The problem with universal basic income is that many of us will become an expense with zero return.
Everything people need to purchase to live provides a return for somebody, so your premise here is just blatantly false. I take it you are a supply side minded economist? To my mind you can supply all you want, if nobody buys nobody profits.
I have a fifteen year old refrigerator that still works, as well as a twenty year old oven, a nine year old smart phone, an eleven year old TV, lamps that are more than thirty years old, a lawnmower that is going on twenty years old, and lots of other "shit" that is fifteen years or older that still works. Why should anyone discard functional things just because of Microsoft's say so?
You and I are at odds. I see anonymous posting as the soul of slashdot. Sure some people post anonymously just to troll, but others have very good reasons to remain anonymous.
I really don't see much left that allows them to be united anymore. It would probably be best to allow the remnants of the formally great Empire to go their separate ways.
many of the RICH are far greater risk to your property than refugee's. Sure many of the RICH have simply had a few good breaks or been LUCKY. But a whole fuck load of them a lazy, greedy selfish arseholes that if you hand them anything they will simply use it as an opportunity to take more.
Far too many people can be found wandering around cities at night without places to go, and that leaves them at the mercy of dope dealers and others who are looking to profit from their misery.
The best way to get something universally adapted is to make that something universally available. Sure monopolizing a thing may be profitable in the short run, but for the long haul only openness matters.
...seeing a person go in to VFIB on the monitor and finding them pulseless when you go into their room. Stressful is knowing that if you do not perform your job right that person may very well not live. IT does not have even an inkling of what stressful is.
It is one thing to present a problem, it is quite another to propose a solution. What immediately implementable solution do you have to replace diesel in the distribution of needed resources?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with universal basic income is that many of us will become an expense with zero return.
Everything people need to purchase to live provides a return for somebody, so your premise here is just blatantly false. I take it you are a supply side minded economist? To my mind you can supply all you want, if nobody buys nobody profits.
Has there ever been a project with a better cost to science ratio than the mars rover?
I would say the discovery of fire and the invention of agriculture have provided far more returns.
Surely even anyone here who is incapable of switching out a plug is at least capable of using an adapter?
I have a fifteen year old refrigerator that still works, as well as a twenty year old oven, a nine year old smart phone, an eleven year old TV, lamps that are more than thirty years old, a lawnmower that is going on twenty years old, and lots of other "shit" that is fifteen years or older that still works. Why should anyone discard functional things just because of Microsoft's say so?
You and I are at odds. I see anonymous posting as the soul of slashdot. Sure some people post anonymously just to troll, but others have very good reasons to remain anonymous.
So you are in effect censoring yourself.
There's a research psychiatrist (who I cannot remember now)
Shouldn't you first address your memory deficit before you offer advice to others?
A thing being "very expensive" limits its potential to become a universally adopted.
Nah, the vast majority of Slashdotters are libertarian. Leave us alone and we well leave you alone.
I really don't see much left that allows them to be united anymore. It would probably be best to allow the remnants of the formally great Empire to go their separate ways.
many of the RICH are far greater risk to your property than refugee's. Sure many of the RICH have simply had a few good breaks or been LUCKY. But a whole fuck load of them a lazy, greedy selfish arseholes that if you hand them anything they will simply use it as an opportunity to take more.
Most of those I've met are happy if you offer them a blanket and/or a meal. Dope is expensive.
Far too many people can be found wandering around cities at night without places to go, and that leaves them at the mercy of dope dealers and others who are looking to profit from their misery.
...an internet to communicate. Still, anything that will slow down terrorists communications will be most welcome among us proles.
The best way to get something universally adapted is to make that something universally available. Sure monopolizing a thing may be profitable in the short run, but for the long haul only openness matters.
...give a shit about their rights to repair.
...seeing a person go in to VFIB on the monitor and finding them pulseless when you go into their room. Stressful is knowing that if you do not perform your job right that person may very well not live. IT does not have even an inkling of what stressful is.
When you violate somebody you violate somebody. Both deserve equal punishment.
Flying above other peoples property places them at risk. Those who do so should be held both criminally and civilly responsible.
...all of these security holes off, it's all good
So none then. You propose we sacrifice 10 times that many people banning deisel then?
It is one thing to present a problem, it is quite another to propose a solution. What immediately implementable solution do you have to replace diesel in the distribution of needed resources?
Open to ideas here....how do you propose the world deal with North Korea?
Copyright was only for 14 years in 1701. One could renew for another 14 I think. Good incentive to motivate producers create new things I think.
The alternative to unsafe bridges may be no bridges at all. We are talking about engineering and architecture here, right?