Which is why it should be uploaded to a neutral third party that no law enforcement agency has direct control of. That's the only way to have at least some chance of the footage being used fairly and not only to help the government's case.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the average cop. In my state videos used to be taken during arrests and roadblocks, but they were losing too many cases. The video evidence was helping the defendants more often than it was helping the prosecution. So, while I'm sure there was much deleted footage, some did get through and save innocent people from prison. I'm not thrilled with the privacy issue of police recording everything they see, but it's much better than relying on a jury to be as skeptical of their bullshit testimony as they are of the defendant. Police video, and especially requiring it to be present at least for certain contempt of cop sorts of charges may be the only way to limit the power of corrupt, criminal cops. It's the only way to get around the blue wall of silence or to ever get violent, corrupt cops kicked off the force. So I'm 100% in favor of it for all law enforcement officers of any kind. Ideally the footage would even be immediately uploaded to a remote server under civilian, not police, control.
It's nice to hear stories like yours, but remember that it's still a roll of the dice for a defendant. That's why there are lots of innocent people who when faced with trusting 6-12 psuedo-random (not truly random due to voir dire) strangers aren't willing to do so and take deals, even ones that result in jail time. If you cannot prove your innocence beyond a resonable doubt it is quite often not worth the risk of getting a bunch of pro-police Republicans who believe where there is smoke there is fire and cannot be convinced that a cop would ever lie.
I was able to afford a defense attorney (by borrowing the money), but I also took a plea bargain because I was betting that the people on my jury would be idiots and very pro-cop. Taking a plea is often the most rational course whether you have a private attorney or not. Only if I had had incontrovertible proof of my innocence would I have turned down a plea with no jail time rather than risk several years in jail and a serious criminal record. Going to trial is also much more expensive even with a private attorney. I spent $2500 I didn't have just on pre-trial. A trial would have cost me another $5000 that I didn't have. So there are monetary reasons to take a plea as well.
And in the absence of otherwise compelling evidence, the jury will see the "lost tape" as evidence that the cops are lying, and they will vote to acquit. Jurors aren't stupid. They know that cops lie all the time, and it is already quite common for cops to be disbelieved.
Uh. What are you basing this on? Would you really be willing to turn down a good plea deal and risking years in prison based on the jury being 100% rational and not believing the cop's story just because he/she is a cop? There are lots of people like that.
One problem with that sort of reasoning is that it ignores the intense desire the average person has to not believe that police ever commit crimes themselves. I think the idea of it scares people too much and they won't believe it without the video to prove it. Even a video is sometimes not sufficient for a jury to believe it as happened in the Rodney King case. If they won't believe their eyes there won't be any way to convince them.
Many cops are sociopaths and bullies. That is exactly what they are.
And the racial point was also made by several attorneys as well. The town the court was in was mostly white. Although both the cop and I were white , a black person is more likely to have been in a situation where they could see the dishonesty of cops. Maybe they've been stopped for driving while black or heard of people who were etc. Probably a slim chance, but I really didn't want to take a plea bargain. I wanted to fight it.
As for my story people will believe what they want to believe. That's the reality of the world. That's why people don't trust juries to deliver a fair verdict and take deals so often. The only people I've told my story to are friends and relatives and I'm posting this at least semi-anonymously for a reason. If I start giving the psycho, murderous cop a hard time he may decide to silence me and it would be easy enough for him to get away with exactly that. As soon as I can leave the state however and start buying firearms and learning how to use them I intend to tell my story to the FBI and do whatever I can to get my accusation on record in some way so that when he does this again to someone else (and he will) there will be more evidence to dismiss the case.
I understand your desire to post anonymously, but I would love to get in touch with you and compare notes. Not sure how that's possible from slashdot though.
If you were under the impression that I yelled "fuck you" you are incorrect. I said it very quietly, slowly, and deliberately, but I was standing quite close to him. Good guess on the swear used however. It was in response to him calling me an asshole. BTW, you are wrong about the legality of swearing at a cop. At least in the US it is 100% legal. This was verified by at least 6 defense attorneys. When I said it I didn't know that however and I was expecting to get arrested for it. He did arrest me, but not for that and not until he had broken several ribs, made my face into a bloody mess, injured my larynx badly enough that the next day I almost suffocated, gave me a serous concussion that affected my memory etc, etc. Needless to say, if I ever have another encounter with the police that is more than a speeding ticket I will be running for my life now that I know getting arrested is not the only possibility. I am also planning to leave the state for one with less gun control and no road blocks and I will be armed at all times when in a situation where I might have an encounter with the most dangerous thugs in the US: the police.
I am well aware of that common distinction, officer. But "assault" the way it is commonly used is different from its legal sense. I was using "assault" in the way it is commonly used to mean "physically attack".
I like the way you think, but in my situation (a DUI roadblock) a gun wouldn't have helped because I had no idea beforehand that the guy was going to go nuts and try to kill me or whatever. There was no warning. All of a sudden (after I swore back at him) he was whirling me around getting ready to slam me to the ground. Hard. And then jump on my back with his 250 lbs or whatever and start strangling me. I was utterly pinned beneath him. My face was pressed so hard against the pavement that I was sure he had broken my nose and damaged my eyes when my eyeglasses were crunched into my eyes with great force.
If I had had a gun I would have used it though once he started strangling me and crushing my trachea and larynx. I really thought I was going to die. While it would have meant certain death for me as well among at least 20 cops I would have at least had the chance to avenge my own murder.
After the incident I did some googling and found that the same group of guys were suspected of a murder just a couple of years earlier due to very suspicious circumstances in which a guy died while being arrested for marijuana possesion at another DUI roadblock. Not a single officer was ever charged with anything of course. They can quite literally get away with murder. As long as there are no (living) civilian witnesses.
I suppose that's a good point. Even if I had had a video of the incident it wouldn't have proved that I didn't punch the cop right before the camera was turned on. Or that the part of the video where I punched him was not cleverly edited out.
Nevertheless if I had had a video of the entire incident (and I did consider filming it with my phone but was afraid it would escalate things or that I would be prosecuted for it under surveillance laws), I probably would have been willing to not only turn down any deals and go to trial but also sue the cop afterwards for the usual police brutality charges. It isn't 100% proof, but it is very persuasive.
Of course, if the cop had a video of me punching him that would prove that I had assaulted him. I find it telling that the cops in my state have stopped using video supposedly because it hurt the state's cases far more often than it helped them. That certainly doesn't surprise me. When most of your police officers are violent maniacs with no respect for the law themselves video is definitely not something you generally want.
Yup. That's why even those of us who can prove the cop in question is a liar still take deals. Basically you need video footage of the event to prove your innocence and pointing a video camera at a cop is a good way to get beaten to death or at least put in a hospital and then in jail when he accuses you of a list of cover charges to justify his violence against you. I firmly believe that the majority of "assault against a police officer" charges are actually police brutality cases where the cop needs a way to cover his ass. All such charges should require video footage of the event to even go to trial. Also, if the defendent was injured, the possibility of police brutality should be investigated. Every. Single. Time. The burden of proof should be on the cop and it should be a high burden. Video footage or at least corroborating civilian witnesses with no relationship to law enforcement.
Every story without direct video footage starts with trust. I was actually charged with assaulting a police officer. In the presence of 20-30 other cops. I'm just a shy, geeky, overweight, middle aged guy. I'm also extremely non-violent. The cop in question was much larger than me as well. Anyone who knows me knows that such an accusation is utterly ridiculous.
Some people have yet to realize what real cops are actually like. This is solely due to lack of contact with them. They will not hesitate to lie in court and to falsely accuse you of many things. None of the defense attorneys I consulted were at all surprised by my story. They see it all the time. The cops commonly do such things because they can. The system lets them get away with it. They are just grown up schoolyard bullies. Sociopaths with unlimited power and not even a hint of a conscience.
Just a bit of friendly advice for everyone: If a cop swears at you DO NOT swear back at them under any circumstances. It may seem fair, but the cop won't see it that way. You'll be lucky if you only end up in the hospital with broken bones. You may end up with brain damage. You may end up dead or in prison for many years based on false accusations.
No matter what you say or how much more plausible your version of events may seem or how incredibly stupid the cop is nearly every judge and many juries will believe the cop's ridiculous story just because he is a cop. Many defendents aren't willing to roll the dice and take deals. That's what I did. I could poke holes in some details of the cop's bullshit story and prove those holes 100%. Prove that he lied in some details, but I could not prove my innocence. I could not prove that I did not punch him. And I didn't trust a potential lily white jury with no exposure to real life cops to decide my fate. Like you, they don't want to believe that such things really happen. So they don't. Real cops are nothing like the way they are portrayed on TV or in films. Well maybe Bad Lieutenant.
It isn't an issue of one person shooting first. First, people have to organize into a citizen army. Only then can they try to correct the broken system. The American system is broken beyond repair. Also, China isn't the only alternative. Genuine freedom is also a possibility.
So what is the conflict exactly? That one group believes in OurGod and the other believes in YourGod? If so this 'conflict' exists with every other religion in the world as well. Not just with Christianity.
A politician makes a speech and you take it as 100% truth? Or did you know the man personally? So we're supposed to believe that because Hitler may have thought Britain ran its empire "effectively" that Hitler would just leave them alone even after conquering nearly all of Europe? Riiight.
Also doing nothing is not being cautious. If Britain hadn't declared war when they did they, as well as all of Europe, would probably be speaking German right now.
The only reason Germany was defeated was because countries other than the ones he had actually declared war on decided to fight him simultaneously even though it might not have seemed to be in their direct immediate interest to do so.
After conquering most of Europe the rest of the world would have to be very, very stupid to just ignore Germany. There's no reason to believe that he would have even stopped at Europe. Eventually, when he had built his war machine to sufficient size and had absorbed the resources of that whole continent he would surely have crossed the Atlantic and started his attack on the Americas. Probably starting with South America and working his way north.
The man was a known liar. Words meant little to him. Action was everything. His goal was to dominate the world. Not just raciallly but politically. To make the entire world into one giant German super-state.
If the Brits hadn't given him so much trouble he might have had a decent shot at it too. He conquered most of Europe. Next he might well have moved against Asia as well and probably even his pseudo-ally Japan.
He may not have invaded Britain immediately after France (although that maniac might well have given it a try), but he would have declared war on Britain eventually. Britain definitely did the right thing attacking while Germany was still busy. If they had waited until Germany was 100% ready things may not have gone so well.
To a Keynsian, deflation = bad and inflation = good. Presumably because most people in the US are debtors, not creditors. No one really worries about the creditors until they actually start failing and since they are "too big to fail" no one worries about them anyway.
Inflation is considered good because it reduces the value of debt. As one of the biggest debtors in the world it is definitely in the US government's long term interest to inflate as much as possible. Most Americans are also debtors and reducing the amount that they have to actually pay back the banks in terms of actual goods would seem to be helpful.
I am personally so hugely in debt that I don't have a prayer of ever paying it back. The fact that my pay check is 20% lower in terms of actual goods isn't helping me with that either. Of course I also owe 20% less in terms of actual goods as well. So that's probably a wash. During high inflation I see being in debt as a kind of investment. In terms of actual goods you can actually end up making money. Borrow 100 widgets worth of currency and pay it back with only 50 widgets worth after the latest round of quantitative easing.
Keynesian economics is funny. It's all about information. Sending messages. The Federal Reserve's strategy is to increase the money supply by a significant amount without the public catching on to it and demanding higher wages to pay for the much higher prices for the same goods in stores etc.
Inflation means higher prices for all of the basic necessities of life. Stuff that poor people buy has increased by something like 20% over since around 2009. At least by my own rough estimate of the stuff I actually buy.
There was supposed to be a temporary increase in food prices across the board, but it has become permanent and will never return to earlier levels. Why? Because it wasn't a food shortage that caused the price increases. It was an overabundance of dollars in banks due to the whole quantitative easing thing.
Most wealthy people I know haven't even noticed the 15-25% drop in the value of the dollar (it's difficult to say exactly what it really is and it may depend on the elasticity of the particular product a company is buying dollars with), but poor people sure as hell should have noticed.
The truth is it is really impossible to tell how much of the current increase in HDD prices over what they were pre-flood is due to inflation and how much is due to reduced competition.
With a declination of -60 degrees this is yet another intriguing nearby star system that is best viewed/targeted from the southern hemisphere. The Alpha Centauri system is only about 1 degree further south. It really seems that the southern sky is way more interesting than the north. Of course the galactic center and the Wow signal location are also in the southern hemisphere. It's good that the SKA is being built there. It's too bad that China's giant Arecibo-killer dish is not.
This star would pass directly above your radio telescope (at your zenith) on Coronation Island in the Southern Ocean. Tierra del Fuego or at least southern Patagonia would be second best in terms of targeting and listening. I think it's about time we sent these guys a message. It's just too bad none of us currently reading this will be alive to hear any reply after more than 80 years of transit time. While we have our dish pointed that way we can also ping Alpha Centauri A and B. It's actually quite rude that we haven't already done so. The galactic community must regard us as antisocial, self-centered hermits.
How would being from another universe change anything? Maybe in his universe humanoids can fly just because doing so is cool, but those laws of physics would obviously not apply in this universe.
Face it. Superman is just not scientific in any way. Only the super-strength might be explainable if his species evolved on a super-earth with much greater mass than our planet. The whole flying thing is just ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why it should be uploaded to a neutral third party that no law enforcement agency has direct control of. That's the only way to have at least some chance of the footage being used fairly and not only to help the government's case.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the average cop. In my state videos used to be taken during arrests and roadblocks, but they were losing too many cases. The video evidence was helping the defendants more often than it was helping the prosecution. So, while I'm sure there was much deleted footage, some did get through and save innocent people from prison. I'm not thrilled with the privacy issue of police recording everything they see, but it's much better than relying on a jury to be as skeptical of their bullshit testimony as they are of the defendant. Police video, and especially requiring it to be present at least for certain contempt of cop sorts of charges may be the only way to limit the power of corrupt, criminal cops. It's the only way to get around the blue wall of silence or to ever get violent, corrupt cops kicked off the force. So I'm 100% in favor of it for all law enforcement officers of any kind. Ideally the footage would even be immediately uploaded to a remote server under civilian, not police, control.
It's nice to hear stories like yours, but remember that it's still a roll of the dice for a defendant. That's why there are lots of innocent people who when faced with trusting 6-12 psuedo-random (not truly random due to voir dire) strangers aren't willing to do so and take deals, even ones that result in jail time. If you cannot prove your innocence beyond a resonable doubt it is quite often not worth the risk of getting a bunch of pro-police Republicans who believe where there is smoke there is fire and cannot be convinced that a cop would ever lie.
I was able to afford a defense attorney (by borrowing the money), but I also took a plea bargain because I was betting that the people on my jury would be idiots and very pro-cop. Taking a plea is often the most rational course whether you have a private attorney or not. Only if I had had incontrovertible proof of my innocence would I have turned down a plea with no jail time rather than risk several years in jail and a serious criminal record. Going to trial is also much more expensive even with a private attorney. I spent $2500 I didn't have just on pre-trial. A trial would have cost me another $5000 that I didn't have. So there are monetary reasons to take a plea as well.
And in the absence of otherwise compelling evidence, the jury will see the "lost tape" as evidence that the cops are lying, and they will vote to acquit. Jurors aren't stupid. They know that cops lie all the time, and it is already quite common for cops to be disbelieved.
Uh. What are you basing this on? Would you really be willing to turn down a good plea deal and risking years in prison based on the jury being 100% rational and not believing the cop's story just because he/she is a cop? There are lots of people like that.
One problem with that sort of reasoning is that it ignores the intense desire the average person has to not believe that police ever commit crimes themselves. I think the idea of it scares people too much and they won't believe it without the video to prove it. Even a video is sometimes not sufficient for a jury to believe it as happened in the Rodney King case. If they won't believe their eyes there won't be any way to convince them.
Many cops are sociopaths and bullies. That is exactly what they are.
And the racial point was also made by several attorneys as well. The town the court was in was mostly white. Although both the cop and I were white , a black person is more likely to have been in a situation where they could see the dishonesty of cops. Maybe they've been stopped for driving while black or heard of people who were etc. Probably a slim chance, but I really didn't want to take a plea bargain. I wanted to fight it.
As for my story people will believe what they want to believe. That's the reality of the world. That's why people don't trust juries to deliver a fair verdict and take deals so often. The only people I've told my story to are friends and relatives and I'm posting this at least semi-anonymously for a reason. If I start giving the psycho, murderous cop a hard time he may decide to silence me and it would be easy enough for him to get away with exactly that. As soon as I can leave the state however and start buying firearms and learning how to use them I intend to tell my story to the FBI and do whatever I can to get my accusation on record in some way so that when he does this again to someone else (and he will) there will be more evidence to dismiss the case.
I understand your desire to post anonymously, but I would love to get in touch with you and compare notes. Not sure how that's possible from slashdot though.
If you were under the impression that I yelled "fuck you" you are incorrect. I said it very quietly, slowly, and deliberately, but I was standing quite close to him. Good guess on the swear used however. It was in response to him calling me an asshole. BTW, you are wrong about the legality of swearing at a cop. At least in the US it is 100% legal. This was verified by at least 6 defense attorneys. When I said it I didn't know that however and I was expecting to get arrested for it. He did arrest me, but not for that and not until he had broken several ribs, made my face into a bloody mess, injured my larynx badly enough that the next day I almost suffocated, gave me a serous concussion that affected my memory etc, etc. Needless to say, if I ever have another encounter with the police that is more than a speeding ticket I will be running for my life now that I know getting arrested is not the only possibility. I am also planning to leave the state for one with less gun control and no road blocks and I will be armed at all times when in a situation where I might have an encounter with the most dangerous thugs in the US: the police.
I am well aware of that common distinction, officer. But "assault" the way it is commonly used is different from its legal sense. I was using "assault" in the way it is commonly used to mean "physically attack".
I like the way you think, but in my situation (a DUI roadblock) a gun wouldn't have helped because I had no idea beforehand that the guy was going to go nuts and try to kill me or whatever. There was no warning. All of a sudden (after I swore back at him) he was whirling me around getting ready to slam me to the ground. Hard. And then jump on my back with his 250 lbs or whatever and start strangling me. I was utterly pinned beneath him. My face was pressed so hard against the pavement that I was sure he had broken my nose and damaged my eyes when my eyeglasses were crunched into my eyes with great force.
If I had had a gun I would have used it though once he started strangling me and crushing my trachea and larynx. I really thought I was going to die. While it would have meant certain death for me as well among at least 20 cops I would have at least had the chance to avenge my own murder.
After the incident I did some googling and found that the same group of guys were suspected of a murder just a couple of years earlier due to very suspicious circumstances in which a guy died while being arrested for marijuana possesion at another DUI roadblock. Not a single officer was ever charged with anything of course. They can quite literally get away with murder. As long as there are no (living) civilian witnesses.
I suppose that's a good point. Even if I had had a video of the incident it wouldn't have proved that I didn't punch the cop right before the camera was turned on. Or that the part of the video where I punched him was not cleverly edited out.
Nevertheless if I had had a video of the entire incident (and I did consider filming it with my phone but was afraid it would escalate things or that I would be prosecuted for it under surveillance laws), I probably would have been willing to not only turn down any deals and go to trial but also sue the cop afterwards for the usual police brutality charges. It isn't 100% proof, but it is very persuasive.
Of course, if the cop had a video of me punching him that would prove that I had assaulted him. I find it telling that the cops in my state have stopped using video supposedly because it hurt the state's cases far more often than it helped them. That certainly doesn't surprise me. When most of your police officers are violent maniacs with no respect for the law themselves video is definitely not something you generally want.
Yup. That's why even those of us who can prove the cop in question is a liar still take deals. Basically you need video footage of the event to prove your innocence and pointing a video camera at a cop is a good way to get beaten to death or at least put in a hospital and then in jail when he accuses you of a list of cover charges to justify his violence against you. I firmly believe that the majority of "assault against a police officer" charges are actually police brutality cases where the cop needs a way to cover his ass. All such charges should require video footage of the event to even go to trial. Also, if the defendent was injured, the possibility of police brutality should be investigated. Every. Single. Time. The burden of proof should be on the cop and it should be a high burden. Video footage or at least corroborating civilian witnesses with no relationship to law enforcement.
Every story without direct video footage starts with trust. I was actually charged with assaulting a police officer. In the presence of 20-30 other cops. I'm just a shy, geeky, overweight, middle aged guy. I'm also extremely non-violent. The cop in question was much larger than me as well. Anyone who knows me knows that such an accusation is utterly ridiculous.
Some people have yet to realize what real cops are actually like. This is solely due to lack of contact with them. They will not hesitate to lie in court and to falsely accuse you of many things. None of the defense attorneys I consulted were at all surprised by my story. They see it all the time. The cops commonly do such things because they can. The system lets them get away with it. They are just grown up schoolyard bullies. Sociopaths with unlimited power and not even a hint of a conscience.
Just a bit of friendly advice for everyone: If a cop swears at you DO NOT swear back at them under any circumstances. It may seem fair, but the cop won't see it that way. You'll be lucky if you only end up in the hospital with broken bones. You may end up with brain damage. You may end up dead or in prison for many years based on false accusations.
No matter what you say or how much more plausible your version of events may seem or how incredibly stupid the cop is nearly every judge and many juries will believe the cop's ridiculous story just because he is a cop. Many defendents aren't willing to roll the dice and take deals. That's what I did. I could poke holes in some details of the cop's bullshit story and prove those holes 100%. Prove that he lied in some details, but I could not prove my innocence. I could not prove that I did not punch him. And I didn't trust a potential lily white jury with no exposure to real life cops to decide my fate. Like you, they don't want to believe that such things really happen. So they don't. Real cops are nothing like the way they are portrayed on TV or in films. Well maybe Bad Lieutenant.
It isn't an issue of one person shooting first. First, people have to organize into a citizen army. Only then can they try to correct the broken system. The American system is broken beyond repair. Also, China isn't the only alternative. Genuine freedom is also a possibility.
So what is the conflict exactly? That one group believes in OurGod and the other believes in YourGod? If so this 'conflict' exists with every other religion in the world as well. Not just with Christianity.
A politician makes a speech and you take it as 100% truth? Or did you know the man personally? So we're supposed to believe that because Hitler may have thought Britain ran its empire "effectively" that Hitler would just leave them alone even after conquering nearly all of Europe? Riiight.
Also doing nothing is not being cautious. If Britain hadn't declared war when they did they, as well as all of Europe, would probably be speaking German right now.
The only reason Germany was defeated was because countries other than the ones he had actually declared war on decided to fight him simultaneously even though it might not have seemed to be in their direct immediate interest to do so.
After conquering most of Europe the rest of the world would have to be very, very stupid to just ignore Germany. There's no reason to believe that he would have even stopped at Europe. Eventually, when he had built his war machine to sufficient size and had absorbed the resources of that whole continent he would surely have crossed the Atlantic and started his attack on the Americas. Probably starting with South America and working his way north.
The man was a known liar. Words meant little to him. Action was everything. His goal was to dominate the world. Not just raciallly but politically. To make the entire world into one giant German super-state.
If the Brits hadn't given him so much trouble he might have had a decent shot at it too. He conquered most of Europe. Next he might well have moved against Asia as well and probably even his pseudo-ally Japan.
He may not have invaded Britain immediately after France (although that maniac might well have given it a try), but he would have declared war on Britain eventually. Britain definitely did the right thing attacking while Germany was still busy. If they had waited until Germany was 100% ready things may not have gone so well.
What is your evidence that Germany had no plans to invade Britain?
You know you have an awful UI when even the malware writers can't bear to code for it.
More like Linux still doesn't have the market share to warrent spending significant time developing malware for it.
Neither does Windows 8.
To a Keynsian, deflation = bad and inflation = good. Presumably because most people in the US are debtors, not creditors. No one really worries about the creditors until they actually start failing and since they are "too big to fail" no one worries about them anyway.
Inflation is considered good because it reduces the value of debt. As one of the biggest debtors in the world it is definitely in the US government's long term interest to inflate as much as possible. Most Americans are also debtors and reducing the amount that they have to actually pay back the banks in terms of actual goods would seem to be helpful.
I am personally so hugely in debt that I don't have a prayer of ever paying it back. The fact that my pay check is 20% lower in terms of actual goods isn't helping me with that either. Of course I also owe 20% less in terms of actual goods as well. So that's probably a wash. During high inflation I see being in debt as a kind of investment. In terms of actual goods you can actually end up making money. Borrow 100 widgets worth of currency and pay it back with only 50 widgets worth after the latest round of quantitative easing.
Keynesian economics is funny. It's all about information. Sending messages. The Federal Reserve's strategy is to increase the money supply by a significant amount without the public catching on to it and demanding higher wages to pay for the much higher prices for the same goods in stores etc.
Inflation means higher prices for all of the basic necessities of life. Stuff that poor people buy has increased by something like 20% over since around 2009. At least by my own rough estimate of the stuff I actually buy.
There was supposed to be a temporary increase in food prices across the board, but it has become permanent and will never return to earlier levels. Why? Because it wasn't a food shortage that caused the price increases. It was an overabundance of dollars in banks due to the whole quantitative easing thing.
Most wealthy people I know haven't even noticed the 15-25% drop in the value of the dollar (it's difficult to say exactly what it really is and it may depend on the elasticity of the particular product a company is buying dollars with), but poor people sure as hell should have noticed.
The truth is it is really impossible to tell how much of the current increase in HDD prices over what they were pre-flood is due to inflation and how much is due to reduced competition.
With a declination of -60 degrees this is yet another intriguing nearby star system that is best viewed/targeted from the southern hemisphere. The Alpha Centauri system is only about 1 degree further south. It really seems that the southern sky is way more interesting than the north. Of course the galactic center and the Wow signal location are also in the southern hemisphere. It's good that the SKA is being built there. It's too bad that China's giant Arecibo-killer dish is not.
This star would pass directly above your radio telescope (at your zenith) on Coronation Island in the Southern Ocean. Tierra del Fuego or at least southern Patagonia would be second best in terms of targeting and listening. I think it's about time we sent these guys a message. It's just too bad none of us currently reading this will be alive to hear any reply after more than 80 years of transit time. While we have our dish pointed that way we can also ping Alpha Centauri A and B. It's actually quite rude that we haven't already done so. The galactic community must regard us as antisocial, self-centered hermits.
There are quite a few red dwarfs within a 30 ly radius of earth. What's so special about LHS2520? Maybe it was just chosen randomly.
How would being from another universe change anything? Maybe in his universe humanoids can fly just because doing so is cool, but those laws of physics would obviously not apply in this universe.
Face it. Superman is just not scientific in any way. Only the super-strength might be explainable if his species evolved on a super-earth with much greater mass than our planet. The whole flying thing is just ridiculous.
At subluminal velocities, it would take him thousands of years to reach the earth.
Only if his star system is thousands of light years away.