No, he's going into the Feds on a 10 year sentence for a computer crime not related to sex offense or pedophilia.
Since it looks like he's east coast in all respects, he'll likely go to either Butner or Allenwood, maybe Lexington if he has health problems. 10 years with no criminal history and no violence means he'll probably be eligible for Low Security. The key to success at these places is to keep to yourself for a week while you figure out who is who. Then just treat everyone with respect, show that your word is good, and stay away from drama (e.g. guards, rats, pedophiles). Doing these three things is known as 'keeping your face clean'.
Deciding ahead of time that you are going to kick someone's ass your first day in Federal Prison is a good way to get your ass kicked by someone who's been doing it for years. Alternatively, if you do kick someone's ass, you might be the recipient of a lock-on-a-sock from one of his friends.
The FBOP is very different from the various state systems. Maybe in some states that would be a good strategy.
I get the whole thing about deactivating the fake accounts. Grindr being unwilling to move fast on that issue is a dick move on their part. I get the court order, and that seems like the right response to that part of it.
The whole point of Grindr seems to be anonymous hookups for gay dudes. Does he want to force them to de-anonymize everyone? Would he be satisfied with just being able to easily and quickly report the abusive accounts? Does he want to be able to issue DMCA takedown notices (one of his harms is copyright infringement, presumable over a profile photo)? The suit talks about using image recognition and prohibiting proxy use. That doesn't seem like what a court would call a "narrowly tailored" response.
I would hope that he could go to the police and file charges against the ex-boyfriend. If there are threats of violence (as described in the suit) the cops should be able to get a court order for access records looking for IP addresses. Maybe the cops don't take harassment claims among the gay community seriously in his jurisdiction?
Also, a huge part of the claims of the case is that Grindr's geo-location service is a central part of the problem. I don't see how that's part of the problem if the stalker guy is using fake accounts. Wouldn't the geo-location match the strangers to the stalker's phone? These guys are being directed to his home and workplace, though.
I get that the dude is upset. That makes perfect sense to me. It just seems like he's suing the deepest pocket rather than pursuing the source of the problem. Except for the bullshit about not closing the fake accounts, I don't see what he wants Grindr to do to prevent this from happening without negatively impacting all of the other users (and a quick google search says there's a lot of dudes using that service).
Two changes to the American tax code would stop most of this behavior.
1. Do not allow monies paid to wholly owned subsidiaries based in other countries to be claimed as expenses (e.g. Nike paying licensing fees to a subsidiary to use the Nike 'swoosh'). This is by far the most egregiously unfair provision of the US tax code.
2. Put a sharp time limit on allowable deferments for capital held overseas, possibly with a small rate that runs constantly or maybe a staged series of payments until they have paid the current corporate rate. You have to balance the legitimate needs of companies that hold monies overseas for operations or expansions with the legitimate requirement that American companies will pay their taxes.
NOTE: Neither of these things will EVER happen. WAY too many stock prices depend on current conditions to prop up their numbers for this to be messed with. Sorry.
Not at all, although that is an interesting observation.
Conservatives always bitch about us liberals "running out of other people's money."
Conservatives (as a large, generic group) do bitch about that. Constantly. And I am a liberal, if you look at me as a whole. If you split the US-ian population into two groups (Conservative/Liberal), I'll be over there on the left.
Fiscally, I am more of a moderate conservative. I think UBI is a fascinating idea, but I'm not convinced the math works out right.
My fiscal opinions are ONE ASPECT of my outlook/preferences:
In my starry-eyed innocence, I really do believe that we can do much better as a group if we take better care of our humans, even the ones we don't really like. I want progressive social policies. I really, really want poor Americans to stop voting against their own best interests.
However, studying business at university level for six years (particularly economics, accounting, and management theory) introduces some cold, hard facts of life to the conversation. While most of the time I find objections to social programs to be spurious, some of the shit I hear from my own side of the aisle is just... not grounded in reality. Like, just a complete failure to understand very simple concepts, and a pathologically optimistic view of human nature.
the quoted statements are contradictory.
So, while I guess I can see where you're coming from, I don't think they are contradictory at all.
I could really hang with the Libertarians except that they have completely unrealistic ideas about the interplay of government and corporations.
The ONLY long-term countervailing force to corporations is government.
The natural state of an unregulated free market is domination by a series of monopolies, one per industry. This is accompanied by all of the evils associated with abusive monopolies. These industries are free from competition, allowing maximum profit extraction from the consumers. This is in no way a good outcome for the people (you know, the human ones.)
Pretty clearly the idea of the UBI is hated on the right. I don't think conservatives hate the idea because it's not conservative, or because someone else will get something for nothing. I think they hate it because they seriously believe that they will be the ones to pay for it, one way or another. Looking at the question financially, it is hard to say they are wrong. They may be, but that has never been demonstrated.
Conservatives always bitch about us liberals "running out of other people's money." Often it makes me shake my head in dismay. In this case, though, I think they're right to be cautious. When you think about the scale of a functional UBI program in the US, holy crap, that's a lot of money. This is why some of us would be very interested in seeing the data from a long term experiment.
A further problem is based in the ownership of the production increases supposedly requiring a UBI. All this extra production (you know, the production that kills all of the jobs) is due to the implementation of automation - think 'lots of robots'. Problematically, we have this extra production because of the money invested by business owners, and they deserve (I think) to reap the rewards of that investment. They took a risk to make it happen.
Additionally, what happens to small businesses during the transition to automation? It is not clear to me that the majority of them will survive once the unpleasant jobs have a better, free alternative. The scale of the potential economic dislocation is astonishing.
Maybe it could work, or maybe it would just cause inflation until people's buying power reached an equilibrium at or below their previous one. No way to know without data.
Disclaimer - Socially, I am radically liberal (I should be able to buy heroin and a hooker at the corner drug store. Legally, I mean. I already could get that, realistically.) Fiscally, I am more of a moderate conservative. I think UBI is a fascinating idea, but I'm not convinced the math works out right.
As I read this it seems like all they are missing from USGS is post incident reporting. I'm not saying that is unimportant, but there wasn't going to be any tsunami warning from USGS anyway. This was a non-tectonic landslide in a confined region. It's much like the September wave, I think: small, fast, and local.
They actually HAVE a local warning system for exactly this type of event, but it has been poorly managed and funded.
FWIW, I think the economy is about to crash. The US has entered every new decade for the last 100 years in a recession or depression, within 1 or two years plus or minus. We're one year out and we have shaky market news following a strong bull run.
Although a lot of the underlying metrics look good, I have my doubts, especially in the employment numbers. A lot of the "employed" today are underemployed at traditional jobs or are working in parts of the gig economy that do not provide high standards of living. I have only very recently started to see signs of competition for labor driving wage growth.
The first is that I don't really think the wall will stop/significantly impair illegal immigration. People will find a way. When I was a pipe-layer all of our laborers were illegal immigrants. Most of them did not walk across the desert to get here. Some even came by plane.
The second is that if it did work, it would create tremendous economic disruption as we would have a huge labor shortage at the bottom of the economy. Just how much are you willing to pay for a pound of tomatoes? Of course the market would adjust (over time) but there's a period where production is drastically reduced. That's a problem. As wages get driven up in that adjustment (and THAT ripples through the entire economy) your corporate profits decline. That's another problem.
As an alternative, why not just DO the comprehensive immigration reform? You still get some market disruption, but it's WAY more limited in both scale and scope.
The Republicans control both houses of Congress (until the 3rd), and there is a Republican President. The two houses did come together and put together a bill to continue funding the government into the new year, when there would be a new Congress to take over. Unfortunately, the President (a Republican, note) said loud and clear that he would not sign it.
Paul Ryan (another Republican) could have sent the bill to the floor anyway for a vote, but decided not to. Note that he easily had the votes to override a Presidential veto (the Democrats were in favor of the bill) but he did not want to challenge the President. This is either easier or harder to understand in light of his impending retirement depending on what you think of his character.
If you think this is the Democrats flexing their muscles, you have an entirely unrealistic view of that party's competence and skill.
This is the Legislative branch ceding too much power to the Executive branch and then refusing to stand up to a populist strong-man.
And "Criminal charges of manslaughter"? Are you serious? You do know that the government shutdown did not cause the tsunami, right?
A. It was going down before there was widespread adoption of Internet access, so, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
B. It's been going up fast since 2013.
C. I really hope you aren't intimating that it's ok to distribute pictures of people f*cking little kids in the hopes that it might de-motivate someone else from f*cking their little kid. That's not ok. Those kids are re-victimized every time some pedo leers at their image. So I'm sure that's not what you were saying.
1. Companies/corporations that build or provide services using uncrackable encryption get fined and then sanctioned until they either build in backdoors or go out of business/leave the country.
2. Users of such services get fined or imprisoned until they render their passwords. Use of hard encryption first becomes evidence of wrongdoing, and then conclusive proof of it.
I know he's not driving 40 hrs. He was driving crazy hours when he started, but slowed down to something reasonable when he saw he was gonna be ok on money. Not sure how many hours he's doing now.
As far as this regulation, I don't really have an opinion. I was just responding to the poster who said they are making negative money.
I have a good friend driving for both in NYC. He is driving a 4 or 5 year old car (he bought it I think 2.5 years ago). He makes about $50,000/year driving. He has a part time restaurant job, as well.
He bought the car specifically to drive for Uber (and later started Lyft). He has been paying extra on the car. It is nearly paid off now. The car has paid for itself, including all maintenance and insurance, and gas. The money left over paid part of his rent (he only rents a room, but still pays too much). The remainder of the rent and his other expenses are covered by the restaurant gig.
In another year he will have the car free and clear and will (probably*) still be making money with it. In the meantime, he has had use of the car for a couple of years. This is not negative money.
*: Don't get me started on Uber's long-term survivability.
Um, actually, sterilization is a form of contraception. That's what sterilization means. No conception.
There are, of course, several reasons that could take vasectomy off of the table for OP. I was curious as to which was the case because they are already using an IUD, which seems to rule out religious prohibition or fear of medical intervention.
Of course, I was careful to say this was simple curiosity so I wouldn't come off as aggressive or rude, a tactic others might well emulate.
Almost all of them are reversible, but the doctors have to tell you they aren't so they won't get sued by the 1 guy that can't get his undone successfully. Even then, I think they can extract sperm cells and do in vitro (obviously much more expensive and pain in the balls).
I had mine in my 20s (while I was married), and I have NEVER regretted it. Not once. Ever.
Slashdot Mirror
My sentence was 130 months and I went to a low.
The difference here is that he's going into the Feds. There is no parole in the Feds, except for convictions prior to 1987 or military convictions.
If he does not lose any of his good time for disciplinary infractions he will do about 87% of his sentence, so about 8 years, 9 months.
Sentences tend to be longer in the Feds, but the treatment tends to be better (not 100% of the time) and there is generally less violence.
Having said all of that, I agree with you that we should seriously rethink how we use prisons.
No, he's going into the Feds on a 10 year sentence for a computer crime not related to sex offense or pedophilia.
Since it looks like he's east coast in all respects, he'll likely go to either Butner or Allenwood, maybe Lexington if he has health problems. 10 years with no criminal history and no violence means he'll probably be eligible for Low Security. The key to success at these places is to keep to yourself for a week while you figure out who is who. Then just treat everyone with respect, show that your word is good, and stay away from drama (e.g. guards, rats, pedophiles). Doing these three things is known as 'keeping your face clean'.
Deciding ahead of time that you are going to kick someone's ass your first day in Federal Prison is a good way to get your ass kicked by someone who's been doing it for years. Alternatively, if you do kick someone's ass, you might be the recipient of a lock-on-a-sock from one of his friends.
The FBOP is very different from the various state systems. Maybe in some states that would be a good strategy.
My question is what basic controls?
I get the whole thing about deactivating the fake accounts. Grindr being unwilling to move fast on that issue is a dick move on their part. I get the court order, and that seems like the right response to that part of it.
The whole point of Grindr seems to be anonymous hookups for gay dudes. Does he want to force them to de-anonymize everyone? Would he be satisfied with just being able to easily and quickly report the abusive accounts? Does he want to be able to issue DMCA takedown notices (one of his harms is copyright infringement, presumable over a profile photo)? The suit talks about using image recognition and prohibiting proxy use. That doesn't seem like what a court would call a "narrowly tailored" response.
I would hope that he could go to the police and file charges against the ex-boyfriend. If there are threats of violence (as described in the suit) the cops should be able to get a court order for access records looking for IP addresses. Maybe the cops don't take harassment claims among the gay community seriously in his jurisdiction?
Also, a huge part of the claims of the case is that Grindr's geo-location service is a central part of the problem. I don't see how that's part of the problem if the stalker guy is using fake accounts. Wouldn't the geo-location match the strangers to the stalker's phone? These guys are being directed to his home and workplace, though.
I get that the dude is upset. That makes perfect sense to me. It just seems like he's suing the deepest pocket rather than pursuing the source of the problem. Except for the bullshit about not closing the fake accounts, I don't see what he wants Grindr to do to prevent this from happening without negatively impacting all of the other users (and a quick google search says there's a lot of dudes using that service).
So, that was my question. Details, details.
What, exactly, does he want them to do?
Two changes to the American tax code would stop most of this behavior.
1. Do not allow monies paid to wholly owned subsidiaries based in other countries to be claimed as expenses (e.g. Nike paying licensing fees to a subsidiary to use the Nike 'swoosh'). This is by far the most egregiously unfair provision of the US tax code.
2. Put a sharp time limit on allowable deferments for capital held overseas, possibly with a small rate that runs constantly or maybe a staged series of payments until they have paid the current corporate rate. You have to balance the legitimate needs of companies that hold monies overseas for operations or expansions with the legitimate requirement that American companies will pay their taxes.
NOTE: Neither of these things will EVER happen. WAY too many stock prices depend on current conditions to prop up their numbers for this to be messed with. Sorry.
Not at all, although that is an interesting observation.
Conservatives always bitch about us liberals "running out of other people's money."
Conservatives (as a large, generic group) do bitch about that. Constantly. And I am a liberal, if you look at me as a whole. If you split the US-ian population into two groups (Conservative/Liberal), I'll be over there on the left.
Fiscally, I am more of a moderate conservative. I think UBI is a fascinating idea, but I'm not convinced the math works out right.
My fiscal opinions are ONE ASPECT of my outlook/preferences:
In my starry-eyed innocence, I really do believe that we can do much better as a group if we take better care of our humans, even the ones we don't really like. I want progressive social policies. I really, really want poor Americans to stop voting against their own best interests.
However, studying business at university level for six years (particularly economics, accounting, and management theory) introduces some cold, hard facts of life to the conversation. While most of the time I find objections to social programs to be spurious, some of the shit I hear from my own side of the aisle is just... not grounded in reality. Like, just a complete failure to understand very simple concepts, and a pathologically optimistic view of human nature.
the quoted statements are contradictory.
So, while I guess I can see where you're coming from, I don't think they are contradictory at all.
I could really hang with the Libertarians except that they have completely unrealistic ideas about the interplay of government and corporations.
The ONLY long-term countervailing force to corporations is government.
The natural state of an unregulated free market is domination by a series of monopolies, one per industry. This is accompanied by all of the evils associated with abusive monopolies. These industries are free from competition, allowing maximum profit extraction from the consumers. This is in no way a good outcome for the people (you know, the human ones.)
Other than that, sure, I'm with you.
I think that's the problem, right there.
That was extremely well articulated.
Of course, I'm getting old, so...
Pretty clearly the idea of the UBI is hated on the right. I don't think conservatives hate the idea because it's not conservative, or because someone else will get something for nothing. I think they hate it because they seriously believe that they will be the ones to pay for it, one way or another. Looking at the question financially, it is hard to say they are wrong. They may be, but that has never been demonstrated.
Conservatives always bitch about us liberals "running out of other people's money." Often it makes me shake my head in dismay. In this case, though, I think they're right to be cautious. When you think about the scale of a functional UBI program in the US, holy crap, that's a lot of money. This is why some of us would be very interested in seeing the data from a long term experiment.
A further problem is based in the ownership of the production increases supposedly requiring a UBI. All this extra production (you know, the production that kills all of the jobs) is due to the implementation of automation - think 'lots of robots'. Problematically, we have this extra production because of the money invested by business owners, and they deserve (I think) to reap the rewards of that investment. They took a risk to make it happen.
Additionally, what happens to small businesses during the transition to automation? It is not clear to me that the majority of them will survive once the unpleasant jobs have a better, free alternative. The scale of the potential economic dislocation is astonishing.
Maybe it could work, or maybe it would just cause inflation until people's buying power reached an equilibrium at or below their previous one. No way to know without data.
Disclaimer - Socially, I am radically liberal (I should be able to buy heroin and a hooker at the corner drug store. Legally, I mean. I already could get that, realistically.) Fiscally, I am more of a moderate conservative. I think UBI is a fascinating idea, but I'm not convinced the math works out right.
As I read this it seems like all they are missing from USGS is post incident reporting. I'm not saying that is unimportant, but there wasn't going to be any tsunami warning from USGS anyway. This was a non-tectonic landslide in a confined region. It's much like the September wave, I think: small, fast, and local.
They actually HAVE a local warning system for exactly this type of event, but it has been poorly managed and funded.
FWIW, I think the economy is about to crash. The US has entered every new decade for the last 100 years in a recession or depression, within 1 or two years plus or minus. We're one year out and we have shaky market news following a strong bull run.
Although a lot of the underlying metrics look good, I have my doubts, especially in the employment numbers. A lot of the "employed" today are underemployed at traditional jobs or are working in parts of the gig economy that do not provide high standards of living. I have only very recently started to see signs of competition for labor driving wage growth.
I hope I'm wrong, though.
I see only two problems with it.
The first is that I don't really think the wall will stop/significantly impair illegal immigration. People will find a way. When I was a pipe-layer all of our laborers were illegal immigrants. Most of them did not walk across the desert to get here. Some even came by plane.
The second is that if it did work, it would create tremendous economic disruption as we would have a huge labor shortage at the bottom of the economy. Just how much are you willing to pay for a pound of tomatoes? Of course the market would adjust (over time) but there's a period where production is drastically reduced. That's a problem. As wages get driven up in that adjustment (and THAT ripples through the entire economy) your corporate profits decline. That's another problem.
As an alternative, why not just DO the comprehensive immigration reform? You still get some market disruption, but it's WAY more limited in both scale and scope.
The Republicans control both houses of Congress (until the 3rd), and there is a Republican President. The two houses did come together and put together a bill to continue funding the government into the new year, when there would be a new Congress to take over. Unfortunately, the President (a Republican, note) said loud and clear that he would not sign it.
Paul Ryan (another Republican) could have sent the bill to the floor anyway for a vote, but decided not to. Note that he easily had the votes to override a Presidential veto (the Democrats were in favor of the bill) but he did not want to challenge the President. This is either easier or harder to understand in light of his impending retirement depending on what you think of his character.
If you think this is the Democrats flexing their muscles, you have an entirely unrealistic view of that party's competence and skill.
This is the Legislative branch ceding too much power to the Executive branch and then refusing to stand up to a populist strong-man.
And "Criminal charges of manslaughter"? Are you serious? You do know that the government shutdown did not cause the tsunami, right?
A. It was going down before there was widespread adoption of Internet access, so, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
B. It's been going up fast since 2013.
C. I really hope you aren't intimating that it's ok to distribute pictures of people f*cking little kids in the hopes that it might de-motivate someone else from f*cking their little kid. That's not ok. Those kids are re-victimized every time some pedo leers at their image. So I'm sure that's not what you were saying.
Generally there are two ways this will work:
1. Companies/corporations that build or provide services using uncrackable encryption get fined and then sanctioned until they either build in backdoors or go out of business/leave the country.
2. Users of such services get fined or imprisoned until they render their passwords. Use of hard encryption first becomes evidence of wrongdoing, and then conclusive proof of it.
I know he's not driving 40 hrs. He was driving crazy hours when he started, but slowed down to something reasonable when he saw he was gonna be ok on money. Not sure how many hours he's doing now.
As far as this regulation, I don't really have an opinion. I was just responding to the poster who said they are making negative money.
I have a good friend driving for both in NYC. He is driving a 4 or 5 year old car (he bought it I think 2.5 years ago). He makes about $50,000/year driving. He has a part time restaurant job, as well.
He bought the car specifically to drive for Uber (and later started Lyft). He has been paying extra on the car. It is nearly paid off now. The car has paid for itself, including all maintenance and insurance, and gas. The money left over paid part of his rent (he only rents a room, but still pays too much). The remainder of the rent and his other expenses are covered by the restaurant gig.
In another year he will have the car free and clear and will (probably*) still be making money with it. In the meantime, he has had use of the car for a couple of years. This is not negative money.
*: Don't get me started on Uber's long-term survivability.
Damn. That's rough.
I did not know that. Thanks.
That's one option, sure. I was curious if that was the actual answer. There are ways to approach that issue, and I wondered where he was with it.
Um, actually, sterilization is a form of contraception. That's what sterilization means. No conception.
There are, of course, several reasons that could take vasectomy off of the table for OP. I was curious as to which was the case because they are already using an IUD, which seems to rule out religious prohibition or fear of medical intervention.
Of course, I was careful to say this was simple curiosity so I wouldn't come off as aggressive or rude, a tactic others might well emulate.
Almost all of them are reversible, but the doctors have to tell you they aren't so they won't get sued by the 1 guy that can't get his undone successfully. Even then, I think they can extract sperm cells and do in vitro (obviously much more expensive and pain in the balls).
I had mine in my 20s (while I was married), and I have NEVER regretted it. Not once. Ever.
YMMV
I am curious, though. Could you give us an indicator why vasectomy is not an option?