text:
Blame Putin ... and Obama
If reports are correct, the Russians made serious breaches into our cyber system. They compromised government sites and private servers. The DNC was evidently easily breached because of rookie mistakes, ignorance & arrogance. We should blame Putin. He is an evil man. But we blame Putin in the same way we blame a burglar who has robbed our house because we failed to close the front door and blame Putin in way we blame a burglar for revealing dirty secrets he discovered while robbing our place.
Who was watching the shop when the Russians made their intrusions? The Obama team. Who was in charge of the DNC servers? Democrats. Who put her sensitive on private servers? Hillary. Who was it wrote all those stupid and embarrassing things the Russians revealed? The Hillary Team. Who leaked debate questions to Hillary? Donna Brazille. I could go on, but why? We all know who was involved and who was not. We know that all of those involved were associated with Democrats. The Russians evidently tried and failed to breach RNC servers. The Russians really are not that good. Their efforts can be countered by reasonably intelligent people and counter measures.
So ... this problem is allowed to go on for years by the Obama Team. The breaches occurred because of carelessness on the Hillary Team. It was embarrassing and harmful to Hillary because it revealed some really boneheaded things she and her advisors were saying and doing. So who do all the guilty parties blame? Trump. Does that make sense to anyone who is not so seriously infected by hateful partisanship that the truth is obscured.Posted by Christine & John at January 3, 2017 1:12 PM
Me, blame Trump? Hell no!
Trust Putin? Hell no!
That the DNC and Hillary allowed this to happen is simply further proof of their inability to lead.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 3, 2017 3:42 PM
People are highly, highly suspicious about this. Why?
1) A number of associates of his, including his candidate for Secretary of State, have close ties to the Putin Regime or their puppets in the Ukraine.
2) Trump reportedly has investments in and debts to Russian organizations.
3) He didn't practically invite hackers to breach Hillary Clinton's security to get her e-mails, he outright did so, unlike any person in recent political history.
4) The hacking and the distribution of hacked material lopsidedly benefited him. This despite information that tells us that both political parties were hacked. If you've been through all the horrific sort of things that the less intelligent or wise officials among the state, local and federal GOP organizations have shared, you would share my doubts that there was nothing in those e-mails that could be used against the GOP. Does anybody here believe that Republicans did nothing corrupt, were just simply pure as the driven snow?
Let me stop belaboring the point and just say it outright: if somebody wanted to tilt the vote towards Clinton, they likely had the material to do so. They may still do, which is worrisome in itself, given the blackmail value of that. But they chose not to harm Trump, and instead went after Clinton. The reports indicate that Putin personally lead this process, so it's unlikely they decided on Trump without it being party of Putin's plan.
5)Significant changes were made in the Republican Party's platform that favored Russia. Trump has been vocal about friendlier relationships with Russia, and done his absolute best to quash investigations, contradict experts who said the Russians were responsible, and encourage vocal criticism of those who continue to point out how disturbing this intervention is.
All in all?
There's a lot of strange, poorly motivated behavior going on here, behavior not conducive to either taking this threat seriously or resolving the security issues that allowed this to happen. Now, I would be the first to tell both parties to improve their digital security, especially since they have significant numbers of records with confidential information involved.
The NSA needs to step things up, and so does the cybercrimes division of the FBI. But if we have one party obviously and undoubtedly trying to sweep this all under the rug, I have little faith that the questions will end concerning Trump's reasons for not pursuing this matter to its necessary end.
Let me ask a question to my Right Wing colleagues here: what happens if Putin decides the GOP stepped wrong, as far as his interests go? He's got your information, too. But you've set a horrible precedent for gleefully accepting the stolen data. Nobody is going to argue to the press from my side that they shouldn't publish what the hackers provide us. Is that what your leaders are afraid of? Do they know what's hanging over their heads?
Or… having failed to actually pursue the investigation, what happens if another whistleblower or an enterprising reporter stumbles on evidence that indicates that Trump or members of his campaign, or party members in general were doing something untoward with Putin or his associates? Do you want to find out now, or find out later?
You guys seemed very eager to get to the bottom of Benghazi, so much so that you succeeded in hitting rock bottom on that particular issue over and over again. But now that it's Trump that's tempting fate here, it seems like it's hands off and eyes turned.
Put the partisan politics aside, and ask yourselves, doesn't America deserve to know the truth? Doesn't Trump, if he's innocent, benefit from having that clearly established?Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 3, 2017 5:56 PM
But now that it's Trump that's tempting fate here, it seems like it's hands off and eyes turned.
Put the partisan politics aside, and ask yourselves, doesn't America deserve to know the truth? Doesn't Trump, if he's innocent, benefit from having that clearly established?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 3, 2017 5:56 PM
Where in the hell have you been Stephen while I, and others, have written that congress should investigate? What kind of crap are you peddling?Posted by: Royal Flush at January 3, 2017 6:31 PM
Silence sometimes speaks louder than words. When it came to Benghazi, Congress created a special committee to investigate. Should we not expect this matter to be treated similarly?Posted by: Warren Porter at January 3, 2017 6:41 PM
Warren, a congressional investigation is certainly warranted. I would like to know facts, not assumptions or innuendo.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 3, 2017 7:12 PM
Royal Flush-
I don't care what YOU say, I care what your elected representatives DO. If the potential manipulation of our elections by a Foreign power doesn't generate more scrutiny than the Republicans doubts about the handling of Benghazi, then we'll know politics and not Truth is the RNC's chief concern.
Our national unity will be enhanced with the Clinton's and Bush's recent announcement that they will attend the Trump inauguration. Jimmy Carter announced his plans to attend some days ago. George H.W. Bush has said his health prevents his attendance.
We all understand that attendance at the inauguration by past presidents is not an implicit endorsement of Trump.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 3, 2017 7:31 PM
You can say lots of bad things about Trump. But Obama was in charge when all this went down. The Russians penetrated DNC because of their bad security and arrogance. And the Russians leaked things that Hillary folks had actually said or done.
I think that we should indeed get to the bottom of this. How was it that Obama folks knew this was happening and did nothing, or at least nothing effective? Why did Hillary treat cyber security so casually? Why did John Podesta so foolishly write down such foolish things? Why did Donna Brazile provide debate questions to Hillary? Why did the DNC seek to defeat Sanders. Yes, indeed, let's investigate these leaks.Posted by: Christine & John at January 3, 2017 8:38 PM
The Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and others have penetrated virtually every business one cares to name. As someone said, 'there are those who have been hacked, and there are those who have been hacked and don't know it.' Even the FBI has been hacked. What made this particular hack extraordinary is that it was launched by an adversary for political reasons. It was an attack on the political system of the US with the intent of influencing the election. It was done by the Russians, and we know it. And what makes it even more extraordinary is that Trump embraced the hack and leak, and now denies the source.
""•Oct. 31 from Warren, MI: "Did you see where, on WikiLeaks, it was announced that they were paying protestors to be violent, $1,500?… Did you see another one, another one came in today? This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove."
•Nov. 2 from Orlando, FL: "Out today, WikiLeaks just came out with a new one, just a little a while ago, it's just been shown that a rigged system with more collusion, possibly illegal, between the Department of Justice, the Clinton campaign and the State Department."
•Nov. 2 from Pensacola, FL: "They said about Hillary, she's got bad instincts right. You know who said that, Podesta. I would fire Podesta so fast. I mean the way he talks about her, whether true, not true, who cares. He speaks so badly about her. Of course he didn't know there was a thing called WikiLeaks right."
"•Nov. 4 from Wilmington, OH: "Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks."
•Nov. 6 from Sioux City, IA: "Just today, we learned Hillary Clinton was sending highly classified information through her maid. Did you see? Just came out a little while ago, who therefore had total access to this information, completely jeopardizing the national security of the United States. This just came out. WikiLeaks."
•Nov. 7 from Manchester, NH: "Hillary has shown contempt for the working people of this country. Her campaign in WikiLeaks has spoken horribly about Catholics and evangelicals and so many others. They got it all down folks, WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks. And what Podesta said about her, bad instincts. He said she's got bad instincts."
Remember, Trump KNEW these were coming from the Russians through Wikileaks. Combined with Director Comey putting his thumb on the scales re e-mails, it was enough.
On another note, here is something to consider:
Only 46% of voters went for Trump, not even a plurality. 42% went for Republican Senators, and 49% for GOP Congressmen.
Our democracy failed, and failed badly.Posted by: phx8 at January 3, 2017 9:41 PM
People are highly, highly suspicious about this because left-wing politicians, talking-heads, minnions, and the media are pushing biased assumptions in an attempt to delegitimize Trump. Because what is best for the country comes second to the division and dependency that the left has created.
Don't fool yourself, Stephen, the left has already proven over and over again that they won't 'argue to the press' for anything that does not benefit them.
They applauded Wikileaks hacking info on President Bush, embraced the info, and encouraged more. They didn't care when tax return info was leaked. They didn't care that Obama had close ties to members of a domestic terrorist group, or that he attended an anti-American racist church for decades. But now you want people to believe that you are concerned about a persons private business ties with another country, and it has nothing to do with politics?
"3) He didn't practically invite hackers to breach Hillary Clinton's security to get her e-mails, he outright did so, unlike any person in recent political history."
I am a little confused about this talking-point, Stephen.
First, what Trump said was that the media would probably reward Russia greatly if it were able to find the emails Hillary illegally deleted from her private server.
And let's be honest here, at the time Trump said that, Hillary's private server was already off line and could not be hacked.
Second, if the classified information found on Hillary's private server was no big deal because it was never hacked into, why does this talking-point matter?
"You guys seemed very eager to get to the bottom of Benghazi"
Talk about "hands off and eyes turned."
Benghazi was a colossal clusterf*ck, Stephen. Intel was ignored, wrong decisions were made, and a sad attempt at damage control only worsened things.
Now, the left was absolutely correct in saying it was wrong to claim Hillary was totally responsible for what happened, or that it was intentional, but you guys are absolutely wrong for mocking the concern.
"Put the partisan politics aside, and ask yourselves, doesn't America deserve to know the truth?
Of course we do. Unfortunately, your calls for the truth ring hollow because you only care about the truth when 'your people' aren't in power.Posted by: kctim at January 4, 2017 9:37 AM
Honestly, as a computer tech, I think barely anybody is good at computer security, at least on the level of organizations without strong technology backgrounds.
Take Trump's friends at Infowars. These people should be paranoid as hell about hackers… well this takes an explanation. When you implement a password, there are two ways to store that password. One way, you absolutely should not do: clear text. Somebody gets into your system and gets that file, they can instantly invade anybody's account, because it's just THERE.
So, most password security systems worth their hash… hash their passwords. That is, they feed what you enter as a password into an algorithm which processes it into gobbledygook. That gobbledygook, though, is unique to your password. No other password would shoot out the same gobbledygook. When you enter your password for access, the hash that program creates matches the hash of the other password.
Well, here we have Infowars, ground zero for paranoia on the internet, but using an outdated password hashing method (MD5) known to be easy to crack. They claim that they were hacked in 2012 and forced password changes, but this data is from 2014.
In short, some of the most paranoid people in the world can be clueless about this sort of thing. People are just not used to the notion of security in a situation where distance is irrelevant. The folks who think they're the savviest customers when it comes to conspiracies use terrible security.
In general, my experience is that people pick terrible passwords, because they need to be able to remember them quickly. They pick short, they pick stuff that's personal to them, in short, they pick easy to guess.
On one side of things, technically speaking, you need passwords that are long (better than eight character) contain more than just letters, more than just upper or lower case letters, numbers, special characters, etc.
But who does that? That is your baseline for security, becuase even the most powerful system can be defeated if your hacker can guess your username and password. Security systems don't get in the way of proper credentials.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2017 1:16 PM
Watch this, and shudder at the inadequacy of your password…Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2017 1:19 PM
The "Russian hacking" problem was generated right here in the US.
One does not need to know government intel to know the facts. One does need to know discernment and how to deal with the situation.
Do I need to document this? Why should I waste my time trying to convince some on this site that will call me names and try to tell me they know all the answers when they really don't. Just speculation by the know-it-alls. HoHum. The more things change the more they stay the samePosted by: tom humes at January 4, 2017 1:28 PM
The Russians ran the hack and leak operation. We already have that conclusion from 17 US intelligence agencies.
This is really very simple.
Trump is lying. We already know he is lying. Why does he keep lying about this?
Today Trump said in a tweet: "The "Intelligence" briefing on so-called "Russian hacking" was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!"
Except no one in the intelligence community knows of any briefing that was scheduled for today, other than the normal PDB.
Trump is siding with a foreign adversary against the US intelligence community. Why?
Posted by: phx8 at January 4, 2017 2:25 PM
tom humes-
Then who the hell are you getting your information from? If you build reason entirely on the back of refusing to believe a certain set of people, then you're a fool the instant they're telling the truth.
see I told ya so
call me a fool at your disposal
but you are wrong
" We already have that conclusion from 17 US intelligence agencies."
Really? No kidding? Absolute confirmation? No doubts? Verifiable proof? No speculation? No maybes, possibles, might be, etc.?
This is beginning to sound much like the proof offered by the MMGW folks.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 3:04 PM
Here is a list of the US Intelligence Agencies:
"◾Air Force Intelligence
◾Army Intelligence
◾Central Intelligence Agency
◾Coast Guard Intelligence
◾Defense Intelligence Agency
◾Department of Energy
◾Department of Homeland Security
◾Department of State
◾Department of the Treasury
◾Drug Enforcement Administration
◾Federal Bureau of Investigation
◾Marine Corps Intelligence
◾National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
◾National Reconnaissance Office
◾National Security Agency
◾Navy Intelligence"
The USIC onclusion is quoted in the middle of the following:
"Donald Trump's claim that the United States has "no idea" who is behind recent email hacks is just not true.
The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.
"We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing," Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas.
Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had "no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else."
But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."
Always an interesting read, here's a link to Stratfor and their 2017 Annual Forecast.
"This will be a critical year for Europe. Elections in the pillars of the European Union — France and Germany — as well as potential elections in the third largest eurozone economy — Italy — will affect one another and threaten the very existence of the eurozone. As we have been writing for years, the European Union will eventually dissolve. The question for 2017 is to what degree these elections expedite its dissolution. Whether moderates or extremists claim victory in 2017, Europe will still be hurtling toward a breakup into regional blocs."
https://www.stratfor.com/forecast/2017-annual-forecast?utm_campaign=LL_Content_Digest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=39991720&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_iC5VoDjdPkc4UKsTZ6I75K1ssqVq7cY4wOd4k4RLngInz7VlSi7vMlYJ6QHupyDcDI63MjRvXu8kKv3dTmKCeQAlG7g&_hsmi=39990578Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 3:28 PM
Here is the 13 page analysis by the DHS & FBI:
There is no uncertainty.
Now, once again. Trump knows this. Why is he lying?Posted by: phx8 at January 4, 2017 3:33 PM
Here's the ugly Truth: Putin favors Trump and his people because they are dismantling the alliances and the country that has been defeating his people for generations now. Make America Great Again? More like make us a disrespected backwater again.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2017 3:37 PM
Thanks to phx8 for the link to the analysis by the DHS and FBI. I read the report but am not qualified to really understand it all.
Some experts have written that the JAR appears to be very rushed, resulting in a very confusing non-explanation that tried to cover too much, while saying too little.
I will make no judgement now and anticipate a congressional investigation. Trump's further comments should be interesting.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 4:10 PM
phx8, that report is NOT proof positive of anything except the fact that someone hacked the DNC and Podesta. Then we have S.D. with his Chicken little impersonation of the sky is going to fall because Trump is going to be President. It didn't fall with Obama I doubt it will with Trump. By the way Stephen IMO Putin would rather have Hillary because she would be just as weak as Obama was.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 4, 2017 4:22 PM
The first three pages contain the material you would most likely find relevant.
"The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party. The first actor group, known as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 29, entered into the party's systems in summer 2015, while the second, known as APT28, entered in spring 2016."
A private firm, Crowdstrike, provided an even more detailed forensic analysis.
And remember, this is just the publicly available version. Cyber attacks are easy to launch and difficult to stop, but do not doubt for a moment that the United States has capabilities far better than anyone in the world. Remember how shocked everyone was back in the Bush administration, when the NSA wiretap capabilities became known? That was over a decade ago.Posted by: phx8 at January 4, 2017 4:35 PM
An expert has summed up the brief joint report of "Russian Malicious Cyber Activity" this way.
There's no standing allegation by U.S. officials that the Russians (or anyone else) "hacked" into our elections system or altered vote counts.
U.S. officials have not alleged that anyone falsified the emails provided to WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says: "Our source is not the Russian government…
Former British ambassador Craig Murray backs up Assange's version: "I know who leaked them. I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things."
There is no evidence that the hacks "affected the election" or "helped Donald Trump win."
We apparently know of serious cyberattacks against US government institutions (State dept, Office of Personnel Management, and 22 more from 2006 to 2016) by both Russia and China.
Why has Obama not punished these hacking attempts?Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 4:39 PM
Just wondering…did the Russians trick Donna Brazille into giving Hillary the debate questions?
phx8, Hacking has been going on for decades both sides do it. Russia hacks us we hack them and now because your side lost it is all of a sudden a big deal. You guys blamed everyone but the right one and that was Hillary, it was her arrogance not hacking that beat her.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 4, 2017 5:11 PM
Did the Russians trick Donna Brazille into giving Hillary the debate questions?
Come on Royal. Everybody knows that the Russians blackmailed Trump into tricking Donna Brazile into giving Hillary the debate questions.
OK tim, you caught me.
Personally, I believe the Russians would help Hillary win if that was their intention. They know she is inept in world political affairs and they know she could be easily blackmailed by either revealing secrets or a simple money bribe.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 5:30 PM
Just too funny not to share with my Leftie Pals.
"That Trump laughs at how a creaky ex-superpower is so relentlessly trolling the feckless Obama – President Faily McWorsethancarter even makes acting butch seem super femme – draws cries of "Treason!" and "Traitor!" from the same set who never saw a flag they didn't want to burn, mourned Castro, and who know damn well it isn't them or their gender indeterminate children who would get to fight and die in the war they seem so eager to provoke to close out Obama's pathetic reign."
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/01/02/for-democrats-2017-will-be-the-year-of-living-stupidly-n2265749Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 6:45 PM
"There's no standing allegation by U.S. officials that the Russians (or anyone else) "hacked" into our elections system or altered vote counts."
"U.S. officials have not alleged that anyone falsified the emails provided to WikiLeaks."
Correct. The original writers of a few of the e-mails made that allegation.
Do you believe Julian Assange is telling the truth? Keep in mind, a Russian did not waltz into the Ecuadorian embassy and hand him the files. There were intermediaries. It does not take a master spy to figure that one out.
Craig Murray. Interesting guy. Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. But this most certainly was a hack and leak, NOT merely a leak. We know about the Podesta hack in detail. Kind of sad, kind of pathetic.
The hacks influenced the election. There is no way to quantify their effect. Less than 80,000 votes in three states made up the difference in the electoral college, so while it is possible, and even likely, no one can say with certainty that the hack and leak was the difference. I would argue Director Comey re-opening the investigation nine days before the election was a bigger influence. Polls showed a large and measureable drop for HRC as a result. It is worth nothing the theme of e-mails was the common denominator in the attacks on Hillary Clinton, so in that sense, the Russian hack and leak was perfect- from a Russian point of view.
Previous cyber attacks on businesses and government agencies are serious. I would not discount the possibility we did launch counterattacks. It is not exactly the sort of thing the Obama administration would advertise.
Donna Brazille was incompetent and I would be glad to see her political career ended, regardless of her role in this.
What makes this particular issue so serious is that a foreign adversary- the Russians- interfered in our election and succeeded. That is bad, but understandable from a Russian point of view. They perceived it was worth the risk to help Trump take the White House. In the past Trump has said "NATO is obsolete" and that he might not honor NATO treaty obligations. He has made numerous statements like that, and the Russians loved to hear that kind of talk. Trump is on extremely dangerous ground.
And it brings us back to the main point. Trump KNOWS the Russians did the hack and leak. Why is he denying it?Posted by: phx8 at January 4, 2017 7:04 PM
phx8, good post and analysis except for the last two paragraphs. Would anyone care to speculate why Obama waited so long to publicly chastise the Russians and has done nothing about the Chinese.
At present, NATO has done little to deter Russian aggression in Europe. Is NATO still the most effective way for the US to deal with our greatest threat…terrorism? Must we continue to pay the lion's share of NATO expenses? Why?
I believe it is good to have a national conversation regarding both NATO and the UN.
phx8, you have no way of knowing what Trump knows about Russian hacking. Just hold your horses and let the man fill in all you want to know when HE IS READY.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 4, 2017 7:43 PM
Obama and his administration wanted to reveal more in than they had already made public in October. Senator Mitch McConnell opposed the idea because it would appear too partisan. IMO Obama made a mistake. He should have done it anyway.
Trump stated he would reveal what he knew about the hacking yesterday or today. He did not do so. He says he knows things no one else knows. Whatever it may be, it remains a mystery. He says he knows a lot about hacking. I very seriously doubt that; then again, maybe Trump has been studying for his Certified Ethical Hacker certification late nights and just wanted to save it for a surprise. Does anyone believe Trump knows anything whatsoever about hacking? During one debate he called it "the cyber." Perhaps he misspoke. But I think he is lying through his teeth.
Trump is trying to run out the clock. Once the GOP is in power they will bury any investigations in committee.
According to the WSJ, Trump is about to cut the CIA budget and the DNI. Nothing suspicious about that! The DNI was the organization that General Flynn used to head until he was fired.
There are some terrible nominations for the cabinet, but Flynn is flat out scary.
There are three objectives for all the faux concern over these 'hacks':
1 - Delegitimize Trump and Republicans.
2 - Dismiss the content of the emails.
3 - To ignore the rejection of liberal/progressive policy.
The simple fact is that Hillary would have gotten millions of more votes:
IF the ACA wasn't hurting millions of Americans.
IF the left hadn't ramped up their identity politics by 1000%.
IF she hadn't made attacking and trampling all over 2nd Amendment rights a key part of her campaign.
Delegitimize Trump and Republicans.
Haven't they done that themselves? Trying to get rid of the ethics panel first day back made the repubs in Congress look like buffoons, I mean ethics and intelligence have been what they have been fighting against this week.. Trump just opens his mouth and deligitimizes his own self. Nope, judging by the past week or two they don't need help. If it wasn't for wish washy would Trump have anything to say? No it wasn't, Yes it was … oh maybe, sums up Trump so far.
Posted by: j2t2 at January 5, 2017 1:03 PM
"Haven't they done that themselves?"
By disagreeing with your position on yet another redundant government office and its ability to use anonymous sources? No, I don't believe that delegitimizes them in the eyes of normal voters. That's small potatoes man.
Now, all the Republicans are 'gutting all ethics overwatch' and 'getting rid of the ethics panel' rhetoric should qualify as fake news though.
"Trump just opens his mouth and deligitimizes his own self"
Um, no. While there is no doubt that Trump has said wishy-washy things, there is absolutely no doubt about his legitimacy or authority as our next President.
phx8 writes; "According to the WSJ, Trump is about to cut the CIA budget and the DNI."
Is that news to you phx8?
The man made promises and got elected. Among those promises was to streamline our government agencies to make them work more efficiently and effectively.
Does anyone believe our current national security agencies are performing as they should?
Posted by: Royal Flush at January 5, 2017 4:25 PM
Conservatives are certainly welcome to own it. Have fun with that streamlining the next time an intelligence failure results in harm to the national security.
This is a transparent act of revenge. General Flynn was fired for failing to do a good job. According to a previous Republican Secretary of State, Flynn was erratic, disorganized, and made a total mess of things. Now he is getting his payback.
It will be interesting to see how the incoming CIA Director, Congressman Pompeo, handles this. He is owned by the Koch Brothers. With the exception of a couple GOP Neocons like McCain and Graham, most Republicans seem anxious to prevent an examination of what happened, so Pompeo will probably go along. Some Republicans have fallen so far, they have become Russian appeasers and fans of Julian Assange.
That is a sad state of affairs.Posted by: phx8 at January 5, 2017 4:59 PM
I understand phx8. It's gloom and doom under Trump and Republican leadership in congress.
Liberals and Lefties have suffered great losses in political clout in our nation's cities, counties, states and on the national level. Their liberal/progressive message of governance is being discounted nearly everywhere.
We conservatives fully expect resistance to changes in how government works. Millions of Americans and I support Trump in his stated agenda of "draining the swamp".
One can not drain the swamp without eliminating a considerable amount of patronage and favoritism.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 5, 2017 5:39 PM
On the lighter side, I wanted to share this hilarious description of Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi.
"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're number one. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on 'Macbeth'. The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."
… . . columnist Burt Prelutsky, LA TimesPosted by: Royal Flush at January 5, 2017 5:52 PM
By disagreeing with your position on yet another redundant government office and its ability to use anonymous sources?
Wow yeah kctim I guess this was the most important issue facing Congress wasn't it. Seeing how they have things running so well and all. To top it off these guys are so ethical anyway they must have realized they created the office just for practice and because it was the top item on the American peoples agenda…..
Now, all the Republicans are 'gutting all ethics overwatch' and 'getting rid of the ethics panel' rhetoric should qualify as fake news though.
Seems to me Congress woke up and decided to wait until no one was looking to do their work, so in the post truth or Trump era yeah anything factual can be called fake news.
there is absolutely no doubt about his legitimacy or authority as our next President.
Yet here we are discussing it. Despite electing him many Americans aren't so sure he can do the job kctim. That affects his legitimacy, like it or not. His actions, his tweets, his talking out both sides of his mouth show him to be unprepared for the job. This affects his legitimacy in the eyes of his fellow countrymen and the world.Posted by: j2t2 at January 5, 2017 6:10 PM
Is Trump really this stupid?
Jeez, not even in office and already breaking major campaign promises. How can we trust anything he says?
Yet we have Royal with some "light" but ignorant conservative himor..er…um… humor from some twit.Posted by: j2t2 at January 5, 2017 9:58 PM
The question of the legitimacy of Trump's election is a little confusing. In the legal sense, Trump is legitimate. He won in the electoral college and will be sworn in as president. He is illegitimate in the sense that he has no mandate. His win was tainted. Trump lost the popular vote by 2.9 million, which is a pretty amazing number in itself. Trump had 46% of the vote, and Republicans won only 42% of the vote in the Senate and 49% in the House, yet emerged with majorities. That should not have happened. The system failed. In addition, Trump's win was illegitimate in the colloquial sense because the Russians influenced the outcome, and so did the Director of the FBI.
As for gloom and doom…
I would never welcome a person like Trump in my house. He is a racist who re-tweets Neo-Nazi propaganda about blacks murdering whites. He is a bigot who claims Mexico is sending us their criminals and rapists. He favors a ban on people entering the country based on their religion. He is a misogynist, a xenophobe, and a rude person who pedals conspiracy theories about Ted Cruz having five mistresses, and Rafael Cruz being involved in the JFK assassination. This is a guy who based his 2012 political campaign on Birtherism, a fundamentally racists conspiracy theory.
So don't think that will just go away, because that is never going to happen. Trump will get called on this stuff again and again and again, and the people who either support it, or are willing to overlook it, will own it for the next four years.Posted by: phx8 at January 5, 2017 10:47 PM
Myself and Trump actually agree with you that this wasn't the most important issue facing Congress. But, if we are going to be honest here, no Congress ever only addresses our most important issues, Republican or democrat.
To claim it delegetimizes THIS Congress, is silly.
"so in the post truth or Trump era yeah anything factual can be called fake news."
We already have a Committee on Ethics, so they were not gutting or getting rid of our "ethics panel". Claiming and 'reporting' that they were doing so was not true. It was fake news.
"Yet here we are discussing it. Despite electing him many Americans aren't so sure he can do the job kctim."
Yep. In fact, it's just like when we were discussing Obama being a muslim and an inexperienced community organizer.
That didn't affect Obama's legitimacy, J2. And it sure as he11 doesn't affect Trump's.
"His actions, his tweets, his talking out both sides of his mouth show him to be unprepared for the job."
His actions? He is not yet President.
His tweets? Annoying and unpresidential, IMO.
"This affects his legitimacy in the eyes of his fellow countrymen and the world."
The left disagree's with what they think his politics are and because of THAT alone, they don't want him to be President. Because Trump has not stated that he believes exactly as they do, or that he will pander to their special interests, the left deems him incompetent.
Neither of those have anything to do with the legitimacy of the election, or with Trump being President.
Fake news sites "deliberately publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation, using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect. Unlike news satire, fake news websites seek to mislead, rather than entertain, readers for financial or other gain."
Rush Limbaugh went so far as to call the WaPo and NYT fake news sites.
You misunderstand the purpose of the Office of Congressional Ethics, as opposed to the House Committee on Ethics. The OCE is independent and non-partisan. The Ethics Committee is run by the party in power. The OCE was founded eight years ago by the Democrats after a series of scandals rocked the House, including the one with Jack Abramoff. It was necessary because the partisan nature of the Committee on Ethics allowed it to ignore behavior on the part of the party in power.
So this is most certainly NOT fake news. It was literally the first order of the day for the incoming Republicans- stop inquiries into corrupt behavior. It was an awful thing to do, and the Republicans were warned by their leadership, including Ryan and McCarthy, NOT to do it. They took a secret vote and did it anyway. This resulted in a firestorm of controversy. The phone lines for the House were swamped, and every morning news show featured this horrendous action.Posted by: phx8 at January 6, 2017 10:54 AM
To claim it delegetimizes THIS Congress, is silly.
Look at the approval rating of Congress and what they deem to be important kctim and you will see not many Americans support them as a collective. They needed the additional ethics support because it closed loopholes and problems with the Congressional committee, it was a case of the fox in charge of the chickens and did little.
We already have a Committee on Ethics, so they were not gutting or getting rid of our "ethics panel". Claiming and 'reporting' that they were doing so was not true. It was fake news.
Don't be silly kctim. The reporting told the story accurately they never claimed, to my knowledge, that all ethics panels were going away. Your comment is what is fake here.
Yep. In fact, it's just like when we were discussing Obama being a muslim and an inexperienced community organizer.
The difference being Obamas words and actions at the time and Trumps tweets actions and words now. Definitely not the same situation. What we know now is between Congress and Trump it has been a week of attacking ethics and intelligence. Zeig Heil Mein Trump.
That didn't affect Obama's legitimacy, J2. And it sure as he11 doesn't affect Trump's.
Look at the link and you will find you are wrong kctim. The American people are not confident about the buffoonery Trump has disgraced the office with prior to being sworn in.
Hypocrisy is one of Trumps strong points, one of his best qualities so far kctim, it goes down hill from there. Look at how he is leaving the family so the son can attend the rest of the school year in NYC whilst not allowing the same for our foreign diplomats. Hail Victory Mein Trump.
He is earning "speak loudly and carry a small stick" status by backing down so quick on Mexico paying for the wall!!! My god not even in office and already breaking major promises. Certainly even conservatives have to question his meekness on this. His boasting has been shoved up his a** and he isn't even in office, what next for this guy. Zeig Heil Trump Hail Victory
I agree with phx8 on the definitions of legitimacy so perhaps instead of the word that isn't a word, "deligitimizes", used by the right to defend the buffoonery we should ask the righties to be a bit more accurate. I would suggest confidence and respect. Because that is what it seems to me Trump has accomplished so far, a loss of confidence that he can do the job and the respect of the American people and the world.Hail Trump.Posted by: j2t2 at January 6, 2017 11:25 AM
phx8 writes; "So don't think that will just go away, because that is never going to happen."
We know, the Left is always operating in the past. We will take care of the future.
j2t2 asks us to; "Look at the approval rating of Congress…"
And that would tell us????
Just curious j2, what was the approval rating of Congress when Obama was a member?
Don't we just love it when the Left, accustomed to breaking promises to get elected, are so arrogant as to suggest Trump is doing the same with his wall promises.
Trump is not yet even a legitimate politician if one uses the definition that one must hold elective office in order to qualify. Yet, Trump has beaten every "seasoned" politician from both the Left and the Right. With a few exceptions, Trump has defied all the pollsters and their professed brilliance.
Now, the Left attempts to use its political brain to analysis Trump and that, for them, would be similar to using a ruler to measure the distance to the sun.
Trump baffles politicians and the chattering heads of mainstream media. We, the people, understand him, voted for him, and expect him to restore America.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2017 2:29 PM
The claims that reforming equals 'gutting' or 'getting rid of ethics panels,' IS misleading. There was still going to be ethics overwatch.
The BS wishes of no mandate, tainted win, election hacking etc… in no way invalidate Trumps legitimacy.
Definition of delegitimize
transitive verb
: to diminish or destroy the legitimacy, prestige, or authority of
Your assumptions and opinions of Trump, based only on your disagreeing with him politically, in no way diminishes or destroys the fact that he won the election, earned the right to be our President and will have the authority of the office. IF it did, you guys wouldn't be grasping at all the neo-nazi, fascist, and Trump is Putin BS.Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2017 2:49 PM
Here's a legacy to be proud of. Democrats lost 12 governorships, 13 Senate seats and 69 seats in the House of Representatives during Obama's two terms, highlighting "a devastation up and down the party across the nation," according to The Hill.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2017 3:32 PM
j2t2 asks us to; "Look at the approval rating of Congress…"
And that would tell us????
It would tell us that more Americans approved of Congress back when Nancy Pelosi was speaker. In fact, Congress' approval ratings were almost always above 20% until July 2011 when we Republicans sparked the very first debt ceiling crisis. 6 years later, Congress has never recovered its popularity.Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2017 4:59 PM
I always marvel at the mind-set that is critical of the entire congressional body while the individual members are reelected at a very high percentage.Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2017 5:24 PM
Trump is not yet even a legitimate politician if one uses the definition that one must hold elective office in order to qualify. Yet, Trump has beaten every "seasoned" politician from both the Left and the Right. With a few exceptions, Trump has defied all the pollsters and their professed brilliance.
A half true statement from our rightie friends, will wonders never cease. After all the blathering about Trump, all the excuses,well a broken clock and all. But hey why not just call him Putin's lackey?
The myths misinformation and outright lies that have made up the Trump/Putin campaign has proven they can con many people into believing just about anything. Their main accomplishment is taking the work of Faux and other propaganda outlets, organizing the misinformed voter and turning them into a political force. Tainted out of the gates IMHO.
Yet our rightie friends continue to try to convince the rest of the world that Trump is legitimate. I say make him earn it don't give it to him. He has already broken a major campaign promise and he isn't even in office. Who actually believes this man will build the wall and then backcharge the Mexicans!!
Thank you for sharing useful informastion to the reader. By reading your article post, I can gain a lot of knowledge, insight and new knowledge from your blog.
Tas Branded
Thanks for sharingPosted by: Tas Branded Murah Terbaru at April 9, 2017 6:50 AM
Lot of great comment, not much time to read them all ;/Posted by: Torfag at June 2, 2017 10:10 AM
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to email@example.com.


text:
|Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP
Hi all, I am trying to automate my odorant delivery( vapor phase) system to record single unit responses from olfcatory sensilla. Can anyone please recommend a sutiable company based in the US which manufactures such automated systems. Thanks in advance. Regards, Partha Krishnan. Graduate Student Dr.Paul Hardin's Lab Texas A&M University College Station TX 77843

subset: commoncrawl


text: MRAJ 1 Posted June 8, 2018 Hi, Is there any possibilty of automating the user emulation of Network Engineers' activity to login thenetwork device and get the OTP using AutoIT script Below work flow to automate Router login: 1) Start 2) invoked for Router login 3) Router prompts for Login ID 4) Router gets the login ID and prompts for Password (OTP) 5) fetching the OTP 6) AutoIT Script emulates the Network Engineers' action to fetch the OTP 7) AutoIT script copies and pastes the OTP in a text file 8) AutoIT script closes 9) gets the OTP from the text file 10) put the OTP in the Router's Password prompt. 11) Login success 12) End Please let me know if we can do the steps mentioned above using Autoit script. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites


text:
With the prospect of genomic data becoming ever more easily available, Effy Vayena and Urs Gasser discuss how we could balance making the most of its benefits with reducing its risks to privacy.
Tag Archives: Medicine
Web site of the Week
FDA Dietary Supplements
Flickr user higlu, Found via Compfight
Dietary and nutritional supplements can be confusing. The FDA's Dietary Supplement Web site can clear up some of the confusion. It defines what a dietary supplement is and explains what the FDA does and does not regulate. The FDA's site also has an "alerts" section that names specific supplements that have found to be harmful to people. For example, a couple of years ago the story of the man who turned blue after taking colloidal silver popped up in the news. It is your health-make sure you know what is going into your body!
To see what ingredients are in a specific supplement visit the Dietary Supplements Database.


text:
Well, this was easy. All I did was go to the YouTube API site, and I generated the code for a custom player, telling it to look at the videos in my davstrom playlist.
I did want to play with the code a little. So I tried to change the size of the player using the width and height parameters. I could shrink the player, but I could not enlarge it. Darned if I know why it won't get any bigger that the original (746x413)! I did want to get a 16x9 aspect ratio by making width bigger. Could not do that either. I would have liked 16x9 to keep my Hope in a Can video from getting letterboxed.


text:
install latest visual c++ both x86 and x64 . see if this works
If you launch the scan from explorer right-click context menu, the scan is executed with your user privileges. It can only access files that you (current user) can.
If you instead do a full system scan, the scan is executed with system privileges and it can access all files.
Hope this helps.
(F-Secure R&D)
I haven't tried with a slaved Windows drive from another computer so I don't know about that, but I have successfully scanned another windows drive as a network mapped drive. The difference with a network mapped drive is that I have to pass credentials to it when I connect to it(as administrator). So maybe it's a permissions problem. Also any encryption on the drive could cause this including windows EFS which is very easy for any user to apply. (folder properties, advanced, encrypt)
You could try the FSAV command-line utility. Example here including scanning as system account instead of current user:
Hi again, I don't know the reason why you connected a windows drive from another computer as a slave, but my advice(if it's possible) is to put it back and then map that drive as a network drive. Then scan that network drive from your own computer. That has always worked for me.
This topic has been closed due to inactivity. If you would like to discuss this topic further, please start a new post.
You can reference this topic in your post by adding this link:
Visit the Community
Check our Forums or How-to & FAQs for advice or answers
View User Guides
Refer to our getting started guides and product manuals
Get Support
Talk to our Support and get answers to your questions


text:
If you're board of your eye make-up and want to make your eyes look bigger and brighter, here's a great tutorial from Video Jug. You will need tweezers, eyelash curlers, mascara, false eyelashes, dark eyeliner, white eyeliner, highlighter eyeshadow and a darker eyeshadow. The demonstration is easy to follow and gives some great tips. I will be spending my Friday evening perfecting this technique!
VideoJug: How To Make Your Eyes Look Bigger


text:
Spotting Rules
First written in 1916 and later amended, the Spotting Rules were a formulated expression of the procedures the Royal Navy deemed most effective for spotting fire, based on battle experiences obtained through Jutland. In essence, it reduced spotting from an art to a science, and the rules effectively created an algorithm to be followed in correcting the fall of shot.
- 1 Creation
- 2 Background and Rationale
- 3 Modes of Firing
- 4 Capital Ships and Armoured Cruisers
- 5 Variant for Light Cruisers
- 6 Various scenarios
- 7 November 1916 Amendment for Rate Correction
- 8 June 1917 Addenda for Light Cruisers
- 9 Footnotes
- 10 Bibliography
The rules were drawn up by a series of two or more committees on spotting rules, and were signed by Jellicoe on 24th September 1916. He endorsed the representative nature of the committees, voiced his endorsement of their conclusions, and directed that are to be "adopted at once in every ship of the Grand Fleet, and the control parties are to be thoroughly exercised in carrying out this procedure." In bold, he added, I must once more lay the strongest emphasis on the fact that nothing less than absolute perfection in drill and organisation and condition of materiel can be accepted if full value is to be obtained from our fire. The work was promulgated 30th November, 1916.
Background and Rationale
In the Grand Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo Orders written in September 1915, it is noted that "In reports of firings carried out during the last few months, a tendency has been noticed to use 'free' spotting corrections instead of adhering to the well established bracket system." Four further short paragraphs follow, but no clear reference to where a "well established bracket system" from this period is clearly recorded is made.[1]
As laid forth in the document itself, the existing system of waiting to spot each salvo and incorporating a correction before firing the next was criticised as being too slow at finding the range, maintaining it, regaining it, and obtaining the fastest possible rate of fire the loading mechanisms could yield. The conclusion had been taken that the German battlecruisers at Jutland had zig-zagged independently when hit, sparking the realisation that hits would have to be obtained if a flurry of fire before such maneuvers could escape the hitting salvos. The goal was to increase the rate of fire by reducing the frequency with which the spotting and correction cycle was applied, both while hitting and while early salvos were working to find the hitting range and deflection.
The committee operated from the assumption that rates of fire and average spread varied from once per 60 seconds and 200 yards for 15-inch guns to once per 50 seconds and 400 yards for 12-inch guns (with ships firing half their battery per salvo yielding a doubled tempo of firing). It was also mentioned that in the 35 most recent ships engaging in firing practice, it was observed that the initial salvos produced 4 straddles, 16 short salvos, and 15 overs. This meant that spotting to find range was necessary around 88% of the time, and with a maneuvering enemy, this process would be continuous.
The rules for light cruisers differed from those for larger ships. By their omission, it seems the rules were not intended for smaller vessels.[Inference]
Modes of Firing
The Rules defined three modes of firing for future use.
Rapid salvos were to be "salvos of not less than three guns, fired as soon as three gun-ready lamps are burning." Its primary virtue was that it gave the director layer a free hand and by eliminating a complex circuit of command and action from the eye-hand motor skill of laying and firing. Its faults were that guns or gun-ready indicators might go out of action, and so the pragmatic liberty was given the man to "use discretion, and not withhold his fire for more than a reasonable period."
Double salvos would be paired "salvos of not less than three guns, fired as closely together as possible, but waiting to spot these two before firing again." These offered "the advantage that the method of fire is standardised under all conditions." [2] Its disadvantages were the requirement to wait for both salvos to fall and the increased chance that two or more guns might be ready to fire and made to wait for more to come ready.
Director Independent was to be "the system by which the director layer presses the trigger whenever his sights come on, irrespective of the number of guns that are ready." It would produce a stream of one- and two-shot salvos which would make communication and range-finding more difficult, but subject the enemy to a continuous rain of shot.
Rapid or double salvos were to be employed after hitting commenced, and were to become the means of increasing the rate of fire when hits were being produced. Note was made that these modes could be employed in director- or individual-laying, that individual independent was not to be forbidden in cases where it was the only possible method of firing, and "that the whole system must be entirely in the hands of the control officer."
Capital Ships and Armoured Cruisers
Finding deflection by double salvos
Fire was to be opened with a double salvo, with the salvos separated in deflection "by about two-thirds of the width of the target expressed in deflection", each one-third the target width to each side of the calculated deflection. The pair was to be at the calculated range, but the option was also presented that they could also vary "up 100" and "down 100" from the calculated range. If that wrinkle were applied, however, it was stressed that the 100 yard offsets were not to be customized under any condition. Double salvos would continue until the firing was on for deflection, but the separation in deflection was only mandatory on the first double salvo.
Once correct for line, the same deflection was absolutely to be used by all salvos.
Seeking the range by laddering across the target
If the salvo(s) which first fell on for line happened to straddle, its deflection was correct and its range correct as well, and firing could proceed under the rules for established hitting.
If the salvo(s) that found the line were short or long, the control officer was to fire an "up ladder" or a "down ladder", a series of double salvos with each single salvo increasing or decreasing in range by 400 yards successively until crossing the target. 400 yards was specifically chosen as a step-size that might offer a good chance of obtaining hits upon crossing a target. With a 200-yard spread in each salvo, it was noted that a pair of double salvos (four salvos) on a ladder would cover 1,400 yards.
In cases where a control officer were certain that the range was very incorrect, he was allowed to give a large initial correction before proceeding to the ladder. If line were to be lost while firing ladders, the process was to fall back to that spreading salvos for deflection, but it is not clear whether 400 yard laddering was to continue in combination with this process.
Example: upon first bringing the fire on for line, the salvos are short, a double salvo of the ladder would have the control officer command "Up 400, Shoot," and again say "Up 400, Shoot," as soon as he heard the first salvo fire.
A ladder was to continue until salvos crossed the target or one was seen to straddle the target. If one or more salvos in a ladder is not observed and the next salvo is seen to fall on the other side of the target, the ladder was to be reversed.
If the target is crossed but not straddled, a 200 yard correction in the reverse direction would be applied to the first salvo to cross. Example: when both salvos of an up ladder fall over, as soon as the first one falls, the orders would be "down 600, rapid (or double) salvos, shoot." The 600 figure used here is because a correction of "up 400" has already been applied after firing the first salvo. If the first salvo had fallen short and the second one had fallen over, the officer would have commanded, "down 200, rapid (or double) salvos, shoot." If neither of the first two salvos after falling out of a ladder straddles, the rules call upon the rate officer to adjust his rate.
Of course, if a salvo within a ladder actually straddles the target, the control officer would correct backward 400 yards (if the first salvo of a double straddled) and then fall into rapid or double salvos upon that range.
When hitting is established
Fire upon a target which is being hit or straddled was to be at rapid or double salvos, with 100 yard corrections used if the straddles appear to be threatening to slip long or short. 100 yard corrections were not to be used other than in correcting fire on a target that was being straddled or hit.
A previous practice of intentionally spreading shots within a salvo for range was to be entirely discontinued as a failure, and the previously considered notion that the same could be done for deflection was also condemned as such practices were seen as needless complications that might result in a fire control team outthinking itself.
Deflection lost after hitting established
A firing ship most often lost deflection when its target altered course or considerably altered its speed.
If a salvo missed for line and no change in the target's inclination could be observed, a spotting correction for line alone would be used to correct the discrepancy.
However, "(i)f the enemy alters course, and by some means (such as Rangefinder method of measuring angle subtended and thus obtaining alterations of course), this is detected" but the direction of the alteration not established, a spotting correction was again to be used to address it along with a double salvo fired with plus and minus 200 yards to that presently on the sights. For example, if a salvo seems to fall 6 knots to the left of line and the enemy's inclination is seen to change, the control officer would be "Double salvos. Right 6. Up 200, Shoot. [boom] Down 400, Shoot." The result of spotting these salvos should then tell the direction of alternation and prompt a rate correction. If needed, a ladder could also be started.
If a salvo missed for line and a definite direction of course change of the enemy determined, a spotting correction should bring fire back on for line, the Transmitting Station informed of the new inclination, and double salvos on an up (or down, as indicated) ladder on 200 yard increments started. For example, if a salvo misses 6 knots to left and the enemy is clearly seen to have turned away, the control officer would order, "Double salvos. Right 6. Up 200. Shoot. [boom] Up 200. Shoot. Enemy altering course to starboard, inclination 20 to the left."
The Rules caution against mistaking errors for line which are actually due to factors such as trunnion tilt for errors in shooting deflection, as these should not be corrected. The rule of thumb given for these errors is that:
MinutesOfDeflectionTowardLowTrunnionImpartedByTilt = (SlopeOfTrunnionsInDegrees * ElevationInDegrees)
In the case of Lion's 13.5-in Mark V (L) gun firing at 16,000 yards (about 10.5 degrees elevation), a 1 degree tilt of the trunnion would equate to 10.5 minutes or a little over 4 knots of deflection.
Range (alone) lost after hitting established
A ladder of double salvos was to be started, normally at 200 yard increments, but at 400 yards if the enemy was observed to alter course or a significant time has passed since the last spotted salvo. In the original 1916 edition of the Rules, it was said that a "rate correction and readjustment of the Dumaresq" should also occur as the ladder is commanded. In a later amendment, the nature of these rate corrections was further specified as part of the Rules. Additionally, the Rules spelled out the need to keep the Dreyer range calculator updated to reflect the present range and rate, and its indications applied as spotting corrections when suitable.
Variant for Light Cruisers
Light cruisers used a modified version of the above system for larger cruisers and capital ships. The changes were principally due to the more rapid rate of fire of such ships.
In finding the deflection, the double salvos offset in deflection were used, but these never employed the optional plus-or-minus 100 yards range offset permitted the larger ships. Upon finding the deflection, the ladder was conducted with rapid (rather than double) salvos at 400 yard intervals until a salvo was observed to have crossed the target. Since there may be several such salvos in flight at the time one is observed to cross or straddle, fire would then be checked for a little more thinking. An opposite correction of 400 yards would be applied for each salvo that had been in flight at the time of crossing or straddling, and if that salvo crossed rather than straddled, an additional 200 yards would be applied. If it is uncertain how many salvos are in flight, a simple expedient was offered: maintain the check fire and apply 400 yards each time one falls.
Light cruisers with mixed calibre armaments firing at extreme ranges were advised to range with one type only to avoid confusion introduced by varying times of flight.
Various scenarios
The Rules anticipated that double salvo firing by concentrating pairs would be as effective as single salvo firing, but that Director Independent should not be used when concentrating, as it would be too confusing.
Fog and night firing at short ranges should be done with regular salvos while finding the range, and then double or rapid salvos when hitting.
Destroyer attack when there was no range clock available was to be done by firing a fixed barrage ahead of the destroyer in Rapid Independent, with the barrage shifting when the target passed through it. Six-inch guns and smaller were encouraged to use Individual or Director Independent rather than double salvos.
November 1916 Amendment for Rate Correction
On 20th November, 1916, a Memorandum H.F. 242/86 added "Rules for Rate Correction". This refinement was intended to tie automatic rate corrections to the procedure of recovering from a lost range after hitting. This is rationalised by an example of a light cruiser firing 4 salvos per minute who loses the range, as a 400 yard ladder to reacquire the range would be equivalent to a rate change of 1,600 yards per minute. As errors in rate were likely attributable to changes in enemy inclination or speed, large initial corrections upon first losing a hitting range were seen as clumsy over-reactions. A more gradual reaction based on paired range and rate corrections was counseled for ships of all sizes who lose the hitting range.
The range ladder increment to be used to regain a lost range was to normally be 200 yards unless the enemy had definitely been seen to be altering course or a delay in spotting recent salvos encountered, in which case 400 yards would be used unless the firing ship were able to fire very rapid salvos which should warrant 200 yards. However, when a 200 yard ladder seemed too timorous, the spotter was authorised to switch to 400 yards.
If the enemy had not been seen to alter course, each range correction in the ladder would be accompanied by a 100 yard per minute rate correction in the same direction, and this rate copied to the Dumaresq. If, during this process the enemy was seen to alter course, the automatic rate corrections would cease and the Dumaresq's indication of enemy heading or inclination used in lieu, and its resultant range rate set on the clock.
June 1917 Addenda for Light Cruisers
This separate pamphlet was to supersede the sub-parts of the Spotting Rules pertaining to light cruisers, and was based upon practice firings in the preceding six months. It replaced the use of rapid salvos in laddering with triple salvos, as this would remove the possibility of confusion as to how many salvos were in flight at the moment one was observed to cross or straddle the target.
The first salvos to be fired were to be a double salvo fired at the same range and spread for deflection of two thirds the width of the target but never less than 8 knots. Rather than split the salvos on either side of the target, the first was now to be fired on the calculated deflection and the other by the offset toward the target's bow. Double salvos would be used until the deflection were found, but only the first required the spread for deflection.
The calculated deflection was to be obtained by use of a "deflection calculator" (likely one converting speed-across to gun deflection) in addition to the Dumaresq, and "(a)n arbitrary correction may be used for starboard guns (illegible) found necessary; the amount recommended is 1 knot for each 1,000 yards above 5,000." [3] The range was to be found by a series of triple salvos with a 400 yard increment size. When the target is crossed or straddled, the range would be corrected and rapid salvo fire undertaken. The control officer was permitted in exceptional circumstances such as when the ladder could not be completed or it was clearly seen to be well short of the target, to issue a single large correction.
The previous rules' admonition to range with a single type of gun at long ranges was given a definite threshold: 10,000 yards was the maximum range at which ships with 6- and 4-inch guns could employ both in ranging.
Rapid salvos was the preferred firing mode while hitting, unless this caused a significant reduction in fire over that which independent fire could deliver, in which case it could be used, especially at ranges under 6,000 yards.
Ships were permitted to fire at targets beyond maximum gun range using double salvos spread for deflection until a salvo on for line went over, at which time a ladder would be initiated.
If the Transmitting Station had good range data available to it on a target beyond maximum range, the range clock would be set and tuned from time to time with rate data from the Dumaresq and range cuts. Data from Dreyer calculator, adjustments for lag in recording range cuts and such would be applied to the rangefinder range. Gunsights would be set to maximum range or a few hundred yards shy of it and fire opened when the clock range comes within 2,000 yards of the range on the sights. At such time as the clock range decreases below the range on the sights, the sights were to start tracking the clock range.
Alternatively, if the T.S. has no reliable range data, a guess range and rate could be set on the clock when well outside gun range. If a good range were ever obtained, it could be immediately set on the clock with the same corrections listed in the paragraph above.
It seems clear from the emphasis given to firing at the very earliest opportunity, even at extreme range, that the Royal Navy was more interested in doing damage as early as possible than it was in husbanding ammunition should a battle prove long-lived.
- ↑ Grand Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo Orders. No. 36.
- ↑ I do not understand this, as this document could clearly establish any standard whatsoever
- ↑ I have no idea what this means
- Gunnery Branch, Admiralty. (1916). Spotting Rules, 1916. C.B. 272. Possibly at The National Archives. ADM 137/2028.


text:
Double Dragon (PlayStation)
Published by
Developed by
Also For
Not an American user?
DescriptionReleased around the same time as the film of the same name and loosely based on its story, this installment in the Double Dragon series also moves away from the traditional roam-the-streets-fighting to a pure one-on-one fighter. There are ten characters to choose from, including Billy and Jimmy and the game has colorful interactive backgrounds, screen zooming, over-the-top special moves and with the inclusion of double jumps, combos, charges for the losing player and counter hits, there is plenty of room for advanced fighting strategies.
There are no PlayStation user screenshots for this game.
There are 66 other screenshots from other versions of this game or official promotional screenshots.
Promo Images
Part of the Following Groups
User Reviews
There are no reviews for this game.
Critic Reviews
|Jul, 1996
|1 out of 5
There are currently no topics for this game.
CharactersBilly Lee, Jimmy Lee, Marion, and Abobo are the only four characters from the original Double Dragon games. Duke was the final boss in Super Double Dragon.
MovieThis game was loosely based on the 1994 Double Dragon movie starring Mark Dacascos, Scott Wolf, Alyssa Milano and Robert Patrick. The Neo-Geo version has a small FMV clip in the intro with scenes from the movie, and Marion's stage has screenshots of the movie on a big-screen TV in the background.
Rebecca, Eddie, Dulton, Cheng Fu, Amon, Duke and Burnov did not appear in the movie. Marion, Billy Lee, Jimmy Lee and Koga Shuko are the central characters of the movie but look completely different from their on-screen counterparts.
Foxhack (29041) added Double Dragon (PlayStation) on Apr 25, 2005
Other platforms contributed by Corn Popper (69228), GTramp (63630), 666gonzo666 (62126) and Sciere (607395)
Cast (Aoni Production):
Hikaru Midorikawa (Billy), Kaneto Shiozawa (Jimmy/Amon), Yuka Koyama (Marian), Daisuke Gōri (Abobo/Burnov), Yukimasa Kishino (Eddie), Keiko Han (Rebecca), Yusaku Yara (Dulton), Hisao Egawa (Cheng Fu/Duke), Osamu Saka (Shuko), Miyako Endo (Narration)Programmer:
BMG Victor Inc.


text:
Words by: JPS for duncan quinn
The annual Distinguished Gentleman's Ride now raises more than $5 million per annum for cancer research in the coolest way possible –
gents suiting up to ride their motorbikes in outrageous splendour all around the world. This year's event, backed by Triumph and classic Swiss watch brand Zenith, kicks off on Sept. 25 and promises to be the biggest yet. More than 50,000 riders in 550 cities across 90 countries are expected to take part in the spectacle which surely defies the notion that you shouldn't ride a motorcycle in your Sunday best. And though notions of best-dressed vary by country we'd say all the distinguished gents look downright natty.
|This year Zenith is also producing a special timepiece, the DGR Pilot Ton-Up, with a 45 mm-diameter aged steel case, the perfect accessory for the journey. Do note though that the DGR's founders are pretty particular about what sort of bike should be ridden in the event. Café Racers, preferably, bobbers, perhaps a scrambler or three, and anything vintage are A-OK. Modern sport and superbikes are frowned upon, but we say what matters most is the man on top. If you can look like a distinguished gentleman astride a Ducati Supersport, then more power to you. We've carried it off on more than one occasion so let's not be quite so choosy, shall we…?
This post first appeared on Duncan Quinn, please read the originial post: here


text:
Police Patrols Increase In Counter-Terrorism Awareness Drive
25 November 2016, 16:48
Police have been carrying out high-visibility patrols across Scotland in support of a counter-terrorism awareness campaign.
The day of action saw British Transport Police (BTP) officers showing an increased presence in crowded public areas such as Edinburgh Waverley station.
Throughout Counter Terrorism Awareness Week, which runs to December 4, officers across the country aim to provide reassurance to the community and demonstrate the ways in which they work to keep the public safe.
Officers are also reminding the public of their role and ask them to be vigilant when travelling and report anything that does not feel right, for example an unattended item or someone acting suspiciously.
BTP Chief Superintendent John McBride said: ''We should be proud of the fact that we have a largely open and accessible transport network in this country.
''However, this means the police and public must work together to ensure it remains as secure and safe as possible.
''Millions of people travel on our railways every day.
''For commuters, who make the same journey over and over again, it can be easy to become oblivious to their surroundings.
''Working together, utilising the eyes and the ears of rail staff and the public in our surveillance of the transport system, combined with our already substantial CCTV coverage, provides the best opportunity of keeping the network safe by detecting and stopping attacks.''
Firefighters, paramedics and Police Scotland officers are also involved in the campaign.
Police Scotland said 500 resources were being utilised on Friday, with high-visibility patrols and a series of public engagements.


text:
The senior netminder tallied a pair of victories over the weekend (Elan Kawesch).
ALBANY, N.Y. – Senior goaltender Emerance Maschmeyer has been named the ECAC Hockey Goaltender of the Week for Jan. 4-10, the league office announced on Tuesday.
Maschmeyer made Crimson history in the third period of a 6-2 victory against No. 10/- Colgate when she passed Erin Villiotte '95 for first place on the all-time Harvard career saves list (2,108). The Bruderheim, Alberta native stopped 30 shots against the Raiders. Maschmeyer also picked up her third shutout of the year with 23 saves when Harvard blanked Cornell, 2-0.
Maschmeyer ranks second in the country in save percentage (.956) and fifth in goals-against average (1.39). No. 8/9 Harvard women's hockey travels to North Country Jan. 15-16 for a pair of ECAC Hockey tilts with St. Lawrence and No. 5/5 Clarkson.


text:
Koreans Eyeing Iron Dome After Seeing Wartime Success
South Korea interested in buying the short-range missile interceptor, according to its manufacturer, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.
South Korea is interested in buying the Iron Dome anti-missile system, its manufacturer, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, said yesterday.
Iron Dome, which uses guided missiles to shoot down the Katyusha-style short-range rockets favored by Palestinian and Lebanese guerrillas, has scored around a 90% success rate in the month-old Gaza war, Israeli officials and U.S. observers say.
Rafael CEO Yedidia Yaari said the system's performance had fuelled foreign interest in it, including by South Korea, which is in an armed standoff with North Korea.
"[South Korea] is very worried not only about rockets, but other things as well ... You can certainly include them in the club of interested countries," Yaari told Israel's Army Radio, saying Rafael representatives had visited Seoul to promote Iron Dome.
Yaari did not give details on how advanced such a deal with South Korea may be. Rafael has not made public any foreign sales so far, saying it was giving priority to supplying Iron Domes to Israel, which has fielded nine out of a planned total of 12 interceptor units.
Washington has extensively funded the Israeli deployment and supplies of interceptor missiles. Defence industry sources estimate that each Iron Dome battery costs around $50 million, and each interceptor missile between $30,000 and $50,000.
Also participating in Iron Dome's production are Israeli defense contractors Elisra Group and Israel Aerospace Industries. The system uses some components made by U.S. defense contractor Raytheon.
Want to enjoy 'Zen' reading - with no ads and just the article? Subscribe todaySubscribe now


text:
Meinzahn/iStock/Getty Images
Acne treatment sometimes offers little but frustration. If you've got a bad complexion due to pimples, you may have tried a series of products, both over-the-counter treatments and prescription remedies. Dermatologists find that the best approach in acne treatment often combines products. Epiduo, a prescription gel which blends two different active ingredients offers such an approach.
Combination products often work well against acne because acne results from a combination of three different factors. According to the Cleveland Clinic, acne develops when your sebaceous glands produce too much oil. But you also need skin irritation to develop pimples, and that results from irregular shedding of skin cells. Bacterial infection rounds out the causes of acne.
Epiduo gel contains the active ingredients benzoyl peroxide and adapalene, according to the website Drugs.com. Benzoyl peroxide fights the bacteria that worsens acne and also can provide a mild drying effect, helping to rid your skin of excess oil. Vitamin A derivative adapalene, meanwhile, works to correct the irregular skin cell shedding that's irritating your skin and clogging your pores.
Treatment/Side Effects
If your physician prescribes Epiduo to treat your acne, you should use it exactly as directed, which usually means once per day, according to Drugs.com. You also should avoid using other medicated skin products, such as additional acne medications, while you're using Epiduo. Within the first month of treatment, your skin may appear red, flaky or dry, which are normal side effects. You may also experience some itching, burning or stinging.
Epiduo appears to work well in acne treatment. A study reported in the January/February edition of the medical journal "Skinmed," looked at Epiduo treatment in 91 patients with mild to moderate acne. According to the study, led by Dr. Patricia A. Troielli, a dermatologist at the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, inflammatory acne lesions had fallen by 80 percent and non-inflammatory acne lesions dropped by nearly 70 percent by the end of 12 weeks of treatment. In addition, two-thirds of patients had seen nearly all of their acne lesions clear by the study's end.
Epiduo reviewers on the website Acne.org give Epiduo mainly positive reviews. Many said Epiduo worked quickly to begin clearing their acne, but some noted that the side effects -- specifically stinging and burning -- bothered them significantly. Epiduo costs about $35 for the first month's supply with a coupon from the manufacturer's website, but costs significantly more without the coupon as of 2010. Because it is a prescription medication, your health insurance may cover it.
- Meinzahn/iStock/Getty Images


text: Royalty Free Vectors Trophy Vectors Football soccer player holding up a trophy as a vector image LicenseLearn More Standard For Print, Advertising, Design Expanded For Resale & Reproduction The license type determines how you can use this image. Std. Exp. Print / Editorial Graphic Design Web Design Social Media Edit & Modify Multi-user Resale Items Unlimited Runs Ways to BuyCompare Single Image $14.99 Credits $1.00 Subscription $0.69 There are three ways to pay for Standard licenses. Prices are $US. Pay with Image Price Single Image $14.99 One-time payment Pay-As-You-Go Credits $1 Download images on-demand (1 credit = $1). Minimum purchase of 30. Subscription Plan From 69c Choose a monthly plan. Unused downloads automatically roll into following month. Ways to BuyCompare Single Image $29.99 Credits $30.00 There are two ways to pay for Expanded licenses. Prices are $US. Pay with Cost per Image Single Image $29.99 One-off payment, no signup needed. Credits $30 Download images on-demand (1 credit = $1). Download Image Files Included Loading Details... Download File/s: ZIP Archive ZIP Archive High-res JPG (300 DPI+) High-res PNG (300 DPI+) Adobe Illustrator (v10+) Vector EPS (v8+) Vector PDF Download ZIP Share on Pinterest Facebook Twitter Download JPG Preview Image Image ID14940225 Artist lumyaisweetFollow ♥Like +Cart 0.69 USD Similar Images More Images…More More by lumyaisweet More Images…More Related Searches Trophy Holding Player Football Soccer Up Design Modern Sport Cup Ball Event Play Icon Type White Line Challenge Match Championship Champion Linear Symbol Stroke Banner Team Typography New Flat Result


text:
The Heaven Star System
This is a story about Derathawyn, a star system located in the hellhound nebula on the edge of the Milky Way. It's planets were referred to as "The dreams of heaven" by its colonists, and therefor the star system was called the Heaven system more often than not.
Where to begin…
Heaven role-play involves a planet, it's moon, a planetoid and several space stations spread across four sims, for a total of twelve areas, not to mention our holodecks or the other sims we have teamed up with.
All this may seem daunting, but from our own experience we found that the best way to start is to find the place with that part of the story that identifies with your character most, and call this your place of origin (birthplace).
After exploring your hometown, like real life, you can stay put and travel to other places (for vacation or business), or move to a new place altogether, take your skill set with you and refer to your birthplace to others.
Decisions, decisions
To give you an idea on which place suits you best we're listing the key features of each place below, and you can read more about each in the places or history menus. Keep in mind that if you want to live at, or explore any of these places, you need to be a member of Second Life®.
Braveheart, moon of Sentina
First celestial body with earth-like atmosphere to be colonized. First colonists we're expelled to farm land, while the rich settled into the pristine cities, with a high altitude airport, its beach resorts and vast oceans for their yachts and sailing ships. Home to the ITG Braveheart office.
Location: Barushkya, mainland.
Facilities (click to explore): Main street, ITG Braveheart office, High altitude airport, Tiki beach resort, free sailing docks (with access to the Blake sea through the Bingo Strait) and Chez Meghan 2. Both airport and docks are 'Get the Freight Out!' HUBs.
Sentina city, Sentina
A dome city, colonized in collaboration with Braveheart's government. In every way a success, short of creating a decent atmosphere. Sentina houses a variety of people, from the labor force that built it, the industrialists that maintain it, to the middle and upper classes. Home of the ITG main offices
Location: Dreams of Heaven, Island.
Facilities (click to explore): Sentina City, Chez Meghan 3, ITG main offices, outpost 1.
Deep space Telemetry station
Aside from an Alteran Stargate, this station holds the same links and information to all of our places as seen above, in the form of portals.
If you like to port to a random location, prefer an inworld Telehub to start at, or fly in your spaceship from outer space, this is the station for you
Location: Dreams of Heaven, island.
Facilities (click to explore): Rezzing platform for spaceships, Stargate, Info- and TeleHUB.


text:
Working With Us
Project Management
Whether you are a European start-up seeking FDA clearance, or a U.S. company seeking CE marking for a product being manufactured in Asia, Eurofins Medical Device Testing is the preferred partner to help navigate the pathway to market. Our team of highly trained experts can help guide you through the complex regulatory landscape and develop the optimal strategy for your medical device testing needs.
An assigned project manager will serve as your single point of contact to access the full capabilities across the global Eurofins Medical Device Testing network to cover the full range of testing your product requires.
Online Data Access
Our innovative online data access tool LabAccess.comSM offers a timely and secure window to comprehensive laboratory information as your project progresses. With LabAccess.com, you can view extensive, live project information such as submitted samples, analysts' notebooks, chromatograms, approved test results, reports, Certificates of Analysis, raw data packages and invoices 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.


text:
This is your comprehensive guide to memory care in Lincoln, CA. Memory care facilities offer housing and care for seniors with Alzheimer's disease and other kinds of dementia. Memory care empowers seniors who have memory loss to stay as active and engaged as they possibly can, while living in a dignified, safe and secure setting. Our local Senior Living Advisors understand memory care in Lincoln, CA and nearby cities. After an initial consultation, your advisor will send you a list of memory care providers that fit your loved one's individual requirements for care and living preferences, as well as your family's finances.Memory Care Costs in Lincoln, CA
Price varies widely depending on location, care required, size of the resident's living space and the level of luxury at the community. The price of memory care in Lincoln ranges from $4,875 to $5,875 a month.
Memory Care Costs in Nearby Cities* The costs above represent the AVERAGE monthly cost of memory care for a one person bedroom in that city.
Pic by Bumm13 / CC-BY-SA-3.0
Facts about Lincoln
The official website for the city of Lincoln is http://ci.lincoln.ca.us.
Lincoln is represented by U. S. rep. Paul Joiner.
Lincoln is a city in Placer County, California, United States, part of the Sacramento metropolitan area. Located in an area of rapid suburban development, it grew 282.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, making it the fastest growing city over 10,000 people in the U.S. Its 2015 population was estimated to be 45,837.Lincoln is part of the Sacramento-Roseville Metropolitan Statistical Area.


text:
One of VFHY's first childhood obesity prevention grantees, Get Fit Dan River Region has gone on to do some pretty amazing things, including winning a national contest and starting their own healthy cooking TV show!
"VFHY planted a seed here and it's grown into something much bigger than we could have ever hoped for," says Get Fit Dan River Region Program Director Stephanie Ferrugia. "It just blossomed and we're not finished."
Get Fit Dan River Region was among the first programs to receive funding through VFHY's Healthy Communities Action Teams (HCAT) childhood obesity prevention grant program. From 2010 to 2012, Get Fit Dan River Region received funding as part of a $59,700 HCAT grant from VFHY to the Martinsville-Henry County (MHC) Coalition for Health and Wellness.
Founded in 2010, Get Fit Dan River Region used their VFHY funding to implement nutrition and physical activity education outreach programs in three public housing neighborhoods in Danville. Get Fit Dan River Region representatives held regular neighborhood events such as healthy cooking lessons, 5k walks or Zumba classes. They took teens to local grocery stores and taught them how to shop for healthy foods and held healthy food tastings. They promoted the news that the Danville Farmer's Market was now accepting SNAP benefits, so people receiving food assistance could buy fresh, healthy foods.
Get Fit Dan River Region also launched a multimedia ad campaign to teach their neighbors about the 9-5-2-1-0 model for healthy living, which Get Fit Dan River Region representatives learned about at one of VFHY's biennial Weight of the State childhood obesity conferences.
With its initial infusion of VFHY funds, Get Fit Dan River Region was able to launch sustainable programs that led to new initiatives such as creating a viral video to promote healthy living. The video, which won an award from the National Association of Community Health Centers, features hundreds of community members dancing to "Call Me Maybe" in the streets of Danville while they promote the 9-5-2-1-0 message.
More recently, Get Fit Dan River Region launched its own cooking show on local TV, What's Cooking on the Dan, which offers healthy cooking lessons to Danville residents.
"We're trying to take what y'all helped us start and take it to a bigger level," Ferrugia says. "We're trying to reach as many people as we can."


text:
Happy New Years Merl and Carol Whitebook
KCBS 2011 Election Begins January 3, 2011
The Kansas City Barbeque Society 2011 election for members of the Board of Directors begins on January 3, 2011 and ends on January 13, 2011.
On January the 3rd, each member in good standing (as of December 15, 2010) will receive an email on how to vote, including your user name and password. Should any member have a problem receiving their voting information by email on January 3rd, assistance can be found on our web site www.KCBS.US
1. Go to www.KCBS.Us
2. Login to Member Sign In (at top of Home Page)
3. After you are logged in, Click Resources (beside Shop KCBS)
4. Under Resources, click My Profile.
5. Review your email address(very importance) and your profile information
6. If your profile needs to be updated, contact the KCBS office.
7. For election information Click the:
Click here to have your election username & password emailed to the email address
1. Your election username and password is not valid until 01/03/2011.
2. Usernames and passwords are in testing now and only starting January the 3rd will your correct username and password be available.
This year there are four - three year terms to be filled, and one - two year unfulfilled term.
You will be able to vote for up to four candidates, the open two year unfulfilled seat will be filled by the candidate receiving fifth place in the voting.
The election will be conducted by ElectionsOnline, paper ballots may be requested from the KCBS office.
The winners of the board seats, will be announced during the annual banquet in Kansas City, KS, on January 15, 2011
The candidates certified by the nominating committee to run for a position as a Director of Kansas City Barbeque Society this election are:
Candidate City/State
Ford Alison Sparta, MI
Sonny Ashford Plattsmouth, NE
Randy Bigler Huntsville, AL
Arlie Bragg Mt. Juliet, TN
Mike Budai Olathe, KS
Thom Emery Thousand Palms, CA
John Kirby Baltimore, MD
Scott Kuklin Simi Valley, CA
Dale Newstrom Carterville, IL
Tana Shupe Tullahoma, TN
Mark Simmons Independence, MO
Jim Stancil Oxford, GA
You can read their election questionnaire in the Bullsheet or online you can download the Bullsheet. Should you have other issues in the voting process or require additional election assistance, please contact us at email@example.com
Merl Whitebook (email@example.com) Nominating Committee


text:
Jacob Margolis
Company: County of Orange
Title: Chief Information Security Officer
In the County of Orange, information technology was generally managed in a decentralized fashion. As the Chief Information Security Officer, Jacob Margolis has been tasked with implementing enterprise-level strategies that safeguard the County's information assets across multiple departments/agencies. Over the last two years as CISO, Mr. Margolis has overseen the development and implementation of multiple countywide cybersecurity initiatives. This includes the establishment of a County Cybersecurity Framework; interactive online Cybersecurity Awareness Training; a robust and tested Cyber Incident Response Process and Plan; adoption of next-generation AI technologies, and the execution of a robust governance Risk & Compliance (GRC) platform.
Prior to joining the County, Mr. Margolis was the Information Assurance Manager for the California National Guard and California Military Department, where he oversaw the development and management of the California National Guard's Cybersecurity program. During his service with the California National Guard, his assignments included Emergency Communications Plans Officer, Network Operations Manager and Systems Engineer for the Network Operations & Security Center.
Mr. Margolis Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), earned a BS degree in Computer Applications and Networks and holds a Master's Degree in Information Systems and Technology Management. Mr. Margolis has been a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army Reserve. He was deployed to New Orleans, LA, as part of the humanitarian relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and served two combat tours Afghanistan. The first deployment was in 2007 as an embedded trainer with the Afghan National Security Forces and the second was in 2013 as the Chief Communications Officer for a Coalition Joint Task Force charged with the turnover of military operations in Uruzgan Province to Afghan National Security Forces.