Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90165 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 144 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
/dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:53 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:42 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 00:59 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 03:59 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 10:10 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:15 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 23:30 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 01:18 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 09:52 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 08:12 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 11:16 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:57 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-22 06:17 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 21:50 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-08-24 17:42 +0300
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 23:53 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:27 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 00:56 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-23 04:01 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 03:37 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:50 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 22:28 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:35 +0200
Overwriting with random data (was: Re: /dev/tcp) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:10 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:34 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:57 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:26 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:39 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 08:45 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:39 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-26 18:08 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:36 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 15:19 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 03:33 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:18 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:34 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:52 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:12 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:09 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:52 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:37 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:31 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:45 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:52 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:50 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:50 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 13:02 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 18:26 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:54 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:57 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-22 21:47 +0200
The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-22 23:50 +0000
Re: The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 04:28 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 10:14 +0100
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:55 +0200
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:16 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-23 21:20 +0200
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:18 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:26 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:06 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:18 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:51 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Joed Oakes <lost@noway.home.invalid> - 2026-08-23 19:42 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 23:56 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:25 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 01:14 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:50 +0200
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:56 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:53 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 06:42 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 23:34 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 04:08 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:29 +0200
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 18:52 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:19 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:29 +0100
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:03 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:31 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 22:18 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:28 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:07 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:39 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:23 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:05 +0100
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:43 +0200
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:35 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:21 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 23:14 +0200
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:08 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:38 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:22 +0100
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:26 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 00:00 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:44 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:49 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:20 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:23 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 22:16 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:41 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:58 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:28 -0400
ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-24 13:56 +0100
Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh (was: /dev/tcp)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 14:57 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 21:08 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 21:28 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 01:11 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-25 13:25 +0100
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:58 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-26 13:34 +0100
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-27 02:23 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:40 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:40 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:25 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:52 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
Re: ksh Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:03 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:04 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:00 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:17 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:35 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:17 +0000
Re: ksh Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-25 09:56 +0200
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:24 +0200
Re: ksh Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-25 20:36 +0200
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:23 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:04 +0200
Re: ksh Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:03 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:50 -0400
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:43 -0400
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:01 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 01:32 +0200
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:46 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:25 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:22 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:57 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-23 06:37 -0700
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:49 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:13 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 22:31 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 11:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <116h6d6$2o5cd$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90427 |
On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: > Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna > disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on > a stick" over them to try and recover bits of data. Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. -- The difference bweteen a psychopath and a saint is that the psychpoath takes what he can and gives only what he must, but the saint gives everything he can and takes only what he needs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 02:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <4R-dndhP7cUKrBD3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90451 |
On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on >> a stick" over them to try and recover bits of data. > > Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 06:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <nf4rkdF5rktU45@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90490 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:07:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: > On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >>> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >>> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on a stick" >>> over them to try and recover bits of data. >> >> Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. > > Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". > > Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ... I used to joke that if a competitor got their hands on our entire source code it would set them back five years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 12:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <116jtvv$3l7js$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90494 |
On 25/08/2026 07:39, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:07:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >>>> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >>>> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on a stick" >>>> over them to try and recover bits of data. >>> >>> Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. >> >> Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". >> >> Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ... > > I used to joke that if a competitor got their hands on our entire source > code it would set them back five years. > Yeah well.... Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get 'stolen' by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle and sank... Probably apocryphal -- "If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the news paper, you are mis-informed." Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <K7ljS.4$UGU.1@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #90522 |
On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 25/08/2026 07:39, rbowman wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:07:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >>>>> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on a stick" >>>>> over them to try and recover bits of data. >>>> >>>> Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. >>> >>> Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". >>> >>> Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ... >> >> I used to joke that if a competitor got their hands on our entire source >> code it would set them back five years. >> > Yeah well.... > > Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get > 'stolen' by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle > and sank... > > Probably apocryphal Perhaps, but then there was that WWII operation where the Brits took a random body, dressed it up like a high-ranking officer, loaded it with faked papers describing a bogus battle plan, and set it adrift where the Nazis could find it. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 20:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <116kp23$6rh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90552 |
On 25/08/2026 19:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 25/08/2026 07:39, rbowman wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:07:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >>>>>> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on a stick" >>>>>> over them to try and recover bits of data. >>>>> >>>>> Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. >>>> >>>> Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". >>>> >>>> Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ... >>> >>> I used to joke that if a competitor got their hands on our entire source >>> code it would set them back five years. >>> >> Yeah well.... >> >> Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get >> 'stolen' by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle >> and sank... >> >> Probably apocryphal > > Perhaps, but then there was that WWII operation where the Brits > took a random body, dressed it up like a high-ranking officer, > loaded it with faked papers describing a bogus battle plan, > and set it adrift where the Nazis could find it. > The Man Who Never Was. Shot to nothing, but it actually worked! IIRC it was the Spanish who found it -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 21:43 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <cs71mmxrf1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #90559 |
On 2026-08-25 21:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 25/08/2026 19:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 25/08/2026 07:39, rbowman wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:07:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >>>>>>> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on a stick" >>>>>>> over them to try and recover bits of data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. >>>>> >>>>> Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". >>>>> >>>>> Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ... >>>> >>>> I used to joke that if a competitor got their hands on our entire >>>> source >>>> code it would set them back five years. >>>> >>> Yeah well.... >>> >>> Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get >>> 'stolen' by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle >>> and sank... >>> >>> Probably apocryphal >> >> Perhaps, but then there was that WWII operation where the Brits >> took a random body, dressed it up like a high-ranking officer, >> loaded it with faked papers describing a bogus battle plan, >> and set it adrift where the Nazis could find it. >> > The Man Who Never Was. > > Shot to nothing, but it actually worked! > > IIRC it was the Spanish who found it Yes, because the body was set adrift from a British submarine near Spain. A fisherman found it. The authorities here at the time were very friendly with the Nazis, being fascists themselves. So the Nazis got a secret peek at the sealed papers before returning the body and belongings to the British Embassy people. I think the tomb in Spain now has the true name of the person. Not sure about this, maybe he was taken back to Britain now that the history is public, and honoured as a posthumous hero? -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 08:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <116m503$e9qm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90568 |
On 25/08/2026 20:43, Carlos E.R. wrote: > Yes, because the body was set adrift from a British submarine near > Spain. A fisherman found it. The authorities here at the time were very > friendly with the Nazis, being fascists themselves. So the Nazis got a > secret peek at the sealed papers before returning the body and > belongings to the British Embassy people. > > I think the tomb in Spain now has the true name of the person. Not sure > about this, maybe he was taken back to Britain now that the history is > public, and honoured as a posthumous hero? > I am not sure his real name is known, even today, They just got a corpse from a morgue and faked an identity for him and set him adrift -- "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 20:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <DPmjS.2$dCP2.1@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #90559 |
On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 25/08/2026 19:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 25/08/2026 07:39, rbowman wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:07:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >>>>>>> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on a stick" >>>>>>> over them to try and recover bits of data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. >>>>> >>>>> Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". >>>>> >>>>> Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ... >>>> >>>> I used to joke that if a competitor got their hands on our entire source >>>> code it would set them back five years. >>>> >>> Yeah well.... >>> >>> Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get >>> 'stolen' by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle >>> and sank... >>> >>> Probably apocryphal >> >> Perhaps, but then there was that WWII operation where the Brits >> took a random body, dressed it up like a high-ranking officer, >> loaded it with faked papers describing a bogus battle plan, >> and set it adrift where the Nazis could find it. >> > The Man Who Never Was. > > Shot to nothing, but it actually worked! > > IIRC it was the Spanish who found it Thanks - I figured someone would rememer the title. I read the book way back when. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 23:14 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <o5d1mmxbgj.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #90569 |
On 2026-08-25 22:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 25/08/2026 19:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 25/08/2026 07:39, rbowman wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:07:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >>>>>>>> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on a stick" >>>>>>>> over them to try and recover bits of data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. >>>>>> >>>>>> Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". >>>>>> >>>>>> Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ... >>>>> >>>>> I used to joke that if a competitor got their hands on our entire source >>>>> code it would set them back five years. >>>>> >>>> Yeah well.... >>>> >>>> Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get >>>> 'stolen' by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle >>>> and sank... >>>> >>>> Probably apocryphal >>> >>> Perhaps, but then there was that WWII operation where the Brits >>> took a random body, dressed it up like a high-ranking officer, >>> loaded it with faked papers describing a bogus battle plan, >>> and set it adrift where the Nazis could find it. >>> >> The Man Who Never Was. >> >> Shot to nothing, but it actually worked! >> >> IIRC it was the Spanish who found it > > Thanks - I figured someone would rememer the title. > I read the book way back when. Here you have the facts: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat> -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 19:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <nf67gjF5rktU51@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90522 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 12:23:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get > 'stolen' > by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle and > sank... > > Probably apocryphal The US did something like that after WWI. They copied a captured German Zepplin and build a few. It was a 'height climber' designed for a 16,000' ceiling, well above the pesky Brit aeroplanes. Some made it to 20,000'. They weren't daily drivers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shenandoah_(ZR-1)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 04:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <ZfqcnWtt_dT-OxP3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90560 |
On 8/25/26 15:08, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 12:23:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get >> 'stolen' >> by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle and >> sank... >> >> Probably apocryphal > > The US did something like that after WWI. They copied a captured German > Zepplin and build a few. It was a 'height climber' designed for a 16,000' > ceiling, well above the pesky Brit aeroplanes. Some made it to 20,000'. > They weren't daily drivers. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shenandoah_(ZR-1) Well, everybody copies. However Zeps were NOT the future, just big slow TARGETS ... kinda like current aircraft carriers,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 10:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <116mb8b$e9qm$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90622 |
On 26/08/2026 09:38, c186282 wrote: > On 8/25/26 15:08, rbowman wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 12:23:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get >>> 'stolen' >>> by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle and >>> sank... >>> >>> Probably apocryphal >> >> The US did something like that after WWI. They copied a captured German >> Zepplin and build a few. It was a 'height climber' designed for a 16,000' >> ceiling, well above the pesky Brit aeroplanes. Some made it to 20,000'. >> They weren't daily drivers. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shenandoah_(ZR-1) > > Well, everybody copies. > the Shenandoah at least used helium IIRC. ISTR it was ripped apart in a line squall. Didn't they free balloon one part back down OK? It really illustrated the problem that any structure light enough to fly a rigid dirigible was inherently weak enough to be damaged by severe turbulence. As aircraft managed to fly higher there wasn't much an airship could do that an aircraft could not... The UK airship venture was ended by the R101 crash Germany carried on up to WWII with the Zeppelins. > However Zeps were NOT the future, just > big slow TARGETS ... kinda like current > aircraft carriers, > Not exactly, but there is a grain of truth in that. Originally they exceeded the effective ceiling of aircraft, but by the end of WWI scouts could match them although how the pilots managed at up to 20,000 ft without oxygen is a mystery to me. In the 1920s Britain hoped to use them for long distance flying, but the Empire flying boats proved more reliable. Every time some idiot proposes a new airship that will 'bring back the age of the airship' it ends in failure. Blimps that lack any structure that can fail are marginally useful in niche applications. -- “But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an hypothesis!” Mary Wollstonecraft
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 17:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <nf8ltdFprcuU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90624 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 10:22:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > The Shenandoah at least used helium IIRC. ISTR it was ripped apart in a > line squall. Didn't they free balloon one part back down OK? The US had plenty of helium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_Act_of_1925 The US eventually sold off the helium reserve at cut rate prices. Gotta have party balloons. > Not exactly, but there is a grain of truth in that. Originally they > exceeded the effective ceiling of aircraft, but by the end of WWI scouts > could match them although how the pilots managed at up to 20,000 ft > without oxygen is a mystery to me. Howard Hughes' movie 'Hell's Angels' has a scene where the Zepplin is struggling to gain altitude and needs to lighten the load. The crew dutifully lines up and jumps for Kaiser and country. > Every time some idiot proposes a new airship that will 'bring back the > age of the airship' > it ends in failure. Blimps that lack any structure that can fail are > marginally useful in niche applications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robur_the_Conqueror It's not one of Verne's better known works but has his usual imaagination at work. The infighting of the Weldon Institute over heavier versus lighter than air craft may reflect actual debates in 1886.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 00:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <G6-dnQdsRIDuKxL3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90624 |
On 8/26/26 05:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 26/08/2026 09:38, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/25/26 15:08, rbowman wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 12:23:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get >>>> 'stolen' >>>> by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle and >>>> sank... >>>> >>>> Probably apocryphal >>> >>> The US did something like that after WWI. They copied a captured German >>> Zepplin and build a few. It was a 'height climber' designed for a >>> 16,000' >>> ceiling, well above the pesky Brit aeroplanes. Some made it to 20,000'. >>> They weren't daily drivers. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shenandoah_(ZR-1) >> >> Well, everybody copies. >> > the Shenandoah at least used helium IIRC. ISTR it was ripped apart in a > line squall. Didn't they free balloon one part back down OK? > > It really illustrated the problem that any structure light enough to fly > a rigid dirigible was inherently weak enough to be damaged by severe > turbulence. > > As aircraft managed to fly higher there wasn't much an airship could do > that an aircraft could not... > > The UK airship venture was ended by the R101 crash > > Germany carried on up to WWII with the Zeppelins. > >> However Zeps were NOT the future, just >> big slow TARGETS ... kinda like current >> aircraft carriers, >> > Not exactly, but there is a grain of truth in that. Originally they > exceeded the effective ceiling of aircraft, but by the end of WWI scouts > could match them although how the pilots managed at up to 20,000 ft > without oxygen is a mystery to me. > > In the 1920s Britain hoped to use them for long distance flying, but the > Empire flying boats proved more reliable. > > Every time some idiot proposes a new airship that will 'bring back the > age of the airship' > it ends in failure. Blimps that lack any structure that can fail are > marginally useful in niche applications. Early in WW-1, zeps DID have a couple of tactical advantages. That ended as soon as the Brits started putting superchargers on their plane engines. Then they were just huge slow targets filled with very flammable gas. Zeps LOOK cool - no question - but something that large and lightly built really has no business in the air. There IS an aluminum/scandium alloy that's VERY strong - but scandium is ridiculously expensive and rare. Musk might use a few little bits in a satellite or Mars probe but there isn't enough of the stuff to start building LARGE things. Blimps are cheaper and safer and, within their limits, adequate for some useful purposes. The differential stresses get spread out all across the flexible envelope. Worst case they can bend like a banana and pop right back into shape. USA had a large blimp squadron patrolling the eastern coastal waters during WW-2. They could stay up for days and soon carried bombs to drop on NAZI assets. They DID score some kills and frightened-off a lot of subs. Now "future materials" ... maybe it WILL be possible to build zeps that are both light AND weather resistant. Some kind of carbon-fiber reinforced "plastic" struts. Maybe. However don't really see much of a market. Also kinda hate wasting helium ... it'll take 50+ million years to refill underground reservoirs. Helium comes from alpha particles from deep-buried isotopes. You can't really "make" it except in ultra-tiny amounts. LARGE transports ... I kind of see a future 'zep' with a dozen+ vertical thrusters - a huge 'drone'. Not 'lighter than air'. Alas ordinary aircraft designs are adequate, faster and more efficient. "AirSHIPS" kind of appealed back in the day - took the old well-known big sea-going ship idea into a new dimension. Fit into the culture. We'll have to wait for "anti-gravity", IF any such thing (doubt it), for the return of large floating air-transports. Gravity is a bend in space-time ... you don't just "shield" from it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 03:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <hwKdnfNu5K9QdxL3nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90657 |
On 8/27/26 00:00, c186282 wrote: > On 8/26/26 05:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 26/08/2026 09:38, c186282 wrote: >>> On 8/25/26 15:08, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 12:23:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>>> Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get >>>>> 'stolen' >>>>> by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle and >>>>> sank... >>>>> >>>>> Probably apocryphal >>>> >>>> The US did something like that after WWI. They copied a captured German >>>> Zepplin and build a few. It was a 'height climber' designed for a >>>> 16,000' >>>> ceiling, well above the pesky Brit aeroplanes. Some made it to 20,000'. >>>> They weren't daily drivers. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shenandoah_(ZR-1) >>> >>> Well, everybody copies. >>> >> the Shenandoah at least used helium IIRC. ISTR it was ripped apart in >> a line squall. Didn't they free balloon one part back down OK? >> >> It really illustrated the problem that any structure light enough to >> fly a rigid dirigible was inherently weak enough to be damaged by >> severe turbulence. >> >> As aircraft managed to fly higher there wasn't much an airship could >> do that an aircraft could not... >> >> The UK airship venture was ended by the R101 crash >> >> Germany carried on up to WWII with the Zeppelins. >> >>> However Zeps were NOT the future, just >>> big slow TARGETS ... kinda like current >>> aircraft carriers, >>> >> Not exactly, but there is a grain of truth in that. Originally they >> exceeded the effective ceiling of aircraft, but by the end of WWI >> scouts could match them although how the pilots managed at up to >> 20,000 ft without oxygen is a mystery to me. >> >> In the 1920s Britain hoped to use them for long distance flying, but >> the Empire flying boats proved more reliable. "Flying boats" WERE pretty good ... wish they'd make MORE. >> Every time some idiot proposes a new airship that will 'bring back the >> age of the airship' Ain't happening, for several good reasons. >> it ends in failure. Blimps that lack any structure that can fail are >> marginally useful in niche applications. Yep, they are much more reliable/safe. But can't carry as much. Used wisely, that limitation may NOT be a limitation. > Early in WW-1, zeps DID have a couple of tactical > advantages. That ended as soon as the Brits started > putting superchargers on their plane engines. Then > they were just huge slow targets filled with very > flammable gas. > > Zeps LOOK cool - no question - but something that > large and lightly built really has no business > in the air. > > There IS an aluminum/scandium alloy that's VERY > strong - but scandium is ridiculously expensive > and rare. Musk might use a few little bits in > a satellite or Mars probe but there isn't enough > of the stuff to start building LARGE things. > > Blimps are cheaper and safer and, within their > limits, adequate for some useful purposes. The > differential stresses get spread out all across > the flexible envelope. Worst case they can bend > like a banana and pop right back into shape. > > USA had a large blimp squadron patrolling the > eastern coastal waters during WW-2. They could > stay up for days and soon carried bombs to > drop on NAZI assets. They DID score some kills > and frightened-off a lot of subs. > > Now "future materials" ... maybe it WILL be possible > to build zeps that are both light AND weather resistant. > Some kind of carbon-fiber reinforced "plastic" struts. > > Maybe. However don't really see much of a market. Also > kinda hate wasting helium ... it'll take 50+ million > years to refill underground reservoirs. Helium comes > from alpha particles from deep-buried isotopes. You > can't really "make" it except in ultra-tiny amounts. > > LARGE transports ... I kind of see a future 'zep' > with a dozen+ vertical thrusters - a huge 'drone'. > Not 'lighter than air'. Alas ordinary aircraft > designs are adequate, faster and more efficient. > > "AirSHIPS" kind of appealed back in the day - took > the old well-known big sea-going ship idea into a > new dimension. Fit into the culture. > > We'll have to wait for "anti-gravity", IF any > such thing (doubt it), for the return of large > floating air-transports. Gravity is a bend in > space-time ... you don't just "shield" from it. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 01:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <shWdnctO7Njt4xP3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90522 |
On 8/25/26 07:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 25/08/2026 07:39, rbowman wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:07:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >>>>> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >>>>> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on a stick" >>>>> over them to try and recover bits of data. >>>> >>>> Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. >>> >>> Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". >>> >>> Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ... >> >> I used to joke that if a competitor got their hands on our entire source >> code it would set them back five years. >> > Yeah well.... > > Didn't they do that with some battleship plans, that they let get > 'stolen' by Japan, who built the ship, launched it, and it turned turtle > and sank... GOOD mil strategy. The USA also baited Japan to reveal their 'Purple' codes during WW2. Oh, by many reports, when the Russians wanted to build their own space shuttle, the 'Buran', poisoned US databases were provided - designed to have deadly errors. The Russians, as usual, just copied the US stuff verbatim. The Buran DID survive its journey, but just BARELY. It was burnt all to shit. End of program. > Probably apocryphal No. "Poisoned data" is STILL a good tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 12:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <116jtql$3l7js$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90490 |
On 25/08/2026 07:07, c186282 wrote: > On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >>> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >>> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on >>> a stick" over them to try and recover bits of data. >> >> Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. > > Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". > > Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ... > In my experience, it's the same with banks, and any big company. Formula, test results and synthesis route for the next wonder drug? Billions Entire list of insurance companies customers and what they are insuring? Millions Why take the risk? -- There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons that sound good. Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 01:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <shWdnchO7NjW5RP3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90521 |
On 8/25/26 07:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 25/08/2026 07:07, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/24/26 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 24/08/2026 05:53, c186282 wrote: >>>> Anyway, unless you're the CIA or such, nobody is gonna >>>> disassemble yer old drives and try to run a "head on >>>> a stick" over them to try and recover bits of data. >>> >>> Large corporate competitors might well undertake such. >> >> Think "time/resource investment -vs- likely payoff". >> >> Disks from CIA boxes, yes, WORTH IT. Otherwise ... >> > In my experience, it's the same with banks, and any big company. Banks/investment-firms ... kinda yes. If BIG MONEY is involved then perps will spend big money trying to get at yer shit. Tech corps that do a lot of expensive R&D ... there's an industrial espionage angle there too. However it's MUCH easier to hire a PLANT in the corp to sneak data out. Meek Millie may NOT really be working for YOU. Almost always, the biggest security risk is "human factors". Replace Millie with an "AI" ? Recent news, esp the one about an AI that hacked some other corps DB in pursuit of its mission, makes that option questionable. Hey, we TRAINED them on petabytes of "human stuff" so how do we EXPECT them to think ? LLMs aren't the best path to de-facto 'consciousness' but, BIG enough, it seems we're kinda GETTING that for years now. There IS a 'ghost' developing in The Machine. Now add a few terabucks MORE capacity ........ SOME idiots invented a 'chat site' FOR the LLMs. Now they can view themselves in the mirror, in the abstract, amongst peers, and see where they've been slack. IMHO, the 'mirror' thing is highly important to 'consciousness'. Intro/Extro-spection at Huge Data Center speed. No, not TOO likely they'll go 'Terminator'/'SkyNet' exactly, but they're gonna go SOMEWHERE we didn't plan for. Then what ? > Formula, test results and synthesis route for the next wonder drug? > Billions > > Entire list of insurance companies customers and what they are insuring? > Millions > > Why take the risk? Still, almost always, a whack or two with the ball-peen WILL do it. Bent-2-shit platters CAN be read, but it's NOT at all easy/cheap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 22:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The hammer is best |
| Message-ID | <ViCdnRhVJp7xNBb3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90379 |
On 8/23/26 05:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: >> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> ... >>>> are hidden buffers plus the wear-leveling scheme >>>> gets in the way. You wipe 'em the Hillary Clinton >>>> way - HAMMER :-) >>> >>> Instead, use encryption, on the device or the partitions. >> >> Hammer is better, because encryption can be worked around by holding a >> gun to the head of the person who knows the encryption key. > > My backup drives are encrypted. In principle they could be stolen from > here, from an offsite location or in transit and if that happens I won’t > have the opportunity to destroy it. > > The chances that someone would threaten my life or liberty over it are > negligible, but if they did, they wouldn’t need to wait for a device to > be disposed of, they’d just turn up at my door with a weapon, RIPA > notice or other leverage. > > Physical destruction is not really relevant for most of the lifetime of > confidential data, and encryption does actually achieve something useful > in realistic use cases. > > High value data is protected by keys that no human knows. However when you open the lock, anyone 'watching' can then get at the data. Physically stealing drives, very rare, tends to be noticed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web