Whether it is ATF agents smuggling weapons to Mexican drug cartels, OTS employees helping banks back-date deposits to cover up insolvency, James Clapper lying before Congress, Lois Lerner destroying evidence pursuant to a Congressional investigation, etc. government employees operate beyond the rule of law.
"Certain goods haven't gotten more expensive, it's that other goods have slowly gotten cheaper."
The goods and services that have gotten ridiculously more expensive are medical services, higher education and housing. What's the common factor in all of these markets? Massive government programs, loans, subsidies, etc. Government intervention has caused prices to skyrocket while quality stagnates.
Are there any non-government markets where the consumer has faced such a rapidly declining value proposition?
"It will be interesting to see where the hard sci-fi authors go now."
Huh? There are differing opinions on what constitutes "hard sci-fi", but I thought that "No time travel" and "No FTL" were generally agreed upon principles for defining the genre.
It's a very interesting question. The majority of people have a hard time making those coldly logical decisions, especially in the heat of the moment. There are some interesting psychological studies on these thought processes. When you ask "Is it worth sacrificing one life to save four?", large majorities answer "yes". However, when you ask "Would you be willing to kill one person to save four?" the delay in response increases and the percentage of "yes" answers drops. And that's when people have time to think about it! Most humans would instinctively swerve to avoid a pedestrian that suddenly ran out into the road, even if it meant running the car carrying 3 passengers into a tree or ditch. Of course the cases they consider for modeling purposes are going to be hypothetical and somewhat contrived. So what? That doesn't mean they can or should be ignored. Consumers are very adept at putting software and products into situations the designers forgot to model. I'm sure they're also considering risks of injuries as opposed to body counts. You hitting a tree at 25mph in a car with an airbag is probably better than running down a kid with momentarily distracted parents. You're making the ridiculous assumption that any dangerous situation is the result of idiocy. What happens if a person with epilepsy wanders into the road? Are you going to clean them out of the gene pool as well? What if their seizures are not genetic?
Why is "liberal" and "conservative" relevant? Do you really see see gay marriage and abortion as important indicators for assessing the power of central government? I don't. I think more about budgets and power grabs like The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, NDAA 2012 and warrantless surveillance.
The government has steadily increased its size and power regardless of who happens to be in charge. It has grown relentlessly in both absolute terms and relative to GDP. The policies of perpetual global militarism, corporate bailouts, handouts and subsidies and destruction of civil liberties have enjoyed consistent bipartisan support. You could argue that "conservative" politicians are the bigger hypocrites, but what does it matter? Both parties have pursued an agenda which has led to the accumulation of wealth and power in Washington DC at the expense of the states and the people. Corruption is the inevitable result.
I'm willing to cut the size of the federal government by 2/3. Force the politicians to make the hard decisions on federal spending priorities and leave everything else up to the state and local governments.
"...he could have been flagged as a person that should not be able legally to purchase weapons or ammo."
On what basis? Your list contains nothing but vague suspicion and hearsay. He'd never been convicted of a crime, never been adjudicated mentally defective and was not subject to a restraining order. How would you propose to restrict his access to firearms if not through a court decision? Do you think government employees should be able to arbitrarily add names to a list of people who can't own guns?
"We have a national registry for firearms we just don't use it correctly"
Not sure what you mean by that? The government does not (so they claim) have a registry of firearms or owners. They do have a registry of "prohibited persons" which is queried when a firearms dealer sells a weapon. They can't just add people to that list on a whim however. Most of the things that will get you on the list require a formal legal proceeding.
When presenting data from foreign countries, anti-gun people talk ONLY about firearms-related crime. Sweeping gun control measures would indeed reduce that one particular type of crime. What about all other violent crime however? What about property crime? Focusing only on crimes committed with guns is a ridiculous metric because it ignores the well-documented deterrent effect of private firearms ownership. If gun control means fewer shooting victims, but more violent assault, home invasions, carjackings and rapes because people are defenseless against criminals is your gun control "working"?
We have several alternative political parties. The Libertarian and Green parties are the most prominent, but we also have a Constitution Party, Justice Party and even a Socialist party.
Year after year polls have shown that at least 2/3 of people in the USA want more viable parties, but every two years, most of those same people refuse to vote for the alternatives they're given.
Of course when you have a two-party political duopoly, the two parties will do everything possible to prevent the rise of alternatives. Why would they ever reform the voting system so that we have IRV, "approval voting" or proportional representation? Ballot access is also made very difficult in most states and no other parties are allowed to participate in debates.
Voting for Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote. Given that those parties have chosen to nominate the worst candidates imaginable in this election, I'm *hoping* that we see a strong showing for the alternatives. If the Libertarians can get 2-3% of the vote, I'll be happy. If the Greens could do the same(Come on Sanders supporters!), it would be fantastic.
"leftists are essentially authoritarian in nature?"
If you're talking about contemporary leftists in the USA, have you ever known any who thought that the government should be smaller and have fewer powers? Do any leftists want to see decreased government budgets and lower taxes? Even when people from the political left propose cutting government spending, for example on weapons and wars, it's only so that they can increase spending elsewhere. I don't think American leftists consider themselves authoritarian, but when all of your political ideas involve expanding the size and scope of government in some way, you're an authoritarian whether you realize it or not.
Even if you have such a contract, it's worthless because you have no legal recourse if they violate the terms.
Remember the whole "telecom immunity" debate? In the 2008 "FISA Revisions Act" the federal government granted telecom companies total immunity(retroactive and future) from any civil or criminal liabilities stemming from their sharing of our data with the federal government. They don't have to tell you that they gave your data to Big Brother and even if you somehow found out, you would not be able to sue them for violating the terms of your agreement.
Didn't you read the article? The USA/NATO trolls are "special units" which are set up to protect the West against a "growing threat [to] civil discourse."
Any foreign or independent opinions which run contrary to the narrative spelled out in Western media propaganda are a "threat"
In the USA, there was never a 90% tax rate on corporate profits, even if you consider the double taxation on dividends. Besides, these are cash holdings, meaning that the companies already paid their f***ing taxes in the process of acquiring the cash.
These companies aren't obstructing economic growth. The Federal Reserve has effectively destroyed the interest rates on cash and cash equivalents for the express purpose of forcing people into more risky investments. If there were positive returns to be had by increasing capacity or making new investments, these companies would most certainly be taking advantage of them. It's not like there's a surplus of new and promising business ventures out there which are starved for cash.
Government policy has ground this economy to a halt by rewarding "financialization" and trying to cure a debt-based recession by doing everything possible to increase outstanding debt.
"people high up in the DOD and DOD IG suspected of criminal misconduct... are under investigation and stand a good chance of going to jail?"
LOL. No high ranking government officials are going to jail. As usual, the government will investigate itself and come to the conclusion that government did nothing wrong.
Wyden's motives in questioning Clapper are entirely irrelevant. The whole point of questioning someone in such a hearing is so that the information is on record. It doesn't matter if Wyden knew the answer to his own question. Lying before Congress is a criminal offense. The fact that Clapper wasn't prosecuted further demonstrates the lawless nature of the government.
"... false conclusions that the NSA was reading our emails and listening to our phone calls (which they are not)."
Oh really? How did you happen to acquire that information? Aren't you committing some sort of offense by revealing the truth about the inner-workings of the NSA in a public forum? You're probably putting lives in danger by informing terrorists about the NSA's limitations.
When you say "The economy", you probably mean GDP.
GDP = C + I + G + ( x - i)
Notice that GDP includes government spending(G) but does not take into account any government borrowing.
Government spending increased by a whopping 18% in a single year 2008-2009, more than doubling the federal deficit, and the deficits have remained enormous throughout Obama's tenure. Amassing a pile of government debt certainly inflates the GDP numbers, but it doesn't mean that the real economy(people & businesses engaged in productive activity) is doing any better.
Cranking up government borrowing to pad the GDP numbers and pretending it's a "recovery" is like running up the balance on all of your credit cards and pretending that you got a raise.
"And B Clinton was the only prez in the last ~40 years to lower the debt. "
deficit != debt
The "deficit" shrunk during Clinton's tenure, but the national debt kept piling up. There was never any "budget surplus". When you look at the government "historical tables", you will see data on "Receipts" and "Outlays" and there were a couple of years where Receipts > Outlays. If you subtract out the SS surplus however, there was still a deficit and hence the national debt was steadily increasing. Government has been taking money from the Social Security program for the last 30+ years. They take the $$$ and leave an IOU behind, but ridiculously enough, this is not recorded as part of the deficit/debt.
IIRC, Clinton and Gingrich were both claiming credit for the imaginary "surplus". The "surplus" part was a lie, but given the fact that it's Congress that controls spending legislation, was it Clinton or the House Republicans that deserve credit for reducing the deficit in those years?
Why would any of the President's views be "in jeopardy" simply because the chosen VP might disagree with those particular views? The VP has very little power as per The Constitution. Only if an H1B bill was tied 50-50 in the senate, or if she became president would Fiorina's views on that issue be relevant to establishing public policy. The VP doesn't need to be a political clone of the president. Cripes, in the distant past, the VP could even be from an entirely different political party!
If the the current corporatist, cronyism, central planning, big government economy is "capitalism", I'm opposed to it as well.
Capitalism cannot exist simultaneously with a Federal Reserve bank manipulating interest rates and the money supply. If we had true capitalism, a low interest rate would signal surplus saving. i.e. people foregoing current consumption for future consumption. That's the best time to engage in capital formation (aka "investment"). High interest rates would give the opposite signal, but would also have the effect of stimulating more saving.
Capitalism would NEVER produce the current situation where gargantuan levels of debt in the economy co-exist with near-zero interest rates. Only central planning could produce such insanity. Central planning is a failure here, and everywhere else it has ever been tried.
The same argument might have been made after the heyday of the Atari 2600. The follow-on Atari systems which offered only incremental improvements and the competing systems which were only marginally better never attracted the same attention. Then, after 7-8 years, along comes the NES and the next resurgence in the console market. But yet again, there was a repeat of the Atari phenomenon. The follow-on and "slightly better" systems just never got the same market penetration. Took another 7-8 years until the next big thing with the Wii, PlayStation and Xbox. I think the console industry is just taking another hiatus. The day of the console might be over *for now*, but give it ~10 years and we'll have the next awesome gaming system.
Whether it's foreign policy or domestic policy, the U.S. federal government does not operate on the basis of international or even U.S. law. They are "exceptional" in that regard. Laws are there for them to apply or ignore as a matter of convenience. India and Pakistan develop nuclear weapons and that's cool. Iran signs the NNPT, thereby giving them the right under International Law to enrich uranium, but of course the U.S. government can't have that. And imagine if U.S. military personnel were being subjected to waterboarding, sleep-deprivation and similar measures that the U.S. government has used on others?
Allowing U.S. citizens to sue a sovereign government would definitely open up a huge can of worms, but only if the U.S. government cared about a standard that applied to all countries equally. Even if they pass this bill, they would never consider allowing victims of U.S. foreign policy to have their day in court. The U.S. federal government simply does not care about blatant double standards.
TPTB are working on it right now. Mario Draghi of the ECB is advocating the discontinuation of the 500 Euro note and economists like Larry Summers in the USA want to ban the $100 bill. There is also talk of banning all large cash transactions. Government obviously wants to track ALL of your financial activity.
The bankers want to ban cash so they can set a negative interest rate. People will have to pay to keep their money in a bank, and without cash, there will be no recourse. They also want deposits to be treated like any other liability for the financial institutions. Liabilities that can be "restructured" in the event of the company filing for bankruptcy. i.e. the bank takes your money and gives you shares of stock in a new "recapitalized" bank.
A recent study published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." also revealed that the death rate of middle-aged, non-Hispanic white people is increasing while all other groups continue to see a decline in mortality rates.
Nonsense. Free speech doesn't mean the absence of prior restraint (i.e. censorship imposed before you've said anything). Having Free Speech means freedom from consequences. If you know that you'll face retribution(other than ridicule or counter-argument) for expressing *wrong* opinions, then you don't really have Free Speech.
Resetting the failed attempts counter is only part of the problem. How could the company run a brute force attack given the limitations of the i-Phone hardware? i.e. The i-Phone doesn't have thousands of fast parallel processors dedicated to handling password requests. Unless the owner was using a guessable password or something vulnerable to a dictionary attack, wouldn't it take years(centuries?) to brute-force it?
Slashdot Mirror
FTFY
Whether it is ATF agents smuggling weapons to Mexican drug cartels, OTS employees helping banks back-date deposits to cover up insolvency, James Clapper lying before Congress, Lois Lerner destroying evidence pursuant to a Congressional investigation, etc. government employees operate beyond the rule of law.
"Certain goods haven't gotten more expensive, it's that other goods have slowly gotten cheaper."
The goods and services that have gotten ridiculously more expensive are medical services, higher education and housing. What's the common factor in all of these markets? Massive government programs, loans, subsidies, etc. Government intervention has caused prices to skyrocket while quality stagnates.
Are there any non-government markets where the consumer has faced such a rapidly declining value proposition?
"It will be interesting to see where the hard sci-fi authors go now."
Huh? There are differing opinions on what constitutes "hard sci-fi", but I thought that "No time travel" and "No FTL" were generally agreed upon principles for defining the genre.
It's a very interesting question.
The majority of people have a hard time making those coldly logical decisions, especially in the heat of the moment. There are some interesting psychological studies on these thought processes. When you ask "Is it worth sacrificing one life to save four?", large majorities answer "yes". However, when you ask "Would you be willing to kill one person to save four?" the delay in response increases and the percentage of "yes" answers drops. And that's when people have time to think about it! Most humans would instinctively swerve to avoid a pedestrian that suddenly ran out into the road, even if it meant running the car carrying 3 passengers into a tree or ditch. Of course the cases they consider for modeling purposes are going to be hypothetical and somewhat contrived. So what? That doesn't mean they can or should be ignored. Consumers are very adept at putting software and products into situations the designers forgot to model. I'm sure they're also considering risks of injuries as opposed to body counts. You hitting a tree at 25mph in a car with an airbag is probably better than running down a kid with momentarily distracted parents.
You're making the ridiculous assumption that any dangerous situation is the result of idiocy. What happens if a person with epilepsy wanders into the road? Are you going to clean them out of the gene pool as well? What if their seizures are not genetic?
Why is "liberal" and "conservative" relevant? Do you really see see gay marriage and abortion as important indicators for assessing the power of central government? I don't. I think more about budgets and power grabs like The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, NDAA 2012 and warrantless surveillance.
The government has steadily increased its size and power regardless of who happens to be in charge. It has grown relentlessly in both absolute terms and relative to GDP. The policies of perpetual global militarism, corporate bailouts, handouts and subsidies and destruction of civil liberties have enjoyed consistent bipartisan support. You could argue that "conservative" politicians are the bigger hypocrites, but what does it matter? Both parties have pursued an agenda which has led to the accumulation of wealth and power in Washington DC at the expense of the states and the people. Corruption is the inevitable result.
I'm willing to cut the size of the federal government by 2/3. Force the politicians to make the hard decisions on federal spending priorities and leave everything else up to the state and local governments.
"...he could have been flagged as a person that should not be able legally to purchase weapons or ammo."
On what basis? Your list contains nothing but vague suspicion and hearsay. He'd never been convicted of a crime, never been adjudicated mentally defective and was not subject to a restraining order. How would you propose to restrict his access to firearms if not through a court decision? Do you think government employees should be able to arbitrarily add names to a list of people who can't own guns?
"We have a national registry for firearms we just don't use it correctly"
Not sure what you mean by that? The government does not (so they claim) have a registry of firearms or owners. They do have a registry of "prohibited persons" which is queried when a firearms dealer sells a weapon. They can't just add people to that list on a whim however. Most of the things that will get you on the list require a formal legal proceeding.
What does it mean for gun control to "work"?
When presenting data from foreign countries, anti-gun people talk ONLY about firearms-related crime. Sweeping gun control measures would indeed reduce that one particular type of crime. What about all other violent crime however? What about property crime?
Focusing only on crimes committed with guns is a ridiculous metric because it ignores the well-documented deterrent effect of private firearms ownership. If gun control means fewer shooting victims, but more violent assault, home invasions, carjackings and rapes because people are defenseless against criminals is your gun control "working"?
We have several alternative political parties. The Libertarian and Green parties are the most prominent, but we also have a Constitution Party, Justice Party and even a Socialist party.
Year after year polls have shown that at least 2/3 of people in the USA want more viable parties, but every two years, most of those same people refuse to vote for the alternatives they're given.
Of course when you have a two-party political duopoly, the two parties will do everything possible to prevent the rise of alternatives. Why would they ever reform the voting system so that we have IRV, "approval voting" or proportional representation? Ballot access is also made very difficult in most states and no other parties are allowed to participate in debates.
Voting for Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote. Given that those parties have chosen to nominate the worst candidates imaginable in this election, I'm *hoping* that we see a strong showing for the alternatives. If the Libertarians can get 2-3% of the vote, I'll be happy. If the Greens could do the same(Come on Sanders supporters!), it would be fantastic.
"leftists are essentially authoritarian in nature?"
If you're talking about contemporary leftists in the USA, have you ever known any who thought that the government should be smaller and have fewer powers? Do any leftists want to see decreased government budgets and lower taxes? Even when people from the political left propose cutting government spending, for example on weapons and wars, it's only so that they can increase spending elsewhere.
I don't think American leftists consider themselves authoritarian, but when all of your political ideas involve expanding the size and scope of government in some way, you're an authoritarian whether you realize it or not.
Even if you have such a contract, it's worthless because you have no legal recourse if they violate the terms.
Remember the whole "telecom immunity" debate? In the 2008 "FISA Revisions Act" the federal government granted telecom companies total immunity(retroactive and future) from any civil or criminal liabilities stemming from their sharing of our data with the federal government.
They don't have to tell you that they gave your data to Big Brother and even if you somehow found out, you would not be able to sue them for violating the terms of your agreement.
Didn't you read the article? The USA/NATO trolls are "special units" which are set up to protect the West against a "growing threat [to] civil discourse."
Any foreign or independent opinions which run contrary to the narrative spelled out in Western media propaganda are a "threat"
"allowed"? Seriously?
Who the hell do you think has the authority to tell the Chinese what is or is not "allowed" in terms of their domestic energy policy?
In the USA, there was never a 90% tax rate on corporate profits, even if you consider the double taxation on dividends. Besides, these are cash holdings, meaning that the companies already paid their f***ing taxes in the process of acquiring the cash.
These companies aren't obstructing economic growth. The Federal Reserve has effectively destroyed the interest rates on cash and cash equivalents for the express purpose of forcing people into more risky investments. If there were positive returns to be had by increasing capacity or making new investments, these companies would most certainly be taking advantage of them. It's not like there's a surplus of new and promising business ventures out there which are starved for cash.
Government policy has ground this economy to a halt by rewarding "financialization" and trying to cure a debt-based recession by doing everything possible to increase outstanding debt.
"people high up in the DOD and DOD IG suspected of criminal misconduct ... are under investigation and stand a good chance of going to jail?"
LOL. No high ranking government officials are going to jail. As usual, the government will investigate itself and come to the conclusion that government did nothing wrong.
Wyden's motives in questioning Clapper are entirely irrelevant. The whole point of questioning someone in such a hearing is so that the information is on record. It doesn't matter if Wyden knew the answer to his own question. Lying before Congress is a criminal offense. The fact that Clapper wasn't prosecuted further demonstrates the lawless nature of the government.
"... false conclusions that the NSA was reading our emails and listening to our phone calls (which they are not)."
Oh really? How did you happen to acquire that information? Aren't you committing some sort of offense by revealing the truth about the inner-workings of the NSA in a public forum? You're probably putting lives in danger by informing terrorists about the NSA's limitations.
When you say "The economy", you probably mean GDP.
GDP = C + I + G + ( x - i)
Notice that GDP includes government spending(G) but does not take into account any government borrowing.
Government spending increased by a whopping 18% in a single year 2008-2009, more than doubling the federal deficit, and the deficits have remained enormous throughout Obama's tenure. Amassing a pile of government debt certainly inflates the GDP numbers, but it doesn't mean that the real economy(people & businesses engaged in productive activity) is doing any better.
Cranking up government borrowing to pad the GDP numbers and pretending it's a "recovery" is like running up the balance on all of your credit cards and pretending that you got a raise.
"And B Clinton was the only prez in the last ~40 years to lower the debt. "
deficit != debt
The "deficit" shrunk during Clinton's tenure, but the national debt kept piling up. There was never any "budget surplus". When you look at the government "historical tables", you will see data on "Receipts" and "Outlays" and there were a couple of years where Receipts > Outlays. If you subtract out the SS surplus however, there was still a deficit and hence the national debt was steadily increasing. Government has been taking money from the Social Security program for the last 30+ years. They take the $$$ and leave an IOU behind, but ridiculously enough, this is not recorded as part of the deficit/debt.
IIRC, Clinton and Gingrich were both claiming credit for the imaginary "surplus". The "surplus" part was a lie, but given the fact that it's Congress that controls spending legislation, was it Clinton or the House Republicans that deserve credit for reducing the deficit in those years?
Why would any of the President's views be "in jeopardy" simply because the chosen VP might disagree with those particular views? The VP has very little power as per The Constitution. Only if an H1B bill was tied 50-50 in the senate, or if she became president would Fiorina's views on that issue be relevant to establishing public policy.
The VP doesn't need to be a political clone of the president. Cripes, in the distant past, the VP could even be from an entirely different political party!
If the the current corporatist, cronyism, central planning, big government economy is "capitalism", I'm opposed to it as well.
Capitalism cannot exist simultaneously with a Federal Reserve bank manipulating interest rates and the money supply. If we had true capitalism, a low interest rate would signal surplus saving. i.e. people foregoing current consumption for future consumption. That's the best time to engage in capital formation (aka "investment"). High interest rates would give the opposite signal, but would also have the effect of stimulating more saving.
Capitalism would NEVER produce the current situation where gargantuan levels of debt in the economy co-exist with near-zero interest rates. Only central planning could produce such insanity. Central planning is a failure here, and everywhere else it has ever been tried.
The same argument might have been made after the heyday of the Atari 2600. The follow-on Atari systems which offered only incremental improvements and the competing systems which were only marginally better never attracted the same attention. Then, after 7-8 years, along comes the NES and the next resurgence in the console market. But yet again, there was a repeat of the Atari phenomenon. The follow-on and "slightly better" systems just never got the same market penetration. Took another 7-8 years until the next big thing with the Wii, PlayStation and Xbox. I think the console industry is just taking another hiatus. The day of the console might be over *for now*, but give it ~10 years and we'll have the next awesome gaming system.
Whether it's foreign policy or domestic policy, the U.S. federal government does not operate on the basis of international or even U.S. law. They are "exceptional" in that regard. Laws are there for them to apply or ignore as a matter of convenience.
India and Pakistan develop nuclear weapons and that's cool. Iran signs the NNPT, thereby giving them the right under International Law to enrich uranium, but of course the U.S. government can't have that. And imagine if U.S. military personnel were being subjected to waterboarding, sleep-deprivation and similar measures that the U.S. government has used on others?
Allowing U.S. citizens to sue a sovereign government would definitely open up a huge can of worms, but only if the U.S. government cared about a standard that applied to all countries equally. Even if they pass this bill, they would never consider allowing victims of U.S. foreign policy to have their day in court. The U.S. federal government simply does not care about blatant double standards.
TPTB are working on it right now. Mario Draghi of the ECB is advocating the discontinuation of the 500 Euro note and economists like Larry Summers in the USA want to ban the $100 bill. There is also talk of banning all large cash transactions. Government obviously wants to track ALL of your financial activity.
The bankers want to ban cash so they can set a negative interest rate. People will have to pay to keep their money in a bank, and without cash, there will be no recourse. They also want deposits to be treated like any other liability for the financial institutions. Liabilities that can be "restructured" in the event of the company filing for bankruptcy. i.e. the bank takes your money and gives you shares of stock in a new "recapitalized" bank.
We can't allow that to happen. Use cash!
A recent study published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." also revealed that the death rate of middle-aged, non-Hispanic white people is increasing while all other groups continue to see a decline in mortality rates.
http://www.pnas.org/content/11...
Rural white people don't need to be lectured by elitist liberal academics and BLM activists about how "privileged" they are.
Nonsense. Free speech doesn't mean the absence of prior restraint (i.e. censorship imposed before you've said anything). Having Free Speech means freedom from consequences. If you know that you'll face retribution(other than ridicule or counter-argument) for expressing *wrong* opinions, then you don't really have Free Speech.
URL please? I somehow managed to miss that news.
Resetting the failed attempts counter is only part of the problem. How could the company run a brute force attack given the limitations of the i-Phone hardware? i.e. The i-Phone doesn't have thousands of fast parallel processors dedicated to handling password requests. Unless the owner was using a guessable password or something vulnerable to a dictionary attack, wouldn't it take years(centuries?) to brute-force it?
It sent out some circuit diagrams.
#Futurama