offline roulette game

offline roulette game The recently released Royal Commission of Inquiry report about New Zealand’s COVID response highlights the harmful impact of misinformation and disinformation on public health. While the report offers no solutions, it notes that disinformation campaigns fuelled division and loss of trust in government. It’s an age-old problem that has proved extremely difficult to counter. Indeed, the practice of disinformation and propaganda has ancient roots , with some of the earliest recorded use of these techniques dating back to antiquity. The Greeks were among the first to study and formalise the art of rhetoric, a cornerstone of effective propaganda. In 2010, colleagues and I published research that analysed vaccine narratives for the use of logical fallacies defined by Aristotle. We highlighted many common techniques of manipulation. It was a fun exercise in a more innocent time. Understanding and analysing these manipulative tactics has evolved alongside their use in both political and military strategies. So have the tactics of mitigating the impact of such strategies. Early approaches to counteract these effects typically involved promoting transparency, education and critical thinking. This still stands today, but the time for merely talking about the problem has passed. What’s required now is decisive action and robust policy to address misinformation and disinformation as we navigate the ongoing impacts of the COVID pandemic. How to recognise misinformation and disinformation Misinformation refers to inaccurate information spread without harmful intent, often due to a misunderstanding or mistake. Disinformation, on the other hand, is deliberately deceptive and crafted to manipulate public sentiment or promote discord. Research has meticulously mapped the contours of misinformation and disinformation surrounding vaccines . Experts highlighted that the conditions for the spread of misinformation were ripe before the pandemic. Identifying misinformation and disinformation involves a critical evaluation of content and its source. A first question is the source credibility. Is the information from a recognised authority or reputable news source? The next bit, logical consistency, is harder to detect. Does the information contain contradictions or logically impossible claims? Many false narratives are internally inconsistent or implausible. Often there will also be at least some level of emotional manipulation. Disinformation frequently exploits emotions such as fear or anger to enhance engagement and sharing. The subtle art of rhetoric Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. For example, the ad hominem fallacy attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. This is a common tactic to undermine credible sources. Cherry picking is the practice of selecting data that support a particular argument while ignoring data that contradict it. This is harder to spot if you are unfamiliar with the topic. Conspiracy theories are another major tool in the propaganda kit. During the pandemic, numerous conspiracy theories have misrepresented scientific evidence and the intentions of health authorities and experts. The claim of cover-ups is often the final go-to when there is no other convincing argument. Studies have repeatedly shown how false claims spread across social media platforms and how this influences public perceptions and behaviours detrimental to health . From myths about vaccine ingredients causing harm to conspiracy theories about global surveillance, these untruths have a real impact. Surveys have repeatedly highlighted a worrying trend: a segment of the public, including some health professionals, harbours scepticism about vaccines , fuelled by unmitigated misinformation. How to counter disinformation The consequences of disinformation campaigns are not abstract or random. It is crucial to recognise that such campaigns are meticulously designed and executed with specific goals in mind. One of the most insidious is the erosion of social cohesion. This is achieved by injecting divisive and false narratives into public discourse. They exploit socio-political fissures, amplifying scepticism and opposition to public health measures such as vaccination. These campaigns leverage sophisticated strategies and technologies to manipulate public perception. They exploit societal divisions and foster distrust in authoritative sources, particularly in science and medicine. Once consensus on basic facts is eroded, effective action becomes difficult. Significant research efforts have aimed to understand how best to counter misinformation and sophisticated disinformation campaigns. These studies emphasise the importance of clear, consistent and credible communication from trusted sources. Public health campaigns that engage directly with community leaders and employ tailored messaging have shown promise in increasing trust and positive health behaviours . “ Pre-bunking ”, which involves educating people on how to spot misinformation before they encounter it, is gaining traction. Authorities and public health leaders must prioritise transparency to rebuild and maintain public trust. Being open about the uncertainties and evolving nature of science can help mitigate the impact of disinformation that exploits gaps in public knowledge. Increasing media literacy is also important. By understanding the common tactics used in disinformation campaigns, people can become less susceptible to their influences. Collaboration between governments, international organisations and tech companies is essential. These stakeholders must work together to detect and limit the spread of harmful content and promote accurate information appropriate to the audience (right message, right messenger, right platform). Time to act Despite these insights, a coordinated, large-scale and multi-pronged strategy to combat misinformation remains elusive. Governments and health organisations often react to misinformation rather than being proactive, or worse, leave a vacuum. The challenge of misinformation is not insurmountable, but it requires more than ad-hoc responses. We need a strategic, well-resourced commitment from the highest levels of government and health leadership. It takes courage and the ability to walk a tightrope between freedom of speech and protecting public health. Both are human rights. As we continue to navigate the repercussions of the COVID pandemic, let us prioritise the integrity of our public health communications and bring all the facets we need to do this together. This includes media, tech companies, academics and community leaders. Only through a united front can we hope to restore and maintain the public trust essential for overcoming this crisis and future public health challenges.SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 21, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- RSA ConferenceTM, the world's leading cybersecurity conferences and expositions, today announced that starting in April 2025, the Top 10 Finalists in the RSAC Innovation Sandbox (ISB) contest will receive financing to help them further accelerate innovation to fight the next generation of cybersecurity threats. The investment program will provide these startups with additional capital to deliver solutions that help organizations defend against the increasing volume and complexity of cybersecurity attacks. The RSACTM ISB contest, celebrating its 20th anniversary in 2025, has become the world's premier showcase for the cybersecurity startup community. Some of the most successful cybersecurity innovators have competed in the RSAC ISB contest in order to highlight their game-changing ideas that have disrupted the cybersecurity industry. The contest has grown to receive roughly 150 applicants annually, forming an important source of innovation and ideation that has been essential in addressing ever-changing cybersecurity challenges. More than 750 investors, cybersecurity leaders, entrepreneurs and members of the media join the packed audience to watch the ISB event live. The RSAC ISB contest has become a preeminent platform within the cybersecurity community, providing increased visibility and awareness to the Top 10 Finalists each year. Since the RSAC ISB contest's inception, companies named as Top 10 Finalists have collectively raised over $16.4 billion* in investments and been involved in over 90 merger and acquisition transactions. Each year, a panel of independent judges selects the Top 10 Finalists after reviewing the applicants' submissions. At RSA Conference in San Francisco, each Top 10 Finalist presents an overview of their business, and a winner is selected by an independent panel of judges drawn from the cybersecurity community. Starting in 2025, the Top 10 Finalists will each receive a $5 million uncapped Simple Agreement for Future Equity (SAFE) investment, provided by affiliates of Crosspoint Capital Partners. "Attackers are constantly adapting and changing their tradecraft. Continuous innovation from cybersecurity startups is essential to global cyber defense," said Dr. Hugh Thompson, Executive Chairman and long-serving program chair of RSA Conference, and Managing Partner of Crosspoint Capital Partners. "Historically, the RSAC Innovation Sandbox competition has anointed winners in cybersecurity long before they became winners in the marketplace. We are excited to introduce simplified, founder-friendly financing for the companies selected by the independent and neutral process of the RSAC Innovation Sandbox to further fuel cybersecurity innovation." For many industry-leading cybersecurity companies, the ISB platform has been an important part of their journey. "When Wiz participated in the RSAC Innovation Sandbox contest in 2021, we were a young company in an emerging cybersecurity category," said Anthony Belfiore, Chief Security and Strategy Officer of Wiz. "The exposure that we received from the ISB platform and RSA Conference helped us attract more customers earlier in our journey. This was extremely helpful for us. This new investment program is a game-changer." The investment program is delivered as an uncapped SAFE, which provides an immediate capital infusion while maintaining future fundraising flexibility. "Post Series A investment, subsequent rounds have trended to be larger with multiple investors. A valued security investor like Crosspoint Capital with the deep operational experience of their founding partners would be welcomed into the cap table," said Theresia Gouw, co-founding partner, Acrew Capital. In addition to the investment capital, RSAC is also developing a new forum, the RSAC Founders Circle, to provide past and present ISB Top 10 Finalists with additional exposure, coaching, mentorship, and connections with the CISO community. This initiative will also serve as a powerful alumni network for these distinguished entrepreneurs. Multiple ISB finalists have gone on to become standalone public companies while others become attractive acquisitions for platform assets. These previous Top 10 Finalists include leading cybersecurity innovators such as: Wiz, Imperva, SentinelOne, Talon Cyber Security, Phantom Cyber, and Hidden Layer. Additional details on the RSAC ISB submission process for qualifying candidates will be made available in January 2025. RSAC's Commitment to the Cybersecurity Community RSAC has a heritage of supporting important investments for the community through former and existing programs, including the RSAC Innovation Sandbox, RSAC Security Scholar, child online safety, College Day, community philanthropic activities during the Conference and Conference scholarships to underrepresented communities through its vast network of partners. A portion of the returns received from the investments made in the Top 10 Finalists will be used by RSAC to support the cybersecurity community. *Indicates latest numbers according to Crunchbase Additional Quotes: Nasrin Rezai, SVP and Chief Information Security Officer, Verizon – RSAC Innovation Sandbox Judge "CISOs like me who are constantly trying to sort through the barrage of new cybersecurity entrants are always looking for a signal on who to spend time with and which solutions to try," said Nasrin Rezai, SVP and Chief Information Security Officer, Verizon and returning ISB judge. "The rigorous process of picking these Top 10 Finalists creates a signal to the market of who to pay attention to." Dean Sysman, Co-Founder and CEO, Axonius – RSAC 2019 Innovation Sandbox Winner "One of the best things you want to achieve as a startup in the cybersecurity world is to be a part of the RSAC Innovation Sandbox contest," said Dean Sysman, Co-Founder and CEO, Axonius. "RSA Conference is the most important place where cybersecurity business, ideas, and products get introduced, talked about, and reviewed. The recognition and validation that winning ISB provides coming from that esteemed judging panel was instrumental in people trusting that we would follow through in what we promised we would do for them. There is nothing to lose by applying. Winning it sets you apart in a very differentiated and unique way while pushing the industry to look at you in a new light." Rehan Jalil, CEO, Securiti AI – RSAC 2020 Innovation Sandbox Winner "Making it into the RSAC ISB Top 10 and then winning the contest sends a very strong signal to not only the venture capitalists but the industry at large. The panel of judges for the ISB competition is very diverse, and they each evaluate startups with a different lens, which ultimately helps you as a company be judged more holistically. Winning ISB put us on the map, boosting our brand and increasing customer engagement. Whether you raise money before the contest or after, you get community interest in potentially making a jump to the next stage once you make it into the Top 10," said Rehan Jalil, CEO of Securiti AI, RSAC 2020 Innovation Sandbox Winner. Oliver Friedrichs, Founder and CEO, Pangea and Founder and CEO, Phantom Cyber – RSAC 2023 Innovation Sandbox Finalist and RSAC 2016 Innovation Sandbox Winner "Being a Finalist puts you on the map and separates you from the pack," said Oliver Friedrichs, Founder and CEO of Pangea, RSA Conference 2023 Innovation Sandbox Finalist and Founder and CEO of Phantom Cyber, RSAC 2016 Innovation Sandbox Winner. "If you're a new, relatively unknown entity, it's a great way to launch your company on the big stage. The attention you get being a Top 10 Finalist attracts venture capitalists, strategic investors, and enterprise customers who are all trying to understand what these new companies are doing and how they can help me. This new investment program for the Top 10 Finalists is a testament to the quality and potential of these companies. This added funding provides an even greater long-term financial impact for these startups and further extends their runway." Dave Chen, co-head of Global Technology Investment Banking at Morgan Stanley – RSAC Innovation Sandbox Judge "Several of the companies that have been selected to the ISB Top 10 have gone on to become juggernauts in cybersecurity. The Innovation Sandbox competition is where some of the biggest stories in cybersecurity begin," said Dave Chen, co-head of Global Technology Investment Banking at Morgan Stanley. "I'm honored to be a judge for the 2025 contest." Ben Colman, Co-Founder and CEO, Reality Defender – RSAC 2024 Innovation Sandbox Winner "For over a year, we had board members, investors, and clients encourage us to apply to the Innovation Sandbox contest," said Ben Colman, Co-Founder and CEO of Reality Defender and winner of the RSA Conference 2024 Innovation Sandbox contest. "We applied with no expectations, made it to the Top 10, and quickly realized our fellow Finalists were almost all pure play cybersecurity companies — something we thought was our disadvantage as a cybersecurity company focused on AI, but ultimately proved to be why we won. Awarding future winners with an uncapped SAFE note now makes applying to RSAC Innovation Sandbox a truly game-changing proposition." Paul Kocher, Independent Researcher, Investor and Marconi Prize winner – RSAC Innovation Sandbox Judge "The Innovation Sandbox contest is a fantastic event and terrific driver for bringing new technology to market — and for entrepreneurs it's an opportunity to present to the ideal audience," said Paul Kocher, RSAC ISB Judge, Investor, Independent Researcher and Marconi Prize winner. "I've served as a judge for most of the contest's 20 years, and have seen first hand how it raises Finalists' profiles, helping start-ups build enthusiasm with customers, investors, and new hires. Although the strong field of applicants makes the selection process challenging, I appreciate the Conference and judges' commitment to ensuring the neutrality and independence of the evaluation and selection process." About RSA Conference RSA ConferenceTM is the premier series of global events and year-round learning for the cybersecurity community. RSAC is where the security industry converges to discuss current and future concerns and have access to the experts, unbiased content, and ideas that help enable individuals and companies advance their cybersecurity posture and build stronger and smarter teams. Both in-person and online, RSAC brings the cybersecurity industry together and empowers the collective "we" to stand against cyberthreats around the world. RSAC is the ultimate marketplace for the latest technologies and hands-on educational opportunities that help industry professionals discover how to make their companies more secure while showcasing the most enterprising, influential, and thought-provoking thinkers and leaders in cybersecurity today. For the most up-to-date news pertaining to the cybersecurity industry visit www.rsaconference.com . Where the world talks security.Two strokes and several surgeries later, Hunter worker wins top trainee award

Racing Optics® Introduces Game-Changing Twilight Tearoff to Enhance Visibility in Low-Light Racing Conditions'I really hope that our connection is not complete': Could South Bruce be home to a different nuclear waste project?

Published 5:37 pm Friday, December 27, 2024 By Data Skrive The Las Vegas Raiders (3-12) go on the road to take on the New Orleans Saints (5-10) at Caesars Superdome on Sunday, December 29, 2024. We have best bets recommendations for you. BetMGM is one of the most trusted Sportsbooks in the nation. Start with as little as $1 and place your bets today . Don’t miss a touchdown this NFL season. Catch every score with NFL RedZone on Fubo. What is Fubo? Fubo is a streaming service that gives you access to your favorite live sports and shows on demand. Sign up today and watch seven hours of commercial-free football from every NFL game every Sunday. Think you know who will win the game? Sign up at BetMGM and place your bet today. Want to bet on this game’s spread? Head to BetMGM and place your wager today. Want to bet on the over/under in this matchup? Make your wager at BetMGM . Not all offers available in all states, please visit BetMGM for the latest promotions for your area. Must be 21+ to gamble, please wager responsibly. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, contact 1-800-GAMBLER .

Customs orders sale of smuggled PMS to Yola residents at cheaper prices

Preview: Barnsley vs. Reading - prediction, team news, lineupsTimba and 34 CCC activists found guilty after 166 days of pre-trial detentionWASHINGTON — With some of President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet and other presumptive nominees facing an uncertain path to confirmation, some Republicans have considered embracing recess appointments to allow Trump to temporarily fill vacancies without Senate approval. But that approach might come with its own complications. Many GOP senators have hesitated to cede authority over confirmations. With 53 Republican seats, nominees that can’t get majority support shouldn’t proceed, they argue. Former Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz’s withdrawal as Trump’s selection for attorney general, then, would be an example of how the system should work. Other senators have said that if the Democratic minority next year uses delay tactics — of the sort Republicans themselves employed regarding President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees before the Thanksgiving break, for example — Republicans will be more willing to allow recess appointments. “If we in the Senate do our job correctly, we won’t need to worry about a recess appointment,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said. “Now, if my Democratic colleagues don’t cooperate, then the issue of a recess appointment may be pertinent.” One less-likely scenario is that Trump proceeds with recess appointments by using an extraordinary and never-before-used constitutional power to force a Senate recess. Nonetheless, any actions taken by those recess appointees could be challenged in court and potentially brought to a stop. There are signs that even the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, with three Trump appointees, would find those moves to be unconstitutional. How recess appointments work The Constitution permits the president to circumvent the confirmation process for vacancies that “happen” during “the Recess of the Senate.” If appointed during a recess, officials could potentially serve until the end of the next session, or in this case, through the end of the 119th Congress. The Congressional Research Service has identified 139 recess appointments made by President Bill Clinton, 171 made by President George W. Bush and 32 made by President Barack Obama. Neither Trump in his first term nor President Joe Biden made any recess appointments. Although not unanimous, there is some sympathy for the recess appointment argument among Senate Republicans. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., offered qualified support, arguing that there’s plenty of recent precedent. “I hope President Trump does at least 33 recess appointments. ... Because Obama did 32. So if anybody thinks that recess appointments are something new and different, you need to kind of study just a couple of administrations back,” Tillis told reporters. But he said recess appointments should be off-limits for Cabinet-level positions. “That should be absolutely off the table,” Tillis said. “These positions are too important and carry too much weight internationally to take a shortcut.” Supreme Court ruling Recess appointments declined under Obama because the Senate began staying in session year-round by convening in brief “pro forma” sessions every three days during break periods, such as the chamber’s summer recess. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning that the Constitution allows the president to fill any existing vacancy, but only if the Senate has been in recess for at least 10 days. Under the 2014 ruling, the Senate can choose to allow the president to make recess appointments by agreeing with the House to adjourn for at least 10 days. The court’s decision also left open the possibility for the president to make appointments by forcing a Senate recess. That plan, in theory, would exploit Article 2, Section 3, of the Constitution that allows the president to adjourn Congress “to such Time as he shall think proper” when the two chambers are unable to agree on a time for adjournment. Ed Whelan, an attorney and senior fellow for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, recently explained in National Review how such a scenario could play out. First, the House can adopt a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of both the House and the Senate for at least 10 days, Whelan wrote. The resolution would not be debatable in the Senate and could be adopted by a majority vote, though opposing senators could attempt to filibuster with amendments and procedural motions. Then, the Senate could choose to adopt the resolution, which would allow time for Trump to make appointments. Or it could reject the resolution, which could allow Trump to assert his constitutional power to adjourn Congress when a “disagreement” exists with respect to the time of adjournment. With the Senate gone for at least 10 days, the president could then begin filling vacancies. Nuclear option Of course, it’s no sure thing the House would even act to adopt a recess resolution. In comments to reporters before Thanksgiving, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., appeared to defer to Senate prerogatives when it comes to presidential nominees, pointing out that “the Senate has advice and consent responsibility under the Constitution. They have to vet candidates, of course, and they will.”’ And with House Republicans expected to hold a razor-thin majority, it’s unclear whether such a resolution could receive enough votes for adoption, even if supported by GOP leadership. Additionally, if the Senate simply rejects or declines to act on a House-originated adjournment resolution, that might not constitute a “disagreement” that Trump could exploit, according to Whelan and other experts. Andy Craig, an adjunct scholar at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, wrote that the House and Senate would have to adopt conflicting adjournment resolutions that specify different dates before the president can step in to adjourn them. Simply rejecting the resolution, or refusing to consider it, wouldn’t be enough to trigger the president’s adjournment power, he wrote. James Wallner of the center-right R Street Institute expressed a similar sentiment in a recent social media post, arguing the Senate “can’t have an opinion until it takes action to have one — to disagree.” But with Trump and his own attorneys constantly looking for novel interpretations of executive authority, it’s possible they take the position that a disagreement has occurred anyway. The effectiveness of any recess appointees would almost immediately be cast into doubt, however, as the move could trigger a slew of litigation against agencies led by recess-appointed officials. It could take some time to work its way through the courts, according to Stanford law professor Anne Joseph O’Connell, who said each recess appointee would need to be challenged by a separate plaintiff with standing. “The Supreme Court could then consolidate cases or accept one case and hold the others to be remanded to consider the decision in the case they hear,” she said. Conservative pushback Litigation regarding any potential Trump recess appointees could set the stage for the Supreme Court to invalidate them by taking a more restrictive stance than it did in its 2014 ruling. That case involved an instance of presidential overreach, the court found, when Obama made three recess appointments to the NLRB after concluding that the Senate was unavailable to consider nominations, even though it had convened periodically for pro forma sessions. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the appointments were invalid, and a majority, which included the liberal justices and swing-justice Anthony Kennedy, held that the Senate must be in recess for at least 10 days before the president can make a recess appointment. But the conservative justices strongly disagreed with the majority’s understanding of the Recess Appointments Clause and took a position that Senate Republicans had urged them to adopt. In an amicus brief, the entire Senate Republican Conference during the 113th Congress urged the court to severely curtail the recess appointment power. Among those who signed the brief, 21 are still currently serving in the Senate. Republicans called on the court to hold that the “recess” defined in the Constitution means only the recess that occurs after the Senate ends its regular annual session, and excludes an “intra-session” adjournment, which occurs when the Senate temporarily takes a break during its annual session for various reasons, like a holiday or district work period. They also urged the justices to rule that the president may only fill positions that become vacant during that narrowly defined recess. Obama’s recess appointments, the senators wrote, “cannot be justified by the Recess Appointments Clause without distorting that provision’s text and purpose beyond recognition: The appointments were made neither during ‘the Recess of the Senate,’ but instead in an intrasession adjournment, nor to fill ‘vacancies that ... happen[ed] during the Recess,’ but to preexisting openings.” Additionally, the senators suggested that the Supreme Court should conclude “that the President cannot unilaterally declare the Senate in ‘Recess’ against its will,” as Obama did by refusing to recognize its pro forma sessions. Aligning with Senate Republicans, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurring opinion arguing recess appointment power should allow only appointments during the break between the Senate’s formal annual sessions, and only for vacancies that came into existence during that intermission. Three conservatives currently on the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined the late justice’s opinion. Because an attempt by Trump to fill positions with recess appointments would likely occur during the Senate’s regular session and would involve positions that did not become vacant during the recess between annual sessions, the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority might rule that such appointments are unconstitutional. Whelan predicts that the three conservative justices appointed by Trump during his first term — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — would also be skeptical of a broad recess appointment power that allows intrasession appointments and appointments to preexisting vacancies. “It’s a very safe bet that Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett would agree with Scalia if they were looking at the issues afresh. So that would make a six-justice majority among the current members of the Court,” Whelan wrote.