No need to imagine -- it's already happened in Syria.
No need to imagine -- it's already happened in Syria.
On Twitter, even if you don't follow a person, they can still send you messages. To give another example I encountered (albeit not one involving "hate speech"), this woman online decided that I was the same person as another guy she had a problem with. Her proof? We both like photography. (She's not all there. She also claims to be a prophet of god and that god talks to her and tells her these things. Obviously, saying "you're mistaken" doesn't work.) She would harass me constantly on Twitter and, eventually, on my blog. I ignored it, but still it was annoying to come back and see a dozen messages from her. I'd block/report her and her account would be taken down, but she'd just start a new one up. (At one point, I and a few other people she was harassing found out that she had set up around a dozen accounts ahead of time for the inevitable account suspension.)
Now, her speech to me wasn't hate speech. (She was accusing me of murder/hacking/doing obscene stuff to kids/etc because god told her.) Still, she could easily have been sending me hate speech instead. Is my option in this situation "just shut down my Twitter account and don't use it anymore"? Is the only option for someone who is being harassed to leave the place where they are being harassed?
As far as deporting illegal immigrants goes, I don't see discussing it and the various policy proposals as being hate speech. It's HOW it's discussed that's the bigger issue. Saying "we should deport those illegal immigrants" is fine. Saying "all [derogatory term for Mexicans] should be rounded up and shot" obviously isn't the same thing. I welcome a rational immigration discussion. Unfortunately, there are many who use the discussion's opening to shout racist rants. This hurts both sides as the left reacts to the racists and the right has their reasonable plans drowned out by hate. (It's one reason why I'm hoping the GOP will fracture so that it can kick out the crazies and reformulate itself as a Reasonable Conservative party. I might be left-of-center, but I want reasonable options out there to keep the Democrats in check.)
Finally, I agree that I wouldn't want to see Twitter, Facebook, etc ban people for spurious reasons. People shouldn't be banned because the CEO of Twitter believes X and someone tried posting a reasonable argument why X is wrong. However, if someone is posting pure hatred and is harassing people, they should be kicked off. That's not fostering communication. That's trying to scare people into silence so the racists/bigots can force their view onto America.
The conference produced data showing that there are approximately 100,000 jobs available in Minnesota that can't be filled because of lack of skills or lack of interest.
That sentence is missing one clause: "At the salaries/wages/benefits being offered for those positions."
A "skills gap" makes no logical sense - if there is sufficient demand for products that you could hire that many people, then there is sufficient demand that you could train people on the job and still afford it. The other possibility is that it's not a skills gap, but a certification/licensing gap, which means you need to work with your certification boards to start allowing more people through the certification process by opening more schools and/or funding more people to get those certifications. Or in some cases, reducing certification requirements. I'm not even talking about medical or emergency services or anything: beauticians for instance - have you ever seen how many hours they have to put in to be allowed to cut hair and apply makeup (granted, sharp objects and potentially nasty chemicals, but sill...)?
Either way, ultimately there is no "gap" - it's a mismatch in labor supply and demand at some price level.
Well, if you want data, according the social security adminsitration the average wage has gone up by about $8000 since 2010; however the median wage has gone up by something more like $3000.
This pretty much tells you what you'd expect under trade liberalization: it helps higher wage workers with specialized skills more than it does commodity labor.
The key to understanding data like this, as a sociology professor once told me, is to disaggregate it. If you do you'll see that while the averages and even median that looks fairly rosy over the last thirty years, the picture for median and below has been almost flat for a generation.
That doesn't sound too bad. Sure the wealthy and the well-to-do are getting richer, but nobody (at least no economic slice -- geography tells a different story) is doing worse. But even that result has to be disaggregated. On one hand you have only a modest increase in the overall cost of consumer goods (thanks free trade!); this modest increase along with modest compensation increases produces no growth or loss of purchasing power below median income.
What this means is that median income people can buy a lot more TVs and home entertainment crap than they could in the 70s, but as that stuff has become cheaper paths to upward mobility have been closing and paths to downward mobility have been opening.
It's remarkable how young so many of these pioneers were, which is why a few of them are still alive today.
I started mucking around with computers in high school in the 70s and when I got my first job in the 80s some of these guys were still working. I once sat next to a guy at a banquet who was probably only ten years older then than I am now. He regaled me with tales of his lab getting the IBM 701 in the mid 50s, which was exciting because it was, in his words, "a stored program jobbie." We could talk each other's language because the obsolete hardware I learned on wasn't much more advanced than the stuff he worked on as a young man. I look at the front panel of the 701 or the Stretch, and it makes perfect sense to me.
When these guys started dying off in the 90s, I remember a kind of stunned disbelief. Computer guys just didn't die. That was something that happened to old people.
People on slashdot would have a hard time multiplying a number by 0.4
Indeed they would not. However they do sometimes stumble about when to multiply a number by 0.4.
Get rid of paper money first. Replace it with large denomination coins. This would eliminate the cost of printing paper money, which is more expensive because paper is less durable. It maintains most advantages of paper currency, except for one: making large cash purchases.
That's the reason this has been suggested as a way to curb drug trafficking. The highest denomination coin currently in US circulation is $1, and weighs about 8.1 grams. At around $20,000 per kilogram, to buy a kilo of coke a middleman would have to fork over 357 pounds of Sacajaweas. Even if you minted $20 coins that weighed about twice as much, you'd still need over thirty pounds of coins to by a kilo. However transactions in the sub-thousand dollar range would remain quite easy. It'd be a cinch to carry enough cash to cover dinner for two, with wine, at a three star restaurant in Manhattan. Or penny candy, although that cost a dime these days.
The basic strategy is the same: discourage some cash transactions. It's just that it makes more sense to discourage big cash transactions.
Well, I don't really see that this is a Trump trolling. It's a genuine news story, and it is an interesting question what the new administration will do about it -- if anything. Especially as Trump's proposed Secretary of Defense (Jim Mathis) really, really wants to contain Iran, and Iran's cyberwarfare is one of the issues he's mentioned. Mathis is aggressive and sometimes impolitic, but he doesn't come across as a fool.
On the other hand the Secretary of State position is up in the air. Currently in the running according to transition team leaks: Mitt Romney, David Petraeus, Rudy Giuliani, and John Bolton. That's quite a range there.
I know this is targeted at Donald Trump, but let me take this opportunity before things go any further to say: let's leave the kid out of it.
But we also have companies, which occupy a space between an individual and society in total.
Not necessarily. I agree in the case where a company has an entrenched monopoly which is protected by serious barriers to entry. But in the case of Twitter there are alternate social media platforms available. And even if they all banned you for your KKK activities, it's not really that hard to create a social media app that can support a broadly unpopular viewpoint.
If all else fails, lower your standards.