So did Eqypt kill the head of the multi-billion dollar dam project in Ethiopia because it could affect the Nile, or because the power generated would compete with this project?
So, the Egypt killing him part is speculation, but the head engineer of a $5 billion dam project being built on a Nile tributary in Ethiopia was recently found dead in his car in what looked suspiciously like a faked suicide. There's a lot of potential for big energy money in Northeast Africa right now, enough to make whichever state can harness it first a major geopolitical player.
But this guy was smart enough to steal it, You'd think that after amassing all this currency he would have laundered it though a couple of crypto currencies using multiple exchanges or something to hide the facts and make it untraceable...
He knows better than anyone how unsafe it is to keep your money in cryptocurrencies. The last thing you want is for someone to steal your hard earned stolen money.
Webster definition of collusion: "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose; acting in collusion with the enemy
Webster definition of conspiracy: "1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators
b : a group of conspirators"
Webster synonym of conspiracy: "2 a secret agreement or cooperation between two parties for an illegal or dishonest purpose
a conspiracy among the leading manufacturers to fix prices
Synonyms of conspiracy
collusion,"
Last time I checked, conspiracy was an indictable crime. Since conspiracy is an actual legal term, there could be a risk of possible lawsuit by publicly accusing someone of conspiracy. Collusion is a little more nebulous and has no legal meaning, at least in this sense.
I make more than twice as much as my project manager who is also on salary, but she only works 35 hours a week since she has to leave early to pick up her kids. I usually work over three times that many hours a week, so I'm making less per hour. I don't think it's wrong for me to think I need to be paid more.
I read that as you need to be paid at least half as much as you do now and your company needs to hire another person to do half your workload. Do I qualify for an MBA now?
The answer is more critical thinking, not less. More information, not less. It's OK to venture outside your bubble and read something you disagree with every now and then.
I agree. The only way to refute people peddling lies and falsehoods is to first know what they are peddling. That's why I occasionally listen to talk radio on the way home in the afternoon. The problem is, most people throwing around the "fake news" mantra are decidedly not using critical thinking.
Before the internet literally anybody could spread whatever rumor they wanted and there was no way to check for yourself. It wasn't that long ago that such word of mouth was the only way to get any news.
And before the internet those rumors were pretty much limited to people you know. Now, with the internet, as Jonathan Swift said "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it". People are more likely to believe the first thing they hear, so by the time the truth reaches them, it's too late.
I imagine it depends a lot on your news source. If you only get your news from facebook and are friends with lots of gullible idiots, then you're gonna see a lot of fake news
To be fair I think that there's a lot of examples of inaccurate news from "regular" news outlets. I've lost count of how many many news articles conflate illegal immigrant with legal immigrant for example. These biases cause "regular" news to get dubbed fake news, and the label really has been earned in many cases.
Every site has some axe to grind is my observation.
Biased news is not inherently "fake news". All news has some level of inherent bias just from the level of deciding what is "newsworthy" and what isn't. And that's before adding any editorial spin on the facts. You just have to recognize that bias and account for it.
For example I get a lot of my foreign news from al-Jazeera, and I realize a lot of their content will have a pro-Qatar and pro-Palestine slant. There will always be inaccuracies as well, it's the nature of information-you always get more with time. "Fake news" is taking objective facts and claiming the opposite, not transparently correcting factual inaccuracies in reporting once they become known, or even just making shit up. "Fake news" has gone from the meaning "false news" to "news I don't like".
If I'm reading you correctly, you're arguing that we didn't need those weapons mentioned above. I'll disagree with you, while agreeing that we paid much more than necessary...
F-35: would have been much better spent upgrading existing airframes. the aircraft was so full of problems they had to delay retirement of the A-10 which is probably one of if not the best ground attack aircraft ever built, might as well have just kept them and upgraded them. The F-22 production lines could have been kept open. F-16s are literally breaking apart but they are already proven designs with established production and logistical support, could have just created a new block. It's trying to do too many things at once when what we already had worked plenty well enough.
LCS: Under-armed, under-armored, under-manned, propulsion systems that are inherently flawed and prone to failures, hulls prone to cracking, and over-reliance on contractors for support. Billions of dollars spent to retire frigates, only to end up with "replacements" having to be redesigned so much that they are now also classified as "frigates". Just like the F-35, jack-of-all-trades in the military gets you a very expensive and operationally compromised mess.
Land Warrior is the only thing that made a little sense. Networking soldiers is a great idea, especially in urban environments. Integrate real time intelligence from small, unit level UAVs and you can own the battlefield. The technology just wasn't mature enough at the time, but at least now that it is they should at least have a good idea of which ends are dead ends.
I see plenty of people that seem to have no problem defining fake news. If it's inconvenient, shows them in a bad light, discounts their narrative, doesn't match their world view. Here's a convenient list of people using the "fake news" claim: Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines), Bashar al-Assad (Syria), Nicolas Maduro (Venezuela), Donald Trump (US). Some interesting company there.
They must have a pretty good textile industry if they can turn weeds into fiber that can be used to make those incredibly stylish and fashionable shorts.
LOL You do realize that DARPA has been after the autonomous vehicle concept for over a decade now right? It's been going on so long now that I've seen multiple TV programs on the "science channel" about it and at least one "National Geographic" and one "NOVA" special too.
I know they have. Just imagining what billions more in funding could have done. Throwing money at problems doesn't solve them, but it can go a long way towards it.
We are 65,000 people, and 20 square miles, but we have a very advanced economy
And by advanced economy, we mean most of their money comes from offshore baking and generally facilitating people hiding money from governments.
Sounds like Bermuda is just trying trying to get a bigger slice of the shady-money pie.
To be fair they are just trying to open up to the whales of cryptocurrency: criminal groups, tax evaders, and repressive state regimes. You know, their usual customers. Every bank likes to diversify their services.
Oh sure, but DARPA has a limited budget and needs to be throwing it's money towards the ideas that have the greatest possibility of paying a dividend on the investment.
Good point there. Imagine what they would already have come up with if we took the money wasted on the F-35, LCS, or, going back even further, Land Warrior/FCS and had given it to DARPA. We might have flying, or at least autonomous, cars.
Doesn't seem that far out of reach theoretically. However, as in all things, the practical cost effective reach seems a long way off.
A lot of things *could* be done, but we don't do them because they are too expensive or better/cheaper/faster options exist so we use the other options.
Isn't that precisely what DARPA is for, though? Fund research that is cutting edge, highly speculative, or too long term for private companies to undertake? A lot of the technology and techniques that DARPA develops eventually makes it's way to the civilian market as well.
The court exempted conventional mutagenesis -- the unnatural use of chemicals or radiation to create mutations for plant breeding -- because it has "a long safety record."
Maybe it's just because I've played so much Fallout, but I'll take genetically edited food over irradiated food any day....cutting out genes (and as the summary says, not adding genes-especially genes from other organisms)has to be inherently safer than dosing what's destined to be our food with radiation.
They charge people 10 bucks a month, then buy those people as many movie tickets as they want. How can this possibly lead to financial problems?
They're owned by an analytics company. The goal wasn't to make money on the passes, it was to make money on the data. Where you go/what you do before/after a movie, broken down by age ranges, race, income level, location, all of that could potentially be sold to movie chains, restaurants, etc. MoviePass either underestimated how much money they would burn through until the data selling business became sustainable, or overestimated how quickly that would happen. Either way, no big loss. If the tech sector crashes, this will be why: data isn't worth as much (or as useful) as people think it is.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the Egypt killing him part is speculation, but the head engineer of a $5 billion dam project being built on a Nile tributary in Ethiopia was recently found dead in his car in what looked suspiciously like a faked suicide. There's a lot of potential for big energy money in Northeast Africa right now, enough to make whichever state can harness it first a major geopolitical player.
umm.. there's this thing called gravity. Mars doesn't have enough of it. Venus is closer, has a much more tolerable gravity, etc. fck mars
Umm...there's this thing called heat. Venus has way too much of it (by about 800 degrees F).
But this guy was smart enough to steal it, You'd think that after amassing all this currency he would have laundered it though a couple of crypto currencies using multiple exchanges or something to hide the facts and make it untraceable...
He knows better than anyone how unsafe it is to keep your money in cryptocurrencies. The last thing you want is for someone to steal your hard earned stolen money.
Now, you can even point to real, factual news like the fact that collusion isn't a crime and therefore Trump is indeed suffering from a witch-hunt and people won't believe it.
Webster definition of collusion: "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose; acting in collusion with the enemy
Webster definition of conspiracy: "1 : the act of conspiring together 2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators"
Webster synonym of conspiracy: "2 a secret agreement or cooperation between two parties for an illegal or dishonest purpose a conspiracy among the leading manufacturers to fix prices
Synonyms of conspiracy
collusion,"
Last time I checked, conspiracy was an indictable crime. Since conspiracy is an actual legal term, there could be a risk of possible lawsuit by publicly accusing someone of conspiracy. Collusion is a little more nebulous and has no legal meaning, at least in this sense.
I make more than twice as much as my project manager who is also on salary, but she only works 35 hours a week since she has to leave early to pick up her kids. I usually work over three times that many hours a week, so I'm making less per hour. I don't think it's wrong for me to think I need to be paid more.
I read that as you need to be paid at least half as much as you do now and your company needs to hire another person to do half your workload. Do I qualify for an MBA now?
The answer is more critical thinking, not less. More information, not less. It's OK to venture outside your bubble and read something you disagree with every now and then.
I agree. The only way to refute people peddling lies and falsehoods is to first know what they are peddling. That's why I occasionally listen to talk radio on the way home in the afternoon. The problem is, most people throwing around the "fake news" mantra are decidedly not using critical thinking.
Your "traditional" news sources have given up all journalistic integrity in exchange for agenda pushing activism decades ago.
I blame Ron Burgundy. Anchorman 2 was an excellent documentary on how we got the media industry we have today.
Before the internet literally anybody could spread whatever rumor they wanted and there was no way to check for yourself. It wasn't that long ago that such word of mouth was the only way to get any news.
And before the internet those rumors were pretty much limited to people you know. Now, with the internet, as Jonathan Swift said "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it". People are more likely to believe the first thing they hear, so by the time the truth reaches them, it's too late.
I imagine it depends a lot on your news source. If you only get your news from facebook and are friends with lots of gullible idiots, then you're gonna see a lot of fake news
To be fair I think that there's a lot of examples of inaccurate news from "regular" news outlets. I've lost count of how many many news articles conflate illegal immigrant with legal immigrant for example. These biases cause "regular" news to get dubbed fake news, and the label really has been earned in many cases. Every site has some axe to grind is my observation.
Biased news is not inherently "fake news". All news has some level of inherent bias just from the level of deciding what is "newsworthy" and what isn't. And that's before adding any editorial spin on the facts. You just have to recognize that bias and account for it. For example I get a lot of my foreign news from al-Jazeera, and I realize a lot of their content will have a pro-Qatar and pro-Palestine slant. There will always be inaccuracies as well, it's the nature of information-you always get more with time. "Fake news" is taking objective facts and claiming the opposite, not transparently correcting factual inaccuracies in reporting once they become known, or even just making shit up. "Fake news" has gone from the meaning "false news" to "news I don't like".
More Than 60% of Workers Feel They're Underpaid
FTFY
If I'm reading you correctly, you're arguing that we didn't need those weapons mentioned above. I'll disagree with you, while agreeing that we paid much more than necessary...
F-35: would have been much better spent upgrading existing airframes. the aircraft was so full of problems they had to delay retirement of the A-10 which is probably one of if not the best ground attack aircraft ever built, might as well have just kept them and upgraded them. The F-22 production lines could have been kept open. F-16s are literally breaking apart but they are already proven designs with established production and logistical support, could have just created a new block. It's trying to do too many things at once when what we already had worked plenty well enough.
LCS: Under-armed, under-armored, under-manned, propulsion systems that are inherently flawed and prone to failures, hulls prone to cracking, and over-reliance on contractors for support. Billions of dollars spent to retire frigates, only to end up with "replacements" having to be redesigned so much that they are now also classified as "frigates". Just like the F-35, jack-of-all-trades in the military gets you a very expensive and operationally compromised mess.
Land Warrior is the only thing that made a little sense. Networking soldiers is a great idea, especially in urban environments. Integrate real time intelligence from small, unit level UAVs and you can own the battlefield. The technology just wasn't mature enough at the time, but at least now that it is they should at least have a good idea of which ends are dead ends.
I see plenty of people that seem to have no problem defining fake news. If it's inconvenient, shows them in a bad light, discounts their narrative, doesn't match their world view. Here's a convenient list of people using the "fake news" claim: Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines), Bashar al-Assad (Syria), Nicolas Maduro (Venezuela), Donald Trump (US). Some interesting company there.
This news is one year old.
DEF CON 26, the 2018 show, starts on the 9th of August this year...and will have a Voting Machine Village again.
People keep complaining they want old Slashdot back. Posting incredibly out of date articles is classic Slashdot.
What do you mean? African or European weed?
They must have a pretty good textile industry if they can turn weeds into fiber that can be used to make those incredibly stylish and fashionable shorts.
How about hacked?
Considering many polling places are in schools I doubt they would let you walk in with a machete so they are safe there.
LOL You do realize that DARPA has been after the autonomous vehicle concept for over a decade now right? It's been going on so long now that I've seen multiple TV programs on the "science channel" about it and at least one "National Geographic" and one "NOVA" special too.
I know they have. Just imagining what billions more in funding could have done. Throwing money at problems doesn't solve them, but it can go a long way towards it.
And by advanced economy, we mean most of their money comes from offshore baking and generally facilitating people hiding money from governments.
Sounds like Bermuda is just trying trying to get a bigger slice of the shady-money pie.
To be fair they are just trying to open up to the whales of cryptocurrency: criminal groups, tax evaders, and repressive state regimes. You know, their usual customers. Every bank likes to diversify their services.
Oh sure, but DARPA has a limited budget and needs to be throwing it's money towards the ideas that have the greatest possibility of paying a dividend on the investment.
Good point there. Imagine what they would already have come up with if we took the money wasted on the F-35, LCS, or, going back even further, Land Warrior/FCS and had given it to DARPA. We might have flying, or at least autonomous, cars.
Doesn't seem that far out of reach theoretically. However, as in all things, the practical cost effective reach seems a long way off.
A lot of things *could* be done, but we don't do them because they are too expensive or better/cheaper/faster options exist so we use the other options.
Isn't that precisely what DARPA is for, though? Fund research that is cutting edge, highly speculative, or too long term for private companies to undertake? A lot of the technology and techniques that DARPA develops eventually makes it's way to the civilian market as well.
It's not like putting plutonium on your breakfast cereal.
I prefer my radiation Russian style. I mix polonium in my tea.
The court exempted conventional mutagenesis -- the unnatural use of chemicals or radiation to create mutations for plant breeding -- because it has "a long safety record."
Maybe it's just because I've played so much Fallout, but I'll take genetically edited food over irradiated food any day....cutting out genes (and as the summary says, not adding genes-especially genes from other organisms)has to be inherently safer than dosing what's destined to be our food with radiation.
regardless of the path in front of me that day, I am happy that my chosen profession doesn't involve giving tiny hand jobs to mice.
Beerfest, anyone? Just don't accidentally make a batch of monkey-frogs.
We all know Zoidberg invests in a sandwich heavy portfolio
The media could probably have shot Trump in the street and gotten away with it.
They charge people 10 bucks a month, then buy those people as many movie tickets as they want. How can this possibly lead to financial problems?
They're owned by an analytics company. The goal wasn't to make money on the passes, it was to make money on the data. Where you go/what you do before/after a movie, broken down by age ranges, race, income level, location, all of that could potentially be sold to movie chains, restaurants, etc. MoviePass either underestimated how much money they would burn through until the data selling business became sustainable, or overestimated how quickly that would happen. Either way, no big loss. If the tech sector crashes, this will be why: data isn't worth as much (or as useful) as people think it is.