Slashdot Mirror
Google Home Ends A Domestic Dispute By Calling The Police (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Gizmodo:
According to ABC News, officers were called to a home outside Albuquerque, New Mexico this week when a Google Home called 911 and the operator heard a confrontation in the background. Police say that Eduardo Barros was house-sitting at the residence with his girlfriend and their daughter. Barros allegedly pulled a gun on his girlfriend when they got into an argument and asked her: "Did you call the sheriffs?" Google Home apparently heard "call the sheriffs," and proceeded to call the sheriffs. A SWAT team arrived at the home and after negotiating for hours, they were able to take Barros into custody... "The unexpected use of this new technology to contact emergency services has possibly helped save a life," Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales III said in a statement.
"It's easy to imagine police getting tired of being called to citizen's homes every time they watch the latest episode of Law and Order," quips Gizmodo. But they also call the incident "a clear reminder that smart home devices are always listening."
"It's easy to imagine police getting tired of being called to citizen's homes every time they watch the latest episode of Law and Order," quips Gizmodo. But they also call the incident "a clear reminder that smart home devices are always listening."
Coming soon, a law that mandates that all homes be equipped with one of these devices as well as prison sentences for those who attempt to disable them. For the sake of the children, of course. "You are the dead!"
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Too intrusive, no thanks.
This fact does not redeem cancer.
Many of my favourite movies and tv shows would have this Google surveillance trash calling a SWAT team on me.
As house-sitters, they clearly never agreed to the Google Home terms of use, and therefore had an expectation of privacy while housesitting within the home. Google was therefore illegally wiretapping their conversation and as such the call to 911 was based on illegally-obtained evidence, as was the subsequent arrest.
Gosh darn it! Can't a man have a domestic disturbance in peace?
At the very bottom of the linked story
http://abcnews.go.com/US/smart-home-device-alerts-mexico-authorities-alleged-assault/story?id=48470912
Editor's note: This story has been updated; an earlier version named a smart home device that was not the type found in the home and credited by police with calling 911.
When I was a kid (25 years ago) a family member insisted on unplugging the TV whenever they talked about the government, because this family member was concerned about them listening. I thought he was a whack job. In the late 90's I started to think it might be possible, early 2000's I was almost certain they were capable of it, and now it's current year, I'm reading about it on /.
Due to paranoia I don't own a TV. Fortunately for the government I have 2 laptops and a Samsung phone, so they can still monitor me and probably blow my phone up on me.
I'm not signing anything
This makes me wonder how many of hundreds of false calls to 911 there must be out there due to these things, if one of them actually happened at the right time.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Google Home cannot yet make phone calls. I'd like to see some proof that this was a Google Home at work. Isn't anyone at all skeptical anymore about news stories?
What's the problem with welfare for poor folks? As long as there's an obligation for self betterment with the view to getting off welfare i.e. education, internship, community service, I don't see the problem.
Corporate welfare on the other hand, I have a big problem with that. It has been demonstrated time and time again that corporate leaders use tax breaks to pad their own packages rather than improve employment prospects. Trickle down simply does not work and greed is the main factor.
In the end, perhaps it was a good thing.
But consider that Google Home missed the part about it being a question. I can see other situations where such a sentence might be used where I didn't want a SWAT response or any response at all.
Yes, I understand the 911 people listened in and made the decision to respond based on what they heard, and again in THIS case they were correct.
But there are all sorts of permutations of this where Google Home and whoever they called might be bad.
I certainly don't want to be sitting around bad-mouthing my employer / parents / next door neighbor who owns guns / [insert someone else here] and have Google Home call them so they can here it all...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Siriously:
https://support.google.com/googlehome/answer/7394795?hl=en
"Note: Calls to 911 or 1-900 numbers are not supported on Google Home. "
A smart speaker, which was hooked up to a surround sound system inside the home, recognized that as a voice command and called 911, Romero said.
The summary sure made it sound like the device learned and reacted to "owner in distress" and not just accidentally mis-interpreted a shouted phrase "Did you call the sheriffs?" (spoken by the perpetrator, not the victim, might I add).
This was talked about in 1984. East Germany did as much as they could given their limited tech. China is doing a much more comprehensive job with modern tech.
World leaders, including Putin and Kim Jong Un, are laughing their assess off at Trump. He is a joke. The American people are the punch line.
So you support corporations using the poor as easy position filling? That's what happens when you attach it to things like 'showing self improvement'. You get corporations taking part in incentive programs to 'create jobs'. The jobs in question are bottom of the barrel, violate labor laws (that the ignorant and poor cannot fight), and generally treat people like shit.
It then becomes a punishment to get off of welfare. We need to sever the tie between corporations, healthcare, and indeed even just surviving. Work needs to provide enough of a benefit that the government isn't needed. What often happens is these people get off welfare and have less money than they did before leaving it. Why bust your ass for pennies when the government takes better care of you?
Nobody has an answer to that because they're too busy being faux-moral jerkoffs. They believe everyone should suffer to justify their existence, or that some nebulous idea of 'personal responsibility' is the only way to go forward. Those values are proven to fail when challenged, because it becomes an excuse to mistreat people.
Are we to believe that he shouted out, "Ok, Google, call the sheriff?"
The devil's in the details.
What criteria are used to determine whether that obligation is being met? Can they be gamed by lazy people to do the bare minimum work to get maximum benefits? Is it fair to let people take advantage of welfare programs like that? Is it right to force people to meet that obligation if they legitimately can't hold a job due to disability? Who decides what disabilities qualify? Who decides whether someone meets a disability? Who has the ability to even answer these questions?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Fucking NSA agent diverting the conversation to partisan politics so the serfs are distracted from the original topic!
and not just accidentally mis-interpreted a shouted phrase "Did you call the sheriffs?" (spoken by the perpetrator, not the victim, might I add).
This is actually puzzling/concerning me - perhaps more than it should. But I can't figure out how that phrase could trigger any of the "common" virtual assistants - Google, Amazon, Apple, or Microsoft - unless at least one manufacturer has been less than forthright regarding what can trigger a response (and, therefore, regarding what the device actively listens for).
#DeleteChrome
Why are so many Republicans closeted gays?
And what would've happened if the police came, overreacted, and shot / killed the guy? Would they be suing Google for consequential damages?
When I hear about a story like this I think about an experience I had back when Doom II was released. I had hooked up my computer to my home stereo to show the game off to my roommates. I lived in an apartment in a bad neighborhood at the time.
I started to play and got as far as two shotgun blasts in before pressing pause to answer the phone. Shortly after the phone rang there was a very loud and forceful knock at the door. Said knock was followed by 'open up, police!'.
I went to the door, confused why the police were banging on my door. Several officers were standing outside with their guns in their hands while I had my phone in my hand. In my confusion I asked them what they wanted. They said they had reports of shots being fired and demanded entrance to my apartment. I let them in and showed them my computer with the game still paused. They were incredulous and didn't believe me, searching the apartment instead.
Ten seconds later they came back after finding nothing of interest. They then let me show them the computer game. I then showed them that by clicking the keyboard I could make the shotgun noise they heard.
Many additional police vehicles were outside. The officers had not yet bothered to tell the many additional cops outside that the shotgun was just a videogame. Much panic ensued as the officers outside started to yell 'shots fired' with their fellow officers inside my apartment. /repeat of my own comment from some time ago.
Does anyone know what device they actually had?
Neither the Amazon Echo or Google Home can currently make phone calls.
I would very much like to have one that can.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
No one WANTS to be on welfare. The pittance of assistance isn't something you can actually live on. There is no such thing as a welfare check anymore. If you are sufficiently broke, they will provide you with food stamps for food, energy assistance for gas/electric, possibly HUD for housing, a cellular phone via safelink and the likes, and if you are lucky, medical coverage. TANF is a federal program where you can get actual money, but the amount is almost useless.
The I think my echo can make some calls at this point but it doesn't respond to "call the sheriff".
Do not play this in your house!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So basically, more fake news. It's no wonder many don't trust the mainstream media.
This is proof that the surveillance state is here for your safety.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
There is always fraud. If it's possible for someone to get the assistance while still getting income from illegal or under-the-table dealings, someone will do it, even if just as a way to get by while "sticking it to the Man". Yes, that creative ingenuity would probably be more profitable in a legal enterprise, but there is always someone who just wants to get away with a scam. Remember, humans are horrible creatures.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
When will they update it to state what actually happened?
1. Police receive 911 call about domestic dispute from woman who pretended to call someone else. ....
2. Man asks woman "Did you call the sherriffs?"
3. Woman denies it.
4. Sherriffs show up, man starts threatening woman because she lied to him.
5. Sherriff spots smart home device, remembers what was said on the call, and defuses situation by suggesting that the woman didn't call them, the smart home device did when the man asked the question.
6. Journalist overhears and thinks he has a news for nerds story worthy of slashdot front page.
7.
8. Profit
Everyone is under surveillance at all times. Everyone is a suspect. Everyone is guilty. Gulag nation.
Likely, Missus: $assistant, call the sheriff department. Asshole: Bitch, did you just call the sheriff department?
Echo can call other echo's and other echo users via the app but not actually make calls.
I think it's very unlikely the sheriffs office just so happened to have an echo in the office connected to their office number.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
This basically summarizes why we need universal basic income.
These things now make calls just by anonymous voice commands? Really? This is a massively irresponsible design. Even telephone number hyperlinks on websites require manual confirmation prior to dialing. Now anyone can create a website that plays call x, y and z to get your victim into trouble, stalk victims and or rack up toll charges or do the same via TV/radio broadcast.
They know it's dumb. They just can't help themselves.
Sure it does...
Now how much income? How do we account for inflation? Who gets to answer those questions? Is there any accommodation for unequal needs? What qualifies as "universal"? Does it apply to all citizens? Does it apply to all residents? Do convicted felons still get the paycheck while in prison? How do we stop fraud? Where does the money come from? Is that fair and just?
This basically summarizes why the government rarely implements simple solutions. They're rarely simple.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Train your virtual assistant to the name "Didju." Alternatively, the name "Bitch" may prove quite useful and/or hilarious.
-IOVAR Web Dev Platform
Because that way they're not just some dude that likes it in the rear. They're special. They're part of an exclusive, unique club where only its members can be above the laws (as they're always attempting) and enjoy eachother's touch. Only they can get rid of a daughter or mistress' little embarazdament, because they're special; their circumstances are special.
These closeted gays don't just want men. They want to be the only one, like the Quickening. And the only way to ensure that, is to make it illegal for everybody beneath themselves.
Officers responding to a reported shooting discover local man dead at computer
Local man onyxruby was found dead at his computer in the nude, while logged on to the hacker website known as "haitch tee tee pee ess colon slash slash slash dot dot com." He was apparently trying to drink maple syrup while viewing lewd photoshopped pictures of Natalie Portman covered in grits, when the syrup apparently went down his windpipe. No suicide note was found, and foul play is not suspected. The coroner has ruled the death an accidental suicide by maple syrup inhalation. The local police chief has issued a statement urging residents not to drink maple syrup. He said, and I quote "please leave that to the professionals."
The answer is they were already listening in through the device, and picked that sentence as their alibi.
I won't be installing such a device then. My SO has the habit of saying "So then call in the Gestapo!" if they*'re in the wrong and out of rational arguments. And we don't want the Gestapo showing up on our front door, do we? (*=non-gender-specific pronoun)
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
And if you think welfare fraud is bad (protip: all the evidence is to the contrary), you should see the level of fraud in the private sector!
"It doesn't work 100% perfectly!" is the worst reason to dismantle anything.
None of these questions are insurmountable. You're the kind of person who would still be living in a cave bashing his neighbours over the head to resolve disputes because "thinking is hard".
It's not even a joke any more. We need to build the fucking wall and keep all future Eduardo Barros' out of this country.
Any job you offer me better pays enough for me to live on it. If not, I'm better off killing you and taking your money. Either I got the money or a warm place, food on my plate and even security watching over me.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Typical religious self loathing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What a cruel joke.
What would happen if someone said "I wasn't expecting the Spanish inquisition..."?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Guy intervenes, gets hurt, ,..."
and then breaks the law by using force other than in self-defence, and then breaks another law by pulling a gun when his life is not in immediate danger.
No matter how much you might dislike it, a gun is literally the last resort and you don't pull it unless you fully intend to shoot to kill. If you pull it and don't shoot, it's because of a major change in the situation, but - like an airbag going off - is something that should automatically involve the police if things have got this far.
Either way, you want the police coming at that point. And your correct response would not have been to pull the gun unless you genuinely thought that you needed to use it as a lethal weapon (rather than just showing it off to shut people up), or - if you didn't intend to use it - using reasonable force to restrain - AND - having called the police.
Responsibility comes with it the ability to know the legal limits. Even "fighting back" is a grey area unless the safety of yourself or others is in question if you don't. And there you want police to come too.
Sorry, in this case, penis means "I'm going to pull out a weapon when it's unjustified and threaten people with it". The exact thing that the rest of the world is always pointing at when the US doesn't punish its own police force for doing that. Let alone a private citizen.
Much scarier than that people tolerate devices listening all the time is that they can call emergency services just by hearing certain phrases. Much scarier than that is idiots pulling guns because of a domestic. Much scarier than that is idiots like that being able to source and carry guns, legally.
If you had restraint, nothing would have been able to get to that kind of position anyway.
Exactly. It's detracting me from asking the most important question of all! How do I use the 3 sea shells?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
... "I shot the sheriff"
I wonder what the google home would do in that situation.
"Hey mate, did you order one giant dong, three butt plugs, and a gallon of lube?
The allergies I developed from working outside means I am not allowed to do community service (which is mowing lawns here). Having done education twice, I must pay for any later education responsibility, which is now forced onto me because I am not allowed to do community service.
Internships (under-paid training for office careers) are not supported in my country. What few do exist, are not a viable choice for a single person. Apprenticeships (under-paid training for trade careers) are expensive to the employer and thus rare.
Having been through the community service/education treadmill for unemployment, I can see it doesn't work. Most job-seekers have a piece of paper to their name, so it is irrelevant. Most people learn how to mow lawns as a teen, so it is not "re-skilling" as government pretends.
Unemployment can be treated as a number of things: eg. overpopulation or under-experienced labour market (particularly for older people). Until the government addresses those issues, unemployment will remain.
Internships and apprenticeships provide the hours on the job but are structured to exclude the majority of job-seekers.
A Google home device does not have the ability to "call" numbers. There is no integration. Unless you rigged something up with your own integration like IFFT to your cell phone but... that would not be a Google home thing, that would be something you did yourself to allow that.
I actually much prefer the Chinese model. It's terrible, don't get me wrong, but at least they are up front about it. None of this hacking people's property or hoarding critical vulnerabilities until they inevitably leak out. Just be up front, pass laws mandating that the service providers give you everything and set up a firewall to block anything you can't control.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Welfare (both corporate and individual) trains people to become dependent on the government handout for survival.
I've worked in social services for almost twenty years. Occasionally there are situations where poor people greatly benefit from welfare, allowing them to get back on their feet... That's not the norm, however.
"I can't get a job, because they'll take my disability pay away." probably describes 90% of the people I see. It's so horribly abused by millions of people...
While I read the original story, and it noted that it wasn't Google Home, here is some interesting anecdotal thoughts that may or may not lead us to what the device actually was. (I really want to know for reason 1)
1. an Echo can only call other Echos (to my disappointment - I want to use mine to do speaker phone calls)
2. My Echo will randomly answer questions if something sounds anything like "Echo" which is my invocation word.
3. I would imagine with a heavy accent "Did you" could sound like "Echo" to an Echo (or other AWS device, as this obviously must be)
Knowing that it's not a Google Home, and that an Echo can't make calls, means it could be one of the other devices. So....does anyone know of a voice activated personal assistant that can make calls? I know I can do OK Google calls from my Nexus 6P since I have Assistant working on it.
So, does anyone know of an AWS device that can make phone calls.
Make America grate again!
Based on some of the things my Echo responds to.... I bet "Did you' in a strong accent could sound like "Echo" which is a trigger word.
My concern is that the Echo can only call other Echo users.... so my guess is that it was one of the other AWS enabled devices.
Unless one of them is a developer and was building something that could do that. I don't imagine such folks are immune to domestic disputes. I knew a girl once who was very intelligent, (probably could have put ProtaOS on a Raspberry Pi) but always made bad choices for her SO.
Make America grate again!
Sure it does...
Now how much income?
Double the poverty line.
How do we account for inflation?
Peg an increase to the inflation rate; similar to what we do with Social Security
Who gets to answer those questions?
Congress does.
Is there any accommodation for unequal needs?
No, it's universal
What qualifies as "universal"? Does it apply to all citizens?
Yes, every man, woman and child above a certain age
Does it apply to all residents?
Maybe
Do convicted felons still get the paycheck while in prison?
Perhaps they would get a portion, considering their room and board are already being paid for by the state
How do we stop fraud?
It's universal, so there would not be much fraud. But you could tie it to the Social Security system and track it that way.
Where does the money come from?
The federal government. They could tax for it, or just print it.
Is that fair and just?
Yes.
Hey, check it out, I just worked out a basic income! ;-)
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
That's why universal basic income makes sense with the immense wealth present right now.
If you're making $1000 per week on disability, you're not going to throw that away and go work at McDonald's for $500 per week. Why would anybody do that?
Somebody making $1000 per week on disability would be willing to work at McDonald's for a few dollars per hour, much less than minimum wage, if they keep that $1000 per month in addition to what they earn. They'll appreciate getting out of the house and feel they've at least done something to earn their keep. I don't know why this is something that's so difficult to figure out.
2018 is nearly here, and there will be riots in every major city. Chicago will be the first city under martial law. The car is going to run out of gas on the side of the road, and we don't have a spare gas can. The walk to the gas station will do you some good.
I don't think the current level of fraud is terribly bad, and I'm not suggesting dismantling anything. Rather, I'm suggesting that simplistic statements like "just give us single-payer healthcare" or "just give us universal basic income" or "just cut taxes" or "just cut spending" are all ridiculous, because the actual implementations are so much more complicated than their basic ideas. They're good ideas, but too often I see people under the illusion that they're something that can happen in the short term.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Did he say ""Did you Google call the sheriffs?" I thought we were told this was how this thing worked...
#DeleteFacebook
Rule of Acquisition #10: Greed is eternal.
#DeleteFacebook
Your utopia sounds nice. Any ideas as to how we bring that about? I like the way you lay the onus on people who are "busy being faux-moral jerkoffs". Since you see to think you have all the answers let's hear what they are. Here are some facts about our current situation: Most people in this country work for a corporation. When you raise taxes on the rich they pass it on to everyone else. The people who are rich got that way by being smart enough to game the system most of the time using existing laws and benefits. And I'm not ascribing moral value to these things. I'm simply pointing out that in order to bring about the change you seem to want there are certain realities that have to change. People have to be willing to step out on their own and start their own business being responsible for the success or failure of that business and doing the hard work required to be successful with the understanding that they might fail anyway. Not willing to take that risk? Welcome to the corporation who has already taken that risk and succeeded. Until corporations become an option rather than a necessity we're going to have this problem.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Have gnu, will travel.
The devil's in the details.
What criteria are used to determine whether that obligation is being met? Can they be gamed by lazy people to do the bare minimum work to get maximum benefits? Is it fair to let people take advantage of welfare programs like that? Is it right to force people to meet that obligation if they legitimately can't hold a job due to disability? Who decides what disabilities qualify? Who decides whether someone meets a disability? Who has the ability to even answer these questions?
The easy solution is to not care.
Set the benefits at the "half of a two bedroom apartment, and a diet of ramin noodles" level and anyone who is actually content with that was a lost cause anyway (they're not going to contribute meaningfully to the ecconamy no matter what). Make them availabe to anyone (UBI) and you save all the overhead of people to audit the system. Then let basic human greed resolve the rest of the problem, as people will still want luxuries and for that they have to get a job.
But they aren't good neighbours and don't call the police unless there is something in it for them.
Simplicity wasn't ever claimed. People were advocating that the government should point loaded guns at peoples' faces with the words "add this spy to your home and connect it to the public network, or else" and if the taxpayers don't fund it, then the government will have to shoot all those people in the faces and people will think the murders were unjustified so they won't continue to support the Democrats and Republicans (the parties that would be asking for this kind of stuff) with their votes.
Since the goal of government is to commit maximum evil, and this evil requires funding or else it will be voted out, we have a problem. UBI solves the problem, simple or not. You need a bug in your home and UBI is how we persuade everyone that it is your fault if you don't deploy it, because the taxpayers finance the bug. That makes the idea remain palatable to everyone, so that Democrats and Republicans can agree that everyone should be forced to have a bug in their home.
>> "Did you call the sheriffs?"
"Did you call the NSA?"
You don't even need to say that, it's active per default
aaaaaaa
A smart speaker, which was hooked up to a surround sound system inside the home, recognized that as a voice command and called 911, Romero said.
Clearly ABC does not understand the difference between a speaker and a microphone.
I had the volume up too loud watching Aliens and... well, we got nuked from orbit. Sorry.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
That's flat-out wrong. There are plenty of people that want to live on handouts and to never work an honest day in their life. I know people like this. They know every trick in the book to game every welfare-like program, and when the government does a sweep of welfare looking for cheats, they jump over to disability. If that stops working for them, they go back to welfare.
They won't get a job, they'll steal your shit while you're at work.
Someone shouldn't be making $1000 per week if that's not what they were earning before disability. If they were earning at least that prior to disability, then if able-bodied, they should be able to make that again. I don't see the problem here. If they're unwilling to return to work because it's work, pull their benefits and let them choose between work and starvation, just like the rest of us that work for a living.
This is not a good way to support UBI. The actual working class will see right through this.
Sure it does...
Now how much income?
Double the poverty line.
I believe this is a rare opportunity to use the original meaning of the phrase "begs the question".
The rich currently charge as much as they can for the product that made them rich. If they charge more, they make less. That's why they charge what they do.
To think the only reason a candy bar costs $2 instead of $3 is because the company already has plenty of money is silly.
That's flat-out wrong. There are plenty of people that want to live on handouts and to never work an honest day in their life. I know people like this. They know every trick in the book to game every welfare-like program, and when the government does a sweep of welfare looking for cheats, they jump over to disability. If that stops working for them, they go back to welfare.
I would rather see at least some number. How many percents of those who exploited the system. I am sure there are always people who live on with the exploitation. However, I don't believe that it is the majority (or even more than 15%). If you accuse that the majority is taking advantage of the system, then you should show the evidence. Because you have seen and experienced with these people, it does not mean you see it all. It could happen more heavily in certain group of people, but overall, the number of those isn't that significant.
I agree that most (majority of) people who are on the program would want to get better and get out of the program. It is not as easy as you think to get out of the program (lower resources give them much less chances to get better), but they are still trying. So your idea is that because there are bad people who exploit the system, all of those (majority) must be punished?
I don't believe that people in this country are helpless to the degree that so many people are depending on handouts for the government. As for numbers, I agree they'd be nice to have, but these are people cheating the system. You can't just do a query on cheaters and get a number. Further, politicians use these entitlements as a bargaining chip for votes. They stand in the way of any attempt to analyze the situation. They'll cite privacy or civil rights or any number of other barricades to prevent anyone from getting at the real data. My personal favorite is the double-talk that Boston pulls. They will claim there are no illegal aliens using public housing because it would be against the law. What they don't tell you is that it's against the law in Boston to ask for someone's citizenship or residency status when they're applying for aid. So there's absolutely people in public housing that shouldn't be (Obama had an aunt doing this), but you won't find it in the data because they're blocked by law from asking for or recording that information.
That's the dumbest thing I've read in a while, even on slashdot.
Seriously. The "or just print it" part clinched the dumbass award for him.
Sure it does...
Now how much income?
Double the poverty line.
I believe this is a rare opportunity to use the original meaning of the phrase "begs the question".
What question? The poverty line? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Seriously. The "or just print it" part clinched the dumbass award for him.
Are you under the impression that that's not what they do now? What do you think the federal debt is? It's money printing. Or the Fed can just print it itself like they did after 2008. If it makes you feel better, they can go through the formality of creating Treasury bills to offset the dollars they just created.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
What boot leather? No one has a shoe anywhere near my mouth. You watch too many movies and alex jones videos.
You are using one arbitrary threshold (double the poverty line) to define another arbitrary threshold (universal basic income) without actually answering the question of what those thresholds ought to be and why. Why should UBI be double the poverty line instead of half or triple or any other multiple of the poverty line? What is the poverty line to begin with? The US Federal poverty line was set in 1968 based on three times the estimated cost of an economy food budget, because at the time of creating the poverty definition, the Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. The threshold gets updated every year based on cost-of-goods and inflation, but since the cost of food as percentage of household budget has dropped, the poverty line doesn't actually reflect any practical cost of living. The federal government uses it for demographic purposes, but explicitly discourages it from being interpreted as any kind of personal budget. This whole dilemma of defining a poverty line should be a cautionary tale for those who want to set a UBI: even your basic assumptions will likely be invalidated with an generation or two.
...Sting and his band mates have the time to be responding to domestic disputes in addition to their touring duties.
Score 6, insightful ... in this case its maybe a good thing, and im sure thats why it will be linked all over, free advertisinig, im sure 1e100 has their own team 24/7 akin to a presidential election campaign team doing nothing but pounce on shti like this
... does that thing come with a switch ? I used to have this girlfriend , a bit of sangre caliente ... pointing knives at me and stuff followed by the mandatory goodies wasnt that rare ... a thing like that in the house would have been very inconvenient hahah
... some people can't, some people would take before they beg if they have to and with this i think i let myself be seduced into speaking again. However slashdot might be full of Trumpians (as it has always been, a certain upper intellectual class of hardworking whatever if you like ... it still seems to adhere to free speech is free so well why not)
do the math
uh, unless you're some redneck born from daddymoney conservative it would be hard to not see the benefit in benefit unless you are gonna go soylent green on they momma ass and do a gangsta stance on youtube-man ?
it beats having people steal your sandwich money since they have none, it saves a LOT more than it costs, it costs a lot less than keeping an invididual in prison and in a lot of cases prevents entry into the circle (you know , the one that becomes a downward spiral) and arguments like "that would never happen to me" mean you never had serious trouble or are either living in a privileged land of opportunity where you have never had to worry or even think about where the next meal is coming from.
but off-topic as it might be
but in my case i get a sudden urge to take the battery out of my android phone and im not even shooting my wife or raping the neighbours daughter
as for the wellfare, off-topic, but have you actually ever researched the very very small percentage of govt spending that actually is and the impact on society if you ban it since not everyone is built to be homeless beggars
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?