ItendToDisagree

Do we think Trent Reznor, Thom Yorke, and others may follow suit? I really hope so!!

Isn't there a way to do that? For some reason I thought I read in another source about this that there was a donation type link?

Is there a reason a CEO can't wear a T-shirt? Or do you just mean because of the weather?

Maybe he is wearing a super fancy and expensive invisible suit? :D

Agreed! But at one point there was a 'gold standard' which was backed by an actual thing. Although that thing was to a great extent backed by guns and ammo as well.

Serious question: Could a 'crypto-currency' run on a gold standard? IE MtGox (or whoever) having enough of an actual thing to cover all of the coins? I hadn't thought about that but it is an interesting thought to me.

As pointed out by another reply, if this user had gotten his withdrawal processed, it would show that you more or less have to fly to Japan in person to get your money. If that precedent were set I believe that would negatively impact MtGox's PR in a pretty substantial way.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. It would show that they at least 'have funds' to pay out, rather than what looks like them not having anything (or enough) to cover the coins. I just think that the realization that you need to fly to Japan would also cause a lot of negative PR for them.

^This is true.

While the attempt to contact the CEO in person does push the issue, it is sort of ridiculous to think that they keep 'cash on hand' at the office to cash people out.

As pointed out there are a bunch of reasons to keep withdrawal processes within process especially with a semi-anonymous currency of this type.

2001 was 19 years ago? I didn't know that. That attack is still being used as justification for all sorts of things as well some which are causing their own destabilizing effects. Also there have been other (arguably smaller) acts of domestic terrorism... The Boston Marathon bombing would be one example.

And to quote your prior post:

in any case, similar things happened in 1995, so no, I wouldn't categorize more of the same as an increase in instability.

So by your example, things that happened in 1995 are 'more of the same' but when presented with a counter example in the same time span (and even more recently) it shows that things have changed (reduced instability) because it has been a significant period of time? Check. That makes sense.

I'm checking out of this conversation. The contortions in your logic are just a bit too much for me. Carry on.

According to http://www.ahrq.gov

In general, poor populations have reduced access to high-quality care. While people with low incomes are more likely to be uninsured, income-related differences in quality of care that are independent of health insurance coverage have also been demonstrated (Brown, et al., 2003).

Also this metric has increased over the years:

People without a usual source of care who indicated a financial or insurance reason for not having a source of care.

I seem to recall a pretty drastic race riot right around 1995 in LA. America is also still sounding the alarms about a rather large terrorist attack in 2001.

The parent didn't say that instability had increased, rather economic polarization had, but by what metric are you implying instability has decreased considering your above examples?

But are they still economically disenfranchised? The degree doesn't really matter much in terms of what the parent is saying to my thinking.

It also isn't necessarily true that the change in the level of disenfranchisement is due to growth, or change in anything having to do with the economy, so much as due to changes brought on by the civil rights movements. Things can change on a societal level without being impacted by or impacting directly things at an economic level.

The social instability mentioned in the parent is still going on even with these advances. Just saying 'its better than it was' doesn't make it not a thing.

While what you say is true it does not change the fact that one of the main leverages used by Hitler was the economic inequality that the German public believed had been foisted upon them by the other European powers.

Regardless of how the Reich was built, or oriented politically, economic inequality (and nationalism) were a primary tool used to gain momentum.

You are totally correct that German leaders of business and holders of wealth were courted into the Reich. Many of them from Bayer to IG Farben benefited directly from the concentration camps.

Are you certain that Black or insert minority males are not economically disenfranchised to a greater or lesser degree?

I'm not touching the sexual part with a 10 foot pole cause it bears no relevance in my opinion either. But I do think that many young men are economically disenfranchised in The States.

Edit: In my comment any mention of 'men' should read "and women". I don't mean just males which is another reason I don't think it is important to address the sexual disenfranchisement part.

It's progress at least.

Maybe someday there will be a setting for 'sexless elder god' so Cthulhu and the rest of the gang don't feel left out.

Fair enough, I could see that. I was mostly thinking of it in terms of learned skills, rather than human relations/leadership/politics skills, which I've always felt are more of a thing that people have, or do not have.

I probably shouldn't say its a low-skill or brainless job (in general... though I do often get that feeling from mangers), but I just personally never put it in the class of highly-skilled jobs.

Edit: I guess that I've always just placed it as more of a 'ladder climber' type of job than a highly skilled worker type of job. But to be totally fair that is likely due to my experiences. :)

Is it 'making up statistics' when you give an opinion based on your own personal anecdotal evidence and say as much in the sentence? I understand your attempt to be provocative with your comment, but I don't see even what you said as making up a statistic, unless of course it is untrue in your experience and you literally just made it up.

Fair enough on the rewording but I'd hardly call management high-skill labor akin to the examples I mentioned.

Because income inequality causes all sorts of issues (haves/have nots, concentration of power, etc)

Regarding the difference between pre-WWI and Post-WWII income inequality it seems pretty disingenuous to claim (if you were) that the times (then and now) are similar in economic terms, not to mention quality of life. Between the 50s and 80s or so there was still great growth (for Americans at least) but much less income inequality. Some may argue that constituted a 'sweet spot' in terms of balancing growth with income inequality.

There is some interesting information at the below link regarding the time period following WWII

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629

I'm baffled that Managerial work is lumped into High-Skill jobs...

Easily 80% of managers I've met/worked for have been decidedly low skill. Especially when compared with engineers, research scientists, programmers, designers, etc

Being an editor for Reuters must be tough... Working spell check and all. :D

Anything can be funny. If you want a perfect example (regarding rape, something widely held to be not funny) look up the George Carlin rape bit.

It doesn't matter what the subject is. Anything can be funny.

What happened to "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Hacking, Photoshopping, etc all seem more than reasonable these days...

But I'm pretty sure burden of proof on the prosecution and 'reasonable doubt' went the way of the Dodo years ago.

That didn't stop the original European settlers now did it? ;D

Any state south of the Mason-Dixon line is portrayed as a cartoonish land of religious fanatics, racism, and overreaction.

In truth it is not exactly so, but I personally wouldn't want to live in any of those places. I probably wouldn't be happy living in the mid-west either though.

It generally holds true that these sorts of things can happen in any state now. If you 'threaten' to shoot up a school (no matter how jokingly) you're likely to get reamed for it.

Context no longer matters... There is a zero tolerance policy on certain words and ideas now it appears.

What if they have no use for the product rather than 'don't like' said product? It is quite possible to just not need to use PayPal and still work for them.

Wow. I hadn't seen him before and his picture screamed Gaius Baltar (Battlestar Galactica) / Julian Bashir (Deep Space 9) to me. The Sci-Fi is strong with this one.

The idea of getting vending machines to accept PayPal seems ridiculous. What are the fees on a 0.65 cent candy bar? Does that leave any profit at all for the operator/owner of the machine?

Or am I missing something there? I'm interested to know more about that 'hacking' of a Coke machine he is referring to. Anyone have a link?

The comment was down voted to the point that it is not 'visible' (you can highlight the text to read it). For more info check out:

http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ#downvoted

The FAQ there may be useful for you as a new user in general. :) Enjoy HN

Wow that I did not know! It does seem they could have just put a banner/image on their front page with little effort though.

Apologies for using a shorthand (Wiki) for something that was clearly referencing the parent post (Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc.)... Sorry to ruffle your e-feathers over such a minor thing.

For the record I wasn't 'complaining about words' I was pointing out that the lack of involvement by major players on the internet was a huge detriment to this cause because it failed to reach the 'less advanced' (and arguable majority of) users of the internet.

Perhaps we should attack the system with a... Banana! (Or a handful of Logan Berries)

The fact that Google/Yahoo/Facebook/Wiki didn't promote or get involved with this REALLY hurt the cause...

To many (read: The Majority) of people the above companies are the internet. In the same way the people who think this way used to think AOL was The Internet (Capitals important). It really is sad that this seems to be true and that a couple companies have so much influence on what the internet is and does. But it really did make it easy to downplay the whole thing by saying "If it was so important why didn't Google get involved?"