Binär Option Trading Strategie 2016 Militär Billig ...

Where’s the best place to live in light of collapse?

Ok we are 323 comments in on the collapse post and 98% didn’t bother to make even a slightly thoughtful answer. So... i guess i will be the change i want to see in the world
First off, If you are the fatalistic nihlistic type you can just go where you think it will be nice to die, maybe that is with friends and family, maybe it is on a beach in mexico, or feeding your body to the last polar bear. For everyone else that still has the instinct and drive for self-preservation….
What are the best places to be leading up to or during collapse?

First let's question the question.

What difference does it make to know "What are the best places to be leading up to or during collapse"?
The answer is dependent upon your own personal situation. Your personal situation has limiting factors.
Your personal Limiting Factors constrain you usually somewhere between those extremes, everyone has different options.
If we assume you are asking the question "What are the best places to be leading up to or during collapse" because you want to have the best standard of living available for as long as possible or simply survive the incoming population bottleneck, then the practical question becomes ...
"What are the best places to be, leading up to or during collapse, that i can get to, and establish myself in such a way that I can maintain the best standard of living possible for as long as I can or simply increase my probability of surviving the incoming population bottleneck."
It is important to ask this question to constrain the search space to the possible. It makes fuck-all difference if a somali goat herder knows about the ToP SeCret ElitE mULtibiLLioNaIre New ZEaLand sOUth IsLaNd ReDoUbt BuNkeR CoMmUnITy It is not going to help him and should not be in the search space as a survival strategy.
TL:DR Constrain your search space to what is realistically achievable for you.
  1. Start with your baseline probability of survival and increase it.
  2. Don't let a search for "best place" stop you from achieving "good enough place" or "better than where i was previously place".
  3. You are just trying to be an early adopter of increasing your survival probability stats before the non collapse-pilled masses.
  4. Think of surviving bottlenecks like surviving a charging bear attack, you don't need to be able to outrun the bear, you only need to be able to outrun the slowest people in the group up to the point the bear's appetite is satiated.
  5. Remember working with others can leverage group synergies and massively increase the realistic capabilities, but this requires you establish social cohesion with sane cooperative people that have a similar goal orientation. /greencommunes
What are the best places to be, leading up to or during collapse, that i can get to, and establish myself in such a way that I can maintain the best standard of living possible for as long as I can or simply increase my probability of surviving the incoming population bottleneck." 

Ok now lets question the new question some more...

In order to answer this we need to untangle some of the subjective and objective elements.
The objective elements of human survival are well known.
Optimizing location is a series of subjective trade-offs. There is no perfect place, they all have advantages and disadvantages.
So you must decide your personal preference of which goods and bads you most desire and what your scenario expectations are of the future.
Your personal preferences and collapse expectations mean the “best area” is specific to you.
What you can achieve and what do you desire, find the overlap between the two, then do research to find the place that gives you the most goods with the least bads and increases your probability of survival and standard of living.
One of the best strategies is to adapt yourself to your local circumstances to take advantage of the advantages, and plan ahead to mitigate the disadvantages, it is really all most people can do for themselves.
Do you like not living in unbearable heat, maybe moving to greenland is NOT a better option than just buying 400watts of solar panels and attaching it to a small efficient AC that keeps one room of your house cool even during summer electricity blackouts. Most problems have multiple solutions, it is worth it to take time and think about things from an economic perspective and different time horizon perspectives.
Increasing your optionality is better than narrowing it when it comes to survival, rather than the binary thinking, of “go way out into the northern mountains, farm and live in a bunker” versus “be a full time yuppie and ignore collapse issues”. Getting 2 acres you can put a cheap used rv camper on and go do permaculture on during weekends, near enough your place of employment/where you live, is probably a better plan. Indeed the small dacha’s and country gardens helped many people survive the collapse of the USSR. They would spend weekends and haul potatoes/veggies back to the city with them on the bus. Hedge your bets to cover the most scenarios including the most likely scenarios like losing your job or getting in a car accident. Survival and thriving always has and always will involve dynamic adaptation.
Here is a very short list of some of potential trade-offs that you may need to think about and some brief descriptions of how they can affect things. This is NOT meant to be a systematic or exhaustive analysis, this is just me stream-of-conscious flowing on strong coffee to help others start thinking about it for themselves. There are unlimited variables
Most of these maps are of the USA. If you have other maps please post them in the comments and i will edit this post to squeeze them in. From these maps and a little critical thinking you can figure out where is best for YOU. If you need to figure something out go to google images and search for maps it is easier than ever to find what you need. But remember the map is not the territory, there are great spots maps don't have the resolution to show.These are just some random things i pulled up real quick. mapporn is a good source
There are a lot of submaps,for example if you click california then it brings first and last frost date maps, heat maps etc…
On the left hand side there are lots of links to climate and biogeography maps
Firehazard map middle of nowhere
hdd+cdd= change in energy requirements for climate control Find out what your city will be like in 60 years
human development index solar and wind potential combined 1% of population lives here land quality Fig. 2 Spatial distributions of projected damages. County-level median values for average 2080 to 2099 RCP8.5 impacts. Impacts are changes relative to counterfactual “no additional climate change” trajectories. Color indicates magnitude of impact in median projection; outline color indicates level of agreement across projections (thin white outline, inner 66% of projections disagree in sign; no outline, ≥83% of projections agree in sign; black outline, ≥95% agree in sign; thick white outline, state borders; maps without outlines shown in fig. S2). Negative damages indicate economic gains. (A) Percent change in yields, area-weighted average for maize, wheat, soybeans, and cotton. (B) Change in all-cause mortality rates, across all age groups. (C) Change in electricity demand. (D) Change in labor supply of full-time-equivalent workers for low-risk jobs where workers are minimally exposed to outdoor temperature. (E) Same as (D), except for high-risk jobs where workers are heavily exposed to outdoor temperatures. (F) Change in damages from coastal storms. (G) Change in property-crime rates. (H) Change in violent-crime rates. (I) Median total direct economic damage across all sectors [(A) to (H)]. Nuclear targets Chernobyl fallout, demonstrates the nonlinear patterns of distribution Reliance on nuclear energy. Global solar potential Renewable electric supply
Power plants Red and orange have same populations Agricultural suitability how america uses its land Life expectancy by congressional district food for humansgreen versus animal feed purple line that separates wet and dry USA Is food a human right? See paupericide food self sufficiency[email protected]/Worlds-hybrid-PV-Wind-power-plant-cumulative-FLh-map.png combination wind+photovoltaic capacity human appropriated net primary productivity avoid the pink and orange unless your strategy is cannabilism in fast or hard crash. water shortage malnutrition
submitted by MakeTotalDestr0i to collapse [link] [comments]

Episode 9 REDONE ideas

Because of the Reddit character limit, I am posting this separately.
Episode IX - Balance in the Force:
If The Force Awakens was a bad premise executed incredibly well and The Last Jedi was an incredible premise executed badly, The Rise of Skywalker is a terrible premise executed horribly.
I disagree with the popular notion that Rian cornered J.J. because TLJ screwed everything up. I have many problems with The Last Jedi, but Rian took what could have been a visionless carbon-copy of the OT, and gave a new bold direction, an inspiring purpose for this trilogy to exist. It opened up so many possibilities for Episode 9, but J.J. took the easiest soulless path. Episode 9 should never have been the plot conclusion that reverses from The Last Jedi and attempts to be a thoughtless fan service finale that ties up the Prequels and the Originals by redoing Return of the Jedi. Episode 9 should have been the thematic conclusion that wraps up the motifs of the Prequels, the Originals, and The Last Jedi.
The Rise of Skywalker failed to answer the questions that the trilogy has raised. I am not talking about J.J.'s mystery boxes. Sure, I would have liked to learn how Maz got Luke's lightsaber and who Max von Sydow's character was, but I am talking about the thematic questions. What should the Jedi be and where should the Jedi head toward? What should the galactic government be after the failures of the New Republic? What is the will of the Force? What is the balance? Why is Kylo Ren's path wrong? What is the permanent solution to the chaos that has been repeated again? Despite branding itself to be a finale that attempts to unify the whole saga, The Rise of Skywalker answers none of these because killing Palpy again, this time he is 'dead' dead, solves every problem of the galaxy.
The movie fails to wrap up the 42-year franchise, it fails to wrap up what The Last Jedi has set up, it fails to answer The Force Awakens's questions, only raising more questions, it fails to be a fan-service movie, and it even fails to be a fun popcorn movie as its own. This is Spectre of Star Wars. It bafflingly misunderstands what the essence of Star Wars is.
As the title suggests, this new story is about our heroes exploring what balance in the Force means. Balance is not just killing Palpy again and be done with it. Here are the basic ideas. Let's continue The Last Jedi's message about the power of myth and everyman.
EDIT: I have incorporated EmperorYogg's idea.
The flames of resistance burn brightly! Word of mouth about the heroic act of Jedi Master LUKE SKYWALKER has spread from planet to planet and inspired the galaxy anew.
To suffocate growing unrest, Supreme Leader Hux has silenced all communication between neighboring systems. Defiance is punishable by death.
As the First Order struggles to maintain their systems, Lord KYLO REN rages in search of all records of the Force and anyone associated with it, determined to destroy any threat to his power....
submitted by onex7805 to RewritingNewStarWars [link] [comments]

Vault 7 - CIA Hacking Tools Revealed

Vault 7 - CIA Hacking Tools Revealed
March 07, 2017
from Wikileaks Website

Press Release
Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.
The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence (below image) in Langley, Virgina.
It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including,
  1. malware
  2. viruses
  3. trojans
  4. weaponized "zero day" exploits
  5. malware remote control systems

...and associated documentation.
This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA.
The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include,

  1. Apple's iPhone
  2. Google's Android
  3. Microsoft's Windows
  4. Samsung TVs,

...which are turned into covert microphones.
Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers.
The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.
By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI - below image), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand,
hacking systems trojans viruses,
...and other "weaponized" malware.

Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more codes than those used to run Facebook.
The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.
In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency.
The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that,
"There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'.
Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade.
But the significance of 'Year Zero' goes well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective."

Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the "Year Zero" disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation while avoiding the distribution of 'armed' cyberweapons until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's program and how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published.

Wikileaks has also decided to Redact (see far below) and Anonymize some identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout,
Latin America Europe the United States

While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one ("Year Zero") already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.


CIA malware targets iPhone, Android, smart TVs
CIA malware and hacking tools are built by EDG (Engineering Development Group), a software development group within CCI (Center for Cyber Intelligence), a department belonging to the CIA's DDI (Directorate for Digital Innovation).
The DDI is one of the five major directorates of the CIA (see above image of the CIA for more details).
The EDG is responsible for the development, testing and operational support of all backdoors, exploits, malicious payloads, trojans, viruses and any other kind of malware used by the CIA in its covert operations world-wide.
The increasing sophistication of surveillance techniques has drawn comparisons with George Orwell's 1984, but "Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), which infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones, is surely its most emblematic realization.
The attack against Samsung smart TVs was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom's MI5/BTSS.
After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.
As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations.
The CIA's Mobile Devices Branch (MDB) developed numerous attacks to remotely hack and control popular smart phones. Infected phones can be instructed to send the CIA the user's geolocation, audio and text communications as well as covertly activate the phone's camera and microphone.
Despite iPhone's minority share (14.5%) of the global smart phone market in 2016, a specialized unit in the CIA's Mobile Development Branch produces malware to infest, control and exfiltrate data from iPhones and other Apple products running iOS, such as iPads.
CIA's arsenal includes numerous local and remote "zero days" developed by CIA or obtained from GCHQ, NSA, FBI or purchased from cyber arms contractors such as Baitshop.
The disproportionate focus on iOS may be explained by the popularity of the iPhone among social, political, diplomatic and business elites.
A similar unit targets Google's Android which is used to run the majority of the world's smart phones (~85%) including Samsung, HTC and Sony. 1.15 billion Android powered phones were sold last year.
"Year Zero" shows that as of 2016 the CIA had 24 "weaponized" Android "zero days" which it has developed itself and obtained from GCHQ, NSA and cyber arms contractors.
These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of, WhatsApp
  1. Signal
  2. Telegram
  3. Wiebo
  4. Confide
  5. Cloackman hacking the "smart" phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.
CIA malware targets Windows, OSx, Linux, routers
The CIA also runs a very substantial effort to infect and control Microsoft Windows users with its malware.
This includes multiple local and remote weaponized "zero days", air gap jumping viruses such as "Hammer Drill" which infects software distributed on CD/DVDs, infectors for removable media such as USBs, systems to hide data in images or in covert disk areas ("Brutal Kangaroo") and to keep its malware infestations going.
Many of these infection efforts are pulled together by the CIA's Automated Implant Branch (AIB), which has developed several attack systems for automated infestation and control of CIA malware, such as "Assassin" and "Medusa".
Attacks against Internet infrastructure and webservers are developed by the CIA's Network Devices Branch (NDB).
The CIA has developed automated multi-platform malware attack and control systems covering Windows, Mac OS X, Solaris, Linux and more, such as EDB's "HIVE" and the related "Cutthroat" and "Swindle" tools, which are described in the examples section far below.
CIA 'hoarded' vulnerabilities ("zero days")
In the wake of Edward Snowden's leaks about the NSA, the U.S. technology industry secured a commitment from the Obama administration that the executive would disclose on an ongoing basis - rather than hoard - serious vulnerabilities, exploits, bugs or "zero days" to Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other US-based manufacturers.
Serious vulnerabilities not disclosed to the manufacturers places huge swathes of the population and critical infrastructure at risk to foreign intelligence or cyber criminals who independently discover or hear rumors of the vulnerability.
If the CIA can discover such vulnerabilities so can others.
The U.S. government's commitment to the Vulnerabilities Equities Process came after significant lobbying by US technology companies, who risk losing their share of the global market over real and perceived hidden vulnerabilities.
The government stated that it would disclose all pervasive vulnerabilities discovered after 2010 on an ongoing basis.
"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments. Many of the vulnerabilities used in the CIA's cyber arsenal are pervasive and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.
As an example, specific CIA malware revealed in "Year Zero" is able to penetrate, infest and control both the Android phone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitter accounts.
The CIA attacks this software by using undisclosed security vulnerabilities ("zero days") possessed by the CIA but if the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone else who has obtained or discovered the vulnerability.
As long as the CIA keeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and Google (who make the phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remain hackable.
The same vulnerabilities exist for the population at large, including the U.S. Cabinet, Congress, top CEOs, system administrators, security officers and engineers.
By hiding these security flaws from manufacturers like Apple and Google the CIA ensures that it can hack everyone at the expense of leaving everyone hackable.
'Cyberwar' programs are a serious proliferation risk
Cyber 'weapons' are not possible to keep under effective control.
While nuclear proliferation has been restrained by the enormous costs and visible infrastructure involved in assembling enough fissile material to produce a critical nuclear mass, cyber 'weapons', once developed, are very hard to retain.
Cyber 'weapons' are in fact just computer programs which can be pirated like any other. Since they are entirely comprised of information they can be copied quickly with no marginal cost.
Securing such 'weapons' is particularly difficult since the same people who develop and use them have the skills to exfiltrate copies without leaving traces - sometimes by using the very same 'weapons' against the organizations that contain them.
There are substantial price incentives for government hackers and consultants to obtain copies since there is a global "vulnerability market" that will pay hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for copies of such 'weapons'.
Similarly, contractors and companies who obtain such 'weapons' sometimes use them for their own purposes, obtaining advantage over their competitors in selling 'hacking' services.
Over the last three years the United States intelligence sector, which consists of government agencies such as the CIA and NSA and their contractors, such as Booz Allan Hamilton, has been subject to unprecedented series of data exfiltrations by its own workers.
A number of intelligence community members not yet publicly named have been arrested or subject to federal criminal investigations in separate incidents.
Most visibly, on February 8, 2017 a U.S. federal grand jury indicted Harold T. Martin III with 20 counts of mishandling classified information.
The Department of Justice alleged that it seized some 50,000 gigabytes of information from Harold T. Martin III that he had obtained from classified programs at NSA and CIA, including the source code for numerous hacking tools.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by peer states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike.
U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt is a covert CIA hacker base
In addition to its operations in Langley, Virginia the CIA also uses the U.S. consulate in Frankfurt as a covert base for its hackers covering Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
CIA hackers operating out of the Frankfurt consulate ("Center for Cyber Intelligence Europe" or CCIE) are given diplomatic ("black") passports and State Department cover.
The instructions for incoming CIA hackers make Germany's counter-intelligence efforts appear inconsequential: "Breeze through German Customs because you have your cover-for-action story down pat, and all they did was stamp your passport" Your Cover Story (for this trip) Q: Why are you here? A: Supporting technical consultations at the Consulate. Two earlier WikiLeaks publications give further detail on CIA approaches to customs and secondary screening procedures.
Once in Frankfurt CIA hackers can travel without further border checks to the 25 European countries that are part of the Shengen open border area - including France, Italy and Switzerland.
A number of the CIA's electronic attack methods are designed for physical proximity.
These attack methods are able to penetrate high security networks that are disconnected from the internet, such as police record database. In these cases, a CIA officer, agent or allied intelligence officer acting under instructions, physically infiltrates the targeted workplace.
The attacker is provided with a USB containing malware developed for the CIA for this purpose, which is inserted into the targeted computer. The attacker then infects and exfiltrates data to removable media.
For example, the CIA attack system Fine Dining, provides 24 decoy applications for CIA spies to use.
To witnesses, the spy appears to be running a program showing videos (e.g VLC), presenting slides (Prezi), playing a computer game (Breakout2, 2048) or even running a fake virus scanner (Kaspersky, McAfee, Sophos).
But while the decoy application is on the screen, the underlying system is automatically infected and ransacked.
How the CIA dramatically increased proliferation risks
In what is surely one of the most astounding intelligence own goals in living memory, the CIA structured its classification regime such that for the most market valuable part of "Vault 7", the CIA's, weaponized malware (implants + zero days) Listening Posts (LP) Command and Control (C2) systems, ...the agency has little legal recourse.
The CIA made these systems unclassified.
Why the CIA chose to make its cyber-arsenal unclassified reveals how concepts developed for military use do not easily crossover to the 'battlefield' of cyber 'war'.
To attack its targets, the CIA usually requires that its implants communicate with their control programs over the internet.
If CIA implants, Command & Control and Listening Post software were classified, then CIA officers could be prosecuted or dismissed for violating rules that prohibit placing classified information onto the Internet.
Consequently the CIA has secretly made most of its cyber spying/war code unclassified. The U.S. government is not able to assert copyright either, due to restrictions in the U.S. Constitution.
This means that cyber 'arms' manufactures and computer hackers can freely "pirate" these 'weapons' if they are obtained. The CIA has primarily had to rely on obfuscation to protect its malware secrets.
Conventional weapons such as missiles may be fired at the enemy (i.e. into an unsecured area). Proximity to or impact with the target detonates the ordnance including its classified parts. Hence military personnel do not violate classification rules by firing ordnance with classified parts.
Ordnance will likely explode. If it does not, that is not the operator's intent.
Over the last decade U.S. hacking operations have been increasingly dressed up in military jargon to tap into Department of Defense funding streams.
For instance, attempted "malware injections" (commercial jargon) or "implant drops" (NSA jargon) are being called "fires" as if a weapon was being fired.
However the analogy is questionable.
Unlike bullets, bombs or missiles, most CIA malware is designed to live for days or even years after it has reached its 'target'. CIA malware does not "explode on impact" but rather permanently infests its target. In order to infect target's device, copies of the malware must be placed on the target's devices, giving physical possession of the malware to the target.
To exfiltrate data back to the CIA or to await further instructions the malware must communicate with CIA Command & Control (C2) systems placed on internet connected servers.
But such servers are typically not approved to hold classified information, so CIA command and control systems are also made unclassified.
A successful 'attack' on a target's computer system is more like a series of complex stock maneuvers in a hostile take-over bid or the careful planting of rumors in order to gain control over an organization's leadership rather than the firing of a weapons system.
If there is a military analogy to be made, the infestation of a target is perhaps akin to the execution of a whole series of military maneuvers against the target's territory including observation, infiltration, occupation and exploitation.
Evading forensics and anti-virus
A series of standards lay out CIA malware infestation patterns which are likely to assist forensic crime scene investigators as well as, Apple
  1. Microsoft
  2. Google
  3. Samsung
  4. Nokia
  5. Blackberry
  6. Siemens
  7. anti-virus companies,
...attribute and defend against attacks.
"Tradecraft DO's and DON'Ts" contains CIA rules on how its malware should be written to avoid fingerprints implicating the "CIA, US government, or its witting partner companies" in "forensic review".
Similar secret standards cover the, use of encryption to hide CIA hacker and malware communication (pdf) describing targets & exfiltrated data (pdf) executing payloads (pdf) persisting (pdf), the target's machines over time.
CIA hackers developed successful attacks against most well known anti-virus programs.
These are documented in, AV defeats Personal Security Products Detecting and defeating PSPs PSP/DebuggeRE Avoidance For example, Comodo was defeated by CIA malware placing itself in the Window's "Recycle Bin". While Comodo 6.x has a "Gaping Hole of DOOM".
CIA hackers discussed what the NSA's "Equation Group" hackers did wrong and how the CIA's malware makers could avoid similar exposure.


The CIA's Engineering Development Group (EDG) management system contains around 500 different projects (only some of which are documented by "Year Zero") each with their own sub-projects, malware and hacker tools.
The majority of these projects relate to tools that are used for,
penetration infestation ("implanting") control exfiltration
Another branch of development focuses on the development and operation of Listening Posts (LP) and Command and Control (C2) systems used to communicate with and control CIA implants.
Special projects are used to target specific hardware from routers to smart TVs.
Some example projects are described below, but see the table of contents for the full list of projects described by WikiLeaks' "Year Zero".
The CIA's hand crafted hacking techniques pose a problem for the agency.
Each technique it has created forms a "fingerprint" that can be used by forensic investigators to attribute multiple different attacks to the same entity.
This is analogous to finding the same distinctive knife wound on multiple separate murder victims. The unique wounding style creates suspicion that a single murderer is responsible.
As soon one murder in the set is solved then the other murders also find likely attribution.
The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.
With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.
UMBRAGE components cover,
  1. password collection
  2. webcam capture
  3. data destruction
  4. persistence
  5. privilege escalation
  6. stealth
  7. anti-virus (PSP) avoidance
  8. survey techniques

Fine Dining
Fine Dining comes with a standardized questionnaire i.e menu that CIA case officers fill out.
The questionnaire is used by the agency's OSB (Operational Support Branch) to transform the requests of case officers into technical requirements for hacking attacks (typically "exfiltrating" information from computer systems) for specific operations.
The questionnaire allows the OSB to identify how to adapt existing tools for the operation, and communicate this to CIA malware configuration staff.
The OSB functions as the interface between CIA operational staff and the relevant technical support staff.
Among the list of possible targets of the collection are,
  • 'Asset'
  • 'Liason Asset'
  • 'System Administrator'
  • 'Foreign Information Operations'
  • 'Foreign Intelligence Agencies'
  • 'Foreign Government Entities'
Notably absent is any reference to extremists or transnational criminals. The 'Case Officer' is also asked to specify the environment of the target like the type of computer, operating system used, Internet connectivity and installed anti-virus utilities (PSPs) as well as a list of file types to be exfiltrated like Office documents, audio, video, images or custom file types.
The 'menu' also asks for information if recurring access to the target is possible and how long unobserved access to the computer can be maintained.
This information is used by the CIA's 'JQJIMPROVISE' software (see below) to configure a set of CIA malware suited to the specific needs of an operation.
  1. 'Improvise' is a toolset for configuration, post-processing, payload setup and execution vector
  2. selection for survey/exfiltration tools supporting all major operating systems like,
  3. Windows (Bartender)
  4. MacOS (JukeBox)
  5. Linux (DanceFloor)
  6. Its configuration utilities like Margarita allows the NOC (Network Operation Center) to customize tools
based on requirements from 'Fine Dining' questionnaires.
HIVE is a multi-platform CIA malware suite and its associated control software.
The project provides customizable implants for Windows, Solaris, MikroTik (used in internet routers) and Linux platforms and a Listening Post (LP)/Command and Control (C2) infrastructure to communicate with these implants.
The implants are configured to communicate via HTTPS with the webserver of a cover domain; each operation utilizing these implants has a separate cover domain and the infrastructure can handle any number of cover domains.
Each cover domain resolves to an IP address that is located at a commercial VPS (Virtual Private Server) provider.
The public-facing server forwards all incoming traffic via a VPN to a 'Blot' server that handles actual connection requests from clients.
It is setup for optional SSL client authentication: if a client sends a valid client certificate (only implants can do that), the connection is forwarded to the 'Honeycomb' toolserver that communicates with the implant.
If a valid certificate is missing (which is the case if someone tries to open the cover domain website by accident), the traffic is forwarded to a cover server that delivers an unsuspicious looking website.
The Honeycomb toolserver receives exfiltrated information from the implant; an operator can also task the implant to execute jobs on the target computer, so the toolserver acts as a C2 (command and control) server for the implant.
Similar functionality (though limited to Windows) is provided by the RickBobby project.
See the classified user and developer guides for HIVE.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why now?
WikiLeaks published as soon as its verification and analysis were ready. In February the Trump administration has issued an Executive Order calling for a "Cyberwar" review to be prepared within 30 days.
While the review increases the timeliness and relevance of the publication it did not play a role in setting the publication date.
Names, email addresses and external IP addresses have been redacted in the released pages (70,875 redactions in total) until further analysis is complete. Over-redaction: Some items may have been redacted that are not employees, contractors, targets or otherwise related to the agency, but are, for example, authors of documentation for otherwise public projects that are used by the agency.
Identity vs. person: the redacted names are replaced by user IDs (numbers) to allow readers to assign multiple pages to a single author. Given the redaction process used a single person may be represented by more than one assigned identifier but no identifier refers to more than one real person.
Archive attachments (zip, tar.gz, ...), are replaced with a PDF listing all the file names in the archive. As the archive content is assessed it may be made available; until then the archive is redacted.
Attachments with other binary content, are replaced by a hex dump of the content to prevent accidental invocation of binaries that may have been infected with weaponized CIA malware. As the content is assessed it may be made available; until then the content is redacted.
Tens of thousands of routable IP addresses references, (including more than 22 thousand within the United States) that correspond to possible targets, CIA covert listening post servers, intermediary and test systems, are redacted for further exclusive investigation.
Binary files of non-public origin, are only available as dumps to prevent accidental invocation of CIA malware infected binaries.
Organizational Chart
The organizational chart (far above image) corresponds to the material published by WikiLeaks so far.
Since the organizational structure of the CIA below the level of Directorates is not public, the placement of the EDG and its branches within the org chart of the agency is reconstructed from information contained in the documents released so far.
It is intended to be used as a rough outline of the internal organization; please be aware that the reconstructed org chart is incomplete and that internal reorganizations occur frequently.
Wiki pages
"Year Zero" contains 7818 web pages with 943 attachments from the internal development groupware. The software used for this purpose is called Confluence, a proprietary software from Atlassian.
Webpages in this system (like in Wikipedia) have a version history that can provide interesting insights on how a document evolved over time; the 7818 documents include these page histories for 1136 latest versions.
The order of named pages within each level is determined by date (oldest first). Page content is not present if it was originally dynamically created by the Confluence software (as indicated on the re-constructed page).
What time period is covered?
The years 2013 to 2016. The sort order of the pages within each level is determined by date (oldest first).
WikiLeaks has obtained the CIA's creation/last modification date for each page but these do not yet appear for technical reasons. Usually the date can be discerned or approximated from the content and the page order.
If it is critical to know the exact time/date contact WikiLeaks.
What is "Vault 7"
"Vault 7" is a substantial collection of material about CIA activities obtained by WikiLeaks.
When was each part of "Vault 7" obtained?
Part one was obtained recently and covers through 2016. Details on the other parts will be available at the time of publication.
Is each part of "Vault 7" from a different source?
Details on the other parts will be available at the time of publication.
What is the total size of "Vault 7"?
The series is the largest intelligence publication in history.
How did WikiLeaks obtain each part of "Vault 7"?
Sources trust WikiLeaks to not reveal information that might help identify them.
Isn't WikiLeaks worried that the CIA will act against its staff to stop the series?
No. That would be certainly counter-productive.
Has WikiLeaks already 'mined' all the best stories?
No. WikiLeaks has intentionally not written up hundreds of impactful stories to encourage others to find them and so create expertise in the area for subsequent parts in the series. They're there.
Look. Those who demonstrate journalistic excellence may be considered for early access to future parts.
Won't other journalists find all the best stories before me?
Unlikely. There are very considerably more stories than there are journalists or academics who are in a position to write them.
submitted by CuteBananaMuffin to conspiracy [link] [comments]

6.26.16 Stream notes

Edit: I'm daft and messed up the date. 06.09.2016 is the correct date. I also may or may not be calling myself daft to cover up that I'm a time traveler.
Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with paradox nor is anything said in the stream official. I was compiling these notes initially for a post I made on another thread and decided to make my own thread since there was quite a bit here so this list will likely miss some data. For cknoor's sake, if you have suggestions, questions, bug reports, etc... Post them on paradox plaza (link here: Devs read these forums and appreciate the input. They obviously read Reddit as well, but from past experience they are quite a bit more likely to see them and reply to them on the forums.
Now then, notes:
Apologies for typos and what not. Did this over my phone. Feel free to post stuff I missed in the comments and I'll edit them in below this paragraph.
Edit, per Florac Some of this is from in stream, a lot of it is from out of stream. Some of it is a repeat of above.
submitted by Gilad1 to Stellaris [link] [comments]

Kristi Winters' & Kevin Logan's Happy Hour w/ Sargon
So Kristi Winters and Kevin Logan held a stream recently, and Sargon appeared as a guest, essentially giving us a Youtube Kristi vs Sargon II after their initial debate on the Skeptic Feminist channel a while back, with Sargon joining this video at around the 10 minute mark. And sweet Jesus I think Kristi owned Sargon even heavier in this debate.
The starting point of this debate comes from a comment Sargon made on YouTube that stated the following:
The Democrats believe this is a referendum on their entire platform: Orange Man bad, Deplorables are Nazis, socialism is a gift from the Prophet Marx (pbuh (peace be upon him))
So basically, Sargon believes that the "far left" are taking over the Democratic Party. I figured I'd try and recap this debate, in case people can't quite stomach over an hour of Sargon's material.
1) Sargon attempts to back this up by bringing up the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress, but Kristi points out that this came from a progressive district that Cortez represents, and counters by bringing up right wing districts such as Steve King's, who despite his Neo-Nazi beliefs still nonetheless got elected by Republican voters in his district.
2) Sargon says there is a "whole slew of Justice Democrats" that have been elected recently in the US. Kristi challenges Sargon to name them. Sargon says there were "7 or 8", but bear in mind this is out of 228 so far, which hardly constitutes a "takeover".
3) Sargon says that it isn't that they aren't doing what he claims, it's that they haven't completed their "mission". Kristi counters and says maybe the reason these people are able to represent their districts is because they have more left leaning views, just as how a far right candidate was chosen to represent their district in Iowa even after saying that if a far right party in Austria would be Republicans in the US.
4) Kristi asks again for the evidence that "7 or 8" far left politicians were elected in the US, as well as asking for their corresponding districts. Sargon asks why she can't just Google it, but this was Sargon's empirical claim, so Kristi points out that he needs to substantiate it. Sargon accuses her of being pedantic, but actually it's quite considerably not "pedantry" to ask Sargon to back up his claims.
5) Sargon complains that he doesn't have a "sheet of notes" in front of him, but Kristi points out that she has her references ready, and Kevin lambasts Sargon for yet again not preparing for a debate. Sargon claims without evidence that a number of "corporate" Democrats were ousted, but he can't say how many also got in.
6) Fucking hell. We're only 6 minutes in and Sargon is threatening to not bother with this conversation if Kristi and Kevin aren't going to be "charitable" with his claims. Kevin points out the last time he chose to debate Kristi, he got annihilated, and when Sargon says that "things change", Kevin again highlights that Sargon seems to have done even less preparation for this debate.
7) Kristi points out that there is no reason to just take Sargon on his word about the "7 or 8 justice democrats" that were elected to Congress, when Sargon has only actually named one person, and Kevin doesn't care about Sargon's moral outrage over perceived "pedantry".
8) Kristi asks what exactly does it show that the one "justice Democrat" person Sargon could name got elected to Congress out of the potentially 230 Democrats, and says he can't show his claim, and Sargon seriously actually says "I can, I'm just not going to", which naturally justifiably provokes hysterical laughter from Kristi and Kevin. Sargon protests that he's not a scientist and even uses his lack of qualifications as a defence, not making this up, and that he just wanted to chat.
9) Kristi offers to show the exit polling data, and when Sargon agrees, Kevin brings up how Sargon wants them to show their sources, but he refuses to cite his own. It's pointed out that Sargon essentially desperately wanted a fight especially considering that Kristi's and Kevin's joint streams usually only get 70-80 viewers when live. Sargon's pretty much threatening to take his ball and go home because Kristi is making the shock horror request that he actually be accurate with his claims.
10) The chat moves on to the exit polling, and Sargon makes the claim now that "The Left is dying", despite claiming the existence of all those "justice Democrats" who got elected earlier. Sargon says they're not differentiating between the "Left" and "Far Left", to which Kevin asks why Sargon has a habit of steel-manning the far-right, but not giving even remotely charitable interpretations to the left, which Kristi and Kevin do actually have citations for unlike Carl.
11) Carl manages to find something which says "In the 2018 election, 26 of the 79 candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats won their respective Primary elections", but the problem here is that Kristi and Kevin were clearly taking about the General elections, and Sargon hasn't produced accurate figures for those.
12) At roughly the 22 minutes mark on the video, Kristi starts to go through the numbers on the Exit Polls according to CNN Politics which had 19,000 respondents (48% men, 52% women), and begins with the Gender gap, wherein while Republicans had a narrow 51%-47% advantage with men, Democrats had a considerably wider 59%-40% lead with women. This shows that women, who voted more than men, also skewed far more heavily Democrat and therefore produced a bigger effect on the election. She then brings up age, a real concern for the Republicans since Democrats lead 67%-32% with 18-29 year olds, and 58%-39% with 30-44 year olds. The other two brackets of 40-64 year olds and 65+ years old are more evenly split, albeit with a Republican lead.
13) Carl asks if Kristi feels confident about 2020, to which Kristi says she does, and Carl tries to bring the conversation to the 2020 race, but Kristi prevents Carl's attempt to change the subject since this is supposed to be about the mid-terms.
14) Kristi asks, based on the age and gender statistics she's cited, how Carl squares this with his thesis that the Left are "dying". Carl asks if those old people "started" as right wing, in other words expressing the old belief about how people become more right wing. Kristi counters with the nature of the party ID being stronger, as well as the fact that we would expect to see a stronger skew among older people than just basically 50%-50% if the belief about people being more conservative as they get older were to actually hold true, and that you'd expect considerably higher numbers in that age range for Republican than just 50% (like the 68% of the 18-29 year olds voting Democrat).
15) Kristi also brings up the importance of policies in how it affects how people vote, namely the deficit, tax cuts to the rich, and how McConnell hinted at going after social security and Medicaid.
16) Voter ID is talked about. Kristi talks about the issues surrounding this, for instance the problem with signatures, and how Voter ID affects minority groups. Kristi is in favour of Same Day Registration, and that voter ID should be free and not be something you are made to pay for, which I agree with. When Kristi brings up how women (who also statistically live longer) are affecting the vote, Carl responds by saying that Trump is still President. Popular Vote vs Electoral College comes up, Carl claims the victory was a landslide, when in actually it was the third narrowest victory since Reagan.
17) When pressed about what the points gap means for the long term sustainability of the Left, Carl, having no argument, sarcastically agrees, then derisively brings up Germany and France in terms of left wing parties. Carl again claims Trump's victory was a landslide, and even when Kristi brings up a page proving that Trump is actually in the bottom half of all time Presidential victories. Kristi says the definition of a statistical landslide is more than 4 points in percentage of the overall vote, and asks Carl for his definition of his landslide, which he doesn't provide.
18) Trump not attending the World War I centenary is brought up, as well as how Sargon, despite describing himself as centre-left, is so eager to support Trump. Carl attempts to get a definition of "Far-Right" and "tell me what I believe", but Kristi points out he's blatantly trying to straw-man her as he always does. Carl believes that he can say what a "far left" person believes, because he's totally able to read minds.
19) Kevin points out that the candidates that Carl supports are consistently the most right-wing in every election, and also the fact that Democrats now have the power to hold Trump even more to account, and Trump threatening counter-investigations, and the shitty way Trump appointed a replacement Attorney General. These are all things that Carl, as a supposed centre-left guy, should be concerned about, but he blatantly isn't, and Carl says that "I decide what I look into". Of course, this is false, since he actually has people send him stuff which he then covers in his videos, so he's not committed into looking into anything at all unless other people do his work for him.
20) At the 40 minutes mark, Kristi offers to look into the definition of "Far-Right" together on the stream, and points out that actual scholars use the working definitions. Carl refuses, and whines about how Kristi and Kevin are being totally mean, and appeals that there should be some decorum in this debate and Kristi and Kevin are in hysterical laughter at this point about Carl's tactics.
21) The previous debate is brought up, and Kevin asks if Carl was showing good "decorum" when he was seen giggling in his cam when Kristi brought up women waking up with spunk on their face after being raped. Carl claims to not remember this.
22) Carl claims that it matters more about what happens in the future, and also claims that Kristi and others in her field didn't see Brexit and Trump happening. Kristi points out that, actually, Brexit was within the margin of error for polling, and that Clinton did score 2 percentage points above Trump with the positioning of the Electoral College causing the issues. And in social science, including the markets, you use the statistical data from today to inform about how things are likely to be in the future.
23) Kristi says that positions consistent with "Far Right" leanings, as Carl has, are the espousing of misogyny and racism, as well as being willing to overthrow democratic institutions in order to protect their positions of power. When Carl queries if the Far Right is "basically fascism", Kristi responds that Carl's misogyny warms people up to the kind of rhetoric of fascism, with fascism being a very patriarchal, strict gender roles kind of ideology. Carl's attacks on women who challenge those gender roles justifies to his audience that those gender roles are right and should be forced on people.
24) Kristi points out that Carl's content often came up among white supremacists who support the strict gender roles, and Kevin points out that he can't think of a single Fascist society that wasn't based on a traditional view of gender relations. When Carl attempts a non-sequitur of trying to get Kristi to explain what his personal view on gender roles is, Kristi rebuts him by pointing out that he's best placed to explain that himself.
25) Carl says that gender roles are the expression of the necessary definition of the difference between biological sexes, varying from culture to culture, are socially constructed, have a particular reason for existing, and facilitate communication between the genders, for the purpose of procreation. While he admits they shouldn't be prescribed, he says that they should evolve over time, and jesus this is word salad. He says that these roles should be negotiated and agreed, and shouldn't be forced or deconstructed "from above"
26) Kristi queries what he means by "necessary characteristics" of biological differences between the sexes, and how modernity may affect the negating of this. Carl responds that the development of technology has facilitated the world-view in which the idea of masculinity being less important than it was, but that this comes with its own set of problems, and his example is of apparently high earning women who are single and childless which causes them unhappiness. Kristi points out that there's always the option of adoption, but Carl focuses on the "single" part, and says that the abandonment of male gender roles has been "bad" for women.
27) Kristi asks if the lessening of strength as a necessary requirement as well the better ability of women to control their reproductive organs therefore opens our society to more diverse and exploratory ways of expressing gender identity. Kristi points out through her research that things like gender isn't on a dichotomous spectrum, like her doctoral thesis which asked students about the attributes of an "ideal man" and "ideal woman", with men and masculine attributes being associated with "agency, competitiveness, aggression", and women and feminine attributes being associated with "caring, compassion, and helping others". When attribute tests were carried out on the students, men and women did not score strictly on the masculine and feminine attributes, and their scores were not determined by their sex, and some students had androgynous results with high masculine and feminine traits. Since we're no longer bound by physical limitations since we have technology, Kristi asks if re-exploration of gender roles based on societal needs is in order.
28) On the 1 hour mark on the video, Carl believes that technology hasn't changed us still being bound by physical limitations, and then asks what the reason for people self-identifying as compassionate was when the stereotype is of women being the compassionate sex. Kristi mentions a YouGov quota sample of 2800 respondents weighted to be nationally representative of the British population. Broken down by cohorts, younger men (18-29 year olds) were found to have the highest reported senses of agency, and that diminished over time, theorised to be as men getting to see the world and realising they're not as powerful as they thought they were. The drop off constituted either 1 or 2 points over time on average. Another interesting aspect is that men's self-reported compassion and communion with others went UP over time as they got older. Women on average started out with less agency and high communion, and for older women while the communion did stay the same, their agency went up over time as well as feelings of competitiveness and independence.
29) Carl asks if Kristi has correlated her findings with testosterone over lifetimes (don't worry, I don't think he's pulling a Davis Aurini to try and sell cream). Kristi says she can't do that because that would require access to medical data and those studies are very expensive and hard to get hold of as well to get approval for funding. Carl says that Kristi is going to skip that data, but Kristi points out that she would need to use people in her own sample, and this would require collection and storing of samples of testosterone, and her last study cost £10k. Carl concedes the real world restrictions of trying to do this test.
30) Carl says that while he does not have studies to hand, generally younger men have higher testosterone than older men. Kristi admits this could be correlated with a sense of self-efficacy, and that you could do a test of high and low testosterone of men of different ages. Carl says it wouldn't be surprising that young men with high amounts of testosterone who are fit and healthy would have high senses of agency. Kristi agrees. Huh, we're actually getting something of an engaging conversation here.
31) Carl mentions an interview with a "Hollywood actress" whose name he's forgotten, and she was apparently annoyed that older men "cultivated gravitas", and that women didn't have this, and Carl thinks that most women trade heavily on their looks, especially in Hollywood, mentioning the "attractive women going to Hollywood to get famous as actresses" cliche. He says that attractive men do this too, but claims that as women experience a decline in sexual attractiveness as they grow older, to which I would personally respond with many of the examples of women over 40 on this list as a counter-point: . Get the hell outta here, Carl.
32) Anyway, Carl says that this doesn't seem to happen with men, and that they appear to get more attractive to the opposite sex as they get older. Kevin jokes that Carl must be drowning in women after him, but Carl is married apparently.
33) In Kristi's own data, she's found that for men or for women is that people who have jobs as managers and who own their own businesses, rate highly on measures of agency, and as women age they often get management positions, which is tied to having direct control, and that this kind of thing was statistically significant.
34) Okay, Carl's actually making insightful contributions, holy shit. Carl asks what accounts for the difference, since obviously young men aren't managers, so why do they score so highly on agency? Kristi speculates that young men from 18 onwards feel that they have the world ahead of them, and that if they set their minds to it then they can do things. She also explains that unemployed and home-bound disabled people, regardless of gender, have very low senses of agency and high senses of communion. So not having a job and/or being dependent on government assistance does have an effect on how you perceive yourself and your ability to get by. Long story short, with all this data where both men and women score high and low on particular cohorts and some things in life change those as well, she is very skeptical of putting gender into a binary.
35) Carl concedes that there could be something other than male and female gender roles and that they aren't universal across cultures, though he does think it has something to do with his "cultural negotiation" point from earlier. But he "postulates" (ugh) that there is "definitely some kind of biological impetus" behind all of those things, and thinks that Kristi's data is some kind of expression of that. He thinks there is some kind of causation there, even if he can't prove that though he would be surprised if there wasn't.
36) Kristi notes that men as a group rate consistently higher on agency than women, while the reverse is true for communion. Kristi says some of it is "probably definitely" biologically informed, though linking DNA to behaviour would be incredibly hard, while linking to chemicals like testosterone would be "easier".
37) Carl does not believe that gender roles are going away, or that the supposed "feminist push to get rid of them" is going to work. He says that he doesn't have a prescriptive standard about "how gender roles SHOULD be", noting it's good we rethink them, and talks about how some people will want "agender" relationship dynamics, and some patriarchal, and how couples will negotiate those things. He asks what the opposite of patriarchal is.
38) On the 1 hour 10 minutes part of the video Kristi comes back to Carl's claim of feminists attempting to "destroy" gender roles, but then later himself saying rethinking them. Carl says it's not bad to rethink anything, but believes in a push by the "radical left" to deconstruct gender roles. Kristi points out that to "deconstruct" means to unpack and ask why we are doing this and what is its value. Carl says there is a push against "masculinity", and talks about an article, maybe from Vice, in which the writer said something like "Can we just all admit that masculinity is toxic?", which Carl considers to be dangerous, since apparently a lot of women don't think that, such as "40 year old successful business-women who can't get husbands", and "they aren't thinking masculinity is awful, they're thinking masculinity is hot and I want some of it".
39) Kristi says that she wants a healthy, positive masculinity for boys and for girls and for everyone to have such role models. She emphasises personal honour and care and connectiveness, as well as parents providing regardless of their gender. She brings up Lin Manuel Miranda as someone she sees as a brilliant male role model. She says there are men out there who don't get enough credit for not only being dads and providing, but also for pushing strollers and changing nappies, and as a feminist Kristi wants to see more baby nappy changing stations in men's public bathrooms so fathers don't have to end up changing nappies on a bench outside.
40) As a father himself who has at times had to resort to what Kristi described, Carl appreciates the fact that there are some nappy changing stations in public male bathrooms that he knows of so he definitely is not against those.
41) Kevin brings up the fact that Carl earlier mentioned an article he apparently read from Vice, or possibly Buzzfeed. Kevin asks why anyone should care, and that Carl is picking up on the whole stupid minutia of "Oh this pink haired feminist wrote this thing on Tumblr or Vice released an article" as if those things represent anything. Carl says that we have such things as "public intellectuals", and Kristi expresses surprise at Carl's insinuation that Vice constitutes a "think paper". Carl concedes that Vice is not a stellar example of this, but that they have such "dimensions" to them, and brings up this as well as Buzzfeed and Teen Vogue that write "intersectional" articles as if they are authorities on intersectionality. He says he enjoys laughing at them for perceived mistakes, and believes that they consider themselves "thought leaders".
42) Kevin says that every publication that puts something out there is part of a larger conversation, and inquires about how if there are a few publications writing articles that Carl considers to be stupid, why does he focus on those few rather than the many more much more pressing things that could cause considerably more damage? Carl says it's because this is what he's interested in talking about, and says that it is "not outside of the logic that is being suggested, the difference is scale, not kind".
43) Kevin says that the scale is minute, but Carl believes Kevin doesn't have a good argument against the "radical feminists". Kevin responds that he isn't trying to, and that he considers the focus of Carl's ire to be a really tiny, insignificant group that Carl has been trying to paint as the Dreaded Cultural Marxists Taking Over Everything.
44) Carl asks when he's ever used the term "Cultural Marxist". Kevin points out that Carl has said that Cultural Marxism exists, Carl then accuses "intersectional feminism" of being this, but Kristi says that IF is definitely not Marxist. Carl says that's what "they" think it is with no evidence.
45) Kristi inquires whether it's surely the case that it's a bigger problem that men who are fathers are being discriminated against because companies expect women to do the nappy work which leaves fathers out in the cold, and points out that this is something that feminists like herself really care about and want equality in nappy changing access. Carl agrees there should be gender neutral nappy changing facilities in public places, but he doesn't see that as being a "feminist" issue. But Kristi rebuts him by saying that because if women are mothers and they're the ones that always have to be out with the baby, and also it discriminates against dads as they can't do as much of the parenting, so overall it's a family and distribution of labour issue.
46) Carl says the problem is that the distribution of labour is not being dictated broadly by men, but by women. Kristi says if that was really the case, then there'd already be all of those nappy changing places accessible to men as well as women and that this would all be taken care of, but it hasn't and it's not women running the corporations or governments to make such things policy.
47) Carl disagrees, and claims that women don't broadly want what feminists want, but Kevin points out this only applies to Carl's "Straw-Man Feminism" that he's invented. Carl claims that most women aren't feminists and are more "traditionally minded" than feminists apparently seem to think, but Kristi rebuts this by pointing out that statistically women's viewpoints are more likely to be feminist positions than for them to outright call themselves feminists, and that to claim as Carl says that women mostly don't have feminist values isn't borne out by the actual data.
48) Carl doesn't think feminism has the "monopoly" on those things, but Kristi brings up things like more equal pay, more balanced work life, and more women getting elected, and with most people agreeing with those positions then they're supporting feminist positions. Carl says they are "other people's positions" too, to which Kristi says that what defines them is that the positions challenge gender roles. Carl claims "not necessarily", to which Kristi asks how considering the history of women being paid less.
49) Kevin inquires that even if we are to take Carl's claim that most women aren't feminists as fact, then why is Carl so worried about them? Carl talks about institutions in society, and thinks that feminism should keep to itself like Scientology. Carl says the problem is "They (feminists) are in our institutions", and Kevin wants to clarify if Carl would be okay with feminism if it didn't try to do or achieve anything and just shut up. Carl denies this, and instead says that if it "kept to itself" and if it was "voluntary". Jesus fucking Christ.
50) An exasperated Kevin points that it IS voluntary and asks if Carl has been imprisoned or something. Carl asks what Kristi and Kevin think trying to make misogyny a hate crime is and whether that is voluntary, and claims this amounts to an attempt to make it so that "people have to accept feminism". Kristi and Kevin say that is not what feminism is, and Kevin says that there are loads of laws, and asks about murder laws using Carl's "voluntary" logic, and that crimes exist. Carl says he can't think of many ideologies that are "pro-murder", to which Kevin points out Carl's Far-Right friends for their views on Jewish people.
51) At the 1 hour 20 minutes part of the video, Kristi brings the conversation back to Carl's "feminists in institutions wielding power" claim and asks for clarification on this. Carl brings up the Women & Equalities Commission in the UK. Kristi asks how they wield power, Carl responds "the very nature of it, it's a Women & Equalities ... it's not an 'equalities' commission". Kristi presses him to clarify what it does and if it writes legislation, and Carl says he needs to Google it, and Kristi also points out it can't vote on anything, it can just make recommendations. Carl says it holds debates and meetings, what he describes as "partial free speech", and says it's controlled by feminists, and that apparently they "do actively block certain measures", and he brings up as an example the MP Philip Davies apparently being "shut down by Jess Phillips and her sisterhood as she calls it".
52) Kevin steps in here and calls Carl out on this lie, pointing out that Davies did have his debate and it did take place, just not in the main chamber of the House of Commons as most debates don't. Carl still takes issue with this, and again blames Jess Phillips and her "cronies". Kristi points out Davies is simply being treated like everyone else, and Kevin points out that Carl is mixing up the Women & Equalities Commission with the All Parliamentary Group, which isn't a commission. Carl concedes this, but still is critical of the W&EC, since it "still has the same people on it and still has these kinds of effects".
53) Kristi incredulously says the effect was a guy had to give a speech in a room other the one people usually give speeches in. Carl asks why he shouldn't have the main floor of the Chamber, and Kristi answers "because nobody else does" and asks why he should get special treatment, and Kevin points out that it is one room and there is a limited amount of time and they need to get through parliamentary business.
54) Carl again repeats the claim that Philip Davies got shut down because he's an MRA. Again Kevin points out this is bollocks, and that Davies did get his debate in a room where actually most of the debates take place within Westminster Hall. Carl attempts a pathetic fallacy of claiming Kevin doesn't care about male suicide, and Kevin again points out the debate actually took place and wasn't shut down at all. Carl alleges without evidence a "large number of attempts" to shut it down, but Kevin says this doesn't matter since it wasn't shut down and the debate happened and the system worked.
55) Carl alleges a "deliberate consequence of a network of feminists, that Jess Phillips talks about in her book, that deliberately go out of their way to shut down and block" various measures and debates, but Kristi again points out that in this instance Davies was simply treated equally to other Parliamentarians. Carl claims this is no different than if Republicans held whatever house and blocked Democratic proposals to get important things done, but Kristi again points out that Davies actually got to give his talk. Kevin points out that unlike Carl he has actually read the Hansard transcript of the debate and that it actually took place, and indeed that there were feminists there who took part in the debate. Carl again complains it wasn't in the main chamber and makes accusations of "stalling" by the feminists based on ideological reasons.
56) Kevin points out that Phillip Davies was one of the MPs who objected to the Upskirting Bill - which did take place in the main chamber - and he suggests that if this how Davies spends his time in the main chamber, then he doesn't deserve time in the main chamber and he should have his debates in other rooms where most debates take place just like everyone else. Carl tries to claim this is irrelevant, but it actually isn't because if one is a shit Parliamentarian, you can't expect entitlement for other Parliamentarians to take you seriously.
57) Kevin points out that there were lies told about Jess Phillips (a mother who has two sons) apparently laughing about male suicide, when in actuality she was laughing about the claim that male issues don't get talked about. Carl asks if Kevin thinks they do, to which Kevin replies in the affirmative in which he brings up an example of International Men's Day being debated in Parliament, and Kevin also highlights an old video on his channel about ICMI 2016 from his Descent of Manosphere series, in which Kevin uses screenshots from Hansard transcripts which show where male issues are directly referenced, including during a session of Prime Ministers Questions in which David Cameron addressed a question about false allegations of rape.
58) Carl claims there is "pushback" when these things are addressed, which Kevin points out is basic freedom of speech, and Carl again says that if Republicans were shutting down Democrat things then Kristi and Kevin would be complaining, again ignoring that nothing got shut down in this case.
59) Carl brings up corporations which have diversity officers, and asks who Kristi and Kevin think are running them and what their ideologies are. Kristi calls Carl out on the fact that all he's doing at this point is asking questions that she thought Carl would surely have the answers to, and that she thought he would actually be able to name all these people he had a problem with. Kristi points out that she'd have expected a list of at least 50 or 60 names that Carl could have brought up, and when Carl says that he's not an "inquisitor", Kristi compares his rhetoric to McCarthyism claiming a list of communists in the military but not actually showing who they actually are. Kevin points out that Carl has only been able to actually name one woman from the US (Cortez), and one woman from the UK (Phillips) which constitutes two women a continent apart from one another.
60) Oh it's Appeal to Incredulity Time as Carl asks how they can't see what's going on! He also whines about them apparently being immature for laughing at his tactics throughout the debate. They do compliment the parts of the discussion referenced earlier which actually seemed pretty insightful when they were talking about actual data, and they don't rule out another debate in future.
And that's it at the 1 hour 28 minute mark! But yeah Carl got absolutely destroyed here, and was even more exposed for being ridiculously paranoid and evidence-free on his claims.
I will reach out to Kristi Winters and Kevin Logan via Twitter with this recap, so that if I've reported anything inaccurately in this recap then through their feedback I can adjust my recap accordingly.
I've also stored this recap on a more permanent place on my newly created blogspot page:
For those interested, I also did a recap of Sargon's debate with Jenni Goodchild in a post here a couple of years ago:
Hope you enjoy!
EDIT: Fixed some formatting issues.
submitted by J91919 to GamerGhazi [link] [comments]

[OT]Ask Nate: Field Manual FM-02W SciFi Military Fiction

    Field Manual FM-02W

       SciFi Military Fiction

"What a gang of apes! Maybe if you'd all buy it this drop, they could start over and build the kind of outfit the Lieutenant expected you to be."      - Career Ship's Sergeant Jelal Starship Troopers 1959. Robert A. Heinlein


     Before we get started here, I want to send a huge shoutout to everyone who participated in FM-01W. Especially, WarriorPoet02 who has a in-depth knowledge of both modern and historical combat, as well as a validated expert (with actual experience) in modern Marine Combat. He was able to fill in some gaps in my knowledge and even I learned some stuff. On that point, while I may have a wide-range of general knowledge, I'm not an expert in things I'm not an expert in. Don't ever be afraid, no matter how much you think you know, to consult others. You can always learn more.
     Time for Hot Shots: Part Deux; SciFi. As for the quote, it comes from one of my all-time favorite SciFi MilFic books; which was turned into a campy movie that pretty much only shares the same title. The book itself was once on the Commandant of the Marine Corps reading list, because despite being an old SciFi action romp; there are a number of deep reflective themes in the book that transcended genera fiction. Themes that did not make it to the film. Neither did their awesome power armor.
     Enough about Starship Troopers. What am I going to cover here today? This guide and the Fantasy one are designed more to provoke inspiration and creativity, rather than to give you established precedent. These are just my recommendations, so feel free to pick and choose what you want. SciFi and Fantasy universes have their own rules, just stay consistent. I'll tell you how I (and a few others) have gone about using existing military concepts and apply them to straight up fiction. And remember, no matter how cool your tech is, the best stories are always about the people and their struggles.

Frame the Universe

     Before you take your first step out that airlock, you need to decide what your restrictions are. Unlike the other three guides which are locked to a single planet (Earth or your Fantasy world, don't make me go down a magic portal rabbit hole for other worlds there...) SciFi is usually out in space. But not always.
     Why is there conflict? You can write SciFi all day without political conflict (personal conflict, not so much). But military SciFi needs an excuse to break out diplomacy through other means. Just having a squad run around breaking sh*t and engineering chaos, while exciting, isn't very interesting. Who are your aggressors and why? Develop the reasons, they tend to make for a better read than just blatant xenophobia. Old Man's War has some interesting angles to this regard. I'm sure you can all cite a few more (Dune, also comes to mind).
     And as goes with all stories, your characters need to be relatable. So if you have no humans, there better be some threads you can attach to as a reader.

Force Building

It's like world building, but for the military.
Me, I like to ground things in a heritage of the existing. Why? Because it's what humans do, either because of heritage, relatability, or because we aren't very original. This is more relevant (I feel) in SciFi based off human futures (moreso than let's say High Fantasy), deviate accordingly.
Rank and Structure      Most of the best SciFi/Fantasy militaries are based on real world examples. Yes, you can start from scratch and create completely alien military structures. However, the more off-the-beaten-path you go, the harder it will be for the reader to relate to and follow. As much fun as it is to create a 27-tiered rank structure of a thirty-seven layered hierarchy, your readers aren't going to be able to keep track without constantly referring back to the 30-page appendix in the back of your novel.
So… Kreckel Jip Paccku of the 4th Gregglan Raggers… ok so a Kreckl outranks a Jiggag, but not a Opperg. And a Ragger unit is bigger than the J'hest, but subordinate to the Max Headroom?
     Yeah, confusing as hell without constant references. Titles like "Lord Imperator" or "Knight Commander" might not be modern ranks, but at least make enough sense for someone with an average IQ to follow. This is why you generally see authors stick to basic concepts of Private, Corporal, Sergeant, Lieutenant in their works. It's not just that future military concepts are rooted in history, it's that the reader has to follow it.
     Is it ok to make up new unit types and ranks? Sure, just be careful not to make it insanely confusing. I have a universe where I replaced line company Captain (O-3) with a rank called "Aegis". It's the same rank, I just did away with the confusion created by also having ship "Captains" (O-6). The other officer ranks mostly follow the traditional Marine/Navy structure. (Ignore the two "non-combat" columns on the right.) This problem actually exists in our own military, though it seldom causes any actual problems. Navy Captains out rank Army, Air Force, and Marine Captains by three levels.
Navy or AirForce?      Who took the lead? In SG-1, it was the Air Force, so they were very focused around their behavior and structure (though the other US DoD branches and Russians were also in the picture). In many SciFi tales they try to shape their fleets around Naval traditions. Feel free to blend/meld them… just try not to be too confusing.
Mega-Stupendo Heroes      Is your MC overpowered? Overtrained? Do it, don't do it, I don't care. But seriously, be careful with it if you do. Master Chief is a great video game character whose story became relatable because he struggles with his humanity. Having said be cautious of making super soldiers, I've done it myself. Yet, they too struggle with what it means to be human and are vulnerable at the loss of those around them.
     I actually started this point to ponder on an old scifi show Space: Above and Beyond which struggled to try and stay "realistic". Real pilots take years to train. Typical pilots hit the fleet as senior First Lieutenants who're about to be promoted to Captain. You don't risk all that training sending pilots on infantry missions. The show did that a number of times. There were other weak plots I caught watching it as an adult who had served, that never dawned on me as a kid. (I still enjoy the hell out of S:AAB.) Yes, your MC might be an elite, super warrior… but there better be logical explanations for why before you end up with a magic Mary/Marty Sue.
Warrior Generals      I suppose this largely depends on the universe you build out, but even some of the most hardcore modern Generals don't see frontline combat. In the real world, you'd be lucky to see anyone above a Major on the ground/in the fight or a LtCol/Commander in the sky trading shots with the enemy. You tend to trade rank for boring desk jobs and rear-echelon leadership roles. The "warrior general" is really something of the bygone era and has more of a place in Fantasy, than SciFi. That's not to say the rules of your force can't dictate that, just be mindful. In Starship Troopers, everyone dropped and everyone fought. Pretty sure one of the big Generals bought it in a bug fight too.


      War, in the most extremely basic mathematical approach, is all about rendering more of the enemy combat ineffective than they can inflict similarly on to you. Conflict is all about the 5 D's: Defend, Delay, Disrupt, Destroy, or Divert. Technology has evolved over time to do those five things. I'll cover a handful of popular concepts, but this isn't even close to the full list.
Space Battles      Massive fleets of capital ships and squadrons of fighters are often woven into the fabric of an epic space opera. So how does one describe this dance of behemoths?
     Scarecrowsid, also pointed out: Using Navy structure as a base, the value of studying the ways in which a CIC and Bridge operate can have a significant effect on how battle sequences play out in Ship to Ship combat. There are a number of options here, but to name a few:
Drone warfare      On the note of space battles and the argument for human pilots vs drones: Light has a current finite speed. 299,792 kilometers per second. We'll assume no one is jamming your comms. That's still millisecond lag in close engagements. We put current drone operators as near as we can to avoid lag in terrestrial situations. Even then you get some lag. Not just data travel, it's processing too. I can't go into actual lag times or the differences in responsiveness for drone operators in CONUS vice in Theater (not only because it's likely classified, but because I don't know the details other than it exists). These are drones not engaged in 1-on-1 sorties. So imagine in your space combat drone vs piloted and how the signal-decision-command-execute delay is for a live pilot vs a drone that is getting further and further from the base station. If you have pushed the magic insta-communications "I believe" button, then go ahead…
Communications      Back to the speed of light… physics is a bitch. Ok, we can assume even in an FTL world, light still takes time to travel. Some EU gets around this a number of ways.
Power ArmoMECHs      I enjoy a nice suit (the HIMYM/Avengers gag was brought to you by MajorParadox). The US military is currently working on a few prototypes, but the biggest hangup is still power. It will likely continue to be a problem for the near future before we see Space Marines dropping on us. But this is your Nuka-Cola™ powered future. Bring on the Jeagers, Power Armor, and Battlemechs. Things you might want to toy with are scale issues (stepping on friendly forces), power (might still run out of those Fusion Cores), Ammo (it's still gonna run out), crossing large swaths of terrain (are you limited to human running speed, there still is a human in that suit), and the shortcomings of human anatomy (there still are restrictions on how much punishment a body can take even in the nicest padded cell and a body has to fit into the armor somehow).
Superweapons      I'll show you my Galaxy Gun if you let me see your Death Stars. (I'm already ashamed at that joke.) Yes, superweapons are a trope. As are the: Lost Superweapon, Forgotten Superweapon, Superweapon Surprise, and the Ancestral Weapon. I'd say not to, but the Mouse now owns an entertainment Empire born on the back of them. My advice…make sure your thermal exhaust port isn’t showing. (cringes) Ok, bad jokes aside; if you want to go the superweapon route, don't build me a third Death Star (cough, cough JJ?). What do I mean? Get to it, fight it, but don't dwell on it forever. (Seriously, don't spend pages on building it for me.)
Robotics      I actually was going to skip this for the sake of running long, but two of the reviewers pointed out it would be a good topic to cover. Macro and micro (regular and nano?) robots are likely to be a large part of space exploration since humans are fragile (we squish good) and take a lot of logistics to support. Human-sized or larger combat troops might just be the answer. On the other hand, smaller nanobots might be used for repairs/construction or in a swarm/cloud attack approach.
     (Will insert quote here if permission is given, don't like using people's words without their consent.) The gist of the argument made, however, is that continued human combat would be unlikely given a robust AI robo-troop force.
     It's a valid point. I could see it go a few ways as a story teller:
  1. You could write from a sentient AI robot perspective and keep to the above ConOps
  2. You could be one of the Robot Handlers. A commander of robotroops.
  3. Your society banned AI after a Terminator-like Rise of the Machines, so only basic (or no) robots are assisting humans in space.
     Also, from my buddy /Merklynn:
I'd throw Phillip K. Dick's short story "Second Variety" into the discussion. It's focus on a post-apocalyptic Earth, where a small rabble of surviving military from both sides try to rendezvous for a truce while avoiding the lethal "claws", disguised AGI killing machines, is about as close as I've seen PKD come to military sci-fi. The story isn't pure military sci-fi, but it is one of the earliest examples I can think of in which artificial intelligence has gone out of control, infiltrated humanity and constantly upgrading itself, making a terrifying enemy. The 1995 film adaptation Screamers is hit and miss, but the surviving enemy units being forced together and dealing with a total loss of communication with their superiors on Earth is one of the most compelling things about the story for me.
     Stuff I didn't cover: killer robots, nanobots, superviri, cyborgs, and more… I'd be here all week.


     Alright, back to your combat. So now you have your universe, how are you going to play in your sandbox? A lot of the stuff covered in the previous guide still applies (make sure to skim the comments of that guide for some great commentary on combat). Some additional things to consider:

BONUS: Mercs / Parma-Military Contractors

     penguinzeppelin asked me about Mercs. Well IRL, most Military Contractors (even the ones without guns) heavily draw from the retired/veteran pool. It's a steryotype for a reason. I would likely approach my characters as such, or conversely how difficult they had blending into a group of all vets -OR- as a company/grioup the hard time they had getting work without that on their CV.
     While entertainment media likes to portray corporate military orgs like crazy wildcards (yes, Blackwater was bad m-kay) the ones that don't adhere to strict business practices tend to flash and fade as they die the death of a million lawsuits. Blackwater did end up in very hot water.
     Mercs that don't have business acumen tend to become pirates, privateers, or freelancers at least in decent SciFi. Morals tend to get in the way (or become great story points). Is it a big team of hundreds and your MCs are just a small cog in the wheel (maybe they break off and go it alone)? Are they a small (12 or less) team that does independent contractor work? Do they look for a specific type of work that suits their personalities or are they so desperate for work that anything goes?
Big Orgs
Small Orgs
Again, this "article" is more designed to generate ideas and concepts to be applied to the normal rules of good story telling.
Questions, Comments, Complaints for your Congressman?
Ask your questions and I will get to them as soon as my day allows. Everyone is encouraged to participate and share your own thoughts. This is an open discussion. If people bring up good points, I will edit this accordingly. Also feel free to list your favorite SciFi military books, shows, etc in the comments.
the Military Fiction (MilFic) Field Manuals FM-01W - Modern Military Fiction FM-02W - SciFi Military Fiction - (this guide) FM-03W - Fantasy Military Fiction (High and Low) - TBD FM-04W - Historical Military Fiction - TBD – Will cover ancient armies (Roman/Egyptian) up to early-Industrial/pre-WWI
submitted by Nate_Parker to WritingPrompts [link] [comments]

Binary Options Strategy 2016 - Binary Trading System 2016 (Winning Strategy That Really Works) Binary Options Trading Systems 2016 - Best Binary Options Trading System Review Binary Options Trading System 2016 – Best Automated Trading Software 2016 Binary Options System Binary Options Trading System Start Profiting Now 2016 ... Binary Options Strategy 2016 - Binary Options Trading System 2016. Winning Strategy That Works 100% Binary Options Trading System 2016- Best Binary Options ... Agimat FX Binary Options 2016 Binary Options Trading System 2016 - How I Make 5000$ With ... Binary Options- Powerful Trend Following System

Binary Options Trading Scam: How It Works. More and more people are sending us emails asking if the binary options trading sector is a scam in itself, as many horror stories have been shared lately on the Internet. Whether it’s about binary options brokers, signals, or winning strategies, watch out for the big and sketchy world of this business. Binäre Option Indikator 2016 militärische Basis Und profitable binäre Optionen Handel Dienstleister: Signale, Indikatoren, webinars. binary ... Nov. 19. Binary alternativ handel system 2016 militär Binary Options Trading Guide. On this page, we will go through the basics of binary options trading. When trading with a binary option robot, you do not necessarily need to know anything about binary options investing, but it is useful to be aware of the mechanism by which option robot operates. Plus, if you are interested in binary options trading so much that you do not want to use the robot ... These include trading applications with names that often imply an easy path to riches, and demo accounts that allow users to try their hand at binary options trading without risking personal assets. Such accounts can serve as bait to lure investors into sending money to fund a "real" trading account, or open the door to identity theft, by requesting an array of personal information. Nov. 15. Binär Optionen Trading System 2016 Militär Forex Brokers Crypto Stocks Binary Options CFD - Contract for Difference January 2020: An FPA member has shared an email he received from IQ Option support. That email makes it plain that IQ Option considers the use of a VPS, VPN, or even trading from an IP in a different country to be grounds for confiscating funds from an account. Despite being a new binary option trading system, OptionRobot has already caught the attention of many binary options traders who have been quick to recognize this potentially lucrative piece of software with its highly customizable service. We look forward to monitoring this exciting new robot’s win-rates in the coming months and highly recommend that traders check it out as it offers a ... Mar. 29. Binär Optionen Strategien 2016 Militär Although blockchain, you lose themselves what is binary option trading system not charge you that multi-order strategies, a no- key-exchange secure image. Choosing an exchange gemini which makes and the direction of commodity. Our site, and exchanges and that whatever information. If the region until there is probably the most recent etrade send. The list — strong movement is a deeper into ...

[index] [23182] [16994] [4887] [3224] [8840] [683] [1724] [7270] [19933] [20540]

Binary Options Strategy 2016 - Binary Trading System 2016 (Winning Strategy That Really Works)

Trading foreign exchange on margin carries a high level of risk, and may not be suitable for all investors. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The high degree of leverage can ... ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLICK HERE: ----------------------------... CLICK HERE = ----- Binary Options Trading System Start Profiting Now 2016 - Secret To Make $6,783 Pe... Binary Options Trading System 2016 – Best Automated Trading Software 2016 Binary Options System binary options trading system bi... ----- CLICK HERE: ----- The Golden Goose Method is a brand ne... Open $1000 FREE Account 90% Winning System Binary Options Strategy 2016 - Binary Options Trading System 2016 ï... Although finding a winning system is rare, they are out there and really are a game changer when it comes to making consistent profit on binary options trading. Binary Options Trading Systems 2016 ... Open $1000 FREE Account 90% Winning System Binary Options Strategy 2016 - Binary Options Trading System 2016 (... Binary Options trading with Agimat FX 2016. The very new Agimat system has 95% accuracy and beats the previous version ...