If it's someone staring me in the face, it's not hard to see if they are starving... if they accept an offer to go to the grocery store, they are obviously not looking only for booze.
If it's a matter of tax dollars being used, that gets hard. Government makes simple things confusing. Plus then it's an abstraction as I do not see a face, only a policy.
It seems that by and large, a one time $1000 boost will only help a person in a very specific one-time minor predicament.
- Major medical bills eat $1000 bills for breakfast - The mortgage / rent always comes the following month.. and the following month - A true crisis is usually not over a matter of $1000, but several contributing factors.
giving one-time cash quantities to people on the brink of homelessness who can demonstrate that they will be able to pay rent by themselves in the future, but who have been afflicted by some nonrecurring crisis, such as a medical bill.
This is like adding money into a responsible persons emergency savings account.
Not so effective, the study found, was giving cash to people carelessly. If someone was broke last year, and the year before, and they were broke last month, they'll probably be broke again next month.
This is like giving an alcoholic a gift card to the corner liquor store.
I think everyone can say in one form or another (depending on your beliefs) that but by the Grace of God, we were only one more 'thing' away from loosing it all, and at the last minute we got back on our feet. Some later, possibly did loose it all, but how many "near misses" have we had we did not even know of...
There is a big, but often hard to detect difference between giving someone a handout and helping them to recover from a crisis.
It all depends on the person. Hard times can hit even the most responsible people (they need help). Other people are the definition of irresponsible, becoming parasites if enabled by others (taking handouts). There needs to be ways to determine what kind of person is requesting help, and act accordingly.
Most Americans are just a paycheck away from financial disaster, with no savings buffer. I know this is not always from poor choice, but it often is. Proper budgeting is the key: save for a rainy day.
One final thought. We often reap what we sow. Some call it Karma. If we sow wisely, helping others, and being wise with our savings, when hard times come it will go better. Such a person is both better prepared to handle a crisis, and will find that by being generous, they are more respected by friends and family, are known to be responsible and will more likely get help. I know this is not always true, every time - each persons's situation is unique, but it's good advice IMO.
I have twin toddlers, my wife and I use code words a lot. We will not use the word "Bath" lest, all heck breaks loose as they both run to the tub in gleeful excitement before we were ready for that.
Encryption is not for criminals Encryption is not for good citizens
My post was dry sarcasm, meant to portray the silliness of the argument that many make that "if you are doing nothing illegal, why do you need encryption?"
My intention was to affirm that for even something as trivial as buying milk we should use encryption. If you don't believe me, look at my second sentence:
"Unless the government does not like that brand of milk..." (I spelled it out right there... ONE DAY THE LEGAL MAY BE DEEMED ILLEGAL!)
What was I saying? I was saying in effect "Buying milk is not illegal *wink wink, so why do we need to use encryption? Oh wait, yes we do need to, because even the TRIVIAL things today (like buying milk), may become non-trivial in the future (a more controlling government), thus encryption will be our only defense against a government that may seek to control what it's subjects do and seek and punish those who dissent.
I'm sorry my sarcasm was not worded better, I can see after looking back at my post how it does sound like I believe what I said.
Please allow me to translate (as I have done numerous times in other replies I have made to my original post):
My post was dry sarcasm, meant to portray the silliness of the argument that many make that "if you are doing nothing illegal, why do you need encryption?"
My intention was to affirm that for even something as trivial as buying milk we should use encryption. If you don't believe me, look at my second sentence:
"Unless the government does not like that brand of milk..." (I spelled it out right there... ONE DAY THE LEGAL MAY BE DEEMED ILLEGAL!)
What was I saying? I was saying in effect "Buying milk is not illegal *wink wink, so why do we need to use encryption? Oh wait, yes we do need to, because even the TRIVIAL things today (like buying milk), may become non-trivial in the future (a more controlling government), thus encryption will be our only defense against a government that may seek to control what it's subjects do and seek and punish those who dissent.
I'm sorry my sarcasm was not worded better, I can see after looking back at my post how it does sound like I believe what I said. But I would have thought that my second sentence would have indicated that my whole point was to mock the very words I wrote.
Oh well, that post sure did generate a whole lot of replies, bringing out some great points along the way. I guess that made it worth it!:)
These types of measures seem all good and dandy until the government (as all do), get one dose of power too many and begin to use this level of knowledge to advance not only it's power, but it's opinions, and whims.
That's when we hope we have a viable moon colony and a new Declaration of Independence...
Wow, now there's a book / movie plot I'd enjoy seeing!
Sadly we have seen far to many secure transmission exploits, and nearly every government and Dark Net for sale site has all that info and more already. (perhaps that is slightly exaggerated)
But, yes. I will not send that kind of data unencrypted any more than I will yell it across a crowded room.
Slashdot Mirror
And the study itself is apparently pay to view.
Perhaps she will get enough views to get her $1000
A good question.
If it's someone staring me in the face, it's not hard to see if they are starving... if they accept an offer to go to the grocery store, they are obviously not looking only for booze.
If it's a matter of tax dollars being used, that gets hard. Government makes simple things confusing. Plus then it's an abstraction as I do not see a face, only a policy.
Well, for one, it was not from McDonald's... ;)
And it was still in it's store bought package.
It seems that by and large, a one time $1000 boost will only help a person in a very specific one-time minor predicament.
- Major medical bills eat $1000 bills for breakfast
- The mortgage / rent always comes the following month.. and the following month
- A true crisis is usually not over a matter of $1000, but several contributing factors.
giving one-time cash quantities to people on the brink of homelessness who can demonstrate that they will be able to pay rent by themselves in the future, but who have been afflicted by some nonrecurring crisis, such as a medical bill.
This is like adding money into a responsible persons emergency savings account.
Not so effective, the study found, was giving cash to people carelessly. If someone was broke last year, and the year before, and they were broke last month, they'll probably be broke again next month.
This is like giving an alcoholic a gift card to the corner liquor store.
I think everyone can say in one form or another (depending on your beliefs) that but by the Grace of God, we were only one more 'thing' away from loosing it all, and at the last minute we got back on our feet. Some later, possibly did loose it all, but how many "near misses" have we had we did not even know of...
I was taught to never give cash to someone who is hungry, in my town, nine times out of ten it's for booze and smokes.
We offered food to someone who said they NEEDED money for food. They rejected the kindness with cursing.
Giving a place to stay for the homeless, yes, that is much safer.
1000 bucks can either buy a palace or a box under the bridge. It all depends on where you live.
There is a big, but often hard to detect difference between giving someone a handout and helping them to recover from a crisis.
It all depends on the person. Hard times can hit even the most responsible people (they need help). Other people are the definition of irresponsible, becoming parasites if enabled by others (taking handouts). There needs to be ways to determine what kind of person is requesting help, and act accordingly.
Most Americans are just a paycheck away from financial disaster, with no savings buffer. I know this is not always from poor choice, but it often is. Proper budgeting is the key: save for a rainy day.
One final thought. We often reap what we sow. Some call it Karma. If we sow wisely, helping others, and being wise with our savings, when hard times come it will go better. Such a person is both better prepared to handle a crisis, and will find that by being generous, they are more respected by friends and family, are known to be responsible and will more likely get help. I know this is not always true, every time - each persons's situation is unique, but it's good advice IMO.
I assume you have done this? ;)
I have twin toddlers, my wife and I use code words a lot. We will not use the word "Bath" lest, all heck breaks loose as they both run to the tub in gleeful excitement before we were ready for that.
Encryption is not for criminals
Encryption is not for good citizens
Encryption is for parents who wish to stay sane
My post was dry sarcasm, meant to portray the silliness of the argument that many make that "if you are doing nothing illegal, why do you need encryption?"
My intention was to affirm that for even something as trivial as buying milk we should use encryption. If you don't believe me, look at my second sentence:
"Unless the government does not like that brand of milk..." (I spelled it out right there... ONE DAY THE LEGAL MAY BE DEEMED ILLEGAL!)
What was I saying? I was saying in effect "Buying milk is not illegal *wink wink, so why do we need to use encryption? Oh wait, yes we do need to, because even the TRIVIAL things today (like buying milk), may become non-trivial in the future (a more controlling government), thus encryption will be our only defense against a government that may seek to control what it's subjects do and seek and punish those who dissent.
I'm sorry my sarcasm was not worded better, I can see after looking back at my post how it does sound like I believe what I said.
Please allow me to translate (as I have done numerous times in other replies I have made to my original post):
My post was dry sarcasm, meant to portray the silliness of the argument that many make that "if you are doing nothing illegal, why do you need encryption?"
My intention was to affirm that for even something as trivial as buying milk we should use encryption. If you don't believe me, look at my second sentence:
"Unless the government does not like that brand of milk..." (I spelled it out right there... ONE DAY THE LEGAL MAY BE DEEMED ILLEGAL!)
What was I saying? I was saying in effect "Buying milk is not illegal *wink wink, so why do we need to use encryption? Oh wait, yes we do need to, because even the TRIVIAL things today (like buying milk), may become non-trivial in the future (a more controlling government), thus encryption will be our only defense against a government that may seek to control what it's subjects do and seek and punish those who dissent.
I'm sorry my sarcasm was not worded better, I can see after looking back at my post how it does sound like I believe what I said. But I would have thought that my second sentence would have indicated that my whole point was to mock the very words I wrote.
Oh well, that post sure did generate a whole lot of replies, bringing out some great points along the way. I guess that made it worth it! :)
I'm going to tear down my walls tonight, find those cameras, and flush them down the toilet - after I use it.
Or get the ugliest, meanest, guard dog you can find.
Why not a push to take religion in general out of society?
Well... that worked well in the USSR. The state became the religion, that saved lots of lives under Stalin and Friends.
Just go old fashioned:
1. Camp out in an inconspicuous black sedan for a week
2. Determine the daily habits of the target
3. Strike at optimum time
4. Profit!!
5. Repeat.
We were wrong!
Microsoft and Bill Gates of Borg are not the real threat. It's the very Alphabet itself after us!
Wow. I did not realize that!
These types of measures seem all good and dandy until the government (as all do), get one dose of power too many and begin to use this level of knowledge to advance not only it's power, but it's opinions, and whims.
That's when we hope we have a viable moon colony and a new Declaration of Independence...
Wow, now there's a book / movie plot I'd enjoy seeing!
Did I mention he is a Russian Blue? (A wonderful cat breed BTW)
I'm sure with his connections with the Russian Feline Mob, he will remain, well fed.
But some animals (the ones in power) are more equal than others.
We are forced to live in glass houses, they live in lead bunkers.
I guess I will return to my hand written shopping list and paying with cash. :)
Exactly. How dare we buy milk from "unapproved" sources!
There are deep pockets that need to be filled, mansions to be bought.
The rich are hurting. They come first.
In Soviet America, the Serf's business is the State's business.
What is this individualistic concept of "your"? We are all one. Comrade.
It's for the greater good. The needs of the many (protecting the children) outweigh the needs of the Serf.
Sadly we have seen far to many secure transmission exploits, and nearly every government and Dark Net for sale site has all that info and more already.
(perhaps that is slightly exaggerated)
But, yes. I will not send that kind of data unencrypted any more than I will yell it across a crowded room.
Hehe. It may have been a mis-post, but it still fits! ;)
(In a twisted way)