It is worse than that. This is why I vote independent.
How... ineffective. I mean, compared to voting for someone good in the primaries. Seriously, if the Libertarians wanted to get people in Congress, they would try to be Ron Paul, not Gary Johnson.
The largest owner and the President/CEO are high-ranking members of the Communist Party (as well as retired officers in the Chinese Army). There's a connection there.
Hmm, I don't remember any of this in The Force Awakens.
He probably was thinking of Attack of the Clones. That's the one with all the government hearings. I get it, there are a lot of movies to keep straight.
Those are mutually exclusive. You don't understand how things work.
The US's miltary is the largest in the world [citation not fucking needed]. Larger than the next, what, 10 combined. The US's tax rate is far lower than France, Belgium or the Scandavian countries (The US rate is about 60%). The US's tax rate is like the 12th lowest in the world, primarily beaten by non-states (e.g. Afghanistan) or Oil States (e.g. Kuwait). Although there are 2 or 3 industrial nations with lower rates.
I agree setting the US military budget to 0 would be stupid. I'm a big fan of US military spending. I'm just saying, the US, with low taxes and a huge military, can fund like 1/3 of UBI without raising taxes or cutting programs (other than the programs that would get replaced by having a UBI, like food stamps.) That's pretty good. Presumably, Canada, with it's lower military costs and higher taxes, could do much better.
You want be a subject of the Communist Chinese government? Or of Vladimir Putin? Or be subject to Sharia Law,
I'm not really worried about ISIS level threats. We have enough private arms to ensure that that's not a real threat. China and Russia both are real threats. Frankly, both of them seem to be winning the soft-power contests against the US already.
I don't see why. In the US, the budget allows something like $5k/yr in UBI without increasing taxes or decreasing programs that aren't replaced by UBI. I mean, that's only 1/3 of the way to a real UBI program, but that's the US. With a crazy bloated military budget and pretty low tax rates.
But it's a modern PR thing, oh-we-are-so-progressive, we're going to try this, we're ahead of the heard. I've seen so many countries try this by now (and later ditching it, when it wasn't making the news anymore) that I don't quite believe in the sincerity behind the project.
In Finland, it was designed, implemented and aborted by right-wingers who wanted it to fail. It was PR, but not "oh, we're modern" PR. It was "basic income will never function, back to work" PR.
What if you are currently unemployed or underemployed? If this basic income pushes you up by $17,000, then it removes the incentive to find a better job until you find one that makes well in excess of $17,000.
It encourages employers to pay more than $17,000 for any job where you cannot handle the person quitting because they don't feel like it anymore. And it encourages entrepreneurship, because you make $17,000/yr (instead of the usual $0) while getting your business started and going.
Also, 17k/yr is less than the US minimum wage (Yes, it's in Canada... I used 17k CAD. The costs of living seem comprable)
Laws that transfer power from citizens to the government are never about "good intentions," they're about control.
See, the problem is, of course they're sometimes well-intentioned. Hell, laws preventing running red lights are "transferring power form citizens to the government". Starting with a stupid absolute just means that the rest of your argument is going to be dismissed as vaguely general
And that's too bad, because there are a lot of issues with this law. But you jumped into the deep end.
Your car isn't really yours anyway. The government reserves the right to take it away from you on various specious bases.
Maybe where you are. While my government requires me to pay annually, that's only if I want to drive the car. If I put it in a garage.on a private track, it's mine.
I suppose they can take my car if I use it in a crime.
It's the lack of wanting to deal with Android Auto, USB-updates, etc. that keep me locked into used (and aging) cars. I have a phone (and tablet, and other computing devices) I want a car to drive. Even when renting a car with a nav system, I don't think I've ever used it. I'm amazed, not that Renault wanted to charge for updates, but in car navigation is a positive for anyone. I just want 5V in USB format and audio input to the stereo.
I guess, what I'm saying, is that I'm already paying for feature upgrades in an open market where I have lots of choices. Why a car company thinks their computing will fit my needs at all compared to what I bought last month is confusing.
A distinction with no difference for cars made in 2018. And also why I'm only looking at used cars. I'm dreading the day I have to buy a car with flashable firmware.
why should I care that he is buying a company that created an open source protocol??
You shouldn't care about Justin Sun. You should care about the buying of bittorrent. It's just like if Mozilla was bought by person X. The fact that it's Mozilla is what's interesting.
30% of buyers have said that they are looking at an EV for their next car
Looking at != buying. That doesn't even mean buying if both are available and comparably priced... which they are not.
it only costs Tesla about $28,000 (assuming they are making 10,000 model 3's a week).
And it only costs me $0.30 to make an EV, assuming I can copy one at Kinkos. What's the point with non-reality based things again?
They face at least 5 years before they can make EVs at the same scale for the same price point as Tesla.
The main reason it's cheaper for Tesla than other companies is the lower amount of Cobalt in their batteries. Since Tesla has committed to open up all their patents, other companies can just start making those batteries.
How many of those senators voted to add it to the bill, but have no intent to vote on the actual bill itself?
Maybe 2 won't vote for the bill. They added it to "Fund the US Military, the Bill". It's like 40% of the US budget, agreed to and everything. It pretty much has to pass, like the debt ceiling, or the economy/country suffers a catastrophy.
Slashdot Mirror
How... ineffective. I mean, compared to voting for someone good in the primaries. Seriously, if the Libertarians wanted to get people in Congress, they would try to be Ron Paul, not Gary Johnson.
The largest owner and the President/CEO are high-ranking members of the Communist Party (as well as retired officers in the Chinese Army). There's a connection there.
Are they? I heard congress was trying to grow some balls to overrule Trump (on this one small issue).
He probably was thinking of Attack of the Clones. That's the one with all the government hearings. I get it, there are a lot of movies to keep straight.
That the (12th) low(est) taxes and the worlds largest military are somehow "mutually exclusive" (emphasis yours).
Is English your second language? You either seem to be unable to follow simple statements or have me confused with someone else.
Those are mutually exclusive. You don't understand how things work.
The US's miltary is the largest in the world [citation not fucking needed]. Larger than the next, what, 10 combined. The US's tax rate is far lower than France, Belgium or the Scandavian countries (The US rate is about 60%). The US's tax rate is like the 12th lowest in the world, primarily beaten by non-states (e.g. Afghanistan) or Oil States (e.g. Kuwait). Although there are 2 or 3 industrial nations with lower rates.
(Oh, those numbers are pre-2017 tax cut)
I get it doesn't agree with your world view...
Or AT&T acquiring Time-Warner (although there are lawsuits around that.) Or Sprint/T-Mobile which just got announced.
Thanks!
I agree setting the US military budget to 0 would be stupid. I'm a big fan of US military spending. I'm just saying, the US, with low taxes and a huge military, can fund like 1/3 of UBI without raising taxes or cutting programs (other than the programs that would get replaced by having a UBI, like food stamps.) That's pretty good. Presumably, Canada, with it's lower military costs and higher taxes, could do much better.
I'm not really worried about ISIS level threats. We have enough private arms to ensure that that's not a real threat. China and Russia both are real threats. Frankly, both of them seem to be winning the soft-power contests against the US already.
I don't see why. In the US, the budget allows something like $5k/yr in UBI without increasing taxes or decreasing programs that aren't replaced by UBI. I mean, that's only 1/3 of the way to a real UBI program, but that's the US. With a crazy bloated military budget and pretty low tax rates.
Sounds plausible, but do you have a source? Or the name of the person?
In Finland, it was designed, implemented and aborted by right-wingers who wanted it to fail. It was PR, but not "oh, we're modern" PR. It was "basic income will never function, back to work" PR.
It encourages employers to pay more than $17,000 for any job where you cannot handle the person quitting because they don't feel like it anymore. And it encourages entrepreneurship, because you make $17,000/yr (instead of the usual $0) while getting your business started and going.
Also, 17k/yr is less than the US minimum wage (Yes, it's in Canada... I used 17k CAD. The costs of living seem comprable)
See, the problem is, of course they're sometimes well-intentioned. Hell, laws preventing running red lights are "transferring power form citizens to the government". Starting with a stupid absolute just means that the rest of your argument is going to be dismissed as vaguely general
And that's too bad, because there are a lot of issues with this law. But you jumped into the deep end.
Maybe where you are. While my government requires me to pay annually, that's only if I want to drive the car. If I put it in a garage.on a private track, it's mine.
I suppose they can take my car if I use it in a crime.
It's the lack of wanting to deal with Android Auto, USB-updates, etc. that keep me locked into used (and aging) cars. I have a phone (and tablet, and other computing devices) I want a car to drive. Even when renting a car with a nav system, I don't think I've ever used it. I'm amazed, not that Renault wanted to charge for updates, but in car navigation is a positive for anyone. I just want 5V in USB format and audio input to the stereo.
I guess, what I'm saying, is that I'm already paying for feature upgrades in an open market where I have lots of choices. Why a car company thinks their computing will fit my needs at all compared to what I bought last month is confusing.
A distinction with no difference for cars made in 2018. And also why I'm only looking at used cars. I'm dreading the day I have to buy a car with flashable firmware.
A PC is not a car. Namely, a PC's updates are frequently for security and/or interoperability.
Yup, a 2/3 majority. But that's going to happen. Cause it's tied to the continued to existence of the US military.
If the bill doesn't pass, approximately 750 billion will not be spent on the US military, leading to a sudden collapse.
You shouldn't care about Justin Sun. You should care about the buying of bittorrent. It's just like if Mozilla was bought by person X. The fact that it's Mozilla is what's interesting.
Looking at != buying. That doesn't even mean buying if both are available and comparably priced... which they are not.
it only costs Tesla about $28,000 (assuming they are making 10,000 model 3's a week).
And it only costs me $0.30 to make an EV, assuming I can copy one at Kinkos. What's the point with non-reality based things again?
The main reason it's cheaper for Tesla than other companies is the lower amount of Cobalt in their batteries. Since Tesla has committed to open up all their patents, other companies can just start making those batteries.
Why are OTA updates a good thing? It just indicates that what I purchased isn't really mine, and can be taken away by a malicious or malformed update.
Maybe 2 won't vote for the bill. They added it to "Fund the US Military, the Bill". It's like 40% of the US budget, agreed to and everything. It pretty much has to pass, like the debt ceiling, or the economy/country suffers a catastrophy.
And have your veto promptly overridden? 85-10 is pretty veto-proof.