HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Wes.Perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org (Wes Perkhiser)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Compatability
Date: 28 Dec 92 09:39:15 CST
Reply-To: wes.perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org
Organization: 
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

In a message of <Dec 28 03:48>, Bruce Hayden writes:
 BH>(From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden))
 BH>(Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.)

 BH>charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.034142.14471@fsl.noaa.gov> bear@kestrel.fsl.noaa.gov
>(Bear Giles) asks:

>> Or what if the software only had problems on really old systems which
>> should have been upgraded a long time ago? ("Gee, I'm running DOS 2.8
>> on a 5 MHz XT and your program doesn't seem to work!")  How long do
>> you need to keep providing upgrades for existing platforms?

>A customer can't really complain if software doesn't work on hardware the
>vendor doesn't claim it works on.

 BH>at least DOS 3.10, or Windows 3.1). My feeling is that if they 
 BH>don't
 BH>tell me before I buy a piece of software (i.e. on the box) that 
 BH>it 
 BH>won't run on my machine, I expect it to run.

One of the older (read it as consumer economics) ways I practice is a two-fold 
approach.  If I plan on buying the software in the store, I look at the box for

the specifics of hardware requirement.  If it claims that it needs stuff I
don't 
have, then it goes back on the shelf.  

If it doesn't claim to need anything (or I can't find the minimun configuration

needed) then it also goes back on the shelf UNLESS I want it real, real bad. 
In 
that case, there is at least one store here in Omaha that will let you take
back 
software after it has been opened, if you tell them your problems in advance. 
I 
get it there, and if it works on my machine, I keep it.  If, after I've spent 
the bucks, and it still doesn't work, it goes back to the store.

This sounds a lot like shareware, and I guess that's why I prefer shareware to 
"mainstream commercial software".  I can try it, and don't lose anything (but
my 
time) if it doesn't work.

The other aproach deals with "junk mail".  If the ad tells me what hardware I 
need, and if I have that setup, and if I wanted to buy it anyway, then they get

the money.  Most of the direct marketing people I have dealt with have been
more 
than willing to work to get their product on my (archaic) platform.  Those that

don't, and those that claim "Runs on all computers, and gives any printer
better 
resolution than a laser printer" get the big recycling bin in the sky.  
Ocasionaly, I'll get frustrated and send the marketer a nice letter, printed on

my daisy wheel printer, asking what kind of graphics resolution I can expect.
:)
 

Wes (wes.perkhiser@weise.omahug.org)

P.S.  This quoted so much, I probably messed up the attributions.  If so, I'm 
sorry.
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 26 Dec 1992 00:21:00 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <Leu9VB1w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:

>Huh?  First you say the WELL policy is "acceptable," then you say you
>have "a few misgivings about [it]" ... please make your position
>CLEAR.  Thank you!

Okay, I'll try to clarify this.

I find the policy "acceptable" because I believe that it
is within the discretion of WELL adsministrators to do things
in this fashion, and so far there haven't been a lot of
complaints or problems associated with it.

Therefore I "accept" it.

However: I have misgivings over the fact that, even as part
of a reasonable overall policy, it has been found necessary
to make pseudonymity avaiable on selective basis, based
on the administrator's criteria rather than those of
the subscribers.

My misgivings were somewhat lessened when I contacted the WELL 
admins, and they explained the policy with quite a bit of
clarity.  It *is* a quite restrictive policy, despite the
quite inexplicable insistence of Mike Godwin on this
thread to the contrary.  Although Mike really should know better,
he is completely off-base on this one.

I will retract any previous insinuation I may have made about 
WELL not being entirely upfront about this issue.  Their
admin explained things very directly, and I'm sure they
would be open to discussing it further with me or anybody 
else who is concerned.

Steve
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 28 Dec 1992 07:22:34 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu
Summary: "Don't piss on the WELL..."

(David Douthitt) writes:
>spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>| >Oh, about 5000 have never said anything about the issue. 
>| 
>| This proves nothing.  
>
>Case proven.  When you don't like the facts, ignore them, eh Steve?

David, you haven't been reading this thread very carefully;
I have ignored no facts.  I contacted the WELL admins who
confirmed for me that the anonymity policy is quite restrictive,
who told me that the reasons for requesting anonymity I
supplied were not acceptable to them.  (Much to their credit
they do have a lot of respect for people who wish anonymity;
but they've decided not to provide it as a service.)

I'm satisfied that the above in fact describes the policy in 
question, which is all I've claimed on that point.  I NEVER claimed
that people are "complaining" about the WELL's policy,
or that people can't get around it fairly easily.  I do
not understand why you feel I need to back up things I
never asserted in the first place.   You, like Godwin, are 
trying to twist things around for the sole purpose of provoking 
disagreement.  

A few contributors to this thread (and some email responses) 
indicate that there are those who share my concerns on
this issue -- not in the sense of disagreeing with what
the WELL is doing (none of us have much of a fight with that),
but on the larger implications of this sort of practice on
privacy issues.  The fact that these individuals are not
in the majority, and thus fail to overpower all of the netnoise,
does not surprise me particularly.  

Steve
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: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:27:53 GMT

In article <1h99rfINNb43@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.024537.20216@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>How are the WELL's interactions dependent on its policies about
>>pseudonyms? 
>
>Mike, there was a discussion here a couple months ago on how
>the availability of pseudonymous posting and email affects
>the discourse on a newsgroup/conference.  Perhaps you missed this?

That discussion didn't purport to be about the WELL. This one does.
Perhaps you forgot this?


--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,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:14:22 GMT

wkaufman@us.oracle.com (William Kaufman) writes:

>    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,

I do not think that it is really because programmers are white, educated,
upper-middle-class. These characteristics would usually correspond to
either a conservative, or liberal inteligensia, and not libertarian. 
The white upper-middle-class has the most to gain by stability (hence
conservatism, if not politically, at least in life style). They tend
to be the strongest supporters of societal values, including the police,
because they have the most to lose if society fails.

I will agree that you do have a large number of libertarians in the
programming ranks. I don't have any good ideas of why, but you can
definately tell the difference between the people taking engineering
classes and programming classes (much more libertarian). 

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: What a CS degree REALLY gets you (From a UCLA Junior)
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:05:09 GMT
Organization: Republicans for Sanity

The short answer to the question "What does a CS degree get you" is
"What you put into it".

As a junior in Computer Science and Engineering at UCLA I can say
from personal experience that the concept that the people UCLA is
graduating are going to program ANYTHING really really scares me. A
large number of these people couldn't program their way out of a
paper bag and pass their classes via curve. 

In addition the information offered at UCLA is dolled out by
professors who in many cases (there are always shining exceptions of
course, I'v been privledged enough to have a few of them) who don't
give a damn about their classes and would MUCH rather be doing
research.

I am not about to advice to go to college or not. I feel that
college has helped me a lot. Before I went to college I was a top
notch programer. After three years, I'm better that I was when I
started. I'v been exposed to new ideas and given the chance to
explore new ideas and ways of doing things. But I'v gained the
benefit because I worked my ass off for it. Many people in college
have the attitude that the professors are supposed to teach them.
That an education should be easy and should be handed to them on a
plate. Unfortunatly that simply isn't how it works. I'll spare you
the lecture on how college really works and just sum up by saying
that college can make you better than you were, but necessarily.

				The Jester
p.s. if it matters, I was originally going to get a J.D. I became a
CS major because I want to do research into artificial
intelligence.
-- 
"Only the blind see in color."
"Any union based upon pigment is foolish ignorance designed to
give power to those few who enjoy power's taste above the common
welfare."
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Distribution: world
From: hyerstay@cybermac.sadye.emba.uvm.edu (Jason Hyerstay)
Organization: Adrenaline Online, (802) 425-2332, a FirstClass system
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:34:52 EST
Subject: Re: Info re: Liberty, EFF et All...

>     Howdy folks....We run Sonoma Online, a public BBS system in 
> Northern CA, which operates as a node in FidoNet. In order to 
> better serve our usership and promote awareness of electronic
> libertys we would like to identify a good source of this info to
> add to our file database. 
>     I'm looking for refferals to where I can call in and download
> (HST or V.32b prefferably) various texts relating to online rights,
> the EFF and it's work, electronic citizenship and the like. Leads 
> will be greatly appreciated. Please note that we don't currently
> have access to FTP services hence I need to go dial-up.
>    Thanks in Advance....DCK

I run a BBS that specializes in those topics, as well as cyberpunk and macs.
Feel free to call at (802) 425-2332. The BBS is called Adrenaline Online and
is also a UUCP node, so you can even check up on some related newsgroups,
including this one. The BBS is currently only at 2400 with v.42bis, but I am
in the process of getting a Telebit WorldBlazer.
-Jason

===========================================================================
=  The author's opinions are not necessarily those of Adrenaline Online.  =
===========================================================================
=   /| |\  |-\ /-- \ |  /\  |   | \ | /--  Adrenaline Online (FirstClass) =
=  /-| | \ |_/ |-  |\| /--| |   | |\| |-   (802) 425-2332 * Charlotte, VT =
= /  | |_/ | \ \-- | \ |  | |-- | | \ \--  Macs, cyberpunk & battle games =
===========================================================================
= This message was gated from from a FirstClass BBS via PostalUnion Lite. =
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: RSA sucks (Re: PGP warning (ooo; I am scared))
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 04:24:35 GMT


John Nagle says "RSA isn't sitting on the technology, they license it..."

Some details, from an RSA letter to NIST:
"A growing number of major computer industry companies have licensed
and endorsed the patented RSA system.  Many, including Motorola,
Northern Telecom, Lotus Development and Novell, Inc., have already
made RSA a standard part of their mainstream products and have shipped
over half a million copies. Current plans of RSA licensees will put
this number at several million within a year. (Recently, a Fortune 10
company purchased 15,000 copies of a product from a U.S. licensee of
RSA which has privacy and authentication based on the RSA system
embedded in it, for use in Europe.) The RSA system offers both
authentication and privacy.  Furthermore, there is a well developed,
complete standard for its use, developed by a number of the most
important companies in the U.S., including Microsoft, Sun
Microsystems, Lotus, Digital Equipment, and many others. "

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:06:21 GMT

>>fairly important privacy issue.  I cannot for the life
>>of me imagine why so many people posting here have
>>a problem with the fact that I have a few misgivings 
>>about this policy.  

>	I don't think anybody really cares one way or another about
>what you think of the policy.  But you asked for folks opinions and
>they gave them to you.  That's what USENET does.
>
>	Personally, I don't know what your point is.

One point that comes to my mind is the tone of the followups to the
raising of the question.  The guy raises a reasonable question with a
polite tone (I read it like that, anyway), and gets back many quite
rude flames and ad hominem attacks.

Also, it seems that the motivation and argumentation behind many of
the followups is personal relations to WELL and WELL management, and
some of the persons posting the somewhat less-than-polite answers are
working for the EFF.  Somehow this feels a bit bad to me, and I don't
think it "gives a good impression".

Personally, I see nothing the problem with the WELL policy as
described here - whether the "special circumstances" means "everyone
who asks", "everyone who buys us a beer", "everyone we feel like
giving an anon. account" or whatever.  But I do think it is a problem
if a reasonable question like this can't be discussed here as just an
issue, but turns into personal wars.  I have had some similar
feelings participating in comp.org.eff.talk earlier, too.  I hope this
part of the global village doesn't turn into one where dissenting
opinions and questioning the "village elders" are not tolerated.

Just my 2 cents worth - during holidays I don't think I'll be online,
so happy holidays to everyone and see you in '93!

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: licencing of computer
From: pat.tracy@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Pat Tracy) 
Date: 23 Dec 92 09:23:00 GMT
Reply-To: pat.tracy@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Pat Tracy) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

 -=> Quoting Roger Franz to All <=-

 RF> How many medical doctors kill people regularly through
 RF> badly-performed services? Yet, the state says he's okay because he's
 RF> licensed. I'd much rather see a privately-run _certification_ program
 RF> than a gov't-run _licensure_ program. It simply makes more sense to
 RF> privately certify someone's competence than to publicly test their
 RF> knowledge. Moreover, the gov't typically spends twice to thrice as
 RF> much to achieve the same objective as a private program would.

What skull fracture came up with this Idea???????? The last thing we ALL
need is yet another BEAUREAU OF something. NO make the 50 of 'em. Surly
each state will want to have their own, with hundreds of employess, data
bases, and all that. And of course, if you want to do work in another
state, wellllllll then, "C'MON DOWN, TAKE OUR TEST. The fee will be
............"

No thank you. Good lord, I can't TAKE any more help from my government!



... Its only a hobby, its only a hobby, its only...........
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
---
 * CT Department of Revenue Services BBS - Hartford, CT - (203) 297-5907
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  AJJJR (#5011) : RelayNet(tm) Hub
                                                                                     
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 04:34:54 GMT

In article <1h64tbINNmiu@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>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 ....

If you can figure it out, even in general terms, their anonymity is not that
good, IMHO.

>... and (b) are there any implications of this
>sort of in-between policy on pseudonymity?

What's "in-between" about it? How many users have asked for anonymity and
had it denied them? Sounds as if your friend didn't experience such a
denial.


--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
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 26 Dec 1992 21:34:39 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

I'm wincing about terms being used in this flame war.
Anonymous != pseudonym

Many authors use pseudonyms. To pluck one from my bookshelf, if Ed McBain
were to start posting about oppressed smurfs in soc.culture.dwarf, 
he'd soon get flamed into a crisp, and would land in million kill files.

But unless the Well decides to also let him randomly use the names of
oh....Cordwinder Bird, and then Mark Twain, and then.....

You get the idea. If he uses one name, and establishes a net-reputation
to go with it, and sticks to it, how can it make an iota of difference
that his name is really Evan Hunter?

On the other hand, there ARE net-assholes, NOT on the WELL, who
regularly change their text names, to defeat nn's kill files, I guess.
As for them........
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Unix Dreams
Date: 24 Dec 92 21:08:20 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Republicans for Sanity

Wouldn't it be vunderbar if all the people who actually have to USE
UNIX, would take the fee they would normally pay to buy UNIX and
instead put it toward the formation of a single company who was
owned by all involved whose job it was to write a network software
for everyone? That would mean uniformity of coding, responsivness to
customers, and low prices across the board and we wouldn't have to
deal with the death star and the borg (AT&T and Novell) (BTW who
originally came up with those names? They are perfect!).

Sorry.. just dreaming again.
					The Jester
-- 
			The Jester
"Whats a Knock Out like you doing in a computer generated Gin
joint like this one?"-William Riker
"I'm god, whats your excuse?"-The Jester
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 03:56:16 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec22.024013.29642@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>I don't mean to be impertinent, but what is the basis for your
>generalizations about the WELL? Have you used it?

Your question is not impertinent at all.  

My interest started when a friend decided to subscribe,
then stopped when they saw the "only in special circumstances"
blurb with reference to anonymity.

When on their behalf I inquired about this among well users, the uniform
answer was that exceptions were made primarily for 
celebrities.  I then posted this information (which nobody
has refuted, btw) here to see what others thought.

Steve
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Virus design
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:51:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.223259.18751@unislc.uucp> erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
>Which brings up another thread: the self-mutating virus.  All the virus scanners
>I know of work by scanning your system for a signature generated by the virus
>when it installs itself on your system.  This, of course, is to prevent the
>virus from installing itself more than once.  But what if, when installing
>itself on another system, it changed the signature in a pseudo-random way
>(just for that system - a unique signature for that system, not just that virus)
>to avoid virus scanners?  We could see viruses that mutate everytime they
>replicate themselves.  How would one stop them without checking every possible
>digital signature?  Interesting question, methinks.

I think that this would lead to the virus competing with itself, which might
be ok from a virus-writer's POV, but not very resource-efficient.  The virus
has no way to know that the executable it's infecting is a local one or one
that will be later used on another system, unless it stores some form of system
ID in the signature, and those are not uniform across clones, etc.  So, it
would re-infect every executable each use.


-- 
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               |