What would those shortcomings be? I think that networked software systems should be forward-compatible, so that new features can be introduced without breaking every existing client. Some programmers assert the only way to innovate is by having everyone run the latest version of their software and excluding competing implementations. You can see this phenomenon not only with Signal, but also, for example, with systemd.
to be honest, finding out that someone else disclosed something very similar in the past has been a big contribution to my final decision to publish the post.
As long as you don't break their laws the experience is fine. To be honest, I'm more frightened of going to America as a non-white person where even obeying the laws can result in death.
Edit: If you disagree with my post please add to the conversation rather than just down-voting.
There was no attempt to excuse human rights abuses in the post you are responding to. Only a comment about visiting such places vs the US while brown.
In general despotic regimes love visitors who are willing to keep their opinions about the local political situation to themselves no matter what sort of person they are. Places like the US tend to be indifferent to the political beliefs of visitors and as a result any local racial biases will be applied fairly to those visiting.
The chances of you dieing from law enforcement acting in a racist manner are vanishingly small and it is still illegal.
The uae condones killing people for being gay as a matter of policy. Don't expect much more than downvotes when you attempt to portray as the US being worse in that comparison.
Which might be one reason why they need surveillance. For many people, even a simple web search might turn up stuff that could get them arrested. For this reason, I have decided not to visit countries where some of the content on web sites I am responsible for is illegal.
The difference of course is that one is discrimination based on law, while the other is a minority of bad actors acting illegally.
>It's not so easy to hide that one is black.
Sure it is. Wear a burka every time you are in public. This suggestion is also as ridiculous as suggesting that people hide the fact that they are gay.
> Wear a burka every time you are in public. This suggestion is also as ridiculous as suggesting that people hide the fact that they are gay.
So let me get this right:
You are comparing the ridiculousness of a black person having to wear a burka in the US to avoid being shot, versus the ridiculousness of a gay person having to hide the fact that they are gay while in the UAE?
I'm sorry, it just doesn't sound as ridiculous to me to expect someone to take care not to utter the words, "I am gay" while in a country where being gay can get you legally killed, as opposed to the ridiculousness of a black person having to wear a burka in the US to avoid being shot illegally.
Being black in the US is legal, and being shot for being a black person in the US is uncommon. The burden of having to wear a burka all the time lest your blackness be discovered is large.
Being gay in the UAE is illegal and punishable by death. The burden of not saying certain particular words to expose your gayness is small.
Ergo, the black guy having to wear a burka option is clearly more ridiculous.
Indonesia banned their women from working in the UAE and 20 of their neighbors because of the abuse, maiming and killing by their employers and judicial systems.
What you probably don't know is that America is a very big and complex country. It's so big that you can love one part and hate the other part at the same time.
It's so complex that even its government is not entirely a single rock. There are avid defenders of human rights as well as evil masters in its government. Somehow they are both coexisting. That's how big America is.
I'm non-white and non-American and I certainly hate some ugly parts of it. But I have mixed feeling to America. I guess it's a kind of feeling that many people have towards the country.
There's not even a way to frame a disagreement. Your statement is just intellectually dishonest. You can die obeying the laws anywhere as a person of any race.
America has problems with racial violence, but your comment indicates a total disconnect from reality in pretty much every way.
Your comment shows the level of misinformation and reputation damage done by media and various social movements. America is safe for all law-abiding persons. Not only do I disagree with your comment, but I find it offensive that you would propagate the myth. It's damaging and unsubstantiated.
Your comment shows the level of misinformation and reputation damage done by media and various social movements. Not only do I disagree with your comment, but I find it offensive that you would propagate the myth. It's damaging and unsubstantiated.
Then we can argue about the definition of safe, or the reasonable expectation of safety. But it seems that Hacker News would rather point to one example which apparently "invalidates" the claim "handily". What do you consider safe then? If you are determined to argue based on one example; Do you not take a risk starting a business? Do you not take a risk eating foods? Do you not take a risk driving?
There are reasonable mistakes made in the course of living and of any action. So if you want to exaggerate the claim of one (or even a few) examples to the point of making it appear as an epidemic in America; then I will hold you to a higher standard than the half-assed arguments that I see here. Many people engaged with these narratives are grossly misrepresenting legitimate claims of police brutality or racial discrimination. If you cannot be honest in debate, then I would also not expect the same to be honest in any proposed solution. Blatant misrepresentation by so many; it's disgusting.
If we can argue about the definition of safe, then "America is safe" is meaningless. Why don't you help us out by defining how you measure safety, and "law abiding" for that matter. Is anybody in the US rigorously law-abiding? Based on what evidence?
Yes, the person using a throwaway account says that your statement is patently false. And as you attacked the only thing you could attack, I assume you know that as well, "buddy"!
Sure, I will remember your name, Olsco. My name isn't hard to remember - it's Away; Throw Away.
> Nice astro-turfing in your comment history
Do you not even know what astroturfing is? Keep attacking my HN handle - just shows that you know your statement was patently, absurdly and almost hilariously false.
I am disgusted by the race and policing problems in the US, but you have to have some perspective.
I've never had a problem as a half-black Canadian business traveler. That doesn't mean I'm not anxious.
All though the US may legitimately seem callous and murderous to those on the sharp end of its foreign policy, there are a whole lot of Americans who take this freedom thing seriously. More important, there is a culture of free speech and of challenging government.
I think an important difference is that the victims of most US actions like abduction, imprisonment without trial, torture or assassinations are not US citizens – and it is often done in a foreign country. Because of that, it does not stifle political debate.
I find such a thing scary and unethical. Yet, as I understand it, domestic political opponents of US politicians do not have to fear torture, disappearance, or imprisonment without trial – it is even possible to openly criticize the people who command such assassinations without being in danger of being executed by the government.
Personally, I'm more interested in the perception than in the sorts of defensiveness that I'm seeing in response.
Sure, statistically, most visitors aren't going to have any problem with our screwed up police.
But remember that, statistically, your average voter is more likely to drown in a bucket[1] than be a victim of terrorism, and look at what has been done since 2001 "to keep us safe".
Fear is not rational, and "you're wrong" or "I have this issue with your rhetorical technique" is not going to change any minds.
[1] Picked statistically unlikely event at random; did not look up actual statistics. You get the point and I'm not going to respond to pedantry.
"As long as you don't break the law you are fine" this is the excuse that dictatorship apologists give "well, if you behaved and didn't demonstrate and didn't join a left/right party you were fine under Pinochet/Ceaucescu"
You haven't really thought your own question through very far, have you? You pay your internet and utility bills with cash? That's a problem in the U.S. In other countries many businesses are cashless, often even public transit is increasingly cashless.
Update: I'm even thinking of landlords of multitenant buildings, there's just no way they're going to take e.g. $100,000 in cash from everyone each month. It's really not workable. The apartment I had in NYC a few years ago was conventional check only. No cash possible, no credit card, no EFT.
Here in Brazil, ISP and other bills usually come in the form of a Boleto Bancário (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boleto_Banc%C3%A1rio), which you can pay with cash at the bank (or at lottery stores). Utility bills use a similar system. From the point of view of the bill issuer, it's cashless.
I don't know how it works on other countries, but I'd expect similar systems.
No, I'm thinking of the landlord making that size deposit. I know of no one walking around with $3000 cash to go pay rent let alone the landlord walking even two blocks to a bank to deposit that from everyone in the building.
It's not really a viable option for anyone. You're exposing yourself to huge risk of theft/destruction/confiscation, and you're losing out to inflation every year. Much safer to keep your money in an FDIC-insured bank account. If you have more than the maximum, then open up several bank accounts.
Any event catastrophic enough to wipe out money in FDIC-insured bank accounts would also affect your paper currency. If you're really worried about that eventuality, best to hoard gold.
EDIT: Let me clarify, I suppose it is a viable option if you are living paycheck to paycheck, but if you have accumulated wealth of any significance, it is not.
>I have to pay income tax, just because I receive money through bank account.
No, you have to pay income tax regardless of how you receive money. Bitcoin just makes it easier for you to avoid the law and be a leech on society by not paying taxes.
Ah, got it, so you're one of those people, one who heard the news about the Panama Papers, and rather than being outraged, thought "Oh that's a good idea!"
I don't know where you live, but here in the US the IRS simply has to ask you if you have a foreign (or crypto) bank account and you'd smart not to lie to them.
If they can't get the money because they don't have he private key they can simply put you in prison.
i pay my rent and bills with wire transfer, same goes for 99% of my purchases ( mostly on amazon ) ... my paycheck is sent me as wire transfer as well ... how am I supposed to live just on cash? :) I only use cash to buy cigarettes basically ... using only cash would make my life very, VERY, hard.
Here in Switzerland the entire financial system is arranged via wire transfers.
I get a bill. At the bottom of the bill is a red pay-in slip with a magic number on it. I log in to my bank, enter the number, tell it how much I want to transfer, done.
There's a not-used-enough automatic system where one of my creditors can send their bills directly to my bank. Now, I log into my bank, get told there's a pending e-bill, at which point I select it, press 'pay', done.
No fees anywhere.
I'm from the UK, which is just starting to do this, but it's nothing like as polished; small traders and tradesmen still prefer cheques, and regular payments are typically done via direct debit, where you authorise them to debit money directly out of your bank account (with a whole pile of banking guarantees). Switzerland seems to do this much less frequently; most people just pay the invoices monthly.
With wire-transfers you mean international wire-transfers?
I think it might be just an american thing, mexican banks usually don't charge you anything for wire-transfers inside the country (in their "use your credit/debit card at least once each month plans") and well, it's Mexico.
Though I think "first world"-something is quite the phrase just to describe consumer comfort: not advanced, not better (or worse), just "it's ok, I don't mind".
---EDIT---
Wire-transfers between national banks are free if you wait a day; there's a small fixed fee if you want them immediately. Transfers between different clients in the same bank are free and immediate. And it's becoming very common to be able to pay a quite assorted list of services through your e-bank account (from utilities to departmental store accounts) without fees.
The difference is that with those services, you can always close your account and switch to a new one ( that's why I've specified to avoid using them as your primary wallet ) ... on the other hand, if a Bank goes bankruptcy, it's not that easy to recover your money.
Did you have more than $250,000 in your account? If so, then you would have lost access to part of your money, or gotten if after a bankruptcy court hearing. Deposits are not the highest priority item on a bank's liability side of the balance sheet, and as a depositor, you'll likely not get paid in full.
Ownership category is just something like single, joint, retirement, etc. If you have more than $250,000 spread across multiple accounts but with the same account holder and ownership category, the excess is not covered.
Totally agreed, I just didn't want any clueless HNers with lots of cash lying around trying to open a second account to secure their money on the basis of that comment.
I had money in a savings account at an FDIC-insured bank. It went under during the recent recession and there wasn't even a blip in my service -- all of the accounts were transparently migrated over to a new bank that the government had paid to take over the old accounts, while ensuring that all of the money that was supposed to be in those accounts actually was.
Still, saying that you don't accept the concept of trust is a weird statement, especially given that the next sentence ("I don't trust them") uses it ;)
I think you still trust those services with your money in the same manner you trust classic banks - no real difference here, both can be used just for transfers and not keeping anything with them. Except for with banks it's really tiresome and inconvenient to load on demand and with Bitcoin it's nearly a one-tap experience.
i pay my rent and bills with wire transfer, same goes for 99% of my purchases ( mostly on amazon ) ... my paycheck is sent me as wire transfer as well ... how am I supposed to live just on cash? :) I only use cash to buy cigarettes basically XD
You pretty much publish everything related to your job if you're a web developer. People are continually creating awesome things as web developers, despite their source code being out there for everyone to see. There isn't a "copyright violation holocaust" happening as implied by the top comment.
Well, obviously, I'm not a web developer. Nor am I a music producer, nor a film maker. As the world becomes increasingly more digital, more technologies can be expressed as code. You all like MPEG-4, but many patents are involved there, such a http://www.google.com/patents/US6092120
