Right. Keep denying our reality.
Right. Keep denying our reality.
Right. So let's take a look at how this "excerpt the gotcha" plays into that.
Slashdot writes about Zuckerberg:
a later exchange between Sandberg and Podesta showed that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy.
Except that the email from Shelly about Zuckerberg very clearly begins:
Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him. He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about
Likewise on the other email from Cheryl. They mention the "She came over and was magical with my kids" re. Clinton. They don't bother mentioning the reason for Hillary's visit, which can be seen in what she's replying to:
To: Sheryl Sandberg
Subject: At a loss for words
Can't imagine your pain, but know that you are surrounded by people who love you. Mary and I are praying for you, the kids and, in our Catholic way also for Dave.
Thank you – means a lot to me that you reached out.
And I like that you are praying for Dave. I have to believe in heaven now.
This wasn't some buddy-buddy campaign visit, this was a "person I know's husband just died" visit. Likewise, the implication that they're supposed to give here is that they know her because of Facebook. No bothering to mention that the reason that they actually know her is because she was Larry Summers' Chief of Staff during the Clinton administration.
Almost anything can be made to look sinister when you take it completely out of context. Which is the whole purpose of these emails.
Furthermore, do you honestly think you couldn't do the exact same thing by picking through the Trump campaign's internal messaging? Do you have any clue how many people of note a major campaign interacts with, how many people work for them, etc? We know given Trumps record on server security that hacking him would have been a breeze, but miraculously nobody bothered. Why do you think that is?
Lastly: take everything you read with a grain of salt. I know everyone's reaction to statements that emails could have been altered (and scattered amongst real ones) is going to be "You just don't want to discuss them!" No, the reason you should take things with a grain of salt is that the other anti-Clinton hacks this year have done exactly that. Leaks posted by the hackers in different places involved cases where they had involved changing the same file to say different things (such as a donation list where they added a donation from Soros to a Russian democracy activist, but had different values for the donation in different versions of their release), cases where files were dated to after the hack occurred, and cases where file metadata showed the changes they'd been making. Salting real data with fake is something that they've been doing this year, so it'd be naive to think that they're just going to stop doing it now. Come on, even the most die-hard Clinton hater is going to be hard pressed to actually believe that the Clinton Foundation has a directory sitting around literally called "Pay for Play".
Yes, the majority will be real. But don't be naive when viewing them and assume that you can just take everything at face value.
Because we hate Wall Street, let's instead put a billionaire real estate scammer whose entire adult life has been spent trying to kiss up to investors and banks to get loans for his businesses, and who refuses to reveal what banks he's in debt to in power.
Because we oppose the Libyan conflict, let's put in power someone who wants to bomb the children of terrorists, insists that waterboarding isn't harsh enough, wants more nations to have nuclear weapons, wants to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, and spent his first security briefing repeatedly asking why we're bothering to have nuclear weapons if we're not going to use them.
Because we oppose free trade, let's put in power someone who spent his entire career - up until he decided to rebrand himself as a populist for this election - championing free trade, built his empire on dumped steel and undocumented workers, and - until it was shut down as a scam - championed the benefits of outsourcing on his Trump University page.
I'm not even sure where you're getting that Clinton has been big "drill baby drill" champion, but Trump has literally called for "drill baby drill" in speeches, including lifting all federal restrictions on offshore drilling and elimination of the EPA.
So if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, go right ahead, but please understand why many people will not be joining at you.
And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.
So you get a permit once, and then every flight of the drone is legal regardless of whether or not you're actually using the drone within the guidelines that the permit was approved for, is that what you're saying?
If the X-Prize folk searched "atmospheric water generator", they would find multiple commercial products that run on electricity. Then, they would simply need to set up a solar panel system, and they'd be done.
I live in a desert, and have looked into getting one of these systems. The (commercial) system I'm looking at has a cost that would meet their guidelines for production and cost, provided a working life of about 20 years. That's... not unreasonable.
Why don't we all use this technology? Because I'm billed for water (in the desert, in a drought) at $0.0015 per liter. If I'm really wasting water, and I get a fine for over-use, then I'm punished with a rate of $0.0036 per liter. If the cost for atmospheric water condensing was $0.02 (the X-Prize target), it still wouldn't be cheaper than aqueducts hundreds of miles long or ocean desalination (the two sources of my water). If they're going to have a cost target, it should be a lot lower. Really, they should be looking for creative ways to scale and capitalize the existing systems. We don't need more technology here, just different financing models.
Let's help make it a bit clearer. Let's say you're the average US male height, weight and build - 176cm / 59" and 83kg/184lbs and a bench press of 165lbs. Picture an environment where everywhere you go, you're surrounded by men who average 192cm (64"), 105kg (231lbs) - with the weight difference being primarily muscle - with a bench press of 400lbs. On average. Basically, the average person around you is a NFL linebacker. Now picture that a good number of them are sexually attracted to you. That they're much more likely to be involved in violent crime than you. That a disturbingly high percentage of your friends and family have been molested or raped by them. Perhaps you yourself.
Try to understand the difference in what the world is like for others.
Why can't you apply for a permit for each drone before starting?
"Images"? Thorn is a letter.
And the intent would be to film the criminal activity, hence a fully legitimate use of the drones
No excuse is even better.
Your phone is off. They ask you to open it with your finger. You can't. End of story. Don't provide excuses, or even speak to the matter at hand. It can't help, and will certainly hurt you to say anything regarding the matter.
"Am I being detained?" and/or "I want an attorney."
These are really the only statements you need to utter, ever, to a police officer under these circumstances. Keep in mind that statements you make to a police officer are only used for one reason: to prove you are guilty or to build a case against you and then prove you are guilty. You are not talking to a judge or a jury of your peers when speaking to an officer of the law that is interrogating you. This is important because only a judge or jury will prove your innocence, not a LEO. Any information you can provide is better within your control and not the control of an officer.
It is better to consider a human being in a uniform as a mechanism rather than a human being. They are trained to embody very specific roles, to act in a routine and specialized way to collect "evidence" and turn that "evidence" into convictions. Any information you provide them can and will be used to prove your guilt. That is the whole sum of their job in these circumstances.
IANAL. Any advice written above is for entertainment purposes only. Trying to obstruct an investigation by a legal authority will result in your incarceration, being falsely accused as a rapist and/or pedophile, and your eventual shooting death at the hands of unknown assailants.
I was thinking the same thing "here we go again, Elon is planning on including yet another thing we don't know how to do as a central part of his architecture".
Basic unit of Laryngitis = The Hoarsepower