There have been at least 3 recent experiments at UBI. One in Norway, one in Canada, and one in the U.S. (State, not Federal).
All three failed miserably.
Sweden tried something similar quite a while ago. It wasn't exactly UBI but the effect was about the same. According to a Swedish fellow who worked at my company, "Back home, if you don't want to work you just don't. You still collect a nice 'paycheck' from the government every month."
When Sweden initiated these entitlement programs in the 1970s, they had the 4th highest per-capita GDP in the world.
20 years later they were down to 14th.
Alarmed about their economy, they scaled back the entitlement programs around the mid 90s, and 20 years later they were back up to 4th again.
A broken grid and long-term power outages, because they also took their backup coal and gas plants offline, thinking their "renewables" could handle it.
While it may be true that some TVs are not good at interlacing, interlacing in fact was designed to smooth motion, not blur it.
Theoretically, assuming your hardware is capable of doing it properly, a progressive-scan (p) video would need to have nearly twice the framerate of an interlaced (i) video, in order to achieve the same motion smoothness.
What you are talking about was clearly described in The Mythical Man Month, written clear back in 1995.
But I have noticed the effect itself. Too much interaction on, say, Slack can easily become as bad as a constantly-ongoing meeting... which is very bad indeed.
There have been times when I could wish my boss and others would just leave me alone so I could get my work done.
It amazes me that in Washington State (mentioned in the article) and elsewhere, the law does not allow common citizens to be subjected to polygraph tests against their will, for any reason... because they know the tests are prone to failure. Both false positives and false negatives occur at a completely unacceptable rate.
And yet... this makes no sense whatever... the law makes exceptions for police, and positions that involve "national security".
IMO, that's the height of stupidity. If you KNOW the damned things don't work â" and they do know that â" the last people you would want to use it for would be law enforcement and national security.
The level of cognitive dissonance required to do that just boggles the mind.
According to the very study cited, while most of the emails might not have been legit, of the ones that WERE, fully 99.7 of them supported Net Neutrality.
And there are a lot of VERY damned good reasons for that, too.
I presume that since mitigation measures for Spectre also work against Split Spectre, that CPUs (like mine) which aren't vulnerable to Spectre are also not vulnerable to Split Spectre?
I realize that it's a bit of speculation but it seems like a reasonable conclusion.
I know it might surprise some people but not all recent processors are vulnerable. For example, according to intel, in their i7 lineup only their 45nm and 32nm process chips are vulnerable.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an attempt to force one private party to police the actions of another private party.
Not a viable solution. If government wants it done, let government do it.
(Not that I think that's any better. It would probably be even worse.)
There have been at least 3 recent experiments at UBI. One in Norway, one in Canada, and one in the U.S. (State, not Federal).
All three failed miserably.
Sweden tried something similar quite a while ago. It wasn't exactly UBI but the effect was about the same. According to a Swedish fellow who worked at my company, "Back home, if you don't want to work you just don't. You still collect a nice 'paycheck' from the government every month."
When Sweden initiated these entitlement programs in the 1970s, they had the 4th highest per-capita GDP in the world.
20 years later they were down to 14th.
Alarmed about their economy, they scaled back the entitlement programs around the mid 90s, and 20 years later they were back up to 4th again.
If you think that's coincidence, you're crazy.
Not a very big problem, though, since there are 2 systems currently in active worldwide use: GPS and Glonass.
PLUS, there are at least two systems in development, scheduled to be fully deployed by 2020: China's Baidou and UK's Galileo.
Current (newer) chips are already able to make use of GPS, Glonass and Galileo.
The West really doesn't need Baidou. At all. GPS by itself was pretty good but now we have 3 systems we can use, even without it.
It was in the news worldwide, man.
I don't live in Australia.
But I do work there at times.
And what did Australia get for it?
A broken grid and long-term power outages, because they also took their backup coal and gas plants offline, thinking their "renewables" could handle it.
Not even close.
That does not imply cause and effect.
Maybe, on average, people who spend more time in front of screens already score lower on thinking and language tests.
Studies showed that was true when pretty much the only available screen was the TV. Why should it be any different now?
While it may be true that some TVs are not good at interlacing, interlacing in fact was designed to smooth motion, not blur it.
Theoretically, assuming your hardware is capable of doing it properly, a progressive-scan (p) video would need to have nearly twice the framerate of an interlaced (i) video, in order to achieve the same motion smoothness.
What you are talking about was clearly described in The Mythical Man Month , written clear back in 1995.
But I have noticed the effect itself. Too much interaction on, say, Slack can easily become as bad as a constantly-ongoing meeting... which is very bad indeed.
There have been times when I could wish my boss and others would just leave me alone so I could get my work done.
It sure would seem so.
Maybe there's something I'm missing, but this appears to be one of the stupidest ideas I've read about all year.
Especially if they're pushing subscription software.
I don't "subscribe" to software. No apologies. Sell it to me, or get stuffed.
I thought I had implied that pretty clearly with the word "settle". But maybe not.
I meant long run.
If they stay that way long, they're gone.
Bring up "intrinsic value" and you'll get Keynesians arguing with you all day that there is no such thing.
But I'm willing to go as far as saying the closest crypto has to "intrinsic value" is the cost of making them.
They can't go below that for long, and when (as they did not long ago) they go far above that, it's pretty clearly a bubble.
OP's notion that Bitcoin could level off at $100 is ludicrous.
The simple reason is that today, they cost much more than that to create.
You don't sell your product -- be it corn, or boats, or steaks, or crypto coins for less than they cost to make.
If they "settle" at less than cost of manufacture, they're gone before long.
This Pai jerk needs to go. Very soon.
You know what FCC just did? They just declared SMS to be an "information service" like internet, as opposed to communication.
That means now carriers can now choose to slow down, time-delay, or even block SMS any time they want.
At least a couple of federal courts have ruled that Customs needs a warrant to search your computer or phone.
What the internet needs is to replace the tiered DNS system with a decentralized system.
Perhaps one based on NameCoin, which seems to be the most advanced so far, to the best of my knowledge.
Then we won't have to be so concerned with countries and borders and "authorities" messing things up.
Indeed. Parent is confused.
Many don't realize that 6 of the 7 years just before the regulation was passed in 2015 were under Net Neutrality rules.
And those rules were so horrible... nobody even noticed they were there.
People who think it's onerous regulation don't know its history.
Ugh. When will Slashdot finally switch over to UTF-8 like everyone else in the world? I can't even enter an emdash and have it come out properly.
It amazes me that in Washington State (mentioned in the article) and elsewhere, the law does not allow common citizens to be subjected to polygraph tests against their will, for any reason... because they know the tests are prone to failure. Both false positives and false negatives occur at a completely unacceptable rate.
And yet... this makes no sense whatever... the law makes exceptions for police, and positions that involve "national security".
IMO, that's the height of stupidity. If you KNOW the damned things don't work â" and they do know that â" the last people you would want to use it for would be law enforcement and national security.
The level of cognitive dissonance required to do that just boggles the mind.
News to data scientists: nobody cares.
Just in case that needs clarifying:
Of the approximately 3,828,000 legitimate email comments received by FCC:
3,816,516 were in favor of Net Neutrality.
Only 11,484 were not.
Obviously the numbers are subject to rounding error. But rounding error is pretty irrelevant when the majority is that overwhelming.
Ridiculous.
According to the very study cited, while most of the emails might not have been legit, of the ones that WERE, fully 99.7 of them supported Net Neutrality.
And there are a lot of VERY damned good reasons for that, too.
I presume that since mitigation measures for Spectre also work against Split Spectre, that CPUs (like mine) which aren't vulnerable to Spectre are also not vulnerable to Split Spectre?
I realize that it's a bit of speculation but it seems like a reasonable conclusion.
I know it might surprise some people but not all recent processors are vulnerable. For example, according to intel, in their i7 lineup only their 45nm and 32nm process chips are vulnerable.