From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 21:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Goodbye [NOSTALGIA]
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-81-MSG-961018183217Z-2754@mail.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <3269ACC4.53A3@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Blanc Weber wrote:
> From:   James A. Donald
> The glory days are long past, and cannot be revived
> by forming a new mailing list.

C'mon now, you guys sound like a bunch of old men, groaning over the checkers board 
about how you can't keep track of the six or seven medications you take every day.

Some amazing and true facts:  I'm 50 years old, learning Windows programming (yuk!), and 
actually, never went to college, but make good money writing code and also teach other 
programmers certain techniques....  I can also run a mile in six minutes, and haven't 
missed a day of work since 1975.

People die, things die, so what.  There are so many things to do, and not enough people 
to do them.  Get busy and you'll feel better.

> I've never thought of the cypherpunks as being of the mind to "abandon"
> the "worthless" masses to their own devices.   Rather, I thought of them
> as being of the mind to associate among those who thought like
> themselves about privacy, who shared the values of self-reliance, who
> supported the ideals of individual liberty, and who were open to
> including on the list anyone who wanted to better understand the
> subjects which are discussed there.

Don't expect anything to be static.  The "right kind" of talented people will find the 
other like-mind folks, on this list or elsewhere.  It doesn't need to be managed or 
bemoaned.

> But that quote above reminds me of the patent office's statement, often
> recounted, of how everything which could be invented had already been
> invented, and there couldn't possibly be any more new ideas introduced.
> It all depends, as usual, on the individuals involved -  on the quality
> they bring to the subject, to the list, to the enterprise.

True invention as a concept is controversial.  One could make a valid argument that 
"new" inventions, while not new in every way, or even in a way that has agreed-upon 
significance, are nonetheless as inventive in many cases as the great ones like the 
telephone, the laser, or the public key concept. Perhaps you could analogize judgement 
of a particular invention to judgement of a person's intelligence - no clear, concise 
table of numbers to work from.

> Interesting question:  what do elite sophisticates *do*, once they've
> reached their pinnacle?

"Pinnacle" appears to be another (possibly flawed) judgement, usually be persons who 
don't fully understand the methods and motivations of individuals who have "great" 
minds.

There's a scene in the old Star Trek, in one of the very first episodes, when Gary 
somebody-or-other starts getting a *lot* smarter after passing through a barrier at the 
edge of the galaxy.  Kirk walks into the sick bay, and seeing Gary(?) reading some 
really deep stuff on the computer, says something to the effect "I never knew you got 
into person xxx, etc.", to which Gary replies "actually, he's kind of simple once you do 
get into him, childlike, even."

My suggestion is, learn to be more like that (you can, actually), and save the nostalgia 
for appropriate situations.  Don't put yourself down with all that hero-worship.  That's 
for kids.