Huawei and ZTE pose security threat, warns US panel - BBC News [getdailynow.blogspot.com]
It takes four quarters to make a buck â€" and four quarters to win a football game. Weber State made change in the first half Saturday against Cal Poly but still came up a dollar short against the undefeated Mustangs. The winless Wildcats (0-6, 0-3 Big ... Two-bit finish cost Weber State against No. 20 Cal Poly
Amp Maintenance - 1.12This episode of Live @ Tainted Blue tackles the subject of amp maintenance. In audio applications amplifiers are used to drive speakers, PA systems and electric instruments. In the recording studio amplifiers power the monitor speakers. Learn how to un-mount, blow out and re-connect a power amp in an orderly fashion. About Live@Tainted Blue: Live @ Tainted Blue is an episodic web series documenting life in a state of the art recording studio in Times Square, New York City. The series features audio technology and music production quick tips from the Tainted Blue team, music performances as well as lifestyle and cultural segments that give you insight into the contemporary music industry community. Learn more about Tainted Blue Studioswww.taintedblue.com How often to do clean your gear?
Officials from the two firms have been questioned by US lawmakers as part of the probe
Chinese telecom firms Huawei and ZTE pose a security threat to the US, a congressional panel has warned after its probe into the two companies.
The two firms should be barred from any mergers and acquisitions in the US, the panel has recommended in its report set to be released later on Monday.
It said the firms had failed to allay fears about their association with the Chinese government and military.
The two are among the world's biggest makers of telecom networking equipment.
"China has the means, opportunity and motive to use telecommunications companies for malicious purposes," the committee said in its report.
"Based on available classified and unclassified information, Huawei and ZTE cannot be trusted to be free of foreign state influence and thus pose a security threat to the United States and to our systems."
Both Huawei and ZTE have previously denied the allegations.
Espionage fearsHuawei was started by Ren Zhengfei, a former member of the People's Liberation Army in 1987.
As the firm has grown to become one of the largest global players in the sector, fears about its ties with the Chinese military have frequently surfaced.
There have been concerns and allegations that it was helping China gather information on foreign states and companies, charges that the firm has denied.
Last year, its purchase of American computer company 3Leaf systems, was rejected by a US security panel.
Earlier this year, it along with ZTE, faced allegations that some of their equipment had been installed with codes to relay sensitive information back to China.
Senior executives from the two companies denied those allegations when they appeared before US lawmakers in September.
Political distraction?This latest report comes in the midst of a US presidential campaign in which China has become a political hot topic.
Both President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney have pledged to increase the pressure on Beijing on issues ranging from China's currency policy to state subsidies for Chinese firms.
Earlier this month, Mr Obama signed an order blocking a deal by a Chinese firm, Ralls Corp, to acquire four wind farm projects near a US naval facility in Oregon.
It was the first foreign investment to be blocked in the US for 22 years.
The Chinese firm has since sued Mr Obama, alleging the US government overstepped its authority.
William Plummer, Huawei's vice-president, said the latest accusations against the telecom firm were politically motivated.
"The integrity and independence of Huawei's organization and business practices are trusted and respected across almost 150 markets," he was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.
"Purporting that Huawei is somehow uniquely vulnerable to cyber mischief ignores technical and commercial realities, recklessly threatens American jobs and innovation, does nothing to protect national security, and should be exposed as dangerous political distractions."
Find More Huawei and ZTE pose security threat, warns US panel - BBC News Articles Question by Akio: How can Australia and Canada be "independent" from the British if the queen is still "head of state"? I know these old colonies have a friendly relationship with the UK. But what makes them "independent"? How are they different from places like Bermuda? I know the UK itself is a republic with a prime minister, but what does the queen actually do? Why do Australia/Canada still WANT her as head of state? And why is there not a king anymore? Best answer for How can Australia and Canada be "independent" from the British if the queen is still "head of state"?:
Answer by Aislinn
The 'head of state' thing is just a formality. The queen cannot actually make any decisions regarding the nation, or affect its politics.
Answer by Think Tanker
A well thought "exit policy" of Britain.
Answer by Two
They are independent because they are self-governing in every respect, and conduct their own foreign affairs and defence policies. When the British Queen acts in relation to Australia (which happens rarely) she does so on the advice of the Australian ministers, not the British ministers.
Answer by Posh Pooch!
Very good question. They are not 100% independent. The Queen has the power to dissolve the Canadian Parliament and veto any law passed by it. She would never do this, because it would be the last thing she ever did! But if she felt like it, she could. And they would have to start from scratch. Re-elections, everything.
Answer by Dart
There is a difference betw een GOVERNMENT and HEAD OF STATE in a constitutional monarchy.
Answer by Maurice
It is a shame that countries like Australia and Canada can't grow up and elect their own heads of state. I've heard that the British royals are hellbent on keeping their royal status in these former colonies because they long for the bygone days of the British empire. Their self-esteem is boosted when they go strut around places like Australia and Canada and feel like they still own the world.
Answer by Sir Ichiban
The U.K is most definitely NOT a republic. Where on earth did you get that idea from? If it is a republic, what is the Queen doing here, no, we are most definitely a Monarchy and long may it remain so. Australia and Canada are totally independent and the U.K Queen is NOT their head of state. Queen Elizabeth II is their head of state. There is no king because the Queen didn't have any brothers for the crown to pass to. Edit.......@ Maurice, you heard it from where? Give a link. What are you talking about "strut around"? How ludicrous, how infantile to think that the Queen is hellbent on keeping them because she wants to "strut around" in the other countries that CHOOSE to have her as their head of state. The Queen has said on several occasions that she will abide by the decisions of those countries people, on whether to become republics and the same goes for the U.K. She has said that she "will go quietly" if that was the will of the people. Anyone can say "i've heard" and it DOESN'T make them true. I've heard things about your mother.
Answer by capitalgentleman
The Queen of Canada, the Queen of Australia, and the Queen of UK (and 13 other countries), are all distinct and separate things. They just happen to be jobs all done by the same person: Elizabeth II. So, the Queen of the UK is NOT the Queen of Canada; the Queen of Canada is. They just happen to be the same individu al; but, the crowns are not the same. The UK is not a republic! The Queen still reigns (not rules), "with the advice of Parliament" as the law states. There isn't a king as the last king had no sons. He only had daughters, so, a girl is Queen.
Answer by Josh
The Queen of Canada and the Queen of Australia are separate posts which are held by the same person. What makes them independent is a separate sovereign parliament and government. Although Burma is an independent country. The Queen is legally a national of each of her realms. In most countries the position of Head of State and Head of Government are separate. The Queen's main role is to advise and warn the government and they have to keep her informed. She formally exercises huge amounts of the executive powers under the royal prerogative which means she can also veto government decisions and acts of parliament. She also acts as a general symbol for the nation, performing: ceremonial, ambassadorial duties as well as supporting and working with charities on behalf of the nation. In all these duties the Queen is represented by a governor-general. Some do not want her as Head of State but many value where they came from and their nation was birthed from Britain and that she has done an excellent job as Head of State. There is no King because the Queen is a reigning queen so she inherited her throne and it is traditional that a reigning Queens husband is not created a King.
Answer by Mel
your guess is good as mine.
Answer by DANIEL W
The Queen holds the Crowns of the states where she is Head of State separately. The Head of Government in each of the sates has no effect on each other. whereas the Queen or Governors-General can technically veto any law they practically cannot. Bermuda and other overseas territories are controlled more directly from Britain and their citizens have British citizenship. The UK is still responsible for their defence and foreign relations. BTW - Britain is NOT a Republic as we have a monarch. We are a Constitutional Monarchy where the Head of State is separate from the Head of Government who is democratically elected.
Answer by TSK
UK is a Republic? Oh Yes, United Kingdom. Clue is in the word KINGDOM. You need to read up on the Commonwealth !
Episode 393Madhusudan calls up Chandrakant and asks him what threat Yashwantrao has given him. However, Chandrakant does not speak very well with him. Madhusudan tells him that he has a friend named ACP Joglekar from whom he will seek help. Madhusudan begs to him to take care of himself. Madhusudan and Chandrakant get very emotional. Chandrakant feels guilty and speaks his heart out to Radha who consoles him. Vikrant tells Priya about Dr. Joshi's therapy. Vikrant tells her that he is sure that his friend is innocent. Priya informs about the same to Shubhra and asks her if one can lie when he is in a hypnotized state. Shubhra says that it is not possible. Priya wonder if Abhimaan is really not the killer. Shubra speaks about Abhimaan to Viraj and Viraj tells her that one does not lie when he is in that state of mind; hence Abhimaan and Sulekha are innocent. Shubra tell him that she feel that she can get all the answers of the present, from her past li fe. Viraj asks her to have patience.
0 comments:
Post a Comment