If I really want to tell the cops to shut off all of their cameras, I'm sure they will be happy to oblige.
Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse.
The results dispute your claim:
incidents involving officers using force have dropped more than half, and citizen complaints have dropped almost 90%
Bullets? What about IEDs? Or RPGs?
It seems like they've brought it full circle too.
Virtual currency exchanges would need to verify their customers' identities and report any suspicious transactions under the new rules.
Step 1: create an anonymous currency to allay the paranoid fears that governments are tracking everything you do with your own money.
Step 2: create rules that anyone using the currency has to be identified to the government to allay the paranoid fears that anyone could send money to anyone else anonymously.
Well done, Singapore.
Seems the 9/11 planes' were lost too.
Damnit. Just think, if we would have recovered that equipment then we could have figured out why the planes crashed.
Ultimately let's assume they are looking around $14B initial investment plus $50M/year continuous cost.
Why are we assuming that? A Cessna 172 has a maximum takeoff weight of 2400 pounds, while cockpit voice recorders are required on aircraft with a MTOW of over 12,500 pounds (5700kg). Why are we assuming that this technology to supplement a black box is going to be required on aircraft where a black box is not currently required?
This is aside from my initial point of calling out the parent because he sounds like a black box manufacturing shill opposed to any technology that might some day replace a black box, using easily-fungible terms like "huge cost" followed up by, well, it's at least a non-zero cost.
This is also aside from the fact that a private aircraft owner does not lose anything when his aircraft is "out of service". He's not losing passenger dollars. If I open up my Cessna or Piper for maintenance it doesn't cost me anything other than the parts. In short, exclude aircraft with a MTOW of less than 5700kg from your calculation and it will be much more realistic. Figure out how many aircraft are currently flying around with black boxes and you'll at least be in the neighborhood.
Something like that already exists.
the huge cost of taking the plane out of service for x amount of time while the device is being installed (even if its installed at the same time as other maintanence is done, its still a non-zero cost)
I'm confused, is it a "huge" cost, or a "non-zero" cost?
Here's a thought - the guy that she interviewed has a career history that he is prohibited from talking about. He sounds like a highly intelligent man who probably worked in the defense industry or as a government contractor or something along those lines, probably working with classified information. He doesn't want to talk about his past, and when a reporter shows up to ask him questions his reaction is to call the police.
And this reporter thinks that this guy, trying his hardest to be anonymous, is going to create a new currency that has the potential to destabilize world markets (at one extreme), and he's going to use his real name?
I doubt that. This sounds like a guy who just wants to be left alone and got shoved under a spotlight because of the name his parents gave him. I hope he sues the reporter.
I see where you're coming from, I guess the answer is "yes and no". Right now, yes it is dumb to put all of your bitcoins with a third party unless that person is someone you personally know and trust and whose work you respect. In 10 years, it might be considered dumb to keep them yourself. In the meantime, what needs to happen is a company needs to get large and profitable managing people's wallets enough to have a reputation for excellent security and usability, as well as accountability. Mt. Gox might have been on the way there, but they were too incompetent in their programming. I'm not sure that company will be an exchange though, it might be a dedicated wallet hosting company that charges a fee for each transaction or something like that.
Right now, I don't trust anyone to hold my BTC. In the future that might change though.
How much "game-changing functionality" can you really work into a fucking coffee machine?
None, that's why he put that phrase in quotes.
Investing in stocks or funds is one thing. Having the bank just outright buy and own and companies that drill for oil, ship it to refineries, refine it into gas, and shipping the gas to gas stations is a major problem. When any company, not just a bank, controls an entire supply chain that is an obvious possible problem (i.e. price manipulation gets really, really easy). When the owner company is a bank then that creates a whole new set of possible issues. That was the entire purpose of Glass-Steagall. The banking system ran just fine with the Glass-Steagall restrictions in effect.
For me, whether or not the scanners might cause cancer isn't even part of the equation (it would be, if that were the worst part). I opt out on principle because I don't believe that the government has the right to scan my body when I'm traveling, plain and simple. I don't care if they scan the bags I have with me, I have that stuff with me knowing that it's going to be scanned. But for them to assert the right to basically check me out without clothing is too far, I don't agree that they have that right and so I don't allow them to do it. As far as I'm concerned, between protest, security theater, and cancer, cancer ranks third on the list of reasons why I don't want to go through the scanners.
2. Be a woman
I opt for the passive aggression also. I wear my t-shirt with the quote in my signature and wait patiently as I opt out (I have never once been allowed to go through the metal detectors while the nut zappers have been in place).
The way I read it, the medical exemption entitles him to use only the medical detector, not that it necessarily also means he can't have someone touch him.