Well for one thing, I do admit when I’m wrong.

You’re full of shit, so I assume it’s all projection.

Furthermore, this attempt at negotiating and compromise signals an intent to… you know… compromise…. With people that haven’t actually compromised in 20 years.

Which, if you have not been paying attention, is how we’ve come to be here.

Yeah, I have no reason to believe Schumer is going to do the right thing here, either.

Because you cant admit you’re wrong, I can’t?

I would be delighted to be wrong. And you’re fooling yourself if you think Schumer is up for a fight.

Exactly. I bet this time next week cluck cluck chuck will cave.

Used properly, repairing pretty much anything with a sledgehammer will ensure it’ll never break again.

Or… Époisses de Bourgogne…

(This is the cheese falsely stated to be banned on French public transit.)

It’s both super stinky and has a… striking… flavor.

Dingdong The Dick is Dead!

that’s just it… any vulnerable system lets them get their nose in the door, then the camel starts snooping around the tent for whatever it can get. Eventually, they find away to something juicy.

The thing is, whether we’re talking about digital or physical security, the weakest thing in any system is the humans. The sloppy passwords (c’mon it should have been Louvre25! lol.) is a human thing. clicking that phising scam is a human thing. kipping off to the egyption bedroom for tryste with receptionist is a human thing.

the simple password isn’t the problem. The people being complacent is.

the Target hack went in through the HVAC system.

Biblical justice is literally not equal justice for all.

foreigners could be taken as slaves, women were somewhere between the indentured israelites and the chattel slaves. (closer to the chattel slaves, if we’re being honest.

Oh. and we all know they’re not following biblical justice anyway, because they’re not in jail. And they certainly don’t stone their daughters when they have sex before marriage.

At least it wasn’t the default password.

I’ve known clients that have never removed the default admin account, with a default admin password… and looked at me like I had a horn growing out my ear…

Usually, there’s a network for IP cameras, with a central server holding the video. There’s then, usually, a firewall to anything outside that, and frequently just a hardline to a monitoring system. (another computer with lots of monitors, typically.)

Most modern systems can VPN to the firewall and run a client there via remote desktop, and then access the monitoring system that way; but the server itself is not.

As to the complexity of the password, typically there’s different levels of permissions. The basic ones would just let you monitor real time, probably review recordings, and maybe rip those recordings. (but not change settings, or otherwise delete anything.) A place like the Lourve would have multiple guard stations connecting in on the local network; with dozens of guards watching cameras at any given time; and would each need their own account/logins if you wanted to make the password actually complex.

a large part of the problem is just the sheer amount of people that would need to have acounts- the lourve says they have ~1300 ‘reception and security’ staff. (for the record, reception would also be part of the security envelope… though they probably wouldn’t need the password.)

anyone dialing in from off sight would likely have their own password (and have elevated permissions to allow that.). Frequently, by remote desktoping into a system on the local network.

You’ll also notice theyre not saying the security system was actually compromised- even if the cameras were pointed the right way, they’d still have gotten in and out because the windows were a point of vulnerability. They might have been able to respond faster, but they were in and out in ten minutes. a camera wouldn’t be able to stop that, if you account for normal human reaction times… if they’d even notice the ‘contractors’.

if this turns out to be true, I will hate you.

in the mean time, this got a chuckle.

They were into that.

Technically, it was a “meat sandwich” thrown at “point-blank range” only to “explode” all over.

*actual language from the trial. Probably the hottest action meal-team 6 ever got.

With lawyers provided by the CIA, who are very overpaid to explain one no longer has rights.

naw. sleep in, babe… you won’t miss it

If it had been anyone else, he would have been arrested - within hours of them realizing those things were missing.

This you?

Being called out for a hypocrisy is not hate.

You were literally telling me not to tell be how to drive (which, while I came close, I didn’t actually do,) while literally telling me how to drive.

I understand many states have some form of “slower traffic laws”… and explained why that’s not relevant.

There are many reasons why someone needs to be in the left lane- taking a left-exit, or the left hand fork in a split, or, you know, actually passing people themselves…. Or seeing an eratic driver behind them making it dangerous to get over.

I have to assume that CA law also says something about running people off the road because they’re not going fast enough for you. Generally, I assume everywhere does- for obvious reasons.

Even if you’re right, that doesn’t give you them right to drive recklessly and tailgate people. Which brings me back to the original point I was making: the kind of people who are angry at having to slow down… are unlikely to be polite and civil- they’re already demonstrating harassing behaviors.

IIRC, the felony reckless driving was lowered from +30 to +20, during Covid after it became clear how dangerous people were driving. We saw a massive spike in roadway deaths because suddenly people felt like they could do whatever.