I have a question for the readers with professional qualifications (ie - PhD's):
Is Bill Nye qualified?
His Wikipedia article lists him as a scientist. He has no advanced degree, only a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. He has a couple of patents, including one for ballet pointe shoes, and served as "honorary professor" for five years.
Every time the "can amateurs do real science" question comes up, the response is always a resounding NO! from the professional readers of this site. You can't do real science without an advanced degree, institutional funding, and collaboration.
In particular, he doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology. He's an entertainer.
Is he the right person as spokesman for science in this debate?
(I applaud Bill Nye's contributions to science and education, and think he's eminently qualified. I just wanted to hear what the professionals think of his status as a scientist.)
The link above is a very good introductory article on EC cryptography. If you know a little math but have no background in elliptic curves, this is a good introduction. Well worth reading.
Clearly explained at an introductory level, with Wikipedia links for the assumed terms.
Topical, singular (ie - it's the first one currently, a news "scoop" if you like), technical, and important.
Lots to like here - Slashdot needs more articles like this.
I'm not sure what the fare collection costs are (machines, enforcement, etc) but its hard to see them being more than 10% of the fare revenue, especially when you consider that a lot of the collection costs are upfront (buying, installing machines, etc) and basically one-time costs.
I can't find a detailed budget for Minneapolis, but fare costs for other cities are always over 85% (for cities I've looked at to date) and can be higher than 100% in some cases. BTW, fares account for only 15% of the Minneapolis light rail revenue (source).
There are a lot of hidden costs, such as personnel to collect the coins/tokens/strips, empty and reload the machines, personnel to do maintenance, and such. Personnel are very expensive to maintain - did you include the pensions?
I don't know what the expenses are either, but I'm sure it's over 85%.
Factor in the invisible savings (decreased traffic, higher local economy through increased usage, decreased pollution, less need for other infrastructure such as parking) and it looks like a clear win.
While I am receptive to the concept that sometimes it is not worth it to collect the money (that why transit systems are moving to face cards, so that they don't have to handle change), fares also provide some demand management. Even if you are not applying demand-based fares, charging a non-zero amount the far end of the demand curve which would happily fill and overflow all capacity and will let you find when/where you really need to add new capacity.
Wow. Elliptical much?
Put it in terms of value. Does demand management have any value? Could demand be managed by another method, such as historical prediction, or simply by having people press a button to "call" trains to stations?
You can't make a case for options unless the value (or utility) of each option is known. Just referring to an amorphous ill-defined term "demand management" doesn't cut it.
Does demand management have any value? And if it does, is demand management by fares the best way?
Out of curiosity, how much revenue comes in from fares, and how much expense goes out in fare maintenance?
A lot of metro systems charge fares in addition to getting public support from taxes. Has anyone thought to tally the costs of the fare system compared to the income? Things like cost of the machines, maintenance of the machines, maintenance of the turnstiles, accounting, law enforcement &c... all these things add up.
Even if the fares bring in revenue, it's probably minor. Most of the cost goes into collecting the fares, so most of that value is wasted. The economy would get a boost if that money were freed up to be spent by consumers, and doing so would help the people who need it the most (ie - poor people).
This whole thing seems like a fabricated problem - a system that forces people to spend money just for the sake of spending it. Then spend more money reimplementing the system when the original system is found to have flaws, then spend countless hours and resources in enforcement and prosecution.
Just get rid of it. Let the money go into the economy.
Are going to see the return of unregulated speculation like we did before the SEC was established?
Apropos of nothing, has unregulated speculation decreased since the SEC was established?
I seem to recall something about Glass-Steagall and credit default swaps from a few years back. I can't a link right now, maybe the incident was of no consequence.
The campaign for "santorum" neologism started with a contest held in May 2003 by Dan Savage, a columnist and LGBT rights activist. Savage asked his readers to create a definition for the word "santorum" in response to then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality, and comments about same sex marriage [...] The winning entry, which defined "santorum" as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". He created a web site, spreadingsantorum.com (and santorum.com), to promote the definition, which became a top internet search result displacing the Senator's official website on many search engines, including Google, Yahoo! Search, and Bing.
Let's totally do this!
I'll donate $50 towards prize money for the winner of the contest.
I hate to say it but I have to agree. [...]Maybe giving someone a Tory could mean safety pins thorough their nipples. Get those terms on the bad word block lists, make them hard to Google.
You mean like Prince Albert, yes?
"My love, when I die I want my name to live on as a museum, a library, and something uncommon".
He should have researched his subject, and posted from an informed viewpoint, instead this article is a waste of time.
No, he shouldn't have.
We need to start using the tactics our opponents use. Let the public get the impression that the UK system is bad, by any means. If the UK government has to take the time to patiently explain why the article is wrong, it puts them on the defensive and puts a sliver of doubt in the mind of the public.
It doesn't matter if it's inaccurate or if it's immoral or unfair or anything like that. What matters is whether it's effective.
To quote an old geek saying, it's not enough to be right, you also have to be effective.
A widely-read article that's well written, facially correct (everything he says is true), and casts doubt on the UK filters. That it isn't a fair assessment is immaterial - it serves the right purpose.
Let the UK government respond - we shouldn't be helping them justify the system.
I mean, you folks at Slashdot should have called it the Affordable Care Act website then reminded us that it's also known as Obamacare. But to call it what it isn't in the first sentence of introduction is [very] unfortunate!
Is this a misdirect?
I'm only asking because I'm on the lookout for techniques to derail a discussion. A "misdirect" is calling attention to something irrelevant but intended to provoke an emotional response. It's used to push more-relevant posts down the page - hopefully below the fold.
Already got a +3 rating, it takes up a full two column-inches. I'm curious to see how many respond, and whether they get modded up.
(No one publishes guidelines for this sort of thing, so I have to ask.)
Powered by external batteries? So if you run out of juice, you die? Is that it?
Some replacement heart systems have a hand-operated backup pump. If the battery dies, the user can pump a lever to keep hydraulic pressure up and keep the heart working - long enough to get to a hospital.
I couldn't tell from the Carmat website whether their system has this type of backup, but medical device manufacturers tend to do "failure analysis" and make efforts to avoid the obvious problems.
It is [...] approximately three times heavier than a typical (European) human heart, though the manufacturer intends to reduce the weight and size of the unit so as to allow use by smaller recipients
If you wait until you feel sick, you may find out you waited too long. It does happen.
The problem isn't whether it's a good idea, the problem is whether it's a good value.
I agree with your sentiment 100%, but it works both ways: your doctor will ignore a serious condition, thinking that it's something more common until a crisis happens.
This has happened to me twice - the last time, I went to a doctor with symptoms specifically asking if I should refrain from going camping in the desert. He cleared me to go, and the ensuing incident was life-threatening and cost much more than it should have.
Did going to the doctor help? He specifically stated that my concerns were unfounded, because "that's really rare" - he actually said that. (Talking elliptically to keep my privacy.) I had to go to emergency services and my preventative trip to the doctor was wasted.
I get my vehicle diagnosed yearly, and have all problems fixed before they become critical. My mechanic will tell me what's wrong, show me the bad/broken part in situ, give a firm estimate for repair, and guarantee the result.
My doctor will give me an opinion ("try this, and see if it goes away").
His opinion is backed by nothing. If he's wrong, I can't even get the cost of the appointment back.
I suggest all reading try to do just that.. and get the run around and have to argue before the GP will even order the tests, and multiple trips to multiple medical offices, surrounded by sick people that seem to be at death's door, that don't bother to wash their hands or cover their mouths when they cough, only to find out a week later at another appointment you need to pay for out of your deductible, that half of what you wanted tested, wasn't.. Then argue with the PA about what you and the GP, who's out playing golf, agreed to have tested in the first place.
And so on and so forth.. etc. etc. etc.
Let me add a couple to your list of "common hassles".
1) The doctor doesn't trust the "walk-in" results you already paid for, tells you to go get the same results from the hospital and pay for a new appointment. The hospital and the practice have an arrangement...
2) The doctor or lab tech mistakenly puts down the wrong diagnostic code ("for treatment" code instead of "screening" code) or the insurance company mistakenly files the claim with the wrong code, so that the cost comes out of your deductible instead of "deductible waived" for screening. Spend 2 years begging each side to fix a problem over which you have no control, all the while receiving "payment due now!" notices from the lab.
There is so much hassle and expense, so little gained from going to a doctor nowadays that many people get better value by diagnosing themselves from research on the web.
If you have the cold or flu, or something tangible and obvious like a broken leg, then by all means go to the doctor.
If you have something uncommon, you're much better off researching the net and then going to an MD for "try it and see" meds, or to order tests that can confirm or deny. The doctor has neither time nor motivation to do a good job.
As far as anyone can tell, edX is surviving on investment money (such as this one). Schools join the consortium by putting up more investment money.
They're burning through this money with no clear business plan; specifically, they don't have a product to sell.
On top of this, edX at least seems unconcerned with the quality of their offerings. For example, their course offerings aren't searchable by keyword (that I can determine), you have to slog through the entire catalog to see if they have something with, for example, "neuroscience" in the title. Having found a neuroscience course, the introductory video tells the prospective student nothing about the course - it's completely useless.
Pointing this out to them, they said that there's nothing edX can do - Harvard is responsible for that course, and edX is only being used as a marketing vehicle.
Other players are making innovative changes in infrastructure and technique. None of this is happening at edX or Coursera - it's all videotaped traditional lectures. There's nothing that distinguishes the big MOOC product in a business sense; ie, nothing that says "our product is better for *this* reason".
As an outside observer, the big MOOC players appear to be living a bubble similar to the 2001 tech bubble: lots of hype with no clear business plan.
What he is doing is, in fact, money transferring. He takes money and transfers it. That defines his activity. Which means he needs to keep records. Why do people involved in money transferring need to keep records? To prevent money laundering.
HSBC laundered hundreds of billions of dollars and admitted as such, yet the justice department decided to forego criminal prosecution.
After much public outrage and senate hearings, the justice department settled on a $1.92 billion penalty (against HSBC $18 billion annual profits).
How strongly do you agree with the federal government's stance on money laundering? From over here, it seems that the money laundering laws are only applied to the small players, used as "discretionary enforcement" as a tool of oppression. It's rule by thugs.
If I make giftcards to Amazon, say (I mean stupidly duplicating what Amazon already has in gift cards but you pay me and I sell you an Amazon gift code,) I'd expect to be regulated.
Apropos of nothing, should Amazon expect to be regulated for making Amazon gift cards?
This "I'd expect to be regulated" is, quite frankly, astonishing. It brings to mind a sea of humanity, all going about their daily lives while intoning the phrase "I expect to be regulated".
If I'm doing something that lots of other businesses do unregulated(*), and assuming that the practice doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, my first impression is that I expect *not* to be regulated.
I wonder how you came to believe that particular mantra.
Another random federal agency has decided that they are the law-making body with authority over some aspect of our lives. Discretionary enforcement(*) allows them to pick-and-choose whoever they want.
Weren't we supposed to elect the lawmakers? I seem to recall a forum or meeting place of some sort where we could send people to make laws on our behalf.
Is this "regulation without representation"?
(*) This same federal agency doesn't suppress Starbucks cards, online gaming gold, or frequent flyer miles, all of which are just as much a currency.
Isn't the only thing you actually can do in science? Disprove or fail to disprove, but there is no prove.
That's a big part of science, but there's also coming up with "best descriptions".
Science is a way to come up with descriptions which encapsulate observational information. For instance, our notions of the laws of motion allow us to predict where a cannonball will land without consulting an almanac of weights, powder charges, and cannon angle. Half a page of equations encapsulates all the observational data.
Whenever a study makes observations and notices that the data appear linear, they are essentially saying "these observations are described by the simple, linear model". Occam's Razor, the scientific method, and Minimum Description Length are all the same thing.
This is why religion is at odds with science: science is predicting things from simpler models, while religion assumes the more complex model with less predictability ("God's plan is unknowable").
It's impossible to prove any simple model is correct (as in, this "unprovability" can be mathematically proven), but you can measure the likelihood of any two explanations. At this point in our knowledge, the religious explanation is far less likely than the scientific models.
The likelihood that the religious explanation is correct will never be zero. Zealots are just clinging to this last shred, pointing out (correctly) that there is still hope.
Many of [the Muslims I know] are very bright, except for one thing - you just can NOT discuss religion (or faith) thing with them.
To be fair, that's not exclusive to religious people. I've found strong narrow-mindedness in ivory towers as well.
As a personal anecdote, I chatted up a researcher from the VLA last August about his dark matter research. Big mistake. He could entertain no notions that weren't scientific dogma, but at the same time he couldn't cite experiments to refute anything in conflict with it. I was astonished at his certainty of belief - enough to remember the incident among a week's memories of Burning Man.
If you want your own anecdote, log on to the #statistics chatroom and ask any question that tugs at the foundation of why some things are the way they are. For example, ask why regression minimizes the squared error and not some other measure. The historical reason might surprise you, but check out the tone of the responses you get!
If you have been keeping track, many religious zealots post to slashdot. Ask economists to explain why "a little" inflation is good and what the optimum value should be without glaring flaws in the assumptions or "proof by opinion" or "proof by telling a story". Read any [scientific] article about obesity and survey the responses - many schools of thought are argued with rabid certainty, and no consensus.
Taking a completely evidence-based stand is really hard. Is free access to guns good for a society? The evidence-based answer is particularly well hidden because of framing, misused statistics, and emotional appeal.
I don't think anyone makes completely rational choices, myself included. It's mostly "strength of belief", that you get from listening to others, who themselves don't make rational choices.
Satanism and good taste do not fit in the same sentence and oxymoronic.
Wow, you really know a lot about Satanism.
A quick question: the bible recognizes, tolerates, and at certain points condones slavery(*).
I've always wondered about that. If we can judge sections of the bible as outdated or immoral, superseded by a more enlightened sense of morality, why can't we do this for other sections, such as the ones about homosexuality?
That's a trap, BTW. See if you can answer without falling into it. Have a nice day!
(*) However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
I am just loving this to bits. Getting my popcorn ready, this should be good!
For the record, the oft-quoted statement "Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law" does not mean what people think.
It comes from The Book of Law, and is followed by "Love is the law, love under will."
People don't normally include that last part, for some reason.
(The study of this post is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this browser tab after the first reading. Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.)
Slashdot Mirror
I have a question for the readers with professional qualifications (ie - PhD's):
Is Bill Nye qualified?
His Wikipedia article lists him as a scientist. He has no advanced degree, only a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. He has a couple of patents, including one for ballet pointe shoes, and served as "honorary professor" for five years.
Every time the "can amateurs do real science" question comes up, the response is always a resounding NO! from the professional readers of this site. You can't do real science without an advanced degree, institutional funding, and collaboration.
In particular, he doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology. He's an entertainer.
Does he qualify as "gentleman scientist"?
Is he the right person as spokesman for science in this debate?
(I applaud Bill Nye's contributions to science and education, and think he's eminently qualified. I just wanted to hear what the professionals think of his status as a scientist.)
The link above is a very good introductory article on EC cryptography. If you know a little math but have no background in elliptic curves, this is a good introduction. Well worth reading.
Clearly explained at an introductory level, with Wikipedia links for the assumed terms.
Topical, singular (ie - it's the first one currently, a news "scoop" if you like), technical, and important.
Lots to like here - Slashdot needs more articles like this.
I'm not sure what the fare collection costs are (machines, enforcement, etc) but its hard to see them being more than 10% of the fare revenue, especially when you consider that a lot of the collection costs are upfront (buying, installing machines, etc) and basically one-time costs.
I can't find a detailed budget for Minneapolis, but fare costs for other cities are always over 85% (for cities I've looked at to date) and can be higher than 100% in some cases. BTW, fares account for only 15% of the Minneapolis light rail revenue (source).
There are a lot of hidden costs, such as personnel to collect the coins/tokens/strips, empty and reload the machines, personnel to do maintenance, and such. Personnel are very expensive to maintain - did you include the pensions?
I don't know what the expenses are either, but I'm sure it's over 85%.
Factor in the invisible savings (decreased traffic, higher local economy through increased usage, decreased pollution, less need for other infrastructure such as parking) and it looks like a clear win.
While I am receptive to the concept that sometimes it is not worth it to collect the money (that why transit systems are moving to face cards, so that they don't have to handle change), fares also provide some demand management. Even if you are not applying demand-based fares, charging a non-zero amount the far end of the demand curve which would happily fill and overflow all capacity and will let you find when/where you really need to add new capacity.
Wow. Elliptical much?
Put it in terms of value. Does demand management have any value? Could demand be managed by another method, such as historical prediction, or simply by having people press a button to "call" trains to stations?
You can't make a case for options unless the value (or utility) of each option is known. Just referring to an amorphous ill-defined term "demand management" doesn't cut it.
Does demand management have any value? And if it does, is demand management by fares the best way?
Out of curiosity, how much revenue comes in from fares, and how much expense goes out in fare maintenance?
A lot of metro systems charge fares in addition to getting public support from taxes. Has anyone thought to tally the costs of the fare system compared to the income? Things like cost of the machines, maintenance of the machines, maintenance of the turnstiles, accounting, law enforcement &c... all these things add up.
Even if the fares bring in revenue, it's probably minor. Most of the cost goes into collecting the fares, so most of that value is wasted.
The economy would get a boost if that money were freed up to be spent by consumers, and doing so would help the people who need it the most (ie - poor people).
This whole thing seems like a fabricated problem - a system that forces people to spend money just for the sake of spending it. Then spend more money reimplementing the system when the original system is found to have flaws, then spend countless hours and resources in enforcement and prosecution.
Just get rid of it. Let the money go into the economy.
Are going to see the return of unregulated speculation like we did before the SEC was established?
Apropos of nothing, has unregulated speculation decreased since the SEC was established?
I seem to recall something about Glass-Steagall and credit default swaps from a few years back. I can't a link right now, maybe the incident was of no consequence.
From Wikipedia:
The campaign for "santorum" neologism started with a contest held in May 2003 by Dan Savage, a columnist and LGBT rights activist. Savage asked his readers to create a definition for the word "santorum" in response to then-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality, and comments about same sex marriage [...] The winning entry, which defined "santorum" as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". He created a web site, spreadingsantorum.com (and santorum.com), to promote the definition, which became a top internet search result displacing the Senator's official website on many search engines, including Google, Yahoo! Search, and Bing.
Let's totally do this!
I'll donate $50 towards prize money for the winner of the contest.
This should be done by a Brit. Any takers?
I hate to say it but I have to agree. [...]Maybe giving someone a Tory could mean safety pins thorough their nipples. Get those terms on the bad word block lists, make them hard to Google.
You mean like Prince Albert, yes?
"My love, when I die I want my name to live on as a museum, a library, and something uncommon".
"What uncommon thing, dear?"
"Oh, I don't care - surprise me".
He should have researched his subject, and posted from an informed viewpoint, instead this article is a waste of time.
No, he shouldn't have.
We need to start using the tactics our opponents use. Let the public get the impression that the UK system is bad, by any means. If the UK government has to take the time to patiently explain why the article is wrong, it puts them on the defensive and puts a sliver of doubt in the mind of the public.
It doesn't matter if it's inaccurate or if it's immoral or unfair or anything like that. What matters is whether it's effective.
To quote an old geek saying, it's not enough to be right, you also have to be effective.
A widely-read article that's well written, facially correct (everything he says is true), and casts doubt on the UK filters. That it isn't a fair assessment is immaterial - it serves the right purpose.
Let the UK government respond - we shouldn't be helping them justify the system.
I mean, you folks at Slashdot should have called it the Affordable Care Act website then reminded us that it's also known as Obamacare. But to call it what it isn't in the first sentence of introduction is [very] unfortunate!
Is this a misdirect?
I'm only asking because I'm on the lookout for techniques to derail a discussion. A "misdirect" is calling attention to something irrelevant but intended to provoke an emotional response. It's used to push more-relevant posts down the page - hopefully below the fold.
Already got a +3 rating, it takes up a full two column-inches. I'm curious to see how many respond, and whether they get modded up.
(No one publishes guidelines for this sort of thing, so I have to ask.)
Powered by external batteries? So if you run out of juice, you die? Is that it?
Some replacement heart systems have a hand-operated backup pump. If the battery dies, the user can pump a lever to keep hydraulic pressure up and keep the heart working - long enough to get to a hospital.
I couldn't tell from the Carmat website whether their system has this type of backup, but medical device manufacturers tend to do "failure analysis" and make efforts to avoid the obvious problems.
It is [...] approximately three times heavier than a typical (European) human heart, though the manufacturer intends to reduce the weight and size of the unit so as to allow use by smaller recipients
You mean like Republicans?
If you wait until you feel sick, you may find out you waited too long. It does happen.
The problem isn't whether it's a good idea, the problem is whether it's a good value.
I agree with your sentiment 100%, but it works both ways: your doctor will ignore a serious condition, thinking that it's something more common until a crisis happens.
This has happened to me twice - the last time, I went to a doctor with symptoms specifically asking if I should refrain from going camping in the desert. He cleared me to go, and the ensuing incident was life-threatening and cost much more than it should have.
Did going to the doctor help? He specifically stated that my concerns were unfounded, because "that's really rare" - he actually said that. (Talking elliptically to keep my privacy.) I had to go to emergency services and my preventative trip to the doctor was wasted.
I get my vehicle diagnosed yearly, and have all problems fixed before they become critical. My mechanic will tell me what's wrong, show me the bad/broken part in situ, give a firm estimate for repair, and guarantee the result.
My doctor will give me an opinion ("try this, and see if it goes away").
His opinion is backed by nothing. If he's wrong, I can't even get the cost of the appointment back.
God, I wish it were that easy!
I suggest all reading try to do just that.. and get the run around and have to argue before the GP will even order the tests, and multiple trips to multiple medical offices, surrounded by sick people that seem to be at death's door, that don't bother to wash their hands or cover their mouths when they cough, only to find out a week later at another appointment you need to pay for out of your deductible, that half of what you wanted tested, wasn't.. Then argue with the PA about what you and the GP, who's out playing golf, agreed to have tested in the first place.
And so on and so forth.. etc. etc. etc.
Let me add a couple to your list of "common hassles".
1) The doctor doesn't trust the "walk-in" results you already paid for, tells you to go get the same results from the hospital and pay for a new appointment. The hospital and the practice have an arrangement...
2) The doctor or lab tech mistakenly puts down the wrong diagnostic code ("for treatment" code instead of "screening" code) or the insurance company mistakenly files the claim with the wrong code, so that the cost comes out of your deductible instead of "deductible waived" for screening. Spend 2 years begging each side to fix a problem over which you have no control, all the while receiving "payment due now!" notices from the lab.
There is so much hassle and expense, so little gained from going to a doctor nowadays that many people get better value by diagnosing themselves from research on the web.
If you have the cold or flu, or something tangible and obvious like a broken leg, then by all means go to the doctor.
If you have something uncommon, you're much better off researching the net and then going to an MD for "try it and see" meds, or to order tests that can confirm or deny. The doctor has neither time nor motivation to do a good job.
As far as anyone can tell, edX is surviving on investment money (such as this one). Schools join the consortium by putting up more investment money.
They're burning through this money with no clear business plan; specifically, they don't have a product to sell.
On top of this, edX at least seems unconcerned with the quality of their offerings. For example, their course offerings aren't searchable by keyword (that I can determine), you have to slog through the entire catalog to see if they have something with, for example, "neuroscience" in the title. Having found a neuroscience course, the introductory video tells the prospective student nothing about the course - it's completely useless.
Pointing this out to them, they said that there's nothing edX can do - Harvard is responsible for that course, and edX is only being used as a marketing vehicle.
Other players are making innovative changes in infrastructure and technique. None of this is happening at edX or Coursera - it's all videotaped traditional lectures. There's nothing that distinguishes the big MOOC product in a business sense; ie, nothing that says "our product is better for *this* reason".
As an outside observer, the big MOOC players appear to be living a bubble similar to the 2001 tech bubble: lots of hype with no clear business plan.
Basically, the government hates that money laundering gives drug dealers a way to take "drug money" and give it a legit source.
Um... the HSBC money laundering, which the justice department declined to prosecute, was drug money laundering.
What's the difference you are attempting to point out?
What he is doing is, in fact, money transferring. He takes money and transfers it. That defines his activity. Which means he needs to keep records. Why do people involved in money transferring need to keep records? To prevent money laundering.
HSBC laundered hundreds of billions of dollars and admitted as such, yet the justice department decided to forego criminal prosecution.
After much public outrage and senate hearings, the justice department settled on a $1.92 billion penalty (against HSBC $18 billion annual profits).
How strongly do you agree with the federal government's stance on money laundering? From over here, it seems that the money laundering laws are only applied to the small players, used as "discretionary enforcement" as a tool of oppression. It's rule by thugs.
What's so bad about money laundering then?
If I make giftcards to Amazon, say (I mean stupidly duplicating what Amazon already has in gift cards but you pay me and I sell you an Amazon gift code,) I'd expect to be regulated.
Apropos of nothing, should Amazon expect to be regulated for making Amazon gift cards?
This "I'd expect to be regulated" is, quite frankly, astonishing. It brings to mind a sea of humanity, all going about their daily lives while intoning the phrase "I expect to be regulated".
If I'm doing something that lots of other businesses do unregulated(*), and assuming that the practice doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, my first impression is that I expect *not* to be regulated.
I wonder how you came to believe that particular mantra.
FINCEN is not some random federal agency.
You not knowing of it only speaks to your ignorance and not the unimportance of the agency.
That's a fair point.
I need to learn more about these agencies. Can you give me a list of of the ones that have law-making authority over our lives?
Another random federal agency has decided that they are the law-making body with authority over some aspect of our lives. Discretionary enforcement(*) allows them to pick-and-choose whoever they want.
The DHS regulates model rocketry, the DEA regulates chemistry sets, the ATF manages the second amendment, and so on and so on and so on.
Weren't we supposed to elect the lawmakers? I seem to recall a forum or meeting place of some sort where we could send people to make laws on our behalf.
Is this "regulation without representation"?
(*) This same federal agency doesn't suppress Starbucks cards, online gaming gold, or frequent flyer miles, all of which are just as much a currency.
Great post - thanks. This is what makes Slashdot such a great site.
Isn't the only thing you actually can do in science? Disprove or fail to disprove, but there is no prove.
That's a big part of science, but there's also coming up with "best descriptions".
Science is a way to come up with descriptions which encapsulate observational information. For instance, our notions of the laws of motion allow us to predict where a cannonball will land without consulting an almanac of weights, powder charges, and cannon angle. Half a page of equations encapsulates all the observational data.
Whenever a study makes observations and notices that the data appear linear, they are essentially saying "these observations are described by the simple, linear model". Occam's Razor, the scientific method, and Minimum Description Length are all the same thing.
This is why religion is at odds with science: science is predicting things from simpler models, while religion assumes the more complex model with less predictability ("God's plan is unknowable").
It's impossible to prove any simple model is correct (as in, this "unprovability" can be mathematically proven), but you can measure the likelihood of any two explanations. At this point in our knowledge, the religious explanation is far less likely than the scientific models.
The likelihood that the religious explanation is correct will never be zero. Zealots are just clinging to this last shred, pointing out (correctly) that there is still hope.
Many of [the Muslims I know] are very bright, except for one thing - you just can NOT discuss religion (or faith) thing with them.
To be fair, that's not exclusive to religious people. I've found strong narrow-mindedness in ivory towers as well.
As a personal anecdote, I chatted up a researcher from the VLA last August about his dark matter research. Big mistake. He could entertain no notions that weren't scientific dogma, but at the same time he couldn't cite experiments to refute anything in conflict with it. I was astonished at his certainty of belief - enough to remember the incident among a week's memories of Burning Man.
If you want your own anecdote, log on to the #statistics chatroom and ask any question that tugs at the foundation of why some things are the way they are. For example, ask why regression minimizes the squared error and not some other measure. The historical reason might surprise you, but check out the tone of the responses you get!
If you have been keeping track, many religious zealots post to slashdot. Ask economists to explain why "a little" inflation is good and what the optimum value should be without glaring flaws in the assumptions or "proof by opinion" or "proof by telling a story". Read any [scientific] article about obesity and survey the responses - many schools of thought are argued with rabid certainty, and no consensus.
Taking a completely evidence-based stand is really hard. Is free access to guns good for a society? The evidence-based answer is particularly well hidden because of framing, misused statistics, and emotional appeal.
I don't think anyone makes completely rational choices, myself included. It's mostly "strength of belief", that you get from listening to others, who themselves don't make rational choices.
Satanism and good taste do not fit in the same sentence and oxymoronic.
Wow, you really know a lot about Satanism.
A quick question: the bible recognizes, tolerates, and at certain points condones slavery(*).
I've always wondered about that. If we can judge sections of the bible as outdated or immoral, superseded by a more enlightened sense of morality, why can't we do this for other sections, such as the ones about homosexuality?
That's a trap, BTW. See if you can answer without falling into it. Have a nice day!
(*) However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
I am just loving this to bits. Getting my popcorn ready, this should be good!
For the record, the oft-quoted statement "Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law" does not mean what people think.
It comes from The Book of Law, and is followed by "Love is the law, love under will."
People don't normally include that last part, for some reason.
(The study of this post is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this browser tab after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.)