Thought this topic might come in handy as well.
Discuss those cards not requiring positive ID or any real world data
verification that the service depends upon. And whether they're
refillable or not, balance limits, shipping addresses, etc. These sorts of
cards also make great gifts as the purchase
> T-Mobile has 3 prepaid plans: "Pay as you go", "Pay by the day", and
> "Flexpay".
> Anyways, I thought I should report on all this research. I've been
> waiting so long for the day when I could walk into a store, give
> someone some money (hell, any amount!) and get ... access. You have
>
Thus spake 7v5w7go9ub0o (7v5w7go9u...@gmail.com):
> Thank you for the informative reply. I'm quite clueless about the
> mobile/cell world and these are very useful links.
>
> I presently carry a TracFone for emergencies, a small camera for photos,
> and use a laptop at wifi hotspots for telephone
On 02/19/10 20:09, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
>> On 02/18/10 20:07, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>>> The performance of Tor is similar to any other Tor client - this is our
>>> reference C implementation running on the N900.
>>>
>>> With that said - You may want to hold out and get an A
Egg --> My face
Well done, guys.
R
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
> On 02/20/2010 04:41 PM, Rich Jones wrote:
>> While we're discussing the bundle, I'd like to mention something
>> that's been on my mind lately. I recently ran a Privacy Tech Workshop
>> at the Students for
On 02/20/2010 04:41 PM, Rich Jones wrote:
> While we're discussing the bundle, I'd like to mention something
> that's been on my mind lately. I recently ran a Privacy Tech Workshop
> at the Students for Free Culture conference in DC - and the general
> conclusion is that Tor/FF is too hard to use a
On 02/19/10 16:13, Rich Jones wrote:
Thanks for the reply. After some thought, I realize that the perfect
should not be an enemy of the good; that TORing the net remains
valuable, even if the OS is handshaking the cloud.
It is also important that as many (cell) users as possible use/support
TOR
Dealing with Chromium devs on incognito integratio is a great idea.
While we're discussing the bundle, I'd like to mention something
that's been on my mind lately. I recently ran a Privacy Tech Workshop
at the Students for Free Culture conference in DC - and the general
conclusion is that Tor/FF i
On 02/20/2010 03:58 PM, Marco Bonetti wrote:
> Andrew Lewman wrote:
>> Chrisd even wrote Mozilla a patch and submitted it on the bug.
> cool, do you apply the patch to windows tor bundles? if not, it could be
> worth to be applied :)
No, we don't build our own Firefox yet. I've been resisting add
On 02/20/2010 12:38 PM, Flamsmark wrote:
>> Once Firefox fixes bug 280661, we don't need a http proxy at all.
>> However, given the current pace of progress on 280661, we may switch to
>> Chrome before the fix occurs.
> If the switch to Chrome was made, I assume that there'd be a port of the
> TorB
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Lewman wrote:
> Chrisd even wrote Mozilla a patch and submitted it on the bug.
cool, do you apply the patch to windows tor bundles? if not, it could be
worth to be applied :)
on the other side, I've mixed feelings regarding the possible switch
f
On 02/20/2010 03:36 AM, zzzjethro...@email2me.net wrote:
> How does one, or rather I, do this switch on my Mac 10.5.2 ppc?
> Thanks and should I?
Should you switch? I cannot answer that.
How to switch? I can answer that at a high-level.
Install privoxy from http://www.privoxy.org/, reconfigur
Is it a good idea if one company hosts a lot of tor nodes? I don't think so.
If 100 persons run a tor node hosted and monitored by https://coldbot.com/ I
don't think that would be great for the tor network!
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Michael
2010/2/20
> I would like to see Tor stay 3
Hi Andrew,
Thanks very much. About the launch external application warning:
there does seem to be a consistent pattern - it happens with some
sites always, and with other sites never. So it seems that each site
decides how to handle the file downloads. I'm sure you can tell I'm a
"newbee" (I th
On 19 February 2010 20:32, Andrew Lewman wrote:
> Once Firefox fixes bug 280661, we don't need a http proxy at all.
> However, given the current pace of progress on 280661, we may switch to
> Chrome before the fix occurs.
>
If the switch to Chrome was made, I assume that there'd be a port of the
Thank you Andrew for the nice explication!
2010/2/19 Andrew Lewman
> On 02/15/2010 12:09 PM, Michael Gomboc wrote:
> > Why is polipo used and no longer privoxy?
>
> The first question is, "why a http proxy at all?"
>
> The answer is, because Firefox SOCKS layer has hard-coded timeouts, and
> ot
Hello i use tor with polipo and tor button plugin for firefox. All work
great but i dont know how time is needed by tor to change my ip adress.
Where i can find this information?
***
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@to
I would like to see Tor stay 3 hops for the purpose intended. As time passes,
the developers will make it faster.
Do nothing that will compromise anonymity.
Anonymity is on a precipice and needs to be kept from being pushed or dragged
over. Something big is going to happen and much is already
How does one, or rather I, do this switch on my Mac 10.5.2 ppc?
Thanks and should I?
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Lewman
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Sent: Sat, Feb 20, 2010 8:32 am
Subject: Re: why polipo?
On 02/15/2010 12:09 PM, Michael Gomboc wrote:
> Why is polipo used a
19 matches
Mail list logo
