HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: z3kpw@ttacs1.ttu.edu ("Wheeler, Kevin")
Subject: neat thing
Date: 4 Jan 93 05:04:00 CST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA20627; Mon, 4 Jan 93 03:13:00 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA29019; Mon, 4 Jan 93 03:12:58 -0800
X-To: "comp.org.eff.talk.usenet" <comp.org.eff.talk.usenet>

        _   _                                                      _   _
       ((___))                                                    ((___))
       [ x x ]                 cDc communications                 [ x x ]
        \   /                      presents...                     \   /
        (' ')                                                      (' ')
         (U)                                                        (U)
 
       The cDc #200 Higgledy-Piggledy-Big-Fat-Henacious-Mega-Mackadocious
       You-Can't-Even-Come-Close-So-Jump-Back-K-B00MIDY-B00MIDY-B00M File
 
                                                         by Swamp Ratte'
 
In April of 1989, cDc communications became the first telecom group to release
one hundred files.  Since then, cDc has become the longest-lasting group in
telecom, in addition to the most prolific.  Now cDc brings you its 200th
release, another first in the computer underground.  This mega-file is packed
with so much flavor, your brain is sure to explode.  If not, read it again.
 
MR. T says: "I pity the fool!  I pity the fool that doesn't grab cDc's #200
             B00MIDY file right now!  You just can't get a better file!  Take
             it from me - Mr. T!"
 
           Now available from ftp.eff.org in pub/cud/cdc.

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.software-eng,misc.jobs.misc
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: Software as PE
Organization: Netcom
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:05:46 GMT

In article <C0Hu83.Gpp@ddsw1.mcs.com> tcubed@ddsw1.mcs.com (James Hanlon) writes:
>lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:
>: 
>: I forgot one important point (and possibly others):
>: 
>: - can handle or at least help with administrative tasks, such as
>:   project planning (estimating schedules, estimating manpower and
>:   equipment requirements), managing a bug-tracking database, and
>:   doing engineering-related paperwork (like patent applications)
>: 
>With these sorts of talented engineers on the job, who needs managers?
>Or do they realize that?
>
>James E. Hanlon, PE

Are you sure you work in the real world?  It's not unusual for managers
to ask their engineers for their opinions on how long a project will
take and how much manpower will be needed.  The assumption is that
the engineer can provide meaningful input (depending on his/her level
of seniority).

Is this not the case in other engineering fields?

Hans Lachman
lachman@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:12:46 GMT

In article <C0ns5y.DxA@world.std.com> mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves) writes:

>Take for example the words of Cliff Figallo in this conference
>regarding his real-name policies on The WELL.  In a message of Thu,
>17 Dec 1992 20:32:33 GMT, he wrote:
>
>> Since the WELL makes it clear that users are responsible for what
>> they post on the WELL, we thought it important that they be
>> identifiable.
>> ... by having a real name associated with every account, there is
>> less tendency for users to be abusive of other users.
>
>If this isn't a euphemistic way of saying that they suppressed
>unpopular speech by creating a pervasive threat of retaliations
>among users, I don't know what it is.

Apparently, then, you don't know what is. No one on the WELL worries about
retaliation. Nonanonymity simply means that if you act nastily or
foolishly, your nasty or foolish statements will be remembered, and that
this will tend to cause shame in the present and lack of credibility in
the future.

Now, Mahatma, perhaps you come from a place where the only thing that
makes people nice is the threat of physical violence, but the WELL is a
little bit more civilized than that.


--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: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:18:32 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <C0CtKJ.BsG@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>It must be a slow month for computer news, if all the EFF can find to do
>is republish Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," close on the heels of the
>much-less-funny-than-its-author-thought "Bill o' Rights".
	Thoreau's essay on Civil Disobedience is a masterpiece and it
	has everything to do with the goals of the EFF.  If you don't
	see that modern battles for free speech and democratic
	principles will be fought in the realm of computer use
	and abuse you haven't been paying attention. 

	Computers have changed the battle field from Gutenburg's
	press to international digital networks but the reasons the war
	is being fought are as old as human dignity and the desire
	for freedom and respect for the individual.

>I thought the EFF was supposed to be a pool of computer-ethics expertise,
>i.e., an organization of concerned people who have thought long and hard
>about the ethical and social aspects of computing, and who have the
>technical expertise to back up what they're saying.
	You cannot distinguish "computer ethics" from ethics in
	general.  So called computer ethics aren't a set of rules
	for nice computers--its about treating humans correctly when
	computers are involved.  There is no separate ethic for cyberspace.
	Ethics is always about treating other people with respect and
	dignity.  Computers raise new ethical problems but the ethic
	to be applied is the same as it has always been: respect for 
	individuals. If you can't see the connection between the Thoreau 
	essay and ethics then you need to reread the essay or reconsider what
	it means to be ethical.  

	Frankly I think you need to think a little "longer
	and harder about the ethical and social aspects of computing".
	

>The last two EFFectors look more like nostalgia for 1960s radicals.
>Please, folks, let's get back on topic before we lose all credibility.
	Thoreau wrote his essay a few years before the 60's guy. ;-)
	That was the Mexican War not the Vietnam war that Thoreau
	was talking about.  Perhaps you would do better if you had a 
	broader outlook then just bits and bytes.


						smg
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:28:04 GMT

In article <19311@mindlink.bc.ca> Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher) writes:
>>free?  How to I get an uninfected copy of my file?
>
>I would assume that if someone was going to write this virus they include a
>1k program to remove it (or set the virus to interpret a certain flag as a
>suicide command).

A separate program makes the 'virus' into something else.  A suicide flag, 
providing the virus does remove itself totally, if reasonable.

>Even if they didn't, there would really be no reason to ever remove the
>'virus'. At this point it would just contain decompression code and wouldn't
>be any more dangerous than PKUNZIP.

But if the environment requires virus-free code, ANY infected program is not
acceptable.  Just because the pop-up message says "I'm just a decompression
virus, I won't hurt your system." does NOT means that's true.  Once this
compressor virus was out for a while, there would be a dangerous virus that
mimicked it up to the point where it entered the system, then attacked.


-- 
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               |
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: scoggin@delmarva.com (John K. Scoggin, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Software as PE
Date: 1 Jan 1993 20:27:06 GMT
Organization: Delmarva Power & Light Company
Distribution: world
Reply-To: scoggin@delmarva.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.delmarva.com

In article 725733100@teal, bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
> >In <889520164DN5.61R@tanda.isis.org> marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault) writes:
> >A lot of 'real
> >engineers' who don't understand what software engineering is about
> >produce execrable software.  
> 
> Here, Here


I couldn't agree more.  Once in a previous life, I made a good living at a non-existent government agency re-writing (or re-inventing) software because the stuff the engineers/physicists wrote wouldn't fit in a computer we could fit into a satellite (well, maybe if we used a Saturn 5 it might fit) :-)

On the topic of academic credentials, I would say that some companies are starting to see the light.  I have no degree, but I've taught part-time at two colleges/universities at the undergraduate and graduate level.  They weren't that hung up on the paper.  Neither is my current employer.

	- John

---
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+    
|  John K. Scoggin, Jr.			Email: scoggin@delmarva.com   |
|  Supervisor, Network Operations       Phone: (302) 451-5200         |
|  Delmarva Power & Light Company       Fax:   (302) 451-5321         |
|  500 N. Wakefield Drive               NOC:   (800) 388-7076         |
|  Newark, DE 19714-6066		                              |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:30:18 GMT

In article <67iRwB1w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:
>phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>
>| Suppose you need to copy an executable from one system to anothe
>| and the new system does not have the marker?
>
>So put it on!  Sheesh.  Just like having to put MSDOS on the system
>before you run that executable....

My point is that you do not necessarily know which file is the marker.

>| Or the disk crashes across
>| the marker?
>
>Then the virus dies.  Are you really that concerned about the viruses welfare?

I'm concerned about a file that was compressed as it was put on disk, and now
may not be uncompressed.

>| How do you get the files back?
>
>In general terms of viruses, the virus dies and thats that - no files are
>affected.  If there is supposed to be a marker, when the marker is returned
>files will be re-infected.
>
>In the case of this compression tool example, the files will be expanded and
>returned to full size without a virus present.  Once a marker is reinstalled,
>if there are ANY files with the virus present, they will reinfect (and
>recompress) all files on the system.

Ok, this is the part that I was unclear about.

Still, the question arises - suppose I decide I don't want those files stored
compressed any more.  How would I get rid of the virus?


-- 
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               |
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:11:02 GMT

>But the virus still remains embedded in the compressed files.  Unless the
>virus code is remove on decompression, and re-inserted on write-to-disk, it
>remains in the file, albeit dormant.  Sure, no more files are infected once
>I delete the marker file (assuming I know which file it is), but suppose I
>wanteed to transfer a file to another system that is required to be virus-
>free?  How to I get an uninfected copy of my file?

I would assume that if someone was going to write this virus they include a
1k program to remove it (or set the virus to interpret a certain flag as a
suicide command).

Even if they didn't, there would really be no reason to ever remove the
'virus'. At this point it would just contain decompression code and wouldn't
be any more dangerous than PKUNZIP.

Because the virus wouldn't be an OS patch it would only be capable of
compressing executables (so it would get passed control before the program
was loaded, it couldn't as a text files) so if the executable would run on
the system you're sending it to then so would the decompression. You might
think of some inane reason to give someone an executable that won't run on
their system but it wouldn't happen often (if at all).


--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: stupid licenses
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<C0B45D.DtD@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:42:14 GMT

T> == TC  <bampf@iastate.edu>

 T> 2.  After a major software company has hyped the release of a product,
 T>     have they ever scrapped it due to it being unfeasible?

Lotus's _Modern Jazz_ integrated product for the Mac; I think I still have
some of their promo material lying around somewhere (I was working in a
software store at the time).

(The sales rep was really unhappy; she'd been working pretty hard on hyping
the program, and then it never shipped...)
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Bruce Sterling
Date: 13 Jan 1993 03:26:41 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com
Keywords: please forward by email

Someone suggested that I post Bruce Sterling's email address.  I would have
in my previous message, except I was at work and the address was at home.

The address he gave in his article in the February 1993 F&SF is
bruces@well.sf.ca.us.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:00:48 GMT

>Algorithmic integrity.  A virus has all of the algorithm contained in the
>single infected program, and does not need to access another file for part
>of the algorithm.  If it needs to access another file for part of its 'real'
>code, it cannot spread by itself.

You could have a breeder virus, one with all the code to install a marker
file if the user so desired, and a nuetered virus, one with the replication
and compression code removed..

The way this would work is that the master virus would ask 'Marker File not
found: Install marker file, remove compression, or continue?' when you ran an
infected file, if you said install then it would copy the replication code
and compression routines into the marker and save itself as a nuetered
version. Then if your friend wanted a copy of the breeder to install, you'd
run the marker file and it would put all the code back into a complete
version of the virus ready to be installed.

This would be a virus because it would contain all the code for replication
etc but would copy this into one file when installed to save space.


--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:28:00 EST
Distribution: inet
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley) writes:
> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> >
> > [ lots deleted ]
>
> a wonderful summing up!  libertarianism as the ideology of the
> frustrated children of the elite.  of course, none of the randites
> believes in society (as has been painfully demonstrated on this
> network), so making an argument, however sensible and consistent,
> about libertarianism as being cultivated by socio-economic variables
> rather than the incredible reasoning powers of a few gifted 
> bootstrap-pulling horatio algers is bound to fall on deaf (and 
> hostile) ears. still, nice job, mr. shein.  expect, as you 
> anticipate, dozens of replies from "lower class libertarians" (who 
> of course toiled their "self-defeating ethic" of the underclass 
> into which they were born) who will see in their social
> point of origin a refutation of your argument because they aren't
> quite prepared to admit that in a libertarian society there'd be
> no school loans, scholarships, etc. 

oh really? since when are all loans & scholarships government granted?
yet another example of "libertarians are basically selfish pigs" &
"if the government doesn't do it no one will". both of these are false.

remember, it isn't charity if you're using someone else's money.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`        Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty        `,` 
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:01:57 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1993Jan4.224620.6980@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>It's not an accusation targeted against anyone, it's an observation
>>about the newsgroup in general.  I don't think it's important to
>>discuss publicly _who_ is doing what in a matter like this, but
>>instead to be aware of the problem and discuss ways of how to solve
>>it.
>
>But how can we solve a problem if you aren't specific about what the
>problem is? 

Who is "we" here?  I was talking about the newsgroup in general.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough and you're thinking about the EFF.

In any case, I think email is more appropriate than the public forum
for pointing out the details (involving personal issues) what someone
thinks is the problem.

>I don't see how it can be discussed, except in the vaguest and most
>abstract terms, without being particular. How can Jack solve the problem
>of his nastiness to Jill when he's not even sure he's being the one
>discussed, and he's given no clue as to what in particular about his
>posting was objectionable?

When discussing ethical principles on a public forum, I think it's
much more productive to discuss them in general terms and fictionary
examples everyone can be equally familiar with than with real
personalities.  

>Are there other fields in which problem-solving is done without any
>mention of the particulars of the problem?

Wise-ass cracks like the above two lines are a good example of what I
was talking about.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:58:16 GMT

In article <C0I1Is.1yz@world.std.com> mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves) writes:

>Infuriated and in desperate need of financial help, John sues the
>BELL.  My question:  Does he have a case?

Absent more fact than this, almost certainly not.

>Suppose John can show that although the BELL management denied
>pseudonymity to most users, they granted it to certain people
>such as celebrities or others with special status.  Would this
>strengthen John's case?

No.

>Suppose John can show that other BELL users have previously
>suffered defamation, harassment or other problems as a result of
>real-name exposure on the BELL, and that BELL management was
>aware, or should have been aware, of at least some of these
>problems.  Would this strengthen John's case?

No.

Absent actual negligence on the BELL's part, it won't be held liable.
Merely imposing nonanonymity as a policy and as a condition of the
subscription contract does not make the BELL negligent. This is true
whether or not the policy is applied in the same way to everyone.



--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: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conferences: Proceedings?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: comp
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:02:55 GMT

=================
cpfii.pointer
=================
* Pointer to on-line CFP II Proceedings

On-line Proceedings for "Computers, Freedom and Privacy II" are
available to those on the Internet via WAIS. The WAIS source is called
"computers-freedom-and-privacy". If you don't have wais, but do have
telnet, you can
    telnet quake.think.com
and sign on as "wais"
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.software-eng,misc.jobs.misc
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 10:09:02 GMT

In <1993Jan8.152210.29106@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>In article <19348@mindlink.bc.ca> Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher) writes:
>>P.S. if someone was going to write a virus they wouldn't have it say "Hi, i'm
>>nice, trust me", they'd have it secretly infect..

>But that's just what the BCV does, in one description.  It prompts the user
>for an action (suicide, install marker file, etc).  If the BCV existed,
>how long do you think it would be before someone wrote a copy-cat virus
>that looked for the same marker file, performed the same compression, and
>at some later date, wiped the disk clean?

But it wouldn't be the same BCV.  You could check for alterations the
same way you use a checksum to check the integrity of existing files.
The BCV does not change the extent to which you are vulnerable to
"bad" virii.  If you are not taking precautions against unwanted
virii, you will be vulnerable.  BCV or not.  

-- 
)                    )  I am more than this...  )               )
) rpowers@panix.com  )                          )   Apathy...   )
)                    )      Continue...?        )               )