This, IMHO, is the most important result of this study because it removes one of the biggest objections to UBI
The big objection was based on the fact that people didn't understand the word "basic". Basic is nothing more than a social safety net. If people were content with basic we wouldn't be in this rat race, we wouldn't be driving new cars, owning houses, sitting on couches without tears. We wouldn't be eating nice steaks, going on vacation. We wouldn't have hobbies.
That biggest objection to UBI can be discredited 1000x over without ever doing a UBI study, and those objections often come from the very people who have demonstrated that they will put actual effort into improving their life over their "basic" necessities.
Your example has failed to describe UBI because of the following (check all that apply): [ ] Not Universal [x] Not Basic [ ] Not Income
Your comment is irrelevant due to the following reasons (describe in 250 words or less): The point of UBI is that income is "basic". People in general aren't content with "basic". If they were the rat race wouldn't exist and we'd all be content slumming in our own filth. Basic income is a social safety net that prevents you from being homeless and dying of starvation in the street. Nothing more. A life will still require achievement, something you can now do as your "basic" need is met.
The 'golden age' of the Internet in general is long since over.
Define the golden age. There's two commonly acceptable definitions: "the ideal time in the past", or "the period where an activity is at its peak". I don't yearn for the internet of the past. Content was poorer, harder to find, information was more scarce, everything was slower, the people were fewer (anyone remember sitting for minutes at a time on battle.net matchmaking screens?).
If anything the golden age hasn't even arrived yet. The internet is seeing more and wider use now than ever before.
I'll keep working on it for now, but if they screw me over again
They aren't screwing you over. You're behind the ball game in the most general sense while competing against others. It's no different than your rent raising faster than your income. That's not you being screwed over, that's you not keeping up with the demand being generated, and if you stay on the same trajectory then you won't ever get ahead.
I have to disagree, well that is providing you stay away from the "top" Youtube channels. Minor monetisation keeps people going in their weird hobby, and for others provided a commercial platform that's accessible to all and not geoblocked to a specific TV station.
The reality is that there's only so many dumb home videos people can take. Some people actually like commercial content such as the video arm of review magazines, or instructional videos on commercial products. Your old youtube is still there to be enjoyed. It's just needs to be found in different ways.
What is the advantage to these companies of limiting the size (and therefore the car's range) of these urea tanks?
Ultimately it comes down to consumer choice. Any collusion that sets products standards between companies at a level that isn't market regulated and is lower than the generally available technology is deemed to be potentially negative for consumers by competition law. It doesn't need to always be about cheap products or meeting regulations. In this case it's about better technology in the general market not being passed to consumers.
The commission's words: "The Commission's preliminary view is that the car manufacturers' behaviour aimed at restricting competition on innovation for these two emission cleaning systems and in doing so, denied consumers the opportunity to buy less polluting cars, despite the technology being available to the manufacturers."
A classic Slashdot and tech debate we always have here is how Intel doesn't provide desktop processors with ECC capabilities. That's fine, go shop at AMD. But if Intel and AMD worked together to ensure these were specifically denied to desktop consumers then the effect would be the same, manufacturers working together for a worse outcome to consumers.
Well considering it's supposed to last until the service interval, having to refill it every 20000km is quite limiting given the service interval on most modern cars is 30000km.
It may blow your mind to realise that colluding on a local level is orders of magnitude easier than on an international level.
Yet the Euros are the first to scream about how great they are for the environment and how bad the US is. Looks like they just proved to be hypocrites
Actually they just proved to put their money where their mouth is. The fact that they are prosecuting their own companies for having a negative impact on the environment without even formally breaching environmental rules (something which would be laughable if suggested in the USA) shows they are very much serious about their environmental standards.
As for screaming about the USA. No one screams. They just show measurable and verifiable facts. Drill baby drill!... errr sorry, wrong election.... "Beautiful American Coal"
my decision would be to allow humans to override the machines. Machines can break
Indeed. There's a hierarchy here. But the philosophical argument that (x) known to break in weird and uncharacterisable ways should override (y) because we have characterised the way (y) breaks despite the fact that given proper engineering (y) is far more reliable doesn't make sense.
Philosophically there is of course sense in what you say. The human should be in "control". However we rely on the machine to keep the human "safe". This is fundamental to all safety systems which primarily exist to take away control.
The big problem here is that we blurred the lines between what is primary control and what is safety. In typical safety systems, failure of those systems do not create an unsafe condition. If forward accident avoidance on your car breaks down, it doesn't work, you don't suddenly crash and explode. If a turbine anti-surge system fails the turbine shuts goes to full recycle.
Which brings me back to my point, don't absolve engineers. While we're generally a bright bunch there are some stupid idiots among us. The standards of active safety systems set the bar incredibly high and frankly the person who decided that an active safety system should make a decision based 2 sources which could show a discrepancy, and then made the override complicated (yes there should be the option to override a system that is this stupid, this is not a properly designed safety system), well they should have their license revoked. The buck stops with engineering, unless it was the manager who signed the final design and therefore made themselves legally liable.
Not sure why you're so gung-ho about machines making final decisions.
Because this is the fundamental point of well designed safety systems. Control systems provide control to people. Safety systems take control away. You should be able to play with the accelerator and brake on your car as you please. You should not be able to prevent FCAS from applying the brake. You should be able to line up high pressure lines to vessels if you want, you should not be able to do anything to prevent a pressure relief valve from opening.
This is 50 years of experience in human machine interaction which showed that by letting machines make final decisions we dramatically reduced incident and accident rates. Ironically the industry at the forefront of this is the airline industry, followed closely by the process industry.
Fundamentally here the problem was an incredibly poor system design.
You wrote: "your opinion is noted and dully ignored." That is all anybody needs to know about you, fucking asshole.
Indeed. It's worth ignoring negative opinions about the state of automation in an industry where safety advances have been made through automation by someone who in their post proclaimed they aren't in the industry.
I understood your need to defend your favouite graphics card company despite the fact that they have precisely the same number of products in the top 15 market share as my cat does, but now you're defending opinions by 3rd parties in doing so showing that you didn't even understand the post, and then proceeded to declare me an arsehole while clearly not understanding anything that is going on in the thread.
You need English classes. Or maybe you need to lie down on the leather couch and tell the man with fluffy doll precisely where theses pseudonymous people on the internet touched you as a child to make you so angry.
If that were true, then one could stand out by producing variety and get bigly rich.
There is a lot of variety out there, the question you need to ask yourself is why it doesn't get on the radio, on the TV, in shopping centres, in CD stores, doesn't get into the Spotify recommendations or advertised highly on the Apple store.
"producing variety" is the cheapest and easiest step in the incredibly complicated and highly expensive process of getting "bigly rich" in the industry. That is one of the main drivers of the lack of variety in the first place: playing it safe with music by formula as it's so fucking expensive to get music popular.
Why am I not reassured when it adds the capability to allow Google to remove blacklisted extensions.
Chrome has allowed the removal of black listed extensions for the best part of 10 years already. If you aren't re-assured as a result of this announcement then your brain isn't functioning.
All they are doing here is allowing corporate IT to set more policy controls over their computers where Chrome is used.
Actually AirBnB's investigation followed the exact standard they set for themselves. AirBnB's own policy says that it will only ban a host if a hidden camera is in the bedroom, bathroom, or single room rental.
If AirBnB wants to sound apologetic then can change their standard rather than spin bullshit.
You have a completely unrealistic view of what an engine brings to the table. It's nothing like your bizarre fantasy. Big games have many hundreds of thousands of man hours in them even using established and easy to use engines.
Depends. Did they attempt to register it? Or are they just upset that someone else did and registered in protest. Frankly a rainforest does not deserve a donation name over an internet giant. And conversely the same applies to Amazon if they wanted to build a distribution centre in the actual Amazon.
We got away from it because it was expensive to run the RDP
Bonus points for using the correct word there. We ditched a lot of things for reasons which included the word "was". Massive bandwidth increases, cloud computing, offloading data and processing has all completely changed the cost benefit equation.
Also, quite a lot of people love to own their data.
This sounds like observation bias from the forums you visit... like Slashdot. In the grand scheme of the number of actual computer users out there the people who actually give a shit about their data ownership and don't want to hand everything to the cloud can be considered a paltry rounding error of users.
while the customers have been pushing back that they didn’t want these features
Huh? As far as I can tell customers have only ever wanted to be in control of updates and wanted their system to be stable. Who are these strange customers you apparently know that actively don't want the features that come out in the updates?
So they'll more quickly remove support for older versions to force updates?
Yes and good. I mean Slashdot needs to be collectively checked into a psych ward. On one side they complain about phones not having support or security updates and being insecure spambots, then on the other side they dare complain that desktops are provided automatic security updates. It seems the only thing anyone is happy with is leaving the user in charge of their own security which is precisely how the internet turned into a cesspool of malware in the first place.
"Stall," has a well-established definition and whatever method of detection works on other airlines is not the one Boeing uses.
There's three methods generally used. One is a small slit which activates a reed switch would be useful only for a warning light and not for any kind of control scheme, one is to use differential pitot tubes which since you have a problem with things sticking from planes I'm sorry to inform you also stick out from planes, and then there's the AoA vane sensor used by Boeing... and... Airbus, and because I was really bored I spent the last 10 minutes looking at aircraft pictures so you can also see them on the first 5 planes you come up with when you google image search Bombardier, you can see them on Fokker F70s, I tried to see how small I could go but it would look like tiny aircraft like Gulfstreams and Dassault Falcons tend to use differential pitot tubes again.
You're quick to judge from your throne of ignorance.
Also why is the MCAS triggering 6 minutes into a flight.
Where did you read it triggers 6 minutes into a flight? By all accounts all I could find is evidence that it caused problems 6 minutes into the flight.
But in any case the MCAS system is designed to counter act the fact that the plane changes pitch with thrust due to the poorly placed centre of thrust thanks to engine placement. During takeoff thrust is constant so while you're closest to stall you're also least likely to need MCAS.
This is utter flapping bullshit. Religion is not the problem, never has been.
No *that* is bullshit. Religion while not the only problem most definitely is a big problem. People aren't born evil. They don't pass through the vagina with a leather jacket, knuckleduster in hand and swastika tattoos and crosses. Being evil is something that is learned.
Religion is an appeal of authority from an unknown force. That authority is used to radicalise and mold people's beliefs. That very authority is incompatible with the idea that any other authority can exist which is why fundamentally all religions claim they are the one true religion and that false worshipers are enemies.
In many cases it is the existence of religion itself which has made people evil. It is the authority of religion that has caused evil people to spread evil unto others. And above all, a great many evil acts have been done *in the name of* religion, not "excused by", "not in defense of" but actively "in the name of" religion.
Religion isn't the root of all evils. It is however a hell of a big contributor as both the source and the spread of evil.
By the way you need to die infidel. My holy book has said so and my holy man decreed it so, and he has the backing of god so therefore he can't be evil. Now come heather so I can do the will of god and rid the world of your evil.
I studied Islam for over 20 years and I lived in the Middle East for four of them. It's a fact that the Quoran mandates violence against non-muslims.
I thought slashdot was completely beyond up-modding appeals to authority, not less the authority of an anonymous coward. I have been on Slashdot for over 20 years and it's a fact all people who modded that post insightful deserve to have their mod points taken away from them.
I'm not saying you shouldn't expand the road. I'm saying don't pretend it actually solves anything.
You're right. Honestly I don't understand why these mega cities bother with multi lane roads or highways. Your comment is the dumbest comment by car analogy proxy I have read on Slashdot, ever. And I browse at -1.
Slashdot Mirror
This, IMHO, is the most important result of this study because it removes one of the biggest objections to UBI
The big objection was based on the fact that people didn't understand the word "basic". Basic is nothing more than a social safety net. If people were content with basic we wouldn't be in this rat race, we wouldn't be driving new cars, owning houses, sitting on couches without tears. We wouldn't be eating nice steaks, going on vacation. We wouldn't have hobbies.
That biggest objection to UBI can be discredited 1000x over without ever doing a UBI study, and those objections often come from the very people who have demonstrated that they will put actual effort into improving their life over their "basic" necessities.
As such, there's no real incentive to achieve.
Your example has failed to describe UBI because of the following (check all that apply):
[ ] Not Universal
[x] Not Basic
[ ] Not Income
Your comment is irrelevant due to the following reasons (describe in 250 words or less):
The point of UBI is that income is "basic". People in general aren't content with "basic". If they were the rat race wouldn't exist and we'd all be content slumming in our own filth. Basic income is a social safety net that prevents you from being homeless and dying of starvation in the street. Nothing more. A life will still require achievement, something you can now do as your "basic" need is met.
The 'golden age' of the Internet in general is long since over.
Define the golden age. There's two commonly acceptable definitions: "the ideal time in the past", or "the period where an activity is at its peak".
I don't yearn for the internet of the past. Content was poorer, harder to find, information was more scarce, everything was slower, the people were fewer (anyone remember sitting for minutes at a time on battle.net matchmaking screens?).
If anything the golden age hasn't even arrived yet. The internet is seeing more and wider use now than ever before.
I'll keep working on it for now, but if they screw me over again
They aren't screwing you over. You're behind the ball game in the most general sense while competing against others. It's no different than your rent raising faster than your income. That's not you being screwed over, that's you not keeping up with the demand being generated, and if you stay on the same trajectory then you won't ever get ahead.
Life is not a game with fixed goalposts.
I have to disagree, well that is providing you stay away from the "top" Youtube channels. Minor monetisation keeps people going in their weird hobby, and for others provided a commercial platform that's accessible to all and not geoblocked to a specific TV station.
The reality is that there's only so many dumb home videos people can take. Some people actually like commercial content such as the video arm of review magazines, or instructional videos on commercial products. Your old youtube is still there to be enjoyed. It's just needs to be found in different ways.
Huh? Youtube has ads?
What is the advantage to these companies of limiting the size (and therefore the car's range) of these urea tanks?
Ultimately it comes down to consumer choice. Any collusion that sets products standards between companies at a level that isn't market regulated and is lower than the generally available technology is deemed to be potentially negative for consumers by competition law. It doesn't need to always be about cheap products or meeting regulations. In this case it's about better technology in the general market not being passed to consumers.
The commission's words:
"The Commission's preliminary view is that the car manufacturers' behaviour aimed at restricting competition on innovation for these two emission cleaning systems and in doing so, denied consumers the opportunity to buy less polluting cars, despite the technology being available to the manufacturers."
A classic Slashdot and tech debate we always have here is how Intel doesn't provide desktop processors with ECC capabilities. That's fine, go shop at AMD. But if Intel and AMD worked together to ensure these were specifically denied to desktop consumers then the effect would be the same, manufacturers working together for a worse outcome to consumers.
Well considering it's supposed to last until the service interval, having to refill it every 20000km is quite limiting given the service interval on most modern cars is 30000km.
And no American ones?
It may blow your mind to realise that colluding on a local level is orders of magnitude easier than on an international level.
Yet the Euros are the first to scream about how great they are for the environment and how bad the US is. Looks like they just proved to be hypocrites
Actually they just proved to put their money where their mouth is. The fact that they are prosecuting their own companies for having a negative impact on the environment without even formally breaching environmental rules (something which would be laughable if suggested in the USA) shows they are very much serious about their environmental standards.
As for screaming about the USA. No one screams. They just show measurable and verifiable facts. ... errr sorry, wrong election. ... "Beautiful American Coal"
Drill baby drill!
my decision would be to allow humans to override the machines. Machines can break
Indeed. There's a hierarchy here. But the philosophical argument that (x) known to break in weird and uncharacterisable ways should override (y) because we have characterised the way (y) breaks despite the fact that given proper engineering (y) is far more reliable doesn't make sense.
Philosophically there is of course sense in what you say. The human should be in "control". However we rely on the machine to keep the human "safe". This is fundamental to all safety systems which primarily exist to take away control.
The big problem here is that we blurred the lines between what is primary control and what is safety. In typical safety systems, failure of those systems do not create an unsafe condition. If forward accident avoidance on your car breaks down, it doesn't work, you don't suddenly crash and explode. If a turbine anti-surge system fails the turbine shuts goes to full recycle.
Which brings me back to my point, don't absolve engineers. While we're generally a bright bunch there are some stupid idiots among us. The standards of active safety systems set the bar incredibly high and frankly the person who decided that an active safety system should make a decision based 2 sources which could show a discrepancy, and then made the override complicated (yes there should be the option to override a system that is this stupid, this is not a properly designed safety system), well they should have their license revoked. The buck stops with engineering, unless it was the manager who signed the final design and therefore made themselves legally liable.
Not sure why you're so gung-ho about machines making final decisions.
Because this is the fundamental point of well designed safety systems. Control systems provide control to people. Safety systems take control away. You should be able to play with the accelerator and brake on your car as you please. You should not be able to prevent FCAS from applying the brake. You should be able to line up high pressure lines to vessels if you want, you should not be able to do anything to prevent a pressure relief valve from opening.
This is 50 years of experience in human machine interaction which showed that by letting machines make final decisions we dramatically reduced incident and accident rates. Ironically the industry at the forefront of this is the airline industry, followed closely by the process industry.
Fundamentally here the problem was an incredibly poor system design.
You wrote: "your opinion is noted and dully ignored." That is all anybody needs to know about you, fucking asshole.
Indeed. It's worth ignoring negative opinions about the state of automation in an industry where safety advances have been made through automation by someone who in their post proclaimed they aren't in the industry.
I understood your need to defend your favouite graphics card company despite the fact that they have precisely the same number of products in the top 15 market share as my cat does, but now you're defending opinions by 3rd parties in doing so showing that you didn't even understand the post, and then proceeded to declare me an arsehole while clearly not understanding anything that is going on in the thread.
You need English classes.
Or maybe you need to lie down on the leather couch and tell the man with fluffy doll precisely where theses pseudonymous people on the internet touched you as a child to make you so angry.
If that were true, then one could stand out by producing variety and get bigly rich.
There is a lot of variety out there, the question you need to ask yourself is why it doesn't get on the radio, on the TV, in shopping centres, in CD stores, doesn't get into the Spotify recommendations or advertised highly on the Apple store.
"producing variety" is the cheapest and easiest step in the incredibly complicated and highly expensive process of getting "bigly rich" in the industry. That is one of the main drivers of the lack of variety in the first place: playing it safe with music by formula as it's so fucking expensive to get music popular.
Why am I not reassured when it adds the capability to allow Google to remove blacklisted extensions.
Chrome has allowed the removal of black listed extensions for the best part of 10 years already. If you aren't re-assured as a result of this announcement then your brain isn't functioning.
All they are doing here is allowing corporate IT to set more policy controls over their computers where Chrome is used.
Actually AirBnB's investigation followed the exact standard they set for themselves. AirBnB's own policy says that it will only ban a host if a hidden camera is in the bedroom, bathroom, or single room rental.
If AirBnB wants to sound apologetic then can change their standard rather than spin bullshit.
You have a completely unrealistic view of what an engine brings to the table. It's nothing like your bizarre fantasy. Big games have many hundreds of thousands of man hours in them even using established and easy to use engines.
Depends. Did they attempt to register it? Or are they just upset that someone else did and registered in protest. Frankly a rainforest does not deserve a donation name over an internet giant. And conversely the same applies to Amazon if they wanted to build a distribution centre in the actual Amazon.
We got away from it because it was expensive to run the RDP
Bonus points for using the correct word there. We ditched a lot of things for reasons which included the word "was". Massive bandwidth increases, cloud computing, offloading data and processing has all completely changed the cost benefit equation.
Also, quite a lot of people love to own their data.
This sounds like observation bias from the forums you visit ... like Slashdot. In the grand scheme of the number of actual computer users out there the people who actually give a shit about their data ownership and don't want to hand everything to the cloud can be considered a paltry rounding error of users.
while the customers have been pushing back that they didn’t want these features
Huh? As far as I can tell customers have only ever wanted to be in control of updates and wanted their system to be stable. Who are these strange customers you apparently know that actively don't want the features that come out in the updates?
So they'll more quickly remove support for older versions to force updates?
Yes and good. I mean Slashdot needs to be collectively checked into a psych ward. On one side they complain about phones not having support or security updates and being insecure spambots, then on the other side they dare complain that desktops are provided automatic security updates. It seems the only thing anyone is happy with is leaving the user in charge of their own security which is precisely how the internet turned into a cesspool of malware in the first place.
"Stall," has a well-established definition and whatever method of detection works on other airlines is not the one Boeing uses.
There's three methods generally used. One is a small slit which activates a reed switch would be useful only for a warning light and not for any kind of control scheme, one is to use differential pitot tubes which since you have a problem with things sticking from planes I'm sorry to inform you also stick out from planes, and then there's the AoA vane sensor used by Boeing ... and ... Airbus, and because I was really bored I spent the last 10 minutes looking at aircraft pictures so you can also see them on the first 5 planes you come up with when you google image search Bombardier, you can see them on Fokker F70s, I tried to see how small I could go but it would look like tiny aircraft like Gulfstreams and Dassault Falcons tend to use differential pitot tubes again.
You're quick to judge from your throne of ignorance.
Also why is the MCAS triggering 6 minutes into a flight.
Where did you read it triggers 6 minutes into a flight? By all accounts all I could find is evidence that it caused problems 6 minutes into the flight.
But in any case the MCAS system is designed to counter act the fact that the plane changes pitch with thrust due to the poorly placed centre of thrust thanks to engine placement. During takeoff thrust is constant so while you're closest to stall you're also least likely to need MCAS.
This is utter flapping bullshit. Religion is not the problem, never has been.
No *that* is bullshit. Religion while not the only problem most definitely is a big problem. People aren't born evil. They don't pass through the vagina with a leather jacket, knuckleduster in hand and swastika tattoos and crosses. Being evil is something that is learned.
Religion is an appeal of authority from an unknown force. That authority is used to radicalise and mold people's beliefs. That very authority is incompatible with the idea that any other authority can exist which is why fundamentally all religions claim they are the one true religion and that false worshipers are enemies.
In many cases it is the existence of religion itself which has made people evil. It is the authority of religion that has caused evil people to spread evil unto others. And above all, a great many evil acts have been done *in the name of* religion, not "excused by", "not in defense of" but actively "in the name of" religion.
Religion isn't the root of all evils. It is however a hell of a big contributor as both the source and the spread of evil.
By the way you need to die infidel. My holy book has said so and my holy man decreed it so, and he has the backing of god so therefore he can't be evil. Now come heather so I can do the will of god and rid the world of your evil.
I studied Islam for over 20 years and I lived in the Middle East for four of them. It's a fact that the Quoran mandates violence against non-muslims.
I thought slashdot was completely beyond up-modding appeals to authority, not less the authority of an anonymous coward. I have been on Slashdot for over 20 years and it's a fact all people who modded that post insightful deserve to have their mod points taken away from them.
I'm not saying you shouldn't expand the road. I'm saying don't pretend it actually solves anything.
You're right. Honestly I don't understand why these mega cities bother with multi lane roads or highways. Your comment is the dumbest comment by car analogy proxy I have read on Slashdot, ever. And I browse at -1.