Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155149 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-13 17:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-12-15 22:18 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 708 — 46 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-12-13 17:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-12-15 05:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-15 07:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 12:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-15 17:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-15 11:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 14:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-16 18:02 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 14:58 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-15 18:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 14:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-15 16:16 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-15 18:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-15 19:45 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 23:34 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-16 11:58 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 14:48 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 14:08 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 13:16 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:02 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:04 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:36 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 08:04 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-22 16:03 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 16:51 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-22 07:37 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-12-17 16:17 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 17:03 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-18 13:46 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:16 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:20 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:43 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:12 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:41 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:00 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:42 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-15 13:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 15:07 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 15:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 11:28 -0600
Re: Viet Nam was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-16 12:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-16 18:09 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 19:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 15:02 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:58 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 17:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-17 23:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-18 08:02 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 12:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-18 12:24 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 13:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:29 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 16:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-18 13:19 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 23:16 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-18 23:49 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-20 01:47 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-20 10:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:24 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-19 13:35 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 14:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 15:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-19 17:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-19 10:06 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:35 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-19 14:44 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 13:40 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 14:04 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 20:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:47 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-19 10:05 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 15:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-12-19 15:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 17:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-21 14:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 16:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-19 14:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 18:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-21 14:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 09:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 20:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:02 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 16:05 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-23 07:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 18:57 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:01 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-23 08:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2015-12-23 11:04 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 19:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-20 10:10 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-18 17:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 15:00 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 13:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 16:46 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-18 19:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-18 21:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 13:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-19 04:24 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-18 16:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-18 19:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-18 19:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-19 07:55 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 07:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:33 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 19:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-20 10:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-20 10:10 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-19 07:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-19 09:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-19 16:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-20 14:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-20 17:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-20 17:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 10:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-21 13:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-21 15:05 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:36 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-21 21:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 10:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:01 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:44 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 23:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-22 15:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 00:13 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-23 17:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-24 10:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 11:18 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 17:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 09:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-29 11:39 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 12:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 00:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 17:18 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 11:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 07:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-30 08:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-30 09:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-31 06:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 16:41 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 09:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 21:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-03 15:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 05:19 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 21:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 11:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-01-01 10:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 17:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:36 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 13:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 13:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 20:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 22:41 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-01 11:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 06:00 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 18:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-30 12:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 10:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:14 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 11:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-30 17:55 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-30 23:09 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:04 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 16:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:16 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-31 11:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-31 09:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 20:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-01 14:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 05:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:52 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-02 16:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:41 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:49 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:07 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:49 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 11:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 12:40 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 15:18 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-01 08:02 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 22:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 21:54 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 11:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-01 12:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 08:50 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 09:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:02 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:57 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-30 11:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:14 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 00:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 07:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 11:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 15:20 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:51 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 01:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 20:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 15:34 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 15:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 18:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 07:17 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 23:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:06 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 17:20 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 05:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 04:52 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 10:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 10:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:07 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 01:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 09:52 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:09 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:43 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-31 10:50 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-31 06:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:08 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 17:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 14:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:46 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 19:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 22:30 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 15:42 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-01 14:36 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-01 17:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-02 22:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 17:29 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 05:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:33 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:07 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 22:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 10:05 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-20 11:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "James Green" <667755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 05:51 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 17:54 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "James Green" <667755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:52 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-21 07:15 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-21 11:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 16:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:52 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-21 18:12 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 08:02 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 13:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 12:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 17:07 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-22 18:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 18:59 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-23 15:13 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-23 06:22 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 14:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 16:40 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 03:57 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-23 21:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-24 05:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-24 08:13 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-24 09:36 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-25 08:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-25 13:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 12:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-25 13:05 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:30 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 23:33 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-25 19:48 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 16:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-26 01:21 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 19:12 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:06 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-26 09:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:11 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-26 04:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-26 13:20 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 19:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 11:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 04:54 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:05 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 11:48 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 21:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 18:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 12:01 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-27 21:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 06:43 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-28 11:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:08 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 01:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-28 22:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 05:17 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-29 14:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 10:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:46 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-29 21:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:59 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 12:50 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:25 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-30 17:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:43 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 05:24 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 11:55 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 17:12 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-26 19:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 15:33 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 00:22 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:42 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-24 11:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-25 06:33 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:47 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-27 07:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 16:15 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 16:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 17:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 11:45 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-27 19:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-27 21:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-28 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-27 18:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 19:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 21:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-28 05:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 06:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-28 20:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-28 13:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 10:57 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 11:04 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-29 22:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 16:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 18:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-29 19:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:39 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 18:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:42 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:12 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:23 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-31 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:42 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 05:04 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-30 15:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:34 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:07 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 14:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:53 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 10:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:59 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-04 07:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-05 03:13 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-05 09:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 17:58 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:34 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:25 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 15:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 16:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 19:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:31 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:47 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:58 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 19:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 12:55 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-31 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:17 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:23 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:46 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:53 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 05:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 05:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-01 10:53 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 11:03 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 06:25 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-01 11:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:54 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-01 17:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 06:50 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-02 13:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-02 13:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 02:45 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:28 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:52 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-02 08:29 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 15:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 02:39 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 12:18 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-03 17:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-03 20:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 19:52 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 19:57 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-03 21:46 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 12:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-05 03:20 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-05 15:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 16:43 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:41 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:15 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 12:05 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:25 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 12:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 18:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-04 04:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 13:11 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-05 01:22 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-04 16:46 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-05 15:30 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hda <agent700@ay.invalid> - 2016-02-04 14:17 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 19:34 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:21 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 12:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-03 17:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:13 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:09 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:43 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 22:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-05 02:44 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-05 15:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 16:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 16:59 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 18:36 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 16:04 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:11 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:37 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:35 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 11:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:36 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 18:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 22:19 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 08:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:59 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:33 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 21:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:44 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 07:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 14:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:55 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 13:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:07 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 19:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-05 09:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-05 17:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-05 20:39 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 15:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 06:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 18:16 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-03 09:59 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 16:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 21:11 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 13:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:41 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:47 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-04 13:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 15:24 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:02 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 15:22 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 15:43 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:45 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-03 20:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-03 21:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:19 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-02 17:42 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:56 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-30 10:54 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:22 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:25 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 05:20 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:31 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 12:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:44 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:10 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:46 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:27 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 16:48 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:26 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 22:59 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 16:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 17:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-28 13:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-28 15:51 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-29 04:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-29 17:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:51 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 11:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:20 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 14:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 04:10 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-23 09:44 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:43 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 18:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 18:49 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-23 20:53 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-23 19:17 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-23 20:17 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:34 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 11:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-23 17:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-25 16:36 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 14:19 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:49 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:41 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-26 08:30 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 18:11 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:45 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:39 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-10 14:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 11:07 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 15:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-03 12:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 19:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 19:51 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 03:59 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-03 23:14 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:31 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-04 10:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 05:10 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 09:30 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-08 18:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-31 17:58 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 06:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 07:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 17:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-24 09:55 +0000
Re: Hitler hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:08 -0800
Re: Hitler mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 16:23 +0000
Re: Hitler Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-23 11:07 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 07:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 10:47 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 16:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 18:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 16:46 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 10:53 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-24 13:08 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 05:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 17:37 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 10:42 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:20 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-22 16:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-12-23 14:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-23 17:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-23 14:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-22 12:45 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 13:43 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:18 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-21 13:26 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-21 10:09 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) bbreynolds <bbreynolds@aol.com> - 2015-12-20 18:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 10:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-21 14:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 12:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-21 16:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:10 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-21 17:35 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:14 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 11:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:06 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:35 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-23 03:39 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-23 10:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-23 11:00 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-23 21:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-23 11:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-23 19:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-23 14:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 21:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-25 11:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-25 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 16:38 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-22 16:25 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-22 14:44 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-23 11:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:29 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-21 07:33 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:17 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-18 19:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-18 23:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:56 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 16:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-15 22:18 +0100
Page 16 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 36 Next page →
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 07:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31112b691e3e7fb8989ead@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157726 |
In article <n876ms$dkm$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com says... > > On 1/25/2016 11:08 PM, jack wrote: > > > > > > "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message > > news:n86j54$u8v$1@dont-email.me... > >> On 1/25/2016 5:33 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote: > >>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: > >>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [46 lines snipped] > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can > >>>>>>>> throw > >>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for > >>>>>>>> updates > >>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of > >>>>>>>> protection that > >>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- mrr > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire > >>>>>>> links. > >>>>>>> No updating using wifi. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having > >>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained > >>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something > >>>>> the car > >>>>> firms understand. > >>>> > >>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle > >>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. > >>>> > >>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. > >>>> > >>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the > >>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics > >>>> to make changes when those are required. > >>> > >>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. > >>> Virus not tuning. > >> > >> You don't think police will insist that they need to be able to do > >> that? > > > > I'm sure they wont, because of the security problem. > > > >> And if police can do it, pretty soon hackers everywhere will be able > >> to. > > > > Which is why the cops wont be able to do that. > > I'm not sure if it's that our police aren't that smart, or that they > just don't care. But I can guarantee that we'll be hearing that it's > absolutely necessary because people will use the cars to attack the > police, or try to escape from the police. And that it won't be > hackable because the smart minds in Silicon Valley will make sure. Consider TSA-approved luggage locks--you have a key, the TSA has a key, and every criminal who ever managed to steal a key from the TSA has a key. Don't assume that the people who demand such things on the behalf of police agencies are actually smart. They're often politicians or friend of politicians who have never walked a beat in their lives (or if they did it was for a few months 40 years ago just so they could claim that they did it). > We're hearing that now about backdoors in encryption. Politicians and > Fox News viewers (who don't understand the tech) will believe that > stuff. I dunno if that will fly, but pols are the ones who make the > laws. And if they can make the public fearful enough, the public will > be ok with it. > > > > If they could, any rogue cop could be the bomber. > > They've been giving cops armored vehicles and grenade launchers. How's > this different? Yep. > >> In any case, for use as a cruise missile, you don't need to take > >> control of it moving, you have to put in the payload anyhow. > > > > But if you can take control of it when its moving, you can > > then tell it to go to where you have the payload ready to load. > > Or you highjack it, or steal it, or buy it at a dealership. Even at > retail, it's still cheap for a cruise missile. Even cheaper used, and > the buyer won't care that the upholstry is beat up and the radio > doesn't work. That's the thing I don't get about this discussion. Why would a terrorist need to steal a car? Steal a cruise missile, yes, but anybody with money can just _buy_ the damned car.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 04:24 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dgpodpFpad3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157740 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.31112b691e3e7fb8989ead@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <n876ms$dkm$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com > says... >> >> On 1/25/2016 11:08 PM, jack wrote: >> > >> > >> > "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message >> > news:n86j54$u8v$1@dont-email.me... >> >> On 1/25/2016 5:33 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote: >> >>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >> >>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [46 lines snipped] >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can >> >>>>>>>> throw >> >>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures >> >>>>>>>> for >> >>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >> >>>>>>>> updates >> >>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >> >>>>>>>> protection that >> >>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- mrr >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >> >>>>>>> links. >> >>>>>>> No updating using wifi. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >> >>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only >> >>>>> trained >> >>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something >> >>>>> the car >> >>>>> firms understand. >> >>>> >> >>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >> >>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >> >>>> >> >>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >> >>>> >> >>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >> >>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >> >>>> to make changes when those are required. >> >>> >> >>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >> >>> Virus not tuning. >> >> >> >> You don't think police will insist that they need to be able to do >> >> that? >> > >> > I'm sure they wont, because of the security problem. >> > >> >> And if police can do it, pretty soon hackers everywhere will be able >> >> to. >> > >> > Which is why the cops wont be able to do that. >> >> I'm not sure if it's that our police aren't that smart, or that they >> just don't care. But I can guarantee that we'll be hearing that it's >> absolutely necessary because people will use the cars to attack the >> police, or try to escape from the police. And that it won't be >> hackable because the smart minds in Silicon Valley will make sure. > > Consider TSA-approved luggage locks--you have a key, the TSA has a key, > and every criminal who ever managed to steal a key from the TSA has a > key. Don't assume that the people who demand such things on the behalf > of police agencies are actually smart. They're often politicians or > friend of politicians who have never walked a beat in their lives (or if > they did it was for a few months 40 years ago just so they could claim > that they did it). > >> We're hearing that now about backdoors in encryption. Politicians and >> Fox News viewers (who don't understand the tech) will believe that >> stuff. I dunno if that will fly, but pols are the ones who make the >> laws. And if they can make the public fearful enough, the public will >> be ok with it. >> > >> > If they could, any rogue cop could be the bomber. >> >> They've been giving cops armored vehicles and grenade launchers. How's >> this different? > > Yep. > >> >> In any case, for use as a cruise missile, you don't need to take >> >> control of it moving, you have to put in the payload anyhow. >> > >> > But if you can take control of it when its moving, you can >> > then tell it to go to where you have the payload ready to load. >> >> Or you highjack it, or steal it, or buy it at a dealership. Even at >> retail, it's still cheap for a cruise missile. Even cheaper used, and >> the buyer won't care that the upholstry is beat up and the radio >> doesn't work. > > That's the thing I don't get about this discussion. Why would a > terrorist need to steal a car? Steal a cruise missile, yes, but anybody > with money can just _buy_ the damned car. But then you can be identified as having bought the car. For the same reason that the cars used as getaway vehicles after crime are stolen by any criminal with even half a clue, you need to do that with a car you plan to use to blow up something that matters and kill lots of people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 09:26 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n88326$lc0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #157726 |
On 26-Jan-16 01:21, Dave Garland wrote: > I'm not sure if it's that our police aren't that smart, or ... A federal court recently upheld police departments' right to disqualify applicants for being "too smart"; that such a case happened at all is probably scarier than the ruling itself. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 22:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3110adf86c46c4e8989ea2@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157687 |
In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > > On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: > > > > > > "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: > >>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > >>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > >>> > >>> [46 lines snipped] > >>> > >>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw > >>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for > >>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for > >>>>> updates > >>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that > >>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- mrr > >>>>> > >>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire > >>>> links. > >>>> No updating using wifi. > >>> > >>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. > >>> > >> > >> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having > >> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained > >> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car > >> firms understand. > > > > But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle > > with the engine control alg detail right now. > > > >> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. > > > > But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the > > rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics > > to make changes when those are required. > > But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. > Virus not tuning. Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer and BUY one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 04:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #157707 |
On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >> >> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>> >>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw >>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for >>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >>>>>>> updates >>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that >>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >>>>>> links. >>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>> >>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained >>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car >>>> firms understand. >>> >>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>> >>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>> >>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>> to make changes when those are required. >> >> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >> Virus not tuning. > > Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a > robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer and > BUY one. > You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 07:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157712 |
In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > > On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > > am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > >> > >> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: > >>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> [46 lines snipped] > >>>>> > >>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw > >>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for > >>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for > >>>>>>> updates > >>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that > >>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- mrr > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire > >>>>>> links. > >>>>>> No updating using wifi. > >>>>> > >>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having > >>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained > >>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car > >>>> firms understand. > >>> > >>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle > >>> with the engine control alg detail right now. > >>> > >>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. > >>> > >>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the > >>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics > >>> to make changes when those are required. > >> > >> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. > >> Virus not tuning. > > > > Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a > > robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer and > > BUY one. > > > You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me. The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in lieu of human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it substituting for a human with a bomb?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 13:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #157739 |
In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >> >> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: >> > In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >> > am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >> >> >> >> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> >>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >> >>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> [46 lines snipped] >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw >> >>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for >> >>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >> >>>>>>> updates >> >>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that >> >>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -- mrr >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >> >>>>>> links. >> >>>>>> No updating using wifi. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >> >>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained >> >>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car >> >>>> firms understand. >> >>> >> >>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >> >>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >> >>> >> >>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >> >>> >> >>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >> >>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >> >>> to make changes when those are required. >> >> >> >> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >> >> Virus not tuning. >> > >> > Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a >> > robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer and >> > BUY one. >> > >> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me. > >The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in lieu of >human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it substituting >for a human with a bomb? The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, mass, fuel. Even with just a 50 liter gas tank there are 50 l x 11 kWh/l = 550 kWh, which will give 2MW of heat for around 15 minutes, enough to make great havoc in a concentrated area. Also, at ~170 km/h (105 mph) a ~1 ton mostly steel object will make quite a dent in what it hits. Do this with 100 cars, and you will make a handful of quarters downtown an inferno of death; worse than any of the 9/11 planes; they were too concentrated to make havoc widely. (but the targets were vulnerable for such targeted attacks). My "technology toolchest" which mostly depend on certificates and encryption would require vigilance to keep the certificates safe, but once that is in place it could defend against the random takeover on the street. A dual factor version where one is kept by the owner (e.g. embedded into the key fob, with special key combo to release) and the other held by the manufacturer would start to help. Then you would have to compromise the vendor AND the owner. Of course this can happen, but then this will be in the news (owners attacked for their car key fobs); and all the other owners can rush to the service station to have new certificates installed. No "mere random cracker" can have their way with such a system without support from aggressive criminals. With a combination of technology and vigilance this can be adressed pretty well. Currently it isn't; and the vendors haven't even admitted it is a large problem. Me; I keep running 5+ years old cars for the time being. NO WiFi. (But our Leaf does have a 3G SIM card; slight improvement). -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 04:27 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dgpoktFpcgeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157742 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>> >>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: >>> > In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>> > am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>> >> >>> >> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> >>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>> >>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can >>> >>>>>>> throw >>> >>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures >>> >>>>>>> for >>> >>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >>> >>>>>>> updates >>> >>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >>> >>>>>>> protection that >>> >>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> -- mrr >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >>> >>>>>> links. >>> >>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >>> >>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only >>> >>>> trained >>> >>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the >>> >>>> car >>> >>>> firms understand. >>> >>> >>> >>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>> >>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>> >>> >>> >>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>> >>> >>> >>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>> >>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>> >>> to make changes when those are required. >>> >> >>> >> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >>> >> Virus not tuning. >>> > >>> > Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a >>> > robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer and >>> > BUY one. >>> > >>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me. >> >>The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in lieu of >>human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it substituting >>for a human with a bomb? > > The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, mass, > fuel. Doesn’t really work with cars or vans. You need to add explosives to make the result anything more than a car accident. > Even with just a 50 liter gas tank there are 50 l x 11 kWh/l = 550 kWh, > which > will give 2MW of heat for around 15 minutes, enough to make great havoc in > a concentrated area. Also, at ~170 km/h (105 mph) a ~1 ton mostly steel > object > will make quite a dent in what it hits. > > Do this with 100 cars, and you will make a handful of quarters downtown an > inferno of death; worse than any of the 9/11 planes; they were too > concentrated > to make havoc widely. (but the targets were vulnerable for such targeted > attacks). > > My "technology toolchest" which mostly depend on certificates and > encryption > would require vigilance to keep the certificates safe, but once that is in > place it could defend against the random takeover on the street. > > A dual factor version where one is kept by the owner (e.g. embedded into > the key fob, with special key combo to release) and the other held by the > manufacturer would start to help. Then you would have to compromise the > vendor AND the owner. Of course this can happen, but then this will be in > the news (owners attacked for their car key fobs); and all the other > owners > can rush to the service station to have new certificates installed. > > No "mere random cracker" can have their way with such a system without > support from aggressive criminals. > > With a combination of technology and vigilance this can be adressed pretty > well. Currently it isn't; and the vendors haven't even admitted it is a > large problem. > > Me; I keep running 5+ years old cars for the time being. NO WiFi. (But > our Leaf does have a 3G SIM card; slight improvement).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 19:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3111d78318ebacac989eba@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157742 |
In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid says... > > In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > >am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > >> > >> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: > >> > In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > >> > am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > >> >> > >> >> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >> >>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >> >>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: > >> >>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [46 lines snipped] > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw > >> >>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for > >> >>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for > >> >>>>>>> updates > >> >>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that > >> >>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> -- mrr > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire > >> >>>>>> links. > >> >>>>>> No updating using wifi. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having > >> >>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained > >> >>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car > >> >>>> firms understand. > >> >>> > >> >>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle > >> >>> with the engine control alg detail right now. > >> >>> > >> >>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. > >> >>> > >> >>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the > >> >>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics > >> >>> to make changes when those are required. > >> >> > >> >> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. > >> >> Virus not tuning. > >> > > >> > Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a > >> > robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer and > >> > BUY one. > >> > > >> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me. > > > >The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in lieu of > >human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it substituting > >for a human with a bomb? > > The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, mass, > fuel. If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using bombless cars for that purpose now. Are they?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 11:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <66OdnV9vCfP8MzXLnZ2dnUU78TudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #157871 |
On 27/01/2016 00:21, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, > first@last.name.invalid says... >> >> In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>> >>>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>> In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw >>>>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for >>>>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >>>>>>>>>>> updates >>>>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that >>>>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >>>>>>>>>> links. >>>>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >>>>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained >>>>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car >>>>>>>> firms understand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>>>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>>>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>>>>>> to make changes when those are required. >>>>>> >>>>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >>>>>> Virus not tuning. >>>>> >>>>> Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a >>>>> robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer and >>>>> BUY one. >>>>> >>>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me. >>> >>> The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in lieu of >>> human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it substituting >>> for a human with a bomb? >> >> The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, mass, >> fuel. > > If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using bombless cars > for that purpose now. Are they? > > > Terrorists are not the only danger. Plenty of people are killed using cars by drunks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 04:54 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dgstolFjic3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157910 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:66OdnV9vCfP8MzXLnZ2dnUU78TudnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 27/01/2016 00:21, J. Clarke wrote: >> In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, >> first@last.name.invalid says... >>> >>> In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>> >>>>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>> In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we >>>>>>>>>>>> can throw >>>>>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong >>>>>>>>>>>> signatures for >>>>>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >>>>>>>>>>>> updates >>>>>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >>>>>>>>>>>> protection that >>>>>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via >>>>>>>>>>> wire >>>>>>>>>>> links. >>>>>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing >>>>>>>>>> meeting. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of >>>>>>>>> having >>>>>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only >>>>>>>>> trained >>>>>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the >>>>>>>>> car >>>>>>>>> firms understand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>>>>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>>>>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>>>>>>> to make changes when those are required. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >>>>>>> Virus not tuning. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a >>>>>> robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer and >>>>>> BUY one. >>>>>> >>>>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me. >>>> >>>> The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in lieu >>>> of >>>> human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it >>>> substituting >>>> for a human with a bomb? >>> >>> The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, >>> mass, >>> fuel. >> >> If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using bombless cars >> for that purpose now. Are they? >> >> >> > Terrorists are not the only danger. Plenty of people are killed using cars > by drunks. But that problem mostly goes away with self driving cars. The only time they will kill someone is when the drunk decides to override what the car is doing and that is easy to avoid by just having a full time breath test in the car and not allowing anyone to override what the car is doing in a way that can cause an accident when it detects that drunks are in the car.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 23:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <66CdnSpN3NqD0DTLnZ2dnUU78RcAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #157969 |
On 27/01/2016 17:54, jack wrote: > > > "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:66OdnV9vCfP8MzXLnZ2dnUU78TudnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 27/01/2016 00:21, J. Clarke wrote: >>> In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, >>> first@last.name.invalid says... >>>> >>>> In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>> In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can throw >>>>>>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong >>>>>>>>>>>>> signatures for >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network >>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>> updates >>>>>>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >>>>>>>>>>>>> protection that >>>>>>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of >>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via >>>>>>>>>>>> wire >>>>>>>>>>>> links. >>>>>>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing >>>>>>>>>>> meeting. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of >>>>>>>>>> having >>>>>>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only >>>>>>>>>> trained >>>>>>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something >>>>>>>>>> the car >>>>>>>>>> firms understand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>>>>>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>>>>>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>>>>>>>> to make changes when those are required. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >>>>>>>> Virus not tuning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a >>>>>>> robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> BUY one. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me. >>>>> >>>>> The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in >>>>> lieu of >>>>> human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it >>>>> substituting >>>>> for a human with a bomb? >>>> >>>> The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, >>>> mass, >>>> fuel. >>> >>> If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using bombless cars >>> for that purpose now. Are they? >>> >>> >>> >> Terrorists are not the only danger. Plenty of people are killed using >> cars by drunks. > > But that problem mostly goes away with self driving cars. The only > time they will kill someone is when the drunk decides to override > what the car is doing and that is easy to avoid by just having a full > time breath test in the car and not allowing anyone to override > what the car is doing in a way that can cause an accident when it > detects that drunks are in the car. If the cars allow software upgrades by WiFi the drunk can override the controls on *other peoples* cars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 11:48 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dgt6rgFlm02U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157982 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:66CdnSpN3NqD0DTLnZ2dnUU78RcAAAAA@giganews.com... > On 27/01/2016 17:54, jack wrote: >> >> >> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:66OdnV9vCfP8MzXLnZ2dnUU78TudnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 27/01/2016 00:21, J. Clarke wrote: >>>> In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, >>>> first@last.name.invalid says... >>>>> >>>>> In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can throw >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>> signatures for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> protection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via >>>>>>>>>>>>> wire >>>>>>>>>>>>> links. >>>>>>>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing >>>>>>>>>>>> meeting. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of >>>>>>>>>>> having >>>>>>>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only >>>>>>>>>>> trained >>>>>>>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something >>>>>>>>>>> the car >>>>>>>>>>> firms understand. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>>>>>>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>>>>>>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>>>>>>>>> to make changes when those are required. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >>>>>>>>> Virus not tuning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a >>>>>>>> robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> BUY one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not >>>>>>> me. >>>>>> >>>>>> The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in >>>>>> lieu of >>>>>> human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it >>>>>> substituting >>>>>> for a human with a bomb? >>>>> >>>>> The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, >>>>> mass, >>>>> fuel. >>>> >>>> If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using bombless >>>> cars >>>> for that purpose now. Are they? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Terrorists are not the only danger. Plenty of people are killed using >>> cars by drunks. >> >> But that problem mostly goes away with self driving cars. The only >> time they will kill someone is when the drunk decides to override >> what the car is doing and that is easy to avoid by just having a full >> time breath test in the car and not allowing anyone to override >> what the car is doing in a way that can cause an accident when it >> detects that drunks are in the car. > If the cars allow software upgrades by WiFi No reason to allow that. > the drunk can override the controls on *other peoples* cars. Nope, they will be too drunk to be able to do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 21:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31134b7a75c09e4f989eca@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157982 |
In article <66CdnSpN3NqD0DTLnZ2dnUU78RcAAAAA@giganews.com>, am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > > On 27/01/2016 17:54, jack wrote: > > > > > > "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:66OdnV9vCfP8MzXLnZ2dnUU78TudnZ2d@giganews.com... > >> On 27/01/2016 00:21, J. Clarke wrote: > >>> In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, > >>> first@last.name.invalid says... > >>>> > >>>> In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, > >>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > >>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > >>>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can throw > >>>>>>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong > >>>>>>>>>>>>> signatures for > >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>> updates > >>>>>>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> protection that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- mrr > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via > >>>>>>>>>>>> wire > >>>>>>>>>>>> links. > >>>>>>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing > >>>>>>>>>>> meeting. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of > >>>>>>>>>> having > >>>>>>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only > >>>>>>>>>> trained > >>>>>>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something > >>>>>>>>>> the car > >>>>>>>>>> firms understand. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle > >>>>>>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the > >>>>>>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics > >>>>>>>>> to make changes when those are required. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. > >>>>>>>> Virus not tuning. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a > >>>>>>> robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> BUY one. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me. > >>>>> > >>>>> The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in > >>>>> lieu of > >>>>> human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it > >>>>> substituting > >>>>> for a human with a bomb? > >>>> > >>>> The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, > >>>> mass, > >>>> fuel. > >>> > >>> If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using bombless cars > >>> for that purpose now. Are they? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Terrorists are not the only danger. Plenty of people are killed using > >> cars by drunks. > > > > But that problem mostly goes away with self driving cars. The only > > time they will kill someone is when the drunk decides to override > > what the car is doing and that is easy to avoid by just having a full > > time breath test in the car and not allowing anyone to override > > what the car is doing in a way that can cause an accident when it > > detects that drunks are in the car. > > If the cars allow software upgrades by WiFi the drunk can override the > controls on *other peoples* cars. While he's drunk and as a result of being drunk? That is one impressive hacker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 18:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31131b15f016201e989ec5@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157910 |
In article <66OdnV9vCfP8MzXLnZ2dnUU78TudnZ2d@giganews.com>, am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > > On 27/01/2016 00:21, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, > > first@last.name.invalid says... > >> > >> In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, > >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > >>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > >>>> > >>>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: > >>>>> In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > >>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw > >>>>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for > >>>>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for > >>>>>>>>>>> updates > >>>>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that > >>>>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- mrr > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire > >>>>>>>>>> links. > >>>>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having > >>>>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained > >>>>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car > >>>>>>>> firms understand. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle > >>>>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the > >>>>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics > >>>>>>> to make changes when those are required. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. > >>>>>> Virus not tuning. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a > >>>>> robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer and > >>>>> BUY one. > >>>>> > >>>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me. > >>> > >>> The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in lieu of > >>> human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it substituting > >>> for a human with a bomb? > >> > >> The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, mass, > >> fuel. > > > > If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using bombless cars > > for that purpose now. Are they? > > > > > > > Terrorists are not the only danger. Plenty of people are killed using > cars by drunks. And so drunks, while drunk, are going to hack driverless cars for the purpose of killing people? I think you're kind of missing the point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 23:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <NtOdnXEzOPnjzzTLnZ2dnUU78U-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #157988 |
On 27/01/2016 23:21, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <66OdnV9vCfP8MzXLnZ2dnUU78TudnZ2d@giganews.com>, > am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >> >> On 27/01/2016 00:21, J. Clarke wrote: >>> In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, >>> first@last.name.invalid says... >>>> >>>> In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>> In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we can throw >>>>>>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong signatures for >>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network for >>>>>>>>>>>>> updates >>>>>>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of protection that >>>>>>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of magnitude. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via wire >>>>>>>>>>>> links. >>>>>>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing meeting. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of having >>>>>>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only trained >>>>>>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something the car >>>>>>>>>> firms understand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>>>>>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>>>>>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>>>>>>>> to make changes when those are required. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >>>>>>>> Virus not tuning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a >>>>>>> robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer and >>>>>>> BUY one. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not me. >>>>> >>>>> The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in lieu of >>>>> human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it substituting >>>>> for a human with a bomb? >>>> >>>> The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, mass, >>>> fuel. >>> >>> If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using bombless cars >>> for that purpose now. Are they? >>> >>> >>> >> Terrorists are not the only danger. Plenty of people are killed using >> cars by drunks. > > And so drunks, while drunk, are going to hack driverless cars for the > purpose of killing people? I think you're kind of missing the point. > I am more worried about drunks hacking cars with drivers in them. Anti-lock brakes work by the software switching the brakes off (then back on again).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 12:01 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dgt7j6Flr7cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157991 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:NtOdnXEzOPnjzzTLnZ2dnUU78U-dnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 27/01/2016 23:21, J. Clarke wrote: >> In article <66OdnV9vCfP8MzXLnZ2dnUU78TudnZ2d@giganews.com>, >> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>> >>> On 27/01/2016 00:21, J. Clarke wrote: >>>> In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, >>>> first@last.name.invalid says... >>>>> >>>>> In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward technology we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can throw >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>> signatures for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service network >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> protection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates via >>>>>>>>>>>>> wire >>>>>>>>>>>>> links. >>>>>>>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing >>>>>>>>>>>> meeting. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers of >>>>>>>>>>> having >>>>>>>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that only >>>>>>>>>>> trained >>>>>>>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is something >>>>>>>>>>> the car >>>>>>>>>>> firms understand. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>>>>>>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>>>>>>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>>>>>>>>> to make changes when those are required. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >>>>>>>>> Virus not tuning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to use a >>>>>>>> robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing dealer >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> BUY one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, not >>>>>>> me. >>>>>> >>>>>> The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in lieu >>>>>> of >>>>>> human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it >>>>>> substituting >>>>>> for a human with a bomb? >>>>> >>>>> The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. Velocity, >>>>> mass, >>>>> fuel. >>>> >>>> If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using bombless >>>> cars >>>> for that purpose now. Are they? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Terrorists are not the only danger. Plenty of people are killed using >>> cars by drunks. >> >> And so drunks, while drunk, are going to hack driverless cars for the >> purpose of killing people? I think you're kind of missing the point. > I am more worried about drunks hacking cars with drivers in them. Easy enough to make it hard enough to do so that no drunk can manage it. > Anti-lock brakes work by the software switching the brakes off (then back > on again).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 21:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n8c1vc$jc0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #157991 |
On 1/27/2016 5:28 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 27/01/2016 23:21, J. Clarke wrote: >> In article <66OdnV9vCfP8MzXLnZ2dnUU78TudnZ2d@giganews.com>, >> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>> >>> On 27/01/2016 00:21, J. Clarke wrote: >>>> In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, >>>> first@last.name.invalid says... >>>>> >>>>> In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>>>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology we can throw >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>> signatures for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service >>>>>>>>>>>>>> network for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> protection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- mrr >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates >>>>>>>>>>>>> via wire >>>>>>>>>>>>> links. >>>>>>>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing >>>>>>>>>>>> meeting. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers >>>>>>>>>>> of having >>>>>>>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that >>>>>>>>>>> only trained >>>>>>>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is >>>>>>>>>>> something the car >>>>>>>>>>> firms understand. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle >>>>>>>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the >>>>>>>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics >>>>>>>>>> to make changes when those are required. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. >>>>>>>>> Virus not tuning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to >>>>>>>> use a >>>>>>>> robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing >>>>>>>> dealer and >>>>>>>> BUY one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, >>>>>>> not me. >>>>>> >>>>>> The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in >>>>>> lieu of >>>>>> human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it >>>>>> substituting >>>>>> for a human with a bomb? >>>>> >>>>> The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. >>>>> Velocity, mass, >>>>> fuel. >>>> >>>> If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using >>>> bombless cars >>>> for that purpose now. Are they? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Terrorists are not the only danger. Plenty of people are killed using >>> cars by drunks. >> >> And so drunks, while drunk, are going to hack driverless cars for the >> purpose of killing people? I think you're kind of missing the point. >> > I am more worried about drunks hacking cars with drivers in them. > Anti-lock brakes work by the software switching the brakes off (then > back on again). Forget the drunks (whose transport will be one of the significant benefits of driverless cars). I'm more worried about sober hackers. But if the access has to be in reasonable close physical proximity, dangers from that probably won't be random, if it happens to you it'll be because you were being stalked (and your opponent is riding in a nearby vehicle). That's not wonderful, but it does limit exposure. OTOH if all the cars have IPv6 numbers and are connected to the cloud, now that has some scary possibilities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 06:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3113c902c94e9ded989ecd@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158010 |
In article <n8c1vc$jc0$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com says... > > On 1/27/2016 5:28 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote: > > On 27/01/2016 23:21, J. Clarke wrote: > >> In article <66OdnV9vCfP8MzXLnZ2dnUU78TudnZ2d@giganews.com>, > >> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > >>> > >>> On 27/01/2016 00:21, J. Clarke wrote: > >>>> In article <ht4knc-456.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, > >>>> first@last.name.invalid says... > >>>>> > >>>>> In article <MPG.31112a40fdff3cc3989eac@news.eternal-september.org>, > >>>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> In article <N5mdnUcSrri_bjvLnZ2dnUU78VWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > >>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 26/01/2016 03:11, J. Clarke wrote: > >>>>>>>> In article <WJqdnWpx44RVLTvLnZ2dnUU78WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > >>>>>>>> am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 23:30, jack wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>> news:uqKdnVpf8atSOzvLnZ2dnUU78RWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 13:05, Huge wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016-01-25, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2016 12:38, Morten Reistad wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [46 lines snipped] > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do have a lot of reasonably straightforward > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology we can throw > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at this problem. Certificate based vpns; using strong > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> signatures for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, including blacklists; using the service > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> network for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through a secure channel etc. are all useful layers of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> protection that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will make the intrusion job harder by some orders of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- mrr > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of road vehicles only allow software updates > >>>>>>>>>>>>> via wire > >>>>>>>>>>>>> links. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No updating using wifi. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> That'll survive until 10 minutes into the first marketing > >>>>>>>>>>>> meeting. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Then the lawyers will explain to the salesmen the dangers > >>>>>>>>>>> of having > >>>>>>>>>>> hackers take control of a moving vehicle. The idea that > >>>>>>>>>>> only trained > >>>>>>>>>>> mechanics are allowed to make changes to vehicles is > >>>>>>>>>>> something the car > >>>>>>>>>>> firms understand. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But have never been able to enforce. Plenty fiddle > >>>>>>>>>> with the engine control alg detail right now. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It is easy to give entertainment its own circuits. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But impossible to stop anyone fiddling with the > >>>>>>>>>> rest of it if you need to allow their mechanics > >>>>>>>>>> to make changes when those are required. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But not someone else's vehicle whilst it is actually moving. > >>>>>>>>> Virus not tuning. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why do you need to do something to someone else's vehicle to > >>>>>>>> use a > >>>>>>>> robotic car to deliver a bomb? Just go down to the effing > >>>>>>>> dealer and > >>>>>>>> BUY one. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are the one who is changing the subject by adding a bomb, > >>>>>>> not me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The proposal under discussion is the use of self-driving cars in > >>>>>> lieu of > >>>>>> human suicide bombers. If it doesn't have a bomb how is it > >>>>>> substituting > >>>>>> for a human with a bomb? > >>>>> > >>>>> The same way that the planes used in the 9/11 attack was. > >>>>> Velocity, mass, > >>>>> fuel. > >>>> > >>>> If that was sufficient you would see suicide bombers using > >>>> bombless cars > >>>> for that purpose now. Are they? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Terrorists are not the only danger. Plenty of people are killed using > >>> cars by drunks. > >> > >> And so drunks, while drunk, are going to hack driverless cars for the > >> purpose of killing people? I think you're kind of missing the point. > >> > > I am more worried about drunks hacking cars with drivers in them. > > Anti-lock brakes work by the software switching the brakes off (then > > back on again). > > Forget the drunks (whose transport will be one of the significant > benefits of driverless cars). I'm more worried about sober hackers. > But if the access has to be in reasonable close physical proximity, > dangers from that probably won't be random, if it happens to you it'll > be because you were being stalked (and your opponent is riding in a > nearby vehicle). That's not wonderful, but it does limit exposure. > OTOH if all the cars have IPv6 numbers and are connected to the cloud, > now that has some scary possibilities. Yep, that's a potential issue but it's not a venue for terrorism unless the terrorist can put something in the car that can do a lot more damage than just driving the car into something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 11:45 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n8dk07$rcd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158018 |
On 1/28/2016 5:43 AM, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <n8c1vc$jc0$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com > says... >> >> Forget the drunks (whose transport will be one of the significant >> benefits of driverless cars). I'm more worried about sober hackers. >> But if the access has to be in reasonable close physical proximity, >> dangers from that probably won't be random, if it happens to you it'll >> be because you were being stalked (and your opponent is riding in a >> nearby vehicle). That's not wonderful, but it does limit exposure. >> OTOH if all the cars have IPv6 numbers and are connected to the cloud, >> now that has some scary possibilities. > > Yep, that's a potential issue but it's not a venue for terrorism unless > the terrorist can put something in the car that can do a lot more damage > than just driving the car into something. > Terrorists probably won't be drunks. Terrorism doesn't necessarily require big explosions. Say, every car in North America simultaneously attempts a full throttle hard right turn. Even though at any given moment most aren't in operation, it would still be pretty grim. But forget terrorists, they'll be insignificant. It's the evil deeds that don't count as "terrorism" that will account for most of the casualties, whether they're a spouse trying to collect on a life insurance policy or a 14-year-old Russian kid just messing around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 36 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web