Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | Pinckney's comments login

Most of this appears to be copied from the wikipedia article.


What do you think the weigh stations are for?

In my region , I have been told the top drivers pulling Heavy loads . . steel coils 28,000 lbs, if overloaded are capable of using a maneuver . . when entering the scales of perching a back wheel on the curb . . reducing weigh in's . I was told these drivers are recruited , for these tax cheating skills , and highly paid.

Enforcement of rules, inspections, paperwork, etc. Fuel is taxed, not a toll for the road usage. In the OPs example where there is a rail line literally next to the interstate it would make sense to charge a large toll. For other highways that don't have parallel railways it would not make sense to charge a hefty freight toll.

I watched the video too.

If someone edited the video, why did they choose to make their cuts at times where cars or people are in scene? They would have gone unnoticed had they occurred a few seconds earlier. Who would be so stupid?


I use the Rising Sun hypothesis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Sun_(novel) - release a nearly hour long video that is for the very large part boring. Continuous audio so someone can zone out and not hear anything odd - it's a lot easier to hear abrupt audio changes with low concentration than to notice a video 'flicker'.

In Rising Sun there's a slightly different polemic. A security video from a murder is edited before being given to the police (albeit more sophisticated in editing), and the detective takes offense to the assumption that it wouldn't be noticed, because of a (stereotype) Japanese attention to detail and an American indifference.


We can't really say until/unless someone can find the unedited footage. Without knowing what's contained in the missing parts of the video it's all speculation. A number of people have speculated that the parts that got clipped are when the officer is conferring on the radio to try to fabricate a plausible series of events that would justify his arresting her since up until he gives her the order to step out of the car (presumably to arrest her) he has no actual justification for arresting her (cart before the horse). You can't be arrested solely for resisting arrest, so he had to come up with some sort of charge that he could claim that occurs prior to his asking her to get out of the car. In his arrest report apparently he claimed she kicked him, which in light of the video evidence is clearly BS, but whoever edited the video was probably worried that if too much of the video goes missing some very pointed questions would be asked. A small blip is more likely to be excused as a "technical glitch" particularly if the majority of the stop was captured.


I suspect it's something akin to risking a tampering with evidence charge by hiding a body.


I'm not asking why they might want to tamper with evidence. The motive for doing so is obvious. I'm asking why, if they did decide to tamper with evidence, did they do such a bad job of it? If they were already editing the video, why didn't they make their edits at times where they wouldn't be obvious?


Sorry I'm late to the conversation. You know that video is made out a series of frames so maybe you can't put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't.

Maybe the editing was accomplished via an interface that just had a time slider.

Maybe the minimum resolution was 1 second, or five seconds...

Hell, maybe the best tech they had was the "use two VCRs, push play on one and push record on the other, push pause at the beginning and end of the segment you want to remove" method. ;)


That's obvious right? Perhaps the frames that needed to be edited out weren't conveniently conducive to a seamless end product. And, editing out too much wasn't an option for obvious reasons.

But, as another commenter stated, we can't know the answer until we know what the original video holds.

Interestingly, if they then release the full video which shows nothing, then suspicions around the overall case will presumably be calmed. That would make me wonder if it was an intentional red herring to engender more trust and reduce suspicion around her eventual death. After all, why else release obviously edited video that would raise suspicion only to later quell it with unedited footage that was always available?


> Interestingly, if they then release the full video which shows nothing, then suspicion's around the overall case will presumably be calmed.

Sadly their actions have created suspicion. Further releases of video will be doubted by a wide range of people, from calm but cautious scrutineers to rabid conspiracy theorists.

Truth doesn't matter at that point.


Absolutely. OTOH, the far weightier suspicion is around the eventual death of Ms. Bland. An effective PR strategy might be to do something relatively ancillary that heightens the overall degree of suspicion. You then unequivocally address the ancillary issue (i.e. by rleasing the full video), which has the effect of reducing suspicion overall, including on the far weightier issue. That is, people think "Hey, maybe these guys aren't so bad. Maybe we are just jumping the gun".

Not saying this is happening. But, if the full video suddenly comes out and is "all-clear", then the police department will certainly receive that benefit, whether intentional or not.


No it isn't. It's just an artist's fantasy. It has no more basis in history than the Nazi flying saucer depicted in the other renders of the set.


They had to be disconnected, reconnected, and recalibrated every time the nose was opened and shut.



And for some reason, anyone who posts anything about it online seems obligated to put it alongside those stupid battleship hybrid renderings.


Public accommodations are not prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sex by federal law.

Furthermore, the bakery is probably not a public accommodation under federal law unless it's principally selling food for consumption on the premises.


States have existed far longer. "Nation state" refers specifically to a state which coincides with a cultural or ethnic group. If you had to choose a starting point for the idea of the nation state, the Treaty of Westphalia is one of the more reasonable.


Again, it depends on your definition of "state." If you're using the term interchangeably with the much broader term "government," which can include even the smallest and most primitive family or tribe power structures, then you can probably consider the state to be older than marriage (I actually think there's still room for debate even then, depending also on the definition of "marriage").


I think paternosters are really, really cool. I'd love to ride one.

However, I must wonder whether they can be used by the elderly or disabled. How do you board one with a wheelchair? Or do they just run alongside modern elevators in buildings where handicapped accessibility is a requirement?


It doesn't look like a substitute for an elevator. More like a substitute for an escalator. Those aren't accessible either.

Using it looks to require a skill set similar to that for riding an escalator. There's potential for mishap with either device. I wonder how safe the paternoster would be if it had modern safety devices, like a switch to shut it down if someone gets stuck in the parts? But one problem is that then everyone is stuck inside. You can just walk on an escalator when it's off.


> I wonder how safe the paternoster would be if it had modern safety devices, like a switch to shut it down if someone gets stuck in the parts? But one problem is that then everyone is stuck inside. You can just walk on an escalator when it's off.

Albeit somehow crude with no computers, infrared sensors or whatever, such safety devices are decades old.

For example, before the upward traveling cabin leaves the floor, there is a freely hanging wood panel -- if any part of you is sticking out, instead of being crushed in between the cabin and the next floor, you first hit the panel and lift it up, which trips a safety button shutting the whole elevator off. Or the last few inches of floorboards, both in the cabin and on the individual floors, are hinged.

As for being stuck inside when the safety trips -- having approximately one cabin per floor, each for two occupants at max, you are no worse than having a single cabin with multiple persons stuck in a traditional elevator. You can still walk on the adjacent staircase or use a traditional elevator. These elevators are also required to have a designated attendant (that does not mean a full time person sitting and doing nothing, for example a concierge can be in charge of that) and it is his or her role to immediately free (or call help) stuck people in case of safety cut out or power outage.


The paternoster in the article's video also has a sign that says children aren't allowed to use it.


I would bet the biggest opposer to divorce will be the INS ... imagine the Green Card businesses that would enable! After all, it should make little difference to INS whether people choose to have their multiple marriages in series or in parallel.



Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact