So wild guessing again, likely piggy backing off the erronious statements that the Times itself made regarding the sources of these hacks...
Hackers thought to be working for Russian intelligence have carried out a series of cyber breaches targeting reporters at The New York Times and other US news organizations, according to US officials briefed on the matter.
The intrusions, detected in recent months, are under investigation by the FBI and other US security agencies.
Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said the company had seen "no evidence" that any breaches had occurred.
"We are constantly monitoring our systems with the latest available intelligence and tools. We have seen no evidence that any of our internal systems, including our systems in the Moscow bureau, have been breached or compromised,"
So no hack?
The Times has brought in private sector security investigators who are working with US national security officials to assess the damage and determine how the hackers got in, according to the US officials.
So they were hacked?
Attention has grown on the hacks thought to be carried out by Russians since Wikileaks released a trove of emails stolen from the DNC in the weekend before the Democratic Party's convention to nominate Hillary Clinton for president. US intelligence officials say there is strong evidence showing Russian intelligence behind the DNC hack. The Clinton campaign has claimed the hack as proof that the Russians are trying to aid the election of Donald Trump.
Thought by who? Is there some official statement that the earlier hacks of the DNC and DCCC are the work of the Russians (with proof?). Likely no, more than likely this statement is based off the flawed TrustConnect analysis which assumed Russian intelligence services had something to do with this because the originating IP of the hack was hidden behind Russian VPN.
And there we have it folks. News! Predictably from CNN they have to of course point out that the Evil DT is the one responsible for all of this, according to a documented liar.
Huh? Because VPN IP address? Again, TrustConnect's analysis was good, it traced back to a Russian VPN service provider. The rest of their analysis was best wild guessing.
The NYT article (which IMHO has become a water carrier for the Clinton's) references it's own story, which again incorrectly assumes that Russia is involved because of the TrustConnect's best guess. But TrustConnect even acknowledges that the originating network is obfuscated behind the VPN provider.
I hate this tactic of the main stream media outlets. They take questionable information, then report on it as if it was fact, then pile onto that by continuing further reporting all based off of the original questionable information by citing earlier articles they've produced.
Paid for in part by National Rifle Association of America with additional support form Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation. All Rights Reserved C. 2016 Share The Safety
Seems pretty clear that this is not a parity but more of an attempt to damage both brands.
Do we really need 6 GB of RAM on a phone?
Yes, because java.
Until Android gets something like Continuum on Windows phone, where you can dock the phone and use it like a desktop, there seems little reason to have that much RAM.
Been there, done that, webview or deskview or whatever it was called on driod's. It sucked.
I guess they've just run out of things to upgrade to justify the high price. Personally, I won't spend much more than $200 on a phone at this point. Things are changing too fast on the software side, and updates to operating systems are often not available. You basically have to get a new phone every year or two to be guaranteed having the latest OS, and spending $400+ on a new phone every year or two is a little rich for my tastes.
$400 is a great price for any phone, try and get anything other than a cheap ass tract-phone and you're into the 5 6 and 7 bills territory.
: is not an identifier