(1) Fair Election
There was a fair election conducted and Joe Biden won fair & square. Any irregularities were typical, and any disregard for election law, or the consitution, was merely incidental due to trying circumstances (covid 19)
(2) Unfair Election
There was an unfair election and Joe Biden won via cheating. The irregularities were atypical, and the disregard for election law, or the constituion were evidence of malfeasance
Many states are not contentious, being solidly blue or red. It is battleground places like NH, GA, AZ, VA, NC, and a few others where one party contends there is smoke, evidence of a fire. The other party contends there is no smoke, and this is just problems of conducting an election during a pandemic.
From a cybersecurity perspective, we have known for a long time there are huge security issues with voting machines. It is unfortunate that this election took a presidential election and several contended down-ballot elections to become a national issue.
Lets relax. RocketLab is a nice company, and I like them but they are playing in a different failed.
They have not 'gone reusable' they have slowly started to work on re-usability.
And a rocket that remotely competes in the area that this article address will not be done for years yet.
In practice, its only SpaceX. But its gone get worse from here for Europe. Starship by itself, and RocketLab and BO will both have reusable rockets before Europe. And RelativitySpace likely too.
The way I understand it, AWS has been creating derivative products that don't work very well based on ELK. AWS has also not been contributing back to the community anything, while raking in the millions for https://aws.amazon.com/elasticsearch-service/the-elk-stack/
Many elastic pros recommend not using the AWS version because it doesn't operate properly.
While I am pro OSS I can understand why a company based on OSS would not want to subsidize a much larger AWS who is extracting value, and also, their direct competitor.
When I talked with AWS about an estimate for Managed ELK, and also, an EC2 based ELK, I received estimates > 50M a year. Crazy pricing
Disclosure: I work for AWS, but I do not work directly on Elasticsearch related services.
Elasticsearch is/was an "upstream" for Open Distro for Elasticsearch (which is a distribution / collection of software). As an "upstream", changes to the core Apache 2.0 licensed software was sent as pull requests to Elastic, which are usually merged. It isn't correct to say that AWS has not been contributing to the upstream Elasticsearch code under an Apache 2.0 license (and, also, signing the CLA to boot, which allows Elastic to relicense AWS contributions under SSPL).
Here's a sample of PRs from AWS developers that I could find:
NASA needs a specialized unit because when it comes to large launches at Kennedy (144,000 acres), or Wallops (6,200 acres) they have to secure a significant amount of real estate. Terrorists and Nuts would love nothing more than use a surface-to-air missile against a launch. To head off that threat, you'd need real operators trained with small arms extensively, and not the contracted security most feds use. Kennedy looks like a mix of mangroves, swamp and dense terrain with gators in the water, and panthers about. Throw in a few extras at other locations to respond to an active shooter situation and that fits a fairly small team.
As far as another agency providing that security, if you do launches regularly, and have to pay for all the travel and TDY, it would get expensive in a quick hurry. Better to keep in house, and pay local law enforcement to help out where needed for the truly big launches, as 33 operators wouldn't go far enough with that much territory to protect. Federal LE probably helps in those big launches too.
NASA has some serious security concerns, but they're largely taken care of by the air force, coast guard, and friends. I'm sort of surprised to find out they have their own swat team when we're always hearing about "the coast guard helicopter finding a stray boat in the keep out zone" and so on.
After reading the report, the NASA SWAT team is specifically an emergency response team for major incidents that happen at Kennedy Space Center. It's not some roving security team patrolling landing sites, etc. It makes sense to me that a highly important site like the KSC would want to have a specialized emergency response team, and KSC doesn't exactly have a large city nearby or anything like that that could provide such ERT, so it makes sense that NASA created their own.
I suspect that's the case for most of these other "unusual" SWAT teams in the article. The Department of Interior's SWAT team, for example, is part of the US Park Police and provides ERT responsibilities for highly visible national monuments, like the Statue of Liberty or Washington Monument. The HHS SWAT team is the ERT for the NIH campus in Maryland, etc.
quote: NASA investigators then arranged the sting, where Conley met with Davis and her current husband at the Denny's restaurant at Lake Elsinore in Riverside County.
It’s a bit off to call it a “sting” though when the NASA inspector general is the only one that thinks a crime is actually taking place.
Edit: to be clear, the IG is asserting in these cases either that the astronauts stole NASA property or that they illegally profited off of the mission (as later Apollo astronauts got in trouble for doing when they sold the personal effects they took with them).
However in most of these cases it’s clear that (1) these weren’t misplaced samples, but rather an extra rock they picked up and kept, for which there’s no law against; and (2) they didn’t profit off it, but rather freely gave chips of the rock to their wives, girlfriends, children, close friends, or just kept as a momento.
Now two generations later these Apollo era people are dying off and their estate is finding out that the little moon rock grandpa has is worth $10k/gram at auction, and trying to cash in. And when they do, NASA sends a SWAT team to their house.
That line of thinking destroyed the wealth of millions of people in the 2008 housing crash. So many people were certain it can’t happen only because it hasn’t happened.
well, finding and shipping a surface to air missile close to a launch site seems to be more complicated than finding a volunteer for a suicide attack, which can be done nearly everywhere. Also the current trend in terrorist attacks is the maximalisation of casualties, not necessarily property damage/symbolic targets
You're not explaining the other side of the story.
Many felons are convicted and owe fees to their victims, or to the govt. If you commit a violent crime, or a financial crime, there can be a financial penalty. Many of the felons that want to vote, never paid back their victims, or the state, for the crimes they were committed.
The Florida proposition "restored the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation"
Now, they want to vote, but still haven't compensated their victims, which was a part of the sentence, based on a lawful conviction.
I still don’t understand why we deny felons the right to vote while they are serving their sentence, so extending this to nonpayment of fines seems even more arbitrary.
In the UK people in jail (so a subset of convicted people) are not allowed to vote. The argument is that while you are detained in jail you are being punished by loss of civil rights and that voting is one of these.
One obvious answer is that we've found them to be problematic with regards to living peacefully with other people, so much so that we feel the need to physically remove them so they cannot hurt others. Why would we allow them to vote under those circumstances?
There's the idea that, felons have opted out of civilized intercourse. You can't do that, then pick and choose which rights you want to keep. After you've deliberately violated rights of others.
In the past, felons were transported. It was cruel and caused unspeakable suffering. Kind of like what the felons did. So a balance of a sort.
I've got the strange feeling that Mars may not be the rich person's paradise folks joke about. It may be a prison colony. The rigors of the trip (permanent physical impairment) may preclude soft rich people from applying for the trip.
Anyway, to return to the topic, if I were officiating a baseball game and somebody came out on the field and broke the bat, pried up the bases and tossed the ball over the fence, I'd evict them from the park. It's only sensible. They can't obey the rules, they're out. Otherwise the game is completely disrupted.
> There's the idea that, felons have opted out of civilized intercourse.
Not all felons, though. Only the ones we choose to surveill and prosecute. So coke-sniffing bankers tend never to be caught. But 19 year old poor hispanic kids with weed in their pockets end up in jail on a three strikes violation because the police stop them all the time just for standing on the street.
> if I were officiating a baseball game
Now extend this analogy appropriately: what if the RULES of the baseball game were only written by the winning team? And that team made it so they were allowed to do this stuff without penalty? So they always win.
And the loser team can't fix that. Because to change the rules to make them fair they have to win, and they can't. Because of the rules.
That's how this works in reality: the point to disenfranchising felons isn't to punish them, it's to keep them from voting for the party whose policies might make them less likely to be felons.
Where is this “idea that felons have opted out of civilized intercourse”? Spaghetti Westerns? North Korea? It certainly isn’t an idea aligned with American values.
Imprisonment is meant for rehabilitation in addition to punishment. There’s the idea, at least in theory, that people who commit crimes can eventually be functional members of society with full rights given a second chance. So we send people to prison and then let them resume their lives as citizens afterwards. If they owe money due to a civil suit they can still vote because why wouldn’t they? Franchise isn’t tied to financial means and shouldn’t be.
> Imprisonment is meant for rehabilitation in addition to punishment.
Don't forget the third big part: stopping them from violating the rights of others.
They do temporarily lose some rights, they do (and should) get them back when their "debt to society" is paid (which I find a slightly weird term, but whatever), why shouldn't the right to vote be one of the rights that you get back when you're rehabilitated and reintroduced into society, just like your right to freely move about?
What the fuck is it with this site and shitty, specious analogies?
Society is not a game or stadium. There is no outside.
Justice is imperfect.
Laws are not all as obvious as 'breaking the bat'.
Now, responding to the part of your comment that isn't the shitty, specious analogy. You beg the question, saying that felons don't get to vote because they've opted out of civilized intercourse. You don't bother to argue the antecedent, you just assume it. That doesn't address the question being asked in the thread, it just affirms the way things are.
What does that have anything to do with whether someone ought to have representation in the very government that created and enforces the laws they were found to have violated?
You haven't actually presented another side to the story, you've just cited a legitimate, but completely irrelevant, concern.
If people aren't paying their debts, garnish their wages, seize their assets, or if they're flagrantly avoiding paying back debts, put them back in jail--you know, normal things that we already do which actually get people to pay back their debts. Failure to pay reparations is a legitimate concern, but it's not relevant to voting rights.
Let's not pretend this is about reparations. It's about disfranchising people.
The state doesn't know how much they owe because they weren't all that concerned before. Also, the Florida DOC has a nasty habit of inventing fines and fees.
According to you it should be simple. Whatever the sentencing judge has put in the sentence is the sentence. But that has proven not to be the case. The governor wants the DOC to find any and all unpaid fines and fees. And they want to be allowed years to resolve it.
The judge looked at the excuses the DOCs counsel was offering and quickly swatted it down. An ex-convict that has satisfied the terms of his sentence as it is written on the sentencing docket has no reason not to have their rights restored.
False. I'm drawing attention to the amendment and what the will of the people was/is and efforts made to subvert that will. The amendment as on the ballot said nothing about requiring money as a prerequisite. That's what Florida voted for: returning freed felons their rights. To ascribe some other interpretation to "terms" is to subvert the will of the people of Florida.
Ultimately the courts will decide whether the legal language "terms" includes fines and restitution. Seeing as these felons are free and fines are a civil matter I don't know how the courts could find that such things are part of their criminal sentence.
Edit: also btw I linked to reputable sources. I didn't obscure anything or omit anything.
It's right there on wiki:
>However, by mid-2019 Republican Governor DeSantis signed a bill into law which originated in the Florida Senate, SB 7066, which required that "people with felony records pay 'all fines and fees' associated with their sentence prior to the restoration of their voting rights"
It's a post facto qualifier. If fines were implied by the initial amendment this bill would be unnecessary.
It only takes one trip/slip/fall, one rock slide, one sprain, one break, one break, one deadfall, one snake, one asthma attack, one sting, or one rabid animal to turn an outdoor trip into a potential life or death situation.
99.99% of the times I've spend in the forest and desert has been "safe". It is the .01% and .001%s that get you.
This is actually success - testing proved that a widget wasn't ready to be space qualified for a challenging mission. It broke in testing, enabling engineers to know about that they need a better design.
Now, they're paying for a new shield, and all the engineering work that goes into that, rather than preparing the funeral for some astronauts and all the horribleness that goes into the loss of team members.
Beyond the censorship issues & lawsuits, Google regularly gets a pass when their crummy policies negatively impact people. While it is horrible that some were hurt in the process, I wonder if this will make Google start approaching their huge amounts of power with some civility.
While this was flagged to hell, probably due to insensitivity, this will become a point of discussion going forward.
In the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Paris, follow up articles appeared on HN discussing the situation of poor communities on the outskirts of Paris. Although being sensitive is important and just plain human courtesy, and we should be civil, it is important for discourse to discuss the situations and circumstance surrounding such incidents.
Incidentally, today is MLK's death anniversary. After race riots in the 60's, he famously condemned them, but then said in his "The Other America" speech:
>But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.
We need to have the intellectual courage to tolerate this discussion about the situations surrounding it. While one shouldn't martyrize the shooter here, we need to be aware of the circumstances that precipitated it.
> Beyond the censorship issues & lawsuits, Google regularly gets a pass when their crummy policies negatively impact people. While it is horrible that some were hurt in the process, I wonder if this will make Google start approaching their huge amounts of power with some civility.
Probably not. Whenever there's a shooting, there seems to be a strong pressure to disregard the idea of addressing the shooter's motives. If anything, I expect Youtube's demonetization policies to attract more sympathy and support, since they were victimized on account of them.
Why then is there such an obsession with determining the motive. Or classifying the act as terrorism or something else.
Honestly I can’t figure out why anyone even cares what the motive was. Doesn’t undo the harm done. The attempt to “understand” is too close to “excusing”. Which then further motivates others to use the same methods.
Isn't it obvious? To understand causes is to have a better change to predict and prevent these events, at both the individual level and that of sociological forces.
Firstly censorship has nothing to do with this. Her YouTube videos weren’t taken down, just not enabled for advertising.
Secondly, how negatively effected? They stopped paying her for her content. So what. If you buy a Google phone, does google have a right to expect you will buy the next model, and if you don’t you are ‘negatively affecting’ them?
The amount of first world entitlement in this and many other comments here is appalling.
(1) Fair Election There was a fair election conducted and Joe Biden won fair & square. Any irregularities were typical, and any disregard for election law, or the consitution, was merely incidental due to trying circumstances (covid 19)
(2) Unfair Election There was an unfair election and Joe Biden won via cheating. The irregularities were atypical, and the disregard for election law, or the constituion were evidence of malfeasance
Many states are not contentious, being solidly blue or red. It is battleground places like NH, GA, AZ, VA, NC, and a few others where one party contends there is smoke, evidence of a fire. The other party contends there is no smoke, and this is just problems of conducting an election during a pandemic.
From a cybersecurity perspective, we have known for a long time there are huge security issues with voting machines. It is unfortunate that this election took a presidential election and several contended down-ballot elections to become a national issue.