StrangeSox

And that violence was deliberately provoked by King and other CR organizers. They wanted to be attacked. They wanted to show the sort of violence that enforcing segregation and oppression actually meant even if they themselves remained nonviolent. They knowingly put themselves in harm's way time and time again, and hand-wringing about "what if someone gets hurt?!" really misses how the movement was organized and why they were able to be effective. It minimizes their sacrifices.

McCain's a no

King also spoke on rioting in The Other America http://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/ As for the Nobel prize he won, it might be worth considering that Nelson Mandela, who most definitely engaged in (justified, imo) political violence, also won one and is internationally acclaimed. On some level, everyone but the 100% committed pacifist supports political violence.

Cool, neither is anyone else in this thread. greg finds a way to complain about plenty of nonviolent protests as well and has demanded that they be 100% legal and not inconvenience anyone. He's free to think that, but he can't hide behind King's legacy because that sure isn't what he stood for.

People in King's peacefully and legal protests often had bricks, rocks, and other objects hurled at them. Other times it was the police beating and arresting peaceful protesters. Civil rights activists were murdered and their killers faced no justice. Just look at the article you linked: They deliberately broke the law! That was the whole point of many of King's direct actions! Note that I'm not advocating for or justifying violence here. I'm saying that you manage to find something wrong with every form of protest and think protesters should just stay out of the way, not do anything illegal (as King and his group often did, let alone the wider CR movement), not inconvenience or offend anyone. Don't hide by King when you're doing that because he sure as heck didn't stand for what you're claiming he did.

1) the civil rights movement was larger than just King 2) please educate yourself on what King actually did. he certainly did not take a view that protest shouldn't bother or inconvenience anyone. they were also often illegal. he even ended up in jail and wrote a famous letter admonishing the people who were tut-tutting him for his actions just as you're doing to protesters today! https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/L...Birmingham.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 7, 2017 -> 03:59 PM)

538 has a piece up looking at, statistically, when teams should go for 2 rather than kicking an extra point. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dick-v...nversion-chart/ You would think that teams would have stats guys up in the booth looking over this stuff in real team and relaying the information down to the coach(es), but given how often we see coaches completely mismanage games I'm wondering if there's still a lot more "gut feel" for everything.

CBO won't have an estimate done before the Republicans rush this bill to a vote, so Brookings took a stab at it. -21,000,000 thrown off of health insurance by 2026, which they say is likely an understatement -32,000,000 thrown off of health insurance for 2027 and later -Higher premiums in many parts of the country -Insurance death spirals in parts of the country, leaving no insurers at all -Reduced benefits in many states -Pre-existing condition discrimination in many states

I wonder how much of the direct action during the 50's and 60's civil rights movement was legal?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2017 -> 10:12 AM) And with that information you are going to be able to go as far as their credit score will take you. If they have a 550, all of that information is pretty worthless. If they have a 800, sure you can go a lot further. But if you own Google's MNPI how much further can you go? You can much more easily socially engineer your way into their various accounts. You can steal tax returns. You can still take out store and other lines of credit even if you've got a bad credit score. And plenty of those 150M people have decent or good credit anyway so it seems weird to be dismissive of them. For me, if my credit were to get wrecked, it could directly impact my employment because I need to obtain and maintain clearances. That affects individual people directly. I don't even know what "Google's MNPI" means, so it seems pretty obvious why more people care about their personal information being stolen and putting them personally at great risk rather than a corporation being at risk.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2017 -> 10:11 AM) Yes, and your credit history too. Like, I can go be 2k5 for 6 months with that. I could do everything but show up for his job. I could file his tax return. Oh yeah that scam tax returns are a big part of that, too. As well as potentially gaining bank account information and being able to drain the funds directly via some social hacking once you know everything else about that person. I think people are rightfully much more concerned about that data hack that affects an overwhelming majority of American adults that can lead to great personal financial harm and stress versus opaque corporate market manipulation potential. Doesn't mean that it isn't important, but on the individual level, I think people have their priorities right.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2017 -> 10:04 AM) Another solid primer https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/21/heres-what-...e-sec-hack.html this make it seem like the plot of Trading Places, basically. getting early access to what will soon be public information, but that early access is still incredibly valuable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) On a person's personal information you can get as far as their credit score. On a companies information or even marketplace's information you control the entire market place. Which is more important? I thought the Equifax leak included full name, DOB, address and SSN. Everything wrapped up in a nice package to steal someone's identity and wreck their s*** by taking out loans and credit in their name. That can be a monumental pain in the ass and financially damaging to get cleared up, and it can take months or years. It can screw with your employment prospects if you need background checks, it can screw with your insurance rates and your ability to get a mortgage or even an apartment since more and more credit checks are run for those.

Federal IT and information security is pretty hilariously bad due to and array of issues from ridiculously complex and lengthy procurement processes that leave only a handful of companies even able to offer qualifying bids (see: obamacare exchange fiasco), underfunding programs, and not being able to attract solid talent since the pay is 1/4 or less what they'd get at Google or where ever.

is the concern here that it would enable a bunch of insider trading or what?

all of them?

Tens of millions of more people have been covered thanks to the ACA, and people who were already covered had their plans strengthened through things like elimination of lifetime caps and the requirement of coverage of essential health benefits. There were definitely losers of the ACA policy, and LH seems to have fallen into that. On the whole, many more people were helped than were hurt, and crafting good public health policy to benefit people has been a Democratic goal for decades. The ACA can definitely be improved upon, and all Democrats recognize that. The other party is making every attempt they possibly can to throw tens of millions off of insurance and gut patient protections and public health funding. There is no equivalency here. Maybe you don't like what the Democrats are offering, but the Republicans have never even pretended to offer something that would actually improve healthcare in this country. If expanding public health policy so that more people get health care at affordable prices wins Democrats votes, then more power to them. "Doing good things that people like" should win you elections. Republicans are instead hyperfocused on passing a bill that has sub-20% approval and even they admit is horrible policy that they don't like and have no good reason to vote for beyond "we campaigned for years on repealing Obamacare."

What sort of information would be considered "nonpublic" that they'd have been able to get a hold of? The story is kinda vague on that.

I mean, they're both kinda right here.

Outlets That Scolded Sanders Over Deficits Uniformly Silent on $700B Pentagon Handout Putting the Pentagon budget increases in context: The increase--not the entire military budget, just the increase--is almost twice as much as it would cost to fully fund Sanders free-college-for-all plan. We've always got money for more bombs, but never enough for things that would actually benefit society.

Since the ACA went into effect, the open enrollment period for signing up with a health care insurance provider started on Nov 1 and ended on Jan 31 of the following year -- a 3-month period. This year, the open enrollment period starts Nov 1 and ends Dec 15. The Trump administration has reduced the open enrollment period by 50%. The administration has also cut the ACA advertising budget by 90%, meaning the only way people are likely to hear about the shorter enrollment window is by word of mouth.

good lord

They are very blatantly trying to buy off Murkowski http://ijr.com/2017/09/979983-republicans-...alth-care-bill/ now why wouldn't other on the fence R's demand the same?

Him and Giolito are really sending this team into the off season on a high note.