The difference is that inflation-adjusted housing prices have gone up like 40% since then. It's no longer possible for people to buy a starter house with mostly cash and only a small loan.
To me, it seems like one of the best parts of the UBI is that you no longer have an "us vs them" situation of people who get money from the government and people who don't. There is no welfare or unemployment office you have to trudge to in order to get your benefits, while republicans are yelling at and shaming you. Everyone is supported equally. Doing a phase in approach would eliminate that.
If you do it that way then there is a window of income below the minimum where you have no incentive to work harder or get a better job. With UBI you are guaranteed to have a minimum income in order to live, but if you want to buy nicer things then every dollar you earn above that increases your standard of living.
I am not sure if you are trolling or not, but I am actually going to respond as if you are serious.
First off, what do you even mean by "holding them responsible for their values and choices"? Black people already receive substantially harsher sentences for the same crimes compared to white perpetrators. They are already in jail. What do you propose exactly?
Second, there are lots of things that explain higher crime rates other than "black people are criminals". These include, but are not limited to:
- The above mentioned increased rate of convictions and harsher sentences for black suspects.
- Lower socioeconomic conditions for the average black person compared to the average white person. We know that crime is positively correlated with poverty, and because of centuries of slavery, followed by another century of segregation and state-sponsored racism (which I have to emphasize ended not that long ago), black people are substantially "in the hole" in terms of economic status.
- High concentration of black people in inner cities. This is related to the above point but is worth mentioning again because cities also have higher rates of crime, and most black people live in cities. And before you say "why don't they just move", most cannot afford it.
If you look at a place like Camden, NJ, almost all of the population is poor white people and they have some of the highest crime rates in the country. Comparable with cities like Baltimore and Detroit which are famous for their high crime rates and large proportion of black people. There is no evidence that, put in the same conditions, white people would do anything different than what black people are doing today.
No superpower. Just the interview process, which is the best tool available to evaluate a potential employee -- even better then *gasp* skin color.
Is it though? People have unconscious biases. There is no perfect objective way to judge individuals, which is why it is important to look at outcomes.
I see this concept parroted repeatedly in discussions like these with nary a real-life metric to back it up. How, pray tell, does having people with different colored skin lead to a "more productive work place"?
Women make up 43% of full-time workers. But we are getting very far away from the point here. The OP was trying to argue that there were fewer than half as many women in the workforce as men, which is patently ridiculous. I meant to point out that, although it is not equal, it is close enough that other factors are more important in this situation.
So, using your very simple single-source, six-year-old resource, I'm right.
First, it says in the report that proportionally more women are projected to enter the workforce than men by 2020, so the numbers may be even closer to parity now. Second, I was trying to point out your inherent biases in this situation. The fact that you are so far off (orders of magnitude) on your idea of the disparity between men and women in the workplace shows that you are completely out of touch with reality. Barely 50% of women even have children in the US. If you are so mistaken on such an important fact to this discussion, maybe think about how your biases are influencing your opinions here.
Now, go find out what percentage of women in the workforce are in the IT industry, and you can win that point for me too.
I think you mean what percentage of the IT industry workforce is women, but that is kind of the whole point. That number being low is not a reason to say, "oh well I guess we just give up." That is the pipeline issues that Facebook is trying to address here.
Your ridiculously sexist off-the-cuff statistics are *surprise*, completely wrong. Women actually make up 47% of the workforce. If only you had bothered to do 2 seconds of googling before you made yourself look like an idiot.
Is there some kind of superpower that you think HR people have where they can look at someone and see exactly what dollar value they will add to your company? There are a lot of things that a person can bring to a company like Facebook, and it is not just what programming puzzles you can solve. There are more intangible things that can matter more, which is what they are asserting with this initiative. Diversity can lead to a more productive work place or a great idea that you might not have had access to otherwise.
Beyond that, hiring decisions are made largely based on your qualifications on paper, what jobs you had before, what school you graduated from, etc. There might be a better candidate with worse "qualifications" because they were denied access to better schools due to socioeconomic conditions or flat out racism. There has to be some point where a company gives them a chance and breaks the cycle, allowing them to start getting qualifications.
What are you even talking about? The movement to increase diversity in well-paying jobs is exactly related to the inequality in shitty jobs. Do you think low-paying agriculture jobs are dominated by white people? Minorities are disproportionately represented in pretty much every low-wage sector.
Very well said. A lot of people here seem to be quite confused about the situation: Tor does not need to have a trial to fire him from his job. Anyone would be let go after allegations of unprofessional conduct like this, especially considering that they have come from multiple different people over a span of several years. Everyone knows he is a creep. Being a creep IS enough to fire someone from their job, when that job is largely representing the organization in a professional manner.
I'm sorry, are you under the misconception that Appelbaum is being sent to jail without a trial? He just got fired. There is no rule that says you need a trial to be fired from your job. If there were multiple allegations that you behaved in a grossly unprofessionally manner, after you had previously been disciplined for it, that is enough to fire someone from any job.
1. There are only a few employees actually working for Tor. Most of the research surrounding it is done by academics at other institutions. I also personally know that Tor was doing similar research into "attack nodes" as what was done at NEU, albeit not as sophisticated.
2. These attack nodes were explicitly targeting hidden services, not Tor clients. This research has no impact on the security of the most common use case of Tor, which is to anonymize access to public websites.
, just the meta-data and signaling information between the tower and the phone.
That is actually not true. Stingray devices are capable of "active" attacks where they act as a man-in-the-middle between cell phones and legitimate towers, thereby decrypting and recording calls. As far as the metadata is concerned, there is a legal history of requiring warrants to get that information from phone companies. The fact that technologically it is possible to directly get it by snooping with a stingray doesn't make it clear cut that it is actually legal for the police to do so, as was demonstrated here. As an analogy, if the FBI developed a technology that allowed them to read minute EM leakage off phone wires from 100ft away, it wouldn't suddenly become legal for them to tap your land line with that.
I think he means more in general, like at the end of the day if all the documents are signed and everything appears correct you just have to trust that the whole system isn't broken and the investigators tampered with the evidence and covered it up. A hash doesn't protect against that since they could simply calculate a new hash and pretend that was the right one the whole time.
That is exactly what the judge ruled. The main reason this isn't happening all over the place is that people don't understand how the devices work, and the police/prosecutors are not exactly volunteering the information. There is a good article about it here. Basically, the police hide the fact that they used stingray devices to track suspects by either making up some other reason that they happened to find themselves at the suspect's location or hiding something very vague on page 200 of the report like, "used electronic surveillance," which most defense attorneys do not know to challenge. In rare situations where the evidence has been challenged, the prosecution just drops the case so that precedent isn't set.
Read the linked article. He is saying that if the government presents ONLY the decrypted data as evidence in court it is not forensically valid because it breaks the chain of evidence. They need to also show the originally captured encrypted data so that it can verified that the decrypted version actually correlates to what they got and was not somehow tampered with.
That has never been a selling point. Transaction fees have been built in from the start. The selling point is that no central authority has control over the currency or transactions.
Sounds very much like the internet and advertising - and we all see how well that's working out.
That is a complete non-sequitur. What are you talking about? It is almost exactly like other financial institutions, credit cards, etc. Every time you transfer money you pay a small fee to compensate the miners who make the whole thing work.
Eventually, no new coins... suppose I could collect them all when the time comes. Heh. Or I could spool up some servers, declare that I have them all, hit control alt delete, and give the whole world a chance to start the whole game again.
This doesn't come anywhere close to being a coherent thought. What are you talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that inflation-adjusted housing prices have gone up like 40% since then. It's no longer possible for people to buy a starter house with mostly cash and only a small loan.
To me, it seems like one of the best parts of the UBI is that you no longer have an "us vs them" situation of people who get money from the government and people who don't. There is no welfare or unemployment office you have to trudge to in order to get your benefits, while republicans are yelling at and shaming you. Everyone is supported equally. Doing a phase in approach would eliminate that.
If you do it that way then there is a window of income below the minimum where you have no incentive to work harder or get a better job. With UBI you are guaranteed to have a minimum income in order to live, but if you want to buy nicer things then every dollar you earn above that increases your standard of living.
I am not sure if you are trolling or not, but I am actually going to respond as if you are serious.
First off, what do you even mean by "holding them responsible for their values and choices"? Black people already receive substantially harsher sentences for the same crimes compared to white perpetrators. They are already in jail. What do you propose exactly?
Second, there are lots of things that explain higher crime rates other than "black people are criminals". These include, but are not limited to:
- The above mentioned increased rate of convictions and harsher sentences for black suspects.
- Lower socioeconomic conditions for the average black person compared to the average white person. We know that crime is positively correlated with poverty, and because of centuries of slavery, followed by another century of segregation and state-sponsored racism (which I have to emphasize ended not that long ago), black people are substantially "in the hole" in terms of economic status.
- High concentration of black people in inner cities. This is related to the above point but is worth mentioning again because cities also have higher rates of crime, and most black people live in cities. And before you say "why don't they just move", most cannot afford it.
If you look at a place like Camden, NJ, almost all of the population is poor white people and they have some of the highest crime rates in the country. Comparable with cities like Baltimore and Detroit which are famous for their high crime rates and large proportion of black people. There is no evidence that, put in the same conditions, white people would do anything different than what black people are doing today.
No superpower. Just the interview process, which is the best tool available to evaluate a potential employee -- even better then *gasp* skin color.
Is it though? People have unconscious biases. There is no perfect objective way to judge individuals, which is why it is important to look at outcomes.
I see this concept parroted repeatedly in discussions like these with nary a real-life metric to back it up. How, pray tell, does having people with different colored skin lead to a "more productive work place"?
Let me google that for you: http://news.mit.edu/2014/workp...
Women make up 43% of full-time workers. But we are getting very far away from the point here. The OP was trying to argue that there were fewer than half as many women in the workforce as men, which is patently ridiculous. I meant to point out that, although it is not equal, it is close enough that other factors are more important in this situation.
I was responding to the part where he said black people, but thanks for your insight.
So, using your very simple single-source, six-year-old resource, I'm right.
First, it says in the report that proportionally more women are projected to enter the workforce than men by 2020, so the numbers may be even closer to parity now. Second, I was trying to point out your inherent biases in this situation. The fact that you are so far off (orders of magnitude) on your idea of the disparity between men and women in the workplace shows that you are completely out of touch with reality. Barely 50% of women even have children in the US. If you are so mistaken on such an important fact to this discussion, maybe think about how your biases are influencing your opinions here.
Now, go find out what percentage of women in the workforce are in the IT industry, and you can win that point for me too.
I think you mean what percentage of the IT industry workforce is women, but that is kind of the whole point. That number being low is not a reason to say, "oh well I guess we just give up." That is the pipeline issues that Facebook is trying to address here.
If your company already employed 95% black people, I don't think anyone would bother you.
Your ridiculously sexist off-the-cuff statistics are *surprise*, completely wrong. Women actually make up 47% of the workforce. If only you had bothered to do 2 seconds of googling before you made yourself look like an idiot.
Nobody is saying it needs to be complete parity, just better than it is now.
Is there some kind of superpower that you think HR people have where they can look at someone and see exactly what dollar value they will add to your company? There are a lot of things that a person can bring to a company like Facebook, and it is not just what programming puzzles you can solve. There are more intangible things that can matter more, which is what they are asserting with this initiative. Diversity can lead to a more productive work place or a great idea that you might not have had access to otherwise.
Beyond that, hiring decisions are made largely based on your qualifications on paper, what jobs you had before, what school you graduated from, etc. There might be a better candidate with worse "qualifications" because they were denied access to better schools due to socioeconomic conditions or flat out racism. There has to be some point where a company gives them a chance and breaks the cycle, allowing them to start getting qualifications.
What are you even talking about? The movement to increase diversity in well-paying jobs is exactly related to the inequality in shitty jobs. Do you think low-paying agriculture jobs are dominated by white people? Minorities are disproportionately represented in pretty much every low-wage sector.
Very well said. A lot of people here seem to be quite confused about the situation: Tor does not need to have a trial to fire him from his job. Anyone would be let go after allegations of unprofessional conduct like this, especially considering that they have come from multiple different people over a span of several years. Everyone knows he is a creep. Being a creep IS enough to fire someone from their job, when that job is largely representing the organization in a professional manner.
I'm sorry, are you under the misconception that Appelbaum is being sent to jail without a trial? He just got fired. There is no rule that says you need a trial to be fired from your job. If there were multiple allegations that you behaved in a grossly unprofessionally manner, after you had previously been disciplined for it, that is enough to fire someone from any job.
A few things:
1. There are only a few employees actually working for Tor. Most of the research surrounding it is done by academics at other institutions. I also personally know that Tor was doing similar research into "attack nodes" as what was done at NEU, albeit not as sophisticated.
2. These attack nodes were explicitly targeting hidden services, not Tor clients. This research has no impact on the security of the most common use case of Tor, which is to anonymize access to public websites.
No, it definitely can intercept voice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
, just the meta-data and signaling information between the tower and the phone.
That is actually not true. Stingray devices are capable of "active" attacks where they act as a man-in-the-middle between cell phones and legitimate towers, thereby decrypting and recording calls. As far as the metadata is concerned, there is a legal history of requiring warrants to get that information from phone companies. The fact that technologically it is possible to directly get it by snooping with a stingray doesn't make it clear cut that it is actually legal for the police to do so, as was demonstrated here. As an analogy, if the FBI developed a technology that allowed them to read minute EM leakage off phone wires from 100ft away, it wouldn't suddenly become legal for them to tap your land line with that.
I think he means more in general, like at the end of the day if all the documents are signed and everything appears correct you just have to trust that the whole system isn't broken and the investigators tampered with the evidence and covered it up. A hash doesn't protect against that since they could simply calculate a new hash and pretend that was the right one the whole time.
That is exactly what the judge ruled. The main reason this isn't happening all over the place is that people don't understand how the devices work, and the police/prosecutors are not exactly volunteering the information. There is a good article about it here. Basically, the police hide the fact that they used stingray devices to track suspects by either making up some other reason that they happened to find themselves at the suspect's location or hiding something very vague on page 200 of the report like, "used electronic surveillance," which most defense attorneys do not know to challenge. In rare situations where the evidence has been challenged, the prosecution just drops the case so that precedent isn't set.
If it is up the FBI then they just use uhh... not MD5. No collisions have ever been found in SHA-1, let alone SHA-256, SHA-512 or SHA-3.
Read the linked article. He is saying that if the government presents ONLY the decrypted data as evidence in court it is not forensically valid because it breaks the chain of evidence. They need to also show the originally captured encrypted data so that it can verified that the decrypted version actually correlates to what they got and was not somehow tampered with.
That has never been a selling point. Transaction fees have been built in from the start. The selling point is that no central authority has control over the currency or transactions.
Sounds very much like the internet and advertising - and we all see how well that's working out.
That is a complete non-sequitur. What are you talking about? It is almost exactly like other financial institutions, credit cards, etc. Every time you transfer money you pay a small fee to compensate the miners who make the whole thing work.
Eventually, no new coins ... suppose I could collect them all when the time comes. Heh. Or I could spool up some servers, declare that I have them all, hit control alt delete, and give the whole world a chance to start the whole game again.
This doesn't come anywhere close to being a coherent thought. What are you talking about?