The government can borrow that $50k each year, and pay it back in 30 years, for less than $1 Million (current value). But without the stock market risk.
I think his point, poorly written as it is, is something like, "You wouldn't like it if I took half your money and gave it to an unemployed person. This purported increases equality. Therefore, you must not really like equality. You must personally feel you are superior to them, because of your education and/or consider it unfair that this happen to you."
I mean, the point is stupid, but it is comprehensible. Especially because the poster you were talking about says pretty much exclusively nonsense like that.
Of course you can give them money forever. You know money is spent, right? That the crops to feed them are a renewable resource? That, as automation takes over more and more jobs, we're rapidly approaching the point where 1% of the population working can support the other 99%?
I mean, why can't we keep unproductive people around? What's the limiting factor? We already give the computers, and internet access, and food and medicine.
They do live in a community with an HOA, it's called the zoning board/local government. I mean, I cannot think of a single difference between an HOA and a zoning board.
Absent that constant feed, half or more of the AR features don't work. I mean, if you want it to pop up info on who you are talking to, you need to send a picture of their face. Or if you want to find out about cheaper online deals, you need to send the barcode. IN both cases, you can do a lot of preprocessing on teh device.
In fairness, I don't think I ever met a murderer, but I still form an opinion about them. Judging someone based on their actions, esp. when that judgement is condemning them for a specific action (e.g. being a Glasshole is only the case while wearing a Google Glass device)
Do I think that there are people tracking me? No. Do I think that computer systems are tracking me on par with everyone else. Yes. Do I therefore oppose increasing their power? Yes.
I mean, do you not think that license plate tracking cameras are recording your car's movements along with all others?
Wetware is totally different. There's a fundamental difference in scale, completeness, and data-minability of automated metrics. Human beings have finiite time, and I doubt they want to spend time on me.
It's similar to why I think a GPS locator attached to your car requires a warrant, but a stakeout might not. Lowering the cost of doing something, down to electricity on a server (since hardware costs are borne by users) changes how we feel about it.
"The best" is rarely fully quantifiable. For instance, in a purely arbitrary way, solving PC issues is one problem that one person can "be the best".
But there's rarely a need to be "the best". It's a rare position where the top 5% aren't all capable of producing practically identical work output. In some jobs (e.g. burger flippers) that number is a lot higher.
Yes, I tend to oppose any "general purpose computing platform as wearable tech that could provide an immersive augmented reality system". I'd be fine with such wearables if there were safeguards that prevented the camera images from being uploaded to a server, say by having the AR done at the OS level.
I don't want license plate trackers, for faces, following me around - that seems logical.
Make your wearable a watch! Make it a cameraless screen in front of your eyes. Those don't impose a cost on my privacy.
They definitely mean at least one. I cannot imagine any bank deploying a system like this with real money on the line, until it had been tested in parallel with a system whose output is known and tested against it. Maybe internal transfers, maybe mirroring other transactions. I don't know the exact test.
Well, Pokemon Go is a game that you can tell doesn't feed information back to a company famous for invading privacy and building giant databases on people. I mean, it's camera data remains locally there (known) and not based on what app they are running. So, not as likely to record people.
Secondly, holding a phone in your hand is a conscious action. Most people aren't worried about obvious, human limited recording. It's the passive, pervasive police state glassholes wanted to subject us to that people object to.
I'm assuming it's obvious, but I hated Google Glass, and am happy it died in a fire.
So, your solution to people hating Google Glass because it could have its camera on all the time, is to write an app that requires its camera to be on all the time?
Wait, are you saying "A surrogate mother is signing away her child" or "A surrogate mother can keep the birth mother's child". Because, in the former case, I don't think she had any parental rights to sign away.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fascinating (and sad). I don't suppose you could point me towards a news story about it?
It worked out pretty well for them. And the Germans. I mean, check out the state of their actual economic state, as opposed to the stupid stereotypes.
Oh, you're telling me that you need your full salary? What about that person who needs a job now but has none.
The government can borrow that $50k each year, and pay it back in 30 years, for less than $1 Million (current value). But without the stock market risk.
I think his point, poorly written as it is, is something like, "You wouldn't like it if I took half your money and gave it to an unemployed person. This purported increases equality. Therefore, you must not really like equality. You must personally feel you are superior to them, because of your education and/or consider it unfair that this happen to you."
I mean, the point is stupid, but it is comprehensible. Especially because the poster you were talking about says pretty much exclusively nonsense like that.
Of course you can give them money forever. You know money is spent, right? That the crops to feed them are a renewable resource? That, as automation takes over more and more jobs, we're rapidly approaching the point where 1% of the population working can support the other 99%?
I mean, why can't we keep unproductive people around? What's the limiting factor? We already give the computers, and internet access, and food and medicine.
What would it be?
The "natural state" is me hitting you and taking your stuff.
AirBnB gets a percentage of the money. Why would they do anything to encourage price wars?
Absent that constant feed, half or more of the AR features don't work. I mean, if you want it to pop up info on who you are talking to, you need to send a picture of their face. Or if you want to find out about cheaper online deals, you need to send the barcode. IN both cases, you can do a lot of preprocessing on teh device.
In fairness, I don't think I ever met a murderer, but I still form an opinion about them. Judging someone based on their actions, esp. when that judgement is condemning them for a specific action (e.g. being a Glasshole is only the case while wearing a Google Glass device)
What do you mean "allow". You can write an encryption plug-in.
Do I think that there are people tracking me? No. Do I think that computer systems are tracking me on par with everyone else. Yes. Do I therefore oppose increasing their power? Yes.
I mean, do you not think that license plate tracking cameras are recording your car's movements along with all others?
Wetware is totally different. There's a fundamental difference in scale, completeness, and data-minability of automated metrics. Human beings have finiite time, and I doubt they want to spend time on me.
It's similar to why I think a GPS locator attached to your car requires a warrant, but a stakeout might not. Lowering the cost of doing something, down to electricity on a server (since hardware costs are borne by users) changes how we feel about it.
For smaller countries that want protection, yes. For strategically important/powerful countries, less so.
It would depend on a lot of circumstances. If you ran a gay strip club where the dancers were 95% non-white, that seems totally relevant.
How did they "find out you met the conditions of being a minority?"
I'm curious both because most conditions are outwardly visible, and the ones that aren't would have to be revealed by you...
"The best" is rarely fully quantifiable. For instance, in a purely arbitrary way, solving PC issues is one problem that one person can "be the best".
But there's rarely a need to be "the best". It's a rare position where the top 5% aren't all capable of producing practically identical work output. In some jobs (e.g. burger flippers) that number is a lot higher.
Names matter. Expectations matter. Pragmatically and legally.
I mean, "what a reasonable person would expect" is a common standard, for things like "was this shooting in self defense".
Yes, I tend to oppose any "general purpose computing platform as wearable tech that could provide an immersive augmented reality system". I'd be fine with such wearables if there were safeguards that prevented the camera images from being uploaded to a server, say by having the AR done at the OS level.
I don't want license plate trackers, for faces, following me around - that seems logical.
Make your wearable a watch! Make it a cameraless screen in front of your eyes. Those don't impose a cost on my privacy.
They definitely mean at least one. I cannot imagine any bank deploying a system like this with real money on the line, until it had been tested in parallel with a system whose output is known and tested against it. Maybe internal transfers, maybe mirroring other transactions. I don't know the exact test.
Almost? It's passed that point at least once. I don't know if it ever recovered.
Well, Pokemon Go is a game that you can tell doesn't feed information back to a company famous for invading privacy and building giant databases on people. I mean, it's camera data remains locally there (known) and not based on what app they are running. So, not as likely to record people.
Secondly, holding a phone in your hand is a conscious action. Most people aren't worried about obvious, human limited recording. It's the passive, pervasive police state glassholes wanted to subject us to that people object to.
I'm assuming it's obvious, but I hated Google Glass, and am happy it died in a fire.
So, your solution to people hating Google Glass because it could have its camera on all the time, is to write an app that requires its camera to be on all the time?
Wait, are you saying "A surrogate mother is signing away her child" or "A surrogate mother can keep the birth mother's child". Because, in the former case, I don't think she had any parental rights to sign away.
As an English sentence, yes. As a statement about a JOIN operation on tables, no.
It is an AR app