AngrySkillzz

No; if you add a random delay, your adversary can just repeat the attack multiple times and the timing data will average out to the real value, removing your added noise. It might increase the time/number of observed messages needed to perform the attack, but it won't defeat it.

It's relative to the value of the land though. The value of the small area your skyscraper occupies in downtown Manhattan or wherever is probably extremely valuable. Thus, high land taxes to be split among the occupants. It's hard to say whether your tax burden would go up or down without hard numbers, though.

Herman Cain and Rand Paul are both non-lawyers. Cain actually has an undergrad degree in mathematics and a masters of computer science, surprisingly.

That's why a lot of people (myself included) are so cynical about the request. We all know the intelligence community has experience with side channel attacks, decapping processors, etc. But they've apparently decided not to use them in this case, "in the interest of time."

If they really wanted that data, they could get it with their current capabilities. They don't really want that data; they want the legal precedent to compel companies to subvert their own security mechanisms, and they want to intimidate one of their harshest critics (Cook). That's part of their broader strategy; if we can compel you to break security you built, you build security you can't break. The next logical question is whether they can compel you to not build security mechanisms you cannot break in the first place. That's the legal question the FBI really wants to ask.

Of course the industry response is muted; this is the chilling effect that we were all worried about. Most Big Co's don't want to put themselves in opposition to an organization as powerful and well-funded as the US intelligence apparatus. I'm sure they are all on Apple's side, but are less willing to speak out about it because they fear the consequences.

If you're cynical, you might think that this case is all about setting precedent and trying to scare one of the FBI's biggest opponents on the topic of data security (Cook). We know they have other options for cracking the phone in question (decapping, side channels, etc.). They want legal precedent for installing backdoors, and they want to scare Apple and other companies out of providing security features. No wonder those companies are hesitant to speak up.

Google has a lot to lose in this debate though. If government encroachment on security/privacy online becomes enough to worry people, they'll be less willing to share data. Less data means less effective advertising and lower rates, killing Google's business model.

I stand corrected on this one actually. Sundar Pichai tweeted in support of Cook.

I doubt it. Google has shown little spine so far in standing up to the intelligence community or in securing user data. They spent some legal money to defend Appelbaum and encrypted GMail data in transit between data centers, but that's all that comes to mind.

Standing with Cook would be a good step for them but I'm not optimistic.

The emails are bad, but I also think their product is terrible.

Yeah, Google web apps must have some scary Javascript bloat going on. I remember when GMail was lightning fast; now it takes 5-10 seconds just to load the first page of my inbox and chat windows.

In addition, there is some strong evidence linking medium-term St. John's Wort use with cataracts due to photosensitivity. This makes it risky to combine with light therapy, which of course a lot of people do anyway.

> the reason people are suffering now is the level of monetary inflation

I don't think any respectable economist actually agrees with you on that. The increase in the monetary base during QE was paired with a collapse in the money multiplier. Most of that cash stayed in reserve at banks (see 'Repeat After Me: Banks Cannot And Do Not "Lend Out" Reserves'). Price inflation is nowhere in sight; inflation is below historic levels and even slightly below the Fed's inflation target.

As for the original question, the general idea seems to be eliminating most other forms of government welfare programs (TANF, SNAP, social security, etc.) since basic income will replace them, along with redistributive increases in income/capital gains/wealth taxes.

Interesting couple of Reddit comments on the relevant water chemistry in this situation. [1]

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/41gqfe/is_...

I'm not totally convinced that people actually "want" all that ad-supported content, if in this case we're talking about Internet articles and television programs. We consume it when it's there and easy to obtain, but that's a pretty low bar in terms of wanting something. Who's to say that we wouldn't find better uses for our time if all of that content disappeared? Maybe something we actually cared about enough to pay for?

It's not that it was warm "this one year," it's another data point in the pattern of record-breakingly warm years over the past few decades. Checkout the animation in this Bloomberg report if you want a better idea.[1]

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-01-20/2015-was-t...

Tech stocks and small cap stocks tend to have a pretty high beta too, so it's not super surprising that Square's price would exaggerate recent market movements.

Some serious judgement from sama in that comment. Maybe "average people" would like us techies more if we weren't so sanctimonious in addition to being affluent and insular.

In Schiller's "Irrational Exuberance," where he discusses bubble formation and deflation, he refers to it as "new era thinking;" the idea that even if the economics of the present seem crazy, it's totally going to work this time because we're in a new era. Things are different from what happened last time, really.

The punchline is that basically every bubble that ever existed was characterized by new era thinking. Looking at it like a Bayesian, the presence of new era thinking is a high-confidence indicator that you're in a bubble.

Yeah, that's the part that I'm concerned about. All the companies providing development tools, SaaS, process management, education/training, staffing, etc. for tech startups are done for if investment collapses.

Maybe a Solowheel or equivalent for portability's sake. It would mean less exercise though.

Is it possible that you aren't getting real people as new users? I don't know how you do your metrics, but it's possible they are bots/clickfarmers/etc.

> "Coming from academia, I was trained to fiercely defend my intellectual territory, pissing all over anything that seemed remotely close to my area of interest."

Apparently the author was unable to break that habit.

Rebellion and nihilism are both themselves relatable human experiences.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the notional value of derivatives or derivatives "blowing up." They had a liquidity crisis because of fear; people stopped trusting their commercial paper and were skeptical of lending to them with repos backed by difficult-to-value mortgage-backed securities.

It's naive to think that the Fed just uses some simple Taylor rule or Philips curve model in their policy decisions. Along with having a full staff of economists and research assistants doing econometrics, they have sophisticated microfoundational computational models like the NY Fed's DSGE model[1] (that they recently open-sourced in Julia[2]). There's a lot more to macroeconomic prediction than just "adding another variable."

[1] http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/09/forecas... [2] https://github.com/FRBNY-DSGE/DSGE.jl

They released their implementation note here [1]. The Fed completely uncapped the ON RRP program, along with pushing IOER up to 50 basis points as expected. Fed is sending a signal that they will use RRP to keep the FF rate near their target by any means necessary.

[1] http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/2015...

You think economists at the Federal Reserve don't know all of those things?

> SV, entrepreneurship, and startup culture have had such a profound effect on the west

Only in your tiny bubble. People seriously believe this?

It could be both; that when young men have "traditional masculinity" exposed as bullshit (which I agree with) and pulled out from under them, they have difficulty understanding themselves in a world without such a framing device.