“I’m going to stop a car,” the officer says on the recording. “I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.” “The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.
Or maybe armed robbery suspects (real reason for being pulled over, as per the police radio calls, not a broken taillight) shouldn't pull a gun (you can barely see it in the video, but it's there) on police during a stop?
There are many examples of poor judgement or outright criminality on the part of police. This incident isn't necessarily one of them. The GF streaming the video and her and other family members raising gofundme money have been flat out lying to cash in on the anti-police sentiment.
It wasn't that quickly. It was after 5 days of Surge ignoring their ISP about the issue. The ISP restored service within a couple of hours of Surge finally noticing after their connectivity went away.
From the update which is now at the bottom of the article:
Update: Digital Ocean sent a statement.
"We received notice on behalf of a trademark holder that a customer of DigitalOcean was hosting infringing content on our network. DigitalOcean immediately notified our customer of the infringement, and the customer was given a five day period to resolve the issue. The infringing content was not removed within the specified period even though several notifications were issued. Per DigitalOcean’s terms of service, a final reminder was issued to our customer and, when no action was taken, access to the content was disabled. The infringing content was subsequently removed by the customer and all services were restored in less than two hours."
So their ISP gave them 5 days to respond and they ignored it.So they got cut off from their ISP, which got their attention and they removed the one site, after which the ISP immediately put them back online.
Sounds reasonable from the provider's perspective. The 38K sites were the fault of Surge for ignoring the notifications from their provider.
The system is the fastest of its kind... 60 terabits per second
Wouldn't that be the largest, the widest, or the broadest, or something like that? I'm guessing the latency for the distance isn't any lower than most other connections "of its kind", i.e.fiber optic, AKA light through fibers. Pretty sure light through the same material type generally travels the same speed.
I'm not sure you understand cognitive dissonance theory. You're giving the "pop psychology" misunderstood/surface level version, not what actual psychology research shows.
It doesn't mean people continuing to hold two completely contradictory beliefs at the same time.
Cognitive dissonance theory is about how people who are exposed to two contradictory beliefs behave in order to reconcile those beliefs so that their beliefs will become consistent. In this case, applying the theory would imply the ship owners would take steps to stop believing in one or the other, not that they'd sit there making incredibly expensive financial decisions affecting their lives and the lives of many others cheerfully holding contradictory beliefs. Quite the opposite.
hoarding property from the people who live in the city and need that property... "Investors" are locking up the housing supply to drive up the property prices.
The ignorance of economics and the effects of big city housing regulations is strong with this one...
Even a totally partisan left-wing economist like Krugman understands that it's regulations like this one which keep housing unaffordable.
Let me lay it out for you... If you make it more expensive to build housing of various types, and if you make housing worth less by adding lots of restrictions on what you can do with it, and if you restrict people's ability to make money with the housing they build, it turns out that over time, people build much less housing, because they don't see the point in going through all that hassle for less reward than they can get elsewhere with their money.
The solution to that is pretty obvious, but it's not to further restrict what people are "allowed" to do in order to make housing more valuable/profitable.
Two Statements: Ship owners are realizing bigger ships aren't better than smaller ships. Ship owners continue to prefer to buy bigger ships rather than smaller ships.
Assuming we are talking about the same "ship owners", one of these two statements isn't true. One of them is an empirical statement which demonstrates ship owner revealed actual preferences and the other one is a quote from the piece's author which seems inline with their own expressed opinion about bigger ship=bad. Which one do you think is more likely to be accurate?
See, it can be fun to analyze even idiotic media pieces...
The more you personally know about the details of a media story, usually the less accurate you'll think the story is. This also applies to media stories you don't know as much about, just many people don't realize it when it's not slapping them in the face.
What's funny about your ignorance is that in your projected reality, I'm not part Cherokee (My Dad is a tribe member, descended from a baby who survived being abandoned on the trail of tears). Back in actual reality, most of the anti-colonialist ideologues are twenty- or thirty-something college graduates of privilege (of whatever race) who had some left-wing professor spoon feed them their opinion. Hit a little too close to home for you?
Why is it that to the US left, everything has to be about race and group identity politics? It's as if they don't consider people able to think for themselves and make decisions for themselves, but insist everyone must be ruled by a master and conform to group opinion.
If you don't know anything about someone's actual life and background, then it's pretty ignorant/stereotypical to make such broad assumptions. But then, that sort of racism is what we've come to expect from people who spout about "privilege" and have the idea that where you were born determines your life story and choices. It's people like you and the ideas you support who've turned a once proud people into miserable rez dwellers.
Russia had corruption issues going from the Soviet Union to Not Soviet Union, but the public within a year or two went from massive food shortages to being able to eat again, so I'm pretty sure they don't see it as that much of a disaster. The biggest corruption issue is that the pre-change elites running everything behind the scenes are pretty much the same post-change elites running everything behind the scenes. That differs markedly from the African post-colonial experience where they kicked out the colonial elites and put power in the hands of locals who didn't have it before. In a similar fashion, the US and Canada also had pretty much the same elite groups running things locally before and afterwards (especially in Canada). So maybe that made a big difference?
From the Yale Economic Review:
According to a 2002 paper by Leon Aron, in 1989, the average citizen spent 40 – 68 hours a month standing in line, reflecting the difficulty to acquire even the most basic consumer goods in Russian markets. In April 1991, less than one in 8 respondents to an opinion poll said that they had recently seen meat in state stores, and less than one in 12 had seen butter... In January 1992, most prices were liberalized. Queues disappeared and goods reappeared in stores. A mass privatization program, implemented during 1993–1994, transferred shares in most firms from the government to their managers and workers, as well as the general public. By mid-1994, almost 70 percent of the Russian economy was in private hands. In 1995, with the help of the International Monetary Fund, Russia stabilized the ruble. In just a few years, Russia’s economy had undergone a complete turnaround and had put the necessary reforms in place to progress rapidly towards economic liberalization and stability...
Who writes the rules for the sub-committee? For the whole legislature? Who grants exceptions to them, or can change them?
That's right, the members and their leadership and their rules committee.
It's not like the process is embedded in the NY State Constitution, other than to give the legislature control over their own rules and procedures. You can't blame "the rules" in order to avoid blaming the people who make and control "the rules".
Maybe it's a good bill, maybe it's a bad one, but it wasn't passed because the members of the legislature decided not to pass it.
The problem is that in their hubris, they forgot to allow for coding errors in "exactly as programmed". So yeah, it's working exactly as programmed, just not as intended by the programmer.:)
Also, this isn't a heist, because nothing was stolen. It's more of a counterfeiting operation, if I understand the commentary correctly. Someone took advantage of a recursive bug and an anti-pattern of calling recursive code before updating values and essentially created more 33% more Ether than previously existed out of thin air. Or at least will, as it actually won't complete for almost another month (so they got at least some time limits right to prevent exposure).
It's obviously not what was intended by the programmers, so there is an argument for "fixing" the code bug before the defect can be actually taken advantage of, but I can see the argument for letting it stand as a cost to the people who bet on their coding ability as a natural consequence for being wrong.
Without a fix for at least the going forward code (the issue still exists until voted to be changed), it's hard to see how the system will be viable for actual use anymore, so I suspect the miners will decide to run a fixed version of the code.
. Essentially, politicians never get to vote on so-called right to repair legislation because groups petitioning on behalf of the electronics industry gum up the proceedings.
Leave it to the Huffington Post to somehow blame lobbyists without blaming the people they lobby. The only way they "gum up the proceedings" is by their influence with the leaders in the legislature, who are the ones who actually control the proceedings.
A bill doesn't get a vote in the legislature because not enough of the right members wanted to vote on it (for a variety of reasons, I'm sure). You can't blame that strictly on the lobbyists without removing the responsibility of the members of the NY State Assembly and Senate for what they decide to vote and pass.
If the blame is colonization, then how do you account for the many African countries which were worse off before becoming a colony, better off while they were colonies and suddenly took a massive turn for the worse after they gained independence?
Wouldn't that indicate colonization was a positive benefit to those countries, not the cause of all their problems? Or are you one of those people who don't let facts get in the way of your professor's ideology?
BTW, the United States and Canada were both colonies for a long time. Why don't they suffer similar long term ill effects of "colonization"?
A couple of points: 1. I'm not and have never been a member of the Libertarian Party. So your comment about it seems pretty irrelevant to this conversation, just like the LP generally is in elections. 2. Just because you don't see any difference in scenarios, doesn't mean no one else does. As previously stated, without a single monopoly government provider running everything, you might have an opportunity for a bit of freedom. Competition in services has improved everything it's been allowed to and increased wealth in the economically "free-er" nations tremendously over time. Why not give that a try somewhere for government services as well? If the government ran farms and grocery stores as a civil service monopoly, you'd be protesting and asking "How will people get food?" if someone suggested maybe they didn't need to have a government monopoly on that service. This has literally happened in other countries.
What you're talking about is the Republican Liberty Caucus. Small l-libertarian, as opposed to the Libertarian Party. Actually has Congressional supporters, etc..., as opposed to only a couple of local school board members and a dog catcher or something like that.
Without government to enforce laws, it all devolves into "strong man with big stick takes everything".
And with the present government, Obama or Hillary or Trump get to be the "strong man with big stick" and have a massive bureaucratic apparatus take everything they may desire from you?
I'm not seeing a huge difference here in your scenarios. At least without a single monopoly government provider running everything, you might have an opportunity for a bit of freedom.
If there is all this wasted opportunity, why you (or a solar maker, or whoever else) started a business installing them on the commercial roofs to sell power? I'm sure they'd be happy to lease you the space.
Short answer... it's because even if you did, it'd still cost more than electricity from the utility company in virtually all of the U.S., which would make your investment worthless as only a way to lose money by selling below your costs.
I've wondered for a long time why we don't have every commercial building rooftop covered in solar panels.
Mostly for the same reason commercial buildings aren't covered in rooftop gardens in order to supply food to the cafeteria downstairs. It doesn't make any sense to the people who actually have to allocate their scarce resources toward accomplishing useful things.
When you say economic hurdles, what you really mean is "This doesn't make any financial sense to do, and it would cause a massive waste of resources (as shown by the resource costs vs. benefits), but I think people should maybe do it anyway." Wishful thinking doesn't make reality go away.
I'm guessing you don't routinely literally throw your cash into the garbage can, so on at least some level you can understand the desire for people to not waste their resources on things which make no economic sense for them to do. Not even if there was a fashion trend to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess this week we're punishing people for "unintentional" failures to comply with regulations again?
No, the FBI let Hillary off the hook.... what were we talking about again?
Here's the police scanner audio of the incident.
Excerpt:
Here's a photo of the gun in the video.
How many parts of the "story" have to be lies before you stop believing the person telling it and trying to make money off of it?
Or maybe armed robbery suspects (real reason for being pulled over, as per the police radio calls, not a broken taillight) shouldn't pull a gun (you can barely see it in the video, but it's there) on police during a stop?
There are many examples of poor judgement or outright criminality on the part of police. This incident isn't necessarily one of them. The GF streaming the video and her and other family members raising gofundme money have been flat out lying to cash in on the anti-police sentiment.
So, according to this article, using advertising with Malware is a new approach?
Have they never heard the term, adware? What do they think adware does?
The Supreme Court has explicitly included non-firearms and there have been court cases over knife regulations related to it. Unless they're non-fighting knives (i.e. made only for cooking, like a paring knife), they're arms.
Do you just make up your "facts" out of thin air, without even a quick google search to confirm them?
It wasn't that quickly. It was after 5 days of Surge ignoring their ISP about the issue. The ISP restored service within a couple of hours of Surge finally noticing after their connectivity went away.
From the update which is now at the bottom of the article:
So their ISP gave them 5 days to respond and they ignored it.So they got cut off from their ISP, which got their attention and they removed the one site, after which the ISP immediately put them back online.
Sounds reasonable from the provider's perspective. The 38K sites were the fault of Surge for ignoring the notifications from their provider.
Wouldn't that be the largest, the widest, or the broadest, or something like that? I'm guessing the latency for the distance isn't any lower than most other connections "of its kind", i.e.fiber optic, AKA light through fibers. Pretty sure light through the same material type generally travels the same speed.
I mean, we don't call this the "fastest" dump truck in the world because it hauls a larger payload a similar speed as other dump trucks.
Thanks for your comments.
I'm not sure you understand cognitive dissonance theory. You're giving the "pop psychology" misunderstood/surface level version, not what actual psychology research shows.
It doesn't mean people continuing to hold two completely contradictory beliefs at the same time.
Cognitive dissonance theory is about how people who are exposed to two contradictory beliefs behave in order to reconcile those beliefs so that their beliefs will become consistent. In this case, applying the theory would imply the ship owners would take steps to stop believing in one or the other, not that they'd sit there making incredibly expensive financial decisions affecting their lives and the lives of many others cheerfully holding contradictory beliefs. Quite the opposite.
See a decent explanation of cognitive dissonance.
The ignorance of economics and the effects of big city housing regulations is strong with this one...
Even a totally partisan left-wing economist like Krugman understands that it's regulations like this one which keep housing unaffordable.
Let me lay it out for you... If you make it more expensive to build housing of various types, and if you make housing worth less by adding lots of restrictions on what you can do with it, and if you restrict people's ability to make money with the housing they build, it turns out that over time, people build much less housing, because they don't see the point in going through all that hassle for less reward than they can get elsewhere with their money.
The solution to that is pretty obvious, but it's not to further restrict what people are "allowed" to do in order to make housing more valuable/profitable.
In Soviet Russia, encryption is designed to reveal your information, not hide it, Comrade!
Two Statements:
Ship owners are realizing bigger ships aren't better than smaller ships.
Ship owners continue to prefer to buy bigger ships rather than smaller ships.
Assuming we are talking about the same "ship owners", one of these two statements isn't true. One of them is an empirical statement which demonstrates ship owner revealed actual preferences and the other one is a quote from the piece's author which seems inline with their own expressed opinion about bigger ship=bad. Which one do you think is more likely to be accurate?
See, it can be fun to analyze even idiotic media pieces...
The more you personally know about the details of a media story, usually the less accurate you'll think the story is. This also applies to media stories you don't know as much about, just many people don't realize it when it's not slapping them in the face.
What's funny about your ignorance is that in your projected reality, I'm not part Cherokee (My Dad is a tribe member, descended from a baby who survived being abandoned on the trail of tears). Back in actual reality, most of the anti-colonialist ideologues are twenty- or thirty-something college graduates of privilege (of whatever race) who had some left-wing professor spoon feed them their opinion. Hit a little too close to home for you?
Why is it that to the US left, everything has to be about race and group identity politics? It's as if they don't consider people able to think for themselves and make decisions for themselves, but insist everyone must be ruled by a master and conform to group opinion.
If you don't know anything about someone's actual life and background, then it's pretty ignorant/stereotypical to make such broad assumptions. But then, that sort of racism is what we've come to expect from people who spout about "privilege" and have the idea that where you were born determines your life story and choices. It's people like you and the ideas you support who've turned a once proud people into miserable rez dwellers.
Russia had corruption issues going from the Soviet Union to Not Soviet Union, but the public within a year or two went from massive food shortages to being able to eat again, so I'm pretty sure they don't see it as that much of a disaster. The biggest corruption issue is that the pre-change elites running everything behind the scenes are pretty much the same post-change elites running everything behind the scenes. That differs markedly from the African post-colonial experience where they kicked out the colonial elites and put power in the hands of locals who didn't have it before. In a similar fashion, the US and Canada also had pretty much the same elite groups running things locally before and afterwards (especially in Canada). So maybe that made a big difference?
From the Yale Economic Review:
Who writes the rules for the sub-committee? For the whole legislature? Who grants exceptions to them, or can change them?
That's right, the members and their leadership and their rules committee.
It's not like the process is embedded in the NY State Constitution, other than to give the legislature control over their own rules and procedures. You can't blame "the rules" in order to avoid blaming the people who make and control "the rules".
Maybe it's a good bill, maybe it's a bad one, but it wasn't passed because the members of the legislature decided not to pass it.
The problem is that in their hubris, they forgot to allow for coding errors in "exactly as programmed". So yeah, it's working exactly as programmed, just not as intended by the programmer. :)
Also, this isn't a heist, because nothing was stolen. It's more of a counterfeiting operation, if I understand the commentary correctly. Someone took advantage of a recursive bug and an anti-pattern of calling recursive code before updating values and essentially created more 33% more Ether than previously existed out of thin air. Or at least will, as it actually won't complete for almost another month (so they got at least some time limits right to prevent exposure).
It's obviously not what was intended by the programmers, so there is an argument for "fixing" the code bug before the defect can be actually taken advantage of, but I can see the argument for letting it stand as a cost to the people who bet on their coding ability as a natural consequence for being wrong.
Without a fix for at least the going forward code (the issue still exists until voted to be changed), it's hard to see how the system will be viable for actual use anymore, so I suspect the miners will decide to run a fixed version of the code.
Leave it to the Huffington Post to somehow blame lobbyists without blaming the people they lobby. The only way they "gum up the proceedings" is by their influence with the leaders in the legislature, who are the ones who actually control the proceedings.
A bill doesn't get a vote in the legislature because not enough of the right members wanted to vote on it (for a variety of reasons, I'm sure). You can't blame that strictly on the lobbyists without removing the responsibility of the members of the NY State Assembly and Senate for what they decide to vote and pass.
If the blame is colonization, then how do you account for the many African countries which were worse off before becoming a colony, better off while they were colonies and suddenly took a massive turn for the worse after they gained independence?
Wouldn't that indicate colonization was a positive benefit to those countries, not the cause of all their problems? Or are you one of those people who don't let facts get in the way of your professor's ideology?
BTW, the United States and Canada were both colonies for a long time. Why don't they suffer similar long term ill effects of "colonization"?
A couple of points:
1. I'm not and have never been a member of the Libertarian Party. So your comment about it seems pretty irrelevant to this conversation, just like the LP generally is in elections.
2. Just because you don't see any difference in scenarios, doesn't mean no one else does. As previously stated, without a single monopoly government provider running everything, you might have an opportunity for a bit of freedom. Competition in services has improved everything it's been allowed to and increased wealth in the economically "free-er" nations tremendously over time. Why not give that a try somewhere for government services as well? If the government ran farms and grocery stores as a civil service monopoly, you'd be protesting and asking "How will people get food?" if someone suggested maybe they didn't need to have a government monopoly on that service. This has literally happened in other countries.
What you're talking about is the Republican Liberty Caucus. Small l-libertarian, as opposed to the Libertarian Party. Actually has Congressional supporters, etc..., as opposed to only a couple of local school board members and a dog catcher or something like that.
And with the present government, Obama or Hillary or Trump get to be the "strong man with big stick" and have a massive bureaucratic apparatus take everything they may desire from you?
I'm not seeing a huge difference here in your scenarios. At least without a single monopoly government provider running everything, you might have an opportunity for a bit of freedom.
If they put their hands over their eyes, they can pretend the big bad scary guns don't exist.
These are the same people who blame white Christian Republican culture when a Democrat gay Muslim shoots up a gay night club, so I'm not sure logic or facts are going to weigh very heavily here....
If there is all this wasted opportunity, why you (or a solar maker, or whoever else) started a business installing them on the commercial roofs to sell power? I'm sure they'd be happy to lease you the space.
Short answer... it's because even if you did, it'd still cost more than electricity from the utility company in virtually all of the U.S., which would make your investment worthless as only a way to lose money by selling below your costs.
You say that as if you don't still need a roof if you have solar panels. And as if there are no additional costs.
If you mean solar shingles, there's plenty of reasons the overwhelming majority of solar installations don't use them.
Mostly for the same reason commercial buildings aren't covered in rooftop gardens in order to supply food to the cafeteria downstairs. It doesn't make any sense to the people who actually have to allocate their scarce resources toward accomplishing useful things.
When you say economic hurdles, what you really mean is "This doesn't make any financial sense to do, and it would cause a massive waste of resources (as shown by the resource costs vs. benefits), but I think people should maybe do it anyway." Wishful thinking doesn't make reality go away.
I'm guessing you don't routinely literally throw your cash into the garbage can, so on at least some level you can understand the desire for people to not waste their resources on things which make no economic sense for them to do. Not even if there was a fashion trend to do it.