.html
Byrd has stolen vast amounts of money to support his cronies.

The number of slave-lives (via taxation) to build the Robert Byrd  
Memorial Memorials is in the  high tens of thousands. according to  
Tribunal Watch, the watchdog group keeping tabs on the high crimes of  
everyone in government.

Byrd dislikes the Bush War because he couldn't get in on any of the  
Halliburon, Bechtel, Zapata, and Wackenhut largesse. His hopes were  
dashed when West Virginia was passed-over for the site of Camp X-Ray  
and when, worst of all, WVa was not selected as the processing center  
for Iraqis to pay their taxes through. He'd been counting on his usual  
rakeoff.

--Tim May
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a  
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also  
into you. -- Nietzsche

Re: clicking on ads = funding terrorists

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 02:10  AM, Bill Stewart wrote:

Subject: US State Department extends FTO list to include Internet 
sites
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031010-112733-8086r.htm
Excerpted from politech.  Consider the 1st Amend implications,
and how clicking on a banner ad (which automatically would
pay the source site) makes you a terrorist supporter.  Got assets?
Depends on how they get paid for the ads - if anybody still pays per 
view
rather than per click-through, even looking at the site could count,
at least if your local Feds listen to John Ashcroft.

Such a case (of an individual being charged for clicking on a banner 
ad) will never go to trial, but if it did, an obvious defense would be 
that those who click on an ad are not the ones _paying_ any money to 
anyone. They lack agency.

And any argument that the act of clicking on a site or ad for Kach 
induces _others_ to pay money to Kach and hence is some kind of 
conspiracy to fund Kach would be laughed out of court. This year. Maybe 
not in three years, however, at the rate we are descending into 
Wonderland.

--Tim May

Re: Software protection scheme may boost new game sales (fwd)

[Tim May]

On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 12:09  PM, Sunder wrote:

Yawn...  This is no different than any of the copy protection schemes
employed in the 1980's on then popular home computers such as the
commodore 64.
Hindsight is 20/20 and recalls, all of these were broken within weeks 
if
not months.  Nibbler copiers and other programs were quickly built 
that
allowed the breaking of all of these systems.  All sorts of error
sectors, duplicate tracks, half tracks, extra tracks, extra sectors,
non-standard sized sectors, tracks written at different speeds, 
erroneous
checksums, hidden data, and other sorts of weird bits were employed.  
All
were broken.  None survived the ages.

In the end, the companies that employed copy protection only managed to
piss off customers who lost their only copy of the software, and 
created a
market for the copiers and crackers.  The crackers won, the software
companies lost.
In fact, the companies that made copying software got a lot of business 
(and hence stayed in business, funded more copying work, etc.) from 
_fully legal customers_ who wanted to ensure that they had backups of 
critical software. Everybody I knew had Copyiipc from Central Point 
Software in Portland, OR. They were not copying games, they were 
copying critical disks with their CAD, spreadsheed, accounting, and 
other business apps on them.

Yeah, sometimes these people gave copies to friends. Who often bought 
the program if their businesses would benefit (manuals, support, 
updates, etc.). But the main reason was for ensurance (not a word, but 
it fits with ensure vs. insure).

Few of the companies of that era are still in business today.  CEO's,
Vulture Capitalists, and others who have an interest in such schemes 
would
do well to invest some time in learning about that time, and the 
results,
for their investments, and dollars will go the same way... the way of 
the
brontosaurus, the trilobite, and the dodo.
As the saying goes, the lessons of the past are learned anew by each 
generation...

--Tim May

Re: base conversion

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 06:16  AM, Sarad AV wrote:

hi,

If we are to convert a k-bit integer n to a base b
number,it takes us O(log n) if the base b is a power
of 2.
eg. converting (1)base to base 16
0001 
  ^^
  1F  in hex.
using a look up table.

Is there an algorithm with time complexity O(log n)
which allows such conversion to base b ,when b is not
a power of 2?
I have decoded this latest bit of homework stego and have found the 
plaintext:

Attack the Islamic Center in Hyderabad at the rise of the new moon.

I assume Sarad's readers have now gotten coordinated.





--Tim May
Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout  
--Unknown Usenet Poster

Re: DC Security Geeks Talk: Analysis of an Electronic Voting System

[Tim May]

On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 06:42  AM, Ed Reed wrote:

Grisham might be better - it's the legal wrangling that would tie up
people's imagination, more than the technical.
Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/25/2003 12:46:13 PM 
At 02:48 PM 9/24/03 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
http://www.cryptonomicon.net/ 
modules.php?name=Newsfile=printsid=463

Cryptonomicon.Net -

Talk: Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
Someone needs to inject a story about e-voting fraud into the popular
imagination.
Is Tom Clancy available?  Maybe an anonymous, detailed, plausible,
(but
secretly fictional)
blog describing  how someone did this in their podunk county... then
leak this to a news reporter..
Failure to be *able* to assure that this *didn't* happen in that
podunk
county would make
an important point.
There have already been reports of electronic votes being reported,  
mysteriously, before the election precincts closed.

We know the results are often fixed, but reporting the results before  
the polls are closed sorts of makes the point obvious even to the  
sheeple.

But, like the current hullaballoo about spam and telemarketing, the  
larger issues are not being discussed. Providing more sound bites about  
why Washington needs to be more successfully targeted by Al Qaida, with  
a lot more destruction than the paltry efforts we saw on 9/11, is  
boring.

The focus of this list in recent months on political lobbying  
activities is wrong-headed. We need to be working on ways to make Big  
Brother powerless, either through technology or through destroying his  
nests and his tens of millions of helpers.

The death of twenty million enablers and welfare addicts will be a very  
good thing. Burn, corpses, burn!!

--Tim May

Re: Inferno: Akila Al-Hashimi assassinated (fwd)

[Tim May]

On Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 10:56  AM, Trei, Peter wrote:

Jim Choate[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:06:45 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Inferno: Akila Al-Hashimi assassinated
A representative on the US appointed Governing Council in Iraq has 
died of
wounds from an assassination attempt this past Saturday.  She was one 
of
three women representatives on the 25-member council.  Strangely 
enough,
we are only hearing word of this assassination attempt today in the 
West;
now that she has in fact died it is newsworthy, I suppose?  Or perhaps
just inconcealable.


I don't have much trust in the US media, but this is nonsense. The
assasination attempt was covered by the NYT among others. I heard about
it on the radio at the weekend, and it was on Yahoo News.
Peter Trei

---
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/21/international/middleeast/21IRAQ.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 20 - In the first attempt to assassinate a
member of Iraq's interim government, nine gunmen this morning
shot and critically wounded Akila al-Hashemi, one of three women
on the governing body, as she was being driven to work by a driver
and three bodyguards.


Her shooting was widely reported when it happened a few days ago, on 
CNN, leading newspapers, and presumably on other networks. One of her 
bodyguards was killed, and her brother was either injured or killed, I 
don't recall. Lots of footage of her planning to be the first useful 
idiot, er, politician,  to serve in both the U.S.-funded Saddam regime 
and the U.S.-funded post-Saddam regime.

Perhaps these networks and newspapers are not carried on Choate Prime, 
the parallel world that is strangely different from our own.

--Tim May

Re: Drunken US Troops Kill Rare Tiger

[Tim May]

On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 02:19  PM, Sunder wrote:

They *ALL* promise freedom, democracy, and development.  It's voting 
for
someone who delivers thems instead of opression, fascism, and theft 
that's
the problem.

Anyone who claims to deliver democracy, and development needs to be 
assassinated.

As for delivering freedom, they can butt out of the election as a 
first step.

--Tim May

Liquidating the Mud People

[Tim May]

On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 06:27  PM, Eric Cordian wrote:

News services are reporting that US Troops, who have been holding 
regular
drunken parties at the Baghdad Zoo, have shot and killed the Zoo's rare
Bengal tiger.

It seems not only civilians are in danger from US Troops in the 
Occupied
Iraqi Territories.
Even the Evil Baathists had the sense and respect to keep the zoos and 
other institutions running.

Now that  the cowboys and good ole boys have taken over, it's target 
practice on civilians and shooting caged tigers.

And worse things. And we are paying an average of $3000 per year per 
taxpayer, charged to our collective credit cards of course, to pay for 
Dick Cheney's company to grow richer, for George Bush's oil interests 
to benefit, and for the creation of a state more inimical to American 
interests than anything a guy living in the mountains of Afghanistan 
could ever have imagined.

Which was probably the intent all along for those who support and 
benefit from the National Security State.

But, the other side of me is chortling. A clusterfuck which is 
unfolding nicely. Deaths of imperialist soldiers on a daily basis, 
thefts of the electoral process by their Democrap opponents back home, 
more unwinding of U.S. support, and the growing prospects for some true 
strikes at the heartland.

What's not to like? (Just steer clear of the major population centers 
which are pawns in this game.)

Me, I don't fly on Jet CIA Blue or Delta Delta Operations, or any other 
of the Big Brother-controlled airlines. (And now they are financially 
suffering and want citizen-unit taxes to bail them out...any airline 
which takes tax subsidies deserves to have its airplanes blown out of 
the skyKA_BOOM.)

And I rarely leave Santa Cruz these days. And I keep my claymores in 
good shape and my perimeter alarms armed.

This fascist and communist nation has danced to the tune of the Mud 
People too long.

--Tim May

Re: Drunken US Troops Kill Rare Tiger

[Tim May]

On Sunday, September 21, 2003, at 04:55  PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

At 06:35 PM 9/21/03 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
I no longer consider 9/11 a terrorist act.

Fuck. I've been nearing a similar conclusion, though from an entirely
different, uh, line of approach. Though I don't consider having quite
crossed that line yet.
I guess in the end we are responsible for the actions our government
takes.
And if we remain ignorant and continue to benefit (and do nothing to
stop
it), then we are responsible, particularly when our military 
represents
an
outrageously assymetric invasionary force.
If you pay taxes, you are a terrorist.  Even if you pay them under
threat
of violence, as most do.
America is the world's leading terrorist state.

My name is Tim, and men with guns take a lot of money from me each 
year. I am a terrorist.


9/11 was a commando/specops operations against an invader on par
with Rome.  If the US were invaded by troops from Arabia, one would
expect that American Patriots (tm) would perform similar military
actions.
As horrible as 9/11 was for the 3000 or so victims and their families, 
it was not much more than hundreds of thousands of victims of American 
terrorism have suffered around the world.

I'm glad I wasn't a victim...but, then, I figured out many years ago 
that living in a Schelling point for reprisals against American 
terrorism was not a smart thing to do. And I discovered that helping 
Delta and Jet Blue go bankrupt through not flying was smarter than 
being a sitting duck victim of Spec Ops vs. Al Qaida turf wars.

Give part of germany to the jews, and give palestine back to the arabs
Give the Jew invaders of Palestine a 10-minute lesson in swimming, hand 
them a pair of water wings, and tell them to swim for their lives.

With luck, only one in 100 will make it to the point where Do-Gooder 
rescuer ships make them welfare burdens on America.

--Tim May

We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever
greater instability.
--George H. W. Bush, A World Transformed, 1998

Re: Versign creates man-in-the-middle attack on DNS

[Tim May]

On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 07:24  PM, Neil Johnson wrote:

Just a few hours ago Versign modified the Internet's root DNS servers 
to
respond to ANY DNS lookup that doesn't resolve in a real hostname to 
return
the IP address of one their servers where they claim to have a search 
engine.

For example, if you access http://www.thisisjunk55666.com , you will 
get a
Verisign page, not a Host can not be found error.

This means that many anti-spam checks will fail among other issues.

They will also intercept mail to mistyped email hosts (They claim to 
reject
the mail, but not after having collected the From and To address).

This really bites.
I didn't get a Verisign page...I go the usual error.

Could not open the page http://www.thisisjunk55666.com/ because the 
server www.thisisjunk55666.com could not be found.

--Tim May

We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania.
We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq.
We are at war with France. We have always been at war with France.

Mexifornia Driver's License

[Tim May]

http://vikingphoenix.com/immigration/davis_sign_illegal.htm