If they need to phone home for some reason (usually vendor provided data aggregation and presentation) then you are pretty much screwed. If you are more selective about your devices and choose wisely so that all the useful functionality you need can be provided without Internet access, then it's fairly easy if you know what you are doing:
Set up a dedicated LAN (wired and/or wireless, as required), with it's own IP range, SSID, etc.
Put all your "smart" devices on this LAN
Deny all outbound access from this LAN to any other network
Allow inbound access to this LAN from specific IPs within your main network only, or a VPN termination point (higher-end home routers that terminate open standard VPN protocols are great here, otherwise look into *Nix boxes or other appliances like some NAS appliances that can do so)
Access your data, reasonably sure that they are not phoning home
Depending on the device maker, you may also be able to selectively allow outbound access for firmware patching while still blocking all the other data farming, although you may need to do a little digging into the config and/or traffic capture to do this. Devices will often use the same domain for everything though, and all too often the same hostname, so you might need something capable of URL level filtering to get this working.
Of course, none of that does anything to really protect you from some of the abysmal security that many IoT type devices have on them; e.g. backdoors or other exploitable interfaces that are available over WLANs that enable you to access the device remotely and extract the pre-shared key for your WLAN (see above about putting all this stuff on a dedicated WLAN?), change configuration options, and so on. It's also worth noting that sites like Shodan will also let the bad actors geolocate devices that have known vulnerabilities to them so they can go for a far more targetted war-driving session than used to be the case where it was more of a "see what is out there, and maybe get lucky" exercise.
Sure, the Silicon Valley tech companies could do better to match the national diversity average of some of the demographics, but that's possibly irrelevant. What's missing, as is all too often the case in diversity stats, is the breakdown of the locally available workforce that is qualified to actually do the jobs in question. If the qualified employment pool simply isn't there then there's not a lot else they can do except employ lesser qualified people to make up the numbers for the diversity figures rather than just going on merit, which just serves to generate resentment, reduces productivity, and potentially risks an entire demographic being stereotyped as illsuited for the job in question.
Or bring up the diversity numbers through staff brought in from the necessary demographics via H1-Bs, of course.
For many (e.g. the >30% of market share Firefox has lost since it's peak) it seems to be that versions below {number} are good, those above {number} suck donkey balls, with the value of {number} being determined by the individual's opions on Mozilla's decisions to dumb down or remove useful feature/options and/or add some unwanted bits of bloat like Pocket to the main codebase to replace them.
Looked up a few of the locations mentioned in TFA. They are indeed in Russia, but over 100km from the Chernobyl site in Ukraine with a chunk of Belarus in the way. Google Map.
Definitely bullshitting. Doing some design work on a military system at the moment and the guys who deal with stuff like Tempest are freaking out because the requirements call for WiFi equipped tablets and they are terrified that one will get compromised then used to compromise the Secret and above hardware on-base in-turn just by bringing the tablet into rooms/corridors adjacent to the equipment. Keep in mind this would be military issued hardware, with all the security that entails, and the Secret hardware is located in shielded cabinets that are in turn located in equipment rooms that has a built in Faraday cage. Whether that says more about the state of paranoia about the capabilities of other nations in NSA/GCHQ etc. or some indication of what their current state-of-the-art is open for debate, but most probably it's a bit of both.
I'm not sure that this is even a problem in practice (I've seen sites attempt to deny service when AdBlockers are used, but never when cookies are blocked), but since the EU would do a lot better to just fix the broken wording of the cookie directive to allow more flexibility in achieving compliance this might actually just be a flawed attempt to fix the problems the directive created in the first place. The only reason this is even an issue is because of the cookie directive's requirement that a site asks EU users for permission over cookies and tracking but then has to figure out how to remember that preference without using cookies or tracking URLs when a user declines to be tracked and has cookies disabled. Quite possibly they have to do that without using any JavaScript either, since there's almost certainly a significant overlap between those that disable cookies and those that run tools like NoScript. Given the number of sites that prompt for tracking permission on every page opened in that scenario this is apparently a problem that few website designers have been able to solve - although that's almost certainly a mix of poor coding ability, lack of imagination, limitations of the CMS, and deliberate attempts to frustrate site users into just accepting the cookies.
Most of the older ATMs I've encountered will generally return the card before any cash so you don't accidentally walk off with the money and leave the card behind, but otherwise generally keep the card in case you want to do multiple transactions (maybe they rescan each transaction for audit purposes or something), but there do seem to be more around that just scan and return the card, with swipe and even touch NFC readers both getting much more popular. I'd assume that's a deliberate design decision for security; maybe it's thought to be harder to install a skimmer in the slot of a swipe than it is to affix something around a slot, for instance, but I'm not quite convinced on a scammer just sticking something over the top of a contact reader given how slim some of the fake keypads they use are.
We have a good idea what climate norms suit us as a species fairly well (based on higher global productivity metrics, fewer droughts, etc.), and we have a good idea what environmental norms suit us as a species fairly well (healthier populations with fewer environmental related illness, fewer famines, etc.). Both are definitely changing on a global scale, and we strongly suspect that the two are closely linked. We also know from things like the laws of thermodynamics that we must be having *some* effect on them both just by existing, even if we can't agree on the relative proportion of the scale of our impact vs. that of on-going geological processes. What we can do is take steps that will absolutely improve our environment - more recycling, cleaner energy sources, less pollution, etc. - which is a win regardless of the degree of impact we are having on our climate, and if it turns out that the lowering the impact of our environmental damage has a significant benefit on the climate, then so much the better. If not, then at least we'll know and can start trying to figure out what (if anything) we can do to try and survive what nature is going to throw at us.
I was thinking less accurate more in that it just focus on one aspect of a much larger and more complicated picture rather than being incorrect. For instance, it might theoretically be possible for the average temperate to stop increasing, but we could still suffer catastrophic effects from some other aspect of climate change - e.g. the proposed effect on Europe of a massive glacial ice melt causing the warm water flow across the Atlantic to stop. It's also only accurate on a global scale; some areas of the world are showing a consistent reduction in recent local temperate averages, for instance, whereas "climate change" covers all the bases much better.
It's just one of many data points, but many people still think "global warming" rather than the more accurate "climate change" so pointing out that it's getting warmer and warmer is a way of getting across the view that things are getting worse and that the rate of change is accellerating.
are the specific causes known and how exactly?
Known, not really. Lots of theories, many with quite a lot of supporting evidence, but nothing that can be pointed at and said "this is the way this is" with a degree of certainly like you can apply to a proven physical law. Welcome to much of science; that's just the way it is - a series of ever more accurate models that hopefully get close enough to the reality to be "good enough" for what you need to do, but quite often never actually getting there in a manner similar to Xeno's Paradox.
if the causes are known was the temperature with accuracy predicted by models when those causes were included? why not?
The current models are often insanely complex and even then simplify the reality down considerably to enable computation to occur in a reasonable timeframe; e.g. data points for a given model might now be collected and calculated on a 1km grid instead of a 10km grid a few years ago - an order of magnitude more accurate, but still with enough margin of error to miss something important, or have nature throw a curve ball through that would have needed 100m resolution for the model to catch. See above about Xeno's Paradox.
"My side"? I'm not even a USian (I'm from the UK), so other than an interest in US politics in so far as those parts of it that have a major impact on the rest of the world, so I don't really have a "side" in this. We could, however, flip your argument around quite easily; clearly you *do* have a side and it's obviously not Sanders, soa chance to bash the other candidate / any member not of your chosen party isn't to be missed, is it? For the record, I don't really care either way about this; on the one hand, yes, Sanders is being a jerk here (such things are covered by political free speech/parody/satire, surely?), but on the other his name and image are being used to lampoon him and, even as a politician, he has a right to speak out on that too, right? And if doing so ends up making him look like a jerk and losing support, then I doubt either of us are going to have much of a a problem with it, even if the reasons are different.
Anyway, my point was more that this - and many other sites - seem to be running a lot more political stories that wouldn't ordinarily have been given the time of day, this one included since on the scale of things (Trump's latest outrageous comments, Hillary's email server, Cruz's ultra-conservativsm, etc., etc.) it's barely a blip on the radar, and why that might be the case. OK, we're in the run-up to a highly charged election, so you'd expect a little more political coverage, but do we *really* want every political story to be basically styled as "Candidate X was a jerk - kick 'em while they're down / leap to their defence depending on your political views", or would we rather have more meta discussions about the selection processes, the views of candidates on STEM issues? Right now, I'm seeing an awful lot of the former, and not too many of the latter, and if there's one thing that's coming out of both the US Presidential and UK's EU campaigns, it's that there are a *lot* of problems with "the system", and not much discussion of what/why that is, and how it might be fixed, and those seem like topics that are more worthy of discussion than the latest instance of whether a given politican is being a jerk or not.
Given the sheer number of mostly negative and spin-heavy stories on US presidential candidates on discussion sites at the moment, almost all of which are submitted by anonymous readers, the cynic in me suspects that it's less a "story" and more and example of one of several organised smear campaigns going on, with said sites being handily manipulated by the shills... Yes, the US election, and the UK's EU referendum for that matter, are important for any number of reasons that are worthy of discussion, like broken political systems, relative merits of voting schemes, candidates views on tech and other topics, even copyright and trademark issues. Even so, a little more rigorous qualification criteria and objectivity in story selection wouldn't go amiss.
I've been doing just this for years - unique email for every online account. So far I've only had a few instances of spam arriving on one of the addresses, all from smaller specialist retailers who most probably got their customer DB pwned since the spam was definite junk (pills and porn) rather than the kind of targetted marketing emails you'd expect from a sold-on customer list. I reported the possible compromise each time, but I never received any form of acknowlegement or apology from the companies concerned so I simply disabled the email addresses, kept a close eye on my credit card bills for the next few months... and went elsewhere next time I made a purchase. It works very well as a "compromise canary", but unless you are prepared to accept all email sent to "yourdomain.com" (which will result in a *lot* of spam) you'll need to have a simple way of defining new aliases and removing them when required.
True, but this is still BS. Theoretically, this might work if you could run the laser continually and fire outward along the axis where the sun's light is being occluded by the Earth, but you'd still have the problem of the laser's light being, well, a laser, instead of the full-spectrum output from the sun. You'd need a whole array of lasers outputting in every frequency from infra-red all the way up through the visible spectrum, and well past UV - and you'd still have no guarantees that there wouldn't be some kind of anomaly that could be detected by anyone watching.
I think it's also predicated on the belief that the law cannot compel you to commit an act that itself could end up with you being taken to court. For instance, in the case of an affirmative assertion like "We have not been the subject of an NSL", continuing to make the statement would turn it into slander or libel, depending on the means of delivery.
Yep, they appear to be using 8bit the mod scores (-1 shows as 11111111) and presumably, since leading zeros are stripped and they'd want an octet boundary, at least 32bits for the UIDs.
Apparently that's probably all there is to it. From the summary I was assuming that the outage of the firewall corresponded with the times that the movie was actually airing in China and was expecting there to be some bizarre theories in TFA to explain the correlation as that would almost certainly have been far more entertaining (albeit highly improbable) reading than a story about a brief outage of the Great Firewall. Nope, it appears to be just a unit of measure for 1h 45m and/or clickbait.
Unless one of those bizarre theories was actually correct and the now operational GFW has filtered out that part, of course...
Depends on where OP lives. It's perfectly legal to format shift to your heart's content in some countries, illegal to even take a backup in others. In practice though, regardless of the legislation in place, it's generally only when you share copies with others that the media companies get upset enough to bring in the lawyers.
RIAA chairman and CEO Cary Sherman noted an 'alarming' disparity between the growth in the number of ad-supported streams, and the growth in revenues generated by these.
No, Mr. Sherman, what you are seeing is the competition that results from customers having more choice about formats and having a relatively large number of competing services trying to win customers driving prices down instead of a handful of companies essentially operating a price-fixing cartel and relying on customer lock-in. That you think this is a problem speaks volumes.
Per-capita is all but meaningless for things like this (water consumption being another) where most of the consumption is by industry, agriculture and so on. The impact of 16GW distributed across the ~320m people in the US is completely different from 16GW distributed across the same population in somewhere like India or China, and different again if those 320m people were located in Africa. %age of GDP, or even %age of new power supply installs, might make more sense, but I suspect that won't look quite so rosy given the massive defence budget and amount being spent on other energy sources, but ~3/8 of the global installations in a given year *is* impressive though, no matter how you slice and dice it.
There's clearly a lot of spin in the article linked to by the OP, for instance, they mention that the US has a similar protectionist clause in place, but the US version is apparently OK with the WTO - yet they don't explain why that is, which is a rather crucial point. If the US had somehow manipulated the WTO into letting them do something then used the WTO to stop India doing the same that's entirely different to the US complying with WTO guidelines and India failing to do so. I also suspect there's more to it that just some Ts I simply don't believe the Indian government would scrap a multi-billion dollar project just because they couldn't be bothered to re-tender it without the problematic clause.
On the other hand, the US *does* have a track record for abusing the WTO to get what's best for the US (along with many other countries), blatantly ignoring WTO rulings that go against it (e.g. online gambling), and the main point of the article, that treaties like TPP are almost certainly going to be abused to enforce what corporates what over what's best for the population at large, is still valid, even if they possibly didn't find the best example of such abuse.
Quite. Has Anonymous ever actually achieved any meaningful lasting change? I can't think of anything they have ever done that hasn't gone straight back to normal after the DDoS was switched off, or someone they've doxxed has been off the front pages for more than a few days, got over any embarrassment, and had a chance to change passwords, phone numbers, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the device maker, you may also be able to selectively allow outbound access for firmware patching while still blocking all the other data farming, although you may need to do a little digging into the config and/or traffic capture to do this. Devices will often use the same domain for everything though, and all too often the same hostname, so you might need something capable of URL level filtering to get this working.
Of course, none of that does anything to really protect you from some of the abysmal security that many IoT type devices have on them; e.g. backdoors or other exploitable interfaces that are available over WLANs that enable you to access the device remotely and extract the pre-shared key for your WLAN (see above about putting all this stuff on a dedicated WLAN?), change configuration options, and so on. It's also worth noting that sites like Shodan will also let the bad actors geolocate devices that have known vulnerabilities to them so they can go for a far more targetted war-driving session than used to be the case where it was more of a "see what is out there, and maybe get lucky" exercise.
Sure, the Silicon Valley tech companies could do better to match the national diversity average of some of the demographics, but that's possibly irrelevant. What's missing, as is all too often the case in diversity stats, is the breakdown of the locally available workforce that is qualified to actually do the jobs in question. If the qualified employment pool simply isn't there then there's not a lot else they can do except employ lesser qualified people to make up the numbers for the diversity figures rather than just going on merit, which just serves to generate resentment, reduces productivity, and potentially risks an entire demographic being stereotyped as illsuited for the job in question.
Or bring up the diversity numbers through staff brought in from the necessary demographics via H1-Bs, of course.
That's *raging* assole, specifically "One Raging Asshole Called Larrry Ellison".
For many (e.g. the >30% of market share Firefox has lost since it's peak) it seems to be that versions below {number} are good, those above {number} suck donkey balls, with the value of {number} being determined by the individual's opions on Mozilla's decisions to dumb down or remove useful feature/options and/or add some unwanted bits of bloat like Pocket to the main codebase to replace them.
Looked up a few of the locations mentioned in TFA. They are indeed in Russia, but over 100km from the Chernobyl site in Ukraine with a chunk of Belarus in the way. Google Map.
Definitely bullshitting. Doing some design work on a military system at the moment and the guys who deal with stuff like Tempest are freaking out because the requirements call for WiFi equipped tablets and they are terrified that one will get compromised then used to compromise the Secret and above hardware on-base in-turn just by bringing the tablet into rooms/corridors adjacent to the equipment. Keep in mind this would be military issued hardware, with all the security that entails, and the Secret hardware is located in shielded cabinets that are in turn located in equipment rooms that has a built in Faraday cage. Whether that says more about the state of paranoia about the capabilities of other nations in NSA/GCHQ etc. or some indication of what their current state-of-the-art is open for debate, but most probably it's a bit of both.
I'm not sure that this is even a problem in practice (I've seen sites attempt to deny service when AdBlockers are used, but never when cookies are blocked), but since the EU would do a lot better to just fix the broken wording of the cookie directive to allow more flexibility in achieving compliance this might actually just be a flawed attempt to fix the problems the directive created in the first place. The only reason this is even an issue is because of the cookie directive's requirement that a site asks EU users for permission over cookies and tracking but then has to figure out how to remember that preference without using cookies or tracking URLs when a user declines to be tracked and has cookies disabled. Quite possibly they have to do that without using any JavaScript either, since there's almost certainly a significant overlap between those that disable cookies and those that run tools like NoScript. Given the number of sites that prompt for tracking permission on every page opened in that scenario this is apparently a problem that few website designers have been able to solve - although that's almost certainly a mix of poor coding ability, lack of imagination, limitations of the CMS, and deliberate attempts to frustrate site users into just accepting the cookies.
Most of the older ATMs I've encountered will generally return the card before any cash so you don't accidentally walk off with the money and leave the card behind, but otherwise generally keep the card in case you want to do multiple transactions (maybe they rescan each transaction for audit purposes or something), but there do seem to be more around that just scan and return the card, with swipe and even touch NFC readers both getting much more popular. I'd assume that's a deliberate design decision for security; maybe it's thought to be harder to install a skimmer in the slot of a swipe than it is to affix something around a slot, for instance, but I'm not quite convinced on a scammer just sticking something over the top of a contact reader given how slim some of the fake keypads they use are.
We have a good idea what climate norms suit us as a species fairly well (based on higher global productivity metrics, fewer droughts, etc.), and we have a good idea what environmental norms suit us as a species fairly well (healthier populations with fewer environmental related illness, fewer famines, etc.). Both are definitely changing on a global scale, and we strongly suspect that the two are closely linked. We also know from things like the laws of thermodynamics that we must be having *some* effect on them both just by existing, even if we can't agree on the relative proportion of the scale of our impact vs. that of on-going geological processes. What we can do is take steps that will absolutely improve our environment - more recycling, cleaner energy sources, less pollution, etc. - which is a win regardless of the degree of impact we are having on our climate, and if it turns out that the lowering the impact of our environmental damage has a significant benefit on the climate, then so much the better. If not, then at least we'll know and can start trying to figure out what (if anything) we can do to try and survive what nature is going to throw at us.
I was thinking less accurate more in that it just focus on one aspect of a much larger and more complicated picture rather than being incorrect. For instance, it might theoretically be possible for the average temperate to stop increasing, but we could still suffer catastrophic effects from some other aspect of climate change - e.g. the proposed effect on Europe of a massive glacial ice melt causing the warm water flow across the Atlantic to stop. It's also only accurate on a global scale; some areas of the world are showing a consistent reduction in recent local temperate averages, for instance, whereas "climate change" covers all the bases much better.
It's just one of many data points, but many people still think "global warming" rather than the more accurate "climate change" so pointing out that it's getting warmer and warmer is a way of getting across the view that things are getting worse and that the rate of change is accellerating.
Known, not really. Lots of theories, many with quite a lot of supporting evidence, but nothing that can be pointed at and said "this is the way this is" with a degree of certainly like you can apply to a proven physical law. Welcome to much of science; that's just the way it is - a series of ever more accurate models that hopefully get close enough to the reality to be "good enough" for what you need to do, but quite often never actually getting there in a manner similar to Xeno's Paradox.
The current models are often insanely complex and even then simplify the reality down considerably to enable computation to occur in a reasonable timeframe; e.g. data points for a given model might now be collected and calculated on a 1km grid instead of a 10km grid a few years ago - an order of magnitude more accurate, but still with enough margin of error to miss something important, or have nature throw a curve ball through that would have needed 100m resolution for the model to catch. See above about Xeno's Paradox.
"My side"? I'm not even a USian (I'm from the UK), so other than an interest in US politics in so far as those parts of it that have a major impact on the rest of the world, so I don't really have a "side" in this. We could, however, flip your argument around quite easily; clearly you *do* have a side and it's obviously not Sanders, soa chance to bash the other candidate / any member not of your chosen party isn't to be missed, is it? For the record, I don't really care either way about this; on the one hand, yes, Sanders is being a jerk here (such things are covered by political free speech/parody/satire, surely?), but on the other his name and image are being used to lampoon him and, even as a politician, he has a right to speak out on that too, right? And if doing so ends up making him look like a jerk and losing support, then I doubt either of us are going to have much of a a problem with it, even if the reasons are different.
Anyway, my point was more that this - and many other sites - seem to be running a lot more political stories that wouldn't ordinarily have been given the time of day, this one included since on the scale of things (Trump's latest outrageous comments, Hillary's email server, Cruz's ultra-conservativsm, etc., etc.) it's barely a blip on the radar, and why that might be the case. OK, we're in the run-up to a highly charged election, so you'd expect a little more political coverage, but do we *really* want every political story to be basically styled as "Candidate X was a jerk - kick 'em while they're down / leap to their defence depending on your political views", or would we rather have more meta discussions about the selection processes, the views of candidates on STEM issues? Right now, I'm seeing an awful lot of the former, and not too many of the latter, and if there's one thing that's coming out of both the US Presidential and UK's EU campaigns, it's that there are a *lot* of problems with "the system", and not much discussion of what/why that is, and how it might be fixed, and those seem like topics that are more worthy of discussion than the latest instance of whether a given politican is being a jerk or not.
Given the sheer number of mostly negative and spin-heavy stories on US presidential candidates on discussion sites at the moment, almost all of which are submitted by anonymous readers, the cynic in me suspects that it's less a "story" and more and example of one of several organised smear campaigns going on, with said sites being handily manipulated by the shills... Yes, the US election, and the UK's EU referendum for that matter, are important for any number of reasons that are worthy of discussion, like broken political systems, relative merits of voting schemes, candidates views on tech and other topics, even copyright and trademark issues. Even so, a little more rigorous qualification criteria and objectivity in story selection wouldn't go amiss.
I've been doing just this for years - unique email for every online account. So far I've only had a few instances of spam arriving on one of the addresses, all from smaller specialist retailers who most probably got their customer DB pwned since the spam was definite junk (pills and porn) rather than the kind of targetted marketing emails you'd expect from a sold-on customer list. I reported the possible compromise each time, but I never received any form of acknowlegement or apology from the companies concerned so I simply disabled the email addresses, kept a close eye on my credit card bills for the next few months... and went elsewhere next time I made a purchase. It works very well as a "compromise canary", but unless you are prepared to accept all email sent to "yourdomain.com" (which will result in a *lot* of spam) you'll need to have a simple way of defining new aliases and removing them when required.
True, but this is still BS. Theoretically, this might work if you could run the laser continually and fire outward along the axis where the sun's light is being occluded by the Earth, but you'd still have the problem of the laser's light being, well, a laser, instead of the full-spectrum output from the sun. You'd need a whole array of lasers outputting in every frequency from infra-red all the way up through the visible spectrum, and well past UV - and you'd still have no guarantees that there wouldn't be some kind of anomaly that could be detected by anyone watching.
April Fool, indeed.
Yeah, my bad; not enough coffee. You're quite correct - it would be a fraudulent statement; I had the wrong "type" of lie.
I think it's also predicated on the belief that the law cannot compel you to commit an act that itself could end up with you being taken to court. For instance, in the case of an affirmative assertion like "We have not been the subject of an NSL", continuing to make the statement would turn it into slander or libel, depending on the means of delivery.
Yep, they appear to be using 8bit the mod scores (-1 shows as 11111111) and presumably, since leading zeros are stripped and they'd want an octet boundary, at least 32bits for the UIDs.
Also in Communist China, QQ Browser rage quits YOU!
Seriously, was there a deliberate clue in the name or something?
Apparently that's probably all there is to it. From the summary I was assuming that the outage of the firewall corresponded with the times that the movie was actually airing in China and was expecting there to be some bizarre theories in TFA to explain the correlation as that would almost certainly have been far more entertaining (albeit highly improbable) reading than a story about a brief outage of the Great Firewall. Nope, it appears to be just a unit of measure for 1h 45m and/or clickbait.
Unless one of those bizarre theories was actually correct and the now operational GFW has filtered out that part, of course...
Depends on where OP lives. It's perfectly legal to format shift to your heart's content in some countries, illegal to even take a backup in others. In practice though, regardless of the legislation in place, it's generally only when you share copies with others that the media companies get upset enough to bring in the lawyers.
No, Mr. Sherman, what you are seeing is the competition that results from customers having more choice about formats and having a relatively large number of competing services trying to win customers driving prices down instead of a handful of companies essentially operating a price-fixing cartel and relying on customer lock-in. That you think this is a problem speaks volumes.
Per-capita is all but meaningless for things like this (water consumption being another) where most of the consumption is by industry, agriculture and so on. The impact of 16GW distributed across the ~320m people in the US is completely different from 16GW distributed across the same population in somewhere like India or China, and different again if those 320m people were located in Africa. %age of GDP, or even %age of new power supply installs, might make more sense, but I suspect that won't look quite so rosy given the massive defence budget and amount being spent on other energy sources, but ~3/8 of the global installations in a given year *is* impressive though, no matter how you slice and dice it.
There's clearly a lot of spin in the article linked to by the OP, for instance, they mention that the US has a similar protectionist clause in place, but the US version is apparently OK with the WTO - yet they don't explain why that is, which is a rather crucial point. If the US had somehow manipulated the WTO into letting them do something then used the WTO to stop India doing the same that's entirely different to the US complying with WTO guidelines and India failing to do so. I also suspect there's more to it that just some Ts I simply don't believe the Indian government would scrap a multi-billion dollar project just because they couldn't be bothered to re-tender it without the problematic clause.
On the other hand, the US *does* have a track record for abusing the WTO to get what's best for the US (along with many other countries), blatantly ignoring WTO rulings that go against it (e.g. online gambling), and the main point of the article, that treaties like TPP are almost certainly going to be abused to enforce what corporates what over what's best for the population at large, is still valid, even if they possibly didn't find the best example of such abuse.
Quite. Has Anonymous ever actually achieved any meaningful lasting change? I can't think of anything they have ever done that hasn't gone straight back to normal after the DDoS was switched off, or someone they've doxxed has been off the front pages for more than a few days, got over any embarrassment, and had a chance to change passwords, phone numbers, etc.