They knew next to nothing pre 9/11 (1), odds are they know next to nothing now.
Why?
Bureaucracies are not agile enough to effect real-time and reactive signals intelligence gathering. They breed internal cultures and petty fiefdoms which by their very nature are loath to cooperate. For the relative cost of intelligence agencies, their victories are few and far between and often only accomplished in tandem with established means of spy craft.
Advocates will of course claim this is due to the secretive nature of the work, however declassified documents of times gone by rarely prove that the case.
Any villain that hasn't been living under a rock is aware of the technological capabilities of these agencies, rendering them virtually ineffective. The NSA didn't catch Osama, old fashioned spy craft, detective work and torture did (2).
"They knew next to nothing pre 9/11 (1), odds are they know next to nothing now."
But I suspect what __Pthrow was suggesting was that the agencies could look back at the chatter they gathered, and put the pieces together from what they heard. Though, in order to do this, they'd still need to have some idea of what they are looking for.
The tweet by the "BBW party promoter" is on twitter; you can view it there. The account has 5 years of history tweeting about sex parties.
The address of a residence is in the tweet. You can do a Google search and see the previous real estate listings for the residential condos/apartments at that address. You can look at it on Google Maps to see that it's a real address and not some kind of sex club.
The "porn star" profile of the party organizer that tweeted, screenshotted, is there on Xvideos; you can look it up and view it yourself.
The screenshots of the booking conversations through Airbnb are included as well, which Airbnb can confirm actually took place.
These are all evidence supporting the story, and all of these pieces of evidence can be verified by third parties. That's verifiable evidence, which is what I said.
"Restating the premise" means to restate the base of your argument. I argued the opposite, that the post does have credibility. Sorry that you felt I was being snide by disagreeing.
The tweet is verifiable.
That a porn party took place at that residence seems likely.
There is no verification this occurred over airbnb. There is no verification that the tweets were by anyone other than the resident or owner and no verification that the tumblr post was written by the resident.
All of this, including the tweet, could be a pretty simple hoax.
And worse, it's from tumblr.
The premise you restated was the basic post itself: Hey! This shit happened to me.
I asked, why should we believe this.
You said, "Because shit happened to that guy!"
Until airbnb responds we have no reason to give this anecdote any credence.
And you were totally snide. Your apology is disingenuous. "Sorry you felt I was being snide" is not an apology. It is a faux apology.
And worse, it's from tumblr.
That's an unqualified contention. What makes content hosted on tumblr less credible than what's on any other free blog site?
Most articles should receive a healthy dose of criticism, but on the whole, I really didn't see any suspect. The only basis for questioning is that AirBnB is the darling of the "OMG! DISRUPTING!" crowd, and thus any criticism against them must be a conspiracy from the evil industries.
I have found I often agree with Michele, but I think she makes some basic errors in this piece.
1) That most power is in the hands of a few people, who at this moment are primarily men, does not generalize to mean that most men have any power over most women. Most men, most women, at work are powerless. Bosses, leads, vps from other departments -- they have power and they are frequently women.
2) She frames the problem as one of active male behavior and passive female behavior. Women are acted upon. Men at work want sex or romance -- I guess women at work do not want sex or romance. It may very well be that at work she does not want sex or romance. And my guess is that at work most men do not want sex or romance. But there are some men, and there are some women that do.
That's not to say that her path out may not have some virtues.
I do think it would be good for everyone to turn the knob back down to 10, or 9, or perhaps even 3, and talk about the issues of sex and romance and sexism at work, while recognizing this isn't a problem of "Men" and isn't a problem of "Women" but is perhaps a problem of "homo sapiens in the 21st century".
In the future, you can reduce your diatribe to what you actually believe "patriarchal misogynist assholes" and that will help everyone out. Your supporters as well as those who would disagree with you.
I am a database guy. Typically I'm against XML (especially in a database) however, I have a scenario where there is a test system and there are some standard bits of information (test description, stats, etc.) that all the tests have but they all come out in a different structure meaning: I have 4500 queries that test different aspects of our data-set and they all come out with different columns.
They have different columns because it deals with about 600 different tables and the output is what is relevant to the test. I have decided that in this instance, I want to capture all of the results in a single table so that they are centralized. XML solves this issue for me. I can grab the results in XML, and insert them into a centralized table where they can be reviewed later.
TL;DR XML can solve some data structure issues where you don't always know the final output until it shows up.
In my limited experience it seems that torrent clients were all trying to migrate towards this and be a media browser first, torrent client second. The end result was user flight to the next upcoming torrent client.
So was this a torrent client to start with?
For the end user how does this compare to websites like stream-tv.me which aggregate links to tv shows? Those links lead to generally poor resolution shows, but not unwatchable. TV resolution with some HD resolution. Have there been cases where content providers go after the users of those sites? (I have a friend who uses them...)
It seems as though China is undergoing a Keynesian expansion. So I'm probably wrong about that. I'm going to watch to see if I can figure out the difference between what they seem to trying to say is a problem due to massive government spending and Keynesism.
Or are they saying "too much" Keynesism is a bad thing?
Okay, these seem to be the main differences and concerns I am getting from this vid.
1. Many loans eventually come via a shadow banking system
and so are not transparent, ie, no one know how much is
loaned and regulation is poor, this could lead to a
huge credit crunch, and China's own too big to fail
2. Some large amount of housing is speculative in nature
and kept empty as an investment and hence could be
causing an enormous bubble
3. This real estate bubble brings benefits to rich but
doesn't improve the economy for the poor
4. The boom has made the local authorities very rich and
powerful (political corruption, crony capitalism, ...)
5. The sheer size of it is unprecedented in modern
financial history
6. Citizens save too much (1/3rd of earnings). So economy
is dangerously unbalanced, fueled by debt spending and
not enough by consumer spending or shopping (41:10)
7. Investment is 50% of economy, consumption 30%, so when
investment slows down, it can't be replaced with
consumption. Credit is at a level of twice the size
of the economy.
8. State owned companies are filled with inefficiencies.
"Shaking" them up would leave huge numbers of people
unemployed.
9. There is beginning to be a fear of collapse (that
could lead to collapse.)
10. Punk Rock pointing out corruption in the system
and how the rich are getting richer.
11. Hard to see further economic reform without political
reform, yet it seems that Chinese are intent on
not reforming their political system further.
Recommendations to balance economy:
1. China needs to become more like us and consume more
themselves.
