I've worked for an investment bank and am quite familiar with the KYC and AML rules and how they're intended to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, etc.
Money laundering is critical to financing, among other things drug dealers, terrorist organizations, dictatorships, illegal trade, circumvention of sanctions, human trafficking (slavery), theft, fraud, extortion, racketeering, and the list goes on for some time.
That may be true, but shouldn't the individual have a right to financial privacy? If I'm not accused of any crime, then why should I have to prove the source of my money? We don't allow the government into our homes to make sure we're not doing anything nefarious, why should we allow them into our bank accounts?
Moreover though, forget advocating violence, alt-right terrorism is actually happening, which, a tiny number of exceptions aside, isn't happening on the reverse.
So we all just imagined that Congressional baseball shooting, Antifa rioting at Berkeley, the Trump rally in Chicago that was cancelled, historical monuments in the South being defaced/destroyed, etc?
There's a big difference between someone who doesn't get vaccinated for measles and someone who doesn't get a yearly flu vaccine.
You're also ignoring the fact that some vaccines are harmful, albeit to a small number of people. Guillain-Barre syndrome is real and people who received the flu shot in the 2008-2009 season possibly at greater risk of H1N1.
It's just as misleading to claim all vaccines are totally safe as it is to claim they cause things like autism.
I live in a village surrounded by countryside and there aren't any woods within kid friendly walking distance. At least three miles, and nearer five for anything decent.
Meh. I didn't really get any better responses when I mentioned a six-figure salary and a corner-penthouse condo than when I omitted those details.
I had much better luck with an honest profile about myself even though I knew it would turn a lot of women off. I ended up hearing from women who said they saw a lot of themselves in what I posted.
Just be yourself. Online dating is even more of a numbers game than it is in real life. You have to be persistent and you can't let rejection, or bots, get you down.
There's a famous article from an employee at OKCupid about how men and women rank peoples' attractiveness. I'm linking to archive.org, since it seems there's been an attempt to scrub the article from the Internet.
To summarize, mens' attractiveness ratings were found to be distributed according to a normal curve, while womens' ratings skewed to the right; women found 80% of men to be less attractive than average. There is also some data presented showing attractiveness versus messaging rates which help to explain why average looking guys don't hear from many women.
In my experience the bots match and message you first. Usually with something short and generic like, "hey, how are you?"
Once you're aware of them, they're pretty easy to spot. There will be a few messages that don't mention anything from your profile and will quickly try to get you to visit some other paid site to view their "real" profile. On sites like OKCupid that let people create detailed profiles you'll notice the bot accounts have only answered the minimum number of questions needed to complete a profile. On sites like Tinder that only allow superficial profiles I'd expect the problem to be much greater.
You mentioned conspiracy, but it is fact that the Federal government brings thousands of people over from foreign countries each year and settles them in communities without the consent of the local population.
Churches and social service agencies initially settled Southeast Asian refugees, most of them Hmong, along with some Vietnamese and Laotian people, in Wausau. According to the 1980 U.S. Census, Wausau had fewer than 1% non-White people. There were several dozen Asian immigrants in 1978. By 1980 200 Southeast Asian refugees had settled in Wausau. This increased to 400 in 1982 and 800 in 1984.[5] Over time, the Hmong became the largest ethnic minority in the city.[6] Doualy Xaykaothao of The Atlantic stated that ethnic tension between Hmong and native-born Americans in the state started in the 1980s and spilled over into the following decade.
In 1990 there were 16,980 Hmong in Wisconsin. This was an increase of more than 4,000% from the 1980 figure.
Should we really be all that surprised that some of the locals don't like it?
What I don't understand is why anyone would pay that sum of money to get someone into college. You'd get a much better return by investing in an index fund and going to a community college.
The Dash buttons were a good idea, leave them near the items you want to replenish and just hit the button when you notice you're running low.
Unfortunately the button places an order immediately and doesn't handle multiple presses gracefully. There was no way to configure the thing with a maximum quantity to order, no way to hold orders for manual review and no way to specify what day you wanted your items to be delivered. The lack of features greatly limited the usefulness of the device.
People keep talking about unintended consequences, but there's no guarantee that children conceived the natural way won't end up with some genetic issue that we didn't foresee.
In fact, we allow people with known genetic problems to have children. People with hereditary hearing loss or blindness are allowed to reproduce and take the chance that their child will inherit the condition.
How are the risks of unintended consequences from genetic engineering any different? Why shouldn't people be allowed to take the risk if it could mean their child can't catch some terrible disease, or will live a longer life or be more intelligent than their peers?
So far the shutdown has not affected me in the slightest. I wouldn't even know it was happening if I turned off the news.
Same here. I'm a privately employed worker who qualifies for no government assistance so I haven't noticed a thing.
For me the shutdown is just pointing out all of the functions of government that should be done by private companies. TSA employees walking off the job and FDA not performing food inspections? That wouldn't be happening if those organizations were privately held.
Can't you protect yourself from this by never giving out your direct number? Just give people a number from a service like Google Voice that allows you to forward calls to your real number.
There is a huge market out there for the "wife friendly" home system which is how these damn soundbars became so popular in the first place.
Sad, but true. I'm considering having my girlfriend move in and one of the first things she mentioned was moving my front floorstanding speakers and center channel to free up room in the living room.
You don't solve this problem with regulations, you solve it with countermeasures. Nets, RF jamming and even hawks have been successfully used to take drones down.
Consumer drones have been a known threat for many years now. Shutting down an entire airport can't possibly be cheaper than obtaining the equipment necessary to knock them out of the sky. It sounds like the airports are just not prepared to deal with the threat.
The argument makes more sense if you assume that rates of criminal behavior are equally distributed across racial groups (which they are not). Then the fact that you placed 8 sensors in minority neighborhoods and only 2 in "white" neighborhoods means you're trying to target minorities because the whites break the law just as often (they don't).
The fact that minorities are more likely to engage in criminal behavior is explained away because they're being targeted! It's circular reasoning to support the original flawed assumption. Just look at the crime rates by race in one of the large cities, it's obvious that the differences are not due to policing, but that certain racial groups do in fact have higher rates of criminality.
What if a disproportionate number of said speed-traps are placed in minority neighborhoods?
That would tell me that a disproportionate number of minorities drive faster than the speed limit.
Why would you place speed-traps in places where people don't speed? Are you really suggesting that the same amount of resources be deployed to crime-free and crime-prone neighborhoods in some sort of twisted idea of fairness?
Rich people have to put their money somewhere and it's best to diversify. Why not spend $1.4 million on a piece of art that you like if you can afford it? You can sell it later if you want. Besides, the auction house takes a cut of the sale so you're actually helping to employ people!
I can see where one could claim legislated discrimination is wrong, but I don't see how you can categorically state that discrimination based on those factors is always wrong.
Take dating for example, it's all about discrimination. Shouldn't people should be free to associate with whomever they want no matter the reason?
There is no need to be a dick in order not to talk to other people.
Ideally no, but sometimes people just can't take a hint.
I work in an open plan office. It is probably the worst environment for the type of work I do (devops). I have a queue of tickets that I'm working and it's technical stuff so I need to focus.
Since it's an open plan, my "office" has no door and no walls. The noise is out of control, averaging about 70 decibels and peaking at 80 to 85. I wear headphones so I can tune it out and concentrate on my tasks.
Even though we have a chat system, I still have people walking up to my desk and standing next to me while I'm wearing headphones and clearly busy on another task. The interruption not only derails what I'm currently doing, but it takes additional time to switch contexts and get back into the flow. They could send me a chat message about their problem, or wait until I'm visibly not busy, but no they stand next to me and interrupt.
Years ago I had someone walk up to my desk, disable the "do not disturb" setting I had enabled on my phone (since I was busy), transfer a call to my desk, take the receiver off hook and hand it to me. I was livid.
Many times people are simply not respectful when it comes to interrupting someone else. I try to be nice about it, but it's extremely frustrating and if I'm already irritated by the problem I'm working on, I just might yell at the person when they interrupt me for some non-essential item that could have waited until later.
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked for an investment bank and am quite familiar with the KYC and AML rules and how they're intended to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, etc.
Money laundering is critical to financing, among other things drug dealers, terrorist organizations, dictatorships, illegal trade, circumvention of sanctions, human trafficking (slavery), theft, fraud, extortion, racketeering, and the list goes on for some time.
That may be true, but shouldn't the individual have a right to financial privacy? If I'm not accused of any crime, then why should I have to prove the source of my money? We don't allow the government into our homes to make sure we're not doing anything nefarious, why should we allow them into our bank accounts?
I don't understand how people deal with the low signal to noise ratio and the deluge of messages; it's like drinking from a fire hydrant.
Every place with a high cost of living has a homelessness problem, because the high cost of living causes people to become homeless.
Source? From what I've seen homelessness is mostly caused by mental illness and/or drug addiction and the inability to conform to society.
Moreover though, forget advocating violence, alt-right terrorism is actually happening, which, a tiny number of exceptions aside, isn't happening on the reverse.
So we all just imagined that Congressional baseball shooting, Antifa rioting at Berkeley, the Trump rally in Chicago that was cancelled, historical monuments in the South being defaced/destroyed, etc?
Face it, It's not a tiny number of exceptions.
There's a big difference between someone who doesn't get vaccinated for measles and someone who doesn't get a yearly flu vaccine.
You're also ignoring the fact that some vaccines are harmful, albeit to a small number of people. Guillain-Barre syndrome is real and people who received the flu shot in the 2008-2009 season possibly at greater risk of H1N1.
It's just as misleading to claim all vaccines are totally safe as it is to claim they cause things like autism.
I live in a village surrounded by countryside and there aren't any woods within kid friendly walking distance. At least three miles, and nearer five for anything decent.
Dig a hole and play in it?
Meh. I didn't really get any better responses when I mentioned a six-figure salary and a corner-penthouse condo than when I omitted those details.
I had much better luck with an honest profile about myself even though I knew it would turn a lot of women off. I ended up hearing from women who said they saw a lot of themselves in what I posted.
Just be yourself. Online dating is even more of a numbers game than it is in real life. You have to be persistent and you can't let rejection, or bots, get you down.
There's a famous article from an employee at OKCupid about how men and women rank peoples' attractiveness. I'm linking to archive.org, since it seems there's been an attempt to scrub the article from the Internet.
Your Looks and Your Inbox
To summarize, mens' attractiveness ratings were found to be distributed according to a normal curve, while womens' ratings skewed to the right; women found 80% of men to be less attractive than average. There is also some data presented showing attractiveness versus messaging rates which help to explain why average looking guys don't hear from many women.
In my experience the bots match and message you first. Usually with something short and generic like, "hey, how are you?"
Once you're aware of them, they're pretty easy to spot. There will be a few messages that don't mention anything from your profile and will quickly try to get you to visit some other paid site to view their "real" profile. On sites like OKCupid that let people create detailed profiles you'll notice the bot accounts have only answered the minimum number of questions needed to complete a profile. On sites like Tinder that only allow superficial profiles I'd expect the problem to be much greater.
You mentioned conspiracy, but it is fact that the Federal government brings thousands of people over from foreign countries each year and settles them in communities without the consent of the local population.
Hmong being imported into Wisconsin.
Churches and social service agencies initially settled Southeast Asian refugees, most of them Hmong, along with some Vietnamese and Laotian people, in Wausau. According to the 1980 U.S. Census, Wausau had fewer than 1% non-White people. There were several dozen Asian immigrants in 1978. By 1980 200 Southeast Asian refugees had settled in Wausau. This increased to 400 in 1982 and 800 in 1984.[5] Over time, the Hmong became the largest ethnic minority in the city.[6] Doualy Xaykaothao of The Atlantic stated that ethnic tension between Hmong and native-born Americans in the state started in the 1980s and spilled over into the following decade.
In 1990 there were 16,980 Hmong in Wisconsin. This was an increase of more than 4,000% from the 1980 figure.
Should we really be all that surprised that some of the locals don't like it?
There was an article on Slashdot back in 2016 about a bot called the Jolly Roger Telephone Company that would do just this.
Jolly Roger Telephone Company
Driving Robocallers Crazy With The Jolly Roger Bot
A Bot That Drives Robocallers Insane
What I don't understand is why anyone would pay that sum of money to get someone into college. You'd get a much better return by investing in an index fund and going to a community college.
The Dash buttons were a good idea, leave them near the items you want to replenish and just hit the button when you notice you're running low.
Unfortunately the button places an order immediately and doesn't handle multiple presses gracefully. There was no way to configure the thing with a maximum quantity to order, no way to hold orders for manual review and no way to specify what day you wanted your items to be delivered. The lack of features greatly limited the usefulness of the device.
People keep talking about unintended consequences, but there's no guarantee that children conceived the natural way won't end up with some genetic issue that we didn't foresee.
In fact, we allow people with known genetic problems to have children. People with hereditary hearing loss or blindness are allowed to reproduce and take the chance that their child will inherit the condition.
How are the risks of unintended consequences from genetic engineering any different? Why shouldn't people be allowed to take the risk if it could mean their child can't catch some terrible disease, or will live a longer life or be more intelligent than their peers?
So far the shutdown has not affected me in the slightest. I wouldn't even know it was happening if I turned off the news.
Same here. I'm a privately employed worker who qualifies for no government assistance so I haven't noticed a thing.
For me the shutdown is just pointing out all of the functions of government that should be done by private companies. TSA employees walking off the job and FDA not performing food inspections? That wouldn't be happening if those organizations were privately held.
Can't you protect yourself from this by never giving out your direct number? Just give people a number from a service like Google Voice that allows you to forward calls to your real number.
There is a huge market out there for the "wife friendly" home system which is how these damn soundbars became so popular in the first place.
Sad, but true. I'm considering having my girlfriend move in and one of the first things she mentioned was moving my front floorstanding speakers and center channel to free up room in the living room.
You don't solve this problem with regulations, you solve it with countermeasures. Nets, RF jamming and even hawks have been successfully used to take drones down.
Consumer drones have been a known threat for many years now. Shutting down an entire airport can't possibly be cheaper than obtaining the equipment necessary to knock them out of the sky. It sounds like the airports are just not prepared to deal with the threat.
Cities make these deals because they bring in revenue. How much will Amazon and its employees generate for the city versus Maggie's?
What about using something like the CAVE2 during development?
The argument makes more sense if you assume that rates of criminal behavior are equally distributed across racial groups (which they are not). Then the fact that you placed 8 sensors in minority neighborhoods and only 2 in "white" neighborhoods means you're trying to target minorities because the whites break the law just as often (they don't).
The fact that minorities are more likely to engage in criminal behavior is explained away because they're being targeted! It's circular reasoning to support the original flawed assumption. Just look at the crime rates by race in one of the large cities, it's obvious that the differences are not due to policing, but that certain racial groups do in fact have higher rates of criminality.
What if a disproportionate number of said speed-traps are placed in minority neighborhoods?
That would tell me that a disproportionate number of minorities drive faster than the speed limit.
Why would you place speed-traps in places where people don't speed? Are you really suggesting that the same amount of resources be deployed to crime-free and crime-prone neighborhoods in some sort of twisted idea of fairness?
Rich people have to put their money somewhere and it's best to diversify. Why not spend $1.4 million on a piece of art that you like if you can afford it? You can sell it later if you want. Besides, the auction house takes a cut of the sale so you're actually helping to employ people!
I can see where one could claim legislated discrimination is wrong, but I don't see how you can categorically state that discrimination based on those factors is always wrong.
Take dating for example, it's all about discrimination. Shouldn't people should be free to associate with whomever they want no matter the reason?
There is no need to be a dick in order not to talk to other people.
Ideally no, but sometimes people just can't take a hint.
I work in an open plan office. It is probably the worst environment for the type of work I do (devops). I have a queue of tickets that I'm working and it's technical stuff so I need to focus.
Since it's an open plan, my "office" has no door and no walls. The noise is out of control, averaging about 70 decibels and peaking at 80 to 85. I wear headphones so I can tune it out and concentrate on my tasks.
Even though we have a chat system, I still have people walking up to my desk and standing next to me while I'm wearing headphones and clearly busy on another task. The interruption not only derails what I'm currently doing, but it takes additional time to switch contexts and get back into the flow. They could send me a chat message about their problem, or wait until I'm visibly not busy, but no they stand next to me and interrupt.
Years ago I had someone walk up to my desk, disable the "do not disturb" setting I had enabled on my phone (since I was busy), transfer a call to my desk, take the receiver off hook and hand it to me. I was livid.
Many times people are simply not respectful when it comes to interrupting someone else. I try to be nice about it, but it's extremely frustrating and if I'm already irritated by the problem I'm working on, I just might yell at the person when they interrupt me for some non-essential item that could have waited until later.