No, the CIA reported on outside-the-embassy protests elsewhere, and made some conjecture along those lines in the hours immediately following the event. They (and the FBI, and DoD) briefed the White House (and thus State) on the reality of the event (a planned, organized event run by well armed, hardened militants) not even 24 hours later. But for days and weeks afterwards, the administration continued to try to sell the "It's all because of this vile video, see..." fairy tale. Why? Because that deliberate lie was a better fit with the campaign's "the terrorist are on the run" narrative. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

And you really think that whatever number that other 95% is, it will go down if someone willing to kill himself on a commercial airliner in order to destroy it on approach over a large city no longer has to even wonder if he'll have his bomb found while boarding? If you're going to troll, at least do it in a way that makes it look like you at least take yourself seriously.

Feel free to pop into any of thousands of posts and show me where someone with whom I'm more philosophically aligned has sent someone out to do a stint of serial lying on a matter of plainly obvious fact (a la launching Susan Rice at the weekend talk shows, or Hillary repeating the same stuff days after she's been briefed on details that explicitly illustrate the exact opposite) - upon which I excused/approved. Specifics, please.

But in your imagination, I have? THAT'S how you make it more comfortable, somehow, to process the pre-election BS we're talking about, coming out of the current administration? "I don't like you, so I suspect you'd approve of other people I don't like lying, and saying so while using phrases like 'statistical certainty' is, no matter how lame, the best thing I can think of to try to distract from the administration's campaign of deliberate, purposeful lying on the topic at hand." THAT'S your argument? Very nice.

With 22 different models of crap home routers I would have expected the pen-testing equivalent of clotted rivers of gore pouring through heaps of smouldering rubble and pooling around the skull pyramids that seem to rise higher than the walls that once offered the false promise of shelter. Not merely 60 serious vulnerabilities.

Well, when you're typing out Unix commands on an teletype that's 80 characters wide, creating short options first made a lot of sense.

Powershell's approach is more verbose, but it's also a little more readable (same as long options in Linux), especially when you're dealing with things more complicated than "copy a file", such as "create AD forest trust" or "reconfigure Exchange retention policies". That said, I still tend to use short options by default.

One thing nice about Powershell is that you can truncate options as long as they're not abmiguous. So you can make -Recursive be -Rec, or even -R, as long as there's not also a -Recreate or -Recover options. That seems to be a nice middle-ground.

You're right. Sending out Susan Rice to lie to reporters in an attempt to spin a completely preventable horror show at the consulate so as to prevent it from further tainting an upcoming election ... that's party-neutral. It's pointing out the lies that's partisan, right? Yeah.

So, when the people in the DoD and the CIA say the exact opposite, and point out that at no time did they conclude or tell anyone that the ambassador was killed by a spontaneous protest crowd, you're thinking ... what, exactly? Weeks afterwards, when the administration was still sticking to that narrative, when every agency with info on the matter was telling them the opposite, you're concluding what, exactly?

Regardless, you're deliberately ignoring the concluding pages of the report, which point out the administration's culpability in ignoring the safety of the people deployed there, and the unanswered questions about the actions of the administration during and in the wake of the event. The report doesn't address why the administration continued to lie about the event for days and weeks after they had unassailable intelligence showing the nature of the attacks.

The report does, of course, express the Senate's considerable frustration that the State Department was preventing important people from appearing to testify, and thus preventing inquiry into entire areas related to accountability and the usual who-knew-what-when. They specifically cite a lack of cooperation from the administration, which prevented access to documents, personnel, and the answers to questions they wanted answered. They, the people who wrote the report you're trumpeting, say that political protectionism by the administration prevented discovery of basic facts about what happened before, during, and after the attack.

In short, the "flawed talking points" they identified were ... flawed. And to the extent that they outlined something known "at the time," we're talking about information that was formally revised only hours later ... not that the administration changed their pervasive lie on the subject for days and days, in appearance after appearance, where they continued on with the YouTube video BS. Something that everyone involved knew was crap before the sun set the next day. But you keep patting them on the back, and ignoring the bulk of the conclusions in the report you yourself trotted out.

So what you're saying is we should stop screening for weapons and explosives? Yes or no.

Right, still can't actually address the point. At least you're predictable. Oh no! Someone made a point I don't want to address! Quick, act like a three year old! And do it again! Hilarious.

I'm not making allegations, I'm explaining what happened. The consulate was attacked by a well armed local terrorist franchise that had carefully planned their evening project. Everyone on the US side new within hours (even as it was happening) exactly what had occurred. The White House certainly did. They then went about a deliberate campaign of lying about what happened, because telling the truth about it would have been acknowledging that a key part of their at-the-time ongoing re-election campaign was their narrative about how exactly such terrorist groups were "on the run" and losing their ability to cause trouble. The event demonstrated that their often repeated campaign talking point was either itself a lie, or reflected a remarkably obtuse/naive understanding of what was happening on the ground in places like Libya.

The GP was questioning the existence of a US counter-example of what we see regularly in the Russian/Ukraine mess (where Russia blatantly lies about what's happening on the ground, using all sorts of classical methods in their media, including the professional trolls discussed in TFA). I said that we had a close example that we could examine - where something that happened on the ground and was well understood by everyone in defense and intelligence, right up the food chain to the White House, was never the less lied about for weeks in the service of spinning for the imminent election. They sent people like Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton out to deliberately troll, multiple times, in order to muddy the waters and distract from the fact that what happened was taking the fun out of part of their re-election campaign narrative.

Don't worry, things will still be nice and confusing: It is valid to use a "Type C" connector in conjunction with a USB2 chipset(at least on the peripheral end, and probably in practice on the computer end). Further, if the "Type C" connector is actually USB3, there is the matter of "Alternate mode".

"Alternate mode" allows the Type C jack and cable to act as a conduit for an entirely different protocol(Displayport and MHL have previously been announced, Intel's announcement presumably means that thunderbolt is along for the ride); but only if the system has the hardware necessary to implement whatever the other protocol is, and that hardware is suitably connected to the Type C jack in question. It doesn't actually give a USB 3.1(gen1 or gen2, yes there's that difference as well) device the ability to natively handle the other protocol in the USB silicon, merely to politely carry it from one end to the other, if the upstream device can generate it and the downstream device can accept it.

So, when you combine this with the inevitable variations in how much power is available(spec allows for up to 100watts; but given that very few laptops, much less littler widgets, even have a hundred watt brick for their own needs, it is clearly the case that most Type C ports will be good for substantially less); a Type C port can do almost anything; but is required to do effectively nothing beyond acting as a USB 2 slave device and not starting any fires when plugged in. It might have full USB 3 silicon, it might not. It might support 10GB/s traffic, it might only handle half that; it might deliver 100 watts of power on request, it might be incapable of doing much besides browning out without a powered hub to protect it. It might have implemented one or more 'Alternate mode' protocols, it might support none.

It will certainly be exciting, at least...

I love all you Americans crowing about the uselessness of the coming distributed energy age. Y'all might be correct as far as the US goes (and for now), but for billions of us in the rest of the world, shit like this has either been cost-effective for years or one of the few methods to get any kind of electricity when you don't the massive capital for the old-school way.

Well, we can get close. US embassies and the like are usually thought of as US soil, though I'm not quite sure how we treat consulates. But when we did have a recent (immediately before an election) planned, coordinated terrorist attack on one (in which a US ambassador was killed, along with three others), the official government reaction was to immediately spin out a transparently phony explanation meant to prop up the administration's campaign narrative about how such terrorists were on the run, and that the attack was actually a result of an insulting YouTube video, and that the locals just couldn't stop themselves from burning and murdering. Does that count? Does extensive lying about it in order to flip the narrative around during the peak of campaign season count, or do they have to actually stage the attack themselves to fit the profile? I think that sending administration officials out to media outlets to repeatedly lie about it, push the known BS into social media and then summarize it later as "what difference, at this point, does it make?" is a pretty good parallel, if not exactly the same model.

It's always interesting to spot the people who cannot address the situation directly, but think they're cool with the 6th-grade ad hominem. Thanks, though, for indirectly pointing out that I'm exactly right in asking what I asked. You couldn't have made it clearer.

So what you're saying is that we should stop doing the things that the TSA does, because there is no longer going to be a problem with people wanting to take weapons onboard aircraft. Or are you saying that it's un-American to use one organization to screen for that sort of thing, but it's perfectly American to let dozens or hundreds of un-coordinated individual companies and organizations do so? Please be specific instead of ranting.