11,729 karma · joined June 5, 2012
> Defund
> to deplete the financial resources of
No, which is why in the judgment every reference to a supposed attempt of "cracking a hash" is preceded by "alleged".
I believe my main confusion is why is this experiment being called a computation: to me this seems to be simply the observation of some physical phenomena which happens to be very hard to calculate with a classical computer.
179 points by bookofjoe 50 days ago
It seems I wasn't clear before but this is exactly what I intended to imply: If they cannot attest that JA was the only member present at that conference then that line of argument is insufficient to make the claim they are making.
To me the fact that they wrote "other persons known" indicates that they are not sure if there were other members present.
https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2019/04/2017-12-21_Vir...
There are two assumptions they use to infer the identity of NF:
1- The belief of two persons that the person who they were talking with was probably Assange.
2- That only one single person was using that jabber account.
The only thing I can personally infer from the information they presented is that NF was (very likely) a member of Wikileaks at that time.
What am I missing?
Not in my experience, I would even say that full range port scanning is extremely rare. Botnets (again, in my experience) seem to only be interested in vanilla installations and will test standard ports exclusively. But of course, if you are in charge of some very tempting target (eg a cryptocurrency exchange) your experience will be totally different than mine.
Even if this person abandoned all her belongings and moved to the middle of nowhere, all her knowledge is still the direct product of societies that have been using animals for (at least) the past 10,000 years.