Imagine if the US turned over to China everybody who spoke ill of the Chinese government, or shipped off to North Korea the people who released documents that North Korea deemed offensive.
That would indeed be terrifying, which is why most of the Western world has extradition treaties with neither of those countries.
What we don't need is long distance power transmission by superconductor.
Define "need." We don't strictly "need" a lot of things. That doesn't mean that long-distance, near-lossless power transmission wouldn't be a transformative technology.
There's a difference between "foreign intelligence services know where your military base is" and "every wahoo with an internet connection knows where your military base is." Secrecy comes in degrees.
That'd be pretty mediocre! My 125cc Honda gets >120 MPG. It won't cut it for freeway driving, but it'll get up to 45-50mph without too much struggling.
I've done it. It's just like using your phone while it's plugged into a wall outlet. After 15-20 minutes my phone is usually up to at least a 20% charge and the crisis is over.
That's in line with what I've experienced. If a person is "jaywalking" they are by definition not at a marked crossing, which is why I challenge OPs claim.
I'm an American who has traveled quite a lot and that sounds odd. I've spent time in a fair number of European and east-Asian countries. I haven't been to one where pedestrians universally have right of way. In all cases I've seen, pedestrians are expected to wait for vehicular traffic to clear before they cross when crossing outside of a designated crossing area.
The single-income family started dying out a long time before Jeff Bezos started opening his fulfillment centers.
Even if we accept that a single-income family should be a minimum standard, I disagree that increasing the minimum wage is the way to do it. Either Amazon starts drastically overpaying high school kids working in their warehouses as a summer job, or the minimum wage comes on a sliding scale that disincentivizes hiring the people who most need the work. I think a more appropriate solution are income top-up programs, or a negative income tax. Implementing such a system is more complicated than Bezos deciding he wants to pay his employees more.
A household with two breadwinners would be bringing home $60k/yr at $15/hr. Or is your suggestion that the minimum wage for Amazon's warehouse workers be $30/hr?
I'm an expat and frequently use a site called TransferWise to move currency between accounts. I think the highest fee I paid was about 1.5% because I was moving a small amount of money (~$150). It looks like they also support transferring to Pakistani accounts. I'm legitimately curious - what kind of fees do you end up paying to move money with Bitcoin?
That's OP's point. The fact that India isn't producing homegrown killer apps has little to do with a lack of technical talent or resources. It comes down to difficulty of doing business and political interference (and probably myriad other causes).
The Hospital ER cannot turn you away for not having health insurance, and having no means to pay.
In the United States, that's not technically true. The law that requires hospitals to provide emergency medical care, EMTALA, only applies to hospitals that accept Medicare or Medicaid payments. Practically that is almost all American hospitals, but you do have pediatric hospitals that never see Medicare patients and do choose to opt out of certain Medicare incentive programs. Purely for PR and ethical reasons I can't imagine any of them would opt out of EMTALA, but technically they could.
A little bit more goes into these studies than what "sounds" right. Not understanding the methodology of a study with a layman's knowledge of the topic is not a good reason to discard the findings of a paper published in the Lancet.
Why buy a $1000 smartphone when you can get a half as good phone for $200? Which still beats every smartphone from two years ago?
Because when we're talking about a device that I'm going to use dozens of times per day, every single day, I'm willing to pay a premium for something that is twice as good. Do you honestly never buy yourself nice things simply for the pleasure of using them? I understand the economic argument against buying a top-of-the-line widget (car, phone, graphics card, CPU, TV, whatever), but not the surprise that others choose to do so.
Many of the suggestions for funding UBI depend on generous assumptions about how much money can be saved by replacing every other social safety net program with UBI. My point is that it does not, or at least not to the degree that is often suggested. You'll still have administrative overhead of going through complicated procedures to determine whether a UBI recipient also qualifies for the supplemental safety net program.
My point is not at all that this is a UBI problem. It's a "societies which have decided that it's bad to have neglected, unfed kids" problem. I'm just trying to point out that it;s a pipe dream to think that all welfare programs can be made unnecessary by simply cutting every citizen a UBI check.
$7,000 annually. That would be sufficient to subsist if doing nothing else.
I'm skeptical. Most studies consider an individual to be facing housing price pressure if they're spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Even if we allow for these UBI recipients to be spending 50% of their income, you're talking ~$300/month. I know that there are places where you can rent a room at that rate, but it's going to require either relocating those who are living purely on UBI, or an additional housing benefit.
That brings me to my next concern about the practicality of relying on UBI. What happens when someone takes their UBI, their spouse's UBI, and their kids' UBI and blows it at the casino (or on your vice of choice)? What does society do in that scenario to prevent the kids from ending up on the street? Do we create a whole new system of safety nets and monitoring systems to make sure we don't have people falling through the cracks of the UBI system? Or, do we simply accept that individuals have a right to spend their UBI as they see fit, damn the consequences?
I know that this is the minority case. I believe that most recipients of UBI would use it to take care of themselves and their families. Some tiny minority would not, and a society that wants to implement UBI either needs to implement additional safety nets for when UBI fails, or live with the consequences of not doing so. For moral and ethical reasons, I don't think the altter is tenable.
I agree with the principle behind your arguments for UBI but I don't see how it can be implemented in the real world. If you've made it this far, thanks for reading.
You do realize that the notch on the iPhone has a functional purpose, right? It's where the face scanning hardware lives. The absurd design decision is to add a notch to the phone for no other reason than to make it look more like an iPhone, which is what we're seeing from a variety of Android handset manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine if the US turned over to China everybody who spoke ill of the Chinese government, or shipped off to North Korea the people who released documents that North Korea deemed offensive.
That would indeed be terrifying, which is why most of the Western world has extradition treaties with neither of those countries.
My conclusion based on that posting pattern is that the "editor" is a group of people, not a single insane person.
You're telling me that the Clinton family is in business with Iran, and somehow that bit of dirt didn't get dug up at any point in the 2016 campaign?
Americans by and large WANT a border wall
54% of American voters oppose a border wall.
What we don't need is long distance power transmission by superconductor.
Define "need." We don't strictly "need" a lot of things. That doesn't mean that long-distance, near-lossless power transmission wouldn't be a transformative technology.
There's a difference between "foreign intelligence services know where your military base is" and "every wahoo with an internet connection knows where your military base is." Secrecy comes in degrees.
Some scooters get 92MPG
That'd be pretty mediocre! My 125cc Honda gets >120 MPG. It won't cut it for freeway driving, but it'll get up to 45-50mph without too much struggling.
I've done it. It's just like using your phone while it's plugged into a wall outlet. After 15-20 minutes my phone is usually up to at least a 20% charge and the crisis is over.
That's in line with what I've experienced. If a person is "jaywalking" they are by definition not at a marked crossing, which is why I challenge OPs claim.
Pedestrians typically have right of way over cars
I'm an American who has traveled quite a lot and that sounds odd. I've spent time in a fair number of European and east-Asian countries. I haven't been to one where pedestrians universally have right of way. In all cases I've seen, pedestrians are expected to wait for vehicular traffic to clear before they cross when crossing outside of a designated crossing area.
What countries are you referring to?
I can see the Slashdot headline now: "Are Computers on a Chip a money-grabbing attempt to bypass right to repair laws?"
The single-income family started dying out a long time before Jeff Bezos started opening his fulfillment centers.
Even if we accept that a single-income family should be a minimum standard, I disagree that increasing the minimum wage is the way to do it. Either Amazon starts drastically overpaying high school kids working in their warehouses as a summer job, or the minimum wage comes on a sliding scale that disincentivizes hiring the people who most need the work. I think a more appropriate solution are income top-up programs, or a negative income tax. Implementing such a system is more complicated than Bezos deciding he wants to pay his employees more.
A household with two breadwinners would be bringing home $60k/yr at $15/hr. Or is your suggestion that the minimum wage for Amazon's warehouse workers be $30/hr?
Isn't $15/hr the amount that minimum wage activists have been suggesting for the past year or two?
Both Amazon and iTunes sell DRM-free music. Where are you buying your .mp3s that they come with DRM?
I'm an expat and frequently use a site called TransferWise to move currency between accounts. I think the highest fee I paid was about 1.5% because I was moving a small amount of money (~$150). It looks like they also support transferring to Pakistani accounts. I'm legitimately curious - what kind of fees do you end up paying to move money with Bitcoin?
That's OP's point. The fact that India isn't producing homegrown killer apps has little to do with a lack of technical talent or resources. It comes down to difficulty of doing business and political interference (and probably myriad other causes).
The Hospital ER cannot turn you away for not having health insurance, and having no means to pay.
In the United States, that's not technically true. The law that requires hospitals to provide emergency medical care, EMTALA, only applies to hospitals that accept Medicare or Medicaid payments. Practically that is almost all American hospitals, but you do have pediatric hospitals that never see Medicare patients and do choose to opt out of certain Medicare incentive programs. Purely for PR and ethical reasons I can't imagine any of them would opt out of EMTALA, but technically they could.
Oh no, the boat people have been living on is sinking! Let's make new boats and keep people floating on the boats forever!
Which just sounds like a lot of malarkey.
A little bit more goes into these studies than what "sounds" right. Not understanding the methodology of a study with a layman's knowledge of the topic is not a good reason to discard the findings of a paper published in the Lancet.
If this is for Production use then it certainly has redundant power and fiber connections which take different routes to the shore.
Why buy a $1000 smartphone when you can get a half as good phone for $200? Which still beats every smartphone from two years ago?
Because when we're talking about a device that I'm going to use dozens of times per day, every single day, I'm willing to pay a premium for something that is twice as good. Do you honestly never buy yourself nice things simply for the pleasure of using them? I understand the economic argument against buying a top-of-the-line widget (car, phone, graphics card, CPU, TV, whatever), but not the surprise that others choose to do so.
Many of the suggestions for funding UBI depend on generous assumptions about how much money can be saved by replacing every other social safety net program with UBI. My point is that it does not, or at least not to the degree that is often suggested. You'll still have administrative overhead of going through complicated procedures to determine whether a UBI recipient also qualifies for the supplemental safety net program.
My point is not at all that this is a UBI problem. It's a "societies which have decided that it's bad to have neglected, unfed kids" problem. I'm just trying to point out that it;s a pipe dream to think that all welfare programs can be made unnecessary by simply cutting every citizen a UBI check.
$7,000 annually. That would be sufficient to subsist if doing nothing else.
I'm skeptical. Most studies consider an individual to be facing housing price pressure if they're spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Even if we allow for these UBI recipients to be spending 50% of their income, you're talking ~$300/month. I know that there are places where you can rent a room at that rate, but it's going to require either relocating those who are living purely on UBI, or an additional housing benefit.
That brings me to my next concern about the practicality of relying on UBI. What happens when someone takes their UBI, their spouse's UBI, and their kids' UBI and blows it at the casino (or on your vice of choice)? What does society do in that scenario to prevent the kids from ending up on the street? Do we create a whole new system of safety nets and monitoring systems to make sure we don't have people falling through the cracks of the UBI system? Or, do we simply accept that individuals have a right to spend their UBI as they see fit, damn the consequences?
I know that this is the minority case. I believe that most recipients of UBI would use it to take care of themselves and their families. Some tiny minority would not, and a society that wants to implement UBI either needs to implement additional safety nets for when UBI fails, or live with the consequences of not doing so. For moral and ethical reasons, I don't think the altter is tenable.
I agree with the principle behind your arguments for UBI but I don't see how it can be implemented in the real world. If you've made it this far, thanks for reading.
You do realize that the notch on the iPhone has a functional purpose, right? It's where the face scanning hardware lives. The absurd design decision is to add a notch to the phone for no other reason than to make it look more like an iPhone, which is what we're seeing from a variety of Android handset manufacturers.