Throughout the later 1990s I gave talks about software security and predicted exactly this. The vast majority of "hackers" (i.e. attackers) in those days were just doing it for fun, to prove themselves, to impress their friends, or whatever. I always ended my talks by warning the audience that this "Garden of Eden" period wouldn't last. Given the large numbers of serious, dedicated criminals out there - not to mention terrorists and national aggressors - it would only be a matter of time before the techniques that had already been demonstrated without the infliction of much harm would be adopted by REAL attackers. And then the suffering would commence, on an industrial scale. Like industrial civilization itself, the Internet is just one enormous fragile target.
The amazing thing is that it's taken so long.
"...the Obama administration is moving ahead with an alternative that would allow overseas entrepreneurs to live in the U.S. for up to five years to help build a company..."
After which time they can outsource it to the Far East like normal American entrepreneurs. Here today, gone tomorrow! Thanks to the miracle of globalization.
EDS under a new name is the same old POS.
ZOMG that brings back horrible memories of NMCI. That was like the worst elements of outsourcing combined with the worst elements of in-house management. It would have been difficult to deliberately design a less functional system.
We should privatize our security, and make the NSA as well as the military a publicly traded corporation.
I know! Let's outsource it all to Microsoft!!
9, is downright funny, there is, by definition, less than 1 pound of water in 1 pound of beef, unless this guy thinks cattle magically transmute h2o into something else.
"It takes an astounding 1799 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef".
And as soon as that cow is slaughtered, all the water magically disappears for ever. Oh wait, it actually goes back into the environment all ready to produce more cows. Dimbulb, meet hydrological cycle.
There are plenty of immigrants who come to the US with nothing, and make it. If you don't want to work, just admit it, and stop whining that your problems are all because of the one-percenters.
The first quoted sentence makes a far-reaching claim with important implications if true. Yet you have seen fit to make that claim without any attempt at quantification. I do not doubt that there are "plenty" of immigrants who come to the USA with nothing (or very little), and "make it" - for some values of "plenty" and "make it". By the latter, do you mean a billion dollars? A hundred million? One million? Comfortable respectability? Or what?
More important by far, what percentage of those immigrants do you think "make it"? We always hear about the successful ones - even if they comprise only one in a million (as seems likely to me). Just as we hear that "anyone can become rich in America" (especially if they are born rich) and "anyone can become President" (especially if they are born very rich indeed, and into the right dynasty).
I assume that you are not actually a one-percenter yourself - or, more to the point, a 0.01%er, as they are the people who have the power and the really big fortunes. So your remarks are of interest, if only as an example of that odd phenomenon: the "Stockholm Syndrome" that causes so many disadvantaged, exploited Americans to stand up for their exploiters. See, for example, Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America": 'The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically'. (Amazon blurb).
Yes, "radicalization" is a far more dangerous standard than "hate speech". To be a "radicalizer", you don't need to attack anyone or call for violence. All you really need to do is criticize government policy. Indeed, calling for an end to violence could get you arrested - if it's your government's violence.
If it's like James Bond, they'll be taken prisoner in the first foreign country they visit and tortured to death. Unless they have any clever devices given them by Q, of course.
I know conservative publications make a living by complaining about the president, but fabricating something new to be offended about every single day eventually leads to some really bizarre complaints. Like the $400 million payment to Iran that was part of a deal announced in January.
It's just not working anymore.
You could make a really cool history-of-air-interceptors poster by showing everything that has intercepted a TU-95 "Bear" over it's long history of pulling this shit.
You could make an equally cool posters by showing all the countries that have had actual bombs dumped on them by B-52s, and how many deaths they caused. Starting with the more than 7 million tons dropped on Vietnam alone (more than four times the weight dropped on Nazi Germany in the whole of WW2). And not forgetting the really cool episode when they dropped four thermonuclear bombs on Spain. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Bears have hardly ever dropped bombs in anger. They just fly around to remind forgetful people that Russia does have thermonuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them. (N.B. Not Bears any longer).
The first article you link to says this:
"In 2014, Russian military planes violated Estonian airspace seven times, approached Latvian airspace more than 180 times and approached Lithuanian airspace more than 150 times, World Affairs reported".
The Estonian case is one I have already dealt with; at its narrowest, the Gulf of Finland is only 50 kilometres wide between Estonia and Finland, leaving a gap of about 5 kilometres (3 miles) for aircraft to fly through if they wish to avoid both national air spaces. When hundreds of flights are necessary, it is quite likely that one in a hundred might briefly stray into national air space on one side or the other; and that is clearly what has been happening.
As for the rest of the "indictment", it's absurd. "Approached" Latvian air space more than 180 times? "Approached" Lithuanian air space more than 150 times?? What the hell is that??? If you take the view that encroaching on national air space is wrong (which I do), you presumably also agree that not encroaching on it is OK. Approaching it would be an instance of not encroaching, so what's all the fuss about? It's glaringly, pathetically obvious that the authors of the piece were trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and all they had to work with were the (alleged) seven encroachments into Estonian air space.
Rather than work through the rest of the articles, I shall deal with your more general points.
"The fact is that Russia is a hostile nation, it's invaded Ukraine, and it's invaded Georgia, it can't pretend it's an innocent bystander that's merely hard done by as you're implying it is".
This is terribly, frighteningly wrong. (Frightening because Russia, like the USA, has the capacity to destroy all life on Earth; and may well do so if it is attacked with thermonuclear weapons or other WMDs. So trying to provoke a war with it is literally suicidal). First, to say that Russia is "a hostile nation" is meaningless. Hostile to whom? No nation (with the possible exception of the USA) is hostile to everyone. Actually, Russia is an outstanding example of a nation that much prefers to mind its own business, and never fights unless it is attacked or seriously threatened first. (As the old French saying goes, "Cet animal est tres mechant; Quand on l'attaque, il se defend").
It is factually wrong to allege that Russia has invaded Ukraine. It hasn't. Never. (Well, not since 1943 when it counterattacked to drive the Nazis out of Ukraine - something that a few of the more fanatical Ukrainians of today have said they regret). As you know, the first Russian state was centred on Kiev over 1,000 years ago. In the 17th century there was a lot of fighting in the area ("Ukraine" literally means "borderland") between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, also between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Long before the USA was invented, Russia had conquered all of present-day Ukraine including Crimea. In 1853-56 Britain, France and Turkey invaded Russia to preempt any further expansion. What part of Russia did they choose to invade? Yes, Crimea! The Russians sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives to defend Crimea - the war is generally said to have been a defeat for Russia, but it remained in possession of Crimea while the invaders withdrew. This was before the similarly bloody American Civil War. Russians would as soon give up Sevastopol as Americans would agree to give up Gettysburg or The Alamo.
There was never any Ukrainian state until 1991, when it was created by default within the borders of the Ukrainian SSR that had preceded it. Crimea, of course, was transferred from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev (himself a Ukrainian) - without the slightest idea or intention that this would lead to it being lost to Russia due to future events. From 1991 Russia leased the naval base of Sevastopol from Ukraine, and had the right to quarter several thousand soldiers and sailors there. When the illegal and extremely violent US-sponsored coup d'etat overthrew Mr Yanukovych and installed the present illegitimate regime in Kiev, the US government confidently anticipated taking over Sevastopol as a NATO base pointed at the heart of Russia. (They had even ordered the curtains and furniture, and the US Navy was moving across the Black Sea). At that point the people of Crimea, horrified by the slaughter of ethnic Russians and Russian sympathizers in Odessa, Donetsk, Lugansk and other places, held a referendum which resulted in an overwhelming vote to become part of Russia again. The Russian government agreed, and the wishes of the Crimean people were fulfilled. How can any believer in democracy have a problem with that?
As for "invasions", it has been pointed out that if Russia had invaded Ukraine it would have taken over the whole country in a week at most. Instead, it has given (mostly humanitarian) aid and support to the people of Donetsk and Lugansk, who have been bravely resisting the Kiev regime's continuous efforts to exterminate them - a genocide which the Western media have resolutely ignored.
As for Georgia, after some years of encouragement by the USA and Israel, in 2008 the Georgian armed forces violently invaded South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russians responded promptly, flung them back into Georgia and completely subdued them. Although they could easily have occupied Georgia and taken it back into Russia, the Russian forces just as promptly left Georgian territory.
In the past 25 years, meanwhile, the USA has launched blatantly illegal unprovoked invasions of Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq (twice) and Somalia. It has continuously occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, causing a conservatively estimated 2.8 million deaths in Iraq alone. It then devised the technique of creating terrorist "glove puppet" organizations to do its dirty work for it, of which Al-Qaeda and ISIS are only the best known. It is literally unbelievable that anyone of reasonable intelligence and goodwill could honestly criticize Russia for "aggression" when the USA - Russia's main critic - has been guilty of crimes thousands of times worse than anything Russia could even be accused of.
Despite all appearances, your boss is a thinking, feeling, human being.