I agree. Someone who defines bullying as rude behavior has never actually experienced bullying. I can deal with a few rude coworkers. One actual bully would be enough for me to leave a job.
Physical violence, physical intimidation, or threats of physical violence is definitely bullying. Bullying can be verbal, but that is harder to define. Verbal bullying can take the form of a boss or coworker yelling, swearing at, and insulting someone. For example, if you go into work every day and have your boss yell at you saying that you are a f***ing idiot and can't do anything right, I would classify that boss as a bully.
Having coworkers fail to say please and thank you is definitely not bullying.
At least in California it has been this way a long time. I got a job when I turned 16 for a computer consulting company (mostly fixing broken Windows systems and Novell networks). This article kind of hit home as I used my first summer's income to build my own PC (Pentium 90).
My high school required a 3.0 GPA for work permit approval during the school year. It's been a long time, but I think they also wanted like a 2.5 GPA for a summer permit (below that and they probably thought you belonged in summer school). As it seems to be completely up to the school, every school is probably different.
California requires the school's permission. It doesn't look like it has to be the principal, just an authorized school official, but I'm not sure exactly who qualifies for that.
The claim is that more minorities have common names than Caucasians apparently, although I haven't seen strong data to support that claim. I do buy the argument though because minorities do have a lot of common surnames at least.
According to the 2010 US Census the most common Surnames at least in the US are Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Garcia, Miller, Davis, Rodriguez, Martinez, Hernandez, Lopez, Gonzalez, Wilson, and Anderson. 6 of those are Spanish: Garcia, Rodriguez, Martinez, Hernandez, Lopez, and Gonzalez. I am not sure if any of the others are mostly minority. The fastest growing surnames are also minorities: Zhang, Li, Ali, Liu, Khan, Vazquez, Wang, Huang, Lin, Singh, Chen, Bautista, Velazquez, Patel, and Wu. I don't see Census data on common both first and last names.
I haven't seen numbers on Crosscheck purges by race, but apparently African Americans and minorities are heavily represented.
Crossheck is apparently very partisan where purges are about 50% democrats, 29% republicans, and 21% independent/other. There is plenty of data to show that Crosscheck is partisan.
At the enterprise level and especially for PCI compliance there should be 3 independent levels where this could have been caught: 1) applying the patch, 2) monitoring patch compliance, 3) vulnerability scanning. Organizations that really care about security also have a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or other Intrusion Detection System (IDS) or Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) which would have been a fourth level that could have prevented this attack.
Blaming this attack on one person when there should have at least been 3 levels of prevention with at least 3 different teams involved is stupid.
1) Patch Management Solution: In the enterprise, this should be a software solution (like Quest KACE or IBM BigFix type solutions) that monitor the patches on each endpoint and apply patches on a schedule after they are tested. Most organizations have a 30 day patch cycle although critical remote vulnerabilities like this should have been escalated sooner.
What would have been reasonably possible is for the person responsible for escalating the patch to apply sooner than 30 days could have missed escalating it. However, the normal 30 day cycle then should have caught it.
a) Patch application b) Patch monitoring
In some organizations there is one team that applies the patches (and is usually involved in testing the upcoming patches) another team that monitors the patch levels. In other organizations they are the same team although there should still be independent checks for application and monitoring.
2) Vulnerability Scanning: Especially anything that is visible to the Internet should get vulnerability scanned at least every 30 days. A decent remote vulnerability scanning software should have picked this up. Tenable's Nessus which is one of the industry standard vulnerability scanners tests for CVE-2017-5638 which is the vulnerability that effected Equifax. Nessus started testing for it on March 14th.
3) Web Application Firewall: Web Application Firewalls will block known attacks before they hit the application. A decent WAF should block known vulnerabilities such as the one that hit Equifax as long as it was up to date. That said a lot of companies I have worked with tend to run WAFs in intrusion detection mode instead of intrusion prevention mode due to false positives and not wanting to block legitimate traffic. Some companies I have worked with are much better than others at going through the alarms, how quickly they respond to alarms, and filtering out the false positives so that the alarms are easier to manage. Usually for Web applications you will have a WAF rather than a general purpose IDS/IPS as the WAF will have access to the unencrypted traffic although there are ways to have IDS/IPS products have access to the Web server private certificates to decrypt the traffic.
If you are running public facing telnet, ftp, or even SSH even on your network switches you are doing security wrong IMO. SSH access to network switches should be on a private management network. If you need remote access, you should set up VPN access to that management network (with appropriate security). You should have a single secure entry point.
Ya, apparently he's apologized "50" times to Trump for the above comments and his opposition to Trump was because he "was an unexperienced [sic] person in the world of politics." Scaramucci has apparently been throwing lots of praise at Trump to make up for his earlier comments, as you suggested.
You would think it would be fake with what Scaramucci has said about Trump in the past. Someone must not have shown Trump videos of what he's said about him. Trump isn't usually one to let go of past insults.
Scaramucci has called Trump a "big mouth", "anti-American", and a "hack." "You’re an inherited money dude from Queens County." That Trump should be "president of" "the Queens County Bullies Association." He said Trump should "cut it out now and stop all this crazy rhetoric spinning everybody’s heads around.”
I bet they believe you that the exploits don't exist in the real world...
The problem is the "internal" network is available to around 800 companies. If the ss7 network of one is hacked or an employee who has access to it is bribed, the entire network is compromised. SS7 is a basically a network protocol that uses usernames with no passwords. I don't know where you get the idea that it doesn't carry voice, but SS7 is used for roaming and it can re-route, block, or listen in on phone calls or texts. It also allows obtaining the cell tower a phone number is currently connected to (and thus rough location).
SS7 is the reason NIST no longer recommends using SMS for two-factor authentication.
I don't really have any interest in a "Home" product. Although, if someone released a high end Android phone that has all the Google spying and cloud syncing disabled out of the box and you have to ability to opt into what you want, that would be something I would be interested in if it had the right feature set. Also a lot more control over what apps have access to. I would really like to be able to block Internet access for apps that have no need for Internet access. I have no interest in the Essential Phone though, it doesn't sound like a privacy product and it doesn't have a headphone jack (a requirement for me).
So true. In the US right now we have no privacy from private companies or the government. It's mostly illegal for the government to spy on us, but they keep getting caught doing it anyways with no punishment for anyone involved.
Now, in China it will be illegal for private companies to spy on people, although they will probably do it anyways. The government spies on people, but they don't hide that fact at all.
Which is better?
What is going to happen to popular spyware products in China? Windows 10, Android, Chrome, Smart TVs, etc.? Google.com and Facebook are blocked in China I believe, so those are non-issues. My guess is business as usual, although the government will probably throw some fines at American tech companies and it won't change anything.
What would make the most sense to me is that they are covered by copyright but with a fair amount of fair use leeway.
Telling a single short joke from a comedian should be covered by fair use. It would be too easy for accidental copyright infringement without some leeway here.
However, if someone steals numerous jokes from a book, a movie, a blog, or a youtube video that should be copyright infringement. If they do it for commercial purposes, there are clearly damages that should apply. The person who stole the jokes off a blog should have obviously known they were stealing copyrighted material.
Even the privacy policy for the non-mini versions include pretty vague data collection:
"The information we collect may include: personal data, for example your name, email, IP-address, location; and non-personal technical data, for example who manufactured your device, your screen's resolution, your mobile operator's region and code."
The president alone can have an impact by the appointments they make (like the federal reserve). Congress has an impact. Whether you can blame the economy on the president alone I agree is complicated. I wouldn't call the president's part a small part though; I believe the president has a significant impact on the economy. Sometimes, you can point to specific actions causing recessions or growth.
The previous recession was almost certainly caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999; this can be directly blamed on congress (Republican) for passing it and Clinton for signing it (Democrat). So you can't really blame that recession on one party or the other; they did it together. Obama and congress did have an impact in ending the recession through economic stimulus packages and keeping interest rates low.
If Trump and Republicans move forward with Trumpcare which moves money from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, that will hurt the economy. If they pass tax reform that also moves money from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, that will also hurt the economy. Trickle-down economics doesn't generally work and the only time it may have worked is Reagan. It has caused recessions in recent Republican presidencies. The one example where Reagan ended the recession with tax cuts was also mixed with economic stimulus packages and the combination tripled the national debt. It isn't clear if the tax cuts or the economic stimulus was responsible for the recovery. Taxes were also higher at the time and there are some theories that trickle-down economics only works when taxes are prohibitive (the top tax rate was 70% when Reagan cut it, not the around 40% it is today). Every time trick-down economic policies are implemented income inequality in this country worsens; so in reality money trickles up from the poor to the wealthy. The economy did great under Clinton even though he raised taxes. The economy did poorly under George W. Bush even though he lowered taxes.
Keynesian economics has a better track record than trickle-down economics and is pretty much the complete opposite (lower taxes and stimulate the poor, higher taxes on the wealthy). It failed in the 70s during the oil crises and hasn't been popular since. Obama's policy was somewhat based on Keynesian economics, but he included some tax cuts on the wealthy too so it wasn't pure Keynesian.
Herbert Hoover tried trickle down economics and it contributed to and failed to end the great depression (the stock market crash was the major cause of the great depression, not trickle down economics, but it made it worse). Roosevelt used Keynesian economics and it ended the great depression.
So if you study history in this country, yes, the president's economic policy has a huge impact on the economy. Trickle-down economics has caused recessions or depressions for pretty much every president except Reagan. Chances are if Trump and Republicans enact it again; we will have another recession and it would be completely fair to blame it on them.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. Last year Amazon changed the job title of Andy Jassy and Jeff Wilke to CEO along with Jeff Bezos.
As far as I can tell, in reality Andy Jassy is still VP of AWS and Jeff Wilke is VP of everything else ("Worldwide Consumer") and Jeff Bezos is still CEO. Calling a VP a CEO is stupid IMO.
Google basically did the same thing when it re-organized under Alphabet where Larry Page still oversees all the "CEOs" that are actually VPs of Calico, CapitalG, DeepMind, Google, Google Fiber, GV, Jigsaw, Nest, Sidewalk Labs, Verily, Waymo, and X.
There are companies with more than one CEO who actually share the job. Whole Foods and Chipotle tried it, but it didn't work out for them and they switched back to a single CEO. Oracle has two CEOs in name atm, but from what I've heard Larry Ellison is still running the show and its another case of bad titles. I don't think there are any major American businesses that still have multiple CEOs, but it apparently is more common in other countries like Germany. I don't really know anything about German business though.
Climate change is supported by hundreds of independent studies. There are also some studies funding by the oil companies that cherry pick the data to claim that climate change does not exist or is purely following the natural course of the planet. There are articles that show how the oil companies studies cherry picked data points and why the results are invalid.
This article is based on tests done by Microsoft on their own browser. That is much more like the oil company "studies" than the independent ones. The Microsoft test isn't based on any industry standard benchmark or anything; they designed new tests to show off their browser. If you don't think Microsoft designed the tests to show Edge in the best possible light and the other browsers in the worst; then you are naive. Microsoft has a long history of producing PR that doesn't stand up to independent testing and many articles cover this topic.
The facts here are that Microsoft designed 2 tests that makes their browser look good. I don't think anyone is denying that. The facts we don't know is whether independent testing will show the same results.
Trump did publicly ask Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails. His supporters didn't seem to care about him asking a foreign government to interfere with the election or the threat to national security having a foreign government hack a presidential candidate presents.
“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
He also said: "By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."
Julian Assange has no credibility with their claim that the DNC hack wasn't the Russians. Assange's latest claim is that the source was Seth Rich, which feeds into the right wing conspiracy theories on the murder Seth Rich. That claim doesn't even pass a quick sanity test as Seth Rich was only hired by Clinton a few days before he was killed and even Seth's father said it would not make sense for his death to have anything to do with Clinton as he hadn't started working for her yet. Seth Rich's death was most likely linked to the robberies that had been plaguing his neighborhood as his watch was torn and it looked like he had fought with a robber. Paul Tyrone Dorn, Demetrius Brandon, or Stanley Marquis Williams were arrested for armed robbery in that neighborhood shortly after his murder so would be good suspects.
I have no idea what evidence the CIA/NSA has that Russia is behind the attacks. There is plenty of public information to support the CIA/NSA claim that it was the Russians.
Guccifer 2.0 accepted responsibility for hacks and released previously unreleased documents in an interview to prove that he was responsible. Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator found that the leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings and there was metadata saying the user was "Feliks Dzerhinsky." Feliks Dzerzhinksy is a known member of the Soviet secret police. As you said, this evidence could be a misdirection.
Guccifer 2.0 in a live online interview claimed he was Romanian but couldn't answer questions fluently in Romanian or English, but he could in Russian.
Guiccer 2.0 left malware on one of the DNC computers that traced back to the same machine that had been used in the German Bundestag breach. Germany traced that attack to Russia's Fancy Bear.
The Russian smile emoji was used in the e-mails to reporters.
The hack used Bitly for the e-mail phishing. Fancy Bear forgot to set 2 of their Bitly accounts private which allowed investigators to also tie the hack to Fancy Bear and to also see who else was targeted in the attacks.
The last one is very strong evidence that Fancy Bear was behind the attack even if you don't trust US or German intelligence. There is lots of public information that Fancy Bear is a Russian government sponsored hacking group.
Sorry, you are correct. Thanks for the correction. I am terrible at reading maps in Russian. The news seems to talk about fighting currently in Donetsk, but the map on liveuamap also shows fighting still in Crimea.
Politico seems to have gotten the basic facts correct in this case and Competitive Enterprise Institute seems to have gotten it wrong. The mistake Politico had made in the original article was stating that OneWest had done the foreclosure when it had been CIT who had merged with OneWest. The mistake was using the old company name instead of the new company name. Mnuchin was on the board of CIT when the second foreclosure took place.
"CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT."
Other fact checkers have confirmed that Fox is wrong and the foreclosure did take place. You can even see the court case yourself: https://pro.polkcountyclerk.ne... Search for: "CIT BANK, N.A. vs. LOFTON OSSIE".
Score: Politico: 1, Faux News: 0.
That said, I'm not really a fan of Politico atm. They just posted a totally garbage anti-Semitic article claiming that Trump is linked to Putin because Putin met with a Chabad Rabbi who had once met a rabbi who did a bris that Ivanka Trump went to and thus there is some Jewish conspiracy linking the two men... The way the article is written is a total conspiracy theory. That would be a much better example of fake news. I'm not a fan of Trump, but you don't need to come up with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to link Trump and Putin.
2) As others pointed out in this thread, it was actually Nancy Sinatra who seemed to change her tune and claim the negative Trump comment she had tweeted earlier was a "joke." Although to be fair, it might have been meant as a joke but there was no way for CNN to know that. I wouldn't call that fake news.
3) If you read the article, there doesn't seem to be anything fake about it. They even mention that it was probably part of the plan to shift to a different site.
What you are leaving out is that it has been several months and Trump still doesn't have anything up on whitehouse.gov about these issues from what I can tell. How is the New York times article "fake news"?
4) As someone else pointed out, they reported on people who objected to the content of the speech not that he gave one there. Here is the article you are claiming is fake news. What exactly is fake? Did the people who Washington Post said objected to the speech not really object?
5) It sounds like Spicer is lying (nothing new), not CBS. Although CBS seems to be a little misleading as there were some CIA staff who seemed to support Trump, but the facts about Trump bringing people to cheer him on seem to be correct.
1) DNC e-mails. Publishing these e-mails hurt Hillary in the election. It is believed this alone caused her to drop at least 5 points which was more than the difference in the election. This might be called more of hacking the voters than hacking the vote.
2) The US Election Assistance Commission. The EAC is responsible for national voter registration, establishing voluntary guidelines for voting, and certifying and auditing voting machines. Some news outlets reported that this hack occurred after the election, but the only evidence to support that is that after the election one of the hackers involved was selling the administrator accounts and other data. It also isn't clear if the Russian hacker was state sponsored or not as the hack was not advanced (started with an SQL injection). It doesn't make sense for Russia to hack it after the election, but it might make sense for one of the hackers to sell the data after he didn't need it anymore to try to make extra cash if he wasn't kept in line to keep this secret.
To me the EAC hack is even bigger than the other one, but it has received very little attention and as far as I know hasn't been part of the investigation. After the election Republicans voted to get rid of the EAC in committee, but as far as I can tell it hasn't gone before a full congressional vote. We know Russian hackers achieved full administrator access to the EAC and stole the reports on the audits of the voting machines. This means we know Russia stole the plans on how to hack the voting machines and for some reason this hasn't been investigated. We also know that Trump did better in districts that had the vulnerable voting machines than he did in districts where other systems were used. Most exit polls showed that Clinton won (they show different results for North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida). Republicans blocked the recounts and it wasn't clear that the recounts could have determined if there was hacking in districts with no paper trail, although it could have in districts with a paper trail.
Election Systems & Software alone controls 60% of voting machines in the US, and can control the election results. The majority of the rest of the machines are Dominion Voting System (formerly Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold) and they also control enough machines to change the results of the election.
During the campaign Trump at various points said that he would end sanctions on Russia that are costing your economy billions of dollars (rubles) and recognize Crimea. The ruble has lost 45% of its value from the sanctions. These Russian scandals that have plagued Trump and that even most Republicans in congress do not seem to share Trump's opinions on Russia have likely prevented Trump's stances on Russia from going forward. If Trump succeeds in his pro-Russia objectives, you can't say that it wouldn't be good for you.
Billions of dollars is plenty of reason for Russia to have helped elect Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Someone who defines bullying as rude behavior has never actually experienced bullying. I can deal with a few rude coworkers. One actual bully would be enough for me to leave a job.
Physical violence, physical intimidation, or threats of physical violence is definitely bullying. Bullying can be verbal, but that is harder to define. Verbal bullying can take the form of a boss or coworker yelling, swearing at, and insulting someone. For example, if you go into work every day and have your boss yell at you saying that you are a f***ing idiot and can't do anything right, I would classify that boss as a bully.
Having coworkers fail to say please and thank you is definitely not bullying.
At least in California it has been this way a long time. I got a job when I turned 16 for a computer consulting company (mostly fixing broken Windows systems and Novell networks). This article kind of hit home as I used my first summer's income to build my own PC (Pentium 90).
My high school required a 3.0 GPA for work permit approval during the school year. It's been a long time, but I think they also wanted like a 2.5 GPA for a summer permit (below that and they probably thought you belonged in summer school). As it seems to be completely up to the school, every school is probably different.
California requires the school's permission. It doesn't look like it has to be the principal, just an authorized school official, but I'm not sure exactly who qualifies for that.
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dl...
The claim is that more minorities have common names than Caucasians apparently, although I haven't seen strong data to support that claim. I do buy the argument though because minorities do have a lot of common surnames at least.
According to the 2010 US Census the most common Surnames at least in the US are Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Garcia, Miller, Davis, Rodriguez, Martinez, Hernandez, Lopez, Gonzalez, Wilson, and Anderson. 6 of those are Spanish: Garcia, Rodriguez, Martinez, Hernandez, Lopez, and Gonzalez. I am not sure if any of the others are mostly minority. The fastest growing surnames are also minorities: Zhang, Li, Ali, Liu, Khan, Vazquez, Wang, Huang, Lin, Singh, Chen, Bautista, Velazquez, Patel, and Wu. I don't see Census data on common both first and last names.
https://www.census.gov/newsroo...
I haven't seen numbers on Crosscheck purges by race, but apparently African Americans and minorities are heavily represented.
Crossheck is apparently very partisan where purges are about 50% democrats, 29% republicans, and 21% independent/other. There is plenty of data to show that Crosscheck is partisan.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...
It's either utter incompetence or bullshit.
At the enterprise level and especially for PCI compliance there should be 3 independent levels where this could have been caught: 1) applying the patch, 2) monitoring patch compliance, 3) vulnerability scanning. Organizations that really care about security also have a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or other Intrusion Detection System (IDS) or Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) which would have been a fourth level that could have prevented this attack.
Blaming this attack on one person when there should have at least been 3 levels of prevention with at least 3 different teams involved is stupid.
1) Patch Management Solution: In the enterprise, this should be a software solution (like Quest KACE or IBM BigFix type solutions) that monitor the patches on each endpoint and apply patches on a schedule after they are tested. Most organizations have a 30 day patch cycle although critical remote vulnerabilities like this should have been escalated sooner.
What would have been reasonably possible is for the person responsible for escalating the patch to apply sooner than 30 days could have missed escalating it. However, the normal 30 day cycle then should have caught it.
a) Patch application
b) Patch monitoring
In some organizations there is one team that applies the patches (and is usually involved in testing the upcoming patches) another team that monitors the patch levels. In other organizations they are the same team although there should still be independent checks for application and monitoring.
2) Vulnerability Scanning: Especially anything that is visible to the Internet should get vulnerability scanned at least every 30 days. A decent remote vulnerability scanning software should have picked this up. Tenable's Nessus which is one of the industry standard vulnerability scanners tests for CVE-2017-5638 which is the vulnerability that effected Equifax. Nessus started testing for it on March 14th.
3) Web Application Firewall: Web Application Firewalls will block known attacks before they hit the application. A decent WAF should block known vulnerabilities such as the one that hit Equifax as long as it was up to date. That said a lot of companies I have worked with tend to run WAFs in intrusion detection mode instead of intrusion prevention mode due to false positives and not wanting to block legitimate traffic. Some companies I have worked with are much better than others at going through the alarms, how quickly they respond to alarms, and filtering out the false positives so that the alarms are easier to manage. Usually for Web applications you will have a WAF rather than a general purpose IDS/IPS as the WAF will have access to the unencrypted traffic although there are ways to have IDS/IPS products have access to the Web server private certificates to decrypt the traffic.
If you are running public facing telnet, ftp, or even SSH even on your network switches you are doing security wrong IMO. SSH access to network switches should be on a private management network. If you need remote access, you should set up VPN access to that management network (with appropriate security). You should have a single secure entry point.
While apparently a true statement (I'm not Muslim), it is grossly misleading:
Until I actually googled this, I was ignorant on what jihad actually meant; "striving and working hard for something."
http://www.islamportal.net/for...
https://www.quora.com/Is-jihad...
Ya, apparently he's apologized "50" times to Trump for the above comments and his opposition to Trump was because he "was an unexperienced [sic] person in the world of politics." Scaramucci has apparently been throwing lots of praise at Trump to make up for his earlier comments, as you suggested.
http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
You would think it would be fake with what Scaramucci has said about Trump in the past. Someone must not have shown Trump videos of what he's said about him. Trump isn't usually one to let go of past insults.
Scaramucci has called Trump a "big mouth", "anti-American", and a "hack." "You’re an inherited money dude from Queens County." That Trump should be "president of" "the Queens County Bullies Association." He said Trump should "cut it out now and stop all this crazy rhetoric spinning everybody’s heads around.”
https://thinkprogress.org/anth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It has never had any relation to the real world.
Tell that to all the people who had their bank accounts drained using an SS7 exploit:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
Tell that to US congressman Ted Lieu who had his phone calls listened to using SS7:
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
I bet they believe you that the exploits don't exist in the real world...
The problem is the "internal" network is available to around 800 companies. If the ss7 network of one is hacked or an employee who has access to it is bribed, the entire network is compromised. SS7 is a basically a network protocol that uses usernames with no passwords. I don't know where you get the idea that it doesn't carry voice, but SS7 is used for roaming and it can re-route, block, or listen in on phone calls or texts. It also allows obtaining the cell tower a phone number is currently connected to (and thus rough location).
SS7 is the reason NIST no longer recommends using SMS for two-factor authentication.
I don't really have any interest in a "Home" product. Although, if someone released a high end Android phone that has all the Google spying and cloud syncing disabled out of the box and you have to ability to opt into what you want, that would be something I would be interested in if it had the right feature set. Also a lot more control over what apps have access to. I would really like to be able to block Internet access for apps that have no need for Internet access. I have no interest in the Essential Phone though, it doesn't sound like a privacy product and it doesn't have a headphone jack (a requirement for me).
So true. In the US right now we have no privacy from private companies or the government. It's mostly illegal for the government to spy on us, but they keep getting caught doing it anyways with no punishment for anyone involved.
Now, in China it will be illegal for private companies to spy on people, although they will probably do it anyways. The government spies on people, but they don't hide that fact at all.
Which is better?
What is going to happen to popular spyware products in China? Windows 10, Android, Chrome, Smart TVs, etc.? Google.com and Facebook are blocked in China I believe, so those are non-issues. My guess is business as usual, although the government will probably throw some fines at American tech companies and it won't change anything.
What would make the most sense to me is that they are covered by copyright but with a fair amount of fair use leeway.
Telling a single short joke from a comedian should be covered by fair use. It would be too easy for accidental copyright infringement without some leeway here.
However, if someone steals numerous jokes from a book, a movie, a blog, or a youtube video that should be copyright infringement. If they do it for commercial purposes, there are clearly damages that should apply. The person who stole the jokes off a blog should have obviously known they were stealing copyrighted material.
Looks like Opera Mini is worse. It includes all the Google spyware that Chrome has plus additional third party spyware:
https://www.reddit.com/r/opera...
http://www.opera.com/privacy/m...
Even the privacy policy for the non-mini versions include pretty vague data collection:
"The information we collect may include: personal data, for example your name, email, IP-address, location; and non-personal technical data, for example who manufactured your device, your screen's resolution, your mobile operator's region and code."
Mod parent up, please
The president alone can have an impact by the appointments they make (like the federal reserve). Congress has an impact. Whether you can blame the economy on the president alone I agree is complicated. I wouldn't call the president's part a small part though; I believe the president has a significant impact on the economy. Sometimes, you can point to specific actions causing recessions or growth.
The previous recession was almost certainly caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999; this can be directly blamed on congress (Republican) for passing it and Clinton for signing it (Democrat). So you can't really blame that recession on one party or the other; they did it together. Obama and congress did have an impact in ending the recession through economic stimulus packages and keeping interest rates low.
If Trump and Republicans move forward with Trumpcare which moves money from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, that will hurt the economy. If they pass tax reform that also moves money from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, that will also hurt the economy. Trickle-down economics doesn't generally work and the only time it may have worked is Reagan. It has caused recessions in recent Republican presidencies. The one example where Reagan ended the recession with tax cuts was also mixed with economic stimulus packages and the combination tripled the national debt. It isn't clear if the tax cuts or the economic stimulus was responsible for the recovery. Taxes were also higher at the time and there are some theories that trickle-down economics only works when taxes are prohibitive (the top tax rate was 70% when Reagan cut it, not the around 40% it is today). Every time trick-down economic policies are implemented income inequality in this country worsens; so in reality money trickles up from the poor to the wealthy. The economy did great under Clinton even though he raised taxes. The economy did poorly under George W. Bush even though he lowered taxes.
Keynesian economics has a better track record than trickle-down economics and is pretty much the complete opposite (lower taxes and stimulate the poor, higher taxes on the wealthy). It failed in the 70s during the oil crises and hasn't been popular since. Obama's policy was somewhat based on Keynesian economics, but he included some tax cuts on the wealthy too so it wasn't pure Keynesian.
Herbert Hoover tried trickle down economics and it contributed to and failed to end the great depression (the stock market crash was the major cause of the great depression, not trickle down economics, but it made it worse). Roosevelt used Keynesian economics and it ended the great depression.
So if you study history in this country, yes, the president's economic policy has a huge impact on the economy. Trickle-down economics has caused recessions or depressions for pretty much every president except Reagan. Chances are if Trump and Republicans enact it again; we will have another recession and it would be completely fair to blame it on them.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. Last year Amazon changed the job title of Andy Jassy and Jeff Wilke to CEO along with Jeff Bezos.
As far as I can tell, in reality Andy Jassy is still VP of AWS and Jeff Wilke is VP of everything else ("Worldwide Consumer") and Jeff Bezos is still CEO. Calling a VP a CEO is stupid IMO.
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/a...
http://fortune.com/2016/04/07/...
Google basically did the same thing when it re-organized under Alphabet where Larry Page still oversees all the "CEOs" that are actually VPs of Calico, CapitalG, DeepMind, Google, Google Fiber, GV, Jigsaw, Nest, Sidewalk Labs, Verily, Waymo, and X.
There are companies with more than one CEO who actually share the job. Whole Foods and Chipotle tried it, but it didn't work out for them and they switched back to a single CEO. Oracle has two CEOs in name atm, but from what I've heard Larry Ellison is still running the show and its another case of bad titles. I don't think there are any major American businesses that still have multiple CEOs, but it apparently is more common in other countries like Germany. I don't really know anything about German business though.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...
https://www.fool.com/investing...
Climate change is supported by hundreds of independent studies. There are also some studies funding by the oil companies that cherry pick the data to claim that climate change does not exist or is purely following the natural course of the planet. There are articles that show how the oil companies studies cherry picked data points and why the results are invalid.
This article is based on tests done by Microsoft on their own browser. That is much more like the oil company "studies" than the independent ones. The Microsoft test isn't based on any industry standard benchmark or anything; they designed new tests to show off their browser. If you don't think Microsoft designed the tests to show Edge in the best possible light and the other browsers in the worst; then you are naive. Microsoft has a long history of producing PR that doesn't stand up to independent testing and many articles cover this topic.
The facts here are that Microsoft designed 2 tests that makes their browser look good. I don't think anyone is denying that. The facts we don't know is whether independent testing will show the same results.
Trump did publicly ask Russia to hack Clinton's e-mails. His supporters didn't seem to care about him asking a foreign government to interfere with the election or the threat to national security having a foreign government hack a presidential candidate presents.
“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
He also said: "By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
I stand by my statement that it was the Russians.
Julian Assange has no credibility with their claim that the DNC hack wasn't the Russians. Assange's latest claim is that the source was Seth Rich, which feeds into the right wing conspiracy theories on the murder Seth Rich. That claim doesn't even pass a quick sanity test as Seth Rich was only hired by Clinton a few days before he was killed and even Seth's father said it would not make sense for his death to have anything to do with Clinton as he hadn't started working for her yet. Seth Rich's death was most likely linked to the robberies that had been plaguing his neighborhood as his watch was torn and it looked like he had fought with a robber. Paul Tyrone Dorn, Demetrius Brandon, or Stanley Marquis Williams were arrested for armed robbery in that neighborhood shortly after his murder so would be good suspects.
I have no idea what evidence the CIA/NSA has that Russia is behind the attacks. There is plenty of public information to support the CIA/NSA claim that it was the Russians.
Guccifer 2.0 accepted responsibility for hacks and released previously unreleased documents in an interview to prove that he was responsible. Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator found that the leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings and there was metadata saying the user was "Feliks Dzerhinsky." Feliks Dzerzhinksy is a known member of the Soviet secret police. As you said, this evidence could be a misdirection.
Guccifer 2.0 in a live online interview claimed he was Romanian but couldn't answer questions fluently in Romanian or English, but he could in Russian.
Guiccer 2.0 left malware on one of the DNC computers that traced back to the same machine that had been used in the German
Bundestag breach. Germany traced that attack to Russia's Fancy Bear.
The Russian smile emoji was used in the e-mails to reporters.
The hack used Bitly for the e-mail phishing. Fancy Bear forgot to set 2 of their Bitly accounts private which allowed investigators to also tie the hack to Fancy Bear and to also see who else was targeted in the attacks.
The last one is very strong evidence that Fancy Bear was behind the attack even if you don't trust US or German intelligence. There is lots of public information that Fancy Bear is a Russian government sponsored hacking group.
Sorry, you are correct. Thanks for the correction. I am terrible at reading maps in Russian. The news seems to talk about fighting currently in Donetsk, but the map on liveuamap also shows fighting still in Crimea.
There are retracted news articles all the time, you should be able to do better.
1) This appears to be referring to this article:
http://www.politico.com/story/...
Here is the Fox (Faux) News article you are probably basing your statement on:
http://insider.foxnews.com/201...
Politico seems to have gotten the basic facts correct in this case and Competitive Enterprise Institute seems to have gotten it wrong. The mistake Politico had made in the original article was stating that OneWest had done the foreclosure when it had been CIT who had merged with OneWest. The mistake was using the old company name instead of the new company name. Mnuchin was on the board of CIT when the second foreclosure took place.
"CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT."
Other fact checkers have confirmed that Fox is wrong and the foreclosure did take place. You can even see the court case yourself:
https://pro.polkcountyclerk.ne...
Search for: "CIT BANK, N.A. vs. LOFTON OSSIE".
Score: Politico: 1, Faux News: 0.
That said, I'm not really a fan of Politico atm. They just posted a totally garbage anti-Semitic article claiming that Trump is linked to Putin because Putin met with a Chabad Rabbi who had once met a rabbi who did a bris that Ivanka Trump went to and thus there is some Jewish conspiracy linking the two men... The way the article is written is a total conspiracy theory. That would be a much better example of fake news. I'm not a fan of Trump, but you don't need to come up with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to link Trump and Putin.
2) As others pointed out in this thread, it was actually Nancy Sinatra who seemed to change her tune and claim the negative Trump comment she had tweeted earlier was a "joke." Although to be fair, it might have been meant as a joke but there was no way for CNN to know that. I wouldn't call that fake news.
3) If you read the article, there doesn't seem to be anything fake about it. They even mention that it was probably part of the plan to shift to a different site.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
http://www.snopes.com/white-ho...
What you are leaving out is that it has been several months and Trump still doesn't have anything up on whitehouse.gov about these issues from what I can tell. How is the New York times article "fake news"?
4) As someone else pointed out, they reported on people who objected to the content of the speech not that he gave one there. Here is the article you are claiming is fake news. What exactly is fake? Did the people who Washington Post said objected to the speech not really object?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
5) It sounds like Spicer is lying (nothing new), not CBS. Although CBS seems to be a little misleading as there were some CIA staff who seemed to support Trump, but the facts about Trump bringing people to cheer him on seem to be correct.
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/...
Newsweek de
You do know that the fighting in Crimea is still going on, right?
I have no idea how accurate this site is, but it shows where current fighting is taking place:
http://liveuamap.com/
It seems like the current fighting is mostly concentrated in Donetsk, Crimea.
What we know the Russians hacked:
1) DNC e-mails. Publishing these e-mails hurt Hillary in the election. It is believed this alone caused her to drop at least 5 points which was more than the difference in the election. This might be called more of hacking the voters than hacking the vote.
2) The US Election Assistance Commission. The EAC is responsible for national voter registration, establishing voluntary guidelines for voting, and certifying and auditing voting machines. Some news outlets reported that this hack occurred after the election, but the only evidence to support that is that after the election one of the hackers involved was selling the administrator accounts and other data. It also isn't clear if the Russian hacker was state sponsored or not as the hack was not advanced (started with an SQL injection). It doesn't make sense for Russia to hack it after the election, but it might make sense for one of the hackers to sell the data after he didn't need it anymore to try to make extra cash if he wasn't kept in line to keep this secret.
To me the EAC hack is even bigger than the other one, but it has received very little attention and as far as I know hasn't been part of the investigation. After the election Republicans voted to get rid of the EAC in committee, but as far as I can tell it hasn't gone before a full congressional vote. We know Russian hackers achieved full administrator access to the EAC and stole the reports on the audits of the voting machines. This means we know Russia stole the plans on how to hack the voting machines and for some reason this hasn't been investigated. We also know that Trump did better in districts that had the vulnerable voting machines than he did in districts where other systems were used. Most exit polls showed that Clinton won (they show different results for North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida). Republicans blocked the recounts and it wasn't clear that the recounts could have determined if there was hacking in districts with no paper trail, although it could have in districts with a paper trail.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
http://thehill.com/policy/cybe...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Election Systems & Software alone controls 60% of voting machines in the US, and can control the election results. The majority of the rest of the machines are Dominion Voting System (formerly Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold) and they also control enough machines to change the results of the election.
How do we know the election itself wasn't hacked?
During the campaign Trump at various points said that he would end sanctions on Russia that are costing your economy billions of dollars (rubles) and recognize Crimea. The ruble has lost 45% of its value from the sanctions. These Russian scandals that have plagued Trump and that even most Republicans in congress do not seem to share Trump's opinions on Russia have likely prevented Trump's stances on Russia from going forward. If Trump succeeds in his pro-Russia objectives, you can't say that it wouldn't be good for you.
Billions of dollars is plenty of reason for Russia to have helped elect Trump.