No, as UBI is phased in, minimum wage is phased out.
One way is to reduce minimum wage by $0.60 for each $100/month of UBI until it's at zero.
Minimum wage is to prevent people from being exploited because they need a job or they and their family die. If they no longer have to worry about survival, then you can have a much more fair free market setting wages.
If many people quit minimum wage jobs, those jobs will start to pay more.
You're a slave to that toxic meme "Protestant Work Ethic".
People like to be social, and people like to be involved, and people like to accomplish things. That has nothing to do with "having a job". In many cases, "having a job" interferes with all of that. It's only this increasingly outdated idea that unless you suffer and work hard, you don't deserve anything, that perpetuates the system we have.
Good, there will be a need for people who don't want a job, as there won't be enough of them for everyone.
Most people I know always want more, nicer stuff, nicer experiences, better food, nice clothes. If they can do some work to get that, they'll do it, even if their basic needs are met.
Yes, I said you wouldn't tax the UBI (though if you did, you'd just increase the UBI to offset the tax - that's why I said it's simpler to just not tax it).
Whether a VAT is regressive depends on how big the UBI is. Set it to the right level and it's not.
If all production becomes automated, then all taxation shifts to capital anyway, no?
The benefits are reduced costs to administer support services, eliminating negative incentives to work (UBI doesn't decrease when you work), increased mobility, improved economy. People can take more risks starting businesses or going to school or trying something new.
Maybe rents go down because people can move to less crowded places, which increases building and new business elsewhere.
Everyone gets the same monthly payment, everyone pays the same tax rate. Why do you think that's not fair?
It has a long history, you might try reading about its conservative roots.
I wonder if it could be phased in. Get the mechanism set up, e.g. electronic deposits each month to a debit card account, set up a flat tax on all payroll payments and corporate income tax, set up a VAT, then adjust the rates of the UBI and taxes, starting off very small, but where the UBI is completely paid for. Regular income tax would be based on income after the flat tax is taken off, so people start to move down the tax brackets.
Add in an additional flat tax, and start increasing that for regular government funding as the progressive tax is decreased until it's shifted over entirely, except possibly for a single tax bracket at around the 1% level (top 1% of total income).
At the same time, you're also shifting more of the burden of SNAP, disability, unemployment, and other forms of support as the UBI payments get larger. Have to be careful with SS, as people put money into it. Also need to continue to shift to more of a single payer universal healthcare system, which would be set up to take care of any special needs (UBI should be the base, and the same for everyone, with a lower amount for dependent children).
A lot of Basic Income schemes also propose a flat tax and/or a VAT (for simplicity, the UBI itself isn't taxed as income). The regressiveness of those taxes is offset by the UBI.
The UBI offers a good way of managing the money supply. You're putting money directly into the economy, then adjusting the tax rate to control the inflation/deflation rate.
The precedent is extremely narrow, it only applies to Ninth Circuit cases, and then only when appealed with the Federal Circuit because it also involves patent claims. If you do find yourself in that situation, with a similar case, you might be able to get the copyright and patent issues separated. Winning in the Ninth Circuit on appeal would essentially nullify the CAFC decision.
APIs are copyright in one case. In other courts, it's the expression of an API, the source code, that's protected, not the actual API. Just as Google could reimplement the idea of a procedure to e.g. compare two character strings, or store a set of references to objects in a container, without infringing on that idea, the idea of how to invoke that procedure (call a method named java.lang.String.compareTo, passing two pointers to String, returning an integer) should also be able to be reimplemented without infringing.
If I said the way to invoke that was to call subroutine number 3246 instead of giving it a name, would you have a problem with that not being protected? Is it the names?
The only thing an API provides is functionality. An API is a functional idea. The source code is copyrighted. The functional idea is not supposed to be protected by copyright. It doesn't matter why you copy it, it's not protected, just as I can copy an algorithm (unless it's patented), for any reason I want.
It doesn't have to reproduce all functionality. There's no such requirement. If I copy the entire API, make a drop-in replacement for Oracle's library, some parts of the source code must be the same for it to work, to have the same function. The expression is inseparable from the idea. Copying those elements is not infringement.
Once I (conceptually) do that, there's nothing that says I can't change my version, whether that's removing parts, changing parts, or adding parts. Copying those elements is not infringement, even if I don't copy all of them.
No, Google had no other way to express that particular API. Yes, there are plenty of different ways to do the same type of functions, but they would be different. Google is permitted to use that specific API.
Besides the quote from the Supreme Court above ("This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.") there's the CONTU report from which which the Ninth in Sega, and the Second in CAI, quote:
In some circumstances, even the exact set of commands used by the programmer is deemed functional rather than creative for purposes of copyright. "[W]hen specific instructions, even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount to infringement."
Implementing a different API is not "accomplishing a given task". In particular, replacing the class files in the Oracle version of the library with class files compiled from Google's code would not accomplish the same task if the API was different.
This is how the courts and the Congress have shaped copyright law, and it's the way they intend it to work. The CAFC decision is an aberration, filled with mistatements, misapplication of precedent, and major logic failure.
You're simply wrong. The statute explicitly says, and with the intent to exactly do that, allow copying the functional idea:
102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
A plot is not functional. The elements in a plot are not essential parts of an "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery", so the copyright protection of the expression, the written words, extends to the plot.
This isn't some strange obscure loophole, it's a basic principle of copyright. Copyright is not supposed to protect functionality. APIs have been free to copy and adapt and enhance and extend since the IBM PC BIOS was first legally cloned.
If you want to protect function, get a patent. Otherwise, it's free to use and build upon.
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."... To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.... This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.
The text that expresses the API is what's copyrighted, the idea that's expressed is not. 17 USC 102(b) denies protection to "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery". This is deliberate, denying protection to functional aspects among other things.
This is even more explicit in "pictorial, graphic and sculptural works", where the very definition of them excludes utilitarian aspects.
While 102(b) does not deny protection to the expression of those functional ideas, when there are very few ways to express that idea, when the expression is inseparable from the idea, then the idea and expression are said to merge, and the denial of protection to the idea applies to the expression as well.
With source code implementing an API, the idea expressed is that API. When there is only one way to express that idea, then the expression itself is denied protection.
The parts of the Java API that define the names and types of the various elements are the declarations, and there is only one way in Java to express them without changing the meaning and functional specifications for the API being expressed. Thus, Google's declarations are going to be almost identical to Oracle's, and that should not be infringing.
The code that implements the methods can be written in many ways, usually, so protection remains intact for that portion, even though the idea (what that method is supposed to do) is still an unprotected idea. Google is allowed to re-implement the code for a method because the idea is not protected, but they can't copy the actual code from Oracle, since that is protected by copyright.
Clean room reverse engineering can be used to prove you didn't copy protected expression, that any similarities are purely by chance, but since the jury found that none of Google's implementation code was infringing, that isn't even an issue here, all of their code was sufficiently different, or was the same only because that was the only reasoanble or efficient way to do it (i.e. merger).
Clean room reverse engineering is also not the issue with the declaring code. It's the same because it has to be the same. No amount of "clean room" can change that, so it doesn't matter whether they disassembled the byte code from Oracle's compiled library, looked in the documentation, or looked in the source code. It's always going to be the same.
Alsup's original decision was not only technically accurate, it was logically sound and based on solid precedent. The CAFC decision overruling him contained logical fallacies, and apparently deliberate mistatement of fact and precedent at pretty much every turn.
He may not know what GNU is, or appreciate the joke, but he's nowhere near the clueless judge depicted in the article. And the menu analogy was lame.
There's no reduction in a UBI when you have other income. Universal. Everyone gets it. Everyone gets the same amount regardless of circumstance (with a possible exception for dependent children).
The UBI level is set to offset the regressiveness of a flat tax and VAT. Taxing the UBI as part of a flat tax makes no sense, since you're just going to take a flat rate out of it. Say the UBI is $2000/month with a flat tax rate of 40%. Just change that to $1200/month and declare it tax free. Now you have $1200/month, let's assume $800/month on items subject to a 20% VAT, that's $160 you're paying in VAT. That leaves you with $1040/month plus whatever other income you have.
At the same time, the billionaire spending $1000/day on luxury goods is paying out $6000 in that same month, with no loopholes to avoid it. He still gets that $1200/month, of course...
We don't want data caps because they don't make any sense. There's no shortage of bytes, they don't cost anything. The scarce resource is not bytes but bandwidth. Limits on data, whether with caps or "overage fees", are a very crude and ineffective method of allocating available bandwidth.
Sell bandwidth directly, then allocate it based on current network availability. Use a modifier based on recent usage of an individual subscriber as a multiplier on current bandwidth allowed for short bursts for low usage subscribers (the opposite of throttling). Add on a multiplier based on current traffic demands. If no one is using it otherwise, who cares if someone is transmitting 30TB per month? The bandwidth is a sunk cost, not using it doesn't save any money.
It particularly doesn't make sense to cap/charge for data over an arbitrary billing period. Any bandwidth allocations (multipliers on your base rate) should always be based on recent usage (where recent can take into account the past few minutes to past few hours or past day or so), with the sole intent to provide for more effective sharing of a resource.
So, if I rarely use my connection for large transfers (e.g. a movie), I might buy a much lower amount of bandwidth (my base rate), and I'll get a much higher speed at most times. If I use it a lot, I might not get as much of a speed increase at low usage times (since I'm usually running at a lower priority because I'm not as "low usage" most of the time), so maybe I'd want to pay for a somewhat higher base rate. If I need high speeds at peak usage periods, I'd pay for an even higher base rate.
Actually, with a UBI, you can go to a flat tax system, adjusting the level of the UBI so that the flat tax isn't regressive. In that case, it makes sense not to tax the UBI itself.
Actually, I like a system where the budget is split in half, with 50% coming from a VAT and 50% from income tax, tax rates automatically set based on the tax base and the amount spent. A spending bill is automatically a tax bill.
You're begging the question there. Socialism isn't defined as non-permissive with unhappy people, nor is it the same as totalitarianism. Total logical fail.
A UBI is supposed to be unconditional and universal. Taking a job won't reduce the amount you get, even Bill Gates or Donald Trump would get the same amount as you would (and, just as Mitt Romney proclaimed that it would be stupid to pay a penny more in taxes than he could legally get away with, I'm sure he wouldn't turn down his UBI).
You'd still want to have certain types of support beyond a UBI, but properly designed a UBI should supercede most direct forms of support (welfare, food stamps, unemployment, disability, social security). You'd still want a universal healthcare system, you'd still want affordable (on a UBI) education, housing, food, communication.
I think most people would be dissatisfied with what a UBI lifestyle would get them - it would be comfortable, but a lot of people want MORE - so they'd "work" in some way, whether that's creating a new business, doing unskilled labor, contracting out, doing a conventional "job", creating art or music or new inventions. With a UBI you could probably get rid of a minimum wage - let a real free market set wages without the threat of starvation for your family distorting things.
As society's "gain" (amount of population who can be supported divided by the amount of population it takes to support them) increases, it doesn't make sense to think it's a moral failing to not "have a job". With gain less than 1, a society dies out. At low values above 1, advances are very slow, society is struggling just to keep everyone alive. As gain increases more and more, available resources (including people) will be used to increase the rate of advance. If we keep pretending that our gain is still in the "struggling to survive" levels, we're needlessly crippling ourselves.
The Puritan Work Ethic is one of the more damaging ideas we've retained from the past.
How many iPads are out there still being used? I think a lot of people have iPads that are finally getting to the end of useful life (battery life, not enough memory, no support for newest features), and I think there will be good reasons for them to upgrade to a newer iPad rather than switch to something else.
Sure, eventually something new will come along (AR contact lens displays with gesture control and subvocalization speech input or direct brain interface), maybe Apple will catch the next wave, maybe they won't.
Personally, I think the "home server/personal cloud" might become an important new direction (especially as a way of handling the madness of connected devices in the home), and a tablet device would still be an important part of that.
PLATO/CYBIS/NovaNET were arguably the most influential and widespread. The last commercial PLATO-derived systems only shut down in the last year. There was tons of research done on methodologies and techniques, some of what came out of such research is still in use today, while much has been overlooked. It's always sad to see a group of people approach creating educational systems and immediately start doing things that were tried 45 years ago and refined over a period of decades, which ultimately fail, never realizing the wealth of material that was produced.
There's likely already an RSA public key and checking in the code. So, reuse the same modulus (where you, the coder, have access to the private key), and then just create a different public/private key pair. "3" isn't an unusual number, but makes for a fine RSA public exponent. Make a "mistake" when authenticating a secure connection (even if the secure connection is disabled), and if the backdoor key is being used, allow access without checking for passwords (or whatever other bypass you want) and accept an encryption key from the connection encrypted with the private key.
If you do this down low where all the fiddly boring multiple calls to bigint rotines are, you can hide a bunch of things with innocuous and misleading names.
The backdoor isn't secure from the company, they can recreate the private key since they have the prime factors, but no one else can.
Slashdot Mirror
No, as UBI is phased in, minimum wage is phased out.
One way is to reduce minimum wage by $0.60 for each $100/month of UBI until it's at zero.
Minimum wage is to prevent people from being exploited because they need a job or they and their family die. If they no longer have to worry about survival, then you can have a much more fair free market setting wages.
If many people quit minimum wage jobs, those jobs will start to pay more.
You're a slave to that toxic meme "Protestant Work Ethic".
People like to be social, and people like to be involved, and people like to accomplish things. That has nothing to do with "having a job". In many cases, "having a job" interferes with all of that. It's only this increasingly outdated idea that unless you suffer and work hard, you don't deserve anything, that perpetuates the system we have.
Good, there will be a need for people who don't want a job, as there won't be enough of them for everyone.
Most people I know always want more, nicer stuff, nicer experiences, better food, nice clothes. If they can do some work to get that, they'll do it, even if their basic needs are met.
Yes, I said you wouldn't tax the UBI (though if you did, you'd just increase the UBI to offset the tax - that's why I said it's simpler to just not tax it).
Whether a VAT is regressive depends on how big the UBI is. Set it to the right level and it's not.
If all production becomes automated, then all taxation shifts to capital anyway, no?
The benefits are reduced costs to administer support services, eliminating negative incentives to work (UBI doesn't decrease when you work), increased mobility, improved economy. People can take more risks starting businesses or going to school or trying something new.
Maybe rents go down because people can move to less crowded places, which increases building and new business elsewhere.
Everyone gets the same monthly payment, everyone pays the same tax rate. Why do you think that's not fair?
It has a long history, you might try reading about its conservative roots.
I wonder if it could be phased in. Get the mechanism set up, e.g. electronic deposits each month to a debit card account, set up a flat tax on all payroll payments and corporate income tax, set up a VAT, then adjust the rates of the UBI and taxes, starting off very small, but where the UBI is completely paid for. Regular income tax would be based on income after the flat tax is taken off, so people start to move down the tax brackets.
Add in an additional flat tax, and start increasing that for regular government funding as the progressive tax is decreased until it's shifted over entirely, except possibly for a single tax bracket at around the 1% level (top 1% of total income).
At the same time, you're also shifting more of the burden of SNAP, disability, unemployment, and other forms of support as the UBI payments get larger. Have to be careful with SS, as people put money into it. Also need to continue to shift to more of a single payer universal healthcare system, which would be set up to take care of any special needs (UBI should be the base, and the same for everyone, with a lower amount for dependent children).
A lot of Basic Income schemes also propose a flat tax and/or a VAT (for simplicity, the UBI itself isn't taxed as income). The regressiveness of those taxes is offset by the UBI.
The UBI offers a good way of managing the money supply. You're putting money directly into the economy, then adjusting the tax rate to control the inflation/deflation rate.
The precedent is extremely narrow, it only applies to Ninth Circuit cases, and then only when appealed with the Federal Circuit because it also involves patent claims. If you do find yourself in that situation, with a similar case, you might be able to get the copyright and patent issues separated. Winning in the Ninth Circuit on appeal would essentially nullify the CAFC decision.
APIs are copyright in one case. In other courts, it's the expression of an API, the source code, that's protected, not the actual API. Just as Google could reimplement the idea of a procedure to e.g. compare two character strings, or store a set of references to objects in a container, without infringing on that idea, the idea of how to invoke that procedure (call a method named java.lang.String.compareTo, passing two pointers to String, returning an integer) should also be able to be reimplemented without infringing.
If I said the way to invoke that was to call subroutine number 3246 instead of giving it a name, would you have a problem with that not being protected? Is it the names?
The only thing an API provides is functionality. An API is a functional idea. The source code is copyrighted. The functional idea is not supposed to be protected by copyright. It doesn't matter why you copy it, it's not protected, just as I can copy an algorithm (unless it's patented), for any reason I want.
It doesn't have to reproduce all functionality. There's no such requirement. If I copy the entire API, make a drop-in replacement for Oracle's library, some parts of the source code must be the same for it to work, to have the same function. The expression is inseparable from the idea. Copying those elements is not infringement.
Once I (conceptually) do that, there's nothing that says I can't change my version, whether that's removing parts, changing parts, or adding parts. Copying those elements is not infringement, even if I don't copy all of them.
The functionality, the "given task", is "run this Java source code".
If it can't do that, then it isn't the same functionality.
Both, but it doesn't matter. Copyright law doesn't protect functionality. That's what patent law is for.
No, Google had no other way to express that particular API. Yes, there are plenty of different ways to do the same type of functions, but they would be different. Google is permitted to use that specific API.
Besides the quote from the Supreme Court above ("This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.") there's the CONTU report from which which the Ninth in Sega, and the Second in CAI, quote:
In some circumstances, even the exact set of commands used by the programmer is deemed functional rather than creative for purposes of copyright. "[W]hen specific instructions, even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount to infringement."
Implementing a different API is not "accomplishing a given task". In particular, replacing the class files in the Oracle version of the library with class files compiled from Google's code would not accomplish the same task if the API was different.
This is how the courts and the Congress have shaped copyright law, and it's the way they intend it to work. The CAFC decision is an aberration, filled with mistatements, misapplication of precedent, and major logic failure.
You're simply wrong. The statute explicitly says, and with the intent to exactly do that, allow copying the functional idea:
102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
A plot is not functional. The elements in a plot are not essential parts of an "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery", so the copyright protection of the expression, the written words, extends to the plot.
This isn't some strange obscure loophole, it's a basic principle of copyright. Copyright is not supposed to protect functionality. APIs have been free to copy and adapt and enhance and extend since the IBM PC BIOS was first legally cloned.
If you want to protect function, get a patent. Otherwise, it's free to use and build upon.
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." ... To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. ... This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.
The text that expresses the API is what's copyrighted, the idea that's expressed is not. 17 USC 102(b) denies protection to "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery". This is deliberate, denying protection to functional aspects among other things.
This is even more explicit in "pictorial, graphic and sculptural works", where the very definition of them excludes utilitarian aspects.
While 102(b) does not deny protection to the expression of those functional ideas, when there are very few ways to express that idea, when the expression is inseparable from the idea, then the idea and expression are said to merge, and the denial of protection to the idea applies to the expression as well.
With source code implementing an API, the idea expressed is that API. When there is only one way to express that idea, then the expression itself is denied protection.
The parts of the Java API that define the names and types of the various elements are the declarations, and there is only one way in Java to express them without changing the meaning and functional specifications for the API being expressed. Thus, Google's declarations are going to be almost identical to Oracle's, and that should not be infringing.
The code that implements the methods can be written in many ways, usually, so protection remains intact for that portion, even though the idea (what that method is supposed to do) is still an unprotected idea. Google is allowed to re-implement the code for a method because the idea is not protected, but they can't copy the actual code from Oracle, since that is protected by copyright.
Clean room reverse engineering can be used to prove you didn't copy protected expression, that any similarities are purely by chance, but since the jury found that none of Google's implementation code was infringing, that isn't even an issue here, all of their code was sufficiently different, or was the same only because that was the only reasoanble or efficient way to do it (i.e. merger).
Clean room reverse engineering is also not the issue with the declaring code. It's the same because it has to be the same. No amount of "clean room" can change that, so it doesn't matter whether they disassembled the byte code from Oracle's compiled library, looked in the documentation, or looked in the source code. It's always going to be the same.
Alsup's original decision was not only technically accurate, it was logically sound and based on solid precedent. The CAFC decision overruling him contained logical fallacies, and apparently deliberate mistatement of fact and precedent at pretty much every turn.
He may not know what GNU is, or appreciate the joke, but he's nowhere near the clueless judge depicted in the article. And the menu analogy was lame.
And that model is unsustainable. It simply doesn't work. Nice in theory, but not in practice.
You know this how?
There's no reduction in a UBI when you have other income. Universal. Everyone gets it. Everyone gets the same amount regardless of circumstance (with a possible exception for dependent children).
The UBI level is set to offset the regressiveness of a flat tax and VAT. Taxing the UBI as part of a flat tax makes no sense, since you're just going to take a flat rate out of it. Say the UBI is $2000/month with a flat tax rate of 40%. Just change that to $1200/month and declare it tax free. Now you have $1200/month, let's assume $800/month on items subject to a 20% VAT, that's $160 you're paying in VAT. That leaves you with $1040/month plus whatever other income you have.
At the same time, the billionaire spending $1000/day on luxury goods is paying out $6000 in that same month, with no loopholes to avoid it. He still gets that $1200/month, of course...
We don't want data caps because they don't make any sense. There's no shortage of bytes, they don't cost anything. The scarce resource is not bytes but bandwidth. Limits on data, whether with caps or "overage fees", are a very crude and ineffective method of allocating available bandwidth.
Sell bandwidth directly, then allocate it based on current network availability. Use a modifier based on recent usage of an individual subscriber as a multiplier on current bandwidth allowed for short bursts for low usage subscribers (the opposite of throttling). Add on a multiplier based on current traffic demands. If no one is using it otherwise, who cares if someone is transmitting 30TB per month? The bandwidth is a sunk cost, not using it doesn't save any money.
It particularly doesn't make sense to cap/charge for data over an arbitrary billing period. Any bandwidth allocations (multipliers on your base rate) should always be based on recent usage (where recent can take into account the past few minutes to past few hours or past day or so), with the sole intent to provide for more effective sharing of a resource.
So, if I rarely use my connection for large transfers (e.g. a movie), I might buy a much lower amount of bandwidth (my base rate), and I'll get a much higher speed at most times. If I use it a lot, I might not get as much of a speed increase at low usage times (since I'm usually running at a lower priority because I'm not as "low usage" most of the time), so maybe I'd want to pay for a somewhat higher base rate. If I need high speeds at peak usage periods, I'd pay for an even higher base rate.
Actually, with a UBI, you can go to a flat tax system, adjusting the level of the UBI so that the flat tax isn't regressive. In that case, it makes sense not to tax the UBI itself.
Actually, I like a system where the budget is split in half, with 50% coming from a VAT and 50% from income tax, tax rates automatically set based on the tax base and the amount spent. A spending bill is automatically a tax bill.
You're begging the question there. Socialism isn't defined as non-permissive with unhappy people, nor is it the same as totalitarianism. Total logical fail.
A UBI is supposed to be unconditional and universal. Taking a job won't reduce the amount you get, even Bill Gates or Donald Trump would get the same amount as you would (and, just as Mitt Romney proclaimed that it would be stupid to pay a penny more in taxes than he could legally get away with, I'm sure he wouldn't turn down his UBI).
You'd still want to have certain types of support beyond a UBI, but properly designed a UBI should supercede most direct forms of support (welfare, food stamps, unemployment, disability, social security). You'd still want a universal healthcare system, you'd still want affordable (on a UBI) education, housing, food, communication.
I think most people would be dissatisfied with what a UBI lifestyle would get them - it would be comfortable, but a lot of people want MORE - so they'd "work" in some way, whether that's creating a new business, doing unskilled labor, contracting out, doing a conventional "job", creating art or music or new inventions. With a UBI you could probably get rid of a minimum wage - let a real free market set wages without the threat of starvation for your family distorting things.
As society's "gain" (amount of population who can be supported divided by the amount of population it takes to support them) increases, it doesn't make sense to think it's a moral failing to not "have a job". With gain less than 1, a society dies out. At low values above 1, advances are very slow, society is struggling just to keep everyone alive. As gain increases more and more, available resources (including people) will be used to increase the rate of advance. If we keep pretending that our gain is still in the "struggling to survive" levels, we're needlessly crippling ourselves.
The Puritan Work Ethic is one of the more damaging ideas we've retained from the past.
How many iPads are out there still being used? I think a lot of people have iPads that are finally getting to the end of useful life (battery life, not enough memory, no support for newest features), and I think there will be good reasons for them to upgrade to a newer iPad rather than switch to something else.
Sure, eventually something new will come along (AR contact lens displays with gesture control and subvocalization speech input or direct brain interface), maybe Apple will catch the next wave, maybe they won't.
Personally, I think the "home server/personal cloud" might become an important new direction (especially as a way of handling the madness of connected devices in the home), and a tablet device would still be an important part of that.
It already is running. 11/70? The initial system ran on Illiac I, then a CDC 1604 CDC, then PLATO IV ran on a variety of different CDC mainframes.
See http://cyber1.org/ for more information on the emulated system.
PLATO/CYBIS/NovaNET were arguably the most influential and widespread. The last commercial PLATO-derived systems only shut down in the last year. There was tons of research done on methodologies and techniques, some of what came out of such research is still in use today, while much has been overlooked. It's always sad to see a group of people approach creating educational systems and immediately start doing things that were tried 45 years ago and refined over a period of decades, which ultimately fail, never realizing the wealth of material that was produced.
There's likely already an RSA public key and checking in the code. So, reuse the same modulus (where you, the coder, have access to the private key), and then just create a different public/private key pair. "3" isn't an unusual number, but makes for a fine RSA public exponent. Make a "mistake" when authenticating a secure connection (even if the secure connection is disabled), and if the backdoor key is being used, allow access without checking for passwords (or whatever other bypass you want) and accept an encryption key from the connection encrypted with the private key.
If you do this down low where all the fiddly boring multiple calls to bigint rotines are, you can hide a bunch of things with innocuous and misleading names.
The backdoor isn't secure from the company, they can recreate the private key since they have the prime factors, but no one else can.