Dear Editor, In an increasingly interconnected world, where cyber threats grow more sophisticated daily, we must prioritize and invest in robust cyber protection capabilities to safeguard our personal, financial, and national security. In the third quarter of 2024, cyberattacks surged by 75% compared to the same time period in 2023, and earlier this year, a cyberattack on a healthcare company had a direct impact on Utahns, disrupting prescriptions and insurance claims. U.S. technology companies are creating tools and software to protect our businesses, personal information, and U.S. intelligence. This is critically important now more than ever, as foreign adversaries like China continue to undermine America and launch cyberattacks against us. The FBI, NSA, and CISA recently described China as the “most active and persistent cyber threat to U.S. government, private sector, and critical infrastructure networks.” Our elected officials and government agencies should collaborate with our domestic innovators and support them in developing cybersecurity tools. These tools will be necessary to detect and deter future attacks. A strong U.S. tech sector translates to secured critical infrastructure and data. Joseph Strickland, ProvoWith one week of games remaining, UW's bowl picture is a little bit clearer. The Huskies are already bowl eligible. Washington knows it has at least one more game remaining as it prepares to face No. 1 Oregon at Autzen Stadium in Eugene. The past weekend's games around the country, however, provided a little more clarity to Washington's potential bowl destinations while the Huskies enjoyed a well-earned bye week. "We'll just wait and see how it plays out," UW coach Jedd Fisch said on Monday. "I think there's a lot more that goes into it other than our game against Oregon." As a reminder, Washington and the rest of the former Pac-12 schools are still tied to the bowl games which had signed contracts with the old conference through the 2025 season. The bowls will pick in the following order: ■ College Football Playoff ■ Alamo Bowl: Dec. 28 vs. Big 12 in San Antonio ■ Holiday Bowl: Dec. 27 vs. ACC in San Diego ■ Las Vegas Bowl: Dec. 27 vs. SEC in Las Vegas ■ Sun Bowl: Dec. 31 vs. ACC in El Paso, Texas ■ LA Bowl: Dec. 18 vs. Mountain West in Los Angeles ■ Independence Bowl: Dec. 28 vs. American Athletic Conference in Shreveport, La. What changed from a week ago? For starters, No. 25 Colorado made its path to the Big 12 championship game and a potential CFP berth a lot more difficult by losing to Kansas 37-21, despite the Jayhawks only having four wins before beating the Buff aloes. Coach Deion Sanders' team is still in contention for the conference championship game, and Colorado plays Oklahoma State, currently 0-8 in Big 12 play, for its regular-season finale. But the Buff aloes had a clear route to the conference title game and an automatic bid to the CFP if they simply won out. Now, they'll have to win their final game and hope other results break their way to have a shot at the Big 12 championship. While Colorado faltered, No. 16 Arizona State put itself in pole position for the Big 12 championship game by knocking off No. 19 BYU 28-23. Four teams — Arizona State, BYU, Colorado and No. 18 Iowa State — are 6-2 in the Big 12 this season. If all four win their regular-season finales, then the Sun Devils and Cyclones will play for the conference championship based on Big 12 tiebreakers. Arizona State travels to Arizona for the Territorial Cup this weekend. "We have to see what happens in the Big 12, if any of the old Pac-12 teams make it, whether that be Arizona State or Colorado," Fisch said. Arizona, Fisch's former program, was eliminated from bowl contention following a 49-28 drubbing against TCU. Utah was similarly ruled out of the postseason after picking up its seventh loss of the season during a 31-28 loss against Iowa State. UCLA also joined Arizona, Utah and Stanford — eliminated weeks ago — by losing its rivalry game against USC 19-13. It was a crucial win for USC, which earned bowl eligibility before playing No. 5 Notre Dame this weekend. California also reached the postseason for a second-consecutive season by beating Stanford 24-21. Finally, Oregon State kept its bowl hopes alive by defeating bowl-eligible Washington State 41-38 in what was essentially the Pac-12 championship game this season. However, OSU fell to No. 11 Boise State and missed out on becoming bowl-eligible. How does this impact UW? As Fisch said, Washington is mainly impacted by whether Arizona State or Colorado can reach the Big 12 championship game. No. 1 Oregon is almost assured a CFP berth, even if UW pulls off the upset this weekend. If Arizona State or Colorado joins Oregon in the playoff , it eff ectively moves every team up one spot in the order. However, because the team's don't play in the same conference anymore, the bowl teams don't have to respect records or head-tohead results. Instead, bowl executives will be considering which fan bases are going to travel or whether teams have been in their game recently, because no team is supposed to play in the same bowl game two years in a row. This becomes relevant for UW because of USC. Both teams are likely going to enter bowl season with a 6-6 record, and the Huskies beat the Trojans 26-21 at Husky Stadium earlier this season. However, the selection process this year simply comes down to the bowl executives' preference. The Las Vegas Bowl, for example, may like the Trojans because of their game's proximity to Los Angeles and the large number of USC fans in the city. Or maybe it takes Washington because USC opened its season with a game against LSU at Allegiant Stadium. What to watch this weekend? For any Washington fans interested in figuring out where the Huskies might be playing, keeping an eye on all of the Big 12 teams in contention for the championship game will be important. Arizona State is essentially in with a win. Colorado has to win and needs two of the other 6-2 Big 12 teams to lose. Or it needs specifically BYU and West Virginia to lose so the Buff aloes can advance on tiebreakers. There is also a vague chance the Big 12 misses the playoff altogether. The five highest-ranked conference champions earn automatic bids to the CFP. Arizona State currently has the highest ranking of any Big 12 school, but the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Mountain West all have teams ranked higher, while No. 17 Tulane sits right behind ASU and in front of BYU and Iowa State. UW fans may also want to keep an eye on USC's matchup with Notre Dame. A Trojan win on Saturday coupled with a Husky loss almost assures USC will be selected before Washington. Finally, Cal's season finale against No. 9 SMU is intriguing. The Golden Bears have lost five games by a total of 17 combined points this season. Cal's defeats against No. 6 Miami, Pittsburgh and NC State were by less than a field goal. SMU, meanwhile, has played exactly one currently ranked team — BYU — and lost 18-15. Cal beating SMU probably elevates it above Washington in the bowl order. Washington, of course, can raise its own stock by taking down Oregon this week, too. "We're just going to try and control our own destiny by playing really well Saturday and then see what bowl game chooses us," Fisch said. "Then we're going to out there and try to make that a championship month of December and a championship game wherever we go." Get local news delivered to your inbox!By LISA MASCARO and FARNOUSH AMIRI WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard faced fresh scrutiny Monday on Capitol Hill about her proximity to Russian-ally Syria amid the sudden collapse of that country’s hardline Assad rule. Gabbard ignored shouted questions about her 2017 visit to war-torn Syria as she ducked into one of several private meetings with senators who are being asked to confirm Trump’s unusual nominees . Related Articles National Politics | Trump promises to end birthright citizenship: What is it and could he do it? National Politics | Trump has flip-flopped on abortion policy. His appointees may offer clues to what happens next National Politics | In promising to shake up Washington, Trump is in a class of his own National Politics | Election Day has long passed. In some states, legislatures are working to undermine the results National Politics | Trump attorney Alina Habba, a Lehigh University grad, to serve as counselor to the president But the Democrat-turned-Republican Army National Reserve lieutenant colonel delivered a statement in which she reiterated her support for Trump’s America First approach to national security and a more limited U.S. military footprint overseas. “I want to address the issue that’s in the headlines right now: I stand in full support and wholeheartedly agree with the statements that President Trump has made over these last few days with regards to the developments in Syria,” Gabbard said exiting a Senate meeting. The incoming president’s Cabinet and top administrative choices are dividing his Republican allies and drawing concern , if not full opposition, from Democrats and others. Not just Gabbard, but other Trump nominees including Pentagon pick Pete Hegseth, were back at the Capitol ahead of what is expected to be volatile confirmation hearings next year. The incoming president is working to put his team in place for an ambitious agenda of mass immigrant deportations, firing federal workers and rollbacks of U.S. support for Ukraine and NATO allies. “We’re going to sit down and visit, that’s what this is all about,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., as he welcomed Gabbard into his office. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary pick Hegseth appeared to be picking up support from once-skeptical senators, the former Army National Guard major denying sexual misconduct allegations and pledging not to drink alcohol if he is confirmed. The president-elect’s choice to lead the FBI, Kash Patel , who has written extensively about locking up Trump’s foes and proposed dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation, launched his first visits with senators Monday. “I expect our Republican Senate is going to confirm all of President Trump’s nominees,” said Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., on social media. Despite widespread concern about the nominees’ qualifications and demeanors for the jobs that are among the highest positions in the U.S. government, Trump’s team is portraying the criticism against them as nothing more than political smears and innuendo. Showing that concern, nearly 100 former senior U.S. diplomats and intelligence and national security officials have urged Senate leaders to schedule closed-door hearings to allow for a full review of the government’s files on Gabbard. Trump’s allies have described the criticisms of Hegseth in particular as similar to those lodged against Brett Kavanaugh, the former president’s Supreme Court nominee who denied a sexual assault allegation and went on to be confirmed during Trump’s first term in office. Said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., about Hegseth: “Anonymous accusations are trying to destroy reputations again. We saw this with Kavanaugh. I won’t stand for it.” One widely watched Republican, Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, herself a former Army National Guard lieutenant colonel and sexual assault survivor who had been criticized by Trump allies for her cool reception to Hegseth, appeared more open to him after their follow-up meeting Monday. “I appreciate Pete Hegseth’s responsiveness and respect for the process,” Ernst said in a statement. Ernst said that following “encouraging conversations,” he had committed to selecting a senior official who will “prioritize and strengthen my work to prevent sexual assault within the ranks. As I support Pete through this process, I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources.” Ernst also had praise for Patel — “He shares my passion for shaking up federal agencies” — and for Gabbard. Once a rising Democratic star, Gabbard, who represented Hawaii in Congress, arrived a decade ago in Washington, her surfboard in tow, a new generation of potential leaders. She ran unsuccessfully for president in 2020. But Gabbard abruptly left the party and briefly became an independent before joining with Trump’s 2024 campaign as one of his enthusiasts, in large part over his disdain for U.S. involvement overseas and opposition to helping Ukraine battle Russia. Her visit to Syria to meet with then-President Bashar Assad around the time of Trump’s first inauguration during the country’s bloody civil war stunned her former colleagues and the Washington national security establishment. The U.S. had severed diplomatic relations with Syria. Her visit was seen by some as legitimizing a brutal leader who was accused of war crimes. Gabbard has defended the trip, saying it’s important to open dialogue, but critics hear in her commentary echoes of Russia-fueled talking points. Assad fled to Moscow over the weekend after Islamist rebels overtook Syria in a surprise attack, ending his family’s five decades of rule. She said her own views have been shaped by “my multiple deployments and seeing firsthand the cost of war and the threat of Islamist terrorism.” Gabbard said, “It’s one of the many reasons why I appreciate President Trump’s leadership and his election, where he is fully committed, as he has said over and over, to bring about an end to wars.” Last week, the nearly 100 former officials, who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, said in the letter to Senate leaders they were “alarmed” by the choice of Gabbard to oversee all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies. They said her past actions “call into question her ability to deliver unbiased intelligence briefings to the President, Congress, and to the entire national security apparatus.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to coordinate the nation’s intelligence agencies and act as the president’s main intelligence adviser. Associated Press writer Stephen Groves contributed to this report.
bet365 100 bet credits
。
( MENAFN - Jordan Times) LONDON – Given Donald Trump's nominees for key cabinet positions so far, it appears that the US president-elect is determined at least to try to deliver on many of his campaign promises. If so, the current news cycle may have come as a welcome surprise to those who have grown tired of elected leaders making promises they have no intention of keeping. But as a longtime student and practitioner of the dismal science (economics), I see no reason to believe that Trump's policies will do what he and his supporters think they will do. For example, aggressively enforcing a country's immigration laws might well be a good idea. But aggressively pursuing illegal immigrants who are already in the country is another matter, and if it is done in a way that discourages immigrants more broadly, the United States could lose one of the key advantages that it has over many of its advanced-economy peers. With demographic trends putting downward pressure on the populations of Europe, Japan, and many other countries, the US must be careful to not join them. Additional workers who can preserve the size of the labor force need to be found somewhere. Or consider Trump's two other major campaign promises: significant tax cuts and new 10-20% tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, with the rate rising to 60% for goods from China. While it is easy to find economists who will disagree with each other on just about any economic-policy question, tariffs might be the one big exception. Few economists think they are a good idea, mainly because there is zero evidence that they can help reduce a country's trade deficit. Worse, all the additional costs and other negative consequences that they produce are well known. Martin Wolf of the Financial Times demonstrates this clearly in a recent commentary. A country's balance of payments, he explains, is an accounting identity (an equation that must always balance out). Thus, any deficit on trade (which typically dominates the current-account balance) must be matched by a surplus of capital inflows. That is how the overall balance becomes balanced. While the US could use tariffs to reduce its imports from country A, it will have to import more from countries B and C unless it also reduces the consumption, investment, or government spending that drives its demand for those imports in the first place. In fact, this is exactly what happened after the US imposed tariffs on imports from China during Trump's previous term. The US continued to import the same goods, but from other countries, many of which increased their own imports from China. If Trump goes ahead and slaps punitive tariffs on those countries, too, the same pattern will have to repeat itself. There is no way around it: If the US truly wants to reduce its aggregate imports, it will have to reduce overall domestic demand; or more precisely, it will have to raise domestic savings relative to its investment needs, which in turn would mean receiving less net capital from abroad. Now consider Trump's promises to cut taxes and hand out various other goodies for those who helped elect him. Such measures, all else remaining constant, will boost domestic demand; and if they are applied together with tariffs, they will increase the cost of living. The inflation that soured so many voters on Joe Biden's administration has eased, but Trump's agenda could send prices soaring again. And that is before accounting for the retaliation by other countries, most of whom would introduce their own tariffs to hurt US exporters (as China and others did previously when they targeted US agriculture). What can other countries' leaders learn from America's bizarre experiment? With Trump's unorthodox approach to politics now very much in vogue, we can expect to see more mini-Trump initiatives popping up around the world. But insofar as they are Trumpian, they, too, will fail to achieve their intended purposes. Since all other countries have the same balance-of-payments identity as the US, those with large trade surpluses necessarily export more capital relative to their current domestic investment needs. Faced with Trump's return, wise foreign leaders would start thinking about how to tackle their countries' own long-standing domestic economic challenges. Those with excess savings, for example, ought to consider how to boost investment at home or reduce the domestic savings rate. Given their own current troubles, Germany and China both would be well served by such a strategy. Not only would it boost their economies and increase the appeal of their leaders; it also would reduce their exports of capital to the rest of the world, including the US. Many other constructive policy changes could then follow. China, for example, could reform its financial sector and allow its currency to acquire more of the features that have been so central to America's ability to attract capital from the rest of the world. Future US leaders might then be less cavalier about dictating terms to others, not least because others would no longer be so dependent on the US and its currency. Jim O'Neill, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a former UK treasury minister, is a member of the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2024. MENAFN30112024000028011005ID1108942276 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.Jury's Mixed Verdict: Qualcomm's Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm Holdings
Scientists discover 2 stars orbiting our galaxy's supermassive black hole in lockstep — and they could point to a type of planet never seen before