Yeah, never mind that it's inconvenient and can't be used with anything else. By comparison, if I have a $0.25 adapter, I can use my normal headphones with basically every headphone jack made in the last 50 years.
Yeah, or people who lose the headphones that only work with one device. It was a shitty choice all around to milk the fanboys' wallets. Lets not pretend that it was anything other than that.
The problem is that you are trying to be an empathetic, yet practical, and end up doing neither. That, and you are likely brainwashed with Calvinist thoughts. Beer is cheaper than therapy, and an occasional lobster is going to be a motivation for work that will result in a more than occasional lobster. People are machines, and those machines function better when they aren't running on the bare minimum for survival.
You are completely misunderstanding the problem. What would be taxed in a sane setup is the results of the non-human labor. There are definitely concerns with implementing the transition, but it's more capitalism that is threatened then democracy.
You're trying to solve something that isn't the problem here. UBI is ultimately to deal with a scenario where there aren't enough jobs, and industrial era 'jump through a hoop' work ethics are basically useless in that context. Robots are going to be WAY better at humans at that kind of stuff. In fact, if anything, that work ethic is antithetical to many of the remaining jobs, which will require creative thinking and solutions.
Again, it would arguably seem to indicate a problem with the rules of the system, since he did find employment (although two years is possibly a bit excessive).
Actually, one of the main reasons for implementing UBI is the increasing amount of automation, meaning that there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be employed.
Yes, property rights have to change in a post-jobs/post-scarcity world. Economics is about allocating scarce resources, with property being a fairly effective solution while scarcity exists. However, when resources cease to be scarce, the need for property as we know it starts to dissolve.
Think of it as immunization against hoarding instincts by the mega-rich. They are acting irrationally, hiding so much money that their great-grandchildren probably couldn't even sanely spend it all, in tax havens and such. That hoarding behavior destroys the velocity of money, which stifles the economy as well as causing poverty and crime. Also, as stated by others, UBI is actually really simple in administration.
So, you are saying that if Schneier agrees it was the russians that will be sufficient to convince you?
It would be a good start. So far, all he's claimed is "preponderance of evidence" to support Crowdstrike's claims, although it would appear that he's just getting a second or third-hand analysis. I would want him to be able to directly review evidence.
He's also framing such attacks as 'standard political espionage,' acknowledging political and technological realities. They are high value targets with low security. We spy on Merkel, and she's an ally. I definitely believe that the Russian government probably tried and likely succeeded in attacking these targets. Same for Chinese government, independent hackers from China and Russia, and bored 4channers. That's why I want to see a more detailed analysis, because I don't believe for a second that any of those servers and accounts were only compromised once.
The NSA alone has a yearly budget of 52 billion dollars. If you believe that they are deliberately out to sell such a high-profile lie, then it is no leap at all to also believe they'd throw 10+ million dollars at faking extensive forensic evidence.
There's a lot more to building a conspiracy than money. There's plenty of people and politics involved, and the more involved the plot, the more likely it is to unravel. That's what I hate about many conspiracy theorists. They've got to concoct some elaborate scheme of planting explosives in the WTC and also hijacking 4 planes instead of Cheney calling up Bin Laden and calling in the attack. Likewise, it's a lot easier to call in some political favors to get some finger pointing done than it is to craft compelling forensic evidence in a relatively short time. The War in Iraq was a much easier job with a lot of money to be made, but they were quite lazy in retrospect about the evidence they used.
I want every forensic detail they have. IP addresses, any kind of 'fingerprints' left behind. Basically, I want enough information for someone like Bruce Schneier to be able to look at it and confirm, yes, it was the Russians.
Then why would you trust the "details" provided by the government? The way you write - choosing to believe anything Clapper says that might possibly discredit russian involvement while categorically dismissing anything he says that supports it tells me you would do the same for any of these "details."
Because it's a lot less work to say "Russia did it" than to forge extensive forensic evidence. The more extensive the ruse, the more difficult it is to pull off. Plus, some of those forensic details could possibly be independently confirmed. For example, we know that the email about Donna Brazille sending Clinton a debate question on the death penalty is legitimate because we have DKIM verification.
Details of the specific evidence they have of Russian involvement, so it can be evaluated by truly independent security experts. That's where the conversation tends to go to handwaving about national security, state secrets, etc., and insistence that I should just trust them. I don't trust anything our government says any more than I would trust anything the Russian or Chinese government says.
I would like to see ACTUAL evidence of Russian involvement instead of people who have an interest in parroting Dem/Establishment talking points doing so. I didn't forget the lessons we learned from the war in Iraq, where the government and those close to them lied to us. Powerful people will perpetuate bullshit lies, and yet Clapper, who was willing to tell a bald faced lie about surveillance, won't even give real support for the Russian conspiracy the Dems concocted. The closest thing I've seen to evidence is that the Guccifer leaks had some metadata suggesting a Russian language computer was involved in editing, and they had a scary soviet username.
There's no need for Kremlin involvement. Podesta is a tech moron, as are most of the people surrounding the Clintons.
Yeah, Clapper said "maybe, but we don't actually know" and the Clinton-backing press was 17 agencies that under Clapper all say that it had to be the Russians. That you believe sensationalist news doesn't make it true (but it does make your statement ironic).
Here's the latest statement from Clapper, a man who had no trouble lying to protect their illegal spying programs, but will only throw a minimal bone towards Clinton and their Russia projections.
As far as the Wikileaks connection, evidence there is not as strong and we don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided.
Believe it's pretty much been just Crowdstrike, and they blame everything on the Russians (unless another party is more convenient). Meanwhile, Clapper says they don't have good evidence of a link to Russia.
There are bullshit narratives used against Trump, although it's easy for them to get lost in the media covering everything he tweets. One bizarre claim was that 'drain the swamp' was racist.
The repeated claims of Russian hackers regarding the DNC leaks would be an example. They even claimed that it had to be the Kremlin, when Podesta got hacked by a basic phishing scheme.
Yes, and that alone made Stewart legitimately the most trusted name in news. He even took Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders seriously when MSM was treating them like, as Stewart put it, the "13th Floor In A Hotel."
I'm not going to knock Jon Stewart, he did an excellent job. But he was a comedian who was less of a joke than the rest of the news. That is what our problem is.
Slashdot Mirror
Because 1) you might want to use your headphones with the 99.9999% of other products that use a phone jack and 2)you might lose or break the adapter.
Adapters are often a huge pain in the ass, and that goes double for proprietary adapters.
And lets cut the bullshit. They could have had those adapters AND a headphone jack, and then everybody would be happy.
Yeah, never mind that it's inconvenient and can't be used with anything else. By comparison, if I have a $0.25 adapter, I can use my normal headphones with basically every headphone jack made in the last 50 years.
Yeah, or people who lose the headphones that only work with one device. It was a shitty choice all around to milk the fanboys' wallets. Lets not pretend that it was anything other than that.
Plus, I would guess that there's a good chance of substantial improvements when we actually understand how it works.
Man had beer long before man had jobs.
So, confirmation on being a prick.
If you are alive today, you haven't done shit to protect the US.
The problem is that you are trying to be an empathetic, yet practical, and end up doing neither. That, and you are likely brainwashed with Calvinist thoughts. Beer is cheaper than therapy, and an occasional lobster is going to be a motivation for work that will result in a more than occasional lobster. People are machines, and those machines function better when they aren't running on the bare minimum for survival.
You are completely misunderstanding the problem. What would be taxed in a sane setup is the results of the non-human labor. There are definitely concerns with implementing the transition, but it's more capitalism that is threatened then democracy.
You're trying to solve something that isn't the problem here. UBI is ultimately to deal with a scenario where there aren't enough jobs, and industrial era 'jump through a hoop' work ethics are basically useless in that context. Robots are going to be WAY better at humans at that kind of stuff. In fact, if anything, that work ethic is antithetical to many of the remaining jobs, which will require creative thinking and solutions.
It's less overhead to just give people money than to make them do busy work, and at some point, a guaranteed job is going to just be busywork.
Again, it would arguably seem to indicate a problem with the rules of the system, since he did find employment (although two years is possibly a bit excessive).
Actually, one of the main reasons for implementing UBI is the increasing amount of automation, meaning that there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be employed.
Yes, property rights have to change in a post-jobs/post-scarcity world. Economics is about allocating scarce resources, with property being a fairly effective solution while scarcity exists. However, when resources cease to be scarce, the need for property as we know it starts to dissolve.
Think of it as immunization against hoarding instincts by the mega-rich. They are acting irrationally, hiding so much money that their great-grandchildren probably couldn't even sanely spend it all, in tax havens and such. That hoarding behavior destroys the velocity of money, which stifles the economy as well as causing poverty and crime. Also, as stated by others, UBI is actually really simple in administration.
There was definitely a phishing attack with the Podesta leaks, but that doesn't mean an insider wasn't involved.
It would be a good start. So far, all he's claimed is "preponderance of evidence" to support Crowdstrike's claims, although it would appear that he's just getting a second or third-hand analysis. I would want him to be able to directly review evidence.
He's also framing such attacks as 'standard political espionage,' acknowledging political and technological realities. They are high value targets with low security. We spy on Merkel, and she's an ally. I definitely believe that the Russian government probably tried and likely succeeded in attacking these targets. Same for Chinese government, independent hackers from China and Russia, and bored 4channers. That's why I want to see a more detailed analysis, because I don't believe for a second that any of those servers and accounts were only compromised once.
There's a lot more to building a conspiracy than money. There's plenty of people and politics involved, and the more involved the plot, the more likely it is to unravel. That's what I hate about many conspiracy theorists. They've got to concoct some elaborate scheme of planting explosives in the WTC and also hijacking 4 planes instead of Cheney calling up Bin Laden and calling in the attack. Likewise, it's a lot easier to call in some political favors to get some finger pointing done than it is to craft compelling forensic evidence in a relatively short time. The War in Iraq was a much easier job with a lot of money to be made, but they were quite lazy in retrospect about the evidence they used.
I want every forensic detail they have. IP addresses, any kind of 'fingerprints' left behind. Basically, I want enough information for someone like Bruce Schneier to be able to look at it and confirm, yes, it was the Russians.
Because it's a lot less work to say "Russia did it" than to forge extensive forensic evidence. The more extensive the ruse, the more difficult it is to pull off. Plus, some of those forensic details could possibly be independently confirmed. For example, we know that the email about Donna Brazille sending Clinton a debate question on the death penalty is legitimate because we have DKIM verification.
Details of the specific evidence they have of Russian involvement, so it can be evaluated by truly independent security experts. That's where the conversation tends to go to handwaving about national security, state secrets, etc., and insistence that I should just trust them. I don't trust anything our government says any more than I would trust anything the Russian or Chinese government says.
I would like to see ACTUAL evidence of Russian involvement instead of people who have an interest in parroting Dem/Establishment talking points doing so. I didn't forget the lessons we learned from the war in Iraq, where the government and those close to them lied to us. Powerful people will perpetuate bullshit lies, and yet Clapper, who was willing to tell a bald faced lie about surveillance, won't even give real support for the Russian conspiracy the Dems concocted. The closest thing I've seen to evidence is that the Guccifer leaks had some metadata suggesting a Russian language computer was involved in editing, and they had a scary soviet username.
There's no need for Kremlin involvement. Podesta is a tech moron, as are most of the people surrounding the Clintons.
Believe it's pretty much been just Crowdstrike, and they blame everything on the Russians (unless another party is more convenient). Meanwhile, Clapper says they don't have good evidence of a link to Russia.
There are bullshit narratives used against Trump, although it's easy for them to get lost in the media covering everything he tweets. One bizarre claim was that 'drain the swamp' was racist.
The repeated claims of Russian hackers regarding the DNC leaks would be an example. They even claimed that it had to be the Kremlin, when Podesta got hacked by a basic phishing scheme.
I'm not going to knock Jon Stewart, he did an excellent job. But he was a comedian who was less of a joke than the rest of the news. That is what our problem is.