Torrent for Assange book
Bear Bottoms
Brooke about Assange?
--
Bear Bottoms, security consultant
http://bearware.info
FrozenNorth
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:59:43 +0000, I imposed a declaration in opposition
> to Bear Bottoms's motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support
> of the CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the
> Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
> Xns9F5BB722F33CAb...@130.225.254.104:
>> Anyone got a torrent for the The Revolution Will Be Digitised by Hather
>> Brooke about Assange?
>
> jpeg link on ImageShack so she can steal your urbersekr3t IP address:
>
> http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3295/bearbottomtorrent.jpg
>
I was going to give him a tinyurl to JFGI, the one that got you so
incensed at me several years ago. :-)
Site appears to be having difficulties though.
Hear Bear, try this torrent http://tinyurl.com/3dg
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Bear Bottoms
@dont-email.me:
Busted with http://longurl.org/expand
Bear Bottoms
news:4e6a50e0...@cometothedarkside.com:
> This just in to the alt.2600 news room. On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:36:52
> -0400 it was announced to all in a public briefing, FrozenNorth
> <frozenN...@gm.nospam.ail.com> made the following declaration and
> shocked the world when the following was announced:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4jsnmp7
>
> There are a lot more seeders.
Busted.
http://longurl.org/expand?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F4jsnmp7
Bear Bottoms
@cometothedarkside.com:
> This just in to the alt.2600 news room. On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 00:05:38
> +0000 (UTC) it was announced to all in a public briefing, Robert James
> <ballsac...@joesbarbershop.com> made the following declaration and
> shocked the world when the following was announced:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 00:00:56 +0000, I imposed a declaration in opposition
>>to Sycho's motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support of the
>>CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal
>>Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
>>4e6da85b...@cometothedarkside.com:
>>
>>> I already got his IP addy.. 127.0.0.1
>>>
>>> Prepare to get DDoS'd or something!!!!!
>>> MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Or something to that effect.
>>
>>Bear wanted to learn some l33t h@x0ring skillz by trying to run several
>>Metasploit cod3z on 127.0.0.1 but he forgot to turn his computer on.
>>
>>;)
>
> How's that goin for 'em? lol
He thinks I don't know 133t. The joke is on him.
Thomas J. Giarmo
> Everybody knows the TrueCrypt foundation is just an INFOSEC front
Fukktard.
Proof? None?
Fukktard.
--
Tom Giarmo aka Ryan White aka poonytang |
Please feel free to email me tgi...@sandata.com or drop me a line!
Corporate Headquarters Port Washington, New York
26 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 | T: 800嚙碾544嚙碾7263
F: 516-484嚙碾6084
Dave U. Random
>Several *nix distros do not include TC as development is done in a closed
>fashion plus the licensing is restrictive and the security is not being
>peer-reviewed in a good fashion - in fact Truecrypt's code has NEVER been
>properly reviewed!
How come? So many Open Source advocats out there and none of them
reading and compiling those few lines of code? Are all of them snake
oil peddlers just like illiterates running down books by reason of an
unattractive cover design?
Bear Bottoms
email.me:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:15:25 +0000 (UTC), Robert James wrote:
>
>> Everybody knows the TrueCrypt foundation is just an INFOSEC front
>
> Fukktard.
>
> Proof? None?
>
> Fukktard.
argument.
Base
>
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:15:25 +0000 (UTC), Robert James wrote:
>
> > Everybody knows the TrueCrypt foundation is just an INFOSEC front
>
> Fukktard.
>
> Proof? None?
>
> Fukktard.
Nomen Nescio
Robert James <ballsac...@joesbarbershop.com> wrote:
>
> When I questioned this on the forms there excuse
>
Where?
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
On 10 Sep 2011 23:07:11 UTC, Robert James wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:05:41 +0200, I imposed a declaration in opposition
>to Dave U. Random's motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support
>Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
>> So many Open Source advocats out there and none of them reading and
>> compiling those few lines of code?
>
>Foundation has attacked those attempts and created a policy of ignoring
>and banning people talking about forks on the forums.
In summary it therefore can be said, that those guys aim at forking
TrueCrypt though they never read and analyzed the code?
I get the impression that naughty grudgers will always find a way to
denigrate the work of those who are successfully pursuing their goals.
If the source code isn't available they allege fraud, if it is they
argue for making it freeware promising faster progress, and if that
finally happens they try to bogart the project and kick out the highly
skilled original authors. Let's hope those parasites meet with fierce
resistance.
Dave U. Random
>Try to compile a version of TC using the exact same dependencies; same
>versions of course, exactly as TC's developers suggest. You will notice
>the hash and size of your binary is radically different then the pre-
>compiled one they provide. TC's excuse??? They had to include 64-bit
>Vista/Win7 driver sigs. When I questioned this on the forms there excuse
>did not explain why this was also true of the WinDriverless .deb version.
>Ask about this strange difference on the TC forums and you'll have your
>posts quickly deleted.
Hash 'radically' different? I see, you're an expert!
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
On the holy day of 11 Sep 2011, Robert James wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:46:21 +0200, I imposed a declaration in opposition
>to Anonymous Remailer (austria)'s motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY
>INJUNCTION in support of the CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY
>INJUNCTION. So noted by the Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding
>preliminary declaration,
>733c93bca01b34f6...@remailer.privacy.at:
>Still not gett'in it, 'eh?
Obviously not.
>The big issue seems to be the noticeable
>differences in the binary copies provided and a self compiled copy.
A few hundred kB a big issue? I often wonder why my programs become
smaller by adding, yes, adding a few lines to the source code. You
can't predict the effect of even minimal changes. There are a lot of
things affecting the size of an executable, for example the compiler
version, its settings concerning optimization, the linker properties
(elimination of redundant COMDATs and COMDAT folding, removal of
unreferenced data) and many more. To get around those they'd have to
distribute their complete development system as a virtual machine.
Robert, I see no justification for accusations based on nothing but
the size of a binary.
>Not
>to mention the unknown agenda of the seemingly few members of the secret
>foundation who seem to have much better skills in cryptographic
>engineering along with more financing then most private fortune 500
>security companies and INFOSEC government contractors.
Fortunately skills don't depend on money. Who funded Phil Zimmerman
when he developed PGP? There are many ambitious projects run by
people without any professional connection with cryptographic research
or the software industry. Without them we'd be at a loss. And where
has the TrueCrypt team invented a new cryptographic algorithm? They
were just clever in solving a specific real world problem with
mathematical methods available to anyone including you.
>In summary it
>therefore can be said, the point of free and open source software is the
>right to modify, explore and fork projects; allowing the community to
>decide... Something which the foundation seems adamantly opposed to.
http://www.truecrypt.org/legal/license says, that you are free to
build your own fork and distribute it under a different name. You
just aren't allowed to call is TrueCrypt, so name it JamesCrypt. Isn't
that fair? I understand quite well that they try to preserve their
reputation, which is what you want to destroy with your untenable
accusations. Obviously the crypto world is an excellent place to
spread deceptive rumors, not least done by those who oppose strong
cryptography.
Bullwinkle.
and all.
So clear this up for everyone. What is the "truth"?
"Robert James" <ballsac...@joesbarbershop.com> wrote in message
news:j4fntc$vcr$4...@dont-email.me...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:33:53 +0000, I imposed a declaration in opposition
to Bear Bottoms's motion to modify THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in support
of the CROSS MOTION TO VACATE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. So noted by the
Federal Court of Usenet Justice proceeding preliminary declaration,
Xns9F5C8A1292055b...@130.225.254.104:
> He's too dumb to understand what you're telling him. Something like
> TrueCrypt would blow his mind away.
Shame you don't compile your copy from source on a *nix system, Bears.
Then again it is becoming harder and harder to understand/compile TC's
source code cause they are making it fairly complex to do.
Everybody knows the TrueCrypt foundation is just an INFOSEC front that
bought out the OTFE ability from E4M and other products. Think about it,
even though the software is "open source" the TrueCrypt foundation
attacks and threatens anyone who posts or still uses version 1.0/1.0a,
making it the first and only freeware OldApps removed do to the "legal
repercussions" of posting open source software. Methinks 1.0/1.0a was the
edition they forgot the backdoor.
Then again the TrueCrypt foundation refuses to even hint who they really
are, or how they have the funding and skills well above any commercial or
government encryption provider. Even after all these years they refused
to say so much as "hello world".
Lets not also mention that improvements in the software on alternative
OSes only occur when competing forks like osxcrypt take the spotlight.
Several *nix distros do not include TC as development is done in a closed
fashion plus the licensing is restrictive and the security is not being
peer-reviewed in a good fashion - in fact Truecrypt's code has NEVER been
properly reviewed!
Plus censorship is all over the TC community, any criticisms, probing
questions or seemingly negative comments will mysteriously disappear from
the forums tanks to TC's Kremlin staffed disinformation bureau.
--
Reverted Julliette "Elle" Hart's control of Kamloops 2600.
RL'ed Matthew Moulton (noted BabyFag) permanently off Usenet.
Revealed Lamey (noted BabySidekick) to be the cunt of Mike Hunt.
Ruined Bob Hoffman and his FamilyNet International echo-bot too.
Bear Bottoms
news:761da10dc94ad456...@remailer.privacy.at:
The post to which I'm replying is a forgery sent through an anoymous
remailer which I did not send. I only post through Sunsite.dk or sometimes
through my account with Albasani.
Keep your eyes open for forgeries by checking message headers whenever a
message from somebody seems out of character, specifically looking for
references to anonymous remailers in the path statement. Set your news
reader to flag, or even better, block everything sent through Google
Groups and remailers.
--
Bear
http://bearware.info
morkette
Bear Bottoms
news:4e6e1a04...@cometothedarkside.com:
> This just in to the alt.2600 news room. On 12 Sep 2011 07:23:17 -0000
> it was announced to all in a public briefing, "morkette"
> <k1d...@r31eet.com> made the following declaration and shocked the
Yur a cheesecat. Imma bear.
--
Bear
http://bearware.info
Dave U. Random
Bear Bottoms <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone got a torrent for the The Revolution Will Be Digitised by Hather
> Brooke about Assange?
>
Why not just pull one out of your ass like you do with the rest of your wares?
Or does bearsy waresy like things in his ass?
The only thing worse than a troll is a stupid or boring one. You top the list
of loser trolls of all time, bearbutt.
Kulin Remailer
> --
> Bear
> http://bearware.info
Bear Bottoms
news:53B8HWUX4080...@reece.net.au:
What do they know? :)