Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LuciferX

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 111
31
Literally everything in there is bad advice, even the AES thing is contentious, with most people saying don't use standards the three letter agencies were involved with, the one I see that seems to be the most popular at the moment is PGP.

Yea, PGP.

Also, I think most AES implementations are symmetric block-cyphers, so not as robust as public key for communication.  IIRC, RSA used to be good, and then I heard some things about DES possibly being compromised, but I always get the two mixed-up, and, I forget why, but I don't use Elgamal.

If anyone remembers, long, long ago, when Veronica was bigger than the Web, domestic PGP releases had more options for the cypher, and, it was illegal to export certain keys.  Being caught abroad with said cyphers amounted to international weapons trafficking; fun stuff, the good 'ol days.

Seems like I'm due for a little refresher course. 

32
Currently, my view of the case is that a man was sentenced to life with a crime for which he was never charged.  Outstanding work.

33
I'm no expert, however, since when do people get life for meta-attempted murder?

It's not really meta-attempted murder he was charged for, it was Conspiracy to commit a crime, which in this case its pretty clear cut, they had back and forth records with a number of parties.

I'm afraid I exaggerated the figure as Junkenstien says, it was 3 times he attempted to arrange the hits.

I've been racking my head trying to figure out why he was keeping the bitcoin wallet details on his machine instead of some kind of disposable machine located elsewhere and all I can come up with is paranoia that his wealth would be stolen from him if someone managed to get access to said disposable machine, in short greed.
With proper risk reward balancing the worst that would have happened is he loses his fortune and has to start over, instead, he gambled his freedom to protect that fortune and lost it all.

But then no one is accusing bitcoin users of prudent investment.

I agree with your conclusion, yet it does not validate the premise.  It seems unreasonable that One persons OPSEC would fail so miserably, given all the precautions taken.  The lead seems contrived so I keep defaulting to thinking he just took the fall.

Then, recently, I skimmed some of DPR's posts that indicate a type of maniacal thinking, perhaps lending itself to lapses of reason, and subsequent security breach(es).

So, to summarize, I don't have a clear picture, yet.


34
My thinking would be to move that transaction not working to his credit.  It seems like his uncharacteristic lack of ingenuity on the subject of murder demonstrates how he was not seriously thinking of going through with it.  If he really wanted to, he would have got it done (that is my superficial and preliminary statement).

I'm no expert, however, since when do people get life for meta-attempted murder?

The price is not right.

35
Life?  That is Entirely too severe a lesson for using persistence.

37
Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: May 28, 2015, 11:13:04 am »
Blood's on my clown suit

38
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« on: May 28, 2015, 11:04:38 am »
I think he's trying to shit on QG and I for not being monogamous, but it's really hard to tell.
No.  I really was trying to expand my understanding of monogamy.  That's why I definined myself as a "serial monogamist", because I don't believe it's distinction need be considered more than just a difference of degree between both swinging and polyamory.  The problem is how people try to antagonize sexuality, the format itself, and monogamy happens to be quite the exception in the limited circles I frequent.  So again, yea, whatever, I do not represent the absence of what you respect.  This is tedious.

39
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« on: May 26, 2015, 11:42:34 pm »
So, I love all the attention I'm getting (not really)...  In my experience, focusing on one partner at a time has yielded best results.  Even when a relationship was considered "open", one person (and probably both) would always end up feeling jealous when they had to share.  And that messed things up.  I don't know if that kind of possessiveness is just infantile egocentricity that can be overcome, or if it's hard-wired to lower parts of the brain.

It weird because on the one, just loving the one you are with would seem ideal, and on the other, if it's so good, why would one be afraid to share it?  Again, I think that matter should be one of free choice, but it hardly seems to be that way.  I blame the troubadours for extolling the virtue of everlasting romantic love as an attainable goal.  It's just toxic.  That being said, I served six (6) years of that sentence already and it's been driving me a little nuts, sometimes.

40
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« on: May 26, 2015, 09:37:44 am »
So what exactly is a swinger?

Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.

Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.


That's weird as fuck. How can you enjoy sex when it's with someone you just met?

Oh, there are swinger clubs, where everybody knows each other. And group sex, etc.

The rule is that you can't get emotionally attached to people other than your main partner. Just fuck them.

Um, maybe it's just my view, but isn't sex without emotions even less pleasuring then masterbation?

Some people seem to be into that. Personally, I've tried it, and it just makes me feel weird and depressed. Like, sex is supposed to be a bonding thing for us humans, it's one of the things that it does naturally, and while it's possible to disconnect the chemical sensations from the person I'm having them with, it seems to be really not good for me psychologically at all.
Fine, I think we're ready for that ridiculously over-consumed punch-line:  given how I'm not yet equipped to do better, the best I can be is a serial monogamist.  That is not to say polyamory beats swinging, I just want to figure how holy a threesome needs to be in order to count for either, or, how fast can I switch between partners before I no longer qualify for monogamy.  But there I go, lowering the bar again, right?  Just say the word and I'm out.

41
Moving forward, I still think an evaporative system, such as a swamp cooler, may work.  The only requirement would be the opening of a window, and maybe decently low levels of atmospheric humidity, in principle.  Then again, maybe I'm simply over-sensitive to heat because I run a little hot, or something, whatever.  I'm not really feeling it anyway.

42
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« on: May 25, 2015, 10:13:11 pm »
Are you living in a part of the world where the majority of swingers are black and brown? Because that would be wildly different from everything I've ever seen and heard of and would be a useful contribution to the conversation. You only bolded the first sentence, so I assume you're not arguing that the swinging scene in your area is a happy mix of straight and LGBT folks (although if that were the case, that would also be an interesting thing to talk about).

Also, what does monogamy "admit to"?

Just ignore him, he's an idiot with nothing to say.

Point taken.  Have fun guys.

43
Fukken elektrick stove, REAL COOKING REQUIRES GAS!
IMPEDANCE REQUIRES RESISTANCE!

44
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« on: May 25, 2015, 12:49:00 pm »
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.

I disagree. A lot.

Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.

It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).

There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?

Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.


* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this

** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.

Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:

Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there besides the fact that it's condescending.

Right on.  The condescension is only proportional to the extent that you may have denigrated my understanding of the subject.

Are you living in a part of the world where the majority of swingers are black and brown? Because that would be wildly different from everything I've ever seen and heard of and would be a useful contribution to the conversation. You only bolded the first sentence, so I assume you're not arguing that the swinging scene in your area is a happy mix of straight and LGBT folks (although if that were the case, that would also be an interesting thing to talk about).

Also, what does monogamy "admit to"?

I tend to celebrate difference, and yes, that makes me quite alone.  For one, because monogamy admits the victory of love over any imaginary division we so delicately contrive.

45
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« on: May 25, 2015, 12:35:09 pm »
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.

I disagree. A lot.

Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.

It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).

There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?

Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.


* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this

** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.

Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:

Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there besides the fact that it's condescending.

Right on.  The condescension is only proportional to the extent that you may have denigrated my understanding of the subject.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 111