Seems this is just a case of fraud and greed rather than someone lying to promote a cause they truly believe in:

"In early 2015, media scrutiny revealed that Gibson's cancer claims appear to have been fabricated, that she had lied about her age and other details of her personal life and history, and she had used campaign donations to lead a profligate and affluent lifestyle instead of delivering the money to charitable institutions as promised. There are claims she rented an expensive town house, leased an office suite and luxury car, underwent cosmetic dental procedures, and holidayed internationally from the proceeds of money purportedly raised for charity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

They made sense years ago when phones had much smaller, lower resolution displays, cellular latencies were much higher, and embedded processors were much slower (for HTML rendering). All that is in the rear-view mirror now.

The fact that the NSA thinks it can achieve this shows how far our civil liberties have fallen.

China's vociferous response to Google removing CNNIC's root certificate authority is the reason Apple is not taking action. Apple is a very principled company until those principles start costing them money.

The fact that the agent may be working for his own interests does not address the contradiction - it only means the agent is lying to his clients about their improved marketability from staring in the film. As to whether Mark Hamill would have had a less successful acting career without Star Wars, that depends on how you define successful; if you mean a lifetime of showing up to conventions and signing autographs for $10 a piece then maybe. If instead you mean an actual acting career with other significant roles, I would say no.

The first section of the summary states that actors have trouble finding other roles after staring in the Star Wars franchise but then concludes with an agent saying actors should accept the low-paying Star Wars roles because it "...guarantees a huge global audience, enhancing an actor's marketability."

They tried to buy donuts with bitcoins.

But instead she just got owned by the room.

If it was 1995 I'd be really excited right now!

The major change in Windows 8 was the UI but you're saying if I use via third-party software to roll back the UI to Windows 7 then Windows 8 is good. That's like saying the Spanish Inquisition is a party once you factor out all the murders.

I demand $300 in reparations for having to endure the huge shit pile that is Windows 8.

It's because they put the feedback app in the start menu and with the start menu finally back in Win 10 users actually knew how to find it to launch :)

So given a choice I'd chose the cheaper homeopathy "solutions".

Seems to me that the odds a hacker group would intentionally embed a codeword attributed to another hacker organization to cover his tracks are higher than the odds that the NSA accidentally embedded the same strings in multiple exploits. That's on a relative odds basis. On an absolute basis the odds for either seem rather low and thus IMO the evidence in the article is still very weak.

Seems like very weak evidence to me, and certainly not a "smoking gun" claimed in the referenced article.