But what if you actually did forget the password?
After a few rounds of torture anyone would dance ballet and sing "spank me, Charlie", but it wouldn't help retrieve the lost password.
In truecrypt there's a way, however, namely using 2 passwords on the same volume.
When you've created an encrypted volume/disk, backup the header and remember that password (the "admin" pwd).
Change your password to your everyday use (the "user" pwd). If things go bad you can restore the backup and use the admin pwd.
It's still a pwd to remember though.
And history (recent or old) depends on someone writing it down, communicating it, documenting it..
I don't think events that occured but no one knew anything about or never documented can be considered history. Although it is true that they happened. So by history is always recorded by winners I mean that it's always the winning, surviving, etc. part that jots it down and decides what the rest of us have to deal with. And people most often naively accepts this as 'truth'.
Take the example by Peter W. Zapffe of two men clutching to a stick of wood after a ship has gone down. The stick can't hold both of them floating, and switching will only exhaust them. Either they agree, or one hits the other and swim away with the stick or whatever else you can have happening in the middle of the ocean.
What will be the truth of that man when he returns as the single survivor? Will he tell how he bravely tried to help his friend? How the other got eaten by a shark? etc.. Whatever the man tells will be the truth for all other parties concerned regardless of what took place.
But that's the catch of communication, isn't it? Ultimately it's based on a single pillar, which is trust.
We're another fine example of people discovering common grounds through dialogue:)
I fail to see why the truth should not be a 'mere psychological idea'.
What are you talking about here? The mass of the apple in casu (say a real one, not a metaphysical idea!) is constant right now to what it is right now. These 'nows' are swift, however. Everything changes continuously. So, the only thing imperial about it is who decides what it (the truth) inhibits in his cause at a particular occasion for whatever reason(s) the speaker consciously or not has/ve. Drastically more so when our field of inquest is history. But that's hardly a 'property of truth'. It's all us.
An "ostensive analysis" of truth would not point at any object other than man him/herself.
This does not mean that I don't recognize the apple's existence per se, but that most of our truths about it are ours. Our descriptions use descriptors within our framework(s) to comprehend the world. If you call the world the truth, I wholeheartedly agree that there is one (and only one), but I fail to see what it has to do with history which is our little stories. (Constantly argued about, changed and rewritten:)
And I think you're right about our little confusion:)
Your "what has actually occurred" seems so divine, yes?
Was my way of pointing out the place, it seems to me, you are granting objectivity in a "soft science".
I do not question light. That wouldn't make sense. But if you're talking about truth, you should acknowledge that light has velocity at such and such a rate because we've established (or founded, rather) a framework (see: physics) in which to put light in. The speed of light is not such a good example anyway, since we do not deal with it in our lives, except for our leisure reading of Einstein (and whatnot). If you consider quantum mechanics (or theory), Einstein admits the consequences of it renders a silly universe. I do not believe the universe is silly, and I don't think Einstein meant that either. But the consequences of our theories sometimes reveal our presuppositions (and straight out false judgments) about our environment and the universe we live in. It also reveal or prejudices about our own beliefs (both 1st and n'th order). (//End crackpot)
But light, as said, is a bad example. Light has nothing to do with history.
Darkness, however, is a more fitting description of our knowledge in such an area:)
"the truth (of history) is a factual description of events". I choose to interpret it along the lines of "Historical truth is a factual description of events that did occour".
It sounds reasonable.. and impossible..
'Today I'm not feeling as bad as I did yesterday, recovering from a flu, and I also got my paycheck today.' That's a factual description of an event (or state of affairs) that have occured today. Now. Please tell me that you know this is the truth, and how you know it.
Now, what other truth(s) do you propose? What's unchangeable about the truth as opposed? And what does it say?
All I want to know is _exactly where_ is the ontology of this truth of which you speak? Nobody visited the forest. Where is the truth about what happened in the forest? Where is its facticity?
Apropos Through your definition anything I say could be tautologist. And through what you're saying it could not?
Technically, you're speaking about a 'roommate', correct?
Just wanted to clear that out. So-called roomies have been found to lack the intelligence of avoiding daylight and the public eye, in contrast to the de facto Slime Mold.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this Japanese what I met not half an hour ago in this very chatroom.
Sysop: Oh yes, the, uh, the Japanese Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with 'im?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with him, my lad.
'E's dead, that's what's wrong with him!
Sysop: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead Japanese when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Sysop: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!
Remarkable chatters, the Japanese Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it, does it? 'E's stone dead!
Sysop: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
...
Mr. Praline: 'E's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! 'E's pining!
Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This Japanese is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e
rests in peace! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-CHATTER!!
"Truth isn't a psychological state - it's a fact"
If Truth=fact, then what you said is 'a is not b, a is a' which is a tautology. What you're saying is that a cow is a cow. Which is trivial.
If you mean that Truth somehow implies fact(s) or the other way around, it's not a tautology, but an inaccurate statement iff 'is' is a statment of identity (a='a), which I believe is what you're saying.
As for what happened, what other things have we to hold to than other people's account?
I'm not a sceptic myself. But I acknowledge that human knowledge works like communication (in fact it is communication!), and communication resides on social structure(s) (as opposed to something 'objective'). Kripke's chain of communication should give you an idea of what I'm trying to say.
Oh, and I'm not flaming. I think this is interesting.
Your "what has actually occurred" seems so divine, yes?
We salute revisionist government and it's retro-active position on history.
Uhmm.. have you ever read a history book?
History is written by 'the winning side'. Always.
That's what power's all about. It's not about changing the future, it's about the past. In governing people's thoughts, controlling the past is the key.
And according to Einstein, everything is energy.
So not only are we related, we are only superficially parts of a bigger picture.
This also means that/.ers are related to/. servers.
They'll have this little counter on the login page, showing you how fast google is pumping gmoney into your account. 'cause they don't want you to stop spending like we used to in the past. No. They want you to spend as much as you can, 'cause that's what having an account is all about.
It's totally free, you'll only see these small text-based ads (with relevant info), and you get all the gmoney you want. Google, changing the way you think about money.
Slashdot Mirror
Free markets make dumb BS like this eventually go away.
Eventually? What, you mean like Enron?
SHAKE your dwindling marketshare, baby!
This gives a more accurate meaning to the term 'brute force attack'.
Man, the dame disappeared.
Date: 2006-02-11, 1:53AM EST
This posting has been removed by craigslist community.
133020397
That's not gonna work, since bankers, bureaucrats and lawyers don't have mums.
but Beyond Good & Evil was a really good game. :)
Nietzsche made a game too?
The old chap never ceases to surprise me..
In Soviet Russia, servers keep you.
Cowboy Neal has taken his precations.
.dupe {visibility: hidden}
In the html:
<p class="dupe">Insert-Dupe-story-link</p>
And in the css:
But what if you actually did forget the password?
After a few rounds of torture anyone would dance ballet and sing "spank me, Charlie", but it wouldn't help retrieve the lost password.
In truecrypt there's a way, however, namely using 2 passwords on the same volume.
When you've created an encrypted volume/disk, backup the header and remember that password (the "admin" pwd).
Change your password to your everyday use (the "user" pwd). If things go bad you can restore the backup and use the admin pwd.
It's still a pwd to remember though.
Truecrypt User Guide page 68.
And history (recent or old) depends on someone writing it down, communicating it, documenting it..
I don't think events that occured but no one knew anything about or never documented can be considered history. Although it is true that they happened. So by history is always recorded by winners I mean that it's always the winning, surviving, etc. part that jots it down and decides what the rest of us have to deal with. And people most often naively accepts this as 'truth'.
Take the example by Peter W. Zapffe of two men clutching to a stick of wood after a ship has gone down. The stick can't hold both of them floating, and switching will only exhaust them. Either they agree, or one hits the other and swim away with the stick or whatever else you can have happening in the middle of the ocean.
What will be the truth of that man when he returns as the single survivor? Will he tell how he bravely tried to help his friend? How the other got eaten by a shark? etc.. Whatever the man tells will be the truth for all other parties concerned regardless of what took place.
But that's the catch of communication, isn't it? Ultimately it's based on a single pillar, which is trust.
We're another fine example of people discovering common grounds through dialogue:)
I fail to see why the truth should not be a 'mere psychological idea'.
:)
What are you talking about here? The mass of the apple in casu (say a real one, not a metaphysical idea!) is constant right now to what it is right now. These 'nows' are swift, however. Everything changes continuously. So, the only thing imperial about it is who decides what it (the truth) inhibits in his cause at a particular occasion for whatever reason(s) the speaker consciously or not has/ve. Drastically more so when our field of inquest is history. But that's hardly a 'property of truth'. It's all us.
An "ostensive analysis" of truth would not point at any object other than man him/herself.
This does not mean that I don't recognize the apple's existence per se, but that most of our truths about it are ours. Our descriptions use descriptors within our framework(s) to comprehend the world. If you call the world the truth, I wholeheartedly agree that there is one (and only one), but I fail to see what it has to do with history which is our little stories. (Constantly argued about, changed and rewritten
And I think you're right about our little confusion:)
Certainly, and I'm glad you replied!
Your "what has actually occurred" seems so divine, yes?
Was my way of pointing out the place, it seems to me, you are granting objectivity in a "soft science".
I do not question light. That wouldn't make sense. But if you're talking about truth, you should acknowledge that light has velocity at such and such a rate because we've established (or founded, rather) a framework (see: physics) in which to put light in. The speed of light is not such a good example anyway, since we do not deal with it in our lives, except for our leisure reading of Einstein (and whatnot). If you consider quantum mechanics (or theory), Einstein admits the consequences of it renders a silly universe. I do not believe the universe is silly, and I don't think Einstein meant that either. But the consequences of our theories sometimes reveal our presuppositions (and straight out false judgments) about our environment and the universe we live in. It also reveal or prejudices about our own beliefs (both 1st and n'th order). (//End crackpot)
But light, as said, is a bad example. Light has nothing to do with history.
Darkness, however, is a more fitting description of our knowledge in such an area:)
"the truth (of history) is a factual description of events". I choose to interpret it along the lines of "Historical truth is a factual description of events that did occour".
It sounds reasonable.. and impossible..
'Today I'm not feeling as bad as I did yesterday, recovering from a flu, and I also got my paycheck today.' That's a factual description of an event (or state of affairs) that have occured today. Now. Please tell me that you know this is the truth, and how you know it.
Now, what other truth(s) do you propose? What's unchangeable about the truth as opposed? And what does it say?
All I want to know is _exactly where_ is the ontology of this truth of which you speak? Nobody visited the forest. Where is the truth about what happened in the forest? Where is its facticity?
Apropos
Through your definition anything I say could be tautologist. And through what you're saying it could not?
Technically, you're speaking about a 'roommate', correct?
Just wanted to clear that out. So-called roomies have been found to lack the intelligence of avoiding daylight and the public eye, in contrast to the de facto Slime Mold.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this Japanese what I met not half an hour ago in this very chatroom.
...
Sysop: Oh yes, the, uh, the Japanese Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with 'im?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with him, my lad.
'E's dead, that's what's wrong with him!
Sysop: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead Japanese when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Sysop: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!
Remarkable chatters, the Japanese Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it, does it? 'E's stone dead!
Sysop: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Praline: 'E's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! 'E's pining!
Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This Japanese is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-CHATTER!!
"Truth isn't a psychological state - it's a fact"
If Truth=fact, then what you said is 'a is not b, a is a' which is a tautology. What you're saying is that a cow is a cow. Which is trivial.
If you mean that Truth somehow implies fact(s) or the other way around, it's not a tautology, but an inaccurate statement iff 'is' is a statment of identity (a='a), which I believe is what you're saying.
As for what happened, what other things have we to hold to than other people's account?
I'm not a sceptic myself. But I acknowledge that human knowledge works like communication (in fact it is communication!), and communication resides on social structure(s) (as opposed to something 'objective'). Kripke's chain of communication should give you an idea of what I'm trying to say.
Oh, and I'm not flaming. I think this is interesting.
Your "what has actually occurred" seems so divine, yes?
I'm not sure you understand "your own" concepts:)
What was once a freedom fighter, is now a terrorist. All depending on whose side you're at (and it don't need be only two of em).
"Truth isn't a psychological state - it's a fact." That's a tautology and you know it. Do you think repeating it will make it true?
At least in Australia they give us a beer for our blood :) :D
/.!
Gets you drunk much faster
So, what you're saying is that beer gets you drunk faster?
Man, I learn something new every day at
This is really not so breaking news, since everyone have ordered Vista a long time ago to play Duke Nukem Forever.
I have yet to see a good argument for the existence of time at all.
Where, should one ask oneself, is its ontology if not in the minds of the self?
Jürgen, is that you?
We have some pictures of your girlfriend we'd like to show you. It'll cost.
We salute revisionist government and it's retro-active position on history.
Uhmm.. have you ever read a history book?
History is written by 'the winning side'. Always.
That's what power's all about. It's not about changing the future, it's about the past. In governing people's thoughts, controlling the past is the key.
Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it
So, Einstein wouldn't be allowed to write about physics?
Or André Breton on Surrealism?
I don't get it.
And according to Einstein, everything is energy. /.ers are related to /. servers.
So not only are we related, we are only superficially parts of a bigger picture.
This also means that
I am sure there are lots of people like that out there, just that us geeks are not aways aware of them.
One word: Management.
*shudder*
They'll have this little counter on the login page, showing you how fast google is pumping gmoney into your account. 'cause they don't want you to stop spending like we used to in the past. No. They want you to spend as much as you can, 'cause that's what having an account is all about.
It's totally free, you'll only see these small text-based ads (with relevant info), and you get all the gmoney you want. Google, changing the way you think about money.