Well, guess what -- you can't go to the cops when you try to buy drugs and the seller -- or "exchange" -- rips you off!
According to the Daily Dot, one Redditor claims to have engaged in a virtual chase with Czech computer programmer Tomáš Jiřikovsky, who user sheeproadreloaded2 claims is behind the site and has absconded with 96,000 bitcoins, or about $95 million dollars.
Despite a claim by Sheep Marketplace that they intend to refund users’ money to their ‘emergency addresses,’ none of the commenters on Reddit’s r/SheepMarketplace forum appear to have received any money thus far.
Some, however, do seem to be seriously worried their money will never come.
A commenter using the handle wrote: ‘I am a large vendor on Sheep Marketplace, or I was until recently. I sold hard drugs in reasonably large quantities. I have around $90k locked up in the site. I owe some money to some very nasty people.....
Sounds like you've got a problem there dude..... how are those eyes in the back of your head working out for you?
One of the most-amusing parts of this is that these "illicit marketplaces" run all their transactions through "tumblers", generating single-use "wallets" that transfer the coins around in various amounts (breaking them up and aggregating them) so as to attempt to obscure who owns what. This is due to the irrefutable nature of all transactions in these currencies -- if this was not done then you could buy some drugs today and get irrefutably busted two years from now. While this would be bad for the buyer of the drugs it's disastrous for the seller.
Unfortunately when you engage in a "marketplace" like this you're trusting that the intermediary won't steal the funds, because after they're "tumbled" but before they're remitted to you they can be ripped off with impunity.
It gets even more fun if you're not really sure who runs the place... which of course is a necessary thing to obscure when what you're facilitating the trade in isn't exactly legal.
A Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) managing director was arrested and charged with first-degree******after he was accused of sexually assaulting a 20-year-old woman at a home on Long Island, New York.
East Hampton police responded to a report of a disturbance at the home of 37-year-old Jason Lee on Clover Leaf Lane on Aug. 20 and learned that a woman had been sexually assaulted inside the residence, where “several people had gathered,” according to a statement by police.
Of course financial******(which under our alleged "legal system" since the repeal of Glass-Steagall has been lawful -- so says everyone claiming "nobody committed any crimes") has been the specialty of the various financial firms centered in New York -- and among them Goldman has famously been dubbed the Vampire Squid by writer Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone.
The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.
Relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money eh? Hmmm....
Of course Mr. Lee is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty in a court of law.
However, the irony of the allegation and charge did not escape my notice......
As the Asiana Airlines Inc. (020560) jet neared Los Angeles International Airport, Captain Vic Hooper told his Korean co-pilot to make a visual approach, meaning he’d manually fly instead of letting automation do the work.
The co-pilot froze, leaving them too high and off course, Hooper said about the incident, which occurred several years ago. Hooper said he had to take over the controls to get the Boeing Co. (BA) 777 back on track.
“I don’t need to know this,” Hooper said the co-pilot told him later, explaining why a maneuver that’s second nature to most U.S. airline pilots rattled him. “We just don’t do this.”
How many of you folks reading this are pilots? I'm not. I have something like five (yes, really, five) hours in a light single (Cessana 152, I believe) with other people who are pilots, all of them who needed to log pilot-in-command time for some purpose and were willing to let me "fly the plane" if I paid for the hobbs (meter) time.
That's both fun and legal, by the way, if you're interested in acquiring a bit of flying time. Just be careful that you don't get bit by the "Iwannabeapilot" bug because if you think boats are an expensive hobby you've seen nothing when the hobby is aircraft!
Now here's the interesting point of all of the above -- post-Asiana crash-landing I started rummaging thorough my old CD and DVD software collection, wondering if I still had a serviceable "flight simulator" to try a few things. I did -- Xplane7 -- but it refused to load and run on my much-more-modern computer of today. A bit of rooting around on the Internet found FlightGear.Org, an open-source simulator that runs exceptionally well and as luck would have it has a 777 as one of it's aircraft -- and from what the documentation claims, this is one of the better-developed and maintained planes in its stable.
A "short" download later (thank you fast broadband!) and some futzing around got me set up with my 4-screen trading system set up as a quite-credible flight simulator that actually makes the GPUs in my computer sweat a bit and delivers >30fps frame rates. Not bad, not bad.
I started futzing around with the Cessna 172 (the closest thing it had to the 152) and found that after dying a few times I was able to successfully take off from KVPS (Eglin's field), fly around a bit and, after a fashion and using far more runway than I might like, land and not die.
Ok, so if I was in one of those tubs and the pilot keeled over and croaked I'd have a decent shot at living. Not a sure thing by any means with only one crack at it, but better than even odds.
Next I set up for the 777 and instead of cheating went through the entire thing manually from turning on the battery power to APU startup to engine start and on and on and on.
Getting the plane off the ground wasn't very hard. Landing was a different matter entirely, even though I know how the PAPI (glideslope indicator lights) work.
They're almost-exactly like a ranging system works for a boat, which I'm much-more familiar with and which keeps you safe when coming into a place you haven't been to before. A range-board system in the yachting world is a pair (or sometimes more) dayboards and lights that line up vertically when you're on path to come into the inlet. If you're off the line then they displace horizontally; when you're "in the slot" they line up in a straight line. All you have to do is steer the boat so the range markers line up and you're right up the middle. At night or when you're not really sure where the partially (or completely) submerged rocks are this is a big help!
With an airplane it works similarly -- there are four lights and they're "shaded" so what you see depends on the angle of approach vertically. When you're on the glideslope for landing you see two whites and two reds. If you're too high you see three or four whites. A bit too high is three, too high is four. If you're a bit too low you see three reds and one white, you're dead too low (you're going to hit the ground before you get to the runway!) is all reds.
Now here's the gimmick -- the 777 along with most other modern transport jets (the ones you sit in the back and let Delta take you there) have some pretty damned sophisticated automation. I wasn't quite aware of exactly how sophisticated, but was blown away by what I found -- and this is allegedly exactly what's really there.
That is, provided you can get to ~2,500' above the ground in level flight and intercept the glideslope (a straight line out from the runway) you can literally push a button and dial in the airspeed and flap settings as you approach and the plane will land itself. Once the plane touches down you put reverse thrust on and then steer it on the ground to the gate. I literally landed the first time trying it this way -- smooth as glass.
But this requires a working ILS.
Even without it the "autothrottle" (which will hold a set airspeed) makes it reasonably easy to land manually using the PAPI (the lights.) With the autothrottle turned off your work goes up a lot and if you miss something -- well, you die.
The point is that pilots generally spend most of the time learning how to fly those approaches and land. Any of us could probably take the controls of a plane in flight and avoid dying with a couple of minutes of talking to someone if we knew where the limits were. It doesn't take much at all to fly the plane, and taking off isn't very hard either.
Landing is a different matter.
If this is really the bottom line -- that these folks are simply not any good at manually landing because the automation has made it too easy and thus unnecessary to possess that level of skill then we have a general issue here and we need to think long and hard about it. Fact is that automation fails and there's not supposed to be anything special about ILS not being available in good weather. That is, the presumption is that if you hold a pilots license you can land airplanes using nothing other than your skill in doing so for whatever aircraft you happen to be flying.
Has this presumption been left behind in the thrust to make everything "more computerized"?
Has the reliance on computers -- which I see every day among our youth who cannot make change for a $20 without using the computer at the checkout counter -- filtered into flying airplanes?
What's next -- "autodriving" cars rendering the skill of being able to drive a car irrelevent -- right up until the computer fails and then everyone inside dies?
I'm sorry folks, but I don't think this is progress. Oh sure, playing with that flight simulator gave me quite a rush being able to land a 777 with exactly zero time ever doing it -- simulated or otherwise. And if I ever find myself as a passenger in one with two dead pilots knowing where the switches and knobs are, how to read the airspeed indicator (which conveniently tells you where the warning levels are for various aircraft configurations -- that is, what speed you must maintain, etc), knowing in general how "the ball" (aircraft attitude indicator) works, how the autopilot works and how to select the localizer means that everyone on board (including myself) would probably find ourselves landing just fine provided the airport has a working ILS!
But the essence of the skill that is supposed to come with the moniker "pilot" isn't in pushing buttons on a computer and twisting a couple of dials. It's in the time and experience in being able to replicate that experience of the "greased landing" actually flying the airplane by hand. And that I cannot do on any sort of reliable basis, especially when there's not an extra mile or more of runway available and putting it down straight on the pavement is important.
IMHO if you can't do that you're not a pilot, and if we as a nation are giving clearance to aircraft to fly commercially in our airspace -- that is, carrying passengers for money -- then what the hell are we doing clearing said commercial traffic with pilots in either seat who can't accomplish the defining task for holding that title?
That's the question I want answered, but I doubt we'll get it.
Are you sure you still want to not only put up with having your balls groped but also an apparent degradation of the basic skills that define being a pilot among the people on the other side of the cockpit door?
Now there's something to think about.
There's a reason that on Tickerforum I am quite-rigorous about insisting that all the conspiracy theory nonsense go in the "Tinfoil" area of the forum. This should serve as a sufficient example:
ORLANDO, Fla. – A Chechen immigrant shot to death in central Florida early Wednesday after an altercation with an FBI agent shares a similar background to that of one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects who authorities were questioning him about at the time.
Ibragim Todashev's Chechen roots and mixed martial arts background mirror that of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston bombing suspected killed in a shootout with police last month. The two also had lived in the Boston area.
When this story broke the usual nuts were out claiming that the FBI had executed this guy and that there was no reasonable explanation for shooting him.
Did they read the second paragraph? Mixed martial arts background eh? So if some guy goes MMA on your head, and you're armed, you're not going to shoot him? Like hell.
Might I remind everyone that a soccer ref was punched by a player (once!) and died as a consequence? Fists are not deadly eh? Tell that to his family.
But that's not the rub here. No, you might remember that there was an unsolved triple-murder near Boston that was believed to be related to at least one of the Boston Bombers.
It appears that the guy who "went nuts" implicated himself in those triple murders, which, it appears, was over something rather simple: drugs.
Those who say that there was "no reason" for the FBI guy to shoot this suspect have a bit of a problem here. If the person being interrogated realized that he had just implicated himself in three Murder 1 charges it is entirely plausible that he might have made a "best effort" attempt to escape and/or kill the FBI agents involved.
Folks, I don't care if you like cops or not, if you trust the government or not, or if you believe the official stories or not.
Self-defense is always justified no matter who you are.
Until or unless further information is developed this particular incident looks, at a distance, like perfectly-legitimate self-defense by a law enforcement officer who was assaulted by someone who, at that point, appears to have been involved in and implicated himself in committing three murders.
Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.