“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” Bloomberg said.
The world is generally safer now than at almost any previous time, particularly for those of us that remember the Cold War and the early-mid 1980s, when even these measures weren't required to avoid mutually-assured destruction (MAD) by two super-powers and their proxies. The only people wanting to limit freedom are politicians in the pocket of those wanting to expand the myriad of security services of the state. This feeds into the projected paranoia of those citizens who fail to understand the true cost, chance, or opportunity of reducing terrorist activities. Of course there has to be an attempt to reduce terrorist activities, but its the internal processes and procedures in place currently between the myriad network of security services which need to be reformed drastically, not the further expansion of those security services or the reduction in freedoms.
Terrorism is an issue of public security, while before 1991 the Soviet Union (for the Western world at least) was an issue of national security. Issues of public security need to be treated as such, not over-inflated and treated incorrectly. This helps support the terrorists, not defeat them, as has been shown in almost every internal urban civil conflict in the past hundred years.
It didn't work, as the suspect was discovered after the curfew was over, by a man who had been inside his house all day. Had the man been outside his house earlier in the day, and seen the cover of his boat, its all but likely the suspect could have been apprehended 8-12 hours earlier.
At the point when the lockdown started, the intended outcome was likely to catch the suspect without any more death, injury or destruction. It worked. You can speculate as to whether it would have also worked with a different approach, but you can't say the selected approach didn't work.
I'm talking black box QA. Input is suspect identified. Output is that inside 24 hours they had him alive.
Every particular possible outcome has some set of strategy changes that, in retrospect, would have made apprehension quicker. But this success was reached without the benefit of clairvoyance.
This is a huge stretch for the definition of "national security" and not necessarily one that a US Attorney should be making in this case, lest courts rule against them for over-extension and they lose the privilege of invoking this exemption for the future.
I suspect the police messed up, and she's looking ahead to the day when she might have to salvage her prosecution because of it. "National security" is just the straw she's grasping at.
And when everything becomes a national security issue, then national security means nothing. But that doesn't matter to one prosecutor trying to notch one more case.
Wargaming is appearing to be pro-active in encouraging their users to change passwords, by having a "Change your Password Event" that provides an in-game reward as an incentive.
I'd feel much better if they explicitly forbid users from wearing this eyewear around children, in public toilets, beaches, swimming pools, shop changing rooms, or anywhere else its use could be utilized to fulfill a perversion (this assumes they have the camera). So basically, probably means they can just wear them at home.
I know this is a serious issue re the problems with inflated and systemic agricultural bureaucracy per the thoughtful comments below...but: raisins.org.
Whether Cook means he is "sorry" or not, this type of kowtowing is what is required in mainland China in situations like this. Otherwise the corporate harassment would continue until products are banned, stores closed, or unilateral changes are forced on Apple by a government agency.
A quick Skype poll of mainland friends (as opposed to expat friends) in China found that of those who had Apple products, none said they'd ever had a problem with Apple's repair policies inside China. The problems were more likely with customers returning fake or far too out-of-warranty repair issues.
Chatting on the weekend to the Director of Marketing for a major local electronics firm in China, he felt it was a politically inspired anti-foreigner campaign and was sure other foreign brands would be harassed for their perceived "arrogance" in the coming weeks and months.
These banks were paying unsustainable high rates of interest to depositors, and to earn enough to cover their obligations, the banks invested in higher risk government and corporate bonds paying higher rates of interest. The dangers of a Greek debt collapse have been known since before they joined the Euro, this is why Greece's interest rates were higher than Germany's for many years before the crisis.
Turkish Cypriots must be very happy now that the Greek Cypriots rejected the peace settlement in 2004. Otherwise, they'd likely be bankrupt too.
It appears this is a current/chequing/checking account rather than the savings/deposit accounts that were originally reported to be subject to the special tax and which pay the ridiculous levels of interest (10%+).
The impact on local business is already being felt, both consumption & payment of supplies & salaries (and soon tax remittance), and imports will suffer significantly in the coming days and weeks too. Exports may well be paid for and the funds remain outside of Cyprus, further creating problems for the economy, as it goes almost all-cash and tax is evaded too. Credit card balances can not be paid off for now either.
It will be interesting to see how Russian mobsters (and various shades of business people) react to having millions/billions taken from them. I'd not want to be a Cypriot politician or banker having to say no to these guys.
The world is generally safer now than at almost any previous time, particularly for those of us that remember the Cold War and the early-mid 1980s, when even these measures weren't required to avoid mutually-assured destruction (MAD) by two super-powers and their proxies. The only people wanting to limit freedom are politicians in the pocket of those wanting to expand the myriad of security services of the state. This feeds into the projected paranoia of those citizens who fail to understand the true cost, chance, or opportunity of reducing terrorist activities. Of course there has to be an attempt to reduce terrorist activities, but its the internal processes and procedures in place currently between the myriad network of security services which need to be reformed drastically, not the further expansion of those security services or the reduction in freedoms.
Terrorism is an issue of public security, while before 1991 the Soviet Union (for the Western world at least) was an issue of national security. Issues of public security need to be treated as such, not over-inflated and treated incorrectly. This helps support the terrorists, not defeat them, as has been shown in almost every internal urban civil conflict in the past hundred years.