Slashdot Mirror

Hiring rebounded in March as U.S. employers added a solid 196,000 jobs,"

BTW, in related news No state imports more electricity than California

If you're not for nuclear power, you are not trying to stop climate change

Trump 2020

Speculation: He were probably more worried about being convicted of rape. His narcissistic tendencies combined with PR makes being a "martyr" for many years better than spending a year or so in prison if convicted, add the ridiculous crap about Swedish collaboration with USA plus torture plus death penalty etc. which are obvious bullshit feeding his ego.

Speculation: you're a huge fan of Bari Weiss. You know, the NYT reporter who called Tulsi Gabbard an 'Assad toady' without being able to define or even spell the word.

Because the Swedes handing people over to the Americans to be tortured? Yeah, that actually happened. Sweden going to great lengths to get someone extradited to Sweden where they are promptly interrogated (for weeks in solitary confinement with no outside contact or even a lawyer) for an alleged crime in another country. Another country they were deported to, which mean that was the plan the entire time - that also happened. The UK police spending millions of pounds on a mere bail jumping case while pressuring Sweden not to drop charges against Assange - yes, that also happened.

Finally, Assange has long offered to return to Sweden voluntarily if the country promised they wouldn't hand Assange over to the United States. A promise that could easily be made, given the fact that Sweden is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which forbids extraditing prisoners to regimes that practice torture. Regimes like the United States.

So, in summary, Assange was just proven to be right all this time, and his haters should eat shit for throwing journalists under the bus to support criminal leaders and politicians.

The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him....

Not so fast. They're not getting him on classified, they're going after him for hacking.

https://www.apnews.com/328522a... "A U.S. official says the Justice Department is preparing to announce charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w... "US seeks extradition on hacking charges"

https://www.theguardian.com/me...

Thank you, anonymous coward Chinese troll, for your delightful fake facts.

AP News: "China bars millions from travel for ‘social credit’ offenses". ref

Business Insider: "China has already started punishing people [with low social credit] by restricting their travel. Nine million people with low scores have been blocked from buying tickets for domestic flights, Channel News Asia reported in March, citing official statistics." Ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4

Wikipedia: "Travel ban. By the end of 2018, 5.5 million high-speed rail trips and 17.5 million flights had been denied to prospective travellers who were on a blacklist." ref

And the "social credit" system is also used, yes, to enforce politics. Wired: "If solving problems was the real goal, the CCP would not need social credit to do it," she says. "China’s social credit system is a state-driven program designed to do one thing, to uphold and expand the Chinese Communist Party’s power." (Ref: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained

1988 James Hansen New York will be Under Water in 20-30 years

https://www.salon.com/2001/10/...

1989 UN we have 12 years to save the planet

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c37...

1989 New York Times NOAA (No warming trend over the past 100 years )

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/0...

2000 Snowfalls are a thing of the past

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp...

2005 UN we will have 50 million climate refugees by 2010

http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

2009 James Hansen, Obama Has 4 years to save the planet

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

2018 UN Only 12 years left to save the planet

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07...

2019 Greenland Glacier Reverses Decline.

In a related AP story sourced from Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program:

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara? he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

Of course, this story was published 30 years ago, so we might need to take the predictions with a grain of salt, considering even the most pro-climate change sources only think we had maybe 0.7 degrees of global warming in the last 30 years and none of the predicted effects have happened. I guess the "most conservative scientific estimate" wasn't conservative enough.

But don't worry, this time it'll be different and the sky really is falling...

If you believe in gender equality, your goal should not be making hiring rates for both genders equal. Your goal should be making it so gender doesn't matter when it comes to hiring. The difference is subtle but important. If you're trying to make hiring rates for both genders equal, you're assuming unequal rates indicates discrimination. If you're trying to make it so gender doesn't matter, then unequal rates may or may not indicate discrimination.

The problem with the former approach becomes more apparent in the long-term. As your anti-discrimination campaign succeeds, fewer people discriminate. However, just by random chance alone, sometimes you'll have statistical blips of inequality. If you assume inequality is due to discrimination, you end up wrongly condemning innocent people associated with those random blips. Recent examples include the weatherman who said coon instead of king (I didn't even know "coon" was a racial slur until that story broke), and the sports writer who wrote "chink in the armor" not realizing an alternate meaning was a racial slur.

Likewise, I'm an immigrant so didn't know watermelon and friend chicken were considered racial stereotypes against blacks, until a black friend pointed them out to me. (I'm still unclear why these are considered derogatory, but I avoid them so as not to stir up a hornet's nest.) The important thing being that I didn't know they were stereotypes because the anti-discrimination campaign had succeeded. But ironically that very success leaves me, an innocent, more vulnerable to wrong-headed accusations of discrimination if I had happened to cluelessly mention one of them.

As your anti-discrimination campaign succeeds, the number of true discrimination incidents decreases. But this causes the percentage of incorrect discrimination accusations against innocents to increase. This slandering of innocents causes people to come to resent your anti-discrimination campaign. Do you seriously think the man you turned down for a job or promotion in favor of a woman is going to take it all in stride if he learns he had better credentials but lost the job/promotion because of his gender? Eventually there are enough of these people to start a counter-campaign. And public will ends up swinging the other way.

So over the long-term, trying to make the genders equal results in an oscillation between discrimination against women, to discrimination against men, back to discrimination against women, etc. OTOH, trying to make it so gender doesn't matter results in a trend always converging on gender not mattering.

Since you did not provide a source, I found an article on Politifact's site which contained a few of these numbers here. It seems to ramble, and appears to be an opinion piece.

There are some better statistics that you can examine from the Associated Press, The Atlantic, and WalletHub, and The Tax Foundation

The Tax Foundation tracks the numbers back to 1981.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/which-states-give-the-most-the-federal-government-which-get-the-most.htm

After reading all of these, I am inclined to believe that you were fishing for something that would reinforce your opinion.

You can't fool all the people, all the time.

If the rapee consents (and is competent to consent; of legal age, of sound mind, etc.)... it does make it okay.

But that's not Google's modus operandi. A customer (competent, of legal age, of sound mind, with up to date vaccinations and a document from the neighborhood association certifying he's a good guy) who explicitly disables location tracking, still gets tracked. It's more like

"I'm a rapist - do you want to be raped?"
"No, please"
"OK, I won't" - proceeds to rape you.

Yes, it IS proven to be false. Mueller's team itself has come out and said so. I'd say Buzzfeed is willfully providing fake news to smear Trump.

Ah, the old "He's not a moron, he's just doing a really good job of pretending to be one for strategic reasons" argument. Well if he's pretending, he's really doing an amazing job:

https://www.apnews.com/a3309c4...

Although I don't see any positive results from doing so. He may have come close to bringing NK to the table but instead he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory:

https://nationalpost.com/opini...

If you think that North Korea has changed course at all since Trump took power, then they've pulled the wool over your eyes just like Trump's:

https://www.theatlantic.com/in...

Also while pulling out of Syria was not a bad idea, the way he chose to announce it, as a surprise to everyone except himself, was idiotic:

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Meanwhile, Google's mass surveillance of western society continues unabated.

It was a building supply company shipping them to Alaska, not "a guy", but it was a real story: https://www.apnews.com/281d3e6...

Sorta like FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Verizon shill.

Wait, I've got an even better one.

Trump picked a former Monsanto executive to be head of the Fish & Wildlife Service. No joke.

https://www.apnews.com/aa701b5...

2) Hate Trump as much as you want, but the Slashdot/AP a headline misrepresents what Trump. said. The Slashdot headline: "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low". AP headline: "Trump: ‘I don’t believe’ government climate report finding. Notice where the quotation marks are. "I don't believe" are in quotes but the rest of the headline isn't. I doubt this bit of misleading headline was an accident by the very smart, competent AP editors. And according to the AP article what did Trump actually say? At https://apnews.com/c1dfca3088b... after SIX paragraphs of editorializing we find what he actually said: "The president said he read some of the report “and it’s fine” but not the part about the devastating economic impact. “I don’t believe it,” Trump said, adding that if “every other place on Earth is dirty, that’s not so good.” So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.

That's a lot of words to try and make it sound like the guy who said he didn't believe the report's conclusions (the important part), chose to release the report at an ideal time for minimizing the attention it might get, and has a long history of calling climate change a hoax, believed the report in some way.

I believe in climate change and most of the report BIG problems with this posting here

1) The person identified as the poster "msmash" is a first timer with no previous Slashdot record (read the heading with her name versus the typical heading) and no profile.

2) Hate Trump as much as you want, but the Slashdot/AP a headline misrepresents what Trump. said. The Slashdot headline: "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low". AP headline: "Trump: ‘I don’t believe’ government climate report finding. Notice where the quotation marks are. "I don't believe" are in quotes but the rest of the headline isn't. I doubt this bit of misleading headline was an accident by the very smart, competent AP editors. And according to the AP article what did Trump actually say? At https://apnews.com/c1dfca3088b... after SIX paragraphs of editorializing we find what he actually said: "The president said he read some of the report “and it’s fine” but not the part about the devastating economic impact. “I don’t believe it,” Trump said, adding that if “every other place on Earth is dirty, that’s not so good.” So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.

And he has good reason to- the report speculates a "worse case" sometime in the future (no date provided) of a an 8.5 degree temperature rise and further speculates on "outdoor labor unable to work because of climate change" to come up with the 10% loss figure. Even the AP article reviewers have a problem with this approach: "Yohe said it was unfortunate that some media jumped on that 10 percent number because that was a rare case of hyperbole in the report. “The 10 percent is not implausible as a possible future for 2100,” Yohe said. “It’s just not terribly likely.” Kopp, on the other hand, said the 10 percent figure seems believable. “This is probably a best estimate,” Kopp said. “It could be larger. It could be smaller.”. This is an example of the permanent government of DC civil servants (who are sometimes right, sometimes not) piling up a rickety pyramid of assumptions-based-on-assuptions, to come up with a scary hypothesis for 80+ years in the future and and then slapping an imagined, highly speculative "cost" on it This sort of nonsense/propaganda is what leads many reasonable people to think the whole Climate Change" thing is a hoax, which it is not.

3) About the comments. At 7:00 am CST we had five up for a postings on slavery and other off-topic comments. This to me suggests that some bots have crept into the "like" system and maybe the original poster may not be real at all. Not an accusation exactly but no profile and no previous Slashdot comments or posting... a bit suspicious.

Readers, just be aware that all sides are now acting like the Russians and you as a reader have to be apply a very critical eye to the stuff you are being fed.
   

The U.S. was not the first to impose tariffs. Even if you don't like Trump he is 100% correct right when he complains about tariffs from the EU and China being in place for years that are heavily weighted against the U.S.

What you are probably thinking about is reading recently about China raising new tariffs - but that does not mean they did not already have plenty to begin with.

What you and others not familiar with the by now ancient world of tariffs do not realize is, just how weak a hand China has... they will eventually capitulate. Just as Canada did.

The North Dakota Democratic Party posted a misleading ad on its website and on Facebook that suggests state residents should reconsider voting in this yearâ(TM)s election if they have hunting licenses in other states. âoeBy voting in North Dakota, you could forfeit your hunting licenses.â - posted on the Democratic partyâ(TM)s website this week.

https://www.apnews.com/f547f02...

The North Dakota Democraticâ"Nonpartisan League Party is running a Facebook ad in North Dakota that claims your hunting license is at risk. "Attention hunters: Voting in North Dakota could cost you your out-of-state hunting licenses," says the Facebook ad, which began running on Nov. 1.

https://www.politifact.com/tru...

The Facebook ad, paid by the North Dakota Democratic-NPL, warns North Dakota hunters that they may have to forfeit their out-of-state licenses if they vote in this election. âoeIf you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakota,â the ad says, linking to a similar warning on the North Dakota Democratic-NPL website. âoeBy voting in North Dakota, you could forfeit your hunting licenses. You MUST be a resident of North Dakota to vote here. And if you are a resident of North Dakota, you may lose hunting licenses you have in other states,â the website said.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...

Then why did the Obama Administration issue permits for the killing of thousands of bald and golden eagles to wind power companies? If birds figured out how to avoid the blades then there would be no need for such kill permits.

https://apnews.com/b8dd6050c70...

Windmills do kill birds. If you want to argue that such losses are "acceptable" then that might be a valid argument. Most species of eagles have recovered since they were declared endangered decades ago and so the loss of a few thousand every year to windmills is not likely to be any significant threat. If the powers that be wish to replace coal power with wind power then these bird deaths will be a problem at some point.

Until Mueller actually presents some kind of evidence

Testimony, is by definition, evidence. We now have sworn testimony that Trump participated in multiple felonies. This testimony was from Trump's own long-time lawyer.

https://www.apnews.com/74aaf72...

The observatory closure seemed to happen only a few days after France disclosed a Russian satellite was possibly eavesdropping on a French military communications satellite.

https://apnews.com/3eb6e868cdec44f08dca288a034dff86

The jury must decide what to trust sure, but shouldn't be deciding whether a scientific process is valid, and allowing in junk science is a major problem. Bad science shouldn't be put in front of a jury of laypeople; look at all the false convictions bad science like bite marks lead to. And it's *supposed* to be excluded, but unfortunately the Daubert standard for challenging expert testimony goes in front of judges who can't be bothered to do their job, and winds up being 'has any other judge allowed this?'.
And if you want one more item to add to the list of 'horrible Trump administration actions', the Obama Justice Department had set up a commission on forensic science that, despite some issues like having more lawyers and forensic scientists than actual scientists, basically worked to establish reliable standards for valid techniques, and pushed to stop using useless frauds like bite marks and hair comparison. So of course Sessions shut the whole thing down, defended the use of scientifically invalid methods, and put a single prosecutor answerable only to him in charge of declaring what prosecutors can use. Unsurprisingly the only president who could make Dubya look good managed to pick an AG so awful he makes Ashcroft look good... ugh.

The Clinton (Bill) administration and the later Obama administration catered to the environmental activists in their party and used the executive powers of the presidency to put vast swaths of land in the US off-limits for resource extraction. Both administrations created wildlife refuges right on top of some of the best sources of rare earth minerals in the world (The US actually has bigger reserves than China, but most are now off-limits). Then they additionally put in place insane environmental regs that make it effectively illegal to bury dirt. I'm being admittedly simple here, and somebody will ask "illegal to bury dirt?" so here's what I mean:

Under Clinton and Obama era rules (still in effect, and which the press howls about if anybody tries to change) If a person or company digs up a resource and extracts what he wants and puts back the leftovers, he can be in big trouble if the material he puts back is toxic. Sounds good right? Only to a simple minded moron. If you dig up a ton of dirt, keep a particular mineral, and then put back the rest, and if the material you put back contains lead (which was naturally there in the first place - you're PUTTING IT BACK WHERE YOU FOUND IT) you become guilty of polluting by improperly disposing of lead. This applies to many other things as well like thorium.

The stupid idiots who think these "green" policies are "saving the planet" are so seriously delusional they may be incurable. These policies do NOTHING to improve the environment - they simply move the middle class jobs from the US where the regulatory insanity has been imposed to places like China where no such policies exist, and make the USA vulnerable to economic blackmail. The same number of tons of materials are extracted and used - but it's done in places with even lower environmental standards, and the jobs are lost in the USA.

For the first time an autonomous sailing robot...

From the linked article:
https://www.apnews.com/f6d0e2a...

The Sailbuoy competed in the “unmanned” class, which allows operators to change its course along the way. There’s a separate “autonomous” class that prohibits any such communication.

United States v. Joyce, 2008

United States v. Penny Pincher, Inc., 2011

A related suit, claiming that using predominantly white-skinned models in advertisements constituted discrimination by presenting the appearance that the market was assumed to be predominantly white... And it seems to have been dismissed, apparently on technical grounds, like standing and such.

By the late 80s it was well known, to landlords at least, that trying to advertise with illegal restrictions would not be tolerated by mainstream newspapers, and soon after even the 'little' specialty papers had to police their classifieds. This has, predictably, also been the rule in new media, as Craigslist etc had to also police their listings.

If you cared to read the Act, you would see it is sufficiently specific to make it clear, you cannot advertise housing with illegal restrictions.

And surprisingly, there still isn't any voter or election fraud going on same as before the new building was built, Just a bit less whining about alleged fraud preventing them from winning without sufficient support.

The claim about Mexicans being bussed in to vote was not really credible to begin with.
Unregistered voters are not allowed to vote and unless you are a legal resident you are not going to be registered.
The thing is, even if the claim was true it wouldn't be caught by counting the votes better.

The election frauds that has happened is typically in the other direction where you get rid of undesired votes rather than adding favorable ones.
A bunch of people were prevented from voting for bullshit reasons. Typically claims that they were still registered in another state despite having voted in several elections previously.
Then there is the whole Georgia issue
While it wouldn't be popular, the only way to get a legitimate result out of Georgia now would be a reelection just to get a record that hasn't been tampered with.

Yep. Nevertheless, the article cited shows some pretty shocking stuff:

  "We've looked at poor voting security in the state previously. In 2017, a report by a Georgian security researcher revealed a shocking lack of security throughout the state's voting system. Later that year, we discovered that servers that were thought to be key evidence for the same federal lawsuit that has led to this week's news were wiped, then repeatedly degaussed."

I'm a little disturbed that in response to a federal lawsuit over election results, the people running the election destroyed the evidence including the backup servers. This, I would think, should be obstruction of justice, and definitely contempt of court. (Not to mention violation of the Georgia State law on record retention.)

Why isn't this a law?

Because they are private companies, serving willing customers? And, at any rate, the law may not be too helpful to privacy — indeed, detrimental to it.

So I get back to what I originally said - you don't know what racism is. You probably never will. Don't get upset, a lot of people don't see it. Sort of like me saying I can get way high up and I'm in my airplane at 15,000' and you're saying you're high up and you're on a hill about 200' up. Sure, you're high. It's really hard for me to describe what being 15,000' up is to you to the point you'll understand it. You haven't lived it, you simply don't know it.

You still don't know that saying something against Mexicans isn't racist because that's an ethnicity. You don't know that difference. It's just a dog whistle because the Dems want to allow them in unregulated and they think that'll work. They couldn't care less about the Mexicans or black people for that matter.

So Lewistown? Look here - https://apnews.com/7f2b534b806... . So they very people being used to say Trump is racist embrace him. Blacks are doing better now than they have under any Democrat President. Record low unemployment, etc, etc, etc.

This isn't a "Google" problem, this is an industry-wide problem. What larger tech company ISNT doing this?

This goes beyond even the tech industry to an ongoing global problem . Whether in the United States, Canada, Europe, or East Asia, you have more and more companies opting to use more and more contract labor. It's many of the same reasons: easy to hire and fire / surge, cheaper, etc.

The State Department got hacked, but the Clintons didn't.

Then how did those darn Russians get her emails? The alternative to badly secured server hacked by Russians is the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Pick your poison carefully.

The DNC email leak was from the DNC, not the Clinton server (and was years after Hillary left the Secretary of State office). It was done by phishing John Podesta's account: https://www.apnews.com/dea73ef...
https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/03/ap-investigation-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-emails/

_I_ didn't. My family - my mother in law specifically - may very well have. She still can't get over our marriage and yes she is the cranky old bat type.

I highly doubt these companies require consent from everyone involved. Those databases are used by Government agencies after all.

And sometimes those databases are used to catch a serial killer...

Of course the serial killer didn't give any consent, but he was apparently identified anyhow by tracing through a third cousin who uploaded their dna profile...

There has been recordings of the sounds and it was also happening to the Canadian embassy as well.

You still have the right to an unmonitored attorney vist.

Sure you do. And prosecutors turn over Brady material. Tell me another one.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/2601...
https://www.prisonlegalnews.or...
https://www.apnews.com/846bd29...

This. is, in fact, a usurpation of Presidential powers.

OTOH, municipal broadband has consistently kicked private offering's asses

Citations needed.

in spite of having to fight lawsuits

Local governments wield undue powers over Internet-service provision. To allow them to compete with private providers is to enable corruption on an even worse scale. There is nothing magical about it — the same group of people setting up the local ISP could do it regardless of whether they are incorporated as a private entity or a town government's department. If they "kick ass" as the latter, that's evidence, that something did not let them do the same as a former. Socialism tends to cause this kind of corruption because it reduces (and eventually eliminates) competition.

Care to point to a fully private service that doesn't suck or cost too much for most people using public transit?

We do not have private public transit, unfortunately. I wish we did, but we don't — not in the US. Tokyo has competing subway lines, but American cities do not — not in the traditional sense. But, if you count Uber and Lyft, then your request is answered. They are cheap and people prefer them so strongly:

One study included surveys of 944 ride-hailing users over four weeks in late 2017 in the Boston area. Nearly six in 10 said they would have used public transportation, walked, biked or skipped the trip if the ride-hailing apps weren’t available.

big-government socialists blame them for the ever dropping popularity of public transit:

“Ride sharing is pulling from and not complementing public transportation”

Now, try WiFi on the government-owned Amtrak for a personal preview of what government-provided Internet-service will be like. Meanwhile, privately-offered LTE consistently works. Oh, yes, it costs more — but you were willing to excuse poor performance by inadequate funding, so, yeah, pay more for the LTE.

So, yes, the point stands — whatever government does, is done poorly. So poorly, people even suggesting, yet another aspect of our lives should be handled by the kind and omniscient government instead of by greedy and selfish KKKapitali$sts, should be strongly suspected of not just stupidity and ignorance, but of criminal conspiracy to defraud the rest of us too.

To get news:
1. Delete your Facebook account
2. Bookmark https://www.apnews.com/tag/apf...
You don't get news from facebook

The rich want us to eat whole, crushed insects while they eat steak.

The rich want us working class slobs to abandon affordable gasoline vehicles, while they drive around in luxury Teslas, partially paid for with generous $7500 subsidies.

The rich warn us of rising oceans, but then buy $9 million mansions on the coastline.

Global warming is an artificial religion cooked up for the purpose of driving down the standard of living for the 99%, while the 1% buy carbon indulgences. Environmentalism is just the velvet glove over the iron fist of misanthropy.

There is no actual recording of the sound. What the AP released is just a synthesized simulation of what it might sound like to a victim under attack.

That's not at how the AP described it.

The Associated Press has obtained a recording of what some U.S. Embassy workers heard in Havana in a series of unnerving incidents later deemed to be deliberate attacks.

The recordings from Havana have been sent for analysis to the U.S. Navy, which has advanced capabilities for analyzing acoustic signals, and to the intelligence services, the AP has learned.

Yet the AP has reviewed several recordings from Havana taken under different circumstances, and all have variations of the same high-pitched sound. Individuals who have heard the noise in Havana confirm the recordings are generally consistent with what they heard.

“That’s the sound,” one of them said.

The recording being released by the AP has been digitally enhanced to increase volume and reduce background noise, but has not been otherwise altered.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the US figures out exactly how the attack works, but don't disclose the fact. If the US says "We've confirmed it and have reproduced a weapon which causes these symptoms", then every government on Earth will attempt to do the same.

Put your money into something safe, like manned steam rocketry.

There are also the 3 main Western news agencies, AFP, AP and Reuters.

According to the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, last week's accusation of Russian interference in the US elections was blatantly incorrect. “DHS confirmed that Russian scanning activity had actually occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network, not any Secretary of State website. Based on this additional information, California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.” Wisconsin’s chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, has also repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted: “Wisconsin was not provided any information that indicated before the November election that Russian government actors were targeting election systems.”
 
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.

According to the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, last week's accusation of Russian interference in the US elections was blatantly incorrect. “DHS confirmed that Russian scanning activity had actually occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network, not any Secretary of State website. Based on this additional information, California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.” Wisconsin’s chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, has also repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted: “Wisconsin was not provided any information that indicated before the November election that Russian government actors were targeting election systems.”
 
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.

According to the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, last week's accusation of Russian interference in the US elections was blatantly incorrect. “DHS confirmed that Russian scanning activity had actually occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network, not any Secretary of State website. Based on this additional information, California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.” Wisconsin’s chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, has also repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted: “Wisconsin was not provided any information that indicated before the November election that Russian government actors were targeting election systems.”
 
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.

According to the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, last week's accusation of Russian interference in the US elections was blatantly incorrect. “DHS confirmed that Russian scanning activity had actually occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network, not any Secretary of State website. Based on this additional information, California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.” Wisconsin’s chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, has also repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted: “Wisconsin was not provided any information that indicated before the November election that Russian government actors were targeting election systems.”
 
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.

According to the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, last week's accusation of Russian interference in the US elections was blatantly incorrect. “DHS confirmed that Russian scanning activity had actually occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network, not any Secretary of State website. Based on this additional information, California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.” Wisconsin’s chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, has also repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted: “Wisconsin was not provided any information that indicated before the November election that Russian government actors were targeting election systems.”
 
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.

According to the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, last week's accusation of Russian interference in the US elections was blatantly incorrect. “DHS confirmed that Russian scanning activity had actually occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network, not any Secretary of State website. Based on this additional information, California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.” Wisconsin’s chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, has also repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted: “Wisconsin was not provided any information that indicated before the November election that Russian government actors were targeting election systems.”
 
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.
 
captcha: bogeyman (I kid you not)

According to the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, last week's accusation of Russian interference in the US elections was blatantly incorrect. “DHS confirmed that Russian scanning activity had actually occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network, not any Secretary of State website. Based on this additional information, California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.” Wisconsin’s chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, has also repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted: “Wisconsin was not provided any information that indicated before the November election that Russian government actors were targeting election systems.”
 
The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.

According to the California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, last week's accusation of Russian interference in the US elections was blatantly incorrect. “DHS confirmed that Russian scanning activity had actually occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network, not any Secretary of State website. Based on this additional information, California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.” Wisconsin’s chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, has also repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted: “Wisconsin was not provided any information that indicated before the November election that Russian government actors were targeting election systems.”

The latest Red Scare is just a big nothing burger.

You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Yes, the Russians are well ahead of the curve. They've been doing this for a LONG time. Our allies warned us that they've been doing for a long time. They warned us that we were going to be targeted. Putin isn't fucking stupid. He caught on to how powerful (and cheap) using social media was as a tool. You get something to go viral even just once, and it's already paid back a thousand fold.

And that's what happened. Not just here, but also in Europe. More to the point, it was extremely successful.

I've been paying attention for a long time now, and what I see is the same old thing - using Russia as a boogeyman. Before, it was the USSR's massive tank formations, submarines and nuclear weapons which everybody had to fear. Now, since their tank formations are just an outdated shadow of their former glory, their submarine fleet is tiny compared to the US' one, and the nuclear weapons are regulated by treaties, we need to fear something else they're oh-so-good at, right?
And where exactly in Europe have they been doing it? Because I've seen frontpage articles on CNN, in NY Times and elsewhere saying how it seems that Russians are targeting French and German elections. Weeks or months later I've read reports - which somehow didn't get frontpage attention - that French security services ruled out Russian involvement in their elections, and no hacking or something similar has happened in German elections. So who is not paying attention?
Compare these two articles: The NSA Confirms It: Russia Hacked French Election ‘Infrastructure’ and The Latest: France says no trace of Russian hacking Macron. Who is lying? Is it the French themselves, or is it maybe Rogers just riding the wave to get more funding for NSA? And this one is hilarious - NY Times going existential over missing Russian hackers in German elections in an article, where they cite their previous article on how Macron's campaign got hacked by Russians (from May) even though by now it is known that no such thing has happened. Am I the only one who sees a massive number of various interests riding the very, very old wave of russophobia in order to get more money, more readers, more views, more attention? It is all a theatre, keeping us occupied and entertained so we part with our money more easily.