We have the ability as a sentient race to capture and view an image 353 million miles from our friggin' planet.... and as a people, we're still fascinated with tribalism and the Kardashians.
Though we be a race capable of marvelous achievement, we have not yet come to terms with our inner retard.
TFA implies only that the FBI had access to what was in the Attorney/client communiques, not who's surveillance arm gathered it.
Did you see how well my plausibly believable counter-argument covered not reading the article until after my initial post? Any idea at all how difficult it is to out-type frosty?
That's a clever bit of wordsmithing undone by you and Mr. Ockam...but muchos gracias for leaving Hanlon in your pocket if you were just intent upon eliminating an unlikely explanation for this phenomenon.
Not everyone looking for a job is currently unemployed, of course, and it may have more to do with security vulnerabilities at Monster and CareerBuilders than potential individual targets.
Correct. Other than to cast a tie-breaking ballot in the Senate 244 times in US History, way more than I would've guessed, the position has thus far been regarded as ceremonial....but first in line for the corner oval.
I know you're right in the grand scheme of things, esp. in corporate employment, but for a dollar an hour difference I will keep my human.
Why? It's a waste of human effort to be working for $10 an hour. Sure someone with no skills is willing to do it, but I think it makes more sense as a society to have only jobs that pay $20/hr, have all the other jobs done by robots, and have all those people learning new skills or just watching TV or something.
People and dogs both need a job, a responsibility, or a mission.
I know "more jobs" is on the lips of every politician, but actually the goal should be less jobs (for humans to do).
People, like dogs, are not ideally suited to leisure and no obligations.
I know that for all of human history we've had to work hard to get the stuff we want/need, but at some point we may just be able to get what we need/want with minimal effort or no effort at all.
I respectfully disagree. By your own account, we have been struggling to survive for generations. We have not been selected for a life of leisure.
The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive there will be to automate those minimum-wage jobs. If it'd average out to $11/hr to have a robot do some cleaning, and the minimum wage is $10/hr, then a janitor willing to work for $10/hr will have a job. If the minimum wage goes to $12/hr, the robot will take the job instead.
I know you're right in the grand scheme of things, esp. in corporate employment, but for a dollar an hour difference I will keep my human.
I read somewhere an essay written around the time the minimum wage was being increased a few decades ago. This was during a time when there were still elevator operators. The author predicted that after the increase, elevator operators would get phased out in favor of automated elevators. That probably would've happened anyway, but raising the minimum wage probably helped speed up that process.
Talking 'bout the good old days, when maybe you had to get up out of the recliner to change the TV channel, but there was none of that tiresome button-pushing in the elevator.
If it gets really bad there will be pressure to illegalize automation of certain classes of jobs.
I desperately hope they keep their humans at the massage parlor.
Track record this far is... can I use enron as an adjective?
Perhaps you can, but perhaps not in regard to the Bitcoin. Enron used (and I mean used like a rented mule) accounting firm Arthur Anderson to audit and sign off on their creative bookkeeping to cover $billions (US) in losses to keep their operation afloat. They were able to corrupt a key step in the securities and exchange' system of checks and balances. Without A. Anderson's complicity, that house of cards would've fallen much sooner.
Bitcoin's strength and popularity rest with it's kinship to virtual cash with no ties to government. This is also it's weakness, as there is zero oversight.
I believe that law enforcement catches as many criminals as it can afford to catch. There are probably millions of Americans who could feel a hand on their shoulder at any moment but the simple truth is catching a criminal creates a huge expense in many cases. It is rather like an IRS auditor who can easily catch far more cheaters than the system could ever hope to deal with.
Yes. There's simply not enough manpower to corral all the tax dodgers, but enough of them are audited and prosecuted to create a general deterrent.
It is also part of the reason that arrests are sometimes seen as racial in nature. If you were running a cop shop and knew that one segment of the public could afford good lawyers while another segment almost had to plea bargain due to lack of funds from a tax payer perspective you simply don't want to arrest those with enough money to fight back. Racial issues and money issues are welded together and it is only when a society is willing to hurt itself economically that the cops can go after well heeled citizens.
Your theory on arresting folks based on their socioeconomic standing runs counter to my experience. Don't forget the police are but a small part of the legal system, and from there it goes jailers, bondsmen, lawyers, judges.... arresting merely the have-nots will not provide that greenish grease the system requires.
Slashdot Mirror
Though we be a race capable of marvelous achievement, we have not yet come to terms with our inner retard.
TFA implies only that the FBI had access to what was in the Attorney/client communiques, not who's surveillance arm gathered it.
Did you see how well my plausibly believable counter-argument covered not reading the article until after my initial post? Any idea at all how difficult it is to out-type frosty?
That's a clever bit of wordsmithing undone by you and Mr. Ockam...but muchos gracias for leaving Hanlon in your pocket if you were just intent upon eliminating an unlikely explanation for this phenomenon.
Quoting from the article is officially informative. We are either a time-constrained or a very lazy lot of posters here on Slashdot.
TFA implies only that the FBI had access to what was in the Attorney/client communiques, not who's surveillance arm gathered it.
There are multiple other TLA's out there intercepting all of our communiques.
Everyone isn't ideally suited for it, just like other specialty degrees.
And sociopaths generally excel in this vocation.
Not everyone looking for a job is currently unemployed, of course, and it may have more to do with security vulnerabilities at Monster and CareerBuilders than potential individual targets.
Withholding access to the television, perhaps (gasp!) forcing some prisoners to read, might be a better behavior modification tool.
excluding the VP.
Correct. Other than to cast a tie-breaking ballot in the Senate 244 times in US History, way more than I would've guessed, the position has thus far been regarded as ceremonial....but first in line for the corner oval.
I think you meant fucking idiot, sir.
I know you're right in the grand scheme of things, esp. in corporate employment, but for a dollar an hour difference I will keep my human.
Why? It's a waste of human effort to be working for $10 an hour. Sure someone with no skills is willing to do it, but I think it makes more sense as a society to have only jobs that pay $20/hr, have all the other jobs done by robots, and have all those people learning new skills or just watching TV or something.
People and dogs both need a job, a responsibility, or a mission.
I know "more jobs" is on the lips of every politician, but actually the goal should be less jobs (for humans to do).
People, like dogs, are not ideally suited to leisure and no obligations.
I know that for all of human history we've had to work hard to get the stuff we want/need, but at some point we may just be able to get what we need/want with minimal effort or no effort at all.
I respectfully disagree. By your own account, we have been struggling to survive for generations. We have not been selected for a life of leisure.
No one will have any money...
Doggone it, how will we know who's winning?
My somewhat limited experience has led me to believe that if they give the lube a french name, they will charge more for it.
But like the French rifle, it's never been fired and only dropped once. Ju suis desole, mes amis.
What's the friken' shark feel like when he falls into the black hole?
I mean, he's scared at first...who wouldn't be? But as long as you sling some tuna in behind him, it's turtles all the way down.
Well done.
I also think the knock-her-up angle is ripe for exploitation, but that witch who listened to mirrors wound up pwned by Snow White.
The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive there will be to automate those minimum-wage jobs. If it'd average out to $11/hr to have a robot do some cleaning, and the minimum wage is $10/hr, then a janitor willing to work for $10/hr will have a job. If the minimum wage goes to $12/hr, the robot will take the job instead.
I know you're right in the grand scheme of things, esp. in corporate employment, but for a dollar an hour difference I will keep my human.
I read somewhere an essay written around the time the minimum wage was being increased a few decades ago. This was during a time when there were still elevator operators. The author predicted that after the increase, elevator operators would get phased out in favor of automated elevators. That probably would've happened anyway, but raising the minimum wage probably helped speed up that process.
Talking 'bout the good old days, when maybe you had to get up out of the recliner to change the TV channel, but there was none of that tiresome button-pushing in the elevator.
If it gets really bad there will be pressure to illegalize automation of certain classes of jobs.
I desperately hope they keep their humans at the massage parlor.
The PDF link is 72 pages long and in acrobat... you're welcome.
None of the 545 people responsible for everything that is allowed in this Country work at those two outfits.
I remember a quaint world where the lowest of the bottom-feeders were merely chasing ambulances.
Otherwise, there would be no point in introducing this mollifying piece of legislation.
I suspect the upcoming need for reaffirmation of the Patriot Act may play a role in all this.
There is just no way our honorable representatives are going to let some monopolistic shite like this get shoved down our throats.
The rest of you voted for the honest candidate...Right?
Track record this far is ... can I use enron as an adjective?
Perhaps you can, but perhaps not in regard to the Bitcoin. Enron used (and I mean used like a rented mule) accounting firm Arthur Anderson to audit and sign off on their creative bookkeeping to cover $billions (US) in losses to keep their operation afloat. They were able to corrupt a key step in the securities and exchange' system of checks and balances. Without A. Anderson's complicity, that house of cards would've fallen much sooner.
Bitcoin's strength and popularity rest with it's kinship to virtual cash with no ties to government. This is also it's weakness, as there is zero oversight.
I believe that law enforcement catches as many criminals as it can afford to catch. There are probably millions of Americans who could feel a hand on their shoulder at any moment but the simple truth is catching a criminal creates a huge expense in many cases. It is rather like an IRS auditor who can easily catch far more cheaters than the system could ever hope to deal with.
Yes. There's simply not enough manpower to corral all the tax dodgers, but enough of them are audited and prosecuted to create a general deterrent.
It is also part of the reason that arrests are sometimes seen as racial in nature. If you were running a cop shop and knew that one segment of the public could afford good lawyers while another segment almost had to plea bargain due to lack of funds from a tax payer perspective you simply don't want to arrest those with enough money to fight back. Racial issues and money issues are welded together and it is only when a society is willing to hurt itself economically that the cops can go after well heeled citizens.
Your theory on arresting folks based on their socioeconomic standing runs counter to my experience. Don't forget the police are but a small part of the legal system, and from there it goes jailers, bondsmen, lawyers, judges.... arresting merely the have-nots will not provide that greenish grease the system requires.
... insert witty comment about government secrecy and overreach */
Government secrecy and overreach aside, I'm not certain the power of technology is ready to challenged an entrenched army of bureaucrats.
Long after every assembly line job is automated, government functions will still be as efficient as they were in the fifties.
Ironically, there's a great deal of focus on Al-Jazeera cable news about the Ukrainian's plight.
Sorry about that living Ukrainians, a missing planeload of likely deceased people is stealing the limelight.
Sorry. That was in poor taste.