Also, why do I want a $900 trinket in my pocket where it can get lost/stolen/broken?
Because replacing a $900 device is not that big of a deal to everyone. Neither is the $10 per month for the insurance plan. I would certainly agree that anyone who needs to save money to purchase a $1k device should probably have a cheaper phone.
The stylus isn't a nonzero factor. Besides, some people hate the curved screens. It results in unintended contact with the touch screen, it's more breakable, and it distorts images on the border of the display.
I have had my Note 4 for two years and have used the stylus less than a dozen times. If it is keeping me from better battery life I wish they offered a Note without one.
The rumors for the Note 7 were very underwhelming, and the true specs even came in a little under the rumors. My wife and I have Note 4s we were planning on upgrading, but both the Note 5 and Note 7 upgrades are not nearly enough of an improvement for another $800+ expenditure. And I'm really not a fan of curved screens either, so not having any other option will keep me on the sidelines as well.
This is starting to make me think there just isn't anything new these cell phone manufacturers can think of to improve their devices. Although all the Note 7 needed to do was to put a 4000 Mah battery in the Note 7 and they would have two purchases from my wife and I even with my other gripes, so I'll still hold out hope for the Note 8 being a bigger improvement. But this is two Notes in a row which seem lackluster to me, so I'm not too optimistic.
The difference between cellphones and immortality, is that nobody was trying to create cellphones for the last 6000 years with no success.
What kind of nonsense is this? Inventing new forms of communication and inventing new ways to combat death are both among the oldest forms of technology. We have been fixing problems which have been around for thousands of years quite often in the past couple centuries. Is your argument that since ancient men like Qin Shi Huang were unsuccessful making an elixir of immortality that modern science will be unsuccessful? That is a very weak argument.
Immortality, if we ever have it, wont come from an app startup with a handful of new graduates pounding away at JSON and Web 3.0 paradimes.
No, but it likely will come from a bio-tech startup with a handful of PhD's and postdocs pounding away at the problem. Kind of like the one Peter Thiel is working on.
Yup, and when trump speaks of nationalism it's racist. Can't work for us here, nope! We have to play fair to the world that isn't playing fair.
Beware what you wish for. Its much easier to be protectionist when your population is happy with a $13400 GDP/capita (PPP). If the Chinese ever want to reach a level of prosperity similar to the US ($52,550 GDP/capita (PPP)) they will not be able to continue these practices. The world only puts up with it now to access their cheap labor, but China's trade agreements will become far less favorable once their factory workers start demanding $20/hr.
China's practices are certainly working for them as they catch up to the developed world, but no developed country should start mimicking these practices.
I don't understand your argument. Uber spent $2 billion to prop up Uber China, and ultimately gained assets worth $7 billion as part of the merger. That certainly seems like a $2 billion investment just turned into $7 billion. Of course this is all based on the current valuation and their stake in Didi Chuxing is no where near as liquid as the $2 billion in cash Uber spent, but as of now it seems to be a good deal. Not as good as Uber completely winning out in that market as they would have liked, but certainly a good consolation prize.
I doubt you can match my benefit package: paid federal holidays off, 20 Paid Time Off (PTO), 401K and healthcare package, and a fully funded contract for the next three years.
20 PTO days (plus approx. 10 holidays) is a little high, but only a little. 15 days is standard at most companies and I've never had trouble negotiating for 5 extra PTO days (I did exactly that for my current job). I've never worked at a company without a 401k plan and the match has always been 3-4%. Health care plans can certainly range, but the difference between a Cadillac plan and a crappy plan can be covered with a $10k bump in salary.
As for job security, I could certainly see that being worth $10-20k at your salary level if you're very cautious, but working at half to a third of your actual value for job security is extreme. Do you really think you would be unemployed 7 months out of 12?
Indeed. These people want to believe something very much religion-like, bit are somehow smart enough to see how ridiculous traditional religion is. So they invented a surrogate that is not one bit better, but a bit less obvious.
On one side you have wishful thinking, and on the other side you have people actually doing research to make things happen. Even if the promises of either side never pan out, one is quite a bit better than the other.
If they didn't want unlimited use, they should never have offered it. It has pretty much always been a lie from many of these companies, and they should be fined for it. Unlimited with an asterisk defining the limitations of unlimited is not acceptable.
Verizon doesn't offer unlimited plans, and I don't believe offers contracts longer than two years so no grandfathered unlimited users are guaranteed service for any specified period of time.
It appears Verizon is finally admitting to the definition of unlimited data, and is adjusting their policies to be more honest about what service they are willing to offer. Obviously that does not include offering unlimited data anymore, even to grandfathered users.
But I do not think it means what you think it means.
What does unlimited mean? And why do you get penalized if you actually use it as such?
Verizon doesn't sign contracts guaranteeing unlimited data (they have in the past, but how is that relevant?). This is Verizon's final admission that they will no longer pretend they offer unlimited service. People complaining about these definitions should be happy about this. Verizon is finally being honest with their users and giving them a choice of contractual options Verizon is comfortable with.
The important term here is not "Unlimited", it is "Out of Contract". If you haven't signed a recent contract with Verizon and are just paying month to month on a grandfathered plan, they can cut your service at any time. Well, there may be regulations on how much notice they need to give, but apparently it isn't a long notice period.
The only reason Verizon has kept these grandfathered users this long is because they were hoping regulations would allow them to throttle or otherwise limit usage. They were unsuccessful at that, so cancelling service is the natural alternative.
The gist is that there is a lot of BS floating around as science that is really nothing of the sort.
This is mostly a problem because of press coverage which thinks every published paper means something has been proven. The practice of science has a pretty good filter for junk science. Research results which don't hold up as future researchers build on the findings end up being rejected or simply forgotten (same thing really).
No research findings are the end of scientific inquiry on the topic. Replicating exact experiments may be rare, but building on past research is quite common. This is where inaccuracies are most likely to be found. Another filter is when engineers actually try to implement research. Its unlikely false results will turn into working products.
All of this can turn into wasted money, but not more wasted money than the cost of treating every scientific paper as if it needs to go through the equivalent of FDA approval.
You may think all but the thriftiest vacations are expensive (and I would agree with you), but that doesn't change how expensive average vacations are.
I have a wife and child and we have never spent that much money ($2640) on a vacation. At most, maybe $1500.
And yet, we've had very wonderful trips every year.
I never said all vacations have to be expensive, just that a $2640 is not relatively expensive compared to average vacations in the US (I think almost all vacations are expensive myself, but that's a personal vacation).
Yeah all those ones you mention, I find pretty dull. Especially Dare Devil and Jessica Jones, normally I love action hero stuff but those just bore the pants off me. I tried Stranger Things recently, couldn't get past the first 30 minutes.
Maybe I'm just strange.
Even if you don't like these programs, the positive reviews from both critics and viewers objectively show they are quality content. If you had originally said you stopped watching Netflix because of dull original content that is your opinion, but claiming people are leaving Netflix because of that is simply objectively wrong. I'm not saying no one leaves because of dull original content, but clearly that is not a major driving factor.
I find it more likely that emails notifying users about the price hike reminded people they were paying for Netflix when they were never using it. I've worked at two subscription based companies which avoided reminding users of their service like the plague since it only incited some users to cancel (I don't condone the practice, and yes one of the companies is bankrupt now).
Someone making $15k a year is working at a rate of about $7.50/hr. If he only makes $21k after being handed a free $10k, then the hourly rate must be about $5.50. You think minimum wages will go down to $5.50 instead of up? Really?
I firmly believe we cannot have a significant UBI and a high minimum wage. UBI is partially a replacement of the minimum wage and can probably only work with a drastic reduction of our current minimum wage. We probably won't actually reduce the minimum wage, but will gradually reduce it through inflation. I support raising the minimum wage today only because no one in power is seriously considering UBI, but I would certainly love UBI over a minimum wage.
Will it be more likely to be viable if that number is 300 million people "or so"? The recipients of UBI would be six times the number you talk about.
As I said in my original comment, the vast majority of people receiving UBI would have their taxes raised by an amount equal to or greater than their UBI payments. Probably only about 20-40% of adults would receive any increase in net income, similar to the amount of adults currently not paying any federal income taxes. And only those seeing a net increase of income would need to be subsidized by higher earners.
It is physically impossible for them to break even. Giving them $10k and then paying them $10k means they break even. Where does the money come for the 50% of households that pay no income tax currently? It has to be extracted from those who do.
That is exactly the same thing I said when stating they certainly would not break even. Other than to use more inflammatory language what was the purpose of typing this?
That extra $10k would be completely eaten by extra taxes for likely at least 60% of working adults. It certainly would be eaten up by extra taxes for people like myself. When I say $6500 in extra taxes I meant a net increase after factoring in UBI. That means $16500 in extra taxes with $10,000 in extra income.
I never said it was crazy, I was just putting the figures into context and showing how it really won't need to alter our current tax system much at all. The question of who is paying for this is a common one when talking about UBI.
Why do you think you'd get less crime? It's a dumb assumption. I would think the criminals will be emboldened because their extortion worked.
Crime is primarily a product of lack of opportunity. Criminals are not all part of a large conspiracy to raise your taxes, they are just people who either don't have opportunity or don't see it.
I don't know, I think that the UBI is pretty drastically unrealistic as I think $10K is far too small a number. I thought the idea behind UBI was that it gave everybody a bare level to survive on and I don't know many places $10K does that. Even in the middle of nowhere Nebraska, I don't think it would get you any sort of living space and food. But then maybe I'm not thinking in the right terms and maybe shared living spaces might become a thing for those who subsist only on UBI.
UBI is not intended to make it easy for a household to have no working adults. It is intended to make people less dependent on their job by giving a significant safety net when they are out of work, or for them to survive comfortably making less than the current minimum wage.
Have you factored in the extra 10k you'd get from UBI in your calculations?
Yes, but I did leave it out of my statements. To be more clear I should have explicitly stated my taxes would go up from $32k to $48k, but with an extra $10k in income. It still works out to $6k less in my paychecks each year in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I also hope the Nexus 7P ends up being a better upgrade than the Note 7, because I am thinking of jumping ship from Samsung as well.
Also, why do I want a $900 trinket in my pocket where it can get lost/stolen/broken?
Because replacing a $900 device is not that big of a deal to everyone. Neither is the $10 per month for the insurance plan. I would certainly agree that anyone who needs to save money to purchase a $1k device should probably have a cheaper phone.
The stylus isn't a nonzero factor. Besides, some people hate the curved screens. It results in unintended contact with the touch screen, it's more breakable, and it distorts images on the border of the display.
I have had my Note 4 for two years and have used the stylus less than a dozen times. If it is keeping me from better battery life I wish they offered a Note without one.
The rumors for the Note 7 were very underwhelming, and the true specs even came in a little under the rumors. My wife and I have Note 4s we were planning on upgrading, but both the Note 5 and Note 7 upgrades are not nearly enough of an improvement for another $800+ expenditure. And I'm really not a fan of curved screens either, so not having any other option will keep me on the sidelines as well.
This is starting to make me think there just isn't anything new these cell phone manufacturers can think of to improve their devices. Although all the Note 7 needed to do was to put a 4000 Mah battery in the Note 7 and they would have two purchases from my wife and I even with my other gripes, so I'll still hold out hope for the Note 8 being a bigger improvement. But this is two Notes in a row which seem lackluster to me, so I'm not too optimistic.
The difference between cellphones and immortality, is that nobody was trying to create cellphones for the last 6000 years with no success.
What kind of nonsense is this? Inventing new forms of communication and inventing new ways to combat death are both among the oldest forms of technology. We have been fixing problems which have been around for thousands of years quite often in the past couple centuries. Is your argument that since ancient men like Qin Shi Huang were unsuccessful making an elixir of immortality that modern science will be unsuccessful? That is a very weak argument.
Immortality, if we ever have it, wont come from an app startup with a handful of new graduates pounding away at JSON and Web 3.0 paradimes.
No, but it likely will come from a bio-tech startup with a handful of PhD's and postdocs pounding away at the problem. Kind of like the one Peter Thiel is working on.
Yup, and when trump speaks of nationalism it's racist. Can't work for us here, nope! We have to play fair to the world that isn't playing fair.
Beware what you wish for. Its much easier to be protectionist when your population is happy with a $13400 GDP/capita (PPP). If the Chinese ever want to reach a level of prosperity similar to the US ($52,550 GDP/capita (PPP)) they will not be able to continue these practices. The world only puts up with it now to access their cheap labor, but China's trade agreements will become far less favorable once their factory workers start demanding $20/hr.
China's practices are certainly working for them as they catch up to the developed world, but no developed country should start mimicking these practices.
I don't understand your argument. Uber spent $2 billion to prop up Uber China, and ultimately gained assets worth $7 billion as part of the merger. That certainly seems like a $2 billion investment just turned into $7 billion. Of course this is all based on the current valuation and their stake in Didi Chuxing is no where near as liquid as the $2 billion in cash Uber spent, but as of now it seems to be a good deal. Not as good as Uber completely winning out in that market as they would have liked, but certainly a good consolation prize.
Outside of Seattle, Amazon resembles the backend of Wal-mart more than anything else.
Oh yes, because only software engineers need jobs in this country. People stocking shelves hardly even count as human beings I guess.
I doubt you can match my benefit package: paid federal holidays off, 20 Paid Time Off (PTO), 401K and healthcare package, and a fully funded contract for the next three years.
20 PTO days (plus approx. 10 holidays) is a little high, but only a little. 15 days is standard at most companies and I've never had trouble negotiating for 5 extra PTO days (I did exactly that for my current job). I've never worked at a company without a 401k plan and the match has always been 3-4%. Health care plans can certainly range, but the difference between a Cadillac plan and a crappy plan can be covered with a $10k bump in salary.
As for job security, I could certainly see that being worth $10-20k at your salary level if you're very cautious, but working at half to a third of your actual value for job security is extreme. Do you really think you would be unemployed 7 months out of 12?
Indeed. These people want to believe something very much religion-like, bit are somehow smart enough to see how ridiculous traditional religion is. So they invented a surrogate that is not one bit better, but a bit less obvious.
On one side you have wishful thinking, and on the other side you have people actually doing research to make things happen. Even if the promises of either side never pan out, one is quite a bit better than the other.
If they didn't want unlimited use, they should never have offered it. It has pretty much always been a lie from many of these companies, and they should be fined for it. Unlimited with an asterisk defining the limitations of unlimited is not acceptable.
Verizon doesn't offer unlimited plans, and I don't believe offers contracts longer than two years so no grandfathered unlimited users are guaranteed service for any specified period of time.
It appears Verizon is finally admitting to the definition of unlimited data, and is adjusting their policies to be more honest about what service they are willing to offer. Obviously that does not include offering unlimited data anymore, even to grandfathered users.
But I do not think it means what you think it means.
What does unlimited mean? And why do you get penalized if you actually use it as such?
Verizon doesn't sign contracts guaranteeing unlimited data (they have in the past, but how is that relevant?). This is Verizon's final admission that they will no longer pretend they offer unlimited service. People complaining about these definitions should be happy about this. Verizon is finally being honest with their users and giving them a choice of contractual options Verizon is comfortable with.
The important term here is not "Unlimited", it is "Out of Contract". If you haven't signed a recent contract with Verizon and are just paying month to month on a grandfathered plan, they can cut your service at any time. Well, there may be regulations on how much notice they need to give, but apparently it isn't a long notice period.
The only reason Verizon has kept these grandfathered users this long is because they were hoping regulations would allow them to throttle or otherwise limit usage. They were unsuccessful at that, so cancelling service is the natural alternative.
The gist is that there is a lot of BS floating around as science that is really nothing of the sort.
This is mostly a problem because of press coverage which thinks every published paper means something has been proven. The practice of science has a pretty good filter for junk science. Research results which don't hold up as future researchers build on the findings end up being rejected or simply forgotten (same thing really).
No research findings are the end of scientific inquiry on the topic. Replicating exact experiments may be rare, but building on past research is quite common. This is where inaccuracies are most likely to be found. Another filter is when engineers actually try to implement research. Its unlikely false results will turn into working products.
All of this can turn into wasted money, but not more wasted money than the cost of treating every scientific paper as if it needs to go through the equivalent of FDA approval.
I think you really aren't the norm.
He is the norm, or at least closer to it than anyone who thinks $2640 is an expensive vacation. A 2010 American Express survey found that the average family of four will spend $4,000 on a vacation, including airfare.
You may think all but the thriftiest vacations are expensive (and I would agree with you), but that doesn't change how expensive average vacations are.
You should check reality before spouting off with a derisive rant. A 2010 American Express survey found that the average family of four will spend $4,000 on a vacation, including airfare. It is not just my opinion that a $2640 vacation is very reasonable, it is an objective fact. I personally believe almost all vacations are expensive, since I can just as much fun with a $500 video card and a few games, or a $50 board game, but that's just my opinion.
I have a wife and child and we have never spent that much money ($2640) on a vacation. At most, maybe $1500.
And yet, we've had very wonderful trips every year.
I never said all vacations have to be expensive, just that a $2640 is not relatively expensive compared to average vacations in the US (I think almost all vacations are expensive myself, but that's a personal vacation).
And it is not my opinion that $2640 is not an expensive vacation. A 2010 American Express survey found that the average family of four will spend $4,000 on a vacation, including airfare.
Meanwhile my cable bill is $220. per month.
Wow, that's like a very expensive vacation more per year than I'm paying.
What kind of "very expensive" vacation costs less than $2640? That's more like a reasonably priced vacation for a couple without kids.
Yeah all those ones you mention, I find pretty dull. Especially Dare Devil and Jessica Jones, normally I love action hero stuff but those just bore the pants off me. I tried Stranger Things recently, couldn't get past the first 30 minutes.
Maybe I'm just strange.
Even if you don't like these programs, the positive reviews from both critics and viewers objectively show they are quality content. If you had originally said you stopped watching Netflix because of dull original content that is your opinion, but claiming people are leaving Netflix because of that is simply objectively wrong. I'm not saying no one leaves because of dull original content, but clearly that is not a major driving factor.
I find it more likely that emails notifying users about the price hike reminded people they were paying for Netflix when they were never using it. I've worked at two subscription based companies which avoided reminding users of their service like the plague since it only incited some users to cancel (I don't condone the practice, and yes one of the companies is bankrupt now).
Someone making $15k a year is working at a rate of about $7.50/hr. If he only makes $21k after being handed a free $10k, then the hourly rate must be about $5.50. You think minimum wages will go down to $5.50 instead of up? Really?
I firmly believe we cannot have a significant UBI and a high minimum wage. UBI is partially a replacement of the minimum wage and can probably only work with a drastic reduction of our current minimum wage. We probably won't actually reduce the minimum wage, but will gradually reduce it through inflation. I support raising the minimum wage today only because no one in power is seriously considering UBI, but I would certainly love UBI over a minimum wage.
Will it be more likely to be viable if that number is 300 million people "or so"? The recipients of UBI would be six times the number you talk about.
As I said in my original comment, the vast majority of people receiving UBI would have their taxes raised by an amount equal to or greater than their UBI payments. Probably only about 20-40% of adults would receive any increase in net income, similar to the amount of adults currently not paying any federal income taxes. And only those seeing a net increase of income would need to be subsidized by higher earners.
It is physically impossible for them to break even. Giving them $10k and then paying them $10k means they break even. Where does the money come for the 50% of households that pay no income tax currently? It has to be extracted from those who do.
That is exactly the same thing I said when stating they certainly would not break even. Other than to use more inflammatory language what was the purpose of typing this?
That extra $10k would be completely eaten by extra taxes for likely at least 60% of working adults. It certainly would be eaten up by extra taxes for people like myself. When I say $6500 in extra taxes I meant a net increase after factoring in UBI. That means $16500 in extra taxes with $10,000 in extra income.
I never said it was crazy, I was just putting the figures into context and showing how it really won't need to alter our current tax system much at all. The question of who is paying for this is a common one when talking about UBI.
Why do you think you'd get less crime? It's a dumb assumption. I would think the criminals will be emboldened because their extortion worked.
Crime is primarily a product of lack of opportunity. Criminals are not all part of a large conspiracy to raise your taxes, they are just people who either don't have opportunity or don't see it.
I don't know, I think that the UBI is pretty drastically unrealistic as I think $10K is far too small a number. I thought the idea behind UBI was that it gave everybody a bare level to survive on and I don't know many places $10K does that. Even in the middle of nowhere Nebraska, I don't think it would get you any sort of living space and food. But then maybe I'm not thinking in the right terms and maybe shared living spaces might become a thing for those who subsist only on UBI.
UBI is not intended to make it easy for a household to have no working adults. It is intended to make people less dependent on their job by giving a significant safety net when they are out of work, or for them to survive comfortably making less than the current minimum wage.
Have you factored in the extra 10k you'd get from UBI in your calculations?
Yes, but I did leave it out of my statements. To be more clear I should have explicitly stated my taxes would go up from $32k to $48k, but with an extra $10k in income. It still works out to $6k less in my paychecks each year in the end.