Instant Alert: The US military predicts 10,000 troops could be wounded in combat if war breaks out with North Korea — and that's just the beginning

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   The US military predicts 10,000 troops could be wounded in combat if war breaks out with North Korea — and that's just the beginning by David Choi on Mar 1, 2018, 1:34 AM Advertisement US military leaders attended a training exercise designed to sketch out hypothetical scenarios if war were to break out with North Korea. Officials estimated around 10,000 troops would be wounded in the opening days. The leaders also analyzed several scenarios, including figuring out how many US Special Operations forces it would take to target nuclear sites belonging to North Korea. US military leaders who attended a classified exercise in Hawaii learned that a war with North Korea could result in around 10,000 American combat-related casualties in the opening days, according to a New York Times report published on Wednesday. The tabletop exercise (TTX), which tests hypothetical scenarios, lasted several days and included Army chief of staff Gen. Mark Milley and Special Operations Command commander Gen. Raymond Thomas. While the number of troops who could potentially be wounded in such combat may be startling, civilian casualties were predicted to range from the thousands to the hundreds of thousands, according to The Times. The US stations about 28,500 troops in South Korea, while the capital of Seoul — which is in range of North Korea's crude, yet devastating artillery fire — has a population of about 24 million. Given the scope of a war, Milley said that "the brutality of this will be beyond the experience of any living soldier," officials familiar with the TTX said in the report. According to The Times, military leaders looked at various factors, including how many Special Operations forces could deploy to target nuclear sites in North Korea; whether the US Army's conventional units could end up fighting in tunnels; and methods to destroy the country's air defenses to pave the way for US aircraft. Immediate tensions between North Korean and US-South Korean leaders appears to have subsided in recent weeks after the North's participation in the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea. But US officials remain skeptical of North Korea's diplomatic overtures. Though various Trump administration officials have given conflicting statements on US policy, Trump said on Monday that he would be open to talks with North Korea "only under the right conditions." The US State Department also echoed Trump's assertions: "Our condition is denuclearization," spokeswoman Heather Nauert said. "Our policy has not changed. We have talked about this policy since day one of this administration; and that's maximum pressure, but it's also the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." SEE ALSO: 'Marines will die from this': John Kelly reportedly bristled at the notion of repealing 'Don't ask, Don't tell'   Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Instant Alert: China is using a tweet from Elon Musk as propaganda tool

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   China is using a tweet from Elon Musk as propaganda tool by Tara Francis Chan on Mar 1, 2018, 12:52 AM Advertisement Earlier this week Elon Musk tweeted about a construction project in China that was completed by 1,500 workers in nine hours. China seized on the tweet and promoted it through numerous state-run media, saying Musk was "amazed" at China's capabilities. But construction workers in China can be some of the most vulnerable workers, subjected to long hours, poor conditions, and little pay — sometimes receiving nothing. Musk isn't alone in Silicon Valley's praise of China's development, but it raises questions about the human cost of progress. China is using a recent tweet from Elon Musk as a propaganda tool to promote its infrastructure development. On Tuesday, Musk tweeted a story about 1,500 workers in China who upgraded a railway station in nine hours. He captioned the tweet: "China's progress in advanced infrastructure is more than 100 times faster than the US." China's progress in advanced infrastructure is more than 100 times faster than the US https://t.co/fcqGIK78RY — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2018 The story focused on a new railway junction in the Fujian province that was built between 6 p.m. and 3 a.m. over one night in mid-January. It wasn't long before state-run media began pronouncing Musk's tweet as an endorsement of China's infrastructure abilities. The official state news agency Xinhua ran an entire article called "Elon Musk amazed by China's railway project completed within 9 hours."  The foreign-focused government mouthpiece Global Times picked up the same story, so too did the national TV broadcaster CGTN. Another article was still on the homepage of People's Daily, the main newspaper of the Communist Party, on March 1. While the articles highlighted a handful of 1,800 comments that seemed to express awe of the construction achievement, they ignored the many comments that queried working conditions and human-rights in China. Years of reports have indicated construction workers face low wages, limited breaks, and many don't have contracts. In the past, some workers have had their wages withheld for up to a year, or received no pay at all. The irregular hours and intense work conditions that deliver fast infrastructure projects can actually be a hallmark of poor working conditions. Musk isn't the first big-name in Silicon Valley to overlook human-rights issues in China. A partner at Sequoia Capital, Michael Moritz, recently wrote in the Financial Times that "the Chinese approach may seem unhealthy and unappealing to westerners" but Western habits will soon "seem antique." He called debates over work-life balance an "unwarranted distraction" and praised senior executives who only see their children "for a few minutes a day." "Top managers show up for work at about 8am and frequently don't leave until 10pm. Most of them will do this six days a week — and there are plenty of examples of people who do this for seven," wrote Moritz. Sam Altman, the president of leading accelerator Y Combinator, also received flak after writing a blog post in December praising freedom of speech in China, which he felt was not available in the Bay Area.  Critics contended that ignored China's regular imprisonment of dissidents, heavy-handed monitoring of citizens, and well-reported limits on freedom of movement, assembly, religion, and speech. SEE ALSO: China's move to abolish presidential term limits is more unpopular than the government thought — so it's turning to censorship   Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Instant Alert: Spotify just proved that the streaming music business is a like a black hole — and investors might not see it until it’s too late

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   Spotify just proved that the streaming music business is a like a black hole — and investors might not see it until it's too late by Troy Wolverton on Feb 28, 2018, 10:29 PM Advertisement Spotify released its financial results Wednesday as part of the paperwork it filed to become a public company. The results show just how difficult the streaming business is, even for the market leader. Investors shouldn't expect Spotify to ever become a big money maker. If you hadn't figured this out already, the streaming music business is a terrible one to be in. That's the chief takeaway from the financial paperwork Spotify filed Wednesday in advance of becoming a public company. Despite dominating the subscription music market, the company generates relatively little money per user, has to give away nearly all the money it generates to the big recording companies, and continues to rack up losses. And, as the company warned potential investors, things may never get much better. "There can be no guarantee as to when we will eventually reach profitability, if at all," the company said in it regulatory filings. It's been clear from the years and years worth of losses Pandora has posted that streaming music can be a tough business. But one would have hoped that Spotify would be in a much better position. After all, by some measures, the company has been wildly successful. Spotify dominates the streaming music business Not too long ago, there were plenty of doubters around who wondered if consumers would ever give up buying songs and albums in favor of paying a monthly subscription. Now, subscriptions generate far more money for the music industry than paid downloads, thanks in no small part to Spotify. The company has 159 million monthly active users from around the world, 71 million of which pay a monthly subscription fee to use its service. Despite facing off against some of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world, including Apple, Google, and Amazon, Spotify has more than held its own. Its number of paying subscribers is about double that of Apple Music, the no. 2 player in the streaming music market. Even though it's already huge, Spotify continues to grow rapidly. Its number of monthly active users jumped 29% last year. And as impressive as that growth is, Spotify is having even more success convincing users to pay for its service. Its number of premium subscribers grew 46% in 2017. All that growth has helped lead to improving financial results. The company's sales jumped 39%. Thanks to contracts it renegotiated with the major record labels last year, Spotify now gets to keep more of the money it takes in from subscribers and advertisers, helping it improve its bottom line. While its operating loss increased last year, the company actually shrunk that loss significantly as a portion of its revenue. And Spotify has generated free cash flow — the amount of cash yielded by a company's operations less expenditures on long-term goods and assets like property and equipment — for the last two years. But it hands over nearly all its revenue to the record labels It sounds like everything is moving in the right direction, right? So what's not to like? Well, as impressively as Spotify has performed and as big of an impact as it's had on the music industry, its business is still nothing to get excited about. Even with the renegotiated contracts, Spotify still has to pay out huge royalty fees to the big record labels. After paying out those fees and a few assorted other costs directly related to providing its streaming service, the company is left with only around 21 cents of every dollar it takes in. And that's before it has to pay for advertising or research and development. Those costs are a big reason why Spotify doesn't seem to have ever posted a full-year profit. Last year, for example, it lost about $1.5 billion on $5 billion in sales. Even if you back out a big one-time financing expense it recorded and some much smaller finance-related income, the company would still have lost $461 million on its operations alone. If you exclude certain non-cash charges, as Wall Street analysts are fond of doing, Spotify's operations actually generated money. Just not a whole lot. Last year, the company produced $133 million in free cash flow, up from $89 million the year before. To put those numbers in perspective, Spotify generated about 84 cents of cash for every monthly active user it had last year, up from about 72 cents the year before. All those $10 a month subscriptions it sells and ads it posts on its free service? They added up to less than a $1 per user — for the whole year. The company is hemmed in by user expectations and deep pocketed rivals And you shouldn't expect Spotify to ever generate lots of cash, even it it does eventually become profitable. Here's why. The appeal to consumers of music streaming services like Spotify is that they offer access to practically all recorded music for a relatively affordable price. As such, the services are completely dependent on the music labels to grant them access to their libraries — and they have to pay whatever the labels think is fair. Right now, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 cents of every dollar — but that price could up. Spotify could try to pull a Netflix and publish more artists on its own, rather than having to license all the songs and albums from the big music labels.  But the Netflix model won't translate to Spotify.  That's because unlike Netflix, Spotify couldn't get away with offering a more tailored selection of content. Consumers expect access to a universe of music when they subscribe to a streaming service. It's different than TV, which is more hit-driven.  If Spotify goes narrow, it becomes a nice-to-have service for consumers, instead of the must-have universal music service that consumers will gladly let Apple, Google or Amazon charge their credit cards for every month.  And that points to the fundamental "catch-22" problem in the streaming music business. You can't go narrow. But if you go broad there's little to differentiate the streaming services. They all basically offer the same proposition. Sure, the apps consumers use to access them are different, and some offer better features than others, but consumers basically get the same thing from each one for the same basic price. That close competition limits Spotify's ability to raise prices or differentiate its service. And while music is Spotify's entire business, it's a just side hustle for Spotify's bigger rivals. Apple Music helps sell iPhones. For Amazon, music helps make its Prime subscription service more attractive. Those companies can afford to run their music businesses at breakeven or even at a loss, because they're making their money elsewhere. Spotify doesn't have that luxury — but its sales and costs will likely be influenced by such factors. So don't get too excited about Spotify's impending debut on the public markets. Yes, it dominates streaming music. But that position isn't worth a whole lot. SEE ALSO: Spotify, the music streaming service that's crushing Apple Music, just filed to go public in a very weird way MORE BI PRIME: Here's why Spotify is bypassing the normal IPO process — and why more companies don't do it   Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Instant Alert: A timeline emerges as Mueller homes in on what — and how much — Trump knew about WikiLeaks and the DNC hacks

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   A timeline emerges as Mueller homes in on what — and how much — Trump knew about WikiLeaks and the DNC hacks by Sonam Sheth on Feb 28, 2018, 8:56 PM Special counsel Robert Mueller is probing what, and how much, President Donald Trump knew about the Russian government-backed effort to hack the Democratic National Committee, and the subsequent release of stolen emails at the height of the 2016 campaign. Mueller is also looking into Trump's relationship with Roger Stone, a longtime Republican strategist who was in touch with WikiLeaks, its founder Julian Assange, and the Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0 during the election.  The revelations indicate Mueller is zeroing in on what appears to be a growing timeline of Trump associates' communications with Russia-linked actors during the final months of the campaign.   Sign up for the latest Russia investigation updates here. The special counsel Robert Mueller is asking witnesses in the Russia investigation whether President Donald Trump had prior knowledge about Russia's plans to hack the Democratic National Committee, whether he was involved in coordinating the release of stolen emails, and why he endorsed Russia-friendly policy positions during the campaign, NBC News reported on Wednesday. Mueller's team has also asked about longtime Republican operative and Trump confidant Roger Stone's communications with Julian Assange, the founder of the radical pro-transparency group WikiLeaks.  Mueller is tasked with overseeing the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow to tilt the race in his favor. Russia's hack of the DNC and WikiLeaks' involvement in disseminating the stolen emails make up a significant thread in the investigation.  In particular, NBC News reported, prosecutors are zeroing in on Trump's public appeal for Russia to recover then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's deleted emails during a July 2016 press conference.  "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said at the time.  Investigators are also reportedly delving into Trump's decades-long relationship with Stone, as well as Stone's contacts with Assange and WikiLeaks.  Stone told the House Intelligence Committee last September that he had never "said or written that I had any direct communication with Julian Assange and have always clarified in numerous interviews and speeches that my communication with WikiLeaks was through the aforementioned journalist."  Stone was referring to radio host Randy Credico, who Stone said acted as an intermediary between himself and Assange.  A timeline emerges  Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was in touch with WikiLeaks several times between September 2016 and July 2017, The Atlantic reported last year.  WikiLeaks first contacted Trump Jr. via a private, direct message on Twitter on September 20, 2016 to tell him about a PAC-run anti-Trump website, called putintrump.org, and asked him if he had "any comments" on who was behind it. WikiLeaks also told Trump Jr. that it had "guessed the password" to the anti-Trump website, and told him it was "putintrump." Trump Jr. replied, "Off the record I don't know who that is, but I'll ask around. Thanks." On the day he received that message, Trump Jr. emailed high-ranking campaign officials, including Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Jared Kushner, informing them that WikiLeaks had contacted him. Kushner also forwarded Trump Jr.'s email to Hope Hicks, who was a spokesperson for the Trump campaign. She is now the director of communications at the White House, though she has said she would resign in the coming weeks. Trump Jr.'s communications with WikiLeaks didn't emerge until last year, but Stone has long drawn scrutiny, particularly after he sent out a series of tweets that raised questions about whether he knew in advance that WikiLeaks was planning on publishing Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's hacked emails.  "Wednesday @HillaryClinton is done," Stone tweeted on October 1. "I have total confidence that @wikileaks and my hero Julian Assange will educate the American people soon #LockHerUp," he tweeted two days later. While WikiLeaks describes itself as a non-partisan transparency organization, it has been criticized for its apparently pro-Russia stance, particularly during the 2016 US election.   In addition to WikiLeaks and Assange, Stone was also in touch with Guccifer 2.0, a hacker said to be a front for Russian military intelligence. Meanwhile, following its initial message to Trump Jr. on September 20, WikiLeaks touched base with him again on October 3 and told him it would be "great" if the campaign pushed a story about Hillary Clinton published by "True Pundit," a conservative-leaning outlet that's been known to spread junk news. According to the story, Clinton said she wanted to "just drone" WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Trump Jr. replied that he had already shared the story earlier that day, adding, "It's amazing what she can get away with." He also asked WikiLeaks about an upcoming WikiLeaks dump that Stone had tweeted about a day earlier.  WikiLeaks did not respond to Trump Jr.'s question, and it ultimately published the first batch of hacked emails belonging to Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, on Friday, October 7. At a campaign rally three days later, Trump said he loved WikiLeaks. "It's amazing how nothing is secret today when you talk about the internet," he told the crowd. He also tweeted about WikiLeaks on October 11, writing, "I hope people are looking at the disgraceful behavior of Hillary Clinton as exposed by WikiLeaks. She is unfit to run." WikiLeaks then reached out to Trump Jr. on October 12, telling him that it was "great" to see him and Trump "talking about our publications." It also "strongly" suggested that Trump tweet out the link wlsearch.tk — which he did, two days later — claiming the site would help people search through the hacked documents. WikiLeaks also told Trump Jr. it had just released another batch of Podesta's emails. An hour later, Trump tweeted: "Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!" "This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable," Trump said the same day, at a campaign rally in Florida. "It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it." That day, Stone admitted to having "back-channel communications" with Assange because they had a "good mutual friend." "That friend travels back and forth from the United States to London and we talk," Stone told CBS' Miami affiliate. "I had dinner with him last Monday." Trump again praised WikiLeaks on October 13, saying at a rally in Ohio that the content the group was pushing was "amazing." The Atlantic reported Tuesday that Stone was also in direct contact with the group that day, less than a month before the election.  "Since I was all over national TV, cable and print defending wikileaks and assange against the claim that you are Russian agents and debunking the false charges of sexual assault as trumped up bs you may want to reexamine the strategy of attacking me," Stone reportedly wrote. "We appreciate that," WikiLeaks replied. "However, the false claims of association are being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications. Don’t go there if you don’t want us to correct you." Two days later, on October 15, Stone reportedly wrote back: "Ha! The more you 'correct' me the more people think you’re lying. Your operation leaks like a sieve. You need to figure out who your friends are." On November 9, 2016 — the day after Trump won the election — WikiLeaks replied, "Happy? We are now more free to communicate." The group later sent another message, saying, "FYI, while we continue to be unhappy about false 'back channel' claims, today CNN deliberately broke our off the record comments." CNN said the comments in question were not off-the-record because it made no such prior agreement with WikiLeaks before the conversation.  Stone said in a statement to NBC News that he had "no advance knowledge of the content or source of information published by WikiLeaks" and added that he had not been interviewed by Mueller's team. "I never discussed WikiLeaks, Assange or the Hillary disclosures with candidate Trump, before during or after the election," he told the outlet. "I have no idea what he knew about them, from who or when. I have never met Assange." Stone's relationship with Trump has also been of particular interest to investigators.  One witness interviewed by Mueller's team told NBC News that investigators asked about what Stone's interactions with Trump were like once he ended his tenure as a Trump campaign adviser in August 2015.  "How often did they talk? Who really fired him? Was he really fired?" the witness said, describing the questions they were asked.    Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Instant Alert: Watch the priceless reactions from Democrats during Trump's gun-control meeting

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   Watch the priceless reactions from Democrats during Trump's gun-control meeting by David Choi on Feb 28, 2018, 8:28 PM Advertisement President Donald Trump held a meeting on gun control with lawmakers at the White House on Wednesday. Trump approved of many suggestions from Democratic lawmakers. Some Republicans felt shafted by his remarks. When President Donald Trump appeared to chastise Republicans lawmakers and applaud Democrats during an informal meeting with a group of congressmembers at the White House on Wednesday, they seemed to have a hard time containing their emotions. During the meeting, Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota suggested inserting an addendum on domestic violence to a new bill on background checks. "So if you can add that to this bill, that would be great," Trump said about Klobuchar's suggestion, before turning to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. "Dianne, if you can add what you have also, and I think you can, into the bill." Feinstein cracked a smile and appeared to be gleeful about the suggestion: via GIPHY "Joe, are you ready," Feinstein quipped to Sen. Joe Manchin, the Democrat from West Virginia. "Can you do that," Trump asked. "Joe, can you do that?" Klobuchar continued discussing another domestic-violence bill when Trump interjected. "I would say this, we're gonna get it passed," Trump said. "If you could add 'domestic violence' paragraphs, pages into this bill, I'm all for it. I think it's terrific if you can do it." As Trump spoke, Klobuchar took a sip of water as she shot an approving glance to a colleague: via GIPHY And while Trump continued to green-light suggestions from Democrats, he appeared to temporarily pass over some Republicans, including Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking GOP senator: via GIPHY During the freewheeling meeting, Trump made several statements that appeared to worry Republican lawmakers, including telling Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania that he might be "afraid of the NRA," referring to the National Rifle Association, an influential gun-rights organization. "I like taking the guns early," Trump said at the meeting. "Take the guns first, go through due process second." Lawmakers have since railed against Trump's remarks and said they disagreed with some of his ideas. "Strong leaders don't automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them," Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska said in a statement. "We have the Second Amendment and due process of law for a reason. We're not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn't like them," Sasse said. SEE ALSO: Armed police are guarding the home of the deputy who resigned over his lack of action in the Parkland school shooting   Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011