As it is designed, email is capable of peer-to-peer(ish, if people have their own domains) operation and if people used PGP the messages would be safe in transit. It's not totally decentralized, though, as you still depend on DNS.
More importantly, a shift away from centralized corporate mail servers toward individual (or at least family or co-op) mail servers can happen gradually without relying on the network effect to legitimize a new system.
HR recruiters are a potential employee's first contact with a company and ought to be able to answer any reasonable questions a potential employee might have. "Who does your agency consider an adversary," is a valid question to ask of an agency that's trying to recruit you. It's akin to asking a business, "Who do you consider a potential customer?"
It's a core function of an organization's representatives to have answers to these simple questions and understand the organization's purpose. Even without the current situation the NSA is in, this sort of thing is something that a potential recruit may be curious about. I'm surprised they didn't have an answer ready for it.
It's not just economically damaging, it damages our trust in the intrinsic human properties that hold our society together. Advertising increasingly co-opts the signals that humans use to indicate familiarity and trustworthiness and uses them to deceive people for profit.
A smile from someone you don't know now puts you on your guard. I almost threw out a handwritten letter the other day because so much junk mail uses fake "handwritten" fonts to try to trick people into opening them. There are countless examples of this and our society suffers as a result of this trusted interpersonal interaction breakdown.
As unpopular as it sounds, I think keeping a little bit of low level waste close to the surface would work the best. If anyone who visited the site got sick and died, word would spread among each group of explorers that it is a bad place. Anything else is likely to arouse curiosity or be totally misunderstood.
What? So you close the argument by saying, "I've got mine"?
For the record, I'm fine financially and my job is quite secure. But you can't seriously argue that a system designed to benefit one group over another works for everybody because the people who designed the system are benefiting.
There are many people out there who can't manage their money and who will never accumulate wealth. That does not, however, give anyone else a moral free pass to abuse them for profit.
I'm financially better off every year by virtue of my contributions to society. To the extent that I am able, my well-being isn't propped up by the suffering of anyone else. (I cannot directly affect foreign policy, but I try to influence it as much as I can. Otherwise, I buy locally and domestically produced goods, which don't really cost that much more than goods produced overseas by children in sweatshops.)
Betting on one's beliefs is just a virtuous-sounding way of saying gaming the system at the expense of the other players.
The correct solution to all of this is the solution we had ~15 years ago (maybe slightly modernized). Replaceable "media centers" in DIN, double DIN, or a new standard format with a uniform wiring harness on the other end.
As you pointed out, the vehicle is going to outlive any computer standard. Allowing the entertainment/navigation computer to be entirely replaced along the way is the cleaner solution to the problem.
The bare minimum moral code, the Golden Rule, is largely self-evident and doesn't need to rely on any external authority. It easily covers this situation and most situations encountered in a society. Deviation from this barest of moral codes is a clear indication of a sociopath or malicious actor.
It's not a zero sum game, but the end result is that the working classes get paid less and less and the wealthy class collects more and more. Every time this labor arbitrage scheme is pulled in a new location, the wages in the first world fall and the wages in the developing country rise by a much smaller amount (it may seem like a lot to them, but it doesn't raise their standard of living, as a whole society, to our level). The wealthy class keeps this difference and thus own more of the pie (even if the pie is larger).
This uplifting of poorer economies can be done without causing any damage to the developed world and increasing the wealth inequality here (the race to the bottom for wages). It's being done not because these wealthy capital owners are being kind to the developing countries, but because it is making them more wealthy. And the race to the bottom for wages makes income fall for the working classes (by design), while prices have steadily increased (see the CPI, etc), and wealth increases for the wealthy. This is not a beautiful world of plenty for all that is being made here.
Thanks! That was very informative. I wasn't aware of the mismatch between the visas and the fact that this reform is just making it worse. Also, it seems that the guest worker part of the bill was the only part that the House liked about the bill. Ugh.
It amazing me how many people just assert this in the face of about four centuries of increasing globalization accompanied by an ever-increasing middle class.
Because until recently, globalization only meant the import/export of manufactured goods or raw supplies (ie, the outsourcing of the working class). Predictably, that had little negative impact on the middle class. Globalization now involves the outsourcing of the middle class, which seems to actually have an effect on the middle class.
Both. This is well studied - imports make products cheaper for Americans far in excess of the total lost wages from those imports.
You're going to have to provide some evidence for that assertion. I've not been able to find any credible source to back that up.
Plus most Americans now own stock, directly or indirectly, and so also benefit from better profits.
That's a generous stretch of indirectly. The benefit that the minority of middle class Americans who own stocks see from them is tiny compared to the income that the extremely wealthy are making from outsourcing.
Anyway, you haven't explained exactly how a race to the bottom ends with "everywhere in the world having a real middles class" (and why we have to sacrifice the American middle class to make it). A race to the bottom means that the wages earned per unit time decrease until they just cover what is needed to subsist. Where exactly does a middle class come from that?
I see the error of my ways. There's a (way too lengthy) queue to wait in use the EB categories. This is a shame, as these are the people we want immigrating.
Quoth the post I was responding to:
However, when it comes to hiring talented professionals who didn't have the chance to be born in the US, there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the H1-B. If someone completes a master's or PhD in a US university, why should they have to compete for a visa with a limited quota with large corporations that mostly hires foreign workers?
I work for an engineering company and we have a mix of US and international employees, but it has happened that we couldn't hire the best candidate because the H1-B visa quota was full for the year. Most of those international employees studied here and in the long run end up getting a green card, then citizenship. Tell me this doesn't add value to the US overall?
The solution: give EAD to anyone with MS or PhD from an American university.
You're right, I'm not familiar with US immigration. On the other hand, the post I replied to said that they had no way, other than H1-B, to get PhD and Masters holding professionals to the US to work for them. Isn't an "employment based" greencard then an option? As it is more appropriate for his situation, maybe we ought to increase the number of them offered. They seem better for the US, anyway (let the best and brightest stay if they want to).
Or do you just get hung up on the fact that I said visa instead of greencard, get all bent out of shape, and offer little actual insight as to why what I said was any more than semantically wrong?
I tend to enable JavaScript (since disabling it breaks too many sites) but I don't allow it to do anything outside of the web page with the browser itself (manipulate windows or context menus)
You don't do anything, that's by design.
Firefox 22, by default, allows JavaScript to do those things.
However, when it comes to hiring talented professionals who didn't have the chance to be born in the US, there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the H1-B. If someone completes a master's or PhD in a US university, why should they have to compete for a visa with a limited quota with large corporations that mostly hires foreign workers?
There's the EB series (eg, EB-1) of visas. All of the priority worker goodness and none of the indentured servitude.
And the race to the bottom ends with everywhere in the world having a real middle class - hardly a dystopia.
How do you figure? The race to the bottom ends at the bottom. Real wages reach a minimum and only capital has any value.
That there are local minima along the way (where emerging nations prosper) doesn't mean that the end result is a middle class everywhere. The end result is that a few extremely wealthy persons have most of the capital and everyone else works for peanuts. Look at the money "saved" by outsourcing labor. Do the prices you see at the store reflect all of that savings or are the profits from those products just increasing?
Globalization is just wealth consolidation. Though it may be nice in the short term, it doesn't end well for most of the global population.
...so somebody else is likely subsidising me, quite likely someone poorer than me that keeps being stung with debit interest or account misuse charges which are therefore higher than they might otherwise be...
If it's any consolation, the end of such subsidy likely wound not decrease the charges levied against that someone. Profiting off of the abuse of the poor has a long tradition and won't be going away any time soon.
Because in 10 or 20 years UEFI will be like the old BIOS. It will do totally old stuff that nobody wants, and it will not allow new stuff, because of the same reasons of the that the old BIOS have.
Of course that's true, but the E in UEFI is an attempt to make it last as long as possible. I'm not sure what's so objectionable about UEFI, though. It is, essentially, "a BIOS that addresses the decades of accumulated legacy bodging that is the PC."
Most of the Mayan construction wasn't built to last without maintenance, either. Much of what humans (or any life for that matter) build isn't meant to last.
The few special things that do last, like castles, temples, and pyramids, are a small fraction of the total construction. Our modern societies have built a few things that will last a while, too.
Abusive monopolies and massive quasi-governmental corporations practically fall into the same category as the state, so (little "L") libertarians would be opposed to them as well. Libertarianism doesn't exclude the use of regulation for the preservation of liberty. As the GP stated, there would still be laws concerning murder, etc.
Robber barons and feudal lords may be the poster child of (capital "L") Libertarianism, but not (lowercase "L") libertarianism.
And on dial-up, that used to take about 6 minutes per 1mb zip file, and always when the download reached 99% the dreaded 'click - Purrrrrrrrrrr' of the modem disconnecting happened, so you would have to download it all again after dialling up again.
Used to take days to get big files.
That reminds me of how awesome zmodem was with its resume capability. That changed things for the better. Then we moved on to http and lost resume for the longest time again...
I know you were going for funny, but much of what you will be smelling in your experiment is from bacteria eating the protein and polysaccharides in the meat. The DNA is remarkably stable and even if some of it is fragmented, you have a massively redundant set in your pile of meat.
We've sequenced DNA from nearly a million years ago and I regularly store DNA dried out and stuck to a piece of paper. DVDs won't last nearly that long before the dyes start to break down. For a long term archival system, we could do much worse than DNA.
You repeat a common meme, but it is rubbish. Most Western governments actively suppress the amount of terrorist activity that does go on.
Oh please. According to the DHS, the US has only been at elevated risk of terrorist attack or higher since the vague Advisory System was created. What exactly does this weirdly unspecific system do besides promote general fear?
Notice how with the NSA leak the government admitted that the programme had stopped over 50 jihadi attacks you never heard about?
Is it because they're not real attacks, but crap like this story? Is it because they're attacks that the FBI actively assisted because the "terrorists" were actually idiots that couldn't pull off a real attack if they tried? Is it because the "jihadi attacks" were to take place in war zones and didn't warrant domestic spying?
Because the attacks we did hear about were pretty lame.
Please realise the popular meme you are parotting is *false* (but is widely propogated by the political Left because it suits their purposes - they wish to use mass immigration to break down traditional societies so they can then build up their Big Government socialist utopia).
Now that's off the deep end. Get back on your meds.
Slashdot Mirror
As it is designed, email is capable of peer-to-peer(ish, if people have their own domains) operation and if people used PGP the messages would be safe in transit. It's not totally decentralized, though, as you still depend on DNS.
More importantly, a shift away from centralized corporate mail servers toward individual (or at least family or co-op) mail servers can happen gradually without relying on the network effect to legitimize a new system.
HR recruiters are a potential employee's first contact with a company and ought to be able to answer any reasonable questions a potential employee might have. "Who does your agency consider an adversary," is a valid question to ask of an agency that's trying to recruit you. It's akin to asking a business, "Who do you consider a potential customer?"
It's a core function of an organization's representatives to have answers to these simple questions and understand the organization's purpose. Even without the current situation the NSA is in, this sort of thing is something that a potential recruit may be curious about. I'm surprised they didn't have an answer ready for it.
It's not just economically damaging, it damages our trust in the intrinsic human properties that hold our society together. Advertising increasingly co-opts the signals that humans use to indicate familiarity and trustworthiness and uses them to deceive people for profit.
A smile from someone you don't know now puts you on your guard. I almost threw out a handwritten letter the other day because so much junk mail uses fake "handwritten" fonts to try to trick people into opening them. There are countless examples of this and our society suffers as a result of this trusted interpersonal interaction breakdown.
As unpopular as it sounds, I think keeping a little bit of low level waste close to the surface would work the best. If anyone who visited the site got sick and died, word would spread among each group of explorers that it is a bad place. Anything else is likely to arouse curiosity or be totally misunderstood.
What? So you close the argument by saying, "I've got mine"?
For the record, I'm fine financially and my job is quite secure. But you can't seriously argue that a system designed to benefit one group over another works for everybody because the people who designed the system are benefiting.
There are many people out there who can't manage their money and who will never accumulate wealth. That does not, however, give anyone else a moral free pass to abuse them for profit.
I'm financially better off every year by virtue of my contributions to society. To the extent that I am able, my well-being isn't propped up by the suffering of anyone else. (I cannot directly affect foreign policy, but I try to influence it as much as I can. Otherwise, I buy locally and domestically produced goods, which don't really cost that much more than goods produced overseas by children in sweatshops.)
Betting on one's beliefs is just a virtuous-sounding way of saying gaming the system at the expense of the other players.
The correct solution to all of this is the solution we had ~15 years ago (maybe slightly modernized). Replaceable "media centers" in DIN, double DIN, or a new standard format with a uniform wiring harness on the other end.
As you pointed out, the vehicle is going to outlive any computer standard. Allowing the entertainment/navigation computer to be entirely replaced along the way is the cleaner solution to the problem.
The bare minimum moral code, the Golden Rule, is largely self-evident and doesn't need to rely on any external authority. It easily covers this situation and most situations encountered in a society. Deviation from this barest of moral codes is a clear indication of a sociopath or malicious actor.
It's not a zero sum game, but the end result is that the working classes get paid less and less and the wealthy class collects more and more. Every time this labor arbitrage scheme is pulled in a new location, the wages in the first world fall and the wages in the developing country rise by a much smaller amount (it may seem like a lot to them, but it doesn't raise their standard of living, as a whole society, to our level). The wealthy class keeps this difference and thus own more of the pie (even if the pie is larger).
This uplifting of poorer economies can be done without causing any damage to the developed world and increasing the wealth inequality here (the race to the bottom for wages). It's being done not because these wealthy capital owners are being kind to the developing countries, but because it is making them more wealthy. And the race to the bottom for wages makes income fall for the working classes (by design), while prices have steadily increased (see the CPI, etc), and wealth increases for the wealthy. This is not a beautiful world of plenty for all that is being made here.
Thanks! That was very informative. I wasn't aware of the mismatch between the visas and the fact that this reform is just making it worse. Also, it seems that the guest worker part of the bill was the only part that the House liked about the bill. Ugh.
It amazing me how many people just assert this in the face of about four centuries of increasing globalization accompanied by an ever-increasing middle class.
Because until recently, globalization only meant the import/export of manufactured goods or raw supplies (ie, the outsourcing of the working class). Predictably, that had little negative impact on the middle class. Globalization now involves the outsourcing of the middle class, which seems to actually have an effect on the middle class.
Both. This is well studied - imports make products cheaper for Americans far in excess of the total lost wages from those imports.
You're going to have to provide some evidence for that assertion. I've not been able to find any credible source to back that up.
Plus most Americans now own stock, directly or indirectly, and so also benefit from better profits.
That's a generous stretch of indirectly. The benefit that the minority of middle class Americans who own stocks see from them is tiny compared to the income that the extremely wealthy are making from outsourcing.
Anyway, you haven't explained exactly how a race to the bottom ends with "everywhere in the world having a real middles class" (and why we have to sacrifice the American middle class to make it). A race to the bottom means that the wages earned per unit time decrease until they just cover what is needed to subsist. Where exactly does a middle class come from that?
I see the error of my ways. There's a (way too lengthy) queue to wait in use the EB categories. This is a shame, as these are the people we want immigrating.
Quoth the post I was responding to:
However, when it comes to hiring talented professionals who didn't have the chance to be born in the US, there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the H1-B. If someone completes a master's or PhD in a US university, why should they have to compete for a visa with a limited quota with large corporations that mostly hires foreign workers?
I work for an engineering company and we have a mix of US and international employees, but it has happened that we couldn't hire the best candidate because the H1-B visa quota was full for the year. Most of those international employees studied here and in the long run end up getting a green card, then citizenship. Tell me this doesn't add value to the US overall?
The solution: give EAD to anyone with MS or PhD from an American university.
That's a solution I can agree with.
You're right, I'm not familiar with US immigration. On the other hand, the post I replied to said that they had no way, other than H1-B, to get PhD and Masters holding professionals to the US to work for them. Isn't an "employment based" greencard then an option? As it is more appropriate for his situation, maybe we ought to increase the number of them offered. They seem better for the US, anyway (let the best and brightest stay if they want to).
Or do you just get hung up on the fact that I said visa instead of greencard, get all bent out of shape, and offer little actual insight as to why what I said was any more than semantically wrong?
I tend to enable JavaScript (since disabling it breaks too many sites) but I don't allow it to do anything outside of the web page with the browser itself (manipulate windows or context menus)
You don't do anything, that's by design.
Firefox 22, by default, allows JavaScript to do those things.
However, when it comes to hiring talented professionals who didn't have the chance to be born in the US, there doesn't seem to be any alternative to the H1-B. If someone completes a master's or PhD in a US university, why should they have to compete for a visa with a limited quota with large corporations that mostly hires foreign workers?
There's the EB series (eg, EB-1) of visas. All of the priority worker goodness and none of the indentured servitude.
And the race to the bottom ends with everywhere in the world having a real middle class - hardly a dystopia.
How do you figure? The race to the bottom ends at the bottom. Real wages reach a minimum and only capital has any value.
That there are local minima along the way (where emerging nations prosper) doesn't mean that the end result is a middle class everywhere. The end result is that a few extremely wealthy persons have most of the capital and everyone else works for peanuts. Look at the money "saved" by outsourcing labor. Do the prices you see at the store reflect all of that savings or are the profits from those products just increasing?
Globalization is just wealth consolidation. Though it may be nice in the short term, it doesn't end well for most of the global population.
Out of curiosity, do they offer you anything in return for using the payroll cards? (a kickback or rate reduction?)
...so somebody else is likely subsidising me, quite likely someone poorer than me that keeps being stung with debit interest or account misuse charges which are therefore higher than they might otherwise be...
If it's any consolation, the end of such subsidy likely wound not decrease the charges levied against that someone. Profiting off of the abuse of the poor has a long tradition and won't be going away any time soon.
Because in 10 or 20 years UEFI will be like the old BIOS. It will do totally old stuff that nobody wants, and it will not allow new stuff, because of the same reasons of the that the old BIOS have.
Of course that's true, but the E in UEFI is an attempt to make it last as long as possible. I'm not sure what's so objectionable about UEFI, though. It is, essentially, "a BIOS that addresses the decades of accumulated legacy bodging that is the PC."
Most of the Mayan construction wasn't built to last without maintenance, either. Much of what humans (or any life for that matter) build isn't meant to last.
The few special things that do last, like castles, temples, and pyramids, are a small fraction of the total construction. Our modern societies have built a few things that will last a while, too.
Abusive monopolies and massive quasi-governmental corporations practically fall into the same category as the state, so (little "L") libertarians would be opposed to them as well. Libertarianism doesn't exclude the use of regulation for the preservation of liberty. As the GP stated, there would still be laws concerning murder, etc.
Robber barons and feudal lords may be the poster child of (capital "L") Libertarianism, but not (lowercase "L") libertarianism.
And on dial-up, that used to take about 6 minutes per 1mb zip file, and always when the download reached 99% the dreaded 'click - Purrrrrrrrrrr' of the modem disconnecting happened, so you would have to download it all again after dialling up again.
Used to take days to get big files.
That reminds me of how awesome zmodem was with its resume capability. That changed things for the better. Then we moved on to http and lost resume for the longest time again...
Ah, but if one layers fails, they all fail. It always works like that.
I know you were going for funny, but much of what you will be smelling in your experiment is from bacteria eating the protein and polysaccharides in the meat. The DNA is remarkably stable and even if some of it is fragmented, you have a massively redundant set in your pile of meat.
We've sequenced DNA from nearly a million years ago and I regularly store DNA dried out and stuck to a piece of paper. DVDs won't last nearly that long before the dyes start to break down. For a long term archival system, we could do much worse than DNA.
You repeat a common meme, but it is rubbish. Most Western governments actively suppress the amount of terrorist activity that does go on.
Oh please. According to the DHS, the US has only been at elevated risk of terrorist attack or higher since the vague Advisory System was created. What exactly does this weirdly unspecific system do besides promote general fear?
Notice how with the NSA leak the government admitted that the programme had stopped over 50 jihadi attacks you never heard about?
Is it because they're not real attacks, but crap like this story? Is it because they're attacks that the FBI actively assisted because the "terrorists" were actually idiots that couldn't pull off a real attack if they tried? Is it because the "jihadi attacks" were to take place in war zones and didn't warrant domestic spying?
Because the attacks we did hear about were pretty lame.
Please realise the popular meme you are parotting is *false* (but is widely propogated by the political Left because it suits their purposes - they wish to use mass immigration to break down traditional societies so they can then build up their Big Government socialist utopia).
Now that's off the deep end. Get back on your meds.
I'll just leave this here. It's come in handy in the past, and does much to clear up the nerd/geek/dork debates.