birkett wrote: cyberblade wrote: jlamothe wrote:
benbald72 wrote:Also, is it possible to encrypt things in such a way that if one key is given the information gets decrypted, but if a different key is given the information gets erased?
Well, maybe. The ironkey
is probably about as close as the average civilian is going to get.
Well, there are a few other options if you're handy with wiring... Solder the case shut and make it so that attempts to open the case ignite the thermite around the HDD, similarly have the thermite be able to be triggered by a certain boot password... I'm sure it could be done, and it's the only way I can think of to destroy the data on your hard disk quickly... Thermite is fairly easy to make, and the wiring seems to be pretty simple...
You are clearly a very brave man... I mean, malware can be pretty bad when all it can do is steal your dataz, but with that laptop you open the wrong email and you're wondering why your legs are evaporating...
Well, to be honest, I have never thought of how that could work with a laptop... I'm guessing you'd need to take one of those old big laptops (from the early 90's) then fill the case with new, small parts to leave space for the thermite... (This is also how I've imagined an easy way to get illegal materials through airport security-as you have a functioning laptop, and no TSA agent I know will disassemble a laptop case if it powers on.)
cyberblade wrote:Well, you're free to dislike or like whomever. ... Why don't you take issue with the quotes I posted if you think there's something wrong with them instead of just ranting about the author.
Logic is irrelevant to someone who thinks "A = A" is the basis for a philosophy. We call that a tautology. Do you argue with deranged people? I don't. I don't have time to try to convince amoralists and anarchists that they deserve no role in defining a society and its rules. I don't accept their arguments as ingenuous, for one thing. They don't seek a moral state, they seek unending advantage and acquisition. They are dishonorable and arguing with them only lends them status and helps them hone their disingenuous arguments.
Randianism and Libertarianism are beneath contempt to me.
So disagreeing with the philosophy of an author means that everything they said was wrong?
I didn't agree with Plato, or Marx, or Mao or even Rand (as I noted with my quote)-but they still all make some interesting points, if only for discussion. All you do is rant about the author, without even talking about what I actually quoted. You're starting to fall under the same umbrella you claim the author of those quotes is in-someone to whom logic is irrelevant (in certain cases that is, as I would hope that you are a more logical type than these rants of yours would otherwise indicate).
I have no interest in what you think about the author, or those philosophies you feel are "beneath contempt". (As a side note, if they were actually "beneath contempt" to you, you shouldn't have gotten so worked up nor expressed yourself so strongly. It is quite clear that you actually find them contemptible.) But please, do feel free to discuss the actual quotes I used-whether you disagree or agree, or whatever your sentiments about the ideas in those quotes.