Technology is nowhere near the level where we could extract any password that wasn't ridiculously terrible like 'dog'; and even if they lit up to a picture of a dog, 'DoG', 'Dog!', 'Sir Barksalot' would still have it beat. Heck, fMRI lie detection is even simpler but has been shown to be fairly unreliable as well. So unreliable that it's been excluded from court under the Daubert test, and that bar is so low they allow "expert" gender studies professors to tell juries that every single inconsistency and inaccuracy in an accusers story is proof they're telling the truth based on "research" that would be laughed out of a middle school science fair.
Extracting a password? Not in our lifetime. MAYBE we'll find just the right area when resolution gets betters so we can detect lies well enough that you'd need training to beat it; but to get a password you'd need true mind-reading tech we're nowhere near, though there's some implantable devices that can do some neat stuff.
Officers even have a special word for it, 'testilying'. It's not one bad apple, thanks to the harm maximizing war on drugs among others, every department is rotten to the core.
"We screwed up our program that simply counts the number of devices, but you can trust us to make super secure software to access the back doors, it would never have a problem that allowed improper access!"
After the NSA exploit leaks I don't know how these Constitution-stomping tools don't get laughed out of the room when trying to claim their back door would be good-guys-only.
The phone has full internet access. Where did you get the idea that those things were disabled in hardware, as opposed to software? If the phone was as locked down and secure as you're suggesting, there'd be no cause for concern. Since no details were provided, I'm disinclined to assume the security concerns are unfounded.
Yeah, there's absolutely nothing an enemy can do to a compromised phone besides make calls on it. It's not like a phone with a microphone and a camera and data access and no security is a problem when classified information is being discussed.
I've got a laundry list of reasons why I hate Hillary too, but what exactly is it she spent years criticizing Trump for that you think she'd go and be doing herself?
To mod that troll you must have completely missed the last thread and the hilariously outlandish way a couple people were dancing around trying to defend him, like "he's not stupid, he just says moronic things all the time and can't stay focused on anything". And "he doesn't really not know those things, he's just playing dumb to annoy Bill Gates". Or just hate that someone doesn't think recognize your boys brilliance, what with the way it's hurting the country and all. Never change,/.
One day... energy exists, therefore some condition can cause it to come into existence. We might be thousands, if not millions of years away from such feats, but I have hope.
And Trump wants her in jail for her security practices, and railed against them non-stop. It's just as big a problem if anyone else is doing it, and 'but she did it!' stops being an acceptable justification around age 4... although I suppose acting like a toddler isn't unfamiliar for Trump.
Yeah, and he had non-stop criticisms of how much golf Obama played, yet he plays twice as often. Railed against Obama for tax-payer funded vacations; he and his family take more of them and they each cost more. Went after Obama for his use of executive orders; is doing the same himself now. Tip of the iceberg.
He's a shameless hypocrite, you're just now noticing?
How are the resident Trump supporters going to explain this away as somehow not yet another piece of evidence supporting the fact that he's stupid, as anyone who doesn't understand and respect the grave importance of securing the President's cell phone must be, especially after having intelligence experts explain it over and over, but instead indicates he's actually a stable genius, and just playing dumb and/or being a jerk?
I don't have any specific names, but it's a bit hard to believe there's not a single (R) that is more moderate and without such a massive conflict of interest. As we've seen, clearing the Senate is a low bar. I'm not suggesting you'd find someone actually "pro-consumer" but there's a whole range like with any other policy.
The rest of that, cheers, I agree completely.
I'd argue that it could have made a difference who he appointed. He had to appoint a Republican, not a former Verizon lawyer. There's almost certainly someone he could have found with fewer ties to the industry, not to mention looking at ideologies and priorities of candidates themselves. There had to be someone out there who was less awful than Pai and still had an (R) next to his/her name.
Perhaps it would be better if our treatment of animals improved. You should be able to kill animals with impunity either; rats should be caught in no-kill traps and relocated (and living in NYC, it's not for lack of experience). Saw a mouse in my kitchen the other day, going to catch it and keep it as a pet.
They don't even have empathy like that towards other humans, and lack so many of the values that differentiate us from animals I'm unwilling moderate descriptions of them; there ought to be something to call them that reflects that. To not do so is to condone and normalize that kind of horrendous violence as something typical of humanity.
Having one particular skill, namely being a good showman by appealing to other idiots with your own idiocy, is not enough to overcome things like his extreme ignorance and 4th grade speech level.
And that was just to get around some dumb web filter. Our cell phones didn't have cameras when I was in highschool, but imagine if some girl in my class told me to snap her or something? Whatever app block was on that phone would be useless before the day ended, and the next day all the people asking the nerd how to do it would be informed too.
Sometimes I think a lot of adults forget what it's like being a teenager. By that age, it's what you've taught them that's going to determine what they do, not trying to force control on a device. They'll just use a friends device, or buy a cheap prepaid you won't know about, the minute they want to do something you have blocked on their own phone. More often than not I'd bet in encourages such rebellion; teens aren't fans of being blocked by force for something.
When I was in highschool there were filters against porn and some other stuff in the library; I found you could get around the filters by substituting the IP for the domain name. The whole grade knew within a week. So they fixed that, an hour later I found that if you entered the IP as a long (slashdot=216.105.38.15=3630769679), bypassed again, everyone knew within a week again. So they fixed that, used proxies. Fixed that, installed program to get around. Blocked all unknown exes, block was bypassed by using ShellExecute in VBA.
Teens and cell phones today are absolutely no different; at least one person they know will tell them how to bypass any security measure you take. And these spyware apps I can almost guarantee are doing more harm than good.
The biggest problem I have with the movement is that it's viewing police civil rights abuses through the lens of race. Police abuse all races. They shoot unarmed members of all races. They illegally search members of all races. They fabricate evidence and testimony against all races (including against me, a middle class white dude). We don't need to end police abuse of black people, we need to end police abuse. That these abuses occur more frequently against black people is terrible (although sorry, they do have more interactions with police for a reason, that is purposefully ignored; and unarmed shooting fatalities after considering threat model don't even show bias), but the whole premise of confining the movement to a single race trivializes our problems with police as a whole, as if abusing/shooting more white people (which a lot of them see as a good idea), or abusing/shooting black people at the same rate as white people, would resolve the issue.
I've been extremely harsh on Trump in this thread, but on this one, the reporting didn't reflect that he was specifically referring to MS-13 members, and I can't disagree with that assessment. Now I'll stand up for every bit of civil rights and due process they're entitled to, but let's not kid ourselves about one of the most violent gangs in the country who do things like have their members beat and rob old ladies for initiation, if not randomly execute someone.
Not just the sycophants, Even Stormy Daniels said "I could tell he was nice, intelligent in conversation." Now that interview was before he sent goons after her so she might have still been well disposed to him, but it's not the first instance of someone saying something like that.
LOL, you're defending reports of his intelligence with the opinion of a porn star that had an affair with him (and reportedly had strong feelings for him)??? Thanks for the laugh. And that's probably the most sincere of any others you could name, which is even funnier.
I suspect, in an informal one-on-one conversation, he would seem more intelligent than you realize.
Only if the person he was talking to was also a moron, given the number of intelligent people who've described those conversation and confirmed he's as dumb as he seems.
I suspect that's because he says moronic things. Someone can be clever and lack the focus or attention span to say something intelligent. Just because the car has a nice engine doesn't mean it goes smoothly down the highway. And Tillerson was probably already well versed in smooth talking salesmen who didn't know what they were talking about.
And someone who says moronic things all the time, and objectively speaks at the level of a 4th grader (Flesch-Kincaid score), again all the time, is obviously smart and playing dumb.
Again, you don't need focus or an attention span to be quick witted. I think that's Trump's problem, he might have a decent brain, and he might have used it at some point, but he does enjoy his sycophants. I don't think he's really been surrounded by people who grill him or force him to defend himself in many years and he's basically lost the ability to focus.
If he was at one point reasonably intelligent, senility and atrophy has long since erased it. This article, and everything else we're talking about, isn't just that he's slow witted, it's that he's ignorant. He does not know many basic facts any educated person would know.
He's a bit like ELIZA. Based on the current sentence he can come up with a good response, but he lacks the focus to retain that information, so what happened two sentences ago is largely irrelevant.
I maintain my earlier position that anyone who thinks his responses show intelligence must lack it themselves. You know how ridiculous you sound trying so hard to come up with some way to argue he's not a moron?
You mean the long history of peace between Iran and Israel is over?
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a major setback in that conflict, and pulling out of the Iran deal is a risk for our peace with them, not to mention destroying our credibility for other such arrangements. Then there's the little matter of appointing a notorious extreme warmonger named John Bolton.
Keep telling middle class people that the extra money in their paycheck is "crumbs".
Since the average amount they'll see is $20, I absolutely will.
Maybe not everyone, but individuals know whether things are improving for them or not. Unemployed people see the help wanted signs. Middle class people see the extra money in their paycheck. Investors see their 401k balance.
Plenty of people recognize things are not actually improving for them. Aside from the question of how much credit Trump deserves for unemployment, which is a whole debate in itself, of the other two things you've mentioned one is propaganda unless you think $20 is significant. The other is mostly a benefit for the wealthy; and if you really want to claim the gains the part of middle class with 401k holdings have seen is worth everything Trump has done, especially looking at the net after accelerated health insurance cost increases due to repealing the mandate without implementing any other cost control measures, that's kind of a weak argument for all the harm he's done to the poor, to our credibility, to our reputation, to our environment, to minorities, to immigrants including some legal ones, to civil rights in his Sessions appointment... and on and on.
Only the syncophants he surrounds himself with claim he's smart, because it strokes his ego, and that's the first and foremost job of anyone he hires. A few foreign government people have done the same, obviously for the same ego stroking. When his own appointees describe him as a 'fucking moron' among countless other behind-his-back reports, you know his IQ is room temperature (or just listen to him speak unscripted for a few minutes, and that's self-evident). But it fools people. Remember that disgusting cabinet meeting where they all took turns lavishing praise on him, calling him the best president ever, nobody has ever done more, and other nonsense? You've gotta be a fool to think they were sincere, but fortunately that's just the kind of person he attracts. Quick-witted? You've got to be kidding, or never even heard him speak. He rambles on with stream of consciousness, half the time changing topics mid-sentence. He's so slow witted he makes Bush Jr look like a master orator.
I'd agree, except Trump is a disaster for peace and prosperity. China and South Korea are primarily responsible for NK, not because Trump made threats and insults on Twitter, and his actions with Iran and Israel are extremely terrible for peace. Prosperity? Sure, if you're the 1%. His massive giveaway to them gave some crumbs to the middle class, at the expense of massive debt. I could list a bunch of policies from healthcare to education that are appallingly awful for the prosperity of the poor.
Trump supporters live in a fantasy world thinking his propaganda about things improving for everyone is true.
Slashdot Mirror
Full line closures are very rare. They usually shut down small sections, or one direction, or run everything on the local or express side.
Technology is nowhere near the level where we could extract any password that wasn't ridiculously terrible like 'dog'; and even if they lit up to a picture of a dog, 'DoG', 'Dog!', 'Sir Barksalot' would still have it beat. Heck, fMRI lie detection is even simpler but has been shown to be fairly unreliable as well. So unreliable that it's been excluded from court under the Daubert test, and that bar is so low they allow "expert" gender studies professors to tell juries that every single inconsistency and inaccuracy in an accusers story is proof they're telling the truth based on "research" that would be laughed out of a middle school science fair.
Extracting a password? Not in our lifetime. MAYBE we'll find just the right area when resolution gets betters so we can detect lies well enough that you'd need training to beat it; but to get a password you'd need true mind-reading tech we're nowhere near, though there's some implantable devices that can do some neat stuff.
Officers even have a special word for it, 'testilying'. It's not one bad apple, thanks to the harm maximizing war on drugs among others, every department is rotten to the core.
"We screwed up our program that simply counts the number of devices, but you can trust us to make super secure software to access the back doors, it would never have a problem that allowed improper access!"
After the NSA exploit leaks I don't know how these Constitution-stomping tools don't get laughed out of the room when trying to claim their back door would be good-guys-only.
The phone has full internet access. Where did you get the idea that those things were disabled in hardware, as opposed to software? If the phone was as locked down and secure as you're suggesting, there'd be no cause for concern. Since no details were provided, I'm disinclined to assume the security concerns are unfounded.
Yeah, there's absolutely nothing an enemy can do to a compromised phone besides make calls on it. It's not like a phone with a microphone and a camera and data access and no security is a problem when classified information is being discussed.
I've got a laundry list of reasons why I hate Hillary too, but what exactly is it she spent years criticizing Trump for that you think she'd go and be doing herself?
To mod that troll you must have completely missed the last thread and the hilariously outlandish way a couple people were dancing around trying to defend him, like "he's not stupid, he just says moronic things all the time and can't stay focused on anything". And "he doesn't really not know those things, he's just playing dumb to annoy Bill Gates". Or just hate that someone doesn't think recognize your boys brilliance, what with the way it's hurting the country and all. Never change, /.
Uh oh, someone with mod points doesn't like people pointing out when Trump does things he's railed against others for doing.
One day... energy exists, therefore some condition can cause it to come into existence. We might be thousands, if not millions of years away from such feats, but I have hope.
And Trump wants her in jail for her security practices, and railed against them non-stop. It's just as big a problem if anyone else is doing it, and 'but she did it!' stops being an acceptable justification around age 4... although I suppose acting like a toddler isn't unfamiliar for Trump.
Yeah, and he had non-stop criticisms of how much golf Obama played, yet he plays twice as often. Railed against Obama for tax-payer funded vacations; he and his family take more of them and they each cost more. Went after Obama for his use of executive orders; is doing the same himself now. Tip of the iceberg.
He's a shameless hypocrite, you're just now noticing?
How are the resident Trump supporters going to explain this away as somehow not yet another piece of evidence supporting the fact that he's stupid, as anyone who doesn't understand and respect the grave importance of securing the President's cell phone must be, especially after having intelligence experts explain it over and over, but instead indicates he's actually a stable genius, and just playing dumb and/or being a jerk?
3...2...1...
I don't have any specific names, but it's a bit hard to believe there's not a single (R) that is more moderate and without such a massive conflict of interest. As we've seen, clearing the Senate is a low bar. I'm not suggesting you'd find someone actually "pro-consumer" but there's a whole range like with any other policy.
The rest of that, cheers, I agree completely.
I'd argue that it could have made a difference who he appointed. He had to appoint a Republican, not a former Verizon lawyer. There's almost certainly someone he could have found with fewer ties to the industry, not to mention looking at ideologies and priorities of candidates themselves. There had to be someone out there who was less awful than Pai and still had an (R) next to his/her name.
Perhaps it would be better if our treatment of animals improved. You should be able to kill animals with impunity either; rats should be caught in no-kill traps and relocated (and living in NYC, it's not for lack of experience). Saw a mouse in my kitchen the other day, going to catch it and keep it as a pet.
They don't even have empathy like that towards other humans, and lack so many of the values that differentiate us from animals I'm unwilling moderate descriptions of them; there ought to be something to call them that reflects that. To not do so is to condone and normalize that kind of horrendous violence as something typical of humanity.
Having one particular skill, namely being a good showman by appealing to other idiots with your own idiocy, is not enough to overcome things like his extreme ignorance and 4th grade speech level.
And that was just to get around some dumb web filter. Our cell phones didn't have cameras when I was in highschool, but imagine if some girl in my class told me to snap her or something? Whatever app block was on that phone would be useless before the day ended, and the next day all the people asking the nerd how to do it would be informed too.
Sometimes I think a lot of adults forget what it's like being a teenager. By that age, it's what you've taught them that's going to determine what they do, not trying to force control on a device. They'll just use a friends device, or buy a cheap prepaid you won't know about, the minute they want to do something you have blocked on their own phone. More often than not I'd bet in encourages such rebellion; teens aren't fans of being blocked by force for something.
When I was in highschool there were filters against porn and some other stuff in the library; I found you could get around the filters by substituting the IP for the domain name. The whole grade knew within a week. So they fixed that, an hour later I found that if you entered the IP as a long (slashdot=216.105.38.15=3630769679), bypassed again, everyone knew within a week again. So they fixed that, used proxies. Fixed that, installed program to get around. Blocked all unknown exes, block was bypassed by using ShellExecute in VBA.
Teens and cell phones today are absolutely no different; at least one person they know will tell them how to bypass any security measure you take. And these spyware apps I can almost guarantee are doing more harm than good.
The biggest problem I have with the movement is that it's viewing police civil rights abuses through the lens of race. Police abuse all races. They shoot unarmed members of all races. They illegally search members of all races. They fabricate evidence and testimony against all races (including against me, a middle class white dude). We don't need to end police abuse of black people, we need to end police abuse. That these abuses occur more frequently against black people is terrible (although sorry, they do have more interactions with police for a reason, that is purposefully ignored; and unarmed shooting fatalities after considering threat model don't even show bias), but the whole premise of confining the movement to a single race trivializes our problems with police as a whole, as if abusing/shooting more white people (which a lot of them see as a good idea), or abusing/shooting black people at the same rate as white people, would resolve the issue.
I've been extremely harsh on Trump in this thread, but on this one, the reporting didn't reflect that he was specifically referring to MS-13 members, and I can't disagree with that assessment. Now I'll stand up for every bit of civil rights and due process they're entitled to, but let's not kid ourselves about one of the most violent gangs in the country who do things like have their members beat and rob old ladies for initiation, if not randomly execute someone.
Not just the sycophants, Even Stormy Daniels said "I could tell he was nice, intelligent in conversation." Now that interview was before he sent goons after her so she might have still been well disposed to him, but it's not the first instance of someone saying something like that.
LOL, you're defending reports of his intelligence with the opinion of a porn star that had an affair with him (and reportedly had strong feelings for him)??? Thanks for the laugh. And that's probably the most sincere of any others you could name, which is even funnier.
I suspect, in an informal one-on-one conversation, he would seem more intelligent than you realize.
Only if the person he was talking to was also a moron, given the number of intelligent people who've described those conversation and confirmed he's as dumb as he seems.
I suspect that's because he says moronic things. Someone can be clever and lack the focus or attention span to say something intelligent. Just because the car has a nice engine doesn't mean it goes smoothly down the highway. And Tillerson was probably already well versed in smooth talking salesmen who didn't know what they were talking about.
And someone who says moronic things all the time, and objectively speaks at the level of a 4th grader (Flesch-Kincaid score), again all the time, is obviously smart and playing dumb.
Again, you don't need focus or an attention span to be quick witted. I think that's Trump's problem, he might have a decent brain, and he might have used it at some point, but he does enjoy his sycophants. I don't think he's really been surrounded by people who grill him or force him to defend himself in many years and he's basically lost the ability to focus.
If he was at one point reasonably intelligent, senility and atrophy has long since erased it. This article, and everything else we're talking about, isn't just that he's slow witted, it's that he's ignorant. He does not know many basic facts any educated person would know.
He's a bit like ELIZA. Based on the current sentence he can come up with a good response, but he lacks the focus to retain that information, so what happened two sentences ago is largely irrelevant.
I maintain my earlier position that anyone who thinks his responses show intelligence must lack it themselves. You know how ridiculous you sound trying so hard to come up with some way to argue he's not a moron?
You mean the long history of peace between Iran and Israel is over?
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a major setback in that conflict, and pulling out of the Iran deal is a risk for our peace with them, not to mention destroying our credibility for other such arrangements. Then there's the little matter of appointing a notorious extreme warmonger named John Bolton.
Keep telling middle class people that the extra money in their paycheck is "crumbs".
Since the average amount they'll see is $20, I absolutely will.
Maybe not everyone, but individuals know whether things are improving for them or not. Unemployed people see the help wanted signs. Middle class people see the extra money in their paycheck. Investors see their 401k balance.
Plenty of people recognize things are not actually improving for them. Aside from the question of how much credit Trump deserves for unemployment, which is a whole debate in itself, of the other two things you've mentioned one is propaganda unless you think $20 is significant. The other is mostly a benefit for the wealthy; and if you really want to claim the gains the part of middle class with 401k holdings have seen is worth everything Trump has done, especially looking at the net after accelerated health insurance cost increases due to repealing the mandate without implementing any other cost control measures, that's kind of a weak argument for all the harm he's done to the poor, to our credibility, to our reputation, to our environment, to minorities, to immigrants including some legal ones, to civil rights in his Sessions appointment... and on and on.
Only the syncophants he surrounds himself with claim he's smart, because it strokes his ego, and that's the first and foremost job of anyone he hires. A few foreign government people have done the same, obviously for the same ego stroking. When his own appointees describe him as a 'fucking moron' among countless other behind-his-back reports, you know his IQ is room temperature (or just listen to him speak unscripted for a few minutes, and that's self-evident). But it fools people. Remember that disgusting cabinet meeting where they all took turns lavishing praise on him, calling him the best president ever, nobody has ever done more, and other nonsense? You've gotta be a fool to think they were sincere, but fortunately that's just the kind of person he attracts. Quick-witted? You've got to be kidding, or never even heard him speak. He rambles on with stream of consciousness, half the time changing topics mid-sentence. He's so slow witted he makes Bush Jr look like a master orator.
I'd agree, except Trump is a disaster for peace and prosperity. China and South Korea are primarily responsible for NK, not because Trump made threats and insults on Twitter, and his actions with Iran and Israel are extremely terrible for peace. Prosperity? Sure, if you're the 1%. His massive giveaway to them gave some crumbs to the middle class, at the expense of massive debt. I could list a bunch of policies from healthcare to education that are appallingly awful for the prosperity of the poor.
Trump supporters live in a fantasy world thinking his propaganda about things improving for everyone is true.