HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:12:43 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <BZS.93Jan2232208@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>
[...]
>In the same vein, their life-skills were acquired from a basically
>mercantile upper-middle class society, so their instincts tell them
>that only the most viciously competitive society works to their
>advantage. A world where cripples and orphans and other unfortunates
>are left to make their own case. You can't beat up the govt, but you
>can certainly choose between a $5K stereo system and feeding some
>unfortunate if the govt would just get out of the way. And we know
>which they'd choose (and if something is left over and their
>birthright delivered to them as is only *fair* no doubt a few crumbs
>would be thrown to the lepers, but only noblesse oblige of course.)
>
>I think that about sums it up as a psycho-socio-political profile.
>
>There are certainly points the libertarian movement has that are
>commendable in my view. But the motivation of many of their strongest
>proponents show an unhealthy frustration to something else entirely
>(as the responses to this note will quickly convince the more
>disinterested among you is true.)

Come on, Barry, it's not like you to beat around the bush.
 
Say it.
 
"Programmer-libertarians are, as a rule, selfish punks who only give 
a shit about themselves.  They must be FORCED to contribute to the
GOOD of SOCIETY!!!"

Hee hee.  Well, I apologize if that's not what you meant, but it
sure seems like it.  :)

cpk
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: RSA sucks (Re: PGP warning (ooo; I am scared))
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 18:00:42 GMT

mitch@novavax.UUCP (Mitch Silverman) writes:
>>Please let him know how you feel about the theft of mathmatics (sic) by the
>>patent office.

      Why so down on RSA getting their patent?  Public-key cryptography
was a major invention.  Before Rivest, Shamir, etc. invented it, it was
generally thought to be impossible.  It was a real invention, not something
obvious that slipped past the PTO, like the XOR-draw patent, or something
that ought to be an antitrust violation, like the way Hayes uses its
patent on "+++" as an out-of-band signal to modems.

      For only 17 years, RSA gets to control the technology.  Then it
becomes public domain, and joins all the freely available technology
everyone can look up and use.   RSA isn't sitting on the technology;
they licence it, they give out a free toolkit, they give seminars,
they carry on the export control fight, and they try to get people to
use it.  Admittedly, they have no talent for marketing mass-market software.

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bampf@iastate.edu (TC)
Subject: re: stupid licenses
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:58:25 GMT

1.  When software or peripheral manufacturers list compatability requirements,
    have they ever singled out one or more brand of computers that their
    product is not compatible with?  I have never seen this, and am curious
    if this is ever done.  I know one large clone manufacturer whose PC's
    respond very oddly with sound cards; either the sound cards work strangely
    or they don't work at all.  Yet, you will never see the sound card
    manufacturers singling out this clone company on the compatibility
    requirements?  Would there be any sort of legal backlash from
    singling out XYZ clone maker if that clone maker could then mysteriously
    produce one of their clones that worked with the third-party product?
 
2.  After a major software company has hyped the release of a product,
    have they ever scrapped it due to it being unfeasible?  I can think
    of some cases where it might have been for the best.  For example,
    back in days in which game producers still made translations for C-64's,
    a major company announced that it would be converting a certain IBM game
    for the C-64.  The game took up  multiple megs of hard drive space on PC's
    and required a couple of megs ram minimum.  Normally, this company puts
    astoundingly good software, but in the case of the C-64 conversion, they
    were trying to do the impossible.  It took awhile for me to restore faith
    in this company and only later found out that their stuff done by their
    regular PC programmers was top-notch stuff.
    It's my suspicion that companies might damage their reputation quite
    severely in order to deliver what they had previously promised.  Yes,
    I know there are business realities and I know first-hand what it is
    like to have to present something professionally that is not your best
    work due to deadlines and other factors.  But still, I can't help but
    wonder if some companies would benefit from pulling out on products that
    they had planning to put out.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   (. .)						       		 |
|    \o/       Sanity is curable.                                        |
__________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:45:37 GMT

In article <1h87qlINN53p@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>The interations that occur on socially-oriented networks
>are very dependent on things like psedonymity policies
>and practices, and on privacy issues in general.  

How are the WELL's interactions dependent on its policies about
pseudonyms? In my extensive experience of the WELL, I have yet to
see the issue of pseudonyms come up at all.


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:37:09 GMT

In article <1h5mrdINNkgk@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>Discouraged to the extent that well below 1% of WELL subscribers
>have pseudonymous privileges.  To me this is the same
>as "unavailable".

I don't know of anyone who's tried to set up an anonymous account
on the WELL who's failed to get it. Doing so is trivial.

Your percentage would be more compelling if you could show that a sizable
percentage of the remaining 99+ percent *wanted* anonymity and couldn't
get it.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jdp@poppy.cs.odu.edu (JD Powell)
Subject: "Hackers on NPR"
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:04:37 GMT


Anyone else hear the segment on National Public Radio this morning?
William Flanagan (sp?) of Forbes was interviewed in a free range
discussion that bounced from 'sport hackers' to hackers that have
been co-opted by organized crime.  Mr. Flanagan explained the 
organized crime link by pointing out Crime Inc.'s need for stolen
phone services...after all, those calls to Colombia can be very
expensive....

All in all, it was a lightly sensationalized little sound bite, 
sounding for all the world like they were trying to perpetuate 
any hysteria they can instigate.  They being the people of the press
that involve themselves in these stories.

For years I've been a big fan of NPR, enjoying their coverage of the 
news on "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered".  Until now, I've
not had any reason to view their commentary with anything more than the
regular caution.  When my membership support renewal notice arrives from
my local public radio station, it's gonna be returned with $0 and a 
nastygram concerning their disappointing coverage of the CUD.  I think
they jumped in over their heads on this one, and didn't even bother 
to tread water.

This was a *minor* missed coverage of happenings here, but I felt 
betrayed by my favorite news coverage organization.  Sigh.   One
more of my naive notions gets exposed.
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 04:17:47 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec22.032225.27282@netcom.com> dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross) writes:
>Steve Pope (spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>
>: <Mega-flames deleted>

(?) Was I _really_??
>
>Steve, just why in the hell are you getting so worked up over this?
>I've been on The WELL for 3 years (come March), and I can safely say
>that this is not a problem.  I have never seen a serious controversial
>discussion about this issue on The WELL; and, believe me, the (over
>6,000, now) members do indeed argue and make controversies over just
>about anything you can imagine.

I'm not particularly "worked up" over this issue.  I am (a)
trying to figure out just who (general terms) the class of pseudonymous
WELL users is; and (b) are there any implications of this
sort of in-between policy on pseudonymity?  I figure this is the
right newsgroup to discuss such things.  

>So, what would you *like* the WELL management to do?  

Explain themselves.  Other than that, nothing different than
they are doing.  They may be up-front about their policy
if anybody should ask them.  

>I don't get what you want to have happen.  

Then go back and read my posts to get a clue.  I haven't
suggested that I want the WELL to change.  

Steve
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8238 alt.amateur-comp:442 soc.culture.usa:9417 alt.activism:19977
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: wkaufman@us.oracle.com (William Kaufman)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:15:28 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1993Jan1.085628.14430@netcom.com> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:
] In article <30DEC199221400138@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes:
] >
] >Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that political conservatives seem 
] >more likely to take up new technology than liberals.  Liberals seem to be 
] >neo-Luddites in this respect.  

    Well, there was Mr. Bush who, in his term of office, a) learned to
turn on a computer; and, b) was startled by the existence of supermarket
bar code scanners.  On the other hand, Mr. Gore has long been a strong
advocate for technology.

    But, I don't think this has much to do with political affiliation.
Gender, race and experience play a role, but the most important factor
seems to be *age*: a thirty-year-old will, almost certainly, be more
comfortable/familiar with high-tech than a sixty-year-old.

[ 1. email use....]
] 2. re: conservative viewpoint would dominate
]    My experience says no.  Well, sort of no.  Well, it's like this...
]    I received gobs of email during my campaign.  Of course, some of it
]    was quite thoughtful, and some was flaming (from rare to well done).
]    A vast amount of the flames were from people who fell into the rough
]    camp of:  All taxes are theft; almost all government is wrong; etc.
]    I don't think I would classify those as 'conservative', but perhaps
]    the conservatives I've met just hadn't flamed that way in person.

    That's the libertarians, who try not to classify themselves as
either liberal or conservative, because the conservative, Barry
Goldwater-style ones would get into small arms fire with the anarchist,
Emma Goldman-style ones, and wreck the party.

    If Usenet is any reasonable sample, though, there *does* seem to be
a relation between being a programmer and a libertarian.  I don't think
anyone can prove a definite correlation; but my guess is that the two
are related by the fact that programmers are overwhelmingly white,
educated and (currently or soon-to-be) upper-middle-class.

] p.s.
] No, I didn't win the primary this time.  I got 11%, though.

    Good luck next time!  (Myself, I've given up on Democrat/Republican
distinctions, and am losing faith in liberal/conservative; but, anyone
who knows how to work a calculator has to be better for the deficit than
someone who doesn't.)

                                           -- Bill K.

Bill Kaufman,          | "Maybetheyhadaridiculousstatementtomakeaboutsomethingt
Corporate Lackey       |  heyhadntexperiencedPossiblySamhadadifferentopiniontha
wkaufman@us.oracle.com |  tnobodyeverconsideredimportant."  -- the Meat Puppets
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Software as PE
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 00:36:53 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends

In article <bhayden.724605662@teal> 
(Bruce Hayden) writes: 

>  So - What can you test?? I don't know.

        Bruce puts his finger on it. "Software Engineer" is a
        meaningless and misleading term. Don't agree? Okay, design a
        test that distinguishes between a software engineer and a
        programmer. Before you do that, talk to a real engineer.

        The one good to come of this is now that Software Engineer is
        the fashionable euphemism for Programmer, the real Systems
        Analysts may be able to reclaim their title.

        Best of the season,
                                Marc


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Virus design
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:10:32 GMT

In article <ZmLawB1w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:
>Imagine what would have happened with a PROPERLY written "antibody"
>released into the Internet after the worm slipped out of rtm's fingers...
>If the virus could spread in 12 hours the way it did, what would a
>(PROPERLY written!!) antibody do?  (of course, that ignores the fact
>that many sites went off the internet....)

If I understand the Internet Worms methodology correctly, it would have been
very much the same.  Morris used bugs in programs to get his (wholly self-
contained) worm running on the new system.  Most, if not all, virus detection
software assumes that the virus is not a self-contained entity, but a code
fragment that lives w/in another program executable.



-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 23 Dec 1992 08:48:59 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec23.023944.19968@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1h7j0eINNs02@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>>When a new user signs up for the well he is told:
>>
>>> The WELL does not accept anonymous accounts except by special 
>>> arrangement.
>>
>>There are essentially two possibilities:
>
><text deleted>
>
>Rather than speculate about the possibilities, why not take the empirical
>approach. I'd prefer to hear from people who actually had problems with
>the WELL (a system I use every day) than from folks who *speculate* that
>there *might* be problems with its user policies.

Mike, I talked to quite a few people involved with the WELL
before starting this thread.  Why are you so quick to label
any information so gathered as "speculation", while proposing
that additional information gathered by the exact same technique
might somehow be more reliable?

Part of what we are facing here is a point of policy that is,
perhaps by design, somewhat vague.  Did not fig@eff say something
to the effect of "we make up some of these rules as we go along"?
In this kind of environment we can expect to uncover a lot
of conflicting data.   That does not mean, however, we are
dealing with "speculation".

Steve
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: rita@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:06:21 GMT

In article <1ham10INNdi5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur) writes:

>	My concern is the one that has been expressed about a general
>attitude by private systems that some seem to have.  I personally do not

	My experience has been that many more private systems will let
you have an anonymous acount than not.


>privacy.  What about Jane User?  Hubby can split with her, be working
>accross town or state and still intimidate via email and IRC if need be
>(currently a rare occurance, but more and more people are getting
>nettable).  If you say these are the situations where the WELL would let

	This isn't as rare as you think.


>non-anonymous account?   I would never get an account on a system with a
>policy like the Well's.   How do the well admins feel about livetime
>connections to the internet where one party is anonymous and
>uncontrolable by them?   Thats the key word...control.   I want
>exclusive control over what I do, who knows about it and how I respond.
>Censorship and penny-ante, ass-covering policies do not appeal to me.  I
>bet they don't appeal to joe.net.user either.

	Then you are probably a better candidate for Netcom, which
does allow anonymous accounts.




-- 
Rita Rouvalis                                Electronic Frontier Foundation
rita@eff.org                                                    eff@eff.org
CIS:70007,5621                                                (617)864-0665
From: minh@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Date: 02 Jan 93 21:40 EST
Subject: Re: Stupid Licenses (YUCK!)
Nf-ID: #R:XNmqVB1w165w@ruth.uucp:965355988:peg:374500021:000:56
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!minh    Jan  2 21:40:00 1993




	& i quote;

		"with code like this, who needs bugs?"
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:24:30 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec22.170211.10292@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1h66qsINNn1v@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>>But given that the admins tell new users pseudonymous accounts
>>are not allowed except in special circumstances, it would
>>be remarkably two-faced of them to in fact allow them
>>on request, wouldn't it?
>
>I don't see how. "Special circumstances," as a practical matter,
>seems to mean that you have to want anonymity for something more than a
>whim.

Mike, we're not connecting on this one.  Let me try
again to explain where I'm coming from.

When a new user signs up for the well he is told:

> The WELL does not accept anonymous accounts except by special 
> arrangement.

There are essentially two possibilities:

(1) Just about any reason you give the admins will
qualify you for an anonymous (sic) account.

                -- or --

(2) There truly must be something special about your 
situation before the admins will go along with it.

My working premise, based on what I heard from WELL people
before I started this thread, and corroborated more or
less by fig@eff's first post to this thread, was that
(2) is closer to reality.

Now, I will allow that (1) is possible but if so, it
would seem a lot more up-front if the admins simply made
pseudonymous accounts an option, rather than making
new users jump through hoops.  IMO, of course.

(I am starting to suspect that WELL's acceptance of
requests for pseudonymity has become more liberal
in the recent past -- say in the last six months
since fig@eff left the WELL -- and this is resulting
in the divergence of opinions as to whether (1) or (2)
is closer to the truth...)

Steve
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: slenk@hal.emba.uvm.edu (Carl A Slenk)
Subject: Re: Re- Novell buys Unix System
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:59:12 GMT

There is one exception now that the Mormon's own massive ammounts of
stock in Pepsi :-)

-- 
Carl A. Slenk             |  "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster
slenk@hal.emba.uvm.ed     |   then any other invention with the possible
University of Vermont     |   exceptions of handguns and Tequilla" -
My opinions;get your own  |            Mitch Ratcliffe
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:52:06 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <725430469.26792@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:

>I doubt any virus could be beneficial.  The closest idea for one was to have
         ^^^
>one only erase edlin from MSDOS systems.  In my mind, that would be fairly
>beneficial, but there are a few people who actually use it as a down'n'dirty
>editor.
[...]

Quite a broad statement there.  I came up with an idea (never
implemented BTW) for a file compression virus for use on my home
computer(s).  Basically it would be a standard virus, but it would
compress a file it prepends itself to, so that upon execution
it would uncompress the file for normal execution.  It would _only_
infect files that could benefit from compression.  It would also check
for some file or other sort of marker on the system that the user
would have placed to give the virus permission to spread.  Thus
keeping it from spreading to anyone who didn't want it around.

Certainly a virus, and certainly beneficial.  (Assuming it wasn't
buggy of course.  :-)  )

-- 
 Richard Powers    / Disclaimer: My keyboard is \   Computer=Amiga
rpowers@panix.com <  screwy.   Missing  letters  >  Music=Industrial
   Hail Eris!      \ should     be    expected. /   Food=Vegetarian
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk