Slashdot Mirror

The first few generations will have issues, but evolution will adapt to the lower gravity with each new generation.

Really, no, it won't. Not on any time scale that we would ever notice. It would take hundreds of generations for natural selection to work its magic with regard to this.

Not according to the most recent studies. http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

Have onboard Sync send emails with truck's GPS location to IhateTerrorists@CIA.gov every day

But why? The CIA already knows where many of them are- they literally sponsor them or their allies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
http://www.reuters.com/article...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Just google for more: https://www.google.com/search?...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All this because the US Gov wanted to destroy/weaken the Syrian Gov:
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...

Have onboard Sync send emails with truck's GPS location to IhateTerrorists@CIA.gov every day

But why? The CIA already knows where many of them are- they literally sponsor them or their allies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
http://www.reuters.com/article...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Just google for more: https://www.google.com/search?...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All this because the US Gov wanted to destroy/weaken the Syrian Gov:
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...

More than 1,400 children were raped over a period of years by a ring of Pakistani Muslim men in Rotherham, and UK policed couldn't be arsed to care about it over fears political correctness might end their careers. (And Rotherham wasn't the only one. There were similar Muslim rape rings in Oxfordshire and Manchester.) What on earth make you think they're going to drop everything over information sexual predators might possibly use later?

Here is what James Hansen has to say about it. Even that is probably not enough though; a fee on CO2 may have some effect in the developed world, but the rest can not afford it, and will not accept such limitations. Even the terrible consequences looming are nothing next to the abject poverty that billions are subjected to daily. As bad as burning coal is, inexpensive fossil fuels still offer a desperately needed improvement in their lives, and it is not right to deny that to anyone in such circumstances. (It is also better than burning wood, as many "environmentalists" would have us do.)

The only practical way forward that results in rapid decarbonization, is to offer the developing countries a cheaper option, before the countless gigawatts of planned coal fired capacity are actually built. We know that nuclear can rapidly displace coal, as it has done so in the past in a number of countries. China is ramping up conventional nuclear, and developing advanced reactors. Newer mass produced LFTR or Thorcon reactors will make nuclear energy even cheaper and safer yet. See also Thorium: energy cheaper than coal for details.

These summits which result in plans too cowardly to even mention the words carbon dioxide or nuclear are perverse. Until nuclear is at least acknowledged and proposals are on the table for encouraging development and deployment of advanced reactors, they are a total waste of time.

Or, we could have just gotten false information from people supposedly in the know.

Which would ignore that entire department setup by Donald Rumsfeld known as the Office of Special Plans which according to The Guardian, "operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney."

The Guardian further adds, "Mr Tenet has officially taken responsibility for the president's unsubstantiated claim in January that Saddam Hussein's regime had been trying to buy uranium in Africa, but he also said his agency was under pressure to justify a war that the administration had already decided on."

Nope. If you are only looking at half the facts, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. But I never made any claim to the validity of the prewar intelligence, just that Bush never made the claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that two thirds of the American public misunderstood the President, Vice President, as well as Condoleezza Rice? Seriously?

So I don't really know why you are bringing it up. It doesn't refute my claim which you seemed to sidestep quite nicely.

Can you explain why during testimony in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the estates of 9/11 victims, George Eric Smith, a senior business analyst for Sun Gard Asset Management, and Timothy Soulas, a senior managing director and partner at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, why former CIA Director, R James Woolsey, at that time a member of the administration's Defense Policy Board, Colin Powell and George Tenet all swore under oath that a "conclusive link" between Saddam and 9/11 existed? It seems strange that these members of the Bush Administration would swear under oath that they believed such a thing if they never thought it was true.

I mean your position is only valid if you ignore quite a lot of reality which makes it not real at all. We had faulty intelligence reports, over stated reliability of these reports, and outright lies by captured Al Qaeda personnel.

So, we're going to go with the Bush Administration was inept as a defense? I can agree that looking back in hindsight that is likely to be the case. But then we have that nagging issue of all the times multiple members of the Bush Administration mentioned Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence.

To say misinformed statements (which is what it really boils down to) is a lie while ignoring the lies that caused the misinformation itself is a lot dishonest to say the least. It is as if you have a narrative and damn anything getting in it's way. You are what you are claiming Bush and Co to be.

Bullshit.

What I keep hearing out of you is that somehow, as if by magic, the overwhelming majority of the American public just woke up one morning and decided that Saddam was involved in 9/11 but that all the times the Bush Administration mentioned this had nothing at all to do with that.

You apparently are here to tell all of these Americans that they are idiots and nothing the Bush Administration did in any way was responsible for this error. Sure, let's go with that.

First, I never said we didn't get things wrong...

Indeed.

I said that Bush's position was never that Iraq was connected to 9/11, his position was that we couldn't operate as usual after 9/11 because of the magnitude of it.

So, when "President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier thi

In June, the Guardian revealed that the NSA claimed to have "direct access" through the Prism program to the systems of many major internet companies, including Microsoft, Skype, Apple, Google, Facebook and Yahoo.

FWIW, David Drummond, chief legal counsel for Google, denied that Google has ever given access, direct or indirect, to the NSA. Snowden's documents made clear that the NSA was tapping communications links between Google data centers, which may have been the basis for the "direct access" claim. Google quickly moved to encrypt all of those communications links, though, so if that was the "direct access", it's been shut off.

forgot the link

I think the more immediate problem for the UK is that it still has a bizarre upper house and a far too cosy relationship between the monarchy (and its periphery) and parliament.

The upper house is bizarre, and needs reform, but they proved their worth in one swoop and defended democracy when they blocked the tax credits bill.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/29/manifesto-promise-broken-general-election-david-cameron-child-tax-credits

The monarchy has little to no influence in politics- it's only there for tourism.

Actually some incomplete models that people mistakenly believe to complete. Sure, it looks like cells are just chemical machines, but until one has been built from scratch, that is just an idea, not a hard fact.

We are indeed . I think you're greatly underestimating what we've learned since the 1950s if you think it amounts to "just an idea".

I am abreast of the pertaining scientific advancement. They are impressive, but they do not say that we understand the mechanisms involved fully or even mostly. You are misinterpreting them. This is not "creating life from scratch". It is about comparable to doing a BIOS update. That does not mean you know what you are doing and why it works or what the rest of the computer actually does. It does not even make you sure (if you are smart) that what you worked on is a computer.

And with intelligence and consciousness? For the latter there is no physical mechanism in the sense that physics simply does not apply. For the former, it increasingly looks like physics alone cannot do it either.

If not ultimately physics then what?

Unknown at this time. That you do not know how something works is not a valid excuse to fall back to something you know and claim that it must be how things are. You need proof for that. Elimination does not cut it, unless you fully understand the system you are reasoning about. It is amply clear that we do not.

Your nemesis on the front page:

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Actually some incomplete models that people mistakenly believe to complete. Sure, it looks like cells are just chemical machines, but until one has been built from scratch, that is just an idea, not a hard fact.

We are indeed . I think you're greatly underestimating what we've learned since the 1950s if you think it amounts to "just an idea".

And with intelligence and consciousness? For the latter there is no physical mechanism in the sense that physics simply does not apply. For the former, it increasingly looks like physics alone cannot do it either.

If not ultimately physics then what?

Given all these companies executives also pay little to no personal tax and they pay their employees beneath the living wage, benefits are required for those individuals to survive. These benefits are indirectly being given to these so called 'constructs of the state', while the state is on it's hands and knees before them being milked for all it's worth. To call it a Stalinist to actually ask the wealthy elite and mega corporations to pay anything remotely like what the little guys on the street pay stinks of either outrageous, brainwashed naivety at best. This is not a demand for equality of outcome. It's equality of the rules by which everyone is forced to play by. The way you illustrate this as some kind of underachieving, petty, socialistic jealousy is both astonishing and dangerous.

The result is absolutely not the same. The difference is that what everybody else did, "optimised for low NOx emissions during test conditions," you're optimizing performance all the time so that it has low enough emissions that when you run the test you pass. That is not at all the same result as detecting the test, and turning on the lower emissions mode, and then turning it off when the test is done.

That isn't at all "the same." It isn't even close to the same.

There is not much difference between explicitly changing behaviour during the test and optimising an engine and increasing EGR when the engine runs at the RPM corresponding to the emissions test under the perscribed load. It may not violate the same laws, but both result in the car passing the emissions test without affection emissions on the road in any way.

And yes, the NOX emissions were much much higher under real-world conditions for otherwise comparable cars.

No they weren't.

http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

There's your answer.

They raided Craig Wright's home today: http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

Actually, the crowd that wants the First Amendment cancelled, and the crowd that wants the Second Amendment cancelled, are the same crowd.

Sadly, no:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

Strange how so many fans of the First Amendment forget that there's more to it than freeze peach.

Gun control helped to have 1.24 death by gun violence per 100 000 people in France and Germany compared to 10.5 in the US (figures 2010).

gun control also helps to limit the ability to commit mass shootings. It does not completely circumvent such acts. In case of France, a better integration program, social workers, and education/training programs would have helped. This have been iterated here http://www.theguardian.com/pro...

At least at a certain level, with Anonymous taking out thousands of pro-Islamic State Twitter accounts with Operation Tango Down.

Anonymous has, in the past, been a bit hit-or-miss on their targeting.
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
The good thing about being Anonymous is that you're not accountable to anyone. The bad thing about being Anonymous is that you're not accountable to anyone.

I expect that some of the pro-ISIS accounts that they are bragging about taking down actually are related to ISIS in some way, or at least ISIS-wanna-be and ISIS-fantasy accounts.

--hmm, maybe I should post this anonymously.

IMHO, increasing the density of armed citizens is the only thing likely to be effective against terror attacks on US soil - from either "home-grown" or infiltrated parties. We're long past the point where anything done (or stopped) overseas, or attempts to tighten government-operated security here, would do anything but make it worse (with the possible exception of closing the borders.)

Nice theory - but doesn't even survive the re-enactment.

A pro-gun rights group in Texas re-enacted the Charlie Hebdo attacks with paintball rounds, in an attempt to see whether an “armed civilian” could have stopped the two gunmen who attacked the Paris office of the satirical magazine, killing 12. The civilian “died” in almost every scenario except immediate flight from the scene.

Of course he gun advocates who did this interpreted the results differently: in an actual event where the attacked wouldn't know what was happening, they would have reacted better because of actual stress. Or whatever.

However back to the matter at hand... Hillary is just once again repeating the mantra "give us back doors in encrypted communications" - she's just trying to phrase it differently. But since I imagine she's aware the tech companies generally employ people who are much smarter than she is, it's apparent the message isn't really for them - it's for the American public at large.

This.

Want to disrupt ISIS?

"It was the spontaneous putdown of the knife attacker that captured public feeling about the assault in Leytonstone underground station: âoeYou ainâ(TM)t no Muslim bruv.â

They were the words of a shocked onlooker, filmed on a mobile phone as police pinned the man to the floor after he was Tasered. The knife attacker had injured two people, one man seriously, before reportedly saying: "This is for Syria."

At which point #YouAintNoMuslimBruv went viral. And that is how you disrupt ISIS. Stop the recruitment at its source: Make sure everybody vulnerable to radicalism is aware that the average person in his or her community disapproves of the extremist agenda.

American analogy:

Ineffective attempt to prevent radicalization:
Idiot: I hate thugs!
Human: Is that some kind of dog whistle, you racist? You're triggering me! Microaggressor!
Idiot: Fine, fuck you, I hate niggers! TRUMP2016!
Human: (blocks idiot on facebook, goes back to reading Salon)
Idiot: (blocks human on facebook, goes back to reading TheBlaze)

Effective attempt to slow spread of radicalization:
Idiot: I hate thugs!
Human: Wait, you mean black people, right? Dude. Not cool.
Idiot: Huh? Really? You mean Donald Trump isn't cool?
Human: No, he's not. He's stringing you along.
Idiot: Oh. Well, umm, I merely dislike thugs.
Human: It's a start..

I don't remember when Athens started this, but I think it was about 25 years ago. Other places have too. some suggest it doesn't work in the long term.

Perhaps not, but he's been debunked repeatedly. I find it amusing that slashdot would label a politician with no background in science as an "expert" on climate change and the best guys like you can come up to defend this guy are lame dismissals.

Since he's full of bunk, why would one debunk him? Does not compute...; )

Perhaps not, but he's been debunked repeatedly. I find it amusing that slashdot would label a politician with no background in science as an "expert" on climate change and the best guys like you can come up to defend this guy are lame dismissals.

List how many Joe Blows have killed innocent bystanders when attempting to take down a mass shooter.

You can't. This whole fear of well-meaning gun owners accidentally gunning down bystanders is unfounded.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-... If people who are specially trained can't avoid killing innocent people, then regular Joe has no chance.

The neck problems are actually being referred to as "Text Neck" which is hilarious.

Speaking of lead, there is a growing consensus that lead may have played a role in the increase of violent crime we saw in the US. Yes, lead poisoning could really be a cause of violent crime

So everyone is talking about San Bernardino CA. Here is a twist: Did you know this was the 2nd mass shooting in the U.S. for today?

Not kidding. Earlier today in Savannah GA was another mass shooting. Another twist: This is not unusual!

On many days in the U.S., there is more than 1 mass shooting. U.S. mass shootings (meaning 4 or more people shot in an event or related events) are a daily occurrence. Starting today, we'd have to go back to November 10 to find three consecutive days without a mass shooting.

As a Canadian looking at the news flowing across the border, this boggles my mind.

Source 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsA...
Source 2: http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

Bill,
No, the numbers have been climbing for the last couple of years. Even for the west, That is esp true of Europe, South Korea, and Japan Note that back in 2012, there were a total of 1200 new plants being considered, or built. Now it is up to 2100. That is not a slowing down. That is growth. Most of it is China, India, etc. Basically, Asia is on a massive sprey that will drive the CO2 way above the limits. Worse yet, once these new MONSTER plants are built, they have zero intentions of tearing them down. For example, China's claims on coal usage does not match the shear number of coal plants that they have, nor does it match up to the CO2 that they claim vs. what OCO2 is showing. There is a LOT MORE COAL coming from elsewhere, which is very likely from the tunnels that showed up after their massive earthquake.

All in all, nations are still on a tear. Only America, and UK have pretty much stopped.

Why not worry that male software engineers are out to accuse you of sexual assault too?

Because accusations of male-on-male sexual harrasement is so much easier to defend against that its not even funny. No-one will believe that to begin with, as its not a "thing"; there are no organisations (that matter anyway) solely devoted to the task, our media isn't constantly filled with it etc. Also itd be a hard case to make. THe victim blaming is *automatic* in that case. Nothing would sound more pathetic than a guy claiming sexual harrasement by another guy. (Or rather, it pathetic if its claming a woman did it, it's LOL if you claim another guy did it.) Talk about your whiny little bitch. If, and that's a big "if", it went anywhere, it'd at most be a regular assault, and those don't come with any sexual offender registrations etc.

So there's *nothing* there to be afraid of as a guy. Not one thing. A woman OTOH. There is *no* way to defend against it in the current climate. Even if you manged to stay out of criminal court, the court of public opinion would have your ass in a sling in no time flat. For a guy claming it. Nothing but crickets...

Risk is probability times consequence, and the consequences (e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/sci...) in this day and age are ridiculous. So as a man, my tolerance for probability has to be as close to zero as is humanly possible.

I don't have any graphs plotted by lone-wolf indie climatologists to show you, but if I did, I'd have to prove to you that they weren't funded under the table by our evil government or maybe just misguided. Maybe I'll get lucky one day though. I guess this will have to do:

http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Summary:
CO2 levels are rising and it's our fault.
CO2 traps heat.
The planet is accumulating heat, especially in the oceans.
This causes bleaching in our dying coral reefs, hurting the ecosystem.
Hot oceans means bigger storms (in opposition to climate skeptic Dr. Matt Briggs claim tonight on Michael Savage).
Strong storms and rising seas erode islands and continental coasts.
Immigrants from these areas are an increasing issue because of that erosion and additional sea level rise(this article).

I believe that for you, this isn't about science, but about ideology. Savage for instance is calling us all Lysenkoists (I'm listening to it now), which is the biggest, most direct psychological projection I've heard yet out of the mouth of a so-called "conservative". I think people like him are more like communists they realize.

My first introduction to this concept was in the early 1990s, as a child when I first read Cosmos by Carl Sagan. He explained why Venus was the way it was, how its hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun, and how we are at risk to succumbing to something similar because of our carbon output. The book was published in 1980. I'd learn this again later in elementary school.

Exxon knew about the subject and did their own research confirming it in 1981. This research factored into their decision making. http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Meanwhile, a caller to Savage's show explains how these cycles are normal and that the ice caps melted and caused the Biblical flood... suppose we should just let it happen then. GOD WILLS IT!

Your folks would get more respect if they were consistent, but commitment to the concept of no climate change seems to be waning. I just think the point is that your side wants us confused and divided over it long enough for the people you (knowingly or unknowingly) work for to get away with pollution as long as possible. I enjoy watching the slippage over time, but it is irritating to know the only thing in the way of meaningful action is a bunch of impressionable folks duped into the doing dirty work for a doomed industry.

Huh? It says right in the summary: "Moody's family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas". Is "working for Tyson" slang for "running from climate change" that I've never heard of?

I fear I've read the article, so I'd better turn in my slashdot card. But here goes. And nothing in particular about your post - it was just a handy place for me to chime in.

As they note the first "relocator" was a Mr Moody - hey, wasn't on a lot of Lucille Ball TV shows? But I digress.

So why would a lot of Marshall Islanders want to leave their tropical paradise? Turns out there were a lot of problems where they lived - And here's why in 1979 it all started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... We done went and made their home uninhabitable. We relocated them to other islands, but there wasn't enough resources for them to sustain life. Then we tried relocating them back to Bikini Island, but it turned out that while there were resources there, the food they grew was radioactive.

So now we can get an understanding of why and when. And in 1979, it wasn't AGW that spurred the initial migration, it was radioactivity - we'd pretty much rendered their original home uninhabitable.

Today? On Islands that are around 10 feet or less in altitude above sea level, it doesn't take a 10 foot rise to make them uninhabitable, just a combination of tides and storms happening at the right time. You might have some pretty palm trees most of the time, but the people who lived there have all drowned.

So despite Slashdotters getting their entire info from a summary and filling in the details with their preconceptions and opinions, the story is: In the 1940's the US went on an explodey rampage, and really bitched up the Marshall Islander's home.

They relocated them. Didn't work out. Unsustainable

They brought them back. Didn't work out. Radioactive food. We even tried capping the nasty stuff http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

So in the late 70's the relocation started. Then it was getting out of a mess we created. Now it very well can be a combination of a marginal location that is become vulnerable.

I'm going to get a rash of tl;dr's no doubt. But there's the story.

Sweden's voucher system is causing their educational system to degrade significantly. Even the National Review acnowledges it

I get how as a scientist watching things you want to push people to action. That being said, James Hansen has gone a little overboard IMHO and into the realm of damaging the credibility of scientists in general be politicizing things himself. He's written things like:
Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years
This despite the IPCC estimates that gain/loss in glaciers will be regionally dependant on precipitation changes(and this based on admittedly poorly modelled precipitation).

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.
This isn't precisely a statement backed by peer reviewed evidence either...

When people are angry about the science being politicized, it does NOT help for the scientists to go over board politicizing things themselves in the hope of being a counter-balance. It doesn't work between FOX and MSNBC counter balancing each other from Rep-Dem sides of things, and it doesn't work for educating people on the science either. You just get more and more grandiose hyperbole, half truths and flat out propaganda from both sides.

Is this the same James Hanson who warned us in Jan 2009 that there were "only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world"? That if we fail, all will be lost? Because we busted that deadline in Jan 2014. And the world hasn't exactly ended yet.

Don't forget Chicago's secret jail (aka black site).

VW's diesels (cheat device affected or otherwise) do not emit more NOx than diesels from most competitors. Hence they neither achieved something that seemed to good to be true, nor did they contribute to additional deaths.

NOx is indeed not without harm, but it is less harmful than other pollutants in automobile exhaust emissions, such as particulate matter, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Moreover, there are nowadays very few places where NOx levels are consistently at levels that cause significant health damage, whereas particulate matter is still a problem almost everywhere in populated areas. Particulates are the leading cause of premature death due to air pollution. While I agree completely that lowering NOx emissions is a useful goal, lowering particulates is much more important. Unfortunately, meeting NOx standards often comes at the cost of increased production of particulates. We must not let the current collective obsession with NOx stand in the way of reducing pollution overall.

Israel has demonstrated that they do not mind living with Arabs.

http://www.theguardian.com/new...

> If so, what is it for? Blackmailing politicians? Blackmailing the wealthy and powerful?

Time and again we see that anything they have the *capability* to do, they *are* doing. This includes the CIA spying on Congress.

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar that time, but what's to say that similar things aren't still happening? Merely their assurances, and how much are those worth?

Based on what we know about bulk data collection, our intelligence apparatus does seem to have the *capability* to influence the the legislative and executive branches in inappropriate ways. Based on their past behavior I feel like we can't just dismiss that possibility as crazy.

There's nothing so special about America that we cannot suffer from corruption, and we have built the technological toolbox to enable it.

I feel like a lunatic writing this down, but "they" truly could be manipulating our elected officials.

Yes ultranova, such investigations by the French press would be very difficult under new laws.
French journalists really helped New Zealand uncover the French.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Yes ultranova, such investigations by the French press would be very difficult under new laws.
French journalists really helped New Zealand uncover the French.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Ideas like this show why VPN use was not a huge issue "Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security" (6 September 2013)
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
".. decode the encrypted traffic certified by three major (unnamed) internet companies and 30 types of Virtual Private Network (VPN) – used by businesses to
provide secure remote access .."
or under the new UK net laws "Snooper's Charter: Why aren't VPNs and Tor mentioned in the Investigatory Powers Bill?" (November 5, 2015)
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/snoop...
".. but surprisingly, nowhere in the proposal does it mention the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPN)."

What can be done? Some creative way for an internal double VPN?
This could also show that VPN use is vulnerable at a city, state, private sector or federal level/budget rather than just a shorter list of advanced nations with a domestic collect it all capability.

Or US Military pilots on government-issue speed who drop bombs on blue targets

From a previously posted comment: Articles about Microsoft spying:

Microsoft's Software is Malware. "Malware means software designed to function in ways that mistreat or harm the user." -- Gnu.org

How Can Any Company Ever Trust Microsoft Again? -- Computerworld UK

Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages -- The Guardian

4) Unless you think Russia is somehow behind the paris attacks, there is nothing that ties Snowden with said attacks-- and even that is just supposition. (There is shit little Snowden has given Russia besides PR.)

I posted before, Assange advised Snowden to go to Russia, and ignore concerns about the “negative PR consequences” of sheltering in Russia because it was one of the few places in the world where the CIA’s influence did not reach.. Snowden himself, chose Latin America, but the consequences proved that Assange is right:
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/e...

The story, by Greg Miller, recounts daily meetings with senior officials from the FBI, CIA, and State Department, all desperately trying to come up with ways to capture Snowden. One official told Miller: “We were hoping he was going to be stupid enough to get on some kind of airplane, and then have an ally say: ‘You’re in our airspace. Land.’ ” He wasn’t. And since he disappeared into Russia, the US seems to have lost all trace of him.

Bolivian President Aircraft was forced to take off for searching Snowden.

We don't force oil to be sold in anything at all.

No one is saying the US is forcing anyone to sell oil in dollars. After all, we have a clear example of a country switching oil sales to the Euro with no major consequences.

"around 50% of them end up back in terrorist camps"
Not every person in gitmo is a terrorist and the number that get released, that then decide to become (or continue being) terrorists is not general knowledge.

Doing a cursory Google search points to a far lower percentage (than 50%), and has further decreased over the years.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/18...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

So again I say "Citation needed"

A member of an advisory group to President Barack Obama said about surveillance, "There can be serious negative effects on other U.S. interests". -- From the Reuters article, Russian researchers expose breakthrough in U.S. spying program.

Another quote from that article: "The U.S. National Security Agency has figured out how to hide spying software deep within hard drives made by Western Digital, Seagate, Toshiba and other top manufacturers, giving the agency the means to eavesdrop on the majority of the world's computers, according to cyber researchers and former operatives."

"China is seeking to make its own secure smartphones, in an attempt to insulate its handsets from U.S. surveillance." -- Wall Street Journal
Links: Direct, possibly paywalled, also through Google Search.

How will China react to Windows 10, which gives Microsoft complete control over any computer connected to the internet?

Articles about Microsoft spying:

Microsoft's Software is Malware. "Malware means software designed to function in ways that mistreat or harm the user." -- Gnu.org

How Can Any Company Ever Trust Microsoft Again? -- Computerworld UK

Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages -- The Guardian

In a democracy, citizens are allowed to participate in government. Secret government projects in the U.S. make the U.S. less of a democracy and move toward hidden control.

Articles about secret agencies often assume they are managed well. But an employee of an NSA sub-contractor, Edward Snowden, was able to copy huge amounts of data. What would stop NSA employees from listening to telephone conversations of CEOs to find inside information for profiting from buying stock, for example?

NSA = No Sales for America.

Question: Other producers of spyware have been put in prison. How does Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella avoid a court case?

The sad truth is that after four years of war in Syria there are few moderates left and those that do exist lack military strength. The Free Syrian Army was always a mosaic of factions and is now largely ineffectual.

The FSA, could be considered the most "moderated" group, actually showed that they are extremists, if not terrorists. Their commander ATE heart of Syrian soldier, or accused of allegedly trafficking in human organs. By no means, this organization is fighting for DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM.

Why, the West continuously claimed, Russian is bombing "moderated groups", they unintentionally reveal, BEFORE the Russian bombing, there are only 'four or five' Syrian fighters against Isis, by top general, many were deserted, or hand the armors, weapon to Al Quaeda. Or AFTER the bombing, eventually, the Defense Secretary of U.S Ashton Carter said:

However, the moderate Syrian forces “have not come under attack by either Assad’s forces or Russia’s forces.”

The Pentagon explicitly admitted their 500 million program to train "moderated" rebel is FAILED.
Where is the hell "Western-backed rebel forces" is bombed!?

The sad truth is that after four years of war in Syria there are few moderates left and those that do exist lack military strength. The Free Syrian Army was always a mosaic of factions and is now largely ineffectual.

The FSA, could be considered the most "moderated" group, actually showed that they are extremists, if not terrorists. Their commander ATE heart of Syrian soldier, or accused of allegedly trafficking in human organs. By no means, this organization is fighting for DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM.

Why, the West continuously claimed, Russian is bombing "moderated groups", they unintentionally reveal, BEFORE the Russian bombing, there are only 'four or five' Syrian fighters against Isis, by top general, many were deserted, or hand the armors, weapon to Al Quaeda. Or AFTER the bombing, eventually, the Defense Secretary of U.S Ashton Carter said:

However, the moderate Syrian forces “have not come under attack by either Assad’s forces or Russia’s forces.”

The Pentagon explicitly admitted their 500 million program to train "moderated" rebel is FAILED.
Where is the hell "Western-backed rebel forces" is bombed!?