I suspect this is another instance where the Federal prosecutors are thinking of primarily domestic considerations. If they bring the biggest and most impressive-sounding charges they can, then all the surveillance powers and generally noxious government behavior seem more justified. It pays to keep the public scared: it keeps the "homeland security" budget super-sized and it makes the Federal prosecutors look and feel bigger than they are. Both of those outcomes are good for their careers.
I don't think we see another 80s-style boom in our lifetimes.
Are you aware that the S&P 500 has yielded 25% over the past year? I don't know how long it will sustain that growth, but now is a pretty good time to be in the stock market.
So, rather than split hairs over what kinds of expenses are risks, lets just focus on the source of the money. If it's yours, then it's a risk. Otherwise, it's nothing.
No, let's also consider what happens in the upside scenario where your startup takes off but vulture capitalists hold all the equity. What share of the profits will they give you? (What do you have a right to expect?) There's more than one kind of risk.
Apologies for drifting off-topic, but my perception of risk is very different from yours.
All you stand to lose is the money you paid yourself while developing the software for a year or two.
You stand to lose a good deal more than that. You stand to lose:
The salary you paid yourself and your staff
All the overhead expenses, such as your lease on office space, insurance, the computers you develop software on, and all the professional services you'll need: accounting, legal consultation, etc.
The salary you are NOT EARNING while throwing your money into a failing pit
The dividends you are NOT EARNING from your initial capital, which could be making money in a safer investment instead of losing money
So the risk equation you're looking at is that you stand to lose at least double the salary you pay yourself (what you lose, and what you give up as opportunity cost) and probably a good 50% overhead on top of that on the downside. The upside is effectively unlimited (see Google, Facebook) but the chance of failure is pretty high. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to research the failure rate of tech startups.
An alternative is a pretty reliable 10% annual return through run-of-the-mill stock investments.
My rule of thumb is, if the ROI is not better than you would get from an index mutual fund, then you should either be getting substantial non-financial rewards (doing what you love, feeling that you are making the world a better place, etc.), or you should liquidate everything and invest to get the reliable dividends you can't produce for yourself.
In an era when almost everyone either deals with offshore companies or has immigrant friends or neighbours, the assurance that "only foreign communications are examined" doesn't give much comfort.
In an era where the NSA lied about the existence of the program, lied about the level of oversight, lied about the effectiveness of the program, and lied about what data was collected, ANY assurance from the executive branch doesn't give much comfort.
Plus, money aside, they obviously have high natural risk tolerance. There are lots of people who, if they were rich enough to start a company, still wouldn't, and would invest in established companies instead.
The German government is in favor of government surveillance. (It is hardly unique in that regard.) I can't speak for the German people, but I doubt they were consulted before the surveillance was put in place.
Half Life however is doing a spectacular job of teaching me how to live and work in a post-apocalyptic society governed by constant surveillance in which i have no real rights.
According to TFA, all the tests subjects were psychotic. I kid you not. So applicability to more normative individuals is totally speculative and is known to exist only in the imagination of the author of TFA.
I seriously think it's a rhetorical device, to get the "ordinary Americans" to realize this blanket surveillance affects them, because it does. There are people, like my father, who say without apology that "terrorists don't have rights." (I can't get it through his head that "terrorists" are innocent until proven guilty. I've tried.) I think the senators are just trying to steer away pushing the buttons of folks like that, and toward the argument that should be easier: that people who aren't even suspected of wrongdoing need to have their rights respected. Maybe it's gutless to gloss over the fact that suspects have rights too, and/or maybe it's strategic.
The real question is, why haven't we switched to a consumption tax to divest the IRS's ability to actually abuse their power to this extent?
Well, primarily because Congress can't find its ass with both hands.:-) But also because income tax was set up by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, and major change would require an additional constitutional amendment. Well, in my opinion anyway. (recent precedent has been to just ignore the Constitution when it gets in the way.)
These organizations are requesting either 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) exemption in order to collaboratively develop new software. The members of these organizations are usually the for-profit business or for-profit support technicians of the software.
so maybe the IRS was concerned that open-source consortia are some kind of tax dodge.
Saying that surveillance does not prevent or predict terrorist attacks is a very different statement from saying terrorism doesn't exist. The former is demonstrably true; the latter is demonstrably false.
Because the definition of "terrorist" is so wonderfully flexible. It's very useful for constructing circular justifications: we spy on the terrorists because the people we want to spy on are terrorists. But if you think there is _no_ need for counter-terrorism at all, then I have to disagree. I just think the FBI can handle it using regular, constitutional law enforcement powers.
I live in Boston. So, yes, we had a "tiger" attack recently that killed 3 people and injured 250+, you insensitive clod. (N.B. I am not saying we need stronger counter-terrorism, I am just saying that terrorists are not purely imaginary.) I am sure the people of Iraq, Pakistan, India, and Yemen believe in terrorists as well.
Tarrabok has provided no evidence that the curve applies to this (or any) phenomenon. He might as well have done a parabola or freaking circle for that matter.
Awesome, thanks. The thought of living in the US before the 14th amendment (ratified 1868) is scary. The thought of a modern country without the equivalent as a bedrock principle is also scary.
I was quite shocked to hear politicians and government officials on the news at one point explaining that the protections of the US constitution did not apply for foreigners in the US.
Current nativist prattle is a bit misleading in that regard. Worrisome, but misleading. According to the Supreme Court, even the Guantanamo Bay detainees have rights under US law. What they taught me in high school is that the courts have generally held that non-citizens should be treated the same as citizens in criminal cases, even when there is not an international treaty in place to formalize the rights of the visitor.
Well, specifically I was thinking of the right to openly join an unpopular political party like the Nazis or Communists. Not that I want to do that! But who knows what will be considered subversive in the future?
How about citizenship for the descendants of immigrants? (Yeah, I know the US has problems with kids who came across the border from Latin America. The discussion is about whether there's a country that is more free than the US, not whether the US is without flaws.)
Equal protection: if my skin color is different from the majority population's and someone harasses you, do the police bother to prosecute? How about if I'm gay? (Again, the US has spotty quality here, but name a country that does better.) What happens when I apply for a job, try to rent an apartment, etc?
Religious freedom: can I convert to Islam? How about Scientology? Can I promote my religion in public? Or what if I'm an atheist and don't want to pay a tithe to the local church/mosque/temple?
Rights of the accused: how long can I be held without charges? What access do I have to evidence against me? Between the USA PATRIOT Act and historic racial/economic tensions, the US is exceptionally bad at this, so some European countries may easily win here.
These are the sorts of things I have in mind. I'm better informed than most Americans, but that's not saying much. I know some European expatriates who are totally disinterested in going back. I can't really say whether the US or France/Germany are worse, but I can say it's not simple and clear-cut. It depends on what matters to you.
People say that all the time, but if you know of a country that offers citizens stronger assurances and greater practical liberties, we'd love to hear about it. (Preferably, those liberties should extend to immigrants as well as natives.)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with everything in your post except the subject line. If democracy had truly died, there would be no point in trying to save it.
I suspect this is another instance where the Federal prosecutors are thinking of primarily domestic considerations. If they bring the biggest and most impressive-sounding charges they can, then all the surveillance powers and generally noxious government behavior seem more justified. It pays to keep the public scared: it keeps the "homeland security" budget super-sized and it makes the Federal prosecutors look and feel bigger than they are. Both of those outcomes are good for their careers.
Are you aware that the S&P 500 has yielded 25% over the past year? I don't know how long it will sustain that growth, but now is a pretty good time to be in the stock market.
No, let's also consider what happens in the upside scenario where your startup takes off but vulture capitalists hold all the equity. What share of the profits will they give you? (What do you have a right to expect?) There's more than one kind of risk.
Apologies for drifting off-topic, but my perception of risk is very different from yours.
You stand to lose a good deal more than that. You stand to lose:
So the risk equation you're looking at is that you stand to lose at least double the salary you pay yourself (what you lose, and what you give up as opportunity cost) and probably a good 50% overhead on top of that on the downside. The upside is effectively unlimited (see Google, Facebook) but the chance of failure is pretty high. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to research the failure rate of tech startups.
An alternative is a pretty reliable 10% annual return through run-of-the-mill stock investments.
My rule of thumb is, if the ROI is not better than you would get from an index mutual fund, then you should either be getting substantial non-financial rewards (doing what you love, feeling that you are making the world a better place, etc.), or you should liquidate everything and invest to get the reliable dividends you can't produce for yourself.
In an era where the NSA lied about the existence of the program, lied about the level of oversight, lied about the effectiveness of the program, and lied about what data was collected, ANY assurance from the executive branch doesn't give much comfort.
Plus, money aside, they obviously have high natural risk tolerance. There are lots of people who, if they were rich enough to start a company, still wouldn't, and would invest in established companies instead.
The German government is in favor of government surveillance. (It is hardly unique in that regard.) I can't speak for the German people, but I doubt they were consulted before the surveillance was put in place.
You have the right to consume. That's still real.
According to TFA, all the tests subjects were psychotic. I kid you not. So applicability to more normative individuals is totally speculative and is known to exist only in the imagination of the author of TFA.
Even on Slashdot, not enough people seem to be concerned about Amazon getting a monopoly on e-books.
I seriously think it's a rhetorical device, to get the "ordinary Americans" to realize this blanket surveillance affects them, because it does. There are people, like my father, who say without apology that "terrorists don't have rights." (I can't get it through his head that "terrorists" are innocent until proven guilty. I've tried.) I think the senators are just trying to steer away pushing the buttons of folks like that, and toward the argument that should be easier: that people who aren't even suspected of wrongdoing need to have their rights respected. Maybe it's gutless to gloss over the fact that suspects have rights too, and/or maybe it's strategic.
Well, primarily because Congress can't find its ass with both hands. :-) But also because income tax was set up by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, and major change would require an additional constitutional amendment. Well, in my opinion anyway. (recent precedent has been to just ignore the Constitution when it gets in the way.)
Well, TFA says:
so maybe the IRS was concerned that open-source consortia are some kind of tax dodge.
It would be a very positive step if the US government would just admit that and move on.
Saying that surveillance does not prevent or predict terrorist attacks is a very different statement from saying terrorism doesn't exist. The former is demonstrably true; the latter is demonstrably false.
Because the definition of "terrorist" is so wonderfully flexible. It's very useful for constructing circular justifications: we spy on the terrorists because the people we want to spy on are terrorists. But if you think there is _no_ need for counter-terrorism at all, then I have to disagree. I just think the FBI can handle it using regular, constitutional law enforcement powers.
I live in Boston. So, yes, we had a "tiger" attack recently that killed 3 people and injured 250+, you insensitive clod. (N.B. I am not saying we need stronger counter-terrorism, I am just saying that terrorists are not purely imaginary.) I am sure the people of Iraq, Pakistan, India, and Yemen believe in terrorists as well.
My gut says this is plausible, but we don't really know - it's never been tried.
Tarrabok has provided no evidence that the curve applies to this (or any) phenomenon. He might as well have done a parabola or freaking circle for that matter.
Awesome, thanks. The thought of living in the US before the 14th amendment (ratified 1868) is scary. The thought of a modern country without the equivalent as a bedrock principle is also scary.
Here's a concrete step you can take: https://optin.stopwatching.us/
Current nativist prattle is a bit misleading in that regard. Worrisome, but misleading. According to the Supreme Court, even the Guantanamo Bay detainees have rights under US law. What they taught me in high school is that the courts have generally held that non-citizens should be treated the same as citizens in criminal cases, even when there is not an international treaty in place to formalize the rights of the visitor.
Well, specifically I was thinking of the right to openly join an unpopular political party like the Nazis or Communists. Not that I want to do that! But who knows what will be considered subversive in the future?
How about citizenship for the descendants of immigrants? (Yeah, I know the US has problems with kids who came across the border from Latin America. The discussion is about whether there's a country that is more free than the US, not whether the US is without flaws.)
Equal protection: if my skin color is different from the majority population's and someone harasses you, do the police bother to prosecute? How about if I'm gay? (Again, the US has spotty quality here, but name a country that does better.) What happens when I apply for a job, try to rent an apartment, etc?
Religious freedom: can I convert to Islam? How about Scientology? Can I promote my religion in public? Or what if I'm an atheist and don't want to pay a tithe to the local church/mosque/temple?
Rights of the accused: how long can I be held without charges? What access do I have to evidence against me? Between the USA PATRIOT Act and historic racial/economic tensions, the US is exceptionally bad at this, so some European countries may easily win here.
These are the sorts of things I have in mind. I'm better informed than most Americans, but that's not saying much. I know some European expatriates who are totally disinterested in going back. I can't really say whether the US or France/Germany are worse, but I can say it's not simple and clear-cut. It depends on what matters to you.
People say that all the time, but if you know of a country that offers citizens stronger assurances and greater practical liberties, we'd love to hear about it. (Preferably, those liberties should extend to immigrants as well as natives.)