Privacy Wipe Apps ?
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: u-tube
Next: "Progress" [was: Scanner driver]
From: za kAT on 14 Jan 2010 15:12 On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:48:08 -0500, Sam Luter wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:02:09 +0000, za kAT wrote: > >> I weep all the way to the bank... > > i own the bank i own u -- za kAT
From: N4469P on 14 Jan 2010 16:48 On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:14:41 GMT, hummingbird wrote: > 'JB' wrote thus: > >>hummingbird wrote: >> >>> 'Spamblk' wrote thus: >>> >>> >Forgive me for poking my nose in this with my 2 cents worth. >>> >AFAIK the Internet has still the basic architecture based on >>> >packet switching as set out years ago by persons such as Vint >>> >Cerf and Robert Kahn. So when you send out information to TOR >>> >(or whatever) your packets at the first stage go to your local >>> >network. >>> >>> Packets going from your Tor browser to your ISP are encrypted. > > >>You're confused. > > No, you are. > You are making a fool of yourself, JB. > >>There's no such thing as a "Tor browser". > > http://www.torproject.org/torbrowser/index.html.en pwned
From: JB on 14 Jan 2010 16:54 hummingbird wrote: > 'JB' wrote thus: > > >hummingbird wrote: > >> Packets going from your Tor browser to your ISP are encrypted. > > > >Packets traveling from your browser to the instance of Tor > >you're using are *not* encrypted. > > But you wrote this 5mins earlier: > > "Your original packets are encrypted multiple times before they > ever leave your machine" > > Duh! Both statements are factual and true. I realize now that you're sorely lacking when it comes to comprehending the technical aspects of things, so I won't bother trying to explain them to you in that regard. I absolutely will point out the fact that you're a dishonest asswipe for not including the context of a typical installation though... "Your original packets are encrypted multiple times before they ever leave your machine (assuming a typical setup here)." Message-ID: <hin4sk$9ro$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>. Not to mention the fact that I already explained my words in greater detail, in the message you just replied to... "This is basically meaningless in practice because in most cases your running instance of Tor is on the same machine as your browser or other "Torified" client, but it's not *always* the case." You see, unlike you I don't have to cower behind an X-No-Archive header in order to try and deny what I've said. I stand behind what I write, and it stands behind me. Even when liars like you try to rewrite it. :) I also realize now that you're insufferably immature while hiding behind your keyboard. Not only can't you simply admit your mistakes, you seem to go on a rampage against anyone who calls you on them. No matter how petty and ridiculous you become. For showing that side of yourself so early on I thank you. It will save me a lot of time down the road. No need to try and help you, I'll just mop up your ASCII messes when they have tangible consequences, and move on.
From: JB on 14 Jan 2010 17:04 N4469P wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:14:41 GMT, hummingbird wrote: > > > 'JB' wrote thus: > > > >>hummingbird wrote: > >> > >>> 'Spamblk' wrote thus: > >>> > >>> >Forgive me for poking my nose in this with my 2 cents worth. > >>> >AFAIK the Internet has still the basic architecture based on > >>> >packet switching as set out years ago by persons such as Vint > >>> >Cerf and Robert Kahn. So when you send out information to TOR > >>> >(or whatever) your packets at the first stage go to your local > >>> >network. > >>> > >>> Packets going from your Tor browser to your ISP are encrypted. > > > > > >>You're confused. > > > > No, you are. > > You are making a fool of yourself, JB. > > > >>There's no such thing as a "Tor browser". > > > > http://www.torproject.org/torbrowser/index.html.en > > > pwned Indeed. Hummingbird is so confused at this point he doesn't even understand that the word "bundle" denotes the packaging of two or more individual things into a convenient distribution. That if there were actually a standalone "Tor Browser" there would be absolutely no reason to bundle it with anything. And as ironic as it is, the very name of this "bundle" actually calls out the two main, *separate* applications contained therein... Tor, and a browser. You'd think that would make things clear for even the slowest kid on the small bus, but.... :(
From: JB on 14 Jan 2010 18:13
hummingbird wrote: > 'JB' wrote thus: > > >N4469P wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:14:41 GMT, hummingbird wrote: > >> > >> > 'JB' wrote thus: > >> > > >> >>hummingbird wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> 'Spamblk' wrote thus: > >> >>> > >> >>> >Forgive me for poking my nose in this with my 2 cents worth. > >> >>> >AFAIK the Internet has still the basic architecture based on > >> >>> >packet switching as set out years ago by persons such as Vint > >> >>> >Cerf and Robert Kahn. So when you send out information to TOR > >> >>> >(or whatever) your packets at the first stage go to your local > >> >>> >network. > >> >>> > >> >>> Packets going from your Tor browser to your ISP are encrypted. > >> > > >> > > >> >>You're confused. > >> > > >> > No, you are. > >> > You are making a fool of yourself, JB. > >> > > >> >>There's no such thing as a "Tor browser". > >> > > >> > http://www.torproject.org/torbrowser/index.html.en > >> > >> > >> pwned > > > >Indeed. Hummingbird is so confused at this point he doesn't even > >understand that the word "bundle" denotes the packaging of two or > >more individual things into a convenient distribution. > > Actually I'm very well aware of that. So once again, you're wrong. > And it remains a fact that there IS a Tor browser. Nope. There's Tor, and a browser, bundled together for convenience. It doesn't make them the same application. That much is obvious to anyone who isn't mindless enough to rely solely on marketing nomenclature. .... |