I've used the site longer and reserve the right to use Doctor Who references where I'm suspicious of technical details, especially as relate to timing vulnerabilities. This is allowed, as per The Hacker's Dictionary. Bonus points for finding the Doctor Who references included.
That was pretty much my interpretation as well. Which would be great for ad-hoc encrypted tunnels - the source and destination can have keys that are valid only until the tunnel's authentication expires (typically hourly) and where the encryption is based on the identity the other side is known by. Ad-hoc tunnels need to generate keys quickly and efficiently, but also don't need to be super-secure. In fact, they can't be.
If RIBE isn't useful in ad-hoc, then you'd end up having to ask when it would be useful.
Anything that depends on a third party, including PGP/GPG with keyservers, is vulnerable to some form of compromise, SSL/TLS certificates all have a third party signer and Kerberos depends on all kinds of behind-the-scenes work being secure. However, although they're imperfect, they're considered adequate for what they do. Well, except for SSL, perhaps.
RIBE presumably therefore also has a niche where it's good. Rapid key turnover is what's wanted for conversation-based protocols with timeouts. That makes RIBE sound promissing for IPSec ad-hoc and SSL, as it makes store and crunch by attackers less likely to work. But is that the right niche?
"hope I die before I get old"
I hope to cure aging before I get old. Other creatures don't age so why should I?
Also a good way to dry off your pet after a bath! 100% guaranteed no "wet dog smell".
It's not that hard to arrange for info to be distributed should something happen to me.
1, 2, 3, (deep breath)...
Take a look at Red hat's CygWin. http://www.redhat.com/services...
It's the 'pre-installed' part that's key. There are lots of times when I sit down at a Windows machine, and I either don't have the owner's permission to install stuff, or even if I do it's going to take 30 minutes just to get everything installed, before I can even start working on the actual problems at hand.
For we live by faith, not by sight. -- 2 Corinthians 5:7
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. -- Ephesians 2:8-9
So you see, Biblical faith is exclusionary -- if you have proof, it is no longer faith. Yet certain Christians are ashamed of acknowledging their faith, so they try to instead rely on "the wisdom of this world".
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. -- Hebrews 11:1-3
But Creationists claim that it is by cleverness and science that they can prove that the universe was formed at God’s command, rather than by faith as the Bible says.
Gullibility unfortunately is a survival mechanism.
I'd say trust is a survival mechanism. Gullibility is trusting people you should not be trusting, and I don't think it has much survival value
Raid proof. Not RAID.
As in, resilient to police officers not disk failure.
Relevant Assortment of Incriminating Data?
If you hide them behind an invislible menu icon that's pretty much gmail and Windows 8.
Oh, you also make the most popular four invisible too. Because the less there is to see, the better the UX is. Because design.
Or at least that's the only explanation I can see for a non-violent atheism.
Translation: You don't understand atheism, therefore your personal religion gets to claim all credit for any and all positive common-sense-truths.
Christianity incorporated things that were widely accepted as true or good long before Christianity existed, and which are widely accepted as true or good in societies that have never had contact with Christianity.... and you want to claim Christianity somehow "owns" them, and that atheists cannot interdependently agree with them.
I do not need to believe in Native American animal spirit guides to come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to avoid violence.
I do not need to believe in Reincarnation to come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to avoid violence.
And I sure as heck don't need to believe in your even sillier walking-talking snake stories to come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to avoid violence.
There are pure-logic reasons to come to that conclusion.
There are good reasons to come to that conclusion which may range beyond a strict definition of "pure logic", which have absolutely nothing to do with invisible mystical magical beings.
One of the great things about atheism is that we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Christianity that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Judiasm that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Islam that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Native American religion that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Buddhism that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Hinduism that is true or good. Just as we see absolutely nothing wrong with adopting anything in Confucianism that is true or good.
Atheists don't define "morality" as obedience to some random religion's claims about what some invisible-silent-magical-man wants. We are free to accept the best examples of morality and the best teachings on morality and the best reasoning on morality, from anywhere. Jesus said a lot of very wise things. Buddha said a lot of very wise things. Confucius said a lot of very wise things. I see no shame as an atheist, taking the best that Christianity has to offer. But there's no way in hell you can claim Christianity has some monopoly-ownership on the idea of non-violence.
Unfortunately, each one that gets knocked down on its face means it's statistically more likely that the debunkers are right and the theorists wrong. We can go to infinity, but after ten or even 5 assertions wiped out with only basic experimentation, the chances of you having been right in the first place go beyond minuscule.
The problem is that conspiracy nuts don't understand statistics, or science. They are always asking for "proof" or "certainty" and in the the face of its lack they default to their own crazy idea.
But knowledge is not certain: it can always be updated in the face of new (possibly currently-unimaginable) evidence. So science, which creates knowledge, cannot create certainty of any kind. Not even falsification is certain, and people who ask for certainty are like alchemists of old, who rejected mere chemistry because it didn't give them the impossible capability of turning base metals into gold.
All that said, I have found it useful to ask Moon-landing-deniers who say, "The only source of light is the sun", "Then how can I see the ground?" If they acknowledge they can see the ground in the photos, they are pretty much forced to admit there is reflected light from the ground so they start looking pretty foolish when they repeat (as they often do) "The only source of light is the sun". It doesn't convince them of anything, but it does shut them up and make them go away.
Even if it is all dust, the discovery is "nothing to sneeze at"!
Or... I could say,
"Even if it is all dust the discovery is nothing -- To sneeze at."
What's this, then?