Because you dont make headlines, get congressional attention, or get federal funding for accusing local hoodlums. Say terrorist and point at something potentially vulnerable and you may just win the lottery. The whole point of this story should be that the guy(s) did a good deal of damage to several components and didnt cause one single outage. The histrionic congressional response "Any guy with a .22 could shut down the whole thing!!!" should be a comedic punchline.

The guardian (Snowden's paper of choice apparently) Says the entire story about this is 'dubious' "The lack of specificity made cybersecurity expert Robert David Graham dubious that the plot NSA claimed to discover matched the one it described on TV. “All they are doing is repeating what Wikipedia says about BIOS,” Graham blogged, “acting as techie talk layered onto the discussion to make it believable, much like how Star Trek episodes talk about warp cores and Jeffries Tubes.” " http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-surveillance-60-minutes-cbs-facts The details the author poins out about the rest of the NSA statements are revealing as well.

why would they replace the network cables? Why would they make such a big deal about replacing the cables?

If you actually read the first article it states the primary source of 'subsidy' is tax credits and limits on taxation for certain circumstances. From a 60 year total of around 800 billion, 47% is for direct tax benefits., 20% is for perceived imbalanced price controls and the costs of government oversight (ie the Nuclear regulating agency: NRC), 10% is (mostly to hydroelectric plants) for construction of Dams, access to shipping ports and operations of the Dept of Interior. Which leaves grants for operations of shipping, 6 billion, and R&D expenditures, 153 billion. Thats about 3 billion a year on average of actual subsidy. That is well in line with US government subsidy of other industries... like the 3 billion insurance program for small business loans, or 3 billion for 'improving teachers', or 4 billion for insurance against milk profit margins for farmers. etc, etc http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/

http://www.nature.com/news/rat-study-sparks-gm-furore-1.11471 According to this, the conclusions are unobtainable because of 1) small sample size, 2) inappropriate subjects (cancer prone rats), 3) unusually long study on inappropriate subjects (apparently the rats in question suffer higher than 50% cancer rates after a year) 4) inappropriate experiment methods (grown crops should be tested in a way to predict dosages more accurately)... From the nature article: The authors concede that Sprague-Dawley rats may not be the best model for such long-term studies... They admit the study is flawed. Instead of arguing to keep flawed conclusions they should do the study again with better subjects and methods. As it is, this seems like the flawed and misleading studies of saccharine in the 70s which took 20 years for California to withdraw. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGcQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcancerres.aacrjournals.org%2Fcontent%2F33%2F11%2F2768.full.pdf&ei=edSYUseBG4jooASo-YCwCg&usg=AFQjCNH4Bo7SBZqLpEPwJ8kmBTzQ-sxckg&sig2=sdNk2Isqa6aryZapEUdVnQ&bvm=bv.57155469,d.cGU&cad=rja

"Rational miners will join this pool to increase their benefits, creating a snowball effect that may end up with a pool commanding a majority of the system's mining power. Such a pool would be able to single-handedly control the blockchain" Sounds like a description of feudalism (at least the economic side). Im not sure that the system can escape being transformed in the same ways economies and currencies have throughout history.

I have to thank you for being the only poster that ive seen actually refer to the game and the article and not some comment on grammar or japanese etiquette. Gameplay should be important to this remake/sequel. The game was an absolute blast to play. Like a fun metroid. Or castlevania even.

If you want a B&W laser for efficiency go high capacity cartridge and separate drum. Brother machines are fine, but few of them have cartridges over 4000 pages. The real saving comes in when the toner holds 6000 or higher. Canon, Xerox are both fine brands as well. (though dont get the wax based Xerox machines) For inkjet it completely depends on your usage. Epson makes machines with odd features but print great at high resolution and carry small and expensive PPG cartridges. HP has some midgrade photo printers and some very high efficiency machines (Officejet 7500 etc) I dont like Lexmark or Kodak. Features dominate the inkjet models so look for features you need to be sure they will be there. But each model has unique quirks. The Officejet series seems to like to forget they are on a network, Epsons dont have the comprehensive software you might expect. Kodaks like to kill their printheads... Be wary of some high end HP inkjets, they are pretty versions of very low end models with low quality prints and inks. The envy series in particular.

According to an article in PC World they are saying EPIC doesnt have standing to request, so the Supreme Court has no petitioner authorizing the court to appeal. Of Course no one has the standing to go to a Court over this by design (Verizon has to appeal to the NSA or the secret court, not to a public institution) So the supremes might overrule that loophole. Hopefully. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2054900/supreme-court-shouldnt-review-nsa-spying-case-us-govt-says.html

Piers Morgan?

Actually, by definition they are being held accountable for giving the public an area to express their opinion on the content of their publication. There is a difference. The court should have had to prove the comments are somehow supported instead of assuming that since the comments weren't censored. No sane person could interpret a comments section of an online news publication to be sponsored, factually accurate or even impartial. The comments sections are cesspools because the opinions of the general populace (at least those who need to comment on news publication sites) are chaotic. To hold the newspaper responsible is to believe the newspaper itself encouraged some particular (negative) response. Going beyond that, how was anyone damaged? Would anyone here make business or even personal decisions because 'Anonymous Coward' said "Business Alpha Trinkets is a terrible business that stole my money and gave me no trinkets"? Would that change if a user named Alphatrinketssucks had said it instead? The answer is no. The answer is no because we generally have no respect for the random musings of random internet users because of the longstanding tradition of trolls, flamebaiters, morons and lunatics on the web. They are everywhere. Slashdot, a site where moderation of comments is celebrated around the web, is full of innuendo and accusations against any number of international businesses and individuals. none of which do any harm at all because the people reading the comments dont pay any more heed to the comment than the fact that it is one person's opinion, and maybe not even a particularly well reasoned one. Freedom should win out in this case. Freedom always serves the public better than control.

Two birds with one stone there. Get a safety reputation by those who arent cynical enough to look for ulterior motives and maybe get a few good headlines in the process... And kill off cheap competitors cutting into margin