You've seen and acknowledged my point, I'd say I communicated it quite well. You, on the other hand, refuse to state yours; yet you claim I'm the poor communicator?
But if audience think of more possibilities...
I still have no proof that you've done so.
you guys get crazy
Ah, I see, you must be projecting. Insulting someone you purport to be attempting to teach is pretty damn crazy.
Back on the topic of educating: typically, thought exercises follow examples. You've given no examples, thus it is improper form to present thought exercises.
You fail to see the relevance (or lack thereof) of many things, my friend. Perhaps that is why we don't seem to understand each other? For example, that an executable file is executable is irrelevant if you do not intend to execute it. However, if you do intend to execute it, your willingness to trust it is always relevant, regardless of its purpose; you must be willing to trust that it does not contain malicious code. As with every truth, there are exceptions, such as when you are executing a binary in a sandbox to, just as an example, determine what it does. But, we were discussing the actions and intents of the majority of users, not the handful of security researchers who might do that, and that is what makes the line of discussion you introduced highly irrelevant.
That I was attempting to stick the the topic, and was unwilling to consider possibilities which might apply to a different topic, is not my shortcoming; that you are unable to see that this is what I was doing is yours. Likewise, that the only way you could argue your point was to attempt to change the topic shows just how weak your point must be.
Additionally, simply telling me to "think" is not giving me a hint. You introduce no new information, yet I'm somehow magically supposed to think differently. You couldn't teach a lightbulb to glow if your finger was already on the switch, my friend.
And, yet, you still can't provide another reason yourself.
Here's the thing about intelligent people: they typically try to educate. One example of that is stating a position and supporting it with facts when questioned, something I have been doing for the duration of our conversation. Another example is a willingness to learn, something I have been displaying (e.g. by asking you to provide and explain the example you claim I am missing). You, on the other hand, keep hinting at (though not actually stating) a position, refusing to back up any position with fact, and making posts full of insults and nothing more (without scrolling up to count them, there have been at least 3 of those so far): all signs of intellectual weakness.
Furthermore, my statement was not that there is no reason to use an executable for testing encryption unless it is the only file available, a position you attempted to attack though I never held it
Speaking of which, what the fuck does any of this have to do with trusting a binary?
With your IQ, possibly you might understand it in a year if you try hard. The clues are in this post as well, though only clear enough for a 6 year old non-developmentally-challenged human.
Then why did you say...
Because I thought the other reason was obvious to someone of at least average intelligence and, therefore, went without saying. Oh, I get it... you're being pedantic.
With your IQ, possibly you might understand it in a year if you try hard.
My last IQ test, within the past month or so, places me in the top 3% of the population, since you mention it. That said, if I were to try hard (like you're doing), I might figure out that you're just a worthless subhuman troll who can't find his way back to his bridge. But, then, you're not worth the effort.
Why don't you simply state the supposed 3rd reason to use a binary to test encryption? Because, while you denigrate me for not being able to produce one, you yourself don't have a 3rd reason.
Wow, so you finally acknowledge that I gave two reasons and you want a 3rd? Why don't you give a 3rd reason? I mean, you've kept asking me to provide another reason and I've kept telling you I clearly can't think of one and suggesting that you come up with one, instead. Let's see... At least I think I did.
Ahh. Yes. Here it is:
If I'm missing something, how about you educate rather than denigrate?
and
Want to change that? State your point.
and
Why don't you tell me? Did we stumble across one of your homework questions?
and
Clearly I do not know the answer. I'm fairly certain you do not, either, or you'd have spoken up by now.
Furthermore, my statement was not that there is no reason to use an executable for testing encryption unless it is the only file available, a position you attempted to attack though I never held it. Likewise, my statement was not that there is no reason to use an executable for testing encryption unless it is to prove that it remains executable, another position you attempted to attack though I never he'd it. My statement was that those are the two reasons I can think of; though, it seems you've finally realized that and are, once again moving the goal posts.
Speaking of which, what the fuck does any of this have to do with trusting a binary? Have you given up on that front? And, if so, why?
You're still a shitty troll, by the way, but your persistence intrigues me. Not since 4chan have I seen such persistent failed attempts at trolling.
What evidence do you have of this? You honestly are one of the shittiest trolls I've encountered in quite some time; bonus points for your persistence, though.
Actually, I provided the reason in the post that prompted you to ask for it in the first place, 12 hours ago. I also directed you to it once and quoted it twice, even highlighting the relevant part in bold text in the first quote. Additionally, you quoted it, twice if you count this post. That it took you until now to actually read what you were replying to (and quoting, even) is not my deficiency.
I've seen smarter baboons than you
There you go projecting, again. Even a baboon, were he able to read English, would read the complete sentence he were replying to before flinging his own feces across the room the way you have here.
though even the dumber ones did need to be thought of as having won.
In retrospect, I don't think it's fair to say I won; you didn't really put up much of an argument, though you were quote persistent in not doing so.
Do you take back the statement? Or do you stand by it?
Clearly, as I've stood by every other statement I've made thus far, it would be unlikely that this one would be any different.
So far you've defended it only in the unlikely special case that this was the only option available.
Except, and you've now quoted and acknowledged it twice, where I said:
unless you need to make sure it remains executable
So, now, we have two cases: where it is the only file available (which really shouldn't ever be the case), or where you wish to ensure it remains executable (e.g. to test the encryption and decryption processes).
How about the general case?
In general, any viable encryption will be able to work with any data. You could test it with literally any file. If the file is not intended to be executed, that it is executable is irrelevant, as is this entire line of discussion as far as I can tell.
You keep asking this question:
Can there be no other reason than to make sure it remains executable?
Clearly I do not know the answer. I'm fairly certain you do not, either, or you'd have spoken up by now.
I'm sure you've got, as most trolls do, this vision in your head of me sitting at my computer raging, throwing my mouse, pounding on my keyboard, and punching my monitor. Sorry to ruin your day, but you might want to review my posting history; I feed trolls like you for fun, not out of rage. I'm sitting here, with my wife, laughing at each and every one of your posts. I'm sending the highlights to my friends so they can get a chuckle out of your idiocy as well and, all the while, you think you're winning. I love it.
I've learned nothing from you. Everything you're supposedly taught me thus far has been things I've already said, that you've missed or misinterpreted, that I've then pointed out I already knew before you "taught" me, by referring to where I stated what you were "teaching" me before you "taught" it.
There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable
You just imagined that I said there was no reason. You also missed, even after I pointed it out to you, the bolded part of the text I just quoted. Try not to miss it a 3rd time. I, then, continued to point out the following:
in which case you're going to execute it and, therefore, must trust it.
Now, I know nobody is as stupid as you're pretending to be. And I know you know I know you're trolling. How can it even still be fun for you at this point? If I were you, I'd just be embarrassed, continuing to attempt trolling someone who has, several times, called you out on it and admitted they simply enjoy feeding your kind.
Yeah... I guess "just set the laptop on this thing" solves a lot of "where does this cord go" support tickets, which are literally always answered with "the only place it fits" or, after a few hundred from the same user (and after you've already found alternate employment), "up your ass".
You know, for the few who can't manage to plug in 3 cables (power, USB, and display). Or 2, in the case of a Thunderbolt dock (power and thunderbolt). Or 1 in the case of USB-C.
How do the people for whom this is actually beneficial manage to breathe, let alone maintain gainful employment? And that question, right there, is why I don't do IT support.
What if I tell you I already know that, as evident by my saying both "Over any other file?" and "And if it's not, you've chosen it over other files."
Sorry. I forgot, for a moment, that you're projecting onto me your inability to parse English. In that moment, I did not realize you were trying to tell me what I already pointed out.
:) Of course you don't answer your own riddle, because you don't have the answer. Because, of course, you pulled it out of your ass for the sake of argument and there is no answer, as it is based on a false premise.
Why would it be the only available file? And if it's not, you've chosen it over other files. And you still have to either execute it to confirm that it is actually executable, or trust that it is.
If I'm missing something, how about you educate rather than denigrate?
Over any other file? No, there is not. Well, except for the use case described after the word "except" in the sentence you quoted. Perhaps if you'd actually been able to parse English...
Also, if you're not going to execute it, you must trust that it is actually executable.
While it is absolutely true that African people were (and still are today) slaves of other African people, it does not excuse the purchase of those people by Whites. That said, going back through my family history I've found no evidence that anyone in my family ever owned slaves, yet I still get shit from time to time for what "my ancestors" did to "their ancestors". How about a big fuck you to anyone who subscribes to that logic? Regardless of race.
Thunderbolt, USB 2.0/3.0, and USB-C docking stations have been on the market for as long as their respective ports have existed. All of them can be used with any system that has the required port.
Oh, hey! You posed another argument after 5 posts of only insults. Sure, you slipped it in after another insult, but at least you made the effort. I guess I can take the time to go back and address one of the "points" I skipped over.
Well, you can't look beyond the end of a process. Hire an old AI to parse language, and you might be able to make sense.
What happens beyond the end of the process is not part of the process; I explained this a few posts back, you didn't understand that, but you claim I'm the one with language processing problems. That's all fine and well, I'm still going to claim you're the one with his head up his ass.
Binaries that are in non-executive role e.g. test payload for an encryption program, have a very different trust signature from those in executive role. Liquids, similarly, depending on their role.
There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable, in which case you're going to execute it and, therefore, must trust it. As for liquids, regardless of their role you must trust that they will fulfill that role. At least I got you to inject an argument into your insult stream this time.
But, that you stopped arguing and started the insult stream for 5 posts (whereas I simply injected insults into my arguments in response) tells me one thing: I've won. The rest of this is just for kicks.
Because the concept applies to all liquids and all binaries. I thought you FOSS nuts were all about not artificially limiting shit. I guess that flies right out the window when you decide it's fime to start trolling?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, poor communicators like you
You've seen and acknowledged my point, I'd say I communicated it quite well. You, on the other hand, refuse to state yours; yet you claim I'm the poor communicator?
But if audience think of more possibilities...
I still have no proof that you've done so.
you guys get crazy
Ah, I see, you must be projecting. Insulting someone you purport to be attempting to teach is pretty damn crazy.
Back on the topic of educating: typically, thought exercises follow examples. You've given no examples, thus it is improper form to present thought exercises.
Not if you only have to deal with them one at a time.
You fail to see the relevance (or lack thereof) of many things, my friend. Perhaps that is why we don't seem to understand each other? For example, that an executable file is executable is irrelevant if you do not intend to execute it. However, if you do intend to execute it, your willingness to trust it is always relevant, regardless of its purpose; you must be willing to trust that it does not contain malicious code. As with every truth, there are exceptions, such as when you are executing a binary in a sandbox to, just as an example, determine what it does. But, we were discussing the actions and intents of the majority of users, not the handful of security researchers who might do that, and that is what makes the line of discussion you introduced highly irrelevant.
That I was attempting to stick the the topic, and was unwilling to consider possibilities which might apply to a different topic, is not my shortcoming; that you are unable to see that this is what I was doing is yours. Likewise, that the only way you could argue your point was to attempt to change the topic shows just how weak your point must be.
Additionally, simply telling me to "think" is not giving me a hint. You introduce no new information, yet I'm somehow magically supposed to think differently. You couldn't teach a lightbulb to glow if your finger was already on the switch, my friend.
And, yet, you still can't provide another reason yourself.
Here's the thing about intelligent people: they typically try to educate. One example of that is stating a position and supporting it with facts when questioned, something I have been doing for the duration of our conversation. Another example is a willingness to learn, something I have been displaying (e.g. by asking you to provide and explain the example you claim I am missing). You, on the other hand, keep hinting at (though not actually stating) a position, refusing to back up any position with fact, and making posts full of insults and nothing more (without scrolling up to count them, there have been at least 3 of those so far): all signs of intellectual weakness.
Ball's in your court. Prove me wrong.
Furthermore, my statement was not that there is no reason to use an executable for testing encryption unless it is the only file available, a position you attempted to attack though I never held it
Then why did you say There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable, in which case you're going to execute it and, therefore, must trust it.
Speaking of which, what the fuck does any of this have to do with trusting a binary?
With your IQ, possibly you might understand it in a year if you try hard. The clues are in this post as well, though only clear enough for a 6 year old non-developmentally-challenged human.
Then why did you say...
Because I thought the other reason was obvious to someone of at least average intelligence and, therefore, went without saying. Oh, I get it... you're being pedantic.
With your IQ, possibly you might understand it in a year if you try hard.
My last IQ test, within the past month or so, places me in the top 3% of the population, since you mention it. That said, if I were to try hard (like you're doing), I might figure out that you're just a worthless subhuman troll who can't find his way back to his bridge. But, then, you're not worth the effort.
Why don't you simply state the supposed 3rd reason to use a binary to test encryption? Because, while you denigrate me for not being able to produce one, you yourself don't have a 3rd reason.
Ahh. Yes. Here it is:
If I'm missing something, how about you educate rather than denigrate?
and
Want to change that? State your point.
and
Why don't you tell me? Did we stumble across one of your homework questions?
and
Clearly I do not know the answer. I'm fairly certain you do not, either, or you'd have spoken up by now.
Furthermore, my statement was not that there is no reason to use an executable for testing encryption unless it is the only file available, a position you attempted to attack though I never held it. Likewise, my statement was not that there is no reason to use an executable for testing encryption unless it is to prove that it remains executable, another position you attempted to attack though I never he'd it. My statement was that those are the two reasons I can think of; though, it seems you've finally realized that and are, once again moving the goal posts.
Speaking of which, what the fuck does any of this have to do with trusting a binary? Have you given up on that front? And, if so, why?
You're still a shitty troll, by the way, but your persistence intrigues me. Not since 4chan have I seen such persistent failed attempts at trolling.
What evidence do you have of this? You honestly are one of the shittiest trolls I've encountered in quite some time; bonus points for your persistence, though.
And now you do provide a reason
Actually, I provided the reason in the post that prompted you to ask for it in the first place, 12 hours ago. I also directed you to it once and quoted it twice, even highlighting the relevant part in bold text in the first quote. Additionally, you quoted it, twice if you count this post. That it took you until now to actually read what you were replying to (and quoting, even) is not my deficiency.
I've seen smarter baboons than you
There you go projecting, again. Even a baboon, were he able to read English, would read the complete sentence he were replying to before flinging his own feces across the room the way you have here.
though even the dumber ones did need to be thought of as having won.
In retrospect, I don't think it's fair to say I won; you didn't really put up much of an argument, though you were quote persistent in not doing so.
Do you take back the statement? Or do you stand by it?
Clearly, as I've stood by every other statement I've made thus far, it would be unlikely that this one would be any different.
So far you've defended it only in the unlikely special case that this was the only option available.
Except, and you've now quoted and acknowledged it twice, where I said:
unless you need to make sure it remains executable
So, now, we have two cases: where it is the only file available (which really shouldn't ever be the case), or where you wish to ensure it remains executable (e.g. to test the encryption and decryption processes).
How about the general case?
In general, any viable encryption will be able to work with any data. You could test it with literally any file. If the file is not intended to be executed, that it is executable is irrelevant, as is this entire line of discussion as far as I can tell.
You keep asking this question:
Can there be no other reason than to make sure it remains executable?
Clearly I do not know the answer. I'm fairly certain you do not, either, or you'd have spoken up by now.
I'm sure you've got, as most trolls do, this vision in your head of me sitting at my computer raging, throwing my mouse, pounding on my keyboard, and punching my monitor. Sorry to ruin your day, but you might want to review my posting history; I feed trolls like you for fun, not out of rage. I'm sitting here, with my wife, laughing at each and every one of your posts. I'm sending the highlights to my friends so they can get a chuckle out of your idiocy as well and, all the while, you think you're winning. I love it.
Why don't you tell me? Did we stumble across one of your homework questions?
I've learned nothing from you. Everything you're supposedly taught me thus far has been things I've already said, that you've missed or misinterpreted, that I've then pointed out I already knew before you "taught" me, by referring to where I stated what you were "teaching" me before you "taught" it.
Want to change that? State your point.
There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable
You just imagined that I said there was no reason. You also missed, even after I pointed it out to you, the bolded part of the text I just quoted. Try not to miss it a 3rd time. I, then, continued to point out the following:
in which case you're going to execute it and, therefore, must trust it.
Now, I know nobody is as stupid as you're pretending to be. And I know you know I know you're trolling. How can it even still be fun for you at this point? If I were you, I'd just be embarrassed, continuing to attempt trolling someone who has, several times, called you out on it and admitted they simply enjoy feeding your kind.
Yeah... I guess "just set the laptop on this thing" solves a lot of "where does this cord go" support tickets, which are literally always answered with "the only place it fits" or, after a few hundred from the same user (and after you've already found alternate employment), "up your ass".
You know, for the few who can't manage to plug in 3 cables (power, USB, and display). Or 2, in the case of a Thunderbolt dock (power and thunderbolt). Or 1 in the case of USB-C.
How do the people for whom this is actually beneficial manage to breathe, let alone maintain gainful employment? And that question, right there, is why I don't do IT support.
What if I tell you I already know that, as evident by my saying both "Over any other file?" and "And if it's not, you've chosen it over other files."
Sorry. I forgot, for a moment, that you're projecting onto me your inability to parse English. In that moment, I did not realize you were trying to tell me what I already pointed out.
:) Of course you don't answer your own riddle, because you don't have the answer. Because, of course, you pulled it out of your ass for the sake of argument and there is no answer, as it is based on a false premise.
Why would it be the only available file? And if it's not, you've chosen it over other files. And you still have to either execute it to confirm that it is actually executable, or trust that it is.
If I'm missing something, how about you educate rather than denigrate?
Oh, right, because troll.
Huh... I haven't seen one in nearly a decade. WTF Dell?
gah... "unless", not "except".
Over any other file? No, there is not. Well, except for the use case described after the word "except" in the sentence you quoted. Perhaps if you'd actually been able to parse English...
Also, if you're not going to execute it, you must trust that it is actually executable.
The ones that haven't been around for about a decade? Got it.
While it is absolutely true that African people were (and still are today) slaves of other African people, it does not excuse the purchase of those people by Whites. That said, going back through my family history I've found no evidence that anyone in my family ever owned slaves, yet I still get shit from time to time for what "my ancestors" did to "their ancestors". How about a big fuck you to anyone who subscribes to that logic? Regardless of race.
Thunderbolt, USB 2.0/3.0, and USB-C docking stations have been on the market for as long as their respective ports have existed. All of them can be used with any system that has the required port.
even plain-old USB 3.0 would have enough bandwidth by far.
Now, who says Apple just repackages other people's ideas?
Every USB 3.0 display adapter manufacturer.
Well, you can't look beyond the end of a process. Hire an old AI to parse language, and you might be able to make sense.
What happens beyond the end of the process is not part of the process; I explained this a few posts back, you didn't understand that, but you claim I'm the one with language processing problems. That's all fine and well, I'm still going to claim you're the one with his head up his ass.
Binaries that are in non-executive role e.g. test payload for an encryption program, have a very different trust signature from those in executive role. Liquids, similarly, depending on their role.
There is no reason to use an executable binary for testing encryption unless you need to make sure it remains executable, in which case you're going to execute it and, therefore, must trust it. As for liquids, regardless of their role you must trust that they will fulfill that role. At least I got you to inject an argument into your insult stream this time.
But, that you stopped arguing and started the insult stream for 5 posts (whereas I simply injected insults into my arguments in response) tells me one thing: I've won. The rest of this is just for kicks.
Because the concept applies to all liquids and all binaries. I thought you FOSS nuts were all about not artificially limiting shit. I guess that flies right out the window when you decide it's fime to start trolling?