If the smugglers charged $30.61 per carton (sorry easy math) that means they would make a net profit of $3.8 Million over 14 guys is $277K per guy. Not a huge mark up but a descent amount.
Yep. But in order to get even that amount they have to front $8 million in cash. That's a significant amount of money.
And it's a significant risk of losing the $8 million if they're caught. And the larger the operation, the more likely it is that they will be caught. As was the case in that example.
So they're smart enough to get $8 million to "invest" in crime... but dumb enough to "invest" $8 million in crime.
"November 2009 â" ATF special agents bust a ring of tobacco smugglers in Northern Virginia. Culminating a 14â"month investigation, agents took 14 people into custody where the suspects allegedly paid or traded for more than $8 million, nearly 40 firearms, and drugs to purchase 388,000 cartons"
It seems strange to smuggle drugs (very violent enterprise) to purchase illegal cigarettes (low violence enterprise) in order to smuggle the cigarettes (low violence enterprise).
Rather, I'll guess that the smugglers were smuggling cigarettes AND drugs. And rather than outright purchases, the exchanges happened more on the barter system. With smugglers X trading an excess of item A for item B which smugglers Y and smugglers Z had an excess of.
$8 million paid for 388,000 cartons of cigarettes means... $20.61 per carton. Which, depending upon where you live, is probably better than half-price of what you'd get in a store. But since the smugglers probably WILL NOT be getting full price for the cigarettes when they sell them... the numbers just don't add up.
Unless they sell them in stores that they own. In which case this becomes more of an issue of tax evasion. They buy at the source and sell in a high tax area without paying the taxes so they make more profit on each pack sold.
Therefore, for cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, the costs of prohibition may seem high, but the costs of higher levels of destroyed lives due to addiction to substances which render you unable to function are higher yet.
So making cocaine legal (and regulated) would result in the worse violence that we see with it being illegal?
That's a bit difficult to believe.
Particularly since it was legal to purchase over-the-counter until 1914.
The "war on drugs" is ugly. Addiction to substances which render you unable to function in life is uglier.
If that were correct then Prohibition would be preferable to the massive distribution of alcohol we have today.
Some determined people will always be able to get these substances, but by making it difficulty and costly, you save lives by preventing exposure for some in the first place.
I don't think so. I think it costs MORE lives. Again, as demonstrated with alcohol and Prohibition.
No modern society can or will allow unchecked addiction to highly inebriating substances that rot at society and destroy human dignity, and, as I said before, personal free will.
Look around the world. There are other nations that have different laws. And they are not exhibiting the behaviours that you claim they would.
But I'd rather have seen pictures (and diagrams and configs) of how they laid out the power and switches. And what problems they ran into and how they plan to solve them for the next time they run this.
No matter how much thought and planning you put into the infrastructure, the users will always surprise you with some new problem.
But it doesn't matter if the "cloud" vendor is running Apache or IIS or whatever. Services will be consolidated and automated. It's about the economies of scale.
He talks about being "an Open Source apologist". Fuck that. That's all you need to read to know that that article is going to be worthless.
He's confusing: #1. Open Source (Free) Software.
#2. Consolidation / Automation.
#3. The recession / depression / economic restructuring / whatever.
#4. Hardware / software / services (his example of Apple).
And then he complains about the loss of "fat profits". But he doesn't understand that someone has to PAY those "fat profits".
You only need a server for each item that is different. So if you standardize on hardware / OS then you only need 1 server to test hardware drivers and OS updates and so forth.
Beyond that, you really should have a test database system and a test app system. You never want to deploy updates into a production environment without going through a test system first (which is NOT the same as a development environment).
Virtual systems can help a lot with the server requirements. But you still need to understand the hardware / virtual / OS / app differences and plan accordingly.
Or to use a more common example, think about changing the oil in your car every (time interval) or (distance interval). Will it stop failures? Maybe. Maybe not.
On the other hand, every time you "work" on a system you introduce entropy.
As long as you remove more entropy than you introduce, you should have a more reliable system (than if you hadn't worked on it at all). But that gets into the training/knowledge of the person performing the PM.
1) IT is told what to do by IT management. I sincerely doubt that it is the CEO that is demanding these draconian controls.
I'm sure he is not "demanding" those specific controls. He is just demanding that X be accomplished and that is how IT is implementing X.
Want changes? Make a business case and show the CEO how much money can be made / saved by doing it a different way.
I have a strong doubt that anyone outside of IT was even consulted about what software is "approved".
I have the opposite experience. Usually IT is the LAST department consulted. And only AFTER the software has been chosen and the purchase order signed.
Oh, we need a server to make it work? Handle that. You're IT. Servers are your job.
Oh, we need special backup software? Handle that. You're IT. Backups are your job.
Etc.
I can _guarantee_ that no one outside of IT suggested that we need to dump our existing tools and go with SharePoint instead.
Again, my experience is the opposite. Someone in some other department loads SharePoint on a workstation (running a vanilla install of Windows 2008) and now it is "mission critical".
What do you mean everyone in the company cannot access that server? Fix it! You're IT. That's your job.
Don't talk to me about licenses for it. I don't have time to research what licenses are needed. You're IT. That's your job.
2) When we have our manager go tell IT what we need very often they push back and say "we can't do that" or "we don't have anyone who knows that", and they're likely to push back even if it's a VP asking.
Business case. That's part of the business case. Your business case SHOULD show how many hundreds of thousands of dollars will be made / saved with the changes you want. So if IT doesn't have someone who knows it, they can hire someone. Or train someone on it. Where's the business case?
3) We don't need IT to implement it, it's an open source program for linux and macs and therefore we can't afford the months it takes for you to hire someone who knows something other than what's on the MSCE tests.
See my comments above.
Installing something is easy. That's the easiest part of the entire project. I can install a HUNDRED packages in one day and still have time for coffee and donuts.
The problem is SUPPORTING it after it is installed. That includes scaling it. Backups. Updating it. Security. blah blah blah.
Those take time and expertise and experience and MONEY.
If you need it so bad then it should be easy to build a business case for it.
1. IT managers have difficulty standing up to the demands from marketing and management in order to insist on what is likely instead of what "might be possible."
a. IT managers do NOT think like marketing / sales people. Sales is happy to go with the smallest option presented... knowing that they can grow it from there. "In for a penny, in for a pound".
b. IT managers (in my experience) do not know how to manage the other managers. Hearing, "I know someone who can do it in a weekend for $100" from someone in Sales causes them to capitulate to unreasonable demands.
c. IT managers (again, in my experience) do not know as much as they think they know about IT or their systems. So they cannot provide an accurate cost (money / manpower) for any changes.
d. IT managers (a, ime) do not have plans for improving their systems over the years. Where will your systems / functions be 3 years from now? 5 years? 10 years? The Sales team can give you all kinds of projections. Maybe all lies. But they still have them.
2. Most people in IT have poor social skills and aren't as smart as they think they are, leading to them projecting an aura of arrogance that offsets users. Sympathy for the user is often lacking.
Yep. Big time. Think about it. Do you REALLY know more about IT (your job) than that accountant knows about Accounting (his job)?
3. Because IT is a hot topic job, the kiss-asses get promoted over the competent and stable, which leads to a proliferation of incompetents while the heroes get driven into the back room.
See all of my above comments. A good test for this is... what CURRENT certifications does your manager carry? If any. How diverse are the certs?
#1. The IT techs do NOT (as a rule) "impose more draconian controls than are strictly required". They are TOLD what to do by management.
#2. If you (as a non-IT and non-management user) want something done differently, then put together a business case and send it up through your manager.
#3. If your manager gets his/her manager and the other managers to approve and fund it then the IT techs will implement it.
Yay! Everyone wins! Then we all dance!
No business case, no funding, no changes.
And that is the core of the problem. People WANT things because they WANT them. But they don't understand (nor do they want to understand) how their "small change" affects the whole company's IT system.
How many of those forcible rapes were by intelligence agents who used their work tools as part of the rape, over the past ten years?
So, from 11-26-2001 until 11-26-2011 (10 years) you want me to provide you with statistics for forcible rape?
Why can't you provide them? After all, that is your new claim, isn't it?
Now how many deaths by terrorists in the same time period?
Again, from 11-26-2001 through 11-26-2011 (10 years)....
Oh, I see what you were trying to do. You were trying to get the WTC attacks included to make the numbers look more favourable to your new claim.
Except you didn't realize that they had happened more than 10 years ago.
Anyway, I've already supported my position with the statistics. If you want to change your position to include the WTC attacks then you're going to have to do your own research on rape statistics for whatever time frame you finally settle upon.
Remember, statistics first. Then opinions. You run into problems when you get that backwards.
The article summarizes it thus: "Depending where you fall on the spectrum between civil liberties absolutism and homeland security lockdown, Palantirâ(TM)s technology is either creepy or heroic."
Fuck "homeland security lockdown". Think more about who has access to that information and whether you trust THEM with this kind of information about your daughter.
Do you believe that there are more terrorists in the USofA than there are perverts who would have access to that system?
A lot of the data can be purchased from the private companies (non-governmental agencies) collecting it.
Phone records with location data. Rental records. And so forth.
I wonder how long it will be before private citizens can form businesses whose sole purpose will be license plate recording near their homes/offices. And maybe facial recognition. And then selling that information to the government.
You can argue that this is a selfish choice, and that the risk of vaccination has been greatly exaggerated by some commentators, but let's not try to pretend that there is only one rational outcome here.
Actually, there is only one rational outcome here. And the basis for that is in your previous statement.
If rates are high then the risk of infection should go down, in which case the risk of vaccination (which is unlikely to be zero) may become greater at some point on the curve.
Which means that in order for child A to avoid the vaccination "safely", someone must guarantee that children B - Z are vaccinated.
While it may be a correct mathematical statement reflecting the spread of infection, it is not a "rational" approach to immunization. If everyone followed that, then none of the children would be immunized. If 50% of the population followed that then the diseases would still be a problem. And so forth.
It is impossible for a cynic (admin) to get certain concepts through to an optimist (management).
Every day that you are not cracked (or the crack go undetected) is "proof" for the optimist that he was right and you were just pushing unnecessary precautions to justify your job.
So, those 24 months... that's over 700 times he was "proven" right and you were "proven" wrong.
The same with skipping patches. Every patch skipped multiplied by every day without a crack... he's right thousands of times and you're chicken little ("the sky is falling, the sky is falling").
Your problem is, and I have this information directly from people who participated in this very same activity in the 1960s,...
Maybe. But I think the situation may be a bit different today.
... is that the unwise, reactionary, direction-less types, as well as those looking to party, do drugs, and hook-up with the opposite sex, are 99% of your protest numbers.
There are probably better places to "do drugs" that a place with, literally, dozens of cops standing around you. Who can come in at any time and knock your tent over.
The same with "hook-up with the opposite sex". Not to mention that the ratio is rather slanted to males. Unless you're a woman looking for a guy... in a cold tent... in a public place... with lots of cops around. And while I'm sure that those women do exist, I think we've wandered into fantasy territory.
The party people, sure. As long as there's a party. But there are other parties out there. In warm places. With a lot lower police presence (because the cops are all at the protest).
Running a fine Kitchen and giving out lots of free stuff at the Comfort Tent gave OWS the appearance of numbers far beyond the true reality of the dedicated.
Again, maybe. They've claimed that the cops were pushing the homeless and regular vagrants to the protest. So there is at least some people there who would not be called "dedicated" to the general cause.
On the other hand, not many people would choose to live in a cold tent in NYC if they had any other options. So those who aren't "dedicated" are indicative of the overall problem.
The general populace understands that the State is the only entity that has a legitimate right to project force. Whether via the military (hopefully outside the country) or the police (inside the country). I include the CIA / FBI / etc in those categories.
Anyone else using force (particularly outside their social group) is IMMEDIATELY identified as a criminal. A threat to society.
There may be problems in society. And the majority of the population may even AGREE with you about those problems. But they do NOT want to have to deal with non-State violence. They see enough of that (and its effects) from criminals.
Right because, sitting on the ground arms behind your back while the cop takes out his can of pepper spray, holding it up and walking with it, showing it to the entire crowd before spraying you in the face untill the can is empty, is totally provoking him.
The point of the "agent provocateur" is that he works WITH the authorities while POSING as one of the protesters.
So when the calm protesters are engaged in non-violent protests, the agent provocateur becomes violent. That "violence" is used to "justify" the violence against the non-violent protesters.
And it is that one "violent protester" who is shown in the media as an example of how "unreasonable" the protesters (as a group) are.
Look for more incidents involving agents provocateurs in future protests. It's easier to "justify" whatever actions are taken if they can show footage of a "protester" acting in an "unreasonable" fashion.
The public footage is having a huge impact right now because people are seeing people like themselves at the protests and NOT causing problems... and hearing the official reports contradicting the footage.
1. They were planning disrupting Wall Street. In other words, they were threatening the economy and even Bloomy can't allow that.
Huh? How is it even possible for a small group like that to be "threatening the economy"? No, don't answer that. Real terrorists might read your answer and use it against America.
2. The Occupy protests were jumping the shark and losing popular support as crime ramped up and local business suffered.
How could crime have "ramped up" when there were so many cops standing around watching them?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. But in order to get even that amount they have to front $8 million in cash. That's a significant amount of money.
And it's a significant risk of losing the $8 million if they're caught. And the larger the operation, the more likely it is that they will be caught. As was the case in that example.
So they're smart enough to get $8 million to "invest" in crime ... but dumb enough to "invest" $8 million in crime.
It seems strange to smuggle drugs (very violent enterprise) to purchase illegal cigarettes (low violence enterprise) in order to smuggle the cigarettes (low violence enterprise).
Rather, I'll guess that the smugglers were smuggling cigarettes AND drugs. And rather than outright purchases, the exchanges happened more on the barter system. With smugglers X trading an excess of item A for item B which smugglers Y and smugglers Z had an excess of.
$8 million paid for 388,000 cartons of cigarettes means ... ... the numbers just don't add up.
$20.61 per carton.
Which, depending upon where you live, is probably better than half-price of what you'd get in a store.
But since the smugglers probably WILL NOT be getting full price for the cigarettes when they sell them
Unless they sell them in stores that they own. In which case this becomes more of an issue of tax evasion. They buy at the source and sell in a high tax area without paying the taxes so they make more profit on each pack sold.
So making cocaine legal (and regulated) would result in the worse violence that we see with it being illegal?
That's a bit difficult to believe.
Particularly since it was legal to purchase over-the-counter until 1914.
If that were correct then Prohibition would be preferable to the massive distribution of alcohol we have today.
I don't think so. I think it costs MORE lives. Again, as demonstrated with alcohol and Prohibition.
Look around the world. There are other nations that have different laws. And they are not exhibiting the behaviours that you claim they would.
But I'd rather have seen pictures (and diagrams and configs) of how they laid out the power and switches. And what problems they ran into and how they plan to solve them for the next time they run this.
No matter how much thought and planning you put into the infrastructure, the users will always surprise you with some new problem.
But that setup must have rocked for torrents.
He's blaming Open Source for automation.
But it doesn't matter if the "cloud" vendor is running Apache or IIS or whatever. Services will be consolidated and automated. It's about the economies of scale.
He talks about being "an Open Source apologist". Fuck that. That's all you need to read to know that that article is going to be worthless.
He's confusing:
#1. Open Source (Free) Software.
#2. Consolidation / Automation.
#3. The recession / depression / economic restructuring / whatever.
#4. Hardware / software / services (his example of Apple).
And then he complains about the loss of "fat profits". But he doesn't understand that someone has to PAY those "fat profits".
see subject
You only need a server for each item that is different. So if you standardize on hardware / OS then you only need 1 server to test hardware drivers and OS updates and so forth.
Beyond that, you really should have a test database system and a test app system. You never want to deploy updates into a production environment without going through a test system first (which is NOT the same as a development environment).
Virtual systems can help a lot with the server requirements. But you still need to understand the hardware / virtual / OS / app differences and plan accordingly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_Maintenance_Checks_and_Services
Or to use a more common example, think about changing the oil in your car every (time interval) or (distance interval). Will it stop failures? Maybe. Maybe not.
On the other hand, every time you "work" on a system you introduce entropy.
As long as you remove more entropy than you introduce, you should have a more reliable system (than if you hadn't worked on it at all). But that gets into the training/knowledge of the person performing the PM.
I'm sure he is not "demanding" those specific controls. He is just demanding that X be accomplished and that is how IT is implementing X.
Want changes? Make a business case and show the CEO how much money can be made / saved by doing it a different way.
I have the opposite experience. Usually IT is the LAST department consulted. And only AFTER the software has been chosen and the purchase order signed.
Oh, we need a server to make it work? Handle that. You're IT. Servers are your job.
Oh, we need special backup software? Handle that. You're IT. Backups are your job.
Etc.
Again, my experience is the opposite. Someone in some other department loads SharePoint on a workstation (running a vanilla install of Windows 2008) and now it is "mission critical".
What do you mean everyone in the company cannot access that server? Fix it! You're IT. That's your job.
Don't talk to me about licenses for it. I don't have time to research what licenses are needed. You're IT. That's your job.
Business case. That's part of the business case. Your business case SHOULD show how many hundreds of thousands of dollars will be made / saved with the changes you want. So if IT doesn't have someone who knows it, they can hire someone. Or train someone on it. Where's the business case?
See my comments above.
Installing something is easy. That's the easiest part of the entire project. I can install a HUNDRED packages in one day and still have time for coffee and donuts.
The problem is SUPPORTING it after it is installed. That includes scaling it. Backups. Updating it. Security. blah blah blah.
Those take time and expertise and experience and MONEY.
If you need it so bad then it should be easy to build a business case for it.
a. IT managers do NOT think like marketing / sales people. Sales is happy to go with the smallest option presented ... knowing that they can grow it from there. "In for a penny, in for a pound".
b. IT managers (in my experience) do not know how to manage the other managers. Hearing, "I know someone who can do it in a weekend for $100" from someone in Sales causes them to capitulate to unreasonable demands.
c. IT managers (again, in my experience) do not know as much as they think they know about IT or their systems. So they cannot provide an accurate cost (money / manpower) for any changes.
d. IT managers (a, ime) do not have plans for improving their systems over the years. Where will your systems / functions be 3 years from now? 5 years? 10 years? The Sales team can give you all kinds of projections. Maybe all lies. But they still have them.
Yep. Big time. Think about it. Do you REALLY know more about IT (your job) than that accountant knows about Accounting (his job)?
See all of my above comments. A good test for this is ... what CURRENT certifications does your manager carry? If any. How diverse are the certs?
#1. The IT techs do NOT (as a rule) "impose more draconian controls than are strictly required". They are TOLD what to do by management.
#2. If you (as a non-IT and non-management user) want something done differently, then put together a business case and send it up through your manager.
#3. If your manager gets his/her manager and the other managers to approve and fund it then the IT techs will implement it.
Yay! Everyone wins! Then we all dance!
No business case, no funding, no changes.
And that is the core of the problem. People WANT things because they WANT them. But they don't understand (nor do they want to understand) how their "small change" affects the whole company's IT system.
So, from 11-26-2001 until 11-26-2011 (10 years) you want me to provide you with statistics for forcible rape?
Why can't you provide them? After all, that is your new claim, isn't it?
Again, from 11-26-2001 through 11-26-2011 (10 years) ....
Oh, I see what you were trying to do. You were trying to get the WTC attacks included to make the numbers look more favourable to your new claim.
Except you didn't realize that they had happened more than 10 years ago.
Anyway, I've already supported my position with the statistics. If you want to change your position to include the WTC attacks then you're going to have to do your own research on rape statistics for whatever time frame you finally settle upon.
Remember, statistics first. Then opinions.
You run into problems when you get that backwards.
Strange, because the statistics show 88,097 cases of forcible rape reporting in 2009 in the USofA.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_02.html
Now, how many deaths by terrorists in the USofA in 2009?
Zero.
88,097 vs 0.
And yet you believe that the system will be good enough to keep out the perverts who would abuse it.
I think the summary is wrong in one aspect.
Fuck "homeland security lockdown". Think more about who has access to that information and whether you trust THEM with this kind of information about your daughter.
Do you believe that there are more terrorists in the USofA than there are perverts who would have access to that system?
A lot of the data can be purchased from the private companies (non-governmental agencies) collecting it.
Phone records with location data.
Rental records.
And so forth.
I wonder how long it will be before private citizens can form businesses whose sole purpose will be license plate recording near their homes/offices. And maybe facial recognition. And then selling that information to the government.
Actually, there is only one rational outcome here. And the basis for that is in your previous statement.
Which means that in order for child A to avoid the vaccination "safely", someone must guarantee that children B - Z are vaccinated.
While it may be a correct mathematical statement reflecting the spread of infection, it is not a "rational" approach to immunization. If everyone followed that, then none of the children would be immunized. If 50% of the population followed that then the diseases would still be a problem. And so forth.
In this specific case just look at Michele Bachmann's PUBLIC statement about how some woman told her that an immunization caused "mental retardation".
Belief that there is a problem with immunizations is not an economic class issue. Bachmann certainly isn't poor.
It is impossible for a cynic (admin) to get certain concepts through to an optimist (management).
Every day that you are not cracked (or the crack go undetected) is "proof" for the optimist that he was right and you were just pushing unnecessary precautions to justify your job.
So, those 24 months ... that's over 700 times he was "proven" right and you were "proven" wrong.
The same with skipping patches. Every patch skipped multiplied by every day without a crack ... he's right thousands of times and you're chicken little ("the sky is falling, the sky is falling").
Maybe. But I think the situation may be a bit different today.
There are probably better places to "do drugs" that a place with, literally, dozens of cops standing around you. Who can come in at any time and knock your tent over.
The same with "hook-up with the opposite sex". Not to mention that the ratio is rather slanted to males. Unless you're a woman looking for a guy ... in a cold tent ... in a public place ... with lots of cops around. And while I'm sure that those women do exist, I think we've wandered into fantasy territory.
The party people, sure. As long as there's a party. But there are other parties out there. In warm places. With a lot lower police presence (because the cops are all at the protest).
Again, maybe. They've claimed that the cops were pushing the homeless and regular vagrants to the protest. So there is at least some people there who would not be called "dedicated" to the general cause.
On the other hand, not many people would choose to live in a cold tent in NYC if they had any other options. So those who aren't "dedicated" are indicative of the overall problem.
Exactly.
The general populace understands that the State is the only entity that has a legitimate right to project force. Whether via the military (hopefully outside the country) or the police (inside the country). I include the CIA / FBI / etc in those categories.
Anyone else using force (particularly outside their social group) is IMMEDIATELY identified as a criminal. A threat to society.
There may be problems in society. And the majority of the population may even AGREE with you about those problems. But they do NOT want to have to deal with non-State violence. They see enough of that (and its effects) from criminals.
The point of the "agent provocateur" is that he works WITH the authorities while POSING as one of the protesters.
So when the calm protesters are engaged in non-violent protests, the agent provocateur becomes violent. That "violence" is used to "justify" the violence against the non-violent protesters.
And it is that one "violent protester" who is shown in the media as an example of how "unreasonable" the protesters (as a group) are.
Look for more incidents involving agents provocateurs in future protests. It's easier to "justify" whatever actions are taken if they can show footage of a "protester" acting in an "unreasonable" fashion.
The public footage is having a huge impact right now because people are seeing people like themselves at the protests and NOT causing problems ... and hearing the official reports contradicting the footage.
During a war, our military can "embed" reporters with front-line combat units.
But with what appears to be a peaceful protest (in NYC), the police have to remove the media from the area.
Huh? How is it even possible for a small group like that to be "threatening the economy"? No, don't answer that. Real terrorists might read your answer and use it against America.
How could crime have "ramped up" when there were so many cops standing around watching them?
And field replaceable batteries. So that you can bring extras and swap them YOURSELF.
Without the need for specialized tools.