One approach that would allow them to avoid that is to disable the primary function and not accept a gateway address until the user changes the password.
The concern is valid, but in developed countries where exposure to wild polio is extremely unlikely, the currently preferred vaccine is an inactivated form that cannot itself cause polio.
In regions where it is endemic, the live oral vaccine is used. It has the advantages of being very cheap and since no injection is needed it is probably safer to use in places where sterile conditions are unlikely. In those areas, it is still safer than risking wild polio. The fact that recipients actually shed weakened polio for days may be an advantage rather than a risk.
But yeah, for the sake of discussion, smallpox is a less complex example than polio.
It's a little more complicated. First, separating parent and child is an intrinsic harm in and of itself, so you need to be damned certain the parents are harming the child. In this case, the child was already under a physician's care. It's not as if the parents were giving her black market medical treatments. Neither group of doctors claimed that there was nothing wrong with her or that the parents were actively giving her something to make her sick, they just disagreed on the diagnosis.
Essentially the parents were "abusive" because they believed the doctors at Tufts rather than the doctors at Boston Children's.
By your reasoning, security is a fixed steady state of false. Is that safe secure? No, given only 6 months and a modest $100 million investment, it can be drilled through.
They won't change their minds. You see, they sincerely believe the vaccine will do more harm than good. Even if they DO get polio, they'll still be glad that they didn't compound it by getting the vaccine as well. Yes, I do see the logical flaw there, that's why I'm glad to have had my vaccinations.
OK, but you won't like it. That will mean the software doesn't release until the lead programmer says so. No ifs ands or buts. If management presses too hard on that issue, THEY go to jail. Expect prices to get a lot higher and development time to multiply. Provide a high quality hardware platform or no go. No substituting hardware later or you invalidate the sign-off. Expect to have a computer dedicated to that application and that application only. Be sure to get any thing added to the LAN approved...
In that case, they are charging you extra for something that actually costs them extra. The credit card companies actually do take a percentage of what you pay for themselves, they just hide the umbrella by charging it to the merchant rather than the cardholder.
The real problem fees are the ones like Comcast hides that you will never not be charged.
If you have good connectivity and the right software. Also if you're used to using a computer with a touchscreen. The latter is probably a bit of an issue for many coaches. Given a concerted effort, I'm sure they'd get it but they are supposed to be paying attention to the game, not the technology.
For the most part, they're a solution looking for a problem as far as the coaches are concerned. What they were using before was working for them.
Yes, you seem OK with doing something and deferring the reward, that wasn't in question. But you recoil in horror at the basic income unless you are individually born to wealth, then it's OK?
The question at hand is "is it OK for people to receive value without doing anything". You and cayenne8 seem to be saying "only if they're fabulously wealthy". rather than the more consistant "No, put the rich parasites to work too" or "Yes, that's fine".
As for the rest, yes small scale automation is a good thing. So is large scale automation. The automation isn't the problem, it is a failure to adjust our social and economic policies to the new reality that is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Most small business owners who started the business without that small million dollar loan from dad do not own machines that crank out value while they watch. Most end up being owner/operators. They would probably benefit greatly from the basic income. They need for enough local people to have enough money to spend to keep them in business.
Yeah, just starve those retired fuckers in the streets. That'll make things better. No way they'll take up rifles and fix their situations.
We'll just get us some government death panels to decide who has to go.
We could get a long way by terminating our endless war in the middle east and billing the chickenhawks and their friends for the odious debt they ran up for personal benefit.
In many cases, that's true. Unfortunately, the million dollar CEOs who claim that superior skills make them worth that much can't seem to work that out for themselves.
However, I'm talking about jobs such as assembly. Foxcom is replacing 45,000 workers this year with machines.
Too bad so few can actually afford any of those things (soon to be fewer). If we implement the basic income, we might see some of those things actually become viable, but not now.
Note that the fitted clothing is likely to be provided by machines. There are already prototypes.
Sure, once in a while someone really does work very hard and have everything go their way and make it from scratch. However, most are born on 3rd base. Some just inherit the lot. You don't seem to mind that they don't have to contribute to live it up.
In general, I'm against police swiping gift/ATM/credit cards but in this case they DID obtain a search warrant first and having 143 gift cards is questionable, especially when combined with a criminal history and no good explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
One approach that would allow them to avoid that is to disable the primary function and not accept a gateway address until the user changes the password.
The concern is valid, but in developed countries where exposure to wild polio is extremely unlikely, the currently preferred vaccine is an inactivated form that cannot itself cause polio.
In regions where it is endemic, the live oral vaccine is used. It has the advantages of being very cheap and since no injection is needed it is probably safer to use in places where sterile conditions are unlikely. In those areas, it is still safer than risking wild polio. The fact that recipients actually shed weakened polio for days may be an advantage rather than a risk.
But yeah, for the sake of discussion, smallpox is a less complex example than polio.
That could be fixed by putting the teeth back into consumer laws.
It's a little more complicated. First, separating parent and child is an intrinsic harm in and of itself, so you need to be damned certain the parents are harming the child. In this case, the child was already under a physician's care. It's not as if the parents were giving her black market medical treatments. Neither group of doctors claimed that there was nothing wrong with her or that the parents were actively giving her something to make her sick, they just disagreed on the diagnosis.
Essentially the parents were "abusive" because they believed the doctors at Tufts rather than the doctors at Boston Children's.
By your reasoning, security is a fixed steady state of false. Is that safe secure? No, given only 6 months and a modest $100 million investment, it can be drilled through.
They won't change their minds. You see, they sincerely believe the vaccine will do more harm than good. Even if they DO get polio, they'll still be glad that they didn't compound it by getting the vaccine as well. Yes, I do see the logical flaw there, that's why I'm glad to have had my vaccinations.
OK, but you won't like it. That will mean the software doesn't release until the lead programmer says so. No ifs ands or buts. If management presses too hard on that issue, THEY go to jail. Expect prices to get a lot higher and development time to multiply. Provide a high quality hardware platform or no go. No substituting hardware later or you invalidate the sign-off. Expect to have a computer dedicated to that application and that application only. Be sure to get any thing added to the LAN approved...
Yes, it works startlingly well. And it blows up any notion that counts on rational actors in the market.
In that case, they are charging you extra for something that actually costs them extra. The credit card companies actually do take a percentage of what you pay for themselves, they just hide the umbrella by charging it to the merchant rather than the cardholder.
The real problem fees are the ones like Comcast hides that you will never not be charged.
I'm merely expressing the impression you have left so far. Consider it an invitation to correct my understanding of your position.
If you have good connectivity and the right software. Also if you're used to using a computer with a touchscreen. The latter is probably a bit of an issue for many coaches. Given a concerted effort, I'm sure they'd get it but they are supposed to be paying attention to the game, not the technology.
For the most part, they're a solution looking for a problem as far as the coaches are concerned. What they were using before was working for them.
Yes, you seem OK with doing something and deferring the reward, that wasn't in question. But you recoil in horror at the basic income unless you are individually born to wealth, then it's OK?
The question at hand is "is it OK for people to receive value without doing anything". You and cayenne8 seem to be saying "only if they're fabulously wealthy". rather than the more consistant "No, put the rich parasites to work too" or "Yes, that's fine".
As for the rest, yes small scale automation is a good thing. So is large scale automation. The automation isn't the problem, it is a failure to adjust our social and economic policies to the new reality that is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
But it sure blows up the claim that our current economic system will inevitably drive price down to the marginal cost of production.
If our system vaguely resembled Smith's Capitalism, maybe.
Most small business owners who started the business without that small million dollar loan from dad do not own machines that crank out value while they watch. Most end up being owner/operators. They would probably benefit greatly from the basic income. They need for enough local people to have enough money to spend to keep them in business.
That says nothing about productivity. It says a lot about where the benefits of that productivity accrue (hint, not to the people working 2 jobs).
Yeah, just starve those retired fuckers in the streets. That'll make things better. No way they'll take up rifles and fix their situations.
We'll just get us some government death panels to decide who has to go.
We could get a long way by terminating our endless war in the middle east and billing the chickenhawks and their friends for the odious debt they ran up for personal benefit.
In many cases, that's true. Unfortunately, the million dollar CEOs who claim that superior skills make them worth that much can't seem to work that out for themselves.
However, I'm talking about jobs such as assembly. Foxcom is replacing 45,000 workers this year with machines.
I just looked. It's $0.30/bottle at Wallmart. That's much better, but still a bit pricy compared to the actual cost.
So what's the excuse for $0.50 cent shirts going for $50 and $5.00 shoes going for $100?
Too bad so few can actually afford any of those things (soon to be fewer). If we implement the basic income, we might see some of those things actually become viable, but not now.
Note that the fitted clothing is likely to be provided by machines. There are already prototypes.
Tso what?
Sure, once in a while someone really does work very hard and have everything go their way and make it from scratch. However, most are born on 3rd base. Some just inherit the lot. You don't seem to mind that they don't have to contribute to live it up.
They got one. It's right there in the summary.
In general, I'm against police swiping gift/ATM/credit cards but in this case they DID obtain a search warrant first and having 143 gift cards is questionable, especially when combined with a criminal history and no good explanation.
Yes, because they happened to be born to rich parents. They probably got a small loan of a million dollars.
But that was yesterday. What are they doing today? You and cayenne8 seem to expect everyone else to do something today.