An eternal god creating both time and space would be analogous to starting a simulation - time in the simulation is just unrelated to you wall-clock time.
Yep -- and (to re-use your words from your other reply) you have to be kind of nuts if you believe that the simulated entities will, after they're deallocated, somehow migrate from the simulation into the "real" world that runs the simulator.
Saying "God did it" may have no practical predictive value, but many find it emotionally satisfying.
Yes, I guess that's true.
BTW, science also rests on a set of unprovable assumptions such as "deduction works", "induction works", and "sense data is somewhat reliable". The most you can say is that it seems like the minimal set of unprovable assumptions.
Good point -- however at least they're not unfalsifiable; and the moment it turns out that, say, deduction in fact doesn't work, you can expect science to shit bricks, deal with it, and start from scratch. Obviously not going to happen, though, because deduction works, which I deduct from the countless cases in which deduction clearly worked:-).
My point exactly. Though, religious people care, and act like they know. Ironically in hundreds of contradicting ways. But perhaps logical coherence too is optional outside this universe...
Okay, then the god always existed, that "appears" was just a detail that doesn't change my point in any way -- yes, on a high enough level it looks the same (in the sense that something happened that made (or ultimately caused) our planet/universe to become what it is now), but IMHO that's about where the similarity ends.
If god is eternal then it always was. If it wasn't then it isn't god.
I don't know -- didn't the ancient greek believ in gods that occasionally reproduced, creating more gods? (I'm really not sure if i'm remembering this right). That would mean the concept of 'god' doesn't necessarily imply that it's always been there.
[Science's position is] "there was nothing and then a big bang that created existence"
I think you're still misrepresenting that, because there was no point at which there was nothing. According to the current model anyway. I'm pretty sure that when scientists think about possible root causes of the big bang, they're perfectly aware that they have left the realm of science.
Science observes, tried to predict, and deals with things the way they appear to be. Religion comes up with something unfalsifyable (which is diagonally opposed to THE core principle of science) and assumes that they got it right. Nobody can prove them wrong after all. I see literally no similarity, and as initially said, the correlation ends at the fact that both scientists and religious people agree that our planet/the universe (i'd say "everything", but an eternal god would of course be except) probably had some sort of beginning. News at t=11.
I'd say the primary weakness of religion is that whatever is believed in is by definition untangible/undetectable/unprovable/etc, while the primary weakness in science is that you can never know whether your model is right, you can only be so sure.
What you mention is MAYBE a small weakness, but even then the correlation doesn't go that far; see my reply to AC)
Science says "there was a point in time when nothing existed, and then everything existed."
No scientist in their right mind would say that, since by the standard model, time itself was created with the big bang, so there was never "a point in time" at which nothing existed. It doesn't make sense to ask for the "before". So please check your statements, especially when you're trying to speak for science.
Now, the main difference in this matter between science and religion appears to be that religion actually sees it the way you described, i.e. "at some point nothing (except time itself) existed, then some intelligence appeared and created everything else", while science goes the "we don't know, we can't fundamentally find out, therefore speculating in this direction means leaving the bounds of science". There's a slim hope that once we have the right model, going back to t=0 and looking at what's going on COULD provide us with some understanding about how the big bang came to be in ways that we can't anticipate yet.
Hm, weird. Since fetchmail pulls mail via IMAP too, the client should make no difference. Maybe google has you tracked by some other means - web browsing behavior or so - that makes them more certain your connections are in fact coming from you.
Come to think about it, I've recently had those account "locking" happen spuriously without moving at all -- I received that "Someone has your password" mail for a few accounts, then they went inaccessible for a couple hours and then everything fell back to normal, without me doing anything whatsoever (i was at work while it happened). I'm also pretty strict about blocking google wherever I can (and yes I see the irony of still using gmail; I'm in the process of migrating away from it)
Use IMAP or POP and a real mail client. Don't use the web interface.
Found the guy who never moved or switched ISP.
(For anyone worried, it takes exactly one year for the account to become available again from your new location/ISP, if you don't want to link your phone/identity/whatever to your gmail account. Source: Changed ISPs 14 months ago; 2 months ago fetchmail reported authorization was restored for 3 gmail accs that where inaccessible)
(I spent the better part of today repeatedly bricking and unbricking a WRT1900ACS v2 in the attempt to migrate it from OpenWRT to LEDE and was literally just looking for my TTL-UART and JTAG programmer to bring in to work tomorrow to take it to the next level.) You saved me a bunch of work!
Official OpenWrt support for the WRT AC Series began under Chaos Calmer, with the LEDE Branch being the recommended Branch for the WRT AC Series
OpenWrt has not been actively maintained for the better part of a year and is no longer recommended for utilization. Last major commits for OpenWrt were close to a year ago, and as such, LEDE is recommended for utilization.
Sorry to break it to you, but the general consensus seems to be "Migrate to LEDE, OpenWRT is dead". Your APs better have enough RAM and storage. (That said, I'm running 15 OpenWRT APs myself, fun times ahead...)
If grabbing a random ciphertext [that I know is an ARP request] off the air and replaying that results in the AP receiving a legitimate ARP request, then why can't I grab a ciphertext that I know (or suspect) to be, say, a DNS request directed at the AP, out of the air and replay that in order to make the AP see another such DNS request that it's going to reply to?
I'm certainly not going to waste my time educating you.
The real reason you aren't going to elaborate on your statement is not that you don't want to waste time, it's because you know that if you described what you had in mind, it'd be immediately obvious that your GUI automation scheme is either a fucking awkward and fragile hack, or time-consuming to set up, or intrusive wrt. the program being automated, or blocking the rest of the UI, or whatever.
Then you add in a little pationce, let the clients and their constant telemetry build up a useful amount of traffic themselves.
Personally I have of course never attacked any WEP network myself, but a friend of a friend did a healthy amount of that and told me all about it.
You're right in that it's been a while since, then again, ARP replay is only one/the most obvious way of generating traffic. There is a lot of packets that when replayed will still produce some sort of a response (if only ICMP or TCP RST) so I doubt this is actually as difficult to pull off these days as you say.
So what should people use, who don't want WhatsApp or anything privacy impaired?
I suspect there is no decent solution that's ready for granny at this time.
Personally I'd be fine with, say, a libotr-using IRC client.
Signal being open source
Yes, that's a good thing. But IMHO less for finding out what it does with the permissions, as ripping out the functionality that uses those permissions. But the code base is probably large and doing that would be a time-consuming task
Slashdot Mirror
An eternal god creating both time and space would be analogous to starting a simulation - time in the simulation is just unrelated to you wall-clock time.
Yep -- and (to re-use your words from your other reply) you have to be kind of nuts if you believe that the simulated entities will, after they're deallocated, somehow migrate from the simulation into the "real" world that runs the simulator.
Saying "God did it" may have no practical predictive value, but many find it emotionally satisfying.
Yes, I guess that's true.
BTW, science also rests on a set of unprovable assumptions such as "deduction works", "induction works", and "sense data is somewhat reliable". The most you can say is that it seems like the minimal set of unprovable assumptions.
Good point -- however at least they're not unfalsifiable; and the moment it turns out that, say, deduction in fact doesn't work, you can expect science to shit bricks, deal with it, and start from scratch. Obviously not going to happen, though, because deduction works, which I deduct from the countless cases in which deduction clearly worked :-).
Who knows and, frankly, who cares.
My point exactly. Though, religious people care, and act like they know. Ironically in hundreds of contradicting ways. But perhaps logical coherence too is optional outside this universe...
Okay, then the god always existed, that "appears" was just a detail that doesn't change my point in any way -- yes, on a high enough level it looks the same (in the sense that something happened that made (or ultimately caused) our planet/universe to become what it is now), but IMHO that's about where the similarity ends.
If god is eternal then it always was. If it wasn't then it isn't god.
I don't know -- didn't the ancient greek believ in gods that occasionally reproduced, creating more gods? (I'm really not sure if i'm remembering this right). That would mean the concept of 'god' doesn't necessarily imply that it's always been there.
[Science's position is] "there was nothing and then a big bang that created existence"
I think you're still misrepresenting that, because there was no point at which there was nothing. According to the current model anyway. I'm pretty sure that when scientists think about possible root causes of the big bang, they're perfectly aware that they have left the realm of science.
Science observes, tried to predict, and deals with things the way they appear to be.
Religion comes up with something unfalsifyable (which is diagonally opposed to THE core principle of science) and assumes that they got it right. Nobody can prove them wrong after all. I see literally no similarity, and as initially said, the correlation ends at the fact that both scientists and religious people agree that our planet/the universe (i'd say "everything", but an eternal god would of course be except) probably had some sort of beginning. News at t=11.
I'd say the primary weakness of religion is that whatever is believed in is by definition untangible/undetectable/unprovable/etc, while the primary weakness in science is that you can never know whether your model is right, you can only be so sure.
What you mention is MAYBE a small weakness, but even then the correlation doesn't go that far; see my reply to AC)
Science says "there was a point in time when nothing existed, and then everything existed."
No scientist in their right mind would say that, since by the standard model, time itself was created with the big bang, so there was never "a point in time" at which nothing existed. It doesn't make sense to ask for the "before". So please check your statements, especially when you're trying to speak for science.
Now, the main difference in this matter between science and religion appears to be that religion actually sees it the way you described, i.e. "at some point nothing (except time itself) existed, then some intelligence appeared and created everything else", while science goes the "we don't know, we can't fundamentally find out, therefore speculating in this direction means leaving the bounds of science". There's a slim hope that once we have the right model, going back to t=0 and looking at what's going on COULD provide us with some understanding about how the big bang came to be in ways that we can't anticipate yet.
Either way, pretty big difference, if you ask me.
Hm, weird. Since fetchmail pulls mail via IMAP too, the client should make no difference. Maybe google has you tracked by some other means - web browsing behavior or so - that makes them more certain your connections are in fact coming from you.
Come to think about it, I've recently had those account "locking" happen spuriously without moving at all -- I received that "Someone has your password" mail for a few accounts, then they went inaccessible for a couple hours and then everything fell back to normal, without me doing anything whatsoever (i was at work while it happened). I'm also pretty strict about blocking google wherever I can (and yes I see the irony of still using gmail; I'm in the process of migrating away from it)
Could also mean that gmail is just broken.
Because you need competent people for that.
why would it be any less secure than IMAP or POP?
It isn't.
Use IMAP or POP and a real mail client. Don't use the web interface.
Found the guy who never moved or switched ISP.
(For anyone worried, it takes exactly one year for the account to become available again from your new location/ISP, if you don't want to link your phone/identity/whatever to your gmail account. Source: Changed ISPs 14 months ago; 2 months ago fetchmail reported authorization was restored for 3 gmail accs that where inaccessible)
Awesome, thank you SO much for that information!
(I spent the better part of today repeatedly bricking and unbricking a WRT1900ACS v2 in the attempt to migrate it from OpenWRT to LEDE and was literally just looking for my TTL-UART and JTAG programmer to bring in to work tomorrow to take it to the next level.)
You saved me a bunch of work!
From your link:
Official OpenWrt support for the WRT AC Series began under Chaos Calmer, with the LEDE Branch being the recommended Branch for the WRT AC Series
OpenWrt has not been actively maintained for the better part of a year and is no longer recommended for utilization.
Last major commits for OpenWrt were close to a year ago, and as such, LEDE is recommended for utilization.
You must be new here.
Sorry to break it to you, but the general consensus seems to be "Migrate to LEDE, OpenWRT is dead". Your APs better have enough RAM and storage.
(That said, I'm running 15 OpenWRT APs myself, fun times ahead...)
If grabbing a random ciphertext [that I know is an ARP request] off the air and replaying that results in the AP receiving a legitimate ARP request, then why can't I grab a ciphertext that I know (or suspect) to be, say, a DNS request directed at the AP, out of the air and replay that in order to make the AP see another such DNS request that it's going to reply to?
I'm certainly not going to waste my time educating you.
The real reason you aren't going to elaborate on your statement is not that you don't want to waste time, it's because you know that if you described what you had in mind, it'd be immediately obvious that your GUI automation scheme is either a fucking awkward and fragile hack, or time-consuming to set up, or intrusive wrt. the program being automated, or blocking the rest of the UI, or whatever.
Then you add in a little pationce, let the clients and their constant telemetry build up a useful amount of traffic themselves.
Personally I have of course never attacked any WEP network myself, but a friend of a friend did a healthy amount of that and told me all about it.
You're right in that it's been a while since, then again, ARP replay is only one/the most obvious way of generating traffic. There is a lot of packets that when replayed will still produce some sort of a response (if only ICMP or TCP RST) so I doubt this is actually as difficult to pull off these days as you say.
For cracking WEP, all you need is to capture enough traffic. If the network isn't busy enough, replay ARP requests.
I'm saying the folks who are claiming it can *always* be done or suggest that it's super easy haven't actually tried it.
And I'm saying they folks who claim what you claim don't understand the attack in question and hence failed to pull it off.
for the vast majority of systems administration work a GUI is superior.
Indeed, and it automates so well. Right?
According to the installer, I'm using the most secure Windows, so I'm good.
Is your middle mouse button broken or why do you right click links?
Yeah, but removing those permissions using privacy control is trivial.
What is privacy control?
Or Xposed.
That doesn't work on my phone.
If you don't use those, all that information about you could already be on the dark internet due to other apps.
Again, this was less about my privacy and more about attack surface in an app that wnats to be seen as highly secure.
Yep. But the code base is presumably fairly big so that'd take more weekends than I'm willing to invest.
So what should people use, who don't want WhatsApp or anything privacy impaired?
I suspect there is no decent solution that's ready for granny at this time.
Personally I'd be fine with, say, a libotr-using IRC client.
Signal being open source
Yes, that's a good thing. But IMHO less for finding out what it does with the permissions, as ripping out the functionality that uses those permissions. But the code base is probably large and doing that would be a time-consuming task
This wasn't about privacy. I'm willing to believe that the encryption itself is okay.
Hos is it abused and who the heck calls it "star emphasis"? Are you new to the internet?