0freaker65, get a grip on reality...
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB
Here is your consolation prize, 0freaker65...
- IIFFOFRDB
- 01-04-2017, 09:12 PM
Here is your consolation prize, 0freaker65...
- flghtr65
- 01-04-2017, 09:54 PM
- lustylad
- 01-05-2017, 12:15 AM
1. That's right I didn't use spell check. I was in a hurry.What the fuck are you babbling about? I called you out for being a condescending asshole. It had nothing to do with WHO you were being an asshole to, although I guess you bravely figured it would be easier to get away with picking on a provider.
2. I didn't say anything disrespectful to Cherie. I suggested she take a class to expand her knowledge. Your buddy LexusLover, when he disagrees with a provider, he will call her prostitute. He called provider ElizabethWhispers a prostitute in a thread a few months ago. Did you call him out on that?Originally Posted by flghtr65
How much nuclear physics have you studied anyway? Memorizing the elements chart in high school doesn't count. You're about as much of an expert in physics as you are in healthcare.
Did you call assup out when he referred to a provider as axe gash?
- lustylad
- 01-05-2017, 12:26 AM
Here you go, flighty... you're supposed to be our resident IT expert (cough, cough). I'll let this guy explain it all to you.
Obama’s Self-Serving Cybersecurity Spin
There’s real cause for alarm, but it isn’t the recent malware.
By Jeffrey A. Eisenach
Updated Jan. 4, 2017 2:40 p.m. ET
Misleading the American people to advance a political narrative has been a hallmark of President Obama’s foreign policy. The most recent example is the administration’s attempt to conflate the hacking of the Democratic Party with potential cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.
Last week, federal officials told the Washington Post that malware linked to Russian hackers was found on a laptop at Burlington Electric, a Vermont power company. By Monday the Post had recanted, writing that investigators “are finding evidence that the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort.”
But Americans could be forgiven for feeling spooked—for worrying that the hack of the Democratic Party was a lot more serious than previously thought, and that perhaps critical systems are facing a new and dangerous threat.
This simply isn’t the case. The kind of malware involved in these two intrusions is neither new nor particularly sophisticated. It is run-of-the-mill spyware that has probably been implanted on thousands of networks around the world, from home computers to those inside banks, power companies and government agencies.
These bugs are freely available online, and the code found at the Democratic National Committee and the power company isn’t even the latest version. The notion that such a mundane piece of software reveals a new and ominous threat to critical infrastructure is laughable.
Which isn’t to say American infrastructure is safe. It is common knowledge in the cybersecurity community that the U.S. power grid and other critical systems are infested with sophisticated malware placed there by foreign actors. If activated, that software has the potential to cause serious harm, similar to how the Stuxnet virus disabled Iran’s nuclear centrifuges in the early days of the Obama administration. In 2012 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a “cyber Pearl Harbor” that would “cause physical destruction and the loss of life,” as well as “paralyze and shock the nation.”
The risk of a serious cyberattack, for now, is moderated by the threat of retaliation: China, Iran and Russia know that the U.S. would strike back if attacked—and not necessarily only in cyberspace. But the cyber equivalent of mutually assured destruction won’t protect us for long. Rogue states like North Korea, and other actors such as Islamic State, are quickly gaining cyberwarfare capabilities. These groups don’t fear retaliation in the same way.
Cyberthreats pose a clear danger to national security, and building an effective defense will take a concerted effort by the Trump administration. Americans are right to be concerned. But by playing on those fears, the Obama administration is putting politics ahead of the national interest.
Mr. Eisenach is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and lead author of its recent report “An American Strategy for Cyberspace.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-s...pin-1483488382
Obama’s Self-Serving Cybersecurity Spin
There’s real cause for alarm, but it isn’t the recent malware.
By Jeffrey A. Eisenach
Updated Jan. 4, 2017 2:40 p.m. ET
Misleading the American people to advance a political narrative has been a hallmark of President Obama’s foreign policy. The most recent example is the administration’s attempt to conflate the hacking of the Democratic Party with potential cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.
Last week, federal officials told the Washington Post that malware linked to Russian hackers was found on a laptop at Burlington Electric, a Vermont power company. By Monday the Post had recanted, writing that investigators “are finding evidence that the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort.”
But Americans could be forgiven for feeling spooked—for worrying that the hack of the Democratic Party was a lot more serious than previously thought, and that perhaps critical systems are facing a new and dangerous threat.
This simply isn’t the case. The kind of malware involved in these two intrusions is neither new nor particularly sophisticated. It is run-of-the-mill spyware that has probably been implanted on thousands of networks around the world, from home computers to those inside banks, power companies and government agencies.
These bugs are freely available online, and the code found at the Democratic National Committee and the power company isn’t even the latest version. The notion that such a mundane piece of software reveals a new and ominous threat to critical infrastructure is laughable.
Which isn’t to say American infrastructure is safe. It is common knowledge in the cybersecurity community that the U.S. power grid and other critical systems are infested with sophisticated malware placed there by foreign actors. If activated, that software has the potential to cause serious harm, similar to how the Stuxnet virus disabled Iran’s nuclear centrifuges in the early days of the Obama administration. In 2012 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a “cyber Pearl Harbor” that would “cause physical destruction and the loss of life,” as well as “paralyze and shock the nation.”
The risk of a serious cyberattack, for now, is moderated by the threat of retaliation: China, Iran and Russia know that the U.S. would strike back if attacked—and not necessarily only in cyberspace. But the cyber equivalent of mutually assured destruction won’t protect us for long. Rogue states like North Korea, and other actors such as Islamic State, are quickly gaining cyberwarfare capabilities. These groups don’t fear retaliation in the same way.
Cyberthreats pose a clear danger to national security, and building an effective defense will take a concerted effort by the Trump administration. Americans are right to be concerned. But by playing on those fears, the Obama administration is putting politics ahead of the national interest.
Mr. Eisenach is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and lead author of its recent report “An American Strategy for Cyberspace.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-s...pin-1483488382
- LexusLover
- 01-05-2017, 01:38 AM
Wrong again dickhead, Cherie brought up Iran in post #50.At least you admit when you've "lost" the discussion. Now please go back to your coloring book parlor and comfort petting zoo. There is just a couple of weeks left. BTW: How much has Trump increased your stock investment account?
You can't keep your bullsh*t straight can you? Originally Posted by flghtr65
- dilbert firestorm
- 01-05-2017, 07:52 PM
So now totally humiliated (again) fLiar65 is hijacking the thread from the Obama talking points concerning Vermont Electric to the Obama talking points concerning the Iranian nuclear deal.why would they do that if they have a uranium mine?
Iran doesn't need to create U-235. They could buy it on the black market. Originally Posted by gnadfly
- flghtr65
- 01-06-2017, 01:53 AM
I had Physics in college junior. We covered nuclear fission. How about you? This chart you referred to you mean "The periodic table of elements"? Yep, that is something you would see in a high school chemistry of physics class. I don't think Cherie had Physics at any level, just saying. You are not making a bomb without enriching Uranium and that requires a centerfuge. Iran's centerfuges (their most efficient ones) are deactivated right now.
How much nuclear physics have you studied anyway? Memorizing the elements chart in high school doesn't count.
Originally Posted by lustylad
- flghtr65
- 01-06-2017, 02:08 AM
why would they do that if they have a uranium mine? Originally Posted by dilbert firestormAs part of the nuclear deal with Iran that gave them back their cash, Iran is not allowed to enrich Uranium past a .20% concentration level of U-235. In addition their most efficient centerfuges were deactivated and moved to a nuke plant that is being monitored 24/7 in real time.
You are correct the Iran country has a lot of raw Uranium, but Iran can't (or is not suppose to do any serious Uranium enrichment). If Iran wanted to break the deal and obtain weapons grade Uranium they would have to try and get it on the black market. You need a nuclear reactor to do "Fission" and theirs is being monitored 24/7 in real time. If Iran tried to cheat their chances of not being detected are small.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1469080&highlight
- LexusLover
- 01-06-2017, 03:18 AM
- Ex-CEO
- 01-06-2017, 06:15 AM
I had Physics in college junior. We covered nuclear fission. How about you? This chart you referred to you mean "The periodic table of elements"? Yep, that is something you would see in a high school chemistry of physics class. I don't think Cherie had Physics at any level, just saying. You are not making a bomb without enriching Uranium and that requires a centerfuge. Iran's centerfuges (their most efficient ones) are deactivated right now. Originally Posted by flghtr65If you had taken physics, you would know that it's actually called a centrifuge.
But keep on insulting everyone else in the forum. That always works so well for you.
- LexusLover
- 01-06-2017, 06:21 AM
- LexusLover
- 01-06-2017, 06:24 AM
You are correct the Iran country has a lot of raw Uranium, .....[/URL] Originally Posted by flghtr65https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...anium_reserves
"0" reserves
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/wo...ssia.html?_r=0
"Iran Hands Over Stockpile of Enriched Uranium to Russia"
"The shipment was announced by Secretary of State John Kerry and confirmed by a spokesman for Russia’s civilian nuclear company, Rosatom. Mr. Kerry called it “one of the most significant steps Iran has taken toward fulfilling its commitment,” and American officials say that it may be only weeks before the deal reached in July takes effect."
....
"Iran is permitted to hold 300 kilograms, or about 660 pounds, of low-enriched uranium under the deal. But that is not enough to produce a single weapon."
"Rosatom"? The RUSSIANS can replace their uranium with U.S. uranium.
(Some call that a circle jerk!)
The "circle of jerks" = Putin, Kerry, Obaminable, and HillaryNoMore!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...m-company.html
"Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal"
Iran doesn't "mine" any uranium ... there are no "reserves" there to "mine"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_by_country
Texas does more "mining" of uranium than Iran, because Texas has "reserves" to "mine"!
- Ex-CEO
- 01-06-2017, 06:27 AM
- LexusLover
- 01-06-2017, 06:36 AM
- dilbert firestorm
- 01-06-2017, 10:56 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Iran#Uranium
I don't get where you got this info that Iran has 0 uranium reserves.
their mine is located in central Iran area. they have 4 or 5 mines. It is 10th largest reserve in the world.
your info is obviously out of date.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-than-expected
I don't get where you got this info that Iran has 0 uranium reserves.
their mine is located in central Iran area. they have 4 or 5 mines. It is 10th largest reserve in the world.
your info is obviously out of date.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-than-expected