As for the people you speak of? As long as they do not commit a felony, so what? The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.
Part of the problem is that the person may not have committed a felony until they shot you in the head. Every murder, at some point, wasn't a murderer.
Neither parent said anything about restricting guns at all. One said that 'gun nuts go ape shit at the slightest reason', which depending on your definition of 'gun nuts' can certainly be absolutely true. The main problem here is that people often define gun nuts as those people who go ape shit at something like this so it can become a circular definition. There is no avoiding that there are people who do go ape shit at the vaguest smell of the possibility of maybe adding safety features to guns even voluntarily. The other said 'Why yes! Those kind of people sound *exactly* like the kind of people that should have guns!' which I don't think is unreasonable either. Of all the people who could have guns, those who would employ these sorts of standover tactics and threatening behaviour toward someone who has developed a safety-related technology for firearms are the kind of people who I am dubious about having guns.
All that aside, there are varying interpretations of the second amendment (mostly hinging around membership of a militia, so far as I can tell) so what you're presenting is an interpretation. It is the one that is generally recognised by law, though, so it seems fair to run wit that. Also, some of the proposed laws (e.g. mandatory background checks on all gun sales, better auditing of gun sales and the associated background checks) are improved coverage of the 'obvious prohibitions' you don't seem to mind. That doesn't stop 'gun nuts going ape shit' about them.
There is no "reasonable" restriction in the eyes of those who wish to promulgate these laws, save for complete abolition.
This is hyperbolic nonsense. It probably is true of a subset of people who wish to promulgate 'these laws' but it is obviously not true of all of those who would like more restrictive gun laws.
True, but you still need to set your phone to allow installation of apps from untrusted sources to install Android apps purchased as part of bundles, don't you? (Because the Humble Bundle app installs them, not the Play store).
This is an issue of transitivity of trust: Let's imagine that I trust Google Play to only include safe apps, so I install the Humble Bundle app from Google Play. However, in order to install any apps from the Humble Bundle store I have to allow the installation of all other apps. Installing the Humble Bundle app from Google Play doesn't transfer trust to the Humble Bundle app so it can't install apps. Similarly, even if the Amazon store appeared on the Google Play store, it wouldn't be able to install apps without me allowing installation from all unknown app sources. Generally, I still have the ability to choose what does and doesn't get installed (assuming I don't activate ADB, in which case all bets are off, but I would have to actively choose to do that) so it isn't like I'm allowing any app to install whatever it wants. However, by adding an Android permission to allow an app to install other apps there could be some degree of trust transfer. Of course, the outcome would probably be that huge numbers of apps would request the permission to install other apps and then have a field day because most people don't read the permissions anyway when they are installing, and this is compounded by the stupid Android security model that doesn't allow any permissions refinement (e.g. no "optional permissions", no "ask on first use", only "accept all the permissions or don't install"). BB has managed to have permission overrides for ages without the world collapsing, and iOS is polite enough to ask when apps want to do certain things (e.g. GPS access).
the cheap/low-end Android phones can still be found coming out brand new with 2.2/2.3 installed on the damned things
BS
I was surprised, but you're right: when I looked at the pre-paid devices offered by several mobile providers, I didn't find any that were being sold with a pre-4.x OS version. It is no doubt still possible to buy old Android phones with old Android versions, but even cheap devices by Huawei and ZTE are now coming out with Android 4.x
Unfortunately, because manufacturers often provide very poor ongoing support for devices, a large number of devices already in the market will never be updated. In that way, I agree with the parent's parent: Apple can get props (relative to many Android device manufacturers) for providing relatively long term OS/security updates.
Was the goal of the SR bust to get the individual dealers though? Tumbling is an interesting way of obscuring the source, although I don't imagine it will be terribly long before you start seeing tumbler operators going to gaol for money laundering (which is exactly what they are doing). There are also a range of limitations to tumbling: it is only effective if there are BCs from numerous sources, and no individual has a disproportionately large number of BCs in the pool (otherwise he/she will just wind up with a disproportionately large number of their own BCs). It isn't impossible to track a transaction through a tumbler, although it is difficult (which is how it is possible for people like this to hunt BC thieves, but that needs real-time intervention).
But yeah, tumblers can provide some level of anonymity to those who do use them.
It's an interesting idea, but if you could do that then the transaction information attached by DarkMarket would not be valuable/useful because it would be possible to forge that information. Otherwise a good idea, though.
Maybe I'm confused, but it sounds to me like what 'DarkMarket' is doing is irrevocably marking some transactions as being associated with DarkMarket. That strikes me as much like writing 'I was used to buy drugs' on a $50 note except that someone can check the entire transaction history of the $50 note back to the beginning of time.
I guess it will be interesting for researchers assess the proportion of BC that is being used for dubious purposes (unless you actually believe things like 'banned books' are going to be traded on DarkMarket except at the very margins), and feds who want to find people selling drugs (because BC itself is not anonymous).
Could be worse. You could be using the more expensive Matrox 'doodad' which is like the Belkin one but doesn't have a chaining port. "Oh, you wanted to be able to connect in another device... that's too bad"
I, for one, am excited about this new super-fast connector for which all the peripherals will be too expensive to buy. I know that when firewire was being replaced by Thunderbolt, I was worried that they may do away with the chaining that means any hard drive case or breakout unit which doesn't have a pass-through becomes a dead end. Now, with this new Thunderbolt I can be comfortable in the knowledge that there will still be a whole array of amazing devices all of which are too expensive for me to possibly want to buy.
(Note: Thunderbolt is great for some people, but those people are probably the ones that have the company paying for the extra displays and drives)
First, the majority of people do not possess the ability to think critically.
Yes.
You can't teach that skill. You can try to foster what ability a person might have but you can't turn someone with no ability to think critically into someone who exemplifies that ability. By middle school someone either can think for themselves or they can't.
No. There has been a lot of research on critical thinking in both psychology and education, looking at both the ability of people to engage in critical thinking and the extent to which it can be taught. Typically what is found is that critical thinking is not particularly innate, and that people improve considerably with teaching. Some people grasp it more readily than others, but (like a great many talents) with training and practice most people can become proficient. Quite a few university degrees (e.g. philosophy, some areas of psychology, and if you're lucky politics) include specific courses on critical thinking and formal logic.
An in Australia, if you tried to reverse that you'd get lynched. People here generally feel that everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of income.
Well ganjadude. May I call you ganjadude? I imagine that is what your friends on 'your side' call you, right? 'ganjadude' sounds like that kind of a name.
You're assuming that the people who are angry about the appointment of Rice to this role are the same people who were angry about the Eich being given the CEO position at Mozilla. You're also roughly stating that because there are other reasons to dislike Dropbox, it is inappropriate to complain about their choice of someone who has historically be pro-surveillance and supportive of state-sanctioned torture (in certain contexts, like the state doing the torturing for the US). I isn't really 'inappropriate' to complain about both the color and performance of a car, and likewise I don't think that disliking some other attribute of Dropbox reasonably precludes me complaining about their choice of board members.
I didn't much like the way that Eich was attacked for his support of Prop 8, even though I didn't agree with Prop 8. Eich's views on same-sex marriage really don't relate Mozilla (I don't think), and they don't really make him a bad or nasty person either - at least, not themselves without knowing the reasoning behind them. That Rice previously demonstrated support of intensive surveillance by government does directly relate to Dropbox. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to criticise. I think that her support of torture and extraordinary rendition makes her an unpleasant person, but I'm not sure that so much relates to her role at Dropbox.
Your obsession with what 'they' do, those dirty liberals, is slightly bizarre and makes you sound like a crazy person. Also, you're presenting a weak caricature of liberals and then pretending it is reality. That doesn't make you sound clever, or steadfast in your role as an opponent of liberals. It makes you sound like someone who is to polarized to be able to think straight.
Changing part without changing part number is something which the engineer shouldn't have done. Sure, management wouldn't let him make the change and that is bad. However, by making a change without following the basic accepted procedures meant that sleuth work needed to be done to even identify that a change had been made. The engineer clearly did something wrong. That in no way reduces the responsibility of management for their decisions and the consequences of those decisions.
That said, naming names of an engineer is a really bad precedent. What is the goal GM is trying to achieve here. Do they want people to go break the guy's windows? Burn down his house? Call him in the middle of the night or deliver pizza? Apart from potentially removing the guy's livelihood for the remainder of his life because no-one wants to hire 'that guy' ever again, and a lot of abuse being targeted his way, what will this achieve?
If he did something criminal, then he should be charged. If he did something extremely incompetent then maybe membership of the engineering body should be revoked, but it isn't the place of GM to throw their engineers to the wolves.
If you sequence the material correctly, and add in filler that you are willing to cut, you can get people to say all kinds of crazy stuff in voiceover recording. If you can get someone to say "If someone were to say 'No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust' you would have doubts about their other works. No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust. I mean, who says that?" and coach them a little, you can probably use it for a convincing voiceover of them saying "No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust". That's a pretty extreme example, but for something like this it would be relatively easy to make things seem innocuous.
Well, since there are a bunch of 'nucleus' models and even a single model can have multiple speech processing/stimulation strategies I'd question the accuracy of your statement. However, I could be wrong and you're welcome to point me to a source verifying your statement.
This certainly is a valid issue (but the solution is not to leave people deaf, although that isn't what you're saying).
There are people who are unable to receive cochlear implants (CIs): people who have damaged auditory nerves (nerve aplasia or hypoplasia, Neurofibromatosis Type-II (NF2) or other auditory nerve tumors, severed auditory nerve due to accident etc) or abnormal cochlea (calcification due to meningitis sometimes prevents implantation, etc). There is one type of alternative implant for these individuals - the Auditory Brainstem Implant (ABI) on the Cochear Nucleus - but performance of the ABI implant tends to be quite a bit poorer than the CI. This may be because of the problems which lead to needing a ABI rather than a CI but the evidence isn't yet clear on the matter. One group (NF2) almost always do more poorly than other with an ABI but no-one is quite sure why.
There are also two experimental implants (that I know of) which have been or are being tested in humans: the penetrating ABI implant (stabs electrodes into the cochlear nucleus whereas the current commercial device puts electrodes on the surface) and the penetrating Auditory Midbrain Implant (AMI). The penetrating ABI testing looked pretty good, but actually getting it in place was damn near impossible because the cochlear nucleus is basically wrapped around the brainstem in the middle of everything. The AMI seems like a cool idea, but the Inferior Colliculus (where the implant is places) is a pretty complex structure and a lot of processing has already happened by the time input would get there in a functioning auditory system. As a result, people with the experimental implants get things like having hearing at the beginning of the day that tails of across the day but returns the next day and so on.
The result is that the number of people who can't get cochlear implants or brainstem implants and are deaf from birth (which are the people for whom the deaf community is most important) is pretty small and quite geographically distributed which makes it quite isolating. As you're saying, there is a real issue with an inability for normal-hearing people to communicate with these individuals. Speech-to-text and text-to-speech engines will be helpful as they improve because it will mean that someone can use their phone as a 'translator' of a sort. As people get faster and faster at typing on phones, using a phone for textual communication can actually be pretty good too. Ideally, you would want two devices with real-time duplex transmission between them and people able to glace at the phones when typing and reading so facial expressions can still be used. Hell, maybe that is a use for Google Glass. I type to you (where you are deaf), and you can look at me and my facial expressions while what I'm typing appears in your field of view. You then respond the same way. Or something.
You're still building for your family's future, even if you feel that a 45% estate tax is too much. Not saying it is or isn't, just that passing on 55% is not nothing and is not necessarily removing one of your primary motivators.
If we really want more of a meritocracy, maybe a 100% estate tax would be the way to go. (Note: I know this wouldn't work due to issues of unequal education and nepotism).
Actually, I mostly agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that simply aiming to decrease inequity is a silly goal if you don't have broader constraints such as 'so everyone can afford to eat'. The reason behind wanting to make that point was that if it is considered an improvement for inequity to decrease as a result of pushing middle wages down by allowing more H1Bs, then maybe it could be extended to minimising inequity by making almost everyone dirt poor.
I think that reducing inequality by pulling in the top and bottom ends does have a whole range of benefits.
Extending on Greenspan's idea, you can reduce inequity by having the top 0.01% take all the money from the remaining 99.99%. All that demonstrates is that having low inequity as your sole target is stupid.
Sure, but they don't play 24/96 audio without downsampling. (Note: I'm not saying someone could necessarily tell the difference, but there is a difference)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and:
As for the people you speak of? As long as they do not commit a felony, so what? The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.
Part of the problem is that the person may not have committed a felony until they shot you in the head. Every murder, at some point, wasn't a murderer.
Neither parent said anything about restricting guns at all.
One said that 'gun nuts go ape shit at the slightest reason', which depending on your definition of 'gun nuts' can certainly be absolutely true. The main problem here is that people often define gun nuts as those people who go ape shit at something like this so it can become a circular definition. There is no avoiding that there are people who do go ape shit at the vaguest smell of the possibility of maybe adding safety features to guns even voluntarily.
The other said 'Why yes! Those kind of people sound *exactly* like the kind of people that should have guns!' which I don't think is unreasonable either. Of all the people who could have guns, those who would employ these sorts of standover tactics and threatening behaviour toward someone who has developed a safety-related technology for firearms are the kind of people who I am dubious about having guns.
All that aside, there are varying interpretations of the second amendment (mostly hinging around membership of a militia, so far as I can tell) so what you're presenting is an interpretation. It is the one that is generally recognised by law, though, so it seems fair to run wit that.
Also, some of the proposed laws (e.g. mandatory background checks on all gun sales, better auditing of gun sales and the associated background checks) are improved coverage of the 'obvious prohibitions' you don't seem to mind. That doesn't stop 'gun nuts going ape shit' about them.
There is no "reasonable" restriction in the eyes of those who wish to promulgate these laws, save for complete abolition.
This is hyperbolic nonsense. It probably is true of a subset of people who wish to promulgate 'these laws' but it is obviously not true of all of those who would like more restrictive gun laws.
True, but you still need to set your phone to allow installation of apps from untrusted sources to install Android apps purchased as part of bundles, don't you? (Because the Humble Bundle app installs them, not the Play store).
This is an issue of transitivity of trust: Let's imagine that I trust Google Play to only include safe apps, so I install the Humble Bundle app from Google Play. However, in order to install any apps from the Humble Bundle store I have to allow the installation of all other apps. Installing the Humble Bundle app from Google Play doesn't transfer trust to the Humble Bundle app so it can't install apps. Similarly, even if the Amazon store appeared on the Google Play store, it wouldn't be able to install apps without me allowing installation from all unknown app sources.
Generally, I still have the ability to choose what does and doesn't get installed (assuming I don't activate ADB, in which case all bets are off, but I would have to actively choose to do that) so it isn't like I'm allowing any app to install whatever it wants. However, by adding an Android permission to allow an app to install other apps there could be some degree of trust transfer.
Of course, the outcome would probably be that huge numbers of apps would request the permission to install other apps and then have a field day because most people don't read the permissions anyway when they are installing, and this is compounded by the stupid Android security model that doesn't allow any permissions refinement (e.g. no "optional permissions", no "ask on first use", only "accept all the permissions or don't install"). BB has managed to have permission overrides for ages without the world collapsing, and iOS is polite enough to ask when apps want to do certain things (e.g. GPS access).
the cheap/low-end Android phones can still be found coming out brand new with 2.2/2.3 installed on the damned things
BS
I was surprised, but you're right: when I looked at the pre-paid devices offered by several mobile providers, I didn't find any that were being sold with a pre-4.x OS version. It is no doubt still possible to buy old Android phones with old Android versions, but even cheap devices by Huawei and ZTE are now coming out with Android 4.x
Unfortunately, because manufacturers often provide very poor ongoing support for devices, a large number of devices already in the market will never be updated. In that way, I agree with the parent's parent: Apple can get props (relative to many Android device manufacturers) for providing relatively long term OS/security updates.
Was the goal of the SR bust to get the individual dealers though? Tumbling is an interesting way of obscuring the source, although I don't imagine it will be terribly long before you start seeing tumbler operators going to gaol for money laundering (which is exactly what they are doing). There are also a range of limitations to tumbling: it is only effective if there are BCs from numerous sources, and no individual has a disproportionately large number of BCs in the pool (otherwise he/she will just wind up with a disproportionately large number of their own BCs).
It isn't impossible to track a transaction through a tumbler, although it is difficult (which is how it is possible for people like this to hunt BC thieves, but that needs real-time intervention).
But yeah, tumblers can provide some level of anonymity to those who do use them.
It's an interesting idea, but if you could do that then the transaction information attached by DarkMarket would not be valuable/useful because it would be possible to forge that information. Otherwise a good idea, though.
Maybe I'm confused, but it sounds to me like what 'DarkMarket' is doing is irrevocably marking some transactions as being associated with DarkMarket. That strikes me as much like writing 'I was used to buy drugs' on a $50 note except that someone can check the entire transaction history of the $50 note back to the beginning of time.
I guess it will be interesting for researchers assess the proportion of BC that is being used for dubious purposes (unless you actually believe things like 'banned books' are going to be traded on DarkMarket except at the very margins), and feds who want to find people selling drugs (because BC itself is not anonymous).
Could be worse. You could be using the more expensive Matrox 'doodad' which is like the Belkin one but doesn't have a chaining port.
"Oh, you wanted to be able to connect in another device... that's too bad"
I, for one, am excited about this new super-fast connector for which all the peripherals will be too expensive to buy. I know that when firewire was being replaced by Thunderbolt, I was worried that they may do away with the chaining that means any hard drive case or breakout unit which doesn't have a pass-through becomes a dead end. Now, with this new Thunderbolt I can be comfortable in the knowledge that there will still be a whole array of amazing devices all of which are too expensive for me to possibly want to buy.
(Note: Thunderbolt is great for some people, but those people are probably the ones that have the company paying for the extra displays and drives)
First, the majority of people do not possess the ability to think critically.
Yes.
You can't teach that skill. You can try to foster what ability a person might have but you can't turn someone with no ability to think critically into someone who exemplifies that ability. By middle school someone either can think for themselves or they can't.
No. There has been a lot of research on critical thinking in both psychology and education, looking at both the ability of people to engage in critical thinking and the extent to which it can be taught. Typically what is found is that critical thinking is not particularly innate, and that people improve considerably with teaching. Some people grasp it more readily than others, but (like a great many talents) with training and practice most people can become proficient. Quite a few university degrees (e.g. philosophy, some areas of psychology, and if you're lucky politics) include specific courses on critical thinking and formal logic.
An in Australia, if you tried to reverse that you'd get lynched.
People here generally feel that everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of income.
Trolling grammar nazis just makes you a different kind of idiot
Well ganjadude. May I call you ganjadude? I imagine that is what your friends on 'your side' call you, right? 'ganjadude' sounds like that kind of a name.
You're assuming that the people who are angry about the appointment of Rice to this role are the same people who were angry about the Eich being given the CEO position at Mozilla.
You're also roughly stating that because there are other reasons to dislike Dropbox, it is inappropriate to complain about their choice of someone who has historically be pro-surveillance and supportive of state-sanctioned torture (in certain contexts, like the state doing the torturing for the US). I isn't really 'inappropriate' to complain about both the color and performance of a car, and likewise I don't think that disliking some other attribute of Dropbox reasonably precludes me complaining about their choice of board members.
I didn't much like the way that Eich was attacked for his support of Prop 8, even though I didn't agree with Prop 8. Eich's views on same-sex marriage really don't relate Mozilla (I don't think), and they don't really make him a bad or nasty person either - at least, not themselves without knowing the reasoning behind them.
That Rice previously demonstrated support of intensive surveillance by government does directly relate to Dropbox. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to criticise. I think that her support of torture and extraordinary rendition makes her an unpleasant person, but I'm not sure that so much relates to her role at Dropbox.
Your obsession with what 'they' do, those dirty liberals, is slightly bizarre and makes you sound like a crazy person. Also, you're presenting a weak caricature of liberals and then pretending it is reality. That doesn't make you sound clever, or steadfast in your role as an opponent of liberals. It makes you sound like someone who is to polarized to be able to think straight.
Changing part without changing part number is something which the engineer shouldn't have done. Sure, management wouldn't let him make the change and that is bad. However, by making a change without following the basic accepted procedures meant that sleuth work needed to be done to even identify that a change had been made. The engineer clearly did something wrong. That in no way reduces the responsibility of management for their decisions and the consequences of those decisions.
That said, naming names of an engineer is a really bad precedent. What is the goal GM is trying to achieve here. Do they want people to go break the guy's windows? Burn down his house? Call him in the middle of the night or deliver pizza? Apart from potentially removing the guy's livelihood for the remainder of his life because no-one wants to hire 'that guy' ever again, and a lot of abuse being targeted his way, what will this achieve?
If he did something criminal, then he should be charged. If he did something extremely incompetent then maybe membership of the engineering body should be revoked, but it isn't the place of GM to throw their engineers to the wolves.
If you sequence the material correctly, and add in filler that you are willing to cut, you can get people to say all kinds of crazy stuff in voiceover recording.
If you can get someone to say "If someone were to say 'No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust' you would have doubts about their other works. No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust. I mean, who says that?" and coach them a little, you can probably use it for a convincing voiceover of them saying "No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust".
That's a pretty extreme example, but for something like this it would be relatively easy to make things seem innocuous.
Note: Robert Sungenis, who funded the film, has this view about the holocaust.
Well, since there are a bunch of 'nucleus' models and even a single model can have multiple speech processing/stimulation strategies I'd question the accuracy of your statement. However, I could be wrong and you're welcome to point me to a source verifying your statement.
Look at their package insert for physicians.
This certainly is a valid issue (but the solution is not to leave people deaf, although that isn't what you're saying).
There are people who are unable to receive cochlear implants (CIs): people who have damaged auditory nerves (nerve aplasia or hypoplasia, Neurofibromatosis Type-II (NF2) or other auditory nerve tumors, severed auditory nerve due to accident etc) or abnormal cochlea (calcification due to meningitis sometimes prevents implantation, etc). There is one type of alternative implant for these individuals - the Auditory Brainstem Implant (ABI) on the Cochear Nucleus - but performance of the ABI implant tends to be quite a bit poorer than the CI. This may be because of the problems which lead to needing a ABI rather than a CI but the evidence isn't yet clear on the matter. One group (NF2) almost always do more poorly than other with an ABI but no-one is quite sure why.
There are also two experimental implants (that I know of) which have been or are being tested in humans: the penetrating ABI implant (stabs electrodes into the cochlear nucleus whereas the current commercial device puts electrodes on the surface) and the penetrating Auditory Midbrain Implant (AMI). The penetrating ABI testing looked pretty good, but actually getting it in place was damn near impossible because the cochlear nucleus is basically wrapped around the brainstem in the middle of everything. The AMI seems like a cool idea, but the Inferior Colliculus (where the implant is places) is a pretty complex structure and a lot of processing has already happened by the time input would get there in a functioning auditory system. As a result, people with the experimental implants get things like having hearing at the beginning of the day that tails of across the day but returns the next day and so on.
The result is that the number of people who can't get cochlear implants or brainstem implants and are deaf from birth (which are the people for whom the deaf community is most important) is pretty small and quite geographically distributed which makes it quite isolating. As you're saying, there is a real issue with an inability for normal-hearing people to communicate with these individuals. Speech-to-text and text-to-speech engines will be helpful as they improve because it will mean that someone can use their phone as a 'translator' of a sort. As people get faster and faster at typing on phones, using a phone for textual communication can actually be pretty good too. Ideally, you would want two devices with real-time duplex transmission between them and people able to glace at the phones when typing and reading so facial expressions can still be used.
Hell, maybe that is a use for Google Glass. I type to you (where you are deaf), and you can look at me and my facial expressions while what I'm typing appears in your field of view. You then respond the same way. Or something.
Wow. That turned into a massive blag.
Shards! It has shards!
It makes complete sense. If those kids can play GTA, some of them might be inspired to go into competition with him.
You can't use plugins without a paid version of IntelliJ, which Android Studio is not.
You're still building for your family's future, even if you feel that a 45% estate tax is too much. Not saying it is or isn't, just that passing on 55% is not nothing and is not necessarily removing one of your primary motivators.
If we really want more of a meritocracy, maybe a 100% estate tax would be the way to go. (Note: I know this wouldn't work due to issues of unequal education and nepotism).
Actually, I mostly agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that simply aiming to decrease inequity is a silly goal if you don't have broader constraints such as 'so everyone can afford to eat'. The reason behind wanting to make that point was that if it is considered an improvement for inequity to decrease as a result of pushing middle wages down by allowing more H1Bs, then maybe it could be extended to minimising inequity by making almost everyone dirt poor.
I think that reducing inequality by pulling in the top and bottom ends does have a whole range of benefits.
Extending on Greenspan's idea, you can reduce inequity by having the top 0.01% take all the money from the remaining 99.99%. All that demonstrates is that having low inequity as your sole target is stupid.
Thanks. That's the best read I've ever seen on the subject.
Sure, but they don't play 24/96 audio without downsampling.
(Note: I'm not saying someone could necessarily tell the difference, but there is a difference)