Putin's Soccer Ball for Trump Had Transmitter Chip, Logo Indicates (bloomberg.com) 241
Russian President Vladimir Putin's gift of a soccer ball to U.S. President Donald Trump last week set off a chorus of warnings -- some of them only half in jest -- that the World Cup souvenir could be bugged. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham even tweeted, "I'd check the soccer ball for listening devices and never allow it in the White House." It turns out they weren't entirely wrong. From a report: Markings on the ball indicate that it contained a chip with a tiny antenna that transmits to nearby phones. But rather than a spy device, the chip is an advertised feature of the Adidas AG ball. Photographs from the news conference in Helsinki, where Putin handed the ball to Trump, show it bore a logo for a near-field communication tag. During manufacturing, the NFC chip is placed inside the ball under that logo, which resembles the icon for a WiFi signal, according to the Adidas website. The chip allows fans to access player videos, competitions and other content by bringing their mobile devices close to the ball. The feature is included in the 2018 FIFA World Cup match ball that's sold on the Adidas website for $165 (reduced to $83 in the past week).
Non story compared to how WH edited transcript (Score:1)
The WH has edited the official transcript AND edited the official video. So it's no mistake - https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25/politics/trump-putin-transcript/index.html
It's time to unite for MAGA (Score:4, Insightful)
Left and Right, let's unite! Put aside our differences and work together for Make America Great Again. Let's do it! We can do it.
Ebony and Ivory living in harmony? Awesome thoughts! Peace out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Traitors and asshats
Yeah, sure, 'traitors and asshats' that will actually protect the environment (you know, the air you breathe, the water you drink, and so on), not allow the destruction of animal species for no damned good reason, that won't destroy public education in favor of 'vouchers' that only benefit The Rich and leave The Poor and middle-class with shit schools and shit teachers, not sabotage the national economy with 'tax cuts' that only benefit The Rich and fuck over everyone else, not have a neo-nazi heading up th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you start off by saying you don't want one extreme or another, then at the end you basically say "I'm an extremist". Well played.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everything in my world has to be either one extreme or the other extreme, there can't be ANY COMPROMISES of any kind!
Fuck off. I can't even tell anymore which of you are just the garden-variety trolls and which of you really as as fucktardedly stupid as you sound.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We had eight years of nothing but amateur hour with Obama
And the country was better for it in every metric. That doesn't bode well for every other government if you consider that one amateur.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to get into whether I believe Trump is guilty of this, that, or the other thing, but I really do need to point out your ignorance. The conviction you're asking for is precisely the upholding the AC above you is calling for.
Conviction first, trial and evidence maybe later. Da comrade, maybe they will reopen the chekka so you can have a job.
Re:It will be great when Trump hangs. (Score:4, Funny)
#HerTurnAgain2020 (Score:5, Funny)
Now that we know Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton it goes without saying that she must be given the Democratic nomination again in 2020. All potential challengers need to step aside. If it weren't for the Russian meddling she would've clearly won so she has to run again.
Re:#HerTurnAgain2020 (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that we know Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton it goes without saying that she must be given the Democratic nomination again in 2020. All potential challengers need to step aside. If it weren't for the Russian meddling she would've clearly won so she has to run again.
Sadly, I wouldn't put it past them - I think they really ARE that stupid.
Most votes were not FOR Trump, but rather, AGAINST Hillary, and they refuse to believe that.
Re: #HerTurnAgain2020 (Score:2)
Most votes were not FOR Trump, but rather, AGAINST Hillary, and they refuse to believe that.
I know, it amazes me how many serious pundits talk about districts "Trump Won" in 2016, when in reality Trump didn't win them as much as Hillary lost them.
For every person I know that voted FOR Trump, I know 3 that voted AGAINST Hillary.
Re: #HerTurnAgain2020 (Score:2)
People are getting ASSAULTED for supporting Trump before and after the election. If you thought voter intimidation only happened in Nazi Germany, welcome the third wave of neo-Marxists.
Re: (Score:2)
No surprised that many of the 60,000,000+ voters that voted for trump are not showing it off, just look at what happens when someone wears MAGA hat or shows support for Trump in public.
People are losing friends, family and jobs for supporting Trump.
That explains your observations.
Posting as AC for obvious reasons.
After the first Obama election, for the first time in nearly 30 years, and something I was until then positive I would never hear, multiple clients of mine, all US citizens, opined that someone should shoot him. The nature of my business was rather remote outdoor recreation, I spent upwards of 50 hours with a client, and aside from the usual common-sense reluctance to discuss religion or politics, sometimes clients would bring it up. The adventures are expensive and virtual
Re: (Score:2)
" ... Posting as AC for obvious reasons. ..."
Oops. I KNOW I checked that box. Oh well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually... most votes were for Hillary. She won the popular vote by some 3 million votes. Problem for her was: they were in the wrong states. But who's stupid, again?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Hillary and Trump tied, with exactly zero votes each. All votes in a presidential election are for electors.
Re:#HerTurnAgain2020 (Score:4, Informative)
Trump won 304-227.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, what the majority of voters want doesn't matter...
Yeah, I know the electoral vote is there for a reason and I'm not sure it should be repealed, something just "feels" weird about it. I'm sure its just me.
Re: (Score:2)
I use the Chess example all the time. Arguing for popular vote is like arguing that the person with the most pieces on the board should win a game of chess. That's not how the game is played. And people who keep arguing about it don't know anything useful on the topic. It is just sour grapes.
I'd say "checkmate", but the idiots will keep arguing about a game nobody was playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes it look like a bigger victory than it was because those states give all their votes to one candidate, instead of proportionally based on the number of citizen votes each received.
The fact is that most people didn't want Trump. The system handed him the win, a win by technicality. That's why he is so touchy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a map showing vote breakdown by county: https://commons.wikimedia.org/... [wikimedia.org]
It's overwhelming.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that very well, as did the Founders of the country. That's the wisdom of the Electoral College. Without it a handful of high-density population centers would run roughshod over the other 90% of the country. A presidential candidate would only have to campaign in 3 states at the expense of the other 47 if the election were to be decided by popular vote.
Re: (Score:2)
According to President Trump "The electoral college is a disaster for democracy". https://twitter.com/realdonald... [twitter.com]
I guess even a lying clock tells the truth by accident once in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Another amazing thing about the US Constitution that shows the brilliance of the Founders is that it contains within it is the very means by which it can be amended. If there is so much support for a new method for electing the President then you should get right on that. I suspect you won't though.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. It's also true that most people didn't vote for Clinton ("didn't want Clinton", in your parlance). No candidate's electors received a majority of the popular vote.
And, the win wasn't in any way a "technicality," it worked exactly as the Constitution intended. There was never any plan for a popular vote for president - in fact, it's entirely up to the states to determine how electors are chosen. If a state wants to have their legislature or gov
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, The opinions of a few Californians, New Yorkers and a few other states should decide who the president of the US should be. Fuck everyone else. I live in California, and it is bad enough that stupid leftists are running this state into the ground, only caring for illegal aliens, criminals stupid liberal projects (HSR) and the "oppressed", while normal every day people of all colors and stripes are ignored.
And it shows, from the shithole San Francisco has become to failing infrastructure of ne
Re:#HerTurnAgain2020 (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not sure why this is being modded as funny. She has to be the nominee again because of what The Russians! did to her. To deny her the 2020 nomination would refute the entire notion that the 2016 election was interfered with. Only one of Putin's trolls could be against this.
Re: #HerTurnAgain2020 (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure why this is being modded as funny.
Because you can't be serious!
HRC lost in 2008 to a first-term junior senator from Illinois with zero legislative accomplishments, she had no business running in 2016, and her subsequent health issues (she's taken to wearing a life-alert badge despite 24/7 security detail!).
That said, I would love to see HRC run again in 2020 - that would be hysterical! I bet her first stops this time around would be Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania!
You joke, I'd love to see her run (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How can she not win this time if she would've won last time without The Russians! meddling? If not for Putin she'd be running for re-election in 2020. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
The fastest path back to the rule of law would be for the GOP to either support impeachment, or failing that, to not nominate Trump as their candidate. They had serious doubts before, and those doubts have been confirmed several times over by now, not the least by Trump's traitorous blaming of Russian aggression on the United States.
Trump needs to to go to jail for the prestige and reputation of
Why the outrage? (Score:4, Informative)
The summary says:
the chip is an advertised feature of the Adidas AG ball
Are we going to now say that Russia hacked Adidas, put a "spy! device on it (NFC of all things) for the sheer purpose of listening in on Trump?
The Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached new epic proportions.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Putin doesn't need a listening device to know he has Trump by the ball.
then Putin sucks as a negotiator (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, Trump is very incompetent at most things he does.
Re: (Score:2)
Adidas are Russian collaborators. Obviously.
Just as important as the Russian meddling... (Score:2)
is can they embed some sort of position-tracking chip in the ball so when players kick it high the video stream is augmented to show the vertical projection of the ball on the grass in real time? Not knowing in which direction the ball is going always bothered me when watching the game on the 2D screen.
Goal Line Technology ? (Score:2)
If I remember correctly, Goal Line Technology relies on a couple of RFID chips being placed on the ball. Then they communicate with sensors placed on the goal posts and crossbar.
However, I'm sure the sensors are used to spy on the goalkeepers.
Re: Why the outrage? (Score:2)
How exactly would an RFID hip in the ball gater intelligence without a microphone or other sensor? How would it transfer it's information without a conventional transmitter (an RF-powered NFC chip would require a reader located within 3 feet of ball, best case. Oh, and the lack of a power source would also limit it's range.
But yeah, it's totally a surveillance device. /SMH
Re: (Score:2)
Russia did a active transmitter with no internal power device in 1945 also disguised as a gift. So it is possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
can manipulate millions of voters
[Citation Needed]
Seriously thou, we know that they promoted Trump, but we know they also promoted Bernie Sanders and loads of other divisive far right and far left politics outside of the political mainstream. The goal was not to get Trump elected, the purpose was to sow chaos and division which going on about how Trump should be impeached because of this doesn't exactly help with. Had Bernie gotten the democratic nomination and won the election, which isn't that unlikely seeing how Hillary was literally
Re: Why the outrage? (Score:2)
If you have a background in electronics, you would know that it's relatively easy to detect a different kind of device. The White House has hundreds of visitors every month, dropping a tiny robot in a ceiling tile or one of those plug routers with some passive recording equipment would be much more effective and could be near undetectable. Still I think they would have detectors/sweeps for any rogue active broadcasts within the WH.
Hiding in Plain Sight (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a great place to hide something in plain sight.
A soccer ball with a transmitter that isn't supposed to have one would stand out. However, a soccer ball that has a *different* transmitter than it came with would be much harder to identify.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a great place to hide something in plain sight.
A soccer ball with a transmitter that isn't supposed to have one would stand out. However, a soccer ball that has a *different* transmitter than it came with would be much harder to identify.
Good thought!
Obviously a link to the C&C for Trump (Score:2)
Ha
Re: (Score:2)
C&C Server? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh, I hope it plays Red Alert 2!
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't put it past you. TDS is a serious condition that one should seek immediate professional medical help.
Nostalgia (Score:5, Informative)
Remember when the biggest foreign relations scandal involving a president was giving a bust of Churchill back to England?
Good times.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm scared to death of how Trump is handling foreign relations. But I readily admit he's sh
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a scandal involving president. Did you not read the whole summary ?
the chip is an advertised feature of the Adidas AG ball
This is a scandal involving main stream liberal leaning media and the idiots that work there pretending to be journalists.
And people like you gobble it all up because brain damage seem to be rampant among people leaning to the left.. (don't wor
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't referring to the story about the ball. I was referring to the treason. The conspiring with a foreign power to fix an election and then paying them back with policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. So just because somebody is repeating the some narrative over and over again you take it as evidence it actually happened ?
I have no horse in this race... but i can smell when the sh*t stinks, no matter what somebody tells me.
I can't imagine that anybody wanted Trump to win elections (even the Trump voters, who vote
Re: (Score:2)
Did you check your shorts? Just sayin'.
He wants to reestablish the Soviet Union and a weak American president over whom he has kompromat can help him with that.
But don't take my word for it, Putin said it himself in no uncertain terms that he wanted Trump to win:
https://www.theatlantic.com/in... [theatlantic.com]
Even the White House, which for some reason edited t
Re:Nostalgia (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, except there were no "apologies". The whole "Obama apology tour" thing was completely made up.
https://www.factcheck.org/2012... [factcheck.org]
https://www.politifact.com/tru... [politifact.com]
https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23... [cnn.com]
A matter of interpretation (Score:2)
https://www.politifact.com/tru... [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Give me an honest answer: Do any of Obama comments rise to the level at which Trump was making excuses for Russia with the following remarks?
Re: (Score:2)
Barack Obama didn't apologize in any of those clips Hannity showed. In fact, he says, "I will never apologize for promoting the best interest of the United States."
Only on Fox was that considered an apology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now wait. You said that Obama "went on an apology tour" and then the proof you offered was a quote, not from Obama, but from Hannity?
I'm confused. I'm not willing to accept that you're that stupid, since you managed to hit both a PREVIEW button and a SUBMIT button. So are you just dishonest? Is that what this is?
Let me leave you with this quote from the President of the United States of America. Not a made-up quote, but an actual quo
Re: (Score:2)
That quote is not an apology. "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" is not an apology and anyone seeking an apology would be dissatisfied with such a statement.
Neither is this an apology: "I regret that you feel this way."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I love Snopes.
The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony “indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow,” although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal.
"We now know that the Clinton Foundation received money from Russia specifically for the purpose of influencing Hillary Clinton's decisions as Secretary of State, but there may not have been an official quid pro quo agreement, so we rank this false."
Stupid clickbait headline. (Score:2)
How does this work? (Score:2)
How does the NFC thing work? Seems like marketing hype (well, duh):
During manufacturing, the NFC chip is placed inside the ball under that logo, which resembles the icon for a WiFi signal, according to the Adidas website. The chip allows fans to access player videos, competitions and other content by bringing their mobile devices close to the ball.
Let's say I'm watching the France/Croatia game at the World Cup and I want to see one of those player videos of Kylian Mbappe. All I have to do is run onto the field, grab the ball and hold my phone near it? Sounds like a lot of work. Well, compared to drinking too much beer and starting a fight with the other team's fans.
Re: (Score:2)
NFC (Score:3)
In most cases, like this, an NFC chip is correctly described as transponder, not transmitter. It's a passive device that responds to magnetic field, at lengths around half a feet. So the "transmitter" headline is clickbait unfit for a (former) tech-site. It also seems like classic red herring, nobody knows if the ball was equipped with other toys by Russia, focusing on a known passive transponder distracts from that. On the other hand I get the joke potential as world leaders tend to receive gifts at every meeting, and there are certainly existing protocols to protect them from eavesdropping, bombs etc. Of particular note in this context, the briefcase that follows POTUS around and contains all the nuclear missile launch codes etc. is known as the "nuclear football" making things weird for this particular analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the embassy listening bug hack? That was materially similar to RFID. Now here we are arguing about an RFID tag. What if the tag plus the ball equals a wireless microphone and a RFID sniper device sending the proper signal to the ball both activates it and receives the signal? It's well within the range of technical possibility.
paranoia, insanity and stupidity (Score:3)
Putin is a trained KGB agent. You seriouly think he and his people would come up with something so obvious and stupid and easily detectable? Seriously?
The problem with the hysteria, both the anti-Trump and the anti-Russia one, is that it is a stupidity epidemic. It contains too much disdain and makes you underestimate them. Both. Trump, for all the spectacle and shouting, actually did a few things right. And Putin, whatever you think about him, is not an idiot.
I'm sure the Russians are spying on the Americans - just like vice versa. But they would be idiots to do it like this. Someone watched too many stupid Hollywood spy movies.
This (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Firmware? (Score:2)
Has the idiot had security check the firmware on the chip, to see whether it's *only* broadcasting what it's supposed to?
I can just see it now, Putin visits the WH, and puts a collar and leash on Trumpolini, and walks him around the WH.
Yakov (Score:2)
In the Soviet Russia, Adidas Spies on You!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly! In America, every company does their best to spy on you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are waiting for indictments for "collusion", there won't be because there is no crime called "collusion"; when collusion is criminal, it's called conspiracy.
So far there have been two indictments of American citizens for "Conspiracy against the United States": Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Gates struck a deal in which he pled guilty, and he's now a cooperating witness.
Re: (Score:2)
So far there have been two indictments of American citizens for "Conspiracy against the United States": Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Gates struck a deal in which he pled guilty, and he's now a cooperating witness.
You're talking about this indictment for Paul Manafort and Richard Gates [justice.gov]?
Conspiracy Against the United States is a specific crime under 18 U.S.C. 371. None of these indictments were under that code. The were indicted for Bank Fraud Conspiracy which falls under 18 U.S.C. 1349 and 3551.
Re: (Score:2)
Manafort's indictment was updated in June to include charges under 18 U.S.C. 2, 371. Google Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 318. This was after Gates pleaded guilty to violating the same law in February (google Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ document 195), and was possibly a result of Gates subsequent cooperation with federal prosecutors.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that superseding indictment doesn't really add much and you're correct that Gates cooperation is the likely cause for it.
The conspiracy in question, though, isn't any new crime. It's still related to the previous crimes for which Manafort was indicted. It was the conspiracy to defraud the US by hiding the financial transactions and holdings that occurred between 2006 and 2016. Gates provided the testimonial evidence to prove that Manafort and others conspired to perform the actions rather than just the
Re:Orange dipshit (Score:5, Informative)
Yet, he was able to beat the smartest woman on the Planet in the race to become President. We could all be so lucky to be a failed billionaire present with a supermodel wife.
Still waiting on the Russia evidence. How many Mueller indictments were there for Russian COLLUSION so far? None? Oh yea, lets indict a couple of russian ham sandwiches that will never show up in court to show some value for the millions spent covering up the incompetence of the Clinton campaign (Yes, yes, we all know that Putin personally prevented Hillary from campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan).
Watergate investigation took 4 years.
Clinton investigation took 6 years.
Mueller has only taken about 18 months.
And we taxpayers have spent more money flying Trumpoid down to Mar-a-Lago and providing SS protection there, just so he can GOLF than the Mueller investigation has cost so far.
So kindly STFU and FOAD, toadie.
Re:Orange dipshit (Score:5, Informative)
the Watergate break in was in 1972. Nixon resigned in 1974. 2 years.
Ken Starr was appointed special counsel in 1994. Clinton was impeached in 1998. 4 years.
Why make up dumb shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the Watergate break in was in 1972. Nixon resigned in 1974. 2 years.
Ken Starr was appointed special counsel in 1994. Clinton was impeached in 1998. 4 years.
Why make up dumb shit?
I wasn't making shit up; just misremembering something I saw a few months ago. Didn't take the time to re look it up while at work.
I also note that you didn't refute my statement regarding the cost...
Re: (Score:2)
the Watergate break in was in 1972. Nixon resigned in 1974. 2 years.
Ken Starr was appointed special counsel in 1994. Clinton was impeached in 1998. 4 years.
Why make up dumb shit?
You appear to be correct about Watergate; but you are REALLY off on The whole Clinton saga:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They different is Watergate/Clinton investigations were started due to some pretty clear and damning evidence. Occam's Razor suggests the most likely instigating factor for the Mueller investigations was some political impropriety and fearmongering on the Democrat's part. In terms of real evidence pointing to a massive conspiracy by the Trump campaign to collude with Russia (on anything), it is objectively almost nothing. It still may or may not be true, but I don't think anyone can deny Democrats have twisted themselves in circles trying to convince the world of some massive conspiracy, a la 9/11 truthers.
And I'm going to seriously consider the opinion of someone who starts a Post with "They different"?
And just remember, after Trump stated Publicly that handing over Ambassador McFaul to Putin's gang of thugs for "Interviewing" was actually "worth Considering", the Senate voted 98-0 last week to block that idea.
http://time.com/5343322/michae... [time.com]
Oh, and when Articles of Impeachment against Assistant AG Rob Rosenstein were filed in the House last night, only ELEVEN ***REPUBLICANS*** (out of 236 Representatives
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I know! People were so mad at the left last time that they lost by negative 3 million votes!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey look, an idiot who plays chess, thinking he won, because he had more pieces on the board. Unaware that Check Mate doesn't require much in the way of pieces on the board.
Keep arguing from stupidity and you'll keep losing.
Re: Orange dipshit (Score:2)
Anyone with half a brain realized that comment was about the candidates popularity, and not the electoral college. But by all means, keep dropping your "wisdom."
Re: (Score:2)
People with slightly more than half a brain don't use measurements that don't matter. The Hindenburg was HUGE how did it fly????? (for example).
And she was "more popular" is also a non-sequitor, because she didn't get 50% of the vote. She was very popular where it where it mattered less, and less so where it mattered more. It also doesn't count votes that would have changed, people who would have voted that didn't because they are R in California (for example). The resources spent campaigning would have gon
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe that he's a billionaire then please explain why he won't release his tax returns and demonstrate on paper what he constantly brags about to anyone within earshot.
This might help explain why: http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/donald-trump-debt/ [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is a non story its a feature of the soccer ball.
That was before the Russians re-flashed the code in it.
It's a fucking QR code. (Score:2)
That's probably all it does. An access token at best, yes, and even that is doubtful since it's meant to send your phone to promotional material. Which, judging how see socnet users froth over cinema adverts (aka trailers), is a smart move for Adidas.
Re: you is a lame gimmick (Score:2)
You're right:
it has a GPS tracking device, with no Antenna,
it is a bug with no microphone,
it is a bomb with no explosives...
The assumption is that Trump will put the ball on his desk in the Oval Office and conduct secret, high-level meetings with it in the room.
(You realize there is no power source in the ball, right?)
Re: (Score:2)
(You realize there is no power source in the ball, right?)
You've clearly never heard of The Thing [wikipedia.org] have you? </tinfoilhat>
Re: Trump is a traitor (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Putting enough flash into the ball to store audio would be obvious because it would require external power and you could find the battery with a scan. But making it a remotely powered microphone could be accomplished imperceptibly. Either way the smart thing would be to microwave it.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way the smart thing would be to microwave it.
nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.