Property values have nothing to do with homelessness. The roots of homelessness lie in the closure of mental-health facilities all across the US and California. These people need mental health counseling more than anything else.
Here is a bit of context for often mentioned closure of mental hospitals/services: at first there was a decision NOT to force anyone with mental issues to be admitted into such establishments against their will unless they dangerous to themself/others. And only ofter that closures of half-empty at that point mental facilities started.
How do you think, how many of those psychos on the streets of SF/SJ will seek institutionalising on their own?
LOL - no. Liberal values include state housing which is proven time and time again to end mass homelessness at a smaller cost than the law enforcement, judicial and social cost of managing homeless populations. Liberal values strongly support taking from the rich to support the poor, including the mentally ill and homeless. You do not see many liberal values at play here.
Conservative values of "everyone must work, no work means you get no pay, no pay means you have no home" is the core cause of modern homelessness.
Not everyone in our society will or can work, and those who don't are lucky enough to be supported privately or publically or they're eventually homeless. This is the reality of a conservative value system.
Also, it's not just mental illness, homeless and mental illness are not synonyms. Many people are homeless, living in cars, couch surfing, and are not mentally ill requiring institutionalization.
That's not the reality of a conservative value system. That's just reality.
to clarify it further: I'm not trying to talk about homelessness in general. That's very complex subject. State housing - haha, welcome to 6th street/any sro in tenderloin, tell me how great that solution is.
Something people here looks like don't understand: there are resources for homeless. May not be enough but it's not nothing. There multiple programs to help. How about places where you should be sober to stay? AND HOW ABOUT STREET PEOPLE WHO'RE SAYING FK THAT, I"LL BE DOING WHAT I WANT? how about all the free rides to all the hospitals and emergencies? do you think they turned down? People here on HN are sitting in warm chairs and projecting themself on others. NOT EVERYONE IS THE SAME. And plenty of people on streets are genuinely fked up. but you may keep thinking about throwing little money toward them and how it suppose to fix it all.
It's pretty ridiculous to say that when in democrat-controlled areas (I will strip the political posturing from the "liberal"/"conservative" weasel words to the teams they refer to, democrats and republicans) there is still plenty of homelessness, very little state housing, and plenty of law enforcement.
DC has been controlled by democrats for decades, as has Chicago, and I know DC has been having a great time selling off homeless shelters so developers can keep gentrification rolling.
Pretending that the other team is responsible for all the world's ills is so juvenile. Can you really not see how partisanship has literally blinded you?
I'd also like to clarify: I was neither assuming nor asserting that the Democratic Party "embodies" "liberal" "values". Rather, I was asserting that the use of the term "liberal" is a weasel word meant to refer to a in-group centered around the Democratic Party, not any political ideology.
To anyone without sufficient knowledge, such tools would lend an air of almost magical ability to the reputation of organizations who already rely on fear, persecution, physical & emotional violence and so on.
The irony being that many of the tools of the trade can be used to break the will of those deemed non-acceptable. I'd suggest you look up "gas lighting".
Points if you understand what my user-name is referencing.
Oh FFS. I dislike Google. But doing tcpdump and forgetting to write -s 64 should hardly be a crime. Just because courts are technologically incompetent doesn't change the ethics of it.
I think that helping dictatorial regimes to commit crimes should be itself a crime. "I just did it for money" is not an excuse legal nor moral.
Sure. If it was just that stuff we'd abolish it.
But recruits (and the public) need to see the atrocities they needlessly commit all to easily. Without knowing the costs of the tool, how can we reasonably use it? Hmm?
> [...] illegal wifi capture [...]
No, nobody should be held liable for breaking stupid laws and making it illegal to listen to radio signals (that even pass through your body) is not only rude and unreasonable, but also 100% unworkable. Such a law only provides broken but apparently working security - the worst kind. Users think it's hard to get into their devices so they don't demand stronger devices, and so actual bad-guys have a field day.