Slashdot Mirror
How to Save PGP
Tomcat666 sends in: "The Register got some excerpts from an interview with Phil Zimmerman. He talks about how it might be possible to save PGP (Network Associates couldn't sell it, and will stop its development), OpenPGP and the future (industry-backed OpenPGP?)." A follow-up to our story yesterday about Network Associates mothballing PGP.
Who cares about PGP... if companies and investors are not opting in, there is a reason... ponder that.
Life Sucks... Have a Beer and a Smoke then Smile Damnit!!!
Just open source it...but then again open source and security software aren't best used in the same sentence.
Make your pet projects free from the start.
Notice that Phil wants to release it under a BSD style license. As much as we'd all like that, it probably isn't going to happen.
Isn't GPG (an OS implementation of the PGP protocol) exactly what you suggest? It's been around for quite some time.
--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.
This isn't the end of PGP. OpenPGP is always going to be around. (or almost always - its open but everyone could decide to trash it if they like)
This is the end of commercial PGP. This isn't a good thing for PGP to be used in commercial settings. Also this is the end of the PGPDesktop which was the only thing close to an option for (l)users.
Hopefully NSI will release the code in a manner that will allow a smaller company to add value and repackage it to large corporations.
$sig=$1 if($brain =~
/. get's about what, a million unique hits? NAI put 36 million into PGP, and since they're not finding a buyer, we can assume they'd be willing to take somewhat less for it.. let's say 25 million. If /. changes it's subscribtion pay pal account instead to be a funding house to purchase PGP, each user could donate 25 dollars,and we'd have a co-op that now owns PGP. This co-op could then market it as an inexpensive payware product, available for download complete with source code for a $5 license fee. This rids the need for /. subscriptions by generating income, opens the most current version of source code up for review, and allows independant programmers to modify this source code to continually improve the product.
A win win situation! 8-)
IANAL. This is tongue in cheek. I hate having to explain myself...
Isn't PGP kind of a dead end, ultimately? Based on my limited (and quite possibly wrong) understanding, as quantum computing research continues, it will become possible to break this encryption. Right?
I actually have no objections to it being presevered and developed, especially if it were Free Software, what I'm asking for is reasons for it to be preseved from the point of view of Free Software advocates.
That's not the real problem. PGP don't create terrorist, and we all know that encrypted mail/files aren't the only way to pass secret information. I belive we should all care about crypto. Like Phill Zimmerman says roughly: E-Mails are like postcards, PGP is just a tool to get you mail messages into an envelope. Privacy is the real issue about tools like PGP, if you are willing to let it go, goverments, industries and peoples will sooner or later abuse you rights. You're not free when you are always looked upon.
Colosse.
In the article Phil focuses on easy to use GUI interfaces for less technically adept end users as the major feature that the OpenPGP/GPG projects need to focus on. This is the main advantage that the commerical version provided, and the main thing lacking in all the other alternatives.
He clearly states that the PGP protocol is in no danger whatsoever, and will continue to remain widely implemented.
Having spent many hours deciphering gpg command lines to use PGP to its full potential makes you realize how usefull a simple, easy to use GUI interface to a PGP would be. (Implicit in this task is integration with other applications, however, you can find plugin support for almost anything that you wish to use PGP in)
The commerical PGP is only one implementation of the open PGP standard. Even up to 6.5.8, full source code was available from Network Associates.
Plus, there is GPG, PGPi, and other freeware implementations of the standard (under the umbrella of OpenPGP.org).
I don't see why "PGP" as a whole is going down.
It's like saying if Microsoft or Netscape decided to stop relasing browsers, then the entire WWW is doomed, when there's still Konquerer, Opera, Mozilla, and the whole W3C standards body, etc...
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
- Slick interface
- Good sponsor
- Open source
Since a slick interface would mean development and they current development is in limbo(with two shipable inferfaces in stock!!) I really don't think that an option. Second option is a sponsor, but since nobody is willing to buy pgp, I don't really think sponsorship will be attrictive to sponsors. Leaves only one optionI was doing my taxes today (oh joy) and marked the box that mentioned something like $3 to the Presidential election campaign fund. Perhaps we could have a few donation check boxes to buy lucrative abandonware into the open source world.
Then again, sometimes it might be good to just start some projects completely over. Remember Netscape?
GnuPG. Because only the technically oriented deserve privacy.
I'm a concientious
If he would have put it under the GPL from the beginning we would not be seeing this. He would be like the Linus of crypto, but he was so determined to controll the things he shouldn't be controlling that he lost controll over the things he should be.
Sorry, I don't believe in paying for software. Or charging for it. Ever.
One app that is going a along way to making PGP slightly easier is Evolution. It has the best PGP solution I've seen yet for email. Easy and simple to use, even Joe Barr agrees.
But, the problem is you still must maintain your GnuPG bits manually on the command line. That was the beauty of NA's program. It had a slick GUI. Of course, in the end it didn't take me very long to pick up how to use gpg via the command line, but for the general populace it's still a barrier.
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!
nt
What about the possibility of PGP technology being a part of the next major upgrade of open internet protocals (ie, POP, SMTP, etc .. )
:)
It seems to be that possibly losing out on the client-side 'niceness' that a commercial PGP implementation provides could be a non issue if the next round of standards include support for providing PGP mechanisms as part of their protocols (not that you'd HAVE to use PGP, but that PGP would somewhere in the protocol if you wanted to use it.)
That would reduce the need to depend on the never-surefire client market penetration in order to see widespead and longterm usage of PGP as a means of protecting ones privacy.
I've always felt open protocols make the best vehicles for propogating public-interest technology. That way, you dont need [Mailclient] + [PGP intergrated client] but [Mailclient that supports Next Gen Protocol X] where one of X's functionality sets uses a private/public key encryption scheme. Not sure what the likelihood of that happening is, tho, both from the perspective of when we'll outgrow the current crop of protocols, whether the new crop will be open enough to get public interests into the design phase, and whether the creators of said protocol would even think it would be a good idea to include a PGP layer in the protocol.
"Old man yells at systemd"
GPGME is a project to do this. From the website: "It provides a High-Level Crypto API for encryption, decryption, signing, signature verification and key management."
It's a work in progress. It's useable, but of course, there is the standard disclaimer. Compiles fine on most Linux distributions. It needed a small amount of help to compile on Mac OS X. Not sure about any other OSes.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
"got some"? Christ, READ the fucking article before hitting SUBMIT.
> And what's scandalous is that NAI has OS X and XP-ready versions, but won't ship them.
/create/ inefficiency in a market rather than reduce it.
We need some laws that force work into the public domain if it wont be exploited for the private domain. I'm sick of companies keeping what will go into the dustbin. This is another example of how too much private interest can
Of course, I respect that the work in question would probably have to pass some criterium whereby its release into the public domain would not cause significant damage to the company in question (if the company is to live on), but surely we can't believe that scenarios like this outweigh the benifits of laws forcing companies to push work they lose interest/money in back into the public domain?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Hello??? DO you have a brain with which to think? The parent comment was about how software being closed source does not necessarily make it secure. Microsoft is an example of someone making software closed source and yet very *insecure*. Damn morons...
CIA
A bad start.
Experiments with Mind Control
It gets worse
on Children
Yep, gotta save 'dem chilluns! Where's the bastard! We'll lynch 'im!
by Jon Rappoport
Ok, if you didn't stop before this, you can now. This is the man who claims that AIDS is not a virus, but a secret weapon of the drug companies!
He's a real tin-foil-hat kinda guy (or just found a market among that crowd).
The CIA mind-control apparatus has been well known since 1975
Obviously, I failed to stop. Pardon me, but what is your definition of well known?
when 10 large boxes of documents were released pursuant to Freedom of Information Act requests.
Oh, well that's certainly an interesting metric for well known! (later he claims that J.R. is a highly respected journalist, but fails to indicate who respects him....)
Several good books were then written on the subject of the CIA program known as MK-ULTRA.
They were good books of course. Not like those powdery, tasteless books you serve your relatives!
LSD and more powerful compounds
I live that line. I'm going to have it framed.
In case you're wondering, as with most nutters, J.R. has hit on a thread of truth, and then run with it to the mythalogical end-zone of his own creation.
There really were CIA experiments on CIA agents and civilians alike with LSD in the 60s. The CIA thought that it might work out as a truth serum of sorts, but it was not very effective, and had very dangerous long-term consenquences.
However, much of the rest of this theory is based on these axioms: 1) If you testify about something to a government panel, it must be true 2) the CIA has nothing better to do with its time than recruit children to perform missions that there are scads of willing volunteers in the military for 3) events which have common themes are obviously linked.
I recommend that you do your own research here. Books like this one are aimed to scare and shock (that's how they sell). If the facts don't fit, they are often... re-shaped.
If you want to play "spot the loonies" just look for key phrases like "in [document/testemony/etc] the name [government or corporate figure] came up" cited as "proof" that linkage exists between an event and a group that the author wishes to accuse of wrong-doing.
I have this uneasy suspicion that this is directly related to the Dubya-ment's new crackdown on freedo^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorism. Sure I'm paranoid, but the new McCarthyism may be farther-reaching than anyoine thinks.
Basically, you believe that people should be forced by big brother to share what they developed. This is on par with very few bad ideas that I have seen on /.. If I am an inventor, and I am eccentric enough to want to keep my inventions to myself, it's my business.
An economic system can NEVER be more intelligent that the people who control it, whether it's the combined brains of a million entrepreneurs, or a communist dictator. The best we can hope for is inccentifying intelligence, which laise-fair capitalism seems to do best.
(Don't mod me down because you dislike my opinions, but feel free to mod me up if you agree )
I'm a concientious
So sounds like Amnesty International should pick up the tab for developing PGP. I mean, I grant you, I think that PGP is a wonderful product and I'd like for network associates to keep it, but they are a business and if it's not making money for them, there's no reason for them to keep it around.
Personally I use GPG and think it works wonderfully, and Network Associates has nothing to do with that. May not have some of the bells and whistles of the full commercial PGP but it still does what PGP has always done, encrypt e-mail. Organizations like AI should be able to function fine with just that.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
SLASHDOT USER 3: open up your asshole as i stick this dildo into your cock
YHBT, YHL, IMHO, RTFM, ROTFLMAO, IANAL, HAND
PGP has always suffered from "realities." It suffered for a while from the US export "laws." It suffered for a while from RSA wanting to be able to cash-in on it's patent used in PGP v1. Now the reality is that the most mature GUI is abandon-ware but there is a "solution" of Apple or HP stepping in. Come on!! Apple and HP are themselves committing to the act of promoting a strong but small following and then abanding them. There was talk of IBM or Sun saving HP OpenMail. How is the "saving solution" for PGP any more practicle than the saving solution which never came to be for HP OpenMail? Because there is a PGP alliance? Hey! Come on! Even the alliance suffers from realities. They claim to be unbias in promoting OpenPGP implimentations but only the "true blue" implimentations of PGP get to make it on the OpenPGP Resources->Downloads page. Why isn't OpenPGP unbias enough to consider GPG as an OpenPGP Resources->Download? Could it be that OpenPGP is not unbias? The reality is this, NAI is does not care about it's past customers just it's future ones. The reality is that OpenPGP is not unbias group looking to help other OpenPGP implimentations but a puppet group of Zimmerman to try to keep his specific pet project implimentation alive. I think NAI PGP should die out as the sell-out close project that it was and "Open"PGP alliance can go with it, only then when these hidden agenda groups are done with can we get enough signal to noise for improving/maturing GPG.
It's true that currently GPG's user interface is terrible for beginning users if they have to use it directly. So, clearly, you want to use programs that embed GPG (like Evolution). Also, note that the German government is funding further development of GPG. They specifically say that their funding will be used to make GPG more usable by less experienced users, including porting the software to other operating systems, developing graphical user interfaces (GUI) and writing a handbook.
Thus, this sounds like a short-term problem at worst.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
It's like saying if Microsoft or Netscape decided to stop relasing browsers, then the entire WWW is doomed, when there's still Konquerer, Opera, Mozilla, and the whole W3C standards body, etc...
... at best of dubious value. They set the standards on which the web was built, but in the last year they seem to have shifted their purpose. The acceptance of patented "standards", e.g., is totally unacceptable. A patent is a grant of control over an expression of an idea, and increasingly over the idea itself. So the recent W3C activity is a total denial of publically accessible standards, to the extent that I won't use the word to describe their proposals. It is as if PGP (well, Network Associates) had first ensured that nobody else could create any implementation of a secure protocol, and THEN withdrew their package.
This was a lot better before you included the W3C. Many of their recent activities have been
If you delete the reference to the W3C, then your point is quite valid.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
but it was not very effective, and had very dangerous long-term
Sorry dude, try again. LSD doesn't cause any long term problems. What can cause long term problems is any tramautic situation, such as being force-administered drugs, or being unknowingly given mind-altering substances like LSD. It is also possible that LSD can cause latent mental disorders to have a quicker onset, but this is mostly speculation, and there have been few documented cases of people who had any permanant changes triggered by an experience with LSD.
You were correct in that LSD was abandoned as a weapon or a truth serum, but mostly because there were more effective things to use for both uses.
The Windows version of PGP was pretty nice and actually hooked in with MS Exchange and other software. No I never actually used it, I specified that communications between my group and a shop we were contracting out to be encrypted with PGP. I used GPG with Linux and they went with the happy windows user interface. Most managers and probably the majority of developers will want to use the Windows version if forced to use the encryption software (By some asshole like me pointing out that transmitting the source code in the clear is a violation of corporate security policies ;-)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Context is so overrated :)
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
then a)it has no value, and you have nothing to lose by giving it away, say, to the FSF, OR b) you can't find the value in it, and so maybe you should let someone else have a crack at it. (Add suggestions for 'someone else' as you see fit, but, of course, my vote goes to Phil.
part of the problem is that the IDEA algorithm is licensed technology from the Swiss company that owns the patent.
What PGP needs is a pluggable-encryption component, so that it could leverage something like AES
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
Really, if "they've" already compromised the system to the point where you have to worry about the libraries being secure, you've got bigger problems on your hands than the libraries being secure. The only thing the lack of a library is contributing to is a hampering of programmers incorporating GPG natively into everything from E-Mail clients to network protocols.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I think what he was saying (or should phrase it like) is that the government should not offer protections of 'intellectual property' to those who do not market/sell/use it.
With a large enough gun, any piece of physical property can be defended. Governments exist to keep us from needing guns to do that.
Intellectual property can ONLY be defended with the use of the government. By removing this government protection from IP that is not used, the market is MORE laise-fare(sp), not less.
Now, if the government were to take an active roll, such as disseminating IP that is not used, that would be wrong.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Great, well thought out troll. You even got me to reply to two of your points. 1)Who says Phil believes that only good guys will use strong cryptography. I have no idea what Phil's opinion really is, but I can't believe that he's stupid enough to believe this. Of course criminals will use strong crypto, as surely as they use telephones, automobiles, airplanes and computers (which I'll get to in a moment.) The important point here, which you carefully avoid, is that good people have crypto available. It really does save lives.
As for "The use of computers by terrorist groups is well documented. One such example by al Qaeda is in planning a bombing: "A computer used by top al-Qaeda chiefs contains a report of a scouting mission" [3]." Are you now going to suggest that, as well as not encouraging strong encryption, we should discourage the use of computers because the bad guys use them?
GPG.
Thats how you save PGP.
Brielle
PGP is a product of its own, which is probably good and bad -- good, because you can use it with non-email, and (awkwardly) with most mail clients. S/MIME would have to be built in, I imagine -- but a couple of easy implementations would bring encryption (and decryption) to many more people than the current situation with PGP/GPG/whatever.
So why aren't people making S/MIME capable clients?
They actually need to make (gasp!) MONEY from it. too bad slashdot nerds won't pay .....cuz their allowance has been cut off.
"So I totally know that the CIA are a binch of wackos. But when yokels say that a nine year-old has been part of the exps. then I laff and laff and laff."
This is funny... So you believe MK-Ultra but you refuse to believe that they would experiment on children. Because the CIA has too much integrity for that, right?
http://www.sente.ch/software/GPGMail/index.html
Instead of the GPL, think about the BSD license. Why? First of all, it's not your software. You aren't the developer or the contributor. The BSD license gives you exactly the same rights as a user under the GPL, plus a few more. On the flip side, the BSD license would allow easier incorporation of PGP technology into existing email clients. Remember, it doesn't matter how leet you are for using PGP if no one in the Windows world is using it. The GPL will relegate PGP to the tool-only status, but it should be much more than that. It should be a standard expected in all applications capable of communication regardless of their licensing.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It sucked or else it would have made money.
Vote Quimby!
I have used both and it seems both Evolution and KMail have about equal GPG integration... Unfortunatly neither seem to do much in the way of generating new keys or specificially associating keys with contacts... Both look in your db for a key that matches the contacts email... Evolution just errors when it can not find anything... Luckly KMail will actually let you choose a public key out of a list if you really need to.
Luke
In short, 80% of the people who read Slashdot are freeloaders who won't even pay to read their favorite web site.
What makes Slashdot such a great webpage? Is the ability to (most of the time) read about geek news? Or is the ability to read and discuss a certain post with thousands of technical savvy people?
I believe it is the second one. If you remove those 80% (the freeloaders) would you have the diversity? You'd probably have a lot less trolls, but I think you would lose a lot of good with the bad.
I belong to a great LUG which does not charge for membership. If they did, I wouldn't put as much effort into my time there. I try to give just as much as I get. Do I feel that I do? No, not really. I love going and hearing about aspects of Linux that I know nothing about and learning something new.
To tie that to your post, I feel the same way about Slashdot. I could pay for a news website, and get spoonfeed mass media trash, or exert my brain here on Slashdot. These freeloaders might be the very ones who give great info in AskSlashdot, or mirror slashdotted webpages. Pay to read their favorite webpage? They do! They try to give back to the Slashdot community as best as they can.
This is not meant to be a flamebait, you will notice I am logged in even. You seem to think cash is the ONLY method of paying for something. You have a lot to learn about life.
Vertical
72 CD D7 52 D0 7E D8 47 44 91 D5 84 D1 59 F1 A9-This is my 128bit integer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You're out of date. The latest w3c patent policy does *not* allow patented standards unless a Royalty Free license is available. There is a loophole in the policy that says effectively "if we hit a brick wall with this policy and can't implement a standard within it, we'll form an advisory group to decide what to do" (with the implicit suggestion that one of the things they might theoretically do is go with a patented standard) but there are a whole lot of hoops that must be jumped through before that point can even be reached.
Besides, as you would know if you'd done a little research rather than just skimming headlines, the w3c has never *had* a patent policy before, and therefore could easily have created a standard that relied on patented technology. The fact that they haven't is an indication of their general goodwill towards patent-free standards - when they got half-way through SVG and found that apple had a patent on alpha-blending, they stopped what they were doing for ages to try to ensure that the standard would remain patent-free. That was when they started looking into having a patent policy.
Of course, as a closed organization they first asked their members, who are primarily corporations, and those corporations said "we should have patented standards". Hence their first draft. Then they submitted the draft for public review, and NOBODY NOTICED. After a long comment period with no comments, someone suddenly posted it to slashdot with 2 days to go, and all hell broke loose - and the w3c essentially backtracked and now have a sane policy.
If anyone is to blame for the poor original policy, it's the fact that the community wasn't alert - it's mindboggling that the "many eyes" that are supposed to make bugs shallow didn't catch a major announcement like that from the w3c.
Stuart.
Properly used, a one time pad system is unbreakable. And you can send it in plain text.
An e-mail message would look like this:
e4sd4 3dkw22 kwdi4 dlw23 jdclp s3dgx and so on and so on.
Since the code is never used twice, you never get a good enough sample to break it unless you somehow get a copy of the code sheet.
No PGP needed - just discipline in properly using the system, never re-using a sheet, and destroying old sheets as soon as they're used. And there's very little tech involved aside from the e-mail itself.
PGP is more convenient, so we might as well save it for ourselves. The bad guys will always have a tool to use.
null sig
BSD? Are you joking? If I'm going to pay for something to be free, why would I want to subsidize the proprietary products of someone else?
But what I really want to do, at least initially, is to promise a payment, which becomes payable when enough other people have promised that the software's current owner agrees to the deal. Inevitably trust issues come up: I might welch on my promise. Or to make things more complicated, I might promise and pay only on the condition of anonymity.
How to do all this? One way would be to place the money in escrow for a limited time, and if the deal doesn't come together by then, I get my money back. The people trying to organize the deal would give themselves a time limit and encourage donors to set their escrow timers for that time limit. A reputable bank or insurance company (or maybe a casino?) could act as the escrow agent.
There's a guy named Ronnie Horesh with a very cool idea called social policy bonds, intended to bring market forces to bear on social issues. Government auctions off bonds, which mature when some measurable social goal occurs, and are then redeemable for larger amounts. He once commented that a social policy bond is like a bet. The government hedges its position (that, say, literacy is good) by begging that literacy won't go up. When literacy does go up, the government has to pay up.
In the same way, if I believe that PGP should go into the public domain, I may hedge that belief by betting Network Associates that they won't do that. They can easily win that bet by releasing PGP, when they decide that winning all those bets is more important than retaining PGP as closed-source software.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
The article seems to suggest that windows users are left in limbo. Not so. Check out:
http://www.winpt.org
No one asking you to pay. Last time I checked you didn't have any code in PGP anyway.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It just seems very strange that all of commerical products that provide good encrypted message transfer have suddenly become "unecconomical" for the companies that make them. Especially in this post Sept 11 world? I think there is something fishy here...And I don't like it.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Instead of putting GPG into a library you can write a CORBA interface and put Bonobo implementation into separate executable file. No more problems with corrupting GPG internals and it would be accessible from any programming language.
The important parts are the Windows infrastructure and the patented protocols that appeared in PGP5.
The Windows infrastructure is more than just the GUI - the GUI is OK, but nothing special. The infrastructure includes
- a low level secure storage driver at the OS level
- integration with many mail clients
- an Explorer shell extension to handle encrypt / decrypt, secure wipe, and verify functions
- a secure viewer with anti-tempest fonts
- the PGPNet VPN solution
- the PGPDisk secure storage solution
This is what NAI have paid to develop, and this is why it represents a major loss.Jon.
N/T
Where's jamie the fuckwad?
Who cares about PGP... if companies and investors are not opting in, there is a reason... ponder that.
The reason is the complexity. Most people are not concerned with complex key ring schemes, expiring keys, and electronically signing e-mail. They just want a way to encrypt e-mail so that it's not easily sniffed.
The Article said that freeware versions of PGP do no work with XP. That is simply not true. I am using PGP 6.5.8, and it runs fine in winXP Pro.
Also, MIT's PGP Distro site is operating.
-dcviper
Ummm, err, say what, now?
Maybe you ought to look at the post this was a reply-to-a-reply to, or even the post that you replied to.
You must smoke even more weed than me to have that much memory loss..
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
No. Instead of going for laissez-faire dear to US minds (but not to most other countries, something they don't seem to realize), governement can regulate to prevent non-sense and abuse. Losing Intellectual Property rights on unused material was the initial proposal. You can debate this, or the more dangerous related problem, companies buying a whole set of competitive technologies' patents just to bury them because they would kill their core business.
PGP is good enough to save the lives of political dissidents in africa, asia & south america from repressive governments reading their email.
There are numerous examples of windows being used in life or death workplaces and failing the user.
The US Navy once had to tow a Aircraft Carrier back to harbour just because Windows 95 died. What would happen if the Aircraft Carrier was in a warzone?
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Steering systems were apparently being run under NT in some way. I cannot imagine anyone feeling WIN9x was ever suitable for a mission critical application like that but possibly NT. That they apparently didn't have a suitable mechanical backup is telling - no chance of power being knocked out to that system during an actual fight? No chance of the computer hardware taking smoke damage and dying? Who builds these things?!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Sorry dude, try again. LSD doesn't cause any long term problems. What can cause long term problems is any tramautic situation
That's like saying that cars don't cause injury, getting into accidents in cars causes injury. True, but LSD puts the user into a state where they can become very agitated by even the most mundane of circumstances. It essentially creates traumatic situations.
LSD is not the demon drug that it has been labeled as, but having seen some friends take mental nose-dives on acid, that have lasted for months, I have to say that it's not exactly as safe as houses either. It's major saving grace is that it's not addictive. So, as long as you don't a) get locked into some "I need the drug to see the aliens" physchosis and b) don't use it as a gateway to other (addictive) drug use, it's easy enough to stop using it if there's a problem,and then seek help.
I think we're both basically on the same track here. I just don't belive in sugar-coating the dangers of mind-altering drugs of any kind (and I include drugs that doctors give out like candy without really understanding, here).