Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - chum1

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 349
51
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: ted cruz is a sociopath
« on: April 30, 2016, 11:24:00 AM »
That was probably mid-March. Old dudes who get jacked about mowing can't wait to get out there as early in the year as possible.

52
Can she eat French dressing?

53
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: ted cruz is a sociopath
« on: April 28, 2016, 08:26:16 PM »

54
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Brokered convention
« on: April 27, 2016, 08:57:29 AM »
I'm not giving up hope. Also, things could still get very ugly even if Trump reaches 1237. And that's ultimately what brokered convention fans like me want to see.

55
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Brokered convention
« on: April 27, 2016, 06:50:02 AM »
So, it looks like Trump needs a little more than half of the remaining delegates to get to 1237 (498 of 944), and, to this point, he's earned a little less than half (739 of 1528).

Trump now needs 58% of remaining delegates to get to 1237 and has gotten 46% to this point. Seems impossible.

Trump has received votes accounting for 51% of the delegates thus far and needs 46% the rest of the way to get to 1237.

56
At this point, I'm thinking:

1. The conference is pretty gross and boring now.
2. The conference will be roughly the same amount of gross and boring if we add two schools.
3. So, the only chance the conference has to get significantly less gross and boring is by doing something super crazy like adding UConn, Florida schools, BYU, etc. Because at least that way it will be really different than what we have now.

57
If you're doing it for the money, might as well go all in and take UConn.


58
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: "Obamacare"
« on: April 21, 2016, 11:42:13 AM »
I think it's perfectly acceptable for one to believe that sometimes people have rights that are not explicitly listed in government documents. I also think it's perfectly acceptable for one to believe that sometimes people should be given things to which they do not have a right.

59
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: "Obamacare"
« on: April 20, 2016, 10:00:44 AM »
I sure hope insurance companies learned their lesson about needing to account for pre-existing conditions!

61
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: The Trump Candidacy
« on: April 20, 2016, 09:25:53 AM »
If he keeps it up, he's going to lose his d-bag base and wind up being the biggest national election loser in history by an even wider margin.

62
Bernie was saying he would win NY. He got a big beat down and then skulked away, muttering to reporters at the airport about independents not getting a chance to vote.

63
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Brokered convention
« on: April 19, 2016, 10:59:09 PM »
Cruz is terrible at denying Trump delegates in the Northeast. So, it's much better for chances of a brokered convention that Kasich is still in.

64
Does this have anything to do with lock screens? Because I was talking about lock screens.

I'm not getting the connection that you're insinuating exists between lock screen security and the hyperlink to that article on millions of stolen account numbers.

the connection between lock screens and large scale data breaches

Why can't you explain it?

65
I will say, I absolutely know what I am talking about.

Why can't you explain it?

66
TBT: confirmed tech poser

67
I mean I'm no Saul or Chings, but I did take more than one computer class at KSU :dunno:

Is that where you learned about the connection between lock screens and large scale data breaches? I must not have had that "computer class."

:lol:

If you only knew. :lol:

You're full of crap.

68
I mean I'm no Saul or Chings, but I did take more than one computer class at KSU :dunno:

Is that where you learned about the connection between lock screens and large scale data breaches? I must not have had that "computer class."

69
Take away the fingerprint scanner and reduce the lock code to 2 digits. So yes, it does, dumbass.

I'm not getting the connection that you're insinuating exists between lock screen security and the hyperlink to that article on millions of stolen account numbers.

I'm not surprised by that honestly.  There is a pretty big disconnect between you and anything technology related, and that's ok.  You just go about your life, and the smart people will worry about protecting it.

OMG

70
Take away the fingerprint scanner and reduce the lock code to 2 digits. So yes, it does, dumbass.

I'm not getting the connection that you're insinuating exists between lock screen security and the hyperlink to that article on millions of stolen account numbers.

71
Yet, you wouldn't object to the government having access to 100% of them.  The lack of knowledge of how any of this works is just astonishing.

Maybe you should educate me. Here's what I've said:

But I don't think the bill would be any more silly than the idea that devices need to be absolutely impenetrably secure in the first place. "Really rough ridin' hard to break into" is a sufficient standard.

The security field is ever evolving in the IT world.  It takes an army of people to keep up with hackers and people that want to steal our data.

Retailers like Target and Home Depot probably thought 'good enough' was fine for their customers security.

https://securityintelligence.com/the-top-5-retail-breaches/

The fact remains that good enough, is not secure.  Retailers use websites, that are built for e-commerce, to interact with consumers.  That is one portal for hackers to target.  Now think about using the very device consumers use to access those sites.  Not only do you open up the people that shop, but also every single person that uses that device.

Apple recently said they now have over a billion active devices around the world. 
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/26/10835748/apple-devices-active-1-billion-iphone-ipad-ios
So, instead of the 300+ million people that could potentially visit Targets site, which maybe 10% do a year, you have 10x that. 

Some of those people have nothing to do with those retailers, but because they simply have the device that runs the same software as the other billion, they are at risk.  Creating a back door for the government may seem like a way to protect us, but it opens us up even more to attack.

Does this have anything to do with lock screens? Because I was talking about lock screens. I also didn't say anything about what I think the government should or shouldn't do.

72
Yet, you wouldn't object to the government having access to 100% of them.  The lack of knowledge of how any of this works is just astonishing.

Maybe you should educate me. Here's what I've said:

But I don't think the bill would be any more silly than the idea that devices need to be absolutely impenetrably secure in the first place. "Really rough ridin' hard to break into" is a sufficient standard.

73
Looks like 1.4% of US smart phone users had a lost or stolen phone last year.

 :ohno:

74
I never lock my screen. I don't have a lock on my wallet either. I live life on the edge, baby!

75
Aiming to have an absolutely impenetrable lock screen is like aiming to have a front door on your house that can withstand any attack by conventional weapons. Neither necessary nor sufficient for security.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 349