I wish you good bidding!
This database should contain all the personal details on spies. If this was stolen by China, why haven't we heard about every spy being pulled out of China and Russia? They are friend-enemies after all.
Any chance this hack done by the NSA to help get more funding and show the Americans how much they are needed to keep us safe? The NSA would know all the details of how the OPM works. Easy target.
Go into a big Chinese bank. What do you see? Most of the computers used for operations are still running XP. Hacking old Win 2003 servers in China from the US might not be very difficult. There are A LOT of Win 2003 servers in China. If you use these computers to launch an attack, who isn't going to believe those uber-smart Chinese have hacked us again?
If the Chinese actually have this data, there should be a huge reaction. I haven't see it. 1,000's to 10,000's of Americans at the embassies and working abroad should have run back to the US on very short notice. We should be hearing how our spying has been set back 20 years. Things are WAY too quiet It doesn't make sense to me.
As I'm writing this:
Shanghai's average P/E is 17.31.
( Source: http://www.sse.com.cn/market/d... )
Dow Jones Ind Avg P/E is 16.2.
( Source: http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/... )
1. The idea is to buy low and sell high. Prices aren't low yet.
2. A lot of people in China bought at very high valuations and hoped to sell at an even higher level to a "greater fool" to make a profit. This is called greed, and these people are in pain. Especially since so many of them bought on margin.
The way the model results are reported needs to change. The worst case results were presented to the public as the expected outcome. This is something between highly deceptive and unethical. (think yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.) The best, worst and average outcomes from the model need to be reported. Perhaps even two sets of best, worst and average outcomes. One with large scale intervention and one with zero intervention.
A very simple way to think about when you know the model has failed: The model has failed when it makes 100 predictions with 95% certainty and more than 5 of the actual outcomes are outside the bounds defined by the best and worst outcomes. Note: I said SIMPLE.
The modelers need to be careful about what they say. Next time they predict armageddon, no one will take them seriously.
And who would trust MS not to show one version of the software and deliver something compiled from slightly different sources? Remember MS is more than happy to turn over dissidents' emails to the Chinese government. MS will say: "We follow all applicable laws in the countries where we operate." So what are the US laws about spying on anyone outside the country? I think it is required under NSL's.
degrees = 0.06
radians = 0.06 * pi / 180 = 0.001047
meters = 66.14 * TAN( 0.00104720 ) = 0.06926
cm = 0.06926 * 100 = 6.926
in = 6.926 / 2.54 = 2.727
She must have sent a huge number of e-mails to 1000's of people. Didn't someone notice that the e-mails were from email@example.com instead of firstname.lastname@example.org?
If I got an email from her dealing with official business, I would have questioned why it wasn't from a "real" e-mail address - as in whitehouse.gov or whatever.
Why didn't anyone say something sooner? Didn't someone suspect her emails the same way I would suspect an e-mail from a Nigerian prince needing help?
Rodents of Unusual Size.
I don't think they exist.
Then why doesn't someone make these 10 changes to a chimp egg and sperm and see what happens?
We can't find MH370. If we can't find a missing plane in the ocean, then the tech for finding subs has a ways to go before it makes submarines obsolete. Plus, I bet all these detection techniques only work over a short distance. You'd need a lot of detectors to get good coverage. The ocean is large. Plus, anything active (sound, lasers, etc) can be detected by the sub and avoided.
Plus, for non-ship based sensors, you try covering the ocean with highly sensitive detectors. Things that are highly sensitive and the ocean don't mix - unless you are going to pull each detector up on a regular basis for maintenance. Plus, detectors require power. Getting power 50-200 km offshore isn't all that easy. Surface ships pinging away in shallow waters pose the greatest danger. But for every threat, there is a way to counter it. Satellite tracking of enemy ships so subs have some warning of what's coming. Special coatings to reflect lasers. Active cancellation of the acoustic waves.
There is only question now. Which federal agency will respond first with: "We can't guarantee your safety without a budget increase of N billion USD."
I can see it now. "WARNING: This lettuce contains lettuce DNA. Eat at your own risk. Wholefoods is not liable for side effect due to the consumption of lettuce DNA"
Wow. Both sides seem clueless.
So this guy things: I saw some people walking around and they weren't dead. Chernobyl must be completely safe. How could 60 minutes think this place is dangerous? That is like a high schooler saying: All my friends smoke, and look at them. Fine. Or a reporter looking at coal miners in Virgina saying: people go in the mines. They come back out. I didn't see any negative effects.
How about: "We took a sample of 100 people who had lived in the Chernobyl area for 10-12 years and studied cancer rates and health problems against the general population." or "There are X kilograms of isotope Y (alpha/beta/gamma emitter) with a half life of Z years per square mile." This isn't reporting, this is talking out your ass. If Ron Adams wants to play reporter, he should try including a verifiable fact or two.
I saw some not dead folks walking around is not an argument.
"Because the campus is a highly secured island, few people leave for coffee, and the lines, both in the morning and mid-afternoon, can stretch down the hallway."
What a waste of time and resources!
For a group of people who likes to give the impression they are all super geniuses (and by extension deserve X 100 billion a year in funding), I would expect at least one person could have done some capacity planning and figured out how big the Starbucks need to be for that location. How about some accountability? Fire the person who planned this coffee shop. His/her mistakes cost the country the hourly rate of each person in line * the time they waste standing around.
So I have 10 devices I want to hook up. The AC, the lights, refrigerator, washing machine, toaster, whatever. Does that mean I need 10 phone and data contracts with AT&T at 30 bucks (or more) each and then the payments recur every month? I can see why AT&T might like this technology.
Next question. I had AT&T once. Calls kept dropping because they sold more phone contracts than their cell towers could support. What happens when each person goes from one connection to 5 (or more)?
Off topic. Why am I not excited for 5G? It seems 4G and 5G designed so that you can hit your data cap on the unlimited plan for the month by running a download at max bandwidth for 30 minutes. This seem to be designed to bill people 100's extra every month for exceeding their plan rather than actually giving people higher download speeds.