I went to the NSA museum in 2008, and they had *two* working enigmas, out, that you could use to send messages one to the other. So yes, yes they do let you play with them.
Re:His paypal account was used.
on
Fox Hacks Fark
·
· Score: 1
His website is not blank. Have a look at the source (accessed at 11:20PM EST on 17 Aug 2007):
<!-- Who are You --> <frameset rows="100%,*" border="0" framespacing="0"> <frame name="top" src="http://www.vidbeam.com/dp3.html" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="auto" frameborder="0"> </frameset> <noframes></noframe s>
A quick look at whois reveals that vidbeam.com is registered to Mr. Phillips as well. Oh, and there's a phone number and mailing address in that DNS info too. Very interesting - why does he have such a page?
Your post piqued my curiosity and I decided to investigate further. I ran an analysis looking for groups of alphanumerics and/or spaces and/or underscores and discovered a number of "interesting" lines. One I found interesting was
I too awoke to the green arrow signaling an upgrade. I love differential upgrades; this time the arrow was there for just about half a second. Now, here's the interesting part: When I go to the "About Mozilla Firefox" dialog, it says "Version 1.5". AND, when I go into about:config and look at the general.useragent.extra.firefox value, it reads Firefox/1.5. What do you all see when you look at the aforementioned values? Should I be seeing "Firefox 1.5 RC 3" or is this the norm? My theory is that Mozilla is rolling out 1.5 on a few machines, and will ramp it up as we approach the final, public release.
I think Safari did. All I'm saying is that Firefox is clearly much closer to supporting the W3C standards. Some standards may not be supported because Firefox needs to "just work" for most IE-designed sites. When IE gets up to par, more developers will stop taking shortcuts and start using STRICT mode.
Well, sure, if they were trying to share a modified version of the original torrent. The article certainly gives the impression that the torret is being posioned with modified "chunks" of data which, when reassembled into the file, create adware. However, the.torrent file should specify the checksum for each part - if it is invalid, the part is thrown out and gotten from somewhere else.
The same reason why checksums work in encryption is why altering the chunk and maintaining an identical checksum is theoretically possible: yeilding a functioning chunk with that same checksum would just be really, really hard.
I really think that these people are creating their own torrents, enticing users to download and use that.torrent file. Since they made it, the checksums will match the pre-made chunks, because the original file contains the adware.
Slashdot Mirror
I went to the NSA museum in 2008, and they had *two* working enigmas, out, that you could use to send messages one to the other. So yes, yes they do let you play with them.
Does CNN count? http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/05/iraq.photographers.killed/index.html
My bad, I didn't read at a low enough threshold. Ignore this post.
I too awoke to the green arrow signaling an upgrade. I love differential upgrades; this time the arrow was there for just about half a second. Now, here's the interesting part: When I go to the "About Mozilla Firefox" dialog, it says "Version 1.5". AND, when I go into about:config and look at the general.useragent.extra.firefox value, it reads Firefox/1.5. What do you all see when you look at the aforementioned values? Should I be seeing "Firefox 1.5 RC 3" or is this the norm? My theory is that Mozilla is rolling out 1.5 on a few machines, and will ramp it up as we approach the final, public release.
I think Safari did. All I'm saying is that Firefox is clearly much closer to supporting the W3C standards. Some standards may not be supported because Firefox needs to "just work" for most IE-designed sites. When IE gets up to par, more developers will stop taking shortcuts and start using STRICT mode.
Sure, Firefox may not pass the acid test, but look at Look how IE6 renders, err, butchers it. It looks like the smiley face has been blown to bits. And then look at how it is supposed to render. Firefox seems to be much closer to me...
Well, sure, if they were trying to share a modified version of the original torrent. The article certainly gives the impression that the torret is being posioned with modified "chunks" of data which, when reassembled into the file, create adware. However, the .torrent file should specify the checksum for each part - if it is invalid, the part is thrown out and gotten from somewhere else.
The same reason why checksums work in encryption is why altering the chunk and maintaining an identical checksum is theoretically possible: yeilding a functioning chunk with that same checksum would just be really, really hard.
I really think that these people are creating their own torrents, enticing users to download and use that .torrent file. Since they made it, the checksums will match the pre-made chunks, because the original file contains the adware.