133 karma · joined December 30, 2010
FTFY.
Please check your sources and brush up on whatever rudimentary Latvian skills you still posses. You will certainly not master the language by defaulting to what is, in essence, chauvinism. Rest assured, we can read between the lines of what you're implying ["Russian language superior! We have big words, words for everything! The best words!], but it's just not gonna fly here.
"Ne" is a negation (= "in" or "not"), whereas "atkarība" is simply "dependence". Thus, (in)(dependence) is the equivalent of (ne)(atkarība). I don't see where you got it to mean "impossibility to take by force". Independence can be lost, it's not an impossibility. Source:
https://translate.google.com/#auto/en/neatkar%C4%ABba
http://www.tezaurs.lv/?w=neatkar%C4%ABba#/sv/neatkar%C4%ABba
"This is a major reason why the Daodejing, to take a famous example, is impenetrable to a few, enigmatic to many more, and highly allusive for everyone, and has been the subject of well over 150 translations of it in English alone."
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-translate-interpr...
Here is a translation of a classic buddhist sūtra in Latvian: http://www.ugis.info/?t#sutra_
> You will simply have no words to express what you need
That is a challenge that all translators face, no matter the language pair. There are no direct equivalents of "अभिधर्म" or "Ānanda" in any of the Western languages either, be it Latvian, English or Welsh. Incidentally, both Lithuanian and Latvian happen to be closer to Sanskrit than the latter. Again, I don't quite see the point you're making. Care to elaborate?
- No phoning home
- In-built privacy protection
A script that is compatible with POSIX Bourne shell (/bin/sh) would be more appropriate. FreeBSD, for example, does not come pre-installed with bash. If you want cross-platform portability, this is a better default.
Yes, please.
While security agencies of various governments are on the buy-side on the "zero day" vulnerability market, majority of commercial "cyber" security companies are not dealing in "cyber weapons" and are not involved with NSA. There are plentiful examples of successful "white hats": H. D. Moore, Dan Kaminsky, Tavis Ormandy, Michał Zalewski, even our own Colin Percival and tptacek etc. You don't have to do work for government to play in this area.
Why is commercial "cyber" security industry not a viable option? It pays well, there's currently a notable skill shortage and they can work in "pen-testing", "red teaming" and "exploit development" areas.
No, because router's management interface is only available out-of-band. This is a conscious design decision to mitigate against this threat: "In order to protect the PORTAL from tampering from malware (or malicious users), it also requires a third administration interface. This can be either a serial console, or physical connection."[0]
---
[0] http://grugq.github.io/blog/2013/10/05/thru-a-portal-darkly/
--
[0] https://github.com/grugq/portal
[1] https://www.whonix.org/w/index.php?title=Dev/Build_Documenta...