• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1088
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации76
      • Показать ещё
      Издания104
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы488
      • Показать ещё
      Разное411
      • Показать ещё
      Формат12
      Люди209
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели57
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы2
17 сентября, 13:30

OFM’s classic cookbook: Simon Hopkinson’s Roast Chicken and Other Stories

Nigella Lawson swoons over a collection of recipes that’s been her standby for 20 years. Plus six essential dishes from the book, including roast lamb with anchovy, saffron mash and passion fruit bavaroisI wish I could say I bought Simon Hopkinson’s Roast Chicken and Other Stories when it came out in 1996 for the title alone, but the truth is I’d eaten enough of his food to know I’d want any book he’d written. Nevertheless, it is, beyond doubt, the best title of a cookery book ever. I sometimes think (pace vegetarians) the one thing that links those who really love food is that when asked what their favourite thing to eat is they will invariably say roast chicken. But that’s not even it: what Simon Hopkinson understands, and every line of his book relays, is that a recipe, while it must be utterly reliable, is more than a mere formula. What breathes life into it is the story it tells. I’m actually not talking just about anecdote, though Roast Chicken and Other Stories is deliciously rich on this front, but about voice.I’ve been rereading Roast Chicken a lot over the past weeks – an intensely comforting and enlivening experience – and my old copy is plastered with fresh Post-It notes. Suddenly, I feel I must make deep-fried calves’ brains with sauce gribiche, milk chocolate malt ice cream, onion tart, pickled endives, crisp parmesan biscuits (“delicious served with beef consommé or as an accompaniment to a very good dry martini”), potato purée with parsley. I could go on: there’s not a recipe here I don’t want to eat immediately. Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
17 сентября, 10:11

Lawson to begin food waste recycling

Japanese convenience store operator Lawson Inc will launch a recycling system to produce fertilizer from leftover food and sell produce grown with it at its stores in central…

12 сентября, 17:25

Peter Hall: a life in pictures

The former director of the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Theatre has died at the age of 86. Revisit some of his major productions, including Waiting for Godot, No Man’s Land and Amadeus, with stars such as John Gielgud, Judi Dench and Ralph Richardson •Sir Peter Hall dies aged 86•Mark Lawson on Peter Hall: the showman who transformed British theatre Continue reading...

12 сентября, 12:10

Sir Peter Hall, RSC founder and former National Theatre director, dies aged 86

Tributes paid to legendary director and ‘great impresario of the age’ following his death in London• Mark Lawson on Peter Hall: the showman who transformed British theatreSir Peter Hall, the former director of the National Theatre and founder of the Royal Shakespeare Company, has died aged 86, the theatre said.He died on Monday at University College hospital in London, with his family at his bedside. Continue reading...

11 сентября, 10:05

Затопленный Майами: в сети показали последствия урагана "Ирма"

Майами из за обрушившегося на него урагана «Ирма» оказался под водой. Порывы ветра достигают 200 километров в час. Последствия урагана "Ирма". instagram.com/leilahauck Энергетическая компания FPL сообщила, что на всей территории штата из-за стихии без электричества остались более трех миллионов человек, пишет Лента.ру. Ситуация в Майями, который затрагивает ураган "Ирма", достаточно напряженная. Жители города, которые отказались эвакуироваться, не могут рассчитывать на то, что им будет оказана помощь, пишет РИА Новости. Эвакуации подлежат 6,3 миллиона жителей Флориды. Эвакуироваться захотели не все, их предупредили, если они не пойдут в безопасные укрытия, то велика вероятность, что они не переживут ураган такой силы и могут погибнуть. Пользователи сети выкладывают кадры происходящего в Майами. #USA, #Miami: #Центр #Майами ушёл под воду https://t.co/3J12qs2wF4 https://t.co/vGskCpQjtW #IrmaHurricane pic.twitter.com/hIOos3Pn7p — YuriSL (@RussSL) 11 сентября 2017 г. #HurricaineIrma #Irma #Irma2017 #Hurricane Believe it or not, this is a shark on the freeway in #Miami #Florida pic.twitter.com/pc7oKNmvHx — The Invisible Man (@invisibleman_17) 9 сентября 2017 г. Публикация от Marina Reggiani (@ladymarion79) Сен 10 2017 в 11:26 PDT Публикация от Porsha Dyanne Williams (@porsha4real) Сен 10 2017 в 5:51 PDT Публикация от Sharon Lawson (@frecklesandvalium) Сен 10 2017 в 11:28 PDT Публикация от ING. DJ █-█.LODiosRD (@djhlo) Сен 10 2017 в 11:26 PDT Публикация от ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Mundo Miss OFC (@mundomiss_oficial) Сен 10 2017 в 11:25 PDT Публикация от Leila Hauck (Personal Page) (@leilahauck) Сен 10 2017 в 11:25 PDT Публикация от kayOo vinicius (@kayoovinicius) Сен 10 2017 в 11:24 PDT Публикация от Leila Hauck (Personal Page) (@leilahauck) Сен 10 2017 в 11:23 PDT Публикация от Leila Hauck (Personal Page) (@leilahauck) Сен 10 2017 в 11:23 PDT Публикация от Leila Hauck (Personal Page) (@leilahauck) Сен 10 2017 в 11:22 PDT Публикация от Leila Hauck (Personal Page) (@leilahauck) Сен 10 2017 в 11:22 PDT Публикация от Leila Hauck (Personal Page) (@leilahauck) Сен 10 2017 в 11:21 PDT Публикация от ING. DJ █-█.LODiosRD (@djhlo) Сен 10 2017 в 11:20 PDT Публикация от @JuicyAlert Got Hacked! @77k (@thejuicyalert) Сен 10 2017 в 11:04 PDT

24 июня, 19:11

White House Says Its Election Commission Will Examine Hacking. That's News To The Commissioners.

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); As President Donald Trump continues to face questions about Russian interference in the 2016 election, the White House has pointed to a commission he created to investigate electoral integrity to show the president’s commitment from preventing a future intrusion. But if understanding hacking is going to be a commission priority, it would appear to be news to at least some of the commissioners, who said this week they have no idea when the commission will meet or what it is actually going to examine. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, pointed to the presidential commission on electoral integrity, created by Trump in May, when he was asked Friday whether Trump was concerned about hacking. “He instituted an election commission that is making sure that we look at all of how we’re voting, and to make sure that we maintain integrity in all of our voting process to make sure that we have faith in it,” Spicer said Friday. “And that includes cyber, it includes voter I.D., it includes all sort of systems.  I expect that commission to have several announcements in probably the next two weeks, and potentially some hearings in July.” Kellyanne Conway, one of Trump’s senior advisers, made similar comments on CNN Friday morning after being pressed, repeatedly, on what Trump was doing to secure American election systems. “The president has met with his national security team many times, he has an initiative or commission on voter integrity, and he himself has used the power of the bully pulpit to express his resistance towards any type of outside interference,” she said. Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D) told HuffPost he had no contact with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), the vice chairman of the panel, since being named to the commission in May. While he hoped the commission would investigate Russian hacking, he didn’t know if it would. There’s been an urgent focus on the need to address election security after leaked National Security Agency documents showed Russia successfully breached election systems last year. Bloomberg reported there was a breach in 39 states, but Trump has downplayed Russia’s responsibility. “I certainly believe it’s relevant to include [hacking] and it’s probably integral to include it if you’re going to talk about integrity of elections. Anything that would undermine the integrity of an election should be considered for recommendation by the commission. I mean that was the whole point,” Dunlap said. “You can’t talk about the integrity of elections and ignore a big pile of problems in the middle of the room.” While Kobach told The Boston Globe he was open to investigating hacking if members of the commission wanted to examine it, he hardly made it seem like a priority. “In the initial descriptions of the commission, election security and the integrity of equipment and voter databases was not specifically described,” he told The Globe. “But if it’s something the commission wants to discuss, we can.” Given the attention on the commission, Dunlap said he was surprised he hadn’t heard more from Kobach or the White House as to what the commission would do. “I haven’t heard anything since the executive order was made public. I understand that things happen to move kind of slow in D.C., that’s kind of the nature of the beast ... I don’t have an answer as to what our scope is going to be or when we’re meeting or where we’re meeting,” he said. “I think this is something people are looking to now and the fact that it’s been treading water has been a surprise. But I don’t ascribe that to anybody having a particular motive to hold it up.” Many have expressed concern over the decision to appoint Kobach to lead the commission because he has a history of exaggerating voter fraud and pushed some of the country’s most restrictive voting laws in his state. Critics say the probe is just a pretext to try and justify Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that millions voted illegally in the 2016 election. Since being tapped to lead the commission, Kobach also launched a campaign to run for governor of Kansas. David Dunn, a former Arkansas legislator, and Mark Rhodes, a West Virginia county clerk were both appointed to the commission this week, but both said they had received no details about the commission’s work. Dunn, who doesn’t have an expertise in elections, told HuffPost he was surprised he was picked for the panel and Rhodes had to search online to find out who else was on the commission. In addition to Dunlap, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D), another member of the commission has called for the probe to examine Russian hacking. Rhodes told HuffPost he thought the probe should “look at everything” while Dunn said Russian interference was beyond its scope. The other members of the commission are Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson (R), former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R) and Christy McCormick, a commissioner on the Election Assistance Commission. Luis Borunda, the Maryland deputy secretary of state, is also serving, despite an apparent lack of previous election experience.   type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=591465f6e4b030d4f1f03d26,594c1068e4b01cdedf01e75e,5915e3cce4b0031e737d5d9c,5915bb2de4b0031e737d0f23 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 июня, 13:39

Glastonbury 2017: Friday as it happened – with Bradley Cooper, Johnny Depp, Charli XCX and more

Worthy Farm welcomed the stars of grime, film stars muscled on to the Pyramid stage, while Charli XCX and Dua Lipa pulled out all the stops to light up the festival’s first full day of music 6.42pm BST Thanks for following along everyone. We’re taking a short break, and then restarting at 7.30pm, where we’ll have reviews of Radiohead, Kate Tempest, The xx, Lorde and probably some more ridiculously good-looking A-list blokes. 6.24pm BST Following our exclusive news story last week, it’s officially official – Corbyn is incoming.Jeremy Corbyn will be at the Festival tomorrow, to speak on the Pyramid Stage at 4pm and at the Left Field at 4.30pm. #Glastobury2017 Related: Corbyn chants, T-shirts and sculptures: Jeremania hits Glastonbury Continue reading...

22 июня, 22:31

Some Of Trump's New Election Investigators Don't Seem To Have Much Election Experience

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); President Donald Trump quietly announced Wednesday evening he intended to appoint three more people to a commission to investigate voter fraud, but two of the people he wants to appoint don’t seem to have any expertise in voting issues or elections. The three officials named were Luis Borunda, the deputy secretary of state of Maryland; David Dunn, a former Arkansas Democratic state lawmaker; and Mark Rhodes, a county clerk in West Virginia. Dunn, who served in the Arkansas legislature from 2005 to 2011 and now runs a government relations firm, said he was eating dinner with his children when the White House sent out a press release announcing the president intended to appoint him to the commission. Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin (R), an old friend of Dunn’s from the legislature, recommended him to the commission, Dunn said. He said he also spoke with Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state and the commission’s vice chair, just once about his interest in the role, but didn’t expect much to come of it until he saw the White House’s press release. The commission, which will be led by Kobach and Vice President Mike Pence, is charged with examining election systems to study the issues that undermine and affect confidence in them. In a Thursday interview, Dunn sounded openly stunned he was chosen for the role and admitted he did not have any expertise in elections or voting issues.  “I don’t know why this has fallen on my shoulders,” he told HuffPost, adding that he was concerned about voters’ access to the polls, particularly in rural areas of the state. “I’m just a very small old country boy from Arkansas in this bigger commission with Vice President Pence, and I’m just going to do the best I can, to be honest.”  I don’t know why this has fallen on my shoulders.” David Dunn, former Arkansas state representative. Critics are closely watching the probe and say it is an unnecessary effort to try to justify Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that millions voted illegally in the 2016 election. Several studies and investigations have shown voter fraud is not a widespread problem. Many have been particularly alarmed by Trump’s decision to tap Kobach to lead the commission, since Kobach has pushed some of the most restrictive voting laws in the country in his state and has a history of exaggerating voter fraud. Kobach is now also running for governor of Kansas. Dunn said he didn’t believe millions voted illegally in 2016, and he said Kobach told him he wasn’t looking for people who would just go along with what the commission wanted. Dunn also said he didn’t think the commission would look into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, even though two of its members told The Boston Globe they thought the hacking should be part of the committee’s inquiry. Borunda, the Maryland deputy secretary of state, didn’t return a request for comment. An online biography detailing his portfolio doesn’t make any mention of work on voting or elections. He formed a Hispanic commission to support the campaign of Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) in 2003 and has served on the Maryland Economic Development Commission and the Baltimore Board of Education. His biography notes he’s responsible for handling the operations of the secretary of state’s office. Jennifer Bevan-Dangel, executive director of Common Cause Maryland, called Borunda’s appointment “bizarre” because elections in Maryland are administered by the state Board of Elections, not the secretary of state’s office. Bevan-Dangel noted Borunda’s LinkedIn page lists an expertise in “non-profit, start up organization, visionary, branding & graphic design,” but not voting. “Maryland is a great state to draw on expertise from. We have a state board that has really been paving the way working with other states ensuring that voter rolls are up to date and developing ways for interstate cooperation,” she said. “There was an incredible opportunity to tap into that expertise and instead we’ve tapped into someone, I’m not sure what expertise he can bring to the table.” Kobach’s office did not return a request for comment on the appointments. Of the three new people Trump intends to appoint, the only one with deep election experience is Mark Rhodes, the county clerk in Wood County, West Virginia. Rhodes said he spoke with Kobach after West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) recommended him for the position a month ago. While he found out he had passed a background check for the position, he wasn’t formally notified of Trump’s intention to nominate him until he saw the White House’s press release. As someone with experience administering elections, Rhodes said, he could offer the commission an on-the-ground perspective. He oversees elections for 56,000 registered voters in a county with a population of 82,000 people, and said his office went through death certificates and obituaries every day to make sure its voter rolls were accurate and up to date. Rhodes, who won a 2014 election by just five votes, said he had seen no evidence of voter fraud in his county, but was open to the commission investigating it. He dismissed the concern the commission was intent on finding evidence of voter fraud. “It’s not gonna hurt. If the commission would improve the voters’ or the people’s security, that their vote is counted and counted correctly, then it’s gonna help,” he said. “I have a preconceived notion that there is no election fraud, and that’s here in Wood County, West Virginia.” The other Democratic members of the commission are Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlap and New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner. The Republicans are Kobach, Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Christy McCormick, a commissioner on the Election Assistance Commission, is also serving. This article has been updated with comment from Bevan-Dangel. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=591465f6e4b030d4f1f03d26,5915e3cce4b0031e737d5d9c -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 июня, 21:57

Fixing Uber Will Require More Than Ousting Its Leader

The company’s problems extend well beyond its former CEO, Travis Kalanick.

Выбор редакции
10 июня, 19:20

At Least Two American Soldiers Killed, Two Wounded By Afghan Commando

JALALABAD, Afghanistan (Reuters) - At least two American soldiers were killed and two others wounded on Saturday when an Afghan commando opened fire on them in eastern Afghanistan, a local official said. The shooting occurred in Achin district, where U.S. special forces have been fighting alongside Afghan troops against Islamic State and Taliban militants, said Attaullah Khogyani, a spokesman for the Nangarhar provincial governor. The commando was also killed in the incident, Khogyani said. “The cause of the shooting is not clear. An investigation has already begun,” he said. A spokesman for the U.S. military command in Kabul said they were aware of the report but could not yet confirm any details. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the shooter was a member of the militant group and had killed four Americans and wounded several more.   (Additional reporting by Josh Smith in Kabul; Editing by Hugh Lawson) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
08 июня, 19:17

Twitter Users Lose It Over James Comey's 'Lordy, I Hope There Are Tapes' Comment

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Former FBI Director James Comey said he hopes President Donald Trump releases recordings of their conversations ― and, lordy, Twitter was all about it. During his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Comey described “inappropriate” comments he said Trump had made to him since January. He also encouraged the president to release any “tapes” he might have of their interactions, as Trump hinted he might do last month. James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017 “Look, I’ve seen the tweet about tapes,” Comey told Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “Lordy, I hope there are tapes.” “Release all the tapes,” he added. “I’m good with it.” Turns out, a lot of people on Twitter feel the same way. We can all agree with Jim Comey that, Lordy, we hope there are tapes.— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) June 8, 2017 Comey saying “Lordy.”Warner saying “Amen.” This isn’t a congressional hearing. It’s church. #ComeyDay pic.twitter.com/NUkrZQXUxz— Imani Gandy (@AngryBlackLady) June 8, 2017 Can't wait for the auto-tuned version of Comey's "Lordy, I hope there are tapes" line. #ComeyDay— Lily Herman (@lkherman) June 8, 2017 "Lordy I hope there are tapes!" -- Comey, and literally all of us, too.— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) June 8, 2017 Newsroom email: NPR style will be "lordy," not "lordie." (Apparently 'lawdy' not in consideration)— Scott Detrow (@scottdetrow) June 8, 2017 COMEY: "Lordy, I hope there are tapes."VP PENCE: "Watch your language, please."#ComeyHearings— Full Frontal (@FullFrontalSamB) June 8, 2017 When you know you're telling the truth and the other guy is lying: "Lordy, I hope there are tapes." #Comey #ComeyDay #ComeyHearings— Joseph Amodeo (@josephamodeo) June 8, 2017 "Lordy, I hope there are tapes" is also what Comey says when he misses an episode of 60 Minutes. #ComeyHearings— Funny Or Die (@funnyordie) June 8, 2017 #Comey: "I'm between opportunities now..." Add that to seagulls, fuzz, Lordy, lies, date night. So many memes..— Erica Hill (@EricaRHill) June 8, 2017 I need 'Lordy, I hope there are tapes' on a t-shirt— Chris Evans (@ChrisEvans) June 8, 2017 "Lordy, that's a lot of pee." -- Comey watching surveillance tapes of Trump's Russian hotel room #ComeyHearings— Lawson Clarke (@Malecopywriter) June 8, 2017 James Comey on his way to a vegan house party: lordy I hope there are grapes!— lucy (@Lolucy16) June 8, 2017 COMEY: "Lordy, I hope there are tapes."#ComeyHearingsUS: Can we get an AMEN! pic.twitter.com/vKhhPzwOGh— manuel g. aguilar (@manuelgag) June 8, 2017 SNL could make a whole ep of #Comey's adages... "Turning over the rocks." "feeding the seagulls" and MY favorite: LORDY!! #ComeyDay— JoelyGabs (@joelygabs) June 8, 2017 Never has "Lordy" sounded so badass. #comey— M. Buchholz (@LilScowly) June 8, 2017 type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=593867eae4b0c5a35c9ba03f,593959e8e4b0b13f2c67d8e4 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

08 июня, 18:55

Ruby Tandoh criticises celebrity cooks for 'suspicious silence' over election

Former Bake Off contestant suggests TV stars such as Jamie Oliver and Paul Hollywood fear damaging cookbook salesRuby Tandoh, a former contestant on The Great British Bake Off, has criticised fellow celebrity cooks for staying quiet about the general election. Tandoh, who was a runner-up in the show in 2013 and has since established herself as a cook and a commentator on food and mental health issues, chastised Jamie Oliver, Nigel Slater, Nigella Lawson, the Hairy Bikers and Bake Off judge Paul Hollywood for not speaking out about politics. Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
06 июня, 22:04

Humane Gardener

Nancy Lawson believes that all creatures — from skunks to snails — have their own important (and helpful!) place in your garden.

06 июня, 19:24

Sheriff: Awning factory shooting left 2 teens parentless

As families of five people killed in a workplace shooting in Florida deal with their shock and grief, a local sports league is raising money for the children of one of the victims — two teens who had

05 июня, 19:59

A North Korean Nuclear EMP Attack: The Threat America Downplays at Its Peril

William R. Graham Security, Analysts like Jack Liu and Jeffrey Lewis are to be commended for their interest in educating the public about North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs and endeavoring to provide their readers with “informed analysis.” However, in a series of recent articles, both analysts have written off the possibility of a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack from North Korea as “unlikely” and “science fiction” because they believe the 10 to 20 kiloton nuclear weapons currently possessed by North Korea are incapable of making an effective EMP attack. This dismisses the consensus view of EMP experts who have advanced degrees in physics and electrical engineering along with several decades of experience in the field—with access to classified data throughout that time—and who have conducted EMP tests on a wide variety of electronic systems, beginning in 1963. (This first appeared in 38 North here.) By way of background, the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack was established by Congress in 2001 to advise the Congress, the President, the Department of Defense and other departments and agencies of the US Government on the nuclear EMP threat to military systems and civilian critical infrastructures. The EMP Commission was re-established in 2015 with its charter broadened to include natural EMP from solar storms, all manmade EMP threats, cyber-attack, sabotage and Combined-Arms Cyber Warfare. The EMP Commission charter gives it access to all relevant classified and unclassified data and the power to levy analysis upon the Department of Defense. In the interest of better informing 38 North readers about the EMP threat, we offer this commentary to correct errors of fact, analysis, and myths about EMP. Primitive and “Super-EMP” Nuclear Weapons are Both EMP Threats The EMP Commission finds that even primitive, low-yield nuclear weapons are such a significant EMP threat that rogue states, like North Korea, or terrorists may well prefer using a nuclear weapon for EMP attack instead of destroying a city.[1] In its 2004 report, the Commission cautioned: “Certain types of relatively low-yield nuclear weapons can be employed to generate potentially catastrophic EMP effects over wide geographic areas, and designs for variants of such weapons may have been illicitly trafficked for a quarter-century.” In 2004, two Russian generals, both EMP experts, warned the EMP Commission that the design for Russia’s super-EMP warhead, capable of generating high intensity EMP fields of 200,000 volts per meter, was “accidentally” transferred to North Korea, and that due to “brain drain,” Russian scientists were in North Korea, helping with their missile and nuclear weapon programs. South Korean military intelligence told their press that Russian scientists are in North Korea helping develop an EMP nuclear weapon. In 2013, a Chinese military commentator stated North Korea has super-EMP nuclear weapons.[2] Super-EMP weapons are low-yield and designed to produce not a big kinetic explosion, but rather a high level of gamma rays, which generate the high-frequency E1 EMP that is most damaging to the broadest range of electronics. North Korean nuclear tests—including the first in 2006, which was predicted to the EMP Commission two years in advance by the two Russian EMP experts—mostly have yields consistent with the size of a super-EMP weapon. The Russian generals’ accurate prediction of when the North would perform its first nuclear test, and the yield being consistent with a super-EMP weapon, indicates their warning about a North Korean super-EMP weapon should be taken very seriously. EMP Threat from Satellites While most analysts are fixated on when in the future North Korea will develop highly reliable intercontinental ballistic missiles, guidance systems, and reentry vehicles capable of striking a US city, the present threat from EMP is largely ignored. An EMP attack does not require an accurate guidance system because the area of effect, having a radius of hundreds or thousands of kilometers, is so large. No reentry vehicle is needed because the warhead is detonated at high-altitude, above the atmosphere. Missile reliability matters little because only one missile has to work to make an EMP attack. For instance, North Korea could make an EMP attack against the United States by launching a short-range missile off a freighter or submarine or by lofting a warhead to 30 kilometers burst height by balloon. While such lower-altitude EMP attacks would not cover the whole US mainland, as would an attack at higher-altitude (300 kilometers), even a balloon-lofted warhead detonated at 30 kilometers altitude could blackout the Eastern Grid that supports most of the population and generates 75 percent of US electricity. Moreover, an EMP attack could be made by a North Korean satellite. The design of an EMP or even a super-EMP weapon could be relatively small and lightweight, resembling the US W-79 Enhanced Radiation Warhead nuclear artillery shell of the 1980s, designed in the 1950s. Such a device could fit inside North Korea’s Kwangmyongsong-3 (KMS-3) and Kwangmyongsong-4 (KMS-4) satellites that presently orbit the Earth. The south polar trajectory of KMS-3 and KMS-4 evades US Ballistic Missile Early Warning Radars and National Missile Defenses, resembling a Russian secret weapon developed during the Cold War, called the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) that would have used a nuclear-armed satellite to make a surprise EMP attack on the United States.[3] Kim Jong Un has threatened to reduce the United States to “ashes” with “nuclear thunderbolts” and threatened to retaliate for US diplomatic and military pressure by “ordering officials and scientists to complete preparations for a satellite launch as soon as possible” amid “the enemies’ harsh sanctions and moves to stifle” the North.[4] Addressing Misinformation Recent assessments by Jeffrey Lewis and Jack Liu regarding North Korea’s EMP capabilities have some fundamental flaws.[5] For starters, in his article, Jeffrey Lewis claimed that “just one string of street lights failed in Honolulu” during the 1962 Starfish Prime high-altitude nuclear test, and that this is proof of EMP’s harmlessness.[6] In fact, the EMP knocked out 36 strings of street lights, caused a telecommunications microwave relay station to fail, burned out HF (high frequency) radio links (used for long-distance communications), set off burglar alarms, and caused other damage. The Hawaiian Islands also did not experience a catastrophic protracted blackout because they were on the far edge of the EMP field contour, where effects are weakest; are surrounded by an ocean, which mitigates EMP effects; and were still in an age dominated by vacuum tube electronics. In addition, the slow pulse (E3) component of the EMP waveform only couples effectively to very long electric power transmission lines present on large continents, but were in short supply in Hawaii. Starfish Prime was not the only test of this kind. Russia, in 1961-62, also conducted a series of high-altitude nuclear bursts to test EMP effects over Kazakhstan, an industrialized area nearly as large as Western Europe.[7] That test damaged the Kazakh electric grid.[8] Moreover, modern electronics, in part because they are designed to operate at much lower voltages, are much more vulnerable to EMP than the electronics of 1962 exposed to Starfish Prime and the Kazakh nuclear tests. A similar EMP event over the US today would be an existential threat.[9] In his article, Lewis also suggested that vehicle transportation would continue after an EMP event based on the fact that only 6 of 55 vehicles were shut down by a single simulated EMP test on vehicles.[10] However, the EMP test protocol limited testing vehicles only to upset, not to damage, because the EMP Commission could not afford to repair damaged cars. Even with this limitation, one vehicle was still damaged, indicating that at least 2 percent of vehicles were severely affected by EMP damage. Over 50 years of EMP testing indicates that full field damage to vehicles would probably be much higher than 2 percent. Modern vehicles are even more susceptible to EMP attack because of their much larger complement of electronics than present in the vehicles tested by the Commission more than a decade ago. Furthermore, vehicles cannot run without fuel and gas stations cannot operate without electricity. Gas pumps could also be damaged in an EMP attack. In an article by Jack Liu, he asserts in a footnote that because EMP from atmospheric nuclear tests in Nevada did not blackout Las Vegas, therefore EMP is no threat. However, the nuclear tests he describes were all endo-atmospheric tests that do not generate appreciable EMP fields beyond a range of about 5 miles. The high-altitude EMP (HEMP) threat of interest requires exo-atmospheric detonation, at 30 kilometers altitude or above, and produces EMP out to ranges of hundreds to thousands of miles. Liu also miscalculates that “a 20-kiloton bomb detonated at optimum height would have a maximum EMP damage distance of 20 kilometers” in part, because he assumes “15,000 volts/meter or higher” in the E1 EMP component is necessary for damage. This figure is an extreme overestimation of system damage field thresholds. Damage and upset to electronic systems will happen from E1 EMP field strengths far below Liu’s “15,000 volts/meter or higher.” A one meter wire connected to a semiconductor device, such as a mouse cord or interconnection cable, would place hundreds to thousands of volts on microelectronic devices out to ranges of hundreds of miles for low-yield devices. Based on our experience with many EMP tests, semiconductor junctions operate at a few volts, and will experience breakdown at a few volts over their operating point, allowing their power supply to destroy exposed junctions. Furthermore, Liu ignores system upset as a vulnerability. Digital electronics can be upset by extraneous pulses of a few volts. For unmanned control systems present within the electric power grid, long-haul communication repeater stations, and gas pipelines, an electronic upset is tantamount to permanent damage. Temporary upset of electronics can also have catastrophic consequences for military operations. No electronics should be considered invulnerable to EMP unless hardened or tested to certify survivability. Some highly-critical unprotected electronics have been upset or damaged in simulated EMP tests, not at “15,000 volts/meter or higher,” but at threat levels far below 1,000 volts/meter. Therefore, even for a low-yield 10-20 kiloton weapon, the EMP field should be considered dangerous for unprotected US systems. The EMP Commission 2004 Report warned against the US military’s increasing use of commercial-off-the-shelf-technology that is not protected against EMP: “Our increasing dependence on advanced electronics systems results in the potential for an increased EMP vulnerability of our technologically advanced forces, and if unaddressed makes EMP employment by an adversary an attractive asymmetric option.”[11] The North Korean missile test on April 29, which apparently detonated at an altitude of 72 kilometers, the optimum height-of-burst for EMP attack by a 10 KT warhead, would create a potentially damaging EMP field spanning an estimated 930 kilometer radius [kilometers radius = 110 (kilometers burst height to the 0.5 Power)], not Liu’s miscalculated 20 kilometer radius. US Vulnerabilities to EMP When assessing the potential vulnerability of US military forces and civilian critical infrastructures to EMP, it is necessary to be mindful of the complex interdependencies of these highly-networked systems, because EMP upset and damage of a very small fraction of the total system can cause total system failure.[12] Real world failures of electric grids from various causes indicate that the Congressional EMP Commission, US Department of Defense, US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), US Department of Homeland Security, and US Defense Threat Reduction Agency are right that a nuclear EMP attack would have catastrophic consequences. Significant and highly-disruptive blackouts have been caused by single-point failures cascading into system-wide failures, originating from damage comprising far less than 1 percent of the total system.[13] In contrast to blackouts caused by single-point or small-scale failures, a nuclear EMP attack would inflict massive widespread damage to the electric grid, causing millions of failure points. With few exceptions, the US national electric grid is unhardened and untested against nuclear EMP attack. In the event of a nuclear EMP attack on the United States, a widespread protracted blackout is inevitable. This common sense assessment is also supported by the nation’s best computer modeling.[14] Thus, even if North Korea only has primitive, low-yield nuclear weapons, and if other states or terrorists acquire one or a few such weapons as well as the capability to detonate them at an altitude of 30 kilometers or higher over the United States. As, the EMP Commission warned over a decade ago in its 2004 Report, “the damage level could be sufficient to be catastrophic to the Nation, and our current vulnerability invites attack.” William R. Graham served as President Ronald Wilson Reagan's Science Advisor, Acting Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and Chairman of the Congressional EMP Commission. [1] John S. Foster, Jr., Earl Gjelde, William R. Graham, Robert J. Hermann, Henry M. Kluepfel, Richard L. Lawson, Gordon K. Soper, Lowell L. Wood, Jr., and Joan B. Woodard, Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, Volume. 1: Executive Report (Washington DC: EMP Commission, 2004), 2. [2] Peter V. Pry, Statement Before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security Hearing on Terrorism and the EMP Threat to Homeland Security: “Foreign Views of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack,” March 8, 2005, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg21324/pdf/CHRG-109shrg21324.pdf.; Min-sek Kim and Jee-ho Yoo, “Military Source Warns of North’s EMP Bomb” JoonAng Daily, September 2, 2009; Daguang Li, “North Korean Electromagnetic Attack Threatens South Korea’s Information Warfare Capabilities” Tzu Chin, June 1, 2012, 44-45. [3] Miroslav Gyűrösi, “The Soviet Fractional Orbital Bombardment System Program,” Air Power Australia, January 27, 2014, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Sov-FOBS-Program.html. [4] Alex Lockie, “North Korea threatens ‘nuclear thunderbolts’ as US And China finally work together,” Business Insider, April 14, 2017, http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-us-china-nuclear-thunderbolt-cooperation-war-2017-4; “US General: North Korea ‘will’ develop nuclear capabilities to hit America,” Fox News, September 20, 2016, www.foxnews.com/world/2016/09/20/north-korea-says-successfully-ground-tests-new-rocket-engine.html. [5] Jeffrey Lewis, “Would A North Korean Space Nuke Really Lay Waste to the U.S.?” New Scientist, www.newscientist.com/article/2129618; Lewis quoted in Cheyenne MacDonald, “A North Korean ‘Space Nuke’ Wouldn’t Lay Waste To America” Daily Mail, May 3, 2017, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4471120/A-North-Korean-space-nuke-WOULDN-T-lay-waste-America.html.; Lewis interviewed by National Public Radio, “The North Korean Electromagnetic Pulse Threat, Or Lack Thereof,” NPR, April 27, 2017, www.npr.org/2017/04/27/525833275.; “NPR hosts laugh hysterically while America remains in the cross hairs of a North Korean nuclear warhead EMP apocalypse,” Natural News, May 1, 2017, www.naturalnews.com/2017-05-01-npr-laughs-hysterically-north-korean-emp-nuclear-attack.html. [6] Lewis, “Would A North Korean Space Nuke Really Lay Waste to the U.S.?” [7] High-altitude EMP (HEMP), the phenomenon under discussion, results from the detonation of a nuclear weapon at high-altitude, 30 kilometers or higher. All nuclear weapons, even a primitive Hiroshima-type A-bomb, can produce levels of HEMP damaging to modern electronics over large geographic regions. [8] According to Electric Infrastructure Security Council, Report: USSR Nuclear EMP Upper Atmosphere Kazakhstan Test 184, (www.eiscouncil.org/APP_Data/upload/a4ce4b06-1a77-44d-83eb-842bb2a56fc6.pdf), citing research by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a comparable EMP event over the U.S. today “would likely damage about 365 large transformers in the U.S. power grid, leaving about 40 percent of the U.S. population without electrical power for 4 to 10 years.” [9] Foster, et al., Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, Volume. 1: Executive Report, 4-8. [10] Lewis, “Would A North Korean Space Nuke Really Lay Waste to the U.S.?” [11] Ibid., 47. [12] John S. Foster, Jr., Earl Gjelde, William R. Graham, Robert J. Hermann, Henry M. Kluepfel, Richard L. Lawson, Gordon K. Soper, Lowell L. Wood, Jr., and Joan B. Woodard, Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack: Critical National Infrastructures (Washington, D.C.: EMP Commission, April 2008), http://www.empcommission.org/ docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf. [13]For example, the Great Northeast Blackout of 2003—that put 50 million people in the dark for a day, contributed to at least 11 deaths, and cost an estimated $6 billion—originated from a single failure point when a powerline contacted a tree branch, damaging less than 0.0000001 (0.00001%) of the total system. The New York City Blackout of 1977, which resulted in the arrest of 4,500 looters and injury of 550 police officers, was caused by a lightning strike on a substation that tripped two circuit breakers. India’s nationwide blackout of 2012—the largest blackout in history, effecting 670 million people, 9% of the world population—was caused by overload of a single high-voltage powerline. [14]Modeling by the US FERC reportedly assesses that a terrorist attack that destroys just 9 of 2,000 EHV transformers–merely 0.0045 (0.45%) of all EHV transformers in the US national electric grid–would be catastrophic damage, causing a protracted nationwide blackout. Modeling by the Congressional EMP Commission assesses that a terrorist nuclear EMP attack, using a primitive 10-kiloton nuclear weapon, could destroy dozens of EHV transformers, thousands of SCADAS and electronic systems, causing catastrophic collapse and protracted blackout of the US Eastern Grid, putting at risk the lives of millions. For the best unclassified modeling assessment of likely damage to the US national electric grid from nuclear EMP attack see: US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Interagency Report, coordinated with the Department of Defense and Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Electromagnetic Pulse: Effects on the U.S. Power Grid, Executive Summary (2010); FERC Interagency Report by Edward Savage, James Gilbert and William Radasky, The Early-Time (E1) High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid (Meta-R-320) Metatech Corporation (January 2010); FERC Interagency Report by James Gilbert, John Kappenman, William Radasky, and Edward Savage, The Late-Time (E3) High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid (Meta-R-321) Metatech Corporation (January 2010).

Выбор редакции
23 мая, 10:00

A progressive alliance is an idea whose time has come | Neal Lawson

In an increasingly complex world, no one party has a monopoly on wisdom. People at the grassroots understand this – now the parties need to catch upAs the polls narrow, the Tories attack the idea of a progressive alliance and the possibility of coalition government because they know these could deny them their landslide. In the long term they fear a progressive realignment breaking their stranglehold on office and power. They are right to be scared because while on the surface all for them seems strong and stable, just below a new politics is bubbling up.If Antonio Gramsci’s haunting phrase “the old is dying and the new cannot be born” was ever applicable to a UK general election, then it is this one. The old election is taking place in party headquarters, at the daily press briefings and meet-the-people events with no real people. But what is most old-school about this election is the main parties’ tribalism: “Only Labour can defend the NHS”; “Only the Tories can provide strong and stable blah”. It’s all about them: they believe they have a monopoly on the wisdom, superiority and singular ability to manage a world that is becoming more complex by the day. They are out of their depth. We know it and inwardly they do too. Continue reading...

21 мая, 23:38

Вечерний политрук: Хоть кота пивом обольём

Активисты «Другой России» напали на главного редактора радиостанции «Эхо Москвы» Алексея Венедиктова во время дискуссии «Открытые диалоги», которая проходила в Петербурге в воскресенье, 21 мая.РЕН-ТВ пишет, что Венедиктов «пожаловался, что алкогольный напиток оказался дешевым». Пресс-секретарь «Другой России» Александр Аверин сообщил, что Венедиктова облили виски William Lawson.«Другая Россия» устроила акцию против Венедиктова из-за того, что он участвовал «в сливе протестов в 2011 году», объяснил представитель незарегистрированной партии. «Дело в том, что слив протеста в 2011 году произошел в разговоре за бутылкой виски в московской мэрии», — сказал Аверин.Среди других причин нападения — «предательская позиция "Эха Москвы" по Крыму и Донбассу» и участие Венедиктова в деле нацбола Олега Миронова, которого судили за нападение на Андрея Макаревича.---Что тут можно сказать?В первую очередь, "Вечерний Политрук" напоминает, что украинизация дискурса для Поколения и Империи неприемлема.В принципе.Этот вопрос закрыт.Никаких жидкостных демаршей.Венедиктова, при всей его неприглядности, нужно не поливать спиртными напитками с намёком на ситуацию в мэрии в 2011, а при каждом удобном случае публично спрашивать, как и по какому праву он заполучил в 1991 году частоту, студию и передатчик студенческого радио журфака МГУ, на которых поддержал ельцинский переворот, подавление Дома Советов 1993, на чем и построил всю свою извилистую судьбу и карьеру. Вот на такой вопрос ему отвечать будет неудобно.А алкоголем плескаться бесполезно и некрасиво.Алкоголик вискарика не боится.А человек, снисходительно провожающих своих оскорбителей шуткой, уже их победил.«Они потратились на вискарь, но вискарь плохой», — сказал Венедиктов.И любой, кто Веника хотя бы пару раз видел, заранее знал бы, что так будет.А Лимонов, к примеру, отлично главреда "Эха Москвы" знает. Он там вообще работал. На дни рождения ездит.---Так зачем (это любимый вопрос Плтрк! если кто-то что-то делает, зачем он это делает?) "Другая Россия" устроила эдакую выходку, и подарила Венедиктову публичную победу над собой?Неужели в рамках предвыборной решила опять отыграть старую добрую роль "страшных левых террористов, от которых спасет только крепкая рука"?Что ж, это можно. Но это будет последний уж раз: экс-НБП в кризисе.У вождя был инсульт, с той поры Дед Лимон плоховат; назначенный им триумвират наследников деградировал, партактив повыбит и разочарован Донбассом, нацболпис Прилепин, "молодое" лицо партии, так и вовсе ушел к Малофееву воспевать мироточение ряс и подавать чай капиталу.Поливанием журналистов виски ситуации не исправишь. Молодежи так тоже не привлечешь. Разве что НОД (чья базовая целевая аудитория, кстати, вовсе не школьники, а люди предпенсионного и пенсионного возраста).Получается, Дед просто решил расторговать свою партию в самый последний раз. Конец эпохи. Гаражная распродажа. Все с молотка.Грустно, Эдуард Вениаминович.(NB: Коллизия в целом лишь подтверждает тактику Плтрк, давным-давно предложенную Поколению в отношении НБП, Лимонова, и всего, что рядом: "не ходите за ними, они вас ради жеста посадят". Правда, Венедиктов в полицию побежит вряд ли (не его стиль) — но кто помешает сделать это организаторам? Нападавших и так уже задержали).

21 мая, 07:19

Andre Dirrell title fight ends with uncle punching opponent and fleeing ring

Leon Lawson Jr punches Jose Uzcategui after Venezuelan lands late blows‘My coach is my family, my uncle, and he was worried’The American boxer Andre Dirrel has apologised after his uncle Leon Lawson Jr, who is also a member of his coaching team, punched his opponent after their super-middleweight title fight at the MGM National Harbour near Washington. Dirrel was awarded the fight for the interim IBF super-middleweight title after his opponent, José Uzcátegui of Venezuela, was disqualified for punching after the bell in the eighth round. Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
12 мая, 03:02

President Announces Formation of Bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Integrity

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, President Donald J. Trump announced the issuance of an executive order forming the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. The President also named Vice President Mike Pence as Chairman and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach as Vice-Chair of the Commission. Five additional members were named to the bipartisan commission today: Connie Lawson, Secretary of State of Indiana  Bill Gardner, Secretary of State of New Hampshire  Matthew Dunlap, Secretary of State of Maine  Ken Blackwell, Former Secretary of State of Ohio Christy McCormick, Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission  "This action by President Trump fulfills another promise made to the American people,” said Vice President Pence. “We can't take for granted the integrity of the vote. This bipartisan commission will review ways to strengthen the integrity of elections in order to protect and preserve the principle of one person, one vote because the integrity of the vote is the foundation of our democracy." The Commission on Election Integrity will study vulnerabilities in voting systems used for federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations, improper voting, fraudulent voter registrations, and fraudulent voting.  The Commission will also study concerns about voter suppression, as well as other voting irregularities.  The Commission will utilize all available data, including state and federal databases. Secretary Kobach, Vice-Chair of the Commission added: "As the chief election officer of a state, ensuring the integrity of elections is my number one responsibility.  The work of this commission will assist all state elections officials in the country in understanding, and addressing, the problem of voter fraud." Additional Commission members will be named at a later time. It is expected the Commission will spend the next year completing its work and issue a report in 2018.

12 мая, 00:41

Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 1:45 P.M. EDT MS. SANDERS:  Another light crowd today.  Good afternoon.  First off, before we get started, I’d like to bring up Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert to tell you about an executive order on cybersecurity that the President just signed.  He’ll take a few of your questions and, respectfully, I ask that you keep your questions for him on the topic of the executive order.  And don’t worry, I’ll come back and answer all of the rest of your pressing questions as soon as he wraps up. So with that, I’ll turn it over to Tom. MR. BOSSERT:  Thank you, Sarah.  Thank you very much for your time.  Couple of things positive to report today, and the first is that President Trump, about an hour ago, signed an executive order on cybersecurity.  And that executive order, among other things, is going to keep his promise that he has made to the American people to keep America safe, including in cyberspace. I’d like to do a few things.  I’ll promise you that we will distribute the executive order, but if I could, I’ll preview the executive order for you, walk you through its three primary sections, some of its wave tops, and then take your questions.   Among other things, at least as an observation for me, I think the trend is going in the wrong direction in cyberspace, and it’s time to stop that trend and reverse it on behalf of the American people.  We’ve seen increasing attacks from allies, adversaries, primarily nation states but also non-nation state actors, and sitting by and doing nothing is no longer an option.  So President Trump’s action today is a very heartening one. There are three sections.  They’re in priority order, in a sense.  The first priority for the President and for our federal government is protecting our federal networks.  I think it’s important to start by explaining that we operate those federal networks on behalf of the American people, and they often contain the American people’s information and data, so not defending them is no longer an option.  We’ve seen past hacks and past efforts that have succeeded, and we need to do everything we can to prevent that from happening in the future.   So a few things on federal networks.  We have practiced one thing and preached another.  It’s time for us now, and the President today has directed his departments and agencies, to implement the NIST framework.  It’s a risk-reduction framework.  It is something that we have asked the private sector to implement, and not forced upon ourselves.  From this point forward, departments and agencies shall practice what we preach and implement that same NIST framework for risk management and risk reduction. The second, I think, of note -- point in protecting our federal networks is that we spent a lot of time and inordinate money protecting antiquated and outdated systems.  We saw that with the OPM hack and other things.  From this point forward, the President has issued a preference from today forward in federal procurement of federal IT for shared services -- got to move to the cloud and try to protect ourselves instead of fracturing our security posture. Third point I would make is that the executive order directs all its department and agency heads to continue its key roles, but it also centralizes risk so that we view our federal IT as one enterprise network.  If we don’t do so, we will not be able to adequately understand what risk exists and how to mitigate it. Number of thoughts on that.  Among other things, that is going to be a very difficult task.  So modernizing is imperative for our security, but modernizing is going to require a lot of hard, good governance.  And responsible for that today is the President’s American innovation -- Technology Council, I’m sorry.  The President’s American Technology Council is going to run that effort on behalf of the President here out of the White House.  And we have great hope that there will be efficiencies there, but also security.   And I would probably note to you that other countries have taken two or three years to learn what we just came up with in two or three months, and that is that we can’t promote innovation without first thinking through risk reduction.  So doing that together is a message that we’ve learned, but doing it together is a message we’d like to encourage private sector folks to adopt. So point two in the executive order is our critical infrastructure cybersecurity effort.  The President has directed the President’s Cabinet to begin the hard work of protecting our nation’s most critical infrastructures -- utilities, financial and healthcare systems, telecommunications networks.  He’s directed them to identify additional measures to defend and secure our critical infrastructure.  And he’s continued to promote the message that doing nothing is no longer an option. So the executive order not only requires his departments and agencies to help those critical infrastructure owners and operators and the most important ones, but to do it in a proactive sense.  The message is a tilt towards action. We’ve seen bipartisan studies, as an observation from me, over the last eight years, both parties.  They’ve made powerful recommendations.  They have not been adopted for various reasons.  This executive order adopts the best and brightest of those recommendations, in my view.   I’m going to stop with those three and take questions.   Q    Two questions for you real quickly.  First --  MR. BOSSERT:  Actually, if I could -- Q    Yes, please.  Brian.   MR. BOSSERT:  Brian, go ahead. Q    First, was the Russian hack in any way responsible or an impetus for this?  Number two, I’ve talked to IT people who say putting stuff on the cloud actually can be problematic as far as security.  So what additional security measures would you apply to the cloud to make sure that it’s not as risky as some of the IT people tell us it would be? MR. BOSSERT:  Couple questions there.  So let me say three things first.  The third section of the executive order -- may be the one I skipped over here a moment ago -- speaks to two halves.  It speaks to not only the need to develop the norms and the interoperable, open communication system that is the Internet -- the United States invented the Internet and it’s time to maintain our values on it -- but it also speaks to a deterrence policy which has long been overdue. And so the Russians are not our only adversary on the Internet, and the Russians are not the only people that operate in a negative way on the Internet.  The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, other nation states are motivated to use cyber capacity and cyber tools to attack our people and our governments and their data.  And that’s something that we can no longer abide.  We need to establish the rules of the road for proper behavior on the Internet, but we also then need to deter those who don’t want to abide by those rules. So the answer to your first question is, no, it wasn’t a Russian-motivated issue, it was a United States of America-motivated issue. Q    And the second question about the cloud, that security on the cloud -- IT people say it’s -- MR. BOSSERT:  If we don’t move to shared services -- we have 190 agencies that are all trying to develop their own defenses against advanced protection and collection efforts.  I don’t think that that’s a wise approach. There’s always going to be risk.  And so your questions is, are we still at risk?  Yes.  I’m not here to promote for you that the President has signed an executive order and created a cyber-secure world in a fortress U.S.A.  That’s not the answer.  But if we don’t move to secure services and shared services, we’re going to be behind the eight ball for a very long time. Q    Thank you. MR. BOSSERT:  You’re welcome.  Sir. Q    You said “sitting around doing nothing.”  Is it your contention that the Obama administration, that was its approach to cybersecurity?  Sitting around and doing nothing?  Question one.  And number two, you talked about one enterprise network.  Does that mean every system throughout the federal government under this executive order, the ambition is to make them all the same?  Or protected in the same way? MR. BOSSERT:  No.  So I’ll answer them in reverse order, if I can.   What we need to do is view the federal government as an enterprise as opposed to just viewing each department and agency as its own enterprise.  So the Department of Homeland Security -- and Secretary Kelly will play a large and leading role in this effort in implementing the President’s executive order -- as an enterprise.  And their enterprise network covers 340,000 or so employees and their contractors and so forth.  They are responsible, and that Secretary of each department and agency will remain responsible, for securing those networks.   But we need to look at the federal government as an enterprise as well so that we no longer look at OPM and think, well, you can defend your OPM network with the money commensurate for the OPM responsibility.  OPM, as you know, had the crown jewel, so to speak, of our information and all of our background and security clearances. So what we’d like to do is look at that and say, that is a very high risk, high cost for us to bear, maybe we should look at this as an enterprise and put collectively more information in protecting them than we would otherwise put into OPM looking at their relevant importance to the entire -- Q    So their budget, in other words. MR. BOSSERT:  No, not just their budget but based on what they do.  So each department and agency has a responsibility to protect its own networks, but they now have a responsibility to identify their risk to the White House, to the President, so that we can look at what they’ve done and, just as importantly, what risk they know they’re accepting but not mitigating.  There’s a lot of identified risk, but there’s also a lot of identified and not remediated risk. So that mitigation strategy is going to have to come through a centralized place.  We’ve seen other countries, Israel and others, adopt a centralized view of risk management and risk-acceptance decisions.  So that’s the answer to your question. The second question, though, maybe, is that -- Q    “Sitting around doing nothing.”  Is that the administration -- the previous administration’s approach, from your vantage point? MR. BOSSERT:  I think that the observation is that we have not done the basic block-and-tackling of thinking of the Internet as something that the American people benefit from.  I think what we’ve done is focus on the federal IT portion of it.  I think that a lot of progress was made in the last administration but not nearly enough.  I think we’re going to change that.  And I think looking at this from the perspective of a deterrence strategy, to be honest, yes, I think the last administration should have done that, had an obligation to do it and didn’t. Q    I was wondering if the administration has a view on what might constitute an act of war with regard -- what kind of cyberattack might constitute an act of war. MR. BOSSERT:  There’s a whole lot that we’ll talk about in terms of what constitutes a cyberattack, what’s war and what’s not war.  The Tallinn Manual and other things are important.  But I think the most important answer to your question is that we’re not going to draw a red line on cyberwar at this point today.  It’s not within the direct scope of the executive order.  But it also would violate I think the President’s primary mission he made to not telegraph our punches. If somebody does something to the United States of America that we can’t tolerate, we will act. Q    You said that the goal of this is to secure the Internet.  You talked about the Internet as something that Americans use and enjoy.  Well, the technical standards for most things on the Internet are put together by many international standards organizations and engineers, and things like that that often aren’t in the United States.  Has there been any talk of outreach to these sorts of bodies to try and build in security into the next generation of protocols? MR. BOSSERT:  Yeah, absolutely.  So the message here is not just protecting the people of America.  We have an “America first” perspective, but the idea of having likeminded people with similar viewpoints, like our allies, developing with us the open, operable Internet is something key to figuring out how we will define what is and is not acceptable. We can’t cut off the Internet at our borders and then expect it to operate in a viable way.  And if there are good ideas coming out of Germany, then we’ll take them.  If there are good ideas coming out of Peoria, we’ll take them as well. Q    You mentioned the American Technology Council a short time ago.  We really don’t have much of an indication that there’s going to be, like, significant Silicon Valley or tech leaders who are going to be coming here.  We know that there have been reports the President has had a few phone calls with someone like Mark Zuckerberg.  Can you enlighten us a bit?  Who can we expect to see here coming to the White House next month?  Can we expect to see someone like Mark Zuckerberg working closely with the administration when it comes to that council? MR. BOSSERT:  So let me go backwards a little bit.  Instead of telling you who the President did and didn’t talk to -- I’ll probably get that wrong anyway -- I’ll tell you that there’s a lot to be learned from private industry.  And among other things, that stuff needs to come into the White House in the appropriate way. And so we talk on a regular basis to leaders, some that are technical leaders, some that are business leaders.  My point of calling out the American Technology Council was to point out that they’re going to have a leadership role in modernizing our federal IT.  And that has a lot of reasons, right?  There’s efficiencies and cost-savings that are beyond just security. So this executive order speaks to the security component of it.  And I would direct you then to the American Technology Council and their efforts as you look through and think about those other efficiencies. But as an example, we’ve heard numbers that suggest the federal government spends upwards of $40,000 per employee on their IT service costs.  And that is so out of line with private industry that Secretary Ross and others would probably have a very easy time buying and making a lot of money off of a company that’s so poorly invested their dollars, and so I think you’ll see that innovation come from that group of leaders and thoughtful people.   And then in terms of what you’ll see over the next month, I would say I don't know the answer to that specifically, but I'd like to take the opportunity and the opening before Sarah pulls me to thank two or three people, and one of them high on my list is Mayor Giuliani.  I'd like to thank him for the advice he’s given to me and to the President and to others as we formulate this thinking.  I'd like to thank Representative McCaul.  I'd like to thank a few other members of Congress -- Representatives Ratcliffe and Hurd; Representative Nunes, Senator Collins, Senator McCain, in particular; Senators Burr and Whitehouse.  There’s a number of people that provided thought leadership and taken action to pass legislation -- all those things that we've liked and that has improved our cybersecurity over the last eight years.  So I don't want to be critical of things that have happened over the last eight years, but I do want to look forward to improvement. Q    Can you -- a former Obama administration official who dealt with other countries and other entities in other countries -- he said that there were tens of thousands of attempts to hack into government systems daily.  Can you quantify, can you confirm or deny that? MR. BOSSERT:  No.  The answer for “no” is that we see that happen and we then start getting into a numbers game.  And what I think would be a better argument right now -- not to cut off that question, it’s a reasonable one, but the better answer here is for us to figure out how we can provide a better collective defense of our federal IT and those networks and data that we operate.  If we do it based on an individual attack basis, we're probably looking at it in the wrong way. Q    So was this person correct when they said entities from around the world -- MR. BOSSERT:  I would say it this way, without numbers -- the trend line is going in the wrong direction.  We see additional attacks, additional numbers, additional volume, and occasionally additional successes that trouble us.  And that's the best way I can quantify that for you today. Q    Thank you. MR. BOSSERT:  You're welcome.  Thank you. Q    Can you just say why the cybersecurity order was delayed?  This was going to come out one day early in the administration.  And there had been a lot of talk about concern from Silicon Valley and tech leaders with the direction that it was going in.  So are those -- do you have some sense of the kind of support that this order has, or not, from the tech world? MR. BOSSERT:  I want to answer you and even reject part of your question, if I can, and I think that will be clarifying.  So first, I'll reject one part of your question.  So we did see some concerns, but I don't think that they remain.  And I look forward to their response after they read the President’s executive order today. One of those concerns, for example, arose when they read the voluntary call of the President’s executive order, which I applaud today, that we reduce greatly the number of botnet attacks in the United States -- the distributed denial of service attacks.  That's going to require voluntary cooperation among all the different owners and operators of different privately held companies -- from service providers to manufacturers of goods.  And those things are going to have to happen voluntarily. What the President calls for is for the government to provide the basis for that coordination, without defining who’s in and who’s out -- it's a voluntary operation.  But we know that they have the technical capacity, if they have the will, to come together on behalf of the American people and reduce those botnets dramatically.  And the President is calling for them to do that.  He’s asking for the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Commerce to facilitate that. And what we thought we saw was reflections of a concern that there would be a compulsion, and I think that's something that I can put to rest today -- and that's why I poked into your question a little bit.   But then, if I could, the broader question of delay, I don't really much take that either.  I think sometimes we've been criticized for doing things too quickly, and now maybe we're being criticized for doing things to slowly.  So maybe I'm right in the middle of the sweet spot, I would argue.  But I think the President has hit this timing perfectly.  And I'll tell you three reasons why.  One of the block-and-tackle things that he directed us to do before the executive order was to get the money right.  He’s picked a Cabinet full of people that know that business operations and business functions have to follow first so that you can then provide policy that he can implement -- right?  So policy sets direction and vision, but if you don't have the right money and back-office infrastructure and so forth to implement those things, then you have to either change your vision or change your amount of money. And so, just off the top of my head, I just thought you might ask that question.  The first I already preemptively answered, and that is that we tend to learn a lesson here that we don't want to innovate with policy on the innovation side, and secure with policy on the security side without doing that in tandem.  And you saw the President signed on Friday last the Technology Council and he signed today the cybersecurity order.  And that was done intentionally. And then, lastly, in between now and then, the President’s FY18 budget allocated $319 million to DHS’s cybersecurity budget alone.  We have dedicated an increase of $1.5 billion across all departments involved in protective cyberspace.   So, from my perspective, both his first budget request and his future ones have right-sized and aligned that amount of money, keeping America safe.  And that might answer all three components of your question.   And with that, I know Sarah wants to pull me away.  So thank you so much for your time.   Q    -- the President address concerns Americans might have about political motivations that these cybersecurity companies like -- for instance, you mentioned Facebook -- they’re very political --  MS. SANDERS:  Maybe Tom could come back to questions later.  Thank you so much, Tom.  And actually, he was wrong on one thing -- I would gladly have let him stay up here and talk cybersecurity with you all day.  (Laughter.)     I have a few announcements.  And then, as promised, I will get to, I'm sure, all of your many pressing questions.  I'd like to announce that the President also just signed another executive order establishing a bipartisan presidential advisory commission on election integrity.  This will be chaired by Vice President Mike Pence.  The President is committed to the thorough review of registration and voting issues in federal elections.  And that's exactly what this commission is tasked with doing. The bipartisan commission will be made up of around a dozen members, including current and former Secretaries of State, with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach serving as vice chair.  It will also include individuals with knowledge and experience in elections, election management, election fraud detection, and voter integrity efforts.   Five additional members that have been announced as of today -- Connie Lawson, the Secretary of State of Indiana; Bill Gardner, Secretary of State of New Hampshire; Matthew Dunlap, the Secretary of State of Maine; Ken Blackwell, former Secretary of State of Ohio; and Christy McCormack, a commissioner on Election Assistance Commission. The commission will review policies and practices that enhance or undermine the American people’s confidence in the integrity of federal elections, and provide the President with a report that identifies system vulnerabilities that lead to improper registrations and voting.  We expect the report will be complete by 2018. The experts and officials on this commission will follow the facts where they lead.  Meetings and hearings will be open to the public for comments and input, and we will share those updates as we have them. In Cabinet news, Secretary Perdue is in Cincinnati, Ohio today to announce the Agriculture Department’s plan for reorganizing to provide better service to the American people, as the President directed in his March 13th executive order.  With the barges of the Ohio River behind him, many of which contain products that are beginning a journey that will ultimately take them to markets overseas, Secretary Perdue will announce a new mission area for trade and foreign agriculture affairs, recognizing the growing importance of international trade to the agriculture sector of the economy. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement will hold a press conference at 2:15 p.m. today -- probably not too far away -- to announce the results of a highly successful recent gang surge operation.  The President has made enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws a top priority, and today’s announcement will underscore not only that commitment but his focus on targeting transnational gangs and prioritizing the removal of criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety. Also today, Secretary Mattis met with the Turkish Prime Minister in London to discuss a range of bilateral security issues, and the Secretary reiterated the United States’ commitment to protecting our NATO ally.  And both leaders affirmed their support for peace and stability in Iraq and Syria.   One other thing I wanted to point out -- last night, Obamacare suffered another serious blow as Aetna announced its decision to pull out of the Nebraska and Delaware marketplaces, which ends their participation in exchanges completely.  They’ve sustained hundreds of millions of dollars over the last several years and is projected to lose more than $200 million in 2017.  The company attributes those losses to structural issues within the exchanges “that have led to coop failures and carrier exits and subsequent risk pool deterioration.” This latest news adds to the mountain of evidence that Obamacare has completely failed the American people, and reinforces why there is no time to waste in repealing and replacing this law before it takes our entire healthcare system down with it.   Finally, I know -- those hands -- I know we sent out a timeline regarding the former -- the firing of former Director Comey yesterday, because there seemed to be some misperceptions about the meeting between the President and the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General on Monday.  But I'm going to read it to you all again just to make sure we're all on the same page, because I want the sequence of events to be perfectly clear to everyone. The President, over the last several months, lost confidence in Director Comey.  After watching Director Comey’s testimony last Wednesday, the President was strongly inclined to remove him.   On Monday, the President met with the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General and they discussed reasons for removing the Director.   The next day, Tuesday, May 9th, the Deputy Attorney General sent his written recommendation to the Attorney General and the Attorney General sent his written recommendation to the President. Hopefully, that clears up some of those things.  And with that, I will take your questions. Steve Holland. Q    Sarah, in the Lester Hold interview the President just had he made a number of remarks.  Why did the President think that James Comey was a “showboat” and “grand-stander”? MS. SANDERS:  I think probably based on the numerous appearances that he made, and I think that it's probably pretty evident in his behavior over the last year or so with the back-and-forth.  And I think that it speaks pretty clearly -- those words don't leave a lot of room for interpretation, so I think it's pretty clear what he meant. Q    When were these three conversations that the President had with James Comey about whether he was under investigation?  He said one was at dinner, two phone calls.  Was that since January 20th, or when? MS. SANDERS:  That’s my understanding.  I don't have exact on when those phone calls took place.   Jonathan. Q    Sarah, two parts of the Comey question regarding the interview the President just gave.  First of all, isn't it inappropriate for the President of the United States to ask the FBI Director directly if he’s under investigation? MS. SANDERS:  No, I don't believe it is. Q    But one of these conversations the President said happened at a dinner where the FBI Director, according to the President, was asking to stay on as FBI Director.  Don't you see how that's a conflict of interest -- the FBI Director is saying he wants to keep his job, and the President is asking whether or not he’s under investigation?   MS. SANDERS:  I don't see that as a conflict of interest, and neither do the many legal scholars and others that have been commenting on it for the last hour.  So, no, I don't see it as an issue. Q    But, Sarah, the other question I want to ask you about is, I asked you directly yesterday -- MS. SANDERS:  That will be three, I think. Q    Different subject related to Comey.  I asked you directly yesterday if the President had already decided to fire James Comey when he met with the Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General, and you said, no.  Also the Vice President of the United States said directly that the President acted to take the recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General to remove the FBI Director.  Sean Spicer said directly, “It was all him,” meaning the Deputy Attorney General.  Now we learn from the President directly that he had already decided to fire James Comey.  So why were so many people giving answers that just weren’t correct?  Were you guys in the dark?  Was the Vice President misled again, as happened with Mike Flynn -- MS. SANDERS:  I know you’d love to report that we were misled and what it creates -- I let you finish and read off every single one of those statements, so unless you want to trade places, I think it's my turn now.   I think it's pretty simple.  I hadn’t had a chance to have the conversation directly with the President to say -- I'd had several conversations with him, but I didn’t ask that question directly, “had you already made that decision.”  I went off of the information that I had when I answered your question.  I've since had the conversation with him, right before I walked on today, and he laid it out very clearly.  He had already made that decision.  He had been thinking about it for months, which I did say yesterday and have said many times since.  And Wednesday I think was the final straw that pushed him.  And the recommendation that he got from the Deputy Attorney General just further solidified his decision and, again, I think reaffirmed that he made the right one. Q    Was the Vice President in the dark, too? MS. SANDERS:  Nobody was “in the dark,” Jonathan.  You want to create this false narrative.  If you want to talk about contradicting statements and people that were maybe in the dark, how about the Democrats.  Let’s read a few of them.  You want to talk about them?  Here’s what Democrats said not long ago about Comey.  Harry Reid said Comey should resign and be investigated by the Senate.  Senator Chuck Schumer said, “I don't have confidence in him any longer.”  Senator Bernie Sanders said it would not be a bad thing for the American people if Comey resigned.  Nancy Pelosi said Comey was not in the right job.  Former DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Shultz said that she thought Comey was no longer able to serve in a neutral and credible way. President Obama’s advisor, Valerie Jarrett, reportedly urged him to fire Comey.  Just yesterday, Representative Maxine Waters said that Hillary Clinton would have fired Comey.   If you want to talk about people in the dark?  Our story is consistent.  The President is the only person that can fire the director of the FBI.  He serves at the pleasure of the President. The President made the decision.  It was the right decision.  The people that are in the dark today are the Democrats.  They want to come out, they want to talk about all of these -- they love Comey and how great he was.   Look at the facts.  The facts don't lie.  Their statements are all right there.  I think it's extremely clear that -- and, frankly, I think it's kind of sad -- in Washington, we finally have something that I think we should have all been able to agree on, and that was that Director Comey shouldn’t have been at the FBI, but the Democrats want to play partisan games.  And I think that's the most glaring thing that's being left out of all of your process stories. John Roberts. Q    Sarah, you said from the podium yesterday that Director Comey had lost the confidence of the rank and file of the FBI.  On Capitol Hill today, the Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe directly contradicted that.  What led you and the White House to believe that he had lost the confidence of the rank and file of the FBI when the Acting Director says it's exactly the opposite? MS. SANDERS:  Well, I can speak to my own personal experience.  I've heard from countless members of the FBI that are grateful and thankful for the President’s decision.  And I think that we may have to agree to disagree.  I'm sure that there are some people that are disappointed, but I certainly heard from a large number of individuals -- and that's just myself -- and I don't even know that many people in the FBI.  Q    And a question to what you were saying about the Democrats.  Clearly, they didn’t like James Comey too much after the October 28th pronouncement that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.  Their point now is the timing is different, that this was in the middle of an investigation.  Do they have a point? MS. SANDERS:  Not at all.  And I think Mr. McCabe made that point far better than I could today when he said that there’s been no impediment to the investigation.  And as I said before, any investigation that was taking place on Monday is still taking place today.  So I think that's, again, another sad story by the Democrats that they’re trying to peddle.   Mara. Q    Thank you.  Another comment from the hearing today -- the Acting Deputy Attorney General said -- I'm sorry, McCabe said that he considers the investigation into Russian meddling in the election to be highly significant.  In the past, the President has said that the investigation was a hoax, and he’s questioned even recently whether maybe it wasn’t Russia, it might have been China.  Does the President consider this investigation to be highly significant? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think he would love nothing more for this investigation to continue to its completion.  I think one of the reasons that the “hoax” component is the collusion component that has been the false narrative that you guys have been pushing for the better part of a year.  I think that's the piece that he is repeatedly talking about being the hoax. Q    But in terms of the threat to national security, does he take that seriously?  Does he think that's significant?  Putting aside the -- MS. SANDERS:  Of course, he takes national security seriously.  I mean, to even hint that he doesn’t I think is to misunderstand this President completely.  From the very moment that he stepped onto the campaign stage, to the day that he took the oath of office to become President, he has talked about national security.  He's made that one of the biggest priorities in the administration.  You just saw Tom Bossert here talking about cybersecurity.  On all fronts, whether it's securing the border, whether it's protecting people abroad here, the President has been focused on that. Q    Does the think what Russia did during the election was a threat to U.S. national security? MS. SANDERS:  You know, I haven’t had the chance to ask him about that.  I think we're still waiting on the final conclusion of that investigation. Q    Is he open-minded about that?  He doesn’t know -- MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think any time we have somebody interfering with our election, that would be considered a problem, and I think the President would certainly recognize that.   Matthew.   Q    Sarah, I appreciate it.  Two questions.  First, as has been mentioned, Vice President Pence yesterday said the firing was based on the recommendation of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.  We know now that that's not true.  Was the Vice President misled again, or did he mislead the American people? MS. SANDERS:  I believe I answered that question. Q    But if you have, I don’t think I caught it, because the Vice President said yesterday that the President chose to accept and support the decision of the Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General. MS. SANDERS:  He certainly accepted the Deputy Attorney -- Q    (Inaudible) going to do it either way.  MS. SANDERS:  But that doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t still accept his recommendation.  I mean, they're on the same page.  Like, why are we arguing about the semantics of whether or not he accepted it?  They agreed.  I mean, I'm not sure how he didn’t accept the Deputy Attorney General's recommendation when they agreed with one another. Q    So if I may just switch topics slightly.  If the President knew he was going to do this, why ask for those memos to begin with?  Why not just fire Comey?  Why have these memos put out and then explain that he did it because of the memos, but then say that he was going to do it either way?  I'm confused as to why we even got those memos. MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think he wanted it to get the feedback from the Deputy Attorney General, who the Director of the FBI reports to.  Again, it further solidified the decision that he had made.  The only person that can fire Comey was the President.  He made that decision.  It was clearly the right one, as evidenced by all of the comments, both by House and Senate Democrats, Republicans, and many people within the FBI. I think instead of getting so lost in the process -- did this happen at 12:01 or 12:02, did he fire him because he wore a red tie or a blue tie -- he fired him because he was not fit to do the job.  It's that simple.  This shouldn’t be a complicated process.  The President knew that Director Comey was not up to the task.  He decided that he wasn’t the right person in the job.  He wanted somebody that could bring credibility back to the FBI.  That had been lost over these last several months.  The President made that decision.  He made it; he moved forward.  It was the right one.  I don’t think that the back-and-forth makes that much difference. Q    Did you call on me? MS. SANDERS:  Yes, I'm sorry. Q    Okay, thank you.  Sarah, going back to what you said about Democrats -- yeah, you have some Democrats that say that Comey should have been fired, but they're questioning the timing.  Why now?  Even though the Deputy Attorney General did do that, they're questioning why now.  He couldn’t wait anymore? MS. SANDERS:  I think that I've answered this.  I hate to again just keep repeating myself, but we're kind of getting lost on the same questions here.  He had decided that he wasn’t fit.  There's never going to be a good time to fire someone, whether it's on a Tuesday or a Friday. Q    Why not day one, when he comes in? MS. SANDERS:  He decided he wanted to give Director Comey a chance.  He did.  And he felt like he wasn’t up to the task. Q    And then last question:  Monday, Sean Spicer, when he was at the podium, he said after the testimony with Clapper and Yates, he said -- he talked about there was no collusion from what Clapper said.  But he also said that there needs to be a timeline when the Russia investigation ends.  And then yesterday you said it should continue.  Which one is it?  Should it continue or should it end?  Because Spicer said the President wanted it to end, Monday.  And now, yesterday, you said it should continue.  I mean, I'm just trying to find out which one it is.   MS. SANDERS:  I've said that we wanted to come to its completion.  We wanted to continue until it is finished, which we would like to happen soon, so that we can focus on the things that we think most Americans, frankly, care a whole lot more about.  I think the people in this room are obsessed with this story, a lot more than the people that we talk to and we hear from every day.  We'd like to be focused on the problems that they have.  That's the point -- is we’d love for this to be completed.  But we also want it to be completed with integrity.  And I think that was one of the other reasons, frankly, that I think that the decision the President made was the right one, because I think it adds credibility and integrity back to the FBI where a lot of people, frankly, were questioning.   Q    We now know the President fired the FBI Director with more than six years left on his 10-year term because he was a show-boater, a grandstander.  How important is it that the next FBI director not be a show-boater or a grandstander?  And how important is it that this person show loyalty to the President? MS. SANDERS:  I think that the main factor that they're looking for is that they're loyal to the justice system, they're loyal to the American people.  This President is looking for somebody who can come in, that is independent, and has the support, I think, across the board, whether it's Republicans, Democrats, members of the FBI, and certainly the American people.   Again, it wasn’t just one thing that caused the President to make this decision.  A large part of why he made this decision was because he didn’t feel like Director Comey was up to the job.  He had watched -- it was just an erosion of confidence that he had in his ability to carry out the task that needed to be done.  He's looking for somebody who can do that.   Jordan. Q    Thank you, Sarah.  Two questions.  First, I want to follow up on what John asked about, the rank and file of the FBI.  Don’t you think the acting director of the FBI has a better handle on the rank and file than you do? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I'm not going to get in a back and forth on who has a better handle.  Again, I've heard from multiple individuals that are very happy about the President's decision, and I know that it was the right one.  I believe that most of the people that we've talked to also believe it was the right decision to make. Q    And I want to also ask about the meeting yesterday between President Trump and the Russian Foreign Minister.  Can you walk us through how a photographer from either a Russian state news outlet or the Russian government got into that meeting and got those photographs out? MS. SANDERS:  Yeah.  The same way that they would -- whoever the President was meeting with when it comes to a foreign minister or a head of state.  Both individuals had official photographers in the room.  We had an official photographer in the room, as did they. Q    Usually, media -- independent media in the U.S. is typically invited into those meetings.  Why didn’t that happen in this case? MS. SANDERS:  It varies, actually.  Not always.  Particularly sometimes, the protocol, when it is not the head of state, and prior to the President meeting with the head of state, that wouldn’t always take place.  So, again, proper protocol was followed in this procedure. Q    Has the President been questioned by the FBI with regard to their investigation into Russian interference in the election? MS. SANDERS:  Not that I'm aware of. Q    Does he expect to be? MS. SANDERS:  I haven’t had a chance to ask him that question, so I don’t know.  I'm not going to guess on what he may expect. Major. Q    So, at the Justice Department, there's a general protocol that discourages conversations with the President of the United States by the FBI director about anything that might involve the President.  That's the general aspect of the protocol that's usually required to ensure that there is no confusion about political interference of any kind, of even the impression or the appearance of political influence on the FBI.  That's the standard procedure.  You just said here it was appropriate for the President of the United States to ask whether or not he was under investigation.  Why is it appropriate if that's not consistent with the guidelines at the Justice Department to avoid that very encounter? MS. SANDERS:  We've talked to several -- again, several legal scholars have weighed in on this and said that there was nothing wrong with the President asking that question. Q    So the Justice Department should change its protocol on this? MS. SANDERS:  I haven’t seen their protocol.  I'm only speaking to the information that I have at this -- Q    What you think and the President thinks. MS. SANDERS:  No, it's what I think.  I mean, look at the people that followed up the interview.  There were multiple attorneys that came on after and specifically stated that it was not inappropriate and it wasn’t wrong for the President to do so.  So, again, I can only base it off -- I'm not an attorney, I don’t even play one on TV -- but what I can tell you is what I've heard from legal minds and people that actually are attorneys, and that's their opinion.  So I have to trust the justice system on that fact, too. Q    Would you say, based on the experience that you and Sean and this communications office had Tuesday and Wednesday, that you were given all of the best information to relay to the American public, through us -- and your job is to relay that information to the American public; we're only intermediaries -- about what happened with this firing and the rationale for it? MS. SANDERS:  It's funny that you mention intermediaries.  You seem to take a much more proactive approach most of the time.  But I'll go with intermediaries for today. Look, I think we were absolutely given the information that we could have at that time.  It was a quick-moving process.  We took the information we had, as best we had it, and got it out to the American people as quickly as we could. Q    And would you say that that information was accurate then or is more accurate now? MS. SANDERS:  I would say that after having a conversation with the President, you don’t get much more accurate than that. Q    And so by that standard, should reporters and the country essentially wait for a pronouncement from the President before believing that which is stated on his behalf by the White House communications staff? MS. SANDERS:  Look, Major, I'm not going to get into back and forth, that we have to have like a direct quote every single time.  In this process, I gave you the best information I had at the moment.  I still don’t think that it contradicts the President's decision.  You guys want to get lost in the process.   Q    I don’t think asking you a question and getting an answer is lost in the process, Sarah, with all respect. MS. SANDERS:  And I'm answering those questions.  It's very simple:  The President decided to fire Director Comey.  Nobody else gets to make that decision.  And he made it, he stands by it, as do the rest of us.   Q    Two questions.  Following up on this, back in, I think, October of last year, the former President was highly criticized by members of the FBI and other ethical folks outside of the FBI for making some comments on television that sort of suggested that he had an opinion about how the Hillary Clinton email case should go.  And the charge was that he was interfering, that he was putting his thumb on the scale of an ongoing, active investigation.  There was a lot of criticism from Republicans of the President about that.   Talk to me about how that -- how what this President did in his series of conversations with the FBI director doesn’t go far beyond what former President Obama did?  And to Major's point, how can you argue -- regardless of maybe some pundits on TV who might be saying otherwise -- how can you argue that that doesn’t have an appearance of trying to influence an investigation that's actively going on? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think the President has encouraged this investigation to take place and complete so that we can move forward.  We've been as compliant as possible throughout the entire process.  We will continue to do so.  Nobody wants this investigation to go forward complete and end with integrity more than the President. Q    But people clearly know which way he wants it to come out, right?   MS. SANDERS:  On the right side.  I think that he wants it to come out -- he's very well aware of the actions he has or hasn’t taken.  He knows he didn’t take any action.  And I think he's ready for the rest of you guys to understand that as well. Q    And one last question, just to follow up on the FBI thing.  And I'm not trying to be overly combative here, but you said now today, and I think you said again yesterday, that you personally have talked to countless FBI officials, employees, since this happened. MS. SANDERS:  Correct. Q    I mean, really?  So are we talking -- MS. SANDERS:  Between like email, text messages -- absolutely. Q    Like 50? MS. SANDERS:  Yes. Q    Sixty, seventy? MS. SANDERS:  Look, we’re not going to get into a numbers game.  I mean, I have heard from a large number of individuals that work at the FBI that said that they're very happy with the President's decision.  I mean, I don’t know what I else I can say. Q    Sarah, there's a report from The Wall Street Journal that the Deputy Attorney General asked the White House Counsel to correct the version of events that was coming out initially after the Comey firing.  Is that accurate?  And does that contribute to the different version of events that we've seen over the last 48 hours? MS. SANDERS:  I'm not aware of a specific ask for a correction.  I do know that we all want to make sure that we get this right.  And that's been our -- what we've attempted to do all along.  It's the reason we sent the update last night.  I know there were several questions after the briefing yesterday, and I addressed that again in the opening today.  Our goal is to get this as right and clear as we can. Q    And did the President know that Comey had sought more resources before his investigation, before he made the decision? MS. SANDERS:  No.  And I also think, based on what I've seen, the Department of Justice has also pushed back and said that that's not accurate.  But I would refer you to them. Sarah. Q    So, Sarah, was it a mistake for the White House to try to pin the decision to fire James Comey on Rod Rosenstein? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t think there was ever an attempt to pin the decision on the Deputy Attorney General. Q    -- it was on his recommendation.   MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think his recommendation, again, it was extremely clear.  The President, though, makes the decision.  The buck stops with him.  Nobody has ever tried to say that this wasn’t the President's decision, that he wasn’t the one that carried it out.  And to try to, I think, conflate those things is just not what took place.  We know that the President has been thinking about this for a long time.  Wednesday, it certainly, I think, expedited that -- the Director's testimony from last Wednesday.  And then getting the recommendation from the Deputy Attorney General I think just further solidified the President's decision. Q    And just to clarify one thing you said.  You said the President has encouraged this investigation into Russia.  He wants to see it reach its completion sooner rather than later.  How has he encouraged it if he just fired the man who was overseeing the Russia investigation? MS. SANDERS:  There are multiple people that are part of this, and it's not just the FBI.  You've got the House Committee, the Senate Committee.   Look, again, the point is, we want this to come to its conclusion.  We want it to come to its conclusion with integrity.  And we think that we've actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen. Thanks so much, guys. END  2:29 P.M. EDT    

23 июля 2016, 19:05

Самая большая частная яхта в мире

Немецкая компания под названием Lürssen, которая специализируется на выпуске элитных и роскошных яхт выпустила в 2013 году самую огромную в мире мега яхту, назвав ее Azzam.Данная яхта является самым большим чартерным моторным судном. Фото 2. Помимо того, что модель класса Аззам является самым большим судном на всем свете, даже больше чем яхта самого Романа Абрамовича, она также является одной из самых скоростных в своем классе. Её размеры поражают. Только представьте: 180 метров – это два футбольных поля или 12 железнодорожных вагонов. При этом Azzam может легко разгоняться до максимальной скорости 30 узлов (55 км/ч). В этом ей помогают две газовые турбины общей мощностью 94 000 л.с., четыре водомётные установки и турбокомпрессорный дизельный двигатель Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C мощностью 108 920 л.с. (80 088 кВт).Это самый большой двигатель в мире: его длина – 27,1 м, высота – 13,4 м, вес – более 2 300 т. Изначально разработанный для контейнеровозов, он идеально подошёл для 180-метровой мега-яхты. Можно не сомневаться, что при таких габаритах на борту мега-яхты осталось достаточно места, чтобы реализовать любые фантазии заказчика. Даже главный салон у неё не имеет аналогов в мире: длина – 29 м, ширина 18 м.Фото 3. Для обслуживания судна таких внушительных размеров необходимо пятьсот человек экипажа. В бак яхты этого класса можно залить около одного миллиона топлива, что дает возможность своему владельцу и гостям путешествовать по миру круглый год, при этом не заходить в порт для заправки судна. Одним из достоинств яхты класса аззам является, то, что она с легкостью может ходить по мелководью на очень большой скорости.Фото 4. Дизайном внутренней отделки занимался популярный и талантливый французский дизайнер, имя которого Кристоф Леони. Знаменитый дизайнер в своей работе придерживался стиля ампир.Фото 5. Подробной информации об интерьере судна на данный момент нет, однако известно из достоверных источников, что площадь самого большого салона azzam составляет тридцать на двадцать метров, данный салон не содержит столбов, которые разделяют внутреннее пространство. Также известно, что длина открытой террасы составляет свыше восемнадцати метров.Фото 6. Интерьер яхты, Кристоф Леони оформил в великолепном императорском, дорогом и роскошном стиле. Большинство мебели, которые гармонично размещены на судне, являются антикварными, изготовленными из ценных и дорогих пород деревьев.Частично антикварная мебель расписана золотом и украшена ювелирными камнями. Говорят, что яхта этого класса на своем борту имеет подводную лодку, а также вертолет.Фото 7. Конструкторы сообщили, что данное судно является наиболее сложным и длительным проектом фирмы. Mubarak Saad al Ahbabi является ведущим инженером, который занимался строительством суперяхты.Фото 8. Заказчик и текущий владелец яхты Azzam – Халифа ибн Зайд Аль Нахайян, президент ОАЭ и эмир Абу-Даби, чьё состояние оценивается Forbes в 15 миллиардов долларов США. Постройке судна предшествовал конкурс проектов, в котором победили экстерьер от миланской студии Nauta Yacht Design и интерьер от французского дизайнера Christophe Leoni. Техническое управление постройкой осуществляла компания Burgess Yachts. Главным инженером выступил Мубарак Саад аль Ахбаби. Была версия, что вот этот Принц на белой яхте владелец яхты.Фото 9. Nauta Yachts является итальянской компанией, которая занималась проектированием судна класса Azzam, а непосредственно строительством этой великолепной и величественной мега яхты занималась немецкая фирма Lurssen, которая расположена в городе Бремен.Фото 10. Известно, что стиль, в котором оформлены внутренние помещения Azzam, близок к неоклассицизму начала XIX века – времени правления Наполеона Бонапарта. В отсутствие фотографий с борта мега-яхты – их ещё никому не удавалось получить, даже авторитетным международным яхтенным изданиям – можно представить нечто напоминающее императорские спальни в Версале.Фото 11. Azzam зарегистрирована как чартерная яхта, однако открытой информации о возможности и стоимости её чартера нигде не представлено. Крайне редко яхту можно встретить в Аравийском море, ещё реже в Средиземноморье. В мае 2015 года очевидцам удалось увидеть её проходящей Гибралтар. В настоящее время – и большую часть времени года – Azzam пришвартована в порту Халифа в Абу-Даби.Фото 12. Фото 13. Фото 14. Фото 15. Фото 16. Фото 17. Фото 18. Фото 19. Фото 20. Фото 21. Фото 22. Фото 23. Фото 24. Фото 25. Фото 26. источникиhttp://yachtrus.ru/yacht-azzam/http://www.themilliardaire.co/yacht/azzam-the-worlds-largest-yacht-5927/http://ruyachts.com/journal/azzam-lurssen-0960/http://www.pravda.ru/photo/album/21532/http://www.infoniac.ru/news/Azzam-samaya-bol-shaya-yahta-v-mire-sdelano-v-Germanii.htmlВот еще несколько интересных кораблей: вот например действительно ли Экраноплан необходим нам … как покойнику калоши, а вот Самый длинный в мире контейнеровоз. Помните про Невезучего великана «Thomas W.Lawson» и Самая большая подводная лодка в мире. Вот еще Мобильная платформа десанта или пирс в океане и знаменитая Неуязвимая Вайолетт