People send postcards all the time precisely because for the most part they don't care about privacy in their mail. In my personal life I can't think of a single example where I sent mail that I wanted to keep private (outside of maybe mail that had my SS#). I think most people are rather indifferent.
"If you hide your mail inside envelopes, does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer, or maybe a paranoid nut"
The main function of the envelope is to tied a bunch of papers together so they don't get separated in the mail.
So it would be OK if your bank statements came rubberbanded together (or in transparent plastic "patriot envelopes") with your balances showing (for your convenience)? How about credit card statements showing what you owe? The results of that HIV test maybe?
No no no, if you argue like this you have already chosen the wrong battleground for this debate. Your Email and meta data is not open to everyone but only to a (")trusted(") third party: to law enforcement. People (rightly) assume that the stuff that most of the people want to keep private from their peers (conflicts with their spouse, sexual orientation and kinks, financial status, health issues) isn't of interesting to the NSA data analyzer.
The real problems arise if data is put together and interpreted against your will and probably without your knowledge. Imagine an ad network that combines your location profile, your Payback data and name/address and sells that to an insurance company which decides to not have you as a customer, because your are probably overweight (drives by car, no visits to any places associated with sport, buys a lot of food). Or imagine an automated alarm that is triggered when you try to enter the country, because you travel with three coworkers from Iraq and you have written an email to your friend telling him you intend to "devastate the USA" (meaning to beat the American branch of your company in a friendly soccer game after work). You cannot rectify these misunderstandings as nobody is telling you why you now always get the special attention of the TSA or why your insurance application is denied.
This is the stuff I really dread in the current focus on big data.
> People (rightly) assume that the stuff that most of the people want to keep private from their peers (conflicts with their spouse, sexual orientation and kinks, financial status, health issues) isn't of interesting to the NSA data analyzer.
That doesn't bother me at all. Other than your medical information, I'm pretty sure the government already knows all that information. And I'm not really sure how them knowing my HIV status leave me at a disadvantage.
Well they are currently fixing that part about not knowing your medical information. People are far too willing to give up their privacy if they can save a buck
This is the case with every insurer (unless one operated blind and didn't know what it was cutting checks for?) but government at least answers to anti-discrimination standards. If this became normal practice among insurers, then you'd be entirely screwed.
I think there's a misunderstanding. The author doesn't mean actual postcards – like holiday greetings and the like – those are actually sent in the public and nobody cares. The author means sending letters without envelopes.
The correlations you present don't inform the nature v nurture debate at all.
The pro-nature side would simply contend that wealth correlates with more advantageous genetics and that the success of their prodigy mostly has to do with the genetics they pass down, and less to do with the economic advantages presented to them
Maybe I didn't make it very clear but I was responding to daniel-cussen's sarcastic comments about "the progressive agenda".
The pro-nature side would simply contend that wealth correlates with more advantageous genetics
Seems like this is easily testable by looking at the distinction in, say, educational outcomes between "old" and "new" money. Are you aware of any citations supporting this hypothesis?
Well the trophy for most BS per capita definitely goes to the Chinese.Unfortunately If I see a chinese name on an IEEE article and it's not from a reputable university, I skip it.
As for clearing out toxins. It's been known for years that sleep clears free radicals from the brain. That's why very long term sleep deprivation can led to brain damage, and why if you take modafinil you aren't shielded from the physiological adverse effects of sleep deprivations (though mentally you'll be fine).
Woudn't raising the minimum wage mean less factories being built in Bangladesh and there fore more women that need to work the fields and live the old/worse lifestyle?
I know that for instance in China wages have gone up, and now companies are more reluctant to build new factories there.
Yes, you'd have to define inherently corrupt. Since it could be genetic, cultural, situational... etc.
And even then, you can't really jump to the conclusion that we are all the same.
Being corrupt or warlike are, in my opinions, just traits. They could be evolutionary adaptations to various environmental situations, for all anyone knows. Everyone on Earth is different, with different traits... Africans included. I'm not saying that's what Africans are, but I'm also saying you can't make the claim that those aren't inherent traits. It's a total possibility and nothing should be left out for scientific and reasonable analysis.
People send postcards all the time precisely because for the most part they don't care about privacy in their mail. In my personal life I can't think of a single example where I sent mail that I wanted to keep private (outside of maybe mail that had my SS#). I think most people are rather indifferent.
"If you hide your mail inside envelopes, does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer, or maybe a paranoid nut" The main function of the envelope is to tied a bunch of papers together so they don't get separated in the mail.