I'm not sure what any of that has to do with unionisation though and I don't see those traits as pertaining to any given political stance.
Hardened conservatives are strong on individual responsibility but also show empathy. Socialists emphasise shared responsibility as a means of sharing the burden of their conscience.
Perhaps other terms would be more useful to differentiate political perspectives.
Leftism is inherently a simplistic political perspective that presumes all political views fit on a linear scale.
It's such a childish notion that it lacks any credibility in adult discourse and is thus pointless to compare to also simplistic but at least defined philosophies such as socialism.
I don't need to be a rich American to realise you aren't even attempting a sensible conversation here.
You're competing for work with people earning $8k/year. Even in the US over half of households have less than $60k/year income. That's households, not individual salaries.
$100-200k/year is a great salary. If you can't afford to live on that the issue is not the fucking salary.
Three explicitly socialist policies on which the nazis campaigned: - farmers should be given their land - pensions should improve - public industries such as electricity and water should be owned by the state
Don't be fooled by the nominally socialist remains in the German state after the Nazis came into power; they were all ruses, smoke and mirrors to keep the masses calm
Party delivers on election promises, you claim it's ruses, smoke and mirrors?
totalitarian, authoritarian and very much right wing dystopia.
Totalitarianism and authoritarianism are explicit characteristics of communist states such as the USSR and Maoist China so I'm not sure they have any relevance in a discussion on the extent to which the Nazis were socialist.
Your attempts to link the left to Nazism is laughably pathetic, particularly when you take into account how many socialists and communists put into the concentration camps or outright just killed.
Socialists aren't communists. The nazi party also campaigned on a platform stating that communists were a threat to the nation that must be eliminated.
Do you know what happened to anybody that opposed the state in Nazi Germany? Being socialist was entirely fucking irrelevant. Here's a fucking hint for you: You actually linked to the Night of the Long Knives, in which the Nazis murdered, erm, Nazis and conservatives.
Unless you're claiming that by murdering nazis the nazis were murdering socialists. In a way you're right but I guess you didn't think that one through.
. In fact: while health insurance companies (as a timely example) typically consume about a 3% overhead of healthcare costs, the government entities that run medicare and the VA consume over 8% - government, lacking any competition and profit motive, is MORE THAN TWICE as inefficient in healthcare.
What if you take into consideration the role of medicare as a safety net for people the insurance companies deem too great a risk? You know, the expensive ones.
What if you take into consideration the health complications and issues caused by active service that give VA a more complex user community than normal insurance companies?
It's difficult to argue with someone who doesn't even understand the basic
I know, but I'm doing my best.
It's not your data
Yes, it is. It's my data as much as it's their data. They are constrained by law in how they can use that data precisely because it's my data.
you agreed to allow them to collect it when you applied for and started using a card
My permission or otherwise does not change the status of the data. It's still my data.
I can write down your name, address, telephone number, email address, credit card number and bra size with or without your permission. I can also broadcast it over the internet, without your permission. I wont be breaking the law.
The moment I start doing that as a business and not a private individual I am beholden to properly protect that data and use it only in accordance with the law. There are limits to what I can do, whether you give me your permission or not.
No, you are not directly paying for fraudulent use of your card. That comes out of profits, and is potentially spread across all customers, whether their card was used fraudulently or not.
So I'm indirectly paying for fraud across all customers. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Individual transactions are being evaluated to determine if they are likely fraudulent.
How do you determine if a transaction is fraudulent? I'll help you out here: You assure that it originates with someone authorised to make it.
YOU are not being assessed as a fraud risk.
My transaction is being assessed to determine whether it comes from me or not. That means that yes, I am being assessed as a fraud risk.
Without confirming that the transaction comes from me they have to reject it, and that means that they are assessing me.
Put another way: It is not assessing whether or not you are likely to commit fraud, but attempting to determine if a charge being made to your account is likely you vs someone attempting to impersonate you and defraud the merchant.
Exactly. They're using data they hold about me, my possessions and my behaviour to identify me. It's an almost canonical description of personal data.
The existence of adequate power to maintain accurate timekeeping is not evidence of radio signals while disconnected, even if I were to accept StackExchange as an authoritative source.
I do not have an iPhone so Snowden's comments - even if true - do not apply. My phone can not be remotely switched on, and can not be tracked while switched off. Sorry.
GDPR does not give you access to this data in Europe because it is not personally identifying information.
My credit card usage data sure as fuck is personal data and that brings it under GDPR.
these are standard anti-fraud measures banks have been doing for decades.
It's reasonable for people to be able to understand how they're being assessed as a fraud risk, especially given the automated nature of those assessments.
The fact the OP just discovered how banking works doesn't make it some vast invasion of privacy.
You don't need to understand how banking works to have your privacy invaded.
Whether it's a justifiable invasion of privacy is a more pertinent question.
The thing is the reports of the trial/conviction usually also explain why reporting was restricted - if it was.
It's possible that this one wasn't restricted, just never reported on by anybody. The UK press aren't mentioning any reporting restrictions at all. Unless additional references are found I can only conclude Motherboard are being their usual shit selves.
Slashdot Mirror
"Baby jails" is a highly emotive term used to demonise the people enforcing the law.
Would you rather they throw the children on the streets?
What, you're still at it? It must be hard going through life with so little comprehension of the world around you.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with unionisation though and I don't see those traits as pertaining to any given political stance.
Hardened conservatives are strong on individual responsibility but also show empathy. Socialists emphasise shared responsibility as a means of sharing the burden of their conscience.
Perhaps other terms would be more useful to differentiate political perspectives.
Leftism is inherently a simplistic political perspective that presumes all political views fit on a linear scale.
It's such a childish notion that it lacks any credibility in adult discourse and is thus pointless to compare to also simplistic but at least defined philosophies such as socialism.
I don't need to be a rich American to realise you aren't even attempting a sensible conversation here.
How fucking detached from reality are you?
You're competing for work with people earning $8k/year. Even in the US over half of households have less than $60k/year income. That's households, not individual salaries.
$100-200k/year is a great salary. If you can't afford to live on that the issue is not the fucking salary.
Well now, aren't you being a cunt today.
Here's a fucking clue for you: Satan doesn't exist. So anybody that you decry as a satanist is in fact worshipping.. nothing.
Is that really worth such rancid fury?
Three explicitly socialist policies on which the nazis campaigned:
- farmers should be given their land
- pensions should improve
- public industries such as electricity and water should be owned by the state
Don't be fooled by the nominally socialist remains in the German state after the Nazis came into power; they were all ruses, smoke and mirrors to keep the masses calm
Party delivers on election promises, you claim it's ruses, smoke and mirrors?
totalitarian, authoritarian and very much right wing dystopia.
Totalitarianism and authoritarianism are explicit characteristics of communist states such as the USSR and Maoist China so I'm not sure they have any relevance in a discussion on the extent to which the Nazis were socialist.
Your attempts to link the left to Nazism is laughably pathetic, particularly when you take into account how many socialists and communists put into the concentration camps or outright just killed.
Socialists aren't communists. The nazi party also campaigned on a platform stating that communists were a threat to the nation that must be eliminated.
Do you know what happened to anybody that opposed the state in Nazi Germany? Being socialist was entirely fucking irrelevant. Here's a fucking hint for you: You actually linked to the Night of the Long Knives, in which the Nazis murdered, erm, Nazis and conservatives.
Unless you're claiming that by murdering nazis the nazis were murdering socialists. In a way you're right but I guess you didn't think that one through.
. In fact: while health insurance companies (as a timely example) typically consume about a 3% overhead of healthcare costs, the government entities that run medicare and the VA consume over 8% - government, lacking any competition and profit motive, is MORE THAN TWICE as inefficient in healthcare.
What if you take into consideration the role of medicare as a safety net for people the insurance companies deem too great a risk? You know, the expensive ones.
What if you take into consideration the health complications and issues caused by active service that give VA a more complex user community than normal insurance companies?
What if you pull your head out of your arse?
Ah, another post lacking in imagination, creativity or indeed content.
You're embarrassing yourself.
It's difficult to argue with someone who doesn't even understand the basic
I know, but I'm doing my best.
It's not your data
Yes, it is. It's my data as much as it's their data. They are constrained by law in how they can use that data precisely because it's my data.
you agreed to allow them to collect it when you applied for and started using a card
My permission or otherwise does not change the status of the data. It's still my data.
I can write down your name, address, telephone number, email address, credit card number and bra size with or without your permission. I can also broadcast it over the internet, without your permission. I wont be breaking the law.
The moment I start doing that as a business and not a private individual I am beholden to properly protect that data and use it only in accordance with the law. There are limits to what I can do, whether you give me your permission or not.
No, you are not directly paying for fraudulent use of your card. That comes out of profits, and is potentially spread across all customers, whether their card was used fraudulently or not.
So I'm indirectly paying for fraud across all customers. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Ah, another masterpiece of a post. You truly know how to engage in spirited debate.
Individual transactions are being evaluated to determine if they are likely fraudulent.
How do you determine if a transaction is fraudulent? I'll help you out here: You assure that it originates with someone authorised to make it.
YOU are not being assessed as a fraud risk.
My transaction is being assessed to determine whether it comes from me or not. That means that yes, I am being assessed as a fraud risk.
Without confirming that the transaction comes from me they have to reject it, and that means that they are assessing me.
Put another way: It is not assessing whether or not you are likely to commit fraud, but attempting to determine if a charge being made to your account is likely you vs someone attempting to impersonate you and defraud the merchant.
Exactly. They're using data they hold about me, my possessions and my behaviour to identify me. It's an almost canonical description of personal data.
So glad that you agree.
the usage data sure as fuck is their business data
It's also my personal data. Maybe you want to broadcast that you buy ovipositors from dragon dildos but most people would prefer discretion.
they can use to prevent fraud
Sure, I'm not challenging that. I am challenging that it's not my data and that they can process it without me being able to query how and why.
which they, not you, end up paying for
Technically all of their costs are covered by investments, loans and customers, so yes, I am paying for fraud.
The existence of adequate power to maintain accurate timekeeping is not evidence of radio signals while disconnected, even if I were to accept StackExchange as an authoritative source.
I do not have an iPhone so Snowden's comments - even if true - do not apply. My phone can not be remotely switched on, and can not be tracked while switched off. Sorry.
For someone complaining about a lack of substantive posts you certainly have a very high noise to content ratio.
Have you considered growing up at some point?
That's because their fraud prevention systems are helping keep their costs so low that they can afford to profitably offer free banking services.
GDPR does not give you access to this data in Europe because it is not personally identifying information.
My credit card usage data sure as fuck is personal data and that brings it under GDPR.
these are standard anti-fraud measures banks have been doing for decades.
It's reasonable for people to be able to understand how they're being assessed as a fraud risk, especially given the automated nature of those assessments.
The fact the OP just discovered how banking works doesn't make it some vast invasion of privacy.
You don't need to understand how banking works to have your privacy invaded.
Whether it's a justifiable invasion of privacy is a more pertinent question.
If they add explosives to the 5G collar they can also remotely deal with the next Foot & Mouth outbreak.
I don't know Snowden either, but I've seen and read plenty of the material he revealed.
None of it included
Even when turned off, if you have a sealed battery it still pings cell towers while "off".
It's easy for you to convince me though. Just provide me with a link that supports this claim.
Ah, further nonsense.
One day you may actually grow up and be able to converse with other people. One day.
Flying above clouds does nothing to avoid this
I think the idea is that you fly the aircraft and its payload somewhere that there wont be high level winds on the day you want to launch.
Although at 189mph that could take a day or two all by itself.
Strange. Here I was, expecting a thinking man to provide references, resources and evidence that he wasn't a paranoid fool.
You failed.
Even when turned off, if you have a sealed battery it still pings cell towers while "off".
I don't believe you.
After https://slashdot.org/comments.... I finally heard the BBC reporting on the radio this morning that Wikileaks have advised that the cat is ok.
No mention of how Assange is doing, but at least they finally covered the important aspect of the story.
The thing is the reports of the trial/conviction usually also explain why reporting was restricted - if it was.
It's possible that this one wasn't restricted, just never reported on by anybody. The UK press aren't mentioning any reporting restrictions at all. Unless additional references are found I can only conclude Motherboard are being their usual shit selves.