Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.moderated,alt.sex.stories
Followup-To: alt.sex.stories.d
Organization: The Committee To Thwart Spam
Approved: <usenet-approval@qz.little-neck.ny.us>
X-Moderator-Contact: Eli the Bearded <story-admin@qz.little-neck.ny.us>
X-Story-Submission: <story-submit@qz.little-neck.ny.us>
From: Paul Robinson <foryou@erols.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.moderated,alt.sex.stories
Subject: VRSRFC.TXT - A technical introduction
I have an article to submit after I mention something about this group.
About two years ago, I proposed creating "alt.sex.stories.moderated", and
did so after the customary 1 week comment period on alt.config, despite
complaints that there was no need for it.
During the first month, I got one (1) story, which I posted. In the six months
following, I got five messages, all of which were spam articles which were
caught because they were posted to this group, which is moderated. As a result
of which, I decided that there really was no interest.
In the mean time I lost my internet access, which is why mail to TDR.COM
bounces. I am glad to see that in the end, this group did get to be useful.
I guess I was just ahead of my time.
I wrote the following about two years ago. You can probably guess why it was
rejected as a proposed Internet RFC.
Paul Robinson
Network Working Group Paul Robinson
Request for Comments: &XXX Tansin A. Darcos & Co.
April 1, 1993
Enhanced V R S via Internet
Status of this Memo
This note is an overview of an experimental protocol. This RFC
provides information only, and does not specify an Internet
Standard.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This RFC outlines an improved method for the performance of Virtual
Reality Services, Enhanced eXchange and transfer of associated
information. This document examines use of means which have
overhead (including "current methods") and other means not going
over the head at all, and compares these to some of the more
traditional methods being used in ordinary, "live" interactions.
The concepts being discussed here can provide for both user to
system transfers (i.e. with a machine on one end), as well as
inter- and multi-system transfer, and computer simulations without
human intervention. Current methods (such as wireheading) do not
provide for multiple user access.
This memo defines the general idea and concepts behind the
proposal, and why it was necessary to propose it; detailed
technical information are in other RFCs which should be published
later. Comments and/or suggestions on improvement of this method
are welcomed. Additional features and services which could be
provided are also encouraged to be submitted.
This document is an overview of a elective optional experimental
protocol and is provided for informational purposes to enable those
who wish to offer the capability to be aware of it (and security
risks inherent in VR technology) and to understand differences in
various implementations as documented in the media (literature,
motion pictures and television shows).
Robinson [Page 1]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background: Methods and Equipment in use . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Method of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
References of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Other RFCs that may be of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Certificate of Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Robinson [Page 2]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
Introduction
Methods of Virtual Reality in the Special Experimental eXchange
(hereafter referred to as VRS) protocol have tended to be primitive
in execution [1], when specifically used with current methods,
using cheap pulsed-wire [2] which have had limited use, or involve
expensive implant technology for radio-based computer
connection [3] or for direct implant connector blocks [4]. None of
these provided for virtual interexchange; at best they could be
used as an enhancement to methods which required live operators on
the ends of the connection. The method outlined in this RFC
provides for interexchange over Internet connected systems with
zero or more persons on hand as a part of the transaction.
Extremely limited forms of the capability discussed in this RFC are
available via telephone systems. [5]
This document outlines a method using the Internet to make
connections for this service instead of the much costlier (and
inferior) commercial methods which are in use. [6] Research
indicates this to be the most popular service available: in some
instances the mail, C and Fortran compilers, SMTP, TFTP, FTP, UUCP,
Rlogin, Kermit, ZMODEM and Telnet services were down for days to
weeks before anyone noticed, while failures of VRS for even
extremely short periods of time were complained about almost
immediately. [7]
Background: Methods and Equipment in use
In the media regarding this particular subject [8], equipment has
tended to go from intrusive to non-intrusive. In the Niven text
(Ringworld/Ringworld Engineers), the device was essentially a form
of external antenna implanted in the head and used exclusively as a
receiving device for electrical stimulation, and referred to as a
"current method". There was no means available for sharing of
information. In the Effinger text (Gravity), the access means was
a direct connection to a software module or add on. In the
Pournelle and Niven text (Feality), the implant is internal and is
used for computer connection only; it is essentially an access
device rather than a means for a complete simulation.
A slight additional mention of the movie "Robocop" should be made
as being non-typical since the title character is a "cyborg" or
"cybernetic organism": half-human, half machine. The person in
this circumstance cannot discontinue using the mechanism and go
back to being just an "ordinary" person; the appearance is clearly
obvious. Therefore the topic of cyborg use is generally not
covered by this RFC except to the extent one of them is one of the
ports or servers of a VRS transaction.
Robinson [Page 3]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
Recent developments in virtual reality have moved to non-invasive
forms. A somewhat older motion picture, "Brainstorm" used a
headset and a connection to a very high density optical data tape.
This still suffers from the same problem as described in Ringworld,
i.e. that the information is one-way only, i.e. there is no means
to transfer information directly in real-time or to simulate a
experience with changes. [9] It also had problems (best described
as a security issue) in the classes and kinds of data transmitted.
A close second example was described in the motion picture "Total
Recall", where a large chair is used to transmit data or even
personality modifications. The basic problem with this is still
that, with limited exceptions, the information being transmitted is
still unidirectional, and little or no interaction with others is
possible. [10]
A book entitled "Wargames," (having nothing to do with the motion
picture of the same name) did this also; several people would use a
large interface device and would run war games to see which of them
survived (in the game). It was in this book where a perfect
example of the method outlined herein was used. There were two
minor problems; use of the device required drugging to withstand
the images, and lack of security features. [11] It was due to
these type problems that this method is not recommended.
The latest and best reasonably achievable implementation appears to
be that as noted in "The Lawnmower Man" which is essentially the
mode this RFC refers to: full motion video, indistinguishable with
real-life visual images, with sound and sense impressions.
I note that in the motion picture "Brainstorm" a complete (one way)
transaction, with full graphics and sense of the type indicated by
this RFC was available on a tape; why this method was not available
for that film is uncertain; it may be that the people developing
the technology were unaware of each other, or there may be problems
involving underlying patent or government technology secrets. That
particular tape mentioned in "Brainstorm" was widely circulated and
one man cut a piece out and ran it many times.
The television show "Star Trek: The Next Generation" speaks of the
next level of technological development, the "Holodeck" wherein the
computer uses the capability to manipulate matter directly to
implement objects which appear to be real. It is not clear whether
the type of application used in this RFC is being done. [12] As we
do not now have the ability to direct manipulations of matter in
the real world, we are restricted to computer simulation via
device. [13]
Robinson [Page 4]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
Method of operation
Generally, there are three forms of VRS connections. The most
common connection is made via Binary Access Routing for
Horizontally Orga(BARHOP). Generally, eight bit
s will connect ull connect using "well ksing "well known" service port 69, sixteen
bit systems using "registered" service port 6969, and 32-bit or
larger system using unregistered service 06996690. In the event
these service ports are busy, inverted port numbers [14] may be
used, with caution. [15]
To distinguish between the usual TFTP access on Well Known service
port 69, VRS connections are also made by doing a simultaneous
connection at the same time on the ports for FTP, NNTP and SMTP.
This is colloquially referred to as a "banging on all fours," due
to the requirement that it signal all these ports simultaneously to
override the usual use of service 69. [16]
For the first class of VRS connection, semaphores are sometimes
used, involving the usual P and V modes. A P, or Point, requests a
connection to a Virtual Access Generic Inter Network Activator [17]
server. Optionally, some users choose point-to-point connections.
Whether this is due to preference or is a physical requirement is
beyond the scope of this document. One of the points must
generally be a recipient, so the point that is the recipient, for
the purpose of this explanation, is called a server. [18] There
are two forms of connection request. A request by a point to any
available server is made in promiscuous mode. Where a point has a
dedicated server or regular access to a specific server, a Linked
Object for Virtual Access Reconnect (LOVER) is used. A server may
also go out and search for a point, as a Synchronous Linked Usage
Tie (SLUT) but this is not recommended.
The second class of VRS connection is done where a point desires a
server but none is available. The point may test its own operation
on a Single Bus Master using service 8. This mode is referred to
as "Master B-8".
The third class permits optional VRS connections to be made where
one or more points is to be connected to one or more servers, and
declaring the connection to be a group which others may join or
leave. This connection is called Optional Routing Group
Interconnect Enhanced Services (ORGIES).
Robinson [Page 5]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
In the first class of connection, there is often consideration
about the age of the server. If a server has not been aged long
enough, concerns about Junk Access Interconnect Linkage - Binary
Activator Incorrect Transmission (JAIL-BAIT), e.g. a bad condition,
can occur. However, even with a sufficiently aged server, there is
an unusually strong interest by ports for first access to servers.
The older DecSystem-20 computer running TOPS-20 had this feature
built in through the ability to request a "virgin" process. Others
do prefer access to older often-used servers because of the higher
experience rating.
During the negotiation process, there is some information passed
between the point and server. At some specific time, either a
connection is accepted or rejected. In some cases a rejected
connection is taken by a point as an acceptance anyway. This
condition is referred to as a Refuse Access Point Exception (RAPE).
We are not sure why this happens. Some people have suggested that
the point be killed for this; others indicate this may be too
drastic a solution, and suggest disconnecting portions of the point
to discourage this practice. Others surprisingly don't see this as
a problem, saying that a server never really means "no" when it
allegedly refuses a connection.
A proper access point usually ensures that the server is properly
initialized and ready to accept a connection and the transmission
ensuing therefrom. In radio connections spread spectrum is often
used. In wire connections, wideband is used. For this reason, a
proper connection to a server is colloquially referred to as having
"made it spread/wide".
Assuming a connection is made, under ideal conditions the
appropriate information is transferred on an equal basis to both
sites (or to all sites when there is a group transaction in
progress.) It is considered a problem when all of the access time
is dedicated to the point with little or none to the server. Smart
servers have been known to refuse further connections from a point
that does this until better access is made.
Generally, once the connection is made, the transaction begins and
continues in almost all cases until the point terminates it. There
is a general flow of information during the entire transaction.
The flow usually operates in a back and forth manner, starting
slowly but building up to faster and faster back and forth flow
until the point indicates completion by transmitting to the server
a large termination packet. The connection may remain for a time,
but is usually exited shortly thereafter.
Robinson [Page 6]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank several dozen people who I have neither met nor
spoken to, who helped me find exact titles and authors of
references. I contacted these people exclusively by E-Mail and in
certain news groups, and I wish to thank everyone who assisted me.
References of interest
William Gibson, "Neuromancer"
Motion Picture, "The Lawnmower Man"
Larry Niven, "Ringworld"
Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven, "Oath of Feality"
G.A. Effinger, "When Gravity Fails"
Author Unknown, "Wargames"
Da Cruz, F. "Kermit Protocol Specification"
Forsberg, C.A. "Zmodem Protocol Specification"
Television Series, "Star Trek: The Next Generation"
Motion Picture, "Brainstorm"
Spider Robinson, "Copyright Violation" (Short Story)
Motion Picture, "Robocop"
Motion Picture, "Total Recall" (Book tie-in of the same name)
Motion Picture, "The National Film Board of Mars Presents:
'What on Earth?'" [19]
Robinson [Page 7]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
Security Considerations
Security can be defined in two parts: security of the material
transmitted, and security of systems or equipment being accessed.
For security against contamination, there are methods available in
the transmission methods used to detect contamination, but the
possibility of Acquired Interconnect Demarcator Shorting (AIDS) is
possible, especially on Promiscuous Connections in point-to-point
mode. Use of a Computer Operated Network Demarcator Override
Module (CONDOM) is recommended. Also, in some instances, spurious
transmission data (especially termination packets) may lead to
spawned processes. This may or may not be desirable. These
conditions should be discussed in the specifications of the actual
operating methods.
The referenced media brings up security issues in general [20],
including:
- When Gravity Fails: software implementations may be improperly
formed or intentionally malicious. [21]
- Brainstorm: failure to refuse information one is not
able to handle safety could result in
serious damage. [22]
- Total Recall: the technology is subject to abuse in
nefarious ways. [23]
It is important to note that the scheme mentioned in this document
is intended for the communications of informational messages
between systems and across networks. Thus the same precaution and
care should be applied to these files as would be to equivalent
messages received from remote and possibly unknown sites.
Robinson [Page 8]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
Other RFCs that may be of interest
1402 Martin, J. There's Gold in them thar Networks! or
Searching for Treasure in all the Wrong Places. 1993
January
1394 Robinson, P. Relationship of Telex Answerback Codes to
Internet Domains. 1993 January
1350 TFTP protocol (revision 2). Sollins, K.R. 1992 July
1349 Almquist, P. Type of Service in the Internet Protocol
Suite. 1992 July
1345 Character mnemonics and character sets. Simonsen, K.
1992 June
1340 Assigned Numbers. Reynolds, J.K.; Postel, J.B. 1992
July
1314 File format for the exchange of images in the Internet.
Katz, A.R.; Cohen, D. 1992 April
1312 Message Send Protocol 2. Nelson, R.; Arnold, G.
1992 April
1327 Mapping between X.400(1988)/ISO 10021 and RFC 822.
Hardcastle-Kille, S.E. 1992 May
1282 BSD rlogin. Kantor, B. 1991 December
1281 Guidelines for the secure operations of the Internet.
Pethia, R.D.; Crocker, S.D.; Fraser, B.Y. 1991 November
1135 Helminthiasis of the Internet. Reynolds, J.K. 1989
December
1036 Standard for interchange of USENET messages. Horton,
M.R.; Adams, R. 1987 December
977 Network News Transfer Protocol. Kantor, B.; Lapsley, P.
1986 February
976 UUCP mail interchange format standard. Horton, M.R.
1986 February
854 Telnet Protocol specification. Postel, J.B.; Reynolds,
J.K. 1983 May
822 Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages.
Crocker, D. 1982 August
821 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. Postel, J.B. 1982 August
804 CCITT draft recommendation T.4 [Standardization of Group
3 facsimile apparatus for document transmission].
International Telecommunication Union, International
Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee. 1981
Robinson [Page 9]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
Notes
[1]. See the Motion Picture, "The Lawnmower Man" for a demonstration of
the primitive appearance of people in Virtual Reality interface
points, especially the "spiral sequence" (often used
in previews for the film) where two people (in badly simulated
nudity) appear to spin together in a manner similar to water
running down a drain. While I suspect that full simulation
with obvious graphics could have been used, it is not precisely
evident why the simulation images are clearly simulated. There
are probably specific reasons why this was done, perhaps for
technical reasons (i.e. computer imaging capability not
sufficient), for economic reasons (they preferred an "R"
rating), or legal ones (the producer preferred to stay out of
prison).
[2]. Niven, L., "Ringworld": a character named Louis Wu decides to
shun the use of the methods outlined by this RFC in favor of a
"live" transaction. In the sequel, "The Ringworld Engineers"
he becomes a "wirehead" with a wire implanted in his brain as a
means to hide out from some people looking for him, and
essentially uses a crude form of this method. Both books
discuss the practice of "tasping" in which some people force
access to this method upon others without their consent.
[3]. Pournelle, J., and Niven, L., "Oath of Feality." It is noted in
the text that several people have implants for computer
connection; two of them use theirs for an enhanced form of
telepathy during one of the crude experiments in VRS where
physical connection is still involved. Note that the method
discussed in this text is similar to a "daddie" mentioned in
Effinger (see later cite) They are probably still working on
it; consider it evolution in action.
[4]. Effinger, G. A., "When Gravity Fails" New York: Bantam Books,
Inc, 1987. This discusses two types of access devices,
Personality Change Modules, or "moddies" and memory access
enhancement devices, called "daddies". A close example to this
RFC would be the "Honey Pilar moddy" discussed in the text.
The "implant" used in the Pournelle and Niven text, as
mentioned above, would be equivalent to "daddies" type implants
when mentioned by Effinger. A danger involved in this method
is discussed under "Security issues."
Robinson [Page 10]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
[5]. Commercial applications on a limited basis are provided in
advertisements usually on late-night television involving a
female who, in a hushed voice (probably to avoid waking people
up who have fallen asleep during the shows) announces a
telephone number in the U.S. 900 area code, or in some cases in
large cities by calling a local number in the 976 exchange.
[6]. The U.S. Government, in the United States, through the NSF,
picks up a large part of the cost of the Internet Backbone;
using the limited services provided via telephone 900 NPA or
976 exchange numbers, which are much lower capability, run from
20c to $20 a minute.
[7]. Depending on when failures occurred, people noticed very
quickly, and complained anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds after
loss of service, especially if loss occurred during the common
"burst" of material occurring near the completion of a
transaction. In smaller systems, VRS has to use the TFTP port
69. Even on larger systems, in some cases the large Internet
bandwidth and machine resources used for VRS often mandated the
disabling of Telnet, FTP, NNTP and SMTP. Since these services
apparently aren't of much importance to users on Internet,
their unavailability was often not noticed for long periods of
time.
[8]. The class of literature which introduced this concept is
usually referred to as the "cyberpunk" genre, with the
introduction of the William Gibson book, "Neuromancer."
[9]. I do note that in "Brainstorm", Christopher Walken is able to
receive the complete experience over a coin telephone line.
Also, the means by which the material is recorded is not made
very clear. Either the data runs in a special compressed mode
or there is a means to run much higher amounts of data than is
normally available in commercial applications being used. ISDN
supposedly will allow a 56KB data channel over ordinary phone
lines, but I do not think the pay station in question was an
ISDN line.
It may also be noted that computer technology, then, was much
less powerful and less available than today (as today's
computers will be obsolete junk in five years, assuming they
are going to last that long), and the idea of using a computer
to select the type of experience was probably not thought of.
Also, the connection could be multiplexed, i.e. the tape could
Robinson [Page 11]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
send the same information to several receptors, but the
transmission medium was one-way; there was no means for
feedback.
[10]. There is an apparent scene in "Total Recall" where the director
of the office running an access chair claims to have inserted
himself into the middle of a running program. ("Mr. Quaid...I'm
monitoring you from the Psychoprobe Console...") Part of the
plot of the motion picture is whether or not this statement is
correct; i.e. that the incident is not part of the running
program being experienced by the subject and that a very
complicated series of experiences are in fact a simulation, or
that he is really involved in a major political scandal.
[11]. In some cases, six people would interconnect to the machine,
but only five would come back. In one instance, a user
performed a VRS simulation on someone else, then figured a
means to leave them behind in the machine. As this system
could not store people longer than 1/2 hour, it meant that it
is possible to kill someone using a device of this kind. Such
activity is considered inappropriate as being somewhat rude,
and is generally frowned upon.
[12]. I suspect the producers of "Star Trek: The Next Generation"
have considered this, but the audience might feel it would
damage the show's reputation. Generally, they've tended to
avoid VRS in favor of live interactions.
[13]. This also brings up a new level of ethical question that the
media covering this area barely skims over: if you can use a
cheap means to get an experience indistinguishable from reality
and have the ability to get literally anything you want in a
simulation, what holds society together? People are killing
each other over the unlicensed sale and use of drugs which
provide a pale and vastly inferior experience; what happens
when you have something better than drugs and won't damage you?
(Of course, most of the killing is caused because the product
is illegal (which raises the profit level of those who supply
it) and the government is predisposed to use this as a straw
man to confiscate our civil rights.)
We might not have all that much to worry about: in 1913,
marijuana, cocaine, opium, heroin and other addictive drugs
Robinson [Page 12]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
were legal, and 2% of the population regularly used them.
Today: 80 years; billions of dollars of illegal drug profits;
hundreds of innocent people who, having done nothing wrong,
have had their life savings confiscated by the U.S. Government
without right of recourse; thousands dead; tens of thousands in
prison; and a President of the United States who used marijuana
later (excuse me, "did not inhale"), the result of the "war on
drugs" is that: surprise! 2% of the population is still using
drugs.
In short, the technology is either there or will be shortly; if
developed properly, a large number of people can benefit:
close, illegalize or restrict it and bootlegging and corruption
will occur. The fact that a few people misuse something is
insufficient reason to deny the benefits of it to others.
[14]. There are many complicated methods of inverting port numbers,
the simplest being to write the number down, turn the paper
over and use that number.
[15]. The biggest problem with inverting is the danger the process
could become a Failure Access Generic (FAG) and be unable to
use the standard ports unless the process is forced into Basic
Indexed-Standard Enhanced eXtended User Access Load
(BI-S.E.X.U.A.L) mode.
[16]. There is another "real world" use outside computer
interconnection for "service 69" but it is beyond the scope of
this document.
[17]. This is the precise term but is so rarely used that spelling
out the abbreviation is not needed, since we all know what it
is. Other more common slang forms are in use but are not
germane to this document.
[18]. Another form used is server-to-server mode. Since one of them
must initiate the transaction, the one that does so, for the
purpose of this RFC, is the "point".
[19]. This has nothing to do with the subject of this note; I just
like the title.
Robinson [Page 13]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
[20]. Some people don't think some of these are security issues? If
the mere breaking into a computer and stealing information is a
security issue, then what is breaking into someone's *mind* and
stealing their personality? Business as usual? (Oh yes, for
government agents it is, sorry.)
[21]. Those of us using the Internet are fully aware of the dangers
of malicious software, as has been discussed many times.
Precautions should be used against interfaces to software which
cannot be trusted for safety. I know people are going to try
stuff anyway, because people only learn through painful
experience, but at least I made the effort to raise a warning.
Effinger's work exemplifies where someone took a particular
module and instead of having it analyzed, executed it,
resulting in disastrous consequences.
[22]. To keep from spoiling the plot of "Brainstorm", some of the
details are omitted, but here is where the Security issue comes
into focus:
Someone recorded their own death onto the special tape.
Someone else discovers it and proceeds to play the tape,
resulting in severe pain; they disable the pain output on their
terminal only, and proceeds to play the tape. Right at this
point a third party at another location taps into their
transmission to monitor it, and ignores the warning from
someone else that they should disable part of the transmission.
Not having the pain receptors disabled, the transmission is too
much for them: they have a heart attack and drop dead.
[23]. A form of security issue involves obvious misuse of the
technology in disgusting ways. It could be abused to "wipe"
someone's personality and replace it with some kind of
construct personality complete with synthetic memories of
fictional events, i.e. mind control for dissidents. As with
any technology, there is always the possibility for abuse: in
one case they planned to erase a woman's memory and change her
personality; just another example of where something good can
be prostituted.
Robinson [Page 14]
RFC &XXX Enhanced VRS April 1, 1993
Certificate of Authenticity
As evidence that this document has been issued by and on the
authority of the author, I hereby impose my servicemark upon this
RFC as evidence of the validity of the issuer of this "document
transmitted by computer":
Paul W Robinson, is "TDarcos ... The Standard of Immorality" or
Tansin Arogan Darcos of the District of Columbia Territory of the USA
"Grind our enemies into the dust, and drown them in their own gore."
"Exploiting humanity since 1986."
"Above all else...We shall go on..."
_"...And continue!"_
- Servicemark Registered Commonwealth of Virginia, USA May 25, 1990;
Servicemark Registered State of Maryland, USA August 16, 1991.
Author's Address
Paul Robinson
Tansin A. Darcos & Company
8604 Second Avenue #104
Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA
Telex: 6505066432MCI UW
Internet Address: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Robinson [Page 15]