" I would expect him to say something along the lines of, they are free to do as they wish, it is our job to show compassion and understanding to try and help them be better or some bull shit like that. "
Which is what he did say.
"Which is basically religion should be off limits for mockery or criticism without realising it's almost the most deserving thing of both!"
Which is not what he said. He in those cases that you should expect people might take it badly.
Admissibility of evidence is a question of law, not a question of fact. The judge *is* the expert in those questions for the purpose of the trial. The factual nature of evidence is not relevant to whether it is legal to present. Appeals courts are where a superior expert (judge) or a panel of experts examines where the questions of law were determined correctly.
Questions of fact are determined by juries. In the American system at least it is the job of the opposing counsel to to question the relevant and validity of fact presented. Both sides get to vet jury members and both sides get to question witnesses. It is the counsels job to make their own case.
Juries are expected to decide based only on what is presented during the case where the judge has determined by law it may be presented in the case. Juries are not supposed to bring in outside information. E.g.
Once again you have assumed that no one would be willing to work for more than a poverty wage when in *current reality* ~85% of households are both willing and able to do so.
All of that is irrelevant to the point that my thought experiment was responding to, which is how much would BI cost relative to current expenditures.
However, I would note that basic income keeps the *relative* returns on labor the same even while it increases the absolute returns. The actual behavior of human beings turns out to be more motivated by the relative returns, i.e. people really will accept lower wages for themselves if everyone else is doing even worse.
In addition, I would ask if someone who could be satisfied with a mere poverty level wage would really be worth hiring for anything?
'Schneier's position seems to be "don't worry about your poor ethics, just cover your tracks".'
-1, self-refuting
This is an example of why you would want to expire a perfectly ethical message, since while you can control what you preserve you cannot control how much context someone else must use.
As your employer, I count up the number of receipts I got vs. the number of votes the "correct" candidate got. If the former is greater than the latter then everyone gets punished.
"the chance of actually being told the name of the artist is close to zero. It's interesting that in other comments people complain about the amount of DJ chatter, but to reduce it the first thing DJ eliminate is the part that is useful to the listener.
It is hard to tell, since what you describe is not an ad-hominem argument.
The ad-hominem argument is using a trait about a person to imply something about the quality of their argument. What you describe is using the quality of the argument to imply a trait of a person.
"a society rich enough to afford one is pretty unimaginable in today's world." Have you in fact tried to imagine it?
Let's try a thought experiment on a simplified economy. Poverty level is $25k per "household" vs. median household income of $50k. 15% of household are below the poverty level, and we'll flatten out the income distribution by saying every household below the poverty level has no income and every household above the poverty level brings in ~$59k.
For a household below the poverty level to receive a basic income that after taxes gets them back to the poverty level would cost the households above the poverty level 7.5% in BI taxes.
BUT
"Western societies are clearly incapable of even providing the current levels of welfare let alone a vastly larger level."
Once you have basic income you can start eliminating other programs which have been made redundant and their taxes. For example, Social Security "payroll taxes" alone are 6.2%. We already have order-of-magnitude agreement between basic income and the redundant costs, so there will be no "vastly larger level".
Phone calls are synchronous. They implicitly cause an interruption. Email is asynchronous. It is written when the sender desires; it is read when the receiver desires. Text messages are not inherently synchronous but can carry an expectation of synchronization.
I have never been able to figure out why people would shoot their mouths off about not wanting interruptions and then advocate the most interruptive solutions.
In the Libertarian paradise they have eliminated all external costs so you don't need to distinguish between a free market an an unregulated market. Therefore we can cut laws and regulations completely out of the problem!
Your EULA grants the ISP a perpetual transferable right to your data, or else it would be a copyright violation for them to transmit it anywhere. They can then sub-license to whomever in exchange for not being named an accessory for every criminal act that involved a communication that crossed their network.
Slashdot Mirror
" I would expect him to say something along the lines of, they are free to do as they wish, it is our job to show compassion and understanding to try and help them be better or some bull shit like that. "
Which is what he did say.
"Which is basically religion should be off limits for mockery or criticism without realising it's almost the most deserving thing of both!"
Which is not what he said. He in those cases that you should expect people might take it badly.
Admissibility of evidence is a question of law, not a question of fact. The judge *is* the expert in those questions for the purpose of the trial. The factual nature of evidence is not relevant to whether it is legal to present. Appeals courts are where a superior expert (judge) or a panel of experts examines where the questions of law were determined correctly.
Questions of fact are determined by juries. In the American system at least it is the job of the opposing counsel to to question the relevant and validity of fact presented. Both sides get to vet jury members and both sides get to question witnesses. It is the counsels job to make their own case.
Juries are expected to decide based only on what is presented during the case where the judge has determined by law it may be presented in the case. Juries are not supposed to bring in outside information. E.g.
Once again you have assumed that no one would be willing to work for more than a poverty wage when in *current reality* ~85% of households are both willing and able to do so.
All of that is irrelevant to the point that my thought experiment was responding to, which is how much would BI cost relative to current expenditures.
However, I would note that basic income keeps the *relative* returns on labor the same even while it increases the absolute returns. The actual behavior of human beings turns out to be more motivated by the relative returns, i.e. people really will accept lower wages for themselves if everyone else is doing even worse.
In addition, I would ask if someone who could be satisfied with a mere poverty level wage would really be worth hiring for anything?
Neil deGrasse Tyson is the only one that has been married just once.
'Schneier's position seems to be "don't worry about your poor ethics, just cover your tracks".'
-1, self-refuting
This is an example of why you would want to expire a perfectly ethical message, since while you can control what you preserve you cannot control how much context someone else must use.
Haven't you failed to read the article before claiming that it is wrong?
For those playing along at home, Fig.1 from the actual article explicitly refutes the AC's claim.
As your employer, I count up the number of receipts I got vs. the number of votes the "correct" candidate got. If the former is greater than the latter then everyone gets punished.
This is not a theoretical tactic.
"I don't get is how do you get your files back"
If you keep your files in only one place then many here would say you deserve to lose them.
"the chance of actually being told the name of the artist is close to zero.
It's interesting that in other comments people complain about the amount of DJ chatter, but to reduce it the first thing DJ eliminate is the part that is useful to the listener.
It is hard to tell, since what you describe is not an ad-hominem argument.
The ad-hominem argument is using a trait about a person to imply something about the quality of their argument. What you describe is using the quality of the argument to imply a trait of a person.
"a society rich enough to afford one is pretty unimaginable in today's world."
Have you in fact tried to imagine it?
Let's try a thought experiment on a simplified economy. Poverty level is $25k per "household" vs. median household income of $50k. 15% of household are below the poverty level, and we'll flatten out the income distribution by saying every household below the poverty level has no income and every household above the poverty level brings in ~$59k.
For a household below the poverty level to receive a basic income that after taxes gets them back to the poverty level would cost the households above the poverty level 7.5% in BI taxes.
BUT
"Western societies are clearly incapable of even providing the current levels of welfare let alone a vastly larger level."
Once you have basic income you can start eliminating other programs which have been made redundant and their taxes. For example, Social Security "payroll taxes" alone are 6.2%. We already have order-of-magnitude agreement between basic income and the redundant costs, so there will be no "vastly larger level".
In the Libertarian Paradise, there are no external costs.
"making profits that allow your business to grow, invest, innovate, and hire capable people"
By definition, revenue spent to "grow, invest, innovate, and hire capable people" is not profit.
Komatsu Autonomous Haulage System: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The best is when the articles refute the editorials in the very same edition, like they were anticipating the latent idiocy.
Clearly, you should take the option that has just crashed twice.
Phone calls are synchronous. They implicitly cause an interruption.
Email is asynchronous. It is written when the sender desires; it is read when the receiver desires.
Text messages are not inherently synchronous but can carry an expectation of synchronization.
I have never been able to figure out why people would shoot their mouths off about not wanting interruptions and then advocate the most interruptive solutions.
If public philanthropy is denied on the premise that private philanthropy is superior, then the public has been defrauded.
It was the so-called Robber-Barons that provided layoffs. Business cycle theories don't tell you much about what happened before as they do after.
Knights in general did not engage in pillaging of serfs because the serfs didn't have much to pillage.
Law enforcement has a blanket exemption. ISPs have an safe-harbor exemption that protects them from vicarious liability.
Clearly, NASA is incompetent at calculating design lifetimes and they should be defunded in favor of private space enterprises.
In the Libertarian paradise they have eliminated all external costs so you don't need to distinguish between a free market an an unregulated market. Therefore we can cut laws and regulations completely out of the problem!
Your EULA grants the ISP a perpetual transferable right to your data, or else it would be a copyright violation for them to transmit it anywhere. They can then sub-license to whomever in exchange for not being named an accessory for every criminal act that involved a communication that crossed their network.
That just shows you how deep the conspiracy goes!