As a user of both Yahoo mail and Live, it's notable that my junk folder in Yahoo is stuffed with phising emails - easily identified by the difference between the visible sender and the originating email address. By contrast my live junk folder has virtually none.
So why doesn't Yahoo make the effort to kill off the dangerous junk?
As an economist the logic of what I have said is irreproachable. The fact that you appear unwilling to bother to explain why you regard it as 'bigoted' renders you guilty of wasting my time. We are here to learn from each other, not to indulge name calling...
The victims of the crime are hard working citizens who earn less than they would because their value in the labour market is undermined.
The victims are the citizens whose house is repossessed because their employer has gone bankrupt because another firm has competed it into bankruptcy because it employed illegal immigrants at below the minimum wage.
And of course the most visible victims are the 'dream children' whose illegal immigrant parents selfishly bought them along when the started their criminality, and so deprived them of legal status, instead condemning them to a life of uncertainty.
Don't you understand that our highly trained police and other LEOs are only doing what they KNOW - because they are omniscient - is best for all of us. Can't you accept that you are just a slimeball that is not worthy to polish their shoes, as they slave every day to ensure that nothing nasty will ever happen to you again...
"And that is because literacy was reserved for the church."
Oh please - it wasn't that it was 'reserved' for the church, it was that it wasn't valued by anyone else who could be bothered or could afford to obtain it. The church ran what schools there were - but there was noone else to do so. So this is merely negative spin.
Tell me, did the church in it's wisdom hand copy anything that they disagreed with?
Well - clearly they did otherwise none of the Ancients' pagan material would have made it through to today, whereas the libraries of our universities groan with the texts of Homer, Plato, Vergil, Ovid, Lucretius (an atheist) etc. Admittedly the writing of Christian heretics tended not to make the cut...
You're right of course; personal preferences make the process problematic. OTOH my experience of using Hugo and Nebula award lists to choose what to read has almost always worked out well, so I suspect the best of the best has a wider appeal than just to its obvious target audience.
As far as Heinlein is concerned, 'Stranger in a Strange Land' and 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' are worth the effort. You either love or hate 'Time Enough for Love' - either it scratches where you itch or it doesn't...
If a lot of people are wowed by product A and bored silly by product B, it is irrational to argue that the two can't be ranked as to which is the one most worth investing time in to read, given that we have a finite amount of time to spend doing so. Therefore to get people to vote for their 'favourite' seems a rational way forward, despite its subjective foundation.
Otherwise I know a wall with some paint drying that you can watch this evening...
Ozone from this source is clearly not something to worry about. There may be other reasons for worrying about ethane release, but this certainly isn't it.
The fact that the quote applied originally to one set of thugs that happened to be the legal government of Germany doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate for another set of thugs who aren't a government.
but you're missing their point. Whatever the figure set for the basic income, high or low, it can be expressed as proportion of the average income. Their logic then applies. And if it's low, it offers nothing significant. If it's high, it's too expensive. Certainly for the UK the range of house prices ensures that a large of the population, a basic income will not be enough to live on. But the alternative - of setting a different basic income for different areas - will go down very badly; the people on the border between the different rates would scream the house down.
The implementation of a basic income will cost a certain proportion of GDP. If we want to give the entire population between 18 and 65 an income of 10% of GDP, the it will cost 10% of GDP x the proportion of the population that is in that age range. That money has to come from somewhere. Can a meaningful basic income be raised with a realistic level of taxation? That was the question which the Economist was asking, and answering 'no'. What has that analysis got wrong that makes this about a military aeroplane not a civil one?
Ultimately the answer to that is whether you believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon - caused by there being too much money chasing too few goods, or whether it can have structural roots. Clearly there would be substantial economic dislocation, as certain items and services which were previously done by people on minimum wage are now done by decently paid staff. The price of tradeable goods - for which there is a foreign supplier - cannot rise significantly. However the price of goods and services generated by people who enjoy doing the work and now can afford to do so for free, will fall (oversimplification, but to make a point). similarly 'make work' jobs - where the person is kept on 'to be kind' or because the unions demand it, would probably fade, reducing costs in those industries.
It would make a good undergraduate thesis in economics to discuss it properly!
If I can get enough to live on without working, I'm going to be far less willing to work for peanuts - though illegal immigrants will continue to face the same incentives.
Cost of government functions - including debt interest payments, but such things as defence, education, the NHS etc is 25% of GDP.
Therefore to provide the entire population with an income equivalent to 10% of national income per person and to maintain those government programs will cost 35% of GDP. Which is what the Economist said.
Slashdot Mirror
Both are free services. One kills the dangerous spam, one doesn't.
As a user of both Yahoo mail and Live, it's notable that my junk folder in Yahoo is stuffed with phising emails - easily identified by the difference between the visible sender and the originating email address. By contrast my live junk folder has virtually none.
So why doesn't Yahoo make the effort to kill off the dangerous junk?
As this exercise may draw attention from a wider clientèle than the normal bug hunters.
There's a joke in there somewhere...
Given that it doesn't want to be subject to US harassment, it should find another country to be based in - and in which to pay
TAXES
it's only when the government is hit in its finances will it stop drifting towards a police state.
Congress has the right to impeach any federal employee. Write to your congressman and ask for a vote on the matter.
As an economist the logic of what I have said is irreproachable. The fact that you appear unwilling to bother to explain why you regard it as 'bigoted' renders you guilty of wasting my time. We are here to learn from each other, not to indulge name calling...
The victims of the crime are hard working citizens who earn less than they would because their value in the labour market is undermined.
The victims are the citizens whose house is repossessed because their employer has gone bankrupt because another firm has competed it into bankruptcy because it employed illegal immigrants at below the minimum wage.
And of course the most visible victims are the 'dream children' whose illegal immigrant parents selfishly bought them along when the started their criminality, and so deprived them of legal status, instead condemning them to a life of uncertainty.
Illegal immigration; a crime with real victims...
Don't you understand that our highly trained police and other LEOs are only doing what they KNOW - because they are omniscient - is best for all of us. Can't you accept that you are just a slimeball that is not worthy to polish their shoes, as they slave every day to ensure that nothing nasty will ever happen to you again...
You are still a problem if you are a critical part of a team...
If you are a start up, the news that a major member of your team is going to have a baby is NOT good news... So...
An early investment in real estate there seems warranted...
"And that is because literacy was reserved for the church."
Oh please - it wasn't that it was 'reserved' for the church, it was that it wasn't valued by anyone else who could be bothered or could afford to obtain it. The church ran what schools there were - but there was noone else to do so. So this is merely negative spin.
Tell me, did the church in it's wisdom hand copy anything that they disagreed with?
Well - clearly they did otherwise none of the Ancients' pagan material would have made it through to today, whereas the libraries of our universities groan with the texts of Homer, Plato, Vergil, Ovid, Lucretius (an atheist) etc. Admittedly the writing of Christian heretics tended not to make the cut...
You're right of course; personal preferences make the process problematic. OTOH my experience of using Hugo and Nebula award lists to choose what to read has almost always worked out well, so I suspect the best of the best has a wider appeal than just to its obvious target audience.
As far as Heinlein is concerned, 'Stranger in a Strange Land' and 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' are worth the effort. You either love or hate 'Time Enough for Love' - either it scratches where you itch or it doesn't...
If a lot of people are wowed by product A and bored silly by product B, it is irrational to argue that the two can't be ranked as to which is the one most worth investing time in to read, given that we have a finite amount of time to spend doing so. Therefore to get people to vote for their 'favourite' seems a rational way forward, despite its subjective foundation.
Otherwise I know a wall with some paint drying that you can watch this evening...
Ozone from this source is clearly not something to worry about. There may be other reasons for worrying about ethane release, but this certainly isn't it.
http://www.ozoneapplications.c...
offers some information about the use of Ozone as a pesticide for crops!
Thanks for the slap!
Really? Source please.
Well said. Wish I could mod it up - /sarcasm and shoot the people who moded it down... /sarcasm off
The fact that the quote applied originally to one set of thugs that happened to be the legal government of Germany doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate for another set of thugs who aren't a government.
A bit corny, but appropriate
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...... )
Perhaps the modern equivalent is:
First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a racist.
Then they came for the supporters of 'traditional marriage', and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a supporter of 'traditional marriage',
Then they came for the opponents of abortion, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an opponent of abortion.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
but you're missing their point. Whatever the figure set for the basic income, high or low, it can be expressed as proportion of the average income. Their logic then applies. And if it's low, it offers nothing significant. If it's high, it's too expensive. Certainly for the UK the range of house prices ensures that a large of the population, a basic income will not be enough to live on. But the alternative - of setting a different basic income for different areas - will go down very badly; the people on the border between the different rates would scream the house down.
The implementation of a basic income will cost a certain proportion of GDP. If we want to give the entire population between 18 and 65 an income of 10% of GDP, the it will cost 10% of GDP x the proportion of the population that is in that age range. That money has to come from somewhere. Can a meaningful basic income be raised with a realistic level of taxation? That was the question which the Economist was asking, and answering 'no'. What has that analysis got wrong that makes this about a military aeroplane not a civil one?
Ultimately the answer to that is whether you believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon - caused by there being too much money chasing too few goods, or whether it can have structural roots. Clearly there would be substantial economic dislocation, as certain items and services which were previously done by people on minimum wage are now done by decently paid staff. The price of tradeable goods - for which there is a foreign supplier - cannot rise significantly. However the price of goods and services generated by people who enjoy doing the work and now can afford to do so for free, will fall (oversimplification, but to make a point). similarly 'make work' jobs - where the person is kept on 'to be kind' or because the unions demand it, would probably fade, reducing costs in those industries.
It would make a good undergraduate thesis in economics to discuss it properly!
If I can get enough to live on without working, I'm going to be far less willing to work for peanuts - though illegal immigrants will continue to face the same incentives.
Cost of government functions - including debt interest payments, but such things as defence, education, the NHS etc is 25% of GDP.
Therefore to provide the entire population with an income equivalent to 10% of national income per person and to maintain those government programs will cost 35% of GDP. Which is what the Economist said.