HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden)
Subject: Re: Just a few simple questions from a newcomer...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:19:57 GMT

In article <lewchuk.725917952@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>Government:
>2.  Provides basic education and standard of living to children.

Standard of living, yes, because children are defenseless, but I think
a strict Objectivist would not necessarily agree that education need
be provided. Education, although not free, was already virtually
universal before the first public systems were established. Public
education mainly arose because of the establishment of 'educational
professionals' who knew better than their ignorant fellows that paid
for the private schools.

Please don't say that education has only reached its current pinnacle
because of the valiant struggles of our wonderful government. We're
only now beginning the long road out of the dark ages of Basal readers
and neatly arranged rows of docile children in silent classrooms. I
don't think the distancing of the parents from their children's
education has done us all that much good.

I don't know if we can ever go back; we've been changed quite a bit
since the late eighteenth-century. But all economic considerations
aside (people are already addressing it tangentially in this group), I
think that forcing parents to take an interest in the education of
their children by having for them pay for it could not help but
improve the system.

-Bret Aarden.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:38:53 GMT

In article <29DEC199213432736@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
}In article <1992Dec29.160532.5193@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes...
}
}>Now my question.  In which type of society do you think you would be freer,
}>contemporary society or the type of society Rand defines as rational?
}
}Clearly Rand wins this hands down.  But this is knocking over a scarecrow
}(contemporary society).   I was just wondering if objectivism had moved
}beyond Rand or if it was still stuck on her [this is not a slur; compare
}Bacon & Smith as a *starting* point for intelligent discussion of *modern*
}free market economics].

I can't speak for those identifying themselves as objectivists because I
identify as a libertarian.  With that in mind, I'll respond as best I can.

If by "stuck on her" you mean do contemporary libertarians view her ideas
as the epitome of libertarian thought, the answer is no.  If by "moving
beyond" you mean are contemporary libertarians looking for broader
applications of libertarian philosophy, the answer is yes.

Many libertarians have been strongly influenced by Rand.  I am one.  I
would not have been able to put a name to my own libertarian nature back in
the late 60s early 70s without having read her.  However, there are other
Libertarians who were never impressed with her work.  There are still
other people who have been impressed by her work but are not Libertarian.

At this point I may be moving too far away from the intent of your original
questions so I'll leave further responses to others.

Peace and Liberty,


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward)
Subject: Failure of Objectivism(2)
Summary: Why Objectivism is ultimately a failure
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 01:04:35 GMT

Objectivism springs from works of fiction about people who were, to
say the least, not fully fleshed out.  John Galt was not an idealist,
he was an idealization.  John Galt was clearly who Ayn Rand wanted to
be, rather than a portrayal of any real person.  Real people are just
not like that, or at least I have neither met nor heard of anyone like
him.  If Objectivism were put forth as something people could live by
if people were ideal entities, it might have some validity.  But as a
philosophy for real people in the real world, it falls short.

Michael Ward
mward@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden)
Subject: Obj. Environmentalism
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 09:59:25 GMT

 
This is a group dedicated to the discussion of Objectivist ideas, so
why don't we try to theorize Objectivist solutions to our problems?
 
Objectivists generally seem to want to eliminate government
interference in as many things as possible, because governments are by
necessity dictatorial and anti-individual. So what non-governmental
solutions are there to the environemental problems we face?
 
It seems there is a tendency for arguments to run like this: A is an
industry with polluting potential and the natural tendency of A is to
save money and pollute, therefore we must turn the matter over to the
government to find a solution.
 
Am I wrong? If not, then let me go further to say that this seems
horribly flawed to me. Where does the 'therefore' come from? Shouldn't
there be lots of other possible solutions? Is it possible (as was
briefly suggested earlier) to create a new industry of pollution
monitors? What are the current problems with the government methods of
pollution control? How can those flaws be avoided using private means,
or can some really clever person think of a way to _exploit_ them for
the goodof pollution control?
 
Basically, I disagree with the ideas that all business is bad, that
the only result of profit-seeking is the degradation of society, and
that only the government is capable of large-scale long-range thought.
 
-Bret Aarden.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(4)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:38:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.232711.19654@netcom.com> mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
>A reading of history indicates that when people are allowed to
>accumulate wealth without any regard for their fellows, the result is
>tyranny.  What is to keep people from enslaving their fellows after
>Objectivism allows them to accumulate enough wealth to overcome any
>opposition?  Laissez-faire economics is not exactly a new concept.  It
>has been abandoned every time it has been tried, not because of any
>idealism but because it just doesn't work.  It would seem no matter
>how often or how thoroughly an idea is discredited, there is always
>someone willing to resurrect it.

please "enlighten" us with a list of the societies and dates when
true laissez-faire economics has been implemented. include an assessment
of how exactly it failed, and your explanation of why.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Obj. Philosophy
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:28:37 GMT

madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.095453.28470@athena.mit.edu>, amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden) writes:
>|> Powerful though this idea may be, I think some people in their zest
>|> for idealism tend to carry it to extremes. ...What axioms does
>|> Objectivism postulate as being proper? None! Axioms are axioms! Reason
>|> is the logical interpretation of experience, but you can't take it any
>|> deeper than experience.

In my opinion, reason is logically correlating perceived facts with desired
outcomes.  It requires an interpretation of reality, hence is flawed to the
extent that reality cannot be truly perceived, if reality cannot be truly
perceived.
What do you mean by your statements after "None!"?

>To me, just reading those words make two of her most fundamental axioms
>self-evident. To prove it is like proving what is blue for me is blue for you.

What is blue for me is NOT what is blue for you.  We have similar perceptions
but dissimilar interpretations of reality on top of possibly dissimilar 
sensory analysis pathways in the brain.  This, however, does not detract from
the possibility of an objective universe.  In short, I may perceive blue
differently than you do, but that doesn't mean there isn't variant wavelength
light.

>Objectivism does not tolerate axioms that clash with its basic axioms such
>as "existence exists", "consciousness is secondary to existence", 

I do not understand "consciousness is secondary to existence".  Please
explain.  Why is this necessary to an Objectivist system?

>"contradictions do not exist" etc. 

Contradictions do not exist in what?  Please clarify.

>Objectivism uses reality for more than error-correction feedback. It 
>uses it as the major source to derive concepts from.

I fail to see how.

>I am curious to know what method you used as a medium to conduct a debate.
>The last time I tried such conversation, there was a deadlock when the
>yoga guy insisted we can not be always logical.

Uh, we can't.  Humanity is not a rational species.  If we were:
a) we wouldn't have soap operas or the national enquirer
b) we wouldn't need vacations
c) we'd either be copies of Star Trek's Vulcans or androids.
Humanity bases its action on logic and intuition, that is non-logical
conclusions based on emotions and probabilities and past experience.
Debating is an intellectual activity which usually involves either a lot
of logic or a lot of flaming.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: markh@wimsey.bc.ca (Mark C. Henderson)
Subject: Re: "Pretty Good Privacy"? What's up with this in USA?
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:07:40 GMT

In article <C071MJ.HLA@wimsey.bc.ca> markh@wimsey.bc.ca (Mark C. Henderson) writes:
>It seems that RSADSI and PKP believe that their patents on public 
>key cryptography apply in Canada. The essential question probably is,
>for which of the U.S. Patents on public key cryptography
>was a corresponding Canadian patent granted.
>
I even have a partial list:

US Patent	Canadian Patent
4200770		1121480 (6 April 1982)		Hellman-Diffie-Merkle
4218582		1128159 (20 July 1982)

Note that I'm not saying that these patents do apply or that they
don't apply to PGP. I'm certainly not qualified to even venture
an informed opinion either way. Note that neither of the above
is the famous RSA patent.

Personally, I'm going to stick with RIPEM until I know more.
RIPEM seems to be a "safer" alternative and it is now generally 
available in Canada and the U.S.A.

I'd certainly like to know more about the situation in Canada.

Mark
-- 
Mark Henderson
markh@wimsey.bc.ca
RIPEM key available by key server/finger/E-mail
Newsgroups: alt.security.ripem
From: ekman@netcom.com (Crossly the Glad-Eyed Bear)
Subject: Re: Anyone here?
Organization: Home for the Terminally Infirm
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:49:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.034552.25922@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>I see someone has created this newsgroup for ripem. Is anyone listening?
>

Yes, David.  I'm listening.  Is anyone talking?
-- 
Crossly the Glad-Eyed Bear              ekman@netcom.com
Home for the Terminally Infirm, Redwood City, California
Newsgroups: alt.security.ripem
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Anyone here?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:45:52 GMT


I see someone has created this newsgroup for ripem. Is anyone listening?

Newsgroups: alt.security.ripem
From: ray@rgm.com (Ray Mendonsa)
Subject: Re: Anyone here?
Organization: RGM *nix - Sacramento, CA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:46:11 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:


>I see someone has created this newsgroup for ripem. Is anyone listening?

I'm listening.  I imagine it'll be pretty dead until the software is
actually available, though. . .
-- 
/Ray Mendonsa -- ray@rgm.com -- Administrator, rgm.com ------------>
|916/923-5013 8n1,HST ; login: new ; Public access Usenet
|The next thing I say to you will be true | PGP v2.1 public
|The last thing I said was false. - DEVO  | key avail. upon request
Newsgroups: alt.security
From: schneier@chinet.chi.il.us (Bruce Schneier)
Subject: Hill Cipher Implementation by John Cowan
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 15:57:39 GMT

I have an implementation of the Hill cipher, in C, written by John Cowan.
I would like to get in touch with the author.  If anyone knows his E-Mail
or physical address, I would appreciate it.'

Thanks
Bruce
Newsgroups: alt.security
From: whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk (Russell Earl Whitaker)
Subject: Re: Fifteen PGP 2.1 FTP Sites 
Distribution: world
Organization: Extropy Institute
Reply-To: whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.18)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:21:19 +0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In article <rich.725782785@pencil> rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu writes:
[list of PGP ftp sites elided for brevity]

Add to that (obviously archie-generated) list gate.demon.co.uk,
in /pub/pgp and /pub/ibmpc/pgp.


- -- 

Russell Earl Whitaker                   whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk
Communications Editor                       71750.2413@compuserve.com
EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought         AMiX: RWHITAKER
Board member, Extropy Institute (ExI)
================ PGP 2.0 public key available =======================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.1

iQCVAgUBK0Mdy4Tj7/vxxWtPAQFq6QQAkA04q3cdPgeBGMRot9h9ZmIQ2rnDrUau
ceyzUyUPeS6Zx7Rb7NngFvKrgmiivqTaUag54ewj1s24ld5oZeGsPNOawjIg6fbp
FPszwxAy+wBUWaRHHeSbCIJxcVDy5QKCUpQaf6CEQKa7/sLFe6nDP2SlcaajxM35
RzSPo7KrFdg=
=sbAo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.privacy
From: schneier@chinet.chi.il.us (Bruce Schneier)
Subject: Hill Cipher Program by John Cowan
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:34:08 GMT

I have a C implementation of the Hill Cipher by John Cowan.  If anyone knows
how to get in touch with the person himself, I would appreciate that piece
of information.

Thanks,
Bruce
From: Michael.Blackwell@f861.n800.z3.fidonet.org (Michael Blackwell)
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Re: Cracking Word Perfect's passwords
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:09:11

 DCB> is: Is this ability limited to just one company, or are there
 DCB> several WP cracker programs running around?

I've got two. Both work fine.
Michael


 * Origin: The Clipboard, Salisbury South Australia (3:800/861.0)

Xref: sparky alt.security:5194 sci.crypt:6003
Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:41:05 GMT
 <1992Dec17.170326.21409@netcom.com> <1992Dec17.191201.20527@shearson.com> 
 <pete.724907978@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> <1992Dec21.064820.25343@ulysses.att.com>
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1992Dec21.064820.25343@ulysses.att.com> smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:

>In article <pete.724907978@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>, pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
>> Besides which, creation and distribution of PGP source is not illegal in
>> any sense, any more than dissemination of any description of the RSA 
>> algorithm is illegal. It is only the use of the program within the USA that 
>> may be forbidden by US law.

>There's a fine line here, but basically, you're wrong.  Patent law
>bars the *making*, *selling*, or *use* of the protected invention.
>Writing source code, as opposed to writing a book or paper that describes
>RSA, would be considered an infringement.  I know that that's a fine line.
>That's part of the LPF's argument against algorithmic patents.  Besides,
>courts are in the business of drawing fine lines.  And yes, they would
>consider context and intent.  For example, if your intent was demonstrably
>education and teaching, you'd be fine -- that's part of the intent of
>patent law, that others learn of the invention.  If your intent is to
>enable others to actually use the invention, you have committed an
>infringment.

PGP, itself is not covered by patents; we don't have rember, we don't have
algorithm patents here.  Loading a PGP executable onto a computer, for some
purpose described in the patents, would be the infringing act (if the
patent is valid, etc.)
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.security.pgp
From: fox@SPUNKY.CS.NYU.EDU (David Fox)
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Organization: New York University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:18:52 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.security
From: greg@duke.cs.unlv.edu (Greg Wohletz)
Subject: Re: Fooling DNS-based authentication
Reply-To: greg@duke.cs.unlv.edu (Greg Wohletz)
Organization: UNLV Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 00:01:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.155917.848@ghost.dsi.unimi.it>, vince@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (David Vincenzetti) writes:
) I've been experimenting with ~/.rhosts and /etc/hosts.equiv security
) with Sun machines lately, and I've found some interesting things I
) would like to discuss.

Yes, rsh/rlogin and friends are completely insecure...

) I'm truly
) interested in the matter since I'm adminstrating the security of
) many machines, including Suns. Many thanks in advance.

If you're actually concerned with security, then you would be well
advised to comment rshd and rlogind out of your inetd.conf files.  If
you're only mildly concerned about security you could use Wietse
Venema's tcpd to restrict what addresses you accept connections on
those ports from.

						--Greg
Newsgroups: alt.security
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Re: Fifteen PGP 2.1 FTP Sites 
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:24:27 GMT

In <725818879snz@eternity.demon.co.uk> whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk (Russell Earl Whitaker) writes:
>Add to that (obviously archie-generated) list gate.demon.co.uk,
>in /pub/pgp and /pub/ibmpc/pgp.

Actually that list was the union of the output from 3 different archie
servers.  For some reason none of them had the whole list.  archie.unl.edu,
in particular, seems to have very little of anything.

Rich
Newsgroups: alt.security
From: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Vesselin Bontchev)
Subject: Re: Just a thought...
Reply-To: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de
Organization: Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Date: 28 Dec 92 10:45:48 GMT

paul@grafted.UUCP (james caldwell) writes:

> bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:

> > >> > o ENCRYPTED, COMPRESSED hard drive.
> > >> 
> Norton utilities has a program called diskreet that works well at the
> sub directory level. I do not know the coding method but it is solid.

DISKREET has two encryption methods - a fast proprietary one (which I
definitievely don't trust) and DES. I am afraid that the DES
implementation is only in ECB mode, but have not verified that. It
does not support encryption at the subdirectory level; it supports
encryption at the drive level. That is, it creates a logical volume in
a huge hidden file. This volume is accessed by the means of a device
driver. It provides only encryption, not compression. I have been
unmable to install both DISKREET and Stacker (obviously, the
encryption should be at a lower level, otherwise no compression will
occur). It seems that the drive swapper from Stacker does not work
with logical drives - only with physical ones. Since I needed the
compressed/encrypted/whatever drive to be C:, I didn't bother to try
the combination of the two products without drive swapping...

Regards,
Vesselin
-- 
Vesselin Vladimirov Bontchev          Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Tel.:+49-40-54715-224, Fax: +49-40-54715-226      Fachbereich Informatik - AGN
< PGP 2.1 public key available on request. > Vogt-Koelln-Strasse 30, rm. 107 C
e-mail: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de    D-2000 Hamburg 54, Germany
Newsgroups: alt.security
From: cel@nsscmail.att.com (clayton EDward LEIHY iii)
Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:07:00 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: NCR Systems Support Center - New Jersey

>In article <1glvofINNc0o@roche.csl.sri.com>, boucher@csl (Peter K. Boucher) writes:
>>  2) The legality of PGP is not being seriously debated.  It's illegal.

As a new reader of talk.politics.guns, could someone
please tell me

What kind of gun is a PGP??
Is it some kind of a <G>un <P>rogram??

Thank you.
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.unix.shell
From: btk@cray.com (Bryan Koch)
Subject: Re: rsh (detect?)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:33:30 CST

In article <1992Dec22.205235.10198@exu.ericsson.se> lmcstst@noah.ericsson.se (Stamos Stamos) writes:
>
>Is there any way to detect other users running programs via 'rsh' on your 
>machine(sun slc)?
>Other than running 'ps' every few seconds, and greping the output.

We've modified in.rshd to do logging the same way that ftp and login do.  
rsh/rcp information is It is then available via the "last" command.  
A sample:

xxx       %xxx     mist             Tue Dec 22 16:15 - 16:15  (00:00)
yyy       %zzz     snoid            Tue Dec 22 14:26 - 14:26  (00:00)

The first of shows the use of login "xxx" from remote machine "mist".  The
local and remote user IDs are the same.  The second example shows remote
user "zzz" making use of local login ID "yyy".

If all you want to know about is what people are doing, then process 
accounting via the lastcomm command may suffice.  Its unfortunate that 
process accounting isn't enabled by default.
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Re: "Pretty Good Privacy"? What's up with this in USA?
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 14:46:35 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends

In article <6834@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> 
(Thomas Gee) writes: 

> Now, I'm confused here.  I was under the impression that American patent law
> had no authority in Canada.  Most specifically, Canada does not recognize
> American software patents.

        Right. The best information I have is that the RSA patents are
        not recognised anywhere outside the USA. I also have it on
        good authority that the COCOM agreement prevents us from
        exporting PGP, but that we can use it ourselves without risk.

        Cheers,
                Marc

---
 Marc Thibault        |  Consulting Systems Analyst  |  The PC: Colt '45
 marc@tanda.isis.org  |  R.R.1, Oxford Mills,        |  of the information
 CIS:71441,2226       |  Ontario, Canada  K0G 1S0    |   frontier
 NC FreeNet: aa185    |                              |

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQBNAiqxYTkAAAECALfeHYp0yC80s1ScFvJSpj5eSCAO+hihtneFrrn+vuEcSavh
AAUwpIUGyV2N8n+lFTPnnLc42Ms+c8PJUPYKVI8ABRG0I01hcmMgVGhpYmF1bHQg
PG1hcmNAdGFuZGEuaXNpcy5vcmc+
=HLnv
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


Newsgroups: alt.security
From: jhull@vulcan-gw.den.mmc.com (Jeff Hull)
Subject: Re: The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Reply-To: jhull@vulcan-gw.den.mmc.com
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:57:21 GMT

Followups to talk.politics, please!

--- --- --- --- ---
	   _   _
    /_    / ) / ) Jeff Hull           j.hull@vulcan-gw.den.mmc.com
   //_) -/- -/-   1544 S. Vaughn Cir  
/_/ \_/ /   /	  Aurora, CO 80012    303-977-1061

No matter where you go ... there you are.
#include <standard.disclaimer.h>

Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.security.pgp