crunch@well.UUCP (John Draper) (11/14/88)
Hi,
I recently returned from the Soviet Union, Met a LOT of programmers,
Educators, and their people of Technology. There is a LOT of amazing
changes goiong on over there right now. It's not the usual rhetoric of
Glasnost and Peristroika, it's more than that.
I was so inpired as the results the trip, that I'm just about to
publish my experiences while in the USSR. It was nothing short of
Amazing, and contains very useful information on setting up Joint
Ventures or study groups. It dissolves a LOT of myth about the
Soviet Union, and covers all the trivia with a Hackers eyes view of
the Soviet Union, and Soviet Hackers Lifestyles, which are very MUCH
similar to ours. Be looking for it HERE in "comp.misc" as soon as I finish
it.
Contrary to popular belief, Modems are NOT illegal in the USSR, instead
they are very much prized posessions. Anyone can own one, IF they can
get them.
Geeee!!! Lets start a Modem Drive...!!! Just kidding... But really!!
But can we DO this on Usenet. Hmmm Probably not. :-|
There are UNIX sites that exist in the Soviet Union, but only a FEW
are using UUCP. I have connections that can give me more information on
UNIX sites in the USSR, I just need to know what questions to ask.
I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network
but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE. Does anyone out there in Net land
WANT to add Soviet sites?? I can think of a hundred reasons why!!
not to mention what it would do towards World Peace.
Imagine day-to-day communication with Soviet programmers, hackers
(I have met MANY), and Educators. They ALSO have virus problems,
software piracy (Mostly OURS), and most of all, Equipment Shortages.
They get payed MUCH less than we do, and have the Social status of
a clerk or secretary. But their style of programming is totally
amazing. Perhaps later, I can give you some examples. For instance,
when they got infected by the IBM-PC virus, they probably said...
Hmmmm!! Whats going on here?? Go into Debug, chase through the IBM-DOS
or operating system code, located it, and remove it. It's surprising
how MANY Soviet people who have PC's know how to do this. They think
NOTHING about going into the Machine code and patching commercial products.
Naturally, they have to be educated about the importance of Intellectual
property, and they would ALWAYS pay for American software if they were
ALLOWED to pay in Rubles. Unfurtunately, Soviets cannot pay for foreign
goods with Rubles, at least not Legally. Eventually, this will change,
as I was assured with my recent visit to the Soviet Union. Earlier, there
had been some publications mentioning that the Russians were stealing our
software. But each Soviet computer user I came in contact with,
expressed to me that they would Gladly pay for software licenses and support
if they were ALLOWED to pay in Rubles.
One IMPORTANT consideration and policy I'm adapting, is that if I see
an article worthey of sending to the Soviet Union, I will contact the origional
author FIRST and obtain permission. This would usually be for long and
informative articles and papers. However, I might NOT do this if I send
over "Idle chit chat" discussing important issues. Another equally important
consideration are the trade restrictions regulating the importation of certain
kinds of computer data to the Eastern block nations. I have ordered a copy
of the regs, and if anyone is interested, I'll summerize them. These were
enacted by the Expost Administration Act of 1979. Surly you all must remember
the Reagan Over-reaction, because the Russkies were obtaining Western
Technology. I leaned that the Soviets STILL get high tech parts from OTHER
countries. But WE should be careful, and take the responsibility to abide
by rules. I have so informed the Soviets, and will be getting copies of
THEIR rules and controls.
The current topics of discussion over this link should be:
a) Tips on setting up Joint Projects or ventures with the Soviets, such
as a list of American institutions wanting to work with Soviets, and
vice versa.
b) Soviet techniques for virus prevention and removal. They apply a
very **direct** solution to the problem.
c) New ideas for development tools from the Soviets, they are
Exceptionally good in this department. They are especially strong
in Natural Language development, AI, Object Oriented Programming,
and writing their OWN commercial quality programs. We have a LOT
to learn from them. I know I certainly did.
d) The Soviets are weak in free enterprise, and have NO experience,
largely because until just recently, were NOT Allowed to. They
ALSO want to start selling software, both within the Soviet Union,
and to Americans.
e) Soviets are also into Robotics, and factory automation. But MOST
importantly, regular Soviet citizens are snapping up PC's as soon
as they become available. Especially modems.
f) Soviets want to PAY for American software products, but currently
NO mechanism exists to allow this to happen easily. Comments and
suggestions for solving this problem are always welcome.
g) Reports on Soviet Trade shows to Americans.
h) Reports on American Trade shows to Soviets.
They have a 2 hr TV program in the morning that educates the public
about computers, and even have programming classes in 8086 assembly language,
Pascal and Basic. When I watched it, they were explaining how to patch
the BIOS so a Bulgarian printer will work with a PC. I don't completly
know Russian, but enough information was in English for me to get an
idea. It's amazing that material like this is broadcast over nation-wide
TV. Another show "120 minutes", also broadcast in the morning, constantly
informes the Soviet citizen about the importance of computers, and how they
help produce hight quality goods in their stores.
Their Cyrillic fonts of ascii characters above 0x80 are activated from
the keyboard by shift lock. The video driver is available from the
Academy of sciences for the asking.
In about 3 weeks, my SF/Moscow Data Teleport service will be firmly
established, enabling me to send and recieve Email from Moscow instantly.
This service is so inexpensive that I'm trying it for 6 months or so.
If anyone wants details, call (415) 931-8500 and ask for details. The
prices are $15/hr connect time (About the same as BIX I think), and $25/month
for BASIC service, and $75/month for Extended service, such as follow-up
for un-answered messages by phone calls, stimulation of timely responses
from your Soviet counterparts, technical training on the Soviet side, as
well as Email access FROM the Soviet Union TO the USA if you plan on traveling
there.
I have established an amazing list of contacts who ALSO will be getting
the teleport service on the Soviet side, dedicating towards setting up and
using a UUCP network, then I will have direct communication with them. I
also got the Extended service that provides me with phone call followup
messages to Soviets NOT connected to the system. This will enable them to
drop down to the local Teleport office and Email me a message. Or having
my Soviet contact call them on the phone to dictate a message to me.
If anyone here in NetLand wants to closly work with me, to establish
this UUCP network, please Email me, and let me know what YOU can do to
help facilitate the UUCP link. What we need is: A Unix site interested
in maintaining DIRECT connection to the Teleport, enabling Soviet users to
dial a LOCAL Moscow number, connecting DIRECTLY to your site. The
American site must make arrangements or provide a joint venture so that the
Soviet side maintains an office, accepts applicants for users, and sets
them up with an account.
So, what do you want to know about the Soviet Union, Please make your
resuests now, and flood my mail box. I'll gather up your requests and
Email them to my friend at the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and lets see
what the Ruskies have to say. They are eagerly awaiting your questions.
Email me at: uunet!acad!well!crunch - Personal
or uunet!acad!crunch - If related to AutoDesk Business
Till later....
Crunchajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) (11/20/88)
In article <7649@well.UUCP> crunch@well.UUCP (John Draper) writes: > I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network >but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE. Does anyone out there in Net land >WANT to add Soviet sites?? I can think of a hundred reasons why!! >not to mention what it would do towards World Peace. I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as they can.) Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets are NOT our friends. The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into western scientific thought? Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the changes are only superficial. I do not think that he can trust the Soviet government at all. (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old" way.) I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily? Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)? Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander J. Denner ajdenner@athena.mit.edu 234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner Cambridge, MA 02139 ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (11/21/88)
From article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, by ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner): " ... " I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets " do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am " saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as " they can.) " ... why make it easier for them to ... " ... make it much easier for them to ... If they already have access, then it couldn't be easier for them to have access, unless it's a question of degree or immediacy. If their access is on the record, it would be bad public relations for them to cause problems. If a network connection is ever permitted, the price would probably be extra security precautions, in which case the net effect (pun intended) would be more protection for sensitive information. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
cs4571ao@ariel.unm.edu (11/21/88)
I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering that much easier. While it is true that classified systems are not connected to any network, the system is cross connected to Arpanet, and access to this net is effectively access to Arpanet. Not good. BTW to the original poster--the reason modems are a precious commodity in the USSR is that the government considers many forms of information to be secrets to be carefully guarded from the general public. Modems transmit information too quickly to be managed or tracked, and they are entrusted only to those who are deemed trustworthy.
ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) (11/21/88)
In article <2672@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, by ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner): >" ... >" I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets >" do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am >" saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as >" they can.) >" ... why make it easier for them to ... >If they already have access, then it couldn't be easier for them to have >access, unless it's a question of degree or immediacy. If their access >is on the record, it would be bad public relations for them to cause >problems. If a network connection is ever permitted, the price would >probably be extra security precautions, in which case the net effect >(pun intended) would be more protection for sensitive information. The only time that the government would willing cause problems is a time when public relations would be their least concern. I agree that one good effect is that security would be tightned for sensitive information, but there is a problem. UUCP does not carry classified information, so that is not my major concern. The Soviets send a great deal of money in the United States having people sort through the immense amount of information that they get. The limit on their acquisition of information is logistic. With a link, they can peruse the info faster, more easily, and much more throughly. Also, the KGB can devote the displaced people in this country to other espionage activities. (They only have a limited number of people in this country.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander J. Denner ajdenner@athena.mit.edu 234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner Cambridge, MA 02139 ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (11/21/88)
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: > >From article by ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner): " " ... " I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets " do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am " saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as " they can.) " ... why make it easier for them to ... " ... make it much easier for them to ... >If they already have access, then it couldn't be easier for them to have >access, unless it's a question of degree or immediacy. If their access >is on the record, it would be bad public relations for them to cause >problems. If a network connection is ever permitted, the price would >probably be extra security precautions, in which case the net effect >(pun intended) would be more protection for sensitive information. > > Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu OK, I'm a little paranoid, I saw the remarks about what we or "they" might do in the event of a misstep like the ARPA fiasco, but I'm wondering. I think that the usenet community has been significantly enriched by our international neighbors. Further, we have all benefitted from contributions from usenet sites outside of geographical areas that are "friendly" to the Western bloc. We, unfortunately perhaps, conduct these discussions in English, so it might be difficult for a Soviet colleague to be as effusive as they might if we had linguacode or esparanto (sp?). I, for one, would be interested in seeing/hearing/following some discussion with the Eastern bloc. Let's set the military/intelligence junk aside. I'm convinced that "our side" and "their side" have already combed out everything "they"/"we" want, I'd like to have access to the thoughts/problems of folks that we seem to think still live in the age of the kerosene computer. The HAM radio operators have done it for years. The facility to expand on that is soon to be upon us, would anyone else like to pick up some pointers or offer some with a colleague in the same racket? Might we not be able to tear down some perceived or synthetic barriers? I don't know, that's why I posted... -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,rutgers,sun!daver,uunet!bigtex}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (11/21/88)
In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: > I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets >do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am >saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as >they can.) You are so sure, are you? You REALLY underestimate the Soviet intellegence gathering machine if you don't think they have clear access to a nation spanning, unsecure network linking the ccountries universities, companies and research institute. Wake up, the Soviets are not stupid. If nothing else, they probably have Portal accounts. > Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets >are NOT our friends. Yea....we wouldn't want those godless commies to be reading soc.singles and learning the latest in American going-to-a-bar-and-getting-laid technology, or fining out all our closely guarded, national security secrets dicussed on talk.bizzare...1\2 ;') > The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering >network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into >western scientific thought? Who the hell are you trying to kid? All any KGB agent has to do to tune into the latest western scientific thought is walk down to the library and pick up a copy of, say, IBM Technical Journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, ACM Transactions in Computer Science, etc., etc. Americas scientific thought is discussed, evangelised and paraded before the world every day in a thousand different journals, newspapers, lectures and TV programmes. Anything that is not suitable for those mediums is certainly NOT suitable for the Internet. In case you have forgotten, it is ILLEGAL for sensitive information to be availible on the Internet.... > Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the >changes are only superficial. Umm....last I heard, Sakarov was talking about how sencere Gorbachev was... > I do not think that he can trust the Soviet >government at all. (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really >sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible >that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old" >way.) This kind of rabid xenophobia is sad...I bet you lose sleep wondering how long its going to be before the Soviets invade us.... > I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs >by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily? One hundred percent, grade A+ bullshit. The news has paraded rocket scientist after rocket scientist across the tube and every one of them have said the same thign: "there are only so many ways to build a space plane, and that is one of the best..." The Soviets didn't copy our shuttle...thats just the way one is built.... > > Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to >spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHA........absolutely ludicrous...you are again operating under the assumption that the Evil Empire dosent already have connections to the Internet. There are a few hundred students here with Internet accounts. I bet the commie pinkos have recruted at least one of them...;'};'} > Also, what if a virus >from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)? >Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings. FINALLY! A marginally valid point! Probably would make noone very happy, but it isnt exactly the thing nuclear wars are made of... > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Alexander J. Denner ajdenner@athena.mit.edu >234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner >Cambridge, MA 02139 ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu Lets have a little sanity check here...the way i read it, the Russians would have a lousy mail and news feed. You know, rec.humor, soc.culture.soviet, soc.mtoss (KGB would LOVE that!), heavy technical stuff like comp.unix.questions (;'}), a few electronic pen pals. I didn't here anyone mention accounts on 'sri.com' or 'brl.gov'. Now I'm as patriotic and anti-communist as the next guy, probably more so. And I'm not about to advocate jumping in bed with the Soviets just cause Gorbie is a helluva guy, but christ, there simply is NOTHING wrong with a little friendly communication and a little exposure to another culture. This little 'Electronic Exchange Programme' sure isn't giving the KGB any oportunities that it didn't already have, and it might give Joe-(Boris)-Average-Russian-Computer-Jock a chance to say, "hey, these guys aren't so bad for a bunch of imperialistic money-grubbing opressors of the working class..." Maybe that will go both ways... And remeber kids: Joe McCarthy died 20+ years ago...lets keep it that way. ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ken@gatech.edu masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ccastks@gitvm1.bitnet ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken ``The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth and to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.'' -- Ghengis Kahn
raisch@cps3xx.UUCP (Rob Raisch) (11/21/88)
in article <17651@gatech.edu>, ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) says: - - In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: - This kind of rabid xenophobia is sad...I bet you lose sleep wondering how long - its going to be before the Soviets invade us.... - ..... and it might give - Joe-(Boris)-Average-Russian-Computer-Jock a chance to say, "hey, these guys - aren't so bad for a bunch of imperialistic money-grubbing opressors of the - working class..." Maybe that will go both ways... - And remeber kids: Joe McCarthy died 20+ years ago...lets keep it that way. HERE HERE!!!!! (Slamming his shoe on the table in great excitement!)
paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (11/22/88)
In article <255@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: > >>From article by ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner): " >" ... >" I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets >" do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am >" saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as >" they can.) >" ... why make it easier for them to ... >" ... make it much easier for them to ... > >We, unfortunately perhaps, conduct these discussions in English, so it >might be difficult for a Soviet colleague to be as effusive as they might >if we had linguacode or esparanto (sp?). I, for one, would be interested etc etc Usenet is an anarchy! If someone in europe wants to give the Soviets a newsfeed how are you (or the US government) going to stop them .... send in the Marines? (Actually this is a traditional US remedy - usually causes more trouble than it solves). Besides the feeds to/from Europe/Austrailia/South America are carried over the normal international phone system, do you really think that anyone actually bothers to encrypt it? I think that with something as large as Usenet it is important to take a world view, remember that not everyone gets all the news groups, NOT EVEN HERE IN THE US, the foreign language ones from Europe are not sent here for the same reason the *.flame is not sent there - economics, no one is willing to pay for them. I also think that far more Russians on the net would speak/write English than English speakers - how many of you had the option to learn Russian as a second language in high school? I think that all in all it is much more important to talk one on one, just think if everyone in the US had a friend in the USSR and vice versa would we be as ready to drop the big one? No of course not, as soon as you stop looking at people as objects everything becomes much less black and white. By the way there is already a group of people in Berkeley who arrange a computer based discussion group with a group in Moscow .. can anyone provide more details? Paul -- Paul Campbell ..!{unisoft|mtxinu}!taniwha!paul (415)420-8179 Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA "Where was George?" - Who cares - news at eleven.
klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) (11/22/88)
In a sense, the Soviets may already have access to Usenet--through
FidoNet. As of the last nodelist, there are two (2) FidoNet nodes
listed in Warsaw, Poland (2:480/1 and 2:480/2). From what I understand,
these are operated by a Polish Computer Club, and are "gatewayed"
through a node in Holland. I also understand that some sysops who have
sent mail to these nodes have never received any responses back.
Anyway, since links exist between usenet and fidonet, the link between
usenet and the Soviet Bloc (although a bit flakey on the FidoNet side),
does exist. Whether anyone is actually using it is a valid quesiton,
but the fact of the existance of the Polish FidoNet nodes is there.
Kurt Reisler (703) 359-6100
============================================================================
UNISIG Chairman, DECUS US Chapter | Hadron, Inc.
..{uunet|sundc|rlgvax|netxcom|decuac}!hadron!klr | 9990 Lee Highway
Sysop, Fido 109/74 The Bear's Den (703) 671-0598 | Suite 481
Sysop, Fido 109/483 The Pot of Gold (703) 359-6549 | Fairfax, VA 22030
============================================================================miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (11/22/88)
In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: > I do not think this <adding Soviet sites to the UUCP network> would be > a very good idea. [...] > Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets are NOT our > friends. Would you like to change that situation, or would you prefer to remain non-friends? If you seek change, how would you achieve it? Politico-economic pressure? Nuke the bastards? Invade them? Diplomacy? Bribery? Carrot-and-stick? If you prefer to remain non-friends, prepare to spend an increasing percentage of our national resources on maintaining this adversarial relationship. Not an easy choice, in any event. Perhaps we need to re-think many of our most ingrained attitudes--such as our (and the Soviets') perverse need for a convenient enemy that we can blame our own mistakes on. > The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering network in this country, > why make it easier for them to tune into western scientific thought? Sorry, but we live in a democracy, and that's one of the prices we must pay. The Soviets won't have any trouble obtaining what they want, whether they use the net or not. I would wager a guess that the amount of truly useful information that passes over public networks is extremely minuscule. Most information classified is done so for the purpose of keeping it from the American people, not the from the Soviets. You may rest assured that the Soviets have had for years all the information they need about the Stealth Bomber, for example. The only people who don't know Stealth details are the American people, and that's to keep us from knowing the true amount of money that's disappeared down that rat hole. Bear in mind the truly awesome accomplishments of the Soviet intelligence services in World War 2, accomplishments achieved against the rather un-democratic Third Reich. I'm glad we had those folks on OUR side, thank you. > Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the changes are only superficial. So we are to take the word of just one person (albeit a very prestigious one)? While I would agree that too much is being made of changes in the USSR, those changes give the world a golden opportunity to pour oil on some long-troubled waters. > I do not think that he [sic?] can trust the Soviet government at all. I don't think we can trust ANY government at all, including that of the USA. Who says we have to trust the USSR, anyway? Speak softly and carry a big stick. > (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really sincere and wants to destroy > all weapons on the Earth, I'm sure he knows that is unrealistic. What he knows is that his nation's economy is in danger of total collapse, and if something isn't done to divert resorces away from the Soviet military-industrial complex their massive war machine will rot from within anyway. And don't forget that with over 21 million Soviets killed in World War 2, they are the most anti-war people on this planet. But they will also behave like a cornered rat if we nudge them into that particular mind-set. > it is very possible that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil > return to the "old" way.) Good point, but this will NOT happen if Gorbachev's policies WORK. Currently things don't look good. I think it's in the world's best interest for us to help the guy out. Let's start feeding him some of our western-style free flow of information and see if we can shake things up even more. Hook up the net! The more Soviet sites the better! Let the Soviet people have an ever-increasing dose of Western thought! > I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs by copying > our Shuttle, It is NOT a copy. It looks similar (would you care to show me a hypothetical shuttle design that doesn't?), but there are substantial internal differences--such as the fact that the Soviet orbiter does not have main rocket engines of its own, but it does have booster jets to assist with landing. But it is true that the Soviets do copy our stuff from time to time, such as with the An-124 being a copy of the C-5. It works both ways, though--our F-5 was basically a feeble copy of the MiG-21, and our F-16 is (or, rather, was) an attempt to duplicate the light-weight, low-cost, super-maneuverable aspects of MiG designs such as the MiG-17 and -21. Believe me, even as we speak US designers are frantically trying to duplicate (within some kind of economic reality) the successes of such Soviet missiles as the AA-9, AA-10, SA-10, and SA-12. > why let them get so much information so easily? See above. I wasn't aware that critical information about such things as shuttles was being transmitted over the net. If they want such information, they can get it easily without bothering with the net. Two superpowers capable of reducing each other to radioactive slag have two options: push the button or try to develop a better understanding of each other's viewpoints. The more information that flows back and forth the better off we'll both be. Public access networks could be the most powerful anti-war weapons the USA has. Let's use them. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
walker@ficc.uu.net (Walker Mangum) (11/22/88)
In article <17651@gatech.edu>, ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu > (Alexander J Denner) writes: > > Also, what if a virus > >from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)? > >Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings. > > FINALLY! A marginally valid point! Probably would make noone very happy, > but it isnt exactly the thing nuclear wars are made of... > #define SARCASM What I'm about to say A VERY VALID POINT! In fact, since the RTM fiasco came from Yankee-land, it has certainly caused grievous harm to North/South relations! And in a time when things seemed to be improving. No telling what kind of retaliation the new Texan in the White House is likely to take. We down South knew that when we connected that we would have to watch out for the evil tricks of those carpetbaggers, and, see there, we were right (as always). So let's not UUCP with the Russkies - after all, Yankees on the net are enough of a risk for us down heah! #undefine SARCASM Gimme a break! This isn't even a marginally valid point. If they (or anyone) want to start in infestation, they *already* have the necessary connections. The arguments against connecting do reek of Joe McCarthy! > Now I'm as patriotic and anti-communist as the next guy, probably more so. > And I'm not about to advocate jumping in bed with the Soviets just cause > Gorbie is a helluva guy, but christ, there simply is NOTHING wrong with a > little friendly communication and a little exposure to another culture. This > little 'Electronic Exchange Programme' sure isn't giving the KGB any > oportunities that it didn't already have, and it might give > Joe-(Boris)-Average-Russian-Computer-Jock a chance to say, "hey, these guys > aren't so bad for a bunch of imperialistic money-grubbing opressors of the > working class..." Maybe that will go both ways... > > And remeber kids: Joe McCarthy died 20+ years ago...lets keep it that way. > Same here. Besides, c'mon guys, we're all wearing condoms now, aren't we? -- Walker Mangum | Adytum, Incorporated phone: (713) 333-1509 | 1100 NASA Road One UUCP: uunet!ficc!walker (walker@ficc.uu.net) | Houston, TX 77058 Disclaimer: $#!+ HAPPENS
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (11/22/88)
I must certainly agree with Ken Seefried's remarks and join in rebutting Alan Denner. It's sheerest self aggrandizement to suppose that anything we talk about in Usenet news would be a threat in Soviet hands. (I doubt even the KGB waste their time with it, and if they do, I have a quick cost cutting measure to suggest to Gorby. :-) As for the supposed danger of the Arpanet link - I have no more right to see what Arpa talks about than Roald Sagdeyev does, but no one suggests curtailing my net access because of it. Sensitive info has no business on the public net - and it's Arpa's job to keep it off, not ours. We are already happily exchanging news with UK, Netherlands, Oz and elsewhere with no problems. Even Israel, and this after Pollard. So don't waste bandwidth arguing it's an unacceptable security risk. We should concentrate on the stimulus value of the technical and cultural exchange a USSR/Usenet link would offer. From Draper's enjoyable "Hacker's View" article it appears there are some real hotshot programmers over there, folks not unlike ourselves who, however, don't have any inkling of how great the electronic community is. If the benefits of including them really don't outweigh the risks, someone will have to come up with some more convincing risks. :-) Besides which, if it's to be disallowed I'm sure the State Dept. will eagerly do the hatchet work... why do it for them. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) (11/22/88)
In article <3990@charon.unm.edu> cs4571ao@ariel.unm.edu.UUCP writes: +---------- | I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As | someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to | this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering | that much easier. While it is true that classified systems are not | connected to any network, the system is cross connected to Arpanet, and | access to this net is effectively access to Arpanet. Not good. +---------- Oh, this *is* rich. What in the universe makes you think that Soviet intelligence agencies don't already have access to USENET, *or* the ARPANET? Good grief--planting agents in the US is ridiculously easy, me boyo. Even better: plant an agent, and send him to a university-- boom, all the network access one could want. Opening up direct links to the Soviet Union is *not* going to increase this danger. Take my word for it. +---------- | BTW to the original poster--the reason modems are a precious commodity | in the USSR is that the government considers many forms of information | to be secrets to be carefully guarded from the general public. | Modems transmit information too quickly to be managed or tracked, and | they are entrusted only to those who are deemed trustworthy. +---------- Well, this is only slightly more realistic. Almost all international phone calls to and from the Soviet Union are screened (I understand), and there's no reason why the screening can't include tapes of modem transmissions for later decoding. This kind of paranoia is unwarranted. We are in far less danger from a scientific consortium in the Soviet Union than we are with an unknown number of agents in sensitive positions in the armed services. Besides, we might even get a decent exchange of ideas going back and forth. You never know--it could lead to a greater sense of peace. Of course, on the other hand, it might create massive ideological wars in certain groups. Ick. --Ken McGlothlen mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (11/22/88)
In article <17651@gatech.edu>, ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > Wake up, the Soviets are not stupid. > If nothing else, they probably have Portal accounts. Anybody care to guess what's wrong with these two statements? Steve P.S. - OK, OK, :-) -- Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. +1 714 545 6442 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com {backbones}!vsi.com!friedl attmail!vsi!friedl ------------Nancy Reagan on the worm: "Just say OH NO!"------------
ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) (11/22/88)
In article <17651@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: >> I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets >>do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am >>saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as >>they can.) > >You are so sure, are you? You REALLY underestimate the Soviet intellegence >gathering machine if you don't think they have clear access to a nation >spanning, unsecure network linking the ccountries universities, companies and >research institute. Wake up, the Soviets are not stupid. If nothing else, >they probably have Portal accounts. "Now" should have been "Not," I am sorry about this typo. I know that they have access (if Mr. Seefried actually read before critizing he would know that). I do not think that we should help the KGB by faciliting connections with Western computer networks. I am quite well informed as to their ability to intercept data and voice communication (microwave interception is easiest, but there are many other methods). I understand and respect the positions of Mr. Draper and Mr. Kennedy, however I found the rest of Mr. Seefried's article incoherent and rude. I would appreciate intelligent disagreements, not raving slander. To clarify: I think that it is great that Mr. Draper is sending bits of news to his Russian friends. Such an act is good. What I think would be bad is the Soviets becoming a large network connected with the West. As I have said many times already, this allows the KGB to eliminate information sorting/ acquistion operations in the US. Alex Denner ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander J. Denner ajdenner@athena.mit.edu 234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner Cambridge, MA 02139 ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu
per@kps.UUCP (Per Ejeklint /EFS) (11/22/88)
In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: >In article <7649@well.UUCP> crunch@well.UUCP (John Draper) writes: >> I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network >>but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE. Does anyone out there in Net land >>WANT to add Soviet sites?? I can think of a hundred reasons why!! >>not to mention what it would do towards World Peace. > > I do not think this would be a very good idea. > [...] Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets >are NOT our friends. Have you ever been in Soviet? Have you ever heard of the massive interest that the Soviet people shows about USA? No, they don't listen on the American radio broadcasted to the Soviet (they are already fed up with propaganda), but they read all the magasines and newspapers they can get. A surprisingly big part of the younger people speeks english, and takes every opportunity to practise. The younger generation is very tired of the old peoples demagogic speeches of old times, and they regard western countries as something very exciting and as a source of new thinking. You can quite comfortable regard the people of the Soviet union as your friends. I won't say though that all of the leaders in Soviet are your best friends, but that doesn't differ from USA, does it? >The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering >network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into... So what? The US has equal amount of information gathering devices and units beamed towards USSR. If you really believe that Soviet is superior in gathering information, then you are wrong. > Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to >spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus >from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)? >Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings. I hoped this kind of McCarthyistic rubbish was a rare thing these days! Your view of the world is obviosly based on old cold war propaganda. What causes "problems and bad feelings" is most of all when we don't trust people of the very same flesh and blood, and when we are suspicious instead of encouraging. The best thing that we computing people can do to encourage Glasnost and Perestroika is to welcome the people of the Soviet union into the net. The more information channels that exists, the more difficult to control the feelings expressed. Per Ejeklint per@kps.UUCP Stockholm, Sweden
gvw@etive.ed.ac.uk (MOBY) (11/22/88)
In article <3990@charon.unm.edu> cs4571ao@ariel.unm.edu.UUCP () writes: >I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As >someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to >this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering >that much easier. Some of us feel the same way about the CIA...
dkhusema@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Dirk Husemann) (11/22/88)
From article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, by ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner): > > ... [ talk about Soviets and net ] > > I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets > do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What are you trying to say here? That access to internet information can only be done via ARPANET access (I wish this'd be the case: We'd be able to do anonymous ftp even from West Germany [No - we're not belonging to the Eastern bloc, that's East Germany, we're "partners" in the NATO ...], which - at present - we can't!)? > saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as > they can.) Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets > are NOT our friends. The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering > network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into > western scientific thought? Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How about letting western scientist tune into western scientific thought - I think that as long as West European sites are not admitted to the ARPANET where a lot of stuff (articles, papers, sw) is available that cannot be accessed otherwise, it is - in my view - ridiculous to use the phrase "western scientific thought" - unless the western world consists of the USA alone (a concept I found among a lot of US citizens ...) > changes are only superficial. I do not think that he can trust the Soviet > government at all. (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really > sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible > that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old" > way.) I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs > by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ True, the outer appearance is nearly the same, yet there are some differences concerning technical details: The Soviet shuttle is able to lift more than three times as much as the US shuttle. Also, there seems to be no connection between shuttle and carrier rocket (the (hopefully former) weak point of the US shuttle). > > Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to > spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus > from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)? > Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings. The virus wasn't even observed over here in West Germany, yet, we do get news and stuff like that ... > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Alexander J. Denner ajdenner@athena.mit.edu > 234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner > Cambridge, MA 02139 ajdenner%athena@mitmva.mit.edu Dirk Husemann ------------------ Smile, tomorrow will be worse! -------------- Email: dkhusema@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Or: {pyramid,unido}!fauern!faui44!dkhusema Mail: Dirk Husemann, Aufsess-Str. 19, D-8520 Erlangen, (Home) West Germany (Busi- University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Computer Science Dep., ness) IMMD IV, Martensstr. 1, D-8520 Erlangen, West Germany Phone: (Home) +49 9131 302036, (Business) +49 9131 857908 -- Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here! -- --------------- My opinions are mine, mine, mine ---------------
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (11/23/88)
> I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As > someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to > this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering > that much easier. While it is true that classified systems are not > connected to any network, the system is cross connected to Arpanet, and > access to this net is effectively access to Arpanet. Not good. How does anybody know that the Soviets aren't polling (say) my machine? There are so many machines in the world, with so many who read and never post, that it would be a very simply matter for them to see anything they want. I suspect you don't find the NSA in the maps, but they could probably get a feed on the sly if they wanted (one way or another). If the Soviets want to get on the net, they will. We may or may not like this, but our time is better spent thinking about how we will deal with this rather than how much we don't like it. Steve P.S. - Hi Gorby! -- Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. +1 714 545 6442 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com {backbones}!vsi.com!friedl attmail!vsi!friedl ------------Nancy Reagan on the worm: "Just say OH NO!"------------ :wq!
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (11/23/88)
From article <945@vsi.COM>, by friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl):
" In article <17651@gatech.edu>, ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
" > Wake up, the Soviets are not stupid.
" > If nothing else, they probably have Portal accounts.
"
" Anybody care to guess what's wrong with these two statements?
((((( you think he might be kgb? )))))Dave Lawrence (11/23/88)
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) wrote: > >Sorry, but we live in a democracy, and that's one of the prices we must pay. We live in a -what-? Take another guess. Consult an accurate book on the American political system. The rest of your point (in the paragraph which followed that opener) was basically valid, however the introductory remark needs some work. Dave -- g l o r i o u sex i s t e n c e EMAIL: tale@rpitsmts.bitnet, tale%mts@rpitsgw.rpi.edu, tale@pawl.rpi.edu
geoff@sunfs3.camex.uucp (Geoffrey Knauth) (11/24/88)
In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: > Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to >spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus >from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)? >Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings. I agree that a normal, or unrestricted UUCP site sounds risky. On the other hand, I think the offering the Soviets regulated access, in exchange for some access to their networks (if any), could have some benefits for the United States, e.g., if the Soviets open up. The risks are big enough, though, for me to wish some arm of the U.S. Government would step in and supervise US-USSR technical bridges, especially since these exchanges are neither unregulated nor benign on the Soviet side. -- Geoffrey S. Knauth ARPA: geoff%lloyd@husc6.harvard.edu Camex, Inc. UUCP: geoff@lloyd.uucp or husc6!lloyd!geoff 75 Kneeland St., Boston, MA 02111 Tel: (617)426-3577 Fax: 426-9285 I do not speak for Camex.
geoff@sunfs3.camex.uucp (Geoffrey Knauth) (11/24/88)
In article <8090@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: >Also, the KGB can devote the displaced people in this country to other >espionage activities. (They only have a limited number of people in >this country.) I once read the number of full-time Soviet spies in the U.S. is around 400. I have no idea about the geographic distribution. -- Geoffrey S. Knauth ARPA: geoff%lloyd@husc6.harvard.edu Camex, Inc. UUCP: geoff@lloyd.uucp or husc6!lloyd!geoff 75 Kneeland St., Boston, MA 02111 Tel: (617)426-3577 Fax: 426-9285 I do not speak for Camex.
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (11/24/88)
In article <8114@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: | To clarify: | I think that it is great that Mr. Draper is sending bits of news | to his Russian friends. Such an act is good. What I think would be bad | is the Soviets becoming a large network connected with the West. As I have | said many times already, this allows the KGB to eliminate information sorting/ | acquistion operations in the US. I seriously doubt that any world power would have trouble getting usenet news. They could just go buy a machine, operating system, and news software, and there are many machines who would feed them (or anyone else). How many sites check on security levels before giving a feed. My impression is that a number of sites will feed almost anyone, and the questions are more like "you pay the phone bill, right?" than "are you a spy?" I think that getting some dialog going between the UUSR and the rest of the world is really desirable. Many people think that Russia is one big country, and only with the recent happenings in Estonia (sp?) etc, have they realized that the parts of the USSR have more differences than just a southern drawl vs. a yankee twang. I have lots of things I'd like to know about them... are they using tools like spreadsheets, word processing, pop-ups? Can the average professional hope to have a PC, and if so would it be a model 100, a C64, or an AT type machine. Do they have a BBS in the USSR? Are there any decent ales over there? I really hope this takes place. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
janm@eliot.UUCP (Jan Morales) (11/24/88)
In article <252@blake.acs.washington.edu>, Ken McGlothlen writes: >[On opening the net to the Soviet Union...] >Of course, on the other hand, it might create massive ideological wars >in certain groups. Ick. Massive ideological wars? On our peaceful little net? No sir. We'll have none of that nonsense going on here. Ban the Russians. :-) Jan -- uunet!pyrdc!eliot!janm
gp@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (George Papadopoulos CMP RA) (11/24/88)
I love communism; I want to be a "computer spy" for the russians. Once a month I copy all USENET news to a tape and send it to the soviet embassy. They put it in the diplomatic bag and within the next 24 hours it has arrived at Drezinsky square (excuse the spelling). What's all this nonsense about keeping the russians out of USENET?? -- George A. Papadopoulos, RA, ! Tel: +44-603-56161, Ext. 2692 SYS, UEA, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK ! e-mail: gp@sys.uea.ac.uk Disclaimer: "Reality is determined either by majority vote or government grant, with the latter holding veto power over the former" L. Ron Hubbard, Mission Earth
djm408@tijc02.UUCP (David Marks ) (11/24/88)
Pardon me for being stupid, but isn't this discussion really ridiculous?
If I am not mistaken USENET is an anarchy; any site already getting a newsfeed
can become a feed to some other site without asking permission from anyone. In
view of this, it is possible for a Soviet system that has UUCP, news software
and a modem to make arragements to get the news from any other system in the
world already getting the news. They can choose to remain anonymous by never
posting an article, or map to their site. UUCP and the news software exist
already for MS-DOS pc's, making this quite easy to accomplish.
Therefore, I am issuing a challenge to any Soviet site getting a USENET feed
and to any non-Soviet site feeding a Soviet site to reveal themselves by
posting an article to this newsgroup.
If no one answers this challenge, it will not mean that a Soviet site does not
exist; they will simply have chosen to remain anonymous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <standard/disclaimer.h> | LIFE IS NOT A MALFUNCTION! - Number 5
____ ___ _ _ __ ____ ____ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ ____
/ / / / | / / / / / //// / / / / / / /___
/ / /--/ |/ / / / / / / / /--/ /--\ / \ /
~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~
Pony Express: Ma Bell: 615-461-2074
============= ========
David J. Marks Electric Avenue: ...!mcnc!rti!tijc02!djm408
Texas Instruments ================
M/S 3520, Erwin Highway/P. O. Drawer 1255, Johnson City, TN. 37605kent@lloyd.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) (11/24/88)
In article <8114@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: ... > To clarify: > I think that it is great that Mr. Draper is sending bits of news >to his Russian friends. Such an act is good. What I think would be bad >is the Soviets becoming a large network connected with the West. As I have >said many times already, this allows the KGB to eliminate information sorting/ >acquistion operations in the US. There seems to be agreement that the Soviets would not gain anything new if they had a USENET feed, only that it might save them time and money. Saving time: So what. I don't see things on the net that are that time-critical. If I want to get real up-to-date news (even on the internet worm) I listen to National Public Radio (plug, plug) or read the New York Times. The KGB can do that too. Saving money: Why are we so posessed with the notion that it is in our interest to try to get the Soviets to waste their money? Why are we bent on this notion that economic warfare is good? I think that we are better off with a Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo than we would be with a threatened Soviet Union that feels backed in a corner, that it has nothing to loose. Whether you think the Soviets are people or just gruff bears, you still don't want to corner them and give them nothing to loose. Before they they push the button, let them first contemplate the serious prospect of USENET withdrawl. Pointer: If you _really_ want to undermine the Soviet system, introduce something as uncontrollable and anarchic as USENET. We shouldn't be fighting to _prevent_ a USENET feed, we should be fighting to _install_ one (unless we are afraid the Soviets might get suspicious and prevent it themselves, in which case some of use should argue against it to make it more acceptable to them--Mr. Denner: Glad to know you are on my side, keep up the good work). Kent Borg kent@lloyd.uucp or hscfvax!lloyd!kent
doug@feedme.UUCP (Doug Salot) (11/24/88)
> HERE HERE!!!!! (Slamming his shoe on the table in great excitement!)
Hear! Hear! Comrade, the correct americanski expression is Hear! Hear!
I buy your shoes, OK?
--
Doug Salot || doug@feedme.UUCP || ...{zardoz,dhw68k}!feedme!doug
"vox populi, vox canis"per@kps.UUCP (Per Ejeklint /EFS) (11/24/88)
>>I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As >>someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to >>this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering >>that much easier. > >Some of us feel the same way about the CIA... Hey, You forgot MI5!
pengo@tmpmbx.UUCP (Hans H. Huebner) (11/25/88)
In article <8090@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: > The limit on their [the >KGB's] acquisition of information is logistic. With a link, they can >peruse the info faster, more easily, and much more throughly. >Also, the KGB can devote the displaced people in this country to other >espionage activities. (They only have a limited number of people in >this country.) Don't close your eyes. If the KGB wants a link to the international networks, it's just easy to get one without problems. For example, I live in Berlin, and I can see the the eastern block right with my eyes when I look out of the window. I assume that here are many companies whose owners or employees have "good" contacts to eastern block secret services, and as such a link would be absolutely no problem. I think, the idea of proclaming the official linkup to the UseNet ist great. It would do something to get the inter-block relations on a more rational base. After all, on both sides there are just humans, and the best way to become friends or at least accept each other is by direct communication. The secret services have their own way playing the game, but that's not our business. -Hans -- Hans H. Huebner, netmbx | PSIMail: PSI%026245300043100::PENGO Woerther Str. 36 | DOMAIN: pengo@tmpmbx.UUCP D-1000 Berlin 20, W.Germany | Bang: ..!{pyramid,unido}!tmpmbx!pengo Phone: (+49 30) 882 54 29 | BITNET: huebner@db0tui6
bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) (11/25/88)
In article <8114@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: > To clarify: > I think that it is great that Mr. Draper is sending bits of news > to his Russian friends. Such an act is good. What I think would be bad > is the Soviets becoming a large network connected with the West. As I have > said many times already, this allows the KGB to eliminate information sorting/ > acquistion operations in the US. Yes, a network feed to the Soviet Union would allow them to acquire high- quality information like that posted every day to this newsgroup! :-) Bruce C. Wright
patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) (11/25/88)
In article <948@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: > >> I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As >> someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to >> this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering > >How does anybody know that the Soviets aren't polling (say) my >machine? There are so many machines in the world, with so many If access to computer networks is so vitally important then I just have to wonder why George Bush and Oliver North didn't think of selling modems to the Ayatollah instead of arms *sigh* My grandparents left the Kiev and Minsk because ... they wanted to travel the world ;-) Patt Haring {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!patth -or- uunet!dasys1!patth -or- patth@ccnysci.BITNET Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator New contest forming: What to do with leftover turkey....
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/26/88)
Let's get these intelligence organisations straight: Country Internal External (spycatchers) (spys) USA FBI CIA USSR KGB GRU UK MI5 MI6 I think that's correct. The Brits seem to have the most logical naming scheme, don't they? Anny corrections and/or additions? -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn business. peter@ficc.uu.net
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (11/27/88)
In article <268@lloyd.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes: >Saving time: So what. I don't see things on the net that are that >time-critical. If I want to get real up-to-date news (even on the >internet worm) I listen to National Public Radio (plug, plug) or read >the New York Times. The KGB can do that too. This is not the complete picture. Suppose someone asks "Where can I find such and such", or "How does one get this program to work". The time spent in searching for information can be reduced quite a lot when one uses USENET. Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet Union? I will not knowingly offer help to someone from the Soviet Union. >Saving money: Why are we so posessed with the notion that it is in our >interest to try to get the Soviets to waste their money? Why are we >bent on this notion that economic warfare is good? The best (peaceful) way to get the Soviets to change their ways is economic. If they waste their resources on the military then their consumer economy will suffer. Over time, Soviet citizens will demand reform; this seems to be happening now. To what extent the changes being made are real and will result in a more freedom in the SU remains to be seen. >I think that we are better off with a Soviet Union that is fat and >happy with the status quo than we would be with a threatened Soviet >Union that feels backed in a corner, that it has nothing to loose. A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to me to be more likely to engage in military adventures. Dealing with the Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they respect military strength. >Whether you think the Soviets are people or just gruff bears, you >still don't want to corner them and give them nothing to loose. Agreed. >Before they they push the button, let them first contemplate the >serious prospect of USENET withdrawl. Yeah right, get real. I'm certain a USENET withdrawl would be at the bottom of their list of concerns. >Pointer: If you _really_ want to undermine the Soviet system, >introduce something as uncontrollable and anarchic as USENET. USENET is uncontrollable and anarchic in the free world, I believe it could be controlled in the SU. Every international phone call that connects to the SU is recorded, the same can be done with USENET. Persons that post an illegal message would get a visit from a "moderator" and be educated on the proper use of USENET.
bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) (11/27/88)
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > This is not the complete picture. Suppose someone asks "Where can I > find such and such", or "How does one get this program to work". The > time spent in searching for information can be reduced quite a lot > when one uses USENET. Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet > Union? Yes > I will not knowingly offer help to someone from the Soviet Union. God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the superiority of objectivist cisc cpus... > A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to > me to be more likely to engage in military adventures. Dealing with the > Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they > respect military strength. Time to gear up those bomb factories!
jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley) (11/27/88)
In article <155@feedme.UUCP> doug@feedme.UUCP (Doug Salot) writes: >> HERE HERE!!!!! (Slamming his shoe on the table in great excitement!) >Hear! Hear! Comrade, the correct americanski expression is Hear! Hear! >I buy your shoes, OK? Sorry about that, Doug old boy, but "Hear! Hear!" is hardly an "amerikanski" expression. Seems to me it emanates from Parliament (any Parliament in the now-or-former Commonwealth). More substantively: if you think the Soviets should not have access to the net, you might then have to cut them off from telex, telephone, radio, print, movie, and other communication media; that isn't going to happen. They should be welcomed here, and encouraged to learn and teach, as we all do. If you know a secret, it's _your_ (sometimes moral, sometimes legal) obligation to protect it. -- Jean-Pierre Radley Honi soit jpr@dasys1.UUCP New York, New York qui mal ...!hombre!jpradley!jpr CIS: 76120,1341 y pense ...!hombre!trigere!jpr
vanden@studsys.mu.edu (vandenberg) (11/27/88)
I say add the Soviets to the net.
Many people have questioned the availability of sensitive info,
while many others have countered that hush-hush material is
not to be sent on the net. Let's not look at it from just an
intelligence point of view. There are many people, old and young
alike, who have either a misunderstanding or a cloudy view of
the Soviet people. The better the communication between our
two countries the better we both are in the long run. Fact is
that people(in general) are more afraid to hurt those they know.
I think that Soviet net sites would be great in bettering this
communication gap. Who knows they my even go for portals.
Within the next president or so there may be someone in the White
House who is computer or even net literate.
Remember, ideals give us something to hope for.
UUCP:{..uunet..uwvax!uwmcsd1..}!marque!studsys!vanden
ARPANET: {..uwvax..arpa..}!studsys.mu.edu!vanden
INTERNET: vanden%studsys@marque.UUCP
ICBMNET: 43 4 58 N / 87 55 52 W
Disclaimer - No one knows what I do, not even me.bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (11/27/88)
In article <268@lloyd.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes:
: Saving money: Why are we so posessed with the notion that it is in our
: interest to try to get the Soviets to waste their money? Why are we
: bent on this notion that economic warfare is good?
Mostly because many people believe, on the strength of the Soviet's
own pronouncements of their intentions, that if they had the
resources, they'd use those resources to make *real* war on us.
Denying them a little money (specifically, foreign exchange, which
they can spend on acquiring our, more effective, resources) means
denying them a little of those resources and thus lessens the
likelyhood of their making *real* war on us.
: I think that we are better off with a Soviet Union that is fat and
: happy with the status quo than we would be with a threatened Soviet
: Union that feels backed in a corner, that it has nothing to loose.
: Whether you think the Soviets are people or just gruff bears, you
: still don't want to corner them and give them nothing to loose.
This is an old argument, which doesn't hold much water when one
considers that the Soviets have chosen their paths because they want
to run the world. (Their stated intention.) Can you say Afghanistan?
And do you have the vaguest idea why they are pulling out? Try
economics.
: Before they they push the button, let them first contemplate the
: serious prospect of USENET withdrawl.
This, and its brethren, would be meaningful if the Party thought that
the West is essential to their well-being. But they don't. (I don't
think. Perhaps they are wising up, in the light of the relative
performance of their economy?)
: Pointer: If you _really_ want to undermine the Soviet system,
: introduce something as uncontrollable and anarchic as USENET. We
: shouldn't be fighting to _prevent_ a USENET feed, we should be
: fighting to _install_ one
Now here, I agree wholeheartedly. A Usenet feed can only undermine
their political system, while only saving them a trivial amount of
money.
---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!billbill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (11/27/88)
In article <sXXmKHy00UkaA8mWNJ@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: : lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: : > : God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the : superiority of objectivist cisc cpus... Can you say "ad hominem"? Good. Now, can you offer your objections without descending to ad hominems? Wonderful! Anyway, as I understand it, Mr. Cipriani is not an Objectivist. However, I am. As it happens, I disagree with him, believing that the potential disruption caused by Usenet in the USSR more than balances the possible savings they might obtain from not having to intercept it outside their empire. This opinion, obtained from uncertain evidence, is one that can be legitimately argued, so I won't fault him, or anyone else, for holding the other view. We just don't know. --- Bill {uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (11/28/88)
In article <sXXmKHy00UkaA8mWNJ@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: >lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >> Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet Union? > >Yes Is the word traitor in your vocabulary? >> I will not knowingly offer help to someone from the Soviet Union. > >God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the >superiority of objectivist cisc cpus... I am not an Objectivist, but a Libertarian that is very realistic and afraid of the Soviets. I don't pretend to have the secrets of the universe, but there is no way I'm going to knowingly help the Soviets. >> A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to >> me to be more likely to engage in military adventures. Dealing with the >> Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they >> respect military strength. > >Time to gear up those bomb factories! What is this, some kind of intelligent response? Learn some history and don't put words in the mouths of your opponents. Disgusted,
bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) (11/28/88)
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: > In article <sXXmKHy00UkaA8mWNJ@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: > : lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > : God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the > : superiority of objectivist cisc cpus... > > Can you say "ad hominem"? Good. Now, can you offer your objections > without descending to ad hominems? Wonderful! > > Anyway, as I understand it, Mr. Cipriani is not an Objectivist. > However, I am. I have no idea what his political views are. I was just trying to be insulting. -Miles
bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) (11/28/88)
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: > >lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > >> Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet Union? > > > >Yes > > Is the word traitor in your vocabulary? Am I a traitor if I tell a soviet how to get the latest version of workmangler running on his pc? If I send him pointers on fast bitblts? Who knows, even sending them tips on making good coffee probably advances the power of Godless Communism... Will I get the electric chair? > >> ... > >> Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they > >> respect military strength. > > > >Time to gear up those bomb factories! > > What is this, some kind of intelligent response? No > Disgusted, Exactly! -Miles
geoff@sunfs3.camex.uucp (Geoffrey Knauth) (11/28/88)
In article <268@lloyd.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes: >Saving time: So what. I don't see things on the net that are that >time-critical... > >Saving money: Why are we so posessed with the notion that it is in our >interest to try to get the Soviets to waste their money? Why are we >bent on this notion that economic warfare is good? Saving time and money are central to the debate. There are a lot of people who are upset that the Soviets may have copied significant portions of the U.S. Space Shuttle, for example. -- Geoffrey S. Knauth ARPA: geoff%lloyd@husc6.harvard.edu Camex, Inc. UUCP: geoff@lloyd.uucp or husc6!lloyd!geoff 75 Kneeland St., Boston, MA 02111 Tel: (617)426-3577 Fax: 426-9285 I do not speak for Camex.
michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) (11/28/88)
In article <213@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >Mostly because many people believe, on the strength of the Soviet's >own pronouncements of their intentions, that if they had the >resources, they'd use those resources to make *real* war on us. and... >This is an old argument, which doesn't hold much water when one >considers that the Soviets have chosen their paths because they want >to run the world. (Their stated intention.) Uh huh. Could you possibly cite something where the Russians have made these "intentions" clear in some recent statement? I thought that sort rhetoric went out in the 1960's. I suppose that you could argue that those communist fiends are thinking this all the time but won't be silly enough to say it. I don't think thats a terribly convincing view. There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well. Could you bring yourself to believe that they might have changed in the last twenty years? I'm afraid that citing what "many people believe" doesn't do your argument much good... -- "In challenging a kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap." Michael Hamel.
ath@helios.prosys.se (Anders Thulin) (11/28/88)
An article just crossed my desk. As it deals with computers and the
Soviet Union it might be of interest.
---
The Swedish company Scandinavian Information Systems has entered a
joint venture agreement with a Soviet company to manufacture PC clones
in Moscow. The first clones are planned to be delivered in March 1989.
Initially the company will only put the components together, but they
hope to be able to do their own chips next autumn (of course, this
does not include the processor chips).
Their goal is to make 10 000 computers the first year. About half of
these are intended for the Scandinavian market - the other half for
the Soviet market.
The article also says that other Swedish companies are planning to
enter similar agreements with software products.
More interesting, this deal seems to have the blessings of the US gov.
The article indicates that the hi tech embargo of hi tech products is
not going to be applied.
---
--
Anders Thulin INET : ath@prosys.se
ProgramSystem AB UUCP : ...!{uunet,mcvax}!enea!prosys!ath
Teknikringen 2A PHONE: +46 (0)13 21 40 40
S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden FAX :w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (11/28/88)
This discussion seems to have decided that, if the KGB wants Usenet access, it can very easily get it. For what it's worth, I've talked to people who know first-hand that NSA personnel do, indeed, read Usenet. However, this isn't the sort of connection that is at all interesting. I'd like to get a connection to the students at Moscow University. These people don't have the resources to get a Usenet connection, and may not even know what to ask for, but it would be most enlightening to talk to them. So... who knows of a group of Soviet citizens who have the machines to run Usenet software and would be interested in talking? That's the first step. Then come the technical hurdles of making a reliable communications link. Tangent: In my parents' office, there's a guy working who's a Soviet Citizen. His passport is stamped "Permanently residing in Canada". It freaks out immigration people both sides of the Iron Curtain. Other point: "There's nothing difficult about getting an emigration visa, it just takes time. I applied once. Turned down. Applied again. Denied again. Applied a third time. Granted. The Jews aren't treated any worse than anyone else, they just bitch louder." (I do not vouch for the accuracy of this statement.) -- -Colin (microsof!w-colinp@sun.com)
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (11/28/88)
In article <sXY2j8y00Uka4=AYtI@andrew.cmu.edu>, bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: > I have no idea what his (talking about me) political views are. I was just > trying to be insulting. > > -Miles You only succeeded in being stupid. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
greim@sbsvax.UUCP (Michael Greim) (11/28/88)
In article <2304@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
< Let's get these intelligence organisations straight:
<
< Country Internal External
< (spycatchers) (spys)
<
< USA FBI CIA
< USSR KGB GRU
< UK MI5 MI6
W.Germany MAD BND
<
< I think that's correct. The Brits seem to have the most logical naming scheme,
< don't they? Anny corrections and/or additions?
MAD : Militaerischer Abschirmdienst "military shielding service'
BND : Bundesnachrichtendienst "Federal News Service"
But this list in no way complete :-)
-mg
--
email : greim@sbsvax.informatik.uni-saarland.dbp.de
(some mailers might not like this. Then use greim@sbsvax.uucp)
or : ...!uunet!unido!sbsvax!greim
# include <disclaimers/std.h>lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (11/28/88)
In article <UXY7V-y00VsNEfupdg@andrew.cmu.edu>, bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: > lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > > Is the word traitor in your vocabulary? > > Am I a traitor if I tell a soviet how to get the latest version of > workmangler running on his pc? If I send him pointers on fast > bitblts? So it is in your vocabulary, you just don't know the definition. > Who knows, even sending them tips on making good coffee > probably advances the power of Godless Communism... Wrong again. The one true God of Communism is named Lenin. > Will I get the electric chair? You won't "get the chair" from me, I don't believe in capital punishment; aren't you lucky. Maybe you should get Teslas vibrating electric chair instead. Just remember, you will be helping someone that has missiles pointed at you! -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (11/28/88)
In article <222@taniwha.UUCP>, michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: > There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice > in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well. Please tell us what the correct number of victims is. > Could you bring yourself to believe that they might have changed in the > last twenty years? No way, Gorbachev has no power, he is only a figure head. Power in the Soviet Union hasn't been in the hands of one man since Stalin. Power is shared; they have a system of checks and balances (much different in character than our system) to prevent any one power base from eating the others. What has changed recently is that the Soviets have much better public relations than in the past. That's all there is to it. When the Soviet Union allows free immigration to all citizens then I will believe they have *fundamentally* changed. Until then, it is a prison, and only a prison. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
gz@spt.entity.com (Gail Zacharias) (11/29/88)
In article <1025@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >Other point: "There's nothing difficult about getting an emigration visa, >it just takes time. I applied once. Turned down. Applied again. >Denied again. Applied a third time. Granted. The Jews aren't treated any >worse than anyone else, they just bitch louder." (I do not vouch for the >accuracy of this statement.) I can vouch for the inaccuracy of that statement. It might be true that Jews are no more likely to be denied a visa. But one difference, even leaving aside differences in treatment before applying for visas, is that I bet your friend still had a job after being turned down the first time. -- gz@entity.com ...!mit-eddie!spt!gz
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (11/29/88)
In article <sXY2j8y00Uka4=AYtI@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: : bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: : > In article <sXXmKHy00UkaA8mWNJ@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes: : > : lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: : > : > : > : God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the : > : superiority of objectivist cisc cpus... : > : > Can you say "ad hominem"? Good. Now, can you offer your objections : > without descending to ad hominems? Wonderful! : > : > Anyway, as I understand it, Mr. Cipriani is not an Objectivist. : > However, I am. : : I have no idea what his political views are. I was just trying to be : insulting. Not only have you failed to contribute anything useful to the discussion, but you haven't even managed to insult your intended target. Well then, in the spirit which you intended: Fuck Off, Fool! --- Bill {uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill
paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (11/29/88)
In article <2331@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >The best (peaceful) way to get the Soviets to change their ways is economic. >If they waste their resources on the military then their consumer economy will >suffer. Over time, Soviet citizens will demand reform; this seems to be >happening now. "The best (peaceful) way to get the U.S.A. to change its ways is economic. If it wastes its resources on the military then its consumer economy will suffer. Over time, U.S. citizens will demand reform; this seems to be happening now." I changed the names and faces ... isn't this amazingly relavent at the moment where the country is facing a massive deficit which may be about to cause a recession - it's being caused by rising military spending coupled with a lowered tax base. Even now there are lots of rumbling from DC about cutting the defense budget. Of course the U.S government tends to be much more responsive to the 'consumer economy' than the Soviet one ... for the obvious reasons. >USENET is uncontrollable and anarchic in the free world, I believe >it could be controlled in the SU. Every international phone call that >connects to the SU is recorded, the same can be done with USENET. Persons >that post an illegal message would get a visit from a "moderator" and >be educated on the proper use of USENET. What makes you think that Usenet isn't recorded by someone at the NSA and run through keyword searches for words like CIA, NSA, Soviet etc .... of course all of us in this discussion have our names and net addresses in a database somewhere :-) (someone somewhere in Virginia is probably smiling now ... :-) Paul -- Paul Campbell ..!{unisoft|mtxinu}!taniwha!paul (415)420-8179 Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA So which did we get, George or Skippy?
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (11/29/88)
In article <2331@cbnews.ATT.COM>, lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > The best (peaceful) way to get the Soviets to change their ways is economic. > If they waste their resources on the military then their consumer economy will > suffer. Over time, Soviet citizens will demand reform; this seems to be > happening now. There is a major problem with this argument. Soviet over-spending on their military has traditionally been matched by USA over-spending on its military. All the statements Lawrence makes above can just as easily be applied to the USA. And a "who started it first" argument is nothing more than a chicken/egg discussion. > A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to > me to be more likely to engage in military adventures. Sorry, but you have this backwards. All nations engage in military adventures only when they feel threatened. The USSR is the world's leading expert at paranoia, its land mass having been invaded 101 times and its currrent boundaries surrounded by enemies. Any internal problems cause them to lash out at whatever they perceive to be a threat, even if their logic is often faulty. When things are comfy you don't feel threatened and don't feel a need to send out the troops to protect your interests. > Dealing with the Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very > clear, they respect military strength. I'm not sure what you mean by this old cold war statement. In what way do the Soviets respect military strength more than other nations? I fail to note any historical data to substantiate this. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
nick@aimed.UUCP (Nick Pemberton) (11/29/88)
I've remained silent so far on this latest 'big' issue, but I just
can't any longer. The whole question of 'letting' someone or some
group or some organization, or even ..... some country ..... seems
rather silly. It is simply a matter of finding anyone, in any part of
the world, who will give you the feed. Hell, if you can afford the
long distance, Someone in say RIO could get a feed directly from me.
USENET, as someone so clearly said, is an anarchy. Who cares if folks in
one country don't want their 'rivals' on the net. Somewhere, someone will
let them on, and I'm sure they is no law preventing it, worldwide.
USENET is no longer an AMERICAN network. It is worldwide, wonderfully so,
and is very likely that other countries in the world would love to have the
soviets on board.
USENET is a public network. Public to the entire world. Fears of releasing
national secrets seem rather silly in this light, and anyone doing so on
USENET should be suitably thrashed whether the soviets are on the net or
not.
Finally, the Soviet culture and history and viewpoint is very different from
North America, as different as is china's, or Egypt's or ... I, for one, would
be facinated by the input that would come from them. How can anyone not be
interested in learning something new? Well, maybe that shouldn't be
answered, from some of the postings I've seen, I think I already know.
Let 'em on. It could only be a good thing for all of us.
Nick
--
Nick Pemberton UUCP: !{utzoo,utai}!lsuc!aimed!nick
AIM, Inc Bus: (416) 429-4913
Home: (416) 690-0647dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) (11/29/88)
Here's my 0.02 ruples worth :-)
In the first place, anyone with a security clearance can forget sending
electronic mail to a 'designated country'. Talking to citizens of these
countries requires extensive briefing and debriefing. It could be argued
that someone with a clearance, who posts news with 'world' distribution
has in fact, violated the above, if the USSR is connected. Personally,
I think it is a good idea to open up links with communist countries. I
think we could all learn something. I'd like to see a day, when *every*
country on this planet was connected to USENET (or some variant). The
problem, as I see it, is not whether it is a good idea, but whether it
is legally possible. Now don't tell me that USENET is an anarchy, that
doesn't come into it. I dislike Government of any sort, be it in the USA
or USSR. So, I allow a Soviet site to poll my machine (or vice versa),
then one day, some unnamed US agency decides that this is a *major* problem.
So, they dispatch half-a-dozen agents, who confiscate every piece of
computing gear I own, and revoke my permanent residency status. That's
nice. I don't think it's that far-fetched, either. There are a *lot*
of paranoid security services on this planet, and in this country. If
this is to happen, it needs the sanction of the US Government (unfortunately)
unless some European site wants to implement the actual connection.
- Der
--
dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM (Dermot Tynan @ Tynan Computers)
{apple,mips,pyramid,uunet}!Tynan.COM!dtynan
--- If the Law is for the People, then why do we need Lawyers? ---daryl@arthur.uchicago.edu (Daryl McLaurine) (11/29/88)
In article <2304@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: ~ Country Internal External ~ (spycatchers) (spys) ~ USSR KGB GRU ~-- ~Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation ~"Have you hugged U your wolf today?" uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter ~Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn business. peter@ficc.uu.net I thought that it was the other way around... ^ <{[-]}>----------------------------------------------------------------------- V Daryl McLaurine, Programmer/Analyst (Consultant) | Contact: | Home: 1-312-955-2803 (Voice M-F 7pm/1am) | Office: Omegan Consultants (Use Home Number 9am-4pm) | -or- | University of Chicago Mathematics Dept. | daryl@{zaphod or neuro}.UChicago.EDU ==\*/=========================================================================
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/29/88)
In article <222@taniwha.UUCP>, michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: > There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice > in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well. There's a big difference between Leninist and Marxist theory, too. There's nothing in Marx to justify Soviet imperialism. Marx is just a figurehead... one they silence rather effectively by the simple expedient of censorship. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn business. peter@ficc.uu.net
nanook@novavax.UUCP (Kieth Dickinson) (11/29/88)
in article <5044@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) says: > > In article <2331@cbnews.ATT.COM>, lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >> A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to >> me to be more likely to engage in military adventures. > > Sorry, but you have this backwards. All nations engage in military adventures > only when they feel threatened. I'm sure that the Germans were feeling REAL threatend back during World War II when all of those nasty countries like Poland (with it's horseback cavalry) and the such were threatening to take over the country! > The USSR is the world's leading expert at > paranoia, its land mass having been invaded 101 times and its currrent > boundaries surrounded by enemies. Any internal problems cause them to lash out > at whatever they perceive to be a threat, even if their logic is often faulty. > When things are comfy you don't feel threatened and don't feel a need to send > out the troops to protect your interests. > Ahhhh... This is quite true. It also confirms what the other poster said. If everything is going nicely and the economy of the Russian people is improved (maybe by backing of a _little_ on defense production) then maybe they wouldn't always be in such a twit over every little problem. Most of the problems would go away if their economy got back on it's feet! >> Dealing with the Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very >> clear, they respect military strength. > > I'm not sure what you mean by this old cold war statement. In what way do the > Soviets respect military strength more than other nations? I fail to note any > historical data to substantiate this. > Don't looke at me for answers to that line... I'm not too sure about what was being said either.... Keith Dickinson -------------- _ /| | Fidonet : 369/2 [(305) 421-8593] Brave Mew World South \'o.O' | Internet : nanook@muadib.FIDONET.ORG =(___)= | UUCP : (novavax,hoptoad!ankh)!muadib!nanook | nanook@novavax U | USNail : 433 SE 13th CT. J-202, Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33441 Ack! | Disclamer: This message was created by a faulty AI program. Don't blame me...I voted for Bill'n'Opus in '88
desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (11/30/88)
In article <2680@sultra.UUCP> dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) writes: > >In the first place, anyone with a security clearance can forget sending >electronic mail to a 'designated country'. Talking to citizens of these >countries requires extensive briefing and debriefing. This should not be an argument for limiting access to Usenet. It is the responsibility of the person with a clearance to monitor their actions. For them to expect us to is irresponsible. > [supports soviet usenet access, but is dubious of legality] >So, I allow a Soviet site to poll my machine (or vice versa), >then one day, some unnamed US agency decides that this is a *major* problem. >So, they dispatch half-a-dozen agents, who confiscate every piece of >computing gear I own, and revoke my permanent residency status. I would suggest that the gateway be operated by someone residing in the U.S. who is an American-born citizen. It should also be someone who doesn't use drugs, cheat on their taxes, associate with any groups left of the John Birch society... 1/2 :-) [note - that unnamed US agency would be the CIA. The NSA just listens, and the FBI is restricted by law and constitution. CIA operations in this country are illegal to begin with, so they are really not restricted in any way, as far as I know.] Peter Desnoyers
michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) (11/30/88)
In article <2355@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >In article <222@taniwha.UUCP>, michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: > >> There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice >> in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well. > >Please tell us what the correct number of victims is. > I'm sorry, you've lost me there. The point I was trying to make was that the USSR has a formal ideology that requires them to say certain things publicly that they may not believe in - for the very good reason that the predictions that Marxist/Leninist doctrine made about the future have turned out not to be true. For a good example of this I recommend you take a look at the program of the CPSU that was being promoted in the 1960's. It states as an accomplished fact that the USSR would equal the U.S in industrial production in the 1970's, and that by the 1980's would be the envy of all nations, with a 35-hour working week and the most advanced technology and economy on earth. When you consider that Gorbachev and the current generation of Kremlin leaders were in their mid-thirties and probably believed at least some of this, you do start to wonder what they think today. >No way, Gorbachev has no power, he is only a figure head. Funny the way he keeps dismissing and appointing people, then. How do you propose to falsify your theory that he is a figurehead? > What has changed recently is that the Soviets have much better >public relations than in the past. That's all there is to it. But the better public relations is *inside* the USSR as well as outside - and that means change. You can't tell me that having the government own up publicly to what happened under Stalin and to what has been happening to their economy in the last twenty years isn't going to change the way things happen at the lower levels. It has become possible to criticise the State, and thats the first step toward a different society. Look at the unrest in the Baltic States and Armenia. Thats what "better public relations" has done and the response will have to be different from what it would have been 20 years ago because the rest of the USSR is watching on the TV news every night.. >When the Soviet Union allows free immigration to all citizens then I will >believe they have *fundamentally* changed. Until then, it is a prison, >and only a prison. I think you are judging the Soviets on one very narrow criteria. I wouldn't believe they had fundamentally changed even if they did allow free immigration - but this is semantic anyway. Describing the USSR as a prison is a cheap shot: it is a country and a homeland with a long and troubled history, and in no way comparable. The notion of "imprisoning" umpteen million people is absurd. They are there because it is their country, for better or worse. -- "In challenging a kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap." Michael Hamel.
kent@lloyd.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) (11/30/88)
In article <957@tank.uchicago.edu> daryl@arthur.UUCP (Daryl McLaurine) writes: >In article <2304@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >~ Country Internal External >~ (spycatchers) (spys) >~ USSR KGB GRU > >I thought that it was the other way around... I thought: KGB handles most internal security, KGB and GRU both adventure externally, the difference being who controls them. GRU is military intelligence (sic) and more ruthless. [Legend (heard it on NPR once) has it that an orientation film for new GRU recrewts shows captured GRU defectors being burned alive for their sins. Just because I am for a USENET feed to the USSR don't assume I think the Soviets all sweetness and light .] Seems one of the underlying arguments in this whole debate is that if we in the West read postings and mail from the Soviet Union we might begin to think of the Soviet Union as being populated by people. This prospect frightens some of us mightily, just think, if this happened a few more of us might not blindly support the continuation of the Cold War. Face it folks, the Cold War is almost over. Gorby is getting much better international press than Ronny or George/Skippy, we are going to have to call it off pretty soon. That doesn't mean we start selling arms to the USSR or giving them the plans to the Shuttle (I wonder if their's blows up?). It simply means that it is time to look for ways to gradually lessen tensions, not try to squeeze, prod, insult, and threaten. A new USENET feed will either be open to individuals in the USSR, people with whom we have no quarrel, or it will be confined to `officials', people who actually have a little power, people who will be corrupted by the talk of 25 MHz '386 machines. Either way tensions are lowered, both sides win more than either side looses. That upsets people. Kent Borg kent@lloyd.uupc or hscfvax!lloyd!kent P.S. It is a bit disturbing to know that I now am listed in the files of the NSA. That this exercising of my right to free speach might very well be held against me if ever I need a security clearance. I'm sure a lot of you are glad the USA is being protected from people like me.
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (11/30/88)
In article <213@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: > [...] ...if they [the USSR] had the > resources, they'd use those resources to make *real* war on us. > Denying them a little money (specifically, foreign exchange, which > they can spend on acquiring our, more effective, resources) means > denying them a little of those resources and thus lessens the > likelyhood of their making *real* war on us. Actually, the more resources they have, the less unstable and paranoid they are, and the likelihood of a war DEcreases. This also applies, in greater or lesser intensity, to all the world's sovereign nations. Nearly all wars are launched under circumstances in which one or more groups perceive (correctly or incorrectly) that their interests are in grave danger, rather than simply because they're big and powerful and want to become bigger and more powerful. > : Whether you think the Soviets are people or just gruff bears, you > : still don't want to corner them and give them nothing to loose. > This is an old argument, which doesn't hold much water when one > considers that the Soviets have chosen their paths because they want > to run the world. (Their stated intention.) Yeah, right. Read any foreign policy speech by any US president in the last 40 years and from a non-USA point of view it will seem like the USA's stated intention is the run the world. And we DID essentially run it from about 1945 until the late 1960s. The Soviets simply want to prevent that from happening again; their intention the "run the world" is simply an attempt to prevent the USA from "running the world." Of course their perception is grossly incorrect, but that's their point of view and we're not about to change it. Note that the USA has a higher percentage of its war machine stationed in foreign countires than the USSR does, and US troops are located in more foreign countries than Soviet troops are. From THEIR point of view, it's the USA that's in danger of taking over much of the earth's surface. The Soviets are not concerned with the fundamental differences between US troops in South Korea and Soviet troops in, say, East Germany. > Can you say Afghanistan? And do you have the vaguest idea why they are > pulling out? Try economics. I love simplistic, one-word answers to complex problems. There's a lot more to the Soviet pullout than economics. For one thing, the Defense Ministry has been pleading for a pullout for years, citing the heavy losses to men and equipment, not to mention the fact that the Afghanistan War has accelerated the long-expected internal problems in the Soviet Armed Forces with regard to Russian commanders and non-Russian troops. There are many other reasons for the Soviet pullout as well. And you have completely misinterpreted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Suppose a bloody civil war broke out in Mexico, and after years of devastation, anti-US forces started getting the upper hand. Suppose the US embassy in Mexico City was burned to the ground and US diplomatic personnel butchered and their heads paraded around the city on poles. Suppose the CIA began announcing that much of the success of the anti-US forces was due to heavy covert Soviet involvement. Suppose the anti-US forces began making statements about taking their fight across the border into Texas. You may safely assume that US policy makers would argue strongly, and probably successfully, for a US invasion of Mexico. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
dan@hdr.UUCP (Dan Mehlhorn) (11/30/88)
in enabling our leaders to come to a more rational understanding of each other'scountry. I would be worried if USENET allowed withdrawal of information not intended for distribution by off-site sources. Can someone copy information through USENET access? Of course not! Otherwise, no private company would allowaccess to a net that contained their competitors. I am very curious to see what views and information is exchanged. I wonder what software tricks they use commonly that we don't know of and vise versa. I can't wait to see a Russian's reaction to a flame. Will they understand all the nuances and meanings contained in one? Will they answer in kind? How long will the novelity of having them on the net last? Will USENET start a feminist revolution is the USSR? Stay tuned, we'll all find out together. -- Life is only a movie. I'm just waiting for my chance to edit it. Dan Mehlhorn uucp: dan@hdr.uucp all comments are my own. No one else should be blamed for them.
donegan@stanton.TCC.COM (Steven P. Donegan) (11/30/88)
Information, reasonably uncensored, and widely disseminated, tends to weaken the propaganda that any country forces on it's people. I assume that the USSR is already getting a feed. If makeing it legitimate is something that the USSR wants so what? -- Steven P. Donegan These opinions are given on MY time, not Sr. Telecommunications Analyst Western Digital's Western Digital Corp. stanton!donegan || donegan@stanton.TCC.COM || donegan%stanton@tcc.com
per@kps.UUCP (Per Ejeklint /EFS) (11/30/88)
In article <2353@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > >Just remember, you will be helping someone that has missiles pointed at you! > Am I to understand that I must sign off from the net immediately? USA has missiles pointed to very near me. And what about the rest of the western world that actually has access to the *international* net? They will also suffer from US (and Soviet) attacks... Or maybe we should keep both superpowers out of the net. -- "The choir sang a capella, which means singing without music." ------------ Per Ejeklint Phone: + 8 799 03 18 UUCP: !mcvax!enea!kps!per Kuwait Petroleum Svenska AB KPSNET: per@kps
per@kps.UUCP (Per Ejeklint /EFS) (11/30/88)
In article <2355@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >No way, Gorbachev has no power, he is only a figure head. [...] >What has changed recently is that the Soviets have much better >public relations than in the past. That's all there is to it. Here we go again. Mr Gorbatjov (sp!) has tremendous power today. He has secured his position in a very impressive way. I do not doubt to call him the most powerful man in the world. Remember, his senate, or congress support his his descisions to 100%. I think the situation is rather different in USA. Public relations? I suggest that you take a trip to USSR on your next vacation. I'm not shure wether they would let you in, though... -- "The choir sang a capella, which means singing without music." ------------ Per Ejeklint Phone: + 8 799 03 18 UUCP: !mcvax!enea!kps!per Kuwait Petroleum Svenska AB KPSNET: per@kps
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (11/30/88)
In article <2304@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: | Let's get these intelligence organisations straight: | | Country Internal External | (spycatchers) (spys) | | USA FBI CIA | USSR KGB GRU | UK MI5 MI6 | | I think that's correct. The Brits seem to have the most logical naming scheme Say what? MI5 and 6 most logical? From the Glossary in Spy Catcher, by Peter Wright, former Assistant Director of MI5: "British Security Service (Formerly Section 5 of Military Intelligence) . . . British Secret Intelligence Service (Formerly Section 6 of Military Intelligence) A civilian organization..." They are both still known by MI5 and MI6, but for historical, not *logical* reasons. Ever wonder what happened to MI 1,2,3 & 4? Mrs. Thatcher isn't very happy with Peter Wright. Publishing memoirs about dirty deads inside MI5 and MI6 is a no-no. The book's banned in Britain. -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer" #define truth "I speak for myself" #define result "variable"
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/30/88)
In article <825@novavax.UUCP> nanook@novavax.UUCP (Kieth Dickinson) writes: >in article <5044@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) says: >> Sorry, but you have this backwards. All nations engage in military adventures >> only when they feel threatened. > >I'm sure that the Germans were feeling REAL threatend back during World War II >when all of those nasty countries like Poland (with it's horseback cavalry) and >the such were threatening to take over the country! They _weren't_ threatened, but they *FELT* threatened. They were also in economic trouble, which is worth bearing in mind when people suggest bringing the USSR to its knees economically. Those were far from the only factors, but they were factors.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (11/30/88)
From article <5048@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, by miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout): "... The Soviets simply want to prevent that from happening "again; their intention the "run the world" is simply an attempt to prevent the "USA from "running the world." That's as may be. It doesn't affect the logic of the argument that it is in the USA's interest to deny the Soviet Union resources that would help them to carry through that intention, however conceived. The actual value of a network connection as such a resource has been questioned in this discussion, but I suppose it has some value. There are forces in the USA that tend to prevent the USA from carrying out any intention it might have of running the world -- military adventurism is unpopular because citizens get killed and because the costs make a cut in social security more likely, for instance. It is in the interest of the USA to foster any change in the Soviet system that would make such forces felt more in the Soviet Union. That a network connection would have such an effect, indirectly, in the long term, seems to me to be the principle argument on the other side of this issue. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
jpdres10@usl-pc.usl.edu (Green Eric Lee) (12/01/88)
In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: >In article <7649@well.UUCP> crunch@well.UUCP (John Draper) writes: >> I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network >>but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE. Does anyone out there in Net land >>WANT to add Soviet sites?? > Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the >changes are only superficial. I do not think that he can trust the Soviet >government at all. (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really >sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible >that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old" >way.) I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs >by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily? Fact: While the Soviets obviously took advantage of the aerodynamics work done on our shuttle, and copied superficial details such as, e.g., the heat shield material, their shuttle is fundamentally different from ours. For one thing, ours has engines -- theirs doesn't (it piggybacks on their Energia rocket, which is a tad larger than our old Saturn V was). For another thing, theirs has MUCH better electronics (i.e., late '70s technology, instead of early '70s technology), which is why they can do neat things such as have it take off and land with no pilot on-board. Let's face it, the U.S. space shuttle was no paragon of innovation... it was basically obsolete the first time it flew, due to the rampant underfunding of the U.S. space program (took 10 years to develop, because of miserly R&D budgets and, also, because of the retirement of all the Apollo rocket scientists). The Russians obviously looked at ours, but just as obviously, they haven't limited themselves to copying our mistakes. > Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to >spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus >from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)? >Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings. Sounds like paranoia to me. Do we even ship the sources groups overseas? In any event, the problem with the Russian system is NOT innovation -- they have bright people, too (surely we've learned that Americans have no monoploy on brains?). Their main problem is PRODUCTION, as you'd expect from a Communist system that gives little reward for productivity. E.g. they may know how 1Mb DRAMS are made, but it's damndably hard to coordinate various government monopolies to, e.g., get those fantastically expensive stepper motors needed at the chip processing stage. -- Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 {ames,mit-eddie,osu-cis,...}!killer!elg, killer!usl!elg, etc.
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (12/01/88)
In article <825@novavax.UUCP>, nanook@novavax.UUCP (Kieth Dickinson) writes: > in article <5044@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) says: > > All nations engage in military adventures only when they feel threatened. > I'm sure that the Germans were feeling REAL threatend back during World War II You bet your ass they were. I'm sure you're familiar with Nazi racial and political policy that blamed Germany's hellish economic problems of the 1930s on non-Aryans, Jews, international bankers, and the like. When the war began, Germany had only just recovered from devastating economic disaster. In fact, conditions in Germany were still not very comfortable when Hitler launched the war. The German people wanted to eliminate the outside threats they felt, which centered on the non-Aryan internationalists that Hitler claimed were in control of such nations as France, Poland, and the USSR. It was felt that the horrible economics of the 1930s could appear at any moment unless the outsiders were eliminated. It's also important to remember that before the war began, the German armed forces were VASTLY outnumbered by the hostile armed forces of the nations surrounding them that were perceived as the home of the internationalists who were bent on the destruction of Germany. Hitler worked the German people up into a frenzy with these fears, and they lauched a global war our of fear for their own survival. The German people were NOT comfortable and did NOT feel secure. They felt their only choice was to destroy or be destroyed. If they sat back and did nothing, the Germans felt that it would only be a few years before invading hordes of Jews, communists, and internationalists from the other parts of Europe obliterated the German people. The Nazi empire didn't mass-execute 11 million innocents because it was comfortable and powerful; it did so because it was AFRAID of those 11 million people. > when all of those nasty countries like Poland (with it's horseback cavalry) > and the such were threatening to take over the country! See above. You have also completely misread the Germany/Poland military situation of 1939. Your attitude is unfortunately almost universal among Americans, probably due to faulty history teaching in our schools and stereotyped nonsense in movies and other mass media. In 1939, both Poland and France were regarded by Europeans (and Americans as well) as nations that were more powerful and "dynamic" than Germany was. Most of the world (including the Germans) expected Poland and/or France to make short work of Germany in any war. Only the new innovative German commanders felt that they had a new type of warfare that would give their forces a chance. In reality, the German Army invading Poland had MORE horse cavalry than the Polish Army did. Criticizing Poland for having horse cavalry in 1939 is pretty silly, since ALL nations (including the USA!) had substantial horse cavalry formations at that time. Most of those nations continued the use of horse cavalry throughout the war, including Germany, which by the end of the war had positively HUGE forces of horse cavalry. Also, the Polish Army of 1939 was almost as large as the German Army, and was in some ways better equipped and trained. Contrary to popular American opinion, there were NO recorded instances of Polish cavalry charging German tanks, while the German cavalry DID charge Polish tanks on more than one occasion. The famous Polish Lancers, incidentally, used submachine guns in combat, just like most WW2 cavalry (the lances were for ceremonial purposes only.) The Polish forces fought bravely and well, and at the Battle of the Bzura the tide almost turned. Only the extreme mobility and flexibility of the German Panzer forces managed to save the trapped German forces from certain annihilation. Among other things, German aircraft losses during the Polish campaign were just as heavy as they were during most of the other WW2 campaigns that are better publicized. Unfortunately, Poland was the FIRST nation to face Blitzkrieg tactics, and nobody--not the USA, not the USSR, not the UK--NOBODY had any idea of how to stand up to Blitzkrieg until about 1942. If the Germans had somehow invaded the USA in September of 1939, we would have fallen just as easily as did the Poles. Thank God for the Atlantic Ocean. All the above discussion of Poland applies doubly to France, which had armed forces LARGER than Germany's, with substantial superiority in such areas as numbers and quality of tanks. But again, that was 1940, and in those days nobody could withstand a German Blitzkrieg. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (12/01/88)
In article <274@lloyd.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes: >[Legend (heard it on NPR once) has it that an orientation film for new >GRU recrewts (sic) shows captured GRU defectors being burned alive for >their sins ... Since this came up I want to mention that this is documented in a book by former GRU agent Viktor Suvorov. The title is something like "The Aquarium - My life in Soviet Military Intelligence". After I read the intro to the book, where this cremation is described, I was literally shaking. The film is shown to recruits before they join so they are aware that the only way out of the GRU is through a chimney. Suvorov (a pseudonym really) managed to escape; he supposedly has been sentenced to death for doing so. Reading all of Suvorovs books changed my opinion of the USSR from what most people seem to have to what my opinion is now. Changing it back to something less extreme will require some fundamental changes in the USSR. Also, I don't think the US gov't is so great, but at least I could leave if I wanted to. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
gtww2z9z%gables.span@umigw.miami.edu (Jason Gross) (12/01/88)
In article <650@sbsvax.UUCP>, greim@sbsvax.UUCP (Michael Greim) writes: > In article <2304@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > < Let's get these intelligence organisations straight: > < > < Country Internal External > < (spycatchers) (spys) > < > < USA FBI CIA > < USSR KGB GRU > < UK MI5 MI6 > W.Germany MAD BND > > < > < I think that's correct. The Brits seem to have the most logical naming scheme, > < don't they? Anny corrections and/or additions? Why does it look like Brits have the most logical naming scheme? MI5 and MI6 sound, to most people, totally cryptic. Oh, I see, that's what you mean. :-) -- Jason Gross Comp Sci Ugrad University of Miami Class of '91 (?) =========================================================================== "Women. You can't live | Mail your invigorating replies to: | For with them, and you can't | GTWW2Z9Z%Gables.Span@Umigw.Miami.Edu | Sale: shoot them, either." | (What a lovely address, isn't it now?) | $.05 ======================================================== IBM Sucks Silicon!
jjc@cisunx.UUCP (Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter) (12/01/88)
In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: > I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets >do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am >saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as >they can.) Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets >are NOT our friends. The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering Can you say "N-S-A"? I thought you could. >network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into >western scientific thought? Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the <rest deleted> I really think that this type of attitude will only make this situation worse. I think that a link to the Soviet Union would help our relationship much more than hurt it, and it's not like they would be seeing secret stuff or stuff that they wouldn't be able to obtain from other sources. What would stop them from setting up a UUCP site here in the US and feed all the "secrets" and "western technology" now? jeff -- Jeffrey J. B. Carpenter, University of Pittsburgh, Computer Center USMAIL: 600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238 jjc@cisunx.UUCP | AT&T 1 412 624 6424 | JJC@PITTVMS.BITNET JJC@VMS.CIS.PITTSBURGH.EDU
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (12/01/88)
In article <222@taniwha.UUCP> michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: : In article <213@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: : : >Mostly because many people believe, on the strength of the Soviet's : >own pronouncements of their intentions, that if they had the : >resources, they'd use those resources to make *real* war on us. : : and... : : >This is an old argument, which doesn't hold much water when one : >considers that the Soviets have chosen their paths because they want : >to run the world. (Their stated intention.) : : Uh huh. Could you possibly cite something where the Russians have made : these "intentions" clear in some recent statement? I thought that sort : rhetoric went out in the 1960's. I suppose that you could argue : that those communist fiends are thinking this all the time but won't : be silly enough to say it. I don't think thats a terribly convincing : view. There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice : in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well. Could you bring : yourself to believe that they might have changed in the last twenty : years? Let me see... You are saying: they used to say that they wanted to run the world, but they've stopped saying that recently. Therefore, I should no longer believe that this is their intention. Ok, the possibility does exist. How shall I test this hypothesis? Certainly not by taking their word for it. That means that I have to examine their political system. It is reasonable to believe that, if their system hasn't undergone fundamental change, then neither have their intentions. There have been some cosmetic changes; however, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the hypothesis that their political system hasn't changed. Hence my conclusion that their intentions haven't changed. Note that follow-ups have been directed to talk.politics.misc since discussion of the evidence really belongs there. However, I don't read that group, so if you want to continue this discussion, use e-mail. : I'm afraid that citing what "many people believe" doesn't do : your argument much good... I think I may have mislead you. Sorry. The original question asked why people were paying attention to the cost of Usenet to the Soviets. My response, the one beginning "Mostly because", was intended to explain the presence of those people, not as demostration of the validity of their views. --- Bill {uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill
jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) (12/01/88)
In article <2304@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Country Internal External > (spycatchers) (spys) > > USA FBI CIA I've heard of something called the NSA (National Security Agency?) Where does that fit in? -- Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K. uucp: ...mcvax!ukc!uea-sys!jrk Janet: kennaway@uk.ac.uea.sys
mfr@camcon.co.uk (Mike Richardson) (12/01/88)
In article 2406 Michael Greim gives the "names" of the "security"
organisations in the USA, USSR, UK and W. Germany.
A trivial point but (for the moment at least), MI5 and MI6 do not exist,
at least not officially. This was stated by Sir Robert Armstrong,
Secretary to the Cabinet during one of the interminable Spycatcher trials
(this one in Australia). However, due to a blunder on his part (and
a clever barister for Peter Wright), he was forced to admit that an
organisation called "MI5" (but of unspecified function) did exist for
a certain period while Roger Hollis was its head.
Nothing to do with computers but maybe fun.
Mike Richardsontneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (12/02/88)
OK, I think we have established clearly that the net.bircher contingent doesn't want the Evil Empire linked up with Usenet. Before we force Draper to add his own topic to the KILL file <grin>, could we move the eternal cold war debate back to talk.politics.* where it belongs please? It's lots of fun, but not here. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (12/02/88)
>> HERE HERE!!!!! (Slamming his shoe on the table in great excitement!) > >Hear! Hear! Comrade, the correct americanski expression is Hear! Hear! The correct expression IS "HERE, HERE!", and the correct reply is "WHERE, WHERE?". I s'pose you Orange County Rooskies can't be expected to've heard of Firesign Theatre, eh? All Hail Marx and Lennon!
duke@dasher.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Duke Hong) (12/02/88)
In article <8114@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J De > > To clarify: > I think that it is great that Mr. Draper is sending bits of news >to his Russian friends. Such an act is good. What I think would be bad >is the Soviets becoming a large network connected with the West. As I have >said many times already, this allows the KGB to eliminate information sorting >acquistion operations in the US. > > Alex Denner Just what do the Soviets do as far as information sorting in the U.S. as far as news goes? All I see are quacks about cars or political discussions and everyone's expert view on an article that they read in some magazine. The only thing that could POSSIBLY help them out that I see is source code. Well, don't distribute it to them! There's nothing here that they can't get somewhere else. I have never seen an article about how the stealth bomber works or anything secure so stop being so paranoid!
greg@nprdc.arpa (Greg Reynolds) (12/02/88)
In article <948@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes:
<
<< I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As
<< someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to
<< this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering
<< that much easier. While it is true that classified systems are not
<< connected to any network, the system is cross connected to Arpanet, and
<< access to this net is effectively access to Arpanet. Not good.
<
<How does anybody know that the Soviets aren't polling (say) my
<machine? There are so many machines in the world, with so many
<who read and never post, that it would be a very simply matter
<for them to see anything they want. I suspect you don't find
<the NSA in the maps, but they could probably get a feed on the
<sly if they wanted (one way or another).
*** text deleted ***
< Steve
I may be wrong, but I would hardly imagine that the KGB have anything useful
to gain by polling your machine, much less anywhere else on the ARPANET.
Any system processing classified data is, by definition, not accessable by
way of ARPANET, USENET, or any other unclassified network for that matter.
NCSC does a good job of keeping systems processing classified information
outside the reach of intruders. If a red invasion of our security networks
is to come, it most certainly won't be via this network. So do yourselves a
favor and try not to loose sleep at night worrying about these things.
Greg Reynolds
These opinions are products of my overworked imagination, and are not the
opinions of my employer, NCSC, NSA, or anyone else for that matter.gerard@tscs.UUCP (Stephen M. Gerard) (12/02/88)
In article <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajdenner@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes: >In article <7649@well.UUCP> crunch@well.UUCP (John Draper) writes: >> I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network > > I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets >do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am >saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as >they can.) Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets I don't recall having to submit any documentation proving that I am not a Soviet spy before I connected my system to the UUCP network. And who is to say that there are not any Soviet spies who are working in America for American companies that have UUCP access. Except for occassional proprietary source code that gets posted to USENET, I would hardly say that the any of the data I receive should be considered classified. I am not saying that we should hand our secrets over to the Soviet Union; however, my guess is that they know more about our secrets than the average red blooded American. I for one would be interested to learn more about their level of computer literacy. > Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to >spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus >from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)? >Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings. Of course we also have to worry about out own people spreading viruses. I would hope that all computers having to do with government and military applications would be isolated from the outside world in times of trouble. After all, one only needs to know the telephone number of a public access UNIX site to gain access to UUCP and USENET. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Gerard - Total Support Computer Systems - Tampa - (813) 876-5990 UUCP: gerard@tscs ...{pdn,usfvax2}!tscs!gerard US-MAIL: Post Office Box 15395 - Tampa, Florida 33684-5395
gerard@tscs.UUCP (Stephen M. Gerard) (12/02/88)
In article <2331@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet >Union? I will not knowingly offer help to someone from the Soviet Union. Aw come on! Helping Ivan Average Russian to get his/her version of "less" or "star trek" working would not be a crime or even immoral. Last time I studied biology (admittedly over 10 years ago), Russians were made of the same stuff we are. They only have to coexist with their government like we have to coexist with ours. I refuse to condem an entire group of people just because their government does not agree with my way of thinking. We all have some level of disagreement in our views. If we truly believed that the government did absolutely represent the moral fiber of its citizens, we would not be friendly with any Germans, Japanese, or Italians, since they were the axis powers during WWII. People are people no matter what their government believes. There are some Russians that aren't worth helping as there are some Americans that are not worth helping. Once everyone realizes this, perhaps we can truly find our mutual interests and persue peace. >>Before they they push the button, let them first contemplate the >>serious prospect of USENET withdrawl. > >Yeah right, get real. I'm certain a USENET withdrawl would be at the >bottom of their list of concerns. The Soviets that would benefeit from USENET would not be the ones pushing the button. I believe that most rational humans realize that pressing the button would cause an end to the world as we presently know it. I would welcome a free flow of information with the Soviet Union. I think both sides would find out that the other is not as bad as we have been lead to believe. USENET access would give thousands of westerners a chance to talk to real Soviet citizens. Just think, we could find out if the line to buy bread is really an two hour wait. :-)
gerard@tscs.UUCP (Stephen M. Gerard) (12/02/88)
In article <2353@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >Just remember, you will be helping someone that has missiles pointed at you! I have exactly zero (0) missles, I assume that I am correct that you have the exact same number. My best guess tells me that Soviet STUDENTS have about the same number as you and me. Big business in the US is pretty vicious againts its enemies (competition), you work for big business (AT&T), if you needed help, I would help you if I could. Someday in the future AT&T might decide to compete with my business. Does this make me a fool? I hope not!
michiel@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen) (12/03/88)
In article <5008@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
:
:> I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs by copying
:> our Shuttle,
:
:It is NOT a copy. It looks similar (would you care to show me a hypothetical
:shuttle design that doesn't?), but there are substantial internal
:differences--
:[...]
: It works both ways, though--
:
What's wrong with that anyway. Everbody would do it provided the information.
The Japanese did to build their economy and look what happened. They have
now taken over in area's where they were copying (camera's, cars? ). Isn't
it sience's progress to read what people have done before you and extend
or improve the ideas?
Information exchange is vital for the western world. The USSR has access to
all of that (they can buy magazines etc. as well as I can). Let's make
sure we have access to their achievements so we can benifit from it just like
they do. Let's have them on the net.
--
# Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen Internet fierst@idca.tds.philips.nl #
# Philips Telecomm. and Data Systems UUCP ...!mcvax!philapd!fierst #michiel@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen) (12/03/88)
In article <268@lloyd.camex.uucp: kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes:
:
:There seems to be agreement that the Soviets would not gain anything
:new if they had a USENET feed, only that it might save them time and
:money.
:
Correct. Let's make sure that we can also gain by having them provide
information to us too.
:Pointer: If you _really_ want to undermine the Soviet system,
:introduce something as uncontrollable and anarchic as USENET. We
:shouldn't be fighting to _prevent_ a USENET feed, we should be
:fighting to _install_ one (unless we are afraid the Soviets might get
:suspicious and prevent it themselves, in which case some of use should
:argue against it to make it more acceptable to them--Mr. Denner: Glad
:to know you are on my side, keep up the good work).
:
I really liked this one... This is a very serious and valid argument in
the whole discussion :-)
--
# Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen Internet fierst@idca.tds.philips.nl #
# Philips Telecomm. and Data Systems UUCP ...!mcvax!philapd!fierst #michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) (12/04/88)
In article <2409@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > >Reading all of Suvorovs books changed my opinion of the USSR from what >most people seem to have to what my opinion is now. Changing it back to >something less extreme will require some fundamental changes in the USSR Aha. I wondered what it was. Larry, you really shouldn't let one persons writings do this to you. I wouldn't ever believe everything I read in a book about a highly-charged subject like the USSR. People have been known to lie and exaggerate about subjects that they feel strongly about. I get my views on the USSR from an average of a *lot* of books and articles, and I still wouldn't claim to know whats really going on over there. I certainly wouldn't let one book put me in a position where nothing short of "fundamental changes" could change my views. Why not read another book? Or two? -- "In challenging a kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap." Michael Hamel ..!{unisoft|mtxinu}!taniwha!michael
jlc@wucfua.wustl.edu (Roving UIUC CS Grad Student) (12/04/88)
In article <268@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) writes: >In article <2304@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> Country Internal External >> (spycatchers) (spys) >> >> USA FBI CIA > >I've heard of something called the NSA (National Security Agency?) Where >does that fit in? The NSA doesn't fit properly into this scheme. It's much closer to the CIA, in that it can only operate outside of the US, but it doesn't actually run spies or anything of the sort. They did try to run ships for a while, but of the three ships they owned, two (the USS Pueblo, captured during the Vietnam war (there's a movie about this) and the USS Liberty, destroyed by the Israelis during the 1973 war) had fates so bad that they gave it up as a bad idea. The NSA is an electronic-intelligence agency. Their mission is to intercept all electronic traffic around the world, especially that of governments. They do intercept traffic which leaves or enters the US but are forbidden to intercept purely domestic traffic (this was affirmed several years ago in a major decision --- I believe Congressional). They are also forbidden to pass on any intercepts to "police-type" agencies --- i.e., they often intercept drug trafficing messages from US to South America, but cannot pass that on to the FBI (another major decision). The actual charter of the NSA is still heavily classified --- until the early 1980's even the cover sheet was classified (leading to the definition of NSA as "No Such Agency"). It was created by presidential order right after WWII, and the only non-executive types to have seen the charter are a few members of Congress and, I believe, a few judges. So the NSA is complementary to the CIA. The CIA collects "human" intelligence, while the NSA does signal intercepts. The NSA is also the largest US intelligence agency, and is rumored to have the largest computer center in the world. Given that five years ago they were said to have been real-time monitering ALL international phone traffic with keyword-sensitive equipment listening for catch words and passing on "interesting" traffic to humans, I suspect that they're doing the same thing with the Net. It is believed that one of their chartered requirements is to maintain cryptographic knowledge at least ten years ahead of the published state of the art (they maintain a de facto absolute right to deny publication to any work applicable to cryptography done in the US) and that much of their production computer equipment maintains a similar lead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | John L. Coolidge Internet:jlc@wucfua.wustl.edu UUCP:jlc@wucfua.uucp | | "My other account is in Illinois" I just read news here... | | With the exception of included material: All above opinions are mine. | | Licensing terms available. Copyright (c) 1988 John L. Coolidge. Copying | | allowed if and only if attributed. All other rights reserved. | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (12/05/88)
In article <227@taniwha.UUCP> michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: >Aha. I wondered what it was. Larry, you really shouldn't let one persons >writings do this to you. I wouldn't ever believe everything I read in a book >about a highly-charged subject like the USSR. People have been known to lie >and exaggerate about subjects that they feel strongly about. I get my views >on the USSR from an average of a *lot* of books and articles, and I still >wouldn't claim to know whats really going on over there. I certainly wouldn't >let one book put me in a position where nothing short of "fundamental changes" >could change my views. Why not read another book? Or two? I've read several authors on the USSR and even an occasional issue of Soviet Life (gag). Like you, I don't claim to understand the USSR completely. I got some mail from former Russians living in the west. Basically, they agree with the goals I advocate but not the means. Okay, we can discuss what the best way to promote change in the USSR is, but not in comp.misc. I don't think I ever claimed that I was omniscent, I only wanted to point out that a USENET connection could possibly have a negative effect on promoting fundamental change in the USSR. What I think a USENET connection will do is to prolong the current system, even though it might make life better in the short run. I could be wrong. I have some strange, even radical, ideas but I'm really a nice guy. Now, lets talk comp.misc! This is from a sci.math article I posted this past week. It might be of interest here. On Dec. 6 a "human computer" will make an appearance here. Her name is Shakuntala Devi, or something close to that. She holds the Guiness world record for multiplying two large numbers in her head. So, I was wondering if anyone could think of some problems that would be particularly hard for such a person. Any 100 digit numbers need factoring :-) One of the best problems I got so far was: Find the smallest integer n such that: 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ... + 1/n > 20 -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
jpdres10@usl-pc.usl.edu (Green Eric Lee) (12/06/88)
In article <311@helios.prosys.se> ath@helios.prosys.se (Anders Thulin) writes: >The Swedish company Scandinavian Information Systems has entered a >joint venture agreement with a Soviet company to manufacture PC clones >in Moscow. The first clones are planned to be delivered in March 1989. [...] >More interesting, this deal seems to have the blessings of the US gov. >The article indicates that the hi tech embargo of hi tech products is >not going to be applied. We cynics would think that the reason for not applying the ban of hi-tech products is that the IBM PC, as technology that was obsolete when introduced in 1982, is hardly "hi-tech". Just lets us know what the Russians and Swedish think are high-tech... heck, in a few more years, they might even discover CP/M! ;-);-);-) -- Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 {ames,mit-eddie,osu-cis,...}!killer!elg, killer!usl!elg, etc. Only Amiga owners know what it feels like to multitask on $1K or less...
childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) (12/09/88)
In article <2200@gofast.camcon.co.uk> mfr@camcon.co.uk (Mike Richardson) writes: >In article 2406 Michael Greim gives the "names" of the "security" >organisations in the USA, USSR, UK and W. Germany. Well, the officially accepted acronyms. >A trivial point but (for the moment at least), MI5 and MI6 do not exist, >at least not officially. This was stated by Sir Robert Armstrong, >Secretary to the Cabinet during one of the interminable Spycatcher trials. And I suppose you believe everything you hear or read ? It seems pretty clear to everyone else that they *do* exist. What is your point ? That they are officially denied by 'responsible' entities, in direct contradiction to the evidence of everyone's senses ? Or that you don't feel they exist ? Or that British citizens get harrassed for suggesting in public that MI5 and MI6 exist, regardless of their actual purpose ? >Mike Richardson -- richard -- * "... where there is no movement, there is no perception." * * Ribot, _The Psychology of Attention_ * * ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd.UUCP!childers@tycho * * AMPEX Corporation - Audio-Visual Systems Division, R & D *
viljanen@kreeta.cs.Helsinki.FI (Lea Viljanen UNIX88) (12/09/88)
In article <134@usl-pc.usl.edu> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US writes: >In article <311@helios.prosys.se> ath@helios.prosys.se (Anders Thulin) writes: >>The Swedish company Scandinavian Information Systems has entered a >>joint venture agreement with a Soviet company to manufacture PC clones >>in Moscow. The first clones are planned to be delivered in March 1989. >[...] >>More interesting, this deal seems to have the blessings of the US gov. >>The article indicates that the hi tech embargo of hi tech products is >>not going to be applied. > >We cynics would think that the reason for not applying the ban of >hi-tech products is that the IBM PC, as technology that was obsolete >when introduced in 1982, is hardly "hi-tech". > >Just lets us know what the Russians and Swedish think are high-tech... >heck, in a few more years, they might even discover CP/M! I don't know what they do think is high-tech, but if my memory serves me right, machines with 32 bit processors aren't allowed to be exported. That's why two businessmen here in Finland are facing charges for selling (or maybe trying to sell, I don't recall) VAXes to the russians. >-- >Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 > {ames,mit-eddie,osu-cis,...}!killer!elg, killer!usl!elg, etc. >Only Amiga owners know what it feels like to multitask on $1K or less... """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Lea 'LadyBug' Viljanen ____ University of Helsinki, Finland viljanen@finuha.bitnet \ / . ' Dept. of Computer Science viljanen@cs.helsinki.fi \/ |_ 'Small is beautiful'
furlani@broadway.UUCP (John L. Furlani) (12/10/88)
Come On Folks,
We're People, They're People
and Usenet is for People...
____________
John L. Furlani
The University of South Carolina, Columbia SC
(...!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!broadway!furlani)anna@vedge.UUCP (Anna Kochanowska) (12/11/88)
In article <292@ssp18.idca.tds.philips.nl> michiel@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen) writes: >Information exchange is vital for the western world. The USSR has access to >all of that (they can buy magazines etc. as well as I can). That would be great! No normal people in USSR have an access to all magazines etc. that you can buy. Did you forget the "CENZURA", or you never heard of it? And prices of western magazines are far too high for them. > Let's make >sure we have access to their achievements so we can benifit from it just like >they do. You will never have access to their achievenments, because they will be too afraid to release any to the net. They will ask you all kind of questions, but you will not even learn what kind of pencils they use. I am not against their access to the net, but it seems that lot of people waiting for CONTACT will be disappointed. (Do you know that it is forbidden in USSR to make a picture of any post office, bridge, railway station etc.? You may simply loose your camera and have a lot of troubles. And you expect people to talk about their projects, programs and other secrets?!) -- The views expressed are those of the writer, and not of Visual Edge, or of the Usenet. A.M.Kochanowska
abray@acorn.co.uk (Andy Bray) (12/13/88)
In article <5048@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: > [... loadsa stuff deleted ...] > > And you have completely misinterpreted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. > Suppose a bloody civil war broke out in Mexico, and after years of devastation, > anti-US forces started getting the upper hand. Suppose the US embassy in > Mexico City was burned to the ground and US diplomatic personnel butchered and > their heads paraded around the city on poles. Suppose the CIA began announcing > that much of the success of the anti-US forces was due to heavy covert Soviet > involvement. Suppose the anti-US forces began making statements about taking > their fight across the border into Texas. You may safely assume that US policy > makers would argue strongly, and probably successfully, for a US invasion of > Mexico. > Hmmm.. this sounds awfully familiar to me. I seem to remember not so long ago a certain superpower invaded a far smaller nation called Grenada for reasons very much similar to this, and Grenada had the features of being further away than Cuba, smaller, and in no position to directly threaten the 'Good 'ol US of A'. Grenada is (and was) a member of the British Commonwealth, and as such strictly speaking sovereign territory of Her Magesty Queen Elizabeth the second. This pissed of some of us here in Britain, I can tell you. So much for the much vaunted 'special relationship'. I wonder what Ronnie would have done if he thought he could safely invade the USSR? Now I realise this is no longer totally appropriate for comp.misc, but to some of us here in Europe, the distinction between Gorby's Russia and Ronnies USA seems to be getting a bit blurred. It seems to me that there is a very good argument for us here in the West to offer various degrees of support for the changes being made in the USSR, whether by a news feed or rather more concrete economic support, and that is this: 1) Most would agree that Mr.Gorbachov has a more positive attitude to the West and arms control etc. than any previous Russian leader. 2) He has very much put his neck on the line gambling that Perestroika will lead to real economic improvement in Russia rather than just allow various embarassing nationalistic issues to surface in Armenia, the Baltic states, Hungary etc. 3) On the whole we would rather he stays in place making his slow and (hopefully) steady reforms, than be replaced by an old guard hardliner. In comparison to the other issues, the issue of a news feed is a rather trivial affair, and I feel anything that increases real communication between the people of the USSR and those in the West will decrease paranoia generally. If the Russian hackers get to know us and realise that we aren't all in favour of turning their Motherland into a nuclear wasteland, then the Red Army will have a much harder task of getting them to write ICBM programs etc. Of course this can cut both ways, but in the light of some of the bigotry that has been expressed here on this subject, I suspect there are possibly more American hackers in need of enlightenment than Russians. I know who I'm more frightened of. So for the sake of the enlightenment of bigots everywhere - lets connect the USSR up to USENET, we've got more to gain than them. I might even save up my pennies and buy them a modem :-). Please excuse the length of my ramblings, which aren't really approriate to this group, but then this discussion should have migrated ages ago. Andy Bray.
rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (12/13/88)
From article <1119@arctic.nprdc.arpa>, by greg@nprdc.arpa (Greg Reynolds): > In article <948@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: > << As someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to > << this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering > << that much easier. > < > <How does anybody know that the Soviets aren't polling (say) my > <machine? There are so many machines in the world, with so many I hear that there is a machine in Moscow, Idaho that, once a week, sends an archive-format 60meg tape to the local russian embasy. Nothing really IMPORTANT, I understand.. Just usenet stuff. (-: I mean, HEY, why not?? :-) Of course, If you believe this, I have a mall to sell you -- I'll even consider relocation costs..! -- ------------- Stephen Samuel (userzxcv@ualtamts.bitnet or alberta!edm!steve) (Only in Canada, you say??.... Pity!)
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (12/14/88)
In article <5066@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: [A pretty good article. A few comments follow. Quotes are condensed.] ->>when all of those nasty countries like Poland (with it's ->>horseback cavalry) and the such were threatening to take over ->>the country! ->You have also completely misread the Germany/Poland military ->situation of 1939. Yeah. I was rereading "Lost Victories" (Field Marshall Erich von Manstein) today and he says things like: (page 22) "It was not until summer 1939 that I learnt of the first offensive deployment against Poland to be prepared on Hitler's orders. No such thing had existed before the spring of 1939. On the contrary all military preparations on our eastern frontier had been based on defense." (page 23) "We realized that Hitler was fanatically resolved to dispose of the very last of the territorial problems Germany had inherited through the treaty of Versailles. We knew that he had begun negotiations with Poland as far back as autumn 1938 to clear up the whole Polish-German frontier question. At the same time we were aware of the British guarantees to Poland. Not one of us in the army was so arrogant, thoughtless or shortsighted as not to recognize the deadly seriousness of the warning that guarantee implied." (page 24) "But we recalled Hitler's assertion that he would never be so mad as to unleash a war on two fronts, as the German leaders in 1914 had done. That at least implied that he was a man of reason, even if he had no human feelings left. Raising that coarse voice of his, he had explicitly assured his military advisers that he was not idiot enough to bungle his way into a world war for the sake of Danzig or the Polish corridor." "Poland was bound to be a source of great bitterness to us after she had used the dictated peace of Versailles to annex German territories to which neither historical justice nor the right of self determination gave her any claim. For us soldiers she had been a constant source of distress in the years of Germany's weakness. Every time we looked at a map we were reminded of our precarious situation. That irrational demarcation of the frontier! That mutilation of our Fatherland! That corridor whose severance of East Prussia from the Reich gave us every reason to fear for that lovely province! For all that, however, the army never dreamed of fighting an aggressive war against Poland to end this state of affairs by force. Any attack on Poland would have plunged the Reich into a war on two fronts, and with this it could never have coped. In the period of weakness imposed on us at Versailles we had always a nightmare that disturbed us all the more whenever we thought of the aspirations for German territory still harbored with such ill-concealed longing by wide circles of the Polish people. Poland might take the initiative and set out to solve the frontier question by force. Once certain nationalist circles had gained a decisive influence in Poland, an incursion into East Prussia or Upper Silesia was just as feasible as the Polish raid on Vilna before it." (page 25) "Whether we liked it or not, it was preferable to keep Poland between ourselves and the Soviet Union. Aggrieved though we were as soldiers by the senseless and explosive frontier demarcation in the east, Poland was still less dangerous as a neighbor than the Soviet Union. Like all other Germans, of course, we hoped a revision of the frontier would come about sometime and return the predominantly German-populated areas to the Reich in accordance with the natural rights of their inhabitants." ->Poland was the FIRST nation to face Blitzkrieg tactics You might argue that Blitzkrieg tactics first appeared in WW1, with the Germans on the receiving end (which was partially responsible for the Germans adopting such tactics in WW2: having faced them they realized more fully their potential). (So the lessons of Blitzkrieg were available after WW1, for those with eyes to see. True, there were few who understood until it was too late. That kind of blindness seems to be something one can rely on repeating itself again and again :-) For example, in "The Conduct of War 1789-1961" (Major-General J.F.C. Fuller) we find (page 175) "Tanks were first used on 15th September 1916, during the Battle of the Somme. Few got into action, but those that did showed that used in mass, instead of in driblets, the stalemate might be broken. This is borne out by the German account which said 'that their men felt powerless to withstand the tanks' - that is, felt themselves disarmed. Unfortunately this was not appreciated by the British High Command, with the result that, until the Battle of Cambrai, tanks continued to be used in driblets." "At Cambrai, the aim was to effect a surprise penetration of four lines of entrenchments in twelve hours without any kind of preliminary artillery preparation. Nine battalions of tanks, in all 378 fighting machines, were to lead two infantry corps over the Hindenburg (Siegfried) line, the most formidable entrenched system on the Western Front. The assault was launched at 6:20 a.m. on 20th November 1917. The enemy broke back in panic, and by 4 p.m. a penetration of 10,000 yards had been effected. Eight thousand prisoners and one hundred guns were captured. There could no longer be any doubt that the reintroduction of armour on the battlefield could solve the stalemate, and the decisive battle of Amiens, fought on 8th August 1918, proved this conclusively." "In it 462 fighting tanks, in cooperation with aircraft, led three corps of the British Fourth Army into battle. Again surprise was complete, panic rampant, and the German front was penetrated." " 'As the sun set on 8th August on the battlefield', writes the author of the German official monograph on the battle, 'the greatest defeat which the German Army suffered since the beginning of the war was an accomplished fact.' It was the terror the tanks installed, more so than their killing power, which led him to entitle his monograph 'Die Katastrophe des 8 August 1918.' Ludendorff made no mistake over the situation the tank created. 'Everything I had feared, and of which I had so often given warning, had here, in one place, become a reality. The 8th of August put the decline of our fighting power beyond all doubt. The war must be ended.' " Here are some interesting comments by Soviet Marshall Tukhachevski, a month before he was liquidated by Stalin, showing that the Russians had yet to understand Blitzkrieg. (page 246) "In May 1937, a month before he was liquidated in Stalin's enormous purge of 1937-1938, which gutted the Russian army, Marshall Tukhachevski wrote in the Bol'shevik: 'The swift growth of our aviation, tanks and mechanized formations at first provoked some of the theoretical twist of the Fuller type. This was manifested as a new manoeuver theory which considered that the great speed of the tank did not permit of its use in combined operations with infantry. From this grew an attempt to claim the complete independence of tank formations, and non-understanding that tanks cannot successfully act without mighty artillery support. Western military thinkers, like Fuller and Liddell Hart, desire to limit the size of armies, supplementing man-power by a highly developed technical equipment. Their desire is merely a rationalization of the bourgeois fear of masses." Fuller speaks again: "Such Marxian silliness was to cost the Russians dear. In 1941, their tactics remained what they had always been, slow forward and backward movements of masses of unthinking men: an inviting target for the German armoured tigers." I could go on indefinitely, but if you want more example of Blitzkrieg operations in WW1, the final campaign in Palestine in September 1918 is interesting (see "The Real War 1914-1918", by Liddell Hart, pages 439-448, entitled "Annihilation Of The Turkish Armies", for example. Published in 1930, this book is practically a complete course in the theory of Blitzkrieg.)
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (12/15/88)
In article <594@acorn.co.uk> abray@acorn.co.uk (Andy Bray) writes: > > [loadsa stuff deleted] > >Now I realise this is no longer totally appropriate for comp.misc, but to some >of us here in Europe, the distinction between Gorby's Russia and Ronnies USA >seems to be getting a bit blurred. > This is perhaps a lack of clarity of vision on the part of the viewer. I am sure that you were only trying to stimulate our thoughts. I am sure that you can draw a distinction between a free society and an unfree society. >It seems to me that there is a very good argument for us here in the West to >offer various degrees of support for the changes being made in the USSR, >whether by a news feed or rather more concrete economic support When the Soviet Union adopts a defensive force structure and doctrine, and when Mr. Gorbachev can bring himself to even slow down the production of offensive weapons, then his protestations of peaceful intentions will carry more weight with those who bear the major cost of defending Western Europe from Soviet agression. Perhaps that's why you cannot discern the difference between the US and the USSR -- you don't need to, yet. The notion of Western democracies funding the continued expansion of the Soviet military (funds for OMGs needn't be cut to underwrite perestroika the West will fund perestroika and we can still have our OMGs!). Not only will the capitalist sell you the rope to hang him with, he'll lend you the money to buy it with! > [material deleted] >Of course this can cut both ways, but in the light of some of the bigotry that >has been expressed here on this subject, I suspect there are possibly more >American hackers in need of enlightenment than Russians. I know who I'm more >frightened of. I am truly sorry to hear this. Let me try to help. The United States is your ally. We share a common heritage. We are both western democracies. The Soviet Union is a Marxist-Leninist totalitarian state. The Leninist part of that means that it is the Soviet Union's responsibility to export their totalitarianism. Gorbachev has not repudiated Leninist Doctrine, nor even the Brezhnev Doctrine. Many Americans become extremely distraught when they hear Europeans putting them in the same category as the Soviets. These distraught Americans then hearken back to Washington's (George, that is) exhortation to avoid foreign entanglements, especially when faced with the omnipresent budget deficit (which, by the way, equals the money spent to defend Western Europe and the Far East). This leads many Americans to an obvious conclusion about how to eliminate the budget deficit. The argument that Western Europe is vital to the national security of the United States is increasingly questioned in the United States. I dare say that _perceived_ ingratitude doesn't help. Oh, you can count me as an anti-Soviet_connecting_to_USENET vote. >Andy Bray. -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
jpdres10@usl-pc.usl.edu (Green Eric Lee) (12/15/88)
In message <2220@vedge.UUCP>, anna@vedge.UUCP (Anna Kochanowska) says: >In article <292@ssp18.idca.tds.philips.nl> michiel@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen) writes: >>Information exchange is vital for the western world. The USSR has access to >>all of that (they can buy magazines etc. as well as I can). >That would be great! No normal people in USSR have an access to all magazines >etc. that you can buy. Did you forget the "CENZURA", or you never heard of it? >And prices of western magazines are far too high for them. But I doubt that their professors have any trouble getting copies of Western academic journals. >You will never have access to their achievenments, because they will be too >afraid to release any to the net. They will ask you all kind of questions, >but you will not even learn what kind of pencils they use. Sure we will. Not to any achievements related to the military, obviously, but the Russians are quite eager to broadcast their accomplishments all across the world. Good PR, y'know... "Our shuttle is bigger than your shuttle, we've published more algorithms than you have, ....". Now, I agree that nothing of earth-shaking importance is likely to get out, but that's another topic altogether. > A.M.Kochanowska As a Southern conservative, I'm about as pessimistic about the Soviet government as most folks, but c'mon, there's a difference between being on your guard, and hysterical paranoia! -- Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 {ames,mit-eddie,osu-cis,...}!killer!elg, killer!usl!elg, etc.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (12/17/88)
In article <777@afit-ab.arpa>, wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: > In article <594@acorn.co.uk> abray@acorn.co.uk (Andy Bray) writes: > > > > [loadsa stuff deleted] > > > >Now I realise this is no longer totally appropriate for comp.misc, but to some > >of us here in Europe, the distinction between Gorby's Russia and Ronnies USA > >seems to be getting a bit blurred. > > > > This is perhaps a lack of clarity of vision on the part of the viewer. > I am sure that you were only trying to stimulate our thoughts. I am > sure that you can draw a distinction between a free society and an > unfree society. I agree the distinctions between these United States and the USSR are monumental ... I'd like to see them even bigger. That is, I'd like to see our governments (Federal, State, local) start to shrink instead of grow, for taxes to fall rather than rise, for regulation to be reduced rather than increased, for violations of our personal, social, and civil liberties to be eliminated rather than encouraged. I'm tired of the IRS and the DEA trying to see who can come closest to the KGB in authority AND tactics. Of course, if the distinctions between us and them are reduced by the Soviets moving closer to a free market and free minds, great. But how about us taking the lead, and providing an even more exhilirating example than we have been? Jeff Daiell (opinions my own, until taxed away) P. S. If we stopped subsidizing the Soviet Bloc, they'd not be able to be as militaristic ... which would let *us* cut our military budget, thus improving our economy. -- Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (12/21/88)
In article <2469@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > If we stopped subsidizing the Soviet Bloc, they'd not be > able to be as militaristic ... which would let *us* cut > our military budget, thus improving our economy. And if Japan stopped subsidizing the USA, we'd not be able to be as militaristic ... which would let the Soviets cut their military budget, thus improving their economy. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson