A vehicle crashed into the 7-Eleven at 4193 Piedmont Ave. in Oakland Wednesday afternoon and a store employee said the woman driving was not injured

From "The Deadliest Catch" to "Reno 911," there are plenty of popular representations of Americans doing dangerous work. Yet occupations with the highest risk of death are not always the ones you hear about.

The chart below shows data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the 20 most dangerous occupations, excluding some similar categories. Lumberjacks, fishermen and pilots run the greatest risks at work. In general, people who work with heavy machinery, from hedge trimmers to combines, are in more danger.

Members of different professions run different kinds of risks, though. Transportation accidents account for 40 percent of all deaths on the job. Other major causes are falls (13 percent), being struck by an object or equipment (11 percent) and, disturbingly, homicides (9 percent).

People whose work involves interacting with the public are more likely to be killed by another person while working, possibly for the simple reason that they're more likely to encounter criminals from day to day. Other research has shown that those who work odd hours, who work alone or who handle cash are especially likely to be attacked and killed on the job, even more so if their work takes them to neighborhoods where crime is high.

For these reasons, restaurant managers, taxi drivers and police are especially at risk, shown in the chart below, which includes several occupations noted for their high rates of homicide.

Cabbies are at by far the greatest risk in this category. From 1993 to 2002, an average of 23.7 taxi drivers were killed every year per 100,000 cabbies. Thankfully, that figure has since declined to 8, according to an analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics by The Washington Post. On the other hand, the grim tally for police might be even higher if they weren't so well trained and equipped.

Joel Neuman, who studies aggression in the workplace at the State University of New York at New Paltz, suggested that people in occupations -- besides policing where you're trained to deal with dangerous behavior -- need to be prepared to try to defuse violent situations.

"There are a number of occupations where people find themselves in jeopardy because of the nature of their work," Neuman said. "At least the police are trained and hopefully prepared to deal with these potential conflicts or assaults, and there are a lot of professions were people don't receive that kind of training."

Running a consumer complaint site has its problems. For one, unhappy companies and individuals will use a variety of methods to get negative reviews taken down, including bogus defamation and copyright claims. So, you safeguard against that by refusing to take reviews down for any reason. Companies will also make threats against reviewers, so you block that by taking that option away from reviewers.

But this all has to be enforced within the limitations of the law. Fortunately, Section 230 deflects a lot of this potential damage by shielding sites from being held liable for third-party content. It's not bulletproof, but it's a start. Of course, some complaint sites go overboard. RipoffReports has itself been criticized for leveraging these protective policies into a revenue stream by charging users high fees for complaint removals.

But not every complaint site exists to provide a valuable service to consumers. Some are just there to provide a soapbox for anyone unhappy about anything. There's no focus, no attempt to vet reviews or reviewers and nothing indicating there's any real oversight of the platform.

ComplaintsBureau is one of the latter. Here's the "review" that was sitting at the top of the page when I visited it on Jan. 25th.

OCTAVIAN P. OF CHICAGO, IL -WEST SIDE IS KNOWINGLY SPREADING STD(S) AND SLEEPING AROUND.

Classy.

Others are run-of-the-mill complaints about bad businesses, bad tenants and other unsatisfactory entities. But it's ComplaintsBureau's actions in retaliation for takedown attempts that really sets it apart from the Yelps of the internet. Adam Steinbaugh recently tweeted out the following link to a Better Business Bureau complaint about (sort of) ComplaintsBureau:

Complaint

Charged monthly membership - did not honor cancellation.

Experian online Credit( www.experien.com) offers a $1 Credit Report &Score. I did that & then same day cancelled my membership - Nine days later (two days after the free trial membership) they charged me a $19.95 monthly fee and when I called on 11/20/2014, they won't refund. With Only 2 days into what they are calling my membership month - and they wont even consider a partial refund. This is slimmy and false advertising...membership programs are such a scam!!!

Desired Settlement
$19.95

-----

Business Response
Hello

****** *********

Re: Case XXXXXXXX / **** *****

We have tried to go to the BBB site there is no where to post, the url you sent us for that complaint don't work.

This was clearly a false complaint by **** *****. **** ***** was billed for $10,900.00 USD for filing a false DMCA complaint, Complaints Bureau did file a DMCA counter-notification to have the complaint restored. Then Complaints Bureau has sent her bill to Experian on 10/16/2014 that was pass due

Peridocally, we recieve thousands of DMCA takedown requests. Because of people not liking what they read on the site, they attempt less-than-effective ways of trying to get them removed. Many even try to simply file DMCA, without following through with the process. You must validate who you are and your exact information, if you want action to be taken, in your favor. Every piece of information- including photos, videos, text and everything else, is automatically copyrighted when it is submitted to complaints bureau and also becomes the property of complaints bureau, as per our Terms of Use. If you file a DMCA request, you must follow through completely to the very end of the process, otherwise, complaints bureau will file a counter notice to all major search engines and hosts, to have it restored. We will then bill you for $10,900.00. for these costs. Should you violate this clause, as determined by ComplaintsBureau.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the DMCA request, in question. If the DMCA remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $10,900.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be sent to our collection agency and will be reported to all consumer credit reporting agencies until paid

The reponse has nothing to do with the complaint, but it appears ComplaintsBureau's owner -- Scott Breitenstein -- rejected a DMCA takedown notice and billed the sender $10,900, following it up by reporting this person to Experian. What it has to do with this particular complaint remains open for debate, but Breitenstein's standard MO prizes aggression over intelligence. The "response" quotes CB's policy in full, as noted under its "Non-Disparagement" heading on its "DMCA Procedures" page (for reasons only known to Breitenstein).

While it's good to know the site will stand up to bogus takedown requests ("If you would like to show up at a jurisdiction of Federal District Court , I would be more than happy to meet you in a courtroom, just bring a toothbrush for the prison sentence." [LOL]), its other practices are more questionable, including its legally-unsound issuance of a bill for $10,900 for rejected DMCA takedowns. This ridiculous amount -- coupled with reporting to credit agencies -- puts ComplaintsBureau in the same shady company with others who have inserted dubious non-disparagement clauses in their Terms of Service pages.

But that isn't the extent of the site (and site owner's) questionable behavior. Steinbaugh notes that a bogus review of him went up shortly after Breitenstein found out Steinbaugh planned to write about the ComplaintsBureau owner's foray into the revenge porn field. Under the infamous "STD Carriers" tag, there's a "review" that includes nude photos of a supposed "carrier." An angry email from the person "reviewed" demanding the removal of these photos was met with this response from Breitenstein:

Subject: DMCA-CASE#979968-Notice of unauthorized use of Rebekah Wells
From: "Scott Breitenstein" <legal@complaintsbureau.com>
Date: Tue, June 17, 2014 9:45 pm
To: womenagainstrevengeporn@gmail.com
Priority: Normal
Options:

As pertaining to your balls being bigger than mine, we can see that this is true, by looking at your photos!!! By the way, you didn't send an electronic signature with the proper DMCA notice.You also didn't include your home address, so we can file the proper paperwork, for submission. This makes this notice invalid. If you want to send it to the proper address, send it to : abuse@complaintsbureau.com.

Normally, all content is copyrighted, when submitted to complaints bureau. If you file a DMCA takedown, you need to follow through completely because complaints bureau will file a counter-claim to have it restored and you will be billed $10,900.00 for the costs. Once you file a DMCA, you have 10-14 days to file suit against complaints bureau. If you fail to file, within this time frame, the complaint will be restored, forever. You will be billed $10,900.00 for the costs. You then have 30 days to pay this. If you don't pay in this time frame, we will submit it to a collection agency, thereby affecting your credit. It will also be reported to all of the major credit bureaus.

We are not anything like other site's, that you have had complaints removed from. We are a real and genuine Complaints Bureau. We will not back down to idle threats and pressure to simply remove content. You also might want to consult an attorney, before you make a bad move. We will publish this email, under our legal threats section.

Site against woman whos against revenge porn

Go fuck yourself.

Polite as usual,
Dzianis Mohamed
Complaints Bureau

Note that the signature (Dzianis Mohamed) doesn't match the email header. Breitenstein appears to use multiple names in an attempt to portray his site as being more legitimate than it actually is -- i.e., an entity with several employees. The response posted to his own site doesn't even bother to strip the telltale email header.

The preemptive strike masquerading as a review of Adam Steinbaugh claimed (among other things) that he destroyed the apartment he was living in and had been arrested for molesting a minor. None of these things are true, but they live on at ComplaintsBureau, as related by the obviously fictional landlord "Sharon Eakins." Steinbaugh noted the oddly coincidental timing of one of his tweets and this review's appearance in his response to the bogus review.

Third, a mere three days before this was posted, I posted Mr. Breitenstein's photo on my Twitter feed and noted that I was going to be writing about this site, because Mr. Breitenstein had the classy idea of running a revenge porn forum here.

It would be the next logical step for the "STD Carriers" tag, considering most of them feature links to ShesAHomewrecker.com, a site bordering on revenge porn, but lacking the volume of explicit photos needed to push it firmly into that territory. It's a "revenge" site alright, but the "porn" part is very limited.

The site's confrontational tone has mistaken "being an aggro asshole" for "protecting consumers' rights." The STD section serves no purpose other than to give some people an excuse to drag others' names through the mud (with pictures). Sure, Section 230 protects ComplaintsBureau, but it won't do much for those posting defamatory reviews on Breitenstein's site.

Between the fake rep names, the fake reviews, the revenge porn-esque "STD Carrier" tag and its own bogus legal threats/defenses (see also: the Dayton, OH-located Breitenstein pretending to be a French company in response to a takedown request), ComplaintsBureau is a disaster masquerading as a consumer's champion. There's a lot of shadiness here, including its $10,900 non-disparagement fee that has very little to do with disparagement and everything to do with heading off people who might have legitimate removal requests. To top things off, ComplaintsBureau claims to be owned by "Vestron Video Media," a defunct home video distributor that ceased operations more than 20 years ago. (Meanwhile, its site registration data lists a company called "The Council of Complaints Bureau, Inc." as the Admin Organization.)

ComplaintsBureau loves complaining customers (and jilted exes) but doesn't care much for people drawing attention to the terrible tactics it deploys. A legitimate consumer complaints site doesn't need bogus fines and expletive-filled letters to protect its content from outside interference. ComplaintsBureau is all noise and no substance, and of use to only Scott Breitenstein.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The President plans to announce in Tuesday’s State of the Union Address new proposals that would raise taxes on capital gains for the wealthiest Americans. The proposal would raise the top tax rate on long-term gains and qualifying dividends to 28-percent (including the Affordable Care Act’s 3.8 percent investment income surtax on high-income taxpayers). The president also proposes to tax capital gains at death rather than allow them to pass income-tax free to heirs as under current law.

All told, the proposal amounts to a substantial tax increase for wealthy people. The top rate on investment income (including ACA surtax) goes up by about 18 percent (from 23.8 to 28 percent). But the more significant change for the very wealthy is elimination of the “angel of death loophole,” as Michael Kinsley famously called it.

Under current law, heirs of appreciated property benefit from so-called “stepped up basis,” which is a wonky way of saying that past capital gains or losses are ignored. If grandpa leaves you shares of stock that he bought for $10 and are now worth $100, you never have to pay tax on the $90 of appreciation. Under the proposal, grandpa’s estate will be taxed on the $90 profit on his final tax return.

There would be several exceptions: No tax is due until the surviving spouse dies. The first $100,000 in gains is exempt for singles ($200,000 for couples). Special rules would protect small businesses. Finally, gifts to charity would be exempt (though other gifts would be subject to the levy).

Taxing gains at death is a big deal. It would eliminate what is arguably the biggest loophole in the tax code for high-wealth households. Postponing realization of capital gains until death is the holy grail of tax planning because a taxpayer can escape millions of dollars in taxes on a substantially appreciated asset.

This tax avoidance takes a toll on the economy. People hold onto businesses because they don’t want to sell and take the tax hit-- even when someone else could run them better. The lawyers, accountants, and finance experts who come up with clever schemes for their clients to extract the cash from highly appreciated assets without technically selling them could otherwise apply their talents to socially productive work.

The angel of death loophole is unfair for at least two reasons. The person who sells an asset just before death can owe millions of dollars in tax that someone who holds until death can avoid. And, of course, capital gains are hugely concentrated among the rich (see chart). Only the richest of the rich can afford to hold onto substantial shares of their wealth until they die.

Taxing gains at death also makes the Administration’s proposed rate hike work better. If taxes on gains go up, taxpayers have a stronger incentive to avoid selling assets. But taxing gains at death reduces this “lock-in effect” and mean that the tax rate increase will produce much more revenue (and fewer economic distortions).

While Congress won’t approve the President’s proposal, it will surely provoke a lot of heated discussion. It’s a religious issue for both sides of the political divide, with conservatives equating capital gains tax preferences with growth and liberals with unfairness.

The issues are more nuanced than the zealots on either side would admit. I detail the myriad issues involved in cutting capital gains tax rates here.

The President’s proposal would make the overall tax system more progressive, especially since much of revenue from raising taxes on gains would be used to expand middle-class tax breaks. It might boost economic efficiency by significantly reducing the lock-in effect and discouraging tax shelters.

And it would provide a huge benefit to charities because donations to these groups would become the only easy way to legally avoid capital gains taxes (since gains on charitable contributions are exempt from tax).

The President has locked up the philanthropic sector vote. Except, of course, he isn’t running again.

If you really want to delve into the gnarly details in capital gains taxation, check my book The Labyrinth of Capital Gains Tax Policy: A Guide for the Perplexed (Brookings, 1999) out of the library. It’s old, but the issues haven’t changed.

Follow me on twitter

The post President Obama Targets the "Angel of Death" Capital Gains Tax Loophole appeared first on TaxVox.

anguyen8 writes Deep neural networks (DNNs) trained with Deep Learning have recently produced mind-blowing results in a variety of pattern-recognition tasks, most notably speech recognition, language translation, and recognizing objects in images, where they now perform at near-human levels. But do they see the same way we do? Nope. Researchers recently found that it is easy to produce images that are completely unrecognizable to humans, but that DNNs classify with near-certainty as everyday objects. For example, DNNs look at TV static and declare with 99.99% confidence it is a school bus. An evolutionary algorithm produced the synthetic images by generating pictures and selecting for those that a DNN believed to be an object (i.e. "survival of the school-bus-iest"). The resulting computer-generated images look like modern, abstract art. The pictures also help reveal what DNNs learn to care about when recognizing objects (e.g. a school bus is alternating yellow and black lines, but does not need to have a windshield or wheels), shedding light into the inner workings of these DNN black boxes.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

KentuckyFC writes Statisticians have long thought it impossible to tell cause and effect apart using observational data. The problem is to take two sets of measurements that are correlated, say X and Y, and to find out if X caused Y or Y caused X. That's straightforward with a controlled experiment in which one variable can be held constant to see how this influences the other. Take for example, a correlation between wind speed and the rotation speed of a wind turbine. Observational data gives no clue about cause and effect but an experiment that holds the wind speed constant while measuring the speed of the turbine, and vice versa, would soon give an answer. But in the last couple of years, statisticians have developed a technique that can tease apart cause and effect from the observational data alone. It is based on the idea that any set of measurements always contain noise. However, the noise in the cause variable can influence the effect but not the other way round. So the noise in the effect dataset is always more complex than the noise in the cause dataset. The new statistical test, known as the additive noise model, is designed to find this asymmetry. Now statisticians have tested the model on 88 sets of cause-and-effect data, ranging from altitude and temperature measurements at German weather stations to the correlation between rent and apartment size in student accommodation.The results suggest that the additive noise model can tease apart cause and effect correctly in up to 80 per cent of the cases (provided there are no confounding factors or selection effects). That's a useful new trick in a statistician's armoury, particularly in areas of science where controlled experiments are expensive, unethical or practically impossible.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.