As you read this, you're breathing 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and 0.04% carbon dioxide. That's not including the roughly 1% water vapor.
So yes, there will definitely be nitrogen in other parts of the building. The air will be 78% nitrogen.
What would be dangerous would be of the nitrogen canister were in a small closet and someone went in, closed the door, and opened the nitrogen valve all the way.
Automated systems can make a pretty darn good guess whether a particular user wants to play a particular piece of media, and Google's comments seem to indicate they are headed in that direction.
Another person who posted mentioned the current behavior causes problems for online courses created with a tool called Captivate. If you are taking online courses, from an institution that uses Captivate, it's not hard for Chrome to notice "this week, this guy has loaded fourteen other Captivate pages, and every time he's clocked the play button. Apparently he wants Captivate courses to play.'
The "fraudulently" could also be affected by intent. Fraud is taking by deceptive, dishonest means. Therefore intent to deceive, intent to be dishonest, comes into play.
We yeah, if you choose exclude most of the income increases, you don't have much income increase left.
As the Pew article you linked mentioned, benefits have increased 60% in the last 15 years, partly due to tax changes. The wages you cite used to be used to pay for medical care, child care, etc. Employer-covered medical (which is not included in hourly wages) has increased 79%.
The trend in recent decades has been toward tax-free compensation such as medical, dental, HSA and FSA, 401k matching, etc. Nearly half of my compensation is various tax-advantaged accounts rather than wages.
According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%. However, once adjusted for household size, after-tax real median household income grew 46%.
If you'd like to see the effects of ever-increasing automation, machines getting better and better, compare those last-year numbers to earlier years. Check out how real (inflation adjusted) median income has changed in the last 10 years (up 8%), the last 20 years (up 25%), the last 50 years (up 50%).
> mortgage/rent and bills takes up most of people's income.
You're right, that's a major expense. The median home size has tripled. In other words, what most people do is they pay a major portion of their income for a home that's three times the size of what their parents or grandparents had. They *could* cut their rent, heating and cooling costs, etc by 66% by choosing a home the same size they grew up in.
You CAN upgrade to a new TV every few years, so you have the best 4K home theater experience, or you can keep a TV for 10-15 years like your parents did. If you choose the second way, you can work a six month contract and take six months off each year.
> If a company was known for renting vehicles explicitly for getaway cars, they would be shut down.
You pretty much answered your own question there. Renting out cars is fine. Tailoring a service as getaway cars, and advertising getaway cars for criminals, would be unlawful.
> Many companies (Napster, AudioGalaxy) were shut down for helping with IP infringement.
And in those cases evidence was introduced, such as internal emails, showing that company executives were actively trying to get more infringing content added, such as paying people to add infringing content.
According to your link, the guy was illegally carrying a gun, different illegal drugs on multiple occasions, starting fights in airports, violating his probation and over - certainly that's the bondman's fault, not his. I know every time I see a bondsman I'm compelled to immediately go illegally carry weapons.
That's the story according to the article you linked, one which tries to spin it to support him. A more objective view probably looks even worse for him.
Of course I indent, and my tidy tool automatically checks that the indentations are right when I run "git commit". In sane languages, text editors like vi can jump to the beginning or end of the block (matching } character) by using keystrokes like %, select blocks with [, etc. With Python, your eyes have to do all the work, until they bleed.
The fallacious logic I repeated is YOURS. *YOU* said "if they didn't make obscene profits it wouldn't be contentious".
Your proof that they must make obscene profits is that they are contentious. We can see from the example of abortion doctors and many, many other things that contention does not in any way prove or imply anything at all about profits.
You then imply that bail bonds "target the poor" which is factually false - bondsmen require proof that the purchaser can pay the insured amount. They prefer to work with people who have money, and if "the poor" want a bond the bondsman will normally require a co-signer, someone who isn't "poor".
>> The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit.
> If that were the case you'll find it wouldn't be contentious.
Abortion doctors are contentious, so they must be making obscene profits?
People are generally having a bad day when they need to engage a bail bondsman. Many are happy to blame it on anyone and everyone involved in the process - the cops are scumbags, the jail guards are scumbags, bondmen are scumbags, the judge has it out for me, etc. It's ALL of those people's fault that I got busted for shoplifting, or selling crack, or whatever.
I think you'll find that the "contention" is that people who regularly get busted committing crimes think everything and everyone involved with dealing with their crimes are all horrible people, everyone is against them. Those who don't commit crimes regularly generally see the people involved in criminal justice as imperfect human beings like the rest of us, but generally their job.
> If you think the risk of losing $2000 is going to stop a person from skipping out to avoid a trial, that's pretty much only going to be true if the punishment is low enough.
There are multiple parts to that.
The risk that they won't show up depends on many factors. Someone who drifts from town to town crashing on relatives' and friends' couches is likely to drift on and not show up. People accused of serious crimes have reason to not show up. On the other hand, someone who owns a house there probably isn't going to abandon their $200,000 investment to flee from a DWI charge.
Yes, the bail is supposed to be set appropriately so that people do tend to show up, and when the punishment is a fine, it's easy to set the bail to be a significant portion of the fine. If they don't show up, they've already paid at least part of the fine, so it's okay that they didn't show up. That's missing the point and historical practice of bail, though. Most defendants don't bail themselves out, and even allowing someone to pay their own bail is a relatively recent development.
The money bail historically was practiced, and still normally is, is that there are two people involved. There's someone like my brother, who had a drinking problem and regularly committed petty crimes, he's not reliable and shouldn't be trusted to show up on his own. Then there is someone like me. I have a house and a business in town, I've lived there many years, and I'm not likely to be going anywhere. I'm a reliable person. I essentially say to the court 'I'll make sure my brother shows up. He can stay with me until his hearing and I'll make sure he doesn't "forget" to show up, and won't let him be out all night partying and getting into more trouble in the meantime". Though I may be a reliable, dependable person, the court can't just take me at my word. I might help my brother leave the state. That's significantly less likely if *I* have a couple thousand dollars of my own money on the line. Essentially I'm telling the court "I'll make sure he shows up, and to prove I'm serious here's $2,000 you can hold until he does." The court has a reliable, dependable third party who has shown they are serious about making sure the defendant will show up, and they have some influence over the defendant, some ability to make that happen.
As more people started moving longer distances from friends and family, far from their home town, not everyone had a responsible relative in town any more. That's when professional bail sureties started. In lieu of personal relationships with the defendant, they have developed systems to help make sure people show up.
That's true, you can still search. A bail bondsman is of course someone you call when you need a bandsman; it's not an impulse buy at all. Since people are only going to call a bandsman when they need one, it seems to me it only makes sense for bondsmen to advertise on Google to those searching for bondsmen. So it should make very little difference. Search for bondsmen, get listings for them. Whether or not some of the listings are paid listings doesn't change much that I can see. Other than perhaps opening up an opportunity for ads that skirt the rules - bond information hotlines and such (which are bail bond companies in disguise).
> > People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up.
> Then bail is obviously too high.
So you're thinking that because my brother was too irresponsible to save up $20 while he was committing his daily crimes such as shoplifting and domestic abuse, he should be set free and not have to face trial? Or are you thinking that his bond should be $5, because certainly he'll show up to court to get his $5 back?
> It sounds like you're accepting that people who go to jail should have family that pay out large sums of money so people can keep committing crimes?
I said that would NOT (and did not) pay the $2,000. What I did was facilitate having a professional, a bondsman, see to it that he got out of jail and showed up to court.
> it shouldn't take anything close to a year to get your money back because it shouldn't take a year to resolve a criminal dispute.
Are you under the impression that bail bondsmen set the courts' schedules?
>> Bail bondsmen aren't making huge profits. > Uh, no. They make plenty
You might want to read at least the title and subtitle of the story you linked. The subtitle will give you a good idea of what the article is about.
> And any sane petty criminal that was in a system that was fair--time served and a speedy trial--wouldn't bail out.
Where exactly do you find a justice system that is both fast and fair? North Korea's is pretty fast. They don't spend the time needed to be fair. The United States spends a lot of time trying to fair, but doesn't do an amazing job of it.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your "any sane" assertion as well. Through a series of unfortunate events and me not being very careful, I ended up arrested for driving with an invalid license. Had I stayed in jail for a few days, I would have been MIA from the company I was running and from the family I lead. That would have been far more costly than the couple hundred bucks bond I paid to get out within a couple hours. Bond was absolutely the sane choice - even just looking only at the cash results, bail was cheaper than the losses of spending a few days in jail. Not to mention the fact that being in jail really sucks - even for a few days.
I'm also curious where you find these "petty criminals" who are in the habit of making well-reasoned decisions in the first place. It seems to me that being a petty criminal is a series of daily bad decisions. One could argue that it might be reasonable to figure you have a 90% chance of getting away with a crime, so stealing $10 million, one time, is worth the risk. But being a petty criminal, betting that you can get away with it every single time, in order to steal $100 here and $25 there seems like the definitive example of stupid decisions in life.
I learned a bit about the bail system and I think this is a pretty silly move on Google's part. As for who uses bondsmen - people in jail, that's who.
The choices are: 1. Pay the bail in cash. 2. Use a bondsman. 3. Sit in jail.
People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up. They're not going to bail themselves out in most cases, though they do have that option.
It's typically family members who feel somewhat obligated to bail someone out of jail. Their choice is pay the bail in cash, which might be about $2,000, or pay 10%, $200, to a bondsman. Since people who end up in jail are typically not the most reliable people, putting up $2,000 cash and hoping to get it back a year later if your drunk brother shows up to all his court appearances doesn't seem like a good idea.
I HAVE $2,000 in savings, I could *afford* to put $2,000 to bail someone out, but I'd rather just pay the bondsman $200 and not have to worry about it. The bondsman will have him call in a few times per week, and try to make sure he doesn't "forget" his court appearance. I don't want to do all that, hoping to eventually get my cash back from court. I'd rather let a professional handle that.
The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit. If they were, more people would go into that line of business. The bondsman loses money on anyone who doesn't show up to court. If they use a recovery agent (bounty hunter) and successfully recover the fugitive, the bondman only loses a little bit of money. If they don't recover the fugitive, they lose a lot of money.
I can understand reasons people might point to problems with the bail SYSTEM, but bail is much older than bail bondsman. Bondsmen didn't create the bail system. Bondsmen make it possible for people who aren't rich to get out on bail.
The bail system itself has advantages and disadvantages. It allows people freedom while they await trial. That's good. It protects society in general by giving an incentive for professionals to make sure people charged with a crime actually show up to court, including tracking down fugitives who run. On the other hand, like everything else, money doesn't buy happiness, but it does make things easier. We'd like to have a criminal justice system in which nobody has any advantage, but the fact is there are advantages to having resources. Bail isn't perfect. On balance, weighing the positives and negatives, I think the bail system has more advantages than disadvantages.
> how many of the 173 people that were arrested as a result of the system does the South Wales Police dept. think might have otherwise been overlooked in the crowds? If that's a significant fraction of those 173 arrests
Based on my experience, I'd estimate that approximately zero would have just been noticed by a cop saying "hey that guy looks like someone who has a warrant". There are a LOT of wanted criminals, far too many to memorize each face. Very few fugitives are caught that way.
They do tend to get caught eventually when they screw up while committing further crimes. They get busted for one offense, don't show up to court, and go back to selling drugs or breaking into cars or whatever their thing is. Eventually they screw up, get unlucky, and get caught. That's when the warrant matters - after they get caught again.
> C level people rarely understand technology enough to properly communicate the risk and benefit of security. It just isn't typically in their wheel house.
I just left a meeting with the CEO of our security company in which we discussed how to solve this. Heck, even the technical C people, like a CIO of a major company, are busy with many different things - desktops, network, on-premise servers, cloud.... They don't have time to really understand each of the vulnerabilities that comes out every day.
They need the security experts to tell them the bottom line "how secure are we?", "What are the top five things we need to do to reduce our risk?" and "what is the value proposition, the financials?"
> The problem is venues are booked months to in advance
Conveniently, concerts sell out months in advance. Ticketmaster is currently selling tickets for John Mayer and for Jimmy Page concerts in 2019. Even of they don't quite sell out in the first 24 hours, Ticketmaster et al have enough information within 24 hours of tickets going on sale to pretty much know whether it will sell out.
Secondly, I suspect large venues stay pretty booked on Saturdays, not so much on Sundays. So if you book a venue for Saturday and put tickets up for sale six months ahead, there's a pretty good chance the venue will be available Sunday
There is some truth in that. Sometimes there is a trade-off between certain types of security and convenience.
Also, it's VERY inconvenient when the system goes down entirely because it wasn't secured. The easiest attacks are generally denial of service attacks, so if you pay no mind to security you can expect the service to be unavailable frequently. A bit of security would make things a lot more convenient.
It's also pretty darn inconvenient when the system gives wrong results, such as when your bank balance is $10,000 less than it should be, because of a security problem.
Also, as others have pointed out, the definition of security is:
A secure system continues to operate properly, even when under attack.*
That implies that a secure system operates properly when NOT under attack. A system designed based on security principles doesn't crash, doesn't give wrong results, etc - even when it's under attack, and especially when it's not. A secure system is one that won't screw up *even if you try to make it screw up*, which means it's reliable when you're not trying to make it screw up.
Security has three parts, abbreviated CIA. A secure system provides confidentiality, which is the first thing most laymen think of. The I and A are also important. Integrity means the system provides correct results. Databases designed by application programmers rather than database architects often at this, especially load, when concurrency causes issues. Availability means the system doesn't go down. Earlier today we saw yet again how poorly Slashdot does in this regard, as the site was down AGAIN for several hours.
* That's the Morris definition of security - a secure system is one which continues to operate properly, giving correct results, even when under attack.
When I was a teenager, Metallica was popular, especially in Denver. They would sell out Mile High Stadium. So they scheduled a show on Friday, and another on Saturday. It takes a large crew all day to set up the stage, lighting, sound system, etc for a major concert, then the concert is couple hours, then all day taking everything down and packing it in trucks. The band and promoter made a lot more profit by selling twice as many tickets, with the same expense to transport everything, set it all up, and take it all down again.
Then when the Saturday show sold out - they added a Sunday show. The stadium was nearly sold out the the third night. The people putting on the concert got all triple the revenue, and there were plenty enough tickets for all the fans.
Slashdot Mirror
> The number of positions that come with medical benefits is falling
Thanks for the belly laugh. You might find it interesting to go look at the actual numbers for medical benefits over the last 50 years.
As you read this, you're breathing 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and 0.04% carbon dioxide. That's not including the roughly 1% water vapor.
So yes, there will definitely be nitrogen in other parts of the building. The air will be 78% nitrogen.
What would be dangerous would be of the nitrogen canister were in a small closet and someone went in, closed the door, and opened the nitrogen valve all the way.
Automated systems can make a pretty darn good guess whether a particular user wants to play a particular piece of media, and Google's comments seem to indicate they are headed in that direction.
Another person who posted mentioned the current behavior causes problems for online courses created with a tool called Captivate. If you are taking online courses, from an institution that uses Captivate, it's not hard for Chrome to notice "this week, this guy has loaded fourteen other Captivate pages, and every time he's clocked the play button. Apparently he wants Captivate courses to play.'
The "fraudulently" could also be affected by intent.
Fraud is taking by deceptive, dishonest means. Therefore intent to deceive, intent to be dishonest, comes into play.
The Théroux case touches upon intent to deceive and fraud.
We yeah, if you choose exclude most of the income increases, you don't have much income increase left.
As the Pew article you linked mentioned, benefits have increased 60% in the last 15 years, partly due to tax changes. The wages you cite used to be used to pay for medical care, child care, etc. Employer-covered medical (which is not included in hourly wages) has increased 79%.
The trend in recent decades has been toward tax-free compensation such as medical, dental, HSA and FSA, 401k matching, etc. Nearly half of my compensation is various tax-advantaged accounts rather than wages.
According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%. However, once adjusted for household size, after-tax real median household income grew 46%.
> they were the jobs data from LAST YEAR.
If you'd like to see the effects of ever-increasing automation, machines getting better and better, compare those last-year numbers to earlier years. Check out how real (inflation adjusted) median income has changed in the last 10 years (up 8%), the last 20 years (up 25%), the last 50 years (up 50%).
The CPUs do virtualization in hardware these days, so VMs are essentially free. The performance difference is less than 5%, often closer to 1%.
What you get for that is clear separation, in terms of security, stability, etc. No one application can cause problems for the system.
Most people couldn't do what, exactly?
> mortgage/rent and bills takes up most of people's income.
You're right, that's a major expense.
The median home size has tripled. In other words, what most people do is they pay a major portion of their income for a home that's three times the size of what their parents or grandparents had. They *could* cut their rent, heating and cooling costs, etc by 66% by choosing a home the same size they grew up in.
You CAN upgrade to a new TV every few years, so you have the best 4K home theater experience, or you can keep a TV for 10-15 years like your parents did. If you choose the second way, you can work a six month contract and take six months off each year.
> If a company was known for renting vehicles explicitly for getaway cars, they would be shut down.
You pretty much answered your own question there.
Renting out cars is fine. Tailoring a service as getaway cars, and advertising getaway cars for criminals, would be unlawful.
> Many companies (Napster, AudioGalaxy) were shut down for helping with IP infringement.
And in those cases evidence was introduced, such as internal emails, showing that company executives were actively trying to get more infringing content added, such as paying people to add infringing content.
According to your link, the guy was illegally carrying a gun, different illegal drugs on multiple occasions, starting fights in airports, violating his probation and over - certainly that's the bondman's fault, not his. I know every time I see a bondsman I'm compelled to immediately go illegally carry weapons.
That's the story according to the article you linked, one which tries to spin it to support him. A more objective view probably looks even worse for him.
Of course I indent, and my tidy tool automatically checks that the indentations are right when I run "git commit". In sane languages, text editors like vi can jump to the beginning or end of the block (matching } character) by using keystrokes like %, select blocks with [, etc. With Python, your eyes have to do all the work, until they bleed.
The fallacious logic I repeated is YOURS. *YOU* said "if they didn't make obscene profits it wouldn't be contentious".
Your proof that they must make obscene profits is that they are contentious. We can see from the example of abortion doctors and many, many other things that contention does not in any way prove or imply anything at all about profits.
You then imply that bail bonds "target the poor" which is factually false - bondsmen require proof that the purchaser can pay the insured amount. They prefer to work with people who have money, and if "the poor" want a bond the bondsman will normally require a co-signer, someone who isn't "poor".
That should be "hell to refactor". Dyac. See, even THINKING about Python causes mistakes.
Somehow your autocorrect or something added a couple extra words to your post, I think. Did you mean:
Kind of a bitch, Python scripts.
Python is kind of a bitch to read, hell to de-facto, difficult to code review...
Your example using LIKE kinda, sorta works, sometimes. It rather slow as well.
Full text search works better and faster.
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refm...
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-...
>> The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit.
> If that were the case you'll find it wouldn't be contentious.
Abortion doctors are contentious, so they must be making obscene profits?
People are generally having a bad day when they need to engage a bail bondsman. Many are happy to blame it on anyone and everyone involved in the process - the cops are scumbags, the jail guards are scumbags, bondmen are scumbags, the judge has it out for me, etc. It's ALL of those people's fault that I got busted for shoplifting, or selling crack, or whatever.
I think you'll find that the "contention" is that people who regularly get busted committing crimes think everything and everyone involved with dealing with their crimes are all horrible people, everyone is against them. Those who don't commit crimes regularly generally see the people involved in criminal justice as imperfect human beings like the rest of us, but generally their job.
> If you think the risk of losing $2000 is going to stop a person from skipping out to avoid a trial, that's pretty much only going to be true if the punishment is low enough.
There are multiple parts to that.
The risk that they won't show up depends on many factors. Someone who drifts from town to town crashing on relatives' and friends' couches is likely to drift on and not show up. People accused of serious crimes have reason to not show up. On the other hand, someone who owns a house there probably isn't going to abandon their $200,000 investment to flee from a DWI charge.
Yes, the bail is supposed to be set appropriately so that people do tend to show up, and when the punishment is a fine, it's easy to set the bail to be a significant portion of the fine. If they don't show up, they've already paid at least part of the fine, so it's okay that they didn't show up. That's missing the point and historical practice of bail, though. Most defendants don't bail themselves out, and even allowing someone to pay their own bail is a relatively recent development.
The money bail historically was practiced, and still normally is, is that there are two people involved. There's someone like my brother, who had a drinking problem and regularly committed petty crimes, he's not reliable and shouldn't be trusted to show up on his own. Then there is someone like me. I have a house and a business in town, I've lived there many years, and I'm not likely to be going anywhere. I'm a reliable person. I essentially say to the court 'I'll make sure my brother shows up. He can stay with me until his hearing and I'll make sure he doesn't "forget" to show up, and won't let him be out all night partying and getting into more trouble in the meantime". Though I may be a reliable, dependable person, the court can't just take me at my word. I might help my brother leave the state. That's significantly less likely if *I* have a couple thousand dollars of my own money on the line. Essentially I'm telling the court "I'll make sure he shows up, and to prove I'm serious here's $2,000 you can hold until he does." The court has a reliable, dependable third party who has shown they are serious about making sure the defendant will show up, and they have some influence over the defendant, some ability to make that happen.
As more people started moving longer distances from friends and family, far from their home town, not everyone had a responsible relative in town any more. That's when professional bail sureties started. In lieu of personal relationships with the defendant, they have developed systems to help make sure people show up.
That's true, you can still search.
A bail bondsman is of course someone you call when you need a bandsman; it's not an impulse buy at all. Since people are only going to call a bandsman when they need one, it seems to me it only makes sense for bondsmen to advertise on Google to those searching for bondsmen. So it should make very little difference. Search for bondsmen, get listings for them. Whether or not some of the listings are paid listings doesn't change much that I can see. Other than perhaps opening up an opportunity for ads that skirt the rules - bond information hotlines and such (which are bail bond companies in disguise).
> > People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up.
> Then bail is obviously too high.
So you're thinking that because my brother was too irresponsible to save up $20 while he was committing his daily crimes such as shoplifting and domestic abuse, he should be set free and not have to face trial? Or are you thinking that his bond should be $5, because certainly he'll show up to court to get his $5 back?
> It sounds like you're accepting that people who go to jail should have family that pay out large sums of money so people can keep committing crimes?
I said that would NOT (and did not) pay the $2,000. What I did was facilitate having a professional, a bondsman, see to it that he got out of jail and showed up to court.
> it shouldn't take anything close to a year to get your money back because it shouldn't take a year to resolve a criminal dispute.
Are you under the impression that bail bondsmen set the courts' schedules?
>> Bail bondsmen aren't making huge profits.
> Uh, no. They make plenty
You might want to read at least the title and subtitle of the story you linked. The subtitle will give you a good idea of what the article is about.
> And any sane petty criminal that was in a system that was fair--time served and a speedy trial--wouldn't bail out.
Where exactly do you find a justice system that is both fast and fair? North Korea's is pretty fast. They don't spend the time needed to be fair. The United States spends a lot of time trying to fair, but doesn't do an amazing job of it.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your "any sane" assertion as well. Through a series of unfortunate events and me not being very careful, I ended up arrested for driving with an invalid license. Had I stayed in jail for a few days, I would have been MIA from the company I was running and from the family I lead. That would have been far more costly than the couple hundred bucks bond I paid to get out within a couple hours. Bond was absolutely the sane choice - even just looking only at the cash results, bail was cheaper than the losses of spending a few days in jail. Not to mention the fact that being in jail really sucks - even for a few days.
I'm also curious where you find these "petty criminals" who are in the habit of making well-reasoned decisions in the first place. It seems to me that being a petty criminal is a series of daily bad decisions. One could argue that it might be reasonable to figure you have a 90% chance of getting away with a crime, so stealing $10 million, one time, is worth the risk. But being a petty criminal, betting that you can get away with it every single time, in order to steal $100 here and $25 there seems like the definitive example of stupid decisions in life.
I learned a bit about the bail system and I think this is a pretty silly move on Google's part. As for who uses bondsmen - people in jail, that's who.
The choices are:
1. Pay the bail in cash.
2. Use a bondsman.
3. Sit in jail.
People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up. They're not going to bail themselves out in most cases, though they do have that option.
It's typically family members who feel somewhat obligated to bail someone out of jail. Their choice is pay the bail in cash, which might be about $2,000, or pay 10%, $200, to a bondsman. Since people who end up in jail are typically not the most reliable people, putting up $2,000 cash and hoping to get it back a year later if your drunk brother shows up to all his court appearances doesn't seem like a good idea.
I HAVE $2,000 in savings, I could *afford* to put $2,000 to bail someone out, but I'd rather just pay the bondsman $200 and not have to worry about it. The bondsman will have him call in a few times per week, and try to make sure he doesn't "forget" his court appearance. I don't want to do all that, hoping to eventually get my cash back from court. I'd rather let a professional handle that.
The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit. If they were, more people would go into that line of business. The bondsman loses money on anyone who doesn't show up to court. If they use a recovery agent (bounty hunter) and successfully recover the fugitive, the bondman only loses a little bit of money. If they don't recover the fugitive, they lose a lot of money.
I can understand reasons people might point to problems with the bail SYSTEM, but bail is much older than bail bondsman. Bondsmen didn't create the bail system. Bondsmen make it possible for people who aren't rich to get out on bail.
The bail system itself has advantages and disadvantages. It allows people freedom while they await trial. That's good. It protects society in general by giving an incentive for professionals to make sure people charged with a crime actually show up to court, including tracking down fugitives who run. On the other hand, like everything else, money doesn't buy happiness, but it does make things easier. We'd like to have a criminal justice system in which nobody has any advantage, but the fact is there are advantages to having resources. Bail isn't perfect. On balance, weighing the positives and negatives, I think the bail system has more advantages than disadvantages.
> how many of the 173 people that were arrested as a result of the system does the South Wales Police dept. think might have otherwise been overlooked in the crowds? If that's a significant fraction of those 173 arrests
Based on my experience, I'd estimate that approximately zero would have just been noticed by a cop saying "hey that guy looks like someone who has a warrant". There are a LOT of wanted criminals, far too many to memorize each face. Very few fugitives are caught that way.
They do tend to get caught eventually when they screw up while committing further crimes. They get busted for one offense, don't show up to court, and go back to selling drugs or breaking into cars or whatever their thing is. Eventually they screw up, get unlucky, and get caught. That's when the warrant matters - after they get caught again.
> C level people rarely understand technology enough to properly communicate the risk and benefit of security. It just isn't typically in their wheel house.
I just left a meeting with the CEO of our security company in which we discussed how to solve this. Heck, even the technical C people, like a CIO of a major company, are busy with many different things - desktops, network, on-premise servers, cloud .... They don't have time to really understand each of the vulnerabilities that comes out every day.
They need the security experts to tell them the bottom line "how secure are we?", "What are the top five things we need to do to reduce our risk?" and "what is the value proposition, the financials?"
> The problem is venues are booked months to in advance
Conveniently, concerts sell out months in advance. Ticketmaster is currently selling tickets for John Mayer and for Jimmy Page concerts in 2019. Even of they don't quite sell out in the first 24 hours, Ticketmaster et al have enough information within 24 hours of tickets going on sale to pretty much know whether it will sell out.
Secondly, I suspect large venues stay pretty booked on Saturdays, not so much on Sundays. So if you book a venue for Saturday and put tickets up for sale six months ahead, there's a pretty good chance the venue will be available Sunday
There is some truth in that. Sometimes there is a trade-off between certain types of security and convenience.
Also, it's VERY inconvenient when the system goes down entirely because it wasn't secured. The easiest attacks are generally denial of service attacks, so if you pay no mind to security you can expect the service to be unavailable frequently. A bit of security would make things a lot more convenient.
It's also pretty darn inconvenient when the system gives wrong results, such as when your bank balance is $10,000 less than it should be, because of a security problem.
Also, as others have pointed out, the definition of security is:
A secure system continues to operate properly, even when under attack.*
That implies that a secure system operates properly when NOT under attack. A system designed based on security principles doesn't crash, doesn't give wrong results, etc - even when it's under attack, and especially when it's not. A secure system is one that won't screw up *even if you try to make it screw up*, which means it's reliable when you're not trying to make it screw up.
Security has three parts, abbreviated CIA. A secure system provides confidentiality, which is the first thing most laymen think of. The I and A are also important. Integrity means the system provides correct results. Databases designed by application programmers rather than database architects often at this, especially load, when concurrency causes issues. Availability means the system doesn't go down. Earlier today we saw yet again how poorly Slashdot does in this regard, as the site was down AGAIN for several hours.
* That's the Morris definition of security - a secure system is one which continues to operate properly, giving correct results, even when under attack.
When I was a teenager, Metallica was popular, especially in Denver. They would sell out Mile High Stadium. So they scheduled a show on Friday, and another on Saturday. It takes a large crew all day to set up the stage, lighting, sound system, etc for a major concert, then the concert is couple hours, then all day taking everything down and packing it in trucks. The band and promoter made a lot more profit by selling twice as many tickets, with the same expense to transport everything, set it all up, and take it all down again.
Then when the Saturday show sold out - they added a Sunday show. The stadium was nearly sold out the the third night. The people putting on the concert got all triple the revenue, and there were plenty enough tickets for all the fans.