> Get the gang activity under control, and it actually would be
> quite nice. The irony is, if it became safe, it probably would
> gentrify rapidly, housing prices would go up, and the poor people
> who rent would have to find somewhere else to live.
Is it just me who thinks it's terribly sad there are people apologizing for decreasing crime and therefore increasing property value?
The real answer is that housing should NOT be so scarce that the only thing hat makes the price affordable is weekly gang shootings. Supply should be fostered until housing can be both 'safe & affordable' using the myriad tools cities have to foster new construction.
An increase to property value is a great service to every property owner (53% owner occupied) in the city, but it's an attack on renters (41%). Another way to put it, cities should be doing great things like this to increase property value, while simultaneously fostering new construction, as a balanced approach to serve their constituency.
I find the negative responses quite interesting. From watching The Wire, I assume there typical way of getting this done would be simply Facebook contributing to members of the City Council.
Of the two, I might like the open proposal for direct funding of the position more than an envelop of cash passed under the table at Alexander's.
While Facebook is free to donate funds for this to the city, or not, I doubt that accepting the contribution creates any kind of enforceable contract, rather a mutual expectation which if the city renegs they simply won't be seeing any more deals like this in the future. I think from the city's perspective it's free money for a cop who is going to be at the new substation anyway.
"Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 176-80 (1969) (a person’s property interest in his own home was so great as to allow him to object to electronic surveillance of conversations emanating from his home, even though he himself was not a party to the conversations)."
The difference is one of precision, scale, and duration.
Also in terms of cost, there's a difference between tracking which imposes a marginal human cost of production versus tracking which can be fully automated by machine, even if there is still a per-machine cost.
A relevant example is the Supreme Court ruling on needing a warrant for using a GPS tracker on a car versus just tailing them.
How do you place value on an import? Let's say you import an Airbus, and you have to declare its value. Do you just add up the kgs of aluminium and plexiglass and carbon fibre and steel? Or do you itemise it and say you paid this much for the engines and this much for the fuselage? How do you account for the labour? Or the R&D? Nevermind the computer system(s) that flies the thing.
In the world of physical things we know the value of something based on how much someone is willing to pay for it. That should include all the materials and labour and R&D etc. So we can know how much someone paid for the Airbus and that's it's market value.
In the past, if you filmed something overseas or maybe just did the VFX work, you would send back reels of film. I imagine that most of the time when getting them through customs just the physical value was declared - ie $10k for some Kodak film. Nevermind the fact that you may have paid someone overseas $100 million for the completed movie. From a customs point of view it's impossible to tell the difference between someone's student film and a Hollywood blockbuster, the medium is the same.
Now deliver the film digitally and all trace of it goes away. So Hollywood can send a check for $100 million to the UK and get back a digital copy of a film which doesn't show up as being imported at all.
The complicating issue here is that someplace like the UK might offer a 25% subsidy to make the movie there, so you spend $100 million, get a digital copy of the film and a check for $25 million from the UK (or just pay $75 million depending on how it's arranged). Which causes jobs to be lost in the US, but it's harder to see than when someone changes the price of steel because the actual product is invisible to the normal import process. Why is a movie different than an Airbus? (This could be used as an argument against tariffs and import duties in the first place (even on Airbuses), ie free trade, which is why they're pursuing CVDs which came into effect through various free trade agreements.)
Not really. If the studio is HQed in California, and they paid a studio in Taiwan, they must declare that money. it is trivial to trace that and tax service accordingly.
What they do, is to "hire" those people as contractors just for that job, pay the upfront price of setting up a fake shop, and avoid all those service taxes.
Similar to you paying someone overseas for a work, versus your company having a research dept in india while HQ in Palo Alto. The upfront costs for the later are higher, but the return if you want to have the indian team larger than the US team will be better in the long run.
Of course Hollywood has accountants that have figured all of this out, they're notorious for it. It's even easier when you do business everywhere, so you can just keep profits from showing movies in the UK in your bank account in London, and the next time you want to make a movie there just pay them out of that account, and export the finished movie back to LA, and the US govt will never see any of that money.
The example about India is a good one, as we know lots of development work is outsourced. The point that this article is making is that the MPAA has argued in court that intellectual property should be imported like any other property. Of course they're doing this to stop "piracy", but the unintended side effect could be that their own IP (the original films) becomes subject to free trade agreements. If that's true, then it could also affect the software industry which is doing essentially the same thing (possibly without subsidies, just taking advantage of different costs of living and wages).
What digital goods are in this case is imported services, something that is increasing rapidly and not covered in trade policies as clearly as physical goods.
If you employ an overseas statistician or buy software from an overseas supplier, you are basically importing statistics or software. The fact that these are a digital good/service makes little difference from an economic perspective.
That's actually a quite easy to understand problem as well.
The difference is pretty major. It's believable that someone forgot to consider the case where a new certificate was negotiated. It's downright inconceivable that no one tested whether a bad certificate failed validation. That's like selling a pregnancy test without testing what happens if the person isn't pregnant.
The SSLClientSocketNSS::Core::OwnAuthCertHandler function in net/socket/ssl_client_socket_nss.cc in Google Chrome before 33.0.1750.117 does not prevent changes to server X.509 certificates during renegotiations, which allows remote SSL servers to trigger use of a new certificate chain, inconsistent with the user's expectations, by initiating a TLS renegotiation.
Access Vector: Network exploitable
Access Complexity: Low
Authentication: Not required to exploit
Impact Type:Allows unauthorized disclosure of information; Allows unauthorized modification
I wonder how they discovered they were hacked, and how they arrived at the 309,079 records number.
What logs are typically 'left behind' for forensics to analyze after the fact? It's not like they have packet captures of all network communications they can analyze, or a list of every SQL query that was run after the attacker found a way to inject...
Something like they found a SQL dump file that shouldn't exist, looked at its creation date, inspected the log files (e.g., web server logs) and found network activity indicating it had been sent somewhere bad. Or they saw some unusual activity when doing a monthly analysis of web log activity, dug into it, and realized the whole DB had been sucked out through a SQL injection exploit. Or...the possibilities are endless.
Since web servers are most reliably logged even on poorly maintained systems, I'm guessing at least part of the attack hinged on that. It's really common to have servers that end up with no disk space because web logs aren't being rotated and archived/pruned properly.