There's always the same amount of money out there (give or take a bit). It just belongs to different people.
This would be incorrect. We have a fiat currency, meaning that we borrow currency into existence. The beauty of this is that there is no limit to how much currency is in the system. The down side is that our national debt will eventually collapse the entire system.
Not a lot different than back in the 1950's when the trend was to create all manor of odd gadgets to make life easier. Those deemed useful are still around... The rest can be found in junk markets around the world. But hey, the Cracker-barrel's of the future will still need stuff to decorate their walls with.
It really doesn't help when the article post crap like "The state attorney generals suing represent states with 165 million people -- more than half the United States population", this kind of hyperbole doesn't take into account that not all 165 Million people in those states agree with the actions taken by those states.
The system we have isn't Capitalism, it's Cronyism. Brought on because people think that Keynesian economics is somehow a good thing. Sadly this line of thinking is so prevalent on both sides of the isle, that it will never get fixed until the system collapses. Young people today have never seen Capitalism, they have only seen Cronyism and yet everybody calls it Capitalism. It isn't.
You do still see Capitalism at lower levels of society. The farmers markets, the used/antique markets etc. But those in government don't make money on these, they would rather make the big bucks working with large corporations. As a result, the large corporations get the laws passed that they want, usually at the expense of the little guy. Hence Cronyism wins the day.
Now, if we can just get young people to understand the difference...
The free market seems to be working just fine. The article completely ignores satellite internet. For rural areas where running cable/fiber is cost prohibitive, satellite works very well. I do notice my ping times tend to be about 20-30ms slower than my Verizon phone, but I can live with that.
An article in Wired.com is not proof for an argument. Right up there with the Guardian or Vox. They are known for their SJW bias, keeping people like you in a little safe space bubble.
Kavanaugh compares ISPs to cable TV operators, rather than phone companies.
Does anybody remember the argument against the Comcast/Time-Warner merger back in 2014? The idea that combining the ISP with the content creators was going to lead to bad things. Welcome to that reality.
I can't be bothered to actually read the law, as I don't give a rip about California. But what does this law do to teared pricing? The whole concept of teared pricing was to slow down the lower price points. Not everybody needs a 13 ZetaByte pipe.
Then it should not be a functional requirement for students to have a computer, housing, or food as part of the university experience. Problem solved.
Housing and food have never been considered nonessential living expenses. Every library has computers available for use, so they would be considered nonessential purchases. Your argument fails.
Very high-end beneficiaries of capital gains, both long and short term. They're the humans who are in the end realizing the monetary returns from any automation (or other) productivity gains.
Ok, sucking every penny from the rich should just about cover everyone's UBI for the first three months of the year... then what?
More likely the corrupt cop will just claim he was sloppy at collecting sample at the scene of the crime. Of course you expect to see the cops DNA at the crime scene. Never mind that the sample was from a bit of semen.
Since we are going to run out of fossil fuels, we better have to. And if the burning of those last fossil fuels heats our environment so much that we will have a hard time growing food, what is the use of trying to distribute that non-growing food?
I have seen this argument before. When we do get close to actually running out of fossil fuels (50 years by some estimates), the free market is the best solution for finding answers to the problem. Using the court system to sue oil companies today only slows any progress they will put forth to find a new business model later. If you think companies like Shell or BP are not investing in energy for the future, then you are very naive.
Have you seen the battery bank for that monster. ROI for running that thing is still unviable. Maybe in the future we will have cheaper versions, but for now that beast is out of reach for the vast majority of farmers.
Since the US military (actually foreign policy) is pretty evil; as a nation US has killed the most people in wars the last 2-3 decades.
citation needed. I think you will find, once you actually dive into the numbers, that the actual deaths cause by the US military to be quite low. Most of the deaths around the world are due to either civil war or insurgent killings ex. Boko Haram or ISIS where they kill their own countrymen. The US military is very selective when it comes to dropping ordinance. They do drop quite a bit, but the actual number of deaths are quite low in comparison. But don't let me stop you from claiming evil on the side that is actually putting a stop to the evil around the world.
Slashdot Mirror
There's always the same amount of money out there (give or take a bit). It just belongs to different people.
This would be incorrect. We have a fiat currency, meaning that we borrow currency into existence. The beauty of this is that there is no limit to how much currency is in the system. The down side is that our national debt will eventually collapse the entire system.
Not a lot different than back in the 1950's when the trend was to create all manor of odd gadgets to make life easier. Those deemed useful are still around... The rest can be found in junk markets around the world. But hey, the Cracker-barrel's of the future will still need stuff to decorate their walls with.
Oddly enough, the internet is where religion goes to die.
LOL you know something like 95% of the country is urban or suburban.
Someone has never been to the midwest.
It ALL winds up underwater.
Even the IPCC doesn't make this claim.
I read the headline as "Google needs janitors"
It really doesn't help when the article post crap like "The state attorney generals suing represent states with 165 million people -- more than half the United States population", this kind of hyperbole doesn't take into account that not all 165 Million people in those states agree with the actions taken by those states.
Computer? Hell we had a multi family single phone line...
Now git off my lawn.
The system we have isn't Capitalism, it's Cronyism. Brought on because people think that Keynesian economics is somehow a good thing. Sadly this line of thinking is so prevalent on both sides of the isle, that it will never get fixed until the system collapses. Young people today have never seen Capitalism, they have only seen Cronyism and yet everybody calls it Capitalism. It isn't.
You do still see Capitalism at lower levels of society. The farmers markets, the used/antique markets etc. But those in government don't make money on these, they would rather make the big bucks working with large corporations. As a result, the large corporations get the laws passed that they want, usually at the expense of the little guy. Hence Cronyism wins the day.
Now, if we can just get young people to understand the difference...
The free market seems to be working just fine. The article completely ignores satellite internet. For rural areas where running cable/fiber is cost prohibitive, satellite works very well. I do notice my ping times tend to be about 20-30ms slower than my Verizon phone, but I can live with that.
Other than the part where the Nazi's used gun control to disarm the Jewish population.
This is the internet... You must be new here.
O. Try the article that was published in Wired,
An article in Wired.com is not proof for an argument. Right up there with the Guardian or Vox. They are known for their SJW bias, keeping people like you in a little safe space bubble.
In the early days of Linux, there were no manuals. You had to read the source code. Surprisingly good comments back then.
If your business model is to screw the customer, then don't be surprised when your customers find different banks.
Kavanaugh compares ISPs to cable TV operators, rather than phone companies.
Does anybody remember the argument against the Comcast/Time-Warner merger back in 2014? The idea that combining the ISP with the content creators was going to lead to bad things. Welcome to that reality.
I can't be bothered to actually read the law, as I don't give a rip about California. But what does this law do to teared pricing? The whole concept of teared pricing was to slow down the lower price points. Not everybody needs a 13 ZetaByte pipe.
Not interested in technicalities here, just need to get something in place. We'll sand the rough edges later.
Why does this sound so similar to "We need to pass the law to see what's in it."
Then it should not be a functional requirement for students to have a computer, housing, or food as part of the university experience. Problem solved.
Housing and food have never been considered nonessential living expenses. Every library has computers available for use, so they would be considered nonessential purchases. Your argument fails.
Very high-end beneficiaries of capital gains, both long and short term. They're the humans who are in the end realizing the monetary returns from any automation (or other) productivity gains.
Ok, sucking every penny from the rich should just about cover everyone's UBI for the first three months of the year... then what?
More likely the corrupt cop will just claim he was sloppy at collecting sample at the scene of the crime. Of course you expect to see the cops DNA at the crime scene. Never mind that the sample was from a bit of semen.
What a bunch of nonsense. I love it when non-lawyers try to explain how they think the law works.
Except the GP is correct here. This is the same reason the tobacco companies fought long and hard to show no evidence of harm.
Since we are going to run out of fossil fuels, we better have to. And if the burning of those last fossil fuels heats our environment so much that we will have a hard time growing food, what is the use of trying to distribute that non-growing food?
I have seen this argument before. When we do get close to actually running out of fossil fuels (50 years by some estimates), the free market is the best solution for finding answers to the problem. Using the court system to sue oil companies today only slows any progress they will put forth to find a new business model later. If you think companies like Shell or BP are not investing in energy for the future, then you are very naive.
Have you seen the battery bank for that monster. ROI for running that thing is still unviable. Maybe in the future we will have cheaper versions, but for now that beast is out of reach for the vast majority of farmers.
Since the US military (actually foreign policy) is pretty evil; as a nation US has killed the most people in wars the last 2-3 decades.
citation needed. I think you will find, once you actually dive into the numbers, that the actual deaths cause by the US military to be quite low. Most of the deaths around the world are due to either civil war or insurgent killings ex. Boko Haram or ISIS where they kill their own countrymen. The US military is very selective when it comes to dropping ordinance. They do drop quite a bit, but the actual number of deaths are quite low in comparison. But don't let me stop you from claiming evil on the side that is actually putting a stop to the evil around the world.