Big or fast. It's not inconceivable that Moon colonists could build a superconducting mass driver on the surface of the moon to launch objects back at Earth.
Nowhere in the article does it mention how many of these villagers were on the constant edge of starvation prior to having access to a more varied diet. It does mention they do shorter foraging routes than they did 25 years ago, but doesn't mention how that would reasonably mean they would starve without outside sources of food. Oh, and then there's the nugget that they are BETTER at digesting carbs and sugars than Europeans, which leads them to eat significantly more..
This article is full of lies and half truths subby!
It's hilarious you have no reading comprehension, because I said "America's founders", who originally made copyright last 14 years with an option for 14 more.
This is a very narrow and shortsighted outlook. No one person or company can innovate infinitely. Take, for instance, the novel Dracula.. one author could never have done all the adaptations, revamps, plays, movies, games, etc. that has grown over that one concept, and Stoker didn't even invent vampires, he borrowed them from folk lore.
America's founders knew that ideas and innovations belonged to the public not locked up behind laws, that's why we have limited copyrights, so that eventually works will go into the public domain to spark new ideas.
Amazon actually gives small companies a place to market their products to a larger audience. If you want to blame a company for killing Mom & Pop shops, Wal-Mart has done more to kill American workers than just about anyone. Not content to destroy their competitors in large swaths of the country, they've pushed companies into offshoring to China to guarantee they get the prices they want.
Maybe you join a club, start a band, discover an aptitude for art, start your own business.. who knows?
The problem is not all "work" is equal. The value of the work you do is how much useful economic productivity you generate - how useful what you produce is to other people. The market modulates this by overvaluing productivity which is in short supply (STEM workers), and devaluing productivity which is oversupplied (musicians, artists). This differential pricing then encourages people to "work" in the more productive jobs like STEM, rather than the less productive but more fun jobs like joining a club, starting a band, discovering an aptitude for art (these things are often so unproductive that people have to pay to be able to do them, rather than be paid).
That's the big problem with a UBI. The market prices labor to encourage people to do jobs that are needed, rather than jobs that are fun. A UBI encourages people to do what they find fun rather than what's needed. At first glance, layering a market economy on top of this seems like it would work (i.e. you can still get paid extra on top of a UBI for doing a STEM job). But if you crunch through the math, the pricing for the STEM job then leads to non-UBI income following a divergent series.
Considering how much of what you call "useful" economic productivity is generated by "fun" jobs like art and music, your entire premise feels backwards, especially as it does not consider there is a very real drive to push "useful" economic productivity towards zero cost with ever increasing automation.
A small group of artists at Marvel has become an economic juggernaut as armies of artists and artisans translate the comic page into movies and then toys and other banal products for the, as you call them "useful" economic producers to manufacture. A couple of musicians messing around in a garage share their sound and it catches on with clothes, jewelry, etc. geared to the people who want to be part of that scene. Again, giving the, as you call them "useful" economic producers something to take to market.
Yes, a lot of artists are overlooked and underpaid, but that's attributable more to how they are disadvantaged by people who are inclined towards business rather than their true economic potential. Most creative people aren't good at promoting themselves or taking charge of their works and the businessmen who control what you call "useful" economic productivity take full advantage of that. You need look no further for a prime example than the music industry and how a typical record contract is structured to see how artists receive a fraction of the real economic reward their works generate.
The rest of your argument just reads like the typical "Get a STEM job!" mythos you always see on Slashdot that devalues any form of liberal art.
It's already started, you haven't noticed because you're just looking at metrics like unemployment. People are being down-shifted into lower paying service jobs by automation already. Stock Brokers are leading the charge, then there's automated legal offices who've done away with paralegals, automated warehouses...
The real tipping point will be self driving cars. Say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of taxi driver and delivery jobs once they've proven that technology is efficient and safe. Then hundreds of thousands of semi drivers will be forced out. Then all the services that cater to those jobs will go under, etc.
The question is, however, define "work". Would you labor for someone else? Probably not. But you likely wouldn't sit on your butt all day doing nothing either. Maybe you join a club, start a band, discover an aptitude for art, start your own business.. who knows?
The inescapable fact, however, is that what you conceive of as "work", going to a building someone else owns and laboring for them, is going to decline as automation, AI and robots improve, so something has to be put in it's place that's better than "labor a robot won't do".
Yeah, T-Mobile is fine if you never leave the city limits, it sucks in rural areas. AT&T or Verizon are the big carriers with most rural coverage or there's the rural off brand MVNO's but they typically won't sell you a contract unless you live in their area.
The same professor in a world where Microsoft doesn't force updates: "Microsoft's continued refusal to automatically update users computers has put the entire industry at risk from hackers and viruses! Users are clueless drones who don't know to keep their computers updated and Microsoft should do it for them!"
Can't remember the last time I picked up a phone or a tablet and wasn't greeted by a system update screen, or a notification that 30 apps need to be updated minutes after walking away from a wifi hotspot.
The real problem is that software developers exist in permanent beta, adding and removing features whenever they please. I kind of miss the pre-network days when software was delivered complete and didn't significantly change between versions.
Don't forget his Dept. of Energy pick who had no clue what the agency did, called for it to be shut down and is ludicrously under-educated to even be in the same room as it's secretaries.
I dunno, ask Trump, he's the one that likes to say he won by a landslide and that he has a popular mandate. If you bring up California then those were all fraudulent votes, naturally. If it's not important, why does he insist it is? Oh right, because popularity is a presidents main power for getting shit done. Congress has a harder problem ignoring a popular president.
There was a Republican senator in power until 2011, a Mr. Schwarzenegger, and California had a weak economy with a broke government that mostly floated on large companies, and he made it like that.
Is there ANY state with a Republican Governor and Republican majority legislature that isn't failing spectacularly?
...people forget just much dread there was at the prospect of Hillary Clinton.
The "dread" you speak of was only by people who watch FOX exclusively and believe Youtube videos are real. The GOP spent decades demonizing Hillary, going so far as to put her on trial for Benghazi SEVEN TIMES. They still never found anything they could indict her for. Hell, they raked her over the coals for supposedly abusing her charity while pretending it didn't matter when Trump was accused of the same.. the GOP, defining the term "double standards" since at least the 80's.
In this case, their grievance is that we exist. ISIS wants a new caliphate to control the entire Middle East and they want to pursue holy war, you can't really negotiate around either of those even if they wanted to.
Nobody who actually wants to run a company would ever settle for a system without patents, copyrights or some form of IP protection, for the simple fact that it's much much cheaper to duplicate than to innovate.
Now charities, government funded universities, they could thrive in your imaginary totally free market where there are no patents and all ideals are open.
Slashdot Mirror
Big or fast. It's not inconceivable that Moon colonists could build a superconducting mass driver on the surface of the moon to launch objects back at Earth.
Nowhere in the article does it mention how many of these villagers were on the constant edge of starvation prior to having access to a more varied diet. It does mention they do shorter foraging routes than they did 25 years ago, but doesn't mention how that would reasonably mean they would starve without outside sources of food. Oh, and then there's the nugget that they are BETTER at digesting carbs and sugars than Europeans, which leads them to eat significantly more..
This article is full of lies and half truths subby!
It's hilarious you have no reading comprehension, because I said "America's founders", who originally made copyright last 14 years with an option for 14 more.
This is a very narrow and shortsighted outlook. No one person or company can innovate infinitely. Take, for instance, the novel Dracula.. one author could never have done all the adaptations, revamps, plays, movies, games, etc. that has grown over that one concept, and Stoker didn't even invent vampires, he borrowed them from folk lore.
America's founders knew that ideas and innovations belonged to the public not locked up behind laws, that's why we have limited copyrights, so that eventually works will go into the public domain to spark new ideas.
Amazon actually gives small companies a place to market their products to a larger audience. If you want to blame a company for killing Mom & Pop shops, Wal-Mart has done more to kill American workers than just about anyone. Not content to destroy their competitors in large swaths of the country, they've pushed companies into offshoring to China to guarantee they get the prices they want.
The problem is not all "work" is equal. The value of the work you do is how much useful economic productivity you generate - how useful what you produce is to other people. The market modulates this by overvaluing productivity which is in short supply (STEM workers), and devaluing productivity which is oversupplied (musicians, artists). This differential pricing then encourages people to "work" in the more productive jobs like STEM, rather than the less productive but more fun jobs like joining a club, starting a band, discovering an aptitude for art (these things are often so unproductive that people have to pay to be able to do them, rather than be paid).
That's the big problem with a UBI. The market prices labor to encourage people to do jobs that are needed, rather than jobs that are fun. A UBI encourages people to do what they find fun rather than what's needed. At first glance, layering a market economy on top of this seems like it would work (i.e. you can still get paid extra on top of a UBI for doing a STEM job). But if you crunch through the math, the pricing for the STEM job then leads to non-UBI income following a divergent series.
Considering how much of what you call "useful" economic productivity is generated by "fun" jobs like art and music, your entire premise feels backwards, especially as it does not consider there is a very real drive to push "useful" economic productivity towards zero cost with ever increasing automation.
A small group of artists at Marvel has become an economic juggernaut as armies of artists and artisans translate the comic page into movies and then toys and other banal products for the, as you call them "useful" economic producers to manufacture. A couple of musicians messing around in a garage share their sound and it catches on with clothes, jewelry, etc. geared to the people who want to be part of that scene. Again, giving the, as you call them "useful" economic producers something to take to market.
Yes, a lot of artists are overlooked and underpaid, but that's attributable more to how they are disadvantaged by people who are inclined towards business rather than their true economic potential. Most creative people aren't good at promoting themselves or taking charge of their works and the businessmen who control what you call "useful" economic productivity take full advantage of that. You need look no further for a prime example than the music industry and how a typical record contract is structured to see how artists receive a fraction of the real economic reward their works generate.
The rest of your argument just reads like the typical "Get a STEM job!" mythos you always see on Slashdot that devalues any form of liberal art.
It's already started, you haven't noticed because you're just looking at metrics like unemployment. People are being down-shifted into lower paying service jobs by automation already. Stock Brokers are leading the charge, then there's automated legal offices who've done away with paralegals, automated warehouses...
The real tipping point will be self driving cars. Say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of taxi driver and delivery jobs once they've proven that technology is efficient and safe. Then hundreds of thousands of semi drivers will be forced out. Then all the services that cater to those jobs will go under, etc.
The question is, however, define "work". Would you labor for someone else? Probably not. But you likely wouldn't sit on your butt all day doing nothing either. Maybe you join a club, start a band, discover an aptitude for art, start your own business.. who knows?
The inescapable fact, however, is that what you conceive of as "work", going to a building someone else owns and laboring for them, is going to decline as automation, AI and robots improve, so something has to be put in it's place that's better than "labor a robot won't do".
I only get infected by fair trade ORGANIC salmonella!
They are! They've been conducting government business over a private RNC mail server.
Exactly. Trump raked Apple over the coals for their stance on encryption after all.
Yeah, T-Mobile is fine if you never leave the city limits, it sucks in rural areas. AT&T or Verizon are the big carriers with most rural coverage or there's the rural off brand MVNO's but they typically won't sell you a contract unless you live in their area.
The same professor in a world where Microsoft doesn't force updates: "Microsoft's continued refusal to automatically update users computers has put the entire industry at risk from hackers and viruses! Users are clueless drones who don't know to keep their computers updated and Microsoft should do it for them!"
Can't remember the last time I picked up a phone or a tablet and wasn't greeted by a system update screen, or a notification that 30 apps need to be updated minutes after walking away from a wifi hotspot.
The real problem is that software developers exist in permanent beta, adding and removing features whenever they please. I kind of miss the pre-network days when software was delivered complete and didn't significantly change between versions.
If all we can offer is subsidies and tax breaks, at a certain point we're just crippling ourselves to pay someone to hire us.
Sad to see the Trump MAGA's once again fooled by companies recycling old press releases.
On the other hand, less than a day and the Oval Office curtains are now gold fabric.
Don't forget his Dept. of Energy pick who had no clue what the agency did, called for it to be shut down and is ludicrously under-educated to even be in the same room as it's secretaries.
I dunno, ask Trump, he's the one that likes to say he won by a landslide and that he has a popular mandate. If you bring up California then those were all fraudulent votes, naturally. If it's not important, why does he insist it is? Oh right, because popularity is a presidents main power for getting shit done. Congress has a harder problem ignoring a popular president.
There was a Republican senator in power until 2011, a Mr. Schwarzenegger, and California had a weak economy with a broke government that mostly floated on large companies, and he made it like that.
Is there ANY state with a Republican Governor and Republican majority legislature that isn't failing spectacularly?
...people forget just much dread there was at the prospect of Hillary Clinton.
The "dread" you speak of was only by people who watch FOX exclusively and believe Youtube videos are real. The GOP spent decades demonizing Hillary, going so far as to put her on trial for Benghazi SEVEN TIMES. They still never found anything they could indict her for. Hell, they raked her over the coals for supposedly abusing her charity while pretending it didn't matter when Trump was accused of the same.. the GOP, defining the term "double standards" since at least the 80's.
Good includes the fact that he's not dependent on campaign contributors like almost all major politicians are.
I guess.. I mean the Russians didn't actually contribute cash (that we know of) to Trump.
In this case, their grievance is that we exist. ISIS wants a new caliphate to control the entire Middle East and they want to pursue holy war, you can't really negotiate around either of those even if they wanted to.
Now I can burn coal in my autosteamer and keep those coal miners working!
Nobody who actually wants to run a company would ever settle for a system without patents, copyrights or some form of IP protection, for the simple fact that it's much much cheaper to duplicate than to innovate.
Now charities, government funded universities, they could thrive in your imaginary totally free market where there are no patents and all ideals are open.