I could see an equilibrium point of about 20% unemployment with how things are trending. Mind you that's 20% FTE unemployment, so you're talking about 40% underemployment. That's where UBI comes in. Those under-employeds don't have to worry that they're working only 20 or so hours a week, they can make ends meet. Those that really don't want to work can try to live within the means provided by UBI, but will find it's no lap of luxury (not even close), but without the fear of losing benefits by *trying* to better themselves they will get a part time job, if only for a couple bucks extra spending money.
In reply to your post about having spent it on booze to the GP's post about staying on the dole rather than getting a job. If you're someone that has a life based on a higher income and that goes away, the UBI isn't going to make it better (less bad, but not better) if you lose a job. I agree that UBI is better then Unemployment Insurance, just that the likelihood of it being blown on crap if someone is staying on vs getting a job because of loss of bennies is attacking a straw-man.
not likely. my recent experience was that if I got a job that paid full time minimum wage I would have lost my house (and other stuff) because the benefits from UI would have gone away, but there was no way that $400/wk was going to cover my needs.
The system is broken. I really have no clue how to fix it, but it is broken.
I'm with you on the office pool social aspect. I'm even with you on the regular buyers (no matter what the current take is, they buy a ticket).
Where you're missing is the folks who only buy a ticket with the pot is big. Whether or not they did the math explicitly, they're making a pot-odds judgment call and I don't consider that stupid (within sane pot-odds limits). I myself always buy a ticket once the pot odds hit 1/1. (and yes I get that the payout odds in that situation are still likely 1/3.3 or worse). -nB
The roads being fixed is absolutely automatable, as is long haul shipping. Changing streetlights doesn't need to be automated to see a severe workforce reduction, my local muni is replacing nearly all the Sodium Vapor lights with LED. Those won't burn out nearly as often, so you need less people. In many cases houses are already coming partially framed in advance, roof trusses being the most obvious, but I've also seen entire walls arriving already framed, doors, windows, and all. Just stand them up and nail them down.
Not all of this is labor elimination, but a *lot* of it is labor reduction.
Right now I'm betting (in the case of the framing) that it is more a shifting of labor location rather than full elimination, but there is no big stretch to automating fabrication with wood.
I had similar (and I think 12 monkeys *might* be right...) I added the domain to our blacklist within a minute of getting the e-mail. Chaos and hilarity ensued.
Heh, the handle is fine, just not the right layer of the OSI model. It's a case of "You do computer stuff, thus you know everything about computers" Mind you, I've never used a kindle at all, and had no computer with me other than the one that couldn't connect to look anything up on (and would have had to pry said slab out of a little kids hands...)
All my networking knowledge is at layers 3 and lower. By the time you're de-encapsulating the packet I no longer care about it... But if you're having an elusive BER issue I will be happy to bust out the TDR, look at the wire, magnetics, and clock recovery systems on both ends to debug it for you. -nB
Except I fear that we're going to start seeing cases where what was once legal is no longer so. In cases like that you may well become a criminal through no action of your own.
And who rapidly pulled a "Not my problem" approach. I got a call from a friend who was desperate for support (and no money to pay for it). Since her daughter's tablet could connect just fine Comcast's answer was it's the computer; not our problem.
I had to ask them multiple times to just give me the base settings for the damn router (they can query from their end) so I would know what scope to configure a static IP for this person's PC in. Bunch of unhelpful twats.
so, taking this forward to protect ones self, how can you make it so that the police, even if in possession of the passcode can not de-encrypt the data?
The courts have already found that you can't be required to divulge the combination to a safe, as that is protected by the 5th amendment. The passcode to your phone is the combination to the encryption (safe) that holds your data (documents).
I assume that this defendant had already tried (a) -- whether or not he is allowed to do that in this case is the very question the court seems to be answering.
I agree with you, but in fact I kept it on the list as option A because he can continue with that defense. It is valid, even if one judge says it isn't. Upon contempt of court charges you then have a deprivation of liberty claim:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
as you can say that the CoC charge is actually tantamount to bypassing due process of the initial charge because you would not accede your constitutional rights.
(b) would be a false statement if you really hadn't forgotten it. Admittedly it would be hard to prove that your statement was false -- but if you eventually "remembered" it and/or bragged about how you lied, you might get nailed just for the lie to investigators.
Eventually remembering it doesn't prove you never forgot it. I periodically forget a password I've entered at least once per day for the past 10 years. I eventually remember it, but I still temporarily forgot it.
So you just don't tell anyone (brag) about getting away with it.
[...] nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[...]
Giving the passcode to your phone is being a material witness against yourself. You are divulging something that will be used against you that is not in a physical form and is only in your brain. Had you written the passcode on a sticky note and put it on the back of your phone, then they could use that sticky note against you.
Black concluded, “Unquestionably, the State established, with reasonable particularity, its knowledge of the existence of the passcode, Stahl’s control or possession of the passcode, and the self-authenticating nature of the passcode. This is a case of surrender and not testimony.”
So the response from the defendant should be either: a) I decline to answer that question on the grounds it may be used to incriminate me b) I'm sorry I have no recollection of that passcode (Thank you Oliver North) or c) give it to them, then challenge the entire chain of evidence from the phone as poison fruit of constitutional violation.
Personally I would go with a or d) give them the wrong passcode and claim that while I was under such stress I must have made an error.
Did TFS just say that the judge who ordered the defendant give up the passcode cite a case where a court found that a defendant could not be compelled to give up the combo to a safe as precedent?
Also, since te website won't render properly with basic security enabled in the browser, here's the page source copypasta:
>
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday
it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald
Trump's Energy Department transition team for the names of people
who have worked on climate change and the professional society
memberships of lab workers.
The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky
transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential
friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain
in place.
The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by
Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a
list of all department employees and contractors who attended the
annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within
the last five years.
Energy Department spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said Tuesday the
department will not comply.
"Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at
our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and
the important work our department does to benefit the American
people," Burnham-Snyder said.
"We are going to respect the professional and scientific
integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and
across our department," he added. "We will be forthcoming with
all publicly available information with the transition team. We
will not be providing any individual names to the transition
team."
He added that the request "left many in our workforce unsettled."
Reuters reported late Monday that former Texas Governor Rick
Perry is expected to be named by Trump to run the Energy
Department. The agency employs more than 90,000 people working on
nuclear weapons maintenance and research labs, nuclear energy,
advanced renewable energy, batteries and climate science.
The memo sought a list of all department employees or contractors
who have attended any meetings on the social cost of carbon, a
measurement that federal agencies use to weigh the costs and
benefits of new energy and environment regulations. It also asked
for all publications written by employees at the department's 17
national laboratories for the past three years.
Trump transition officials declined to comment on the memo.
"This feels like the first draft of an eventual political enemies
list," a Department of Energy employee, who asked not to be
identified because he feared a reprisal by the Trump transition
team, had told Reuters.
Republican Trump said during his election campaign that climate
change was a hoax perpetrated by China to damage U.S.
manufacturing. He said he would rip up last year's landmark
global climate deal struck in Paris that was signed by President
Barack Obama.
Since winning the Nov. 8 election, however, Trump has said he
will keep an "open mind" about the Paris deal. He also met with
former Vice President Al Gore, a strong advocate for action on
climate change.
The management has to know this will get them sacked, and yet they still protected their team. Good on them, and may they be showered by job offers once sacked.
Slashdot Mirror
I could see an equilibrium point of about 20% unemployment with how things are trending.
Mind you that's 20% FTE unemployment, so you're talking about 40% underemployment. That's where UBI comes in. Those under-employeds don't have to worry that they're working only 20 or so hours a week, they can make ends meet. Those that really don't want to work can try to live within the means provided by UBI, but will find it's no lap of luxury (not even close), but without the fear of losing benefits by *trying* to better themselves they will get a part time job, if only for a couple bucks extra spending money.
In reply to your post about having spent it on booze to the GP's post about staying on the dole rather than getting a job.
If you're someone that has a life based on a higher income and that goes away, the UBI isn't going to make it better (less bad, but not better) if you lose a job.
I agree that UBI is better then Unemployment Insurance, just that the likelihood of it being blown on crap if someone is staying on vs getting a job because of loss of bennies is attacking a straw-man.
I'm going with happy.
Bugs happen and open unit tests that we can all apply against our software stacks is a good thing indeed!
-nB
not likely.
my recent experience was that if I got a job that paid full time minimum wage I would have lost my house (and other stuff) because the benefits from UI would have gone away, but there was no way that $400/wk was going to cover my needs.
The system is broken.
I really have no clue how to fix it, but it is broken.
I'm with you on the office pool social aspect.
I'm even with you on the regular buyers (no matter what the current take is, they buy a ticket).
Where you're missing is the folks who only buy a ticket with the pot is big. Whether or not they did the math explicitly, they're making a pot-odds judgment call and I don't consider that stupid (within sane pot-odds limits).
I myself always buy a ticket once the pot odds hit 1/1. (and yes I get that the payout odds in that situation are still likely 1/3.3 or worse).
-nB
The roads being fixed is absolutely automatable, as is long haul shipping.
Changing streetlights doesn't need to be automated to see a severe workforce reduction, my local muni is replacing nearly all the Sodium Vapor lights with LED. Those won't burn out nearly as often, so you need less people.
In many cases houses are already coming partially framed in advance, roof trusses being the most obvious, but I've also seen entire walls arriving already framed, doors, windows, and all. Just stand them up and nail them down.
Not all of this is labor elimination, but a *lot* of it is labor reduction.
Right now I'm betting (in the case of the framing) that it is more a shifting of labor location rather than full elimination, but there is no big stretch to automating fabrication with wood.
I had similar (and I think 12 monkeys *might* be right...)
I added the domain to our blacklist within a minute of getting the e-mail. Chaos and hilarity ensued.
I regret nothing.
-nB
Heh, the handle is fine, just not the right layer of the OSI model.
It's a case of "You do computer stuff, thus you know everything about computers"
Mind you, I've never used a kindle at all, and had no computer with me other than the one that couldn't connect to look anything up on (and would have had to pry said slab out of a little kids hands...)
All my networking knowledge is at layers 3 and lower. By the time you're de-encapsulating the packet I no longer care about it... But if you're having an elusive BER issue I will be happy to bust out the TDR, look at the wire, magnetics, and clock recovery systems on both ends to debug it for you.
-nB
Except I fear that we're going to start seeing cases where what was once legal is no longer so.
In cases like that you may well become a criminal through no action of your own.
Tablet was a kindle... easier said than done to get that info off it.
And who rapidly pulled a "Not my problem" approach.
I got a call from a friend who was desperate for support (and no money to pay for it). Since her daughter's tablet could connect just fine Comcast's answer was it's the computer; not our problem.
I had to ask them multiple times to just give me the base settings for the damn router (they can query from their end) so I would know what scope to configure a static IP for this person's PC in. Bunch of unhelpful twats.
so, taking this forward to protect ones self, how can you make it so that the police, even if in possession of the passcode can not de-encrypt the data?
The courts have already found that you can't be required to divulge the combination to a safe, as that is protected by the 5th amendment. The passcode to your phone is the combination to the encryption (safe) that holds your data (documents).
I assume that this defendant had already tried (a) -- whether or not he is allowed to do that in this case is the very question the court seems to be answering.
I agree with you, but in fact I kept it on the list as option A because he can continue with that defense. It is valid, even if one judge says it isn't. Upon contempt of court charges you then have a deprivation of liberty claim:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
as you can say that the CoC charge is actually tantamount to bypassing due process of the initial charge because you would not accede your constitutional rights.
(b) would be a false statement if you really hadn't forgotten it. Admittedly it would be hard to prove that your statement was false -- but if you eventually "remembered" it and/or bragged about how you lied, you might get nailed just for the lie to investigators.
Eventually remembering it doesn't prove you never forgot it. I periodically forget a password I've entered at least once per day for the past 10 years. I eventually remember it, but I still temporarily forgot it.
So you just don't tell anyone (brag) about getting away with it.
because contempt of court *sucks*
The difference is "n il", as in two mistakes, one being the use of an "a" instead of an "an". This rules out a simple typo.
I read that as the difference is nil... heh. while on the topic of mistakes...
heh my is 'sudo rm -rf /'
The 5th amendment is pretty simple:
[...] nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[...]
Giving the passcode to your phone is being a material witness against yourself.
You are divulging something that will be used against you that is not in a physical form and is only in your brain.
Had you written the passcode on a sticky note and put it on the back of your phone, then they could use that sticky note against you.
so if my lockscreen is an animation of a combo lock that you drag back and forth to enter the unlock code...
Would that make this judge's head explode?
The Florida Supreme Court justices should be disbarred for such flimsy rationale.
Appellate court, but yes...
From TFA:
Black concluded, “Unquestionably, the State established, with reasonable particularity, its knowledge of the existence of the passcode, Stahl’s control or possession of the passcode, and the self-authenticating nature of the passcode. This is a case of surrender and not testimony.”
So the response from the defendant should be either:
a) I decline to answer that question on the grounds it may be used to incriminate me
b) I'm sorry I have no recollection of that passcode (Thank you Oliver North)
or c) give it to them, then challenge the entire chain of evidence from the phone as poison fruit of constitutional violation.
Personally I would go with a or d)
give them the wrong passcode and claim that while I was under such stress I must have made an error.
-nB
Did TFS just say that the judge who ordered the defendant give up the passcode cite a case where a court found that a defendant could not be compelled to give up the combo to a safe as precedent?
Also, since te website won't render properly with basic security enabled in the browser, here's the page source copypasta:
>
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday
it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald
Trump's Energy Department transition team for the names of people
who have worked on climate change and the professional society
memberships of lab workers.
The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky
transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential
friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain
in place.
The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by
Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a
list of all department employees and contractors who attended the
annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within
the last five years.
Energy Department spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said Tuesday the
department will not comply.
"Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at
our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and
the important work our department does to benefit the American
people," Burnham-Snyder said.
"We are going to respect the professional and scientific
integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and
across our department," he added. "We will be forthcoming with
all publicly available information with the transition team. We
will not be providing any individual names to the transition
team."
He added that the request "left many in our workforce unsettled."
Reuters reported late Monday that former Texas Governor Rick
Perry is expected to be named by Trump to run the Energy
Department. The agency employs more than 90,000 people working on
nuclear weapons maintenance and research labs, nuclear energy,
advanced renewable energy, batteries and climate science.
The memo sought a list of all department employees or contractors
who have attended any meetings on the social cost of carbon, a
measurement that federal agencies use to weigh the costs and
benefits of new energy and environment regulations. It also asked
for all publications written by employees at the department's 17
national laboratories for the past three years.
Trump transition officials declined to comment on the memo.
"This feels like the first draft of an eventual political enemies
list," a Department of Energy employee, who asked not to be
identified because he feared a reprisal by the Trump transition
team, had told Reuters.
Republican Trump said during his election campaign that climate
change was a hoax perpetrated by China to damage U.S.
manufacturing. He said he would rip up last year's landmark
global climate deal struck in Paris that was signed by President
Barack Obama.
Since winning the Nov. 8 election, however, Trump has said he
will keep an "open mind" about the Paris deal. He also met with
former Vice President Al Gore, a strong advocate for action on
climate change.
(Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)
The management has to know this will get them sacked, and yet they still protected their team.
Good on them, and may they be showered by job offers once sacked.