Putin interviewed by VGTRK: "Extreme measures" if Kiev violates Minsk agreements?

© Presidential Press and Information Office

Interview with VGTRK.

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV: Mr President, our nation just celebrated Defender of the Fatherland Day, but our brotherly nation of Ukraine now considers this the day that Crimea was conquered, and Petro Poroshenko states that he will do everything possible to get Crimea back.

What is the current state of Russian-Ukrainian relations? Will we wake up one day to learn we are at war?

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think that this apocalyptic scenario is highly unlikely, and I hope it never comes to that.

As for returning any territories, that is revanchist talk and it's not about returning territories anywhere. In my opinion - and I do not want to give any advice, but still - the current leadership of a large European nation such as Ukraine should first return the country to normal life: fix the economy, the social sector, its relations with the southeast region of the country in a civilised manner, and ensure the lawful rights and interests of the people living in Donbass. If the Minsk agreements are implemented, I am certain that this will be done.

[embedded content]

As for Crimea, you should remember that a year ago, when I spoke to the Federal Assembly deputies about this, I said that Crimea has always been and remains Russian, as well as Ukrainian, Crimean-Tatar, Greek (after all, there are Greeks living there) and German - and it will be home to all of those peoples. As for state affiliation, the people living in Crimea made their choice; it should be treated with respect, and Russia cannot do otherwise. I hope that our neighbouring and distant partners will ultimately treat this the same way, since in this case, the highest criteria used to establish the truth can only be the opinion of the people themselves.

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV: There has been a break in opinion between the American side of the establishment and the European side. The American side says that Russia directly invaded Debaltsevo, that new sanctions should be imposed against Russia, and John Kerry even accused his European partners of taking a cowardly position. Europe currently does not support this. That is the cause of the break.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Honestly, I have not even heard such assessments. You should know better.

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV: We say that a civil war is underway. Ukraine says, "No, this is a direct intervention by Russia." Why doesn't the world see the truth?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It doesn't want to.

First of all, the world is complex and diverse; some people see it, while others don't want to see it and do not notice it. World media monopoly of our opponents allows them to behave as they do.

Moreover, I suppose that my somewhat careless comment during my visit to Hungary had some effect, when I said that it is disappointing to lose to yesterday's miners and tractor drivers. It is unpleasant to lose to Russia as well, but it's less humiliating somehow.

At the same time, we are aware of the statements made by Ukraine's top officials, including high-ranking officials in the Ukrainian army. As the head of the General Staff said, "We are not fighting against the Russian army." What else do you need?

But in general, all this is very bad: the attempts to justify defeat and attempts to blame it on Russia. The bad thing is that this is fanning the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, or an attempt to fan that conflict.

If - again, I've said it before and I'll repeat it - if the Minsk agreements are implemented, I am confident that the situation will gradually return to normal. And I imagine that Europe is just as interested in implementing the Minsk agreements as Russia. Nobody needs a conflict on the periphery of Europe, especially an armed conflict.

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV: Were you able to draw our European colleagues' attention to the Nazi ideology that has gained favour in Kiev? Were they alarmed?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: They try not to notice it. But what I want to note is what appeared to me as their sincere desire to find compromises that would lead to a final settlement.

After all, if you paid attention to the Minsk Protocol, it talks about decentralisation of power, and then there is a footnote stating what this implies. The authors of this footnote are our German and French partners. This speaks to their sincere desire to find the compromises I just talked about.

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV: Did the Minsk agreements allow you to revive the degree of trust you had earlier in your relations with the leaders of France and Germany?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, absolute trust is something hard to achieve even in a family, and it is much harder to achieve on an international level. But I think we understand each other, and overall, trust each other. Although, of course, there remains a certain element of mistrust, but I nevertheless had the sense that our partners are generally more inclined to trust us than not - or in any case, believe in our sincerity.

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV: Do you currently have working contacts with the President of Ukraine and do you trust that Mr Poroshenko will do what he tells you he will?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We maintain contact. Sometimes, I'm just a bit surprised by the Ukrainian leadership's public statements, for example, that members of our Presidential Executive Office participated in the tragic Maidan events a year ago. This is absolute, complete nonsense, so far from the truth that one even wonders where it came from. Sometimes, I later hear that these statements were based on inaccurate data from the special services - that is what I am sometimes told. I would ask to be more careful when using information that lands on my Ukrainian colleagues' desks.

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV: In the event of military escalation by Ukraine and national battalions, could Minsk 3 talks be held, or would Russia take extreme diplomatic measures such as recognising the Donetsk National Republic and Lugansk National Republic?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: For now, there is no need for any extreme measures because these Minsk agreements are not just a document formulated by four participants in the Minsk process, meaning Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany. They are enshrined in a United Nations Security Council resolution and have taken the form of an international legal act, essentially supported and approved by the entire international community. It's a different story, as they say. And I very much expect that it will be implemented. And if it is implemented, then this is a reliable path toward normalising the situation in this part of Ukraine.

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV: Thank you, Mr President.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you.

Read More

Conscience: Franchise owner sells corporate gifts to give employees bonuses

The owner of a Burger King franchise in Arizona was thrilled to have won the company's national "Franchisee of the Year" award, but instead of keeping the Corvette and Rolex watch he was awarded, he and the other franchise owners decided to sell them, add in some more of their own money and give all of their employees across the state bonuses.

Tom Barnett, owner of Barnett Management, won the coveted prize thanks to high ratings, great customer service reviews and stellar corporate inspections, but when it came time to enjoy the flashy prizes he received, Barnett and the other franchise owners decided they wanted to sell them.

"The award needed to go to the people who got us here. It was the right thing to do," franchise co-owner Shelley Krispin said. "We're all better when we have people who work for us long term."

After selling the car and expensive watch, Barnett pooled some of his own money in with the other franchise owners and were able to give out a total of $120,000 to more than 100 employees across their 24 Burger King locations in Arizona.

"I just couldn't believe it. I was in shock," 15-year-old Charity Callahan said. "It was almost an entire month's worth of pay for me. They made us all feel appreciated."

"For him to give us that was really emotional," store manager Sandy Olson said.

The bonuses reportedly ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per person.

Read More

What Facebook sees when you fall in love

© Reuters/Mian Khursheed

Facebook might understand your romantic prospects better than you do.

In a blog post, the company's team of data scientists announced that statistical evidence hints at budding relationships before the relationships start.

As couples become couples, Facebook data scientist Carlos Diuk writes, the two people enter a period of courtship, during which timeline posts increase. After the couple makes it official, their posts on each others' walls decrease—presumably because the happy two are spending more time together.

In the post on Facebook's data science blog, Diuk gives hard numbers:

During the 100 days before the relationship starts, we observe a slow but steady increase in the number of timeline posts shared between the future couple. When the relationship starts ("day 0"), posts begin to decrease. We observe a peak of 1.67 posts per day 12 days before the relationship begins, and a lowest point of 1.53 posts per day 85 days into the relationship. Presumably, couples decide to spend more time together, courtship is off, and online interactions give way to more interactions in the physical world.

You can see these data in the chart above. The number of wall posts climbs and climbs—until it tumbles when things become official.

The Facebook Data Science team has been releasing information all week about what the company's massive trove of data reveals about relationships, from how long they last to how love correlates to religion and age. This is my favorite post of theirs, though—it shows something you grasp, I think, if you've ever seen a Facebook couple come into being.

Diuk also writes that, even though the number of wall posts goes down once the relationship starts, the wall posts becomes happier.

"We observe a general increase [in sentiment] after the relationship's 'day 0,' with a dramatic increase in days 0 and 1!" he says. Here's a chart describing that change:

Sentiment analysis, as described above, is a far from perfect science. Robots are not very good at sarcasm. But it's often interesting.

The data science team took other measures to improve its data. To weed out Facebook faux-relationships, it only looked at couples who "declared an anniversary date between April 2010 and October 2013, not just those who changed their relationship status. For the sentiment analysis, it focused only on English-speaking users.

Read More

When psychopaths are that sickeningly obvious: Judge calls Olympia animal cruelty case 'truly disturbing'

Without conscience

A Thurston County deputy prosecutor says what was found at an Olympia man's home is the worst case of animal abuse she's ever seen.

David Williford was charged Monday afternoon with 12 counts of animal cruelty for holding dozens of rabbits, guinea pigs, rats and dogs in "horrific" conditions.

Deputy Prosecutor Christen Anton Peters described it in court like a scene from a horror movie, complete with blood spatters, filth and carcasses strewn about Williford's basement and backyard.

Authorities rescued dozens more animals still alive but described as desperate for food and water.

Williford's defense attorney says it was simply an unsanitary slaughterhouse for meat that Williford intended to eat, and has eaten routinely. He allegedly got the animals using Craigslist.

Williford is charged with six counts of first degree animal abuse and six of second degree animal abuse.

At his house just outside of Olympia on Cooper Pointe Road, court records say he kept several dogs upstairs in the attic in cages with absolutely no light, no water, no food, and no warm bedding. When they were rescued, court records say they jumped into the arms of animal control officers.

Peters pulled no punches before a judge in arguing that Williford should continue to be held in custody.

"I've seen many cases of animal cruelty in my career as a prosecutor. This is clearly the most disturbing case that I have ever reviewed," she said.

The director of Thurston County Animal Control is warning people who give away free animals on Craigslist to be careful who gets the animals and to make follow up calls.

Susanne Beauregard says they first got wind of the case when someone came to stay with Williford. When that person threatened to report the abuse to authorities, he says Williford then threatened him. The witness says he fears for his life but reported him anyway.

Peters said her office had extreme concern about the prospect of releasing Williford. But Williford's defense attorney downplayed it.

"It appears to be more slaughtering for food purposes in unsanitary conditions," the attorney said.

Judge Erik Price ordered him held in jail on $150,000 bail.

"The allegations at this point are truly disturbing," Price said.

Read More

Apple's newest patent: iPhones trackable even when turned off

© Reuters/Adrees Latif

Your next iPhone may be trackable even when it's turned off, if Apple's newest patent is anything to go by. The Cupertino tech giant has just patented a technology that would "periodically exit an unpowered state and transmit location data."

The patent documentation details a "" that would include "" and "."

What this means in practice is that the device would "fake" being turned off if it receives the wrong security code a certain number of times, and would periodically transmit location data. While this should help track down stolen devices, the patent raises privacy concerns.

A recent experiment by researchers at Stanford University and an Israeli defense contractor revealed that Android phones can be reliably tracked by their power consumption, without the user's consent.

The tracking feature may be an added security measure for future generation iDevices. In December 2014, the company patented a laser-beam mapping technology currently in use by scientists and law enforcement officials. Though Apple has avoided spelling it out, the technology might also enable 3D renderings.

Earlier this month, Apple also filed a patent for a virtual reality headset, intended to accommodate a future model of the iPhone.

Smartphone theft has been on the decline over the past two years, thanks to the introduction of "kill switch" safeguards. Apple introduced a feature to remotely disable iPhones in December 2013, as part of its mobile operating system iOS7. Google and Microsoft followed suit in June 2014.

After initial objections citing costs and customer support issues, wireless service providers have changed their minds and pledged to implement "kill-switch" type solutions by mid-2015.

Read More

The irony! Ukrainian professor and head of human rights at Talinn university runs for office in Estonia and calls for terrorism against Russia

© Unknown

Yet another terrorist attack organized by the Russian occupiers against a peaceful demonstration in Kharkov once again forces us to raise the question of taking the war to Russian territory.

Naturally, Ukrainians are not like the Kremlin barbarians and therefore they should not blow up people at peaceful demonstrations. However, any enemy combatant and any enemy target on the territory of Russia is a lawful military target.

A combatant is anyone who is a member of the Russian military or paramilitary organizations, except for the medical and religious personnel. Starting with draftees (even if on leave) and ending with the Commander-in-Chief Putin. "Every time you see one, kill one"—that's how.

Military facilities are obvious enough targets, but one can also attack dual-use facilities, such as bridges, transport infrastructure, the power grid, communication centers, etc. Naturally, such attacks may cause collateral damage (which, naturally, ought to be avoided) among the civilian population. As long as one does not violate the principle of proportionality, the laws of war are being respected. Moreover, such activities need not be conducted by the UAF. It can be done by partisans.

To the especially stubborn "vatniks", like Klenskiy who likes to (unsuccessfully) write complaints on me to the Prosecutor General's office, I'll make the following clarification. I am not calling for war or for terrorism. I am merely discussing the options available for implementing Ukraine's right of self-defense against the Russian aggression, which began with Russia's invasion [sic] of Crimea. Self-defense is a lawful activity, and the right to it is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

J.Hawk's Comment: The guy's blog is called "Notes of an Estonian Banderite", and he is running as a candidate from the Estonian Freedom Party. Needless to say, if one were to make similar comments concerning a Western country, there'd be a swift and severe reaction, including by the law enforcement. It's OK to advocate terrorism in the West, as long as you advocate it against the "right" enemy.

Read More

Corrupt science: Panic over peer-reviewed climate paper's evaluation of global warming models

© W. M. Briggs

"Chief, we got a guy here who claims climate models are no good. How do you want me to discredit him?"

You've heard it said that the science is settled. And it's true. It settled - settled beyond the possibility of any dispute. A fundamental, inescapable, indubitable bedrock scientific principle is that lousy theories make lousy predictions.

Climate forecasts are lousy, therefore it is settled science that they must necessarily be based on lousy theories. And lousy theories should not be trusted.

Put it this way. Climate forecasts, of the type relied upon by the IPCC and over governmental entities, stink. They are no good. They have been promising ever increasing temperatures for decades, but the observations have been more or less steady. This must mean - it is inescapable - that something is very badly wrong with the theory behind the models. What?

There are many guesses. One is that something called "climate sensitivity," a measure of the overall reaction of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide, is set too high in the models. So Lord Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and I created a model to investigate this. Although our model is crude and captures only the barest characteristics of the atmosphere, it matches reality better than its luxuriously funded, more complex cousins.

The funding is important. Nobody asked or paid us to create our model. We asked nobody for anything, and nobody offered us anything. We did the work on our own time and submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It's title is "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model."

The paper was quickly noticed, receiving at this writing well over 10,000 downloads. Anybody who understood the settled science that bad theories make bad forecasts knew that this paper was a key challenge to the climatological community to show that our guess of why climate models stink is wrong, or to prove there were other, better explanations for the decades-long failure to produce skillful forecasts.

After the paper made international news, strange things began to happen. My site was hacked. A pest named David Appell issued a FOIA request to Legates's employer, the University of Delaware, to release all of Legates's emails. But since we received no funding for our paper, which of course implies no state funding from Delaware, the university turned Appell down.

The cult-like Greenpeace had better luck with Soon's employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who were very obliging.

They turned over all of Soon's emails. And then Greenpeace sent them to a set of sympathetic mainstream reporters.

Why did Greenpeace do this? Because they suspected we were lying about receiving funding. They were hoping that if they could prove Soon was paid then Soon should have declared to a conflict of interest, and because he didn't (none of us did), then he should retract the paper.

Greenpeace went away disappointed. We were telling the truth. Soon, like most research scientists, has in the past accepted money from sources other than our beneficent government (and what makes government money pure?). Greenpeace, for instance, often issues these kinds of grants. But there was no money for this paper, as we said.

But Greenpeace still needed to sidetrack discussion—anything to distract from the news that climate models are broken - hence their cozying up to "science reporters."

These reporters, all of whom are paid by corporate interests, emailed asking about the "alleged conflict." I explained to them that we received no funding and thus had no conflict of interest. But they never heard me. It was as if they didn't want to. I offered to discuss the science behind our paper, but none took me up on this.

I posted a running log of these emails at my site, and they make for fascinating reading of how narrow-minded and willfully ignorant the mainstream press can be.

Justin Gillis of the was particularly reprehensible. In an email sent before publishing a hit piece on Sunday, Gillis accused Soon of an "ethical breach." He issued veiled threats by saying that Soon ought to talk to him, because Soon's employer "may be preparing to take adverse personnel action against" him.

I told Gillis there was no conflict. And I asked Gillis to explain his ties with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations.

Surprisingly, he refused to answer. Well, he did block me on Twitter.

Greenpeace denies the settled science that bad forecasts mean incorrect theories. Don't let them change the subject. This is not about some false accusation of conflict of interest. This is about bad science passing for good because it's politically expedient.

Read More