Your sig states: " I hereby inform you that I have NOT been
required to provide any decryption keys."
That is such a clever hack! I presume that the inane British law
which states that you are not allowed to tell us when you *have* been
required to do so, and punishes you unreasonably if you do, does *not*
punish you for *cough* "coincidentally" *cough* omitting that line from
you sig. Is this correct?
Bravo, sir! I sincerely hope this catches on and request that all
emailling anyone in the.uk domain consider adding something similar to
their.sig files. The clueful will catch on.
Scrymarch appears to not understand the decade which he apparently despises.
I would suspect he either had bad experiences during those years or, more likely, didn't live through them as a mature being. (One might add: "... hence, didn't grok them" but that would no doubt irritate him, heh.)
For that reason, I'm very curious about the age of this sixties-hater.
"[28]Cuban sent us the [29]pantscam (which is exactly what it sounds like)"
Well, I was curious about this pant scam, wondering why some plan
to import fake designer jeans would make it to Slashdot coverage.
I couldn't think of anything else that would be called pant scam, but
was curious... it turns out it's not "exactly what it sounds like"
but instead is a camera pointed to some woman's underwear. Well, at
least that's what it says it is -- I can't see it, since it requires
some form of javacrap and lynx doesn't have javacrap of any flavor.
(Lynx is fine for viewing graphics, for those who don't know this,
but javacrap, nope, and I'm glad of that.)
What's this have to do with Slashdot? Well, since I can't see
the site, I can't tell for sure, but I'm guessing there must be some
impressive new technology involved. After all, what good would a camera
be that's stuffed down someone's jeans? It's DARK there, right?
Someone who uses a javacrap-enabled browser please let the rest of us
know what's going on with this. I'm still curious, even if the site *is*
lame, heh.
It truly amazes me the number of people who respond to the outrageous
by saying "So what? That's reality."
To use a (United States-centric) analogy: In the sixties, many persons
decried the existence of racial injustices, such as "separate but equal"
restrooms, white-only lunch counters, etc. And many "negroes" (to use
the term of the day) reacted to the protests of their peers saying
"That's just the way it is; you will never change it. Be quiet and
accept it rather than irritate the oppressor."
It was only *because* people refused to accept the
unacceptable that change was made (albeit slowly.)
The same could be said of almost any social justice issue, not
just racial matters. Change came only because people did *NOT*
_tolerate_ the unacceptable.
Why do people tolerate privacy invasions? Why do people tolerate
the erosion of their basic rights? Why do people tolerate anything that
they perceive to be unfair or inapproprate?
It scares me to see the trends in this society. ("Sheeple" irritate
me, regardless of whether the term is cutesy or not.)
Why is "...then DO something about it!" no longer an acceptable
response?:-(
Summary: "Don't gripe that IPv6 is insecure, since IPv4 is insecure also."
Is that what you really mean? It certainly seems so.
Just because there are [whichever] problems in the status quo doesn't mean that [whichever] problems need to be accepted in future "improvements" in the (future) norm.
Changing an insecure model to a new model is the optimal time to fix the insecurities.
(Why isn't this self-evident? What am I missing here?)
There most certainly is. The first cross-platform app that comes to
mind is Speak Freely
and the documentation at that URL says, among other things:
Speak Freely is a [sic] application for a variety of Unix
workstations that allows you to talk (actually send voice, not typed
characters) over a network. If your network connection isn't fast enough
to support real-time voice data, various forms of compression may allow
you, assuming your computer is fast enough, to converse nonetheless. To
enable secure communications, encryption with DES, Blowfish, IDEA, and/or
a key file is available. If PGP is installed on the user's machine, it
can be invoked automatically to exchange IDEA session keys for a given
conversation. Speak Freely for Unix is compatible with Speak Freely for
Windows, and users of the two programs can intercommunicate.
That sounds to be exactly what you are looking for, and then some.
If you are a Debian user, you can even "apt-get install speak-freely"
and poof!:-)
"...throw your message through a compression algorithm, like zip or gzip then hit it with PGP."
Read the PGP source code. Compression-before-encryption is already
in place, standard. Unless things have changed, the InfoZIP (a
la PhilKatzZIP) method is still used, just as it was in the early
versions of PGP. (I haven't actually tracked PGP source changes
since I started tracking GnuPG
source, preferring a free(-as-in-freedom) alternative to the.COMmercial code.)
IIRC, somewhere in the docs I believe you will find an explanation as
to why compression-before-encryption is utilized / good practice.
You DID read the docs before using any crypto software,
right? (cf. {insert link here about why RTFM is even more important with
crypto than with other software} This link is left as an exercise for
"Reply" karma-gleaning, heh.)
Since it's in the docs, not just the source, I'm surprised you don't
know this. LOL.
(I'm not surprised others don't read crypto source before trusting it,
but I *am* surprised if they don't at least RTFM. Would they
also run untrusted binaries they receive via attachments to unsolicited
email?)
They are AOL, and wrote the infamous AOL TermsOfService agreement, to which your friend agreed when subscribing. If your friend doesn't like the practices of that particular Disney-esque company, he should subscribe to a real ISP and investigate their policies in advance.
Well, you see, I read this thing once, in grammar school. The called it the Fourth Amendment and had me write a paper on it. Perhaps you've heard of it....
(BTW, are you trolling, or are you really that clueless? No matter, your likely troll allowed me to make this point.)
Apparently there is some form of blocking involved. What is http://msid.msn.com/mps_id_sharing/redirect.asp? This appears to be the factor preventing us from seeing the article without tracking/blocking/whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
"... while [35]slashdot.org has seen a pronounced improvement in stability over the last year."
Draw your own conclusions.
I hope you realize that the next century begins in a little over a month.
Your sig states: " I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys."
That is such a clever hack! I presume that the inane British law which states that you are not allowed to tell us when you *have* been required to do so, and punishes you unreasonably if you do, does *not* punish you for *cough* "coincidentally" *cough* omitting that line from you sig. Is this correct?
Bravo, sir! I sincerely hope this catches on and request that all emailling anyone in the .uk domain consider adding something similar to
their .sig files. The clueful will catch on.
Scrymarch appears to not understand the decade which he apparently despises.
I would suspect he either had bad experiences during those years or, more likely, didn't live through them as a mature being. (One might add: "... hence, didn't grok them" but that would no doubt irritate him, heh.)
For that reason, I'm very curious about the age of this sixties-hater.
"That is the funniest shit I have ever read."
No pun intended?
Q. When will spammers desist?
A. Once *all* refrain from many *any* purchases electronically.
-
It's an obvious solution; too bad there are too many fools-with-credit-cards out there.
"Convenience" is the downfall of much of this society, and now it's infested the Internet as well.
Has someone changed your configs?
Plus that, the eipc site appears /.'ed already. :(
I wonder what was said in either. I wonder if I'll I'll hear are replies to some mistaken AC, etc.
Bah, some days suck in /.-ville.
"[28]Cuban sent us the [29]pantscam (which is exactly what it sounds like)"
Well, I was curious about this pant scam, wondering why some plan to import fake designer jeans would make it to Slashdot coverage. I couldn't think of anything else that would be called pant scam, but was curious ... it turns out it's not "exactly what it sounds like"
but instead is a camera pointed to some woman's underwear. Well, at
least that's what it says it is -- I can't see it, since it requires
some form of javacrap and lynx doesn't have javacrap of any flavor.
(Lynx is fine for viewing graphics, for those who don't know this,
but javacrap, nope, and I'm glad of that.)
What's this have to do with Slashdot? Well, since I can't see the site, I can't tell for sure, but I'm guessing there must be some impressive new technology involved. After all, what good would a camera be that's stuffed down someone's jeans? It's DARK there, right?
Someone who uses a javacrap-enabled browser please let the rest of us know what's going on with this. I'm still curious, even if the site *is* lame, heh.
"whether you like it or not"
It truly amazes me the number of people who respond to the outrageous by saying "So what? That's reality."
To use a (United States-centric) analogy: In the sixties, many persons decried the existence of racial injustices, such as "separate but equal" restrooms, white-only lunch counters, etc. And many "negroes" (to use the term of the day) reacted to the protests of their peers saying "That's just the way it is; you will never change it. Be quiet and accept it rather than irritate the oppressor."
It was only *because* people refused to accept the unacceptable that change was made (albeit slowly.)
The same could be said of almost any social justice issue, not just racial matters. Change came only because people did *NOT* _tolerate_ the unacceptable.
Why do people tolerate privacy invasions? Why do people tolerate the erosion of their basic rights? Why do people tolerate anything that they perceive to be unfair or inapproprate?
It scares me to see the trends in this society. ("Sheeple" irritate me, regardless of whether the term is cutesy or not.)
Why is "...then DO something about it!" no longer an acceptable response? :-(
Summary: "Don't gripe that IPv6 is insecure, since IPv4 is insecure also."
Is that what you really mean? It certainly seems so.
Just because there are [whichever] problems in the status quo doesn't mean that [whichever] problems need to be accepted in future "improvements" in the (future) norm.
Changing an insecure model to a new model is the optimal time to fix the insecurities.
(Why isn't this self-evident? What am I missing here?)
Go look at The US-based kernel mirrors and tell us what you see there.
You want telnet from such a box? Then use a URL such as telnet://yourboxhere.
Simple.
Not that I recommend using unencrypted telnet for logins, but you seem to do so already. (Hint: OpenSSH)
I've used Silva and Suunto brands. Is Brunton designed similarly (for topo maps) or is it some form of digital beastie? (Ick, if so.)
"Is there any voice encryption avaiable."
There most certainly is. The first cross-platform app that comes to mind is Speak Freely and the documentation at that URL says, among other things:
Speak Freely is a [sic] application for a variety of Unix workstations that allows you to talk (actually send voice, not typed characters) over a network. If your network connection isn't fast enough to support real-time voice data, various forms of compression may allow you, assuming your computer is fast enough, to converse nonetheless. To enable secure communications, encryption with DES, Blowfish, IDEA, and/or a key file is available. If PGP is installed on the user's machine, it can be invoked automatically to exchange IDEA session keys for a given conversation. Speak Freely for Unix is compatible with Speak Freely for Windows, and users of the two programs can intercommunicate.
That sounds to be exactly what you are looking for, and then some. If you are a Debian user, you can even "apt-get install speak-freely" and poof! :-)
Explain to me how a text file (which is what email is, right? plain text, per RFC 822, right?) can be *cough* "auto-shredding" please.
It's useless to lynx users (or anyone unable or unwilling to usejava) AFAICT. :-(
"...throw your message through a compression algorithm, like zip or gzip then hit it with PGP."
Read the PGP source code. Compression-before-encryption is already in place, standard. Unless things have changed, the InfoZIP (a la PhilKatzZIP) method is still used, just as it was in the early versions of PGP. (I haven't actually tracked PGP source changes since I started tracking GnuPG source, preferring a free(-as-in-freedom) alternative to the .COMmercial code.)
IIRC, somewhere in the docs I believe you will find an explanation as to why compression-before-encryption is utilized / good practice. You DID read the docs before using any crypto software, right? (cf. {insert link here about why RTFM is even more important with crypto than with other software} This link is left as an exercise for "Reply" karma-gleaning, heh.)
Since it's in the docs, not just the source, I'm surprised you don't know this. LOL.
(I'm not surprised others don't read crypto source before trusting it, but I *am* surprised if they don't at least RTFM. Would they also run untrusted binaries they receive via attachments to unsolicited email?)
"People who say you should be using PGP for any sensitive communications are right."
s/for any sensitive commuications/for any communications/
Of course, I might also s/PGP/GnuPG/g myself.Is this BetweenUs thing Open Source (since closed source is anathema in secure communications) and does it have a URL?
If I can't see the source, I'm sure not going to trust it (and even then... heh.)
They are AOL, and wrote the infamous AOL TermsOfService agreement, to which your friend agreed when subscribing. If your friend doesn't like the practices of that particular Disney-esque company, he should subscribe to a real ISP and investigate their policies in advance.
Well, you see, I read this thing once, in grammar school. The called it the Fourth Amendment and had me write a paper on it. Perhaps you've heard of it....
(BTW, are you trolling, or are you really that clueless? No matter, your likely troll allowed me to make this point.)
("apt-get install postfix-tls" if you use Debian.)
Take a look at RFC 2446 (Transport Layer Security) and RFC 2487 (SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over TLS) for details.
For an implementation, look at postfix-tls:
Start with the postfix site and then the TLS site if you don't have the ability to apt-get source I guess.
Can't read the article, for some reason. (Why is it blocked anyway?)
"You can read about it [23]on MSNBC.COM"
No I can't. Not with lynx and junkbuster.
Apparently there is some form of blocking involved. What is http://msid.msn.com/mps_id_sharing/redirect.asp? This appears to be the factor preventing us from seeing the article without tracking/blocking/whatever.
You were in COBOL?