The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Deligitimization of Obama

IMS has a 100% track record.

The aliens are coming, and you guys are crazy.

Its just one component of the financial system though. Instead of breaking thoroughly researched , tested and monitored systems... people who hack banks typically just crack/obtain some manager or admins passwords.

Banks get hacked all the time, fraud happens all the time. Few people will bother trying to attack a component IBM has likely invested 8 figure+ sums in securing. Not when you can sploit a vulnerability on a crappy website somewhere, get 10k credit card numbers and turn em into cash at about a 40% rate from your local mobster. (especially if you are in Eastern Europe)

Or 1000 other simple schemes usable by anyone who can use a canned script, and has a way to launder money.

Most devastating attacks known to day are based on reverse lookup table. This is pretty much worst-case scenario where you have to re-issue everything. I personally know of couple examples where cost-cutting with HSM resulted in this.

Jet is right, anything outside of individual banks, payment and transaction clearing house and such, have never been hacked. This doesn't mean it will never get hacked. For example, breakthrough in quantum computing or some new algorithmic vulnerability can result in a working exploit before it becomes public. Fortunately, all of them (up to this point) were discovered through academia or IBM labs, with the team publishing major exploit (e.g. distributed computing attack on DES in 99) get guaranteed academic tenure and funding forever. This is extra-strong incentive to not sit on your discovery.

Way cryptography science is set up is that you only need to demonstrate existential forgery, that is you don't have to have working exploit, it is sufficient to show that one could exist. This is absolutely right approach, any algorithm that could have successful attack done against it is replaced, so by the time exploits derived most of the important stuff moved on to new things. In cryptography _ALL_ exploits/hacks are due to improper implementation, what/how possibly someone can hack is very known.

This is very much unlike software industry, where zero-day exploits are mostly unknown until they are a) sold to vendor b) exploit is detected in the wild and reported.


Now all of the about is very interesting, but we still haven't settled the topic of conversation: Simple possibility of voter fraud is insufficient justification to claim elections were stolen.

Evidence of voter fraud of sufficient severity -> election stolen

Otherwise it is appeal to probability.

Nothing wrong with appealing to probability, because not trying to prove something did happen only that it might have happened.

You are never going to objectively quantify the probability , so why bother trying.

As for hacking banks, yeah attacking the crypto itself is usually futile. People are the weak link security speaking. Transport might not have been hacked, but financial institutions have been hacked a ton. Cant tell if you are saying that or not from your wording though.

Well, aside from it being a known fallacy?



You can't prove that it might happen based on simple possibility of it happening, because it might happen or it might not happen.

Think of it this way - I can buy a lottery ticket and might win it, simply buying a lottery ticket is not in any way can be considered an evidence of winning a lottery.

(P1) I bought lottery ticket
-------
(C) I won lottery

Above is invalid argument, because I could have bought non-winning ticket. So P1 can be true while C is false making it invalid argument.

(P1) I bought lottery ticket
(P2) Lottery ticket I bought has a winning number
----------
(C) I won lottery

Above is valid argument.

If argument is invalid, I don't have to consider premises to know it cannot be sound.

Please consider implications of this.

If you like, I can do a write up on formal reasoning to explain it in more details.

/facepalm /facepalm /facepalm /facepalm /quintuplemegafacepalm

"appeal to probability" is only a fallacy if you are trying to prove something *did* or *will* happen not something could or might happen.

A probability that something *might* have happened is a probability that.... something might have happened. Trying to use your lottery analogy in the context of this discussion invokes at least 5 fallacies, after that I stopped counting.

/suspect we are back to trolling

Possibility of X leading to possibility of Y is meaningless statement.

X may or may not be true
Y may or may not be true

You do not link them in any way for it to be considered a coherent argument.

You could say Y possible ONLY if X happens, you could say possibility of Y also ...

Why do I bother. It is clear that you signed off logic quite a some time ago in this thread.

Here: Your premise might be false, so I conclude you might be wrong. Have fun with this.

No, its been clear you really dont know what you are talking about or how to properly apply logic principles for some time - thats what is clear.

"Here: Your premise might be false, so I conclude you might be wrong. Have fun with this."

Yes, I might be wrong.

------

Possibility of X leading to possibility of Y is not a meaningless statement. That does not follow.

There a possibility it might rain tomorrow "X", therefore there is also a possibility "Y" the seeds I sowed might start to sprout the day after.

Saying I planted seeds today, therefore they definitely will sprout day after tomorrow would be a fallacy. (presuming these seeds require rain to do so, and these particular seeds sprout one day after rain.) Saying I planted seeds today, and it might rain tomorrow - therefore the seeds might sprout day after tomorrow is not a fallacy.

or

There is a possibility "X" the stock market might crash tomorrow , therefore there is a possibility "Y" my portfolio might lose considerable value. I should probably keep this in mind when investing in stocks.

or

There is a possibility that election tampering occurs on an unknown scale, therefore there is also a possibility that said tampering might influence the outcome of elections.

Therefore I should probably not call people names if they are concerned about this possibility, and also work to improve the situation to reduce its likelihood of occurring in he future.

Ok serious question: are you really still trying to question logic, or are you just trolling?

There is a possibility it might rain tomorrow, as a result of rain seed I sowed will sprout.

Otherwise seed starting to sprout is independent of rain. For example it will not rain, but seeds will still sprout; or it will rain but seeds will not sprout.

I really recommend you spend time to understand concept of validity .

/facepalm

For the example I clearly stated the condition that rain was required for seeds to sprout.

You are just mouthing irrelevancies at this point, please go read your own link on validity. You are just running a straw man factory here. I am pretty sure you know it.

I have come to the conclusion that you are simply trolling, there is no other reasonable conclusion... not even you are this obtuse.