How nice of you to come out and state these things are pretty much worthless AFTER he got sentenced. How very bloody convenient for you and your fucking profit margin you lying stinking sacks of SHIT.
Also, it's a pretty powerful tool in the pocket of those in power when nearly EVERYONE they interact with are violating a law. That's thousands of dollars in liability where the owners are simply... merciful. When convenient.
For as much criticism Trump (rightfully) gets, this is a win for him and he deserves to be congratulated and remembered for it. I don't even think it's a case of lucky timing. It appears his.... bat-shit crazy strategy of fluffery and brinksmanship successfully scared N. Korean's leadership, or sufficiently motivated China's influence in that direction. A change in strategy. Isn't there something about the benefits of having a psychopath general because the opposition can't predict him? Looks like that's what was needed to break the logjam.
Swords to fucking plowshears. It's a good day for the world. And in all honesty, congratulation President Trump.
(God that felt weird to type. Knowing the guy though, he'll complain about it not being a good deal. At this point, he's just lost the ability to shock me.)
Probably "Mishandling Classified Material". She used a personal email server for business. That wasn't illegal at the time she did it. But sending classified information to it would get a normal person charged.
Classified information in emails In various interviews, Clinton has said that "I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified."[97] However, in June and July 2016, a number of news outlets reported that Clinton's emails did include messages with classification "portion markings".[98][99] The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret"; more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information.[100][101] Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey. He added it was possible Clinton was not "technically sophisticated" enough to understand what the three classified markings meant.[102][103][104]
Clinton personally wrote 104 of the 2,093 emails that were retroactively[105][106][107] found to contain information classified as "confidential." "[53][108] Of the remaining emails that were classified after they were sent, Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote the most, at 215.[105]
Do you think the FBI director would give two shits if you pleaded that you didn't know it was classified?
None of the congressional investigations nor the FBI ever came up with something that could be referred for an indictment. Do you think they were covering for her because she was not one of the "little people"?
We actually kinda WANT people to investigate this stuff. 4th estate and all that jazz. If it's crackpots... they'll hopefully say as much (rather than giving them their own talk show...).
And... technically... for all the taxpayer money put into the Mueller investigation, all the investigation and commentary from (nearly all) news organizations, heads of states, the pope... Trump also hasn't been indicted or convicted of one single crime....yet.
He probably should be. I kinda wish they'd pull that trigger already. Then again, given what I read about how she handled classified information, Hilary should probably also have been charged. She would have been had she been "one of the little people". But law and order apparently works differently for the upper chaste.
Typically you wouldn't use other people's insightfulness into the issue as a means to question them.
my interpretation lines up with the current administrations goals very well.
Yeeeeaaaaahhhh, that certainly isn't earning you any points either considering the current administration's goals are to dismantle the EPA. You're lined up with pretty blatant bullshit.
Whoa there. That little tidbit of "de-identifying" people isn't as easy as you think.
Just stripping their name and soc is good. But how many black ethnic Han Chinese are living in Montana? If there's just the one, it's pretty trivial to use that sort of "de-identified" information to identify individuals. If there's information about someone, there's a chance it could be used to identify them. Not even easy things like a picture of their face, or rare things like uncommon ancestry. If you get enough mundane details about someone you can carve the list of suspects down to a single person. And what if these sort of details are pertinent to the study? Like it's an interplay between (That skin-pigment chemical) and alcohol allergy? (Or whatever common heritable trait).
So... you know... this part can be hard.
But I have to agree with that coward. This reeks of bullshit excuse business and the current administrative goons are using to hamstring and shut down the EPA from protecting citizens and costing business money. If it's ignorance, it's WILLFUL ignorance, but it's more likely to be a convenient lie. You can bet your ass the lawyer lobbyists pushing for it know full well the HIPPA law they're trying to stand on.
Sounds bad, but it's more of a "put up or shut up" sort of affair. If you can't publish, it's not science.....But what's keeping them from releasing the data in aggregate to protect the privacy of individuals and STILL be published science? And if you assume they're lying, what's to keep an undergrad research assistant from.... simply marking down the results they want to see? The crux of science is NOT trusting the researcher, it's the reproducibility.
Of course. For a complete record, we would need EVERY LIVING THING to have been fossilized. There will always be gaps.
You can throw about numbers like 10,000 years willy nilly, but stone tools predate homo sapians, and even the genus homo. We've found them as far back as 3.3 million years. If there was anything that developed "industrial technology", I'm willing to bet they started with stone tools....huh. Ok, so with that knowledge, you, me, and the authors kinda missed the obvious answer to "was there a civilization on Earth before humans?", Yes: homo erectus had simple tools.
ANYWAY, entertaining for a moment that previous life on Earth had a similar development to humans, it seems very reasonable to assume they'd have a similar rate of development. That is, an exponential rate, as prior developments help them develop technology at an ever faster rate. And that likewise implies they'd be stuck using simple tools for a REALLY long time. We used stone tools for 3.3 million years. We used copper tools for 10,000 years. Iron for 4,000 years. If their development was anything like ours, they had a LONG ASS period of time where they made and used stone tools. And I dunno if you missed this somehow, but... stone tools don't have to fossilize. They're already stone. All we would need to find is stone tools at sufficient depth in the right stratum. Which applies to nearly every square inch of Earth..... along with enough evidence that they weren't simply buried there by someone 3 million years ago.
You know? I wonder if the pyramids will be around in 65+ million years. Probably. They are made of stone after all.
I'd be surprised if they haven't shown up to XYZ headquarters with a warrant, a gag-order, and a fat check to cover the cost of pushing a selective update to a (hopefully) select individual.
Apple got in the news for resisting a request/command for breaking their iphone security wholesale. You wouldn't hear about the companies that comply with the gag order. But even Apple's canary has been dead for years. So has Reddit's..
metal tools... crushed... that's how plate tectonics work.
And this is upvoted?
SOME stuff BETWEEN tectonic plates gets crushed. No, the entire lithosphere hasn't been recycled. Why else do you think the general shapes of the continents are identifiable since PANGEA?
What has slashdot come to? Have you YOU read the paper? It never mentions "crushed". It waves away the whole "we would have dug stuff up by now" on page 5, in half a paragraph. 4 sentences. 1) "That seems unlikely". 2) The Earth is big and we haven't dug much. 3) We rarely find old shit. 4) We're going to say it seems unlikely again, but use more words this time with a shoutout to our homeboy Kidwell and his work. (And their point is DESPITE kidwell's work.)
This a scientific paper that ignores the fact that we've not found any out of place artifacts with a handwave and an appeal to small numbers. "It's rare". But this sort of bullshit hurts the credibility of all of paleontology, evolution, and science in general. A SINGLE fossil out of place would put the entire concept of evolution into question. But we've never found one. Plenty of hoaxes and people simply being wrong, but no hard evidence. And we've never found any stone tools at those layers. In the entire history of paleontology.
There ARE indeed unknowns out there. But this isn't one of them.
When it comes to direct evidence of an industrial civilization -- things like cities, factories, and roads
...are obviously ruled out since we would have dug up examples of METAL TOOLS among the fossil record at sufficient depths to raise eyebrows.
ancient surface
Who gives a shit? We can dig. Is the concept of stratum new territory for this guy?
Go back much farther than the Quaternary and everything has been turned over and crushed to dust.
Except for stone and metal. Duh. If there was anything "industrial", then we'd know. And we'd likely know if any dinosaurs used any sort of STONE TOOLS which are a pretty obvious stepping stone towards more advanced civilizations.
Given that all direct evidence would be long gone after many millions of years, what kinds of evidence might then still exist?
How about the direct evidence of any sort of worked stone or metal? Arranged stones? WALLS? No it's not "given" that direct evidence is long gone. How do you think fossils work?
The real question is how social the dinosaurs were. Did they form packs? Did they make structures? Did they have any sort of tool use?
As a reminder, there are social animals that build structures: Bees, ants, swallows. Even squirrels have nests with a family in it. Various types of ants literally farm fungus and herd aphids. So the concept of "civilization" isn't as human-centric as you might assume.....But "industrialization"? Come on.
Mr. Frank, along with Gavin Schmidt, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, have published their research on the subject
Just by association with such a shitty summary, I'm worried about the NASA Goddard CFE module we're sticking in our satellite software...
Holy SHITBALLS you've got to get a better example.
That would bean annual budget of $600 * 52 * 309mil = $9.6408×10 which is THREE TIMES the us federal revenue. All of it. From SS to healthcare to the military to grants to NASA to all the welfare.
If you REPLACE social security and all the other welfare programs with UBI, everyone gets a MONTHLY check for ~$500. Bob isn't going to have a home to sit in. He has maybe a bunk in a hostel, depending where he's at. And he would no longer have any food stamps, housing assistance, social security, medicaid, medicare, unemployment, or school grants.
And while stream-lining the system would remove a lot of bureaucracy, there'd still bureaucracy to deal with issues. Easiest system I see of implementing it would be a standard federal tax credit of ~$6000. Let the IRS deal with who deserves to be a real person. They're hard-asses, generally fair, and have guns.
1) What about the effect it has on productive people.
Yeah, that's a legit soio-economic question. An obvious one that's hard to answer because I think sociologists and economicist are just guessing. (If they weren't, they'd all be rich).
"I am not against giving to charity; but I resent progressive tax brackets; I see it as enabling the thieves."
Most of it goes to your retirement via social security, or the military. So... what do you have against the troops? But that's kind of a low-blow. I get what you're saying. A much more proper defense against all that is.... so what do you want to cut? Yeah, as little government as possible would be nice but start suggesting where to make cuts and suddenly EVERYONE starts bitching and moaning. I'd certainly bitch and moan if you wanted to cut science and education. That's downright religious for me to the levels of "why we are here". I'd personally cut the military. Swords to plowshears and all that.
I absolutely RESENT having things taken from me.
Do you resent non-profits getting tax exemptions?
So there's a really interesting sociological game mechanic for this one. Heard it in some youtube video. WoW the MMO used to have a "You've played too much" XP penalty, for whatever reason. People hated it. Big uproar. Very unpopular. So Blizzard changed it to "You get an XP bonus for the first X hours". People loved the change and the issue went away....But no code changed. The mechanic was functionally IDENTICAL. It's all just marketing. And I think that reflects a more fundamental truth when it comes to the human psyche. People resent having shit taken from them, but won't resent others getting shit... even in this sort of zero-sum-game.
So.... as sad as this sounds.... we should probably switch to a flat tax... with a diminishing exemption/credit/whatever. Which would be EXACTLY THE SAME THING. But it wouldn't work if this was proposed by either political party and the other would simply... "expose" the ruse.
And before you dismiss that idea as bollocks, remember the Brazilian Real. They had terrible inflation, but they started to introduce a new currency; the Real. They mandated price-tags be displayed in TWO forms. One was the old currency, one was in Reals. While the price of eggs always went up in the old currency, it was always 1R. But there were no Reals. They hadn't printed them yet. People got used to the stated price in Reals, and when they DID issue the new currency.... inflation went away. It was nuts. Bollocks. Obvious bullshit only idiots would fall for, and stated as such by most economists....But it worked. (For about 6 years, till LuLu came to power and tried printing wealth.)
2) By creating a system that does not have to provide jobs to less 'able' folks
That's what we have now.
the problem of identifying the people who are capable motivated and dependable to do it
That's just.... called hiring. Or... "vetting" who you hire. No, hiring people who are capable of doing complex jobs isn't the hard part. The hard part is producing/training/educating those people, and how few there are. It's kind of the basis of why they have such high wages.
Bob will be jealous!
You mean envious. But I get what you're saying. And you've reduced a MAAAAAASIVE sociological model down to 4 words. It's an oversimplification. I think most people actually get depressed rather than bitter/envious/revolutionary. Unemployment gets you down. I don't think they'll start risking DEATH until they're desperate.
Bob will either demand productive people like Ted provide him these things as well
And the response will be "tough shit, go work for it", JUST LIKE IT IS NOW. Except that instead of starving to death in a gutter, Bob has enough to eat. I mean, there might come a day were the masses riot and rebel and start eating the rich because they lack "basic human necessities" like gigabit wifi and VR refresh rats of 75Hz+... but that day isn't today.
I just typically down mod it, but I commented in this thread.
Also because that trolling is even lower-grade bullshit. Randomly swearing "FUCK TRUMP" in a thread that has nothing to do with him is just noise. Ever read Anathem by Neal Stephenson? He has a great bit in there about different sorts of propaganda and bullshit and spam. Literal static is the lowest grade, easy to ignore as there's no content there. It's not even bullshit. While top quality bullshit would be an otherwise impeccable scientific paper but with a critical flaw or piece of misinformation. The higher the quality of the bullshit, the more insidious it is and the more we need people detailing exactly HOW such messages are bullshit. Hence, a refutation rather than simply downmodding.
AND because there are plenty of perfectly legitimate issues where Trump is on-topic and is doing something pretty fucking stupid and deserves to be bashed. I've got political views. I'm a democrat. But this is not a political issue. The two parties might differ on how to solve it, sure, but they both agree it's a problem. (Oh, and in general Democrats likewise deserve so have shenanigans called on them for the stance so many of them are taking on free speech. Seriously, fuck that noise)
This was before netbooks. Anyone who bought a netbook.... would have wanted one of these. It was the fore-runner to netbooks and first to market. They really could have dominated it... but they chose not to directly sell to Americans. At $100, it's a no-brainer. At $200, I still would have done it. But $400... at the time I felt I might as well get a real laptop. Which is what I ended up doing. And like 3 years later I also got a netbook because they were so damn cheap.
It was novel. I would have something unusual.
yeah man, who has a dozen netbooks at home? Buying ONE is plenty.
next to all the other [PRODUCTS SOLD IN AMERICA] I have bought over the years. [LIST OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS SOLD IN AMERICA]
Yes... like there was some sort of.... market for that. Which is what I'm suggesting. OLPC could have sold to Americans.
I would never expect to use it for serious work
Of course cheap-ass laptops didn't replace desktops. Come on dude.
Come on, dude, nobody said they did.
. ..oh shit. Is someone making you code professionally on a laptop? Blink once for yes. We can send help.
Same convo between friends that stalk each other and AREN'T douchbags just trying to shut down conversations:
Joe: So I was thinking of maybe taking a trip to Paris Bill: Yeah, I saw that post. You've got to hit up the Louve. (Conversation about Paris ensues)
Joe: So, Siri told me about that panguin, how's it going? Bill: Still finishing up, want to see it? Joe: Yes. (They go to garage)
Bill: Any thoughts on the town referendum? Joe: No Bill, even in a made up contrived example, nobody wants to talk about town referendums. Now let's have at those burgers. (Bill casually poisons the apolitical sociopath's burger)
Just because they're both informed about the other's activities doesn't mean they have to be bored of each other's activities. If they DID become bored with it, they could tell Siri to shut the hell up. Even WITHOUT knowing any of this, they could still be douchbags trying to halt conversation. Reading people's tweets don't somehow destroy your social skills.
Again you are presuming that they have NEITHER and can only get ONE.
How about you? Would you rather have a 5lbs sack of rice or a small cheap laptop? Which would have more utility to you? "Bu bu but I'm RICH! I don't need rice" That's right. Because not EVERY community is literally starving.
And.... yes it could help them get a source of income that would help get food, water, and shelter. Spreading information and communication DOES go a long way towards stopping corrupt governments.
There are areas of the world - large areas of the world - where this is a real problem. It is reality. I don't understand how you can't see that.
I do see that. Those places DO suck. Real bad shit. But there are ALSO areas of the world - large areas of the world, the majority, and growing every year - that are not in absolute poverty but are still kinda poor and could use some tools to make their situation better.
If you actively ignore everyone but those suffering the worst, you are ignoring the majority of suffering. And take that to an extreame and you'll only be helping one quadrapeligic downs sydrome kid in a coma in some warlord's territory. Look at it this way: Should we REFUSE to help the bums in LA because they don't have it as bad as the bums freezing their ass off in NY?
You don't. Unless you make enough money, in which case, cough up the dough you fat cat.
...for your land.
If you OWN PROPERTY you are most certainly rich enough to be amoung those fat cats that can afford to help society financially. If you've got a nickle, won't you lay your money down.
Taxing income or imports and exports s taxing economic activity.
Yes, and land usage certainly falls under economic activity. If you are USING land, then it ought to be put to meaningful use. If you've got some scrubland out in Montana, those taxes are going to be CHEAP. If you have some prime real estate down town in a city where a dozen developers would love to build a sky rise, for people who would love to live in a skyrise, in a city that would love to tax a skyrise.... but you'd just rather sit on it in your little personal cottage... that's HOLDING UP economic activity and mismanagement of resources. But hey, all the more power to you... if you're rich enough to afford such a luxury.
It reeks more of that constant low inflation aimed at forcing people to invest their money rather than horde it.
Low effort partisian bashing from an anonymous coward and inexplicibly getting upvotes...
Yep, this one tastes like professional shilling. I think someone out there really wants to get this issues cut down along party lines. Good luck with that though, I don't think democrats OR republicans are too happy with Facebook over the sort of shit they let happen.
Slashdot Mirror
How nice of you to come out and state these things are pretty much worthless AFTER he got sentenced. How very bloody convenient for you and your fucking profit margin you lying stinking sacks of SHIT.
Also, it's a pretty powerful tool in the pocket of those in power when nearly EVERYONE they interact with are violating a law. That's thousands of dollars in liability where the owners are simply... merciful. When convenient.
each New Year's Day will unleash a full year's worth of works published 95 years earlier.
I get what you're saying, but that had to be hard to put down with a straight face.
The fact that this IS kinda shocking is... man, this whole fucking this is just so obviously a farce.
For as much criticism Trump (rightfully) gets, this is a win for him and he deserves to be congratulated and remembered for it. I don't even think it's a case of lucky timing. It appears his.... bat-shit crazy strategy of fluffery and brinksmanship successfully scared N. Korean's leadership, or sufficiently motivated China's influence in that direction. A change in strategy. Isn't there something about the benefits of having a psychopath general because the opposition can't predict him? Looks like that's what was needed to break the logjam.
Swords to fucking plowshears. It's a good day for the world. And in all honesty, congratulation President Trump.
(God that felt weird to type. Knowing the guy though, he'll complain about it not being a good deal. At this point, he's just lost the ability to shock me.)
Probably "Mishandling Classified Material". She used a personal email server for business. That wasn't illegal at the time she did it. But sending classified information to it would get a normal person charged.
Classified information in emails
In various interviews, Clinton has said that "I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified."[97] However, in June and July 2016, a number of news outlets reported that Clinton's emails did include messages with classification "portion markings".[98][99] The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret"; more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information.[100][101] Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey. He added it was possible Clinton was not "technically sophisticated" enough to understand what the three classified markings meant.[102][103][104]
Clinton personally wrote 104 of the 2,093 emails that were retroactively[105][106][107] found to contain information classified as "confidential." "[53][108] Of the remaining emails that were classified after they were sent, Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote the most, at 215.[105]
Do you think the FBI director would give two shits if you pleaded that you didn't know it was classified?
None of the congressional investigations nor the FBI ever came up with something that could be referred for an indictment. Do you think they were covering for her because she was not one of the "little people"?
Yes.
We actually kinda WANT people to investigate this stuff. 4th estate and all that jazz. If it's crackpots... they'll hopefully say as much (rather than giving them their own talk show...).
And... technically... for all the taxpayer money put into the Mueller investigation, all the investigation and commentary from (nearly all) news organizations, heads of states, the pope... Trump also hasn't been indicted or convicted of one single crime. ...yet.
He probably should be. I kinda wish they'd pull that trigger already. Then again, given what I read about how she handled classified information, Hilary should probably also have been charged. She would have been had she been "one of the little people". But law and order apparently works differently for the upper chaste.
Typically you wouldn't use other people's insightfulness into the issue as a means to question them.
my interpretation lines up with the current administrations goals very well.
Yeeeeaaaaahhhh, that certainly isn't earning you any points either considering the current administration's goals are to dismantle the EPA. You're lined up with pretty blatant bullshit.
and removing identifying elements is trivial.
Whoa there. That little tidbit of "de-identifying" people isn't as easy as you think.
Just stripping their name and soc is good. But how many black ethnic Han Chinese are living in Montana? If there's just the one, it's pretty trivial to use that sort of "de-identified" information to identify individuals. If there's information about someone, there's a chance it could be used to identify them. Not even easy things like a picture of their face, or rare things like uncommon ancestry. If you get enough mundane details about someone you can carve the list of suspects down to a single person. And what if these sort of details are pertinent to the study? Like it's an interplay between (That skin-pigment chemical) and alcohol allergy? (Or whatever common heritable trait).
So... you know... this part can be hard.
But I have to agree with that coward. This reeks of bullshit excuse business and the current administrative goons are using to hamstring and shut down the EPA from protecting citizens and costing business money. If it's ignorance, it's WILLFUL ignorance, but it's more likely to be a convenient lie. You can bet your ass the lawyer lobbyists pushing for it know full well the HIPPA law they're trying to stand on.
Sounds bad, but it's more of a "put up or shut up" sort of affair. If you can't publish, it's not science. ....But what's keeping them from releasing the data in aggregate to protect the privacy of individuals and STILL be published science? And if you assume they're lying, what's to keep an undergrad research assistant from.... simply marking down the results they want to see? The crux of science is NOT trusting the researcher, it's the reproducibility.
Of course. For a complete record, we would need EVERY LIVING THING to have been fossilized. There will always be gaps.
You can throw about numbers like 10,000 years willy nilly, but stone tools predate homo sapians, and even the genus homo. We've found them as far back as 3.3 million years. If there was anything that developed "industrial technology", I'm willing to bet they started with stone tools. ...huh. Ok, so with that knowledge, you, me, and the authors kinda missed the obvious answer to "was there a civilization on Earth before humans?", Yes: homo erectus had simple tools.
ANYWAY, entertaining for a moment that previous life on Earth had a similar development to humans, it seems very reasonable to assume they'd have a similar rate of development. That is, an exponential rate, as prior developments help them develop technology at an ever faster rate. And that likewise implies they'd be stuck using simple tools for a REALLY long time. We used stone tools for 3.3 million years. We used copper tools for 10,000 years. Iron for 4,000 years. If their development was anything like ours, they had a LONG ASS period of time where they made and used stone tools. And I dunno if you missed this somehow, but... stone tools don't have to fossilize. They're already stone. All we would need to find is stone tools at sufficient depth in the right stratum. Which applies to nearly every square inch of Earth. .... along with enough evidence that they weren't simply buried there by someone 3 million years ago.
You know? I wonder if the pyramids will be around in 65+ million years. Probably. They are made of stone after all.
I'd be surprised if they haven't shown up to XYZ headquarters with a warrant, a gag-order, and a fat check to cover the cost of pushing a selective update to a (hopefully) select individual.
Apple got in the news for resisting a request/command for breaking their iphone security wholesale. You wouldn't hear about the companies that comply with the gag order. But even Apple's canary has been dead for years. So has Reddit's..
metal tools ... crushed... that's how plate tectonics work.
And this is upvoted?
SOME stuff BETWEEN tectonic plates gets crushed. No, the entire lithosphere hasn't been recycled. Why else do you think the general shapes of the continents are identifiable since PANGEA?
What has slashdot come to? Have you YOU read the paper? It never mentions "crushed". It waves away the whole "we would have dug stuff up by now" on page 5, in half a paragraph. 4 sentences. 1) "That seems unlikely". 2) The Earth is big and we haven't dug much. 3) We rarely find old shit. 4) We're going to say it seems unlikely again, but use more words this time with a shoutout to our homeboy Kidwell and his work. (And their point is DESPITE kidwell's work.)
This a scientific paper that ignores the fact that we've not found any out of place artifacts with a handwave and an appeal to small numbers. "It's rare". But this sort of bullshit hurts the credibility of all of paleontology, evolution, and science in general. A SINGLE fossil out of place would put the entire concept of evolution into question. But we've never found one. Plenty of hoaxes and people simply being wrong, but no hard evidence. And we've never found any stone tools at those layers. In the entire history of paleontology.
There ARE indeed unknowns out there. But this isn't one of them.
like stone age civ ? There is no way whatsoever to know
You know how fossils last a long time because they're made of stone?
How long do you think.... stone tools... would last? You know, from a stone-age civilization? Since they're stone.
When it comes to direct evidence of an industrial civilization -- things like cities, factories, and roads
...are obviously ruled out since we would have dug up examples of METAL TOOLS among the fossil record at sufficient depths to raise eyebrows.
ancient surface
Who gives a shit? We can dig. Is the concept of stratum new territory for this guy?
Go back much farther than the Quaternary and everything has been turned over and crushed to dust.
Except for stone and metal. Duh. If there was anything "industrial", then we'd know. And we'd likely know if any dinosaurs used any sort of STONE TOOLS which are a pretty obvious stepping stone towards more advanced civilizations.
Given that all direct evidence would be long gone after many millions of years, what kinds of evidence might then still exist?
How about the direct evidence of any sort of worked stone or metal? Arranged stones? WALLS? No it's not "given" that direct evidence is long gone. How do you think fossils work?
The real question is how social the dinosaurs were. Did they form packs? Did they make structures? Did they have any sort of tool use?
As a reminder, there are social animals that build structures: Bees, ants, swallows. Even squirrels have nests with a family in it. Various types of ants literally farm fungus and herd aphids. So the concept of "civilization" isn't as human-centric as you might assume. ....But "industrialization"? Come on.
Mr. Frank, along with Gavin Schmidt, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, have published their research on the subject
Just by association with such a shitty summary, I'm worried about the NASA Goddard CFE module we're sticking in our satellite software...
Bloody thing ate my characters
that's $9.6408x10^12 $9.6 Trillion.
UBI in this fictional world is 600 a week
Holy SHITBALLS you've got to get a better example.
That would bean annual budget of $600 * 52 * 309mil = $9.6408×10 which is THREE TIMES the us federal revenue. All of it. From SS to healthcare to the military to grants to NASA to all the welfare.
If you REPLACE social security and all the other welfare programs with UBI, everyone gets a MONTHLY check for ~$500. Bob isn't going to have a home to sit in. He has maybe a bunk in a hostel, depending where he's at. And he would no longer have any food stamps, housing assistance, social security, medicaid, medicare, unemployment, or school grants.
And while stream-lining the system would remove a lot of bureaucracy, there'd still bureaucracy to deal with issues. Easiest system I see of implementing it would be a standard federal tax credit of ~$6000. Let the IRS deal with who deserves to be a real person. They're hard-asses, generally fair, and have guns.
I don't need work. I need money.
Have you ever had an extended period of time where you didn't have work or school or such?
With a significant other supporting you, or some other situation so that it wasn't tied to the hip of "not having money".
Because I've been there, and it has an effect on you. I think people need to be needed.
1) What about the effect it has on productive people.
Yeah, that's a legit soio-economic question. An obvious one that's hard to answer because I think sociologists and economicist are just guessing. (If they weren't, they'd all be rich).
"I am not against giving to charity; but I resent progressive tax brackets; I see it as enabling the thieves."
Most of it goes to your retirement via social security, or the military. So... what do you have against the troops? But that's kind of a low-blow. I get what you're saying. A much more proper defense against all that is.... so what do you want to cut? Yeah, as little government as possible would be nice but start suggesting where to make cuts and suddenly EVERYONE starts bitching and moaning. I'd certainly bitch and moan if you wanted to cut science and education. That's downright religious for me to the levels of "why we are here". I'd personally cut the military. Swords to plowshears and all that.
I absolutely RESENT having things taken from me.
Do you resent non-profits getting tax exemptions?
So there's a really interesting sociological game mechanic for this one. Heard it in some youtube video. WoW the MMO used to have a "You've played too much" XP penalty, for whatever reason. People hated it. Big uproar. Very unpopular. So Blizzard changed it to "You get an XP bonus for the first X hours". People loved the change and the issue went away. ...But no code changed. The mechanic was functionally IDENTICAL. It's all just marketing. And I think that reflects a more fundamental truth when it comes to the human psyche. People resent having shit taken from them, but won't resent others getting shit... even in this sort of zero-sum-game.
So.... as sad as this sounds.... we should probably switch to a flat tax... with a diminishing exemption/credit/whatever. Which would be EXACTLY THE SAME THING. But it wouldn't work if this was proposed by either political party and the other would simply... "expose" the ruse.
And before you dismiss that idea as bollocks, remember the Brazilian Real. They had terrible inflation, but they started to introduce a new currency; the Real. They mandated price-tags be displayed in TWO forms. One was the old currency, one was in Reals. While the price of eggs always went up in the old currency, it was always 1R. But there were no Reals. They hadn't printed them yet. People got used to the stated price in Reals, and when they DID issue the new currency.... inflation went away. It was nuts. Bollocks. Obvious bullshit only idiots would fall for, and stated as such by most economists. ...But it worked. (For about 6 years, till LuLu came to power and tried printing wealth.)
2) By creating a system that does not have to provide jobs to less 'able' folks
That's what we have now.
the problem of identifying the people who are capable motivated and dependable to do it
That's just.... called hiring. Or... "vetting" who you hire. No, hiring people who are capable of doing complex jobs isn't the hard part. The hard part is producing/training/educating those people, and how few there are. It's kind of the basis of why they have such high wages.
Bob will be jealous!
You mean envious. But I get what you're saying. And you've reduced a MAAAAAASIVE sociological model down to 4 words. It's an oversimplification. I think most people actually get depressed rather than bitter/envious/revolutionary. Unemployment gets you down. I don't think they'll start risking DEATH until they're desperate.
Bob will either demand productive people like Ted provide him these things as well
And the response will be "tough shit, go work for it", JUST LIKE IT IS NOW. Except that instead of starving to death in a gutter, Bob has enough to eat. I mean, there might come a day were the masses riot and rebel and start eating the rich because they lack "basic human necessities" like gigabit wifi and VR refresh rats of 75Hz+... but that day isn't today.
I just typically down mod it, but I commented in this thread.
Also because that trolling is even lower-grade bullshit. Randomly swearing "FUCK TRUMP" in a thread that has nothing to do with him is just noise. Ever read Anathem by Neal Stephenson? He has a great bit in there about different sorts of propaganda and bullshit and spam. Literal static is the lowest grade, easy to ignore as there's no content there. It's not even bullshit. While top quality bullshit would be an otherwise impeccable scientific paper but with a critical flaw or piece of misinformation. The higher the quality of the bullshit, the more insidious it is and the more we need people detailing exactly HOW such messages are bullshit. Hence, a refutation rather than simply downmodding.
AND because there are plenty of perfectly legitimate issues where Trump is on-topic and is doing something pretty fucking stupid and deserves to be bashed. I've got political views. I'm a democrat. But this is not a political issue. The two parties might differ on how to solve it, sure, but they both agree it's a problem. (Oh, and in general Democrats likewise deserve so have shenanigans called on them for the stance so many of them are taking on free speech. Seriously, fuck that noise)
This was before netbooks. Anyone who bought a netbook.... would have wanted one of these. It was the fore-runner to netbooks and first to market. They really could have dominated it... but they chose not to directly sell to Americans. At $100, it's a no-brainer. At $200, I still would have done it. But $400... at the time I felt I might as well get a real laptop. Which is what I ended up doing. And like 3 years later I also got a netbook because they were so damn cheap.
It was novel. I would have something unusual.
yeah man, who has a dozen netbooks at home? Buying ONE is plenty.
next to all the other [PRODUCTS SOLD IN AMERICA] I have bought over the years. [LIST OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS SOLD IN AMERICA]
Yes... like there was some sort of.... market for that. Which is what I'm suggesting. OLPC could have sold to Americans.
I would never expect to use it for serious work
Of course cheap-ass laptops didn't replace desktops. Come on dude.
Come on, dude, nobody said they did.
. . .oh shit. Is someone making you code professionally on a laptop? Blink once for yes. We can send help.
Same convo between friends that stalk each other and AREN'T douchbags just trying to shut down conversations:
Joe: So I was thinking of maybe taking a trip to Paris
Bill: Yeah, I saw that post. You've got to hit up the Louve.
(Conversation about Paris ensues)
Joe: So, Siri told me about that panguin, how's it going?
Bill: Still finishing up, want to see it?
Joe: Yes.
(They go to garage)
Bill: Any thoughts on the town referendum?
Joe: No Bill, even in a made up contrived example, nobody wants to talk about town referendums. Now let's have at those burgers.
(Bill casually poisons the apolitical sociopath's burger)
Just because they're both informed about the other's activities doesn't mean they have to be bored of each other's activities. If they DID become bored with it, they could tell Siri to shut the hell up. Even WITHOUT knowing any of this, they could still be douchbags trying to halt conversation. Reading people's tweets don't somehow destroy your social skills.
Again you are presuming that they have NEITHER and can only get ONE.
How about you? Would you rather have a 5lbs sack of rice or a small cheap laptop? Which would have more utility to you? "Bu bu but I'm RICH! I don't need rice" That's right. Because not EVERY community is literally starving.
And.... yes it could help them get a source of income that would help get food, water, and shelter. Spreading information and communication DOES go a long way towards stopping corrupt governments.
There are areas of the world - large areas of the world - where this is a real problem. It is reality. I don't understand how you can't see that.
I do see that. Those places DO suck. Real bad shit. But there are ALSO areas of the world - large areas of the world, the majority, and growing every year - that are not in absolute poverty but are still kinda poor and could use some tools to make their situation better.
If you actively ignore everyone but those suffering the worst, you are ignoring the majority of suffering. And take that to an extreame and you'll only be helping one quadrapeligic downs sydrome kid in a coma in some warlord's territory. Look at it this way: Should we REFUSE to help the bums in LA because they don't have it as bad as the bums freezing their ass off in NY?
You shouldn't have to buy your freedom every year
You don't. Unless you make enough money, in which case, cough up the dough you fat cat.
...for your land.
If you OWN PROPERTY you are most certainly rich enough to be amoung those fat cats that can afford to help society financially. If you've got a nickle, won't you lay your money down.
Taxing income or imports and exports s taxing economic activity.
Yes, and land usage certainly falls under economic activity. If you are USING land, then it ought to be put to meaningful use. If you've got some scrubland out in Montana, those taxes are going to be CHEAP. If you have some prime real estate down town in a city where a dozen developers would love to build a sky rise, for people who would love to live in a skyrise, in a city that would love to tax a skyrise.... but you'd just rather sit on it in your little personal cottage... that's HOLDING UP economic activity and mismanagement of resources. But hey, all the more power to you... if you're rich enough to afford such a luxury.
It reeks more of that constant low inflation aimed at forcing people to invest their money rather than horde it.
They also donated to the DNC.
Subtle.
But quit trying to shoehorn this into a partisan issue you shitty little shill.
Low effort partisian bashing from an anonymous coward and inexplicibly getting upvotes...
Yep, this one tastes like professional shilling. I think someone out there really wants to get this issues cut down along party lines. Good luck with that though, I don't think democrats OR republicans are too happy with Facebook over the sort of shit they let happen.