Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #75070 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-24 00:02 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-09-28 01:00 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 180 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 00:02 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 05:06 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-24 05:43 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-27 15:21 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-27 14:17 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-27 22:31 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 00:26 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 01:21 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-28 10:21 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 19:27 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-10-04 09:37 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-04 12:04 -0700
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 14:12 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-10-04 09:43 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-04 15:22 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-04 17:38 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-04 20:34 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-10-04 20:53 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-04 22:56 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-05 09:51 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-06 02:17 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-07 09:56 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-08 01:55 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-10-08 12:58 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:36 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 09:02 -0700
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-08 17:35 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:29 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:58 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 13:45 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 14:02 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 21:17 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-11 00:55 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:35 -0400
Partitioning (was Re: Floppies - Actual Question "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-10-08 14:54 -0400
Re: Partitioning (was Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-08 21:15 +0000
Re: Partitioning (was Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-09 12:35 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-08 21:13 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 14:29 -0700
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-09 12:37 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-09 15:07 +0000
inodes, customizing partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:45 +0200
Re: inodes, customizing partitions c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 00:57 -0400
Re: inodes, customizing partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-11 15:28 +0200
Re: inodes, customizing partitions Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-11 23:46 +0100
Re: inodes, customizing partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-12 02:42 +0200
Re: inodes, customizing partitions c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-13 03:13 -0400
Re: inodes, customizing partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-13 10:53 +0200
Re: inodes, customizing partitions c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 22:49 -0400
Re: inodes, customizing partitions c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 21:51 -0400
Re: inodes, customizing partitions c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-13 03:10 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-10-09 09:00 -0700
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 21:24 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:52 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 01:45 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-11 17:48 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 22:11 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:56 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:50 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-05 20:25 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-04 20:35 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 09:55 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 11:08 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-28 12:19 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 15:07 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 15:36 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 23:35 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-29 00:28 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-28 21:08 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-29 05:31 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-29 16:32 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 18:36 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-29 19:30 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 10:12 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-29 19:33 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-09-29 19:50 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 15:31 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 14:15 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-29 08:18 -0700
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-29 19:27 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-28 00:31 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 11:19 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 15:22 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-28 18:07 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 19:18 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 23:55 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 09:53 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-10-02 18:28 +1000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2025-10-02 21:44 +0300
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-03 00:10 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-03 00:35 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-03 00:32 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-03 00:21 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-10-04 12:55 +1000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-24 06:49 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 11:45 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 16:53 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 14:35 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 15:05 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 21:32 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-24 20:38 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-25 00:04 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-09-25 00:44 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 20:58 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:07 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 12:48 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-25 15:52 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:09 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 09:44 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:04 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 12:48 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:15 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-25 21:06 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:10 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-25 21:09 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-06 22:08 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-06 23:30 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-07 15:16 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-08 02:34 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-08 01:05 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-08 10:58 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-08 11:06 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-08 14:14 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:44 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-09 21:10 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 21:36 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:54 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 01:57 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 13:49 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:29 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-11 14:32 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-10-09 12:50 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-09 21:11 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 21:37 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-10-10 11:19 +0200
Phone wallet "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-10 13:51 +0200
Re: Phone wallet c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:30 -0400
Re: Phone wallet "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-11 14:32 +0200
Re: Phone wallet c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 21:35 -0400
Re: Phone wallet "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-12 14:48 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 21:17 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-10 06:51 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-10 03:29 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:55 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 02:10 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-08 13:18 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-10-09 03:09 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:58 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-09 12:45 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-10-10 02:53 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 23:44 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:45 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-09 02:38 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-09 15:16 +0000
Faraday cages (was: Re: Floppies - Actual Question) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-09 17:02 +0100
Re: Faraday cages Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-09 18:48 +0000
Re: Faraday cages The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:49 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-10 09:47 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-11 01:05 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-08 01:52 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-10-08 01:38 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 20:45 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-25 05:27 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-25 15:42 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:59 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-26 01:36 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 09:12 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-27 13:58 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-27 03:11 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 14:22 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-29 23:03 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-30 09:32 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-26 15:19 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 20:23 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 09:45 +0100
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-24 08:41 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 12:04 +0200
Re: Floppies - Actual Question c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-24 14:34 -0400
Re: Floppies - Actual Question John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> - 2025-09-24 17:11 +0000
Re: Floppies - Actual Question Daniel <me@sc1f1dan.com> - 2025-09-28 01:00 -0700
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 21:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <JRydnaDwbsZfw3X1nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75831 |
On 10/9/25 06:50, Joerg Walther wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> You can buy wallets that claim to be shielded. For NFC. > > Nowadays I only use my phone to pay which does not proceed with the > payment until I authorize it with my fingerprint. You gave Russia your fingerprint ???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 06:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <W12GQ.3083$UNYc.1450@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #75855 |
On 2025-10-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 10/9/25 06:50, Joerg Walther wrote: > >> Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> You can buy wallets that claim to be shielded. For NFC. >> >> Nowadays I only use my phone to pay which does not proceed with the >> payment until I authorize it with my fingerprint. > > You gave Russia your fingerprint ??? No, just Google. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 03:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t5qcnS3ojIJ_KHX1nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75868 |
On 10/10/25 02:51, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-10-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> On 10/9/25 06:50, Joerg Walther wrote: >> >>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>>> You can buy wallets that claim to be shielded. For NFC. >>> >>> Nowadays I only use my phone to pay which does not proceed with the >>> payment until I authorize it with my fingerprint. >> >> You gave Russia your fingerprint ??? > > No, just Google. So, Russia. Vlad's boyz have proven they can penetrate anything Google. And Google is "Too Big To Care".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 09:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10cahlg$3u22g$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75868 |
On 10/10/2025 07:51, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-10-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> On 10/9/25 06:50, Joerg Walther wrote: >> >>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>>> You can buy wallets that claim to be shielded. For NFC. >>> >>> Nowadays I only use my phone to pay which does not proceed with the >>> payment until I authorize it with my fingerprint. >> >> You gave Russia your fingerprint ??? > > No, just Google. > Is there a difference these days? -- Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people. But Marxism is the crack cocaine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-11 02:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <g-ecnY6NGMYhaXT1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75883 |
On 10/10/25 04:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 10/10/2025 07:51, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2025-10-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >>> On 10/9/25 06:50, Joerg Walther wrote: >>> >>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> >>>>> You can buy wallets that claim to be shielded. For NFC. >>>> >>>> Nowadays I only use my phone to pay which does not proceed with the >>>> payment until I authorize it with my fingerprint. >>> >>> You gave Russia your fingerprint ??? >> >> No, just Google. >> > Is there a difference these days? Nope. Vlad's boyz are into EVERYTHING, easily. State resources, porn vids and lots of caffeine/Adderal ... what else could any pubescent hacker want ? They'll hack until they drop. Hmmm ... remember when 'biometrics' were supposed to be perfect ? Well, ONLY until The Foe gets a copy of your biometric sig. Then DARE claim it wasn't you who bought 100,000 in BitCoins ... Horrible truth - there IS NO 'perfect', or anything close, these days. The cold war has turned warm and They ARE out to get us and have vast resources to do so. China just recently proved it could get deep into all US phone systems. Even big corps, indeed even a US credit-lord company, get totally sucked at a whim. But nobody DARES admit what it MEANS. TOO much invested/trusted in "online" shit. And no, there's no electronic fix ... the attacker ALWAYS has the advantage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-08 13:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10c5kqp$1j0pj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75787 |
On 08/10/2025 13:10, Stefan Ram wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. > > Some people around here are walking around with those > RFID cards today, and they're thinking about wrapping > them in aluminum foil to make it harder to scan them. > > That may well be true -- It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom. Jonathan Swift
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 03:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10ee9rk.7di.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #75793 |
On 2025-10-08, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 08/10/2025 13:10, Stefan Ram wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >> >> Some people around here are walking around with those >> RFID cards today, and they're thinking about wrapping >> them in aluminum foil to make it harder to scan them. >> >> > That may well be true Did the test. My second-to-most-recent emplyer had NFC/RFID badge cards that each employee was required to scan at the lobby when entering a facility. For the test of one of the metal-lined sleeves, I asked the "guard" at the desk for permission to test the sleeve by doing an experiment to see whether the ID badge card could be read while inside the sleeve. The "guard" said he would watch his monitor while I attempted to scan the sleeved badge card. He said his system could not see that the badge card existed while it was in the sleeve. Outside the sleeve, the badge card worked perfectly. Based on that test, it appears that sleeve was sufficient to sheild at least the type of NFC/RFID used in that badge card. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 02:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DIednYUSz4CMwHr1nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75817 |
On 10/8/25 23:09, Robert Riches wrote: > On 2025-10-08, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 08/10/2025 13:10, Stefan Ram wrote: >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>>> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>>> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >>> >>> Some people around here are walking around with those >>> RFID cards today, and they're thinking about wrapping >>> them in aluminum foil to make it harder to scan them. >>> >>> >> That may well be true > > Did the test. > > My second-to-most-recent emplyer had NFC/RFID badge cards that > each employee was required to scan at the lobby when entering a > facility. For the test of one of the metal-lined sleeves, I > asked the "guard" at the desk for permission to test the sleeve > by doing an experiment to see whether the ID badge card could be > read while inside the sleeve. The "guard" said he would watch > his monitor while I attempted to scan the sleeved badge card. He > said his system could not see that the badge card existed while > it was in the sleeve. Outside the sleeve, the badge card worked > perfectly. > > Based on that test, it appears that sleeve was sufficient to > sheild at least the type of NFC/RFID used in that badge card. Doesn't take much to block the HF signal used to read the cards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 12:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10c8788$2kf2m$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75817 |
On 09/10/2025 04:09, Robert Riches wrote: > On 2025-10-08, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 08/10/2025 13:10, Stefan Ram wrote: >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>>> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>>> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >>> >>> Some people around here are walking around with those >>> RFID cards today, and they're thinking about wrapping >>> them in aluminum foil to make it harder to scan them. >>> >>> >> That may well be true > > Did the test. > > My second-to-most-recent emplyer had NFC/RFID badge cards that > each employee was required to scan at the lobby when entering a > facility. For the test of one of the metal-lined sleeves, I > asked the "guard" at the desk for permission to test the sleeve > by doing an experiment to see whether the ID badge card could be > read while inside the sleeve. The "guard" said he would watch > his monitor while I attempted to scan the sleeved badge card. He > said his system could not see that the badge card existed while > it was in the sleeve. Outside the sleeve, the badge card worked > perfectly. > > Based on that test, it appears that sleeve was sufficient to > sheild at least the type of NFC/RFID used in that badge card. > Good. My time designing radios inside tin boxes was not wasted then! Irrelevant factoid. Back when I was involved in professional RF design, there was a rule of thumb, which more or less said 'you will never get a design stable unless it has less gain that 20 dB per inch of separation between stages'. It was surprisingly accurate. But then we started needing to pack all this stuff into small guided missiles, and as the parts got smaller so did the permissible separation. Then we started building little tin walls round each stage and got it even smaller...and when ICs game along they were so small that the radiation coupling between input and output was soi low that they could cram 60dB into a single chip. Tinfoil blocks RF. Juts come to my house which uses foil backed plasterboard everywhere. we ordered some for the bathrooms and over ordered so we used it everywhere. Cant get a wifi signal from one room to another at all. -- “it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a 'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,' a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian utopia of 1984.” Vaclav Klaus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 02:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10egt97.tgq.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #75838 |
On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 09/10/2025 04:09, Robert Riches wrote: >> On 2025-10-08, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 08/10/2025 13:10, Stefan Ram wrote: >>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>>>> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>>>> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >>>> >>>> Some people around here are walking around with those >>>> RFID cards today, and they're thinking about wrapping >>>> them in aluminum foil to make it harder to scan them. >>>> >>>> >>> That may well be true >> >> Did the test. >> >> My second-to-most-recent emplyer had NFC/RFID badge cards that >> each employee was required to scan at the lobby when entering a >> facility. For the test of one of the metal-lined sleeves, I >> asked the "guard" at the desk for permission to test the sleeve >> by doing an experiment to see whether the ID badge card could be >> read while inside the sleeve. The "guard" said he would watch >> his monitor while I attempted to scan the sleeved badge card. He >> said his system could not see that the badge card existed while >> it was in the sleeve. Outside the sleeve, the badge card worked >> perfectly. >> >> Based on that test, it appears that sleeve was sufficient to >> sheild at least the type of NFC/RFID used in that badge card. >> > Good. My time designing radios inside tin boxes was not wasted then! > Irrelevant factoid. Back when I was involved in professional RF design, > there was a rule of thumb, which more or less said 'you will never get a > design stable unless it has less gain that 20 dB per inch of separation > between stages'. It was surprisingly accurate. But then we started > needing to pack all this stuff into small guided missiles, and as the > parts got smaller so did the permissible separation. Then we started > building little tin walls round each stage and got it even smaller...and > when ICs game along they were so small that the radiation coupling > between input and output was soi low that they could cram 60dB into a > single chip. > > Tinfoil blocks RF. Juts come to my house which uses foil backed > plasterboard everywhere. we ordered some for the bathrooms and over > ordered so we used it everywhere. > Cant get a wifi signal from one room to another at all. On a house, aluminum siding also attenuates (US bands) AM (and I think FM) broadcast radio. A couple of decades ago, I lived in a house with aluminum siding. Enough signal got through to listen, but the SNR was not as good as it would have been without the aluminum. On a little different angle of RF oddities, in a house without aluminum siding but possibly with foil-backed fiberglass insulation in the exterior walls, my Casio G-Shock watch (near Portland, Oregon, USA) had great difficulty receiving the 60kHz signal from WWVB. Even outdoors, reception was not very reliable. However, ever since getting Comcast Xfinity internet over coax, indoor reception is fairly close to flawless. Most nights, it sets at 12:03am, which is the best possible case. My hunch is the above-ground (pun not intended) TV distribution system and the coax from the utility pole to the house act as a passive antenna booster for the watch. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 23:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t5qcnTfojIKUHHX1nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75863 |
On 10/9/25 22:53, Robert Riches wrote: > On 2025-10-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 09/10/2025 04:09, Robert Riches wrote: >>> On 2025-10-08, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 08/10/2025 13:10, Stefan Ram wrote: >>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>>>>> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>>>>> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >>>>> >>>>> Some people around here are walking around with those >>>>> RFID cards today, and they're thinking about wrapping >>>>> them in aluminum foil to make it harder to scan them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> That may well be true >>> >>> Did the test. >>> >>> My second-to-most-recent emplyer had NFC/RFID badge cards that >>> each employee was required to scan at the lobby when entering a >>> facility. For the test of one of the metal-lined sleeves, I >>> asked the "guard" at the desk for permission to test the sleeve >>> by doing an experiment to see whether the ID badge card could be >>> read while inside the sleeve. The "guard" said he would watch >>> his monitor while I attempted to scan the sleeved badge card. He >>> said his system could not see that the badge card existed while >>> it was in the sleeve. Outside the sleeve, the badge card worked >>> perfectly. >>> >>> Based on that test, it appears that sleeve was sufficient to >>> sheild at least the type of NFC/RFID used in that badge card. >>> >> Good. My time designing radios inside tin boxes was not wasted then! >> Irrelevant factoid. Back when I was involved in professional RF design, >> there was a rule of thumb, which more or less said 'you will never get a >> design stable unless it has less gain that 20 dB per inch of separation >> between stages'. It was surprisingly accurate. But then we started >> needing to pack all this stuff into small guided missiles, and as the >> parts got smaller so did the permissible separation. Then we started >> building little tin walls round each stage and got it even smaller...and >> when ICs game along they were so small that the radiation coupling >> between input and output was soi low that they could cram 60dB into a >> single chip. >> >> Tinfoil blocks RF. Juts come to my house which uses foil backed >> plasterboard everywhere. we ordered some for the bathrooms and over >> ordered so we used it everywhere. >> Cant get a wifi signal from one room to another at all. > > On a house, aluminum siding also attenuates (US bands) AM (and I > think FM) broadcast radio. A couple of decades ago, I lived in a > house with aluminum siding. Enough signal got through to listen, > but the SNR was not as good as it would have been without the > aluminum. > > On a little different angle of RF oddities, in a house without > aluminum siding but possibly with foil-backed fiberglass > insulation in the exterior walls, my Casio G-Shock watch (near > Portland, Oregon, USA) had great difficulty receiving the 60kHz > signal from WWVB. Even outdoors, reception was not very > reliable. However, ever since getting Comcast Xfinity internet > over coax, indoor reception is fairly close to flawless. Most > nights, it sets at 12:03am, which is the best possible case. My > hunch is the above-ground (pun not intended) TV distribution > system and the coax from the utility pole to the house act as a > passive antenna booster for the watch. Thin aluminum IS good RF shielding - the higher the freq the better it works. You need iron for MAGNETIC shielding, but that's a whole separate issue - and covered in this thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 02:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DIednYkSz4Cdx3r1nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75793 |
On 10/8/25 08:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 08/10/2025 13:10, Stefan Ram wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >> >> Some people around here are walking around with those >> RFID cards today, and they're thinking about wrapping >> them in aluminum foil to make it harder to scan them. >> >> > That may well be true Is true. Made my own. There are also commercial products advertised.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 02:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DIednY8Sz4DpxXr1nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75787 |
On 10/8/25 08:10, Stefan Ram wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. > > Some people around here are walking around with those > RFID cards today, and they're thinking about wrapping > them in aluminum foil to make it harder to scan them. Have a layer of metallized mylar in my wallet :-) Cheap, easy, sure as hell doesn't hurt anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 15:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10c8jko$2tcv3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75787 |
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. > > Some people around here are walking around with those RFID cards > today, and they're thinking about wrapping them in aluminum foil to > make it harder to scan them. Given that RFID is electromagnetic (radio) comms, and very low power, an aluminum foil wrap (creating an ungrounded Faraday cage) just might attenuate the signal enough to prevent a "read" from happening.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 17:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Faraday cages (was: Re: Floppies - Actual Question) |
| Message-ID | <10c8mb0$2vjfu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75842 |
On 2025-10-09, Rich wrote: > Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>>There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>>invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >> >> Some people around here are walking around with those RFID cards >> today, and they're thinking about wrapping them in aluminum foil to >> make it harder to scan them. > > Given that RFID is electromagnetic (radio) comms, and very low power, > an aluminum foil wrap (creating an ungrounded Faraday cage) just might > attenuate the signal enough to prevent a "read" from happening. Doesn't it need a non-conductive layer too? What is the state of the art for cheap shielding of contactless smartcards? -- Nuno Silva (No, enclosing in carbonite is not a feasible option, for reasons.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-09 18:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Faraday cages |
| Message-ID | <10c901k$3600i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75844 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2025-10-09, Rich wrote: > >> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>>>There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>>>invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >>> >>> Some people around here are walking around with those RFID cards >>> today, and they're thinking about wrapping them in aluminum foil to >>> make it harder to scan them. >> >> Given that RFID is electromagnetic (radio) comms, and very low power, >> an aluminum foil wrap (creating an ungrounded Faraday cage) just might >> attenuate the signal enough to prevent a "read" from happening. > > Doesn't it need a non-conductive layer too? What is the state of the art > for cheap shielding of contactless smartcards? No, a metal is an 'rf absorber' in any case. Wrapping the card in metal foil just makes the "absorber" a faraday cage (an rf absorber surrounding the item being shielded). A proper faraday cage should be grounded, but at the miniscule power levels of RFID chips, the fact that the foil is ungrounded is not much of a concern. And, in any case, the outer paper/plastic of the card itself would be a 'non-conductive layer' if one were needed. As an example, $work deployed some many years ago new id badges with RFID chips embedded inside, and the corresponding "readers" on the doors/access areas to read the card and open (or refuse) depending on whether the card was authorized. They also supplied a plastic "badge holder" that was a two part device with a hinge at one end (and a handle at that same end to actuate the hinge). The normally closed position of the holder has the badge lying flat against the rear part of the holder, adjacent to a metalized plastic that is the rear half of the two part badge holder. The portion that is 'hinged' is just large enough to form a "card border" around the edges of the id badge. One has to squeeze the handle to hinge up the top holder, moving the RFID badge away from the metalized rear of the holder that the badge usually lies against when the hinge is closed. Sprung open, the readers readily read the cards. With the holder closed (and with the badge only covered at the rear by the metalized plastic) the readers do not read the card at all. So it does not take a huge amount of "faraday cage" effect to suppress RFID reading. Therefore a simple foil wrap is likely more than sufficient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 09:49 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Faraday cages |
| Message-ID | <10cahaa$3u22g$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75844 |
On 09/10/2025 17:02, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2025-10-09, Rich wrote: > >> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>>> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>>> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >>> >>> Some people around here are walking around with those RFID cards >>> today, and they're thinking about wrapping them in aluminum foil to >>> make it harder to scan them. >> >> Given that RFID is electromagnetic (radio) comms, and very low power, >> an aluminum foil wrap (creating an ungrounded Faraday cage) just might >> attenuate the signal enough to prevent a "read" from happening. > > Doesn't it need a non-conductive layer too? Not really no. Just a complete enclosure. > What is the state of the art > for cheap shielding of contactless smartcards? > *Continuous* layer of a good conductor. RF leaks through holes -- "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 | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-10 09:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10cah6v$3u22g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #75842 |
On 09/10/2025 16:16, Rich wrote: > Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >> >> Some people around here are walking around with those RFID cards >> today, and they're thinking about wrapping them in aluminum foil to >> make it harder to scan them. > > Given that RFID is electromagnetic (radio) comms, and very low power, > an aluminum foil wrap (creating an ungrounded Faraday cage) just might > attenuate the signal enough to prevent a "read" from happening. > On consideration, it's more than might just. It's 'will, definitely.' Unlike magnetic shielding RF shielding does not rely on mass or thickness since HF currents circulate in the surface. And aluminium is a very good conductor. -- Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people. But Marxism is the crack cocaine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-11 01:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Q7mdneON_8oveHT1nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75879 |
On 10/10/25 04:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 09/10/2025 16:16, Rich wrote: >> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>>> There was no urban legend in those years, floppies were a recent >>>> invention. We simply did not know. We invented the urban legends. >>> >>> Some people around here are walking around with those RFID cards >>> today, and they're thinking about wrapping them in aluminum foil to >>> make it harder to scan them. >> >> Given that RFID is electromagnetic (radio) comms, and very low power, >> an aluminum foil wrap (creating an ungrounded Faraday cage) just might >> attenuate the signal enough to prevent a "read" from happening. >> > > On consideration, it's more than might just. It's 'will, definitely.' > > Unlike magnetic shielding RF shielding does not rely on mass or > thickness since HF currents circulate in the surface. > > And aluminium is a very good conductor. Quite correct. Magnetic shielding is much less important these days. Mag HDDs are pretty resistant anyhow. Floppies were less so, but still weren't going to be erased by being near an electric trolley. Maybe if you worked in yer local electric-gen plant ... Electric fields though ... those are more of an enemy now with various forms of 'chip drives'. Grounded aluminum shielding works very well there. Good protection on the power/data lines to the chips also, but it's harder to know whether your particular board has that better protection. A few, Asus, will BRAG about such things, but most makers are silent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-08 01:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <af-dnfxqL6mBYXj1nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #75771 |
On 10/7/25 20:34, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-10-07 17:16, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> On 10/6/25 06:29, Stefan Ram wrote: >>>> Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote or >>>> quoted: >>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 13:04:59 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> At some point in the 80's, a friend at uni wanted to go home with >>>>>> his floppies kept safe (the train was electric). We told him to >>>>>> try wrapping in aluminum kitchen foil, or perhaps in a cookie tin >>>>>> box. I don't remember what he did exactly, but it worked. >>>>>> “Faraday cage”. >>>> >>>> In a perfect conductor, inside the material itself (such as the >>>> cage walls), the electric field E is zero because free charges >>>> move to cancel any applied electric field. >>>> >>>> Faraday's law then implies that within the conductor, the >>>> magnetic field B cannot be changing with time. >>>> >>>> Changing magnetic fields induce currents (eddy currents). These >>>> induced currents generate opposing magnetic fields that cancel >>>> the time-varying components inside the conductor, effectively >>>> shielding against changing magnetic fields. >>>> >>>> But this does not imply zero magnetic field inside the >>>> conductor's hollow interior (the cage's interior space). Static >>>> fields do not induce currents because there is no changing >>>> magnetic flux within the conductor to generate an electromotive >>>> force. Consequently, these magnetic fields penetrate the cage >>>> interior unaffected. >>>> >>>> Also, real materials might not be perfect conductors. And it >>>> seems that, in practice, a Faraday cage can possibly protect to >>>> some extend against fast changing magnetic fields, but less >>>> against slowly changing magnetic fields. >>> >>> It would take a fairly extreme static/slow-changing >>> field to erase floppies. You can do it - I just did >>> a couple weeks ago - using a neo magnet at point blank >>> range - but fields from train motors, I just don't >>> see it. High-frequency mag fields are more dangerous >>> but even THEN would need to be pretty strong. >> >> The drop off of magnetic field intensity by distance can be >> **approximated** as 1/(d^3) (inverse cube drop). So yes, the field >> from the train motors would need to be extremely strong, or the OP's >> floppies would have had to be very close to the motors, for the >> electric train motors to have any impact on the floppies. > > Well, some trains have motors on every carriage. Then also there was the > thought that the overhead cable carried large currents and perhaps > produced large fields. > > It was just the fear that something might happen to the floppies, and > what should we do to prevent hypothetical damage. We had no experience, > and there was no internet to ask other people. > > >> >>> My guess is that we're hearing an "urban legend" >>> here. >> >> Yes. There are a lot of those that go around. And since the "foil >> wrap" did nothing, but the floppies were undamaged (and the person did >> not do an A-B test with some wrapped, some unwrapped) they delude >> themselves into belieiving the foil wrap actually did something. > > I don't remember if we used just foil, or a tin box, or both. Also, I > don't remember if there was another floppy outside. I might ask the > other chap if you people are that interested. The IRON box would be the only thing to mitigate magnetic fields. That's "mitigate" though ... not anything like 'perfect protection'. That'd have to be thick, laminated layers. Some mil comm equipment probably has that (plus good old fashioned tube/valve tech). For 'defense'/survival purposes, tubes/valves do still have their place. Highly EMP resistant. The tubes/valves ... there's still a Czech firm that makes those - mostly audiophile - but WILL build to order. $$$ alas :-) But train motors aren't going to produce fields strong enough to worry about. We're looking at one or a few paranoid people who TRIED something and, when their disks survived, were SURE they found The Answer. But optical media very quickly replaced floppies. No more, even theoretical, issue. Today, thumbs and u-SDs. Ultra-high electric fields MIGHT do bad things to those but, well, "ultra-high" - enough to make your hair stand out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web