I think I will got with the opinion of the US intel community on this one, over Assange. I don't think he has quite the same level of investigative power.

Sample article, not definitive.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-intelligence-hacked-dnc-emails-says-top-u-s-official-n618936

Lol @enoch. Making out is definitely not on the agenda.

And yes, sadly, stupid laws on slander and liability exist. Just like stupid laws exist elsewhere. They are crap and garbage. But if we can go to war over faulty intel, surely our elected officials are dumb enough to let faulty slander go unpunished.

At least insofar that words have little consequences, you can see that by the content I posted right? Where the rapper threatens his wife, an FBI agent, and school children, and gets off without a record (which I forgot to include the children.)

Passing along information goes like this. Is it reasonable to suspect someone is who they claim on the internet? Kind of (Because the internet is impossible to verify ANYONE.) This is important because the "woman" was claiming to be 13, felt sexually harassed in her vulnerable years, etc. It is therefore the child who is calling the harasser a pedio, and the feminist bitch simply repeating a "reasonable-to-believe" statement. Or some such. The offended would have to prove that the comments were A-Factually known by the repeater as inaccurate and B-Damaging, and C-Not made in satire (Go back to the rap video for proof that stupid arguments can be made.) Even the damage could be argued, as what "damages" were caused by that particular comment?

News does this ALL the TIME for effect. A lot of the time they preface comments with such statements as "According to an eyewitness" or "Allegedly" or some other bullshit. But that does little to mitigate false information's impact on people.

My thoughts exactly. What lives inside? Intel Inside! It's not a story, it's an AD!

48-layer NAND you say? Gimme, gimme, gimme!

Next you'll be telling me that Intel put a 1-200%ish mark-up on their top end CPU's because they have no real competition from AMD....

......*checks parts shop* OH NOES that's exactly what the twats have done!"!!!!

From the interwebs:
"Nixie isn’t going to be on this Christmas’ shopping list and is simply a concept at this stage."
and
"The Nixie prototype, as it is now, looks like it could break at a moment’s notice, and resembles more a school science project than the next big wearable."
and
"Nixie is currently in prototype stage and as an idea, was born only ten days before the deadline for the competition. But despite having a lot of work to do, the team's pitch convinced the judges not only that the product is brilliant, but that the team has a viable business plan and can make the product, quite literally, take off. Prize money will be used for improving the propellers, motors and object navigation, as well as miniaturisation of the whole product."

I still think Intel got conned.

What this tells me is that everybody sees potential but that what they showed in the video was pure concept design. They have a very long road ahead of them still. My key issues are and remain:
Getting the booms to bend around the wrist so as to bring the motor pods back together.
Fitting the electronics into a format that will fit onto a wrist.
Maintain an acceptable level of performance for an acceptable level of time.

Funny thing is that they mention all of the things I've commented on:
Propellers, miniaturization, and navigation.

I would add form factor and battery life. But Props will be a key issue as getting efficient props at this size is very difficult and maintain tolerances in production.

These competitions never give out cash prizes for theory, they only pay off for actual working prototypes. Otherwise SpaceX would be a movie, as would Deepflight and whatever they called the solar plane...along with dozens of other technologies that have come from these competitions. They just don't pay off on these competitions unless you can PROVE you solved the problems (known AND unknown) and MADE at least one prototype that works.
Intel is no dummy. They know full well you can use their own product to create a video showing anything you wish, so they would NOT be 'conned' out of $500000 with a video. That's a silly thing to say.
I'll come back and tell you that you seem to be wrong today. :-)

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, you may be right it will take 5 years to make them cheap and durable enough to sell them.

No I'm not. They won a competition based off of a video they did. I have not seen anything from them that shows them doing what they present in the video.
Congratulations they conned Intel out of $500K. You can come back and tell me I was wrong when it is available for sale and shipping and is in a similar form to what they presented. Talk to you in 5+ years.

Seems you were 100% wrong....

http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2014/11/03/chip-shot-nixie-wins-500000-grand-prize-in-intel-make-it-wearable-challenge

Along with Payback, I too am running into oddities accessing the site. For me, it appears to be browser based.

Google Chrome, Safari and Firefox, it works fine. Opera, my preferred browser, has stopped working with the videosift address. The cdn version or direct IP routes work fine.

The ipv4 address matches, and I've yet to acknowledge ipv6 but I'll assume it's accurate

videosift.com -> 2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe70:f3af, 66.228.54.105
cdn.videosift.com -> 108.161.188.129

FWIW,

User Agent:Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9.4) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.16
Build number:1860

I'm fairly conflicted.

The issue with having an assassination program with virtually no oversight, run by a government whose people are all too willing to ignore the collateral damage it brings to foreigners is pretty obvious. You could argue that terrorists target the US because of genuine grievances (past blowback particularly from intervention during the Cold War motivated largely by opposing a communist threat over any moral considerations). From there you could argue that if only the US avoided foreign intervention, in time it would no longer be a terrorist target and have no need for such morally questionable action as using drones with significant civilian casualty risk.

I'm sceptical of this argument. For one I think the espoused goals of many terrorist organisations are often a sham. They may start as violent reactionaries to some genuinely held grievance. But mature organisations initiate a conflict with the US because notoriety brings financial support and more fighters which in turn improves their ability to project power, which is their ultimate goal. So I don't see US disengagement as a solution because terrorist attacks and beheadings of its nationals will continue to politically galvanise the US into action. At that point having being disengaged beforehand (lacking intel, ability to target leadership with drones) is just a disadvantage.

I also don't see a government other than the US capable and willing to rally a group of nations and take a leading role against a group like ISIS. It's fair to say that the US invasion of Iraq was largely responsible for destabilising an authoritarian government under Saddam that would have prevented the emergence of a Sunni group like this. But then, imagine if Saddam was still in power in reaction to the Arab Spring and the result was a situation like Syria today. It is all too possible that a similar group would have emerged in a power vacuum not caused by US intervention.

My point is, I agree it is horrible to see civilians being killed by drones and having to live under the constant terror of attack but I don't see a better solution. In fact it seems that drones are probably the solution with the least risk of civilian casualty. There is a reason why the Yemeni/Pakistani government tacitly support them even while publicly disavowing them.

Of course I would like to see them used more judiciously but I am sceptical that this is feasibly possible. I do not doubt that the CIA/Pentagon who run the program are familiar with blowback and the risks of inciting attacks on the US through the killing of innocents in these strikes. It is possible incentives for 'results' may lead to their overuse at the expense of civilian lives and the long term cost. Maybe more openness would be best. Then again more openness would serve as a rallying cry for existing terrorist organisations.

@Trancecoach: We're not going to agree, and that's fine. This'll be my last reply.

Retailer strong-arming: Imagine Apple makes up 95% of Best Buy's tablet sales. Off-brand-X wants to sell tablets at Best Buy. Apple says: If you sell Off-brand-X tablets, we will not let you sell our tablets. Off-brand-X is likely to only provide a tiny profit to Best Buy, compared to Apple, so they comply. (This actually happened, in a different form, with Intel paying computer manufacturers to not use AMD processors. See here). Also see price-fixing.

Widget-distribution-prevention: This is just an extension of the previous point.

Buying up all of the competitors: Ma Bell. Old AT&T. That should be enough said. But, if that's not enough, now Ma Bell is nearly entirely re-formed. The US was one government approval away from having cell carriers limited to Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T. That's been spoiled, now, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that future continuing on to two carriers colluding and price-fixing (as Verizon and AT&T pretty much have freedom to do anyway). This is another quasi-natural-monopoly situation (or at least a tragedy of the commons situation), in that the radio spectrum is not infinite. To keep the spectrum usable at all, blocks of frequencies are doled out to radio/TV/cellular/military/etc. etc. with stiff penalties for interference.

Patents: Patents present a litany of problems, but the world without them is even worse. You have two things happen, both of which are bad:
1) New technology remains veiled in secrecy indefinitely; no one else can riff on it even after patents would normally have expired
2) My previous point. The marginal utility of R&D decreases drastically based on the likelihood of a competitor being able to get hold of your secrets before you can profit on them sufficiently.
This is exactly why patents were created. It's a temporary monopoly granted by the government in exchange for the promise that the knowledge will be released to the universe after X years.

Predatory pricing: If excessive, it's illegal. That's why it doesn't happen very often. In a country with anti-trust laws, you just want to hurt your competitor, you don't want to drive them out of the market.

Natural monopolies: Since you brought this one up, you can choose your energy service because the government forces the utility to lease its lines and to decouple distribution from production. That is to say, you have a free market in production because the distribution is not free. See here. My state is the same way.

Misinformation: Who vets marketing claims in a free market? My competitor says that their food is organic. Well--hell, so is mine! They're environmentally conscientious? So am I! Their drug cures cancer? Mine cures it even better!

Oh, shit. Someone caught me in a lie! Well, I'll just force the media to ignore it and ramp up my disinformation campaign.

While on one hand, I've always known that foreign aid is barely a drop in the bucket of our budget, but on the other, I'd still be hesitant to increase foreign aid to be completely honest.

so much shit that needs fixing and investment here domestically.

If we really could make a decent dent in military spending...then I'd be more comfortable with more foreign aid.

hate to say it but don't these people need to overthrow their own dictators and overlords? I'm ok with giving them some aid and giving them intel and other kinds of non-hardware military support. but they do need to fight their own damned battles.

I'd love to know how Intel/AMD design new architecture, and specifically what degree of abstraction they have, because its difficult to imagine how anybody can get their heads around all the intricacies of modern multicore chip.

Dunno man, dint' look like there were too many scared-shitless defenders on that boat-All happened in seconds from the looks of things....Those marines most-likely had intel prior to the take-down...easy-peasy.