[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.programming

JTRIG, SIGDEV

Mok-Kong Shen

8/7/2015 7:49:00 AM


From an article of Glenn Greenwald
(https://firstlook.org/theintercept/20144/02/24/jtrig-ma...)
I found the following interesting paragraph:

"Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1)
to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to
destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences
and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to
generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these
programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve
those ends: â??false flag operationsâ? (posting material to the internet
and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts
(pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want
to destroy), and posting â??negative informationâ? on various forums."

M. K. Shen
22 Answers

zasochimti

10/5/2008 10:29:00 AM

0


"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mmfic4pjteumak082bul0cdc0mrsvugieh@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:50:47 +0200, "zasochimti" <zasochimti@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote in message news:d4212a45-fe30-4f21-83a7-a8c0edf49332@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>On Sep 11, 9:22 am, "zasochimti" <zasochi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in messagenews:8efd99d0-2099-4883-bcc8-e20f0d509bd9@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Sep 11, 7:41 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Moron Sack-o, surely even a brain-dead Kroat kooker like you remembers
>>> > the photos we showed you of the Windsor.
>>>
>>> If he'd googled Windsor Tower fire he would have gotten
>>>
>>> http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structure......
>>>
>>> which goes to show that he isn't interested in fact ...
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> "The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished."
>>>
>>> Ye lying sack of shit. That building did NOT collapse. Only a portion of it collapsed.
>>> Compare The Windsor Tower and WTC1 and WTC2. Only a lying sack of shit,
>>> such as your whacko "debunking" friend Keenan, can say that The Windsor Tower
>>> PARTIAL collapse was the same as the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.
>>
>>Of course it had to be demolished.
>> All the steel structure was destroyed and the concrete structure was
>>badly damaged by the fire.
>>In the WTC the steel structures were also destroyed by fire leading to
>>the collapse of both Towers...
>>
>>Why don't you actually read the article ?
>>------
>>
>>I have. Windsor Tower did NOT, and I repeat, did NOT collapse due to fire.
>>It sustained heavy damage, but it did NOT collapse. It had to be demolished.
>
> And, for the six thousandth time, the part of the Windsor Tower that needed
> to be demolished was the part of the structure that was made of concrete.
> The top floors, those that were of steel construction collapsed due to fire
> alone. WTC 1, 2 and 3 contained no structural concrete.
>
> http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp...
> "A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above
> that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete
> floors with steel perimeter columns."
>
> "The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse,
> partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor."

So?

Did the Windsor Tower collapse like WTC1 or WTC2, dickbreath?

Of course not.

So, yet again GovShit - shut the fuck up.


Government Shill #2

10/5/2008 10:43:00 AM

0

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:29:00 +0200, "zasochimti" <zasochimti@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mmfic4pjteumak082bul0cdc0mrsvugieh@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:50:47 +0200, "zasochimti" <zasochimti@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote in message news:d4212a45-fe30-4f21-83a7-a8c0edf49332@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Sep 11, 9:22 am, "zasochimti" <zasochi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in messagenews:8efd99d0-2099-4883-bcc8-e20f0d509bd9@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 11, 7:41 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Moron Sack-o, surely even a brain-dead Kroat kooker like you remembers
>>>> > the photos we showed you of the Windsor.
>>>>
>>>> If he'd googled Windsor Tower fire he would have gotten
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structure......
>>>>
>>>> which goes to show that he isn't interested in fact ...
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> "The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished."
>>>>
>>>> Ye lying sack of shit. That building did NOT collapse. Only a portion of it collapsed.
>>>> Compare The Windsor Tower and WTC1 and WTC2. Only a lying sack of shit,
>>>> such as your whacko "debunking" friend Keenan, can say that The Windsor Tower
>>>> PARTIAL collapse was the same as the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.
>>>
>>>Of course it had to be demolished.
>>> All the steel structure was destroyed and the concrete structure was
>>>badly damaged by the fire.
>>>In the WTC the steel structures were also destroyed by fire leading to
>>>the collapse of both Towers...
>>>
>>>Why don't you actually read the article ?
>>>------
>>>
>>>I have. Windsor Tower did NOT, and I repeat, did NOT collapse due to fire.
>>>It sustained heavy damage, but it did NOT collapse. It had to be demolished.
>>
>> And, for the six thousandth time, the part of the Windsor Tower that needed
>> to be demolished was the part of the structure that was made of concrete.
>> The top floors, those that were of steel construction collapsed due to fire
>> alone. WTC 1, 2 and 3 contained no structural concrete.
>>
>> http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp...
>> "A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above
>> that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete
>> floors with steel perimeter columns."
>>
>> "The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse,
>> partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor."
>
>So?
>
>Did the Windsor Tower collapse like WTC1 or WTC2, dickbreath?

Was the Windsor Tower constructed like WTC1 or WTC2, "nut job"?

>Of course not.

Of course not. One was steel and concrete, the others were steel.
The steel portion of the Windsor Tower did collapse.

>So, yet again GovShit - shut the fuck up.

Make me, school girl!

--
Shill #2

Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

BDK

10/6/2008 4:27:00 AM

0

In article <fe6he4hd9btajc8sq6jk0vr8d7v5dptaj1@4ax.com>,
gov.shill@gmail.com says...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:29:00 +0200, "zasochimti" <zasochimti@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mmfic4pjteumak082bul0cdc0mrsvugieh@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:50:47 +0200, "zasochimti" <zasochimti@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote in message news:d4212a45-fe30-4f21-83a7-a8c0edf49332@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> >>>On Sep 11, 9:22 am, "zasochimti" <zasochi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in messagenews:8efd99d0-2099-4883-bcc8-e20f0d509bd9@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sep 11, 7:41 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> > Moron Sack-o, surely even a brain-dead Kroat kooker like you remembers
> >>>> > the photos we showed you of the Windsor.
> >>>>
> >>>> If he'd googled Windsor Tower fire he would have gotten
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structure......
> >>>>
> >>>> which goes to show that he isn't interested in fact ...
> >>>> ----------
> >>>>
> >>>> "The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished."
> >>>>
> >>>> Ye lying sack of shit. That building did NOT collapse. Only a portion of it collapsed.
> >>>> Compare The Windsor Tower and WTC1 and WTC2. Only a lying sack of shit,
> >>>> such as your whacko "debunking" friend Keenan, can say that The Windsor Tower
> >>>> PARTIAL collapse was the same as the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.
> >>>
> >>>Of course it had to be demolished.
> >>> All the steel structure was destroyed and the concrete structure was
> >>>badly damaged by the fire.
> >>>In the WTC the steel structures were also destroyed by fire leading to
> >>>the collapse of both Towers...
> >>>
> >>>Why don't you actually read the article ?
> >>>------
> >>>
> >>>I have. Windsor Tower did NOT, and I repeat, did NOT collapse due to fire.
> >>>It sustained heavy damage, but it did NOT collapse. It had to be demolished.
> >>
> >> And, for the six thousandth time, the part of the Windsor Tower that needed
> >> to be demolished was the part of the structure that was made of concrete.
> >> The top floors, those that were of steel construction collapsed due to fire
> >> alone. WTC 1, 2 and 3 contained no structural concrete.
> >>
> >> http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp...
> >> "A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above
> >> that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete
> >> floors with steel perimeter columns."
> >>
> >> "The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse,
> >> partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor."
> >
> >So?
> >
> >Did the Windsor Tower collapse like WTC1 or WTC2, dickbreath?
>
> Was the Windsor Tower constructed like WTC1 or WTC2, "nut job"?
>
> >Of course not.
>
> Of course not. One was steel and concrete, the others were steel.
> The steel portion of the Windsor Tower did collapse.
>
> >So, yet again GovShit - shut the fuck up.
>
> Make me, school girl!
>
> --
> Shill #2
>
> Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
> theobviousgcashman
>

School girl? Maybe the Aunt Flo nick was truly appropriate...

--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster

Iarnrod

10/6/2008 4:34:00 AM

0

On Oct 5, 4:29 am, "sack-o-shitti" <sack-o-shi...@kookermail.com>
wrote:

> Did the Windsor Tower collapse like WTC1 or WTC2, dickbreath?

Yes, jizzlips. It did.

> Of course not.

Liar.

> So, yet again GovShit - shut the fuck up.

Once again, sack-o-shitti makes a claim that is completely false and
everyone knows it.

Johannes Bauer

8/7/2015 7:57:00 AM

0

On 07.08.2015 09:48, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>
> From an article of Glenn Greenwald
> (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/20144/02/24/jtrig-ma...)
> I found the following interesting paragraph:

Which has to with with programming exactly *what*?

> "Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1)
> to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to
> destroy the reputation of its targets;

Hmmm, so posting a clearly broken encryption algorithm, claiming it to
be secure and hoping for the "next Snowden" to use it would fall under
this strategy? Is this supposed to be a confession?

Cheers,
Johannes

--
>> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
> Zumindest nicht öffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere groÃ?en
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
- Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Mok-Kong Shen

8/7/2015 12:03:00 PM

0

Am 07.08.2015 um 09:57 schrieb Johannes Bauer:
> On 07.08.2015 09:48, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>
>> From an article of Glenn Greenwald
>> (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/20144/02/24/jtrig-ma...)
>> I found the following interesting paragraph:
>
> Which has to with with programming exactly *what*?

I just wanted to call attention to the phenomenon of defamation
which unfavorably affects the discussion atmosphere in many groups.

M. K. Shen
>
>> "Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1)
>> to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to
>> destroy the reputation of its targets;
>
> Hmmm, so posting a clearly broken encryption algorithm, claiming it to
> be secure and hoping for the "next Snowden" to use it would fall under
> this strategy? Is this supposed to be a confession?
>
> Cheers,
> Johannes
>

Kaz Kylheku

8/7/2015 2:51:00 PM

0

On 2015-08-07, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
> "Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1)
> to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to
> destroy the reputation of its targets.

This does not apply when the target is yourself and you believe the false
material that you're posting that is ruining your own reputation,
like "Python's PRNG is good enough for generating RSA keys and one-time pads"
and "if an academic paper doesn't explicitly spell out an assumption,
then such an assumption doesn't hold".

Wait, when did you have a good reputation around here?

At the time of the From: line in your first posting, it was slightly
positive. It took a downturn to neutral in Subject: and continued
to plummet in the body.

Kaz Kylheku

8/7/2015 3:05:00 PM

0

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.programming.]
On 2015-08-07, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
> Am 07.08.2015 um 09:57 schrieb Johannes Bauer:
>> On 07.08.2015 09:48, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>>
>>> From an article of Glenn Greenwald
>>> (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/20144/02/24/jtrig-ma...)
>>> I found the following interesting paragraph:
>>
>> Which has to with with programming exactly *what*?
>
> I just wanted to call attention to the phenomenon of defamation
> which unfavorably affects the discussion atmosphere in many groups.

Why don't you pause to lookup up "defamation" in an English dictionary?
Now what you've used the word several times, it is high time to formally
introduce yourself to its definition.

Defamation means that someone utters or writes something false about you which
damages your public reputation. (Uttered defamation is "slander" and written
defamation is "libel".)

Defamation would occur if someone announces that, for instance, he has seen you
steal something from a store. Some members of the public believe it, and so
your reputation is tarnished. The announcement only defamation if it isn't true.

"You're an idiot" isn't defamation; it's clearly just an opinion. Such an
opinion can be a justified, evidence-based comment on someone's recent
output in a network forum.

Mok-Kong Shen

8/7/2015 4:20:00 PM

0

Am 07.08.2015 um 17:05 schrieb Kaz Kylheku:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.programming.]
> On 2015-08-07, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Am 07.08.2015 um 09:57 schrieb Johannes Bauer:
>>> On 07.08.2015 09:48, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From an article of Glenn Greenwald
>>>> (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/20144/02/24/jtrig-ma...)
>>>> I found the following interesting paragraph:
>>>
>>> Which has to with with programming exactly *what*?
>>
>> I just wanted to call attention to the phenomenon of defamation
>> which unfavorably affects the discussion atmosphere in many groups.
>
> Why don't you pause to lookup up "defamation" in an English dictionary?
> Now what you've used the word several times, it is high time to formally
> introduce yourself to its definition.
>
> Defamation means that someone utters or writes something false about you which
> damages your public reputation. (Uttered defamation is "slander" and written
> defamation is "libel".)
>
> Defamation would occur if someone announces that, for instance, he has seen you
> steal something from a store. Some members of the public believe it, and so
> your reputation is tarnished. The announcement only defamation if it isn't true.
>
> "You're an idiot" isn't defamation; it's clearly just an opinion. Such an
> opinion can be a justified, evidence-based comment on someone's recent
> output in a network forum.

I like to ask the general readers of the groups to remember that the
issue I quoted unfortunately exists in the world, each time when they
see arguments in the groups that are personal attacks and have nothing
to do with objective discussions. They could then better build their
own opinions about whether such personal attacks are indeed justified.

M. K. Shen

Mok-Kong Shen

8/7/2015 5:18:00 PM

0

Am 07.08.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Kaz Kylheku:
> On 2015-08-07, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>> "Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1)
>> to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to
>> destroy the reputation of its targets.
>
> This does not apply when the target is yourself and you believe the false
> material that you're posting that is ruining your own reputation,
> like "Python's PRNG is good enough for generating RSA keys and one-time pads"
> and "if an academic paper doesn't explicitly spell out an assumption,
> then such an assumption doesn't hold".

In the other thread I argued that, since an algorithm of CSPRNG
given in HAC is based on RSA, there would have been a vicious
circle in implementation, if the generation of RSA keys had required
from the outset an CSPRNG. (If this 2nd CSPRNG is not available,
then the implementation of the first CSPRNG is obviously impossible.
If the 2nd CSPRNG is available, then in the clearly majority of cases
in practice one would (for convenience and economy) simply use that
2nd CSPRNG and not spend any additional time and efforts to do an
implementation for the 1st CSPRNG.

Is there any logical error in my argument above?

M. K. Shen

> Wait, when did you have a good reputation around here?
>
> At the time of the From: line in your first posting, it was slightly
> positive. It took a downturn to neutral in Subject: and continued
> to plummet in the body.
>