This is because you're making the very bad mistake of measuring middle class by money. Before I proceed, let's get something clear: MONEY IS NOT WEALTH. If you define class by wealth instead of income, the middle class is growing rather than shrinking.
Watch this (start about 4:30 in and watch to at least 7:00 in)
there will be only well-to-do and poor people in a few years...
Will there be a revolt then?
False, false, and false, I understand that it's the common talking point among socialists/liberals/communists (yes I know they aren't one and the same, but they all like to make the same argument here) that the middle class is dying and by making everything cheap, we're in a big giant race to the bottom. But that's a big fat lie.
Stop playing the Obama talking point game, and start paying attention to wealth rather than income. It paints a much different (and more accurate) story. Money does not equal happiness. What money buys often does however. While incomes have been declining, overall wealth has not, which is mainly a symptom of nice things becoming less expensive.
Though it seems it's highest among those living in poverty (and among homosexuals, for reasons I am in no position to guess) which means that not many of those few that do smoke are likely able to fork out the money.
I don't think that technology (which is well over 3 years old at this point) will work on modern phones.
Keep in mind that this time period was the same time period where you could jailbreak an ipad by just visiting a website that carried exploit code. Likewise, I imagine the exploit that this hardware used was anticipating a jailbreak style attack to break into the phone.
If you notice however, Apple has been getting better at preventing these. Likewise, Android OEMs have been getting good enough at preventing exploits that nobody bothers trying to load a third party rom to phones any more unless the phone includes a built in unlock mechanism. All phones that do this, I might add, wipe all of the contents of the phone prior to enabling that feature.
Android itself has also turned on safeguards that require the phone's owner to accept the host machine's fingerprint to enable USB debugging, so you can no longer just plug in any computer of your choosing to have ADB enabled.
I remember on Through the Wormhole, Morgan Freeman (black) was presenting somebody's evidence that there are differing IQ levels between races, with blacks and latinos being near the bottom, whites in the middle, and asians and jews near the top.
That's a pretty clear example of an uncomfortable truth, and the woman who did the research behind it said she was always getting accused of being racist.
But at the same time both her and Freeman were saying (correctly, I might add) that IQ isn't a terribly good measure of somebody's overall smarts.
At any rate, I'll probably get accused of being racist for what I said above. I couldn't care less what the PC police have to say about my post though.
Parallel construction is still subject to fruit of the poisonous tree, and evidence obtained from clues given from illegally obtained evidence will also be thrown out.
The only way parallel construction ever works is if they can catch you in some wrongdoing later.
For example if you're running a criminal enterprise, and if they use previous evidence (illegal or otherwise) to predict your next moves, and then catch you in the act while you're susceptible to legal searches and seizures, such as the plain sight doctrine in a routine traffic stop.
Or for example if they found photos of your recent murder victim on your phone, but those were illegally obtained, they could do something like getting your friends to trick you into confessing while your friends also consent to a wiretap (assuming that is legal in your state; it is legal in all but 10.)
That's fine and all, but when it goes to court, even a shitty lawyer could get any evidence obtained thrown out.
As far as involuntary repudiation (e.g. the cops destroying evidence) I think it would be prudent for everybody to have their data securely backed up to a cloud service as its acquired, preferably to some kind of zero knowledge storage provider.
It wouldn't need to be so dramatic, just bump the phone with another device (or another phone.) NFC simply doesn't have the bandwidth required to do what you're suggesting, and it could easily be configured to be doable without unlocking the device.
It could also be done in such a way that it authenticates without giving out any sensitive information (i.e. the reader sends a random number, and your device responds with an ID number (that isn't the same as your DL number) and a signed copy of the random number.)
That's all that the police would need to properly identify you for a traffic stop, and nobody who steals your phone would be able to impersonate you (unless they happened to look exactly like the person in your photo in the DMV records.)
I think the secure element in Android's NFC payment (I'm not familiar enough with Apple) does a very good job at preventing fraud as far as that is concerned. If the driver's license identity system carried a similar security, then creating a fake ID would become enormously more difficult.
Of course, similar results could be achieved with smart NFC/ISO7816 computer inside of a drivers license. (I.e a system where the scanner sends a randomized number, and the on-card computer replies with a signed copy of that random number that could only be signed by the proper owner of that card.)
But, I myself look forward to the days where I don't have to carry around a Costanza wallet full of cards (I already put my phone and credit cards inside of a phone wallet, and would like it to become even smaller than it already is.)
Bullshit. Her tweet was making light of our first world bubble. It wasn't worded quite well, but when you look at the context based on her other tweets, it's very self evident.
All of us have said stupid things now and then. Every last one of us. Nobody deserves to have their lives ruined over just one sentence. As the article linked mentions, some historical figures ended the practice of public shaming because they found many cases where it is measurably worse than a death sentence.
That isn't justice. People like you who espouse such an outcome don't give a shit about justice. Your only motivation is to make yourself feel righteous at their expense, and righting a wrong never comes into play.
I've repeated this numerous times, and I'll repeat it again: Few people are interested in actual justice. Most of them just want somebody that they can publicly rail against for the sole purpose of making themselves feel righteous. It has nothing to do with righting any wrong.
It's not just the police, the prison guards, or the judges that are guilty of it. It's a systemic problem. Some of the worst bullies I've seen are those who target supposed bullies.
Anyway, you seem to believe that capitalism equals free markets, which it does not. You seem to believe that socialism equals 'no free market' which it does not.
Actually you're wrong on both counts. Free market means that the prices of goods are set by the forces of supply and demand. Capitalism means that the means of production is owned and operated for a profit.*
Socialism means co-operative management of production. I.e. no profit motive, and nobody privately owns any means of production. That is inherently incompatible with free markets because supply and demand don't determine prices; instead prices (and sometimes supply) are set by some governing authority. See for example Venezuela recently threatening owners of electronics stores for not obeying the official price guides set by the Bolivian government. In most capitalist states, this only happens for certain utilities that are monopolistic in nature and therefore aren't able to be subject to the normal rules of supply and demand.
Socialism varies from communism in that in communism (according to Marx) there's no money, no social classes, and no government (all of which exist by necessity in socialism, including social classes, which can just be elected officials who set prices.) This form of communism has only briefly existed in each instance of it because it never ends up working. (The Icarians were an example of communism, however the USSR was socialism. The USSR tried pure communism but it didn't last very long.)
* This also applies in the case of not for profit organizations within a capitalist system. Even though the organization itself doesn't profit, the stakeholders do, if not in the form of money, then in the form of some kind of material gain, though usually the stakeholders include employees. See the for example the executives and employees of PBS, Mozilla, and others. Likewise, for profit organizations privately own their own means of production, and any goods they produce are still subject to the rules of supply and demand.
Hint: If it has "socialist" or "democratic" in the name, it probably isn't. The USSR was communist, an extreme form of socialism, in the same way that the DPRK is an extreme form of democracy where there is only one party and only one choice of leader so they don't even bother having a vote.
Actually you've got that backwards. Many were identified as communist but had very little in common with actual communism and much more closely resembled socialism.
Marx, who basically defined the term "communism", seemed pretty specific in that communism meant no social classes, no money, and no "state." The USSR never met a single one of those conditions. There have been a few examples of it (such as the Icarians) but none of them ever lasted worth a shit. Russia tried it (even going so far as to try to abolish laws from court trials) but saw how much of a failure it was turning out to be and it didn't last more than a few years.
Are they? From what I've seen, they make the US look socialist in comparison. No minimum wage, German labor unions try to form a bond between management and employees as opposed to soviet style thuggery of US labor unions, they're even more in favor of austerity than the US by far...what's so socialist about them? Other than the high taxes, maybe, but lots of very capitalist countries have high taxes.
How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to
I've only ever been subjected to one, and it doesn't seem to meet any practical definitions of failure. Though the number of failed socialist experiments on the other hand...Icarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Venezuelan, Cuban, the Paris Commune...actually the list would probably be big enough to make a book, so I'll stop there.
when it is the workers who are doing all the work?
I remember when I watched the documentary about Tetris, I think it was Alexey Pajitnov who said that in socialism they pretend to pay you if you pretend to work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that the neutrons literally flow across a fourth dimensional axis, and then somehow bounce back after they've moved some distance on one of the other axes, landing in the trap while within our plane of the fourth dimension?
If so, how are they supposed to spot the neutrons the moment they cross into our brane but before they move into another one? (Unless gravity is so weak in the fourth axis that neutrons tend to prefer to stay in our brane rather than all others, making our brane effectively the "origin point" or "zero point" on a 4d coordinate scale.)
I'm not terribly knowledgeable about this (I just watch the Morgan Freeman show "Through the Wormhole", which dramatically simplifies things from what I can tell) but would be interested to hear a real physicist explain that better.
Area shouldn't matter to profitability; population density should.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to reach then. T-Mobile has to serve a much wider area at a much lower population density. If anything it should be considerably easier for a European carrier to drive a larger profit off of a smaller price, especially considering that they don't have to bother negotiating with other carriers for roaming agreements.
Slashdot Mirror
The middle class is going away
This is because you're making the very bad mistake of measuring middle class by money. Before I proceed, let's get something clear: MONEY IS NOT WEALTH. If you define class by wealth instead of income, the middle class is growing rather than shrinking.
Watch this (start about 4:30 in and watch to at least 7:00 in)
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...
there will be only well-to-do and poor people in a few years...
Will there be a revolt then?
False, false, and false, I understand that it's the common talking point among socialists/liberals/communists (yes I know they aren't one and the same, but they all like to make the same argument here) that the middle class is dying and by making everything cheap, we're in a big giant race to the bottom. But that's a big fat lie.
Stop playing the Obama talking point game, and start paying attention to wealth rather than income. It paints a much different (and more accurate) story. Money does not equal happiness. What money buys often does however. While incomes have been declining, overall wealth has not, which is mainly a symptom of nice things becoming less expensive.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...
All of this not taking into account the rather large decline of smoking in general in the US since the cold war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Though it seems it's highest among those living in poverty (and among homosexuals, for reasons I am in no position to guess) which means that not many of those few that do smoke are likely able to fork out the money.
I don't think that technology (which is well over 3 years old at this point) will work on modern phones.
Keep in mind that this time period was the same time period where you could jailbreak an ipad by just visiting a website that carried exploit code. Likewise, I imagine the exploit that this hardware used was anticipating a jailbreak style attack to break into the phone.
If you notice however, Apple has been getting better at preventing these. Likewise, Android OEMs have been getting good enough at preventing exploits that nobody bothers trying to load a third party rom to phones any more unless the phone includes a built in unlock mechanism. All phones that do this, I might add, wipe all of the contents of the phone prior to enabling that feature.
Android itself has also turned on safeguards that require the phone's owner to accept the host machine's fingerprint to enable USB debugging, so you can no longer just plug in any computer of your choosing to have ADB enabled.
Bad grammar aside, nothing has been done yet. We don't know what the implementation will look like. It may very well be better than what I propose.
I remember on Through the Wormhole, Morgan Freeman (black) was presenting somebody's evidence that there are differing IQ levels between races, with blacks and latinos being near the bottom, whites in the middle, and asians and jews near the top.
That's a pretty clear example of an uncomfortable truth, and the woman who did the research behind it said she was always getting accused of being racist.
But at the same time both her and Freeman were saying (correctly, I might add) that IQ isn't a terribly good measure of somebody's overall smarts.
At any rate, I'll probably get accused of being racist for what I said above. I couldn't care less what the PC police have to say about my post though.
Parallel construction is still subject to fruit of the poisonous tree, and evidence obtained from clues given from illegally obtained evidence will also be thrown out.
The only way parallel construction ever works is if they can catch you in some wrongdoing later.
For example if you're running a criminal enterprise, and if they use previous evidence (illegal or otherwise) to predict your next moves, and then catch you in the act while you're susceptible to legal searches and seizures, such as the plain sight doctrine in a routine traffic stop.
Or for example if they found photos of your recent murder victim on your phone, but those were illegally obtained, they could do something like getting your friends to trick you into confessing while your friends also consent to a wiretap (assuming that is legal in your state; it is legal in all but 10.)
That's fine and all, but when it goes to court, even a shitty lawyer could get any evidence obtained thrown out.
As far as involuntary repudiation (e.g. the cops destroying evidence) I think it would be prudent for everybody to have their data securely backed up to a cloud service as its acquired, preferably to some kind of zero knowledge storage provider.
because a device would have to be unlocked to show your ID.
Incorrect, and what you replied to:
Handing you phone to a cop grants them implicit rights to search the phone.
Is also incorrect. As I mentioned here:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
It wouldn't need to be so dramatic, just bump the phone with another device (or another phone.) NFC simply doesn't have the bandwidth required to do what you're suggesting, and it could easily be configured to be doable without unlocking the device.
It could also be done in such a way that it authenticates without giving out any sensitive information (i.e. the reader sends a random number, and your device responds with an ID number (that isn't the same as your DL number) and a signed copy of the random number.)
That's all that the police would need to properly identify you for a traffic stop, and nobody who steals your phone would be able to impersonate you (unless they happened to look exactly like the person in your photo in the DMV records.)
I think the secure element in Android's NFC payment (I'm not familiar enough with Apple) does a very good job at preventing fraud as far as that is concerned. If the driver's license identity system carried a similar security, then creating a fake ID would become enormously more difficult.
Of course, similar results could be achieved with smart NFC/ISO7816 computer inside of a drivers license. (I.e a system where the scanner sends a randomized number, and the on-card computer replies with a signed copy of that random number that could only be signed by the proper owner of that card.)
But, I myself look forward to the days where I don't have to carry around a Costanza wallet full of cards (I already put my phone and credit cards inside of a phone wallet, and would like it to become even smaller than it already is.)
Bullshit. Her tweet was making light of our first world bubble. It wasn't worded quite well, but when you look at the context based on her other tweets, it's very self evident.
All of us have said stupid things now and then. Every last one of us. Nobody deserves to have their lives ruined over just one sentence. As the article linked mentions, some historical figures ended the practice of public shaming because they found many cases where it is measurably worse than a death sentence.
That isn't justice. People like you who espouse such an outcome don't give a shit about justice. Your only motivation is to make yourself feel righteous at their expense, and righting a wrong never comes into play.
Society needs its demons.
I've repeated this numerous times, and I'll repeat it again: Few people are interested in actual justice. Most of them just want somebody that they can publicly rail against for the sole purpose of making themselves feel righteous. It has nothing to do with righting any wrong.
It's not just the police, the prison guards, or the judges that are guilty of it. It's a systemic problem. Some of the worst bullies I've seen are those who target supposed bullies.
Next thing you know, people are prosecuted for what they say because it caused someone else to go nuts
Charles Manson?
No, socialism is a system where most or all of the means of production are owned by the state.
Anyway, you seem to believe that capitalism equals free markets, which it does not.
You seem to believe that socialism equals 'no free market' which it does not.
Actually you're wrong on both counts. Free market means that the prices of goods are set by the forces of supply and demand. Capitalism means that the means of production is owned and operated for a profit.*
Socialism means co-operative management of production. I.e. no profit motive, and nobody privately owns any means of production. That is inherently incompatible with free markets because supply and demand don't determine prices; instead prices (and sometimes supply) are set by some governing authority. See for example Venezuela recently threatening owners of electronics stores for not obeying the official price guides set by the Bolivian government. In most capitalist states, this only happens for certain utilities that are monopolistic in nature and therefore aren't able to be subject to the normal rules of supply and demand.
Socialism varies from communism in that in communism (according to Marx) there's no money, no social classes, and no government (all of which exist by necessity in socialism, including social classes, which can just be elected officials who set prices.) This form of communism has only briefly existed in each instance of it because it never ends up working. (The Icarians were an example of communism, however the USSR was socialism. The USSR tried pure communism but it didn't last very long.)
* This also applies in the case of not for profit organizations within a capitalist system. Even though the organization itself doesn't profit, the stakeholders do, if not in the form of money, then in the form of some kind of material gain, though usually the stakeholders include employees. See the for example the executives and employees of PBS, Mozilla, and others. Likewise, for profit organizations privately own their own means of production, and any goods they produce are still subject to the rules of supply and demand.
Hint: If it has "socialist" or "democratic" in the name, it probably isn't. The USSR was communist, an extreme form of socialism, in the same way that the DPRK is an extreme form of democracy where there is only one party and only one choice of leader so they don't even bother having a vote.
Actually you've got that backwards. Many were identified as communist but had very little in common with actual communism and much more closely resembled socialism.
Marx, who basically defined the term "communism", seemed pretty specific in that communism meant no social classes, no money, and no "state." The USSR never met a single one of those conditions. There have been a few examples of it (such as the Icarians) but none of them ever lasted worth a shit. Russia tried it (even going so far as to try to abolish laws from court trials) but saw how much of a failure it was turning out to be and it didn't last more than a few years.
Neither in Russia nor in China socialism is considered a failure, actually both countries where not even socialistic.
By the way, what does USSR stand for?
As I mentioned somewhere else, all of these countries have met at least one commonly accepted definition of a failed state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Are they? From what I've seen, they make the US look socialist in comparison. No minimum wage, German labor unions try to form a bond between management and employees as opposed to soviet style thuggery of US labor unions, they're even more in favor of austerity than the US by far...what's so socialist about them? Other than the high taxes, maybe, but lots of very capitalist countries have high taxes.
All of the above countries have met at least one of the commonly accepted definitions of a failed state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I figured it was a tool to help him find manbearpig.
How many failed capitalist experiments are we going to be subjected to
I've only ever been subjected to one, and it doesn't seem to meet any practical definitions of failure. Though the number of failed socialist experiments on the other hand...Icarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Venezuelan, Cuban, the Paris Commune...actually the list would probably be big enough to make a book, so I'll stop there.
when it is the workers who are doing all the work?
I remember when I watched the documentary about Tetris, I think it was Alexey Pajitnov who said that in socialism they pretend to pay you if you pretend to work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that the neutrons literally flow across a fourth dimensional axis, and then somehow bounce back after they've moved some distance on one of the other axes, landing in the trap while within our plane of the fourth dimension?
If so, how are they supposed to spot the neutrons the moment they cross into our brane but before they move into another one? (Unless gravity is so weak in the fourth axis that neutrons tend to prefer to stay in our brane rather than all others, making our brane effectively the "origin point" or "zero point" on a 4d coordinate scale.)
I'm not terribly knowledgeable about this (I just watch the Morgan Freeman show "Through the Wormhole", which dramatically simplifies things from what I can tell) but would be interested to hear a real physicist explain that better.
Area shouldn't matter to profitability; population density should.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to reach then. T-Mobile has to serve a much wider area at a much lower population density. If anything it should be considerably easier for a European carrier to drive a larger profit off of a smaller price, especially considering that they don't have to bother negotiating with other carriers for roaming agreements.
I found in a DVD drive in a computer lab machine that I was fixing
Why must you turn this website into a house of lies?