Here is a treatment when you see the first signs of Alzheimers. 
Mushroom soup, just boiled mushroom, with three types of rice (white rice, black rice and millet rice) and add pecans or walnuts (walnuts are better) and wolfberries.
 Wolfberries.  

This is Just Fantastic, all because of Trump!
If California did Leave the Union, It's Be A Second Mexico in 3 years.

Quote:
#Calexit: California want to leave the US after Donald Trump’s election win

Quote:That massive blue block on the left – encompassing California, Oregon, Nevada and Washington state – stands out quite a bit against all of the red.
So it may not be a huge surprise that people living in that Democrat-voting block are now looking at other options – specifically, secession.
Since Donald Trump’s electoral victory was first announced, #Calexit has been trending on Twitter, with distraught Californians looking to form their own state.

Quote:And others are saying Oregon and Washington (and maybe Nevada) should secede too

Quote:So could it actually happen?
Possibly – there is no specific ban on state secession in the US Constitution. In fact, there’s nothing on secession in there at all.
Plus, there’s a bit of a legal loophole.
In the case of Texas v White, the Supreme Court said:

Quote:When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Did you notice that last bit? ‘Except through revolution or through consent of the States.’
If enough Californians want it, there’s a chance it could happen.
And this is far from the first west coast secession movement in the US – the Cascadia secessionists have long campaigned for a separate state of Cascadia, which mostly spans the Pacific Northwestern states.

A very interesting, well written and thorough look at internet security and encryption if that is something of interest to you, which it should be to all.

This is only about half of the original article - it is very long, but has loads of information about internet security and privacy.

Quote:How online surveillance cracked our trust in the web

A black shrouded figure appears on the screen, looming over the rapt audience, talking about surveillance. But this is no Big Brother figure seeking obedience though, rather the opposite.

Perhaps even his nemesis.

NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden is explaining how his former employer and other intelligence agencies have worked to undermine privacy on the internet and beyond.

"We're seeing systemic attacks on the fabrics of our systems, the fabric of our communications... by undermining the security of our communications, they enable surveillance," he warns.

He is speaking at the conference via a video link from Russia, where he has taken refuge after leaking the documents detailing some of the NSA's surveillance projects. The room behind him is in darkness, giving away nothing about his exact location.

"Surveillance is not possible when our movements and communications are safe and protected — a satellite cannot see you when you are inside your home — but an unprotected computer with an open webcam can," he adds.

Over the last two years a steady stream of documents leaked by Snowden have laid bare how intelligence agencies in the US and the UK have waged a secret war against privacy on the internet. How they have worked to undermine the technologies used by billions of people every day to protect everything from mundane messages — or webcam chats — to their most secret thoughts.


 

One of the most significant technologies being targeted by the intelligence services is encryption.

Online, encryption surrounds us, binds us, identifies us. It protects things like our credit card transactions and medical records, encoding them so that — unless you have the key — the data appears to be meaningless nonsense.

Encryption is one of the elemental forces of the web, even though it goes unnoticed and unremarked by the billions of people that use it every day.

But that doesn't mean that the growth in the use of encryption isn't controversial.

For some, strong encryption is the cornerstone of security and privacy in any digital communications, whether that's for your selfies or for campaigners against an autocratic regime.

Others, mostly police and intelligence agencies, have become increasingly worried that the absolute secrecy that encryption provides could make it easier for criminals and terrorists to use the internet to plot without fear of discovery.

As such, the outcome of this war over privacy will have huge implications for the future of the web itself.
The code wars

Codes have been used to protect data in transit for thousands of years, and have long been a key tool in warfare: the Caesar cipher was named after the Roman emperor who used it to protect his military secrets from prying eyes.

These ciphers were extremely basic, of course: the Caesar cipher turned a message into code simply by replacing each letter with the one three down in the alphabet, so that 'a' became 'd'.

Ciphers became more sophisticated, and harder to break, over the centuries, but it was the Second World War that demonstrated the real importance of encryption — and cracking it. The work done at Bletchley Park to crack German codes including Enigma had a famous impact on the course of the war.

As a result, once the war was over, encryption technology was put on the US Munitions List alongside tanks and guns as an 'auxiliary military technology', which put restrictions on its export.

"The real fundamental problem is the internet and the protocol it's all based on was never intended to be secure."
Alan Woodward, Surrey University

 

In practice, these government controls didn't make much difference to ordinary people, as there were few uses for code-making — that is, encryption — outside the military.

But all that changed with the arrival of the personal computer. It became an even bigger issue as the huge economic potential of the web became apparent.

"The internet and the protocol it's all based on was never intended to be secure, so if we are going to rely on the internet as part of our critical national [and] international infrastructure, which we do, you've got to be able to secure it, and the only way to do that is to layer encryption over the top," explains Professor Alan Woodward, a computer security expert at the University of Surrey.

Few would be willing to use online shopping if their credit card details, address, and what they were buying was being sent across the internet for any to see.

Encryption provides privacy by encoding data onto what appears to be meaningless junk, and it also creates trust by allowing us to prove who we are online — another essential element of doing business over the internet.

"A lot of cryptography isn't just about keeping things secret, a lot of it is about proving identity," says Bill Buchanan, professor of computing at Edinburgh Napier University. "There's a lot of naïveté about cryptography as to thinking it's just about keeping something safe on your disk."

But the rise of the internet suddenly meant that access to cryptography became an issue of privacy and economics as well as one of national security, immediately sparking the clash that came to be known as 'the crypto wars'.

Governments fought to control the use of encryption, while privacy advocates insisted its use was essential — not just for individual freedom, but also to protect the commercial development of the nascent internet.

What followed was a series of skirmishes, as the US government and others made increasingly desperate — and unsuccessful — efforts to reassert control over encryption technologies. One example in the mid-90s involved the NSA designing the Clipper chip, which was a way to give the agency access to the communications on any devices on which the chip was installed.

Another attempt at government control during this period came with the introduction of key escrow. Under the scheme, the US government would agree to license encryption providers, if they gave the state access to the keys used to decode communications.

On top of this were rules which only allowed products that used weak and easily-cracked encryption to be exported from the US.

Remarkably there was an unwelcome reminder of those days of watered-down encryption with the appearance of the recent FREAK flaw in the SSL security standard. The vulnerability could be used to force web browsers to default to the weaker "export-strength" encryption, which can be easily broken.

Few experts even knew that the option to use the weaker encryption still existed in the browsers commonly used today — a good example of the dangerous and unexpected consequences of attempts to control privacy technologies, long after the political decisions affecting it had been reversed and forgotten.

But by the early 2000s, it appeared that the privacy advocates had effectively won the crypto wars. The Clipper chip was abandoned, strong encryption software exports were allowed, key escrow failed, and governments realised it was all but impossible for them to control the use of encryption. It was understood that if they tried, the damage they would do to the internet economy would be too great.

Individual freedoms, and simple economics, had overwhelmed national security. In 2005, one campaigning group even cheerfully announced "The crypto wars are finally over and we won!"

They were wrong.

We now know that the crypto wars were never over. While privacy campaigners celebrated their victory, intelligence agencies were already at work breaking and undermining encryption. The second stage of the crypto wars — the spies' secret war — had begun.
Antique names, modern surveillance

Naming their most confidential, controversial, and expensive projects after civil war battles was probably a dark inside joke that the spies of the NSA and GCHQ never expected to see made public.

But Bullrun and Edgehill — the first battles from the American and English civil wars respectively — were the names given by the US and British intelligence services to their attacks on the encryption systems that underpin the communications of billions of people.

The documents provided by Snowden detail at least some of this secret war. It's where those civil war-inspired codenames were revealed, just one part of a multi-billion dollar assault on the use of encryption which has been gradually revealed over the last two years.

According to a top secret briefing paper published by The Guardian newspaper, the aim of 'Project Bullrun' (the first Battle of Bullrun ended in victory for the Confederates) was explicitly to "defeat the encryption used in specific network communication technologies."

Another Snowden document published by The New York Times detailed some of the methods the NSA was using with the aim of "defeating network security and privacy." The project involved multiple sources and methods ("all of which are extremely sensitive and fragile"), including "computer network exploitation" (a polite way of saying hacking into a network), collaboration with other intelligence agencies, investment in high-performance computers, and the development of advanced mathematical techniques.

Bullrun claimed to be able to circumvent the encryption used in SSL, https, SSH, encrypted chat, VPNs and encrypted VoIP — many of the most widely used privacy and security technologies deployed today.

The UK's intelligence agency GCHQ also has a related encryption-cracking effort, called Edgehill (the Battle of Edgehill was an early victory for King Charles I of England) which focused on attacking encrypted traffic certified by three major internet companies, finding flaws in virtual private networks, and identifying digital certificates that it might be able to crack.

GCHQ's headquarters, known as 'The Doughnut', in Cheltenham
Image: Ministry of Defence

A 2013 NSA budget request — revealed in another of the Snowden documents — shows that the NSA's plans included creating backdoors into commercial encryption systems and influencing the standards and specifications used as the foundations of privacy technologies with the intention of making their access easier.

The document states: "Resources in this project are used to... insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems, IT systems, networks and endpoint communications devices used by targets."

The list goes on: another cryptography budget request published by The Intercept states: "This project enables the defeat of strong commercial data security systems; develops capabilities to exploit emerging information systems and technologies that are employed or may be employed by SIGINT targets; develops analytic algorithms, processes, and procedures to exploit emerging information systems technologies; and develops initial recognition, exploitation, and prototype solutions against new technology targets."

And last year the US National Institute of Standards and Technology was forced to remove a cryptographic algorithm from its list of random number generators after allegations that the NSA had deliberately weakened it to make it easier to crack.

It's not just the NSA and GCHQ that have been tinkering with encryption either: the CIA has also been revealed to have waged a campaign against the encryption used to secure iPhones and iPads with the intention of being able to use the devices to spy on their targets.

But possibly the most audacious attack by the NSA and GCHQ on the privacy and security of communications was a heist aimed at grabbing encryption keys from SIM maker Gemalto..

The attack is striking in that Gemalto was not the final target: the move was likely aimed at gathering information on users of mobile phones with Gemalto technology onboard located in Afghanistan, Yemen, India, Serbia, Iran, Iceland, Somalia, Pakistan, and Tajikistan. Gaining access to the keys would have given spies access to calls made on those phones that would be otherwise scrambled. Targeting a company simply because it made technology used by others was, until then, unheard of.

Gemalto carried out an investigation into the hacking attacks in 2010 and 2011, and found there had been no mass leak of encryption keys. "We are conscious that the most eminent state agencies, especially when they work together, have resources and legal support that go far beyond that of typical hackers and criminal organizations. And, we are concerned that they could be involved in such indiscriminate operations against private companies with no grounds for suspicion," it said.

GCHQ's response was the standard one: "All of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.

"All our operational processes rigorously support this position. In addition, the United Kingdom's interception regime is entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights."

It's worth noting that only a tiny fraction of the Snowden documents have so far been made public. It may well be that these are just a small proportion of the incidents that make up a far larger secret war.

SEE: Enterprise encryption: Trends, strategic needs, and best practices (Tech Pro Research)
The encryption backlash

Of course, it's often argued that all of this activity is simply the NSA and GCHQ doing their job: they break codes and have done so for decades, to make sure that criminals, terrorists, and others cannot plot in secret. If this means exploiting weaknesses in software in order to eavesdrop on those who are plotting crime, then so be it.

As GCHQ told a government enquiry set up after the Snowden revelations: "Our goal is to be able to read or find the communications of intelligence targets."

From that perspective, they're doing nothing more than the code-breakers of Bletchley Park did back in WWII — cracking codes in secret to fight the country's enemies.

But many argue that the analogy doesn't hold: Bletchley worked on cracking codes used by, and only by, the Nazis. What the NSA and GCHQ have been doing is breaking the codes used by everyone, good and bad, both outside of the US and inside it. By doing so, they risk undermining the security of all communications and transactions.

Those weaknesses and backdoors created or discovered by the NSA and its colleagues elsewhere can be used by hackers and hostile states as easily as they can by our own intelligence agencies. Access for them to spy on the few automatically means insecurity for the rest of us.

As Snowden told the recent CeBIT conference in Germany: "When we talk about security and surveillance, there is no golden key that allows only good guys to read the communications of only terrorists."

Some privacy advocates also argue that no government should ever have such a capability to trawl through the lives of individuals. "It produces an inescapable prison. We can't let this happen. We have to, as a matter of civic hygiene, prevent it from happening," Phil Zimmermann, the creator of the PGP encryption algorithm, said recently.

And if the Snowden revelations themselves were an embarrassment for the intelligence agencies, the consequences for their intelligence gathering capabilities have been far worse.

One document revealed that the NSA had been systematically scooping up unencrypted traffic travelling between the distributed datacentres of internet companies, giving them access to vast amount of customers' email, video chats, browsing history, and more.

In response the big internet companies such as Yahoo and Google rapidly starting encrypting this traffic to shut out the watchers. As one cryptography expert, Matthew Green from Johns Hopkins University, noted at the time: "Good job NSA. You turned Yahoo into an encryption powerhouse."

Encrypting data links between datacentres was only the beginning. As the revelations continued to tumble out, more companies decided it was time to increase the privacy of their services, which meant even more encryption.

"If those of us in positions of responsibility fail to do everything in our power to protect the right of privacy we risk something far more valuable than money. We risk our way of life."
Tim Cook, Apple CEO

"Encryption has only really become a big issue again because Snowden showed the world how insecure the infrastructure was and how it was being abused by intelligence agencies and so companies started reacting," said Gus Hosein, the executive director of campaigning group Privacy International.

Perhaps surprisingly, given the decade-long assault on encryption, it seems the fundamentals of it remain strong, so long as it has been well implemented. As Snowden said: "Encryption works. Properly implemented, strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on," before adding the caveat: "Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it."

Consumer applications are jumping on the encryption bandwagon. In November 2014, the popular WhatsApp messaging service also switched on end-to-end encryption for hundreds of millions of users who post billions of messages each day.

Using end-to-end encryption like this means law enforcement cannot access the messages sent at all. Previously they have been able to access communications at the datacentre with a warrant, because it would be stored there unencrypted. But end-to end encryption means that from the point it leaves one phone to the point it arrives at the other, the message is scrambled.

Apple's iOS 8 operating system now encrypts iMessage conversations and FaceTime video chats end-to-end.

"Apple has no way to decrypt iMessage and FaceTime data when it's in transit between devices. So unlike other companies' messaging services, Apple doesn't scan your communications, and we wouldn't be able to comply with a wiretap order even if we wanted to," the company says.

Speaking at a cybersecurity summit hosted by the White House at Stanford University, Apple CEO Tim Cook made his position clear, that providing privacy was a moral stance: "History has shown us that sacrificing our right to privacy can have dire consequences. We still live in a world where all people are not treated equally. Too many people do not feel free to practice their religion or express their opinion or love who they choose, a world in which that information can make the difference between life and death."



"If those of us in positions of responsibility fail to do everything in our power to protect the right of privacy we risk something far more valuable than money. We risk our way of life," said Cook.

Apple isn't alone in this. The Electronic Frontier Foundation lists a variety of applications that to a greater or lesser extent now encrypt communications in transit or end-to-end.

The backlash had begun to gather pace.

This unexpected shift towards greater privacy caught the intelligence services and law enforcement off guard. They suddenly found that easy sources of data had gone dark. Senior officials on both sides of the Atlantic began to warn that criminals and terrorists would be able to slip through their fingers. As GCHQ's new director Robert Hannigan said:

"Techniques for encrypting messages or making them anonymous which were once the preserve of the most sophisticated criminals or nation states now come as standard. These are supplemented by freely available programs and apps adding extra layers of security, many of them proudly advertising that they are 'Snowden approved'."

He wasn't alone in voicing such fears. Late last year, one of his predecessors, Sir David Omand, gave a similar warning to a government privacy and security inquiry.

"Post-Snowden, the companies are now making their devices technically inaccessible even to themselves."
David Omand, former GCHQ director

"Law enforcement faces increasing difficulty in accessing heavily encrypted material that may be found on their suspects' mobile phones or computers... Post-Snowden, the companies are now making their devices technically inaccessible even to themselves, so warrants are rendered moot," said Omand.

And it's not only the intelligence agencies that are warning about the risk that encryption poses, either. Early this year, British prime minister David Cameron unexpectedly upped the stakes by getting involved, too.

Cameron said: "In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people, which even in extremes, with a signed warrant from the home secretary personally, that we cannot read?"

The speech that contained these remarks was widely interpreted as an attack on the use of strong encryption. It was seen as either a veiled call for the return to the failed 1990s policy of key escrow or possibly even floating the idea of banning end-to-end encryption in the UK.

Days later, another leaked document revealed that the EU's counter-terrorism coordinator Gilles de Kerchove wanted internet companies to share their encryption keys, warning that de-centralised (end-to-end) encryption was making lawful interception "technically difficult or even impossible".

Some remain unimpressed by these claims. "It's their fault that life is going to get terribly difficult for them, because they were caught trying to steal from the cookie jar, or just breaking the cookie jar wide open by smashing it on the floor," countered Privacy International's Hosein.

And few experts think that encryption is going to be banned anytime soon, no matter what the politicians might think.

"It's not that people want terrorists to be able to operate with impunity. It's the practical implications of some of what's been said," the University of Surrey's Woodward said. "The trouble is that everybody relies on encryption on the internet. So if you were to ban it, you would make it almost impossible to do any business online."

"It's their fault that life is going to get terribly difficult for them because they were caught trying to steal from the cookie jar."
Gus Hosein, Privacy International

As Woodward points out, since this was debated in the 1990s and 2000s, the technology has moved on. For example, thanks to something called perfect forward secrecy, new encryption keys are issued for every transaction, so a measure like key escrow would be much harder to implement.

"It would send us back to the dark ages of the internet. The protocols we created in the past really didn't have security in mind. They're still based on someone typing at a terminal," said Buchanan from Edinburgh Napier University.

Another unexpected consequence of the revelations about Western intelligence agencies' behaviour is that, unsurprisingly, other nations have also demanded access to encryption keys. That's the problem with putting backdoors into secure systems: once one nation, law enforcement agency, or legal system has them — officially or unofficially — then everybody wants one.

For example, a new anti-terrorism law in China, which could be adopted into law in 2015, would require US technology firms that want to do business in the country to turn over their encryption keys and communications records to the government.

President Obama has complained about the proposed legislation, demonstrating neatly that one country's dangerous backdoor security vulnerability is another country's essential tool for fighting terrorism.

You know that feeling when you ate something you used to have as a kid, and you think "I'm sure they were bigger when I was a small kid", well yeah - about that ....

You get less confectionery and pay the same, and the common ploys they use. No doubt they will say it is for our health and benefit as they are concerned about obesity levels rising.  Well then add a massive tax to sweets and chocolates as they do with cigarettes and make a shedload more money.

And the callousness of the guy at the end of the article - quoted here. 

So bottom line is just suck it up, you will get used to it, so stop whining.

Quote:But shoppers will get over it. Over time we do tend to get used to the new sizes and move on says Oliver Nieburg, editor of Confectionery News. However angry consumers seem now, he thinks it's unlikely to do lasting damage.

"These are things that are largely forgiven and forgotten after a few months. There's an outcry on social media and then it goes away."

At least Mondelez were transparent about what they were doing. More often these changes happen surreptitiously, he says.

"There may be some initial backlash and a drop in sales, but consumers are likely to adjust to the new reality."

"I wouldn't imagine it would be a lasting problem. "

Quote:Toblerone's trim: Is this the thin end of the wedge?

Here's the good news. There's no need to plan your January diet this year.

The food brands are doing it for you. They're selling you a slimmed down version of their product for the same price.

So while the checkout till rings up the same total as usual, your shopping bag may well be considerably lighter because manufacturers are shaving costs by giving us slightly less chocolate, or fish or ice cream, in what looks like the usual packet.

It's known as "shrinkflation". If the portion size is getting stingier - shrinking - but the price stays the same, then you're effectively paying more - inflation.

For instance, as you'll no doubt have heard, the Toblerone is being redesigned for the UK market; its Alpine peaks are being eroded to compensate for the rising cost of ingredients, and a lighter bar is being sold for the same price.

The 400g bar is now a 360g bar and instead of 15 peaks it boasts only 11. This has caused much gnashing of teeth (and not in a good way).

But - and here's the bad news - there could be more of it to come.

According to the consumer organisation Which? several brands were guilty of this "sneaky way of increasing prices" last year. Tropicana reduced the size of its Orange and Raspberry juice by 15%, packets of McVitie's Digestive dark chocolate biscuits lost around 10% in weight, and Princes is putting less mackerel in each of its tins.

But thanks to the pound's recent weakness and higher costs of ingredients, manufacturers may be tempted to go further.

"I think it's going to happen even more," says Ratula Chakraborty, retail specialist at the University of East Anglia.

"Manufacturers want to keep their prices low, and inflation is happening, commodity prices are changing, so who is going to pay for it? It will be you and I who pay for it."

She thinks we should keep an eye on products across the board in coming months.

"I would say we should be watching out everywhere, food products, fresh produce, household products, grocery products."
Blame Brexit?

Toblerone's owner Mondelez says it is cost pressures that are behind the change.

Cocoa in particular has risen sharply in price over the last decade. And the weaker pound since the UK's vote to leave the EU means it's even more expensive to pay for those kinds of raw ingredients on the world market.

But Jack Skelly, senior analyst at the market intelligence company Euromonitor thinks shrinkflation would be happening with or without the referendum vote.

"Brexit is not the main issue here," he says. "It'll be mostly cocoa that's driving it."

That means, says Mr Skelly, we should watch the size and price of chocolate ice cream, chocolate biscuits and other cocoa content products in the coming months. The cost of palm oil - also found in many chocolate bars, cakes and biscuits, though not in Toblerones - has also risen.

Mondelez says it is not sterling weakness or the Brexit vote that's behind the change, but they are only introducing the new design in the UK.
Sticky prices

As the more optimistic chocoholic might hasten to point out, the price of cocoa has fallen slightly in recent months, giving rise to the hope that portions could become more generous again soon.

Jack Skelly thinks not. "I think cocoa prices will go down next year but there's no way [chocolate] prices will be reduced."

That's just the way it works, prices don't immediately rise every time cocoa gets dearer, but once higher they're likely to "stick" around the new level.
Honey, I shrunk the treats

Which guilty indulgences are weighing less?

    In 2012 Nestle reduced the size of its 1kg tin of Quality Street to 820g
    Cadbury's Dairy Milk bars took on a new curvier, but lighter, shape in 2012
    Cadbury's Creme Eggs went from half a dozen in a box to just five
    The Mars Bar shrank from 58g to 51g and the Snickers from 58g to 48g in 2013

Source: Confectionery News

Hillary Clinton FULL Concession Speech After Losing to Donald Trump - 11/9/16
You'll notice she had to read it, she couldn't have spoken her own thoughts from her Heart (proof she doesn't have a Heart)!
 By the way Hillary, Trump Doesn't Want Your Help so don't bother going to OUR White House 
and Acting Like You're Important, You Are Not! Just Leave!

Now America also has a First Lady That Is Beautiful and Graceful!

There was an explosion reported in Russia last night, along with one person found dead.
Read the full story at the source below in the quote:

Quote:Something serious appears to be happening in Russia, as well as at the Russian Consulate in New York.

Speculation abounds as multiple events taking place in the last few hours indicate that either a very coincidental set of circumstances just happened, or an attack has been initiated against Putin’s government.

Source

Exactly what I was afraid of.

The "Deplorables" seem to be on Hillary's support team... not Trump's!   

The thing I worry about now is someone trying to assassinate him.  Maybe he shouldn't leave home without a suit of armour for a while.  

Sad... very sad!

Quote:Rioting has broken out in America in reaction to Donald Trump’s shock election as the next US president. Hundreds of protesters gathered in Oakland in the early hours of Wednesday morning attempting to block freeways, with at least one hit by a car. There were also reports that cars were set on fire and windows of others were broken with emergency services closing down one highway to deal with the incident.

Protesters were also seen in masks outside a Trump supporters party in San Francisco, according to KTVU, and in Berkeley others were heard chanting ‘not my president.’ Hillary Clinton supporters were also filmed marching through Portland in Oregon shouting ‘f*** Donald Trump’ and setting fire to the US flag.

Quote:Hillary Clinton refused to concede the presidential contest early Wednesday even as Donald J. Trump built a lead in a series of battleground states, upending months of polling that had given the advantage to Mrs. Clinton and putting him on the verge of seizing back the White House for Republicans.

Shortly after 2 a.m., John D. Podesta, the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, addressed Democrats, saying that “they are still counting votes, and every vote counts” and declaring that “she is not done yet.”
Just after 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, Mr. Trump was declared the victor in Florida, earning him the state’s 29 electoral votes and giving him a more certain grip on the presidential contest with Mrs. Clinton. About two hours later, he added Pennsylvania to his column.
 

Reaction to the prospect of a Trump presidency rippled across the globe, with financial markets abroad falling as American television networks raised the prospect that Mrs. Clinton might lose. Asian markets were trading sharply lower, down around two percentage points, and in the United States, Dow Jones futures were down as much as 800 points in after-hours trading.

Quote:Campaign advisers to Mrs. Clinton watched with increasing alarm on Tuesday night as healthy leads that had been predicted in polling for much of the past several months appeared to evaporate as votes were tallied. Mr. Trump also won North Carolina and Ohio, and he was clinging to small leads in Michigan and Wisconsin.