Rather than using electronic textbooks, they have decided to replace the textbooks with "custom multimedia course material", which apparently is distributed for free.
This means two things:
A) The cost of writing the custom material will be built in to the course. It obviously won't be developed for free, so the cost is hidden, and can't be defrayed by purchasing a used book or renting a book. It doesn't cut down on professors writing their own textbooks, it essentially enforces a version of that scenario on every student for every class.
B) They think their custom material will be higher quality and apparently cheaper than the textbook industry can produce when the textbook industry can spread development/production costs across hundreds of universities.
We know the administration lied and said there was no available military assets, but there were. Including exfil teams standing by 24/7 for instances just like that.
Right, they could have sent a team of guys in on a cargo plane, to land at an unsecure airport, to fight their way through an unknown number of assailants (at least dozens, maybe hundreds) that had unknown amounts of firepower and possible heavy weapons (and stinger missiles), rescue these guys, then fight their way back out to the airport, then hopefully they could find enough fuel to leave on the cargo plane, or they could possibly hijack a caravan of cars and leave.
Clearly having hesitation and deciding against that plan indicates a vast conspiracy. Much better to throw a bunch of special forces guys into a situation where there is almost zero situational intelligence, and just assume they can Rambo their way through everything.
And yet you wonder why people don't take Benghazi trolls seriously?
Perhaps you aren't aware, but Border Patrol has the "legal" right to copy your smartphone's contents:
From the EFF ( https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights ):
Q: Can the police search my computer or portable devices at the border without a warrant?
A: Yes. So far, courts have ruled that almost any search at the border is "reasonable" - so government agents don't need to get a warrant. This means that officials can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it. An international airport may be considered the functional equivalent of a border, even if it is many miles from the actual border.
They also have the technical ability to do it while bypassing your password:
"The CelleBrite UFED is a handheld device that Michigan officers have been using since August 2008 to copy information from mobile phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The device can circumvent password restrictions and extract existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags."
The only reasonable conclusion for why they would have you leave your phone in the car, is that they copied the entire contents of your blackberry, and sifted through it.
Sorry to tell you this, but your worst fears already happened. Not only did they search the phone, they made a complete copy of it and have the legal right to look at the contents anytime they want. Welcome to the USA.
Here is a person who was surprised by the audit results and had not seen them: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Head of the Senate Intelligence committee, directly in charge of congressional oversight of the NSA.
You do realize Obama caved in to the NIMBY crowd in 2009 and cut funding to Yucca Mtn and is trying to terminate the project and find another site? His previous secretary of energy declared the site invalid, despite congress passing the law, Bush signing the law, and despite the court ruling it valid. The current executive branch has cited "budget problems", so isn't spending any money to actually run the project, so nothing is happening. Now the court is ruling it a valid site, yet again.
There are an estimated 6 million car crashes every year in the US. Roughly 35,000 people die in those crashes. There is no way of knowing what percentage happen at what speed, but still, your chances of surviving a car accident are overall pretty good. Your chances of surviving a crash at 800mph are 0.00000000%
Make no mistake, this is an agency that has gone rogue.
They were authorized by congress to investigate all RELEVANT phone calls and emails by the patriot act.
The NSA decided that every phone call and email in the world is relevant, and had conveniently started documenting every domestic call several months before the Patriot Act was passed.
They had zero legal cover or authorization for these actions until yesterday. (Unless you believe in "secret laws" that are too secret to document)
Yesterday, 217 congressmen decided that their own personal phone calls are relevant to a terrorist investigation, since they apparently can't even trust themselves.
He lost his cushy 6 figure job, and life in Hawaii with his girlfriend and gets to spend his life on the run. Explain to me again how he isn't facing consequences for his actions? Even though you support his actions, you think it's morally appropriate to lock him in a cage forever?
Because causing their greatest geo-political competitor massive embarrasment in front of the whole world isn't enough incentive for Russia to let him stay? What does Russia have to gain by throwing him out? Many of their top allies all support giving Snowden asylum. They get to paint America as the bad guys, and themselves as pro-freedom. Why on earth would they need extra incentives above and beyond that? Any intelligence Snowden could offer has less value than his presence.
I've wondered this for some time now - what, precisely, makes Ted Nugent so "crazy?"
Lots of reasons, but one thing he did recently was kill 450 hogs from a helicopter, using a machine gun. The feral hogs are a menace, and there is nothing wrong with hunting, but it is a bit disturbing when somebody revels in mass slaughter, and kills hundreds of animals for personal pleasure and the joy of killing. Killing for pleasure isn't the sign of a healthy mental state.
being able to light water on fire by itself is not indicative of contaminated drinking water.
Not sure if you're aware of this, but water is not normally flammable. In fact, if it catches on fire thats a pretty damn good indicator that it is contaminated with petrochemicals.
Here is the relevant message from a former Senator:
Mr. Snowden,
Provided you have not leaked information that would put in harms way any intelligence agent, I believe you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution.
Having served in the United States Senate for twelve years as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, I think I have a good grounding to reach my conclusion.
I wish you well in your efforts to secure asylum and encourage you to persevere.
Kindly acknowledge this message, so that I will know it reached you.
Regards,
Gordon J. Humphrey
Former United States Senator
New Hampshire
Here is another of his messages:
Mr. Greenwald,
Yes. It was I who sent the email message to Edward Snowden, thanking him for exposing astonishing violations of the US Constitution and encouraging him to persevere in the search for asylum.
To my knowledge, Mr. Snowden has disclosed only the existence of a program and not details that would place any person in harm's way. I regard him as a courageous whistle-blower.
I object to the monumentally disproportionate campaign being waged by the U.S. Government against Edward Snowden, while no effort is being made to identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power, seriously and repeatedly violating the Constitution of the United States and the rights of millions of unsuspecting citizens.
Americans concerned about the growing arrogance of our government and its increasingly menacing nature should be working to help Mr. Snowden find asylum. Former Members of Congress, especially, should step forward and speak out.
The person who wants to ignore reality and scientific evidence so they can personally profit, at the cost of our children (and possibly all future generations) having an environment suitable for life, is less evil than who exactly?
Democratic leaders have the one-time approval of 51% of the governed. They certainly don't have the consent of ALL of the governed at any point. Generally speaking governments don't always have consent, they do however, have the most soldiers and weapons.
I'm not defending the actions of the murderers, and I'm not defending the inaction of the bystanders who observe the crimes and do nothing.
But, these reports might give you some understanding of their perspective and why they are mad. The UN has an absolutely terrible track record in Africa. They've been accused of widespread sexual abuse of children across multiple African countries by thousands of victims, across a number of years with virtually no action taken to stop the abuse. There are also numerous accusations of corruption and collusion with warlords. The UN as an organization has noble intentions, but the people on the ground are subject to some very human flaws when given too much power over the weak.
2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6195830.stm - Children have been subjected to rape and prostitution by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia, a BBC investigation has found
The NSA data was used to identify suspicious behavior, and establish probable cause, but all the evidence used to convict was collected by normal law enforcement.
Court cases get thrown out every single day because of issues in establishing probable cause. It is one of the most common reasons for criminal cases to be dismissed in court. For the government to now claim that probable cause can be established without the defendant seeing the evidence is quite literally overturning centuries of jurisprudence.
Anyway my outcomes will be better by having a gun.
Statistically speaking, you are more likely to kill yourself in moment of depression, a family member in the heat of anger, or a family member in an accident, rather than a criminal seeking to do you harm.
Fact: If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
Saying my argument is retarded is ignoring the clear and well establishing science. Rejecting the evidence with anger and namecalling does nothing to support your side that you will react with calm rationality in all situations, and never snap.
Gun ownership is dangerous. Being scared of owning guns is similar to being scared of owning venomous snakes. Except keeping venomous snakes in your home is safer for you and your family than keeping guns in the home.
"Removing all firearms from one's home is one of the most effective and straightforward steps that household decision-makers can take to reduce the risk of suicide,"
Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Living in a home that contains guns increases the risk of homicide by more than 40%, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Gun ownership increases the cost of home insurance. Insurance agencies are in the business of managing risk. If the benefits of gun ownership decreased your overall risk, then insurance rates would go down.
This "it can't happen to me" mentality is how highschool kids live their lives. Eventually you grow up and realize it CAN happen to you.
I couldn't agree more. Your belief that firearms make you safer is based purely on a "it cant happen to me" attitude. You are gambling against the odds, assuming that your outcomes will be better, without applying facts and real world statistics.
My point is opportunity sometimes outweighs the downside of not getting paid.
I fully understand the concept of being so desperate to have a job that you are willing to work for free in the hopes that it one day turns into a paying job. Ergo, you think the system is fair, because work experience is the payment rather than money. Are you aware that most slave-owners considered themselves to be good people? From the slavers perspective they provided free shelter, food and clothing to their slaves, and gave them a better quality of life, and longer life expectancy. They provided all these things in lieu of a salary, thus, it was in their eyes a fair system. You are echoing thousands of pro-slavery arguments from two centuries ago when you say that tertiary benefits make up for not paying a wage.
You are absolutely correct. Here's an excerpt from a slave owners diary in 1861:
When Dick married Hetty, the Anderson house was next door. The two families agreed to sell either Dick or Hetty, whichever consented to be sold. Hetty refused outright, and the Andersons sold Dick that he might be with his wife. This was magnanimous on the Andersons' part, for Hetty was only a lady's-maid and Dick was a trained butler, on whom Mrs. Anderson had spent no end of pains in his dining-room education, and, of course, if they had refused to sell Dick, Hetty would have had to go to them. Mrs. Anderson was very much disgusted with Dick's ingratitude when she found he was willing to leave them. As a butler he is a treasure; he is overwhelmed with dignity, but that does not interfere with his work at all.
Clearly the slave owning society feel they are being overly generous by giving an education to their property. They even gave him a choice of where to work for free! Your vision of society fits perfectly in line with the Antebellum south. (To be clear, I'm not calling you a racist, you're just pro-slavery which is actually frowned upon in most societies in the 21st century)
If you are actually innocent, but the truth makes you sound guilty. There are any number of situations where you simply wouldn't believe something had happened except you saw it with your own eyes.
Scenario: You take a walk at night, decide to stop by a building to smoke and lean against the building smoking and playing with your lighter. You then witness a cat by the trashcan that knocks over a bottle filled with some chemical. This chemical combines with some oil on the ground which then ignites and starts a fire. The fire rages almost immediately, and the building burns down. You call the fire department and report the fire. The arson investigation team determines that oil was poured on the building and the fire was intentional. Now, the investigation focuses on you because your cell phone is the only one traced to even be in the area.
Do you:
a) Tell the jury that you were beside the building lighting cigarettes and playing with your lighter, and this crazy sequence of barely believeable events happened? Even though you are 100% innocent, you are admitting to playing with fire beside the building that is the site of a presumed arson.
b) Lie under oath and make up another story about what you were doing
c) Decline to answer those questions about why you were there and what you were doing on the grounds that it might (falsely) incriminate you
Everyone reading this has at least once witnessed something they consider more or less "unbelievable". At least some of those unbelievable moment could lead to a criminal investigation. A cow (may have) started one of the largest fires in American history after all. Mrs O Leary testified to that fact after she herself was accused. The debate still rages on about what the truth of the situation was.
They have built many skyscrapers. But nobody on the planet has built a building this tall before. The current tallest building in the world took 6 years to build. China plans to build a taller building, using only 5% of the time, and 10% of the budget of the Burj Khalifa.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than using electronic textbooks, they have decided to replace the textbooks with "custom multimedia course material", which apparently is distributed for free.
This means two things:
A) The cost of writing the custom material will be built in to the course. It obviously won't be developed for free, so the cost is hidden, and can't be defrayed by purchasing a used book or renting a book. It doesn't cut down on professors writing their own textbooks, it essentially enforces a version of that scenario on every student for every class.
B) They think their custom material will be higher quality and apparently cheaper than the textbook industry can produce when the textbook industry can spread development/production costs across hundreds of universities.
We know the administration lied and said there was no available military assets, but there were. Including exfil teams standing by 24/7 for instances just like that.
Right, they could have sent a team of guys in on a cargo plane, to land at an unsecure airport, to fight their way through an unknown number of assailants (at least dozens, maybe hundreds) that had unknown amounts of firepower and possible heavy weapons (and stinger missiles), rescue these guys, then fight their way back out to the airport, then hopefully they could find enough fuel to leave on the cargo plane, or they could possibly hijack a caravan of cars and leave.
Clearly having hesitation and deciding against that plan indicates a vast conspiracy. Much better to throw a bunch of special forces guys into a situation where there is almost zero situational intelligence, and just assume they can Rambo their way through everything.
And yet you wonder why people don't take Benghazi trolls seriously?
Perhaps you aren't aware, but Border Patrol has the "legal" right to copy your smartphone's contents:
From the EFF ( https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights ):
Q: Can the police search my computer or portable devices at the border without a warrant?
A: Yes. So far, courts have ruled that almost any search at the border is "reasonable" - so government agents don't need to get a warrant. This means that officials can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it. An international airport may be considered the functional equivalent of a border, even if it is many miles from the actual border.
They also have the technical ability to do it while bypassing your password:
"The CelleBrite UFED is a handheld device that Michigan officers have been using since August 2008 to copy information from mobile phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The device can circumvent password restrictions and extract existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags."
And yes, Cellebrite proudly boasts of their ability to bypass Blackberry passwords. Here's a partial list of government contracts for the "Unversal Forensic Extraction Device". Note the extensive DHS and Border Patrol purchases: http://companies.findthecompany.com/l/5493513/Cellebrite-Usa-Corp-in-Glen-Rock-NJ
The only reasonable conclusion for why they would have you leave your phone in the car, is that they copied the entire contents of your blackberry, and sifted through it.
Sorry to tell you this, but your worst fears already happened. Not only did they search the phone, they made a complete copy of it and have the legal right to look at the contents anytime they want. Welcome to the USA.
Here is a person who was surprised by the audit results and had not seen them: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Head of the Senate Intelligence committee, directly in charge of congressional oversight of the NSA.
You do realize Obama caved in to the NIMBY crowd in 2009 and cut funding to Yucca Mtn and is trying to terminate the project and find another site? His previous secretary of energy declared the site invalid, despite congress passing the law, Bush signing the law, and despite the court ruling it valid. The current executive branch has cited "budget problems", so isn't spending any money to actually run the project, so nothing is happening. Now the court is ruling it a valid site, yet again.
There are an estimated 6 million car crashes every year in the US. Roughly 35,000 people die in those crashes. There is no way of knowing what percentage happen at what speed, but still, your chances of surviving a car accident are overall pretty good. Your chances of surviving a crash at 800mph are 0.00000000%
Rogue?
Make no mistake, this is an agency that has gone rogue.
They were authorized by congress to investigate all RELEVANT phone calls and emails by the patriot act.
The NSA decided that every phone call and email in the world is relevant, and had conveniently started documenting every domestic call several months before the Patriot Act was passed.
They had zero legal cover or authorization for these actions until yesterday. (Unless you believe in "secret laws" that are too secret to document)
Yesterday, 217 congressmen decided that their own personal phone calls are relevant to a terrorist investigation, since they apparently can't even trust themselves.
He lost his cushy 6 figure job, and life in Hawaii with his girlfriend and gets to spend his life on the run. Explain to me again how he isn't facing consequences for his actions? Even though you support his actions, you think it's morally appropriate to lock him in a cage forever?
Because causing their greatest geo-political competitor massive embarrasment in front of the whole world isn't enough incentive for Russia to let him stay? What does Russia have to gain by throwing him out? Many of their top allies all support giving Snowden asylum. They get to paint America as the bad guys, and themselves as pro-freedom. Why on earth would they need extra incentives above and beyond that? Any intelligence Snowden could offer has less value than his presence.
I've wondered this for some time now - what, precisely, makes Ted Nugent so "crazy?"
Lots of reasons, but one thing he did recently was kill 450 hogs from a helicopter, using a machine gun. The feral hogs are a menace, and there is nothing wrong with hunting, but it is a bit disturbing when somebody revels in mass slaughter, and kills hundreds of animals for personal pleasure and the joy of killing. Killing for pleasure isn't the sign of a healthy mental state.
being able to light water on fire by itself is not indicative of contaminated drinking water.
Not sure if you're aware of this, but water is not normally flammable. In fact, if it catches on fire thats a pretty damn good indicator that it is contaminated with petrochemicals.
Here is the relevant message from a former Senator:
Mr. Snowden,
Provided you have not leaked information that would put in harms way any intelligence agent, I believe you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution.
Having served in the United States Senate for twelve years as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, I think I have a good grounding to reach my conclusion.
I wish you well in your efforts to secure asylum and encourage you to persevere.
Kindly acknowledge this message, so that I will know it reached you.
Regards,
Gordon J. Humphrey
Former United States Senator
New Hampshire
Here is another of his messages:
Mr. Greenwald,
Yes. It was I who sent the email message to Edward Snowden, thanking him for exposing astonishing violations of the US Constitution and encouraging him to persevere in the search for asylum.
To my knowledge, Mr. Snowden has disclosed only the existence of a program and not details that would place any person in harm's way. I regard him as a courageous whistle-blower.
I object to the monumentally disproportionate campaign being waged by the U.S. Government against Edward Snowden, while no effort is being made to identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power, seriously and repeatedly violating the Constitution of the United States and the rights of millions of unsuspecting citizens.
Americans concerned about the growing arrogance of our government and its increasingly menacing nature should be working to help Mr. Snowden find asylum. Former Members of Congress, especially, should step forward and speak out.
Regards,
Gordon Humphrey
The person who wants to ignore reality and scientific evidence so they can personally profit, at the cost of our children (and possibly all future generations) having an environment suitable for life, is less evil than who exactly?
Democratic leaders have the one-time approval of 51% of the governed. They certainly don't have the consent of ALL of the governed at any point. Generally speaking governments don't always have consent, they do however, have the most soldiers and weapons.
Harm to society shouldn't trump freedom. If it did, then tobacco, alcohol, gambling, high fructose corn syrup & reality TV would all be banned.
Freakanomics did a great study on the effectiveness of fines that seems especially relevant to your comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/books/chapters/0515-1st-levitt.html
I'm not defending the actions of the murderers, and I'm not defending the inaction of the bystanders who observe the crimes and do nothing. But, these reports might give you some understanding of their perspective and why they are mad. The UN has an absolutely terrible track record in Africa. They've been accused of widespread sexual abuse of children across multiple African countries by thousands of victims, across a number of years with virtually no action taken to stop the abuse. There are also numerous accusations of corruption and collusion with warlords. The UN as an organization has noble intentions, but the people on the ground are subject to some very human flaws when given too much power over the weak.
2002: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2002/05/06/Refugee-sex-scandal-triggers-UN-reforms/UPI-89771020662474/ - UN troops raped children in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea.
2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6195830.stm - Children have been subjected to rape and prostitution by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia, a BBC investigation has found
2007: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1538476/UN-staff-accused-of-raping-children-in-Sudan.html - The UN said today that it would launch an investigation after the Daily Telegraph reported allegations that UN personnel have abused children in southern Sudan.
2011: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146874 - An AP investigation found that food meant for starving Somalis is being stolen and sold in markets. UN's World Food Program unfazed.
The NSA data was used to identify suspicious behavior, and establish probable cause, but all the evidence used to convict was collected by normal law enforcement.
Court cases get thrown out every single day because of issues in establishing probable cause. It is one of the most common reasons for criminal cases to be dismissed in court. For the government to now claim that probable cause can be established without the defendant seeing the evidence is quite literally overturning centuries of jurisprudence.
Anyway my outcomes will be better by having a gun.
Statistically speaking, you are more likely to kill yourself in moment of depression, a family member in the heat of anger, or a family member in an accident, rather than a criminal seeking to do you harm.
Fact: If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
Citation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Citation: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/4/888.full
Citation: http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/01/1559827610396294
Saying my argument is retarded is ignoring the clear and well establishing science. Rejecting the evidence with anger and namecalling does nothing to support your side that you will react with calm rationality in all situations, and never snap.
Statistically gun owners have a much higher risk of suicide: http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html
"Removing all firearms from one's home is one of the most effective and straightforward steps that household decision-makers can take to reduce the risk of suicide,"
Statistically gun owners face a much higher risk of homicide in the home: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Living in a home that contains guns increases the risk of homicide by more than 40%, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Gun ownership increases the cost of home insurance. Insurance agencies are in the business of managing risk. If the benefits of gun ownership decreased your overall risk, then insurance rates would go down.
This "it can't happen to me" mentality is how highschool kids live their lives. Eventually you grow up and realize it CAN happen to you.
I couldn't agree more. Your belief that firearms make you safer is based purely on a "it cant happen to me" attitude. You are gambling against the odds, assuming that your outcomes will be better, without applying facts and real world statistics.
My point is opportunity sometimes outweighs the downside of not getting paid.
I fully understand the concept of being so desperate to have a job that you are willing to work for free in the hopes that it one day turns into a paying job. Ergo, you think the system is fair, because work experience is the payment rather than money. Are you aware that most slave-owners considered themselves to be good people? From the slavers perspective they provided free shelter, food and clothing to their slaves, and gave them a better quality of life, and longer life expectancy. They provided all these things in lieu of a salary, thus, it was in their eyes a fair system. You are echoing thousands of pro-slavery arguments from two centuries ago when you say that tertiary benefits make up for not paying a wage.
You are absolutely correct. Here's an excerpt from a slave owners diary in 1861:
When Dick married Hetty, the Anderson house was next door. The two families agreed to sell either Dick or Hetty, whichever consented to be sold. Hetty refused outright, and the Andersons sold Dick that he might be with his wife. This was magnanimous on the Andersons' part, for Hetty was only a lady's-maid and Dick was a trained butler, on whom Mrs. Anderson had spent no end of pains in his dining-room education, and, of course, if they had refused to sell Dick, Hetty would have had to go to them. Mrs. Anderson was very much disgusted with Dick's ingratitude when she found he was willing to leave them. As a butler he is a treasure; he is overwhelmed with dignity, but that does not interfere with his work at all.
Clearly the slave owning society feel they are being overly generous by giving an education to their property. They even gave him a choice of where to work for free! Your vision of society fits perfectly in line with the Antebellum south. (To be clear, I'm not calling you a racist, you're just pro-slavery which is actually frowned upon in most societies in the 21st century)
Does that mean God wants us to eat longpig too?
If you are actually innocent, but the truth makes you sound guilty. There are any number of situations where you simply wouldn't believe something had happened except you saw it with your own eyes.
Scenario: You take a walk at night, decide to stop by a building to smoke and lean against the building smoking and playing with your lighter. You then witness a cat by the trashcan that knocks over a bottle filled with some chemical. This chemical combines with some oil on the ground which then ignites and starts a fire. The fire rages almost immediately, and the building burns down. You call the fire department and report the fire. The arson investigation team determines that oil was poured on the building and the fire was intentional. Now, the investigation focuses on you because your cell phone is the only one traced to even be in the area.
Do you:
a) Tell the jury that you were beside the building lighting cigarettes and playing with your lighter, and this crazy sequence of barely believeable events happened? Even though you are 100% innocent, you are admitting to playing with fire beside the building that is the site of a presumed arson.
b) Lie under oath and make up another story about what you were doing
c) Decline to answer those questions about why you were there and what you were doing on the grounds that it might (falsely) incriminate you
Everyone reading this has at least once witnessed something they consider more or less "unbelievable". At least some of those unbelievable moment could lead to a criminal investigation. A cow (may have) started one of the largest fires in American history after all. Mrs O Leary testified to that fact after she herself was accused. The debate still rages on about what the truth of the situation was.
They have built many skyscrapers. But nobody on the planet has built a building this tall before. The current tallest building in the world took 6 years to build. China plans to build a taller building, using only 5% of the time, and 10% of the budget of the Burj Khalifa.