Your extraordinary claims needs extraordinary proof. Because that contradict what research show; the correlation between crime and immigration is a society net positive (of course anything involving humans is never a 100% anything, so there will always be exceptions, e.g. some persons result in a society net negative, but the overall effect is positive).
Research has shown little support for the enduring proposition that increases in immigration are associated with increases in crime. Although classical criminological and neoclassical economic theories would predict immigration to increase crime, most empirical research shows quite the opposite. We investigate the immigration-crime relationship among metropolitan areas over a 40 year period from 1970 to 2010. Our goal is to describe the ongoing and changing association between immigration and a broad range of violent and property crimes. Our results indicate that immigration is consistently linked to decreases in violent (e.g., murder) and property (e.g., burglary) crime throughout the time period.
But even if the algorithms are 100% open and transparent, that means nothing if the data feed into them is poor. If the bank uses an algorithm to determine if it want to lend money to you, how is the data about you collected? Who decided to classify you as a say medium risk person? What cirterias did he/she/they use for that? How thorogh were he/she/they in gathering decition material? What did he/she/they miss/ignore/misunderstood?
Unless there is full and complete transparency and accountability for data collection, the transparency for just the algorithms is without value.
I'm not an economist, but I would have thought a cashless society makes little difference to the level of government control. Cash is controlled by the government anyway -
But the economics is besides the point. If for instance the government of North Korea had the possibility to track all economic transactions between all the people in the country because they were digital, do you think that would lead to fewer or more arrests of political dissents? If the economy in North Korea was cashless, do you think that would lead to fewer or more cases of torture? Killings? Would it be possible for a group of political dissents to meet each other on a weekend if it were impossible to move anywhere without leaving traces like everyone buying bus/train tickets to the same place, etc?
And while it is easy to pick on North Korea as a worst in class example, something far away, it is worth considering what the effects might be in countries that like to consider themselves best in class with regards to democracy and freedom for its citizens. Imagine if you suddenly without your knowledge are placed on a no-fly list because you have bought a few things from a country that the government has deemed evil, terrorist, communist or some other fashionable witch hunt term. Or perhaps you just have bought something from somebody else that have traded with those countries. This is just what might already happen today. The important thing is to imagine the potential for abuse and then make sure that there always is a non-digital alternative available.
The above assumes two groups nonet and somenet, which are given no and some net access respectively. By using groups like that it makes it simple to test programs you are suspicious of by just running them with another group, e.g.
... after they have been found guilty (which is what not been resolved means)....
No, it cannot mean that, because that is already covered in point a)
a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
Are you claiming that "been found guilty" is somehow different from "convicted" and needs a separate listing?
And for more hints of how little respect for juridical principles he has, look no further than point c)
(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
So no charge necessary. No conviction necessary. Zero defence possibility. Just as long as some unaccountable
employee in the Secretary of Homeland Security, or perhaps a TSA employee, some contractor or whoever has deemed
that some alien has committed a chargeable criminal offense that's good enough.
Also notice that the phrase "alternative facts" was delivered by his staff, so it works as a
loyalty test to see how far they are willing to support him even though they are asked to do outrageous things.
Such loyalty testing might be found in environments driven by fear and uncertainty. Similarly to how a criminal gang leader might ask new members to do something outrageous like torturing or killing someone to test them, and also make them dependent on the leader for protection.
This doesn't sound like an administration that's particularly worried about adhering to the letter of the law.
No shit! From the order:
the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by..., as well as removable aliens who:...
(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
From the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
Either Trump is completely ignorant of justice principles like not punishing a person without there being an actual judgment or he simply does not care. Sadly, for him I think it is a combination of both.
This is even worse than guilty until proven innocent, this is charged equals guilty without any possibility for innocence.
If you are implying that long work hours like common in USA makes it easier for people people to get rich, that is demonstrably false. Norway have more millionaires per capita than USA. It even has more billionaires per capita than USA. And we have 37.5 hours per week as standard, just 2.5 hours more than the French.
Also notice that in Norway the government intervenes with many things that you probably think classifies as "nanny state". And we have higher much taxes. Despite of this we have more rich people than you.
Just because evidence was obtained by illegal means such as a search without a warrant doesn't mean that the evidence is untrue. There has been more than one trial in the US where officers found a murder weapon or other evidence to convict a person of murder and then the conviction is overturned, not because the evidence was wrong but the officers didn't have the right paperwork.
The idea that illegally obtained evidence should not be valid is a dishonour of justice. Breaking the law to obtain it is not right either, however that is a separate issue and it should be handled like any other law violation. If an officer searches someone's apartment without a proper warrant he/she should be charged with burglary.
To put things in perspective: The problem "It is bothersome to carry all the cash I have" has to be the ultimate first world problem. Seriously! Control question: Can you name one single first world problem that is more ultimate than this?
And secondly, an economic system which allows for a government to spy on every single transaction will be an enormous gift to totalitarian regimes. We as people living in fairly free countries have a responsibility to keep cash as a fully functional alternative and not export such gift to governments violating human rights and persecuting dissidents. Regardless of the lack of "modern" feel to it, the (minor) cost of doing this, or any other reason.
What is the problem?
The 3.5mm audio jack limits the minimum thickness of phones.
What is the cause?
Physical properties.
What is the solution?
Standardize a thinner analog audio jack. Possible bonus: Making sure all existing 3.5mm jack "extensions" like additional microphone are included.
However, this being mainly driven by Apple the obviously correct solution above is not what they want. The problem analysed from their point of view looks like the following:
What is the problem?
We would like to sell more and expensive audio accessories to people, even though they actually do not need this.
Also we would like to do this as exclusively as possible, without bothersome competition
What is the cause?
People already own a lot of existing audio hardware that works just fine. And there is a lot of competition with a low barrier to entry.
What is the solution?
Remove the option to use the 3.5mm jack (and justify by blaming physical size) and thus force people to just discard all their existing, fully functional audio hardware and buy new (from us).
And now before you start objecting that the analogue audio signal is not as good as what a digital signal could be (let's ignore for the moment the relevance of this considering the typical noisy environment a phone is used in), then consider the following: There exists zero technical obstacles to designing a jack that defaults to analogue but can be switched into digital. Any objections to this would be of political nature.
And it works most of the time, the autopilot keeps the car on the road and avoids danger. Except for that 0.01% when it fails and you have to react as quickly as if you have been driving all this time.
The quality of a system is always measured in how well it handles exceptions. (Control question: Try to come up with a single example of a good system that handle exceptions badly. Hint: give up because such systems do not exist)
So a autopilot driving car will handle the normal case extremely well, but when something unexpected happens a human driver is much better capable of performing a sensible action.
Big Data is about finding patterns, not conclusions.
Gary Taubes (author of "Good calories - bad calories" and "Why we get fat and what to do about it") is my favourite scientist because
he just exhibit such a healthy, integrated "given that what we believe today is correct" attitude, e.g. being totally open to be proven incorrect.
There is a saying "follow those that seek the truth, run from those that have claimed to found it", and Gary is
most certainly a truth seeker in that respect.
For instance in the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?..., he says during the first minutes "That's what we should believe until we have remarcable evidence to reject it" and "Don't take my word for it, anyone can try it out for themselves", without this being specifically emphasised or made a big point of, it is just his natural way of reasoning which I love so much.
And now to what triggered me to answer your post: I think it is later in that interview that he points out that observation studies can only be used to form hypothesis, dawing conclutions from them is wrong, you actually need to perform controlled experiments to do that.
This is simple to show in a back of an envolope calculation:
Around 3/4 of what you eat is used just to keep your body warm. So if you reduce your eating with 12-13% you have in effect halved your net food intake. Or if you increase your eating with 25% you have doubled your net food intake.
Of course it is not that simple, but it shows that variations in food intake have a significant impact.
Hm, reading the above I realize that it does not adress how this relate to the effect of excercising, but well. Maybe someone else could fill in.
... suggest that the size of servings is influenced by bad habits and by expectations from food sellers.
The human mind is actually quite deceptive, and exactly when you feel full when eating is in no way an objective, fixed norm. Search for bottomless soup bowl for an intresting experiment that shows how people are fooled to eat much more than they expect without notecing.
Sounds like an education issue to me. Make sure consumers know the repercussions of their purchasing decisions, then let them choose for themselves. Just like organic food, if there is enough demand for exploitation-free products, a supply will be created. Given the current popularity of shopping at Walmart, I suspect most people don't give at shit how their products are created, as long as they are cheap!
First of all, your argumet that if the marked does not value non-explotation as an absolute unacceptability, then it is perfectly fine for some explotation to exists seems extremely unemphatically. Are you someone that don't give a shit over other people's health and dignity?
This is in best case unprecise. Yes you are correct in that the buyer do not own the copyright for the software, but you are wrong in claiming that the copy of the software can not be owned.
When someone goes to the bookstore and buys a book, he/she does not own the copyright of the book as a result of the deal. However he/she does own a (single) copy of the book. The copyright owner has absolutely no rights to restrict the book owners usage of this book. If the book is a murder mystery, the reader is free to read the last page first to find out who did it. Or use the pages as toilet paper. Or burn the book publicly in protest. Or anything else he/she want to, completely independently of what the copyright owner likes or not.
Now, there are some things that the book owner cannot do with the book. He/she cannot go to a publisher and try to republish the book as his/her own for instance. And the police might have some objection to burning books publicly. But notice that all such restrictions are general, "global" restrictios imposed by law/law enforcement and not wishes from the copyright owner of the book. Notice also that these restrictions are independent of copy ownership, if someone goes to a publisher and try to publish a book they do not own the copyright for, it does not matter if the book comes from their own or their neighbour's book shelf.
Unfortunately digital software makes it possible for the copyright owner to put in usage restrictions that they have absolutely no right to do.
Opportunity is however never, ever is a valid argument for action. Just because you have a gun and can kill someone, it does not mean that it is a valid reason for doing so. Just because software companies can impose digital restrictions on their software, it does not mean that it is a valid reason for doing so. A book author has no right to say "My book cannot be read on Fridays". A software company has no right to say "Our software cannot be run on Fridays".
I do recognice that there is a difference between buying and renting a book, and that restrictions might apply for renting.
Find a rational argument as to why a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country isn't a common-sense response to an immediate threat.
If followers of a certain religion are such a threat, why stop at temporarily banning them from entering the country? Why not also temporarily require them to ware a badge so that they are easily identifiable as well?
My thought exactly as wel, the video referred gives a very good insight into the problem.
This guy is "brillent" and despite the fact that he does not like to call himself a journalist, John Olvier really is one of the worlds most important ones, bringing attention to many serious and important issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Your extraordinary claims needs extraordinary proof. Because that contradict what research show; the correlation between crime and immigration is a society net positive (of course anything involving humans is never a 100% anything, so there will always be exceptions, e.g. some persons result in a society net negative, but the overall effect is positive).
From the abstract of the paper Urban crime rates and the changing face of immigration: Evidence across four decades:
Research has shown little support for the enduring proposition that increases in immigration are associated with increases in crime. Although classical criminological and neoclassical economic theories would predict immigration to increase crime, most empirical research shows quite the opposite. We investigate the immigration-crime relationship among metropolitan areas over a 40 year period from 1970 to 2010. Our goal is to describe the ongoing and changing association between immigration and a broad range of violent and property crimes. Our results indicate that immigration is consistently linked to decreases in violent (e.g., murder) and property (e.g., burglary) crime throughout the time period.
But even if the algorithms are 100% open and transparent, that means nothing if the data feed into them is poor. If the bank uses an algorithm to determine if it want to lend money to you, how is the data about you collected? Who decided to classify you as a say medium risk person? What cirterias did he/she/they use for that? How thorogh were he/she/they in gathering decition material? What did he/she/they miss/ignore/misunderstood?
Unless there is full and complete transparency and accountability for data collection, the transparency for just the algorithms is without value.
I'm not an economist, but I would have thought a cashless society makes little difference to the level of government control. Cash is controlled by the government anyway -
But the economics is besides the point. If for instance the government of North Korea had the possibility to track all economic transactions between all the people in the country because they were digital, do you think that would lead to fewer or more arrests of political dissents? If the economy in North Korea was cashless, do you think that would lead to fewer or more cases of torture? Killings? Would it be possible for a group of political dissents to meet each other on a weekend if it were impossible to move anywhere without leaving traces like everyone buying bus/train tickets to the same place, etc?
And while it is easy to pick on North Korea as a worst in class example, something far away, it is worth considering what the effects might be in countries that like to consider themselves best in class with regards to democracy and freedom for its citizens. Imagine if you suddenly without your knowledge are placed on a no-fly list because you have bought a few things from a country that the government has deemed evil, terrorist, communist or some other fashionable witch hunt term. Or perhaps you just have bought something from somebody else that have traded with those countries. This is just what might already happen today. The important thing is to imagine the potential for abuse and then make sure that there always is a non-digital alternative available.
- Follow those that seek the truth, run from those that claim to have found it.
If you are using firewalld and want a more permanent solution, you can add the following to /etc/firewalld/direct.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<direct>
<chain table="filter" chain="NONET_DENY" ipv="ipv4"/>
<rule table="filter" chain="NONET_DENY" ipv="ipv4" priority="0">--match owner '!' --gid-owner nonet --jump RETURN</rule>
<rule table="filter" chain="NONET_DENY" ipv="ipv4" priority="1">--destination 127.0.0.1 --jump RETURN</rule>
<rule table="filter" chain="NONET_DENY" ipv="ipv4" priority="2">--match limit --limit 20/min --jump LOG --log-prefix 'iptables:nonet_deny ' --log-level 7</rule>
<rule table="filter" chain="NONET_DENY" ipv="ipv4" priority="3">--jump DROP</rule>
<rule table="filter" chain="OUTPUT_direct" ipv="ipv4" priority="0">--jump NONET_DENY</rule>
<rule table="filter" chain="OUTPUT_direct" ipv="ipv4" priority="0">--jump SOMENET_DENY</rule>
<chain table="filter" chain="SOMENET_DENY" ipv="ipv4"/>
<rule table="filter" chain="SOMENET_DENY" ipv="ipv4" priority="0">--match owner '!' --gid-owner somenet --jump RETURN</rule>
<rule table="filter" chain="SOMENET_DENY" ipv="ipv4" priority="1">--destination 127.0.0.1 --jump RETURN</rule>
<!-- Your whitelist here -->
<rule table="filter" chain="SOMENET_DENY" ipv="ipv4" priority="2">--destination 8.8.8.8 --protocol udp --destination-port 53 --jump RETURN</rule>
<rule table="filter" chain="SOMENET_DENY" ipv="ipv4" priority="2">--destination 216.34.181.45 --protocol tcp --destination-port 443 --jump RETURN</rule>
<rule table="filter" chain="SOMENET_DENY" ipv="ipv4" priority="4">--match limit --limit 20/min --jump LOG --log-prefix 'iptables:somenet_deny ' --log-level 7</rule>
<rule table="filter" chain="SOMENET_DENY" ipv="ipv4" priority="5">--jump DROP</rule>
</direct>
The above assumes two groups nonet and somenet, which are given no and some net access respectively. By using groups like that it makes it simple to test programs you are suspicious of by just running them with another group, e.g.
sg somenet "internet-explorer4linux https://slashdot.org/"
However, differentiating on separate users might be more appropriate in other cases. You can do both.
... after they have been found guilty (which is what not been resolved means) ....
No, it cannot mean that, because that is already covered in point a)
Are you claiming that "been found guilty" is somehow different from "convicted" and needs a separate listing?
And for more hints of how little respect for juridical principles he has, look no further than point c)
So no charge necessary. No conviction necessary. Zero defence possibility. Just as long as some unaccountable employee in the Secretary of Homeland Security, or perhaps a TSA employee, some contractor or whoever has deemed that some alien has committed a chargeable criminal offense that's good enough.
Also notice that the phrase "alternative facts" was delivered by his staff, so it works as a loyalty test to see how far they are willing to support him even though they are asked to do outrageous things.
Such loyalty testing might be found in environments driven by fear and uncertainty. Similarly to how a criminal gang leader might ask new members to do something outrageous like torturing or killing someone to test them, and also make them dependent on the leader for protection.
This doesn't sound like an administration that's particularly worried about adhering to the letter of the law.
No shit! From the order:
From the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Either Trump is completely ignorant of justice principles like not punishing a person without there being an actual judgment or he simply does not care. Sadly, for him I think it is a combination of both. This is even worse than guilty until proven innocent, this is charged equals guilty without any possibility for innocence.
But there is no conflict there, the setting could be controlled both directly from the start menu and also from a central all privacy settings place.
If you are implying that long work hours like common in USA makes it easier for people people to get rich, that is demonstrably false. Norway have more millionaires per capita than USA. It even has more billionaires per capita than USA. And we have 37.5 hours per week as standard, just 2.5 hours more than the French.
Also notice that in Norway the government intervenes with many things that you probably think classifies as "nanny state". And we have higher much taxes. Despite of this we have more rich people than you.
Recommended watch: TEDx talk Where in the world is it easiest to get rich? by Harald Eia.
Too late, Oracle already did that...
The idea that illegally obtained evidence should not be valid is a dishonour of justice. Breaking the law to obtain it is not right either, however that is a separate issue and it should be handled like any other law violation. If an officer searches someone's apartment without a proper warrant he/she should be charged with burglary.
To put things in perspective: The problem "It is bothersome to carry all the cash I have" has to be the ultimate first world problem. Seriously! Control question: Can you name one single first world problem that is more ultimate than this?
And secondly, an economic system which allows for a government to spy on every single transaction will be an enormous gift to totalitarian regimes. We as people living in fairly free countries have a responsibility to keep cash as a fully functional alternative and not export such gift to governments violating human rights and persecuting dissidents. Regardless of the lack of "modern" feel to it, the (minor) cost of doing this, or any other reason.
This my friend is a correct problem analysis
What is the problem? The 3.5mm audio jack limits the minimum thickness of phones. What is the cause? Physical properties. What is the solution? Standardize a thinner analog audio jack. Possible bonus: Making sure all existing 3.5mm jack "extensions" like additional microphone are included.However, this being mainly driven by Apple the obviously correct solution above is not what they want. The problem analysed from their point of view looks like the following:
What is the problem? We would like to sell more and expensive audio accessories to people, even though they actually do not need this. Also we would like to do this as exclusively as possible, without bothersome competition What is the cause? People already own a lot of existing audio hardware that works just fine. And there is a lot of competition with a low barrier to entry. What is the solution? Remove the option to use the 3.5mm jack (and justify by blaming physical size) and thus force people to just discard all their existing, fully functional audio hardware and buy new (from us).And now before you start objecting that the analogue audio signal is not as good as what a digital signal could be (let's ignore for the moment the relevance of this considering the typical noisy environment a phone is used in), then consider the following: There exists zero technical obstacles to designing a jack that defaults to analogue but can be switched into digital. Any objections to this would be of political nature.
Thank you for an excellent comment. I am going to bookmark it and quote it whenever someone incorrectly blames bad apples from now on.
And it works most of the time, the autopilot keeps the car on the road and avoids danger. Except for that 0.01% when it fails and you have to react as quickly as if you have been driving all this time.
The quality of a system is always measured in how well it handles exceptions. (Control question: Try to come up with a single example of a good system that handle exceptions badly. Hint: give up because such systems do not exist)
So a autopilot driving car will handle the normal case extremely well, but when something unexpected happens a human driver is much better capable of performing a sensible action.
Gary Taubes (author of "Good calories - bad calories" and "Why we get fat and what to do about it") is my favourite scientist because he just exhibit such a healthy, integrated "given that what we believe today is correct" attitude, e.g. being totally open to be proven incorrect. There is a saying "follow those that seek the truth, run from those that have claimed to found it", and Gary is most certainly a truth seeker in that respect.
For instance in the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?..., he says during the first minutes "That's what we should believe until we have remarcable evidence to reject it" and "Don't take my word for it, anyone can try it out for themselves", without this being specifically emphasised or made a big point of, it is just his natural way of reasoning which I love so much.
And now to what triggered me to answer your post: I think it is later in that interview that he points out that observation studies can only be used to form hypothesis, dawing conclutions from them is wrong, you actually need to perform controlled experiments to do that.
Sound like something a feminist would have come up with.
Sound like something someone that have no valid arguments and resorts to ad hominem would have come up with.
This is simple to show in a back of an envolope calculation: Around 3/4 of what you eat is used just to keep your body warm. So if you reduce your eating with 12-13% you have in effect halved your net food intake. Or if you increase your eating with 25% you have doubled your net food intake.
Of course it is not that simple, but it shows that variations in food intake have a significant impact.
Hm, reading the above I realize that it does not adress how this relate to the effect of excercising, but well. Maybe someone else could fill in.
... suggest that the size of servings is influenced by bad habits and by expectations from food sellers.
The human mind is actually quite deceptive, and exactly when you feel full when eating is in no way an objective, fixed norm. Search for bottomless soup bowl for an intresting experiment that shows how people are fooled to eat much more than they expect without notecing.
Sounds like an education issue to me. Make sure consumers know the repercussions of their purchasing decisions, then let them choose for themselves. Just like organic food, if there is enough demand for exploitation-free products, a supply will be created. Given the current popularity of shopping at Walmart, I suspect most people don't give at shit how their products are created, as long as they are cheap!
First of all, your argumet that if the marked does not value non-explotation as an absolute unacceptability, then it is perfectly fine for some explotation to exists seems extremely unemphatically. Are you someone that don't give a shit over other people's health and dignity?
And secondly, educating consumers does not work, Zane, D.M. (et al.) Do less ethical consumers denigrate more ethical consumers? The effect of willful ignorance on judgments of others. Journal of Consumer Psychology (2015)
But you don't own the software.
This is in best case unprecise. Yes you are correct in that the buyer do not own the copyright for the software, but you are wrong in claiming that the copy of the software can not be owned.
When someone goes to the bookstore and buys a book, he/she does not own the copyright of the book as a result of the deal. However he/she does own a (single) copy of the book. The copyright owner has absolutely no rights to restrict the book owners usage of this book. If the book is a murder mystery, the reader is free to read the last page first to find out who did it. Or use the pages as toilet paper. Or burn the book publicly in protest. Or anything else he/she want to, completely independently of what the copyright owner likes or not.
Now, there are some things that the book owner cannot do with the book. He/she cannot go to a publisher and try to republish the book as his/her own for instance. And the police might have some objection to burning books publicly. But notice that all such restrictions are general, "global" restrictios imposed by law/law enforcement and not wishes from the copyright owner of the book. Notice also that these restrictions are independent of copy ownership, if someone goes to a publisher and try to publish a book they do not own the copyright for, it does not matter if the book comes from their own or their neighbour's book shelf.
Unfortunately digital software makes it possible for the copyright owner to put in usage restrictions that they have absolutely no right to do. Opportunity is however never, ever is a valid argument for action. Just because you have a gun and can kill someone, it does not mean that it is a valid reason for doing so. Just because software companies can impose digital restrictions on their software, it does not mean that it is a valid reason for doing so. A book author has no right to say "My book cannot be read on Fridays". A software company has no right to say "Our software cannot be run on Fridays".
I do recognice that there is a difference between buying and renting a book, and that restrictions might apply for renting.
Find a rational argument as to why a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country isn't a common-sense response to an immediate threat.
If followers of a certain religion are such a threat, why stop at temporarily banning them from entering the country? Why not also temporarily require them to ware a badge so that they are easily identifiable as well?
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
As always, follow the money (or alternatively, he is incredible stupid and actually belives in it).
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken,
My thought exactly as wel, the video referred gives a very good insight into the problem.
This guy is "brillent" and despite the fact that he does not like to call himself a journalist, John Olvier really is one of the worlds most important ones, bringing attention to many serious and important issues.