OK. Great. Now go back and read the OP. The claim wasn't that a select few very determined people *might* succeed. It was that as soon as *any* hacker gains access you have *immediately* lost. It helps if you read the posts and think a bit before replying.
Except this isn't true. There is hardware that self destructs if you try to physically tamper with it. It is mostly accurate, but not in every case*. * No pun intended
I think it is you that misunderstood. If you know when and where earthquakes will happen you also know when and where you can sell insurance to people who will never need it.
If someone commits fraud by tampering with a traditional vote that is a crime. IANAL so I don't pretend to know exactly which crime. Just because they tamper with a computer tally rather than an old school tally it doesn't magically become legal. This is simply the old yarn that we need a special law that says "with a computer." If I bash someone over the head with a hammer and kill them it is murder. If I instead bash them with a computer and kill them it doesn't magically become legal. Of course if I ksh or ash them that is a different story:-)
Some people are offended by words other people love to use. The problem hasn't been solved because any "solution" will seem like a solution to some, but not to others. There literally is no solution, algorithmically or otherwise.
By definition any accurate reporting will be "hostile to Trump" so your complaint against Google is that their search engine ranks accurate reporting above Fox & Friends.
You are an idiot if you think Trump has played anyone but himself. Trump plays people the same way Inspector Cloussue solves crimes, but with less of a clue what the consequences of his actions will be.
The only way this is "post truth politics" is if Trump succeeds in destroying the country and becomes a dictator. Otherwise we will be back to the reality of mixed truth politics we have always had shortly.
If I dream about a problem and awake with the solution (or even if I awake without one) then I was literally... not figuratively... working in my sleep.
You are confusing a judicial abstraction with reality. If I kill someone for fun today I will be guilty of murder at the moment they die, not if and when a prosecutor convinces a jury of the fact.
For some reason I trust them when they say "Trump said this ridiculous shit" or "Trump told this obvious like" when they show actual footage of him saying ridiculous shit and telling obvious lies. But that doesn't matter because the GNP was a negative number until he took office (how is that possible?)! Hint: it isn't, and I don't have any doubt he actually believed his own lie and is too stupid to know that it was an obvious bullshit line.
The MSM often shows actual video of Trump himself running his ignorant lying mouth. How, prey tell, is that kind of reporting untrustworthy? Because everyone knows you can't trust a word that comes out of the orange shitbags mouth?
Slashdot Mirror
OK. Great. Now go back and read the OP. The claim wasn't that a select few very determined people *might* succeed. It was that as soon as *any* hacker gains access you have *immediately* lost. It helps if you read the posts and think a bit before replying.
Except this isn't true. There is hardware that self destructs if you try to physically tamper with it. It is mostly accurate, but not in every case*. * No pun intended
I think it is you that misunderstood. If you know when and where earthquakes will happen you also know when and where you can sell insurance to people who will never need it.
If someone commits fraud by tampering with a traditional vote that is a crime. IANAL so I don't pretend to know exactly which crime. Just because they tamper with a computer tally rather than an old school tally it doesn't magically become legal. This is simply the old yarn that we need a special law that says "with a computer." If I bash someone over the head with a hammer and kill them it is murder. If I instead bash them with a computer and kill them it doesn't magically become legal. Of course if I ksh or ash them that is a different story :-)
Clearly you haven't seen the code I have to maintain ;-)
Some people are offended by words other people love to use. The problem hasn't been solved because any "solution" will seem like a solution to some, but not to others. There literally is no solution, algorithmically or otherwise.
By definition any accurate reporting will be "hostile to Trump" so your complaint against Google is that their search engine ranks accurate reporting above Fox & Friends.
You are an idiot if you think Trump has played anyone but himself. Trump plays people the same way Inspector Cloussue solves crimes, but with less of a clue what the consequences of his actions will be.
The only way this is "post truth politics" is if Trump succeeds in destroying the country and becomes a dictator. Otherwise we will be back to the reality of mixed truth politics we have always had shortly.
You are one stupid motherfucker
You don't really belong on Slashdot.
You should fire the mouse in your pocket.
If I dream about a problem and awake with the solution (or even if I awake without one) then I was literally ... not figuratively ... working in my sleep.
You cannot use the word "thinking" as if it is interchangeable in this case.
Yee fucking ha .... Good job!
"I know I am too stupid to responsibly reproduce ... but here goes ..." Good job fucktwit.
You are confusing a judicial abstraction with reality. If I kill someone for fun today I will be guilty of murder at the moment they die, not if and when a prosecutor convinces a jury of the fact.
Nope. Nitwits are people who can't figure out that left vs right is a false dichotomy.
No, posting a link to Brietbart is equivalent to saying "when I visited my friend who is in an asylum because he is a pathological liar he said ..."
Why did you feel the need to add "when it comes to computers and the internet?"
Because defying science is what God wants?
Clearly you have never focused your eyes on Trump!
... but a Twitter post from Trump is pure Gold! (If you are Stephen Colbert)
For some reason I trust them when they say "Trump said this ridiculous shit" or "Trump told this obvious like" when they show actual footage of him saying ridiculous shit and telling obvious lies. But that doesn't matter because the GNP was a negative number until he took office (how is that possible?)! Hint: it isn't, and I don't have any doubt he actually believed his own lie and is too stupid to know that it was an obvious bullshit line.
The MSM often shows actual video of Trump himself running his ignorant lying mouth. How, prey tell, is that kind of reporting untrustworthy? Because everyone knows you can't trust a word that comes out of the orange shitbags mouth?