Unless downloading means something else to marketing people than it means to me...
Are we going to have a lovely old fashioned flame war about whether the Amiga or the Atari are the best 16 bit micro next?
My Amiga had a 68060. Quit calling it 16-bit as though it's anything like your sorry Atari.
because its a giant scam you imbecile.
Duh? That's why everyone wants something done about it. Externalizing pollution to get an easy subsidy isn't merely a scam, it's an old and obvious scam.
The trouble is, everyone does it. If I tell you to stop scamming everyone, then you'll tell me to stop scamming everyone. It's all well and fine for me to try to stop paying for your subsidy, but you better keep on paying mine!
How was it NOT extortion before the law?
I haven't found the text of the law to read, but I can guess.
I used to work for a place where, in the late 1980s and early 1990s we would occasionally sell ransomware to clients who had iffy credit. Pay your bill every month, and we'd send you an update to our software. Stop paying or don't install your update, and a time bomb would go off: it fails to start. The software's data wasn't encrypted or anything, but it was in a proprietary undocumented form, so it was effectively unusable. (Unless you set back your machine's clock, which would have some annoying consequences for data entry speed.)
I think what we were doing would probably be considered ransomware to most people.
The reason I wouldn't call that extortion, is that the client would agree to it beforehand (and without any coercion or duress) and they would get something of value (our software) in exchange that they previously didn't have. Don't wanna do it? Don't sign the license agreement. (Yes, back in those days, a license was actually a real contract, and customers would sign it and we'd put it in a filing cabinet. No after-the-fact "surprise! you didn't really buy this in spite of having thought so at the time you parted with your money!")
I think what we were doing would probably not be considered extortion to most people. (But I'm still glad I don't do that anymore.)
Right, calling this a hack is a joke. This was unauthorized access. No systems were breached. No exploit.
Expelling diplomats and seizing property is outrageous behavior if it's believed that it was done for no reason.
Not really. What the administration did was actually pretty much the least retaliation they can do. On MSNBC, they asked an analyst what the actions were on a 1-to-10 scale and it was called a 1, maybe a 2.
There's not much else less severe that could have been done.
including things like activity focus during Moscow time zone's daylight hours
This is amazingly weakly "evidence". Moscow daylight time is also nightime in DC. Which is the time of day you'd least expect someone to notice data-ex-filtration.
This is like groundhog day. Putin very likely struck out at Sec. Clinton because of the damage her claim that the 2011 elections in Russia were illegitimate. That claim from the United States, by the way, is effectively like what Russia is accused of doing in 2016 - interfering in national elections of a rival.
This is a fools game. Retaliating by interfering in Russian politics will simply invite more of the same. There is no sense of balance or proportionality here.
It would have been nice for the Obama administration to have done a policy change here at the end, that put some teeth into a rule that prohibits the United States from interferring in the elections or politics of any foreign nation. But of course that's not in the cards.
"Aww, if you make me cry anymore, you'll fog up my helmet." -- "Visionaries" cartoon