Someone found a feature with a popular US electronic voting system (1000 such systems in place), a feature that seems to be _intentionally_ put in for vote tampering and your conclusion is it's just "something that could happen and not something that has happened".
What can I say, but "wow" and "sorry for the interruption, your normal programming will resume shortly".
Re:I'm not worried, I don't use cash
on
Make Money Fast
·
· Score: 1
Counterfeit debit cards should worry you then.
I don't think all types of debit cards are equally secure. How do you know that your card is forgery proof?
Sure counterfeiting a debit card costs more than counterfeiting a 10 dollar note. But counterfeiting a debit card can get you a lot more money, plus you don't need to make as many counterfeits to make a cool million. Thus it is safer.
I'll stick to credit cards and cash, thank you. With cash my risk exposure is limited to how much I withdraw (which is typically lower than the max withdrawal limit). With credit cards the risk is not mine.
There are many different types of debit cards. And banks will issue many different looking (and behaving) ones. In contrast currency can only be legitimately issued by one authority, and the variety and variance is a lot more controlled.
Yeah. The thing is when you have the brains, skills and the discipline to pull off the perfect crime, you'd often do pretty well in a legit environment anyway. With the benefit that you don't have to live a life on the run.
I see all the trouble they go through to plan and commit the crime and I think "hey that's a lot of _work_!". Why don't they make money the legit way instead?
Despite that, there are some crooks who have all that, but STILL want to do things the crooked way.
If you want to be a real rich crook, you should go into politics or start a legit business - albeit doing shady stuff every now and then. Not do stupid stuff like counterfeit money or robbing banks.
But if you were a Gov and trying to undermine another country's currency that's different.
Re:My brother got some canadian money...
on
Make Money Fast
·
· Score: 1
Hang on. Are you sure he's got the real notes and they aren't all fakes?;)
Re:My brother got some canadian money...
on
Make Money Fast
·
· Score: 1
Wow, that sounds really easy to counterfeit.
Here in Malaysia even the one ringgit note (RM3.8 = USD1) has a woven metallic strip AND watermarks, and it doesn't feel smooth like normal paper - it has the "embossed" feel of typical paper money. Not sure if it has a UV thingy, the RM50 note definitely has it.
The RM10 note has that all (except the UV I think). I'd have thought who would counterfeit an RM10 note (not like Malaysian currency is worth that much;) ) but a coffeeshop operator showed me one - the bank detected it when he was trying to deposit his shop's earnings. He managed to get them to give it back to him as a souvenir - the bank punched a hole through it to invalidate it. It really looked like the real thing.
The counterfeit RM10 note had the woven metallic strip, watermark etc. The only thing is it didn't feel quite the same as an RM10 note. However it wasn't too far off from an old RM10 note, so I'd be fooled.
Even the banks do get fooled sometimes - someone working in a bank says she sometimes withdraws notes from ATM machines and the notes then get rejected in another bank!
Heh, maybe the Malaysian counterfeiters are making fakes canadian currency now and nobody is noticing - they're just catching guys like Weber.
The small round circles sound like a joke to me. Someone should make a gif or jpg and use them as a background "watermark" for printing so that ignorant people can't copy your documents;).
There's a serial number on the ballot paper (each ballot paper is also stamped and signed to help prevent forgery).
The people at the voting station know who took which ballot paper.
AFAIK the serial number isn't stripped at the counting point so the counters or observers could record the serial number and the vote.
Therefore it isn't anonymous.
Not a big deal to me.
Probably politicians over here are more interested in finding out whether they've pissed off too many of the female voters for the amount of male voters they gained with a policy, same goes for the statistics by race, ethnicity, age etc.
I'd be more upset if I voted and my vote was changed. It's fine if the politicians know I was upset with them.
If an evil and violent Dictator (e.g. Saddam) or Gov ever came into power there wouldn't be much point trying to vote would there? You might be better off voting with your feet and try to leave the country. If you're forced to vote, well it's quite obvious who you'd have to vote for right?
So I'm still not sure what's the big deal about anonymous voting. The only thing I can see is if you somehow need to keep your vote secret from your spouse (or other family members) just to keep the peace;). A nice to have feature.
But I doubt most people's bosses or family members get to see the detailed statistics with the current voting system, so the votes are anonymous with respect to that.
You don't see much difference? You from the US of A?
The Indians are likely to riot if they suspect the candidate with fewer votes won. Or if something fishy was going on.
The US folk will just switch channels and watch MTV or Superbowl or Fox News.
I was not saying the Indians are a more peaceable folk. I'm implying they are prone to rioting BUT their election system works better, and the evidence is that there was minimal bloodshed due to the elections.
The vulnerabilities theoretical? Are you sure this built-in vote rigging backdoor is theoretical? Are the two of them liars? If they are telling the truth then it sure isn't theoretical, it just hasn't been used in a live/production environment yet.
And to those who moderated my grandparent post flamebait: "why do my eyes hurt", "coz you've never used them before".
I suppose if the US wants democracy they should outsource the handling of elections to India- the world's largest democracy.
India had their elections this year, the then incumbent lost, but there were no significant riots - so I figure most Indians were satisfied with the results. Otherwise I'm sure heads will literally roll.
In contrast the US isn't doing too well- electronic voting machines designed for rigging. Negative vote counts, more votes than voters, etc. I mean even Saddam was careful to keep his votes between 0% and 100%.
Personally I think the US should execute all those involved in compromising the US elections. Execute them all for treason.
If the voting machines in the US are so easily tampered with, what sort of democracy does the US have? The irony is the Western Press likes to play up the <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie= UTF-8&q=malaysia+democracy">"lack" of democracy</a> in my country. But they're not really bothering about ensuring democracy in the US are they?
I'd have thought that ensuring democracy in the world's most powerful nation would be quite important.
In my country, though the votes aren't anonymous, it seems we've got a better system. You vote marking an X on the desired box next to the candidate on piece of paper. The paper is inserted into a sealed ballot box. Once voting is done, the ballot boxes are all escorted by representatives of the opposition, observers, election officials to the counting stations. The boxes are opened and votes are counted by hand in clear view of everyone - the opposition included (if they bother to attend). The representatives get to see which box the X is in, or if some idiot voter doesn't know how to vote, or intentionally spoilt the vote.
Sure you can tamper with votes, but widescale tampering isn't going to be that easy.
In contrast, the US intended systems make tampering trivial.
Anonymous voting is not so important in civilized[1] countries.
Someone mentioned about the danger of bosses knowing who you vote for. Maybe in the US it's common for bosses/etc to care about who you vote for and so given the chance they'll go take the trouble to look up the votes of their employees.
But over here, most bosses seem to care a lot more about the bottomline. Maybe if you spend a lot of time sticking up political posters etc, the boss might be a bit concerned - coz it may affect your performance and thus the bottomline.
[1] Then again maybe it's too much to expect of the US?
Mahatma Gandhi when asked: "What do you think of Western Civilization?", he promptly replied: "I think it would be a good idea".
Doh if you're going to use hydrocarbons to get hydrogen, there's already tons of existing infrastructure to ship hydrocarbons to the end user point why not just convert it to hydrogen at the end user point for fuel? e.g. hydrogen + carbon fuel cell electric cars which refuel at the local petrol ("gas") station.
Then you don't have the hydrogen transport and storage problem.
Yeah. I've often glanced at a page and spotted the only spelling error in the entire page. I dunno how I do it, but it just sticks out.
Your brain as a whole probably sees everything the eyes runs over, it's just whether the relevant layers have been trained to tell the other layers whether something is significant or not.
Maybe it's because when I was 9 or 10 I spent a lot of time scrolling very rapidly through disk sectors and other binary data (with ASCII depictions) manually looking for interesting string patterns - I used to modify games and do machine code (my bro says I've declined since - now I only program in perl once in a while;) ).
Perhaps if you were a bored kid and spent lots of time counting large numbers of stuff by the 50s or so (ala RainMan), you'd be able to walk into a room and near-instantly say how many people are in it. Or rapidly count how many circles there are even if someone fills a blackboard with them - even overlapping circles.
Here's one thing you might want to try if you do that. Get someone to track when you blink whilst reading and how often you blink, and whether it's consistent for a particular person, and compare it with other people.
It seems if you don't blink whilst reading it's like trying to eat food in big chunks... At least for some people. Then again it may be the stress of keeping your eyes open distracting you from reading?
My postulate is that the brain takes the blink time to dedicate more resources to processing and understanding what is read.
Coz it's amazing how much "brain CPU" vision/sight takes up for most people. I've got people (kids + adults) to try to do certain coordination tricks - like drawing a circle with the right hand whilst drawing a square with the right foot, or doing an OK sign with the left hand palm facing upwards, L sign with index and thumb of right hand, palm facing downwards, and then rolling hands over - switching to L with left palm down and and OK sign with right palm up, and back again.
I find that most people find it easier to learn how to do such stuff if they have their eyes closed and visualize it whilst doing it. Once they get it, they can do it with their eyes open.
Unfortunately many tasks that require high coordination require your eyes to be open:).
There seems to be a "brain state" difference between having my eyes open or closed. I find it harder to stand and balance on one foot with my eyes closed compared to with my eyes open EVEN THOUGH it is totally dark and my eyesight is useless, or I am blindfolded. (Of course it is much easier with my eyes open and the surroundings visible:) ).
I am not a scientist, and I haven't done a formal study on these items. So it's just anecdotal, but feel free to go do one - would be good if the resulting study is published somewhere on the internet.
Yeah, but do they actually agree on the names? I've observed a few girls debating on what is turquoise and what isn't. Wasn't very conclusive[1].
It's not very useful to have many names for colours if everyone has different names for the colours.
[1] While women can be pigheaded about such subjective stuff, they're usually not pigheaded and obsessive about it as a few men - who'd then do stuff like take a lot of trouble and time to define a "standard" colour chart.
" It comes back to the rest of us in the form of higher prices."
Over here most PC shops charge 2 or 3% more if you use credit cards. I can accept that - selling PC stuff = low margins, but that shows that the "higher prices" bit isn't really that high (there's already high fraud in my country) - enough transactions are good to not make them charge 10% more.
Whereas if they introduce PINs (or more "secure" systems), do you think they're going to make prices 2 or 3% cheaper?
It's bullshit. The card companies are still going to take their 2-3% cut. And there'll still be fraud, but this time the card company and banks are going to insist it's your fault (or the Merchant's).
They're just trying to con the masses into believing the present system is ultra dangerous etc etc, so that the masses will play right into their greedy hands. Just like the RIAA conning the public into thinking copying = stealing.
They're already screwing the Merchants anyway - often the Merchant can't do a better job coz the entire card is a good fake - signature, photo etc. But the Issuers say the signature on the receipts don't match their records and say it's the Merchant's fault.
With "better systems" they'll start screwing the Cardholders as well.
The other sad thing is people actually think it's such a big risk to cardholders.
Without the signature a cardholder can repudiate the transaction. So if you didn't buy the stuff, just tell the Issuing Bank that you didn't and just don't pay for that transaction.
Then either the Merchant loses or the Bank loses. You, the cardholder don't unless you use a crappy card company that charges you to reissue a new card. Of course there's the inconvenience of being short of one usable credit card. But it's not as big a disaster to cardholders as some people make it.
In short with credit cards, if anything happens it's mainly SOMEONE ELSE's money involved NOT yours. Whereas cash, debit cards, cheques are riskier. Coz if anything happens - it's YOUR money.
So many people are ignorant of this and say stuff like "Buying stuff online with your credit card? Is that safe?".
It's selling stuff online that's risky. You ship goods, cardholder says "nope not me", and EVEN if cardholder screws up and forgot, you LOSE.
Personally I think it's close to what the W brothers had in mind, and the movie isn't as shallow as many people think.
If you were an AI, what would you really need from humans? Food? Energy? Nah. To get to Zion and be free? How free is that? Power for an AI is not energy (there's plenty around given a resourceful AI) - it's life and free choice.
I think at least one AI realized the humans still had a few things that it didn't. e.g. the Matrix still doesn't totally fool all humans, even when humans are given an illusion of choice? Whereas in the Animatrix, when a machine is plugged in to a simulation it doesn't seem to realize it isn't real.
Neo jumping through Smith made Smith freer than he used to be.
And the final Neo really is the One. Oracle + Neo + Everyone.
"I am the Architect. I created the matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness you remain irrevocably human"
If someone rational believed the Architect, they wouldn't try to save Trinity would they? But Neo still tried AND succeeded despite the odds.
Not sure of the significance that Sati helped make the cookies with the Oracle. But I'm sure the cookies were special. The Oracle eating her own cookies = self programming AI:). The Oracle eating Sati+Oracle cookies = ?
Slashdot Mirror
You sure that's a good idea? Ask Michael Jackson.
Someone found a feature with a popular US electronic voting system (1000 such systems in place), a feature that seems to be _intentionally_ put in for vote tampering and your conclusion is it's just "something that could happen and not something that has happened".
What can I say, but "wow" and "sorry for the interruption, your normal programming will resume shortly".
Counterfeit debit cards should worry you then.
I don't think all types of debit cards are equally secure. How do you know that your card is forgery proof?
Sure counterfeiting a debit card costs more than counterfeiting a 10 dollar note. But counterfeiting a debit card can get you a lot more money, plus you don't need to make as many counterfeits to make a cool million. Thus it is safer.
I'll stick to credit cards and cash, thank you. With cash my risk exposure is limited to how much I withdraw (which is typically lower than the max withdrawal limit). With credit cards the risk is not mine.
There are many different types of debit cards. And banks will issue many different looking (and behaving) ones. In contrast currency can only be legitimately issued by one authority, and the variety and variance is a lot more controlled.
I don't see how debit cards are superior at all.
Yeah. The thing is when you have the brains, skills and the discipline to pull off the perfect crime, you'd often do pretty well in a legit environment anyway. With the benefit that you don't have to live a life on the run.
I see all the trouble they go through to plan and commit the crime and I think "hey that's a lot of _work_!". Why don't they make money the legit way instead?
Despite that, there are some crooks who have all that, but STILL want to do things the crooked way.
If you want to be a real rich crook, you should go into politics or start a legit business - albeit doing shady stuff every now and then. Not do stupid stuff like counterfeit money or robbing banks.
But if you were a Gov and trying to undermine another country's currency that's different.
Hang on. Are you sure he's got the real notes and they aren't all fakes? ;)
Wow, that sounds really easy to counterfeit.
;) ) but a coffeeshop operator showed me one - the bank detected it when he was trying to deposit his shop's earnings. He managed to get them to give it back to him as a souvenir - the bank punched a hole through it to invalidate it. It really looked like the real thing.
;).
Here in Malaysia even the one ringgit note (RM3.8 = USD1) has a woven metallic strip AND watermarks, and it doesn't feel smooth like normal paper - it has the "embossed" feel of typical paper money. Not sure if it has a UV thingy, the RM50 note definitely has it.
The RM10 note has that all (except the UV I think). I'd have thought who would counterfeit an RM10 note (not like Malaysian currency is worth that much
The counterfeit RM10 note had the woven metallic strip, watermark etc. The only thing is it didn't feel quite the same as an RM10 note. However it wasn't too far off from an old RM10 note, so I'd be fooled.
Even the banks do get fooled sometimes - someone working in a bank says she sometimes withdraws notes from ATM machines and the notes then get rejected in another bank!
Heh, maybe the Malaysian counterfeiters are making fakes canadian currency now and nobody is noticing - they're just catching guys like Weber.
The small round circles sound like a joke to me. Someone should make a gif or jpg and use them as a background "watermark" for printing so that ignorant people can't copy your documents
Just use bzip2 which uses the burrows wheeler transform.
There's a serial number on the ballot paper (each ballot paper is also stamped and signed to help prevent forgery).
;). A nice to have feature.
The people at the voting station know who took which ballot paper.
AFAIK the serial number isn't stripped at the counting point so the counters or observers could record the serial number and the vote.
Therefore it isn't anonymous.
Not a big deal to me.
Probably politicians over here are more interested in finding out whether they've pissed off too many of the female voters for the amount of male voters they gained with a policy, same goes for the statistics by race, ethnicity, age etc.
I'd be more upset if I voted and my vote was changed. It's fine if the politicians know I was upset with them.
If an evil and violent Dictator (e.g. Saddam) or Gov ever came into power there wouldn't be much point trying to vote would there? You might be better off voting with your feet and try to leave the country. If you're forced to vote, well it's quite obvious who you'd have to vote for right?
So I'm still not sure what's the big deal about anonymous voting. The only thing I can see is if you somehow need to keep your vote secret from your spouse (or other family members) just to keep the peace
But I doubt most people's bosses or family members get to see the detailed statistics with the current voting system, so the votes are anonymous with respect to that.
You don't see much difference? You from the US of A?
The Indians are likely to riot if they suspect the candidate with fewer votes won. Or if something fishy was going on.
The US folk will just switch channels and watch MTV or Superbowl or Fox News.
I was not saying the Indians are a more peaceable folk. I'm implying they are prone to rioting BUT their election system works better, and the evidence is that there was minimal bloodshed due to the elections.
The vulnerabilities theoretical? Are you sure this built-in vote rigging backdoor is theoretical? Are the two of them liars? If they are telling the truth then it sure isn't theoretical, it just hasn't been used in a live/production environment yet.
And to those who moderated my grandparent post flamebait: "why do my eyes hurt", "coz you've never used them before".
I suppose if the US wants democracy they should outsource the handling of elections to India- the world's largest democracy.
= UTF-8&q=malaysia+democracy">"lack" of democracy</a> in my country. But they're not really bothering about ensuring democracy in the US are they?
India had their elections this year, the then incumbent lost, but there were no significant riots - so I figure most Indians were satisfied with the results. Otherwise I'm sure heads will literally roll.
In contrast the US isn't doing too well- electronic voting machines designed for rigging. Negative vote counts, more votes than voters, etc. I mean even Saddam was careful to keep his votes between 0% and 100%.
Personally I think the US should execute all those involved in compromising the US elections. Execute them all for treason.
If the voting machines in the US are so easily tampered with, what sort of democracy does the US have? The irony is the Western Press likes to play up the <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie
I'd have thought that ensuring democracy in the world's most powerful nation would be quite important.
In my country, though the votes aren't anonymous, it seems we've got a better system. You vote marking an X on the desired box next to the candidate on piece of paper. The paper is inserted into a sealed ballot box. Once voting is done, the ballot boxes are all escorted by representatives of the opposition, observers, election officials to the counting stations. The boxes are opened and votes are counted by hand in clear view of everyone - the opposition included (if they bother to attend). The representatives get to see which box the X is in, or if some idiot voter doesn't know how to vote, or intentionally spoilt the vote.
Sure you can tamper with votes, but widescale tampering isn't going to be that easy.
In contrast, the US intended systems make tampering trivial.
Anonymous voting is not so important in civilized[1] countries.
Someone mentioned about the danger of bosses knowing who you vote for. Maybe in the US it's common for bosses/etc to care about who you vote for and so given the chance they'll go take the trouble to look up the votes of their employees.
But over here, most bosses seem to care a lot more about the bottomline. Maybe if you spend a lot of time sticking up political posters etc, the boss might be a bit concerned - coz it may affect your performance and thus the bottomline.
[1] Then again maybe it's too much to expect of the US?
Mahatma Gandhi when asked: "What do you think of Western Civilization?", he promptly replied: "I think it would be a good idea".
"I honestly don't think it mattered to the dead or their relatives whether GW or Saddam did the killing. Do you?"
Actually it does. I think they were more afraid of Saddam. And so there were fewer revenge attacks on Saddam and his minions.
"A reactor housing is not made out of paper and steel. It is a steel reinforced concrete structure"
Is that true for PBRs?
Doh if you're going to use hydrocarbons to get hydrogen, there's already tons of existing infrastructure to ship hydrocarbons to the end user point why not just convert it to hydrogen at the end user point for fuel? e.g. hydrogen + carbon fuel cell electric cars which refuel at the local petrol ("gas") station.
Then you don't have the hydrogen transport and storage problem.
How does your debug package detect buffer overflows?
Yeah. I've often glanced at a page and spotted the only spelling error in the entire page. I dunno how I do it, but it just sticks out.
;) ).
Your brain as a whole probably sees everything the eyes runs over, it's just whether the relevant layers have been trained to tell the other layers whether something is significant or not.
Maybe it's because when I was 9 or 10 I spent a lot of time scrolling very rapidly through disk sectors and other binary data (with ASCII depictions) manually looking for interesting string patterns - I used to modify games and do machine code (my bro says I've declined since - now I only program in perl once in a while
Perhaps if you were a bored kid and spent lots of time counting large numbers of stuff by the 50s or so (ala RainMan), you'd be able to walk into a room and near-instantly say how many people are in it. Or rapidly count how many circles there are even if someone fills a blackboard with them - even overlapping circles.
This is Slashdot. Many people here can't spell (or even write coherently). So we've had a lot of experience reading scrambled text.
Thus, using us is using a biased sample.
What you should also do is try this method on other alphabet based languages with native literate readers of those languages.
Of course arabic and hebrew could be tougher, so you may wish to skip such languages.
Here's one thing you might want to try if you do that. Get someone to track when you blink whilst reading and how often you blink, and whether it's consistent for a particular person, and compare it with other people.
:).
:) ).
It seems if you don't blink whilst reading it's like trying to eat food in big chunks... At least for some people. Then again it may be the stress of keeping your eyes open distracting you from reading?
My postulate is that the brain takes the blink time to dedicate more resources to processing and understanding what is read.
Coz it's amazing how much "brain CPU" vision/sight takes up for most people. I've got people (kids + adults) to try to do certain coordination tricks - like drawing a circle with the right hand whilst drawing a square with the right foot, or doing an OK sign with the left hand palm facing upwards, L sign with index and thumb of right hand, palm facing downwards, and then rolling hands over - switching to L with left palm down and and OK sign with right palm up, and back again.
I find that most people find it easier to learn how to do such stuff if they have their eyes closed and visualize it whilst doing it. Once they get it, they can do it with their eyes open.
Unfortunately many tasks that require high coordination require your eyes to be open
There seems to be a "brain state" difference between having my eyes open or closed. I find it harder to stand and balance on one foot with my eyes closed compared to with my eyes open EVEN THOUGH it is totally dark and my eyesight is useless, or I am blindfolded. (Of course it is much easier with my eyes open and the surroundings visible
I am not a scientist, and I haven't done a formal study on these items. So it's just anecdotal, but feel free to go do one - would be good if the resulting study is published somewhere on the internet.
Yeah, but do they actually agree on the names?
I've observed a few girls debating on what is turquoise and what isn't. Wasn't very conclusive[1].
It's not very useful to have many names for colours if everyone has different names for the colours.
[1] While women can be pigheaded about such subjective stuff, they're usually not pigheaded and obsessive about it as a few men - who'd then do stuff like take a lot of trouble and time to define a "standard" colour chart.
Most significant security problems are only detected by a few experts in the field.
A million ignorant eyes won't be able to spot a buffer overflow even if it bites them.
Is proving "whether P==NP or not" a P or NP problem? :)
" It comes back to the rest of us in the form of higher prices."
Over here most PC shops charge 2 or 3% more if you use credit cards. I can accept that - selling PC stuff = low margins, but that shows that the "higher prices" bit isn't really that high (there's already high fraud in my country) - enough transactions are good to not make them charge 10% more.
Whereas if they introduce PINs (or more "secure" systems), do you think they're going to make prices 2 or 3% cheaper?
It's bullshit. The card companies are still going to take their 2-3% cut. And there'll still be fraud, but this time the card company and banks are going to insist it's your fault (or the Merchant's).
They're just trying to con the masses into believing the present system is ultra dangerous etc etc, so that the masses will play right into their greedy hands. Just like the RIAA conning the public into thinking copying = stealing.
They're already screwing the Merchants anyway - often the Merchant can't do a better job coz the entire card is a good fake - signature, photo etc. But the Issuers say the signature on the receipts don't match their records and say it's the Merchant's fault.
With "better systems" they'll start screwing the Cardholders as well.
The other sad thing is people actually think it's such a big risk to cardholders.
Without the signature a cardholder can repudiate the transaction. So if you didn't buy the stuff, just tell the Issuing Bank that you didn't and just don't pay for that transaction.
Then either the Merchant loses or the Bank loses. You, the cardholder don't unless you use a crappy card company that charges you to reissue a new card. Of course there's the inconvenience of being short of one usable credit card. But it's not as big a disaster to cardholders as some people make it.
In short with credit cards, if anything happens it's mainly SOMEONE ELSE's money involved NOT yours. Whereas cash, debit cards, cheques are riskier. Coz if anything happens - it's YOUR money.
So many people are ignorant of this and say stuff like "Buying stuff online with your credit card? Is that safe?".
It's selling stuff online that's risky. You ship goods, cardholder says "nope not me", and EVEN if cardholder screws up and forgot, you LOSE.
Personally I think it's close to what the W brothers had in mind, and the movie isn't as shallow as many people think.
:). The Oracle eating Sati+Oracle cookies = ?
:).
If you were an AI, what would you really need from humans? Food? Energy? Nah. To get to Zion and be free? How free is that? Power for an AI is not energy (there's plenty around given a resourceful AI) - it's life and free choice.
I think at least one AI realized the humans still had a few things that it didn't. e.g. the Matrix still doesn't totally fool all humans, even when humans are given an illusion of choice? Whereas in the Animatrix, when a machine is plugged in to a simulation it doesn't seem to realize it isn't real.
Neo jumping through Smith made Smith freer than he used to be.
And the final Neo really is the One. Oracle + Neo + Everyone.
"I am the Architect. I created the matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness you remain irrevocably human"
If someone rational believed the Architect, they wouldn't try to save Trinity would they? But Neo still tried AND succeeded despite the odds.
Not sure of the significance that Sati helped make the cookies with the Oracle. But I'm sure the cookies were special. The Oracle eating her own cookies = self programming AI
Maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
He's not out of touch. I doubt he is that stupid.
He's talking to the stupid ones out there. And there are plenty of them.
So long as the stupid ones keep doing "the right thing", he and his friends will be happy.
Just target a large site with high staff turnover.
Get a uniform and you're "Yet Another New Guy/Gal". Voila instant access.
One of the best uniforms for "white collar" areas is "cleaning staff".