Fair enough, I was being a little snarky. But I still think that if Uber were to drive the local taxi monopoly out of business, it would be harder to compete with. It would have dominance in that market which would be hard to overcome by a new competitor.
The culture clash is mostly between politicians and uber (unless you are in the UK, ireland, or germany. those are the only places where citizens seem to want less choice in the markt.)
You equate not wanting to drive down wages with not wanting more choice in the market? That seems a tacit admission that the market drives down wages.
Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber, because the barriers to entry will have been removed — at Uber's considerable legal expense. I fail to see how you fail to see that this is a win for everyone except entrenched taxi businesses enjoying a state-enforced monopoly.
Wait, once Uber has driven all competition out of business, anyone will be able to compete? That seems contradictory.
When I would ask my grandfather what the difference was between the U.S. and Europe, he used to tell me that America was made up of the descendants of the European people who were willing to work hard and take the risk of a better life in the New World. Europe was made up of the descendants of the European people who were too lazy or frightened to leave the Old World.
What I don't understand is why they don't value money over absolutely everything else. What's wrong with these people?
Nonsense. Tuition in the US is free for the poor: there are sufficient grants to cover poor students who earn a place in college by performing satisfactorily on entrance exams and by demonstrating solid work in their high school years. The actual problem is twofold: first, that many poor children, like their parents before them, are not sufficiently intelligent to pass those exams or not sufficiently diligent to perform well in school; and second, that the parents do not value education enough to encourage their children to go to college. The two problems are not unrelated.
Still blaming the poor for being poor, eh? The corollary would be that if everyone worked hard and was smart enough there would be no poor; everyone would be rich and successful. Is that your position? Under our economic system, do you think that's possible? Would McDonald's employees be driving Bentleys if they were smart and industrious enough? Or would there simply be no McDonald's employees? Or is your argument just rubbish?
Personally tho. I'm tired of seeing MY TAX MONEY end up going to israel every year. (4 billion this year.)
I don't care if we get most of it back when they buy our weapons.
It's a giant wasteful corporate handout. And we're not gaining anything useful from the charade.
I agree. especially since "we" don't get it back. Defense contractors get it. So really it's just laundered money for corporate welfare.
So voicing concern about other countries and specific groups that might have a bit too much influence equals being a neo-Nazi? Or is it a valid concern, *except* when it deals with Israel or Jews? They, and they only, should be exempt from any scrutiny or criticism?
Your response was of a deplorable state, I must say. Intellectually dishonest and fallacy-ridden to boot.
His position makes more sense once you check out his post history.
Fucking rubes, anyone championing the NSA's actions, while working against US interests , deserve what's coming to them - FTFY
That's still a pretty broad stroke. What are US "interests"? I'll bet I could find a problem with just about anything if I framed US interests in the right way.
"The Internet is like the telephone network. If you have a phone line running to an answering machine in your office, the answering machine will accept calls from someone across town or across the country. Likewise, a server in your office can accept connections over an Internet line."
Did you use an analogy like that? If so, how did your project manager take it?
Yeah, something like that. I said something like, "Our whole office is technically on the Internet. The same way we can send and receive email, people can be sent to our server when they request our website. He got it, he just hadn't thought it through.
But the Google is emperor of the internet! Everynoob knows this to be true.
To be fair, a lot of people have no idea how the Internet works. A few years ago I sat down with my elderly mother for about an hour to explain what was actually happening when she connected to the Internet and clicked on a link. At my previous job one project manager didn't understand how I could put servers that were located in our office "on the Internet". This Mr. Shur should have been more informed before he fired off this letter. But to many people, our modern technological world might as well be magic.
Laws against texting while walking would be absurd, but people do it all the time and i can see why it's dangerous, it's also really annoying when you're trying to walk on a busy pavement, i've had to resort to saying "look out" when someone in front of me has their head firmly glued in the downward position and i have no where to go, most of the time it just means they wander aimlessly into people and everyone else has to walk around them - in rare cases i've encountered a mob of mobile zombies and just had to stop to let them sense my presence and navigate around me as if the only way they can see their surroundings is by feel
I just bump into these people. I let them walk right into me. I love the startled look they have! And if they're in front of me, walking slowly on a busy street, I am sure to make shoulder contact as I brush by them. These people are oblivious.
But if every transaction is trackable, say goodbye to any semblance of freedom or anonymity other than what they choose to give you.
And this is different from what it's always been - how? When you are part of a society, the freedoms you enjoy, are yours because that society allows them. It isn't the government, but the people around you that restrict most of your freedom. That is one reason why immigrants so often end up in ghettos: that is the only place their culture is tolerated. Ever wondered why there is such a contrast between what the governments in different countries say and what people on the ground experience? Well, that's why.
Personally I think it is a very good thing if the state (not actually the government, you know) keep a tab on all financial transactions; rich people, big companies, criminals, they all have an interest in squirreling money away - legally or not - but I don't. Being a salary slave, I automatically pay my tax before I see any money and really have very few benefits from using cash. Egotistical, I know, but that is the capitalist way, isn't it? "Enlightened self-interest" and all that crap
Enlightened self-interest? More like narrow self-interest, if you're talking about Capitalism. I would counter that, in the USA at least, one's freedom is directly correlated to their wealth. That's actually why immigrants live in ghettos; they have little money. If a Saudi immigrated to the US, he would not live in a ghetto.
I'm not sure how you are differentiating between the government and the state. There is a subtle difference, but I don't see how the state keeps tabs on people's spending without the government doing it. And I have no faith that such a system would do anything to curtail the abilities of rich people or big companies. It might even help them. It would be easy to smuggle $100,000,000 into a country on a prepaid debit card. No not the kind you buy at CVS; the kind that you may have access to as a service for high value customers at your financial institution of choice.
Besides, having a cashless system is best used not for finding tax cheats but for tracking people's spending. You can learn a lot about a person by seeing what they spend their money on. You can create detailed profiles and even predict what they will do in the future. And once you have a good baseline, you can know when they deviate from their usual habits and flag it for further investigation.
I am not at all looking forward to the day that cash is eliminated. I don't want to have to have a middle-man in every transaction (yes, I have and use credit cards). Because I don't know what that middle-man might do. Remember when Master Card decided they wouldn't process donations to Wikileaks, because they didn't like what Wikileaks was doing? Now think about that type of control in every transaction. Sure, most are just fine. But that's only because the payment processor allows it.
"Under the guise of counter-terrorism, the controversial law is the Chinese government's attempt to curtail the activities of militants and political activists."
This is always the case, whether it's the Chinese government or any other. I wish more people in the general public understood that. At least I don't have to change my sig.
Note sure what your point is but systems tend to be designed to catch the bad inputs or faulty specimens. It's the specimens who can overpower/outsmart the system that are troublesome. This is why rote procedure doesn't work against an unknown transgressor who is attempting to mimic 'good' inputs. (Such action is called 'fraud' or 'deceit').
Any system designed as a gateway/mantrap will itself have operating limits, which can be attacked or overwhelmed. For example, all the vulnerable people in a scanner queue, which is there to protect all the vulnerable people in a flying airplane. All the security system has done is move the point of failure. It's impossible to tell if that improves outcomes or if the previous failure was a rare (and unpleasant) outcome.
TL;DR: This is more 'zero tolerance' and 'cover your arse' policies which will increase the false positives but not reduce the false negatives in making people 'safe'.
My point is that too many people are not smart or aware enough to understand the point you made in your second paragraph. I have found that most people have a naive and pedestrian view of how the world works and what is going on.
A pat-down probably won't find an SD card with encrypted data -- a body scan probably would.
What's your point? I have several SD cards that are encrypted. They're in my laptop bag and get scanned every time. Why would I try to hide them? They're not illegal.
No, not at all. You waive your rights when you purchase your ticket, which is a voluntary act. By purchasing your ticket, you are agreeing to the conditions attached to it, which include submitting to a search. If you don't want to be searched, don't buy a ticket, and find another way to travel.
Oy. I really can't stand this argument. Yes, it's voluntary; just like having a bank account and a computer and a credit card and a job and a home are all voluntary. Maybe when people buy houses they should all be required to have surveillance cameras installed. Buying a home is voluntary, so if people don't like being watched they are free to simply not buy a house. Why not just search everyone walking down the street? After all, it's completely voluntary to walk down the street. No one is forcing you are they?
But what am I to do to visit my aunt in France? Should I take a steamship? What if I'm flying for business and I don't want to go through the scanner? Should I quit my job? I mean, having a job is voluntary right? No one is forcing me to keep my job. The thing is, while many things are technically voluntary, they are also required to participate in the modern world. That's why the voluntary nature of these things is irrelevant. The point is whether these rules are proper and constitutional. I happen to think not. I know the Supreme Court has removed my rights at border crossings. But I don't have to like or agree with it. That, after all, is voluntary.
Might as well talk about colonizing the center of the Sun and getting your drinking water from Saturn's rings. This may be some kind of bizarre nerdy entertainment, but it will never happen. Ever.
Yes, it's ridiculous. Why would anyone want to "retire" on Mars? It would be the farthest thing from retirement. One would be constantly engaged in staying alive. Then there's the fact that one would basically live the rest of their life indoors and have to don a space suit just to walk outside. No more fresh air for the rest of your life. Yeah, that sounds great.
I see. So you look at a small piece of the picture and think you see the whole thing. That's fine. I learned long ago that people only see what they want to see. You'd better not look into the other two. The cognitive dissonance would likely just further lower your opinion of me. This type of understanding really depends on what one considers normal and possible. You seem to have already decided those things, so further investigation would be fruitless.
Well, of course no one cares about the irrelevant ramblings of paranoid people. But what if one took to the Internet to expose the crimes of the powerful? Do you think they would just be permitted to do so? Have you heard of Gary Webb? How about Thomas Drake and William Binney? Susan Lindauer? When people start talking about things the government is trying to hide they find out just how free their speech really is.
Fair enough. So, have the Men in Black visited you yet? Do you think they will? Or, perhaps, will the powerful sleep their nights peacefully, safe in the knowledge that you're busy fighting windmills?
every new ford car today has this feature standard. it's safe to say every car after 2017 will have this feature standard.
The circuitry is there, but you have to pay a monthly fee to have it enabled. This type of feature costs money to operate. They don't give it away for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough, I was being a little snarky. But I still think that if Uber were to drive the local taxi monopoly out of business, it would be harder to compete with. It would have dominance in that market which would be hard to overcome by a new competitor.
The culture clash is mostly between politicians and uber (unless you are in the UK, ireland, or germany. those are the only places where citizens seem to want less choice in the markt.)
You equate not wanting to drive down wages with not wanting more choice in the market? That seems a tacit admission that the market drives down wages.
Once Uber has driven its competition out of business, anyone will be able to offer a service like Uber, because the barriers to entry will have been removed — at Uber's considerable legal expense. I fail to see how you fail to see that this is a win for everyone except entrenched taxi businesses enjoying a state-enforced monopoly.
Wait, once Uber has driven all competition out of business, anyone will be able to compete? That seems contradictory.
When I would ask my grandfather what the difference was between the U.S. and Europe, he used to tell me that America was made up of the descendants of the European people who were willing to work hard and take the risk of a better life in the New World. Europe was made up of the descendants of the European people who were too lazy or frightened to leave the Old World.
What I don't understand is why they don't value money over absolutely everything else. What's wrong with these people?
Nonsense. Tuition in the US is free for the poor: there are sufficient grants to cover poor students who earn a place in college by performing satisfactorily on entrance exams and by demonstrating solid work in their high school years. The actual problem is twofold: first, that many poor children, like their parents before them, are not sufficiently intelligent to pass those exams or not sufficiently diligent to perform well in school; and second, that the parents do not value education enough to encourage their children to go to college. The two problems are not unrelated.
Still blaming the poor for being poor, eh? The corollary would be that if everyone worked hard and was smart enough there would be no poor; everyone would be rich and successful. Is that your position? Under our economic system, do you think that's possible? Would McDonald's employees be driving Bentleys if they were smart and industrious enough? Or would there simply be no McDonald's employees? Or is your argument just rubbish?
Yeah, like Russia would've not used such a thing anyway. And compared to stuxnet, this is used against civilians. Stuxnet was against nuclear weapons.
It was against centrifuges. But talking about nuclear weapons just makes it scarier, eh?
Personally tho. I'm tired of seeing MY TAX MONEY end up going to israel every year. (4 billion this year.) I don't care if we get most of it back when they buy our weapons. It's a giant wasteful corporate handout. And we're not gaining anything useful from the charade.
I agree. especially since "we" don't get it back. Defense contractors get it. So really it's just laundered money for corporate welfare.
I see.
So voicing concern about other countries and specific groups that might have a bit too much influence equals being a neo-Nazi? Or is it a valid concern, *except* when it deals with Israel or Jews? They, and they only, should be exempt from any scrutiny or criticism?
Your response was of a deplorable state, I must say. Intellectually dishonest and fallacy-ridden to boot.
His position makes more sense once you check out his post history.
Dont confuse "anti-semetic" with "anti-zionist"!
But then how can we shut down criticism of Israel without responding to arguments?
Fucking rubes, anyone championing the NSA's actions, while working against US interests , deserve what's coming to them - FTFY
That's still a pretty broad stroke. What are US "interests"? I'll bet I could find a problem with just about anything if I framed US interests in the right way.
"The Internet is like the telephone network. If you have a phone line running to an answering machine in your office, the answering machine will accept calls from someone across town or across the country. Likewise, a server in your office can accept connections over an Internet line."
Did you use an analogy like that? If so, how did your project manager take it?
Yeah, something like that. I said something like, "Our whole office is technically on the Internet. The same way we can send and receive email, people can be sent to our server when they request our website. He got it, he just hadn't thought it through.
But the Google is emperor of the internet! Everynoob knows this to be true.
To be fair, a lot of people have no idea how the Internet works. A few years ago I sat down with my elderly mother for about an hour to explain what was actually happening when she connected to the Internet and clicked on a link. At my previous job one project manager didn't understand how I could put servers that were located in our office "on the Internet". This Mr. Shur should have been more informed before he fired off this letter. But to many people, our modern technological world might as well be magic.
Laws against texting while walking would be absurd, but people do it all the time and i can see why it's dangerous, it's also really annoying when you're trying to walk on a busy pavement, i've had to resort to saying "look out" when someone in front of me has their head firmly glued in the downward position and i have no where to go, most of the time it just means they wander aimlessly into people and everyone else has to walk around them - in rare cases i've encountered a mob of mobile zombies and just had to stop to let them sense my presence and navigate around me as if the only way they can see their surroundings is by feel
I just bump into these people. I let them walk right into me. I love the startled look they have! And if they're in front of me, walking slowly on a busy street, I am sure to make shoulder contact as I brush by them. These people are oblivious.
But if every transaction is trackable, say goodbye to any semblance of freedom or anonymity other than what they choose to give you.
And this is different from what it's always been - how? When you are part of a society, the freedoms you enjoy, are yours because that society allows them. It isn't the government, but the people around you that restrict most of your freedom. That is one reason why immigrants so often end up in ghettos: that is the only place their culture is tolerated. Ever wondered why there is such a contrast between what the governments in different countries say and what people on the ground experience? Well, that's why.
Personally I think it is a very good thing if the state (not actually the government, you know) keep a tab on all financial transactions; rich people, big companies, criminals, they all have an interest in squirreling money away - legally or not - but I don't. Being a salary slave, I automatically pay my tax before I see any money and really have very few benefits from using cash. Egotistical, I know, but that is the capitalist way, isn't it? "Enlightened self-interest" and all that crap
Enlightened self-interest? More like narrow self-interest, if you're talking about Capitalism. I would counter that, in the USA at least, one's freedom is directly correlated to their wealth. That's actually why immigrants live in ghettos; they have little money. If a Saudi immigrated to the US, he would not live in a ghetto.
I'm not sure how you are differentiating between the government and the state. There is a subtle difference, but I don't see how the state keeps tabs on people's spending without the government doing it. And I have no faith that such a system would do anything to curtail the abilities of rich people or big companies. It might even help them. It would be easy to smuggle $100,000,000 into a country on a prepaid debit card. No not the kind you buy at CVS; the kind that you may have access to as a service for high value customers at your financial institution of choice.
Besides, having a cashless system is best used not for finding tax cheats but for tracking people's spending. You can learn a lot about a person by seeing what they spend their money on. You can create detailed profiles and even predict what they will do in the future. And once you have a good baseline, you can know when they deviate from their usual habits and flag it for further investigation.
I am not at all looking forward to the day that cash is eliminated. I don't want to have to have a middle-man in every transaction (yes, I have and use credit cards). Because I don't know what that middle-man might do. Remember when Master Card decided they wouldn't process donations to Wikileaks, because they didn't like what Wikileaks was doing? Now think about that type of control in every transaction. Sure, most are just fine. But that's only because the payment processor allows it.
"Under the guise of counter-terrorism, the controversial law is the Chinese government's attempt to curtail the activities of militants and political activists."
This is always the case, whether it's the Chinese government or any other. I wish more people in the general public understood that. At least I don't have to change my sig.
Note sure what your point is but systems tend to be designed to catch the bad inputs or faulty specimens. It's the specimens who can overpower/outsmart the system that are troublesome. This is why rote procedure doesn't work against an unknown transgressor who is attempting to mimic 'good' inputs. (Such action is called 'fraud' or 'deceit').
Any system designed as a gateway/mantrap will itself have operating limits, which can be attacked or overwhelmed. For example, all the vulnerable people in a scanner queue, which is there to protect all the vulnerable people in a flying airplane. All the security system has done is move the point of failure. It's impossible to tell if that improves outcomes or if the previous failure was a rare (and unpleasant) outcome.
TL;DR: This is more 'zero tolerance' and 'cover your arse' policies which will increase the false positives but not reduce the false negatives in making people 'safe'.
My point is that too many people are not smart or aware enough to understand the point you made in your second paragraph. I have found that most people have a naive and pedestrian view of how the world works and what is going on.
Think of how stupid the average person is. Now realize that half of them are dumber than that!
A pat-down probably won't find an SD card with encrypted data -- a body scan probably would.
What's your point? I have several SD cards that are encrypted. They're in my laptop bag and get scanned every time. Why would I try to hide them? They're not illegal.
They're encrypted. Just give it time.
"Guilty until proven innocent?"
No, not at all. You waive your rights when you purchase your ticket, which is a voluntary act. By purchasing your ticket, you are agreeing to the conditions attached to it, which include submitting to a search. If you don't want to be searched, don't buy a ticket, and find another way to travel.
Oy. I really can't stand this argument. Yes, it's voluntary; just like having a bank account and a computer and a credit card and a job and a home are all voluntary. Maybe when people buy houses they should all be required to have surveillance cameras installed. Buying a home is voluntary, so if people don't like being watched they are free to simply not buy a house. Why not just search everyone walking down the street? After all, it's completely voluntary to walk down the street. No one is forcing you are they?
But what am I to do to visit my aunt in France? Should I take a steamship? What if I'm flying for business and I don't want to go through the scanner? Should I quit my job? I mean, having a job is voluntary right? No one is forcing me to keep my job. The thing is, while many things are technically voluntary, they are also required to participate in the modern world. That's why the voluntary nature of these things is irrelevant. The point is whether these rules are proper and constitutional. I happen to think not. I know the Supreme Court has removed my rights at border crossings. But I don't have to like or agree with it. That, after all, is voluntary.
Might as well talk about colonizing the center of the Sun and getting your drinking water from Saturn's rings. This may be some kind of bizarre nerdy entertainment, but it will never happen. Ever.
Yes, it's ridiculous. Why would anyone want to "retire" on Mars? It would be the farthest thing from retirement. One would be constantly engaged in staying alive. Then there's the fact that one would basically live the rest of their life indoors and have to don a space suit just to walk outside. No more fresh air for the rest of your life. Yeah, that sounds great.
I see. So you look at a small piece of the picture and think you see the whole thing. That's fine. I learned long ago that people only see what they want to see. You'd better not look into the other two. The cognitive dissonance would likely just further lower your opinion of me. This type of understanding really depends on what one considers normal and possible. You seem to have already decided those things, so further investigation would be fruitless.
Ah, I see you support criminals who steal from innocent people. Well done.
No, I think he is opposed to the police in this matter.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/cr...
Fair enough. So, have the Men in Black visited you yet? Do you think they will? Or, perhaps, will the powerful sleep their nights peacefully, safe in the knowledge that you're busy fighting windmills?
I see. So you don't know who those people are.
and likely even paid extra for
every new ford car today has this feature standard. it's safe to say every car after 2017 will have this feature standard.
The circuitry is there, but you have to pay a monthly fee to have it enabled. This type of feature costs money to operate. They don't give it away for free.
If you use credit/debit cards advertisers already know exactly which stores you shop at, and what time you shop, and what you buy.
This is why I deal in cash as much as possible.