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 | 2026-08-29 18:15 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 222 — 25 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 David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-30 17:56 +0100
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 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:49 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:59 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:19 +0100
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> - 2026-08-27 12:11 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 01:00 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 22:16 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 08:32 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 03:34 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-28 11:37 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:44 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-28 13:25 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:27 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 19:30 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 00:59 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 01:57 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 20:42 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:33 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 19:50 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:11 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-29 05:25 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:12 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:15 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 21:56 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:29 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-28 13:43 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 20:15 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-28 21:59 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:09 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-29 08:59 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 09:25 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-29 11:19 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 20:45 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:38 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-29 15:10 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-30 08:58 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 21:47 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 13:56 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 14:17 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-29 16:02 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:12 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-29 21:04 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:58 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:23 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:53 +0000
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: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 01:02 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:48 +0000
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 Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:48 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:44 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-29 23:05 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-30 00:58 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-30 04:12 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-30 09:25 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-30 11:00 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-30 13:06 +0100
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: Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-30 13:26 +0100
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) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:29 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:41 +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 (was: /dev/tcp) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:40 +0000
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 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 15:22 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 17:55 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 23:14 -0400
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:48 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 22:43 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 04:17 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 03:18 -0400
Re: ksh Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-28 15:54 +0000
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 20:40 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:14 +0100
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 21:12 +0000
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 Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:38 +0000
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:42 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-30 14:26 +0200
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
Re: /dev/tcp David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-29 00:52 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 04:14 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-29 19:06 +0100
[OT] Weather Underground (was: Re: /dev/tcp) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 08:58 +0100
Re: [OT] Weather Underground David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-29 18:15 +0100
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 17:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <nf8mdtFprcuU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90614 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate random > numbers https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 01:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <G6-dnQNsRIBQTRL3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90637 |
On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate random >> numbers > > https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator > Those are "Pretty Good". However note that they DO produce in a sort of "statistical spectrum". You can't EXACTLY predict, but can get CLOSE with enough analysis. That may be useful for code-breakers, save them a lot of work. TRUE "random" ... the universe may NOT actually provide. Just sayin'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 12:11 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116p61b$1ddgs$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90661 |
On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: > On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate random >>> numbers >> >> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >> > > Those are "Pretty Good". > > However note that they DO produce in > a sort of "statistical spectrum". You > can't EXACTLY predict, but can get > CLOSE with enough analysis. > No. you cannot Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. That is, its dead flat -- “when things get difficult you just have to lie” ― Jean Claud Jüncker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 01:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116qmj8$1u4ip$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90677 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate random >>>> numbers >>> >>> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >>> >> >> Those are "Pretty Good". >> >> However note that they DO produce in >> a sort of "statistical spectrum". You >> can't EXACTLY predict, but can get >> CLOSE with enough analysis. >> > No. you cannot > > Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. > That is, its dead flat Do keep in mind this is speed-of-light guy. His biased preconcieved notion of "random" is showing (and, as usual, wrong).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 22:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <zX6dnaqqj-cOcg33nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90677 |
On 8/27/26 07:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate >>>> random >>>> numbers >>> >>> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >>> >> >> Those are "Pretty Good". >> >> However note that they DO produce in >> a sort of "statistical spectrum". You >> can't EXACTLY predict, but can get >> CLOSE with enough analysis. >> > No. you cannot > > Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. > That is, its dead flat Well, check out the crypto-related pages. They DO get all paranoid still about false randomness and how that can be exploited.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 08:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <wwvld9qbsyw.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #90711 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: > On 8/27/26 07:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: >>> On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate >>>>> random >>>>> numbers >>>> >>>> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >>> >>> Those are "Pretty Good". >>> >>> However note that they DO produce in >>> a sort of "statistical spectrum". You >>> can't EXACTLY predict, but can get >>> CLOSE with enough analysis. >> >> No. you cannot >> Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. >> That is, its dead flat > > Well, check out the crypto-related pages. They DO get all paranoid > still about false randomness and how that can be exploited. The paranoid people are using designs of the type TNP describes (e.g. Zener diode + amplifier, among other possibilities). Check out the link to the Killman & Schindler paper I posted earlier for a fuller description of one typical design and its statistical properties, on the offchance you actually want to know. (Note that these circuits are used to seed a DRBG rather than being directly used to generate key material; for something like /dev/random you’re seeing the DRBG output.) -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 03:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <wxednbo-Uqqupwz3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90734 |
On 8/28/26 03:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >> On 8/27/26 07:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate >>>>>> random >>>>>> numbers >>>>> >>>>> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >>>> >>>> Those are "Pretty Good". >>>> >>>> However note that they DO produce in >>>> a sort of "statistical spectrum". You >>>> can't EXACTLY predict, but can get >>>> CLOSE with enough analysis. >>> >>> No. you cannot >>> Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. >>> That is, its dead flat >> >> Well, check out the crypto-related pages. They DO get all paranoid >> still about false randomness and how that can be exploited. > > The paranoid people are using designs of the type TNP describes > (e.g. Zener diode + amplifier, among other possibilities). Check out the > link to the Killman & Schindler paper I posted earlier for a fuller > description of one typical design and its statistical properties, on the > offchance you actually want to know. > > (Note that these circuits are used to seed a DRBG rather than being > directly used to generate key material; for something like /dev/random > you’re seeing the DRBG output.) As I said somewhere, I'm not so sure the universe supports TRUE "random". But Good Enough may be Good Enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 11:37 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116rocu$la5f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90735 |
On 8/28/26 08:34, c186282 wrote: > On 8/28/26 03:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >>> On 8/27/26 07:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate >>>>>>> random >>>>>>> numbers >>>>>> >>>>>> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >>>>> >>>>> Those are "Pretty Good". >>>>> >>>>> However note that they DO produce in >>>>> a sort of "statistical spectrum". You >>>>> can't EXACTLY predict, but can get >>>>> CLOSE with enough analysis. >>>> >>>> No. you cannot >>>> Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. >>>> That is, its dead flat >>> >>> Well, check out the crypto-related pages. They DO get all paranoid >>> still about false randomness and how that can be exploited. >> >> The paranoid people are using designs of the type TNP describes >> (e.g. Zener diode + amplifier, among other possibilities). Check out the >> link to the Killman & Schindler paper I posted earlier for a fuller >> description of one typical design and its statistical properties, on the >> offchance you actually want to know. >> >> (Note that these circuits are used to seed a DRBG rather than being >> directly used to generate key material; for something like /dev/random >> you’re seeing the DRBG output.) > > As I said somewhere, I'm not so sure the universe > supports TRUE "random". > And Einstein agreed, "God doesn't play dice". It is just the current fad, quantum theory, that disagrees, which is really quite popular with the boffins. When we did random, we used pseudo random, which is great for unit tests. We used them mainly for numerical integration, Monte Carlo. Our major concern was the overall distribution of the numbers that were produced, if they clustered etc. So pseudo was fine, it just had to be well-behaved pseudo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 12:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116rsaf$28guo$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90738 |
On 28/08/2026 11:37, Pancho wrote: > And Einstein agreed, "God doesn't play dice". It is just the current > fad, quantum theory, that disagrees, which is really quite popular with > the boffins. Trust me many have tried. It's not a fad, it's simply the best that we can do, and it is profoundly unsatisfactory because it is nearly impossible to map onto our conviction that reality is an unbroken chain of causality stretching back to the Big Bang (or to God, for the religious). Something has to give, and people are absolutely unable to forego absolute determinism, because that is, in science, the hinge pin of everything. The foundation of everything we have built. And yet, although the Universe appears to be statistically simply the most likely thing to exist, it is, quantum wise, not the only possible thing. Which is why many physicists simply don't get involved with thinking about it at all. The late Hilary Puttnam did, and clarified many issues. Sean Carroll is another person who at least understands the issues even if he has no solutions. -- The higher up the mountainside The greener grows the grass. The higher up the monkey climbs The more he shows his arse. Traditional
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 13:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116ruoi$1m3jk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90749 |
On 8/28/26 12:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 28/08/2026 11:37, Pancho wrote: >> And Einstein agreed, "God doesn't play dice". It is just the current >> fad, quantum theory, that disagrees, which is really quite popular >> with the boffins. > > Trust me many have tried. It's not a fad, it's simply the best that we > can do, and it is profoundly unsatisfactory because it is nearly > impossible to map onto our conviction that reality is an unbroken chain > of causality stretching back to the Big Bang (or to God, for the > religious). > > Something has to give, and people are absolutely unable to forego > absolute determinism, because that is, in science, the hinge pin of > everything. The foundation of everything we have built. > > And yet, although the Universe appears to be statistically simply the > most likely thing to exist, it is, quantum wise, not the only possible > thing. > > Which is why many physicists simply don't get involved with thinking > about it at all. > > The late Hilary Puttnam did, and clarified many issues. Sean Carroll is > another person who at least understands the issues even if he has no > solutions. > I was joking. I like Sean Carroll, but I never grasped the Maxwell Equations, so I fear the wave function, and quantum, is out of my depth. I was always better at pure math or algorithms. Big task for the moment is a floor plan for my son's new house. ChatGPT I think.. Log in to load a sketch it says. I log in, then it says no more questions until 6.06 pm. I think this AI is going to be deeply troubling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 15:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116s5sj$2eap0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90758 |
On 28/08/2026 13:25, Pancho wrote: > On 8/28/26 12:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 28/08/2026 11:37, Pancho wrote: >>> And Einstein agreed, "God doesn't play dice". It is just the current >>> fad, quantum theory, that disagrees, which is really quite popular >>> with the boffins. >> >> Trust me many have tried. It's not a fad, it's simply the best that we >> can do, and it is profoundly unsatisfactory because it is nearly >> impossible to map onto our conviction that reality is an unbroken >> chain of causality stretching back to the Big Bang (or to God, for the >> religious). >> >> Something has to give, and people are absolutely unable to forego >> absolute determinism, because that is, in science, the hinge pin of >> everything. The foundation of everything we have built. >> >> And yet, although the Universe appears to be statistically simply the >> most likely thing to exist, it is, quantum wise, not the only >> possible thing. >> >> Which is why many physicists simply don't get involved with thinking >> about it at all. >> >> The late Hilary Puttnam did, and clarified many issues. Sean Carroll >> is another person who at least understands the issues even if he has >> no solutions. >> > > I was joking. I like Sean Carroll, but I never grasped the Maxwell > Equations, so I fear the wave function, and quantum, is out of my depth. > I was always better at pure math or algorithms. > Joking or not, it is THE big problem in the philosophy of science. Is the world ANY thing like what we experience or is that just a mental LCD screen behind which sits a vast computer with an internet feed to the REAL world, > Big task for the moment is a floor plan for my son's new house. ChatGPT > I think.. Log in to load a sketch it says. I log in, then it says no > more questions until 6.06 pm. I think this AI is going to be deeply > troubling. > Why not use a CAD program? > -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 19:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <nfe5u6FprcuU41@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90749 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:44:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Trust me many have tried. It's not a fad, it's simply the best that we > can do, and it is profoundly unsatisfactory because it is nearly > impossible to map onto our conviction that reality is an unbroken chain > of causality stretching back to the Big Bang (or to God, for the > religious). https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons- book/georges-lemaitre-big-bang Lemaître was quite good at keeping science and religion in separate drawers. Einstein may not have been as adept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant Interesting how a fudge factor thrown in the make the math based on a steady state universe went to 0 for a few decades and then came crawling back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 00:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <xcGcnV2bb90Z-g_3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90738 |
On 8/28/26 06:37, Pancho wrote: > On 8/28/26 08:34, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/28/26 03:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >>>> On 8/27/26 07:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: >>>>>> On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate >>>>>>>> random >>>>>>>> numbers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >>>>>> >>>>>> Those are "Pretty Good". >>>>>> >>>>>> However note that they DO produce in >>>>>> a sort of "statistical spectrum". You >>>>>> can't EXACTLY predict, but can get >>>>>> CLOSE with enough analysis. >>>>> >>>>> No. you cannot >>>>> Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. >>>>> That is, its dead flat >>>> >>>> Well, check out the crypto-related pages. They DO get all paranoid >>>> still about false randomness and how that can be exploited. >>> >>> The paranoid people are using designs of the type TNP describes >>> (e.g. Zener diode + amplifier, among other possibilities). Check out the >>> link to the Killman & Schindler paper I posted earlier for a fuller >>> description of one typical design and its statistical properties, on the >>> offchance you actually want to know. >>> >>> (Note that these circuits are used to seed a DRBG rather than being >>> directly used to generate key material; for something like /dev/random >>> you’re seeing the DRBG output.) >> >> As I said somewhere, I'm not so sure the universe >> supports TRUE "random". >> > > And Einstein agreed, "God doesn't play dice". It is just the current > fad, quantum theory, that disagrees, which is really quite popular with > the boffins. > > When we did random, we used pseudo random, which is great for unit > tests. We used them mainly for numerical integration, Monte Carlo. Our > major concern was the overall distribution of the numbers that were > produced, if they clustered etc. So pseudo was fine, it just had to be > well-behaved pseudo. There's "random ENOUGH". The hard-core crypto people may freak, but REALLY, well ...... Don't worry about it for at least a decade. In any case, both 'digital'/deterministic schemes for 'random' and, theoretically, some 'quantum' approaches, won't REALLY deliver "True Random" and thus leave open some attack vectors. As said, I get the impression that The Universe does not support "True Random". Everything is in some way connected, in sync, with everything else. Oh, the 'at least a decade' thing ... while maybe you can keep your CURRENT data pretty secure, what about your OLD data ... that still has lots or relevant account/ID numbers ? That info tends to get pushed off to lesser and lesser custodians. DID use "cloud" as the tertiary backup for my org. However DID pre-encrypt EVERY file before sending it to Cloud. Do NOT trust them - now or a decade on. AES-256 encryption. Should be good for quite awhile anyhow. Easy to rig even with Linux script, but especially higher-level pgms. Wrote several backup pgms which used that encryption, then adjusted the times/dates AFTER it was on Cloud. SOME paranoia IS useful - current news proves that. Oh, note, GPG-based encryption is good, but very SLOW. The app takes WAY too long to initialize for individual files. Best to make big ZIPS and then encrypt those. OpenSSH solutions are MUCH faster, CAN be used dynamically for individual files. Quick ! Then you can later just decrypt the EXACT files you NEED. Invented a faux 'archive' method, intended to deceive. All my files had that extension. LIKED to recreate directory trees, with EACH file encrypted. Much easier to get at JUST what you wanted later on. Wrote apps. Had to use them to "prove" to our auditors every year that we could Get Stuff Back. GUI, easy to make screen-shots of every step. Lazarus and/or Python 'TK'. A directory-tree path converter can be done in like five or six Python lines ... figured it out riding a motorcycle down an interstate one day ........... "Bink ! Epiphany !". CAN be done in FOUR simple lines - the other two are for rare but potential "complications". NOT gonna tell you ... MY special secret :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 01:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <xcGcnVybb92b6A_3nZ2dnZfqnPUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90791 |
For the record, though I can program in MANY languages (OLD fart !) I still consider my 'primary' language to be Pascal. LOVE it ! Kinda DONE with COBOL ... though I still keep a dev GUI for every install .... Python brings across a lot of good shit from FORTRAN, but STILL install FORTRAN compilers, Just In Case. Yea, old enough to remember when 'C' was the neat-o newfangled lang for my PDP-11. We all loved it - except the sysops who remained totally focused on FORTRAN and COBOL. ur PUNCH-CARDS and PAPER TAPE !!! Been there ! Gee it's SO much nicer now !!!!!! But Then was Then ......... STILL have my original K&R 'C' manual. Stick pretty close. BETTER IDEA. The old SysOps quickly perished. Clue, if you're getting a pay-check, do NOT get obsessed with a particular lang or approach. It's ALWAYS in flux. If you are 'detached', an academic or whatever, THEN you can get Really Weird. But few will pay attention. Hmmm ... not long before I retired, wrote a kind-of important format-converter pgm for some of our data - in FORTRAN. Kinda HOPE it freaked-out, enlightened, encouraged, the New Guys :-) Not hopeful alas ... the New Guys seem to be 101% M$ ........ Hmmmmmmmmm .... COULD make a public info request for kinda OLD data - which I know depended on old/simpler approaches. Yea, that'd be kinda evil :-) Probably won't ...... LET 'em go with M$ ... until Vlad/Xi totally nuke it. Then I'll be justified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 20:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <nfguhuFprcuU56@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90794 |
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 01:57:14 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Clue, if you're getting a pay-check, do NOT get obsessed with a > particular lang or approach. It's ALWAYS in flux. As I've said I'm not at all familiar with Apple products because nobody ever wanted to pay me to program for them. I'm not fond of Perl or C++ but I have used them if needed. I might not have chosen Angular for the last project but I learned my way around it. I'm not proud of it but I've even stooped so low as to use BASIC. I've enjoyed it. I can think of nothing more depressing than coding in my first language, FORTRAN, for the past 60 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 12:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116rrmk$28guo$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90735 |
On 28/08/2026 08:34, c186282 wrote: > On 8/28/26 03:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: >>> On 8/27/26 07:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 27/08/2026 06:52, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 8/26/26 13:34, rbowman wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:18:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thermal and shot noise are true random, and are used to generate >>>>>>> random >>>>>>> numbers >>>>>> >>>>>> https://hackaday.io/project/21054-true-random-number-generator >>>>> >>>>> Those are "Pretty Good". >>>>> >>>>> However note that they DO produce in >>>>> a sort of "statistical spectrum". You >>>>> can't EXACTLY predict, but can get >>>>> CLOSE with enough analysis. >>>> >>>> No. you cannot >>>> Or rather, true random numbers have a 'statisical spectrum. >>>> That is, its dead flat >>> >>> Well, check out the crypto-related pages. They DO get all paranoid >>> still about false randomness and how that can be exploited. >> >> The paranoid people are using designs of the type TNP describes >> (e.g. Zener diode + amplifier, among other possibilities). Check out the >> link to the Killman & Schindler paper I posted earlier for a fuller >> description of one typical design and its statistical properties, on the >> offchance you actually want to know. >> >> (Note that these circuits are used to seed a DRBG rather than being >> directly used to generate key material; for something like /dev/random >> you’re seeing the DRBG output.) > > As I said somewhere, I'm not so sure the universe > supports TRUE "random". > A conviction that 'God does not play dice' is quite common. After all our inherent model of the classical world is that every effect has a cause. A conviction that falls apart in the face of both chaotic systems and quantum physics So far we have been unable to come up with a better hypothesis. > But Good Enough may be Good Enough. > Good enough may simply be All There Is. -- Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 19:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <nfe74vFprcuU42@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90748 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:33:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > A conviction that 'God does not play dice' is quite common. After all > our inherent model of the classical world is that every effect has a > cause. A conviction that falls apart in the face of both chaotic systems > and quantum physics Chewing my way through 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason' was interesting. 'The World as Will and Representation' was easier going.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 10:11 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <116u7o0$3345j$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90779 |
On 28/08/2026 20:50, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:33:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> A conviction that 'God does not play dice' is quite common. After all >> our inherent model of the classical world is that every effect has a >> cause. A conviction that falls apart in the face of both chaotic systems >> and quantum physics > > Chewing my way through 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of > Sufficient Reason' was interesting. 'The World as Will and Representation' > was easier going. > Yes. It is a similar concept IIRC to the alternative the the 'principle of least action', which completely replaces Newtonian 'forces' and yet gives exactly the same answer. I think I read that one and had a nagging suspicion that it wasn't quite pukka... -- "The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll look exactly the same afterwards." Billy Connolly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 05:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <33ukS.21644$dCP2.19159@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #90748 |
On 2026-08-28, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> A conviction that 'God does not play dice' is quite common. After all
> our inherent model of the classical world is that every effect has a
> cause. A conviction that falls apart in the face of both chaotic systems
> and quantum physics
God not only plays dice, but also sometimes
throws them where they cannot be seen.
-- Stephen Hawking
--
/~\ 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 | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 02:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Overwriting with random data |
| Message-ID | <CvucneTsccor5Q_3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90792 |
On 8/29/26 01:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-08-28, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> A conviction that 'God does not play dice' is quite common. After all >> our inherent model of the classical world is that every effect has a >> cause. A conviction that falls apart in the face of both chaotic systems >> and quantum physics > > God not only plays dice, but also sometimes > throws them where they cannot be seen. > -- Stephen Hawking Heh heh !!! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web