No, he didn't. He had some credentials, both his own and some stolen. Nothing was "hacked".
(emphasis mine)
Getting into a system using stolen credentials is an activity known colloquially as "hacking in to an account".
From the article:
"starting December 2016, when Zhang was promoted to his supervisor role, the suspect installed malware on the company's servers to record credentials for other users... "Zhang had used these credentials to access and steal parts of the source code of the company's trading platform and trading algorithms...
"Zhang rerouted traffic to backup proxy servers, managed by KCG, to hide the data transfers that exfiltrated the proprietary source code to a remote server."
So, he installed malware, stole access credentials, accessed other users' accounts, and rerouted data transfers through a different proxy server to avoid security. Yeah, that's hacking.
Let's assume they got all the DNC mail and released it. How was that hacking the election?
If you actually read the article, it states "El Confidencial, a Spanish news website, has said that Mr Levashov's arrest warrant was issued by US authorities over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Trump's campaign."
So there are two statements there.
1. Mr Levashov was arrested for suspected "hacking", and
2. this suspected "hacking" helped Donald Trump's campaign.
Breaking into the DNC computers and stealing e-mail is illegal. Period. This was done, plausibly, on behalf of Russia:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Hacking the election would be changing votes in a database.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security report, Russia's goals were to "undermine public faith" in the US democratic process and "denigrate" his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton, harming her electability and potential presidency. "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
If someone finds out that a candidate murders babies, I would prefer they release it...and not be arrested for "hacking the election".
There was no allegation that Trump or Clinton murders babies. This really is changing the subject. It's the same argument that governments use to break into your computer: "think of the children! Maybe that computer we break into has child porn! Would you disagree that we need to stop child porn?" Breaking into computers and stealing e-mail is illegal. People who do that should be arrested. Nobody is murdering babies; saying "but what if they murder babies?" is not an excuse.
The "fake news" meme is neither retarded nor hypocritical. What it is, however, is overused.
There was actual, fake news being spread around: "fake" meaning stuff that wasn't merely in error, or poorly researched, but completely made up: whole websites devoted to spreading "news" items with no connection to reality at all, for no other purpose than trolling for eyeballs.
But then the "fake news" thing got to be a meme, and people started applying that tag to refer to anything that disagrees with their worldview. Once Donald Trump started applying it to stories about him in the actual news media, it had turned around 180: it was no longer about discrediting news that actually was fake, but about discrediting news that actually was true.
Oh yes, of course - corals have been around since the Cambrian or thereabouts...
True, but.
One type of coral or another has been around since the Cambrian, but species of corals have, in the past, been wiped out wholesale-- the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, in particular, (the "great dying") wiped out very close to all the reef-forming species, apparently due to the combination of anoxia and ocean acidification. In fact, 96% of all marine species were wiped out in that event.
It took about eight million years before corals are re-established in the fossil record. That's eight million years with no reefs; a period much longer than humanity has been around.
Most of the reef-forming coral species also went extinct at the K-T extinction. (The non-reef-forming corals were, for some reason, less affected.)
Forget the real world. >Because real-world results don't matter. What did your MODEL that hasn't successfully predicted sunrise direction for the last 15 years say?
And why have you been ignoring more accurate satellite-based measurements of the sunrise and selectively using only ground-based measurements that have been, errr, corrected from the original data?
You ARE aware that satellite measurements are heavily corrected, right? The satellites see a line-of-sight average of microwave emissions, and there is a rather long and controversial process to turn microwave emission intensity into middle troposphere temperatures. One researcher (John Christy) has a correction method that produces an output that says that global warming is real, but it's on the low end of the predicted values. http://www.realclimate.org/ind... Other researchers using the same data, however, come up with other answers.
The ground measurements, on the other hand, have had relatively minor corrections to account for changes of the type of thermometer, the corrections being well-documented, and (an important thing to note) the change due to corrections making no significant difference to the final conclusion.
Actually, the item "32 ounces of cola in the dark" is a reason to watch movies at home, since when you're at home, you can pause the movie when you suddenly have a desperate need to take the break to dispose of that cola, while in a movie theatre, not only won't they pause the movie for you, you will annoy all the other watchers as you say "Excuse me" and slide out (and risk missing the big scene).
(I've learned to not take that 32-ounce cola into a film, for just that reason).
Merely owning an apartment building, however-- where the value comes from the apartment itself, not the maintenance-- is not "providing a service."
Sure it is. Letting someone else use your apartment is every bit a service.
Not in economic terms, no. It's rent.
No voluntary arrangement can properly be considered rent-seeking.
It is rent seeking by defjnition.
Learn real economics terminology. Despite the belief of many people that they know everything about economics without bothering to actually learn any economics, it actually is valuable.
If there weren't some value added no one would choose to pay the rent. Only arrangements based on force can be rent-seeking, at the hands of either a government or some other form of criminal organization.
That's simply gibberish. Force is not rent. If you don't know what the phrase "rent seeking" means, don't use it.
But they did 'create value' by getting you more than you asked for in rent. If I'm trying to rent for 1200/mo and end up getting 1400/mo they created 200/mo in extra value for me.
You're confusing price with value.
In fact, both the middle-man company and the landlord are rent seekers. In the case of the landlord, literally.
(footnote: To be more precise, the landlord is not engaging in a rent-seeking activity to the extent that they provide a service: fixing up the apartment, custodial work and repairs, utilities, etc.: those are services. Merely owning an apartment building, however-- where the value comes from the apartment itself, not the maintenance-- is not "providing a service.")
I'm sorry but as much as I respect Elon Musk and Tesla that is absolutely absurd. Tesla having a market cap bigger than Ford makes no rational sense even with the most optimistic possible growth expectations for Tesla. The company has never made a sustained profit, it's revenues are a fraction of Ford, and it has no reasonable prospect of the sort of exceptional margins or market control that could possibly justify such a valuation. Yes some of their products are awesome but that doesn't justify a dotcom era valuation. There might be a short squeeze but the shorts are right. Telsla is hugely over valued.
Did you just take your old post about how Google was overvalued and strike out the word "Google" and "Brin & Page" to substitute "Tesla" and "Musk"??
I am mulling over the prospect of zen architecture. How is this done? I'm picturing a flat and roof-less square of sand which, thorough the art of zen consciousness and being in the moment, gives the enlightened zen master all the support needed.
True, but who is easier to get rid of? The corrupt mayor or the corrupt prime minister?
Since there are vastly more local officials than national officials, and the local officials have more power and less scrutiny, it is far harder to get rid of them than national politicians.
National politicians come and go. Local ones insert hooked barbs into the precinct and stay forever.
I don't know where this idea that the further away and less accountable a government is the better the results.
I have never seen any evidence that local governments are less repressive, less corrupt, or more accountable than national governments.
If anything, I think that that experience shows that local governments tend to be more repressive and corrupt, and for the most part completely unaccountable for their actions.
The science is pretty solid: the average temperature of the world is getting warmer, we know what it causing it, and there will be effects, some of which will be negative.
Meh. Blowing away mod points for this but statements like this is what keeps keeps the deniers in business. No. We do NOT know what is causing it.
Well, except that you're wrong. We do know what is causing the temperature rise. We know this for multiple reasons, not the least of which is by analyzing and ruling out alternate causes based on data. There are no proposed alternate explanations that fit the data. None. This is the way science is done: a hypothesis is accepted when you can rule out the competing hypotheses based on evidence. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere fits the data. No other hypothesis does.
To fit just one of the many many data sets, the measured global temperature data (and you do know that heating has to fit data such as diurnal variations and measured downwelling infrared, not just global temperature, right?), let me remind you of the constraints a hypothetical alternate hypothesis would have to fit:
(1) It would have to explain why the greenhouse gasses are not heating the atmosphere,
(2) It would have to propose a different mechanism to explain the measured temperature rise that just coincidentally fits the models
(3) It would have to come up with an explanation for why the amplifier required in step (2) does not apply to the greenhouse effect.
*footnote 1: and the measured temperature rise fits the model very well. The denier community repeatedly claims it does not, but this denial is done by cherry picking of either the data or the models.
*footnote 2: item 2 will require an amplification mechanism, because we measure the input to the climate (solar energy, etc.) and know that the unamplified input can't explain the rise.
Many people have been looking for such an alternate hypothesis for several decades now. None have been found that haven't been quickly ruled out be measurements.
If we did, we could model it accurately.
No, if you mean "if we knew what caused it the error bars on the prediction would be zero," that's an assertion going one step too far. You can know the cause of something and nevertheless still have error bars on predictions.
The remainder of your post is accurate:
What we do know for certain is that CO2 keeps heat trapped in the atmosphere. We are adding LOTS of CO2 to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is part of a chaotic and finely balanced system. CO2 is adding heat to that system (so we do actually know some of what is causing the heating). In summary: We know that we are altering a system and by how much. We are unsure of other factors, some are even still unknown (how does the ocean absorb heat, distribute it, and eventually release it). Regardless of the unknowns, the facts that we do know indicate that our current practices are affecting the heat status of the planet.
Is heating of the planet a problem? That is not for Science to say. Science deals with facts and theory, not judgements. My personal opinion in all of this is that we need to be concerned about our "waste" products to ensure that the planet (the only place we can currently live) remains a livable location.
But this is not the science we're talking about when we say there's scientific consensus about the greenhouse effect.
Runaway effects like melting perma frost, CH4 release and other stuff, that is exactly the science we are talking about. Hence we have no real clue and no way to estimate if we might experience a dramatical effect/result/disaster in 10 or 30 years.
If everything proceeds like it does now, it might take 100 years till mankind is in trouble, however one thing is certain: not everything will proceed like now.
If your main point here is "there may be even worst effects that we don't yet fully understand, and some of these effects could be triggered on short time scales," I won't disagree with that.
Give me a citation to one of these purported "red lines" that you are talking about, specifically what the line was, what the predicted consequences of crossing it was, and when the predicted consequences would occur.
400PPM is the most recent one that passed
Precisely what was predicted to happen when 400 was passed? Citation needed.
400 ppm is clearly a number that was picked because it is a multiple of 100. It's milestone, not an example of "this is a final red line. Cross this and we are DOOMED".
Slashdot Mirror
I love working for, with I boss I think is wonderful.
you have an iBoss? NEAT! I did not know that apple was shipping those yet
It's the latest update of Wife 1.0
Have you ever considered you might have aspirer syndrome?
Asperger syndrome
No, Asperger syndrome is completely different. We're talking about aspirer syndrome here.
The guy hacked A UNIX NETWORK!
No, he didn't. He had some credentials, both his own and some stolen . Nothing was "hacked".
(emphasis mine)
Getting into a system using stolen credentials is an activity known colloquially as "hacking in to an account".
From the article:
"starting December 2016, when Zhang was promoted to his supervisor role, the suspect installed malware on the company's servers to record credentials for other users...
"Zhang had used these credentials to access and steal parts of the source code of the company's trading platform and trading algorithms...
"Zhang rerouted traffic to backup proxy servers, managed by KCG, to hide the data transfers that exfiltrated the proprietary source code to a remote server."
So, he installed malware, stole access credentials, accessed other users' accounts, and rerouted data transfers through a different proxy server to avoid security. Yeah, that's hacking.
The article said he resigned.
In most cases of IT staff leaving a company, the word "resigned" is a euphemism, and should be written in quotes.
Let's assume they got all the DNC mail and released it. How was that hacking the election?
If you actually read the article, it states "El Confidencial, a Spanish news website, has said that Mr Levashov's arrest warrant was issued by US authorities over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Trump's campaign."
So there are two statements there.
1. Mr Levashov was arrested for suspected "hacking", and
2. this suspected "hacking" helped Donald Trump's campaign.
Breaking into the DNC computers and stealing e-mail is illegal. Period. This was done, plausibly, on behalf of Russia: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Hacking the election would be changing votes in a database.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security report, Russia's goals were to "undermine public faith" in the US democratic process and "denigrate" his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton, harming her electability and potential presidency. "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
If someone finds out that a candidate murders babies, I would prefer they release it...and not be arrested for "hacking the election".
There was no allegation that Trump or Clinton murders babies. This really is changing the subject. It's the same argument that governments use to break into your computer: "think of the children! Maybe that computer we break into has child porn! Would you disagree that we need to stop child porn?" Breaking into computers and stealing e-mail is illegal. People who do that should be arrested. Nobody is murdering babies; saying "but what if they murder babies?" is not an excuse.
The "fake news" meme is neither retarded nor hypocritical. What it is, however, is overused.
There was actual, fake news being spread around: "fake" meaning stuff that wasn't merely in error, or poorly researched, but completely made up: whole websites devoted to spreading "news" items with no connection to reality at all, for no other purpose than trolling for eyeballs.
But then the "fake news" thing got to be a meme, and people started applying that tag to refer to anything that disagrees with their worldview. Once Donald Trump started applying it to stories about him in the actual news media, it had turned around 180: it was no longer about discrediting news that actually was fake, but about discrediting news that actually was true.
I'll bet they'll recover
Oh yes, of course - corals have been around since the Cambrian or thereabouts...
True, but.
One type of coral or another has been around since the Cambrian, but species of corals have, in the past, been wiped out wholesale-- the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, in particular, (the "great dying") wiped out very close to all the reef-forming species, apparently due to the combination of anoxia and ocean acidification. In fact, 96% of all marine species were wiped out in that event.
It took about eight million years before corals are re-established in the fossil record. That's eight million years with no reefs; a period much longer than humanity has been around.
Most of the reef-forming coral species also went extinct at the K-T extinction. (The non-reef-forming corals were, for some reason, less affected.)
Extinction happens.
Hitler was backed by over 90% of the people.
No, in fact he was not.
Forget the real world. >Because real-world results don't matter. What did your MODEL that hasn't successfully predicted sunrise direction for the last 15 years say?
If you are snarking about climate models, in fact the climate models have been remarkably accurate over the last fifty years. Here's the Berkeley Earth comparison between models and measurements: http://static.berkeleyearth.or... (See also: https://www.skepticalscience.c... https://www.theguardian.com/en... )
And why have you been ignoring more accurate satellite-based measurements of the sunrise and selectively using only ground-based measurements that have been, errr, corrected from the original data?
You ARE aware that satellite measurements are heavily corrected, right? The satellites see a line-of-sight average of microwave emissions, and there is a rather long and controversial process to turn microwave emission intensity into middle troposphere temperatures. One researcher (John Christy) has a correction method that produces an output that says that global warming is real, but it's on the low end of the predicted values. http://www.realclimate.org/ind... Other researchers using the same data, however, come up with other answers.
The ground measurements, on the other hand, have had relatively minor corrections to account for changes of the type of thermometer, the corrections being well-documented, and (an important thing to note) the change due to corrections making no significant difference to the final conclusion.
(I've learned to not take that 32-ounce cola into a film, for just that reason).
Merely owning an apartment building, however-- where the value comes from the apartment itself, not the maintenance-- is not "providing a service."
Sure it is. Letting someone else use your apartment is every bit a service.
Not in economic terms, no. It's rent.
No voluntary arrangement can properly be considered rent-seeking.
It is rent seeking by defjnition.
Learn real economics terminology. Despite the belief of many people that they know everything about economics without bothering to actually learn any economics, it actually is valuable.
If there weren't some value added no one would choose to pay the rent. Only arrangements based on force can be rent-seeking, at the hands of either a government or some other form of criminal organization.
That's simply gibberish. Force is not rent. If you don't know what the phrase "rent seeking" means, don't use it.
If you "remember" it, why not link to it?
http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/google-is-overvalued/a/d-id/622304
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2005/12/google-is-overvalued-period.html
http://forums.seochat.com/search-engine-optimization-28/google-stock-overvalued-14884.html
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2005/11/23/buy-google-no-thanks.aspx
https://www.fool.com/investing/value/2005/12/06/much-ado-about-google.aspx
They're not the same.
Musk taunted the short-sellers. He didn't "troll" them.
But they did 'create value' by getting you more than you asked for in rent. If I'm trying to rent for 1200/mo and end up getting 1400/mo they created 200/mo in extra value for me.
You're confusing price with value.
In fact, both the middle-man company and the landlord are rent seekers. In the case of the landlord, literally.
(footnote: To be more precise, the landlord is not engaging in a rent-seeking activity to the extent that they provide a service: fixing up the apartment, custodial work and repairs, utilities, etc.: those are services. Merely owning an apartment building, however-- where the value comes from the apartment itself, not the maintenance-- is not "providing a service.")
Pretty much just like the American citizens I've worked with.
You must not be from the US, or have never applied to a number of US colleges. They certainly do NOT admit everyone that submits an application.
Depends on which college. MIT and Harvard, no. Podunk Branch of Big State U, and Whassamatta County Community College, yes.
I'm sorry but as much as I respect Elon Musk and Tesla that is absolutely absurd. Tesla having a market cap bigger than Ford makes no rational sense even with the most optimistic possible growth expectations for Tesla. The company has never made a sustained profit, it's revenues are a fraction of Ford, and it has no reasonable prospect of the sort of exceptional margins or market control that could possibly justify such a valuation. Yes some of their products are awesome but that doesn't justify a dotcom era valuation. There might be a short squeeze but the shorts are right. Telsla is hugely over valued.
Did you just take your old post about how Google was overvalued and strike out the word "Google" and "Brin & Page" to substitute "Tesla" and "Musk"??
Oh, sorry I forgot you troll for a living. Silly me.
Wait, what? You can make a living by trolling?
Finally, a career I'm qualified for! Overqualified, even! How do I sign up?
I am mulling over the prospect of zen architecture. How is this done? I'm picturing a flat and roof-less square of sand which, thorough the art of zen consciousness and being in the moment, gives the enlightened zen master all the support needed.
True, but who is easier to get rid of? The corrupt mayor or the corrupt prime minister?
Since there are vastly more local officials than national officials, and the local officials have more power and less scrutiny, it is far harder to get rid of them than national politicians.
National politicians come and go. Local ones insert hooked barbs into the precinct and stay forever.
I don't know where this idea that the further away and less accountable a government is the better the results.
I have never seen any evidence that local governments are less repressive, less corrupt, or more accountable than national governments.
If anything, I think that that experience shows that local governments tend to be more repressive and corrupt, and for the most part completely unaccountable for their actions.
"nimm mal mein Bier, Bube."
The science is pretty solid: the average temperature of the world is getting warmer, we know what it causing it, and there will be effects, some of which will be negative.
Meh. Blowing away mod points for this but statements like this is what keeps keeps the deniers in business. No. We do NOT know what is causing it.
Well, except that you're wrong. We do know what is causing the temperature rise. We know this for multiple reasons, not the least of which is by analyzing and ruling out alternate causes based on data. There are no proposed alternate explanations that fit the data. None. This is the way science is done: a hypothesis is accepted when you can rule out the competing hypotheses based on evidence. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere fits the data. No other hypothesis does.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
To fit just one of the many many data sets, the measured global temperature data (and you do know that heating has to fit data such as diurnal variations and measured downwelling infrared, not just global temperature, right?), let me remind you of the constraints a hypothetical alternate hypothesis would have to fit:
(1) It would have to explain why the greenhouse gasses are not heating the atmosphere,
(2) It would have to propose a different mechanism to explain the measured temperature rise that just coincidentally fits the models
(3) It would have to come up with an explanation for why the amplifier required in step (2) does not apply to the greenhouse effect.
*footnote 1: and the measured temperature rise fits the model very well. The denier community repeatedly claims it does not, but this denial is done by cherry picking of either the data or the models.
*footnote 2: item 2 will require an amplification mechanism, because we measure the input to the climate (solar energy, etc.) and know that the unamplified input can't explain the rise.
Many people have been looking for such an alternate hypothesis for several decades now. None have been found that haven't been quickly ruled out be measurements.
If we did, we could model it accurately.
No, if you mean "if we knew what caused it the error bars on the prediction would be zero," that's an assertion going one step too far. You can know the cause of something and nevertheless still have error bars on predictions. The remainder of your post is accurate:
What we do know for certain is that CO2 keeps heat trapped in the atmosphere. We are adding LOTS of CO2 to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is part of a chaotic and finely balanced system. CO2 is adding heat to that system (so we do actually know some of what is causing the heating). In summary: We know that we are altering a system and by how much. We are unsure of other factors, some are even still unknown (how does the ocean absorb heat, distribute it, and eventually release it). Regardless of the unknowns, the facts that we do know indicate that our current practices are affecting the heat status of the planet.
Is heating of the planet a problem? That is not for Science to say. Science deals with facts and theory, not judgements. My personal opinion in all of this is that we need to be concerned about our "waste" products to ensure that the planet (the only place we can currently live) remains a livable location.
But this is not the science we're talking about when we say there's scientific consensus about the greenhouse effect.
Runaway effects like melting perma frost, CH4 release and other stuff, that is exactly the science we are talking about. Hence we have no real clue and no way to estimate if we might experience a dramatical effect/result/disaster in 10 or 30 years.
If everything proceeds like it does now, it might take 100 years till mankind is in trouble, however one thing is certain: not everything will proceed like now.
If your main point here is "there may be even worst effects that we don't yet fully understand, and some of these effects could be triggered on short time scales," I won't disagree with that.
Give me a citation to one of these purported "red lines" that you are talking about, specifically what the line was, what the predicted consequences of crossing it was, and when the predicted consequences would occur.
400PPM is the most recent one that passed
Precisely what was predicted to happen when 400 was passed? Citation needed.
400 ppm is clearly a number that was picked because it is a multiple of 100. It's milestone, not an example of "this is a final red line. Cross this and we are DOOMED".