Would have been nice to cite the full-size image, or the article in which it appears, rather than a badly resized Google image result, but whatever. The graph you cited compares hourly wages to productivity, and I'm not sure how that relates to standard of living rather than employee productivity. Within its context the graph pretty poorly done; the axis aren't labeled ($140 per hour in 2005?), the description is vague, nothing is said about what was actually measured (or how) and I'd be willing to bet any mention of standard of living doesn't even account for inflation over the 55 years it covers.
Any serious analysis (read: not partisan) of standard of living will show that for most people in the US in the last 30 years, it's gotten better.
Now go and enlighten yourself.
Forgive me for being blunt here, but based on your original post (with a questionable source), and your relatively hostile response to criticism of said post, it looks like the only person stuck on partisan analysis here is you.
Ok, I'll bite. Those questions are heavily weighted to someone's political beliefs, in an apparent attempt to confirm right-wing ideologies, and paint liberals as ignorant about the economy with conservatives being the guys with an educashun. Not surprising, given that it's published by a company owned by Rupert Murdoch (who also owns Fox News). Basically, if you disagree with their viewpoints, you're "unenlightened". Let's take a look at the questions:
1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). Liberals generally support licensing of professional services, while conservatives support deregulation. Aside from direct economic consequences, the question doesn't account for consequences of unqualified professional services, such as medical complications from an unlicensed doctor operating on you.
2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). This is a matter of perspective; conservatives are often of a higher socio-economic class, while liberals (who unsurprisingly support welfare/entitlement programs) are more commonly of a lower class. Additionally, since conservatives are also commonly older, many liberals were not around 30 years ago, and have only seen the economic decline.
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). Another loaded deregulation argument. Although true, lack of rent control leads to high rent prices, and a higher rate of homelessness among those who cannot afford high rent. A lot of conservatives believe in leaving free-market economics to treat basic essential needs such as food, water, and shelter as a commodity, while liberals are more likely to believe in guaranteeing such "commodities" to underprivileged citizens. It is not a farfetched mistake to confuse increased homelessness with housing shortages, and this type of question almost seems to imply a housing "shortage" is somehow worse than those houses being empty with people living on the streets.
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). Although by no means the definition of a monopoly, anybody here can agree that companies in a given sector with the largest market share (Microsoft, etc.) probably has the largest market share because of their monopoly. Correlation vs. Causation: a lot of people without a background in statistics miss that. Conservatives or libertarians who believe monopolies don't exist will probably say false for that reason.
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). This one is just outright wrong. Free-market economics lead to large multinationals (Apple, Nike, etc.) outsourcing labor and production to the country with the cheapest rates. This, in turn, leads to companies who pay the lowest sweatshop-level wages with no benefits, ludicrous requirements on things like bathroom breaks, and anti-unionizing intimidation, getting all the bids. Basically, third world countries cutting costs at the expense of workers, where minimum wage laws and other worker-protection laws don't apply. I guess if you disagree on principles of exploitation and human rights, or on the definition of third world workers, as many conservatives I've spoken with seem to, then you could consider this false, but that's definitely not how a liberal will see it. I've met a lot of conservatives who think that there is nothing morally wrong with sweatshops, which are a boon to their workers.
6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). Looks a lot more like a conservative talking point than a scientific economic question to me. Interesting that it appears close to the end of the survey, after all those loaded questions. In some cases, yes it does; look at what is happ
If you need to be that horrible to get this award, then it must be very prestigious indeed. I mean, there was that Citi Bank disaster, for example, it's nothing in comparison to Sony but as horrible as it was it's nothing in light of Sony. Think of the honor the CEO is having bestowed upon him. Heck, this was possibly worse than the ping of death. What do you compare it to?
Ok, I know this is just DNS and not some network-level hijacking, but crap like this is exactly why we need net neutrality. Capitalizing on customers' traffic by redirecting their searches (or otherwise interfering with customers' activities) is type of behavior net neutrality activists have claimed will happen for a long time, and that ISPs have claimed will never happen. Odd that the big players aren't the culprits for once (they're probably scared of regulation after the bittorrent scandal), but I'm sure if this is successful, or if a corrupt judge somewhere rules there is nothing wrong with what's going on, then we can expect to see all the big players stepping in and this will become a lot more widespread than it already is.
The lawyers WERE the monkeys. Can't anybody else see that? They're beating their chests over some pictures, demanding compensation (in bananas), and monkeying around with the judge over how far their "property rights" extend (being territorial).
But Mr. Kaufman talks openly about another controversial piece of his data gathering: Students were not informed of it. He discussed this with the institutional review board. Alerting students risked "frightening people unnecessarily," he says.
Basically, the IRB (also sometimes referred to as "ethics review committee") signed off on this. Now, once he's about to publish the results, they pull the plug.
Putting aside the university's hypocrisy (believe me, I can think of far worse privacy breaches), give me one good reason why collecting this kind of aggregate, anonymized data is ok for an advertiser who is studying how to most effectively manipulate people into buying something and generally won't even let people opt out of tracking, but it's not ok for a sociologist to publish aggregate statistical data from mined Facebook profiles. Advertisers are a lot less ethical about it than academic researchers.
This is just propping up the already large, uninnovative, and anti-competitive companies like Microsoft and Apple, while leaving smaller companies in the "dirt road" of domains. In the future, we can consumers to look for.BRAND, and blow off anybody with.com/.net/.org/whatever because they didn't pay the small price of $185,000. It's not like the market is unbalanced now or anything, so what could this hurt?
Thank you, ICANN, for putting the big players first.
Phishing means tricking users into divulging sensitive data, usually a password. It is just one type of social engineering. What is being described here is another form of social engineering, where users are told instead to install malware or something like that. It is not phishing, or even spear phishing. When you get a lot of information together to plan out an effective attack on human psyche, it's called pretexting.
Lobbyists lie. News at 11. Good that law enforcement is starting to realize it now though. Now if only their laws were looked at with this kind of scrutiny...
Think of pain in a psychological, adaptive sense, where it's an undesirable stimulus that lessens the chance we will perform some kind of behavior again. I think that's what is being picked up by an MRI. Not the immediate reflex that causes you to pull your hand away from the glowing red thing on the stove, but the part that causes it to hurt afterward, leaving a strong memory of the situation.
However, I did have a psychology professor last quarter tell the class you can lessen the effect of a break-up by taking pain medication. He said that most anti-inflammatory medications are believed to affect a certain part of the brain, which is incidentally the same place triggered by a break-up. He told us this right after Valentine's day, apologizing for not getting to that point in the curriculum a day sooner.
You're crazy. We've reversed transactions at ATMs with our bank where the ATM didn't spit out the money but marked it as a successful transaction
I am not a lawyer, but I believe legally the customer is liable for ATM transactions, except in a case where the card is stolen, AND the transactions happen no more than 72 hours before the report, and then I think your liability is capped at $50. Any reimbursements would be at the bank's discretion, so if you have a good, sympathetic bank(er), like it sounds like you have, you might get off the hook. I've had my fair share of disputes with banks that like to pin things on customers, and they're generally not as cooperative or polite about it.
If somebody, for example, does this or this, and you see it on your statement the next month; or even if you used your card soon after it happened (can't claim the card is stolen) but didn't check your statement online until later that night, you're stuck with it.
I didn't need to do "research" because I had personal experience to back it up, and no amount of research would have led me to your experience. Banks, in general, try to pin these things on the consumer instead of eating the loss, especiallyBankofAmerica.
The people who withdrew money from this ATM will probably never get their money back, since customers are always fully liable for ATM transactions. The banks will just write it off as a loss, which comes right out of their customers checking accounts. Worse, if the people don't notice they'll even be held responsible for trying to pass of counterfeit bills they thought were real.
Request Policy prompts you before each redirect that isn't on the same website. I don't know any way to turn it off or whitelist it, if you're looking for that, but it's probably your best bet.
That's great an all, except for when you can't take that calculator into an exam. Texas Instruments gets a guarantee of business from schools in return for fighting innovation, which is why their prices are so high.
TFA looks like a biased politically-motivated piece, likely written by someone who works for a bank. It talks all about how operating currency independently from the banks or government, who are there to protect you, is dangerous for you (only criminals would do something like this, right?) and risks toppling the government. Of course it will cause problems for banks; people using it might not have to deal with abuse, fees, or identity theft from a badly broken security model that is our financial system when they close their bank accounts for it.
FUD aside, I suppose that in itself is reason for the governments to ban it, since the powers that be have something to lose. At least if they're in the pockets of CEOs like they seem to be as of late...
One can only hope this sheds some light on the way companies routinely share otherwise personal information without full disclosure. Maybe if enough people see the people see all their information being compromised by 3rd-party affiliates they never heard of they'll realize what's going on. They just don't seem to realize (or care) that just by filling out 1 form and handing it to 1 company, dozens of other partner/contractor/affiliate companies get a copy and will likely keep it forever.
It's even worse when they do it with social security numbers or financial data. My school routinely hands social security numbers to other companies as a way of "minimizing liability" because if something happens then they can blame the contractor, as if that somehow minimizes the risk to students. I see this sort of thing happen all to often and it saddens me.
The only thing HTTP is vulnerable to that HTTPS is not vulnerable to is a passive attack. In most cases, when someone is able to position themself between you and the internet and listen in, they can also modify your traffic and give you bogus certs if you insist on HTTP. Then, because you see the happy, friendly padlock, you are reassured that everything is fine and dandy and nobody is listening in on your connection just because the attacker gave you a certificate which doesn't happen to be the right one.
Slashdot Mirror
but check out this graph for one counterpoint.
Would have been nice to cite the full-size image, or the article in which it appears, rather than a badly resized Google image result, but whatever. The graph you cited compares hourly wages to productivity, and I'm not sure how that relates to standard of living rather than employee productivity. Within its context the graph pretty poorly done; the axis aren't labeled ($140 per hour in 2005?), the description is vague, nothing is said about what was actually measured (or how) and I'd be willing to bet any mention of standard of living doesn't even account for inflation over the 55 years it covers.
Any serious analysis (read: not partisan) of standard of living will show that for most people in the US in the last 30 years, it's gotten better.
Now go and enlighten yourself.
Forgive me for being blunt here, but based on your original post (with a questionable source), and your relatively hostile response to criticism of said post, it looks like the only person stuck on partisan analysis here is you.
If you need to be that horrible to get this award, then it must be very prestigious indeed. I mean, there was that Citi Bank disaster, for example, it's nothing in comparison to Sony but as horrible as it was it's nothing in light of Sony. Think of the honor the CEO is having bestowed upon him. Heck, this was possibly worse than the ping of death. What do you compare it to?
Ok, I know this is just DNS and not some network-level hijacking, but crap like this is exactly why we need net neutrality. Capitalizing on customers' traffic by redirecting their searches (or otherwise interfering with customers' activities) is type of behavior net neutrality activists have claimed will happen for a long time, and that ISPs have claimed will never happen. Odd that the big players aren't the culprits for once (they're probably scared of regulation after the bittorrent scandal), but I'm sure if this is successful, or if a corrupt judge somewhere rules there is nothing wrong with what's going on, then we can expect to see all the big players stepping in and this will become a lot more widespread than it already is.
The lawyers WERE the monkeys. Can't anybody else see that? They're beating their chests over some pictures, demanding compensation (in bananas), and monkeying around with the judge over how far their "property rights" extend (being territorial).
But Mr. Kaufman talks openly about another controversial piece of his data gathering: Students were not informed of it. He discussed this with the institutional review board. Alerting students risked "frightening people unnecessarily," he says.
Basically, the IRB (also sometimes referred to as "ethics review committee") signed off on this. Now, once he's about to publish the results, they pull the plug.
Putting aside the university's hypocrisy (believe me, I can think of far worse privacy breaches), give me one good reason why collecting this kind of aggregate, anonymized data is ok for an advertiser who is studying how to most effectively manipulate people into buying something and generally won't even let people opt out of tracking, but it's not ok for a sociologist to publish aggregate statistical data from mined Facebook profiles. Advertisers are a lot less ethical about it than academic researchers.
This is just propping up the already large, uninnovative, and anti-competitive companies like Microsoft and Apple, while leaving smaller companies in the "dirt road" of domains. In the future, we can consumers to look for .BRAND, and blow off anybody with .com/.net/.org/whatever because they didn't pay the small price of $185,000. It's not like the market is unbalanced now or anything, so what could this hurt?
Thank you, ICANN, for putting the big players first.
Phishing means tricking users into divulging sensitive data, usually a password. It is just one type of social engineering. What is being described here is another form of social engineering, where users are told instead to install malware or something like that. It is not phishing, or even spear phishing. When you get a lot of information together to plan out an effective attack on human psyche, it's called pretexting.
Cognitive Dissonance
That word. I don't think it means what you think it means...
Lobbyists lie. News at 11. Good that law enforcement is starting to realize it now though. Now if only their laws were looked at with this kind of scrutiny...
Think of pain in a psychological, adaptive sense, where it's an undesirable stimulus that lessens the chance we will perform some kind of behavior again. I think that's what is being picked up by an MRI. Not the immediate reflex that causes you to pull your hand away from the glowing red thing on the stove, but the part that causes it to hurt afterward, leaving a strong memory of the situation.
However, I did have a psychology professor last quarter tell the class you can lessen the effect of a break-up by taking pain medication. He said that most anti-inflammatory medications are believed to affect a certain part of the brain, which is incidentally the same place triggered by a break-up. He told us this right after Valentine's day, apologizing for not getting to that point in the curriculum a day sooner.
Well, that's the bank mentioned in the original article. I don't bank with them either, but I've had similar nightmarish experiences with other banks.
Erm, I meant to say they'll pass the loss onto customers by not reimbursing them, not "write it off as a loss".
You're crazy. We've reversed transactions at ATMs with our bank where the ATM didn't spit out the money but marked it as a successful transaction
I am not a lawyer, but I believe legally the customer is liable for ATM transactions, except in a case where the card is stolen, AND the transactions happen no more than 72 hours before the report, and then I think your liability is capped at $50. Any reimbursements would be at the bank's discretion, so if you have a good, sympathetic bank(er), like it sounds like you have, you might get off the hook. I've had my fair share of disputes with banks that like to pin things on customers, and they're generally not as cooperative or polite about it.
If somebody, for example, does this or this, and you see it on your statement the next month; or even if you used your card soon after it happened (can't claim the card is stolen) but didn't check your statement online until later that night, you're stuck with it.
I didn't need to do "research" because I had personal experience to back it up, and no amount of research would have led me to your experience. Banks, in general, try to pin these things on the consumer instead of eating the loss, especially Bank of America.
The people who withdrew money from this ATM will probably never get their money back, since customers are always fully liable for ATM transactions. The banks will just write it off as a loss, which comes right out of their customers checking accounts. Worse, if the people don't notice they'll even be held responsible for trying to pass of counterfeit bills they thought were real.
Request Policy prompts you before each redirect that isn't on the same website. I don't know any way to turn it off or whitelist it, if you're looking for that, but it's probably your best bet.
That's great an all, except for when you can't take that calculator into an exam. Texas Instruments gets a guarantee of business from schools in return for fighting innovation, which is why their prices are so high.
However I also want to keep the current option as well (no filtering - show me everything).
Only criminals want to opt out of filtering!
TFA looks like a biased politically-motivated piece, likely written by someone who works for a bank. It talks all about how operating currency independently from the banks or government, who are there to protect you, is dangerous for you (only criminals would do something like this, right?) and risks toppling the government. Of course it will cause problems for banks; people using it might not have to deal with abuse, fees, or identity theft from a badly broken security model that is our financial system when they close their bank accounts for it. FUD aside, I suppose that in itself is reason for the governments to ban it, since the powers that be have something to lose. At least if they're in the pockets of CEOs like they seem to be as of late...
Sounds like the psychologists weren't very expensive...
Anti-suicide nets were put up around the dormitory buildings on the advice of psychologists.
If you have to put up suicide nets and make people sign contracts promising not to kill themself then you're doing it wrong.
Right, because Martin Luther King spent a lot of time on the internet in the mid-1900's when he was alive. That was, you know, real popular back then.
It rains down your data, everywhere.
One can only hope this sheds some light on the way companies routinely share otherwise personal information without full disclosure. Maybe if enough people see the people see all their information being compromised by 3rd-party affiliates they never heard of they'll realize what's going on. They just don't seem to realize (or care) that just by filling out 1 form and handing it to 1 company, dozens of other partner/contractor/affiliate companies get a copy and will likely keep it forever.
It's even worse when they do it with social security numbers or financial data. My school routinely hands social security numbers to other companies as a way of "minimizing liability" because if something happens then they can blame the contractor, as if that somehow minimizes the risk to students. I see this sort of thing happen all to often and it saddens me.
The only thing HTTP is vulnerable to that HTTPS is not vulnerable to is a passive attack. In most cases, when someone is able to position themself between you and the internet and listen in, they can also modify your traffic and give you bogus certs if you insist on HTTP. Then, because you see the happy, friendly padlock, you are reassured that everything is fine and dandy and nobody is listening in on your connection just because the attacker gave you a certificate which doesn't happen to be the right one.