This is not a security violation. It's his personal info in his personal email account. Granted it has info on people he's offering up to interview for his clearance, but they gave it to him willingly. Little different than an app asking for access to your contacts on your phone.
Stupid to have it just sitting there, but as a fellow cleared person, it is sometimes handy to have reference to that data. A thumb drive would be a better choice, but then I suppose that would be against policy too; bringing in personal thumb drives...
His interview on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC was pretty disastrous.
In what was basically a completely friendly environment he was eviscerated as to his 'plan'. He said he was a single issue candidate, to which Lawrence got him to change to at least a dual issue, of both finance AND gerrymandering. Certainly not bad things, but when you come in as a 'single issue' candidate it's best not to start creeping within 2 minutes of questioning.
All that aside, his point that the other Dems' proposals are basically just fantasy until you fix the two issues he's pushing is still entirely correct.
Re: Re: Let's see your super thin carbon nanotube rope cut right through a thunderhead without frying.
It's always talked about the force needed to hold the weight of itself. What is rarely mentioned is the stresses from upper atmospheric super fast winds. Or hey, hurricanes, or a jet liner hitting it.
I *love* the idea of a space elevator and perhaps the hurricanes could be resolved by moving the elevator if it's tied to an ocean located point but not sure how you get around the last part.
Someone intent on destroying it is going to be able to get an aircraft and hit the thing. Militarizing it to the point of completely empty airspace seems unlikely at best, especially at higher and higher altitudes.
As an example in DC, a single cab company is given the contract for Dulles airport - but this also requires them to provide a set level of service with x number of cabs available at the airport even during very slow late night hours.
Uber would just surge price you to $100 or more during those late night hours and still not guarantee anyone would be there providing service.
There's no doubt existing cab service can be lousy, but scrapping it without providing the same level of service 'all the time' is something the Uber/On Demand simply hasn't been able to articulate yet - except for 'surge pricing' with no guarantees.
The problem is when the 'on demand' service is in reality a required infrastructure for a modern society.
Comparing taxi service in NYC (or any modern city) to ebay and Etsy is just ridiculous.
If taxi's are removed in favor of Uber, how do you guarantee you'll have sufficient service available? That's called regulation and is required for infrastructure...else you get jacked rates as demand increases for a scarce good. Good economic theory but bad macro planning for a functioning society.
Uber's response is surge pricing...which prices people out of the market and pricing people out of basic infrastructure isn't generally a good idea for said functioning society.
Never said the current system was great or efficient.
"Now, when your flight's coming in to land, you can order a ride on your cellphone"
At 3AM? What if no Uber drivers feel like working that shift? Maybe they do, but you can't just leave it up to chance. Edge cases matter and you still haven't answered how to handle them except waving your hands saying it will be ok.
The problem of having no taxis available at all hours was solved via regulations and the medallion systems. Just solve that problem with Uber and it's a non-issue. Problem is nobody seems willing to do so.
'Efficient' means some people don't get served because they aren't a profitable customer.
Taxis in a major city are effectively a piece of the transportation infrastructure. In DC, a single company is contracted to serve Dulles airport. Why? Because it isn't profitable for a lone taxi to sit at the airport at 3am on the off chance someone might need a ride.
It's an edge case, but when applying infrastructure to a city you need to serve everyone, subsidizing the expensive with the cheap.
If Uber is able to cherry pick only the profitable (efficient) customers the existing Taxis end up with only the unprofitable customers and go out of business. Now what? Do you *require* Uber to have people standing by at the airport at 3am? Hell is there even anyone on call at 3am? At what price?
These are questions nobody here seems to ever want to answer in the defense of the new and shiny.