Exactly. I mean, compared to the heat of the forges used to shape the metal in your car, the temperature change from someone setting it on fire is nothing at all!
Just going to note that here's what this means in terms of how the global average temperatures have been changing, and how rapidly so compared to the past: http://xkcd.com/1732/
Sadly, this sort of thing has nothing to do with being a developing nation. It's horrifyingly commonplace, in fact. Brian Krebs posted a list a few weeks ago including some of the products that were vulnerable to the Mirai botnet exploits, and while it includes several Chinese firms' products, it also includes ones by Samsung, Xerox, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc. https://krebsonsecurity.com/20...
So here we go through the pros and cons of each. This is not to rule any of them out, as I don't think you can at this point, but to lay it all out there.
Hacktivists (Specifically New World Hackers):
Pro - claimed responsibility. Anonymous/offshoots responsible for lots of past DDoS activity.
Cons - Several security firms called BS on the evidence, and cited past history of false claims of responsibility to boost DDoS for hire business. Also the complexity and sophistication make this unlikely.
Cybercriminals:
Pro - probable originators of Mirai botnet, likely responsible for preceding DDoSes of Brian Krebs and OVH.
Con - No stated ransom demands (at least none reported) or other identifiable material benefit. Lacks a direct reason.
North Korea:
Pro - Past history of DDoS and malware attacks. Never claims responsibility. Suffers nothing if the internet goes down.
Cons - Attack only targeted the USA, not perennial NK targets of South Korea or Japan. If this was North Korea, why ignore those two?
Russia
Pro - contacts/influence in Russian cybercrime community. Possible interest in interference in US politics.
Con - No real rhyme or reason for doing so now. Widespread (as opposed to targeted) disruptions likely don't have any predictable impact to swaying the election.
China
Pro - Reports that many of the infected devices were Chinese in origin
Con - China normally steals your business secrets rather than DDoS you. Chinese devices weren't the only ones, too - bad security is everywhere.
US intelligence (NSA et al)
Pro - False flag?
Con - NSA wants to listen in on your data, not shut you off from communicating. Unlikely that there is anyone who supports Wikileaks/Assange/Anonymous/etc that would change their minds over this.
This is by no means a comprehensive list, just off the top of my head.
No, after Z you move to AA. Clearly they have to go to Aardvark, the only question is what aa adjective to pair it with. It's when they get to bb that they run into real trouble.
The Sync system in my 2014 Mustang GT works great, with one exception. About a year in, it stopped playing bluetooth audio from phones. I've tried it with different phones - no luck. Phone calls work perfectly, and the system auto-syncs on startup without issue. The system clearly is communicating, as using the "next track" button works (in that the phone switches to the next track), but no audio at all, nor anything displayed on the Sync screen.
Mostly it's been a minor annoyance in what is otherwise an amazing and fun car - well, aside from the homicidal urges she gets when pedestrians are around, but that's par for the course with a Mustang. ( http://jalopnik.com/its-offici... )
In California, you can vote for another primary candidate. They now have a top-2 system, where the two candidates with the most votes from the primary, regardless of party, face off in the general election. California actually has two democrats on the ballot for Senate in November - Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez. This is a relatively new change, that hopefully should help be a moderating influence (at least in theory).
So he claims - but when you consider his track record on keeping his promises, it's not promising. No, he hasn't been a politician before, but we can examine his past record in business. How has he dealt with his business partners, and how did he deal with shareholders when he was running a publicly traded company?
The answer is he's pretty much screwed over anyone who ever put their trust in him. He regularly refuses to pay people who he hired to do work for him on contract. When he had a publicly traded company, Trump Hotel and Casino Resorts, he ran it into the ground while thoroughly looting as much as he could from it. Citations: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06... http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/...
So believe him at your own risk, because if he keeps this promise, it'll be a first.
Given the final vote totals, Sanders wouldn't have won even if the superdelegates had been eliminated. The only way he could have won is if the superdelegates overwhelmingly voted to give the nomination to him instead of Clinton, and thus denied the popular vote (she won both more primary votes, and more elected delegates, than Sanders).
"There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the update schedules charts and reboot times have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now.... What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Rebooting in 3... 2... 1..."
That "side to the story" is that if you cherry pick and manipulate your data enough, you can make something innocuous seem shady. The Clinton Foundation only gives a fraction of its money to other charities, because it spends most of the money on its own charitable projects:
In the USA, you get all the justice you can pay for - but that doesn't make you immune. The RIAA/etc would _love_ to go after Google too. Remember the Viacom lawsuit against Youtube? Don't think for a moment they're not itching to try another legal angle against Google (even as they happily benefit from using it to advertise - cognitive dissonance isn't something the music/movie industry has trouble with here).
I have a very hard time finding the evidence for your conclusion based on any sort of independent, non-partisan, non-cherry-picked evaluations:
Four Star, 93%+ rating from Charity Navigator https://www.charitynavigator.o...
Charity Watch: A Rating, 88% of funds go to programs not administrative costs: https://www.charitywatch.org/r...
The actual evidence seems to indicate that the vast majority of the money that goes to the Clinton foundation actually goes to what it's ostensibly for - charitable causes themselves. That's almost the exact opposite of a "slush fund" or a way to hide money, because they're not getting anything back out of it in any appreciable form. 12%? They'd keep more of the money if they paid standard taxes with no deductions!
At least it isn't Win10, so we don't have to worry about them forcing an update on themselves the day before election day, then failing and going into an update loop.
Unfortunately, they don't just hurt themselves. They hurt their children, who don't have a say in it, and shouldn't be stuck with paying the price for their parents' ignorance. But what's worse is that not every can get vaccinated to begin with, for legitimate medical reasons, and are forced to rely on herd immunity - herd immunity that goes away if lots of anti-vaxxer idiots refuse to get their children vaccinated.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a great idea - it will make fore some awesome marketing.
Wait, what do you mean they're not selling it to the South Korean Army as a new Hand Grenade line?
Well, it wouldn't be the first time someone made a Black Self-Driving Trans-Am...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Exactly. I mean, compared to the heat of the forges used to shape the metal in your car, the temperature change from someone setting it on fire is nothing at all!
Just going to note that here's what this means in terms of how the global average temperatures have been changing, and how rapidly so compared to the past:
http://xkcd.com/1732/
Sadly, this sort of thing has nothing to do with being a developing nation. It's horrifyingly commonplace, in fact. Brian Krebs posted a list a few weeks ago including some of the products that were vulnerable to the Mirai botnet exploits, and while it includes several Chinese firms' products, it also includes ones by Samsung, Xerox, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc.
https://krebsonsecurity.com/20...
Attribution isn't easy.
In the words of a certain Dread Pirate, "Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something."
So here we go through the pros and cons of each. This is not to rule any of them out, as I don't think you can at this point, but to lay it all out there.
Hacktivists (Specifically New World Hackers):
Pro - claimed responsibility. Anonymous/offshoots responsible for lots of past DDoS activity.
Cons - Several security firms called BS on the evidence, and cited past history of false claims of responsibility to boost DDoS for hire business. Also the complexity and sophistication make this unlikely.
Cybercriminals:
Pro - probable originators of Mirai botnet, likely responsible for preceding DDoSes of Brian Krebs and OVH.
Con - No stated ransom demands (at least none reported) or other identifiable material benefit. Lacks a direct reason.
North Korea:
Pro - Past history of DDoS and malware attacks. Never claims responsibility. Suffers nothing if the internet goes down.
Cons - Attack only targeted the USA, not perennial NK targets of South Korea or Japan. If this was North Korea, why ignore those two?
Russia
Pro - contacts/influence in Russian cybercrime community. Possible interest in interference in US politics.
Con - No real rhyme or reason for doing so now. Widespread (as opposed to targeted) disruptions likely don't have any predictable impact to swaying the election.
China
Pro - Reports that many of the infected devices were Chinese in origin
Con - China normally steals your business secrets rather than DDoS you. Chinese devices weren't the only ones, too - bad security is everywhere.
US intelligence (NSA et al)
Pro - False flag?
Con - NSA wants to listen in on your data, not shut you off from communicating. Unlikely that there is anyone who supports Wikileaks/Assange/Anonymous/etc that would change their minds over this.
This is by no means a comprehensive list, just off the top of my head.
No, after Z you move to AA. Clearly they have to go to Aardvark, the only question is what aa adjective to pair it with. It's when they get to bb that they run into real trouble.
The Sync system in my 2014 Mustang GT works great, with one exception. About a year in, it stopped playing bluetooth audio from phones. I've tried it with different phones - no luck. Phone calls work perfectly, and the system auto-syncs on startup without issue. The system clearly is communicating, as using the "next track" button works (in that the phone switches to the next track), but no audio at all, nor anything displayed on the Sync screen.
Mostly it's been a minor annoyance in what is otherwise an amazing and fun car - well, aside from the homicidal urges she gets when pedestrians are around, but that's par for the course with a Mustang. ( http://jalopnik.com/its-offici... )
It's just another bricked by The Wall?
Only until January, at which point either Kamala Harris or Loretta Sanchez will replace Boxer, who isn't running for reelection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In California, you can vote for another primary candidate. They now have a top-2 system, where the two candidates with the most votes from the primary, regardless of party, face off in the general election. California actually has two democrats on the ballot for Senate in November - Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez. This is a relatively new change, that hopefully should help be a moderating influence (at least in theory).
So he claims - but when you consider his track record on keeping his promises, it's not promising. No, he hasn't been a politician before, but we can examine his past record in business. How has he dealt with his business partners, and how did he deal with shareholders when he was running a publicly traded company?
The answer is he's pretty much screwed over anyone who ever put their trust in him. He regularly refuses to pay people who he hired to do work for him on contract. When he had a publicly traded company, Trump Hotel and Casino Resorts, he ran it into the ground while thoroughly looting as much as he could from it.
Citations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...
http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/...
So believe him at your own risk, because if he keeps this promise, it'll be a first.
It's not the kind of place to raise your kids.
In fact, it's cold as hell.
Let me translate that: "Free" meaning "Give Facebook all your personal information and let us monitor everything you do."
Given the final vote totals, Sanders wouldn't have won even if the superdelegates had been eliminated. The only way he could have won is if the superdelegates overwhelmingly voted to give the nomination to him instead of Clinton, and thus denied the popular vote (she won both more primary votes, and more elected delegates, than Sanders).
Wookies, for instance.
"There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the update schedules charts and reboot times have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. ... What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Rebooting in 3... 2... 1..."
You neglect the fact that if we expand into space, we can tap energy reserves out there, that are presently inaccessible to us here on Earth.
That "side to the story" is that if you cherry pick and manipulate your data enough, you can make something innocuous seem shady. The Clinton Foundation only gives a fraction of its money to other charities, because it spends most of the money on its own charitable projects:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...
In the USA, you get all the justice you can pay for - but that doesn't make you immune. The RIAA/etc would _love_ to go after Google too. Remember the Viacom lawsuit against Youtube? Don't think for a moment they're not itching to try another legal angle against Google (even as they happily benefit from using it to advertise - cognitive dissonance isn't something the music/movie industry has trouble with here).
https://www.eff.org/cases/viac...
I have a very hard time finding the evidence for your conclusion based on any sort of independent, non-partisan, non-cherry-picked evaluations:
Four Star, 93%+ rating from Charity Navigator https://www.charitynavigator.o...
Charity Watch: A Rating, 88% of funds go to programs not administrative costs: https://www.charitywatch.org/r...
The actual evidence seems to indicate that the vast majority of the money that goes to the Clinton foundation actually goes to what it's ostensibly for - charitable causes themselves. That's almost the exact opposite of a "slush fund" or a way to hide money, because they're not getting anything back out of it in any appreciable form. 12%? They'd keep more of the money if they paid standard taxes with no deductions!
Windows Hello? I was sort of looking more for "Windows Goodbye."
At least it isn't Win10, so we don't have to worry about them forcing an update on themselves the day before election day, then failing and going into an update loop.
Unfortunately, they don't just hurt themselves. They hurt their children, who don't have a say in it, and shouldn't be stuck with paying the price for their parents' ignorance. But what's worse is that not every can get vaccinated to begin with, for legitimate medical reasons, and are forced to rely on herd immunity - herd immunity that goes away if lots of anti-vaxxer idiots refuse to get their children vaccinated.