Then we simply have a fundamental disagreement. A public key listing an email address without any backing evidence (i.e. signatures from trusted keys) has no more claim that it was created by the person who controls the email address than a spam email with a spoofed "From:" header does.
So, from my position, any hypothetical involving these is as ridiculous as a person freaking out about prosecution on, I don't know, child porn charges, because it is possible for a malicious person to send child porn to your local DA while spoofing your email address.
In an ideal world, the DA is smart enough to do an actual investigative work to realize the "From:" header has been spoofed (so this is stupid thing to worry about); in a stupid world, the DA is already dumb enough to be duped by something like this, so criminalization of "failure to provide decryption key" doesn't add any more legal jeopardy to someone who is unfortunate enough to be a target of a malicious actor.
Anyways. This is a fundamental disagreement (you are not going to see my point of view; last few exchanges have proven that; I consider myself smart enough not to agree to your position), so I'll leave it here. We are at an impasse; I'm not going to convince you; you are not going to convince me.
Make up your mind (assuming I'm arguing with the same AC). Does the existence of a public key mean you have the private key or not?
Either such assumption is an idiotic (and dangerous) one to make, meaning the police really ought to apply at least some aspect of web of trust (or if not the official web of trust, some level of due diligence, ruling out the exact scenario you were concocting), or such an assumption is a valid one, meaning you have no excuse when someone sends you an encrypted message using "your" public key.
My position has been consistently the former; yours seems to change at the moment's convenience.
As a teacher, when I link to Wikipedia in any of my course pages, it's because I have personally verified that what is on that particular Wikipedia page is true. That is the general rule of thumb for my classes (and I assume for other teachers who haven't checked out): Feel free to use online resources but beware of their accuracy; trust the online resources I link you out to as your teacher.
Funny thing is, people who haven't already chosen to live in a city for other reasons seldom advocate for this position. This is just a form of self-righteousness where somehow something you are already inclined to do is also a morally righteous thing to do.
dd command, you are full of crap. You can't (or at least shouldn't) dd to a disk device that is mounted. There shouldn't be anything for umount command to unmount when you are done with dd, not to mention that unless you backgrounded dd process, dd command doesn't to caching—and you can always send a USR1 signal to a running dd command to tell it to tell you how many bytes have been transferred.
Previous poster who didn't understand how public-key encryption worked. When you just find a random public key on a key server, you are not supposed to trust that it belongs to the person that it claims to. Only when the public key is signed by enough trusted people, the key can be assigned to someone (read: web of trust).
For a key that can be assigned to you this way, you definitely had access to the private key at some point, and you ought to have generated a revocation certificate at that time.
If your point is government agents are stupid and they won't do the due diligence to check if the key actually belongs to you, well, you don't need to bring in cryptography to make an argument based on the fact that governments are run by stupid people.
I stopped reading after "but if you do not have the revocation certificate?". It's like asking "what do I do in a car accident if I do not have an auto insurance?"
Why, simple; you invent a time machine, go back in time, and make sure you have done this one, low-cost prudent thing that you ought to have done.
I admit steganography will never be "unbreakable" as strong encryption (OTP, if quantum computers become a reality and asymmetric ciphers become breakable) can be. It's the difference between stealth and impregnable fortress—a fortress you can actually make impregnable; with stealth, you do your best and hope that your enemy doesn't notice you were there.
I personally prefer the probable safety of stealth over the definite likelihood of impregnable fortress attracting attention.
That's why steganography exists. Don't make it obvious you have something to protect, unless you have a literal stronghold to actually protect it with.
P.S. BTW, I assume you meant to say "with a public key associated with a private key that I don't have access to?", because I am generous. The way you prevent that from happening is you revoke your public key once you don't have access to your private key. (And the way you do that is by generating revocation certificate and keep it somewhere safe before you lost access to your private key.)
Well, if your point is LFS isn't meant for a production system, sure, point taken (and to echo an AC sibling, if all you are doing is copy-and-paste, you are missing the point of using LFS, which is not to practice masochism).
But if the primary purpose of choosing a distro is to learn how the operating system works (not just where a particular distro places its configuration files), then Slackware does not occupy the distinguished spot; it's just grouped with all the other distros with package management system that have not yet made GUI primary configuration tool—I myself am partial to Debian, which is the last distro I used regularly before my job more or less made me use Windows.
How much of that is actual Google app and how much of that is actually Samsung or HTC crap? Unless you have one of Google's phones, chances are, most of that space is not taken up by vanilla Android apps but by the crap your phone wanted installed to spy on you (or push their stuff).
The average person in Germany worked the least, at 1,356 hours in 2017
I'm guessing the figure includes people who are working part-time (or possibly not even working at all, if it is a "per-capita" number of hours worked).
When you say "my own collection", you mean MP3s that you didn't purchase through Amazon, right?
Yeah. That was a bummer; it was good to have music from local bands uploaded to my Amazon account and have it available everywhere (if Amazon had sold their music, I would've bought them through Amazon).
One downside of Amazon Alexa compared to Google Assistant seems to be Amazon Alexa, even on a Fire device, is just an app that can't control other apps. I have music downloaded from Amazon on my tablet device, and when I play that music through Alexa, I need to maintain network access (while Amazon's own Music app can play offline music offline).
Frankly at this point, anybody who expected a good-faith action from AT&T deserves what they got. AT&T will not keep any of its implied promises unless they are contractually bound to perform it—and even then, it will probably get its lawyers working on a way to find a loophole.
I do blame Netflix for not prioritizing their DVD service enough—the only aspect of their business that wasn't beholden to entrenched content producers. The first time I cancelled my Netflix subscription was when they didn't let me just keep DVD service and opt out of the streaming thing that didn't work on my Linux box anyway (at the time). The second time I cancelled my Netflix subscription is because their streaming selection is crap (even though Netflix is not to blame here). I realize they spun off DVD.com, but I've been turned off so many times by Netflix now, that I'd rather stream what remains available on Amazon Prime than keep going back and forth with Netflix.
You don't have to ignore all reviews. You can choose to read 1-star and 2-star reviews and weight them accordingly. Amazon reviews are just like any other advertisements or product reviews; everyone lies and everyone has their own agenda, but that doesn't mean you can't still glean some information from the story that other people are trying to spin.
Blame it on stupid, uneducated journalists. Either they are regurgitating somebody's marketing speak (as you said, "100 billionths of a second" sounds impressive, because it invites a misinterpretation), or, even worse, they are generating this nonsense phrase themselves. Nothing is wrong with simple "100 nanoseconds" or even 10 MHz synchronization signal, which is what it would correspond to, if you were sync'ing lab equipment.
Not all---they forgot his own Linux box, a rogue device which a contractor apparently had been allowed to maintain completely on his own separate from this excellently integrated system.
The point is Jesus never answered obviously political questions in any kind of straightforward manner. If you are actually interested in what Jesus would say/do, actually read the Bible, without reading into it your own views and biases.
Slashdot Mirror
Then we simply have a fundamental disagreement. A public key listing an email address without any backing evidence (i.e. signatures from trusted keys) has no more claim that it was created by the person who controls the email address than a spam email with a spoofed "From:" header does.
So, from my position, any hypothetical involving these is as ridiculous as a person freaking out about prosecution on, I don't know, child porn charges, because it is possible for a malicious person to send child porn to your local DA while spoofing your email address.
In an ideal world, the DA is smart enough to do an actual investigative work to realize the "From:" header has been spoofed (so this is stupid thing to worry about); in a stupid world, the DA is already dumb enough to be duped by something like this, so criminalization of "failure to provide decryption key" doesn't add any more legal jeopardy to someone who is unfortunate enough to be a target of a malicious actor.
Anyways. This is a fundamental disagreement (you are not going to see my point of view; last few exchanges have proven that; I consider myself smart enough not to agree to your position), so I'll leave it here. We are at an impasse; I'm not going to convince you; you are not going to convince me.
Make up your mind (assuming I'm arguing with the same AC). Does the existence of a public key mean you have the private key or not?
Either such assumption is an idiotic (and dangerous) one to make, meaning the police really ought to apply at least some aspect of web of trust (or if not the official web of trust, some level of due diligence, ruling out the exact scenario you were concocting), or such an assumption is a valid one, meaning you have no excuse when someone sends you an encrypted message using "your" public key.
My position has been consistently the former; yours seems to change at the moment's convenience.
As a teacher, when I link to Wikipedia in any of my course pages, it's because I have personally verified that what is on that particular Wikipedia page is true. That is the general rule of thumb for my classes (and I assume for other teachers who haven't checked out): Feel free to use online resources but beware of their accuracy; trust the online resources I link you out to as your teacher.
Funny thing is, people who haven't already chosen to live in a city for other reasons seldom advocate for this position. This is just a form of self-righteousness where somehow something you are already inclined to do is also a morally righteous thing to do.
Go fuck yourself.
I believe that for cp command.
dd command, you are full of crap. You can't (or at least shouldn't) dd to a disk device that is mounted. There shouldn't be anything for umount command to unmount when you are done with dd, not to mention that unless you backgrounded dd process, dd command doesn't to caching—and you can always send a USR1 signal to a running dd command to tell it to tell you how many bytes have been transferred.
Previous poster who didn't understand how public-key encryption worked. When you just find a random public key on a key server, you are not supposed to trust that it belongs to the person that it claims to. Only when the public key is signed by enough trusted people, the key can be assigned to someone (read: web of trust).
For a key that can be assigned to you this way, you definitely had access to the private key at some point, and you ought to have generated a revocation certificate at that time.
If your point is government agents are stupid and they won't do the due diligence to check if the key actually belongs to you, well, you don't need to bring in cryptography to make an argument based on the fact that governments are run by stupid people.
I stopped reading after "but if you do not have the revocation certificate?". It's like asking "what do I do in a car accident if I do not have an auto insurance?"
Why, simple; you invent a time machine, go back in time, and make sure you have done this one, low-cost prudent thing that you ought to have done.
I admit steganography will never be "unbreakable" as strong encryption (OTP, if quantum computers become a reality and asymmetric ciphers become breakable) can be. It's the difference between stealth and impregnable fortress—a fortress you can actually make impregnable; with stealth, you do your best and hope that your enemy doesn't notice you were there.
I personally prefer the probable safety of stealth over the definite likelihood of impregnable fortress attracting attention.
That's why steganography exists. Don't make it obvious you have something to protect, unless you have a literal stronghold to actually protect it with.
P.S. BTW, I assume you meant to say "with a public key associated with a private key that I don't have access to?", because I am generous. The way you prevent that from happening is you revoke your public key once you don't have access to your private key. (And the way you do that is by generating revocation certificate and keep it somewhere safe before you lost access to your private key.)
Year of Linux on Desktop! (Seriously.)
Well, if your point is LFS isn't meant for a production system, sure, point taken (and to echo an AC sibling, if all you are doing is copy-and-paste, you are missing the point of using LFS, which is not to practice masochism).
But if the primary purpose of choosing a distro is to learn how the operating system works (not just where a particular distro places its configuration files), then Slackware does not occupy the distinguished spot; it's just grouped with all the other distros with package management system that have not yet made GUI primary configuration tool—I myself am partial to Debian, which is the last distro I used regularly before my job more or less made me use Windows.
That's such bullshit. If you want to learn Linux, you use LFS. Anything else is for posers and babies.
How much of that is actual Google app and how much of that is actually Samsung or HTC crap? Unless you have one of Google's phones, chances are, most of that space is not taken up by vanilla Android apps but by the crap your phone wanted installed to spy on you (or push their stuff).
It's supposed to be funny to people who are too dumb to realize they are on an American website.
Judging by this blurp,
I'm guessing the figure includes people who are working part-time (or possibly not even working at all, if it is a "per-capita" number of hours worked).
When you say "my own collection", you mean MP3s that you didn't purchase through Amazon, right?
Yeah. That was a bummer; it was good to have music from local bands uploaded to my Amazon account and have it available everywhere (if Amazon had sold their music, I would've bought them through Amazon).
One downside of Amazon Alexa compared to Google Assistant seems to be Amazon Alexa, even on a Fire device, is just an app that can't control other apps. I have music downloaded from Amazon on my tablet device, and when I play that music through Alexa, I need to maintain network access (while Amazon's own Music app can play offline music offline).
It's not the first declension for no reason.
Frankly at this point, anybody who expected a good-faith action from AT&T deserves what they got. AT&T will not keep any of its implied promises unless they are contractually bound to perform it—and even then, it will probably get its lawyers working on a way to find a loophole.
I do blame Netflix for not prioritizing their DVD service enough—the only aspect of their business that wasn't beholden to entrenched content producers. The first time I cancelled my Netflix subscription was when they didn't let me just keep DVD service and opt out of the streaming thing that didn't work on my Linux box anyway (at the time). The second time I cancelled my Netflix subscription is because their streaming selection is crap (even though Netflix is not to blame here). I realize they spun off DVD.com, but I've been turned off so many times by Netflix now, that I'd rather stream what remains available on Amazon Prime than keep going back and forth with Netflix.
You don't have to ignore all reviews. You can choose to read 1-star and 2-star reviews and weight them accordingly. Amazon reviews are just like any other advertisements or product reviews; everyone lies and everyone has their own agenda, but that doesn't mean you can't still glean some information from the story that other people are trying to spin.
Blame it on stupid, uneducated journalists. Either they are regurgitating somebody's marketing speak (as you said, "100 billionths of a second" sounds impressive, because it invites a misinterpretation), or, even worse, they are generating this nonsense phrase themselves. Nothing is wrong with simple "100 nanoseconds" or even 10 MHz synchronization signal, which is what it would correspond to, if you were sync'ing lab equipment.
Not all---they forgot his own Linux box, a rogue device which a contractor apparently had been allowed to maintain completely on his own separate from this excellently integrated system.
I am puzzled why this is marked funny. What's funny about the painful process of reminding someone the same thing a thousand times?
The point is Jesus never answered obviously political questions in any kind of straightforward manner. If you are actually interested in what Jesus would say/do, actually read the Bible, without reading into it your own views and biases.
Most normal people just type it as uTorrent, spelling visually.