TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am pleased to transmit a legislative proposal to establish the
Millennium Challenge Account and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Also
transmitted is a section-by-section analysis.
The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) represents a new approach
[This from www.bestoftheblogs.com.Haven't had a chance to track down the various
bits to see if they're true/valid. It seems like a really bad idea for a single,
privately held company to have a monopoly on computerized voting systems in the US.
Well, unless your friends with the guy who ho
Removal of sensitive information, locking down of websites, securing otherwise
accessible points of data. The .gov and .mil talk of
cyber-homeland-defense-strategy blah doesn't make much sense, at least not from
the admittedly media-derived POV I get. In amongst the proposals for screening
peop
At 12:38 PM 2/4/03 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not necessarily. It is a well documented phenomenon that people show up at
hospitals with even some seemingly real conditions whenever there is a
particular panic in the media, even in cases where it is simply not
possible that they were made s
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 07:48:13AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
> I followed down the page and found a name, then googled for it. Check
> this out and laugh your butt off!
>
> http://www.manhunt.com/features/html/89.shtml
Yep. My favorite URLs of the day are below.
-Declan
---
http://www.flash.n
At 08:31 AM 2/5/2003 +, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
It's a nice idea, but it needs a tensile-strength-to-mass ratio equivalent
to holding a girl and her mother up by a single thread of her 10 denier
stockings. Not easy to achieve. You'd need carbon nanotubes or the like, and
at the moment we can'
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Wonder if any current .gov domains are owned by individuals pulling a prank?
>
> -Declan
>
> >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 08:46:20 -0500
> >From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: FC: Feds pull plug on suspicious "cybe
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, AARG! Anonymous wrote:
> The main features of TCPA are:
>
> - key storage
The IBM TPM does this part.
> - secure boot
> - sealing
> - remote attestation
It does *not* do these parts. That's why IBM wants the TPM != TCPA
to be loud and clear. That's why the RIAA can't expec
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:05:04AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:03:28PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> > Well, of all the email lists I'm on, yours is the only posting
> > that does what it does on a group reply. Like, why doesn't my
> > "group" send a copy to you? A
Wonder if any current .gov domains are owned by individuals pulling a prank?
-Declan
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 08:46:20 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FC: Feds pull plug on suspicious "cyberwarfare" .gov site
I've placed a mirror of AONN.gov here:
ht
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Thomas Shaddack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Second, where did the number 7 really come from?
>
> >From the OSI 7-layer model, which took it from the fact that the number 7 is
> sacred to a certain tribe in Borneo (see "The Elements of Networking Styl
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:18:25PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 08:53:58AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> > Declan's postings are usually either normal postings to cypherpunks
> > or else posted to his politech list (most of which have Subject: FC
> > something.) I'm subs
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:56:22AM +, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>
> Railways:
> Euro railways are better than US - but in at least the UK there is
> "compulsory purchase", when they grab your land and pay you very little for
> it, in order to build them. And too much government is involved.
> From the OSI 7-layer model, which took it from the fact that the number 7 is
It's simpler than that. Russians wanted 6, americans 8.
=
end
(of original message)
Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows:
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.c
me again.
Space transport:
I like the two-stage-to-orbit solution for humans, with the booster stage
piloted. The maths works well. I don't know about scramjets etc for the
booster, but a few rockets would do, with an aero fuselage to take off and
land. Using current airline technology mostly. Saf
After much procrastination I recently put the Crypto Gardening Guide and
Planting Tips online at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/crypto_guide.txt, this may be of
interest to readers. From the introduction:
There has been a great deal of difficulty experienced in getting research
pe
Steve Schear wrote:
>
> My preference is the space elevator. In simple terms, the space elevator
> is a ribbon with one end attached to the Earth's surface and the other end
> in space beyond geosynchronous orbit (35,800 km altitude). The competing
> forces of gravity at the lower end, and outwa
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:10:39AM -0500, Sunder wrote:
>
> My question is what's a reasonable order of magnitude of overwriting data
> now, assuming you're not trying to hide data from, say the NSA.
>
This raises a question I've long had.
ARE there actual systems for reading ove
Thomas Shaddack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Second, where did the number 7 really come from?
>From the OSI 7-layer model, which took it from the fact that the number 7 is
sacred to a certain tribe in Borneo (see "The Elements of Networking Style",
by Mike Padlipsky).
Peter.
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:03:28PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Well, of all the email lists I'm on, yours is the only posting
> that does what it does on a group reply. Like, why doesn't my
> "group" send a copy to you? And why does it pick up
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and put it in the To: line? A
At 04:17 AM 2/5/2003 +, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
me again.
Space transport:
I like the two-stage-to-orbit solution for humans, with the booster stage
piloted. The maths works well. I don't know about scramjets etc for the
booster, but a few rockets would do, with an aero fuselage to take off
Mike Rosing wrote:
> Thanks Eugen, It looks like the IBM TPM chip is only a key
> store read/write device. It has no code space for the kind of
> security discussed in the TCPA. The user still controls the machine
> and can still monitor who reads/writes the chip (using a pci bus
> logger for ex
22 matches
Mail list logo
