Every civilization that has insufficiently resisted Islam has fallen to Islam.
Let me guess. You define "sufficient" resistance as that which is required to not fall to Islam? I can see why your tautology was modded up insightful.
it's preventable and it can and must be addressed by us, by civilized people. Absolutely, we cannot throw away any more rights -- but we can't stand by and let this become the "new normal."
You seem to be advocating for increased anti-terrorism efforts, nearly independent of cost. You draw the line at "rights", but what about actual financial cost? Are you saying that we civilized people have a moral obligation to combat terrorism, even if the cost of doing so is greater than the actual cost of terrorism? If so, can you offer a rational argument in support of this position?
Can you clarify? Personally, I thought GP brought up a valid point. Do you disagree that Japan and Australia have strong border controls, or is there something else that you disagree with? Without being more specific, your post doesn't seem likely to move the conversation along in any meaningful way.
Yeah, fighting terrorism is a waste of time. Best to just give up and not try, huh?
This is the attitude of modern Europe. This is what has become of western culture. "It's too hard to fight them. Fuck it, let's just give up and invite them in."
I see it differently. The cost of fighting terrorism (even assuming you could achieve total success) is greater than the cost of the terrorism itself, so simply letting terrorism continue unchecked leads to better outcomes. It's a pragmatic approach that is incompatible with an idealistic one. I understand if you prefer an idealistic approach, where terrorism must be fought no matter the cost, on principle, but that's not objectively any more valid than the pragmatic approach.
But also worth caveating, these taxes don't represent the full tax burden. There are regressive taxes (sales tax, etc.) that aren't being included in this calculus. Consequently, those with a negative income tax liability (even including payroll taxes) may or may not still have a positive overall tax liability.
I note that your subsequent reply focuses entirely on share of tax burden and once again has no mention of share of income. This suggests to me that you didn't read what I wrote, at all. That's too bad.
From Google: The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. When looking at just federal income taxes, they pay 68 percent of the burden. The top 1 percent pays 24 percent of all federal taxes compared to 35 percent of all federal income taxes.
While it's true that taxation is indeed progressive, and that, generally speaking, higher earners pay progressively larger shares of the tax burden, this isn't necessarily an insightful observation.
Let's look at your first claim: the top 10 percent pays 53.3% of all federal taxes. This seems to suggest that they pay more than "their share" of taxes, right? Well, there's not sufficient data in your post to come to that conclusion. To demonstrate, consider this thought problem. If the top 10 percent makes 90 percent of the income (they don't, but hypothetically, if they did), an entirely flat non-progressive system of taxation would have them paying 90% of the federal tax burden. Not 10%. So, what we need to know is what percentage of income goes to the top 10%. If it were 53.3% of the income, then we'd have an effectively flat non-progressive system of taxation. If it's greater than 53.3%, we'd actually have a regressive tax system. If it's less than 53.3%, then we'd have a progressive system. In reality, based on a cursory web search, it seems that the top 10% make roughly 30% of the income. This suggests that we do indeed have a progressive system of taxation, and that the rich pay more than "their share" of taxes. However, your post did not contain sufficient data to support such a conclusion. Furthermore, it may have exaggerated the degree to which our tax system is progressive.
Disclaimer: This is a single look into a single data point, and taxation is a complex issue. Our tax code is progressive, but not progressive enough to prevent unchecked growth in wealth stratification.
Interesting. Check the posting history and you'll find out I'm supporting someone else's point, because you're not making sense.
Indeed! I grant that the original post I was replying to was not your own, the point with which I disagreed was that which I quoted. Your response to that post of mine is what started this thread. The tone of your response led me to believe that you were disagreeing with the point I was making. If you were actually agreeing with me, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you weren't, then I find it odd that your supporting anecdotes seem to corroborate what I had said.
I don't think you've adopted my position. I think you've misunderstood the reason people take on a second job at minimum wage.
For a "second job" to be considered "second", one must have a first job. People don't generally refer to a part-time job as their primary job and their full-time job as a second job, as that would seem backwards. I was arguing that the high proportion of minimum-wage workers working full-time as evidence that minimum-wage work is not merely "second job" work, and that it is indeed the primary employment of most minimum-wage workers. That does not imply that second jobs pay better, merely that minimum-wage work cannot be dismissed as "supplementary", as it is the primary job of half of minimum-wage workers.
Furthermore, while it is true that young people taking on a first job often work for minimum wage, it is not true that minimum-wage workers are predominantly high-school kids looking to make some extra spending money. Most are too old for this to be true, and many have children of their own to support, further indicating that minimum-wage jobs are the primary source of income for most minimum-wage workers, and that consequently it is inaccurate to refer to this income as merely supplemental or supplementary.
I don't define supplemental income in any way at all, I'm merely acknowledging bitter reality for a lot of Americans.
So we're many posts deep niggling over a term which still isn't defined? Slashdot!
People have two jobs to earn the cash they need to live.
So, you define supplemental income as income that is needed to live? That explains the communication breakdown. I was assuming a definition more along the lines of "additional, extra income, suitable for purchase of luxuries and not required to pay for necessities". So, if they need "supplemental income" to live, what exactly is the distinction between your idea of "supplemental income" and other categories of income?
The first job is full time but does not pay enough. The second job adds to their pay.
One or both jobs might be minimum wage but trust me, there are a lot of people in America in that situation and most of them are earning minimum wage.
Deny it all you like.
Okay, what the fuck? Did you just adopt my position as your own, and then start arguing against your original position? Let's take a step back and look at what you said that prompted me to post a reply:
Minimum wage jobs are there for supplemental income and those who are just starting work for the first time.
You seemed to imply that minimum wage jobs don't need the cash they earn to live, that they were only there for "supplementary income" or that they were just high school kids looking to make some extra spending money. I was the one saying that most minimum-wage earners are old enough to not be "just starting work for the first time", and that they're working full-time, which means that these aren't just part-time secondary jobs. If you've changed your views, abandoned your past position, and adopted mine instead, that's fine, but please don't try to pretend that I've in turn adopted your original position myself.
It's quite possible that minimum wage workers aged 25 years or older are indeed working for supplemental income.
It is. It's also not likely, as demonstrated by the empirical evidence that I linked to in my previous post.
It's also certain that some minimum wage workers aged 25 or over are working full time and working for supplemental income.
And working full-time for supplemental income in addition to their [non-supplemental] full-time work? I'm not sure how this is "certain", and furthermore, we still haven't defined what constitutes "supplemental income", which I identified as a too-vague-to-really-mean-anything term in my previous post.
Especially those whose two or more jobs all pay minimum wage.
By your 'especially', you seem to be suggesting that the lower one's wage, the more likely one is to be working for "supplemental" income, and not primary income. This seems counterintuitive (assuming a reasonable definition of 'supplemental'), so I'd be interested in hearing more of an explanation on this point.
I work 45-60 hour weeks because I enjoy my job and it pays me well. Other people work 60 hour weeks because it pays the rent and buys them food.
Relevance?
A full time job is mostly meaningless in this discussion.
I'd argue that a full time job is "a job where an employee works in excess of 35 or 40 hours per week", but if you prefer that term to remain meaningless in this conversation, why do you choose to use it so frequently in your statements?
I feel like you're the one saying it would impact society.
I meant to imply 'negatively'. If this wasn't apparent from context, I apologize.
Once the people you hate are gone, what does change?
To clarify, at no point in time did I indicate my own personal preferences for individuals based on their wealth, nor did I imply that I hate anyone in particular. In the interest of moving the conversation along, I'll assume that here you refer to wealthy people. The premises of this conversation did not entail wealthy people being gone, merely that their wealth be redistributed. Anyway, to answer your question, it would change the velocity of money, as wealth would be transferred from those who don't spend (the wealthy) to those who do (the poor).
The signs on the stores that now say "Wal-Mart" say something else?
Likely, but not really meaningful in this context.
How does entering someone else's name in the global financial system somewhere as the owner of X million shares of stock meaningfully impact society?
I don't understand the question. Are you asking how transferring a large number of equity shares from one wealthy person to someone else would meaningfully impact society? I'm not sure how to answer that, but I'm also not sure how that's relevant to the discussion.
I was talking about distributing wealth from a relatively small number of wealthy people to a relatively large number of poor people, which implies that wealth is transferred from the few to the many, not from one individual to another one. This is qualitatively different because in the former case (but not the latter), the median wealth per capita increases, necessarily.
Minimum wage jobs are there for supplemental income and those who are just starting work for the first time.
That seems like a false statement. According to this, 49.6% of minimum wage workers are 25 years of age or older. It's not clear that people in this demographic are only working "for supplemental income" (What does this even mean, anyway? That they're independently wealthy and only flipping burgers on the side for fun?) or "just starting work for the first time". According to this, 54% work full-time, so it's not clear how that could be "supplemental income" either. That second reference claims that "half are older than 30". 27% of minimum wage earners have one or more children of their own.
You don't want to be a cashier ringing up your own groceries, but you will skip the robot restaurant so you can go be your own waiter at Whole Foods making a salad from separate ingredients.
And after the masses string up the producers for their wealth.
Nobody's talking about stringing up the producers for their wealth. They're talking about stringing up the parasites for their wealth. Let's face it, nobody is productive enough to become wealthy from their own productivity - even the best brain surgeons and rocket scientists are barely rich. Those that have become truly wealthy have done so through business - by exploiting the labor of others - or by exploiting markets - simply taking the wealth of others. These people don't make a net positive contribution to society, and yet they're the ones that amass all the wealth. It's the producers that are losing wealth, as the middle class is eroded, and wealth stratification continues to worsen.
If you disagree, can you explain to me how stringing up, say, the Walton family would meaningfully impact society? Would we be lost in a world incapable of conducting retail sales operations without the Waltons? Would the lack of their high-volume low-margin retail empire really result in a world where nobody produces anything, farmers stop farming, cats and dogs start living together? By what mechanism?
Funny, as a political refugee from Communist Poland, I can tell you don't know shit about how authoritarianism/despotism and how they worked.
Your comment is about as insightful as a Somali expat rambling about the failure of free-market capitalism. Neither socialism nor communism advocates for a "ruling class" which gets a bigger share of society's output. You're describing corruption, which is an entirely orthogonal issue.
I live in a nice neighborhood, in a nice home, on 1/4 acre lot, 200K sq ft and don't make six figures. My commute is eight minutes, and I work in Tech.
How do you fit a 200,000 square foot house on a 10,890 square foot (1/4 acre) lot? It must be nice having a 20-story building all to yourself...
That takes into account total country area of which USA has a shit ton more and a lot of it is empty.
Large swaths of Japan are mountains that have not been developed, and most of Japan (by land area) has a population density under 100/km2. Hokkaido is to Japan as Alaska is to the USA. Japan isn't one massive Tokyo.
Look at the cities. Tokyo has a pop density of 6,200/km2 and New York has 10,756.0/km2. Chicago has 4,447.4/km2. All numbers from wiki.
Tokyo is a metropolitan prefecture and consists of 23 smaller municipalities or special wards, as New York City is a collection of 5 boroughs, though London is more analogous. Anyway, much like NYC contains both Manhattan and Staten Island, Tokyo also has Toshima and Chiyoda (though Chiyoda's low population density is because it's is more like the National Mall in DC than anything else). Either way, here's some more numbers to both fill out the point you were making as well as demonstrate the internal heterogeneity of modern metropolises.
Special wards of Tokyo:
Population density of Toshima: 22,625/km2 (most dense)
Population density of Shinjuku: 18,517/km2 (subjectively typical?)
Population density of Chiyoda: 4,585/km2 (least dense)
Boroughs of New York City:
Population density of Manhattan: 25,846/km2 (assumed most dense)
Population density of Brooklyn: 14,182/km2 (subjectively typical?)
Population density of Staten Island: 3,151.8/km2 (assumed least dense)
But if anyone thinks that it's hard to get away from people in Japan, that's just not true. Hop on the train to Nikko to check out the Tokugawa shogunate's shrines, enjoy the Kegon falls, and hang out with some snow monkeys to see how quiet Japan can be. Even Kyoto is filled with plenty of open space, with people seemingly farming along the river right in the heart of the "city". The Greater Tokyo Area, while containing 30% of Japan's population, is not emblematic of Japan.
Whether that data is transient on a stateless system
Data on a stateless system? Just so we're on the same page, we're talking about state, right? I can't understand how a stateless system, which by definition has no stored information at any given instant in time, has anything to do with the security of data which it doesn't contain. Can you elaborate on this point, so that I can better evaluate whether or not I'm in the wrong job?
I appreciate the contribution, but at no point was the conversation specific to information security. We were talking about security, or more specifically, computer security, a superset of information security.
The fundamentals of security are: Confidentiality - Integrity - Security.
I was about to commend you for the recursive definition, but noticed you had already beat me to it. Well, I'm currently employed in infosec R&D, and I haven't heard this confidentiality/integrity/availability trio prominently mentioned at any point. I'd imagine this is one of many ways to describe it. Privacy isn't relevant in all security contexts (stateless systems, for example), so I don't understand how it can be fundamental.
Indeed, fair point. I was assuming that the previous context (discussion of my explanation) held. Whether or not this assumption is valid is subjective, as it hinges upon the prevailing etiquette on slashdot. As this is a threaded discussion, I felt that it was a reasonable assumption to make. However, I grant that others could disagree, as we're well into subjective territory here. Well played!
That being said, I'm really hoping lucm can provide some explanation of his reasoning. I'm eager to hear how lack of bias implies a diminished ability to be correct regarding a given subject.
I generally help pile on the Microsoft hate along with the rest of slashdot, but I'd like to point out that security and privacy are two distinct concepts. You've listed privacy implications that have little bearing on security. Your third point is the only one that is a potential security hole, but even that's a bit of a stretch, as the ads displayed by Microsoft are likely vetted quite a bit more thoroughly than what you see with a typical ad network.
Now, moving back to the original subject. You suggested that bias is an indication of correctness, or at least that lack of bias prevents one from being "more correct" than someone who is biased. Can you explain the reasoning behind this statement, or would you prefer to implicitly acknowledge that there is no rational argument that could be used to support your statement by continuing to deflect the question?
Slashdot Mirror
Every civilization that has insufficiently resisted Islam has fallen to Islam.
Let me guess. You define "sufficient" resistance as that which is required to not fall to Islam? I can see why your tautology was modded up insightful.
it's preventable and it can and must be addressed by us, by civilized people. Absolutely, we cannot throw away any more rights -- but we can't stand by and let this become the "new normal."
You seem to be advocating for increased anti-terrorism efforts, nearly independent of cost. You draw the line at "rights", but what about actual financial cost? Are you saying that we civilized people have a moral obligation to combat terrorism, even if the cost of doing so is greater than the actual cost of terrorism? If so, can you offer a rational argument in support of this position?
Can you clarify? Personally, I thought GP brought up a valid point. Do you disagree that Japan and Australia have strong border controls, or is there something else that you disagree with? Without being more specific, your post doesn't seem likely to move the conversation along in any meaningful way.
Yeah, fighting terrorism is a waste of time. Best to just give up and not try, huh?
This is the attitude of modern Europe. This is what has become of western culture. "It's too hard to fight them. Fuck it, let's just give up and invite them in."
I see it differently. The cost of fighting terrorism (even assuming you could achieve total success) is greater than the cost of the terrorism itself, so simply letting terrorism continue unchecked leads to better outcomes. It's a pragmatic approach that is incompatible with an idealistic one. I understand if you prefer an idealistic approach, where terrorism must be fought no matter the cost, on principle, but that's not objectively any more valid than the pragmatic approach.
Mod parent up: Data
I was too lazy to gather these numbers myself.
But also worth caveating, these taxes don't represent the full tax burden. There are regressive taxes (sales tax, etc.) that aren't being included in this calculus. Consequently, those with a negative income tax liability (even including payroll taxes) may or may not still have a positive overall tax liability.
I note that your subsequent reply focuses entirely on share of tax burden and once again has no mention of share of income. This suggests to me that you didn't read what I wrote, at all. That's too bad.
From Google: The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. When looking at just federal income taxes, they pay 68 percent of the burden. The top 1 percent pays 24 percent of all federal taxes compared to 35 percent of all federal income taxes.
While it's true that taxation is indeed progressive, and that, generally speaking, higher earners pay progressively larger shares of the tax burden, this isn't necessarily an insightful observation.
Let's look at your first claim: the top 10 percent pays 53.3% of all federal taxes. This seems to suggest that they pay more than "their share" of taxes, right? Well, there's not sufficient data in your post to come to that conclusion. To demonstrate, consider this thought problem. If the top 10 percent makes 90 percent of the income (they don't, but hypothetically, if they did), an entirely flat non-progressive system of taxation would have them paying 90% of the federal tax burden. Not 10%. So, what we need to know is what percentage of income goes to the top 10%. If it were 53.3% of the income, then we'd have an effectively flat non-progressive system of taxation. If it's greater than 53.3%, we'd actually have a regressive tax system. If it's less than 53.3%, then we'd have a progressive system. In reality, based on a cursory web search, it seems that the top 10% make roughly 30% of the income. This suggests that we do indeed have a progressive system of taxation, and that the rich pay more than "their share" of taxes. However, your post did not contain sufficient data to support such a conclusion. Furthermore, it may have exaggerated the degree to which our tax system is progressive.
Disclaimer: This is a single look into a single data point, and taxation is a complex issue. Our tax code is progressive, but not progressive enough to prevent unchecked growth in wealth stratification.
Interesting. Check the posting history and you'll find out I'm supporting someone else's point, because you're not making sense.
Indeed! I grant that the original post I was replying to was not your own, the point with which I disagreed was that which I quoted. Your response to that post of mine is what started this thread. The tone of your response led me to believe that you were disagreeing with the point I was making. If you were actually agreeing with me, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you weren't, then I find it odd that your supporting anecdotes seem to corroborate what I had said.
I don't think you've adopted my position. I think you've misunderstood the reason people take on a second job at minimum wage.
For a "second job" to be considered "second", one must have a first job. People don't generally refer to a part-time job as their primary job and their full-time job as a second job, as that would seem backwards. I was arguing that the high proportion of minimum-wage workers working full-time as evidence that minimum-wage work is not merely "second job" work, and that it is indeed the primary employment of most minimum-wage workers. That does not imply that second jobs pay better, merely that minimum-wage work cannot be dismissed as "supplementary", as it is the primary job of half of minimum-wage workers.
Furthermore, while it is true that young people taking on a first job often work for minimum wage, it is not true that minimum-wage workers are predominantly high-school kids looking to make some extra spending money. Most are too old for this to be true, and many have children of their own to support, further indicating that minimum-wage jobs are the primary source of income for most minimum-wage workers, and that consequently it is inaccurate to refer to this income as merely supplemental or supplementary.
I don't define supplemental income in any way at all, I'm merely acknowledging bitter reality for a lot of Americans.
So we're many posts deep niggling over a term which still isn't defined? Slashdot!
Ok, I'll use small words.
People have two jobs to earn the cash they need to live.
So, you define supplemental income as income that is needed to live? That explains the communication breakdown. I was assuming a definition more along the lines of "additional, extra income, suitable for purchase of luxuries and not required to pay for necessities". So, if they need "supplemental income" to live, what exactly is the distinction between your idea of "supplemental income" and other categories of income?
The first job is full time but does not pay enough. The second job adds to their pay.
One or both jobs might be minimum wage but trust me, there are a lot of people in America in that situation and most of them are earning minimum wage.
Deny it all you like.
Okay, what the fuck? Did you just adopt my position as your own, and then start arguing against your original position? Let's take a step back and look at what you said that prompted me to post a reply:
Minimum wage jobs are there for supplemental income and those who are just starting work for the first time.
You seemed to imply that minimum wage jobs don't need the cash they earn to live, that they were only there for "supplementary income" or that they were just high school kids looking to make some extra spending money. I was the one saying that most minimum-wage earners are old enough to not be "just starting work for the first time", and that they're working full-time, which means that these aren't just part-time secondary jobs. If you've changed your views, abandoned your past position, and adopted mine instead, that's fine, but please don't try to pretend that I've in turn adopted your original position myself.
In one of the Jurassic Parks. 'Hold onto your butts'.
No relevance, but if we're going to be throwing great Jurassic Park quotes out there...
It's quite possible that minimum wage workers aged 25 years or older are indeed working for supplemental income.
It is. It's also not likely, as demonstrated by the empirical evidence that I linked to in my previous post.
It's also certain that some minimum wage workers aged 25 or over are working full time and working for supplemental income.
And working full-time for supplemental income in addition to their [non-supplemental] full-time work? I'm not sure how this is "certain", and furthermore, we still haven't defined what constitutes "supplemental income", which I identified as a too-vague-to-really-mean-anything term in my previous post.
Especially those whose two or more jobs all pay minimum wage.
By your 'especially', you seem to be suggesting that the lower one's wage, the more likely one is to be working for "supplemental" income, and not primary income. This seems counterintuitive (assuming a reasonable definition of 'supplemental'), so I'd be interested in hearing more of an explanation on this point.
I work 45-60 hour weeks because I enjoy my job and it pays me well. Other people work 60 hour weeks because it pays the rent and buys them food.
Relevance?
A full time job is mostly meaningless in this discussion.
I'd argue that a full time job is "a job where an employee works in excess of 35 or 40 hours per week", but if you prefer that term to remain meaningless in this conversation, why do you choose to use it so frequently in your statements?
I feel like you're the one saying it would impact society.
I meant to imply 'negatively'. If this wasn't apparent from context, I apologize.
Once the people you hate are gone, what does change?
To clarify, at no point in time did I indicate my own personal preferences for individuals based on their wealth, nor did I imply that I hate anyone in particular. In the interest of moving the conversation along, I'll assume that here you refer to wealthy people. The premises of this conversation did not entail wealthy people being gone, merely that their wealth be redistributed. Anyway, to answer your question, it would change the velocity of money, as wealth would be transferred from those who don't spend (the wealthy) to those who do (the poor).
The signs on the stores that now say "Wal-Mart" say something else?
Likely, but not really meaningful in this context.
How does entering someone else's name in the global financial system somewhere as the owner of X million shares of stock meaningfully impact society?
I don't understand the question. Are you asking how transferring a large number of equity shares from one wealthy person to someone else would meaningfully impact society? I'm not sure how to answer that, but I'm also not sure how that's relevant to the discussion.
I was talking about distributing wealth from a relatively small number of wealthy people to a relatively large number of poor people, which implies that wealth is transferred from the few to the many, not from one individual to another one. This is qualitatively different because in the former case (but not the latter), the median wealth per capita increases, necessarily.
Minimum wage jobs are there for supplemental income and those who are just starting work for the first time.
That seems like a false statement. According to this, 49.6% of minimum wage workers are 25 years of age or older. It's not clear that people in this demographic are only working "for supplemental income" (What does this even mean, anyway? That they're independently wealthy and only flipping burgers on the side for fun?) or "just starting work for the first time". According to this, 54% work full-time, so it's not clear how that could be "supplemental income" either. That second reference claims that "half are older than 30". 27% of minimum wage earners have one or more children of their own.
You don't want to be a cashier ringing up your own groceries, but you will skip the robot restaurant so you can go be your own waiter at Whole Foods making a salad from separate ingredients.
It's because he's always given a generous tip.
And after the masses string up the producers for their wealth.
Nobody's talking about stringing up the producers for their wealth. They're talking about stringing up the parasites for their wealth. Let's face it, nobody is productive enough to become wealthy from their own productivity - even the best brain surgeons and rocket scientists are barely rich. Those that have become truly wealthy have done so through business - by exploiting the labor of others - or by exploiting markets - simply taking the wealth of others. These people don't make a net positive contribution to society, and yet they're the ones that amass all the wealth. It's the producers that are losing wealth, as the middle class is eroded, and wealth stratification continues to worsen.
If you disagree, can you explain to me how stringing up, say, the Walton family would meaningfully impact society? Would we be lost in a world incapable of conducting retail sales operations without the Waltons? Would the lack of their high-volume low-margin retail empire really result in a world where nobody produces anything, farmers stop farming, cats and dogs start living together? By what mechanism?
Funny, as a political refugee from Communist Poland, I can tell you don't know shit about how authoritarianism/despotism and how they worked.
Your comment is about as insightful as a Somali expat rambling about the failure of free-market capitalism. Neither socialism nor communism advocates for a "ruling class" which gets a bigger share of society's output. You're describing corruption, which is an entirely orthogonal issue.
So where exactly are these militias?
Here.
Surprise, you're a member.
The numbers don't matter.
Strong argument.
And I'll bet you call yourself a "conservative" and think that you're for "fiscal responsibility".
I live in a nice neighborhood, in a nice home, on 1/4 acre lot, 200K sq ft and don't make six figures. My commute is eight minutes, and I work in Tech.
How do you fit a 200,000 square foot house on a 10,890 square foot (1/4 acre) lot? It must be nice having a 20-story building all to yourself...
I do enjoy my garden, roses and yard.
Ah, so the building is more like 40 stories?
Misleading.
It's complicated.
That takes into account total country area of which USA has a shit ton more and a lot of it is empty.
Large swaths of Japan are mountains that have not been developed, and most of Japan (by land area) has a population density under 100/km2. Hokkaido is to Japan as Alaska is to the USA. Japan isn't one massive Tokyo.
Look at the cities. Tokyo has a pop density of 6,200/km2 and New York has 10,756.0/km2. Chicago has 4,447.4/km2. All numbers from wiki.
Tokyo is a metropolitan prefecture and consists of 23 smaller municipalities or special wards, as New York City is a collection of 5 boroughs, though London is more analogous. Anyway, much like NYC contains both Manhattan and Staten Island, Tokyo also has Toshima and Chiyoda (though Chiyoda's low population density is because it's is more like the National Mall in DC than anything else). Either way, here's some more numbers to both fill out the point you were making as well as demonstrate the internal heterogeneity of modern metropolises.
Special wards of Tokyo:
Population density of Toshima: 22,625/km2 (most dense)
Population density of Shinjuku: 18,517/km2 (subjectively typical?)
Population density of Chiyoda: 4,585/km2 (least dense)
Boroughs of New York City:
Population density of Manhattan: 25,846/km2 (assumed most dense)
Population density of Brooklyn: 14,182/km2 (subjectively typical?)
Population density of Staten Island: 3,151.8/km2 (assumed least dense)
But if anyone thinks that it's hard to get away from people in Japan, that's just not true. Hop on the train to Nikko to check out the Tokugawa shogunate's shrines, enjoy the Kegon falls, and hang out with some snow monkeys to see how quiet Japan can be. Even Kyoto is filled with plenty of open space, with people seemingly farming along the river right in the heart of the "city". The Greater Tokyo Area, while containing 30% of Japan's population, is not emblematic of Japan.
Whether that data is transient on a stateless system
Data on a stateless system? Just so we're on the same page, we're talking about state, right? I can't understand how a stateless system, which by definition has no stored information at any given instant in time, has anything to do with the security of data which it doesn't contain. Can you elaborate on this point, so that I can better evaluate whether or not I'm in the wrong job?
That is absolutely not the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I appreciate the contribution, but at no point was the conversation specific to information security. We were talking about security, or more specifically, computer security, a superset of information security.
The fundamentals of security are: Confidentiality - Integrity - Security.
I was about to commend you for the recursive definition, but noticed you had already beat me to it. Well, I'm currently employed in infosec R&D, and I haven't heard this confidentiality/integrity/availability trio prominently mentioned at any point. I'd imagine this is one of many ways to describe it. Privacy isn't relevant in all security contexts (stateless systems, for example), so I don't understand how it can be fundamental.
Indeed, fair point. I was assuming that the previous context (discussion of my explanation) held. Whether or not this assumption is valid is subjective, as it hinges upon the prevailing etiquette on slashdot. As this is a threaded discussion, I felt that it was a reasonable assumption to make. However, I grant that others could disagree, as we're well into subjective territory here. Well played!
That being said, I'm really hoping lucm can provide some explanation of his reasoning. I'm eager to hear how lack of bias implies a diminished ability to be correct regarding a given subject.
I generally help pile on the Microsoft hate along with the rest of slashdot, but I'd like to point out that security and privacy are two distinct concepts. You've listed privacy implications that have little bearing on security. Your third point is the only one that is a potential security hole, but even that's a bit of a stretch, as the ads displayed by Microsoft are likely vetted quite a bit more thoroughly than what you see with a typical ad network.
See, that is an ad hominem attack. Well done!
Now, moving back to the original subject. You suggested that bias is an indication of correctness, or at least that lack of bias prevents one from being "more correct" than someone who is biased. Can you explain the reasoning behind this statement, or would you prefer to implicitly acknowledge that there is no rational argument that could be used to support your statement by continuing to deflect the question?