None of that is relevant to anything. Wealth is a tool to control Human labor, the poor don't control labor and the rich due, material goods are meaningless in a labor-based economy.
There's little to envy of modern Europe, it's a collection of once great nations who have descended into corruption, bureaucracy and unpointed directionless paths to such a degree the best they have is to try and copy the US.
Isn't that why most proponents of UBI (beyond the proof of concept test cases) include taxes that reduce the eventual take-home of the UBI the more money you make? So that a person working in a job making minimum wage might get to keep most of their UBI, but someone making $75000 year effectively gets taxed so that they receive no net UBI. The idea behind UBI seems that instead of 1 person working 40 hours a week, 2 people can work 20 hours a week without seeing a drop in income, providing jobs for more people and contributing to a better quality of life. People that want to not work and scrape by on $15-20k a year can do that, people who want to work part time for $30k a year can do that, and the workaholics who want to work 100 hours a week for 6 figure salaries can still do that.
We already have a 39.6% tax rate for anyone making over about $418k/yr, billionaires don't pay it. What makes you think they will be the ones to foot the bill when the rate goes up? Governments with corruption exist to serve as a collected pool of wealth for projects the wealthy agree to share, and they pay the bills by taxing the poor, not themselves.
Where does the wealth come from for the people who receive more from UBI than they put into the system? It can only come from people like him who will be putting more into the system than they receive back from UBI. Mind you, that group of people will likely include many of us as well, who make more than the median income and will thus end up slightly net negative in terms of what we pay in versus what we get out, but still, it'll be those making far more than most of us who must, by necessity, bear the brunt of the UBI burden, since it simply doesn't work otherwise.
It won't come from him any more than it does now. Policies put fourth by Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffet, etc are designed to keep the poor in a constant state of reflux. Note: I didn't say "the middle class" because there is effectively no such thing. If you were to take Zuckerberg's 63 billion dollar worth and divide by 3, that 21 billion dollar worth would be the start of the middle class. What we have are poor people who don't realize how little they have who are granted enough wealth to feel superior to their fellow poor people while being beacons of what is possible while simultaneously being too incompetent to ever become a financial competitor to the rich. That's why small-mid size business owners are all of the same particular ~135 IQ ADHD-riddled type of person, they are the ones allowed into the position.
To be fair (or cynical), Buffett has repeatedly said it is ridiculous that he pays less in taxes than his secretary and that the tax laws should be changed, but until they are it is in his best interest and prudent to use the existing law to reduce his tax burden as much as possible.
A parasite is a parasite. Don't confuse PR with prudence.
UBI has been getting more press lately and it's a little hard for me to see how it makes sense. It seems like welfare for everybody, regardless of need. IMHO it tries to solve the problem from the wrong direction. One of the most important things for human mental health is to have something to do. UBI does nothing to address that, and without opportunity the money will just be used for drugs far too often. Programs like the New Deal make a lot more sense. Paying people's expenses while they are in training also make sense. Blank checks require more personal responsibility than you can expect out of the population at large.
The idea is that you remove all existing welfare programs and replace them with UBI. That includes the social programs like subsidized rehab clinics, meaning the problem individuals would self-correct themselves out of the genepool. We're Humans, not wild animals. If someone can't handle personal responsibility they deserve to suffer the consequences of that, not to be catered to like you might a pet while spreading their vile seed throughout the species thereby degrading individual aptitudes over time.
yeah teachers are completely vital to the vitality of our society, their value is enormous, that's why we pay them so well/snark
The ones who actually teach are paid very well, not as well as they should be but it's pretty hard to do that when there are so many who simply indoctrinate into failed political ideologies which further their own interests (gaining an "equal" share of that pool of funding for education) as opposed to teaching meaningful things for society.
Why should the wealthy have to give up their money for others to not work?
Wealth is a byproduct of inefficient allocation of resources. There's no reason Bill Gates, for example, should have billions of dollars. He didn't work harder, he didn't do more, he simply used existing wealth to muscle out competition and lock everyone into an inferior product - then to make it even worse he took that wealth and dumped it into foreign economies - effectively leeching off the system that gave him everything.
Money is a tool, and drawing lines of human worth based on it is beyond absurd. If you're going to draw a line draw it on intellect, the quality which makes a person Human to begin with, or don't draw it at all. People like Gates who siphon the solvency of their host nations like parasites just to throw it overseas deserve to be hung as traitors, there is nothing redeemable about them and it's an insult to all of Humanity other than Gates to suggest otherwise.
I'm not even a leftist or a centrist, this isn't a left vs right issue, capitalism is a tool to achieve an ends: productivity and prosperity. People like Gates, Buffet, etc are the people destroying that crucial tool to the detriment of society - the fact they have the gall to suggest giving to the third world is spreading wealth around makes it all the worse because they take the concept of how they are being absolute fuckers and applying it to the world as a whole when nobody else is even playing by the same rulebook that worked for us.
Not realistic. One of the big obvious problems all the businesses at Galt's Gultch have, is that they don't have customers.
Communes work on small scales, Humans actually function better within them because it is what we evolved for.
The actual issues with Galt's Gultch are the sci-fi tech of a free energy generator, cloaking field, and avionics distortion field coupled with terrain inaccessible via land and enough initial capital to build it all (don't be fooled thinking Galt could have just made such things from mining his own materials, refining them, processing them into even basic materials like insulated wire, etc in the span of his single lifetime.) The issue with every society over time is corruption, a byproduct of size necessary to defend from other corrupt nations. Galt's solution had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with setting an impenetrable barrier against the outside world.
Pretty much the same as StarTrek's ideas have nothing to do with socialism as portrayed and everything to do with a post-scarcity economy which basically eliminates internal strife and allows for whatever people want to call themselves in an otherwise unworkable system.
It is a mistake to avoid making a distinction between the enabling technologies used in stories and the ideals portrayed by those stories.
The set of things all outwardly creative types (story tellers, most other artists, etc) have in common are: hatred of the world they live in, an inability to cope with reality outside of fantasy, and an ego large enough to assume they know better while everyone else is in the retarded segment of the population as opposed to themselves.
Liberals went crazy because a gay, and later a woman, tried to give speeches at Berkley.
Careful now, if anyone can be a racist their heads will implode from all the failed indoctrination and cognitive dissonance. That many liberals self-immolating at once might make global warming real.
IQ is not the same as intelligence, although it is almost certainly highly correlated.
It is the same, the correlation exists because it is the same in this case.
Whites are not on top. Both Jews and East Asians score higher on average.
This isn't accurate. Whites have the widest bell curve of any ethnic group (both the lowest and the highest individuals.) The average is lower than Jews and East Asians by a couple of points but every other ethnic group has a very tight bell curve in comparison (and for that matter, females of all ethnic groups have a much tighter bell curve than males of any ethnic group.)
I wouldn't call it fear mongering so much as wealthy incompetence. People with wealth like those running the healthcare industries don't like change (they have too much to lose and change is often chaos-inducing.) Meanwhile it takes absolute incompetence to subscribe to the idea that we are somehow separate from our technology, our evolutionary drive has largely shifted into it and in turn it must keep progressing to sustain us in the face of other things using the biological mechanisms.
Functionally this looks a lot like fear-mongering, but it isn't, it's just morons with more sway than they should have being heard.
In the past year alone I've read about 4 different types of antibiotic-scale medicines going through development, the most recent of which was an enzyme in frog saliva. If we make antibiotic resistant bacteria the lower lifeforms we extracted the antibiotics from will adapt new mechanisms to fight bacteria. All you really need to do is create antibiotic-resistant bacteria which target things like bread mold with rapid lifecycles in a lab to produce new antibiotics which fight the resistant bacteria. Life is life, it changes and when it changes it loses a bit to gain another bit through chance mutation - this means there will always be an opening to fight bacteria so long as we outpace them in a lab. The real issue here is the approval process, just like any other medicine.
It is based on SMB, which only impacts Windows machines sitting on the open internet and LANs, most commonly via someone plugging a laptop into their unsecured home network then taking it in to work or connecting via VPN.
It uses an NSA backdoor that was patched 2 months ago on Windows 10, but not other versions, and was itself leaked about a month ago.
It gives users a week to "pay" or get locked out (or have it removed otherwise.)
It uses only 3 bitcoin wallets and tells everyone to pay the same sum, meaning there is no way to confirm who did and did not pay, therefore there was never an intention to have any further contact with machines which may be traceable.
It had a backdoor to disable it by registering a nonsense domain name, which someone has since done at a security firm in the UK claiming they didn't know what it would actually do but just saw it was available.
The code itself was 50% NSA leak and 50%
script-kiddie or H1-b tier coding that errors out doing nothing 80% of the time.
All signs point to this being another attempt by Microsoft to get people to upgrade to Windows 10, not an actual piece of malware to produce money from the malware itself.
There isn't a single discovery made without looking at past discoveries. There is no right to sell research as a result, it is part of the Human corpus. If it's private it's private, if it's public it's public, making it available only to those who pay is an obscenity.
That isn't even before considering the fact publishers have become deprecated in the modern age, they provide no useful services and simply drive up costs to doing and disseminating research, retarding all of Humanity in the process.
Capitalism serves to make society function better, research publications have the opposite effect so they are inherently anti-capitalism simply by existing, don't get lost in the "how," capitalism is a tool to achieve the objective (and still the best one for most things.)
The whole point of AI (or rather the algorithms behind it) is that you don't need to know how it works. Once there is hardware capable of simulating the neuron count in the Human brain and the ability to store/load that state to/from a backup you have unstoppable AI - you only need to train a great programmer once then you can make a trillion of them.
In the future you'll just tell your computer what to do. It will understand with nuanced meaning everything that you want and won't have to bother with providing any of those picky details.
Realistically if you aren't known as one of the top 100 programmers on Earth AI will probably have taken your job within 10-20 years (and those people are far more likely to be PR/sales people who talk to the AI than programmers.)
You know you have screwed things up when you have to look at China and India, two countries that have long been considered backwards when it comes to using renewable sources of energy, for a brighter tomorrow.
Ignoring all that weighted dribble, what you actually mean is "two countries that have long been behind the curve" - the first world is wising up to the Global Warming scam, now the globalists only have the backward countries to scam with it.
Except destroying the habitat we live in and need for survival is jumping off a cliff, and everyone else is smart enough to see it and take appropriate measures.
Thankfully that's a figment of brainwashed liberal minds. IF climate change were a threat the appropriate course of action would be to engineer the environment to suite our needs, not to run around screaming "the end is nigh" while resolving to a life without decent technology for the peasants because "it's bad." We're Human, our entire existence is predicated upon bending the universe to our whims via technology and we have the means + knowledge to control the weather as-is if it becomes an issue, you worthless Luddite.
Manning discovered widespread corruption, deeply unethical behavior and absolutely unacceptable conduct, and she decided to let fundamental human rights and dignity overrule artificial power structures, so she exposed the lies, and of course the liars punished her.
It must have taken immense bravery, and we should admire her, not attack her.
He did none of those things. He dumped data without even knowing what was on it because he had issue with the fact there was too much to sift through to find anything juicy while being ignorant of what he was looking for, and happened to be an attention whore to boot.
There's nothing "right" about indiscriminately leaking documents you haven't even gone through the effort of vetting because you have issue with the very real security practice of FUD - which ensures enemies attaining the classified data must go that extra step to sift through meaningless dribble before finding anything of use. He's a traitor and should be shot, Obama too.
Slashdot Mirror
None of that is relevant to anything. Wealth is a tool to control Human labor, the poor don't control labor and the rich due, material goods are meaningless in a labor-based economy.
If thats the case, we need more of it.
There's little to envy of modern Europe, it's a collection of once great nations who have descended into corruption, bureaucracy and unpointed directionless paths to such a degree the best they have is to try and copy the US.
Isn't that why most proponents of UBI (beyond the proof of concept test cases) include taxes that reduce the eventual take-home of the UBI the more money you make? So that a person working in a job making minimum wage might get to keep most of their UBI, but someone making $75000 year effectively gets taxed so that they receive no net UBI. The idea behind UBI seems that instead of 1 person working 40 hours a week, 2 people can work 20 hours a week without seeing a drop in income, providing jobs for more people and contributing to a better quality of life. People that want to not work and scrape by on $15-20k a year can do that, people who want to work part time for $30k a year can do that, and the workaholics who want to work 100 hours a week for 6 figure salaries can still do that.
We already have a 39.6% tax rate for anyone making over about $418k/yr, billionaires don't pay it. What makes you think they will be the ones to foot the bill when the rate goes up? Governments with corruption exist to serve as a collected pool of wealth for projects the wealthy agree to share, and they pay the bills by taxing the poor, not themselves.
Where does the wealth come from for the people who receive more from UBI than they put into the system? It can only come from people like him who will be putting more into the system than they receive back from UBI. Mind you, that group of people will likely include many of us as well, who make more than the median income and will thus end up slightly net negative in terms of what we pay in versus what we get out, but still, it'll be those making far more than most of us who must, by necessity, bear the brunt of the UBI burden, since it simply doesn't work otherwise.
It won't come from him any more than it does now. Policies put fourth by Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffet, etc are designed to keep the poor in a constant state of reflux. Note: I didn't say "the middle class" because there is effectively no such thing. If you were to take Zuckerberg's 63 billion dollar worth and divide by 3, that 21 billion dollar worth would be the start of the middle class. What we have are poor people who don't realize how little they have who are granted enough wealth to feel superior to their fellow poor people while being beacons of what is possible while simultaneously being too incompetent to ever become a financial competitor to the rich. That's why small-mid size business owners are all of the same particular ~135 IQ ADHD-riddled type of person, they are the ones allowed into the position.
To be fair (or cynical), Buffett has repeatedly said it is ridiculous that he pays less in taxes than his secretary and that the tax laws should be changed, but until they are it is in his best interest and prudent to use the existing law to reduce his tax burden as much as possible.
A parasite is a parasite. Don't confuse PR with prudence.
UBI has been getting more press lately and it's a little hard for me to see how it makes sense. It seems like welfare for everybody, regardless of need. IMHO it tries to solve the problem from the wrong direction. One of the most important things for human mental health is to have something to do. UBI does nothing to address that, and without opportunity the money will just be used for drugs far too often. Programs like the New Deal make a lot more sense. Paying people's expenses while they are in training also make sense. Blank checks require more personal responsibility than you can expect out of the population at large.
The idea is that you remove all existing welfare programs and replace them with UBI. That includes the social programs like subsidized rehab clinics, meaning the problem individuals would self-correct themselves out of the genepool. We're Humans, not wild animals. If someone can't handle personal responsibility they deserve to suffer the consequences of that, not to be catered to like you might a pet while spreading their vile seed throughout the species thereby degrading individual aptitudes over time.
yeah teachers are completely vital to the vitality of our society, their value is enormous, that's why we pay them so well /snark
The ones who actually teach are paid very well, not as well as they should be but it's pretty hard to do that when there are so many who simply indoctrinate into failed political ideologies which further their own interests (gaining an "equal" share of that pool of funding for education) as opposed to teaching meaningful things for society.
Why should the wealthy have to give up their money for others to not work?
Wealth is a byproduct of inefficient allocation of resources. There's no reason Bill Gates, for example, should have billions of dollars. He didn't work harder, he didn't do more, he simply used existing wealth to muscle out competition and lock everyone into an inferior product - then to make it even worse he took that wealth and dumped it into foreign economies - effectively leeching off the system that gave him everything.
Money is a tool, and drawing lines of human worth based on it is beyond absurd. If you're going to draw a line draw it on intellect, the quality which makes a person Human to begin with, or don't draw it at all. People like Gates who siphon the solvency of their host nations like parasites just to throw it overseas deserve to be hung as traitors, there is nothing redeemable about them and it's an insult to all of Humanity other than Gates to suggest otherwise.
I'm not even a leftist or a centrist, this isn't a left vs right issue, capitalism is a tool to achieve an ends: productivity and prosperity. People like Gates, Buffet, etc are the people destroying that crucial tool to the detriment of society - the fact they have the gall to suggest giving to the third world is spreading wealth around makes it all the worse because they take the concept of how they are being absolute fuckers and applying it to the world as a whole when nobody else is even playing by the same rulebook that worked for us.
Europe is swinging back to the left. Okay, that means it is now near the centre again
Ha! Europe has been liberal extremism run rampant for decades at least.
Not realistic. One of the big obvious problems all the businesses at Galt's Gultch have, is that they don't have customers.
Communes work on small scales, Humans actually function better within them because it is what we evolved for.
The actual issues with Galt's Gultch are the sci-fi tech of a free energy generator, cloaking field, and avionics distortion field coupled with terrain inaccessible via land and enough initial capital to build it all (don't be fooled thinking Galt could have just made such things from mining his own materials, refining them, processing them into even basic materials like insulated wire, etc in the span of his single lifetime.) The issue with every society over time is corruption, a byproduct of size necessary to defend from other corrupt nations. Galt's solution had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with setting an impenetrable barrier against the outside world.
Pretty much the same as StarTrek's ideas have nothing to do with socialism as portrayed and everything to do with a post-scarcity economy which basically eliminates internal strife and allows for whatever people want to call themselves in an otherwise unworkable system.
It is a mistake to avoid making a distinction between the enabling technologies used in stories and the ideals portrayed by those stories. The set of things all outwardly creative types (story tellers, most other artists, etc) have in common are: hatred of the world they live in, an inability to cope with reality outside of fantasy, and an ego large enough to assume they know better while everyone else is in the retarded segment of the population as opposed to themselves.
Liberals went crazy because a gay, and later a woman, tried to give speeches at Berkley.
Careful now, if anyone can be a racist their heads will implode from all the failed indoctrination and cognitive dissonance. That many liberals self-immolating at once might make global warming real.
IQ is not the same as intelligence, although it is almost certainly highly correlated.
It is the same, the correlation exists because it is the same in this case.
Whites are not on top. Both Jews and East Asians score higher on average.
This isn't accurate. Whites have the widest bell curve of any ethnic group (both the lowest and the highest individuals.) The average is lower than Jews and East Asians by a couple of points but every other ethnic group has a very tight bell curve in comparison (and for that matter, females of all ethnic groups have a much tighter bell curve than males of any ethnic group.)
Welcome to /. - where liberal extremist blogs make their way into the science section.
This fear mongering is no different.
I wouldn't call it fear mongering so much as wealthy incompetence. People with wealth like those running the healthcare industries don't like change (they have too much to lose and change is often chaos-inducing.) Meanwhile it takes absolute incompetence to subscribe to the idea that we are somehow separate from our technology, our evolutionary drive has largely shifted into it and in turn it must keep progressing to sustain us in the face of other things using the biological mechanisms.
Functionally this looks a lot like fear-mongering, but it isn't, it's just morons with more sway than they should have being heard.
In the past year alone I've read about 4 different types of antibiotic-scale medicines going through development, the most recent of which was an enzyme in frog saliva. If we make antibiotic resistant bacteria the lower lifeforms we extracted the antibiotics from will adapt new mechanisms to fight bacteria. All you really need to do is create antibiotic-resistant bacteria which target things like bread mold with rapid lifecycles in a lab to produce new antibiotics which fight the resistant bacteria. Life is life, it changes and when it changes it loses a bit to gain another bit through chance mutation - this means there will always be an opening to fight bacteria so long as we outpace them in a lab. The real issue here is the approval process, just like any other medicine.
All signs point to this being another attempt by Microsoft to get people to upgrade to Windows 10, not an actual piece of malware to produce money from the malware itself.
There isn't a single discovery made without looking at past discoveries. There is no right to sell research as a result, it is part of the Human corpus. If it's private it's private, if it's public it's public, making it available only to those who pay is an obscenity.
That isn't even before considering the fact publishers have become deprecated in the modern age, they provide no useful services and simply drive up costs to doing and disseminating research, retarding all of Humanity in the process.
Capitalism serves to make society function better, research publications have the opposite effect so they are inherently anti-capitalism simply by existing, don't get lost in the "how," capitalism is a tool to achieve the objective (and still the best one for most things.)
The whole point of AI (or rather the algorithms behind it) is that you don't need to know how it works. Once there is hardware capable of simulating the neuron count in the Human brain and the ability to store/load that state to/from a backup you have unstoppable AI - you only need to train a great programmer once then you can make a trillion of them.
In the future you'll just tell your computer what to do. It will understand with nuanced meaning everything that you want and won't have to bother with providing any of those picky details.
Realistically if you aren't known as one of the top 100 programmers on Earth AI will probably have taken your job within 10-20 years (and those people are far more likely to be PR/sales people who talk to the AI than programmers.)
You know you have screwed things up when you have to look at China and India, two countries that have long been considered backwards when it comes to using renewable sources of energy, for a brighter tomorrow.
Ignoring all that weighted dribble, what you actually mean is "two countries that have long been behind the curve" - the first world is wising up to the Global Warming scam, now the globalists only have the backward countries to scam with it.
Except destroying the habitat we live in and need for survival is jumping off a cliff, and everyone else is smart enough to see it and take appropriate measures.
Thankfully that's a figment of brainwashed liberal minds. IF climate change were a threat the appropriate course of action would be to engineer the environment to suite our needs, not to run around screaming "the end is nigh" while resolving to a life without decent technology for the peasants because "it's bad." We're Human, our entire existence is predicated upon bending the universe to our whims via technology and we have the means + knowledge to control the weather as-is if it becomes an issue, you worthless Luddite.
Manning discovered widespread corruption, deeply unethical behavior and absolutely unacceptable conduct, and she decided to let fundamental human rights and dignity overrule artificial power structures, so she exposed the lies, and of course the liars punished her.
It must have taken immense bravery, and we should admire her, not attack her.
He did none of those things. He dumped data without even knowing what was on it because he had issue with the fact there was too much to sift through to find anything juicy while being ignorant of what he was looking for, and happened to be an attention whore to boot.
There's nothing "right" about indiscriminately leaking documents you haven't even gone through the effort of vetting because you have issue with the very real security practice of FUD - which ensures enemies attaining the classified data must go that extra step to sift through meaningless dribble before finding anything of use. He's a traitor and should be shot, Obama too.
I suspect that people could adapt, just as they do to zero-g. But we've never tested it. Not even on mice.
We have, it's called an Aerotrim and it makes people vomit and animals eventually die.
It would have to have a radius of around 700m to produce 1g without making people perpetually sea-sick.