It's more dangerous, yes, but the same thing still applies. It's like playing poker. You don't sit down at a table without a bank roll of sufficient size to absorb some bad luck, because even the best players will have the odds against them in a hand and end up with some bad beats.
In the end, though, as long as you have a reasonable table and you play well, you will ultimately make a profit, even if you get wiped out on a few hands.
Same thing works goes for VC. You can't sponsor the next Facebook unless you're willing to risk wiping out on some bad ideas first. That's why you make sure you can finance 9 failed companies for every one success you expect,
Nevertheless, in the end, the odds only work in your favor if you are playing well and making correct decisions. If you have a 30% chance of making a play at the start, but you have no idea when the odds have changed and keep playing as if you still have a winning hand, you're going to lose and keep losing.
What this guy is saying is that instead of them making 10 high risk bets based on good strategy and information, and getting the expected unfavorable, but still overall lucrative odds, the VCs are just making obviously bad decisions, doubling down on bad bets, and assuming that it's all about luck and throwing around money in the general vicinity of Silicon Valley.
I was wondering what period of time Trump was going to take us back to, when America was truly great, and I realized that you just hit it on the head.
The right to keep and bear drones, shall not be infringed. When we lost the right to drink and drone, we really did enter a dark age of government overreach. And just think of if it was an uninsured illegal alien who was driving that drone. Won't somebody think of the children?
I don't know. The real threat of the real Beer Hall Putsch was that the attack was actually on the government and was an actual coup attempt.
If they start shooting at the Republican convention, the candidates will be shuffled out the back, the delegates will scatter, and the Republican national committee will head over to the upscale club down the street with their reserved smoke filled back room, and pick the candidate who won't be Donald Trump. They'll suggest that clearly Trump cannot be their candidate because of the disruption of the convention, and they'd push Cruz forward while holding their nose.
They have to know that they have no chance of winning a national election now. Now it is just about a fight over who gets to control the future of the Republican party.
There are some scenarios where everyone pretty much relies on the other person being rational.
Yes, if you see someone texting that looks like they are about to step out in front of you, you stop or try to avoid them.
If some idiot suddenly steps out into an road from between two cars or something, and you don't see them in time, and they didn't register your presence because they were staring down at a phone... well that person is at fault.
You know, you'd think that people really aren't that stupid, but every day I see people piled up in traffic behind someone who is talking on the phone, driving in the passing lane, and won't yield, or they're too distracted to even realize they should be yielding. And I mean, if you have that expensive fucking Samsung or iPhone, you can afford a fucking headset. I know that when I take calls in the car, I can just smack a button to pick up a call and talk. It's not like you have to be rich to have handsfree these days.
Just an example of how things are going. It's gotten to the point that now when I come back from lunch at the cafe, there is this girl I see every so often who is staring at her phone while she's in motion and has her head phones on as if no one else is around. What makes this remarkable is that she's walking *backwards* while doing this. That's right, she is walking backwards and isn't even trying to see what is behind her. She sort of stays close to the wall, which the reason I suppose she mostly stays upright, but when she reaches an intersection she sort of stumbles a little bit until she figures out her bearings and then keeps right walking backwards. Mind you, it is a little challenging to walk *forward* while staring intently at a device, let alone in reverse. I have not yet been able to figure out what the fuck she is doing. I am starting to look for hidden cameras which are clearly there because this has to be a joke.
People can be fucking stupid, and people staring at phones instead of concentrating on walking can get themselves killed and get a whole heap of trouble heaped on some poor driver somewhere who just never saw it coming. I don't think you should mow people like that down, but they are clearly in the running for a Darwin Award-themed reality show.
Using the firehose method of selecting articles can cause dupes because two different groups of people can vote up two different copies of the same article which could look different based on different headline or summary text.
I suppose there is more that editors could do to prevent that from happening, but it isn't like they're writing the stories themselves, forgetting about them, and then writing the same story the next day.
This is a news aggregation site. I think dupes are as funny as the next person, but their existence in this situation does not really bother me all that much. I just notice that it was the same story and move on.
Thing is, I bet that the lottery companies know the average win rate of the tickets per machine. So almost any deviation from that percentage would have been a yellow flag. I suppose the perpetrators could have kept it below the level at which the lottery bothers to investigate, but it seems to me that the way this bug works would have made the times that the tickets were dispensed within also very suspicious.
Together, a cross reference of daily reports on winning percentages and winnings dispensed within say 60 minutes of one another could have found this really quickly.
So, the amount of winnings that they could have walked away could have been a lot less than even a non-greedy person would have taken. Messing with equipment that is computerized and which sends back data to a home office for analysis is always a really bad idea unless you know exactly what the tolerances are for investigation. It's way too easy to develop alarms on specific behaviors which can place a report in someone's inbox for investigation when they come into the office the morning after the incident happened.
Am I the only one who thinks that holograms as communication would be really cool, but haven't quite figured out how talking to the image of someone else is somehow better than just talking to them on the phone. Even with video cameras I can sort of point it at my head so I can be videoconferencing in gym shorts and no one will care. What does someone get out of me standing there?
You're right that it is more rare to see follow up here, but I have seen people who have gone through poster histories and called them out on things. There is certainly the capability to do so.
I do think that it is less of an issue because we're not really "friends" or linked somehow. We're random people who happen to post on the same board. If you call me a jackass, that doesn't affect my daily life.
If you called someone a "jackass" on FB, you probably know that person outside of FB and they may be a friend, co-worker, relative or acquaintance who is in your social circle, and even if they aren't, someone in your social circle probably saw you do it.
That's also where the comparisons and contrasts can bring on depression. They see these people they know having "great lives" or travelling to tropical locations, or having cute pictures with significant others or something, and feel they are missing out. This forces people who don't have those things to confront those things. I think it is good sometimes to see that there are things that people do, but I think it could be really depressing to see all of that for people who lack the skills or resources to get out there and do all the same things.
There is also sometimes the deceptive nature of a life presented by FB or Instagram, because it is always going to show our lives the way we want it to be shown, so it is not entirely clear to others that we aren't that way all the time, instead of in a posed moment.
Never been a big fan of social networks for that reason. I'm sort of interested in what people are doing, but it tends to come off like posturing sometimes. Look at how smart or clever my kid is, or look at how hot I look in this perfectly posed swimsuit photo, or here's my witty quote that I just reposted from the last 300 people who already posted it (God save me from all the people posting that same fucking Steve Jobs quote about smart people about once a day on LinkedIn).
A designer is someone who understands the requirements well enough so that they get translated into reality. That can benefit from being a very experienced coder, but there are many cases where you need to know more than simply how to code. Design and code are complimentary, but different skills. I don't think you have to be a coder to be a designer, although I think you will be better off if you have a designer who is a good coder as well. What should happen is that one picks the hybrid over the dedicated designer unless the hybrid individual actually has higher design skills than the dedicated designer. Design is too important to leave in the hands of someone who is merely a gifted coder.
I suspect they're trying to make lemonade out of lemons.
The exclusion zone could probably be repopulated to some degree, but its never going to be popular. You'll get a lot more bang for your buck if you throw more waste there and have the added benefit that most people will shrug and say that it was already a death zone anyway, so why not?
Of course, most of it is not a death zone, certainly not after almost 30 years, but with the nuclear fears out there, you're more likely to see people erring on the side of fear, rather than on the side of being mad that someone has created a waste dump in an otherwise inhabitable place.
Having all that land sit there as nothing but a nature reserve is probably causing a country like Ukraine to get itchy. A pretty nature reserve that size is something that would be an extravagant luxury for their country. The fact that it was forced on them doesn't really change that. They could use the business, and if they're going to be handicapped by a fear of it being a death zone, they might as well use it as a death zone.
I still think that was overwrought. The Chancellor of fucking Germany is surprised that people are trying to spy on her? Bitch, please.
She might be pissed that her security team couldn't stop it, but she knows full well that everyone and their grandmother is trying to spy on her, including but not limited to her enemies, her allies, and people who just want to know what is going on. And if you think Germany isn't trying to get detailed information on what Obama is doing, you're deluded.
The only difference between enemies and allies spying on you is that the enemies will use it to your deteriment, while your allies might not.
Snowden revealing what any person paying attention already knew doesn't mean that conspiracy theorists are right, it just means that most of the population isn't paying attention to what is in front of their nose and are surprised when someone points it out to them.
I'm not dismissing it as either ignorance or stupidity, or at least no more of it than anyone else is suffering right now. What I am saying is that perhaps they need to step forward and make some things happen for themselves instead of lock-step voting for Democrats. I don't think they're stupid, just becoming calcified into their position and unable to see alternatives because they've been encouraged to see Republicans as being opposed to them. That's inertia, and anyone can suffer from it.
The Republicans, God bless them, have become the party of not having a clue about who or what black people are. Most of that is honestly due to them completely losing touch with the black population because the black population has been written off by them. Unfortunately, by not holding the Democrats and their programs responsible for failure, the black population is not helping with that process either.
I think the blacks would be better off if they stepped forward and found common cause with another party. If Trump has proven one thing, it's that you can break the establishment if you have the resources, and the black population is not completely powerless politically. Blacks might be better off if they became a swing bloc, and not a safe bloc for the Democrats. It's not like blacks, in general, are against everything that the Republicans are selling. Blacks tend to be very socially conservative and religious. Of course, that has been segregated into separate churches and such from the whites, but there is common cause to be had.
I think the black population needs to step back and take stock and realize that while what has happened to them is extremely unfair, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about changing that. And it isn't going to happen by segregating themselves into one party who gives them the occasional handout any more than being segregated in any other way is going to help.
If I was a Republican candidate, I'd walk straight up to whatever black voters I could get who would listen and tell them, "I'm not going to add any special affirmative action programs or new programs to throw money at the problems that are being had in inner cities and poorer areas. I will not, however, cut programs people do count on just because they offend my sensibilities. I will maintain what does exist and see if I can make it more efficient and more effective.
On the positive side, what I am going to do is mercilessly enforce the laws we do have on the books already to ensure that we are holding businesses, school districts, and municipalities responsible for not allowing people to not have equal opportunity under the law. Ultimately, though, nothing is going to change without changing attitudes, and for that I need your help."
I will say this. I disagree with Trump and will not be voting for him.
However, this has been wrought by the mistreatment of people by both parties. They've felt that they had a lock on them so long that they were now voting blocs to be moved like chess pieces and controlled using Big Data triangulation of just the right issues. And that's the way it turned out with Obama/Romney.
What is more, on one hand, the Republicans tend to like to obstruct, and get nothing done, they are generally assholes, and many are about as close to Mr. Burns as you can be without being a yellow cartoon character.
On the other hand, you have people in the so-called progressive side working to silence what is not politically correct and deriding a significant portion of the population as a bunch of fly-over state hicks who burn crosses in their front yard and hate everyone. Whether or not that is true, you've now got them mad enough so they're now just going with it. I can't get behind their frothing at the mouth at the Trump rallies, but I can see how it must be cathartic for them.
Make no mistake, the Republicans are looking at a serious upheaval and possible dissolution, but the Democrats are oddly enough not too far behind, if Bernie Sanders is any indication. I actually think that the Black vote that keeps electing Clintons is going to realize that they are getting very little but lip service and affirmative action for their loyalty. Neither one of those things is ending racism or inner city problem, and I'd argue that affirmative action makes it worse in some cases. Four or eight years of Clinton after eight years of Obama had better change their fortunes, or you could see a real problem for the Democrats too.
I am not sure that it wouldn't go down that way. If I am listening to public radio, it's honestly to listen to a few flagship shows and NPR. I don't need to listen to a local station to hear classical radio these days.
I mean, I sure as heck don't listen to Clear Channel stations 1, 2, and 3 for pop anymore either, so it's not like I am discriminating against public radio. When your big draw is NPR and people can get NPR without you, then NPR might be doing better for it, but the local stations are screwed.
Yes. If they're going to pay, they want to do so nice and quiet-like. Otherwise, they're going to have their shit locked up again by some other group the day after they unlock it.
For my part, I do hope they have some clever scheme behind the scenes here, because this PR is a bad idea for them in their predicament. It's not like their security has been fixed this quickly.
I see where you are coming from, but I fail to see the point of punishing someone for taking an action that might free their relative or friend from a kidnapper who the government is clearly unable to prevent from operating.
It feels very wrong that the only person who managed to save the kidnapped person from being killed might be the only one who would be going to jail.
Yes, let the cops do their job. However, if the cops fuck up, or they can't protect you, then you do what you need to do.
Spear phishing attacks can be scarily professional these days. There are always better ways to do things with security, and many ways to mitigate those threats, but it is often less about what tools they use, and more often about what policies that they can force their users and admins to adhere to. If hacking organizations take their time, watch the organization carefully and develop a plan before executing their extortion action, they may well be so ingrained in your systems that they are watching your security team talking to each other by the time the hackers make their demands.
Air gapping can protect certain systems from attack, but there is plenty of stuff that you can't as easily segment which is important to the operation of the hospital.
Not necessarily. These criminals want to provide good "service" to their "customers". If it gets out that this sort of extortion payment has no effect on getting back their data, no one will pay it and they will lose their "business".
That doesn't prevent "me too" organizations from walking in and hacking them as well, of course.
And be aware that these organizations are often extremely professional these days, using very sophisticated spear phishing attacks and other means. It is increasingly less true that this is simply due to someone clicking on a link to a viagra spam email. They're making very concerted efforts to learn organizational charts and watching emails to ensure that they send their emails as people who you'd usually trust to send you a link.
Here's a long read about how these pro hacker outfits are using spear phishing and sophisticated attacks that could be pretty scary even to a place that takes security fairly seriously. If they fell prey to something like that, they wouldn't have to be idiots.
Yup, this is all buzzwords. A huge multinational corporation isn't a startup by definition. They may be able to *fund* startups, but they are nothing like a startup, and in many ways, I don't know why they'd want to be one. Samsung is a large, possibly bloated, but stable going concern. Why do they want to turn into a edgy, over-valued, under-revenued, wanna-be?
Yeah, startups are interesting places to work, but I don't see why a corporation would want to turn into one. Nine out of ten startups fail. Are they trying to work at adding more failure to their business model? Just fund a startup and stay out of its way, or acquire some promising startups after you do sufficient due diligence on them and only if understand their role in your business plan.
WTF are they using mainframe programmer stats for? Hell, the people in that field probably started in it when women were expected to stay at home and clean the house. Of course, they will have fewer and lower paid women in that field. Are they going to next point at the wide earnings gap between men and women in the 1950's and call that a new development?
Like anything that happens in the corrupt UK or US, the only thing Sarao is guilty of is not already being a wealthy insider. Algorithmic traders do this exact thing a trillion times every trading day. Banks did soo much worse.. and yet none of the banking executives are sitting in jail.
Algorithmic traders have yet to wipe off one trillion dollars and cause a 1000 point stock market crash. If they do, I would argue they would have done the same as this person and might well get a similar set of charges.
Be aware that skating close to the line, like these traders do, and going over the line, like this person did, are probably not actions that are too far apart in terms of what they did, but what matters is the result, and not how close you are to one another.
If you drive really fast on a road, you may or may not be speeding, depending on the road. Unless you're doing a ridiculous amount of speed, no one is going to suggest you spend 20 year in jail for that infraction.
However, if you drive really fast and and then lose control and drive as little as a meter off the road, causing you to hit someone walking in the shoulder, you have incurred a world of criminal charges upon yourself. This is no different. We don't throw people in jail for doing something that could cause a crime, we throw them in jail for proving their recklessness by actually screwing something up.
So, no, this is not the same thing. You're right to be wary of the influence of high speed traders, but you can be sure that they put effort an in to keep it on this side of the law. And that does matter. You can't call someone who obeys the law, even if barely, a criminal, or the objectivity of the law itself disappears. In that case, the issue isn't criminal, it is political. We need to generate legislation to make HST or AT practices illegal, or at least considerably more regulated.
What HST or AT practices should not take away from is the gravity of the crime that this person is accused of. He did the equivalent of hitting someone with an out of control vehicle, and he needs to be made an example of, irrespective of the existence of similar practices in HST.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more dangerous, yes, but the same thing still applies. It's like playing poker. You don't sit down at a table without a bank roll of sufficient size to absorb some bad luck, because even the best players will have the odds against them in a hand and end up with some bad beats.
In the end, though, as long as you have a reasonable table and you play well, you will ultimately make a profit, even if you get wiped out on a few hands.
Same thing works goes for VC. You can't sponsor the next Facebook unless you're willing to risk wiping out on some bad ideas first. That's why you make sure you can finance 9 failed companies for every one success you expect,
Nevertheless, in the end, the odds only work in your favor if you are playing well and making correct decisions. If you have a 30% chance of making a play at the start, but you have no idea when the odds have changed and keep playing as if you still have a winning hand, you're going to lose and keep losing.
What this guy is saying is that instead of them making 10 high risk bets based on good strategy and information, and getting the expected unfavorable, but still overall lucrative odds, the VCs are just making obviously bad decisions, doubling down on bad bets, and assuming that it's all about luck and throwing around money in the general vicinity of Silicon Valley.
I still hate Infogrames for the shitfest they made out of MOO3.
And realize who is really running your governments.
The people with money and connections.
Just like every other government in the world. Or did you think there was another option?
I was wondering what period of time Trump was going to take us back to, when America was truly great, and I realized that you just hit it on the head.
The right to keep and bear drones, shall not be infringed. When we lost the right to drink and drone, we really did enter a dark age of government overreach. And just think of if it was an uninsured illegal alien who was driving that drone. Won't somebody think of the children?
I don't know. The real threat of the real Beer Hall Putsch was that the attack was actually on the government and was an actual coup attempt.
If they start shooting at the Republican convention, the candidates will be shuffled out the back, the delegates will scatter, and the Republican national committee will head over to the upscale club down the street with their reserved smoke filled back room, and pick the candidate who won't be Donald Trump. They'll suggest that clearly Trump cannot be their candidate because of the disruption of the convention, and they'd push Cruz forward while holding their nose.
They have to know that they have no chance of winning a national election now. Now it is just about a fight over who gets to control the future of the Republican party.
There are some scenarios where everyone pretty much relies on the other person being rational.
Yes, if you see someone texting that looks like they are about to step out in front of you, you stop or try to avoid them.
If some idiot suddenly steps out into an road from between two cars or something, and you don't see them in time, and they didn't register your presence because they were staring down at a phone... well that person is at fault.
You know, you'd think that people really aren't that stupid, but every day I see people piled up in traffic behind someone who is talking on the phone, driving in the passing lane, and won't yield, or they're too distracted to even realize they should be yielding. And I mean, if you have that expensive fucking Samsung or iPhone, you can afford a fucking headset. I know that when I take calls in the car, I can just smack a button to pick up a call and talk. It's not like you have to be rich to have handsfree these days.
Just an example of how things are going. It's gotten to the point that now when I come back from lunch at the cafe, there is this girl I see every so often who is staring at her phone while she's in motion and has her head phones on as if no one else is around. What makes this remarkable is that she's walking *backwards* while doing this. That's right, she is walking backwards and isn't even trying to see what is behind her. She sort of stays close to the wall, which the reason I suppose she mostly stays upright, but when she reaches an intersection she sort of stumbles a little bit until she figures out her bearings and then keeps right walking backwards. Mind you, it is a little challenging to walk *forward* while staring intently at a device, let alone in reverse. I have not yet been able to figure out what the fuck she is doing. I am starting to look for hidden cameras which are clearly there because this has to be a joke.
People can be fucking stupid, and people staring at phones instead of concentrating on walking can get themselves killed and get a whole heap of trouble heaped on some poor driver somewhere who just never saw it coming. I don't think you should mow people like that down, but they are clearly in the running for a Darwin Award-themed reality show.
Using the firehose method of selecting articles can cause dupes because two different groups of people can vote up two different copies of the same article which could look different based on different headline or summary text.
I suppose there is more that editors could do to prevent that from happening, but it isn't like they're writing the stories themselves, forgetting about them, and then writing the same story the next day.
This is a news aggregation site. I think dupes are as funny as the next person, but their existence in this situation does not really bother me all that much. I just notice that it was the same story and move on.
Thing is, I bet that the lottery companies know the average win rate of the tickets per machine. So almost any deviation from that percentage would have been a yellow flag. I suppose the perpetrators could have kept it below the level at which the lottery bothers to investigate, but it seems to me that the way this bug works would have made the times that the tickets were dispensed within also very suspicious.
Together, a cross reference of daily reports on winning percentages and winnings dispensed within say 60 minutes of one another could have found this really quickly.
So, the amount of winnings that they could have walked away could have been a lot less than even a non-greedy person would have taken. Messing with equipment that is computerized and which sends back data to a home office for analysis is always a really bad idea unless you know exactly what the tolerances are for investigation. It's way too easy to develop alarms on specific behaviors which can place a report in someone's inbox for investigation when they come into the office the morning after the incident happened.
Am I the only one who thinks that holograms as communication would be really cool, but haven't quite figured out how talking to the image of someone else is somehow better than just talking to them on the phone. Even with video cameras I can sort of point it at my head so I can be videoconferencing in gym shorts and no one will care. What does someone get out of me standing there?
You're right that it is more rare to see follow up here, but I have seen people who have gone through poster histories and called them out on things. There is certainly the capability to do so.
I do think that it is less of an issue because we're not really "friends" or linked somehow. We're random people who happen to post on the same board. If you call me a jackass, that doesn't affect my daily life.
If you called someone a "jackass" on FB, you probably know that person outside of FB and they may be a friend, co-worker, relative or acquaintance who is in your social circle, and even if they aren't, someone in your social circle probably saw you do it.
That's also where the comparisons and contrasts can bring on depression. They see these people they know having "great lives" or travelling to tropical locations, or having cute pictures with significant others or something, and feel they are missing out. This forces people who don't have those things to confront those things. I think it is good sometimes to see that there are things that people do, but I think it could be really depressing to see all of that for people who lack the skills or resources to get out there and do all the same things.
There is also sometimes the deceptive nature of a life presented by FB or Instagram, because it is always going to show our lives the way we want it to be shown, so it is not entirely clear to others that we aren't that way all the time, instead of in a posed moment.
Never been a big fan of social networks for that reason. I'm sort of interested in what people are doing, but it tends to come off like posturing sometimes. Look at how smart or clever my kid is, or look at how hot I look in this perfectly posed swimsuit photo, or here's my witty quote that I just reposted from the last 300 people who already posted it (God save me from all the people posting that same fucking Steve Jobs quote about smart people about once a day on LinkedIn).
A designer is someone who understands the requirements well enough so that they get translated into reality. That can benefit from being a very experienced coder, but there are many cases where you need to know more than simply how to code. Design and code are complimentary, but different skills. I don't think you have to be a coder to be a designer, although I think you will be better off if you have a designer who is a good coder as well. What should happen is that one picks the hybrid over the dedicated designer unless the hybrid individual actually has higher design skills than the dedicated designer. Design is too important to leave in the hands of someone who is merely a gifted coder.
I suspect they're trying to make lemonade out of lemons.
The exclusion zone could probably be repopulated to some degree, but its never going to be popular. You'll get a lot more bang for your buck if you throw more waste there and have the added benefit that most people will shrug and say that it was already a death zone anyway, so why not?
Of course, most of it is not a death zone, certainly not after almost 30 years, but with the nuclear fears out there, you're more likely to see people erring on the side of fear, rather than on the side of being mad that someone has created a waste dump in an otherwise inhabitable place.
Having all that land sit there as nothing but a nature reserve is probably causing a country like Ukraine to get itchy. A pretty nature reserve that size is something that would be an extravagant luxury for their country. The fact that it was forced on them doesn't really change that. They could use the business, and if they're going to be handicapped by a fear of it being a death zone, they might as well use it as a death zone.
I still think that was overwrought. The Chancellor of fucking Germany is surprised that people are trying to spy on her? Bitch, please.
She might be pissed that her security team couldn't stop it, but she knows full well that everyone and their grandmother is trying to spy on her, including but not limited to her enemies, her allies, and people who just want to know what is going on. And if you think Germany isn't trying to get detailed information on what Obama is doing, you're deluded.
The only difference between enemies and allies spying on you is that the enemies will use it to your deteriment, while your allies might not.
No, they're still crazy.
Snowden revealing what any person paying attention already knew doesn't mean that conspiracy theorists are right, it just means that most of the population isn't paying attention to what is in front of their nose and are surprised when someone points it out to them.
China is not currently the largest economy in the world, although it is certainly a contender. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, please.
I'm not dismissing it as either ignorance or stupidity, or at least no more of it than anyone else is suffering right now. What I am saying is that perhaps they need to step forward and make some things happen for themselves instead of lock-step voting for Democrats. I don't think they're stupid, just becoming calcified into their position and unable to see alternatives because they've been encouraged to see Republicans as being opposed to them. That's inertia, and anyone can suffer from it.
The Republicans, God bless them, have become the party of not having a clue about who or what black people are. Most of that is honestly due to them completely losing touch with the black population because the black population has been written off by them. Unfortunately, by not holding the Democrats and their programs responsible for failure, the black population is not helping with that process either.
I think the blacks would be better off if they stepped forward and found common cause with another party. If Trump has proven one thing, it's that you can break the establishment if you have the resources, and the black population is not completely powerless politically. Blacks might be better off if they became a swing bloc, and not a safe bloc for the Democrats. It's not like blacks, in general, are against everything that the Republicans are selling. Blacks tend to be very socially conservative and religious. Of course, that has been segregated into separate churches and such from the whites, but there is common cause to be had.
I think the black population needs to step back and take stock and realize that while what has happened to them is extremely unfair, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about changing that. And it isn't going to happen by segregating themselves into one party who gives them the occasional handout any more than being segregated in any other way is going to help.
If I was a Republican candidate, I'd walk straight up to whatever black voters I could get who would listen and tell them, "I'm not going to add any special affirmative action programs or new programs to throw money at the problems that are being had in inner cities and poorer areas. I will not, however, cut programs people do count on just because they offend my sensibilities. I will maintain what does exist and see if I can make it more efficient and more effective.
On the positive side, what I am going to do is mercilessly enforce the laws we do have on the books already to ensure that we are holding businesses, school districts, and municipalities responsible for not allowing people to not have equal opportunity under the law. Ultimately, though, nothing is going to change without changing attitudes, and for that I need your help."
I will say this. I disagree with Trump and will not be voting for him.
However, this has been wrought by the mistreatment of people by both parties. They've felt that they had a lock on them so long that they were now voting blocs to be moved like chess pieces and controlled using Big Data triangulation of just the right issues. And that's the way it turned out with Obama/Romney.
What is more, on one hand, the Republicans tend to like to obstruct, and get nothing done, they are generally assholes, and many are about as close to Mr. Burns as you can be without being a yellow cartoon character.
On the other hand, you have people in the so-called progressive side working to silence what is not politically correct and deriding a significant portion of the population as a bunch of fly-over state hicks who burn crosses in their front yard and hate everyone. Whether or not that is true, you've now got them mad enough so they're now just going with it. I can't get behind their frothing at the mouth at the Trump rallies, but I can see how it must be cathartic for them.
Make no mistake, the Republicans are looking at a serious upheaval and possible dissolution, but the Democrats are oddly enough not too far behind, if Bernie Sanders is any indication. I actually think that the Black vote that keeps electing Clintons is going to realize that they are getting very little but lip service and affirmative action for their loyalty. Neither one of those things is ending racism or inner city problem, and I'd argue that affirmative action makes it worse in some cases. Four or eight years of Clinton after eight years of Obama had better change their fortunes, or you could see a real problem for the Democrats too.
I am not sure that it wouldn't go down that way. If I am listening to public radio, it's honestly to listen to a few flagship shows and NPR. I don't need to listen to a local station to hear classical radio these days.
I mean, I sure as heck don't listen to Clear Channel stations 1, 2, and 3 for pop anymore either, so it's not like I am discriminating against public radio. When your big draw is NPR and people can get NPR without you, then NPR might be doing better for it, but the local stations are screwed.
Yes. If they're going to pay, they want to do so nice and quiet-like. Otherwise, they're going to have their shit locked up again by some other group the day after they unlock it.
For my part, I do hope they have some clever scheme behind the scenes here, because this PR is a bad idea for them in their predicament. It's not like their security has been fixed this quickly.
I see where you are coming from, but I fail to see the point of punishing someone for taking an action that might free their relative or friend from a kidnapper who the government is clearly unable to prevent from operating.
It feels very wrong that the only person who managed to save the kidnapped person from being killed might be the only one who would be going to jail.
Yes, let the cops do their job. However, if the cops fuck up, or they can't protect you, then you do what you need to do.
Spear phishing attacks can be scarily professional these days. There are always better ways to do things with security, and many ways to mitigate those threats, but it is often less about what tools they use, and more often about what policies that they can force their users and admins to adhere to. If hacking organizations take their time, watch the organization carefully and develop a plan before executing their extortion action, they may well be so ingrained in your systems that they are watching your security team talking to each other by the time the hackers make their demands.
Air gapping can protect certain systems from attack, but there is plenty of stuff that you can't as easily segment which is important to the operation of the hospital.
Not necessarily. These criminals want to provide good "service" to their "customers". If it gets out that this sort of extortion payment has no effect on getting back their data, no one will pay it and they will lose their "business".
That doesn't prevent "me too" organizations from walking in and hacking them as well, of course.
And be aware that these organizations are often extremely professional these days, using very sophisticated spear phishing attacks and other means. It is increasingly less true that this is simply due to someone clicking on a link to a viagra spam email. They're making very concerted efforts to learn organizational charts and watching emails to ensure that they send their emails as people who you'd usually trust to send you a link.
Here's a long read about how these pro hacker outfits are using spear phishing and sophisticated attacks that could be pretty scary even to a place that takes security fairly seriously. If they fell prey to something like that, they wouldn't have to be idiots.
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...
Yup, this is all buzzwords. A huge multinational corporation isn't a startup by definition. They may be able to *fund* startups, but they are nothing like a startup, and in many ways, I don't know why they'd want to be one. Samsung is a large, possibly bloated, but stable going concern. Why do they want to turn into a edgy, over-valued, under-revenued, wanna-be?
Yeah, startups are interesting places to work, but I don't see why a corporation would want to turn into one. Nine out of ten startups fail. Are they trying to work at adding more failure to their business model? Just fund a startup and stay out of its way, or acquire some promising startups after you do sufficient due diligence on them and only if understand their role in your business plan.
WTF are they using mainframe programmer stats for? Hell, the people in that field probably started in it when women were expected to stay at home and clean the house. Of course, they will have fewer and lower paid women in that field. Are they going to next point at the wide earnings gap between men and women in the 1950's and call that a new development?
Like anything that happens in the corrupt UK or US, the only thing Sarao is guilty of is not already being a wealthy insider. Algorithmic traders do this exact thing a trillion times every trading day. Banks did soo much worse.. and yet none of the banking executives are sitting in jail.
Algorithmic traders have yet to wipe off one trillion dollars and cause a 1000 point stock market crash. If they do, I would argue they would have done the same as this person and might well get a similar set of charges.
Be aware that skating close to the line, like these traders do, and going over the line, like this person did, are probably not actions that are too far apart in terms of what they did, but what matters is the result, and not how close you are to one another.
If you drive really fast on a road, you may or may not be speeding, depending on the road. Unless you're doing a ridiculous amount of speed, no one is going to suggest you spend 20 year in jail for that infraction.
However, if you drive really fast and and then lose control and drive as little as a meter off the road, causing you to hit someone walking in the shoulder, you have incurred a world of criminal charges upon yourself. This is no different. We don't throw people in jail for doing something that could cause a crime, we throw them in jail for proving their recklessness by actually screwing something up.
So, no, this is not the same thing. You're right to be wary of the influence of high speed traders, but you can be sure that they put effort an in to keep it on this side of the law. And that does matter. You can't call someone who obeys the law, even if barely, a criminal, or the objectivity of the law itself disappears. In that case, the issue isn't criminal, it is political. We need to generate legislation to make HST or AT practices illegal, or at least considerably more regulated.
What HST or AT practices should not take away from is the gravity of the crime that this person is accused of. He did the equivalent of hitting someone with an out of control vehicle, and he needs to be made an example of, irrespective of the existence of similar practices in HST.