Tag Archives: second

Basketball: Miami Hurricanes showing progress in critical win over Clemson – MyPalmBeachPost (blog)

Posted: February 19, 2017 at 11:06 am

Kamari Murphys jumpers were two of the positive signs for UM in its win over Clemson. (Getty Images)

CORAL GABLES Miami would like to have JaQuan Newton on the floor.

While hes suspended, however, the Hurricanes have proven more than capable of winning.

UM won its second game in a row without its junior point guard, beating Clemson 71-65 at the Watsco Center in a vital chance for both teams to add to their NCAA tournament resumes.

The Hurricanes (18-8, 8-6 ACC) offset the absence of Newton, a talented scorer who can break down the stingiest of defenses, by producing four players in double figures: senior forward Kamari Murphy (career-high 15), senior guard Davon Reed (14), sophomore center Ebuka Izundu (12) and sophomore forward Anthony Lawrence (10). Freshman guard Bruce Brown had nine points.

Miami needed everyone to contribute in a tight game, which it led by one possession for most of the first half, and two scores by most of the second. Its largest lead was eight.

We all play for each other, said Murphy. If everyone plays their role, well get the win. Whoever steps up that day, well take it.

What coach Jim Larranaga liked more: his team had more assists (19) and fewer turnovers (seven) Saturday than in any one of their ACC games this year. That result came against a Clemson team that leads the ACC in steals.

Brown, Reed and Lawrence each finished with five assists. Larranaga was beaming about some of those passes afterward.

Lawrence threw one behind his head to Murphy for a first-half lay-up. Freshman guard D.J. Vasiljevic stole the ball, read the fast-break defense and dropped it to Lawrence for a slam. With 1:34 left and Miami up three, Reed drove baseline and hooked a pass to the top of the key to Brown for a three-pointer. Ballgame.

Nineteen assists, Larranaga said. I like em all.

The crowd of 6,987 liked when Murphy, a 6-foot-8 redshirt senior known for defense and dunks, showed he has a little offensive game. He hit a jumper early, and later used a pump-fake, then Euro-stepped his way to the basket for two points. He rattled home another jumper on the next possession.

Teams have got to change their scouting report now, said a smiling Murphy, who made a career-best seven shots on nine attempts, and led Miami in rebounds (nine). He admitted the Euro-step was just instinct I dont think thats part of my game.

Murphy would like to have the soft lefty jump-hook of his 6-10 frontcourt mate, Izundu, whom he said scores easiest out of anyone on the team. After early-season foul trouble plagued him, Izundu is provingit. He scored 13 points in his first nine conference games, but is averaging 8.8 in his last five, beginning with a career-high 16 on Feb. 4 at North Carolina State.

Vasiljevic, a 6-2 guard from Australia, has shot mostly assisted 3s so far. But Larranaga said he attacks the basket in practice, and was quite satisfied when Vasiljevic (five points) scored Saturday by splitting a double-team and throwing an off-balance floater at the rim.

He also noted 6-10 freshman forward Dewan Huell (six points), a former McDonalds high school All-American battling a foot injury,called his own name on a play called Chin Rip, where he scored on an up-and-under layup through contact.

Were making a lot of progress, Larranaga said. Young guys. You just dont know their timetable. Bruce Brown was ready by the time the season began. Then youve got guys like Dewan, who really needed to add strength. D.J. needed to play against the fast, quick athlete. In one of our early practices, I forget what Dewan did, but D.J. said, Yeah, we dont have those kind of dunks in Australia.’

I think our upperclassmen have played well all year, but our freshmen and sophomores are gaining more confidence.

Reed, Miamis steadiest player, grabbed seven boards and played excellent defense on Clemsons 6-7 star Jaron Blossomgame (17.3 points per game), who made 13 of his last 27 threes entering the game. He missed all five he took Saturday and scored 16 points. The Tigers didnt make a 3 in the second half (0-for-8) and finished 3-of-17.

That defense will help Miami on Monday at Virginia, currently ranked No. 14 and one of three ranked teams Miami will face in its final four games. The Hurricanes host No. 12 Duke on Saturday and finish on the road at Virginia Tech (Feb. 27) and at No. 17 Florida State (March 4). If they win one of those, it will greatly boost their resume heading into the ACC tournament (March 7-11 in Brooklyn, N.Y.).

We dont want to think too far down the line, but every game is crucial, Murphy said. We want to have a postseason. Youve always got to protect home court.

For Clemson, Saturdays loss struck a major blow. The Tigers (14-12, 4-10) have a few wins in a loaded ACC, and the fifth-toughest schedule according to KenPom.com, but are now 2-6 on the road in conference play.

Not for me to say, coach Brad Brownell said when asked what the loss did to his tournament chances. We lost the game to a top-50 RPI team. I dont think it does much.

Both teams were hot to start, each opening 6-for-7 and 13-for-20 from the floor. Thats typical for Clemson, which was ranked 27th in offensive efficiency by KenPom.com. The Hurricanes, stingy defensively all year, settled in and held the Tigers 10 points below their season average.

Clemson cut it to two points with 11:11, and one point with 7:43, but Reed and Lawrence sank threes in response both times.

Making both free throws, making a big three, a timely shot, Brownell said. We just didnt get any momentum-type plays in the second half.

Like Loading…

View original post here:

Basketball: Miami Hurricanes showing progress in critical win over Clemson – MyPalmBeachPost (blog)

Posted in Progress | Comments Off on Basketball: Miami Hurricanes showing progress in critical win over Clemson – MyPalmBeachPost (blog)

Rubio and his Resurrection of The Second Amendment Enforcement Act – Bearing Arms

Posted: at 10:56 am

Senator Marco Rubios resurrectedSecond Amendment Enforcement Actwill ensure that law-abiding citizens in Washington, D.C. can exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm, should it pass.

Emotionally charged anti-gunners are doing their best to keep the current stringent D.C. gun laws in place. Unfortunately, they dont understand that federal laws, already in place, are more than sufficient to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

It is essential for all to remember that criminals, by the very definition of the word, are law breakers. Boundaries are disregarded, and they act upon their own volition; without concern of consequence. Law-abiding citizens are consistently punished by having their rights infringed upon with layers and layers of laws that are in place to detour the criminal. The oxymoron here is that law-abiding citizens will obey the laws, and criminals wont.

How will enacting layers of laws over and above federal laws change the demeanor of someone who disregards the law, because they act with moral turpitude? Simply put, it wont.

Anti-gunners with their flair for the dramatic and with no foundationin fact spread misinformation. For those of us who know and understand the laws, it is nothing less than frustrating. For those of you who dont, become familiar with federal, state, and your local guns laws. Put them in context of criminal behavior.

Allowing D.C.s excessive gun laws to stand as is only benefits criminals. They already know that they likely wontface life threatening resistance when committing a crime.

The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will put guns in the hands of the good guys. So, when the criminals hear their targetsmay be armed in order to protect themselves, it could be the game-changer that helps to deter crime in D.C.

Author’s Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Read more here:
Rubio and his Resurrection of The Second Amendment Enforcement Act – Bearing Arms

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Rubio and his Resurrection of The Second Amendment Enforcement Act – Bearing Arms

First Amendment survives challenge from Florida gun law – Minnesota Public Radio News (blog)

Posted: February 18, 2017 at 3:55 am

If youre at all a fan of the First Amendment, there was plenty to like about todays decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down a Florida law that prohibited doctors from asking whether there are guns in the home (heres the full law in question).

But lets focus on the concurring opinion of William Pryor, who was on the short list to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pryor is a conservative, so he took great pains to point out that the decision is not about the Second Amendment; its about the First.

And much of his opinion was aimed strictly at conservatives, apparently anticipating their criticism.

Heres some examples.

If we upheld the Act, we could set a precedent for many other restrictions of potentially unpopular speech. Think of everything the government might seek to ban between doctor and patient as supposedly irrelevant to the practice of medicine. Without the protection of free speech, the government might seek to ban discussion of religion between doctor and patient. The state could stop a surgeon from praying with his patient before surgery or punish a Christian doctor for asking patients if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior or punish an atheist for telling his patient that religious belief is delusional.

Without the protection of free speech, the government might seek to censor political speech by doctors. The state might prevent doctors from encouraging their patients to vote in favor of universal health care or prohibit a physician from criticizing the Affordable Care Act. Some might argue that such topics are irrelevant to a particular patients immediate medical needs, but the First Amendment ensures that doctors cannot be threatened with state punishment for speech even if it goes beyond diagnosis and treatment.

Pryor said doctors already discuss highly controversial topics with patients. Whether to play football, or telling teenagers to abstain from sex, and recommending organ donation.

He called the very idea a thought experiment and then lowered the boom with this beautiful piece of prose:

If today the majority can censor so-called heresy, then tomorrow a new majority can censor what was yesterday so-called orthodoxy.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion . . . . Our decision applies this timeless principle to speech between doctors and patients, regardless of the content. The First Amendment requires the protection of ideas that some people might find distasteful because tomorrow the tables might be turned.

Todays decision was not close. The vote was 10-to-1.

The one belonged to Gerald Bard Tjoflat, who is 87 years old and is the longest-service justice in the U.S. Court of Appeals system.

He does see the case as a Second Amendment question:

The majority and I agree that Florida possesses a substantial interest in protecting both Floridians reasonable expectation of privacy during medical treatment and the full exercise of their Second Amendment rights. If that is so, then it is hard to imagine a law more precisely tailored to advance those substantial state interests than the one presently before us. The Act does not categorically restrict the speech of medical professionals on the subject of firearms. Instead, it simply requires an individualized, good faith judgment of the necessity of speech related to firearm ownership to provide competent medical care to a patient.

a constitutional right is a right to be free of governmental restrictions on the exercise of the right it is not a right to be free of private criticism for the exercise of the right, much less private questions about the exercise of the right, law professor Eugene Volokh in his Washington Post column analyzing todays decision. A doctor no more violates your Second Amendment rights by asking you about whether you own a gun than the doctor violates your First Amendment rights by asking you how much TV your children watch, or your Lawrence v. Texas sexual autonomy rights by asking you whether youve been having sex with multiple partners.

Heres the courts full opinion:

Bob Collins has been with Minnesota Public Radio since 1992, emigrating to Minnesota from Massachusetts. He was senior editor of news in the 90s, ran MPRs political unit, created the MPR News regional website, invented the popular Select A Candidate, started the two most popular blogs in the history of MPR and every day laments that his Minnesota Fantasy Legislature project never caught on.

NewsCut is a blog featuring observations about the news. It provides a forum for an online discussion and debate about events that might not typically make the front page. NewsCut posts are not news stories but reflections , observations, and debate.

View original post here:
First Amendment survives challenge from Florida gun law – Minnesota Public Radio News (blog)

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment survives challenge from Florida gun law – Minnesota Public Radio News (blog)

MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second … – Holmes County Times Advertiser

Posted: February 17, 2017 at 12:59 am

Mark Hopkins | Special to the Daily News

Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution?

As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done, we must study the times in which such decisions were made.

The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office, two key challenges faced him and the leadership in Congress.

First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us.

At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work, each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed.

Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia, neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people.

In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government.

The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history.

In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed.

Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at presnet@presnet.net for copies.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers.

Read more here:
MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second … – Holmes County Times Advertiser

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second … – Holmes County Times Advertiser

Polish Second World War Museum Director Vows to Fight … – Newsweek

Posted: at 12:46 am

The director of a major new war museum in Poland has vowed to fight against government censorship and try to bring his collection to the public.

The Museum of the Second World War in Gdask is almost ready to open after eight years of preparation.

But a bitter legal battle has delayed its launch: the government has sought to gain control over the institution, which the ruling Law and Justice party fears will present an insufficiently nationalist view of Polands wartime experience.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Writing in the design journal Disegno, the museums director Pawe Machcewicz said a final decision is due on the dispute in March or April. He said that before that, we will feverishly attempt to use this time to open the museum to the public before it is too late.

Machcewicz and his team want the museum to focuson the everyday experiences of millions of ordinary people, with a permanent collection centered around approximately 2,000 historical artefacts, many of them family relics donated by individuals.

But the government, he said, condemned our museum as too pacifistic, humanistic, universal, multinational, and not sufficiently Polish.

While the museum aims to make the Polish history a part of the European and world history, the government wants it instead to focus on presenting exclusively Polish sufferings and heroism, Machcewicz said.

In order to get its way, the government wants to merge the museum with an as-yet unbuilt institution, the Museum of Westerplatte and the War of 1939, a plan first announced in 2015.

This move would allow the government to appoint a new director, and gain influence over the tone and direction of the new, merged museum. But the museum has challenged the plan in the courts. Machcewicz said that the court had suspended progress on the merger. One ruling in the Supreme Administrative Court in January found in favor of the government. But the final decision is expected in the coming weeks.

Plans for the Museum of the Second World War were first announced in 2007 under the government of former Prime Minister Donald Tusk, now the President of the European Council.

The Second World War was different from all earlier conflicts because it touched civilian populations the most, Machcewicz said, As we developed the main concepts for the museum, we decided that the human dimension of the conflict is the most important to us.

View post:
Polish Second World War Museum Director Vows to Fight … – Newsweek

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Polish Second World War Museum Director Vows to Fight … – Newsweek

Crapo backs 2nd Amendment action | The Spokesman-Review – The Spokesman-Review (blog)

Posted: February 15, 2017 at 8:59 pm

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 15, 2017, 1:16 P.M.

From the office of U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo:

Idaho Senator Mike Crapo today voted to support a Resolution of Disapproval that will stop a rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) from stripping the Second Amendment rights of some Social Security beneficiaries.

Todays resolution of disapproval will stop the Social Security Administration from stigmatizing people with disabilities and stripping beneficiaries of their Second Amendment rights, said Crapo, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Social Security Administration is not a court of law and it is unacceptable that it take any action against a beneficiary without due process. Congress has done the right thing to stop this overreach and repeal this rule.

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress may submit a joint resolution of disapproval to overturn a final rule issued by an Executive Branch agency. The resolution approved today will halt a rule submitted by SSA in December 2016. The rule requires SSA to report individuals who have been adjudicated as mentally defective to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS). Under the rule, individuals who have been appointed a representative payee may also be submitted to NICS. In some cases, the SSA may appoint, or a beneficiary may request, a representative payee to assist a beneficiary with managing their benefits. The wide-ranging rule will affect many Americans as more than eight million beneficiaries need help managing their benefits, according to SSA. Earlier this year, Senator Crapo introduced a bill to effectively overturn the rule and highlighted it in an op-ed this month. The Resolution passed today by the Senate will enact the changes Senator Crapo sought to address with his legislation.

The measure now goes to President Trump who is expected to sign the measure.

Agree/disagree with this resolution?

Posted Feb. 15, 2017, 1:16 p.m.

Read this article:
Crapo backs 2nd Amendment action | The Spokesman-Review – The Spokesman-Review (blog)

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Crapo backs 2nd Amendment action | The Spokesman-Review – The Spokesman-Review (blog)

MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second … – Apalachicola Times

Posted: at 8:59 pm

Mark Hopkins | Special to the Daily News

Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution?

As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done, we must study the times in which such decisions were made.

The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office, two key challenges faced him and the leadership in Congress.

First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us.

At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work, each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed.

Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia, neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people.

In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government.

The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history.

In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed.

Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at presnet@presnet.net for copies.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers.

Follow this link:
MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second … – Apalachicola Times

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second … – Apalachicola Times

How Has Technology Changed The Way We Trust? – Fast Company

Posted: at 12:06 am

Rachel Botsman has spent over a decade thinking about the “sharing economy.” As an an author and a visiting academic at the University of Oxford, Sad Business School, who researches how technology is transforming trust, shes an authority on the subject. She’s also one of Fast Company’s Most Creative People. She is currently writing a book, due out next fall, about the new decentralized economies and how that has changed trust.

I recently chatted with her about what this means for the future of leadership. What follows is a transcript of our conversation. It has been edited for space and clarity.

Can you talk a bit about your current project and its background?

In 2009, I wrote What’s Mine Is Yours about the so-called sharing economy. And there were really two aspects that always interested me about it. One was how you can take these idle assets and unlock their value through technology, and then the second was trust. This notion that technology could breed familiarity and enable strangers to trust one another was fascinating, and the start of something much bigger.

I started to research things like the blockchain and our relationship to artificial intelligence, and all these other technologies that transformed how we trust people, ideas, things, companies. I felt that there was a paradigm shift happening.

At the same time, it’s hard to ignore the headlines that trust is really imploding. So whether it’s banks, the media, government, churches . . . this institutional trust that is really important to society is disintegrating at an alarming rate. And so how do we trust people enough to get in a car with a total stranger and yet we don’t trust a banking executive? So that’s essentially what the book unpacks.

Rachel Botsman

And what I’ve discovered through writing the book is that these systems aren’t betterthey still bump against human error and greed and market forces. It is very hard to have a decentralized system because you always end up with a center or a monopoly of power. What I find really frightening is this denialand this is a leadership questionfirst of all [to accept] that trust is changing. And then the lack of organizations completely rethinking how you build trust, what you do with trust when it’s destroyed, whether the basic principles are really changing.

Where did this new paradigm shift come from? Was it from these new companies creating different services? Or was it from more institutional distrust on the consumers part?

It’s a transfer. So societies can’t run without trust, which is a really basic point; it is social glue. If it disappears or dissipates in one way, it’s going to rise up in another form. And this has really taken hold in financial services, in everything from peer-to-peer lending to crowdfunding to Bitcoin. The system breaks down and it makes people open to alternatives. If trust disappears or dissipates in one way, it’s going to rise up in another form.

And then the second part is the technology. This technology to transfer assets without intermediaries, to build familiarity, to find social connections with people. This brings us together in ways that have never been possible before.

When you see banks like Goldman Sachs investing in blockchain technology or other similar corporate moves, is that an example of companies trying to keep up with paradigm shifts or institutions trying to cloak themselves in the popular nomenclature to stay relevant?

It comes from a place of fear. It comes from an understandable place, of not wanting to be disintermediated. It’s like, Can we embrace the technology that could be our greatest threat? Goldman Sachs is a really good example because the cryptocurrency they’re developing, the blockchain, is private. It’s inside their walls.

They’re trying to take a culturethis institutional idea that you can control trust, that it can be top-down and be linearand apply it to this distributive ledger. And that’s where we’re going to run into a lot of problems: The architecture doesn’t match with the ideology.

You said that despite the distributed model, there is still centralization. What do you mean by that? Could that change business models in the coming years?

There are two very different examples that illustrate the same problem. One example is that you start off with networks and marketplaces like Airbnb, where it’s meant to be a distribution of powerlet’s empower people to make money off their homes. And then a network monopoly results, where Airbnb controls that market. And then commercial landlords become the dominant players on the platform, and rent is driven up as an unintended consequence. So that’s an example of a marketplace that results in a network monopoly.

A second example is the collapse of the DAO fund, the crowdfunding experiment they did on the blockchain with Ethereum. [Botsman is referring to the Ethereum project, which created a peer-to-peer blockchain digital contracts platform. It was hacked in 2016 to the tune of $50 million. To fix that, its creator, Vitalik Buterin, decided to do whats called a “hard fork,” which solved the hack by moving the funds, but it ostensibly went against the basic tenets the platform had originally created, which was being a decentralized platform where power lie exclusively with its users.]

And that’s really interesting, because, what did they do? It ran into human problems, and Buterin decided on this hard fork. People had to make a choice: Do they stick with the original fund, or do they follow this new thing? And so even in these supposedly decentralized control systems, when something goes wrong, we still look for leadership. If you look at those 24 hours [when the hack first occurred], and everyone was saying Where’s Vitalik? What’s Vitalik going to do? that’s human nature.

So it’s lovely to believe this libertarian ideal that you don’t need a leader, you need a center, but it just doesn’t work.

Do you think, organizationally and in a hierarchical sense, things will remain the same down the line, despite these new distributed economies?

This is where it ties to leadership. It really requires a different type of leadership where you understand how to get people to collaborate with different and sometimes misaligned interests. A good example of this is Gerard Ryle and his work with the ICIJ. He’s the guy that got the 300 or so reporters to collaborate around the Panama Papers. They all work for their own media organizations; journalists like scoops. And yet he figured out how to get them to all work together. And he used complicated technology, but it was his leadership that meant everyone published on the same day.

What is frightening to me is I can count on my hand the number of people that really understand how to lead these types of systems.

In essence, does it take a new, very different kind of leadership in order to succeed with these decentralized systems?

That’s exactly right. And many entrepreneurs I’ve met they think their role is playing digital God. And it’s not. Yet that’s what I find.

And then the other end of the spectrum is you speak to leaders at traditional brandsit’s not a criticism, but I don’t even know where to beginwho sort of form a blockchain team, and then they form a peer-to-peer marketplace team. Yet that’s not changing the culturethat’s not changing the way you interact with your customers.

If I were an entrepreneur looking to become a leader in this burgeoning sector, and I picked up your book and came upon your research, what is the biggest lesson youd want me to learn?

As messy as humans are, technology cannot replace the role of humans in relationships. It’s thinking about how you inject that humanness into the technology. You put people at the center; [understand] what that means without it being lip service. People are at the center of what you’re doing, not the technology. What are the implications of that?

Read more from the original source:

How Has Technology Changed The Way We Trust? – Fast Company

Posted in Technology | Comments Off on How Has Technology Changed The Way We Trust? – Fast Company

The Fight to Ensure the Right to Bear Arms for Social Security Recipients Continues – Bearing Arms

Posted: February 14, 2017 at 11:56 pm

Since August of 2015, Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, has takena stance against the Social Security Administrations action to provide names of Social Security recipients to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Neil W. McCabe, from Breitbart, has confirmed that Senator Manchin will continue his support by voting to overturn this overreach of the SSA. This will eliminate pending restrictions of the right to bear arms onsome of the countrys most vulnerable citizens.

In a statement released on Manchins website, the senator said:

As a law-abiding gun owner, hunter, card-carrying life member of the NRA and Second Amendment advocate, I have always supported a West Virginians right to bear arms.This potential overreach by the Social Security Administration is a blatant infringement on the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. The assumption by the SSA that seniors and individuals with certain disabilities are a threat to society is both inaccurate and misguided and should not be grounds to revoke someones constitutional rights. That is why I joined my colleagues in strongly urging the Administration to end efforts to move forward with this proposal.

Its important topoint outthatpeople need to do their research and stop jumping to dangerous conclusions that are not based in fact. Disability status based upon age orvarious diseases does not equate to a person being inherently dangerous to themselves or anyone else.

Under a law enacted during the Obama Administration, the private information that the SSA could turnoverwould reside within the NICS database, which currently houses the names of individuals prohibited from purchasing or carrying a firearm. It is a violation of an individuals rights and privacy for the SSA to make their owndetermination about thoserecipients future actions based solely upon receiving certain benefitswithout the due process of the law. Once a persons information is entered into the NICS database, theywill immediately be deemed a threat to society. This will stand without any additional proof, other than the SSAs determination of having a propensity for or history of a violent past, present, or future.

Fortunately repealing this infringement upon millions of Americans right to bear arms seems to have gained strength during this new Congress.

The bill is currently awaiting movement in the Senate, where it currently resides after having passed through the House.

Author’s Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Originally posted here:
The Fight to Ensure the Right to Bear Arms for Social Security Recipients Continues – Bearing Arms

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on The Fight to Ensure the Right to Bear Arms for Social Security Recipients Continues – Bearing Arms

Bloody weekend in Bahamas, Opposition calls for Gov’t to break … – Jamaica Observer

Posted: at 11:44 am

NASSAU, Bahamas (CMC) The police on Monday appealed to citizens to provide information no matter how small or insignificant the tip may seem as they launched investigations into several murders in the Bahamas over the weekend.

Police said that the information could be provided anonymously or through Crime Stoppers.

They said that on Sunday, a man was shot dead while standing outside of his home. The authorities said that the unidentified man was approached by two armed gunmen who shot him before fleeing on foot.

In another incident, the police said two separate shooting incidents have resulted in one man being killed and two others hospitalised on Saturday.

The police said in the first incident, a group of people were attending a party, when the occupants of a blue self-drive vehicle pulled up and fired several shots into the crowd before speeding off. Two males were shot and taken to hospital where one of them remains in serious condition and the other in stable condition.

In the second incident, an unidentified male was standing outside of his home when the occupants of a vehicle pulled up and shot him before speeding off. The man was pronounced dead on the scene.

Police said that two of their colleagues have been hospitalised after they were shot by a suspect who has since been detained.

They said the shootings on Sunday occurred when the male and a female police officer responded to a domestic incident at a home in the capital.

While at the home, a man arm with a shotgun approached and shot both of them. The officers returned fire but the suspect was able to flee in a vehicle. The two officers were taken to hospital where they remain in stable condition, a police statement said, adding that the suspect was held suffering gunshot wounds. Police also recovered a shotgun from the suspect.

Police said on Friday, three people were shot dead during two separate shooting incidents.

In the first incident, a male was walking with two other males when a male armed with a handgun approached and shot him before fleeing on foot. The victim was pronounced dead on the scene.

In the second incident on Saturday, a group of people were at a nightclub, when an altercation occurred that led to a male armed with a handgun firing several shots into a crowd.

One male was shot as he attempted to leave in his vehicle. He was pronounced dead on the scene. Another male was taken to hospital where he later died, the statement said, adding that the police have launched an island-wide manhunt for the suspects.

In other criminal activities over the weekend, police said they seized several rounds of ammunition during an operation in Nassau Village.

An American national along with three Bahamians including two women have been taken into custody in connection with the discovery.

Meanwhile, the main opposition Free National Movement (FNM) has called on the government to break its silence on the crime situation in the country.

Those charged with ensuring the safety of our nation, must reassure citizens, and all residents, that the situation is under control, said the FNMs Marvin Dames.

He said that with 25 murders already on the record, an average of one murder every two days, and a pace that, if continued, will certainly lead to another heinous murder record, making a case that the nation is secure is extremely difficult.

However, silence on the part of our national security officials will not do, he added.

View original post here:

Bloody weekend in Bahamas, Opposition calls for Gov’t to break … – Jamaica Observer

Posted in Bahamas | Comments Off on Bloody weekend in Bahamas, Opposition calls for Gov’t to break … – Jamaica Observer