THE ERA OF TRUMP

[The Conservative]

Also, Mbit is a physical size, Mbps is data over a set time.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Whoever wrote this is not only a hack themselves, but knows shit.

First off, I've done multiple speed tests:

Mass to Tokyo and I got 90 Mbps down and 10 upload speed.
Mass to Frankfurt I got 50 Mbps down and 10 upload speed.
Mass to Sydney I got 50 Mbps down and 7 upload speed.

The only thing they got right was a USB speed, except it was the wrong kind.

USB 1.1 = 12 Mbit/s
USB 2.0 = 480 Mbit/s
USB 3.0 = 5 Gbit/s
USB 3.1 = 10 Gbit/s

So yeah, the person is a hack to the Nth degree.

Multiply by 8, Mr IT Director.

Mega BYTES, not Mega Bits.

You didn't read the original statement... The hack showed MB as multiple forms of speed.

I used it as a singular speed ratio in my argument. They and you failed.

Also, USB 2.0, IS 60MB/sec.

I did read it, a second time, and it's MegaBYTES all the way through. It's pretty consistent and accurate.

And yeah, they did get a slower download than USB 2.0, but there are a lot of things that could account for that. It could easily be server load, or some older thumbdrive that hit at the beginning of the 2.0 standard (there were several).

Regardless, it most certainly wasn't an internet hack, and had to be done on-site.

[Okeefenokee]

Also, Mbit is a physical size, Mbps is data over a set time.

What weighs more, a megabit of cotton, or a megabit of stone?

[C-Mag]

The IC and Press' relentess badgering without out real evidence against Trump on Russia has worn out Americans Give a Fuck Factor

[The Conservative]

Multiply by 8, Mr IT Director.

Mega BYTES, not Mega Bits.

You didn't read the original statement... The hack showed MB as multiple forms of speed.

I used it as a singular speed ratio in my argument. They and you failed.

Also, USB 2.0, IS 60MB/sec.

I did read it, a second time, and it's MegaBYTES all the way through. It's pretty consistent and accurate.

And yeah, they did get a slower download than USB 2.0, but there are a lot of things that could account for that. It could easily be server load, or some older thumbdrive that hit at the beginning of the 2.0 standard (there were several).

Regardless, it most certainly wasn't an internet hack, and had to be done on-site.

Military after the first download hack doesn't allow attached hardware on government technology.

[Okeefenokee]

The speed they reported for the transfer was 22.7 MB per second or 181.6 Mb per second.

They referenced this source for average download speeds,

http://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/2016/



which start at 47.13 Mb per second in January and rise to 54.97 Mb per second in June.

I think this at least challenges the hacking story, but isn't proof on its own. Higher speeds than the national average are of course possible.

The most damning argument made in the piece is that no evidence of a hack has been presented, but if one did happen, the NSA has all of the evidence of it.

Remember this name?

The chief researchers active on the DNC case are four: William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and designer of many agency programs now in use; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.

In essence, Binney and others at VIPS say this logic turns upside down in the DNC case: Based on the knowledge of former officials such as Binney, the group knew that (1) if there was a hack and (2) if Russia was responsible for it, the NSA would have to have evidence of both. Binney and others surmised that the agency and associated institutions were hiding the absence of evidence behind the claim that they had to maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs. “Everything that they say must remain classified is already well-known,” Binney said in an interview. “They’re playing the Wizard of Oz game.”

[Speaker to Animals]

There is still the lag between the server and the workstation he used.

[Okeefenokee]

You didn't read the original statement... The hack showed MB as multiple forms of speed.

I used it as a singular speed ratio in my argument. They and you failed.

Also, USB 2.0, IS 60MB/sec.

I did read it, a second time, and it's MegaBYTES all the way through. It's pretty consistent and accurate.

And yeah, they did get a slower download than USB 2.0, but there are a lot of things that could account for that. It could easily be server load, or some older thumbdrive that hit at the beginning of the 2.0 standard (there were several).

Regardless, it most certainly wasn't an internet hack, and had to be done on-site.

Military after the first download hack doesn't allow attached hardware on government technology.

The DNC servers don't belong to the government, nor does the rule against USBs magically prevent them from being attached.

[The Conservative]

There is still the lag between the server and the workstation he used.

Not 40MB/Sec worth unless it is a remote option. Or the technology the server is so old it makes a wristwatch calculator seem like it's modern tech.

[The Conservative]

I did read it, a second time, and it's MegaBYTES all the way through. It's pretty consistent and accurate.

And yeah, they did get a slower download than USB 2.0, but there are a lot of things that could account for that. It could easily be server load, or some older thumbdrive that hit at the beginning of the 2.0 standard (there were several).

Regardless, it most certainly wasn't an internet hack, and had to be done on-site.

Military after the first download hack doesn't allow attached hardware on government technology.

The DNC servers don't belong to the government, nor does the rule against USBs magically prevent them from being attached.

If not, then other crimes were committed.