I just recently bought a Lenovo for someone close to me. Would you mind elaborating on why you say this about them, and if you really think they can be made somewhat privacy-safe for general use?
Coincidentally, (as in literally, not that I think there's any relationship between what you saw and this), Socorro is the site of one of the more famous UFO incidents of the 20th Century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident
One major problem with sites like the skeptical Enquirer is that they exist to serve their main purpose -to be skeptical. This by itself is fine to an extent and much of their content can and does legitimately debunk nonsensical and unfounded claims. But when your main purpose is skepticism, it can become self serving to the point that you cherry pick arguments, evidence, cases and lots of other things in order to always ensure that a known explanation can be found no matter what, even if it has to be stretched thin. Unknown things do happen, forcing them to conform to a certain easy bracket of the known is its own type of irrationality.
You meant to say that it was not a sensor anomaly no?, in other words that it could have been an actual anomaly (because they were viewed multi-spectrally) as the other commentator asked? Genuinely curious.
It's a non-fiction book pretty much through and through. The author writes with an eye for entertaining narrative and thus you could assume that small parts are embellished a bit for this reason but overall I haven't seen any criticism of the book that claims anything remotely important to be fictional. Martha Dodd (the ambassador's daughter) comes across as particularly foolish. First because she tries to defend the Nazi regime to her friends and then when a bit of light finally dawns on her about its nature, switches over to becoming a useful idiot for the equally vicious soviet regime, working as an NKVD informatn/agent. And based on third party accounts and the old NKVD documents from her informant file, describing her as a useful idiot (stealing a phrase from Lenin) doesn't seem to be far off the mark. One soviet handler's description of her is rather amusing: "She considers herself a Communist and claims to accept the party's program. In reality she is a typical representative of American bohemia, a sexually decayed woman ready to sleep with any handsome man."
Dodd herself met Hitler once through an introduction by a man who at the time was a close friend of the dictator, and her description of him was that he was "excessively gentle and modest in his manners"... Indeed...
I would add Nazi Germany to that little list. Their declaration of war on the United States in December of 1941 was flatly suicidal (already fighting Russia where they had lost the initiative, and already in a two front European war due to the continued presence of England) But declare war they did anyhow and not only was the Third Reich dismantled, it was flat out devastated and incinerated with several million deaths. Germany suffered the second highest death toll of any country in the European theater of war, and all this was allowed to suicidally happen despite every single one of Hitler's generals and most of the top Nazi party bosses completely knowing that their leader's decision in late 1941 was guaranteed to destroy them. They just went along with it though.
Churchill rather typically stated it most succinctly: When presented in late 1941 with the report of Hitlers declaration of War on the U.S he said (paraphrasing a bit from memory on the literature) "So then we do win this war after all.."
As for Japan, SOME of the top people in the government and military knew they were committing slow suicide with their attack (Yamamoto for example, thought it was complete idiocy to fight the U.S) but there were enough fanatical believers to push through their idea that if they could just get the upper hand on the U.S in a preemptive naval/air war in 1942, they might secure peace for their Asian conquests.
If you aren't actually getting user information, then simply put you aren't buying user information. Anything else is twisting words to distort their meanings.
You know exactly what it means and maybe you're moving into semantic disagreement. Google does not sell the raw user information itself to its paying customers but it does sell it indirectly by giving them access to excellent targeting tools based on all those things it knows about you, me and X and Y individuals. Maybe im not being perfectly precise but to me that fits the bill for buying information indirectly.
> That is their business: they sell their ability to know everything about you to anyone willing to pay for that information.
Google has information about you. Incredibly detailed, intimate information about you. Harvested by collecting and correlating all of your usage of their products and services.
Anyone can pay Google to use that knowledge in pursuit of other services, like targeted ads. No, you do not get access to that knowledge directly, but Google has it and is using it when paid to do so.
In effect, you can pay Google to have indirect use of that knowledge.
Yes, Google collects user data and uses it for ad targeting. That's a more fair telling of the situation. If this concerns you, you may opt-out of the process.
I cannot opt out of my friends and family sharing that information which includes me, like address books. I cannot easily and effectively opt out of browser tracking. Opting out is not a reasonable option.
Congratulations. Impressive boost. You mentioned SEO tactics for broadening the reach of your content marketing. Would you mind sharing any details on how you did this for your content?
Well, it's a broad topic. However, it comes back to several main things:
1. Select a target keyword.
You select some and only keyword you'd like to rank a post for.
2. Mind the competition
Check on the competition for that keyword. Don't chase for the ones where you can't outrank competitors. I.e. we can't outrank Atlassian for agile project management, but we can go for less competitive keywords.
3. Compose a great piece of content about that keyword.
Then you write a great piece of content about it (See 10x content by Rand Fishkin). Put it in the title, URL and within the content.
I don't get why this was downvoted, except perhaps out of a silly emotional reaction. You just summed up the essence of what a large percentage of the whole comment thread for this link explains in detail in different ways. Many rich people got rich by creating growing value for others with their capital assets and they continue to do so by doing more of the same. What they "hoard" is being deployed in the economy in crucially productive ways that benefit thousands or even millions of others. Not all cases but plenty of them fit this profile among the extremely rich.
Actually in all cases. Even cash "hoarded" in a bank account winds up invested in the economy, because that's what banks do - loan out some multiple of their deposits to people who spend/invest it.
Exactly and the simple reason why, which keeps these basic economics of bribery working so robustly, is the asymmetric measures of value/cost inherent to the two sides of the equation. A government or facebook employee or whomever who has access to some lever worth a great deal will sell access to it for these fairly small sums exactly because the much greater value isn't actually a cost to them. They're leveraging their access to someone elses resources for personal acquisition of a much smaller but to them worthwhile gain. You'd never convince a billionaire to sell you access to something of theirs worth billions by paying them only millions, but, like you said, you can easily convince a senator to give you access to billions in government resources (tax money) for a few million to their personal campaign.
