On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 10:33:39AM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Thanks for the distinction, however it still makes CC folks slaves of
the
State. Suppose Joe Badcredit finds a blank application and applies?
The State then uses violence to coerce the CC into non-consensual
transactions.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:32:43AM -0500, An Metet wrote:
From http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/36485.html :
To download the online picture, he used the Anonymizer.com service,
believing the companys privacy policy would protect him. Not so. Dutch
The article got it wrong. He used
everywhere *I* have used ssh for the past 10 years.
I thought everyone did that.
regards,
petard
the
automoton/spamee from directing it to the virus sender/upstream
provider directly.
Perhaps people who run AV systems which send out automated notifications
deserve any unwanted attention they might get this way.
regards,
petard
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:47:07AM -0800, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
...public health officials are considering legal action to force AOL and
certain websites to warn members about...
http://wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62005,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
Compelled speech is prohibited,
security alerts and make a new release right then, so anyone with
untrusted local users was completely unprotected. Including Debian,
apparently.
Regards,
petard
product
I am aware of:
http://www.apple.com/ipod/
It's firewire 400 and most assuredly does not use a 922 chip.
If software companies were responsible for bugs in hardware that they do not
manufacture, MS would be in much more trouble than it is already.
petard
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 06:58:58PM -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
--
I want fully deniable information storage -- information
theoretic deniable, not merely steganographic deniable, for
stenography can never be wholly secure.
So I would have a fixed sized block of data containing a
