Folks are getting really carried away with this type of thing. If you curse out a cop, you're probably up to no good and you will be harassed or detained. If not then you're an idiot. Why curse out a cop? Why?
Crime could possibly get worse with the consequences of this recent anti-police sentiment which isn't really fact driven but an availability bias drummed up by the news, social media, etc.
By injecting excessive bureaucratic checks in the manner in which police keep the peace, we're putting a hurdle in front of their ability to provide it.
> If you curse out a cop, you're probably up to no good
I just want to point out that this is an overwhelmingly class-based statement. If you are materially comfortable, especially if you're white, you would likely never have the slightest reason to curse at the police. If you are constantly seeing friends harassed and detained without cause, shot and killed, or experiencing it yourself (as at least a few of the folks in this article seemed to experience it), you might think a little differently. It's easy to make the fallacious argument that "anyone mixed up with the police was up to do good in the first place" when you live in a relatively affluent area, when you are not perceived as a "dangerous minority", etc.
The anti-police sentiment is certainly fact-based. The apologists claiming "it's really not that bad" because they desperately wish it to not be that bad aren't really fact-driven, they are illusory-comfort-from-a-place-of-privilege driven. Social media and the news just make it possible for us to hear the facts; normally they would never surface because the police lie to cover each other.
And about the cursing, sometimes when people are being abused by bullies who are supposed to protect them they get angry and mouth off; they are human. It's obviously not a measured logical decision, it's a natural response to someone abusing their power, being a jerk, or even just doing their job when it happens to cause problems for you. Cops aren't gods who get to beat you up and lock you in a cage because you don't act like an obedient servant. Is it smart? No. But it's fully understandable, emotional, and human.
There's a lot of "argument from ignorance" style "if it doesn't happen to me, it doesn't happen at all" thinking when it comes to understanding disparate communities and their perceptions.
It doesn't matter whose debt their defaulting on. They will be suspect borrowers for decades to come. They'll have a harder time getting loans from any country in the west or east. Their business and government infrastructure will suffer the consequences from the decisions of this current government. This will end badly for them and the ramifications will last decades.
I know Argentina had a bad time, and the Greeks will probably too for some time. (albeit much shorter)
But not every country is equally valuable to the great powers.
China needs a strong commercial foothold in the mediterranean sea (ports) to control economic trade with the EU. (which is enormous compared to the trade with Argentina)
Russia could want to fracture the EU and NATO if the standoff with the EU & US continues and wants military cooperation and bases in the mediterranean sea.
Turkey wants to reestablish its influence over the muslim countries in the Balkans and since they are now EU candidate for almost 30 years (meaning: they will never be allowed to join) they will try to find an alternative. Even worse for them, the EU and US appears to be actively working on fracturing the turkish nation via the Kurds. For them it might be a question of life and death to push the West out of the balkans and the middle east.
Well, if they default on their debts, their books will look very good so they will make for an interesting creditor. There will be lots of angry people around, but it will still make finantial sense to lend, for a tasty interest rate, of course.
The linked article is an incoherent rant by a man who is upset because he thinks he can't have his wife's iCloud login changed, while cynically trying to frame it as a case of sexism.
Apple provides up to 3 aliases per iCloud account that can be changed at anytime and it's not difficult at all to use them as the primary email addresses. I haven't tried it myself, but it looks like you can even change the Apple ID yourself after logging out your devices:
Um, no. You can't change the apple ID email if you're using apple's email. I ran into this problem myself.
I signed up with a nickname email when I was younger. For example teenager@mac.com. You can later make an alias like John@mac.com. But every time you sign into iCloud, or write a new email on your phone, it's gonna default to teenager@mac.com.
It is a really bad issue for people that use apple's mac email exclusively.
And I can sympathize with the article. If you're divorced, and you change your name, you have to sign into iCloud with your ex husbands name every time you sign in or send a default email. You can't change it.
You definitely aren't stuck defaulting to the email address for iCloud, I just switched the default on my iPhone, if that was ever the case, it isn't in iOS 8:
Go into Settings/iCloud/Advanced/Mail
You can then pick what email to send from and it lets you pick the default email address to use. Click Done and it's switched.
The support article I linked to is misleading if you can't modify the Apple ID login if you use a .mac/.me/.icloud email address and would definitely be a bad hassle, Apple should allow the user login to be changed.
Once upon a time I had an apple ID, which I lost the password for. Many updates and machines later, it still lingers on somehow, and I cannot prevent that ID from showing up for updates and Mac App Store logins. It's a huge pain in the ass, just another drop in the "I hate Apple" bucket, and for that reason I sympathize with this rant.
NOTE: The ID shows up in the "ID" field next to password and I cannot change it by clicking. Why the hell would you design a UX like this Apple. Huge fail.
I can't think of a better example of how the Patriot Act and all of our knee jerk reactions after 9/11 have been ineffective and need to be reexamined. Unfortunately I think the response is going to be even more of the same. Sort of like the saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves."
Not, knee jerk, carefully planned years ahead, just like 9/11.
Communism has a tendency to require greater levels of force in order to maintain state control.
And the the numbers financially are just getting too lopsided to maintain the uneven consumption for much longer. China will start to get a much larger share, and the bankers will have to go along with it, because of basic realities of math.
So the global military and economic control will shift to China, but before/during/after the primary economic model in places like the US will have to shift.
This means some people will have violent disagreements with the new control structure. So they are trying to lay the groundwork for a carefully monitored and controlled population now. Part of that is conditioning to not expect privacy, which is one main function of the TSA.
Your article seems like warmed-over John Birch Society material from the 60s. That is, you posit some world wide hidden planning or conspiracy that is set on degrading some Pure American state we've got now (or in the 60s, according to the Birch material), and substituting some centralized control system led by non-Americans.
I would say yes, as the TSA's failures doesn't really have anything whatsoever to do with the patriot act. This is a failure of the government, not an excuse for or reason for more powers.
> the TSA's failures doesn't really have anything whatsoever to do with the patriot act
Not directly, but they both are connected to the overarching theme in American politics of "OMG TURRURRUSTS" (and the overarching subtheme of "our various means of removing the privacy of Americans are not actually doing anything they were marketed to do"; with this article, it seems that neither the TSA's security checks nor the NSA's surveillance are actually doing anything to stop terrorists).
Now this is the type of thing that's fun to see, I feel like this story's gonna be mentioned in the next freakonomics or Gladwell book. Good for the FDA, they should be congratulated for doing something good. And this is good.
That was so well written and so sad, I literally started crying at the end of it. Goddamn, it's a reminder to live it up while we still have our health.
this guys music sucks and is worth about 30 bucks in royalties in a quarter. I see nothing wrong with this. The musicians can make millions or consumers can listen to everything for 10 bucks a month. I prefer the later. music is the worst business ever. You have no pricing power and you're competing with all music that's ever been recorded. if someone made a record 50 years ago and died, they're still your competition. ouch bad scene.
Insulting the artist adds no value to your point about the merits of the music industry. Nobody logs onto this site to read your opinion about whose music sucks. Please add value or don't post at all.
One could argue that in aggregate the value add was not positive, since the beginning certainly has negative value. ;) Anyway, one could also argue that my comment doesn't add anything either...
The point being made is about the per-listen payment, so quality is irrelevant; even bands that get a huge number of listens make very little money on services like Spotify or Pandora. Of course, it's still better than nothing, which is what they get from piracy.
