****************************************************************************
>C O M P U T E R U N D E R G R O U N D<
>D I G E S T<
*** Volume 3, Issue #3.04 (January 28, 1991) **
****************************************************************************
MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer (
[email protected])
ARCHIVISTS: Bob Krause / Alex Smith / Bob Kusumoto
RESIDENT SYSTEM CRASH VICTIM:: Brendan Kehoe
USENET readers can currently receive CuD as alt.society.cu-digest. Back
issues are also available on Compuserve (in: DL0 of the IBMBBS sig),
PC-EXEC BBS (414-789-4210), and at 1:100/345 for those on FIDOnet.
Anonymous ftp sites: (1) ftp.cs.widener.edu (2)
[email protected]
E-mail server:
[email protected].
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted as long as the source is
cited. Some authors, however, do copyright their material, and those
authors should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to
the Computer Underground. Articles are preferred to short responses.
Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the
views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility
for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright
protections.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Assorted
Subject: From the Mailbag
Date: January 29, 1990
********************************************************************
*** CuD #3.04, File 2 of 4: From the Mailbag ***
********************************************************************
Subject: New address for ATI.
From: Ground Zero <
[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 18:07:55 EST
Dear ATI Readers:
Hello!! Those of you who attempted to send mail to us may have noticed
that it bounced back or didn't make it here. Due to some changes in our
home site, ATI now has a new address. Our new address is:
[email protected]
As always, do send all correspondence to the above address and NOT the
address this message is comeing from (the one beginning with "zero-list").
Due to changes in our home site, the release of ATI54 has been delayed.
However, we're working on it, and you should expect to see ATI54
within a few days.
See ya then!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Nigel Allen <
[email protected]>
Subject: Algorithm: A Newsletter for People Who Enjoy Programming
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 04:23 EST
Algorithm: A Newsletter for People Who Enjoy Programming
For one year now, A.K. Dewdney (author of Scientific American's popular
Computer Recreations column) has been publishing a newsletter (or is it a
magazine?) called Algorithm. Appearing bi-monthly, Algorithm features a
wide range of topics in each issue, mostly centered around fascinating
programming projects of the kind we used to see in Computer Recreations.
Besides Dewdney, Clifford Pickover (JBM's graphic genius), Michael Ecker
(formerly of Creative Computing) and Dennis Shasta (creator of the Dr. Ecco
puzzles) also write columns for Algorithm. Each issue features Algoletters
from vendors with projects and ideas to share, the four programming columns
just mentioned, stimulating articles and reviews of weird and wonderful
programs written by individuals and small companies.
The basic vehicle of Algorithm is algorithms. By specifying program ideas
in pseudocode, the publication makes them available in a
language-independent form. The emphasis in mainly recreational and (dare I
say it?) educational. Topics range from fractals and chaos to cellular
automata, scientific simulation and computer games. The scope is wide open
and engaging.
Anyone wishing a free inspection copy of Algorithm should drop a line to
Algorithm, P.O. Box 29237, Westmount Postal Outlet, 785 Wonderland Road,
London, Ontario, CANADA N6K 1M6. Alternatively, they can send me e-mail
(
[email protected]) or reply to this message, and I'll forward the
request to Algorithm.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From:
[email protected](Steve Jackson)
Subject: More on What to Say when the Warrant Comes
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 12:54:28 cst
(1) Regarding "Don't Talk To The Police" in CuD 2.14: I question the
statement that
>He cannot legally place you under arrest or enter your home without a
>warrant signed by a judge. If he indicates that he has such a warrant,
>ask to see it. A person under arrest, or located on premises to be
>searched, generally must be shown a warrant if he requests it and must be
>given a chance to read it.
It is important to be VERY POLITE AND CAREFUL when refusing to cooperate
with police, unless you are locally powerful and have lots of witnesses.
And even then, politeness and care are worthwhile. Your "rights" can
evaporate instantly if you antagonize an officer, especially if there are
no disinterested witnesses. Your friends and family are not disinterested
enough to worry a hostile officer; he may arrest them, too.
Regarding "place you under arrest" - If, in the process of refusing entry
to a police officer, you demonstrate a "bad attitude," the officer may be
motivated to FIND a reason to arrest you. Any display of a weapon, any
possibly-illegal item or situation visible from where the officer stands,
any threat against the officer's person, or (depending on local law) any
behavior the officer can characterize as indicative of drunkenness or drug
use . . . BANG, you're under arrest. And, in some situations, the officers
can now search your home because they arrested you. If, for instance, they
observed an illegal weapon, they can now reasonably suspect that there are
more. In the process of searching for more weapons, they will naturally
keep their eyes open for the original object of the search.
Regarding "signed warrant" - The general lay public believes, as I did
before March 1, that no search may be conducted if the police cannot show
you a signed search warrant. But *this does not appear to be true.* When my
office was invaded, the agents did *not* show a signed search warrant; they
showed a photocopy with many spaces, including the space for a judge's
signature, STILL BLANK.
Nevertheless, no resistance was made to their search. And it seems that
this is just as well. Later that day, when I asked my attorney what would
have happened if we had objected to the lack of a signature, I was told
"Everybody who resisted the search would have been handcuffed and taken
downtown for obstructing officers in the performance of their duties."
It appears - and I have been trying, to no avail, to get an authoritative
statement on this - that if officers HAVE a signed search warrant - or if
they believe that a judge has signed a copy of their warrant, even if they
themselves don't have a signed copy - then they can conduct a legal search.
In the latter case, they obviously can't show a signed warrant; they don't
have one!
My point is that the common belief that "they have to show you a SIGNED
warrant" may be a misconception that can get a citizen into serious trouble.
We really need to get an authoritative clarification on this.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Ofer Inbar" <
[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 13:02:55 est
Subject: Discussion of Dark Adept's articles (con't)
In CuD #3.03, file 2, David Daniel wrote a critique of Dark Adept's latest
essay. Although much of David's essay was well thought out, there are
points which I think he should reconsider.
>manufacture and/or market it. Mr. Adept expressed his belief that a user
>interface was generic. I'm sure we could find many hard working programmers
>who would heartily disagree as well as corporate executives who have
>overseen the expenditure of many thousands or man-hours and dollars in the
>development of a unique software product. Don't they deserve a return on
>their investment? Mr. Adept denies the existence of license agreements when
It's quite likely that the interface had already been developed by someone
else. If it were not protected by some other company's legal department,
the corporation in question would never have had to spend thousands of
dollars on developing it in the first place.
If everyone has to spend money reinventing the wheel, it's only fair to
entitle them to some return on their investment. But wouldn't it be nice
if the wheel was free to begin with?
If someone comes up with some interface that is truly new, they deserve
some protection for a limited time. If their invention is really
wonderful, they will get back far more than they spent. This is in fact
the reasoning behind patents. However, patents have a life of seven years
(I think), which in most markets is a limited time but in the computer
world translates to eternity, since anything new is bound to be obsolete
long before seven years are over.
>their investment? Mr. Adept denies the existence of license agreements when
>he asserts that an inefficient company can tie up a good interface by tying
>it to a bad program. He also denies the idea of a joint marketing venture
>by two or more companies which combine their strongest products.
Mr. Adept does not deny the existence of these possibilities. Nor, in
fact, does he deny the possiblity of the developer putting it's interface
in the public domain. His complaint was about giving the developer the
power to tie things up. Not every company has such enlightened attitudes.
Some, like Adobe, choose to charge exorbitant license fees; PostScript
could have been a unifying standard, but instead we are now seeing a
rebellion against Adobe which will result in several standards confusing
everyone. Others, like Lotus, choose not to allow anyone to use their
interface, and sue everyone who tries. Others, like Apple, appropriate
someone else's interface, and then take the same attitude as Lotus does.
>Mr. Adept wrote about the danger of protecting algorithms since they are
>merely mathematical models. Should we consider DOS and BIOS in the same
>category? Should these proprietary packages be freely circulated without
>compensation? It might be an attractive utopian concept but not workable
>within our present system.
Why is it not workable? DOS and BIOS are far from just algorithms. On the
other hand, shell sort is a clever algorithm, and I'm certainly glad
someone didn't try to patent it and charge license fees from every
programmer who used it. Remember the scare when it seemed Unisys was going
to enforce their perceived rights to LZW compression? Would it be good if
Unisys had the right to outright prohibit a programmer from using LZW
compression without prior written permission from them?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Subject: Dark Adept's Response to posts
From: Dark Adept <
[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 23:57:25 CST
First, I would like to thank everyone who had a comment, criticism, or
suggestion about my previous articles. I take all such comments to heart,
and try to improve my thinking and writing processes with them.
Second, I feel some of the criticisms have been my fault. I will try to
briefly clear these areas up:
1) When refering to IBM's "release" of their operating system, I was
talking about BIOS, not DOS. DOS is, of course, the property of Microsoft
and/or IBM depending on whether it is MS or PC. I apologize for this
misunderstanding. BIOS is IBM's own product. I did not mean to
misrepresent anyone.
2) My use of the masculine pronouns is intended to be generic. This usage
comes from how I was taught English. I stand by it. I have yet to see an
English grammar manual that states this is an incorrect usage. I try to
write in standard formal English, and this is how I was taught.
3) "his [first] wife's maiden name" is actually a line from the Hacker's
Anthem by the Cheshire Catalyst. It was meant as an inside joke. Still, I
have not met a female system operator -- yet. I hold no malice toward any
women in the computer field, and I apologize.
4) I thank David Daniel for representing the corporate voice re patents and
copyrights. However, I never stated DOS and BIOS were algorithms and
should be free. Yet the way they interface programs should be in the public
domain (DoubleDos and 4DOS come to mind?). Also, certainly, proprietary
source and object code should be protected. I was attempting to say the
output generated (i.e., the interface) and the algorithm that creates it
should not be protected. I do not know whether this changes his position
or not, but I feel that my position should be clear.
Again, thank all of you for your comments and articles that have responded
to mine. The more opinions all of us receive, the more all of us can
learn. This was my goal, and it appears that I have succeeded.
The Dark Adept
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
