The claim was that the RNC controlled this particular web server, by virtue of its IP address. Yet, there is no evidence presented that this IP address is controlled by the RNC.
I was talking about your post, not the quote in it. I realize I'm overgeneralizing, but to me "changing the servers to ones owned by one of the interested parties" is an irregularity. That is mere semantics and does not directly relate to my actual point, which is that there is no evidence of anything wrong happening. I don't call that an irregularity, but fine, if you do, so be it. But it doesn't change the fact that we still don't have any evidence anyone did anything wrong. There may be clues that raise your suspicions, but that is not the same thing. Feel free to be suspicious, and be sure to let me know when you find some actual evidence.
Again, there are different kinds of irregularities. Thousands of people waiting in line is a concrete fact (though its effect is less certain). We don't know what this is.
As I said, usually not as general as I'm doing here, but to respond to: "I have detected something which, on the face of it, may be a sign of something a bit suspicious" with: "That is obviously not suspicious, because if it were, some sign of it would be detected" seems off. I'd agree. Since I never said either of the above, I don't know what it's got to do with me. I never stated or implied you should not be suspicious. I said that the given evidence amounts to nothing. If you can find more evidence, fine.
Specifically: "...even if it DID happen, that it possibly could have or would have gone undetected." You're conflating two separate things. I was not talking about the changing of the servers in that quote, I was talking about using that changing of that one server in order to modify the results. It's not possible to do it that way and not be detected. I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying if it did, then it must have been done in other ways than merely this.
It would be like playing an NFL game, having the score be 23-20, and then having NFL.com report the score was 23-10. Maybe people who only look at the web site would get the wrong result, but the league and the teams and reporters who watched the game would still have the right score. It is not possible to change the outcome merely by changing what is reported to the public on a single server.
Um... that would be great, if your information was accurate. Of course, the RNC is currently hosted at 64.203.98.129 according to Netcraft, which makes your statement that its block is 64.203.98.0 - 64.203.98.127 somewhere UPWARDS of 'dubious'. It's good to assume that Slashdotters aren't going to check your facts, isn't it? I said, "There is no evidence presented that the RNC controlled the Ohio server in question." That remains true. If you have other evidence to present that shows otherwise, please feel free to present it.
If votes were changed at this level then yes, that's a problem, but even if no votes were changed, do you want the republicans OR the democrats to be the ones running the elections server? The Republicans were not running the elections server. Or, at least, there is no evidence they were. The initial Slashdot headline that stated the RNC was running the elections server was wrong, and it has now been fixed.
I posted another comment that, using the links in the story itself, noted that the reported IP of this machine at the given time fell outside the reported range of the RNC address block.
I am not saying a conflict of interest is OK, I am saying there is no substantive or significant evidence of conflict of interest, or of RNC control of that server.
More voters supported Bush in Ohio in 2004 than Kerry. There is no scientific evidence that they did not. is there ANY scientific evidence that they did ? Yes. The election results.
and the democrat statistician used what ? reports from organizations, county offices that were handled by republicans ? Read all about it. I have links to almost all the relevant resources (most importantly, the DNC report itself, and some separate work by DNC statisticians) in those two journal entries.
I'd just like the point out the irony in: "We have detected an irregularity!" => "Can't be! It is very unlikely such a thing would go undetected!" There are irregularities, and there are irregularities.
The ones Sekhon was referring to were things like long lines due to unequal voting machine allocation (which, he noted, were not entirely unreasonable allocations given data registration and previous election data). Those irregularities existed, but were not significant (according to Sekhon).
The irregularities here are simple vote totals not adding up between county reports and state reports, which would absolutely be detected.
There is no evidence of any kind that any votes we changed through this server "switch" bullshit, or that even if it DID happen, that it possibly could have or would have gone undetected. The counties would surely have seen that their reported results were not what was being reported by the state. If there was going to be fraud, it would have had to happen at the county level, and if it happened there, then why bother to do it at the state level?
This doesn't even pass the smell test.
As the Democrats' own statistician, Jasjeet Sekhon, who coauthored their 2004 post-election report said:
More voters supported Bush in Ohio in 2004 than Kerry. There is no scientific evidence that they did not. There were some irregularities (such as the allocation of voting machines), but they were not large enough to change the outcome. Bush won in 2004; Democrats have to admit that he really did if they are to fix their electoral problems much like how an alcoholic fist has to admit that s/he has a problem.
Heck, I can't even prove I'm not a brain in a jar Again, I asked for evidence, not proof. You provided none. You provided evidence only that the exploit existed *after* the patch was released, and then you offered a *logical argument* for the idea that it existed *before* the release. A logical argument is not evidence.
For example, do you believe the vulnerability in question existed, and someone found it? Again, this is not evidence, but argument.
All the things I have mentioned are evidence, a word which you seem to want to use here to mean "irrefutable proof". Yes, they are evidence of something, but not evidence of what we are talking about. Not evidence that the exploit existed prior to the patch, and that its details were shared with Apple. There is evidence a vulnerability exists, but not that it existed prior to the patch being released to the public. No evidence of that has been presented by you to me. None at all. Please stop pretending otherwise.
No, in fact, you're wrong. NO evidence OF ANY KIND has been provided. You have provided evidence only that he can exploit it now, after the patch has been released. Please stop pretending otherwise.
I see. So you're the kind of guy who doesn't like to commit to the Sun coming up in the morning until tomorrow. Fair enough.
If I'm interpreting your standards correctly, the only trustable proof that you would accept would be Apple admitting that they lied. Good luck waiting for that. Nope. I just need something other than "trust me, I found it."
No, I am not interested in "the most likely truth." I am interested in actual truth. That is why I asked for evidence, which has no been yet provided. Er, not yet.
So, fair to say that you're not interested in the most likely truth in the Myanor vs. Apple situation No, I am not interested in "the most likely truth." I am interested in actual truth. That is why I asked for evidence, which has no been yet provided.
And now there isn't any Maynor could produce that would satisfy you, right? And there's nothing Apple could do that would prove their side. So you have to pick which one to believe based on what is available. You have an extremely nonsensical (though unfortunately common) epistemology. I do not have to pick either one.
The reason to believe him is simple; because he exploits this kind of thing all the time. That is not a reason for me to believe it, at all. I need actual evidence.
Ha. I found it. As expected, I was right, and you were wrong: no evidence was presented by Maynor. In fact, there was. He kernel panic'd a Mac live over the air with everyone watching (sniffing.) Nice selective (that is, dishonest) quoting you did there. Allow me to quote the very next line I wrote:
The recent demo you refer to -- the first time he presented this "evidence" -- happened after Apple released the patch, and for all we know, Maynor didn't "exploit" it until after Apple patched it. Again, Maynor said *before* the Apple patch that he was not exploiting the Mac HW or SW. This was done AFTER -- that is, occuring later in time -- than the release of the patch.
I gather from your response that you believe his unwillingness to give out a working exploit (probably still owned by SecureWorks) to everyone means that he can't produce such an exploit. No. The fact that he has produced no evidence that he had an exploit before the patch means I therefore do not believe him when he says that he does.
Even though Apple only patched after being in contact with Maynor on the topic. Meaningless. There is no evidence he had an exploit before the patch, and further, there is no evidence that the patch they produced had anything to do with what he contacted Apple about.
You'd rather believe that he reverse-engineered the patch that he was (at minimum) the impetus for. He may have; why should we believe otherwise? And how do you know he was the impetus for it? (Psssst: you don't.)
ou'd rather believe he is capable of reverse engineering the kernel patch, but not writing the exploit in the first place. I never said he wasn't capable. I said there is no evidence, and I won't believe him, let alone think he should get credit, without evidence.
Ha. I found it. As expected, I was right, and you were wrong: no evidence was presented by Maynor.
The recent demo you refer to -- the first time he presented this "evidence" -- happened after Apple released the patch, and for all we know, Maynor didn't "exploit" it until after Apple patched it. Again, Maynor said *before* the Apple patch that he was not exploiting the Mac HW or SW.
Neither. They claimed it, and have evidence for it. Maynor finally presented some of the evidence recently at Black Hat Federal. That this is the first I've heard of it, that Ou didn't mention it, and that you did not provide a link to this evidence, makes me believe you're wrong.
My belief can change, of course, should evidence be actually provided.
The point about the 3rd party NIC in Ou's most recent article is that Lynn latched onto that to try and deny that similar vulnerabilities were also claimed in Apple's drivers for the built-in wireless. I know when they claimed discovery, I was in the presentation where they did. If they did claim it without actually having any evidence of it, then the attack on them by Apple for misrepresentation was warranted.
If they did not claim it, then they should not get credit.
Um... why does Ou think those researchers should get credit for uncovering a vulnerability in Mac OS X that (Ou reminds us over and over again) they themselves claimed, from the beginning, that they did not uncover? Where did Maynor and Ellch claim they did not discover the vulnerability? That was Ou's main point: that they were not demonstrating any vulnerability in Mac OS X or Apple hardware (and therefore Apple was wrong to "smear" them). The question you should be asking Ou is, where did they ever claim they DID discover the vulnerability?
Um... why does Ou think those researchers should get credit for uncovering a vulnerability in Mac OS X that (Ou reminds us over and over again) they themselves claimed, from the beginning, that they did not uncover?
And when did Apple ever "claim that there were no vulnerabilities in Mac OS X"? I am pretty sure that's never been said, at least, not officially. Maybe some employee spoke out of turn, but the company itself has never made that claim. Ever.
I don't know anything about Ou, but these two huge misstatements don't make me trust him...
What Jhon said. I mean, I agree with most of what you said, except for your limiting it to the rightwing sites. The leftwing ones are just as bad, in every way, and in every degree. It's odd you would pick only the rightwing ones.
I don't read any of them, left or right, for the reasons you gave.
Not only is a controlled experiment whose results are indisputably due to the difference in starting states impossible to build with current technology, it is impossible to build even in theory. Yes, as with the other post, this is what I have been saying. That said, however, I think you are too strict in your proposed methodology. We don't require that sort of strictness in controlled experiments in the real world. We don't require "precise duplication."
Now, your turn: how would you propose to actually demonstrate causation, if not by controlled experiment or computer model?
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, you must not understand how this works.
The claim was that the RNC controlled this particular web server, by virtue of its IP address. Yet, there is no evidence presented that this IP address is controlled by the RNC.
Stupid, moronic, facts!
Again, there are different kinds of irregularities. Thousands of people waiting in line is a concrete fact (though its effect is less certain). We don't know what this is. As I said, usually not as general as I'm doing here, but to respond to:
"I have detected something which, on the face of it, may be a sign of something a bit suspicious"
with:
"That is obviously not suspicious, because if it were, some sign of it would be detected"
seems off. I'd agree. Since I never said either of the above, I don't know what it's got to do with me. I never stated or implied you should not be suspicious. I said that the given evidence amounts to nothing. If you can find more evidence, fine. Specifically: "...even if it DID happen, that it possibly could have or would have gone undetected." You're conflating two separate things. I was not talking about the changing of the servers in that quote, I was talking about using that changing of that one server in order to modify the results. It's not possible to do it that way and not be detected. I am not saying it didn't happen, I am saying if it did, then it must have been done in other ways than merely this.
It would be like playing an NFL game, having the score be 23-20, and then having NFL.com report the score was 23-10. Maybe people who only look at the web site would get the wrong result, but the league and the teams and reporters who watched the game would still have the right score. It is not possible to change the outcome merely by changing what is reported to the public on a single server.
I posted another comment that, using the links in the story itself, noted that the reported IP of this machine at the given time fell outside the reported range of the RNC address block.
I am not saying a conflict of interest is OK, I am saying there is no substantive or significant evidence of conflict of interest, or of RNC control of that server.
"We have detected an irregularity!" => "Can't be! It is very unlikely such a thing would go undetected!" There are irregularities, and there are irregularities.
The ones Sekhon was referring to were things like long lines due to unequal voting machine allocation (which, he noted, were not entirely unreasonable allocations given data registration and previous election data). Those irregularities existed, but were not significant (according to Sekhon).
The irregularities here are simple vote totals not adding up between county reports and state reports, which would absolutely be detected.
Ohio: 64.203.98.137
RNC: 64.203.98.0 - 64.203.98.127
There is no evidence presented that the RNC controlled the Ohio server in question. It fell outside the range.
This doesn't even pass the smell test.
As the Democrats' own statistician, Jasjeet Sekhon, who coauthored their 2004 post-election report said:
No, in fact, you're wrong. NO evidence OF ANY KIND has been provided. You have provided evidence only that he can exploit it now, after the patch has been released. Please stop pretending otherwise.
If I'm interpreting your standards correctly, the only trustable proof that you would accept would be Apple admitting that they lied. Good luck waiting for that. Nope. I just need something other than "trust me, I found it."
Even though Apple only patched after being in contact with Maynor on the topic. Meaningless. There is no evidence he had an exploit before the patch, and further, there is no evidence that the patch they produced had anything to do with what he contacted Apple about. You'd rather believe that he reverse-engineered the patch that he was (at minimum) the impetus for. He may have; why should we believe otherwise? And how do you know he was the impetus for it? (Psssst: you don't.) ou'd rather believe he is capable of reverse engineering the kernel patch, but not writing the exploit in the first place. I never said he wasn't capable. I said there is no evidence, and I won't believe him, let alone think he should get credit, without evidence.
Ha. I found it. As expected, I was right, and you were wrong: no evidence was presented by Maynor.
The recent demo you refer to -- the first time he presented this "evidence" -- happened after Apple released the patch, and for all we know, Maynor didn't "exploit" it until after Apple patched it. Again, Maynor said *before* the Apple patch that he was not exploiting the Mac HW or SW.
My belief can change, of course, should evidence be actually provided.
If they did not claim it, then they should not get credit.
Which is it?
Um ... why does Ou think those researchers should get credit for uncovering a vulnerability in Mac OS X that (Ou reminds us over and over again) they themselves claimed, from the beginning, that they did not uncover?
...
And when did Apple ever "claim that there were no vulnerabilities in Mac OS X"? I am pretty sure that's never been said, at least, not officially. Maybe some employee spoke out of turn, but the company itself has never made that claim. Ever.
I don't know anything about Ou, but these two huge misstatements don't make me trust him
Wow.
What Jhon said. I mean, I agree with most of what you said, except for your limiting it to the rightwing sites. The leftwing ones are just as bad, in every way, and in every degree. It's odd you would pick only the rightwing ones.
I don't read any of them, left or right, for the reasons you gave.
Now, your turn: how would you propose to actually demonstrate causation, if not by controlled experiment or computer model?