A lot of the people who worked at Bletchley Park were women and some of them had mad skillz. Of course they swore not to talk about it and didn't break their oaths. Unlike some people I could mention.
Jens Moller Jensen, of Copenhagen Police, said: "The arm has not been investigated yet, but it was found in the same area as the first and it was weighted down similarly. Therefore, we assume that the arm is connected to the submarine case."
This is like something out of Fargo. Got to love Scandinavians.
My granny runs AmigaOS on her Xbox One. She said once she got the static binary translation running to get decent legacy 68K and PowerPC performance on the 'rather underpowered' Jaguar cores it was all pretty much plain sailing. As she pointed out it's 'not all that hard' to emulate the ECS on the XBox One's GPU once she'd reverse engineered the GPU instruction set.
In a lengthy message posted on its site Thursday, the company gave an in-depth explanation for the controversial update. To make amends, Apple will temporarily drop the price of replacement batteries for the iPhone 6 and later to $29 starting in late January. The price will go back up to the usual $79 in 2019.
And even worserer than that most people wouldn't know the problem was the battery and would have bought a new phone.
And there've been reports of throttling even when charging. What'd be interesting is to see if swapping batteries restores performance, and to check if the throttling stops when a charger is connected.
Snopes' main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that - oddly enough - is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.
While at Inquisitr, the future "fact-checker" consistently displayed clear partisanship (RELATED: Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention)
She described herself as "openly left-leaning" and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as "teahadists." She called Bill Clinton "one of our greatest" presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham's comparison of voting to sex because they "fear female agency."
She once wrote: "Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth-or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty." (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)
Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being "at least guilty of criminal negligience" in the September 11 attacks. (The future "fact-checker" offered no evidence to support her accusation.)
Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."
If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.
The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:
To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.
Ayers co-chaired the organization's Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer's led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an "ex officio member". They both also sat together on
43.5% - Conservatives - in government. Traditionally pro EU but switched when May replaced Cameron. Untrustworthy - they keep saying the right things, but often do the exact opposite in order to placate all the other parties/media who actually believe the wrong things. Think about the RINOest RINO and you've got the average Conservative. Due to May's incompetence they went from having a slim majority to no majority and are in a confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP, a Northern Irish unionist (i.e. they believe NI should stay in the UK) party. Sadly the least bad option.
41.0% - Labour - out of government. Were Blairite centre left, pro EU when in government. Wrecked the country's finances. Now taken over by far left, Israel hating loons who want to wreck the countries finances even faster. Oddly enough they are no longer pro EU, but might switch to supporting it again, or at least Single Market membership, because that means lots more immigrants and rule by foreigners.
7.6% - Liberal Democrats - run on a far left platform, entered coalition with the Conservatives. Got wrecked when they tripled tuition fees rather than abolishing them as they promised. Very pro EU. Drove out their last, hapless leader because he was Christian and the one before that because of tuition fees.
1.9% - UKIP - Single issue anti EU party. Highly disorganised and terrible at candidate vetting but gained popularity under Farage. Farage has now stepped down. UKIP support fell from 12% to 2%, partly because they didn't stand in lots of constituencies because there was a 'pro BREXIT MP' even when there wasn't. Probably doomed if May actually does what she says she will do. However the Conservatives are infamous for doing the exact opposite of what they say they will do.
1.7% - Green - Filthy eco commies and economic illiterates. Have one seat caused by Brighton hipsters. Pro EU. Would wreck the economy faster even that the current far left Labour leadership. Have given spectacularly awful interviews on economics.
3.1% - SNP - Scottish National Party - Want Scottish independence. Pro EU. Filthy socialists. Only in Scotland.
0.5% - Plaid Cymru - Welsh nationalists. Only in Wales. Wales voted for BREXIT so they technically support it but want to stay in the single market
One of the largest agencies struck by the attack was the National Health Service hospitals in England and Scotland,[87][88] and up to 70,000 devices â" including computers, MRI scanners, blood-storage refrigerators and theatre equipment â" may have been affected.[89] On 12 May, some NHS services had to turn away non-critical emergencies, and some ambulances were diverted.[90][91] In 2016, thousands of computers in 42 separate NHS trusts in England were reported to be still running Windows XP.[35] NHS hospitals in Wales and Northern Ireland were unaffected by the attack.[92][90]
The US seems to have been rather unaffected - presumably Microsoft bullied most organisations into either upgrading from XP or paying for security patches. FedEx seems to be the only thing hit.
Still how many times have you gone into some dodgy organisation like the NHS or FedEx which would cause deaths if it shut down and seen machines running very old versions of Windows? And of course it's not out of the question for the people who did WannaCry to buy some zero days for newer versions of Windows on the black market or even discover them themselves. After all if you watch the CCC videos there are clearly loads of possibilities out there.
If WannaCry had been able to target more modern versions of Windows with a zero day, the results would have been much worse.
So I reckon the NSA and GCHQ are paying attention now.
Basically open societies have loads of insecure computers. People in a closed society have lots of time to find backdoors. Living in a closed society doesn't make you dumb and smart people in one would know some sort of cyberweapon to strike down enemies of the regime is the way to a privileged life.
This is no big deal! Apple can still do no wrong! The astronomical prices I paid for their gear is still justified!
The thing that irritated me about people like this is they're convincing Apple that it's OK to fuck up Macs.
E.g. I've got a 2012 Macbook Pro. When it got slow I added more Ram and an SSD and it was fast again. Now all Macbook Pros have soldered Ram and SSD which means I need to max out both when I buy them and Apple charge way over the odds for that. So I'm probably going back to Windows.
However if Apple listens to the fanboy chorus on the Verge and BGR they'll conclude that doing this is fine, and Macbook sales will continue to flatline.
You have to be doing something really bad to have not picked up market share from Microsoft during the Windows 8.x period because Windows 8.x was horrible for the average non technical Windows user.
In fact Chris Pirillo made a memorable video about how his Dad - a long term Windows user - found macOS less unfamiliar than Windows 8. Then again Microsoft had a bunch of fanboys telling them that getting rid of the start menu in Windows 8 was OK too.
Windows 10 doesn't seem as bad from the copy I've got in a Parallels VM, and if I get a Windows notebook I can get any combination of CPU/GPU with Ram/SSD upgradeability and probably a lot cheaper than a Mac.
So Apple make bad decisions and their horrid fanboys make excuses. Which drives people like me away from the platform they're trying to protect. I.e. ironically they're killing the platform in trying to protect it.
Well to be honest if I were in the ransomware business I'd probably have not targeted the US at any time. Then again the UK's not that much safer given NSA/GCHQ collaboration, and the WannaCry people did target that.
Maybe they really were North Koreans and knew they'll never set foot in a country that will extradite them.
I wonder if NSA/GCHQ have thought about some sort of firewall on NK's internet access? Or, given that they must use a foreign ISP to get to the wider Internet and that ISP could probably be persuaded to disconnect them if they're breaking the terms of service by sending ransomware.
Then again they probably connect via a Chinese ISP in a way that the Chinese government can claim it doesn't know anything about.
I did read the links. O'Keefe does hidden camera investigations. The fact he did one into AntiFa isn't the only evidence against them. And the charges against O'Keefe are politically motivated bullshit - his sin was exposing the lies and bias of leftist media organisations and NGOs.
Do you really think the government should be in the business of saying that Michael Moore's films are documentaries and were therefore OK but Citizens United's were campaign spending and hence were not?
They just did a sort of Socratic method series of queries and actions and ended up winning this Supreme Court case which held that First Amendment protections applied to both.
That seems to me far better than having some Democrat appointee ban CU's film and at the same time pretend Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was a documentary and not a tiresome propaganda piece, as Hitchens pointed out memorably here
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something-I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now-has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all-the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002-or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the fact
1) Washington, DC is politically sensitive location at the best of times 2) Inauguration Day was coming up which means extreme security and 3) The FBI/CIA/NSA etc were under enormous political pressure to find 'Russian hackers'
would it not have been prudent to exclude any IP address that geolocates there for a couple of months? Especially if you're doing it from Eastern Europe?
If you look at what happened it seemed like the Europol, the UK and the Netherlands all helped out with the investigation I.e. these idiots activated the very effective part of law enforcement that deals with threats to national security, which presumably woke up when politicians started talking about Russian hackers and did its damnedest to catch some.
The EU police agency Europol says three other suspects were also arrested in Romania this month in a linked investigation into ransomware. The UK's National Crime Agency was involved in that investigation.
The three are suspected of infecting computers with CTB-Locker (Curve-Tor-Bitcoin Locker) malware.
A Europol statement says Romanian police were tipped off in early 2017 by the Dutch High Tech Crime Unit and other authorities about a group of Romanians sending spam messages.
The spam emails had attachments made to look as if they had come from well-known companies in Italy, the Netherlands and UK. Once opened on a Windows system, those malicious attachments encrypted computer files.
It's completely different to the WannaCry attack where no one got caught and North Korea got blamed.
The WannaCry ransomware attack was a May 2017 worldwide cyberattack by the WannaCry ransomware cryptoworm, which targeted computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system by encrypting data and demanding ransom payments in the Bitcoin cryptocurrency. It propagated through EternalBlue, an exploit in older Windows systems released by The Shadow Brokers a few months prior to the attack. While Microsoft had released patches previously to close the exploit, much of WannaCry's spread was from organizations that had not applied these, or were using older Windows systems that were past their end-of-life. WannaCry also took advantage of installing backdoors onto infected systems.
The attack was stopped within a few days of its discovery due to emergency patches released by Microsoft, and the discovery of a kill switch that prevented infected computers from spreading WannaCry further. The attack was estimated to have affected more than 300,000 computers across 150 countries, with total damages ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Security experts believed from preliminary evaluation of the worm that the attack originated from North Korea or agencies working for the country.
In December 2017, the United States, United Kingdom and Australia formally asserted that North Korea was behind the attack.
Mind you WannaCry probably helped wake up international law enforcement too. I.e. it's another reason these guys got caught effectively.
A billion dollars would challenging to launder, unless you can buy T bills with it as a foreign government like they do with China. I bet they don't worry too much about whether that money is legal or not.
For a few million just head to Zurich, buy a portfolio of watches, put the watches in a safe deposit box, come back a year later, sell the watches and take your cash.
You can't put money in a Swiss bank unless you can prove where it came from, but you can put property in a safe deposit box. And when the time comes to sell you get cash with a bunch of receipts. So when you go to another bank you just say "I got the money from selling my dear old Dad's watch".
I'm sure that's the reason people like IWC make $30-$50,000 watches in limited batches so the price will likely increase.
A million dollars worth of IWC perpetual calendars would easily fit in a safe deposit box.
Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain-Feingold Act) modified the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. Section 441b to prohibit corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate in any context) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, Citizens United, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that broadcast advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.[11] The FEC later dismissed a second complaint which argued that the movie itself constituted illegal corporate spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, which was illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found that:
The complainant alleged that the release and distribution of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film's release, Michael Moore and other entities associated with the film made excessive and/or prohibited contributions to unidentified candidates. The Commission found no reason to believe the respondents violated the Act because the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not "contributions" or "expenditures" as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act.[12]
In response, Citizens United produced a documentary, called Celsius 41.11, highly critical of both FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing the movie and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.[13]
In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007. By early 2008, it sought to run television commercials to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie and to air the movie on DirecTV.[14]
Whatever the purpose of their hack, glad that it interfered with the inauguration and likely helped protesters avoid prosecution. I'll drink to them tonight.
The black block rioted in full view of the TV cameras. Many trash cans were grievously assaulted.
Unfortunately these were government trashcans and you don't need to assault very many of them to be over the $5000 limit you need to get a felony riot conviction in DC. Even inciting other people to do more than $5000 property damage is enough
(d) If in the course and as a result of a riot a person suffers serious bodily harm or there is property damage in excess of $5,000, every person who willfully incited or urged others to engage in the riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in Section 22-3571.01, or both.
So some of them are going to get ten years for felony rioting, sometime in 2018. They fought the trash cans, and the trash cans won.
Jury selection began Wednesday for the cases of the first defendants to face trial in the Inauguration Day riots in downtown Washington, with the judge quickly asking prospective jurors about their views.
"What I am asking you is whether anything you may have heard about that day would keep you from fairly and impartially deciding this case? What are your feelings about the president and Inauguration Day, and will those feelings keep you from fairly and impartially deciding on a case and viewing evidence?" D.C. Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz asked the 70 panelists.
The six defendants, whose trial could begin as soon as Monday, are charged with felony rioting in the Jan. 20 disruption that left several businesses vandalized and resulted in thousands of dollars in damage.
In all, prosecutors charged 212 people in connection with the riots. So far, 20 have pleaded guilty and prosecutors dropped cases against another 20. Trials for the others, in groups of five or more, are set to occur almost monthly through mid-2018.
Prosecutors allege that a group called Disrupt J20 helped plan protests that pulled in participants from across the country. They said some rioters used "black bloc" tactics - wearing all black and hiding their faces with masks and goggles so it would be harder to identify them.
The first defendants to face trial are Michelle Macchio, 26, of Naples, Fla.; Jennifer Armento, 38, of Philadelphia; Christina Simmons, 20, of Cockeysville, Md.; Alexei Wood, 37, of San Antonio; Oliver Harris, 28, of Philadelphia; and Brittne Lawson, 27, of Pittsburgh.
The trial is expected to last through mid-December.
The six defendants face felony counts of inciting a riot and destruction of property, charges that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years each.
Interesting how most of them seem to come from red states - Florida, Philadelphia, Texas were all Red. Maryland was blue.
I think a lot of antifa/far left types are rebelling against their Republican voting parents, who I'm sure will be very sad when they end up with ten years in prison. It's a shame really, I bet their Mummies and Daddies are lovely people.
They live in a NATO country which presumably has an extradition treaty with the US and think that hacking outdoor cameras in Washington DC on inauguration day won't cause the NSA/CIA etc to trace them and US authorities to sic the local cops on them.
Then again maybe Club Fed has better food than whatever shithole in Romania they're from.
Apparently there are third party plugins which allow you to stream stuff for free, though the MPA/MPAA-led Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment etc are on the case.
All rechargeable batteries are consumables and have a limited lifespan-eventually their capacity and performance decline so that they need to be serviced or recycled.
Since the battery is non user replaceable that means the iPhones are consumable too. I.e. they count as food and hence spending too much on them is 'gluttony'.
QED
Actually I did some reading and it turns out that 'gluttony' has traditionally meant not just excessive eating but rather to immoderation in all forms of consumption. For example
Thus far, most of the seven deadly sins I have spoken of have seemed to be the more obviously deadly ones - but this sin, gluttony, is not one that is given much notice these days. And yet it is, along with lust, one of the most pervasive of sins in Western culture.
Gluttony is never being quite content with what we have, always wanting more (not in the sense of greed, on which I shall speak later), filling not only our stomachs but our entire lives with excess and still wanting more. It bloats and distracts the soul, causing us to form idols out of things we think we "need", and helps us avoid reality by filling our lives with distractions (think shopping or eating as a "cure" for sadness). What we actually need has been replaced by want we think we need, what we think we want. But our hearts can only be restless until they rest in God. (cf. Confessions of St. Augustine)
Nevertheless, we see a kind of insatiable hunger to fill the void that only God can fill with anything and everything else. Even the way we eat in the West is often bordering on the ridiculous - we cram our bellies with as much food as we can, in as short a time as we can, and yet give our bodies no time to even digest what they have been given. We pile our closets full of clothes we never wear, and all manner of other things of this kind. "To want simply what is enough nowadays suggests to people primitiveness and squalor."1 (Seneca)
The cure for the sin of gluttony is moderation - we eat to live, not live to eat, and this maxim can be extended to all other material things in life. "Food is to be taken in so far as it supports our life, but not to the extent of enslaving us to the impulses of desire."2 (St. John Cassian) A good example is in drinking - I enjoy a good ale just as much as anyone else, but there is an obvious difference between enjoying a drink, and getting drunk.
I'm sure if St Augustine were alive today he'd have bought the cheapest cell phone that met his needs, if he had one at all. If he did I'm sure he'd insist on a user replaceable battery so he could keep it running for as many years as possible. Frankly I think he'd agree with me that the LG V20 is a better buy than an iPhone. If I told him that iPhone users were prone to sodomy, pride, lust, gluttony and saying 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas' he'd agree that they need to to be sent somewhere they can be cured of those bad habits by enforced moderation in order to preserve their immortal souls.
Slashdot Mirror
By what WITCHCRAFT doest thou know yonder article contents?
A lot of the people who worked at Bletchley Park were women and some of them had mad skillz. Of course they swore not to talk about it and didn't break their oaths. Unlike some people I could mention.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/ne...
Jens Moller Jensen, of Copenhagen Police, said: "The arm has not been investigated yet, but it was found in the same area as the first and it was weighted down similarly. Therefore, we assume that the arm is connected to the submarine case."
This is like something out of Fargo. Got to love Scandinavians.
My granny runs AmigaOS on her Xbox One. She said once she got the static binary translation running to get decent legacy 68K and PowerPC performance on the 'rather underpowered' Jaguar cores it was all pretty much plain sailing. As she pointed out it's 'not all that hard' to emulate the ECS on the XBox One's GPU once she'd reverse engineered the GPU instruction set.
Little Bobby Drop Tables is coming for you!
He hits me cuz he love me
Even worse the battery replacement is $79 dollar normally
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/2...
In a lengthy message posted on its site Thursday, the company gave an in-depth explanation for the controversial update. To make amends, Apple will temporarily drop the price of replacement batteries for the iPhone 6 and later to $29 starting in late January. The price will go back up to the usual $79 in 2019.
And even worserer than that most people wouldn't know the problem was the battery and would have bought a new phone.
And there've been reports of throttling even when charging. What'd be interesting is to see if swapping batteries restores performance, and to check if the throttling stops when a charger is connected.
Snopes, politifact and factcheck are all DNC shill sites.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...
Snopes' main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that - oddly enough - is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.
While at Inquisitr, the future "fact-checker" consistently displayed clear partisanship (RELATED: Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention)
She described herself as "openly left-leaning" and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as "teahadists." She called Bill Clinton "one of our greatest" presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham's comparison of voting to sex because they "fear female agency."
She once wrote: "Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth-or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty." (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)
Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being "at least guilty of criminal negligience" in the September 11 attacks. (The future "fact-checker" offered no evidence to support her accusation.)
https://www.usnews.com/opinion...
Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.
The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:
To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.
Ayers co-chaired the organization's Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer's led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an "ex officio member". They both also sat together on
The Liberals have against the Tories? (Did I spell those correctly, my British brethren?)
In the UK you have these parties, in decreasing order of popularity at the last election
http://www.electoralcalculus.c...
43.5% - Conservatives - in government. Traditionally pro EU but switched when May replaced Cameron. Untrustworthy - they keep saying the right things, but often do the exact opposite in order to placate all the other parties/media who actually believe the wrong things. Think about the RINOest RINO and you've got the average Conservative. Due to May's incompetence they went from having a slim majority to no majority and are in a confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP, a Northern Irish unionist (i.e. they believe NI should stay in the UK) party. Sadly the least bad option.
41.0% - Labour - out of government. Were Blairite centre left, pro EU when in government. Wrecked the country's finances. Now taken over by far left, Israel hating loons who want to wreck the countries finances even faster. Oddly enough they are no longer pro EU, but might switch to supporting it again, or at least Single Market membership, because that means lots more immigrants and rule by foreigners.
7.6% - Liberal Democrats - run on a far left platform, entered coalition with the Conservatives. Got wrecked when they tripled tuition fees rather than abolishing them as they promised. Very pro EU. Drove out their last, hapless leader because he was Christian and the one before that because of tuition fees.
1.9% - UKIP - Single issue anti EU party. Highly disorganised and terrible at candidate vetting but gained popularity under Farage. Farage has now stepped down. UKIP support fell from 12% to 2%, partly because they didn't stand in lots of constituencies because there was a 'pro BREXIT MP' even when there wasn't. Probably doomed if May actually does what she says she will do. However the Conservatives are infamous for doing the exact opposite of what they say they will do.
1.7% - Green - Filthy eco commies and economic illiterates. Have one seat caused by Brighton hipsters. Pro EU. Would wreck the economy faster even that the current far left Labour leadership. Have given spectacularly awful interviews on economics.
3.1% - SNP - Scottish National Party - Want Scottish independence. Pro EU. Filthy socialists. Only in Scotland.
0.5% - Plaid Cymru - Welsh nationalists. Only in Wales. Wales voted for BREXIT so they technically support it but want to stay in the single market
I think WannaCry freaked them out. It only hit XP but it hit the NHS hard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
One of the largest agencies struck by the attack was the National Health Service hospitals in England and Scotland,[87][88] and up to 70,000 devices â" including computers, MRI scanners, blood-storage refrigerators and theatre equipment â" may have been affected.[89] On 12 May, some NHS services had to turn away non-critical emergencies, and some ambulances were diverted.[90][91] In 2016, thousands of computers in 42 separate NHS trusts in England were reported to be still running Windows XP.[35] NHS hospitals in Wales and Northern Ireland were unaffected by the attack.[92][90]
The US seems to have been rather unaffected - presumably Microsoft bullied most organisations into either upgrading from XP or paying for security patches. FedEx seems to be the only thing hit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Then again the NSA developed the exploit it used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So perhaps they made sure US stuff was patched.
Still how many times have you gone into some dodgy organisation like the NHS or FedEx which would cause deaths if it shut down and seen machines running very old versions of Windows? And of course it's not out of the question for the people who did WannaCry to buy some zero days for newer versions of Windows on the black market or even discover them themselves. After all if you watch the CCC videos there are clearly loads of possibilities out there.
If WannaCry had been able to target more modern versions of Windows with a zero day, the results would have been much worse.
So I reckon the NSA and GCHQ are paying attention now.
Basically open societies have loads of insecure computers. People in a closed society have lots of time to find backdoors. Living in a closed society doesn't make you dumb and smart people in one would know some sort of cyberweapon to strike down enemies of the regime is the way to a privileged life.
This is no big deal! Apple can still do no wrong! The astronomical prices I paid for their gear is still justified!
The thing that irritated me about people like this is they're convincing Apple that it's OK to fuck up Macs.
E.g. I've got a 2012 Macbook Pro. When it got slow I added more Ram and an SSD and it was fast again. Now all Macbook Pros have soldered Ram and SSD which means I need to max out both when I buy them and Apple charge way over the odds for that. So I'm probably going back to Windows.
However if Apple listens to the fanboy chorus on the Verge and BGR they'll conclude that doing this is fine, and Macbook sales will continue to flatline.
You have to be doing something really bad to have not picked up market share from Microsoft during the Windows 8.x period because Windows 8.x was horrible for the average non technical Windows user.
In fact Chris Pirillo made a memorable video about how his Dad - a long term Windows user - found macOS less unfamiliar than Windows 8. Then again Microsoft had a bunch of fanboys telling them that getting rid of the start menu in Windows 8 was OK too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Windows 10 doesn't seem as bad from the copy I've got in a Parallels VM, and if I get a Windows notebook I can get any combination of CPU/GPU with Ram/SSD upgradeability and probably a lot cheaper than a Mac.
So Apple make bad decisions and their horrid fanboys make excuses. Which drives people like me away from the platform they're trying to protect. I.e. ironically they're killing the platform in trying to protect it.
Adequacy.org memorably remarked that Windows and MacOS have "advocates"; Linux has "apologists". Well the problem with Apple fanboys is that they're apologists not advocates.
Well to be honest if I were in the ransomware business I'd probably have not targeted the US at any time. Then again the UK's not that much safer given NSA/GCHQ collaboration, and the WannaCry people did target that.
Maybe they really were North Koreans and knew they'll never set foot in a country that will extradite them.
I wonder if NSA/GCHQ have thought about some sort of firewall on NK's internet access? Or, given that they must use a foreign ISP to get to the wider Internet and that ISP could probably be persuaded to disconnect them if they're breaking the terms of service by sending ransomware.
Then again they probably connect via a Chinese ISP in a way that the Chinese government can claim it doesn't know anything about.
I did read the links. O'Keefe does hidden camera investigations. The fact he did one into AntiFa isn't the only evidence against them. And the charges against O'Keefe are politically motivated bullshit - his sin was exposing the lies and bias of leftist media organisations and NGOs.
Hmm, I didn't know what a 'proof trade dollar' was. Turns out you can get a lot of value into a small amount of space
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/proof-...
Do you really think the government should be in the business of saying that Michael Moore's films are documentaries and were therefore OK but Citizens United's were campaign spending and hence were not?
They just did a sort of Socratic method series of queries and actions and ended up winning this Supreme Court case which held that First Amendment protections applied to both.
That seems to me far better than having some Democrat appointee ban CU's film and at the same time pretend Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was a documentary and not a tiresome propaganda piece, as Hitchens pointed out memorably here
Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something-I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now-has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all-the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002-or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the fact
Yes but given that
1) Washington, DC is politically sensitive location at the best of times
2) Inauguration Day was coming up which means extreme security and
3) The FBI/CIA/NSA etc were under enormous political pressure to find 'Russian hackers'
would it not have been prudent to exclude any IP address that geolocates there for a couple of months? Especially if you're doing it from Eastern Europe?
If you look at what happened it seemed like the Europol, the UK and the Netherlands all helped out with the investigation I.e. these idiots activated the very effective part of law enforcement that deals with threats to national security, which presumably woke up when politicians started talking about Russian hackers and did its damnedest to catch some.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...
The EU police agency Europol says three other suspects were also arrested in Romania this month in a linked investigation into ransomware. The UK's National Crime Agency was involved in that investigation.
The three are suspected of infecting computers with CTB-Locker (Curve-Tor-Bitcoin Locker) malware.
A Europol statement says Romanian police were tipped off in early 2017 by the Dutch High Tech Crime Unit and other authorities about a group of Romanians sending spam messages.
The spam emails had attachments made to look as if they had come from well-known companies in Italy, the Netherlands and UK. Once opened on a Windows system, those malicious attachments encrypted computer files.
It's completely different to the WannaCry attack where no one got caught and North Korea got blamed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The WannaCry ransomware attack was a May 2017 worldwide cyberattack by the WannaCry ransomware cryptoworm, which targeted computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system by encrypting data and demanding ransom payments in the Bitcoin cryptocurrency. It propagated through EternalBlue, an exploit in older Windows systems released by The Shadow Brokers a few months prior to the attack. While Microsoft had released patches previously to close the exploit, much of WannaCry's spread was from organizations that had not applied these, or were using older Windows systems that were past their end-of-life. WannaCry also took advantage of installing backdoors onto infected systems.
The attack was stopped within a few days of its discovery due to emergency patches released by Microsoft, and the discovery of a kill switch that prevented infected computers from spreading WannaCry further. The attack was estimated to have affected more than 300,000 computers across 150 countries, with total damages ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Security experts believed from preliminary evaluation of the worm that the attack originated from North Korea or agencies working for the country.
In December 2017, the United States, United Kingdom and Australia formally asserted that North Korea was behind the attack.
Mind you WannaCry probably helped wake up international law enforcement too. I.e. it's another reason these guys got caught effectively.
What on Earth do James O'Keefe and Roy Moore have to do with this?
It's not like anyone is disputing the fact that Black Bloc rioted on inauguration day.
E.g.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dc+i...
A billion dollars would challenging to launder, unless you can buy T bills with it as a foreign government like they do with China. I bet they don't worry too much about whether that money is legal or not.
http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Pu...
For a few million just head to Zurich, buy a portfolio of watches, put the watches in a safe deposit box, come back a year later, sell the watches and take your cash.
You can't put money in a Swiss bank unless you can prove where it came from, but you can put property in a safe deposit box. And when the time comes to sell you get cash with a bunch of receipts. So when you go to another bank you just say "I got the money from selling my dear old Dad's watch".
I'm sure that's the reason people like IWC make $30-$50,000 watches in limited batches so the price will likely increase.
A million dollars worth of IWC perpetual calendars would easily fit in a safe deposit box.
https://www.deployant.com/revi...
NB none of this applies if you're a US citizen - the Swiss banks won't let you be a customer.
I wouldn't do any of this personally of course, because I am as honest as the day is long - the longer the day is, the less I do wrong!
Funnily enough the FEC's case in Citizens United was that they weren't a bona fide documentary film maker but that Michael Moore was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain-Feingold Act) modified the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. Section 441b to prohibit corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate in any context) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, Citizens United, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that broadcast advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.[11] The FEC later dismissed a second complaint which argued that the movie itself constituted illegal corporate spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, which was illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found that:
The complainant alleged that the release and distribution of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film's release, Michael Moore and other entities associated with the film made excessive and/or prohibited contributions to unidentified candidates. The Commission found no reason to believe the respondents violated the Act because the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not "contributions" or "expenditures" as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act.[12]
In response, Citizens United produced a documentary, called Celsius 41.11, highly critical of both FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing the movie and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.[13]
In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007. By early 2008, it sought to run television commercials to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie and to air the movie on DirecTV.[14]
Whatever the purpose of their hack, glad that it interfered with the inauguration and likely helped protesters avoid prosecution. I'll drink to them tonight.
The black block rioted in full view of the TV cameras. Many trash cans were grievously assaulted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Unfortunately these were government trashcans and you don't need to assault very many of them to be over the $5000 limit you need to get a felony riot conviction in DC. Even inciting other people to do more than $5000 property damage is enough
https://beta.code.dccouncil.us...
(d) If in the course and as a result of a riot a person suffers serious bodily harm or there is property damage in excess of $5,000, every person who willfully incited or urged others to engage in the riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in Section 22-3571.01, or both.
So some of them are going to get ten years for felony rioting, sometime in 2018. They fought the trash cans, and the trash cans won.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Jury selection began Wednesday for the cases of the first defendants to face trial in the Inauguration Day riots in downtown Washington, with the judge quickly asking prospective jurors about their views.
"What I am asking you is whether anything you may have heard about that day would keep you from fairly and impartially deciding this case? What are your feelings about the president and Inauguration Day, and will those feelings keep you from fairly and impartially deciding on a case and viewing evidence?" D.C. Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz asked the 70 panelists.
The six defendants, whose trial could begin as soon as Monday, are charged with felony rioting in the Jan. 20 disruption that left several businesses vandalized and resulted in thousands of dollars in damage.
In all, prosecutors charged 212 people in connection with the riots. So far, 20 have pleaded guilty and prosecutors dropped cases against another 20. Trials for the others, in groups of five or more, are set to occur almost monthly through mid-2018.
Prosecutors allege that a group called Disrupt J20 helped plan protests that pulled in participants from across the country. They said some rioters used "black bloc" tactics - wearing all black and hiding their faces with masks and goggles so it would be harder to identify them.
The first defendants to face trial are Michelle Macchio, 26, of Naples, Fla.; Jennifer Armento, 38, of Philadelphia; Christina Simmons, 20, of Cockeysville, Md.; Alexei Wood, 37, of San Antonio; Oliver Harris, 28, of Philadelphia; and Brittne Lawson, 27, of Pittsburgh.
The trial is expected to last through mid-December.
The six defendants face felony counts of inciting a riot and destruction of property, charges that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years each.
Interesting how most of them seem to come from red states - Florida, Philadelphia, Texas were all Red. Maryland was blue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I think a lot of antifa/far left types are rebelling against their Republican voting parents, who I'm sure will be very sad when they end up with ten years in prison. It's a shame really, I bet their Mummies and Daddies are lovely people.
Aren't you Romanian? Don't correct him!
They live in a NATO country which presumably has an extradition treaty with the US and think that hacking outdoor cameras in Washington DC on inauguration day won't cause the NSA/CIA etc to trace them and US authorities to sic the local cops on them.
Then again maybe Club Fed has better food than whatever shithole in Romania they're from.
This is probably the reason the UK is the only export customer for Trident II, despite valiant attempts by Lockheed Martin to find more.
It used to be called XBMC, i.e. Xbox Media Centre, a media player. It seems like it does illegal streaming too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The original announcement for the 64 bit version says
https://betanews.com/2017/06/0...
If you intend to use Kodi with add-ons to stream potentially illegal content, you may wish to consider a VPN.
Or look at this
https://www.engadget.com/2017/...
Apparently there are third party plugins which allow you to stream stuff for free, though the MPA/MPAA-led Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment etc are on the case.
Apple have just admitted that lithium ion batteries are 'consumables'.
https://support.apple.com/en-u...
All rechargeable batteries are consumables and have a limited lifespan-eventually their capacity and performance decline so that they need to be serviced or recycled.
Since the battery is non user replaceable that means the iPhones are consumable too. I.e. they count as food and hence spending too much on them is 'gluttony'.
QED
Actually I did some reading and it turns out that 'gluttony' has traditionally meant not just excessive eating but rather to immoderation in all forms of consumption. For example
https://www.catholicgentleman....
Thus far, most of the seven deadly sins I have spoken of have seemed to be the more obviously deadly ones - but this sin, gluttony, is not one that is given much notice these days. And yet it is, along with lust, one of the most pervasive of sins in Western culture.
Gluttony is never being quite content with what we have, always wanting more (not in the sense of greed, on which I shall speak later), filling not only our stomachs but our entire lives with excess and still wanting more. It bloats and distracts the soul, causing us to form idols out of things we think we "need", and helps us avoid reality by filling our lives with distractions (think shopping or eating as a "cure" for sadness). What we actually need has been replaced by want we think we need, what we think we want. But our hearts can only be restless until they rest in God. (cf. Confessions of St. Augustine)
Nevertheless, we see a kind of insatiable hunger to fill the void that only God can fill with anything and everything else. Even the way we eat in the West is often bordering on the ridiculous - we cram our bellies with as much food as we can, in as short a time as we can, and yet give our bodies no time to even digest what they have been given. We pile our closets full of clothes we never wear, and all manner of other things of this kind. "To want simply what is enough nowadays suggests to people primitiveness and squalor."1 (Seneca)
The cure for the sin of gluttony is moderation - we eat to live, not live to eat, and this maxim can be extended to all other material things in life. "Food is to be taken in so far as it supports our life, but not to the extent of enslaving us to the impulses of desire."2 (St. John Cassian) A good example is in drinking - I enjoy a good ale just as much as anyone else, but there is an obvious difference between enjoying a drink, and getting drunk.
I'm sure if St Augustine were alive today he'd have bought the cheapest cell phone that met his needs, if he had one at all. If he did I'm sure he'd insist on a user replaceable battery so he could keep it running for as many years as possible. Frankly I think he'd agree with me that the LG V20 is a better buy than an iPhone. If I told him that iPhone users were prone to sodomy, pride, lust, gluttony and saying 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas' he'd agree that they need to to be sent somewhere they can be cured of those bad habits by enforced moderation in order to preserve their immortal souls.