Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

Actually, it was very much disputed whether Hiss was a spy. He was convicted of perjury for saying he hadn't been a Communist, when he had been years earlier.

 

What do you think?

 

I understand that when it comes to these things you are completely at a loss. So, I'll try my best to explain it to you again...
Turning off the computer ceases the attack. It's the quickest thing to start with. You remote in, start the reboot process and are kicked out. This stops an attack. When the server kicks back on, you can review the logs and determine where things were getting hit, was there a security leak and whether someone broke in.

If you have a better idea of the first steps, please, explain to me what you would do. I'd like some details about what you believe the first steps should be. I'm utterly fascinated by what you will explain to me on this topic. Seriously, please, tell me coffee man what it is that should have been done.

I have my own domain and then deal with my company's. Do you know how often a hacking attack occurs? The most likely scenario here is that it was some DDOS attack and the guy just simply turned the box off. So, yeah, a successful hack of the system starts with an attack. However, yet again, there is nothing written where the hack was successful. They talked about an attempt. You still don't understand this very basic difference.

As far as the sensitive information... I'll repeat: Sending out warnings doesn't mean it is happening. How many warnings do you see in bars about pregnant women drinking? How many pregnant women do you see drinking in bars?

 

Don't know. There was some evidence he was. His main accuser, though, also admitted he perjured himself.

 

Jesus Christ.

Why is it hard for liberals to admit simple things, like that Alger Hiss was a spy?

Former Hillary Press Secretary Refuses to Agree Alger Hiss Was a Communist

Hell, Susan Rice was recently unable to say that we were correct in dropping the bomb on Japan:

ZAKARIA: Do you think it was the correct decision to drop the atomic bomb?

RICE: Yes -- yes -- I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question. I thought you're going to ask if I think it was the right decision to visit Hiroshima. I do you think it is the right decision to visit Hiroshima. I'm not going to give you my historian's judgment on the decision.

ZAKARIA: Why? Why not?

RICE: Because I think it's important rather than to revisit that debate, the purpose of the president's going to Hiroshima is, one, to lift up the extraordinary cost of war as it affected civilians around the world in World War II and continues to today. Secondly, it is very important in our judgment to reinforce what is American policy and the president's own vision of eventually achieving a world without nuclear weapons, with the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

That's something that we continue to believe is important to aspire to. And while we've made significant strides in terms of arms control agreements and securing nuclear materials, we have a long way to go. The other message of this visit is that years on from the end of World War II, we now have an alliance and partnership with Japan which is one of the strongest in the world. And while the president is in Hiroshima, he'll have the opportunity to visit with American servicemen and women and Japanese service men and women who are side- by-side working as allies and partners.

That is also very important. So this will be a forward-looking visit. Yes, it will happen in the context of history, but we don't think it's particularly useful to give a long discourse on the past. This is about the future. And about what we -- working with Japan and other allies in the region can build together in terms of nonproliferation and a safer world for all of us.

ZAKARIA: And the president must have a view on whether it was the correct decision to drop the atomic bomb. He's a man who studies history deeply. Surely he has a view.

RICE: I'm not saying he doesn't.

CNN.com - Transcripts

 

I think you should rephrase that to why is it so hard for partisans to admit simple things.

 

He flips around by first saying that Communists were infiltrating the government, then that all of them were spies. Just because one was a Communist doesn't mean they were a spy, nor were they necessarily working for the Soviet Union, despite the bullshit claims of Nixon and McCarthy. The Communists drew a lot of disaffected people in the 1930 due to the Depression.

Now, Hiss may have been a spy. Or he may not have been. Like I said, it is disputed. Just because he was a Communist doesn't mean he was automatically an enemy of the United States, despite what the conservative fascists said.

 

That's the entirety of the evidence that Hiss was a spy? Really?

 

Is evolution real?

 

I didn't say that was the entirety of him being a spy. Your link was. Read it again. Several times, your writer calls him a Communist. Other times he calls him a Communist spy. He uses them interchangeably.

And that's not counting how conservatives behaved during the 40s and 50s, when they did claim that being a Communist or being a past member, was the equivalent of advocating the overthrow of the Use government. There were even attempts made to ban the party in the US. Ironic, when you think about how we had fought enemies in WWII who had ban certain political parties that they deemed to be enemies of the country.

 

So we all agree. If Hiss was a spy, Clinton is getting inducted. If not, she walks.

 

Boy, do I regret bringing up the Rosenbergs ...