HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:11:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.170148.4272@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.114703.24521@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.051825.20299@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>>
>>>Mike Godwin comments on another writer who attempts to use the biological
>>>origin of fossil fuels as an analogy and describes it as a kludge.
>>
>>Just to clarify your syntax a little bit: the other writer called it
>>kludge, not I.
>>
>Actually, the syntax is just fine. Had I wanted to attribute the appellation
>of kludge to you, there would have been a comma after "analogy".

I agree, and I understood you correctly. I was clarifying not for your
sake, but for the sake of readers who might not be alert to the absence of
that critical comma.


--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: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing p
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:58:04 GMT

palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>david.chessler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (David Chessler)  writes:
>>The other example I should give is the National Rifle
>>Association (NRA).  This is a relatively small organization, but

>Ahem... 3,000,000+ dues-paying members is a relatively *small* organization?
>So what does it take to be considered large?

I'm don't have any figures, but doesn't AARP (American Association of
Retired Persons) dwarf them in size?  One of the reasons so many
entitlements are politically "untouchable."  Once you've had a SS
bidding war like Nixon and Congress did it's damned tough to go back.
-- 
A beautiful woman will enrich your life soon.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,uk.net,alt.conspiracy,connect.audit
From: joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey)
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Organization: Individual Network (UK)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:10:30 GMT

In article <C1DnFK.BpD@ibmpcug.co.uk> dbergin@ibmpcug.co.uk (Derek Bergin) writes:
>
>OK - if this is covered by the official secrets act tough - I didn't sign it 
>before I started the job below.

I suppose, unlike all responsible citizens, you havent't signed the "murder",
"driving too fast",  etc etc.acts...??

Would it work in Court?  (Ans: "No")

>As of ~10 yrs ago, when system X was being cobbled together, the concept of 
        ^^  15!
>'lines' for eavesdropping became redundant - or almost.

It always was  -  stick an earpeice in parallel with the phone line.
"Eavesdropping line" - what's that?

>Derek - The Duty Scapegoat

joe.
-- 
Joe Sharkey      joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk      ...!uunet!ibmpcug!jshark!joe
150 Hatfield Rd, St Albans, Herts AL1 4JA, UK        Got a real domain name
(+44) 727 838662           Mail/News Feeds (v32/v32bis): info@inet-uk.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo)
Subject: Re: One good thing about the EFF mess
Originator: fig@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:00:25 GMT

gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>In article <1993Jan27.152915.12422@news.eng.convex.com> gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:
>:	with the "real people".  Your weekly digest may be one of the few
>:	doses of non-Washington-think that the board and Washington staffers 
>:	ever get.  I wish you luck and success, the future of the EFF will

>Would be interesting to post the weekly digest here too, so we see what
>sort of a viewpoint is being relayed to Jerry Berman...

Interesting idea, Graham.  I'll probably do that.  My intention is to try
to be as objective as possible in conveying the substance and tone of the
online discussions to staff and board.  How well I maintain that objectivity 
depends, in part, on others keeping me "honest."

-- 
                    <<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>                         
Cliff Figallo                                     fig@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation                    (617)864-0665 (voice)
Online Communications                             (617)864-0866 (fax)
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Mitch Kapor out of EFF...
Date: 19 Jan 93 02:38:10 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo) writes:

| >Nope, reading between the lines here it looks like he's being squeezed
| >out...
| 
| Nope, absolutely not the case.  Mitch is moving in a direction that he
| wants to move in.  

Does this refer to CIX?  What's happening with the CIX that Mitch was
working on?


--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat        |  Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: rat@ruth.UUCP                 |  80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23        |  ... Files via Fidonet FREQ,
"...because appealing to the masses has |  anon uucp, first time login,
 never appealed to us."                 |  mail to fileserver@ruth.uucp
From: reinitz-john@cs.yale.edu (John Reinitz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:24:24 -0500
Organization: Yale University Theoretical Biology Collective
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyaya.systemsz.cs.yale.edu
Summary: Don't dis the dinosaurs!!!

In article <1993Jan20.223322.15643@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <C1677K.9nt@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
>
>>How about a system where very large animals run around eating ferns for a
>>while, then they die, get covered with sediment, turn into blobs of solid,
>>you wait a few million years, dig up these blobs, burn the blobs producing
>>heat, heat some water, use this steam to turn some wires making electricity,
>>send this electricity through a whole bunch of protocol converters (er,
>>transformers), use it to heat some more water so that some more moderately
>>sized animals can use it.  And this doesn't scream KLUDGE KLUDGE KLUDGE at you?
>
>This is an excellent analogy. It is highly possible that, left to the
>forces of evolution, the possibility of open access to high-bandwidth
>communications will become extinct.
>
Be careful, Mike!!! The dinosaurs were around for a good 40 million
years. That's two orders of magnitude more than humans. So, treat them
with a little respect for another 39.6 million years or so :-)


>--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,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
From: galbrait@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (GALBRAITH JOHN)
Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:10:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.230616.25164@igor.tamri.com> jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) writes:

>From my view what UCB, Joltz, BSDI and others have done has neither
>advanced the art nor been in the UNIX industries best interest. With
>forethought and malace they incrementally attempted to place the UNIX
>operating system product into the public domain by re-writting it
>line by line while leaving the framework and the fabric of the system
>unchanged ... same global design, major algorithms, data structures,
>internal interfaces, etc ... to what end? Only to attempt to destroy
>AT&T/USL UNIX as a commercial product. At best the debate has
>cost more than a million wasted man-hours that could have been more
>productively used to advance the art with a new design. Their actions
>have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
>
>They should have followed the example of other university research
>teams and done some REAL research to give us a guiding example of
>what OS's should look like in the next century instead of perpetuating
>the mistakes and frail framework of UNIX's 1960/70's design.
>
>
>John Bass
>Consultant
>DMS Design

This is ridiculous.  What has been completely overlooked is that OS
development is but a tiny portion of the overall research spectrum.  I am
using 386bsd not to explore OS design, but to study neural networks!  How 
much time would I waste learning some new OS (even a better one!) before
I even got to study my personal projects?
	What 386bsd has done is to provide me (a student, a home user) the 
oportunity to use the operating system that I like for free.  It has 
opened so many people, such as myself, to the chance to contribute to the 
technical community, which is entirely good and beneficial to everybody
(except lawyers). 
	If UNIX is stale technology, then you guys with the big paychecks
should do the research into new operating systems.  What do you want? 
Somebody like Jolitz to do your work for you, so you can rewrite it
and make a profit on it yourself?

I completely disagree the entire tone of your post.  You have painted
Jolitz and other (I would consider "generous") people as conniving, evil
people.  I think that what they have done is to help people who are 
interested in advancing technology get past the lawyer crap and do new
research for the benefeit of us all.

john galbraith
galbrait@rintintin.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:54:12 GMT

In article <1k1lo2$ao3@agate.berkeley.edu> peterme@ocf.berkeley.edu (Peter Merholz) writes:

>Seeing the EFF seemingly shun
>it's civil liberties mission is disheartening for me.

It would be disheartening to me too, since the civil liberties mission is
what I'm employed to promote.


--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: loki.trickster@digund.uucp (Loki Trickster) 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing p
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:40:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Digital Underground - PRIVATE
Reply-To: loki.trickster@digund.uucp (Loki Trickster) 

CD>Of course, you can't go any faster than V.fast on an analog phone line--the
  >Shannon limit slaps you hard in the face.

I've been hearing "The phone lines canna take it much longer, Cap'n!
(The Dilithium crystals are stressed enough as it is ...)" since 300
baud modems were the state of the art.   EVERY TIME the limit is pushed
a bit, the makers of the then-current SOTA say "It can't be taken any
farther".

What *IS* this "Shannon LImit"?

Loki the Bemused Trickster
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-2003 . Money is always there - only the pockets change.
                                                                                        
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:30:27 GMT

In article <33DwXB2w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:

>So now it's official - the users are on their own.  EFF will no longer
>stand up for people to claim their rights - as you put it, "...the
>people organizing...to claim their rights locally..."

Is this necessarily bad? It's worth noting that Mitch, Cliff, John, and
others among the "new" EFF have taken great pains to explain the new
direction. It strikes me as unlikely that they would invest such an
effort if they did not intend to retain their support of grassroots
organizing, albeit in a somewhat different form and less directly.
Like revolutions, rights are rarely won from the top down, and 
if we want to "claim our rights," perhaps we should invest more effort of
our own.
n

Jim Thomas  
d

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Natural Monopoly
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:42:08 GMT


There may be a misunderstanding of the concept of "natural monopoly" which
informs both EFF's thinking, and that of Mitch Kapor, as described in Bruce
Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown". This misunderstanding seems to be that
"natural monopoly" has something to do with wires, and the costs and
inconveniences of having more than one set of, say, electric or phone wires
in a neighborhood or city.

It does not, except indirectly. A natural monopoly arises when the average
cost curve for something drops significantly with large output. Thus a
company which sells three million of something might have a cost of $2,
while a company which sells one million might have a cost of $3. The company
with the $2 cost can price below $3 and drive the other(s) out of business
eventually.

It's also not a matter of the number of firms, but the share of total demand
that the largest has. The existence of small firms (at least temporarily)
does not rule out the presence of a natural monopoly.

The reason for Kapor's confusion is understandable (if Sterling's account is
accurate). The reason phone companies or electric companies have such
average costs curves is, in part, a consequence of the wiring situation. It
is an "if" but not an "if and only if". Thus the development of, for
example, personal communications systems involving wireless transmission
from one's "phone" to a pole need not eliminate the economies of scale, and
the "new" technologies can as easily give rise to natural monopolies as the
traditional ones.

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

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Owen.Lewis@purplet.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis)
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK pr
Organization: FidoNet node 2:252/305 - The Purple Tentacle, Reading
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:28:00 +0000

 -=> Quoting Derek Bergin to All <=-

 DB> OK - if this is covered by the official secrets act tough - I didn't
 DB> sign it  before I started the job below.

 DB> As of ~10 yrs ago, when system X was being cobbled together, the
 DB> concept of  'lines' for eavesdropping became redundant - or almost. 
 DB> For most purposes  all tapping will be done on the trunk side of the
 DB> network, as a part of the  Test Network which comes suitably sized for
 DB> the exchange it's in.   
 DB> If you must use the local network only then there is a more limited
 DB> tapping  facility available, working funnily enough from the same card
 DB> as the  junction tapping kit.   Though I say so myself this bit was a
 DB> work of art,  although it may well have been superceded by now.  You
 DB> could forget about this 
 DB> 'hollow sound on the line' crap to tell you that you were being
 DB> monitored -  this baby introduced less noise than the edge connector.

 At last! A man who knows of what he speaks!
 
 DB> SO      - can they listen to your calls? - Yes
 DB> - can you  detect it? - No
 DB> - can you do anything about it? - Dont be silly
 DB> - do they listen to your calls? - er - that IS covered by the
 DB> OSA. 
 DB> You wanna keep secrets AND use the government communication system ?
 DB> what world
 DB> are you living in ?.

 Not quite, I think. Try as follows:

        Yes, but in a telephone connection you should assume that there 
        is ALWAYS at least one third party to your call. The real questions 
        are:
                        1. Do you care?
                        2. Do they care what you are saying?

        No, you can't detect it (but you can stop it).

        See above.

        No, it's not necessarily covered by the OSA. Its no secret that 
        warrants for telephone tapping are issued under due legal 
        process or administative regulation. In 1991, a UK Government 
        spokesman, in reply to a press allegation that Government taps 
        were running  at 30,000 a year, said, that the Government "did
        not recognise" the quantity of 30,000 (thus avoiding release of 
        whether the true number is above or below 30,000 taps.
        
        It's not the government's communication system. And even if it 
        were, yes, some people are quite properly concerned that their 
        dealings are truly private.

 Owen Lewis



.. "Life," he said, "Don't talk to ME about life!".
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:14:35 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: PGP VER2 Key Available Upon Request

In article <1993Jan18.152015.22182@icecube.pinedale.wy.us> John Perry Barlow <barlow@icecube.pinedale.wy.us> writes:
>In article <1jcahoINNcb1@NYAYA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU> reinitz-john@cs.yale.edu  
>(John Reinitz) writes:
>> Keeping this in mind, along with the paragraph quoted above, I suggest
>> that eff has a *major* communications problem wrt the net. 
>
>I couldn't agree more. This is partly our fault, partly yours, and partly the  
>result of the fact that Net is really a very poor medium for communicating  
>anything of complexity. It favors the ascii equivalent of sound bites even more  
>than television.

I must take strong exception to this statement. If nothing else the
net is the perfect place to make a complicated point. You have
high bandwidth to post your point and an audience that can read
and has an attention span somewhat over the average 3.2 minutes. 

In addition to this you have the availability of ftp which provides
you with an unlimited bandwidth for communications.

As a matter of fact I originally became a member of EFF after
reading the Puzzle Palace which I had downloaded from EFF's server.
And I hope your not arguing that the Puzzle Palace is an ascii
soundbite.

In summary, the net is not a place of ascii soundbites, its a place
where people with points to make, in a concise method, are given as
much bandwidth as they need in order to make it.

					The Jester
-- 
		The Jester
Whip Me, Beat Me, Make Me Program In Assembly.
PGP V2 available via finger
From: Matt.Midboe@f20.n373.z1.fidonet.org (Matt Midboe)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing p
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 09:26:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/20 - The Post Offis, Huntsville AL

JH>The illogic of ISDN is that modern modem technology is rendering it
JH>pointless.

        Were did you come up with that? I went to a NeXT user group
meeting to see a demonstration of ISDN and their is nothing in modern
modem technology to deal with that. Also modern modem technology isn't
bringing digital lines into my house! Really read up on ISDN a little
bit more and I am sure that you will find modern modem technology does
not offer the things that ISDN offers.


 * SLMR 2.1a *



--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!373!20!Matt.Midboe
Internet: Matt.Midboe@f20.n373.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: fig@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:46:52 GMT

gtoal@rachel.ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>Why?  Why the interest in gimmicks when there's more important stuff
>to be done.  Videophones are anathema for netters - for a start, you both
>have to *be there* at the same time.

>Are we talking downloading movies or something?  You're not getting
>funding from the cable video providers too by any chance?

>I just don't see where your current priorites come from.  What's the
>point?  Where's the relevance to the computing community?

>I've read eff's documents and I'm none the wiser.  Could you explain
>your mission/brief at a more concrete level please, in simple english; then
>give a few examples of practical consequences and plans.  I read all the
>meta stuff and think 'that sounds reasonable' then I look for the
>practise and am befuddled.

The relevance to the "computing community" is that EFF would like to 
expand the community to include millions of people who don't necessarily
want to think of themselves as part of a "computing community".  EFF 
would like there to be a platform in place that will foster the creation
of new tools that will enable everyone to have access to online information
and to take part in electronically-facilitated community.  In that respect,
EFF's strategy may not match yours, Graham.  Maybe you and EFF just don't
agree on priorities.  That's certainly a possibility.

-- 
<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
Cliff Figallo                                     fig@eff.org
Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation          (617)864-0665 (voice)
Cambridge Office                                  (617)864-0866 (fax)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.usenix
From: woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 16:25:35 GMT

[Argh!  Here I am contributing to a thread that's been cross-posted to
several completely irrellevant groups.  Humph.  I'm trimming the
newsgroups list, and I'd suggest everyone else move this discussion
out of at least comp.unix.bsd and comp.unix.wizards.]

In article <1993Jan17.020030.11728@news.eng.convex.com> gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:
> In article <1343@eplunix.UUCP> das@eplunix.UUCP (David Steffens) writes:
> >When ideas become "property", _everyone_ loses!  So it goes...
>
> The whole concept of intellectual property is so damned dishonest.
> Of all the cockamamie ideas to come out of the legal profession
> "intellectual property" has to be the most fraudulent.  It purports
> to protect inventors.  What a fraud! How can anyone fall for it?
> I can only conclude that the people who champion it 
> 	a) either haven't fully considered the ramifications 
> 		or 
> 	b) that they are not the creators of technical 
> 	   innovations themselves and hope to suck the blood 
> 	   from those who DO create for a living.

Indeed, though I must say that it's the particular implementation of
some "intellectual property" laws that I have trouble with.  One that
I don't have too much of a problem with *yet* is the Canadian
Copyright Act.  Unfortunately various groups are pushing for changes
which will make this law far less palatable.

> How any engineer or scientist could be in favor of a system that
> means that *someone else* could own the contents of their brain
> is beyond me.  Do they harbor the myth that somehow they will 
> be allowed to own ideas they come up with?  This is ridiculous.
> Folks, Thomas Alva Edison is LONG DEAD.  Inventions are created
> by engineers and scientists and OWNED by boards of directors.  

Careful.  Edison was the head of an organisation that hired (and
drove) people to create and develop new ideas.  Many of those
employees didn't get much "popular" credit for their work.  While
Edison served as a catalyst for their work, I don't feel comfortable
with giving him sole credit.  Indeed it does seem that it would be an
impossible task to duplicate his achievments in todays world.

Another point:  Edison strove to create an environment where ideas
could be developed without impediments caused by lack of production
and fabrication ability.  There was significant cost surrounding the
creation of this environment.  Today, computer science is one of the
few disciplines where a suitable environment for development of
creative ideas can (still) be created by the *individual*.  You don't
have to be an AT&T or USL to design and develop a new O/S kernel, and
it may even still be possible to see the world make significant use of
the achievments of an individual.
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@robohack.UUCP, woods@Elegant.COM  VE3TCP	UniForum Canada & ECI
+1 416 443-1734 [home] +1 416 362-XRSA [work]	Toronto, Ontario; CANADA
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk