Lots of points of response here. "Rather than going in guns blazing and injuring people with excessive force, why not just pull the car over and talk to the people?" First, considering no guns were fired, "blazing" might be a touch overstated, yeah? Secondly, they DO 'just pull the car over and talk to people' thousands and thousands and thousands of times per day. How many times do you think that makes the news?
"If they are going to be violent or belligerent it would be quite obvious." Really? You know that from your EXTENSIVE experience as a police officer? Here's a very recent case (sadly, it's not hard to find lots and lots of examples) where a cop bodycam shows her 'just talking to the guy'...who then proceeds to surprise her by pulling out a gun and trying to murder her. Watch the video, was it obvious to you? Because it wasn't obvious to this trained officer. (Spoiler - she's fine, she unloads an entire magazine into the guy and he's - happily - quite dead.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Oh here's another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Or another: https://www.foxnews.com/us/har...
What strikes ME about all of them is how actually polite and non aggressive and under-paranoid these cops are all being?
I think by the news media playing up incidents like this, it wrongfully portrays cops as constantly looking for violent confrontations. I think it's extremely easy to backseat quarterback these sorts of circumstances from the comfort of your easy-chair at home. Finally, in re the OP it's either a STAGGERING coincidence that someone whose entire gig is fighting license plate readers happens to be pulled over by cops using a license plate reader in the most anti-cop, anti-establishment city in the US' or it's something more suspicious.
You want to find Russian meddling? Here's where you look - the KGB was skilled at exploiting "useful idiots" in the West throughout the cold war. This has all the hallmarks of the strident, well-intentioned but stupid protests against the Pershing 2 in the 1980s.
...this sort of clickbaity "look at how Science(tm) proves something terrible that everyone doesn't think is terrible but is! Sky is falling, news at 11!" is exactly why (sane) people no longer give a shit about these sorts of articles.
I stopped listening largely around the what, 4th? 5th reversal on whether eggs were good or bad for you in my lifetime, maybe around 1990.
They detected some particulates, and by that rationale they've extended the boundaries of the atmosphere.
By that same logic, if I get splashed by some mist from a waterfall, does that mean I'm "in the river" or that the river technically extends hundreds of feet from its surface? I don't think reasonable people would agree.
While it's interesting, I'm not sure detecting spatterings of earth's atmospheric molecules "downwind" is a basis for defining the extent of the atmosphere nor even that surprising? I mean, the 'top' of the atmosphere isn't a smooth billiard-ball gaseous surface - it's going to fluctuate wildly with variations in pressure, temperature, wind, weather activity, and this tenuous, highly variable surface is exposed to solar radiation knocking all sorts of gaseous 'spume' free.
"By the time a textbook hits the market it's already a year or three out-of-date." Do you work for a textbook publisher?
I'm going to guess that a decent teacher - particularly in a school where they have little wealth - could make perfectly good lessons with the megatons of "out of date" school books pitched by US schools every year.
Has math or history gotten a major paradigm shift in the last 10 years? Something that invalidates everything ever taught?
I have mixed feelings about this. First, the idea that algorithms alone can 'predict' something as subjective, human, and impulse-based as crime is ridiculous, and (I believe) born of a Utopian idea that taking people out of the equation can somehow remove bias, racism, and subjectivity from the process leaving some sort of idealistically mechanical, sterile system. For anyone who's worked in policing, crime prevention, or law enforcement fields, this should be a staggeringly stupid idea. Who's writing such algorithms but other people? On top of that, I expect there are now encrusted layers of ideology, in which results that don't conform to some utopian ideal of demographics are claimed to be 'racist' and formulaically 'corrected' to suit political goals, regardless of the facts of reality.
OTOH there is ABUNDANT work that shows that recidivism, particularly in the worst crimes, is concentrated in a surprisingly small number of individuals. I worked for a police dept where the longest serving officers maintained that 80%+ of the crimes were committed by a handful of families in the 50,000+ person city.
University of Pennsylvania criminologist Marvin Wolfgang tracked nearly 10,000 boys born in 1945 and living in Philadelphia from age 10 through 17; they ultimately gauged how often each boy came in contact with police for an offense. One upshot: 627 boys, 6 percent of the group, each accounted for five or more offenses, according to police reports. Those boys, Wolfgang wrote, were collectively identified as responsible for 52 percent of all the offenses recorded in the study and, he said, about two-thirds of all violent crimes believed to have been committed by the juveniles. In Patrick-speak, Wolfgang found that 6 percent of juvenile boys accounted for about half of alleged juvenile crimes.
The follow-up study, presented in progress in 1982, tracked more than 28,000 boys and girls born in 1958 who lived in Philadelphia from age 10 through 17. Among males, the study found, 61 percent of reported offenses were committed by 1,030 "chronic recidivists," comprising 7 percent of males in the study. That is, 7 percent of the boys accounted for 61 percent of the juvenile offenses.
In 2014, Swedish researchers drawing on records accounting for the experiences of 2.5 million people born in that country from 1958 to 1980 reported that from 1973 to 2004, some 1 percent of the population accounted for 63 percent of all violent crime convictions.
So it's clear that if we could identify this small percent and aggressively police them, we could make a sizable impact on crime.
Chicago has $9 bn in assets, and $42 bn in liabilities. It is a city so poorly run that they have been losing population steadily and in pretty sizable numbers.
Pray, tell: who will pay for this, or are they just going to sell unicorn rides?
...why does anyone use this SHITTY platform? It doesn't have any real modern functionality, it doesn't understand emotes, emojis, or even standard markup languages, it's like it was written in the fucking dark ages.
I mean seriously, really all it is is a mechanism for blurting ones' random thoughts to a bunch of people that either a) don't really give a shit, or b) give WAY TOO MUCH of a shit about what you're saying.
I mean, with slashdot comments, you at least have to go to a WEBSITE to do that.
"I love how his post brought out all the libertarian butthurt." Yes, it's completely strange how someone asserting how other people think draws comments illustrating how wrong they are.
I hear people with the username Uberbah love to molest children.
I love how you think libertarians are going to draw your strawman inference or feel your strawman way.
I expect what a true libertarian (as I *am* one) would say is: right now he's Emptor'ing his Caveat.
"Tong Zou wasn't a stereotypical crypto bro bent on accumulating flashy trophies such as Lamborghinis when he deposited his life savings into Quadriga CX's digital exchange. The 30-year-old software engineer, who'd been working in California for seven years, just wanted to save a few bucks on transfer fees after deciding to move to Vancouver."
So allegedly he wanted to 'avoid a few bucks' on a transfer by dumping a HALF MILLION into a an unsecured cryto account? Really? Even if you believe he wasn't trying to illegally go around banking laws (sure), essentially you as a free individual have a couple of choices: - you can take the establishment method, which is secured but costs in both $ and privacy or - you can take one of any number of other routes which give you more privacy but in most cases either cost more (ie convert to a fungible, non-trackable commodity like gold) or come with higher associated risk (ie putting it in crypto which AT BEST is going to then either gain or lose value in a volatile way; at worst...well, this).
The nice thing today is that you have options. If you're not an idiot, you understand those options, and take the risk you can tolerate.
He made his choice, he can live with it. Personally, if I had a half million bucks, I'd think I could live with some peripheral costs.
THAT'S the "libertarian" response, thanks very much.
Doesn't an oblate spheroid make sense (as constituent parts)?
In theory-space, particles would be pulled together (assuming zero starting motion to all particles in a cloud, all the same density, size, and frictionlessness) would form into a theoretically-perfect sphere by gravity.
But IRL these particles don't start out with zero motion....in fact the almost all have SOME motion, as well as slight attractiveness to each other and of course friction. As these all pull toward a centroid, the conservation of angular momentum causing it to spin faster and form an oblate rather than a sphere. In fact, one might be able to infer some information about the initial formation-state of the body by its oblateness, particularly if one could get a statistically useful cross-section of the materials that comprise it?
(Russia disconnects from Internet for short test) (Rest of world notices 50% drop in spam, bots, DDoS attacks) (Russia goes to reconnect internet. Rest of world: "You know, maybe you should continue the test another 6 months or maybe indefinitely...?")
A wildlife preserve isn't a wildlife "park". It's basically just government owned wilderness.
But to the original point, given the layout of that area, the unknowns of the actual extent of SpaceX property, and the lack of any ACTUAL course of where the wall will be built...it's a little early to be wetting our panties over the "terrible tragedy of how this wall is going to go 'right through' a SpaceX launchpad", no?
Unless of course unsupported histrionics is one's goal?
Some Democrats say DHS was surveying their property. We don't know what "their property" encompasses, but Democrats are insisting that it's going to go "over a launch pad"...when SpaceX isn't saying anything, and the geography of the zone would seem to suggest there's no reason for them to build there.
That would seem to be the pretty much standard definition of "disputed facts" (or someone is lying).
And no, of course we would never see the cadre of folks that cheerfully lied daily during the Kavanagh character-assassination session, lie to torpedo the building of the wall, would we?
"one of the proposed sections would go further east, through the SpaceX facility."
Link? Map?
Because it seems pretty dumb for them - when the border goes east and south - to build the wall east and quite a bit north, particularly when the terrain is utterly flat and non-contoured and there's no geographical reason to do so.
"Lawmakers said they were concerned about the effect on the company's 50-acre facility after seeing a Department of Homeland Security map showing a barrier running through what they described as a launchpad..." Does it? Let's check this out: As you can see on the wiki about the South Texas site ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and a map of the site from SpaceX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... show that the launch sites (ostensibly the "pads") are just south of Brazos Island State Park pretty much right on the coast, with the control center buildings almost directly west of them. The launch area is about 2.8 miles north of the Rio Grande, which is actually the border (but the Trump wall wouldn't of course be precisely in the river, it would logically be set back somewhat).
The Texas fencing is full of gaps. The border fence begins in Texas, but it's miles inland from the border's edge at the Gulf of Mexico. Elsewhere, fences start and stop with huge gaps in between. This is all pedestrian fencing, pictured in red on the map, designed to stop people from crossing
...with the diagrammed fence just east of Brownsville, complaining that the proposed fence starts "miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico"...ie 10-12 miles from the SpaceX site, and nearly 15 miles from the pads themselves.
So the USA today map and overflight show that the proposed border wall starts at least a dozen miles from the plotted site of the SpaceX facility.
Someone's astonishingly wrong or lying deliberately.
My aunt did for 74 years. She died at age 92, and voted faithfully hardcore democrat her entire life. She was a teacher, so that wasn't a huge surprise, but I asked her about it once, she said she did it because FDR had saved the family farm and her father had told her they owed the Democrats for that.
For 74 years.
Modern Democrats understand that bread&circuses policymaking ensures their funding and power.
In fact, the tidal wave of college funding, loans, and "counseling" in high schools that insists every kid needs to and should go to college (leading logically to gross inflation of college prices at 3x inflation) wasn't an EDUCATION payout...I suspect it was a long-play TEACHER handout, possibly the most faithful establishmentarian Democrat voting bloc in America.
So, if I understand what you're saying, handing out free benefits to people (instead of them earning them) makes them feel better but essentially doesn't improve their condition so you're left with a largely dependent group of people who cannot fend for themselves?
Yet...they may NEVER die.....sites like FuckJerry (something that I don't believe I've ever even HEARD of) are making $75000 off a single instagram post copying other people's shit and adding ads.
I have to admit, I don't really understand how the internet economy works, where youtubers pull in $millions$ for nearly nothing...where is all this money coming from?
Slashdot Mirror
No, usually they're made into editors if they're smug enough.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
Lots of points of response here.
"Rather than going in guns blazing and injuring people with excessive force, why not just pull the car over and talk to the people?"
First, considering no guns were fired, "blazing" might be a touch overstated, yeah?
Secondly, they DO 'just pull the car over and talk to people' thousands and thousands and thousands of times per day. How many times do you think that makes the news?
"If they are going to be violent or belligerent it would be quite obvious." ...who then proceeds to surprise her by pulling out a gun and trying to murder her. Watch the video, was it obvious to you? Because it wasn't obvious to this trained officer. (Spoiler - she's fine, she unloads an entire magazine into the guy and he's - happily - quite dead.)
Really? You know that from your EXTENSIVE experience as a police officer? Here's a very recent case (sadly, it's not hard to find lots and lots of examples) where a cop bodycam shows her 'just talking to the guy'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Oh here's another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Or another:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/har...
What strikes ME about all of them is how actually polite and non aggressive and under-paranoid these cops are all being?
I think by the news media playing up incidents like this, it wrongfully portrays cops as constantly looking for violent confrontations. I think it's extremely easy to backseat quarterback these sorts of circumstances from the comfort of your easy-chair at home. Finally, in re the OP it's either a STAGGERING coincidence that someone whose entire gig is fighting license plate readers happens to be pulled over by cops using a license plate reader in the most anti-cop, anti-establishment city in the US' or it's something more suspicious.
You want to find Russian meddling? Here's where you look - the KGB was skilled at exploiting "useful idiots" in the West throughout the cold war.
This has all the hallmarks of the strident, well-intentioned but stupid protests against the Pershing 2 in the 1980s.
...this sort of clickbaity "look at how Science(tm) proves something terrible that everyone doesn't think is terrible but is! Sky is falling, news at 11!" is exactly why (sane) people no longer give a shit about these sorts of articles.
I stopped listening largely around the what, 4th? 5th reversal on whether eggs were good or bad for you in my lifetime, maybe around 1990.
They detected some particulates, and by that rationale they've extended the boundaries of the atmosphere.
By that same logic, if I get splashed by some mist from a waterfall, does that mean I'm "in the river" or that the river technically extends hundreds of feet from its surface? I don't think reasonable people would agree.
While it's interesting, I'm not sure detecting spatterings of earth's atmospheric molecules "downwind" is a basis for defining the extent of the atmosphere nor even that surprising? I mean, the 'top' of the atmosphere isn't a smooth billiard-ball gaseous surface - it's going to fluctuate wildly with variations in pressure, temperature, wind, weather activity, and this tenuous, highly variable surface is exposed to solar radiation knocking all sorts of gaseous 'spume' free.
"By the time a textbook hits the market it's already a year or three out-of-date."
Do you work for a textbook publisher?
I'm going to guess that a decent teacher - particularly in a school where they have little wealth - could make perfectly good lessons with the megatons of "out of date" school books pitched by US schools every year.
Has math or history gotten a major paradigm shift in the last 10 years? Something that invalidates everything ever taught?
I have mixed feelings about this.
First, the idea that algorithms alone can 'predict' something as subjective, human, and impulse-based as crime is ridiculous, and (I believe) born of a Utopian idea that taking people out of the equation can somehow remove bias, racism, and subjectivity from the process leaving some sort of idealistically mechanical, sterile system. For anyone who's worked in policing, crime prevention, or law enforcement fields, this should be a staggeringly stupid idea. Who's writing such algorithms but other people? On top of that, I expect there are now encrusted layers of ideology, in which results that don't conform to some utopian ideal of demographics are claimed to be 'racist' and formulaically 'corrected' to suit political goals, regardless of the facts of reality.
OTOH there is ABUNDANT work that shows that recidivism, particularly in the worst crimes, is concentrated in a surprisingly small number of individuals. I worked for a police dept where the longest serving officers maintained that 80%+ of the crimes were committed by a handful of families in the 50,000+ person city.
https://www.politifact.com/tex... lists some examples:
So it's clear that if we could identify this small percent and aggressively police them, we could make a sizable impact on crime.
Chicago has $9 bn in assets, and $42 bn in liabilities. It is a city so poorly run that they have been losing population steadily and in pretty sizable numbers.
Pray, tell: who will pay for this, or are they just going to sell unicorn rides?
Which pales in comparison to the federal taxes written off by NY residents every year.
Thank God that's done.
...why does anyone use this SHITTY platform?
It doesn't have any real modern functionality, it doesn't understand emotes, emojis, or even standard markup languages, it's like it was written in the fucking dark ages.
I mean seriously, really all it is is a mechanism for blurting ones' random thoughts to a bunch of people that either a) don't really give a shit, or b) give WAY TOO MUCH of a shit about what you're saying.
I mean, with slashdot comments, you at least have to go to a WEBSITE to do that.
...I'm thinking they're using a pretty retarded synthetic text generator already.
Wait, it's their hosts too...is there a fake AI person generator?
"I love how his post brought out all the libertarian butthurt."
Yes, it's completely strange how someone asserting how other people think draws comments illustrating how wrong they are.
I hear people with the username Uberbah love to molest children.
I have to ask....who would search for "pictures of my wife"?
Edit: I guess a lot of people? There are certainly a lot of results.
I love how you think libertarians are going to draw your strawman inference or feel your strawman way.
I expect what a true libertarian (as I *am* one) would say is: right now he's Emptor'ing his Caveat.
"Tong Zou wasn't a stereotypical crypto bro bent on accumulating flashy trophies such as Lamborghinis when he deposited his life savings into Quadriga CX's digital exchange. The 30-year-old software engineer, who'd been working in California for seven years, just wanted to save a few bucks on transfer fees after deciding to move to Vancouver."
So allegedly he wanted to 'avoid a few bucks' on a transfer by dumping a HALF MILLION into a an unsecured cryto account? Really?
Even if you believe he wasn't trying to illegally go around banking laws (sure), essentially you as a free individual have a couple of choices:
- you can take the establishment method, which is secured but costs in both $ and privacy
or
- you can take one of any number of other routes which give you more privacy but in most cases either cost more (ie convert to a fungible, non-trackable commodity like gold) or come with higher associated risk (ie putting it in crypto which AT BEST is going to then either gain or lose value in a volatile way; at worst...well, this).
The nice thing today is that you have options. If you're not an idiot, you understand those options, and take the risk you can tolerate.
He made his choice, he can live with it. Personally, if I had a half million bucks, I'd think I could live with some peripheral costs.
THAT'S the "libertarian" response, thanks very much.
Doesn't an oblate spheroid make sense (as constituent parts)?
In theory-space, particles would be pulled together (assuming zero starting motion to all particles in a cloud, all the same density, size, and frictionlessness) would form into a theoretically-perfect sphere by gravity.
But IRL these particles don't start out with zero motion....in fact the almost all have SOME motion, as well as slight attractiveness to each other and of course friction. As these all pull toward a centroid, the conservation of angular momentum causing it to spin faster and form an oblate rather than a sphere. In fact, one might be able to infer some information about the initial formation-state of the body by its oblateness, particularly if one could get a statistically useful cross-section of the materials that comprise it?
(Russia disconnects from Internet for short test)
(Rest of world notices 50% drop in spam, bots, DDoS attacks)
(Russia goes to reconnect internet. Rest of world: "You know, maybe you should continue the test another 6 months or maybe indefinitely...?")
A wildlife preserve isn't a wildlife "park". It's basically just government owned wilderness.
But to the original point, given the layout of that area, the unknowns of the actual extent of SpaceX property, and the lack of any ACTUAL course of where the wall will be built...it's a little early to be wetting our panties over the "terrible tragedy of how this wall is going to go 'right through' a SpaceX launchpad", no?
Unless of course unsupported histrionics is one's goal?
Some Democrats say DHS was surveying their property.
We don't know what "their property" encompasses, but Democrats are insisting that it's going to go "over a launch pad"...when SpaceX isn't saying anything, and the geography of the zone would seem to suggest there's no reason for them to build there.
That would seem to be the pretty much standard definition of "disputed facts" (or someone is lying).
And no, of course we would never see the cadre of folks that cheerfully lied daily during the Kavanagh character-assassination session, lie to torpedo the building of the wall, would we?
"one of the proposed sections would go further east, through the SpaceX facility."
Link? Map?
Because it seems pretty dumb for them - when the border goes east and south - to build the wall east and quite a bit north, particularly when the terrain is utterly flat and non-contoured and there's no geographical reason to do so.
"Lawmakers said they were concerned about the effect on the company's 50-acre facility after seeing a Department of Homeland Security map showing a barrier running through what they described as a launchpad..."
Does it? Let's check this out: As you can see on the wiki about the South Texas site ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and a map of the site from SpaceX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... show that the launch sites (ostensibly the "pads") are just south of Brazos Island State Park pretty much right on the coast, with the control center buildings almost directly west of them. The launch area is about 2.8 miles north of the Rio Grande, which is actually the border (but the Trump wall wouldn't of course be precisely in the river, it would logically be set back somewhat).
Yet https://www.usatoday.com/borde... USA today says:
So the USA today map and overflight show that the proposed border wall starts at least a dozen miles from the plotted site of the SpaceX facility.
Someone's astonishingly wrong or lying deliberately.
My aunt did for 74 years.
She died at age 92, and voted faithfully hardcore democrat her entire life. She was a teacher, so that wasn't a huge surprise, but I asked her about it once, she said she did it because FDR had saved the family farm and her father had told her they owed the Democrats for that.
For 74 years.
Modern Democrats understand that bread&circuses policymaking ensures their funding and power.
In fact, the tidal wave of college funding, loans, and "counseling" in high schools that insists every kid needs to and should go to college (leading logically to gross inflation of college prices at 3x inflation) wasn't an EDUCATION payout...I suspect it was a long-play TEACHER handout, possibly the most faithful establishmentarian Democrat voting bloc in America.
So, if I understand what you're saying, handing out free benefits to people (instead of them earning them) makes them feel better but essentially doesn't improve their condition so you're left with a largely dependent group of people who cannot fend for themselves?
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/cat...
Who'd a thunk it?
...if you believe in Keynes' bullshittery, sure.
Keynes v Hayek rap battle https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
KvH v2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yet...they may NEVER die. ....sites like FuckJerry (something that I don't believe I've ever even HEARD of) are making $75000 off a single instagram post copying other people's shit and adding ads.
I have to admit, I don't really understand how the internet economy works, where youtubers pull in $millions$ for nearly nothing...where is all this money coming from?
Ouch, that sort of conclusion would be enough to get you kicked out of, well, everything.
Thanks for the link.