marcusgarvey

I believe that blacklisting is something that happens in cases like this, and I wonder how it gets coordinated. Especially when there's no public record of a court case. Simply that every time her previous employer was called for a reference, they gave her an unflattering one? Or is it more proactive, like some sort of list that's known in the HR world of certain industries?

Credit card purchase data? FB ads offer a way to target based on info from Experian, et al.

If you already have some target markets in mind, get to know as much as you can about things like their buying habits; their influencers; where they hang out online; conferences they might go to; what content topics matter to them, etc.

Thank you, this is really interesting. How much did the materials cost?

Would love to know what sorts of ways you've hacked Amazon Dash.

PR is different from marketing, so first read up and decide which one you need. IMO marketing/sales is a core, systematic task, an engine, and PR can add much fuel to the engine. Looking for PR, have an idea of which publications, speaking events and biz dev opportunities you want to access with their help. They should be able to demonstrate -- with proof from past clients in your field -- that they have relationships with those gatekeepers. They should also be able to assist you in developing a core narrative around you/your company, and they should be perceptive, skilled and honest enough to tell you what the flaws in that narrative are and how best to address this. Some media training, too.

Here's a terrific list compiled by Patrick Keane:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tAiya71mDQgtwn_F9-mN...

I don't think it can truly be said that TARP turned profit. Because TARP was actually structured as the purchase/hedging of banks' securities. And it is impossible to know profitability of securities without knowing their Sharpe ratio, which no one knew at the time because all their valuation models were garbage as all the defaults happening in real-time soon made apparent.

The Lewisville Dam near Dallas, Texas is also one to watch, although the scale of a potential disaster is much smaller and something is being done about it. http://interactives.dallasnews.com/2015/lewisville-dam/

Sounds similar to a grinder from Philly.

Which collapse do you mean?

I hope this spreads wide and far. This is unbelievable.

And neither of your comments had anything to do with my original point. Why is the hack of a private political organization justification for a war footing from our federal government?

Your comparison is absurd. Did you somehow miss that whole bit about faulty intelligence causing the Iraq war?

The hack seems politically motivated; no one can say with 100% assurance that it was caused by Russia; the DNC is a private organization, in any event, why should the citizens of the US be drawn into a war with a nuclear armed foe over their poor cyber security?

I doubt it. Just as I doubt a Republican pres. would go after Russia for DNC hacking. When the president is the head of the political party, expect conflicts of interest. But warring with nuclear-armed foes - when things are already quite tense with them in Syria - seems dangerous and dumb.

And if it had happened to the RNC, same response right? Somehow I doubt it. This is setting a very dangerous precedent.

The DNC is a private organization. Why does its hacking justify a government-sponsored response?

You mention that you use a newsletter and weekly blog posts as part of your marketing strategy. Content marketing can be such a time suck. Have you found ways to automate any parts of these processes?

Why was this flagged?

Except police unions. The cops think those are just fine.

Are you following any tutorials? How are you learning it?

>SF has more homeless because it generally treats them better than the rest of the US, not worse.

Thinking of the way Giuliani criminalized homelessness in NYC, you may be right. http://mobile.nytimes.com/1999/11/20/nyregion/in-wake-of-att...

>These tidal floods are often just a foot or two deep, but they can stop traffic, swamp basements, damage cars, kill lawns and forests, and poison wells with salt.

Is the wellwater seepage the biggest problem? Guessing the other things in the list could be fixed with lots of money and infrastructure.

>There is a huge difference between the real world and a closed track.

Indeed. The unpredictable behavior of humans occupying the same environment is key. Remove this element and things get simpler (though not simple. And v2v comms might be required.)

I suspect highways are the road infrastructure most akin to a closed track. Which is why the Otto acquisition is so interesting.

> the added cost of inspection before selling them.

I wouldn't expect the supplier to bear this cost; it's the jailers who are doing the inspecting.

No, really, why are the departments picking up the tab, even in cases where the city's law prohibits this? The NYU paper has a couple illustrations.

>Only one jurisdiction in my study—El Paso, Texas—reported a practice of never indemnifying police officers.145 Yet no El Paso officer personally satisfied settlements or judgments against him during the study period. The city of El Paso did, however, pay $279,000 to settle sixteen civil rights cases against its officers between 2006 and 2011. The deputy city attorney in El Paso explained that, because the city is responsible for paying officers’ attorneys’ fees, it sometimes settles claims against officers because it would be less expensive to pay a small settlement than to continue to pay for the defense of the case. From the deputy city attorney’s perspective, paying a settlement on behalf of an officer to avoid the cost of further litigation should not be understood as equivalent to indemnifying that officer.

>California allows indemnification of punitive damages if the “governing body of that public entity” finds that “[p]ayment . . . would be in the best interests of the public entity.” [How do they figure?]

>Some jurisdictions [Las Vegas, New York, Oklahoma City, and Prince George’s County] appear to have indemnified officers in violation of governing law.

>Jurisdictions may sidestep prohibitions against indemnification of punitive damages by vacating the punitive damages verdict as part of a post-trial settlement.

>Although my study shows that officers almost never contribute to settlements and judgments, I found anecdotal evidence that some government attorneys affirmatively use the possibility that they will deny officers indemnification to gain settlement leverage, limit punitive damages verdicts, and reduce punitive damages verdicts after trial— only to indemnify their officers once the cases are ultimately resolved.

>During litigation, the threat that a city will deny indemnification may discourage plaintiffs from proceeding with claims against individual officers.

http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe...

>Personal insurance requires personal liability to insure.

Any insight into how this gets established by profession? Seems to be an entire industry offering and encouraging nurses to take out malpractice insurance, beyond whatever their employers' coverage is.

On the effort backfiring...maybe, but I don't see why it would play out the way that you describe. The criminal justice system lets these cops skate, but apparently the civil system is picking up the slack -- as evidenced by that NYC figure cited. Somebody is going to keep paying for these, I do not think there's anything the unions can do to change that fact. So the only question is who and if you can make the case to taxpayers that it sure as hell shouldn't be them, self-interest might rule and help fix this.

Edit: some clues here as to the question of personal liability of cops. From a study by Joanna Schwartz in the NYU law review:

>This Article empirically examines an issue central to judicial and scholarly debate about civil rights damages actions: whether law enforcement officials are financially responsible for settlements and judgments in police misconduct cases. The Supreme Court has long assumed that law enforcement officers must personally satisfy settlements and judgments, and has limited individual and government liability in civil rights damages actions—through qualified immunity doctrine, municipal liability standards, and limitations on punitive damages—based in part on this assumption.

>Scholars disagree about the prevalence of indemnification: Some believe officers almost always satisfy settlements and judgments against them, and others contend indemnification is not a certainty. In this Article, I report the findings of a national study of police indemnification. Through public records requests, interviews, and other sources, I have collected information about indemnification practices in forty-four of the largest law enforcement agencies across the country, and in thirty-seven small and mid-sized agencies.

>My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments — even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct.

http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe...

A rational taxpayer should be very upset about this.

On making cops accountable, it does all come down to the public clamor for this. We see these incidents and many are horrified and yet nothing changes. This is why I wonder about working the wallet angle, and if insurance can be part of the solution. How many New York taxpayers know that the City paid close to half a billion over 5 years to settle NYPD related lawsuits? Can we get more data on this from other cities and publicize it? Could a concerted #TaxpayersLivesMatter campaign put enough political pressure on mayors and governors (and counteract the police unions) to change the way these legal settlements work today? http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/428-million-in-...

Can insurance help solve this problem? As in, police depts. require each cop to get some liability coverage. When incidents like this lead to a payout on the cop's behalf, their premium goes up. Eventually it's too high for them to afford so they must leave the job. If it's feasible then, regardless of how they feel about BLM, convince taxpaying citizens to get behind this scheme because their tax dollars shouldn't be going to settle these well-justified lawsuits.

I personally would not roll the windows all the way down, just low enough to hand them ID and to hear and be heard clearly, and I would make sure the doors are locked. The Sandra Bland footage taught me this. https://youtu.be/jpSEemvwOn4?t=2m14s