And yet, I've sat on a number of juries. I've no problem voting to find them not guilty nor do I mind jury nullification. Hell, I even understand the legal system fairly well. I actually like jury duty.
I suppose you could argue that I'm not analytical or that I'm stupid but I've a Ph.D in Applied Mathematics. I've been a member of multiple juries and have felt it was my civic duty to do so - and enjoyed the process, the honor, and responsibility.
All of these claims that people make? Yeah... I've spent a lot of time observing the courts (I'll wager more than many/most) and I've never once witnessed anything like the claims. I've never seen 'em skip anyone because of their intelligence. I've never seen 'em not pick someone 'cause of their knowing too many of their rights. That's not to say those things don't happen - just that I've never observed them. It's also pointing out that I've observed a bunch - to the point where I'm confident saying that it's far more than most folks here, unless they're lawyers.
Hell, I've spent more time observing the courts than some practicing lawyers do. (Not all lawyers work in courtrooms.) I've been a 'friend to the court.' And no, I've never seen anyone not picked because they were too smart or because they are too knowledgeable of their rights and responsibilities. Usually, the questions asked aren't really geared to elicit answers that would even indicate such.
I have done so. I've had the whole setup with Exchange and AD and everything - complete with WSUS. I was a MS MVP for years and years before I finally stopped participating. I kept that going for quite a while - it wasn't hard once it was configured. I had the hefty duty MSDN subscription and just kept that after getting done with the MVP program. So, I played a whole bunch.
Could a home user do so? Yes, at great expense. They could do much of it with just getting the Enterprise Edition - if it's available. It's not realistic for a home user to do so. It can be done across the internet - I'd not be surprised to see a company pop up to provide such services as a hosted solution for home users. I am unable to speculate on how successful that might be or how well they might run their business but there's room for a lot of possibilities - including reasonable security.
So, it's entirely unrealistic to expect a home user (even a fairly adept home user) to maintain such a configuration. They can do quite a bit at the router level if they wanted but I'd not even recommend that. I don't mind, for instance, telemetry data. What I do mind is that it's labeled as 'off' when it is still on. Or, so I am told. I have not verified this. If it's not off then phrase it honestly, "Fuck you, it's not off. You can't disable it unless you buy the expensive version." I'd actually be okay with that.
I am not a military lawyer but I did get to work in and around the system. I spent eight years enlisted and a fairly good portion of that was as a chaser/escort. I got to know the UCMJ fairly well. I'd not say that I'm fluent or all knowing, however. So, take this as a grain of salt and the above is just to give you an indicator of what experience I have.
He should not end up in a military courtroom, at all. He was a civilian contractor, not directly engaged in military activity, and it would be hard to argue that he was directly engaged. I believe there's an exception that allows private citizens to be face court martial but only if they're directly involved in the military/military function. The burden is, as I recollect, "would this have been done by military personnel otherwise?"
That's actually a bit of a burden. In this case, my non-lawyerly opinion is that no - this would not have been a job assigned a uniformed employee of the US Gov rep specifically from the DoD. If they tried to try it there, I don't expect it would get past the first hurdle. One of the very first facts they discover is, "Is this person subject to this court?" I'm thinking the answer is no.
Now, I could be wrong... I've been wrong before. Actually, I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. I'm definitely not an authoritative source but I'm probably a bit more likely to be correct than wild speculation and guessing. I could go look it up but I'm actually lazy again today. I've a good deal of familiarity with the justice system and some experience in the military justice arena but that's it. I *think* that's how it works. I'm pretty sure, at any rate. It has been a very long time.
To add some perspective... Other than a bit at the end, this is mostly gibberish below this point:
I've never gone through the process myself but I've handled a number of detainees who were going through the process. I've stood (or sat) through many hearings and procedures. I was the guy who was responsible for ensuring that my charge was present and safe. I know, factually, that one of the very first steps is ensuring the identity and the power of the court over the defendant. I've even dealt with multiple parties who ended up *not* being under the purview of the military justice system but needed to be tried by civilian courts.
More often than not, I drove detainees around and then kept them company while in court. I was the rather unusual sort that was allowed to go armed into a court room - and that even includes bringing a detainee into civilian courts. No, you can not take my ward from me. My role was not just to protect people from the people in my care but it was also to protect the people in my care from those who might do them harm. (It's a long story but I had an incident where I was not allowed in the civilian courtroom while armed. My prisoner and I left. I will not put my prisoner, in handcuffs, in a room full of angry people while not being able to ensure a reasonable level of security for my prisoner.)
An interesting (to me) aside is the stark differences. Snowden might be better off in a military facility. We had a just before the Sally Port to the secure facility, it read: "There, but by the grace of God, go I." I was trained to but did not generally work inside the facility - except to do retrieval and drop-off and the security elements that entails. I later interviewed at a civilian detention facility up in Mass because I wanted a job to help pay for school. I can't even begin to describe the differences. In a military detention facility, there's respect for the prisoners - firm but fair. There's respect, they'll kill you if it's not there. There's also respect from the prisoners. You go to prison as punishment, not to be punished. Your punishment is your lost freedom, there's nothing greater than that except your life.
I saw nothing of the sort in a civilian (going nameless here) facility. I don't know who I'd have disliked more. I might have hated the staff as much as I hated the inmat
I've a fascination with law but am not a lawyer. It started in school. The legal folks had a whole mock courtroom and would pay students to play a variety of roles in that courtroom. They also wanted volunteers and I sometimes had time.
So, that said, I've actually heard a reasoned argument for why the pay for jury duty is the rate that it is. They suggested it shouldn't be raised, at least not significantly, and had some good reasons why it is sound choice to not pay much to a jury member.
Unfortunately, I have the memory of a gnat and that was a long time ago.;-) So, no... I have no idea what the hell they were on about. I've long since forgotten! But, they *did* present a logical argument about why the rates should be low. I believe that a part of that reasoning was that a higher rate would actually (potentially) encourage more people to sit jury duty and that some of them would be doing it for the money - if it paid more than their job, for example, as they'd not have to work so they'd happily get paid for jury duty and they're not actually going to care about their duty as much as someone who does it for a stipend and because they see it as their social duty.
I think that's how it went? I'm not completely sure but I think that's a good part of what they argued. I brought it up in a group of the students at the bar, as I recall. I really don't remember the varied reasons but I'm pretty sure that was a part of it - it was not the only reason. They had quotes and citations and had obviously discussed this in the past as they were well prepared with their opinions. I think there's some room for improvement but I'm inclined to agree with the premise that we might not want to pay too much for the service.
I've given it only a little thought since then and when I mull it over now, I can see the logic in not wanting to pay too much. Ideally, yes ideally, we'd not have to pay at all and we'd not need the money at all. Employers would cover it, where applicable. That's what I did. If you got jury duty, you still got paid. You could bring in a receipt (I know what they pay) and get paid the remainder or you could just not bring in a receipt and we'd pay you everything! Err... It was probably not the most economic choice? It's a trivial amount when you're paying more for your copy/print room(s) than you are for some of the labor. (A subject for another day, or at least a different post.)
And the second thing...
I've got two M.95s and your name always reminds me of them. It's a Dutch firearm - used from 1895 until the end of WWII. They're very nice. My two are in excellent condition and are collector's items but not of great worth. Other than their condition, they're not unique. Condition-wise, there's no record of issue and they are in near-pristine condition. They were presentation models or parade models - unknown which. They're a bit darker than most and the wood was all well chosen with tight, matching, grain. They're quite lovely and are very well made.
If you're unfamiliar with them (I have no idea, given your username) then I went and found you a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They're just a bit darker than that - almost a walnut dark.
I suspect there's plenty of blame to go around. As I just mentioned in a reply to another poster, is the problem that they're not upholding their end of the social contract or is minimum wage too low? Sure, she has some culpability and some further reading indicates she might not be all that frugal and there might be some misinformation/biases being posted. That doesn't mean that this isn't a problem. I'm betting I can find people in her area that are working for less, probably quite a bit less.
She was making (if the math is right about taxes in that area) about $10/hour as a customer support/sales rep, working the phones. That's not reasonable. No, seriously, that's not reasonable. Yes, yes I (the Libertarian) just said that's not reasonable. (Don't read more into that than what I said.)
How do I base that? Someone in that position, in Maine, will make $9 to $14/hour. The median income in my home county is about $22,000. I think the poverty line is about $12,000. That's shit compared to a city, San Fran in particular, and probably should be higher. Yelp shares some of the culpability and needs to uphold their end of the social bargain if they want to be good citizens.
I should probably explain something...
Err... I'm not really an extremist or anything. I'm actually acutely aware that it's quite likely that a story has multiple sides and that society is a complex thing. I'm actually an old-school Libertarian who thinks Rand was an idiot and that anarchy or unregulated capitalism is borderline retarded. Believe it or not, most Libertarians hold similar views - we're just not the noisy ones. In fact, I'm not comfortable with the title but I'm a Socialist Libertarian. In Europe, I'd be a "Social Democrat." Unlike socialist, I used reason and logic to support and find my beliefs.
I want a strong social safety net, reasonable health care, and education because that enables you to be able to use your liberties and appreciate your freedoms more. But, on a pragmatic level, society is a big thing and we're paying for those things already. If we pay for them in bulk, all the evidence shows that they're actually less expensive in the long-run. It's cheaper to feed you and give you a meaningful life than it is to warehouse you in a prison. It's cheaper to feed you than it is to hire goons to stop you from stealing my stuff. It's cheaper to educate you, give you gainful employment, and provide upward mobility avenues than it is to clean up after the mess you leave behind.
That sounds reasonable. We might allow some, minimal - it should be minimal (I think), local control over the basic wage. If they have a tax-base and a population that support the idea (again, Law of Diminishing Returns, the individual, the Commons, and all that) then they should be able to increase (probably not decrease) their basic income dollar amount.
At the same time, we might need to ensure that the people with the power and money do not actually just raise the cost of living by an equal amount.
It kind of negates the point if one could live on $500/mo and the new cost to maintain that same level is $1000/mo.
It's an interesting thought exercise and thanks for making me ponder and hold my views up to scrutiny and refine them. I'm pretty sure it's a good idea to figure these things out before they reach the point where they're forced. I haven't been talking about it much but I'm running for office in my home state. It's a small position (State Senate) and I won't have any real power but I might be able to at least get people talking and thinking about it. It's going to come to a head, at some point, and there are many ways it can go - history suggests it may not be peaceful or go in the most ideal direction.
I read the thread and, sure enough, a couple of 'em seem to be reaching for it. No outright blame - yet. At least none that doesn't appear to be tongue-in-cheek. I do, now, wonder if my comment will color some of the replies and bias it against my supposition.
That said, even if they'd have not been filtered from a taxi service - that's probably still not justification for ignoring laws to operate a business. That's not civil disobedience, that's just being a criminal. That's my only issue with Uber.
So, as much as I might dislike 'em, Uber's not guilty of anything. Even if they'd not have been filtered out in a taxi application, there's no reason to be certain that they'd not have changed today. People snap, not always with a good clear warning. If they gave a good warning then society would be a lot nicer. They don't.
You almost always hear, "He was such a nice man. Nobody knew he had a basement full of puppies and a meat grinder!" You hardly ever hear, "Yeah, I was just waiting for that fucker to snap and kill the whole family with a hatchet Just the other day, in fact. I was telling my wife about how I figured it would be coming right up!"
It might make for an interesting conversation if they'd have been filtered out by regular taxi checks (or not). I'm not sure it'll actually be a good metric or even prevent problems in the future if they change policy. I am not a social scientist, however. While I'd like fairly decent precautionary steps taken - I do not actually expect complete safety.
Well, it's things that they may opt to do - and if I can think of a way to get the data then anyone can figure it out, so it's likely that it won't be long before they're able to use that data. You can do some pretty targeted spear phishing and social engineering with this data, making the most out of it is pertinent, yes? It's why the data might be of value and was what the subject was before the tangent into hash values.
The data, in aggregate, is worth more than just passwords but the passwords are a start and a part of that data. The users include admins, actual Mint maintainers, and things of that nature. My thinking is that if I can figure out ways to make use of it, and to access it, then there are people who are far more adept than I. On top of that, I figure broaching the subject may get helpful and educational replies - and it typically does. It even did this time.
Then by your standards nothing is secure. Alright. We can agree to that. Stop using software that needs security updates. That includes every operating system out there.
That is not actually true. Google is your friend. It happens with surprising frequency, I was kind of surprised too. While I do carry, I have no intent to run in and save you in an active shooter situation. Not a chance. I am not Rambo and I don't like you that much.
More people die due to car accidents than they do to shootings. I'm sure you had a point but it's not clear to me what you're trying to say.
Do you want to have a license to vote? No? Why should this right require a license, other than because you're afraid? Hell, you do far more societal damage with a vote than you do with a firearm.
If I had to guess without any actual information beyond what I've read (which is little) then I'd say, "Three out of the four voices in his head decided today was the day to paint the potato flying jellyfish." But, that's just a guess.
It's also important to wait when these things happen. We may find out tomorrow that he's a known whackjob. We may find out they picked up the wrong person. Not that either of those are particularly likely but that they're possibilities. It's not exactly often that the earliest news at these times is accurate. I caution waiting - every time. Strangely enough, with some squinting, I'm right every time.
I've just opened the thread - I am curious if anyone will try to blame Über. I dislike 'em as much as the next person but they're (quite probably) not even remotely culpable but I'd not be surprised if people try to draw connections. Tenuous connections. Illogical, irrational, and just plain wrong connections... But connections! Wake up sheeple!
No, seriously, I'd not be surprised to find people trying to blame them. I'll find out as the thread progresses.
You know that I respect your opinion, right? But... Commonsense requirements? Expectations? Next thing you're going to be talking about personal responsibility and accountability! No, we can't have that...
(Which does not mean that the companies who sell shit products in misleading ways are not responsible and/or accountable. They should be held to a high standard of integrity.)
That can actually be said for pretty much all automotive safety improvements that are now mandatory. Even safety glass was an option at one time.
Someone above mentioned that if you wanted a Civic (without regulation) that had airbags, ESC, ABS, etc. that it would cost $70,000. Err... That specific car had all those as options before they became mandatory. It was not $70,000. I didn't bother to argue with 'em. I'm lazy and tired.
Yeah, I do all that. It's a lonely task. I don't mean any disservice but I'm not sure how realistic it is. It requires a bit more participation - it's pretty lonely. I listen, I watch, I speak. I think that's my job but I think it's gonna take a whole lot more of us.
Err... If you need to ask a question about banking, I'll do what I can to help you out. There's a lot that I don't know but I'm kind of familiar with it and I'm going to suggest that I'm probably a bit more familiar than you. Don't take that as an insult, you probably program far better than I. There are others here who can give you good information (better than mine) but separating the noise from the signal can be a bit rough.
Umm... They only give you that higher interest rate because they're using your money. Realistically? You wanted a credit union with share and draft accounts. You also need to read the difference between the two. However, a credit union is your best choice (you're likely eligible for at least one and many have shared banking) and probably to spend a few dollars on a financial advisor but you can learn it on your own if you want and take the time to do so. It's complicated but you need only know the basics.
There should be like financial lessons for geeks. It should cover retirement savings, investment strategies, basic accounting, the types of accounts and ways to manage, store, and invest your assets. It should cover various states of liquidity and risk. It should even cover handing a ledger and some simple portfolio managements for a broad overlook.
That means to concede. (Root is cede, to grant so to speak.)
If they don't have it, they can't concede it.
Right now, the laws are fine. They can't concede anything. The "Government" can't really give up what it doesn't have. They really can't make the laws any less restrictive. What would you have them concede per encryption regulations?
You could say that you want them to concede the fight against it - but that's really not accurate when used in context with what they wrote. They are quite clearly wanting the regulations to be changed. They want the government to concede (something?) concerning the laws. What that something is, is a mystery to me. They're quite fine as they are.
There is a subset of people who would agree with #4, with a straight face, and a sincere held belief, yes. Yes, yes there are people who believe that.
I'm really in favor of a meritocracy. I'm quite fond of it. However, there's a Law of Diminishing Returns with everything, pretty much. My current thinking is that we should seriously consider a Universal Basic Wage as well as completely removing the minimum wage. We also should find a way to keep a good amount of power reserved to the individual States and even localities. Unfortunately, that too will have to be protected as it may result in concentrations of assets that end up making the system untenable. Yet reserving some powers to the State is an essential element and not to be overlooked.
An example is, we really can't let something like San Fransisco become an enclave of wealth where those who want to actually work are forced to move. Doing so has too much potential to turn the rest into servitude. So, some rights must be reserved to the State. Well, ideally... I'm pretty sure? That's not the most articulate but, oh well.
It's a near certainty that something has to give. At some point, and we can try to kick the can further down the road, we're going to have to figure this out. The longer the pressure builds, the greater concentration of force when the walls break.
That's neat to know. I did not know that. Obviously, I'm required to say that bats are not birds. 'Cause, you know... It's Slashdot.
At any rate, I did not know that. They protested up a storm. Nobody listened. They were all pretty much approved and there wasn't much else they could do about it by the time I was fully moved in. They were still building some out - and still are. They go out and yell and nobody actually pays attention to them - they get hearings and stuff but I don't think they've actually done more than slow things down and make them more expensive because of court battles and hearings.
It's Maine. Billboards are illegal. So, there were a bunch of people yelling and they're still yelling. I've not paid much attention to them as they're not interested in talking to me. I'm quite positive that they have some legitimate concerns. If I had to liken it to a signal to noise ratio, I'd say there's a lot of both. They're not actually interested in sharing their reasons for their outrage so I've not looked into it at any depth at all - there's not much I can do to help them, even if I were an elected official. But, they're not actually interested in articulating their concerns. I've seen and interacted with some of the more vocal opponents. I'm not actually sure what the majority of their concerns are.
There are a lot of bats in Maine. There are bats around my home all the time. They eat the mosquitoes at night. I like 'em. I have not one but two windmills. They're actually on pretty high masts and the guy that installed them never said anything about bats. I've noticed no decrease in bats. I have not really been counting. Mine are neither big nor are they the typical windmills. They're supposed to be bird friendly - I know that. They never said anything about bats.
As stated, I've not noticed any dead bats or missing bats. I'd probably notice but I wasn't looking out for 'em. I suppose, if I'm slaughtering the bat population then I'm gonna have some choices to make. Hell, sometimes I even get bats in the house. They're interesting to catch - it's a big house and is an "envelope house." The easiest way to get them out is to climb the ladder, open the window that's way up there, take out the screen (damn the mosquitoes), and wait until dark. Trying to catch them in that environment is not likely to be successful. So, I kinda like bats. I'm not slaying some endangered group of bats by generating power from the wind at my level, am I? That'd kind of suck.
Perhaps I am over-complicating it. It does seem like this is an eventuality we need to deal with at some point - on a greater scale than just a few people who still have choices. I'm not sure if that's a slippery slope, by definition, or if it's just a legitimate concern? I guess I see it as something bigger than one person, one company, and one area. We're fast approaching the point where we don't have enough gainful employment to keep going with our current structure.
Yes, we can kick the can down the road or we can start to come up with ideas and ease this inevitable transition. It won't be in our lifetimes but it may not be many more generations before we're in a post-scarcity and leisure class society. There are only so many service jobs and lots of reasons why they might exist only in lower numbers.
So, yes. I could be over-complicating it. That's certainly true. I don't place much stock in this one particular letter or this one particular person. It may sound harsh but, in the scale of things, she's of no importance to me - by herself. From the looks of things, she'll be fine. I do worry that we have some big societal changes ahead and that that sort of upheaval may be very messy, very messy indeed. If we can get it moving in the right direction now, maybe it will make that upheaval less disruptive and violent. So, you're right and I could be over-thinking and making it needlessly complicated. It's more than an individual or even one specific location.
That is true but I'd never do it for money. In fact, you are not obligated to collect or cash any payments made for your service. I have never accepted money for my jury duty service. I know it probably sounds silly but I take my job serious when I'm called to do it. In some States, you can voluntarily submit yourself to the jury pool. I have never done so. I do, however, get called on a semi-regular basis it seems. I've been selected more often than not. I believe in the concept of a "reasonable person" and I'm aware of the burden of proof (I've even sat on civil proceedings) and enjoy the opportunity to ensure that the State meets that burden and not finding guilty of they fail to meet that burden.
Yeah, I know... It sounds odd but I really do enjoy it. No, not for the thrill or for the power. It's definitely not thrilling and it's not actually a lot of power in one person's hand ALL the time (it can be). I'm keen on being as unbiased as possible and dealing in accordance with the limits. I dress up for the occasion and everything. I'd rather avoid specifics but I have been what I felt was the voice of reason, more than once, and prevented a miscarriage of justice because of it. I'm not necessarily proud of having done so - but I am content in my decision.
It is unfortunate that it can cause real financial discomfort (even harm) and I think it might be prudent to consider paying the jurors more. It would also help if people didn't view it as a hardship or a nuisance and saw it as a privilege and an obligation. There are definitely improvements to be considered.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, I've sat on a number of juries. I've no problem voting to find them not guilty nor do I mind jury nullification. Hell, I even understand the legal system fairly well. I actually like jury duty.
I suppose you could argue that I'm not analytical or that I'm stupid but I've a Ph.D in Applied Mathematics. I've been a member of multiple juries and have felt it was my civic duty to do so - and enjoyed the process, the honor, and responsibility.
All of these claims that people make? Yeah... I've spent a lot of time observing the courts (I'll wager more than many/most) and I've never once witnessed anything like the claims. I've never seen 'em skip anyone because of their intelligence. I've never seen 'em not pick someone 'cause of their knowing too many of their rights. That's not to say those things don't happen - just that I've never observed them. It's also pointing out that I've observed a bunch - to the point where I'm confident saying that it's far more than most folks here, unless they're lawyers.
Hell, I've spent more time observing the courts than some practicing lawyers do. (Not all lawyers work in courtrooms.) I've been a 'friend to the court.' And no, I've never seen anyone not picked because they were too smart or because they are too knowledgeable of their rights and responsibilities. Usually, the questions asked aren't really geared to elicit answers that would even indicate such.
I have done so. I've had the whole setup with Exchange and AD and everything - complete with WSUS. I was a MS MVP for years and years before I finally stopped participating. I kept that going for quite a while - it wasn't hard once it was configured. I had the hefty duty MSDN subscription and just kept that after getting done with the MVP program. So, I played a whole bunch.
Could a home user do so? Yes, at great expense. They could do much of it with just getting the Enterprise Edition - if it's available. It's not realistic for a home user to do so. It can be done across the internet - I'd not be surprised to see a company pop up to provide such services as a hosted solution for home users. I am unable to speculate on how successful that might be or how well they might run their business but there's room for a lot of possibilities - including reasonable security.
So, it's entirely unrealistic to expect a home user (even a fairly adept home user) to maintain such a configuration. They can do quite a bit at the router level if they wanted but I'd not even recommend that. I don't mind, for instance, telemetry data. What I do mind is that it's labeled as 'off' when it is still on. Or, so I am told. I have not verified this. If it's not off then phrase it honestly, "Fuck you, it's not off. You can't disable it unless you buy the expensive version." I'd actually be okay with that.
I am not a military lawyer but I did get to work in and around the system. I spent eight years enlisted and a fairly good portion of that was as a chaser/escort. I got to know the UCMJ fairly well. I'd not say that I'm fluent or all knowing, however. So, take this as a grain of salt and the above is just to give you an indicator of what experience I have.
He should not end up in a military courtroom, at all. He was a civilian contractor, not directly engaged in military activity, and it would be hard to argue that he was directly engaged. I believe there's an exception that allows private citizens to be face court martial but only if they're directly involved in the military/military function. The burden is, as I recollect, "would this have been done by military personnel otherwise?"
That's actually a bit of a burden. In this case, my non-lawyerly opinion is that no - this would not have been a job assigned a uniformed employee of the US Gov rep specifically from the DoD. If they tried to try it there, I don't expect it would get past the first hurdle. One of the very first facts they discover is, "Is this person subject to this court?" I'm thinking the answer is no.
Now, I could be wrong... I've been wrong before. Actually, I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. I'm definitely not an authoritative source but I'm probably a bit more likely to be correct than wild speculation and guessing. I could go look it up but I'm actually lazy again today. I've a good deal of familiarity with the justice system and some experience in the military justice arena but that's it. I *think* that's how it works. I'm pretty sure, at any rate. It has been a very long time.
To add some perspective... Other than a bit at the end, this is mostly gibberish below this point:
I've never gone through the process myself but I've handled a number of detainees who were going through the process. I've stood (or sat) through many hearings and procedures. I was the guy who was responsible for ensuring that my charge was present and safe. I know, factually, that one of the very first steps is ensuring the identity and the power of the court over the defendant. I've even dealt with multiple parties who ended up *not* being under the purview of the military justice system but needed to be tried by civilian courts.
More often than not, I drove detainees around and then kept them company while in court. I was the rather unusual sort that was allowed to go armed into a court room - and that even includes bringing a detainee into civilian courts. No, you can not take my ward from me. My role was not just to protect people from the people in my care but it was also to protect the people in my care from those who might do them harm. (It's a long story but I had an incident where I was not allowed in the civilian courtroom while armed. My prisoner and I left. I will not put my prisoner, in handcuffs, in a room full of angry people while not being able to ensure a reasonable level of security for my prisoner.)
An interesting (to me) aside is the stark differences. Snowden might be better off in a military facility. We had a just before the Sally Port to the secure facility, it read: "There, but by the grace of God, go I." I was trained to but did not generally work inside the facility - except to do retrieval and drop-off and the security elements that entails. I later interviewed at a civilian detention facility up in Mass because I wanted a job to help pay for school. I can't even begin to describe the differences. In a military detention facility, there's respect for the prisoners - firm but fair. There's respect, they'll kill you if it's not there. There's also respect from the prisoners. You go to prison as punishment, not to be punished. Your punishment is your lost freedom, there's nothing greater than that except your life.
I saw nothing of the sort in a civilian (going nameless here) facility. I don't know who I'd have disliked more. I might have hated the staff as much as I hated the inmat
Two things, only one of which is salient...
I've heard an argument... Let me backtrack...
I've a fascination with law but am not a lawyer. It started in school. The legal folks had a whole mock courtroom and would pay students to play a variety of roles in that courtroom. They also wanted volunteers and I sometimes had time.
So, that said, I've actually heard a reasoned argument for why the pay for jury duty is the rate that it is. They suggested it shouldn't be raised, at least not significantly, and had some good reasons why it is sound choice to not pay much to a jury member.
Unfortunately, I have the memory of a gnat and that was a long time ago. ;-) So, no... I have no idea what the hell they were on about. I've long since forgotten! But, they *did* present a logical argument about why the rates should be low. I believe that a part of that reasoning was that a higher rate would actually (potentially) encourage more people to sit jury duty and that some of them would be doing it for the money - if it paid more than their job, for example, as they'd not have to work so they'd happily get paid for jury duty and they're not actually going to care about their duty as much as someone who does it for a stipend and because they see it as their social duty.
I think that's how it went? I'm not completely sure but I think that's a good part of what they argued. I brought it up in a group of the students at the bar, as I recall. I really don't remember the varied reasons but I'm pretty sure that was a part of it - it was not the only reason. They had quotes and citations and had obviously discussed this in the past as they were well prepared with their opinions. I think there's some room for improvement but I'm inclined to agree with the premise that we might not want to pay too much for the service.
I've given it only a little thought since then and when I mull it over now, I can see the logic in not wanting to pay too much. Ideally, yes ideally, we'd not have to pay at all and we'd not need the money at all. Employers would cover it, where applicable. That's what I did. If you got jury duty, you still got paid. You could bring in a receipt (I know what they pay) and get paid the remainder or you could just not bring in a receipt and we'd pay you everything! Err... It was probably not the most economic choice? It's a trivial amount when you're paying more for your copy/print room(s) than you are for some of the labor. (A subject for another day, or at least a different post.)
And the second thing...
I've got two M.95s and your name always reminds me of them. It's a Dutch firearm - used from 1895 until the end of WWII. They're very nice. My two are in excellent condition and are collector's items but not of great worth. Other than their condition, they're not unique. Condition-wise, there's no record of issue and they are in near-pristine condition. They were presentation models or parade models - unknown which. They're a bit darker than most and the wood was all well chosen with tight, matching, grain. They're quite lovely and are very well made.
If you're unfamiliar with them (I have no idea, given your username) then I went and found you a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They're just a bit darker than that - almost a walnut dark.
I suspect there's plenty of blame to go around. As I just mentioned in a reply to another poster, is the problem that they're not upholding their end of the social contract or is minimum wage too low? Sure, she has some culpability and some further reading indicates she might not be all that frugal and there might be some misinformation/biases being posted. That doesn't mean that this isn't a problem. I'm betting I can find people in her area that are working for less, probably quite a bit less.
She was making (if the math is right about taxes in that area) about $10/hour as a customer support/sales rep, working the phones. That's not reasonable. No, seriously, that's not reasonable. Yes, yes I (the Libertarian) just said that's not reasonable. (Don't read more into that than what I said.)
How do I base that? Someone in that position, in Maine, will make $9 to $14/hour. The median income in my home county is about $22,000. I think the poverty line is about $12,000. That's shit compared to a city, San Fran in particular, and probably should be higher. Yelp shares some of the culpability and needs to uphold their end of the social bargain if they want to be good citizens.
I should probably explain something...
Err... I'm not really an extremist or anything. I'm actually acutely aware that it's quite likely that a story has multiple sides and that society is a complex thing. I'm actually an old-school Libertarian who thinks Rand was an idiot and that anarchy or unregulated capitalism is borderline retarded. Believe it or not, most Libertarians hold similar views - we're just not the noisy ones. In fact, I'm not comfortable with the title but I'm a Socialist Libertarian. In Europe, I'd be a "Social Democrat." Unlike socialist, I used reason and logic to support and find my beliefs.
I want a strong social safety net, reasonable health care, and education because that enables you to be able to use your liberties and appreciate your freedoms more. But, on a pragmatic level, society is a big thing and we're paying for those things already. If we pay for them in bulk, all the evidence shows that they're actually less expensive in the long-run. It's cheaper to feed you and give you a meaningful life than it is to warehouse you in a prison. It's cheaper to feed you than it is to hire goons to stop you from stealing my stuff. It's cheaper to educate you, give you gainful employment, and provide upward mobility avenues than it is to clean up after the mess you leave behind.
Those are a royal you, not you in particular.
Then is the problem the employer for not upholding their end of the social contract or is it because minimal wage is too low?
That sounds reasonable. We might allow some, minimal - it should be minimal (I think), local control over the basic wage. If they have a tax-base and a population that support the idea (again, Law of Diminishing Returns, the individual, the Commons, and all that) then they should be able to increase (probably not decrease) their basic income dollar amount.
At the same time, we might need to ensure that the people with the power and money do not actually just raise the cost of living by an equal amount.
It kind of negates the point if one could live on $500/mo and the new cost to maintain that same level is $1000/mo.
It's an interesting thought exercise and thanks for making me ponder and hold my views up to scrutiny and refine them. I'm pretty sure it's a good idea to figure these things out before they reach the point where they're forced. I haven't been talking about it much but I'm running for office in my home state. It's a small position (State Senate) and I won't have any real power but I might be able to at least get people talking and thinking about it. It's going to come to a head, at some point, and there are many ways it can go - history suggests it may not be peaceful or go in the most ideal direction.
I read the thread and, sure enough, a couple of 'em seem to be reaching for it. No outright blame - yet. At least none that doesn't appear to be tongue-in-cheek. I do, now, wonder if my comment will color some of the replies and bias it against my supposition.
That said, even if they'd have not been filtered from a taxi service - that's probably still not justification for ignoring laws to operate a business. That's not civil disobedience, that's just being a criminal. That's my only issue with Uber.
So, as much as I might dislike 'em, Uber's not guilty of anything. Even if they'd not have been filtered out in a taxi application, there's no reason to be certain that they'd not have changed today. People snap, not always with a good clear warning. If they gave a good warning then society would be a lot nicer. They don't.
You almost always hear, "He was such a nice man. Nobody knew he had a basement full of puppies and a meat grinder!" You hardly ever hear, "Yeah, I was just waiting for that fucker to snap and kill the whole family with a hatchet Just the other day, in fact. I was telling my wife about how I figured it would be coming right up!"
It might make for an interesting conversation if they'd have been filtered out by regular taxi checks (or not). I'm not sure it'll actually be a good metric or even prevent problems in the future if they change policy. I am not a social scientist, however. While I'd like fairly decent precautionary steps taken - I do not actually expect complete safety.
Well, it's things that they may opt to do - and if I can think of a way to get the data then anyone can figure it out, so it's likely that it won't be long before they're able to use that data. You can do some pretty targeted spear phishing and social engineering with this data, making the most out of it is pertinent, yes? It's why the data might be of value and was what the subject was before the tangent into hash values.
The data, in aggregate, is worth more than just passwords but the passwords are a start and a part of that data. The users include admins, actual Mint maintainers, and things of that nature. My thinking is that if I can figure out ways to make use of it, and to access it, then there are people who are far more adept than I. On top of that, I figure broaching the subject may get helpful and educational replies - and it typically does. It even did this time.
Then by your standards nothing is secure. Alright. We can agree to that. Stop using software that needs security updates. That includes every operating system out there.
Here are 10 cases where armed citizens took down active shooters:
http://www.personaldefenseworl...
Google will find more.
That is not actually true. Google is your friend. It happens with surprising frequency, I was kind of surprised too. While I do carry, I have no intent to run in and save you in an active shooter situation. Not a chance. I am not Rambo and I don't like you that much.
More people die due to car accidents than they do to shootings. I'm sure you had a point but it's not clear to me what you're trying to say.
Do you want to have a license to vote? No? Why should this right require a license, other than because you're afraid? Hell, you do far more societal damage with a vote than you do with a firearm.
> ...I'm still curious about what set him off.
If I had to guess without any actual information beyond what I've read (which is little) then I'd say, "Three out of the four voices in his head decided today was the day to paint the potato flying jellyfish." But, that's just a guess.
It's also important to wait when these things happen. We may find out tomorrow that he's a known whackjob. We may find out they picked up the wrong person. Not that either of those are particularly likely but that they're possibilities. It's not exactly often that the earliest news at these times is accurate. I caution waiting - every time. Strangely enough, with some squinting, I'm right every time.
I've just opened the thread - I am curious if anyone will try to blame Über. I dislike 'em as much as the next person but they're (quite probably) not even remotely culpable but I'd not be surprised if people try to draw connections. Tenuous connections. Illogical, irrational, and just plain wrong connections... But connections! Wake up sheeple!
No, seriously, I'd not be surprised to find people trying to blame them. I'll find out as the thread progresses.
You know that I respect your opinion, right? But... Commonsense requirements? Expectations? Next thing you're going to be talking about personal responsibility and accountability! No, we can't have that...
(Which does not mean that the companies who sell shit products in misleading ways are not responsible and/or accountable. They should be held to a high standard of integrity.)
That can actually be said for pretty much all automotive safety improvements that are now mandatory. Even safety glass was an option at one time.
Someone above mentioned that if you wanted a Civic (without regulation) that had airbags, ESC, ABS, etc. that it would cost $70,000. Err... That specific car had all those as options before they became mandatory. It was not $70,000. I didn't bother to argue with 'em. I'm lazy and tired.
Yeah, I do all that. It's a lonely task. I don't mean any disservice but I'm not sure how realistic it is. It requires a bit more participation - it's pretty lonely. I listen, I watch, I speak. I think that's my job but I think it's gonna take a whole lot more of us.
Err... If you need to ask a question about banking, I'll do what I can to help you out. There's a lot that I don't know but I'm kind of familiar with it and I'm going to suggest that I'm probably a bit more familiar than you. Don't take that as an insult, you probably program far better than I. There are others here who can give you good information (better than mine) but separating the noise from the signal can be a bit rough.
Umm... They only give you that higher interest rate because they're using your money. Realistically? You wanted a credit union with share and draft accounts. You also need to read the difference between the two. However, a credit union is your best choice (you're likely eligible for at least one and many have shared banking) and probably to spend a few dollars on a financial advisor but you can learn it on your own if you want and take the time to do so. It's complicated but you need only know the basics.
There should be like financial lessons for geeks. It should cover retirement savings, investment strategies, basic accounting, the types of accounts and ways to manage, store, and invest your assets. It should cover various states of liquidity and risk. It should even cover handing a ledger and some simple portfolio managements for a broad overlook.
You actually have to follow the conversation.
concessions
That means to concede. (Root is cede, to grant so to speak.)
If they don't have it, they can't concede it.
Right now, the laws are fine. They can't concede anything. The "Government" can't really give up what it doesn't have. They really can't make the laws any less restrictive. What would you have them concede per encryption regulations?
You could say that you want them to concede the fight against it - but that's really not accurate when used in context with what they wrote. They are quite clearly wanting the regulations to be changed. They want the government to concede (something?) concerning the laws. What that something is, is a mystery to me. They're quite fine as they are.
What's stopping a little of Column A and a little of Common B? Might that be viable?
There is a subset of people who would agree with #4, with a straight face, and a sincere held belief, yes. Yes, yes there are people who believe that.
I'm really in favor of a meritocracy. I'm quite fond of it. However, there's a Law of Diminishing Returns with everything, pretty much. My current thinking is that we should seriously consider a Universal Basic Wage as well as completely removing the minimum wage. We also should find a way to keep a good amount of power reserved to the individual States and even localities. Unfortunately, that too will have to be protected as it may result in concentrations of assets that end up making the system untenable. Yet reserving some powers to the State is an essential element and not to be overlooked.
An example is, we really can't let something like San Fransisco become an enclave of wealth where those who want to actually work are forced to move. Doing so has too much potential to turn the rest into servitude. So, some rights must be reserved to the State. Well, ideally... I'm pretty sure? That's not the most articulate but, oh well.
It's a near certainty that something has to give. At some point, and we can try to kick the can further down the road, we're going to have to figure this out. The longer the pressure builds, the greater concentration of force when the walls break.
That's neat to know. I did not know that. Obviously, I'm required to say that bats are not birds. 'Cause, you know... It's Slashdot.
At any rate, I did not know that. They protested up a storm. Nobody listened. They were all pretty much approved and there wasn't much else they could do about it by the time I was fully moved in. They were still building some out - and still are. They go out and yell and nobody actually pays attention to them - they get hearings and stuff but I don't think they've actually done more than slow things down and make them more expensive because of court battles and hearings.
It's Maine. Billboards are illegal. So, there were a bunch of people yelling and they're still yelling. I've not paid much attention to them as they're not interested in talking to me. I'm quite positive that they have some legitimate concerns. If I had to liken it to a signal to noise ratio, I'd say there's a lot of both. They're not actually interested in sharing their reasons for their outrage so I've not looked into it at any depth at all - there's not much I can do to help them, even if I were an elected official. But, they're not actually interested in articulating their concerns. I've seen and interacted with some of the more vocal opponents. I'm not actually sure what the majority of their concerns are.
There are a lot of bats in Maine. There are bats around my home all the time. They eat the mosquitoes at night. I like 'em. I have not one but two windmills. They're actually on pretty high masts and the guy that installed them never said anything about bats. I've noticed no decrease in bats. I have not really been counting. Mine are neither big nor are they the typical windmills. They're supposed to be bird friendly - I know that. They never said anything about bats.
As stated, I've not noticed any dead bats or missing bats. I'd probably notice but I wasn't looking out for 'em. I suppose, if I'm slaughtering the bat population then I'm gonna have some choices to make. Hell, sometimes I even get bats in the house. They're interesting to catch - it's a big house and is an "envelope house." The easiest way to get them out is to climb the ladder, open the window that's way up there, take out the screen (damn the mosquitoes), and wait until dark. Trying to catch them in that environment is not likely to be successful. So, I kinda like bats. I'm not slaying some endangered group of bats by generating power from the wind at my level, am I? That'd kind of suck.
Perhaps I am over-complicating it. It does seem like this is an eventuality we need to deal with at some point - on a greater scale than just a few people who still have choices. I'm not sure if that's a slippery slope, by definition, or if it's just a legitimate concern? I guess I see it as something bigger than one person, one company, and one area. We're fast approaching the point where we don't have enough gainful employment to keep going with our current structure.
Yes, we can kick the can down the road or we can start to come up with ideas and ease this inevitable transition. It won't be in our lifetimes but it may not be many more generations before we're in a post-scarcity and leisure class society. There are only so many service jobs and lots of reasons why they might exist only in lower numbers.
So, yes. I could be over-complicating it. That's certainly true. I don't place much stock in this one particular letter or this one particular person. It may sound harsh but, in the scale of things, she's of no importance to me - by herself. From the looks of things, she'll be fine. I do worry that we have some big societal changes ahead and that that sort of upheaval may be very messy, very messy indeed. If we can get it moving in the right direction now, maybe it will make that upheaval less disruptive and violent. So, you're right and I could be over-thinking and making it needlessly complicated. It's more than an individual or even one specific location.
That is true but I'd never do it for money. In fact, you are not obligated to collect or cash any payments made for your service. I have never accepted money for my jury duty service. I know it probably sounds silly but I take my job serious when I'm called to do it. In some States, you can voluntarily submit yourself to the jury pool. I have never done so. I do, however, get called on a semi-regular basis it seems. I've been selected more often than not. I believe in the concept of a "reasonable person" and I'm aware of the burden of proof (I've even sat on civil proceedings) and enjoy the opportunity to ensure that the State meets that burden and not finding guilty of they fail to meet that burden.
Yeah, I know... It sounds odd but I really do enjoy it. No, not for the thrill or for the power. It's definitely not thrilling and it's not actually a lot of power in one person's hand ALL the time (it can be). I'm keen on being as unbiased as possible and dealing in accordance with the limits. I dress up for the occasion and everything. I'd rather avoid specifics but I have been what I felt was the voice of reason, more than once, and prevented a miscarriage of justice because of it. I'm not necessarily proud of having done so - but I am content in my decision.
It is unfortunate that it can cause real financial discomfort (even harm) and I think it might be prudent to consider paying the jurors more. It would also help if people didn't view it as a hardship or a nuisance and saw it as a privilege and an obligation. There are definitely improvements to be considered.