Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #72175 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-08 07:55 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-10-13 21:42 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 283 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 07:55 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 07:57 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 08:01 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2015-10-09 01:08 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 13:08 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 13:09 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-11 19:03 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 13:13 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-11 19:55 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 16:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-11 21:45 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-11 17:01 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-11 22:18 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 18:45 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-11 18:03 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 19:24 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-11 21:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:53 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:50 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-11 17:13 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:55 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 01:08 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 11:53 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-19 16:58 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-19 14:32 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-19 18:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-20 16:35 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-11 20:51 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 21:05 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-12 01:08 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 03:59 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-11 23:08 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 04:41 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 00:16 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 00:37 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 05:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 00:56 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 06:18 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:22 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 08:44 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:23 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 08:47 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 03:59 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 09:14 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-12 12:08 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 08:59 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:25 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:20 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:27 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 11:20 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:01 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:16 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 23:27 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-15 21:41 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:43 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-16 04:44 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 07:51 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-16 08:27 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 13:21 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2015-10-13 11:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-13 08:45 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:03 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 17:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 13:10 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-12 20:01 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-13 00:44 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 12:25 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-13 16:40 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 13:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 18:16 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-13 11:32 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:53 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:27 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-14 01:45 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 21:58 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-14 02:13 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:29 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-15 01:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 01:01 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:16 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 01:19 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 22:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:22 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:19 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:51 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 12:59 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 13:18 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:29 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:47 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 21:22 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. JW <none@dev.null> - 2015-10-16 06:14 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 16:24 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-15 22:50 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 17:12 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:50 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 18:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 20:06 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com> - 2015-10-16 02:37 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:32 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-15 14:05 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 19:10 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-15 14:46 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-15 21:28 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-16 00:19 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 21:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-15 17:51 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-10-16 01:41 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-14 20:35 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-15 21:53 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:46 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-15 09:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-14 02:13 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-13 21:32 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 00:21 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:09 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 13:20 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 09:07 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-14 04:49 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 00:56 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-13 22:39 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 08:40 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-14 15:01 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 19:13 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:33 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 19:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:42 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:32 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 13:26 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:48 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-21 02:09 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-10-21 11:10 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-21 03:45 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-10-21 13:05 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-21 11:25 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 07:53 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 18:45 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-13 15:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 22:17 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 21:59 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:35 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-10-13 22:28 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 04:00 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 23:10 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 04:19 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 00:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 08:29 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:39 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:10 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:24 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 22:31 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:16 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 16:25 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 08:03 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 22:50 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-15 12:19 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-14 22:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 22:38 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:20 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-13 22:54 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 04:24 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 23:01 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:44 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-14 21:11 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 22:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:48 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-13 13:24 -0600
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 22:23 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:36 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:59 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 20:35 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 02:16 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-13 18:54 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-14 04:05 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:52 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 20:49 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-14 23:07 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-15 07:12 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 12:58 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 20:49 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 12:26 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-13 03:02 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 12:19 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 17:17 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-20 22:13 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:13 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 15:04 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:43 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:29 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 08:53 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 08:50 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:18 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2015-10-12 16:50 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:12 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 17:33 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:32 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-10-12 21:20 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 21:43 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-13 08:03 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 07:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 07:28 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 10:16 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-13 04:35 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 12:57 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 13:29 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-13 14:41 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 13:53 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-13 16:24 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 16:12 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-10-13 16:39 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 18:51 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:55 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:47 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-13 18:13 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 19:03 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-13 22:57 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-13 22:02 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-13 22:04 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 12:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 16:37 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 12:46 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Brian Gladman <blindanagram@nowhere.net> - 2015-10-12 18:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 13:14 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 15:12 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-13 03:06 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 12:28 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:30 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-11 23:58 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 09:01 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 08:54 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-12 14:24 +0100
Re: Firefox improvements. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-12 07:07 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 13:02 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-12 15:24 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-12 00:18 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 16:31 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-16 15:55 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-16 17:33 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-17 01:32 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 01:12 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-17 12:53 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 19:32 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 20:29 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-10-18 08:10 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 11:08 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 17:15 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-18 12:42 -0400
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:01 +0200
Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 00:34 -0500
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-10-18 11:55 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 17:13 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-19 06:47 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Neon John <no@never.com> - 2015-10-18 13:25 -0400
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-18 16:18 -0700
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-19 18:37 -0500
Re: Trusting password managers [Re: Firefox improvements.] Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 11:54 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-10-12 05:52 +0000
Re: Firefox improvements. DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-12 02:35 -0400
Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 01:07 -0500
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 08:16 +0200
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] David Malone <dwmalone@walton.maths.tcd.ie> - 2015-10-21 15:54 +0000
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 11:57 -0400
Re: Password crackers are not naive [Was: Firefox improvements.] dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2015-10-21 11:17 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-15 10:38 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-12 09:56 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2015-10-18 01:25 -0500
Re: Firefox improvements. fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 00:32 -0700
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 08:47 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 09:17 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-21 09:36 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 23:07 +0200
Re: Firefox improvements. "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-13 21:42 +0200
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvkdp0$r97$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72772 |
On 2015-10-14, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: .. >> >>Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >>Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. > > Others don't speak English. You definition makes no sense. Case closed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 21:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1bsi5egm5n.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #72770 |
William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > On 2015-10-14, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:16:43 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >>>On 13/10/2015 18:02, krw wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >>> >>>>> Sure it is. Brute force says nothing about the order in which all the >>>>> keys are tried. >>>> >>>> Wrong. That's exactly what the term means. No thought, just pure >>>> muscle. >>> >>>It can be a combination of logic and brute force (that's usually how I >>>solve puzzles with a machine instead of using an analytical solution). >> >> Surely, but that's not "brute force". >> >>>If I need to find a 4 digit PIN but somehow know it's more likely to be >>>in the top half, I might start at 9999 and work down, instead of 0000 >>>and work up. >> >> OK, but that's just a stupid uneducated guess. The search is still >> dumb. If you use information about the distribution of numbers, even >> if you (intend to) search all combinations, it's not "brute force". >> > > Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. > Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version is less brute than mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 00:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j2mr1b5h8bs3ggkt4gf4sf9bqhp24esdaf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72795 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:32:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> Gave us: >William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: > >> On 2015-10-14, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:16:43 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On 13/10/2015 18:02, krw wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >>>> >>>>>> Sure it is. Brute force says nothing about the order in which all the >>>>>> keys are tried. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. That's exactly what the term means. No thought, just pure >>>>> muscle. >>>> >>>>It can be a combination of logic and brute force (that's usually how I >>>>solve puzzles with a machine instead of using an analytical solution). >>> >>> Surely, but that's not "brute force". >>> >>>>If I need to find a 4 digit PIN but somehow know it's more likely to be >>>>in the top half, I might start at 9999 and work down, instead of 0000 >>>>and work up. >>> >>> OK, but that's just a stupid uneducated guess. The search is still >>> dumb. If you use information about the distribution of numbers, even >>> if you (intend to) search all combinations, it's not "brute force". >>> >> >> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. > >(since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >is less brute than mine. Thou brute! Or is that Et Tú Brutè?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 20:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qsst1b591jd87n3thbfgvlkhsod45n0f3p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72799 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:21:41 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:32:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> >Gave us: > >>William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >> >>> On 2015-10-14, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:16:43 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 13/10/2015 18:02, krw wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >>>>> >>>>>>> Sure it is. Brute force says nothing about the order in which all the >>>>>>> keys are tried. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong. That's exactly what the term means. No thought, just pure >>>>>> muscle. >>>>> >>>>>It can be a combination of logic and brute force (that's usually how I >>>>>solve puzzles with a machine instead of using an analytical solution). >>>> >>>> Surely, but that's not "brute force". >>>> >>>>>If I need to find a 4 digit PIN but somehow know it's more likely to be >>>>>in the top half, I might start at 9999 and work down, instead of 0000 >>>>>and work up. >>>> >>>> OK, but that's just a stupid uneducated guess. The search is still >>>> dumb. If you use information about the distribution of numbers, even >>>> if you (intend to) search all combinations, it's not "brute force". >>>> >>> >>> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >>> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. >> >>(since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>is less brute than mine. > > Thou brute! > > Or is that Et Tú Brutè? That stinks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 21:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d5vt1bhspeooat6kr45u6r19mjo2857egc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72896 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:30:39 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> Gave us: >On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:21:41 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno ><DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:32:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> >>Gave us: snip >>>> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >>>> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. >>> >>>(since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>>that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>>is less brute than mine. >> >> Thou brute! >> >> Or is that Et Tú Brutè? > >That stinks! This isn't Denmark.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvo5j8$vq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72906 |
On 15/10/15 02:09, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:30:39 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> Gave us: > >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:21:41 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno >> <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:32:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> >>> Gave us: > snip >>>>> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >>>>> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. >>>> >>>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>>> is less brute than mine. >>> >>> Thou brute! >>> >>> Or is that Et Tú Brutè? >> >> That stinks! > > This isn't Denmark. To be fair to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno, that was actually quite funny. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Cf Marcellus in "Hamlet" Act I Scene IV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 09:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <f59v1bpd3en6vu7411ve31p9ioel9tv09q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72942 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:20:54 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >On 15/10/15 02:09, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:30:39 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> Gave us: >> >>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:21:41 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno >>> <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:32:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> >>>> Gave us: >> snip >>>>>> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >>>>>> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. >>>>> >>>>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>>>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>>>> is less brute than mine. >>>> >>>> Thou brute! >>>> >>>> Or is that Et Tú Brutè? >>> >>> That stinks! >> >> This isn't Denmark. > >To be fair to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno, that was actually quite funny. So was my subsequent, most recent response. And this one too.... Let them eat cake. But whatever you do... do NOT vote for Donald J. Trump. He is a dishonorable criminal, and a political buffoon at best.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 04:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvkmsj$ice$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72795 |
On 2015-10-14, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >> >> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. > > (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept > that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version > is less brute than mine. Around here we have very intelligent brutes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 00:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n3or1bleo33naclv3vv7vkkinsnd2ov7e3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72801 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:49:23 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us: >On 2015-10-14, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes: >>> >>> Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. >>> Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. >> >> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >> is less brute than mine. > >Around here we have very intelligent brutes. Especially those New Mexico ruffians!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 22:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnio6a9fgc.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #72795 |
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
[...]
> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept
> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version
> is less brute than mine.
Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 08:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvl0pr$dqv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72804 |
On 14/10/15 06:39, Keith Thompson wrote: > Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: > [...] >> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >> is less brute than mine. > > Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion. I'm guessing that Joe means krw, who is presumably known in s.c.d (by a process of elimination). -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 15:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1boag1go6d.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #72810 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 14/10/15 06:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >> [...] >>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>> is less brute than mine. >> >> Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion. > > I'm guessing that Joe means krw, who is presumably known in s.c.d (by > a process of elimination). Indeed that is who I meant; I've got no idea why "krw" was translated to "Keith" when typing...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 19:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7bot1btrousbunjko2op6m5p84kppj2o6s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72881 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:01:14 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> Gave us: >Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > > >> On 14/10/15 06:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >>> [...] >>>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>>> is less brute than mine. >>> >>> Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion. >> >> I'm guessing that Joe means krw, who is presumably known in s.c.d (by >> a process of elimination). > >Indeed that is who I meant; I've got no idea why "krw" was translated to >"Keith" when typing... > Because that is krw's first name. Maybe you have ESP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 20:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l1tt1b5c3gsdll9grre0jurbbakpo001fh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72881 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:01:14 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > > >> On 14/10/15 06:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >>> [...] >>>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>>> is less brute than mine. >>> >>> Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion. >> >> I'm guessing that Joe means krw, who is presumably known in s.c.d (by >> a process of elimination). > >Indeed that is who I meant; I've got no idea why "krw" was translated to >"Keith" when typing... > My mommy did that translation. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 19:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <keot1b1cha80ppj8u5t2lmv58q6hc9sul9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72810 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:40:40 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> Gave us: >On 14/10/15 06:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >> [...] >>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>> is less brute than mine. >> >> Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion. > >I'm guessing that Joe means krw, who is presumably known in s.c.d (by a >process of elimination). Was that a "brute force" process?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 12:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mvo3bb$n7a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72888 |
On 15/10/15 00:15, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:40:40 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> > Gave us: > >> On 14/10/15 06:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >>> [...] >>>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>>> is less brute than mine. >>> >>> Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion. >> >> I'm guessing that Joe means krw, who is presumably known in s.c.d (by a >> process of elimination). > > Was that a "brute force" process? It's a reasonable question. I think the answer is "no". It turns out that Joe meant to type "krw" but typed "Keith" by mistake. I made my guess when that information was not known (except, perhaps, by Joe). It seemed to me to be obvious that Joe was describing krw's definition, so I deduced that Joe knew krw. Since he couldn't know him from sci.crypt (because krw doesn't normally post in sci.crypt) or from comp.lang.c (where krw certainly doesn't normally post and I'm reasonably sure Joe Pfeiffer doesn't either although I haven't actually checked that and could conceivably be wrong), of the three newsgroups that this thread is cross-posted to it was only sci.electronics.design (to which I don't subscribe) in which Joe and krw might be on first name terms. So it was a deductive process, rather than a brute force process. Because it was based on an incorrect assumption, it was a flawed deductive process. But it wasn't brute force. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 20:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qust1bphi9j9dosg3fppvj4borr3pl82u9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #72810 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:40:40 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >On 14/10/15 06:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >> [...] >>> (since it sounds like Keith's definition and mine agree) I'll accept >>> that others have a different version, but I'll insist that their version >>> is less brute than mine. >> >> Not mine; I've been staying out of this discussion. > >I'm guessing that Joe means krw, who is presumably known in s.c.d (by a >process of elimination). k => Keith, so I assumed he knew me. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 13:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d8ctq7FoqsbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72770 |
On 2015-10-14 01:45:39 +0000, William Unruh said: > On 2015-10-14, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:16:43 +0100, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >>> On 13/10/2015 18:02, krw wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:40:39 +0000 (UTC), William Unruh >>> >>>>> Sure it is. Brute force says nothing about the order in which all the >>>>> keys are tried. >>>> >>>> Wrong. That's exactly what the term means. No thought, just pure >>>> muscle. >>> >>> It can be a combination of logic and brute force (that's usually how I >>> solve puzzles with a machine instead of using an analytical solution). >> >> Surely, but that's not "brute force". >> >>> If I need to find a 4 digit PIN but somehow know it's more likely to be >>> in the top half, I might start at 9999 and work down, instead of 0000 >>> and work up. >> >> OK, but that's just a stupid uneducated guess. The search is still >> dumb. If you use information about the distribution of numbers, even >> if you (intend to) search all combinations, it's not "brute force". >> > > Yes, we now know your own peculiar version of what "brute force" means. > Accept that others (most others?) might have a different version. Suppose you were searching a keyspace (instead of for passwords) and you knew that the generator of the keys had a strong bias for some numbers over others. Suppose that in an n bit number, the probability of getting a 1 bit was 0.51 and the probability of getting a 0 bit is 0.49. If you design a search for keys that exploited such a weaknes in the key generator, would you be happy to call that a "brute force" attack? If you would not, then it wouldn't be appropriate to talk about an attack on passwords that exploited biases in the password generation scheme. We can define our words however we want, but I suspect that a distinction between "exhaustive search" and "brute force" attack might be useful. When a distribution is uniform, an exhausitve search is the same as a brute force attack. But when it is not uniform, then these differ. In what follows I will use "brute force" in the narrow sense. It means that nothing about the distribution other than its bounds is used in designing the search. When it comes to cracking passwords, nobody does a brute force attack unless the key space is very small, and a dictionary attack is only the first phase of an attack. The interesting parts of the attacks search more and more of the keyspace, generating guesses that it considers most likely. So when talking about password security, we need to very much focus on the fact that attackers make great use of the non-uniformality of the distriution. Cheers, -j
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 07:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <6a60c$56272742$d47876e2$46911@news.ziggo.nl> |
| In reply to | #73052 |
To me brute force would have always ment that some process is ramming/logging passwords into some system... That's where the word "brute" refers to. It's literally hammering the system. And then "force" is to force itself through the entire key space. The actual order or so of it doesn't really matter. Up or Down is as far as I am concerned still brute force. Even if one has a hunch or prior knowledge that the key *might* be in the upper region... but one never really knows for sure... There *might* be a bias as some say, but never sure. If you just want that one password for that one account, these stats probably play very little roll for the actual account. These kinds of stats would only apply to repeatedly trying to hack different accounts, which might also be part of an attack. But already trying to get into a single account is already difficult enough, so these kind of stats don't mean that much ! ;) Bye, Skybuck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 02:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54f3347c-dea7-43f4-adc1-c2ac9a483ac4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #73451 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 6:49:00 AM UTC+1, Skybuck Flying wrote: > To me brute force would have always ment that some process is > ramming/logging passwords into some system... > > That's where the word "brute" refers to. > > It's literally hammering the system. > Normally we use the term to mean "uses an easy NP or N^2 algorithm when a more difficult lower-order algorithm is available". Real travelling salesmen seldom have more than four or five customers on their list for the day, so simply trying out every combination of routes is perfectly adequate in producing an itinerary. That's still the brute force algorithm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web