No, it has nothing to do with me being anonymous. That phrase "do not expect" is a reservation, not a refusal. It has nothing to do with me being anonymous, it's about a person responding to the post being anonymous.

Further, the statement has nothing to do with being negative about anonymous posts except that it's impossible to hold a conversation when a potentially infinite amount of people appear to be identical.

English must not be your first language. "do not expect" in the English language does not mean the same thing as a refusal.

If you can not understand phrasing in the English language, ask questions instead of making incorrect assumptions.

If English is your first language, shame on you for being so weak with your comprehension skills. Based on your change of subject English is your first language and you incorrectly believe that you are intelligent.

I attempt to keep bashing to reasonable levels, so I'll give you the information and you can find things on your own. Run NoScript and load Slashdot. Note every site that attempts to talk to your browser, and start looking for company information and whois data.

I highly recommend people run NoScript all the time. You may be surprised at who you are being connected when visiting what you believe one site and maybe an add channel. Some sites are huge balls of spaghetti serving one little meatball.

I changed several browsers to use DDG as the default search. If I can't find something, I can always to go Google.com and look for it.

Hey Dice, pay close attention to this part! I don't want to have everything I do tracked and analyzed. Not by a Government nor by a company. They don't have my best interests in mind, they have _their_ best interests in mind.

I block a lot of content today that 5 years ago I never had to worry about. I'm blocking 3 sites that Dice attempts to push through their default content because two of them are under the same owner.. a former Israeli Intel head who opened social media and content sharing sites.. out of the goodness of their hearts right? Pfffft..

Using "Social Media" only increases people's ability to track. Like the new shitty "share" button where "comment" use to be. I refuse to use social media sites for the same reason I am using DDG.

Zune!

Wrong wrong wrong! If I had full trust I would not have to do something like create an encrypted file system of any type. I would not have to encrypt traffic between hosts, and I would not have to encrypt my backups. Yet for some reason, I do all of those things with critical data.

What you are defending is an invalid generalization and statement which happens to ignore reality.

There is one common definition, and if you read the dictionary you will find several parts but none of those parts discount the other. In normal use it means "implied" which indicates no formal explanation or express statements needed. See item 2 for further clarification which is "unquestioning". Even when dealing with Mathematics it has the same meanings.

Most of us do exactly that right? We don't just store our sensitive data on a hard drive, we create an encrypted volume and put data in that.

I quoted the statement, and will ask you to read the definition of implicit. I don't have unqualified trust for hardware any more than I have unqualified trust for software.

"Bullshit" that is. Why should I "implicitly" trust hardware as praxis stated? You seem to be happy defending him, so explain that position. I assume risk using Software, but with hardware it's only full and unqualified trust or nothing? How on Earth do you come to that conclusion? Do you know what you are defending?

Like the person I responded to, you seem to be treating hardware and software differently. Hardware should be treated the same level of trust you give to software.

I had to re-read and make sure I'm not being picky with wording, and I don't believe I am. GP said "You implicitly trust your hardware manufacturers" and you stated "if we really "trusted nobody", then nobody would ever build another electronic device." Both of those statements are incorrect because there should be no explicit trust with either hardware or software.

You both seem to agree that Software is a sliding scale, but then bulk hardware into either black or white.

That is the part I disagree with, and in most cases is simply not true.

I completely disagree. I trust nobody, and am glad that others follow suite. It's through this constant lack of trust that we found flaws in numerous technologies which allowed certain people back door access. No company should get a free pass with security. They should all have to constantly prove their worth and people should constantly be testing.

That is not to say I don't use products, but use does not imply 100% trust. It implies just enough trust to use something.

As a security professional, I disagree with your last paragraph. The people I know are not against marketing our services and solutions, nor are they against telling people why they should be aware of security. What most of us are against are the few people that attempt to gimmick our industry and trick people into thinking "they" have some new and novel solution.

Get-rich-quick scams are bad for security. Telling people you invented something new, which in reality is old hat, by twisting words is bad for security. Security professionals take security seriously, not as a gimmick.

None of them count for a number of reasons. First, none of them are from the US where the RIAA would sue them. Probably more importantly, the people you mentioned are not wealthy only because of being a DJ. They are all wealthy because of being producers, musicians, etc...

Now that said, I never stated that being a wealth DJ was impossible. I stated that I had never seen a wealthy DJ. Radio DJs can make a good living, but the DJ in question was not the same variety. The majority of people performing weddings and such DJ for fun and extra cash.

I think you should check history before making such statements. The RIAA has a history of going after who will have the money to pay, not the responsible party. Perhaps the contract would have been used for the RIAA to go after both parties, but the guy with money always gets sued. Who has money here, the DJ or the business owner? Hint: I have not seen a wealth DJ ever.