Re: Ustafish - Security Leak
- From: "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Feb 2006 04:00:09 -0800
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nieveler.nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
:news:Xns9777CAC0EDAB0juergennieveler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:> Harry Bennett <harryb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>
:> > How did this technology escape ?
:> >
:> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2059950,00.html
:>
:> Who cares - our first target for 2016 is set :-)
:
:How the hell the master distiller can say that the resulting 92 percent
:concoction will be very "floral" escapes me. This stuff is stronger than E85
:gasohol.
I don't see how you can say it's anything at all. It's EverClear by
another name.
Interestingly enough, for this thread, the security people have been
watching Bruichladdich for while, for as one pronouncer said last
night "The formulation isn't that far from some chemical weapons". If
true would explain many things, like my inability to think straight
after a few singles.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ustafish - Security Leak
- From: Jim Watt
- Re: Ustafish - Security Leak
- From: Arved Sandstrom
- Re: Ustafish - Security Leak
- References:
- Ustafish - Security Leak
- From: Harry Bennett
- Re: Ustafish - Security Leak
- From: Arved Sandstrom
- Re: Ustafish - Security Leak
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Ustafish - Security Leak
- Prev by Date: Re: Encryption; Old and New
- Next by Date: Re: Encryption; Old and New
- Previous by thread: Re: Ustafish - Security Leak
- Next by thread: Re: Ustafish - Security Leak
- Index(es):