Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #59718 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-10-21 19:07 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-10-25 02:58 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 223 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> - 2024-10-21 19:07 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-10-22 07:44 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-22 08:32 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-22 13:34 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-10-22 09:15 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-22 09:18 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-22 14:25 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-22 10:51 -0400
{OT) Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-22 18:02 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2025-01-29 00:06 -0800
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-29 10:21 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-29 15:21 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Donald Trump <Donald@trump.com> - 2024-10-22 22:50 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-22 19:49 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-23 00:02 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-22 20:28 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-23 04:39 +0000
{OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-23 07:23 -0400
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-10-23 07:31 -0400
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-23 13:15 -0400
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-10-25 05:43 -0400
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-25 17:33 -0400
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-25 22:47 +0100
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-25 18:09 -0400
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-26 01:07 +0100
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-25 20:38 -0400
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-26 06:38 +0000
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-26 08:33 -0400
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-26 01:10 +0000
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Johann Beretta <beretta@nun-ya-bizness.com> - 2025-01-29 00:13 -0800
Re: {OT illegal-alien} ...was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-29 17:38 -0500
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-23 10:11 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-10-22 20:34 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-23 10:05 +0200
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-23 13:01 -0400
Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-23 21:29 +0000
Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-23 21:17 -0400
Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-24 03:48 +0000
{OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-24 07:31 -0400
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-24 12:40 +0100
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-24 09:10 -0400
Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-24 22:26 +0000
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-24 09:45 -0400
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-24 14:58 +0100
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-24 11:39 -0400
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-24 12:48 -0400
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-10-25 05:56 -0400
Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-24 22:25 +0000
{OT} was was bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-25 08:28 -0400
Re: Left vs Wrong Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-26 20:42 +0000
Re: Left vs Wrong Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-10-27 02:06 +0000
Re: Left vs Wrong Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-27 02:22 +0000
Re: Left vs Wrong Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-10-27 07:42 -0400
Re: Left vs Wrong Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2024-10-27 09:17 -0300
Re: Left vs Wrong bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-27 13:07 -0400
Bethlehem; [was Re: Left vs Wrong] Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2024-10-29 03:57 +0000
Re: Left vs Wrong Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-10-27 07:38 -0400
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-24 09:07 -0400
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2024-10-24 14:31 -0300
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-10-24 14:14 -0400
Re: {OT} was...Re: Left vs Wrong (was Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2024-10-24 15:34 -0300
Migrant Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-10-25 05:59 +0200
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-23 00:00 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-22 20:21 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-26 03:32 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-26 19:27 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-26 23:43 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-10-26 19:58 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-10-23 06:48 +1000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-22 23:59 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-22 16:57 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2024-10-24 02:48 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-22 09:17 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security John McCue <jmccue@magnetar.jmcunx.com> - 2024-10-22 14:05 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-22 17:37 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-22 16:57 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-10-23 08:24 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-10-23 09:07 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security John McCue <jmccue@magnetar.jmcunx.com> - 2024-10-23 13:57 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-23 20:42 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-10-25 06:03 +0200
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-10-25 11:28 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-22 20:47 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-22 18:03 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-22 19:36 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-22 23:57 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-22 20:19 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-23 00:45 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-22 21:17 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-23 01:46 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-23 10:06 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-23 21:27 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2024-10-24 03:25 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-24 08:57 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-24 20:40 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-10-24 11:56 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-24 13:30 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-24 16:44 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-24 22:23 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-25 00:05 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-25 04:37 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-25 08:47 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-26 20:41 +0000
{OT} was Re: bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-10-26 18:34 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-27 02:20 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Donald Trump <Donald@trump.com> - 2024-10-25 04:45 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-10-25 02:25 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-10-25 17:32 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-10-25 16:16 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-10-26 04:38 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-26 05:38 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-26 03:48 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-25 22:22 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-25 22:21 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2024-10-26 00:48 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-25 06:57 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security MarioCCCP <NoliMihiFrangereMentulam@libero.it> - 2025-02-09 13:37 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2025-02-10 07:23 -0500
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2025-02-10 07:54 -0500
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-23 03:07 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-23 09:01 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-24 04:48 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-24 18:48 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-24 22:19 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-10-25 18:10 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-25 19:36 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-25 22:13 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-10-25 15:39 -0700
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-25 23:43 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-10-28 03:20 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-28 09:39 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-10-28 13:40 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-10-28 11:29 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-10-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-28 22:31 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-29 00:03 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-28 21:41 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-28 21:20 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-28 11:09 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-29 01:28 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-29 02:33 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-10-29 03:47 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-29 04:52 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-29 05:58 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-10-29 18:35 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-29 07:19 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-10-29 13:27 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-29 20:44 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-26 01:08 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-26 02:37 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-26 05:45 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-26 05:51 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-26 03:01 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-26 11:01 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-26 12:21 +0200
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-27 00:28 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-27 00:25 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-10-26 18:01 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-26 23:27 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-27 01:44 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-27 10:13 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-10-27 17:11 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-27 21:16 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-27 22:32 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-28 09:06 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-28 11:13 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-28 21:18 +0000
As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . "Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2024-10-26 13:25 -0700
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-10-27 02:06 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-27 02:21 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-27 01:35 -0400
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-27 11:00 +0100
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-27 10:28 +0000
The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy). "Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2024-10-27 04:18 -0700
Re: The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy). The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-27 11:32 +0000
We're in the middle, always. "Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2024-10-27 06:23 -0700
Re: We're in the middle, always. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-27 13:30 +0000
Who you are, where you are, when you are. "Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2024-10-27 07:07 -0700
Re: Who you are, where you are, when you are. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-27 14:51 +0000
Re: We're in the middle, always. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-27 17:25 +0000
Re: The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy). rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-27 17:22 +0000
Re: The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy). Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-27 21:21 +0000
Re: The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy). Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-27 21:19 +0000
Re: The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy). Don_from_AZ <djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> - 2024-10-27 19:47 -0700
Re: The "big bang" was fueled by "residual eXergy" (potential entropy). The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-28 09:37 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-27 22:34 +0100
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-28 00:48 -0400
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-28 09:32 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-28 11:10 +0100
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-28 17:35 -0400
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-28 22:37 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-29 02:27 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-29 11:32 +0100
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-28 09:12 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-28 11:22 +0100
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-28 10:32 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-10-28 21:47 +0100
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-28 21:31 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2024-10-28 16:22 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-27 10:25 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-27 10:25 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-27 17:28 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-28 00:37 -0400
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-28 09:41 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-28 19:12 -0400
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-29 07:17 +0000
Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-27 20:54 +0000
Whether it's enough or not depends on what kind of a being you might be. "Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2024-10-29 06:56 -0700
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-10-27 20:46 -0500
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-28 09:33 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-10-28 09:48 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-10-28 12:32 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-28 21:33 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-10-29 01:45 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-10-26 09:56 +0100
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-26 23:27 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-25 01:09 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-25 22:17 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-26 03:19 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-10-23 08:36 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-25 02:48 -0400
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> - 2024-10-24 18:53 +0000
Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-10-25 02:58 -0400
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-27 10:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . |
| Message-ID | <vfl4du$bic6$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60085 |
On 26/10/2024 21:25, Relf wrote: > rBowman: Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than nothing?' > in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' . . . my head started to hurt. > > As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse, > "residual eXergy" (potential entropy) fuels both "life" (games) & gravity. Ah, but that doesn't answer Heidegger's stupid question. Which is in any case a *leading* question that assumes that the question 'why anything?' *has* an answer. You are merely quoting another metaphysical *narrative* The more accessible form of Heidegger general whine might be quoted as "Why was *I* born"? To which the answer can be either 'cos your mom and dad had a Big Bang on a saturday night' or 'because the Big Bang contained implicitly the fact of your existence, and you are just doing what was pre-ordained' Neither of which are particularly satisfying. In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God did it' The real philosophers are not those who attempt to answer unanswerable questions, but those who clearly identify which questions are in fact unanswerable, and like bomb disposal experts plant little flags saying 'here be mines'. Or 'a critique of Pure Reason' -- The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with what it actually is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-27 17:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . |
| Message-ID | <lo7bi3FbimrU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60113 |
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the > question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe > at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal > Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God > did it' Enter metaphysics, stage right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-28 00:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . |
| Message-ID | <c1udnZAWUoeaiIL6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #60131 |
On 10/27/24 1:28 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the >> question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe >> at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal >> Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God >> did it' > > Enter metaphysics, stage right. Clue about The Universe ... it's NOT ABOUT US. We need to GET OVER IT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-28 09:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . |
| Message-ID | <vfnm7g$tra6$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60151 |
On 28/10/2024 04:37, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 10/27/24 1:28 PM, rbowman wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the >>> question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe >>> at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal >>> Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God >>> did it' >> >> Enter metaphysics, stage right. > > > Clue about The Universe ... it's NOT ABOUT US. > > We need to GET OVER IT. Clue about the universe *as we see it* ITS ALL ABOUT US. It is simply riddled with anthropic concepts to the point that people dimly recognise this, and exclaim 'I've found God!' -- "When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics." Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-28 19:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . |
| Message-ID | <MlydnQFn-p_ph736nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #60162 |
On 10/28/24 5:41 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 28/10/2024 04:37, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: >> On 10/27/24 1:28 PM, rbowman wrote: >>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> In fact if you delve deep enough you come to understand that the >>>> question 'why?' is an utterly human one, doesn't apply to the Universe >>>> at large and if extrapolated beyond its applicable context to Universal >>>> Purpose will likely lead you to a supernatural solution like 'Cos God >>>> did it' >>> >>> Enter metaphysics, stage right. >> >> >> Clue about The Universe ... it's NOT ABOUT US. >> >> We need to GET OVER IT. > > Clue about the universe *as we see it* > > ITS ALL ABOUT US. It is simply riddled with anthropic concepts to the > point that people dimly recognise this, and exclaim 'I've found God!' Depends on how to take "It's All About Us" ... we ARE a sort of 'consciousness' the universe evolved. May be more, maybe only us - wait awhile on that one. However to evolve anything The Universe had to be there already, fairly easy to confirm too. It just wasn't "self aware" so to speak. (yes, arguments have been made that causality may be something of an illusion - but the math needed to argue is WAY above my pay grade) As the Buddha said, there IS a reality. What it is in all its nuances are denied to us however because of what kind of beings we are. Likely would apply to ANY kind of 'being', they'll always see it their way, and just their way. As for all the anthropic junk, well ... can't get rid of it, it's the hub of this little discussion, but IMHO there's still WAY more than is wise. Anthropic too oft incorporates ego/pride/prejudice/etc and then we get 'gods' in robes telling us it IS all about us, that the planets circle ours for our amusement and affirmation - oh, and all the heretics must be burned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-29 07:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . |
| Message-ID | <vfq26v$1fcte$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60186 |
On 28/10/2024 23:12, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > Depends on how to take "It's All About Us" ... we ARE a > sort of 'consciousness' the universe evolved. May be > more, maybe only us - wait awhile on that one. > You have no way of knowing that. It is an assumption. > However to evolve anything The Universe had to be there > already, fairly easy to confirm too. It just wasn't > "self aware" so to speak. > > (yes, arguments have been made that causality may be > something of an illusion - but the math needed to > argue is WAY above my pay grade) > Dont need math. > As the Buddha said, there IS a reality. What it is in > all its nuances are denied to us however because of > what kind of beings we are. Likely would apply to ANY > kind of 'being', they'll always see it their way, and > just their way. > > As for all the anthropic junk, well ... can't get rid > of it, it's the hub of this little discussion, but IMHO > there's still WAY more than is wise. Anthropic too > oft incorporates ego/pride/prejudice/etc and then we > get 'gods' in robes telling us it IS all about us, that > the planets circle ours for our amusement and affirmation - > oh, and all the heretics must be burned. Anthropic means for example that the Universe appear to us a a sequence of causally linked events in space time because we cant comprehend its totality. That is not how it is, that's how we relate to it -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-27 20:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse . . . |
| Message-ID | <vfm9ac$jekn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60113 |
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:25:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Neither of which are particularly satisfying. Is the Universe here to satisfy you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-29 06:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Whether it's enough or not depends on what kind of a being you might be. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Oct.29--6.56am.Seattle.2024> |
| In reply to | #60113 |
JeffRelf> As the cosmos goes from infinitely hot/dense to infinitely cold/sparse,
> "residual eXergy" (potential entropy) fuels both "life" (games) & gravity.
tnp: that doesn't answer Heidegger's stupid question.
"residual eXergy" (potential entropy) fuels both "life" (games) & gravity.
Whether it's enough or not depends on what kind of a being you might be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-27 20:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vfmqe6$1gae1$6@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #60053 |
On 10/26/24 00:45, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics >> >> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative” >> ... > > About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than > nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That > was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on. Nobody still knows if there's anything. The whole thing has been a conspiracy among life forms. I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and understood what she was talking about. I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of those feminists I fucked hard!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-28 09:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vfnlq0$tra6$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60146 |
On 28/10/2024 01:46, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 10/26/24 00:45, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics
>>>
>>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative”
>>> ...
>>
>> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than
>> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That
>> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on.
>
>
> Nobody still knows if there's anything. The whole thing has been a
> conspiracy among life forms. I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major
> in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling
> me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and
> understood what she was talking about.
>
> I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of
> those feminists I fucked hard!
The Nietzschean approach. Much to recommend it.
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."
- Stephen Vizinczey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-28 09:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fDMTO.84214$UZH4.57248@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #60146 |
On 2024-10-27 9:46 p.m., Physfitfreak wrote: > On 10/26/24 00:45, rbowman wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics >>> >>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative” >>> ... >> >> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than >> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That >> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on. > > > Nobody still knows if there's anything. The whole thing has been a > conspiracy among life forms. I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major > in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling > me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and > understood what she was talking about. > > I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of > those feminists I fucked hard! It's unfortunate that a person of Slavic background would allow a Neanderthal who speaks Arabic inside her. I assume she was disgustingly ugly like the other White women who have decided to have relations with you. -- CrudeSausage Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-28 12:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <02fvhjhffvqr06foaldocqi7be4eadoqno@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #60169 |
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >On 2024-10-27 9:46 p.m., Physfitfreak wrote: >> >> I was once a neighbor to a philosophy major >> in same school. Her thesis was based on the same theme. She was telling >> me I was only one among the three in her life that listened and >> understood what she was talking about. >> >> I fucked her of course. She was a cro-magnon of Czech background. One of >> those feminists I fucked hard! > >It's unfortunate that a person of Slavic background would allow a >Neanderthal who speaks Arabic inside her. I assume she was disgustingly >ugly like the other White women who have decided to have relations with you. Shut the fuck up, cracker, Jesus fucking Christ. Bigot. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-28 21:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vfovuf$1635o$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60169 |
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:48:52 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > It's unfortunate that a person of Slavic background would allow a > Neanderthal who speaks Arabic inside her. Fun fact: every human population outside Sub-Saharan Africa has a bit of Neanderthal in them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-29 01:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <loat2aFrslrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60182 |
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 21:33:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:48:52 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > >> It's unfortunate that a person of Slavic background would allow a >> Neanderthal who speaks Arabic inside her. > > Fun fact: every human population outside Sub-Saharan Africa has a bit of > Neanderthal in them. "You have more Neanderthal DNA than 61% of other customers." 23andMe In '88 I bought a 'Neanderthal and Proud' bumper sticker at the Earth Forst! Round River Rendezvous. It is still on the bumper of my pickup albeit a little worse for wear. Even back then EF was headed down the woke path led by Roselle and Bari. The FBI informant who was involved in THERMCON was present and gave a talk on monkeywrenching. As usual the Feebs love to cultivate idiots so they can later uncover them and claim credit for their amazing investigative skills. Dave Foreman was one of their prime targets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Foreman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-26 09:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwv8qubb5t0.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #59963 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >>> Weak cryptography is easy to fix. The hard part to fix is weak random >>> numbers. >> >> Other way round. A bad RNG can be swapped out for a better one with >> little or no impact on anything else. > > Unfortunately, you can never be sure your RNG is good. You can’t be 100% certain of anything. There’s a 2^-256 chance someone could guess an AES-256 key in a single try, for instance. But you can be certain enough for practical purposes. Accidents (DSA-1571, Sony) and compromises (Juniper, Crypto AG) happen; so does cryptanalysis (Enigma). But the majority of vulnerabilities are not cryptographic in nature. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-26 23:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vfjttn$3trl9$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60065 |
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 09:56:59 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >> >> Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >>>> >>>> Weak cryptography is easy to fix. The hard part to fix is weak random >>>> numbers. >>> >>> Other way round. A bad RNG can be swapped out for a better one with >>> little or no impact on anything else. >> >> Unfortunately, you can never be sure your RNG is good. > > You can’t be 100% certain of anything. Can you be sure of that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-25 01:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <SISdnRicAKGOtYb6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #59846 |
On 10/23/24 4:01 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> writes: >> The problem is State-funded actors these days and the MASSIVE >> computing power they can bring to bear. > > Well, it’s _a_ problem, for people and organizations who are realistic > targets of state actors. But (for example) for most private individuals > the biggest threat is criminals trying to access their bank account or > credit card. > >> At least SOME of those "theoretical" attack vectors CAN become real >> attack vectors. >> >> But WHICH ??? > > The obvious answer is attacks on weak cryptography. RSA-1024 and DH-1024 > are probably breakable by the biggest SIGINT agencies (and anyone else > with comparable compute resources: cloud service providers for example). > > https://weakdh.org/imperfect-forward-secrecy.pdf attempted to analyse > this (among other things) nearly a decade ago, as a concrete example. Um ... even weak crypto takes a lot of CPU time to decode. Direct access to corp computers, where the victim's system is doing all the work, via fake or compromised corp users - I think *that* is the "biggest problem" relative to data theft. A lot of THAT involves "human engineering" - scams that most ordinary workers will never detect despite good 'educational' efforts. Scammers are VERY sneaky. However poor security/auth measures and un-monitored external access also plays a role - corp laziness and/or budget limitations. It's not just *a* problem - but weakness at a number of levels. Vlad's boyz have the time and resources to go after ALL of them - over and over and over - until chinks in the armor are found. Victims generally do NOT have the resources, IQ/$$$, to defend. Oh, and the golden gate to bank accts and industrial control systems and such are all the numbers/data Vlad's boyz steal - the stuff you use to prove you are you. Oh, today's news - another health-care system finally admits to being severely compromised ... 100 MILLION detailed records stolen. Sorry, but everyone needs all-NEW numbers for everything, like TOMORROW. Otherwise when They hit the hit will be TOTAL, so large deep and wide there will be no good fixes. A nuke attack without a single mushroom cloud. This is the world we have (mis)-made. SO - Linus is *partially* correct, but also partially wrong. It's the "wrong" fraction that's so worrisome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-25 22:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vfh5eg$3brp2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59987 |
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 01:09:38 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > Um ... even weak crypto takes a lot of CPU time to decode. A graphic illustration of strong crypto used stupidly: <https://github.com/corkami/pics/blob/master/binary/CryptoModes.png>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-26 03:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sOKcnffWGZCWBYH6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #60025 |
On 10/25/24 6:17 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 01:09:38 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > >> Um ... even weak crypto takes a lot of CPU time to decode. > > A graphic illustration of strong crypto used stupidly: > <https://github.com/corkami/pics/blob/master/binary/CryptoModes.png>. Yes, even 'strong' crypto can be used badly. However for MOST, even AES-128 ought to be good enough, AES-256 even more. According to some going away from AES is best ... Camilla or even GPG. Note, if you want to INDIVIDUALLY encrypt files then OpenSSL is THE best because of SPEED. GPG and friends, there's a long initialization period. This is something I've had a lot of experience with. Wrote a nice, kinda large and 'smart', 'C' app other langs could evoke to do the hard work. There ARE tiny diffs between the Linux and Win versions of OpenSSL ... so search and take note of the fine variation in the CL params. OR, well, use large/complex pre-packaged backup apps - but you lose a lot of fine control. Direct use of OpenSSL works great from custom 'C', Pascal or Python pgms (my faves). Towards the end I did write a backup apps that individually encrypted files. Easy to get 'em back, AS NEEDED, afterwards. OpenSSL was the best way. OUR files weren't especially WORTH cracking. This was good. Banks/govt and such may have a different perspective. Better perhaps to zip-up large archives and encrypt those using better-than-AES methods. DOES need kinda a lot of mem and diskspace ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-23 08:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vfaql1$21cfe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59844 |
On 10/23/2024 03:07, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 10/21/24 3:07 PM, Lester Thorpe wrote: >> Distro maintainers, and their lackey consumers, who bloat their GNU/Linux >> distros with performance degrading security "features" should take note >> of the latest exclamations of Linus Torvalds: >> >> "Honestly, I'm pretty damn fed up with buggy hardware and completely >> theoretical >> attacks that have never actually shown themselves to be used in >> practice." >> >> https://linux.slashdot.org/story/24/10/21/1533228/linus-torvalds- >> growing-frustrated-by-buggy-hardware-theoretical-cpu-attacks >> >> Tell 'em, Linus! Those paranoid freaks are ruining desktop computing! > > Linus is "kind-of right", but "kind-of not". > > The problem is State-funded actors these days > and the MASSIVE computing power they can bring > to bear. At least SOME of those "theoretical" > attack vectors CAN become real attack vectors. > > But WHICH ??? > > Yes, you can go totally overboard on "security", > and, mostly, it won't do much good. Paranoia can > push this to extremes where you can barely use > the system/apps (think Vista) - and I think that's > what Linus is concerned with. > > However there ARE 'sensible' security measures > that go beyond mere Linux passwords and a few > port blocks. > I think the point that Linus was making was just that, even if these 'theoretical' attack vectors were actual issues, the CPU manufacturer's need to be the one patching it with a firmware update. Hardware related attacks need to be fixed by the hardware MFG and Linux should only fix software related attack vectors. I think that was the point Linus was making here. The kernel should not be the go-to agency for fixing hardware-specific security issues, nor should it be the kernel's job anyways. It's like, Boeing having a problem with an engine from another manufacturer. Who fixes the engine? It should be the engine manufacturer not some Boeing software engineer adding something to the throttle control system to 'mitigate' the issue. At least that was how I took it. I don't think Linus was trying to downplay the security aspect of it. I think it's just, it's not a "Linux Problem". Go fix your sh*t Intel/AMD. But that's just my take on the article. -- Phillip Frabott ---------- - Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns? - Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point. ----------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web