The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Mutex » Mon Apr 03, 2017 1:49 pm UTC

Explosions on the St Petersburg metro, 10 dead
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39481770

At least 10 people have been killed in explosions at underground stations in St Petersburg.

News agencies reported the blasts hit the Sennaya Ploschad and nearby Tekhnologichesky Institut stations in the centre of the city.

Images posted on social media showed a badly-mangled carriage, with a number of casualties nearby.

President Vladimir Putin said all causes, including terrorism, were being investigated.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zamfir » Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:07 pm UTC

AI part split off to separate topic

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9433
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:15 am UTC

I was watching Random U-Tube.
The first nine minutes of the Clip is Dark, Dark, Dark.
People dying in War. Not much Darker than that.

But,..But!
Wait!!

After the 11 minute 30 second mark the Clip is about The Internet!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z74_Vr5U2wI

It This True??
In what way will it impact the lives of xkcd Posters?

Is this something I should concern myself with?
What do You, Internet Savvy Posters, think??

Again; This Clip; After 11 minutes 30 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z74_Vr5U2wI

Everyone's Internet Data is for Sale?
What does it Mean??
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Katsuray
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:45 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Katsuray » Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:36 pm UTC

addams wrote:
...

It This True??
In what way will it impact the lives of xkcd Posters?

Is this something I should concern myself with?
What do You, Internet Savvy Posters, think??

...

Everyone's Internet Data is for Sale?
What does it Mean??


In order: Somewhat; It depends on where they live; Not really?; Its politics; Yes; Purchasable personal profiles.

In the long-term this maintains concerns about privacy and possible infringements on neutrality of service (from both ISPs and whomever buys the data).

Context:
The action of Congress and The President overturns an FCC decision that would have (at a later date) restricted the sale of user data by ISPs. The protections had not yet gone into place and a lot of the issue is symbolic at this point (in contrast to other measures like the ACA).

Some References:
NPR prior to the repeal.

NYTimes on VPNs. (An earlier version of this post talked about the use of VPNs as a means to hinder an ISPs collection ability.)

Chen
Posts: 5277
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:59 pm UTC

I had trouble seeing how this data would be used. Presumably it would be aggregate data that they'd sell to various advertisers. But I'm not sure how the advertisers would use this data to target you with more relevant ads. Right now Google uses tracking cookies to look at various sites/searches and tailors their ads to look at said tracking cookies (very high level, as far as I know). IPs are generally dynamic so I'm not sure what the ISPs would sell to Google and what Google could then use to further tailor their ads to you. They could take the huge aggregate database of user browsing information and try to determine what ads in general they should promote. I'm not sure how anymore direct it could get though.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9433
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:11 pm UTC

Somewhere....
Somewhere, I heard that kind of Data was taken from the U.S. Voter Roles.
Then, e-mail, adverts and News Blocks were digitally Taylor Made for Voters.

We, the academic community, know a great deal about what makes people 'tick'.
It is not only what you are offered, but also, what you will Never see that matters.

(ech..) An Ostrich's Life is not so bad.
We get to avoid the Existential Dread.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:44 pm UTC

addams wrote:It is not only what you are offered, but also, what you will Never see that matters.
And that is the crux of it.

As for how the data can be used; while methods today may be primitive, they are still effective enough to have maybe thrown the election. Computers get better, and the historical data is still there for them to build on. It is not at all a stretch that soon (FSVO "soon") the networked computers will know what you want before you do, and will decide whether to offer it, or make it difficult to get.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9433
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:15 am UTC

A little More Dark Digital News:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... on-account
It seems frightening to me.

The Super Police want Name and Address of the Author.
What will happen to that person Tweeting Facts?

Our Nation was formed to be a place where ideas could stand or collapse on the merit of the idea.
Again; It is not the lies that are punished, but the Truth is hidden and its tellers are to be Punished.

It looks Dark to me.
It looks like SunShine and Roses to you?

I wonder Why we are seeing these things So very differently.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:36 am UTC

addams wrote:It looks like SunShine and Roses to you?
I wonder Why we are seeing these things So very differently.
I can't think of anybody here who sees sunshine and roses in this. It's a clear path to a dictatorship. It must be stopped.

Alas, I don't know how, except to protest, and encourage others to do so too.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Fri Apr 07, 2017 2:55 am UTC

ucim wrote:
addams wrote:It looks like SunShine and Roses to you?
I wonder Why we are seeing these things So very differently.
I can't think of anybody here who sees sunshine and roses in this. It's a clear path to a dictatorship. It must be stopped.

Alas, I don't know how, except to protest, and encourage others to do so too.

Jose

Instead of protesting pointlessly, have you considered volunteering for a politician (knocking on doors, calling phones etc etc)?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9433
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Fri Apr 07, 2017 3:04 am UTC

ucim wrote:
addams wrote:It looks like SunShine and Roses to you?
I wonder Why we are seeing these things So very differently.
I can't think of anybody here who sees sunshine and roses in this. It's a clear path to a dictatorship. It must be stopped.

Alas, I don't know how, except to protest, and encourage others to do so too.

Jose
How?
The people that have educations and Had jobs working for the EPA and BLM are at High Risk for simply stating The Truth in Public.
How is little ole' me suppose to Protest? I have been arrested, was held, I lost a great deal, and I was Threatened with worse.

I made No Difference at all.
I'd get up and protest, now!

Maybe; Every Republican that comes up for a vote gets voted Down!
That might help. But; I worry. Trump said, "It's Rigged!" he may know.

If we have gone That far down the Rabbit Hole;
Then, what we were as a Democracy is History.

The young and their children will never know the Fun and the Work being an active Citizen was.
And; Maybe; Just, maybe, it is Not Too Late. The Young may get involved and save us all. Maybe.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:58 pm UTC

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... is/522630/
Homeowners and landlords are driving inequality.
Inefficient home owners are holding back the economy and manipulating the government for their benefit at the expense of everyone else. Just one more piece of the inequality puzzle, though the bad guys here aren't obviously evil.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5530
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:02 pm UTC

So basically all of those who own capital, or capitalists, are the problem.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:30 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:So basically all of those who own capital, or capitalists, are the problem.

Yes, but now you know what they look like and what they are doing to screw you. Not many people think about the mom protecting her neighborhood as the boot oppressing the lower class.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:02 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Homeowners and landlords are driving inequality.
Inefficient home owners are holding back the economy and manipulating the government for their benefit at the expense of everyone else.
"Inefficient"? That word... it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:15 pm UTC

Gussy it up all you want, it's still a major contributor to the housing crisis and inequality.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4391
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:23 pm UTC

I think he may have been making a semantic point that the homeowners themselves aren't necessarily inefficient.

Yes, poor/inefficient land usage is a major contributor to the housing crisis in certain metropolitan areas.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:38 pm UTC

No, what I mean is that in order to talk about efficiency, you need to specify what the goal is. Efficiency relates to how much {effort} is spent to achieve {goal}. However, since "efficiency" is also a buzzword, it can be used to cast aspersions on whatever it is you don't like. That is what I see happening here.

A homeowner's goal isn't to house as many people as possible. It's to house themselves. It might be your goal to have said homeowner house as many people as densely as they you can put up with, and to that goal a freestanding single-family house with a front yard and a back yard is legitimately inefficient, but that is your goal, not their goal. They just don't want to live that way, and can afford not to have to.

So, calling homeowners inefficient is just a way of saying that you don't like their choice of goal, without having to actually be so selfish-sounding by saying that. Instead, you make them seem selfish by mishandling the numerator and denominator of the efficiency equation.

It's disingenuous.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4391
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:34 pm UTC

Public policy is all about managing the individual interests of people versus collective need. Housing is no different than policy related to taxation or the environment, or health or whatever.

In terms of city planning, neighborhoods of single family homes are pretty terrible though. You need way more infrastructure--more roads to connect all of those homes, longer water/sewer/electrical lines. You tend to get many more cars on the roads, because these areas aren't densely populated enough for good public transit, and amenities tend to be much farther away than people are comfortable walking. As the city grows, you also need more large-scale infrastructure to connect farther outlying areas--larger arterial roads, highways, freeways, etc. The cost of everything from mail delivery to snow removal to water service is significantly higher per capita, or per square foot of land, in these sorts of neighborhoods, and these extra costs are borne by everyone, not just the homeowners themselves. It's inefficient in the very literal sense to achieve the same goal, one way of doing things is much more costly than the other.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:50 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:It's inefficient in the very literal sense to achieve the same goal, one way of doing things is much more costly than the other.
But you have to specify the goal first. The problem isn't that it's inefficient at achieving that goal, but that the homeowner's goal (to live in a nice quiet neighborhood with open space...) is different from the goal of a public policy maker (who doesn't really care about the homeowner's quality of life).

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4391
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:04 pm UTC

I'm talking about public policy. That's literally the first thing I said in the post you quoted.

The article in question is also talking about public policy, namely that certain public policy decisions that promote particular types of dwellings (zoning laws, etc.) are having a detrimental effect on large numbers of people, as well as economies of these particular cities as a whole.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:43 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:It's inefficient in the very literal sense to achieve the same goal, one way of doing things is much more costly than the other.
But you have to specify the goal first. The problem isn't that it's inefficient at achieving that goal, but that the homeowner's goal (to live in a nice quiet neighborhood with open space...) is different from the goal of a public policy maker (who doesn't really care about the homeowner's quality of life).

Jose

Ok, let's say the goal is to increase the number of people housed in those areas that have high demand for housing. How should that happen? Eminent domain and call it a day? Strip the protections by tilting proceedings towards development? Use psychological tricks to whittle down support?

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3758
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Dauric » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:04 am UTC

sardia wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/richard-florida-winner-take-all-new-urban-crisis/522630/
Homeowners and landlords are driving inequality.
Inefficient home owners are holding back the economy and manipulating the government for their benefit at the expense of everyone else. Just one more piece of the inequality puzzle, though the bad guys here aren't obviously evil.


You've clearly latched on to a small portion of the article that you think supports a position you hold, but ignored the rest of the article.

The central thesis is about market forces clustering value in to small areas, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, a few others. It's not looking at broad trends in homeownership across the nation, or indeed around the world. Indeed the article specifically makes a point that the issue is with the high-value "Superstar Cities" by comparing them to housing in other cities.

The issue the article brings up with NIMBYism is regarding so-called "Superstar Cities", places where high-paying jobs tend to cluster, finance in New York or Tech in San Francisco for instance. As the industry for those jobs clusters in those areas, the "superstars" of those industries, the people who can command very high salaries, seek to live in those clusters (it is where the jobs are after all) and by virtue of their earnings can afford high-priced properties. It becomes valuable for landowners (and city officials in charge of taxation) in those clusters to cater to the high-value employees because they're vastly more profitable than to have a similar amount of space for low-wage employees.

NIMBYism (or as the article states it, Neo Urbanist Luddites) enters in to the problem as more high-value workforce enter a marketplace they have more economic power (ie: tax revenue) to demand that the rules for construction in a city adhere to the environment they want to live in (which coincidentally happens to be the existing state of the city they bought their expensive properties in, a purchase made with the expectation that living in the city would bring a certain lifestyle). This in turn raises the prices on property as the effects causing an industry to cluster are still drawing more people to the area (again, the high-paying jobs of an industry clustering in very specific areas), increasing housing demand, raising property values. This effect is actually pretty old news in economics and public policy.

Your typical suburban homeowner isn't part of the problem addressed in the article, they're not in the downtown industry clusters where the high-value employees want to purchase homes and through their respectively higher tax revenue have more influence over the city government in setting zoning restrictions, your typical suburban homeowner isn't making the income necessary to have a disproportionate effect on the local housing market or their municipal zoning decisions. Again the article points out that the housing prices in "Superstar Cities" with the most prominent clustering effect are 18 to 38 times more than in other cities.

If you read the article to the end it further goes on to state that there's a balance that should be struck as both super-low density and super-high density living are -both- unsustainable:

The Atlantic wrote: On the other hand, there is a tipping point where too much density can actually deaden neighborhoods. The world’s most innovative and creative places are not the high-rise canyons and vertical sprawl of Asian cities, but the walkable, mixed-used neighborhoods in San Francisco, New York, and London, filled with mid-rise buildings, factory and warehouse lofts, and the occasional high-rise, which enable constant mixing and interaction.


IE: Pure efficiency in locating people is not the best way to promote prosperity for everyone in the system, but rather a mixed-use philosophy that tries to break up the "Superstar" clustering effect.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:01 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:I'm talking about public policy. That's literally the first thing I said in the post you quoted. [to wit:]Public policy is all about managing the individual interests of people versus collective need. [...] In terms of city planning, neighborhoods of single family homes are pretty terrible though. You need way more infrastructure...
Well, I agree that for the most part, single family homes in a city (an urban environment characterized by high-rise buildings) would be out of place. There is an implied goal in a high-rise residential environment of having rather high population density and having whatever open space there is be publicly shared. Single family homes would legitimately be "inefficient" in this context.

However, all this context was stripped out by the original comment to which I was replying, to wit:
sardia wrote:Homeowners and landlords are driving inequality.
Inefficient home owners are holding back the economy...
The use of the adjective "Inefficient" does not appear to be a limiting adjective (it's only the inefficient ones...) but a characterizing adjective (home owners, inefficient bastards that they are...) The result is a simple screed against people who own houses, "because they take up too much space".

sardia wrote:Ok, let's say the goal is to increase the number of people housed in those areas that have high demand for housing. How should that happen? Eminent domain and call it a day? Strip the protections by tilting proceedings towards development? Use psychological tricks to whittle down support?
First I would question the goal itself. Is it the right goal? Even in high density areas the answer might not be "yes". The city might be "too dense" as it is. But I will presume that we have a proper urban area that reasonably has room for more density without adversely affecting the existing residents.

But by presuming so, I'm also presuming that there aren't any of those pesky single family houses that you are complaining about, and it becomes a non-issue. Granted, this isn't always the case; there are pockets of single family Tudor homes in the Riverdale area of New York City that I would hate to see turned into high rises. Human society is a lot like nature - variety is essential to the overall health of the biome. Nature itself isn't very "efficient" either.

But back to the "how would I encourage more development" question, once the planners and the community had decided that this is the right direction to go in... I think it really depends on what's already there, why the housing need exists there, and what kind of people you are attempting to attract (or avoid), where "kind of people" could be anything from job related, income related, race related, religion related... you can see that this gets into a pretty big can of worms. And consideration of these aspects does not imply prejudice towards or against them... it could easily be "hey, we have an influx of {whatever} and this is where we've decided to build. How will this affect the existing community?". Although these questions could become the focus of discrimination issues, ignoring them risks the same issues, because people are who they are.

But I would certainly not start with the attitude of "homeowners are greedy inefficient bastards that need to be mown down for our own good.", which is the attitude of the quote I was objecting to.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Mon May 15, 2017 5:04 pm UTC

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/1 ... les-238033
Congress brazenly does insider trading and nobody cares.
But what many saw as a scandal, others saw as an opportunity. On the very day that Wyden was decrying Price’s bad judgment, Rep. Doug Lamborn, Republican of Colorado, bought shares of the same tiny Australian company, Innate Immunotherapeutics. Within two days three more members also bought in — Republicans Billy Long of Missouri, Mike Conaway of Texas and John Culberson of Texas. Conaway added more shares the following week.

These brazen decisions to gobble up shares of a little-known firm at the very moment when such trading was being decried as an abuse of power reflects Congress’ anything-goes culture around stock investments. In the pursuit of wealth, even obvious conflicts of interest are routinely ignored by members who feast on daily trades. Long, for instance, serves on a committee overseeing The Affordable Care Act, and Conaway is a deputy House whip.
By nobody, I mean the people without power. Anyone who's somebody trades blatantly with insider information, and repeatedly. Like congressmen take the insider trading scandal, and used the opportunity to buy a stock they didn't know about.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon May 15, 2017 10:42 pm UTC

Not sure if this belongs here, in In Other News, or in Where Aren't They Now. Pastor attempts to walk on water, eaten by crocodiles.

But he'll be back in 3 days, right?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5530
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Mon May 15, 2017 10:57 pm UTC

Google says it's a hoax.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

dg61
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby dg61 » Tue May 16, 2017 12:28 am UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/14/congress-stock-trading-conflict-of-interest-rules-238033
Congress brazenly does insider trading and nobody cares.
But what many saw as a scandal, others saw as an opportunity. On the very day that Wyden was decrying Price’s bad judgment, Rep. Doug Lamborn, Republican of Colorado, bought shares of the same tiny Australian company, Innate Immunotherapeutics. Within two days three more members also bought in — Republicans Billy Long of Missouri, Mike Conaway of Texas and John Culberson of Texas. Conaway added more shares the following week.

These brazen decisions to gobble up shares of a little-known firm at the very moment when such trading was being decried as an abuse of power reflects Congress’ anything-goes culture around stock investments. In the pursuit of wealth, even obvious conflicts of interest are routinely ignored by members who feast on daily trades. Long, for instance, serves on a committee overseeing The Affordable Care Act, and Conaway is a deputy House whip.
By nobody, I mean the people without power. Anyone who's somebody trades blatantly with insider information, and repeatedly. Like congressmen take the insider trading scandal, and used the opportunity to buy a stock they didn't know about.


Nitpick: this isn't really "insider trading", although it is a fairly serious ethical breach. Insider trading specifically requires access to material that is 1) confidential and 2) material while one is in a "relationship of trust" with someone, as well as being informed of such by someone. For instance if Congressman Conway were to invest in a company or sell it because he was given information by an officer in a public report(or if an official of Corporation Z forwarded him an article about a new drug patented by Z from a public source), or someone told him to read it, it would not be insider trading because he is acting on information that is material, but public. Likewise, if he is an officer in a company or stockholder and learns as a congressman of a bill that will benefit the company it is not insider trading because congressional bills are public information. On the other hand if Congressman Conway is given a confidential report from an officer or is given a confidential report he _is_ engaged in insider trading because the information is public and material. Of course it is important to note that this does not make this ethical or a good thing to do(at the very least, congressmen should not under any circumstances be writing legislation concerning companies they have a material interest in, and of course should certainly not invest in companies where they have a substantial stake in legislation involving), but it does make it not insider trading.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 923
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Tue May 16, 2017 12:54 am UTC

dg61 wrote:Nitpick: this isn't really "insider trading", although it is a fairly serious ethical breach. Insider trading specifically requires access to material that is 1) confidential and 2) material while one is in a "relationship of trust" with someone, as well as being informed of such by someone.

I think you're right. However, it is a conflict of interest. Well, unless they abstain from votes favoring the company's business...but don't hold your breath for that.
In all fairness...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Tue May 16, 2017 1:02 am UTC

Coyne wrote:
dg61 wrote:Nitpick: this isn't really "insider trading", although it is a fairly serious ethical breach. Insider trading specifically requires access to material that is 1) confidential and 2) material while one is in a "relationship of trust" with someone, as well as being informed of such by someone.

I think you're right. However, it is a conflict of interest. Well, unless they abstain from votes favoring the company's business...but don't hold your breath for that.

The excuse they use is 1. that they have stock brokers/financial advisers who do their trades for them, and 2. The Congressmen never told them to make the trade at that exact moment that the congressmen knew about it.
What this doesn't include is "well I may have mentioned it a while back" or "well my broker knows I chair the committee for x industry, and yes I have taken my broker out for dinner several times, why do you ask?"

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5658
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Wed May 17, 2017 9:45 pm UTC

Oxford Medical Student doesn't get jail sentence cause she's got her name on papers (basically).

I literally do not understand this. Surely being convicted of a felony (even if the sentence is reduced) means you can not become a doctor. Also, having drug addiction on your record as part of that should slam the door shut completely.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

Chen
Posts: 5277
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Thu May 18, 2017 3:11 am UTC

Angua wrote:Oxford Medical Student doesn't get jail sentence cause she's got her name on papers (basically).

I literally do not understand this. Surely being convicted of a felony (even if the sentence is reduced) means you can not become a doctor. Also, having drug addiction on your record as part of that should slam the door shut completely.


Do you mean in general? So someone who had once had an addiction and committed a felony should never be allowed to be a doctor? No matter how much time has since passed, no matter what punishment was accepted and finished? Rehabilitation should be the main idea in the punishment of criminals. The stigma of a past crime is already too damaging in many cases.
Last edited by Chen on Thu May 18, 2017 11:45 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby natraj » Thu May 18, 2017 3:21 am UTC

yeah i mean in specific it is kind of eye-rolly that there is often a TREND of lenient sentencing being offered to Some People And Not Others because society is ~*so worried*~ about their futures but i don't think that's a problem because committing a crime should ruin your future forever and ever amen, it's a problem because criminal justice systems should offer a chance at a future life to everyone and more often than not, they don't.

it is honestly baffling to me if the argument you're making is that she (or anyone) should be unequivocally permanently banned from the chance of being a doctor if they ever have addiction or felony on their record? that is tbh a ghastly and horrifying thought, even if it is a sadly common one in how many criminal systems are structured. but i think that's a failing, not a plus.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5658
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Thu May 18, 2017 8:30 am UTC

Apparently you can still be considered but need letters and things from people attesting it is ok that you've turned your life around. But I'm not sure that not getting jail time is going to help with that, and I still stand that getting reduced sentencing because of what your potential career might be is not a good thing.

And the drug bit make sense when considering that as a health care practitioner it isn't that hard to get your hands on things.

I would prefer marijuana not be counted in that, and it's terrible that racism and classicism in society then make the whole felony and drug addiction thing disproportionately worse for some groups. It still doesn't mean that you should discount the safeguards completely.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

Chen
Posts: 5277
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Thu May 18, 2017 11:53 am UTC

Angua wrote:Apparently you can still be considered but need letters and things from people attesting it is ok that you've turned your life around. But I'm not sure that not getting jail time is going to help with that, and I still stand that getting reduced sentencing because of what your potential career might be is not a good thing.


Even that seems unnecessarily harsh. If someone has done their time, shouldn't the presumption go back to innocent? Why assume they are still a criminal? I suppose, depending on recidivism rates you could perhaps justify it, but recidivism is not 100% and it's not clear why those who do turn their lives around should be automatically assumed to be lumped into the group that do go on to commit more crimes.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby SDK » Thu May 18, 2017 3:28 pm UTC

Chen wrote:No matter how much time has since passed, no matter what punishment was accepted and finished?

People can get pardoned, at which point that crime is off their record and no longer an issue for employment (as a professional or otherwise). That often does take a lot of time, and not all crimes are pardonable (so there's likely some changes that ought to be made to that system), but the procedure does exist to get it expunged.

Either way, I agree that punishment should not take the person's future into account like that. It's a bad precedence to set. Better to just reduce the punishment across the board if that's what we believe is fair.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ObsessoMom » Thu May 18, 2017 4:02 pm UTC

The dark gets a little brighter:

InfoWars' Alex Jones apologizes, retracts statements as part of Chobani settlement

A little background (reprinted from the Los Angeles Times, but I'm linking to the reprint because the San Diego Union-Tribune site has slightly-less-annoying ads IMO):

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones said refugees ravaged an Idaho town with disease and crime. The town says folks get along just fine

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Tue May 23, 2017 6:53 pm UTC

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/maga ... .html?_r=0
Jared kushner is just as much of a jackass as Trump is. And he's that bad, before meeting Trump.
Baltimore renters complain about a property owner who is litigious and neglectful. Few know he is the President's son in law.

Jared kushner is pretty much a slum Lord straight out of the movies. He likes to sue, and claim damages, regardless of what the facts are. He figures that with enough lawyers, the defendants get steamrolled into giving up or ignoring the case (triggering an automatic win for Jared. ) How does he afford the high priced lawyers? Bulk discounts. If you sue dozens of people every day, the average cost drops rapidly. Then you can make a profit garnishing wages and bank accounts, roughly 4-5 thousand dollars. Plus, it instills fear into the remaining tenants, so they will try harder to pay rent.

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Mutex » Tue May 23, 2017 7:03 pm UTC

sardia wrote:How does he afford the high priced lawyers? Bulk discounts. If you sue dozens of people every day, the average cost drops rapidly.

That... should not be a thing.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Tue May 23, 2017 7:09 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
sardia wrote:How does he afford the high priced lawyers? Bulk discounts. If you sue dozens of people every day, the average cost drops rapidly.

That... should not be a thing.
Most of what keeps society together is the idea that people aren't sociopathic assholes.

My favorite part is that the apartment complexes are mostly Trump voters. A part of me is laughing at them, but really, I'm just saddened by the whole thing.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ElWanderer and 24 guests