**************************************************************************** >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 (TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet) 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) cudarch@chsun1.uchicago.edu E-mail server: archive-server@chsun1.uchicago.edu. 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 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: gzero@tronsbox.xei.com 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 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 (ndallen@contact.uucp) or reply to this message, and I'll forward the request to Algorithm. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: sjackson@TIC.COM(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" 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 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 << ***************************************************************************