Re "Tax rates will not be able to keep up with citizens working and getting free cash."
When discussing social welfare systems with people over the years, I've found the phrase "getting free cash" is a very strong indicator that the person in question has a poor understanding / hasn't done their research. Sadly I'm too old and too tired these days to explain it over and over again, so if you actually care you might want to read this link - http://www.basicincome.qut.edu... - and hopefully it will give you a starting point from which to do further research (if you want to) into models that avoid the poverty traps of current systems.
If the government gets to decide which of its citizens can and can't receive the UBI, it defeats the whole point of a UBI in providing [1] a minimum standard (of living) income for all citizens and [2] reducing the number of citizens who either fall between the cracks - or get caught between the gears of - the bureaucracy. The latter is just as important as the former!
Your suggestion that the government continue the current "guilty until proven innocent" approach to social welfare and worse do so via further computerisation and expansion of government surveillance databases is ironic considering your Redgum signature - and even aside from chilling effects, I hope you will consider how badly a bureaucracy can GIGO, SNAFU, FUBAR and just plain waste taxpayer money on large database systems let alone national ones involving at minimum millions, and easily billions, of records.
Slavery is still legal and widespread in the US, so long as the government finds you guilty of a crime first: read the 13th Amendment, then look at the for-profit prison industry.
A lot less appreciative than if they'd told me "Hey, sorry, I have an obsessive-compulsive disorder about checking locks and yours aren't working."
One is a burglar in search of a Darwin Award, the other is a good samaritan in need of therapy; having the police arrest the latter is the act of an asshole.
Ran into that problem recently. Saw a youtube clip that purported to help indicate your hearing range. Argument in the comments between people who claimed they could hear the tones above 16kHz and those who claimed there were no such tones. Turned out it depended which audio stream Youtube was sending to the listener - the OPUS stream contained the original signal descending from 20kHz but all of the AAC streams had artificially chopped off everything above 16kHz.
Experiments in basic income prove little unless they are on the scale of an actual nation state and there is tight control of immigration, for example no EU state could try this while the unemployed of every other EU state can just pop over and claim it!
Would tight immigration controls be necessary for a nation's basic income scheme if the nation had sufficiently trustworthy mechanisms for ascertaining citizenship and restricted its scheme to its own citizens?
Five percent of a sufficiently large group can still be a huge number. As of 2012, the Indian IT sector was estimated to directly employ 2.8 million people and indirectly employ another 8.9 million, and the country itself to have a population of 1.264 _billion_ people with an unemployment rate of 5.20 percent. That's potentially a LOT of hackers looking for work...
That was part of caviare's point. Condescension from the stranger who has been given absolute power over you? That's just adding lemon to the salt already in the wound.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. The problem is the twice-annual disruption between the dairy cows - who don't give a shit about DST or clocks, preferring to be milked according to habit - and the rest of the entire supply chain of trucks, processing and bottling plants and supermarkets, plus all the customers who buy from those supermarkets, as each year they demand those cows provide their milk one hour early (and then later on in the year change their minds again). So yeah, dairy farmers do get forced to milk the cows at a certain clock time, otherwise that milk won't be reaching the market fresh and their livelihoods will suffer.
And that disruption doesn't just last one day each time, it can take a couple of weeks to get the cows used to the new new schedule.
The charter is subordinate to the Constitution, as as every CIA employee who took the oath of office and signed the affidavit affirming same should know:
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Schooled CIA employees know that the Constitution also defines the role of federal employees: "To establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty."
It is impossible for an insult appearing in the conclusion of an argument (in the "then" part of an if-then) to constitute an ad hominem.
Interesting. Could you provide a reference link to support that?
Also, ad hominem or not, I still suggest that insulting people generally makes it harder to win them over, not easier, if that's your intended goal.
And you're a fucking retard for not knowing this. (This is a joke. Also, it is not an ad hominem. I hope we've learned something today.)
If calling a stranger who just admitted to mental disability "a fucking retard" is your idea of a joke, then you may really need to work on your comedic skills. And yes, I hope so too.
Just in passing, your decision to use prosopagnosia as your example disorder with which to perform an ad hominem is not only in bad taste but also ironic, since the intellectual function of sufferers remains intact (as noted in the very first paragraph of your linked article) and rather than falsify connections it prevents them.
For example, if we were acquainted and I saw you on the street, prosopagnosia would not make me put the wrong name to your face, it would interfere with my recalling any name for you at all - but if you then told me your name again, I could remember you had accidentally insulted me.
Protip: insulting your opponent risks insulting your audience, which tends to ruin your chance to win hearts and minds.
Hmm. US "federal" budget. You're using the 2015 estimate, checking states budgets... total states spending estimate of 1.83 trillion in 2015, minus 0.59 trillion federal contribution. So combined budget of the USA as a nation in 2015 estimate 5 trillion. Divide by 240 million adult citizens, 20k/y each.
However: UBI would not be giving 20k to every adult citizen. A sensible UBI would be set to the poverty threshold, which 2015 estimate is 12k (averaged, will vary by state). So actually a little over half the US federal and states combined budget should _at most_ go to UBI. Note that current US federal budget spending on SS/unemployment/labor in 2015 already 33%.
A further requirement for UBI to be implementable in the US would necessarily be economic reform to ensure that those who have no need of the UBI (a wild hypothetical appears: those with more than median household income) would return their UBI and fund others to the government via the usual higher-income taxation methods. This would further reduce the budgetary impact.
Inb4 "state vs federal": UBI by definition only works if it is embraced "universally". Given the way the US operates its spending, for UBI to be implementable in any given state, that state's government will have to come to an arrangement with the federal government on how to fund it. This means UBI may not happen in (part of) the US, but that's a political problem not an economic one.
Inb4 "my taxes": you are _already_ paying. And you pay not just in taxes but in the levels of crime, health and liberty you are prepared to accept or surrender.
UBI reduces crime by reducing poverty (indeed, effectively eliminating the latter barring acute/outlier circumstances, and less crime means less taxes you need to pay to combat crime and heal those injured - directly and indirectly - by crime and poverty).
UBI increases liberty by reducing government power (e.g. its ability to control and micromanage distribution, of the taxes you provide for the common welfare, to favor special interest groups).
I hope this helps clear up misconceptions about UBI at least a little.
Or you could just use a revision numbering format standard that includes a temporal direction, e.g. yyyy.mm.dd.xxx, and insist that third-party drivers adhere to that standard (Microsoft does have a WHQL certification process after all)? That way it wouldn't matter if someone accidentally'd the filesystem date stamps for the driver files at all.
1. One difference is that, good or evil, a government - a.k.a. hierarchical organisation of some kind - will form due to human nature. A union, however, is only _conditionally_ necessary (as a response to excesses of pre-existing authority). Thus the right to form a union should be upheld, but not the right to forcibly conscript others into that union.
2. Insert long-winded sociological blah that can be TLDR'd as "it really is different, because human nature".
3. There are also laws to prevent the abuse of workers by a boss. If the debate presupposes those aren't being enforced, why does your argument expect laws preventing the abuse of workers by a union to be enforced?
4. Your argument is that having to be stuck with one ruler you didn't vote for is undesirable, so why are you arguing that more rulers you didn't vote for is better?
Your assumption of whether GP understands the difference is irrelevant to their argument: that during the period where your system is overwriting the only copy, you don't have a backup* to "preserve data in the event of a hardware or other failure"...
Oh, and also? While an archive is not necessarily a backup, a backup is inherently an archive.
* (you may have part of a backup, maybe even parts of two backups, depending on how your backup process overwrites the old one with the new one, but I certainly wouldn't be counting on being able to recover a full backup out of the pieces)
Regardless of what they did or didn't do, what message does it send to the rest of the military that those imprisoned by the US are tortured with official sanction even up to and including the POTUS?
"Because our enemies are worse" is not a position of respect.
From the article summary, "a lock-out mechanism to prevent operation of one or more functions of handheld computing devices by drivers when operating vehicles," Apple apparently disagrees?
Yes, you and I both know the reality. And I'd be ecstatic if the entire patent system disappeared up its own hypocritical butthole and never returned. But if Apple wants to make such claims then they can have their day(s) in court to explain how their patent claim isn't actually claiming what it says it claims while still being legally allowed to make that claim.
The problem, as I understand it, is that the espionage laws - the ones that apply to the crime Snowden is accused of - specifically and deliberately _do not allow an exculpatory defence_.
Basically: You admit you drove over your neighbour in your truck? Sorry, you're going to jail - oh, he was about to shoot your cousin? Well, okay, that's a valid defence, we'll let a jury decide whether you went too far.
Snowden: You admit you told the public that the US spy agency that hired you was violating the constitution? You're going to jail - nope, don't care, you're going to jail.
The lawyer is in fact giving Snowden the best possible advice: stay out of the US, because the system is rigged. The laws were deliberately written to screw whistleblowers. Far as I can tell, at this point his options are basically a Presidential pardon (and Obama has stated he can't pardon Snowden before a trial, despite that being total bullshit; q.v. Nixon's pardon), staying out of the CIA's grasp for the rest of his life, or some kind of legal or political deus ex machina.
Yes, and? I'm not saying you must vote. I'm saying that if you do vote, you must vote responsibly. I'll put it as simply as I can for you:
Right to bear arms = Right to vote. You don't have to, but you can. Duty to handle arms responsibly = Duty to handle votes responsibly. If you are going to do something, do it properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Re "Tax rates will not be able to keep up with citizens working and getting free cash."
When discussing social welfare systems with people over the years, I've found the phrase "getting free cash" is a very strong indicator that the person in question has a poor understanding / hasn't done their research. Sadly I'm too old and too tired these days to explain it over and over again, so if you actually care you might want to read this link - http://www.basicincome.qut.edu... - and hopefully it will give you a starting point from which to do further research (if you want to) into models that avoid the poverty traps of current systems.
If the government gets to decide which of its citizens can and can't receive the UBI, it defeats the whole point of a UBI in providing [1] a minimum standard (of living) income for all citizens and [2] reducing the number of citizens who either fall between the cracks - or get caught between the gears of - the bureaucracy. The latter is just as important as the former!
Your suggestion that the government continue the current "guilty until proven innocent" approach to social welfare and worse do so via further computerisation and expansion of government surveillance databases is ironic considering your Redgum signature - and even aside from chilling effects, I hope you will consider how badly a bureaucracy can GIGO, SNAFU, FUBAR and just plain waste taxpayer money on large database systems let alone national ones involving at minimum millions, and easily billions, of records.
Slavery is still legal and widespread in the US, so long as the government finds you guilty of a crime first: read the 13th Amendment, then look at the for-profit prison industry.
A lot less appreciative than if they'd told me "Hey, sorry, I have an obsessive-compulsive disorder about checking locks and yours aren't working."
One is a burglar in search of a Darwin Award, the other is a good samaritan in need of therapy; having the police arrest the latter is the act of an asshole.
Ran into that problem recently. Saw a youtube clip that purported to help indicate your hearing range. Argument in the comments between people who claimed they could hear the tones above 16kHz and those who claimed there were no such tones. Turned out it depended which audio stream Youtube was sending to the listener - the OPUS stream contained the original signal descending from 20kHz but all of the AAC streams had artificially chopped off everything above 16kHz.
Would tight immigration controls be necessary for a nation's basic income scheme if the nation had sufficiently trustworthy mechanisms for ascertaining citizenship and restricted its scheme to its own citizens?
Five percent of a sufficiently large group can still be a huge number. As of 2012, the Indian IT sector was estimated to directly employ 2.8 million people and indirectly employ another 8.9 million, and the country itself to have a population of 1.264 _billion_ people with an unemployment rate of 5.20 percent. That's potentially a LOT of hackers looking for work...
That was part of caviare's point. Condescension from the stranger who has been given absolute power over you? That's just adding lemon to the salt already in the wound.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. The problem is the twice-annual disruption between the dairy cows - who don't give a shit about DST or clocks, preferring to be milked according to habit - and the rest of the entire supply chain of trucks, processing and bottling plants and supermarkets, plus all the customers who buy from those supermarkets, as each year they demand those cows provide their milk one hour early (and then later on in the year change their minds again). So yeah, dairy farmers do get forced to milk the cows at a certain clock time, otherwise that milk won't be reaching the market fresh and their livelihoods will suffer.
And that disruption doesn't just last one day each time, it can take a couple of weeks to get the cows used to the new new schedule.
The charter is subordinate to the Constitution, as as every CIA employee who took the oath of office and signed the affidavit affirming same should know:
- work.chron.com/cia-oath-say-23447.html
Please, do cite your proof. I'm sure plenty of people would be interested in your time machine.
Hmm. Okay. Your job is safe from robots. Is it safe from all the other humans who no longer have their not-so-safe jobs because robots?
Interesting. Could you provide a reference link to support that?
Also, ad hominem or not, I still suggest that insulting people generally makes it harder to win them over, not easier, if that's your intended goal.
If calling a stranger who just admitted to mental disability "a fucking retard" is your idea of a joke, then you may really need to work on your comedic skills. And yes, I hope so too.
Just in passing, your decision to use prosopagnosia as your example disorder with which to perform an ad hominem is not only in bad taste but also ironic, since the intellectual function of sufferers remains intact (as noted in the very first paragraph of your linked article) and rather than falsify connections it prevents them.
For example, if we were acquainted and I saw you on the street, prosopagnosia would not make me put the wrong name to your face, it would interfere with my recalling any name for you at all - but if you then told me your name again, I could remember you had accidentally insulted me.
Protip: insulting your opponent risks insulting your audience, which tends to ruin your chance to win hearts and minds.
Hmm. US "federal" budget. You're using the 2015 estimate, checking states budgets... total states spending estimate of 1.83 trillion in 2015, minus 0.59 trillion federal contribution. So combined budget of the USA as a nation in 2015 estimate 5 trillion. Divide by 240 million adult citizens, 20k/y each.
However: UBI would not be giving 20k to every adult citizen. A sensible UBI would be set to the poverty threshold, which 2015 estimate is 12k (averaged, will vary by state). So actually a little over half the US federal and states combined budget should _at most_ go to UBI. Note that current US federal budget spending on SS/unemployment/labor in 2015 already 33%.
A further requirement for UBI to be implementable in the US would necessarily be economic reform to ensure that those who have no need of the UBI (a wild hypothetical appears: those with more than median household income) would return their UBI and fund others to the government via the usual higher-income taxation methods. This would further reduce the budgetary impact.
Inb4 "state vs federal": UBI by definition only works if it is embraced "universally". Given the way the US operates its spending, for UBI to be implementable in any given state, that state's government will have to come to an arrangement with the federal government on how to fund it. This means UBI may not happen in (part of) the US, but that's a political problem not an economic one.
Inb4 "my taxes": you are _already_ paying. And you pay not just in taxes but in the levels of crime, health and liberty you are prepared to accept or surrender.
UBI reduces crime by reducing poverty (indeed, effectively eliminating the latter barring acute/outlier circumstances, and less crime means less taxes you need to pay to combat crime and heal those injured - directly and indirectly - by crime and poverty).
UBI increases liberty by reducing government power (e.g. its ability to control and micromanage distribution, of the taxes you provide for the common welfare, to favor special interest groups).
I hope this helps clear up misconceptions about UBI at least a little.
Or you could just use a revision numbering format standard that includes a temporal direction, e.g. yyyy.mm.dd.xxx, and insist that third-party drivers adhere to that standard (Microsoft does have a WHQL certification process after all)? That way it wouldn't matter if someone accidentally'd the filesystem date stamps for the driver files at all.
1. One difference is that, good or evil, a government - a.k.a. hierarchical organisation of some kind - will form due to human nature. A union, however, is only _conditionally_ necessary (as a response to excesses of pre-existing authority). Thus the right to form a union should be upheld, but not the right to forcibly conscript others into that union.
2. Insert long-winded sociological blah that can be TLDR'd as "it really is different, because human nature".
3. There are also laws to prevent the abuse of workers by a boss. If the debate presupposes those aren't being enforced, why does your argument expect laws preventing the abuse of workers by a union to be enforced?
4. Your argument is that having to be stuck with one ruler you didn't vote for is undesirable, so why are you arguing that more rulers you didn't vote for is better?
Your assumption of whether GP understands the difference is irrelevant to their argument: that during the period where your system is overwriting the only copy, you don't have a backup* to "preserve data in the event of a hardware or other failure"...
Oh, and also? While an archive is not necessarily a backup, a backup is inherently an archive.
* (you may have part of a backup, maybe even parts of two backups, depending on how your backup process overwrites the old one with the new one, but I certainly wouldn't be counting on being able to recover a full backup out of the pieces)
Regardless of what they did or didn't do, what message does it send to the rest of the military that those imprisoned by the US are tortured with official sanction even up to and including the POTUS?
"Because our enemies are worse" is not a position of respect.
That's not different; Ford's pardon of Nixon specifically included the phrase "committed or may have committed".
From the article summary, "a lock-out mechanism to prevent operation of one or more functions of handheld computing devices by drivers when operating vehicles," Apple apparently disagrees?
Yes, you and I both know the reality. And I'd be ecstatic if the entire patent system disappeared up its own hypocritical butthole and never returned. But if Apple wants to make such claims then they can have their day(s) in court to explain how their patent claim isn't actually claiming what it says it claims while still being legally allowed to make that claim.
The problem, as I understand it, is that the espionage laws - the ones that apply to the crime Snowden is accused of - specifically and deliberately _do not allow an exculpatory defence_.
Basically: You admit you drove over your neighbour in your truck? Sorry, you're going to jail - oh, he was about to shoot your cousin? Well, okay, that's a valid defence, we'll let a jury decide whether you went too far.
Snowden: You admit you told the public that the US spy agency that hired you was violating the constitution? You're going to jail - nope, don't care, you're going to jail.
The lawyer is in fact giving Snowden the best possible advice: stay out of the US, because the system is rigged. The laws were deliberately written to screw whistleblowers. Far as I can tell, at this point his options are basically a Presidential pardon (and Obama has stated he can't pardon Snowden before a trial, despite that being total bullshit; q.v. Nixon's pardon), staying out of the CIA's grasp for the rest of his life, or some kind of legal or political deus ex machina.
What I'm wondering is how often such stings have ever collided. "You're-" "under-" arrest..." *stereo* "Wait, what?"
Yes, and? I'm not saying you must vote. I'm saying that if you do vote, you must vote responsibly. I'll put it as simply as I can for you:
Right to bear arms = Right to vote. You don't have to, but you can.
Duty to handle arms responsibly = Duty to handle votes responsibly. If you are going to do something, do it properly.
Sorry for the late reply.
Nix that last bit after the "anyone can use it", it's what I get for trying to type two separate trains of thought at the same time.