Withdrawing from Paris Accords opens the possiblity of future Carbon Tariffs on US goods.
But TPP (I'm not advocating TPP by the way, glad it's dead) would have prevented the signatories from imposing Carbon Tariffs on imports from the US (for fear of litigation if for no other reason).
By pulling both, Trump has made US trade and industry more vulnerable, not less.
But the point of UBI is that everyone is on it. Everyone gets it. The harsh fact is, automation and AI reduces the need for humans to do meaningful work every day. A society that doesn't want to collapse in the face of that needs to consider what life in the increasingly near future looks like. I'm not suggesting we are going to live in a star trek money-less society or a Banksian post-scarcity utopia as a result of UBI, I do think that it has the potential to solve an awful lot of problems we know are coming. There will always be scroungers, people who sit around and do nothing. but how many people do you actually know who would do that under UBI? how many would actually do sod all? I bet only a handful. Most people want to do SOMETHING meaningful with their lives. The point is to give them the chance. On UBI, we get a flexable workforce, because we don't have to worry about people surviving while they are in education, retraining for wherever the jobs turn out to be.
Communism doesn't work because people are always after more and will game the system to get it, placing artificial limits on what people get is therefore flawed and counter productive
UBI doesn't work because people are inherently lazy and will be satisfied with the minimum they are given.
Of course some people will be lazy, or ill, or take a gap year, or sit around getting stoned. People already do that and get free money for it. the purpose of UBI is not to eliminate that, but to eliminate the cost of the bureaucracy governing it and to provide a chance at self improvement for those that otherwise do not have one.
UBI MIGHT (emphasis because this is all still theoretical) work, because it walks a line. It takes the benefits from a socialist model (ensured food, housing minimum living standard for all) and plugs it in to the existing capitalist model. You get enough to survive, to thrive, you have to work. To be able to retire and enjoy it, you have to build up a nest egg through your life. I don't say it would work, I do think it's an interesting idea and should be tested.
Literally no one has ever put a gun on me to collect taxes, or indeed for any reason. In a democracy, the people choose if they want to live in a high, mid or low tax society and to a certain extent what the taxes should be spent on.
Your taxes are being collected, this is a conversation about what they should be spent on.
There actually is a simple healthcare solution (well, simpler).
I live under it. It's called the NHS. I get free healthcare. I see a Dr when I want, pick the Dr I want, pay a nominal (around £8) fee for prescriptions and on the two occasions I have been seriously, life threateningly ill I have been treated then and there, looked after, admitted until well, fed and supported and I have never, ever filled in a form or spoken to an insurer about healthcare (and I work in insurance).
I work hard, have never been unemployed, am in, conservatively, the top 10% of earners in the UK and I am happy to pay taxes for benefits like that for all, that are democratically controlled, not controlled by a church, or a charity, or some other organisation that has an agenda that can change without proper democratic oversight. I like and value economies of scale and think my government should too.
And that's the big difference, you may help out, there have always been people that do and it's laudable. But not enough people do and that never seems to change. Maybe, just maybe, rather than doing the same thing that didn't work the last 100 times, we should try something new.
But in Europe, where in most cases, everyone gets healthcare, state pensions, working tax credits, something towards higher education or something else etc etc etc those benchmarks are very different. For the US, you'd have to massively cut defense spending (maybe as much as the next dozen countries, instead of, what, the next 23?) whereas in Europe, mostly it's just a streamlining exercise.
Nothing prevents you from helping your neighbor — or any other stranger this way. There is absolutely no need for you to compel the rest of us to do the same. Start small, will you not?
Except that you've always been able to do that, and it ain't happened yet. But yeah, it's impinging on your freedoms to tax you more efficiently and give you a set rebate to live on (or do whatever with) and that's MORE authoritarian than paying a massive government bureaucracy to means test millions of people for specific exceptions, tax breaks, benefits, state aid etc etc etc.
You are mistaking communism for socialism. I quite like the idea. Here's your basic. You can now live and eat and get healthcare and police and fire service without fear. You want more, that's on you. Go out and work for it.
UBI exploits our need to have more, it's eminently capitalist and consumerist as it assumes that you will not be happy with "what everyone gets". Just as most people would not.
Actually, UBI saves money, because you no longer need a massive government bureaucracy to regulate, investigate, means test and evaluate applicants. It's being investigated precisely because the efficiency of the system reduces the overall expense. It also potentially incorporates state pensions, thus eliminating those departments and removing the need for a mandatory retirement age at all.
No, they did their thing. It's one thing to say there were other factors. Because of course there were other factors. It's another thing entirely to say that such huge sums of money spent on massive data gathering with vast and advanced algorithms that have been extensively tested had no effect whatsoever.
Of course it was not the only factor in most people's decision making. But it's entirely possible that such techniques had a non-trivial impact. Advertising works. Targeted advertising works. Psyops work. The nature of the electoral college is such that such techniques can almost certainly identify with extremely narrow focus the people who can be convinced and who need to be convinced to swing the college and allow them to be targeted. This cannot be a surprise or even contentious to a slashdot reader. What I find amusing is the outright denial of everyone here (many who clearly did not read the article) that this did not happen or influence either the reader personally or the result, when if it were a theoretical discussion, or no claim of the operation being used in the US election were made, everyone would have very different position.
I'm your standard high functioning Autistic Spectrum Condition number cruncher. I respond to interruptions... Poorly. I get distracted and remain so for about 15 minutes.
For this reason, I get 80% of my work done in the two hrs every morning I'm in before everyone else, and slog through the remaining 20% for the next 8 hrs. Or get it all done in 3 hrs at home, then play Stellaris.
They were paid a whole lot of money by people who would benefit from the thing they do, and therefore we assume they did the thing they do.
Immediate response: They didn't do the thing, and even if they did it didn't work, and it was the fault of your woman that she lost, not the thing they did that is a bit totalitarian and scary and I totally oppose. I'm not wrong! My thoughts are my own. Proven psy-ops techniques don't work on ME! My side is anti-psy-ops-style-totalitarian-government-intrusion and would never do the thing. They clearly paid the company for puppies and flowers!
Name your bill the opposite of what it is, then lie about what it does and why it's needed.
It works every time, why, because their opponents have to spend all their time arguing about the republicans premise, rather than against the bill itself.
Opponents to the bill pointing out the faulty logic and flawed reasoning is what they want. Anything to keep you feeling superior and not actually campaigning against them and their bill. They don't care they are wrong, they know they are talking rubbish. But to most people it sounds like something they can at least accept their senator believes, giving them plausible deniability and a strong arguing position so long as the never except that they are misrepresenting the bill, and the current law.
Want to actuall stop them and scare the hell out of them. Buy billboard space in their home towns explaining the facts in short, punchy phrases.
I'd have to agree, the UK pays less tax and gets free healthcare for all (with the option for insurance and private treatment to "jump the line"), paid maternity/paternity (which are interchangeable) for all, etc etc. And before anyone has a go at the NHS, ask an american that's actually used it, not just seen a fox news report on it, how it compares.
No money, no bills, no forms to fill in... nominal (about £8) charge for your prescription and you get treated, generally then and there, or get referred to an appropriate specialist. It's not perfect, and It's not exactly running at it's best at the moment, but that's the dumbass Brexit decision, not an inherent flaw in the system. If we paid even a few percentage points more, up to the US level, those niggles would be pretty much resolved. Of course, we have no aircraft carriers left because our leaders are dumbass morons and they want to lower the tax rate AND buy new nukes at the moment...but still. I know what I'd rather my taxes paid for and it aint new nukes.
There is a difference between record keeping and science. Data gathering is not science, the analysis of that data to come up with a testable hypothesis is.
Math is the quintessence of the scientific method, it's only math if your equation is testable and the results are consistently replicated.
There is a clear difference between an experimental AI where the experiment is tested by the interaction and a simulation where the experiment is the outcome based on the initial criteria.
Transmet style. We know how inaccurate distributed digital "factual" data is, we can make it so that this theoretical future civilization that rises from the ashes thinks we are lunatics that worship cats, fat bottomed lawyers daughters and creepy businessmen...oh...wait.
Microsoft are just holding on for a cycle or three until they get a functional surface-phone that can dock-&-desktop up and running. Then it will die off.
Only with AMT, which Trump has argued against repeatedly, not surprising given that the one year we know he paid taxes the AMT accounts for the vast bulk of this tax payment, as it would for most of the 1%.
But, more importantly. It. Was. A. Joke. at the expense of a troll. Seriously, get a sense of humor.
Agreed, but my point is that their long game is to push towards convergence of windows mobile and windows. Their mobiles are just keeping the seat warm at the moment and Surface is serving as a test-bed until the hardware catches up with the aspiration. Microsoft's ultimate goal is for you to have one or more slabs to wander around with and a couple of slabs or boxes at home, all running the same OS with the same cloud account attached software.
I don't know that it will work, timing and tech will be everything. But if they pull it off while most employers are still windows users, and loads of people have x-boxes... It might just happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Withdrawing from Paris Accords opens the possiblity of future Carbon Tariffs on US goods. But TPP (I'm not advocating TPP by the way, glad it's dead) would have prevented the signatories from imposing Carbon Tariffs on imports from the US (for fear of litigation if for no other reason). By pulling both, Trump has made US trade and industry more vulnerable, not less.
But the point of UBI is that everyone is on it. Everyone gets it. The harsh fact is, automation and AI reduces the need for humans to do meaningful work every day. A society that doesn't want to collapse in the face of that needs to consider what life in the increasingly near future looks like. I'm not suggesting we are going to live in a star trek money-less society or a Banksian post-scarcity utopia as a result of UBI, I do think that it has the potential to solve an awful lot of problems we know are coming. There will always be scroungers, people who sit around and do nothing. but how many people do you actually know who would do that under UBI? how many would actually do sod all? I bet only a handful. Most people want to do SOMETHING meaningful with their lives. The point is to give them the chance. On UBI, we get a flexable workforce, because we don't have to worry about people surviving while they are in education, retraining for wherever the jobs turn out to be.
Saying it don't make it so.
Communism doesn't work because people are always after more and will game the system to get it, placing artificial limits on what people get is therefore flawed and counter productive UBI doesn't work because people are inherently lazy and will be satisfied with the minimum they are given. Of course some people will be lazy, or ill, or take a gap year, or sit around getting stoned. People already do that and get free money for it. the purpose of UBI is not to eliminate that, but to eliminate the cost of the bureaucracy governing it and to provide a chance at self improvement for those that otherwise do not have one. UBI MIGHT (emphasis because this is all still theoretical) work, because it walks a line. It takes the benefits from a socialist model (ensured food, housing minimum living standard for all) and plugs it in to the existing capitalist model. You get enough to survive, to thrive, you have to work. To be able to retire and enjoy it, you have to build up a nest egg through your life. I don't say it would work, I do think it's an interesting idea and should be tested.
Literally no one has ever put a gun on me to collect taxes, or indeed for any reason. In a democracy, the people choose if they want to live in a high, mid or low tax society and to a certain extent what the taxes should be spent on. Your taxes are being collected, this is a conversation about what they should be spent on.
More expensive? have you looked at the numbers? http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-d...
I'm not defending Clinton. she screwed up in many ways. I'm just saying she also lost the big data arms race and that's THIS conversation.
There actually is a simple healthcare solution (well, simpler). I live under it. It's called the NHS. I get free healthcare. I see a Dr when I want, pick the Dr I want, pay a nominal (around £8) fee for prescriptions and on the two occasions I have been seriously, life threateningly ill I have been treated then and there, looked after, admitted until well, fed and supported and I have never, ever filled in a form or spoken to an insurer about healthcare (and I work in insurance). I work hard, have never been unemployed, am in, conservatively, the top 10% of earners in the UK and I am happy to pay taxes for benefits like that for all, that are democratically controlled, not controlled by a church, or a charity, or some other organisation that has an agenda that can change without proper democratic oversight. I like and value economies of scale and think my government should too. And that's the big difference, you may help out, there have always been people that do and it's laudable. But not enough people do and that never seems to change. Maybe, just maybe, rather than doing the same thing that didn't work the last 100 times, we should try something new.
But in Europe, where in most cases, everyone gets healthcare, state pensions, working tax credits, something towards higher education or something else etc etc etc those benchmarks are very different. For the US, you'd have to massively cut defense spending (maybe as much as the next dozen countries, instead of, what, the next 23?) whereas in Europe, mostly it's just a streamlining exercise.
Shareholders. Shareholders can sell their shares, I give it 6 years before 90% of the shares are owned by the top 5%
Nothing prevents you from helping your neighbor — or any other stranger this way. There is absolutely no need for you to compel the rest of us to do the same. Start small, will you not?
Except that you've always been able to do that, and it ain't happened yet.
But yeah, it's impinging on your freedoms to tax you more efficiently and give you a set rebate to live on (or do whatever with) and that's MORE authoritarian than paying a massive government bureaucracy to means test millions of people for specific exceptions, tax breaks, benefits, state aid etc etc etc.
You are mistaking communism for socialism.
I quite like the idea. Here's your basic. You can now live and eat and get healthcare and police and fire service without fear. You want more, that's on you. Go out and work for it.
UBI exploits our need to have more, it's eminently capitalist and consumerist as it assumes that you will not be happy with "what everyone gets". Just as most people would not.
Actually, UBI saves money, because you no longer need a massive government bureaucracy to regulate, investigate, means test and evaluate applicants. It's being investigated precisely because the efficiency of the system reduces the overall expense. It also potentially incorporates state pensions, thus eliminating those departments and removing the need for a mandatory retirement age at all.
No, they did their thing. It's one thing to say there were other factors. Because of course there were other factors. It's another thing entirely to say that such huge sums of money spent on massive data gathering with vast and advanced algorithms that have been extensively tested had no effect whatsoever.
Of course it was not the only factor in most people's decision making. But it's entirely possible that such techniques had a non-trivial impact.
Advertising works.
Targeted advertising works.
Psyops work.
The nature of the electoral college is such that such techniques can almost certainly identify with extremely narrow focus the people who can be convinced and who need to be convinced to swing the college and allow them to be targeted.
This cannot be a surprise or even contentious to a slashdot reader.
What I find amusing is the outright denial of everyone here (many who clearly did not read the article) that this did not happen or influence either the reader personally or the result, when if it were a theoretical discussion, or no claim of the operation being used in the US election were made, everyone would have very different position.
I'm your standard high functioning Autistic Spectrum Condition number cruncher. I respond to interruptions... Poorly. I get distracted and remain so for about 15 minutes. For this reason, I get 80% of my work done in the two hrs every morning I'm in before everyone else, and slog through the remaining 20% for the next 8 hrs. Or get it all done in 3 hrs at home, then play Stellaris.
They were paid a whole lot of money by people who would benefit from the thing they do, and therefore we assume they did the thing they do.
Immediate response: They didn't do the thing, and even if they did it didn't work, and it was the fault of your woman that she lost, not the thing they did that is a bit totalitarian and scary and I totally oppose. I'm not wrong! My thoughts are my own. Proven psy-ops techniques don't work on ME! My side is anti-psy-ops-style-totalitarian-government-intrusion and would never do the thing. They clearly paid the company for puppies and flowers!
Name your bill the opposite of what it is, then lie about what it does and why it's needed. It works every time, why, because their opponents have to spend all their time arguing about the republicans premise, rather than against the bill itself. Opponents to the bill pointing out the faulty logic and flawed reasoning is what they want. Anything to keep you feeling superior and not actually campaigning against them and their bill. They don't care they are wrong, they know they are talking rubbish. But to most people it sounds like something they can at least accept their senator believes, giving them plausible deniability and a strong arguing position so long as the never except that they are misrepresenting the bill, and the current law. Want to actuall stop them and scare the hell out of them. Buy billboard space in their home towns explaining the facts in short, punchy phrases.
I'd have to agree, the UK pays less tax and gets free healthcare for all (with the option for insurance and private treatment to "jump the line"), paid maternity/paternity (which are interchangeable) for all, etc etc. And before anyone has a go at the NHS, ask an american that's actually used it, not just seen a fox news report on it, how it compares. No money, no bills, no forms to fill in... nominal (about £8) charge for your prescription and you get treated, generally then and there, or get referred to an appropriate specialist. It's not perfect, and It's not exactly running at it's best at the moment, but that's the dumbass Brexit decision, not an inherent flaw in the system. If we paid even a few percentage points more, up to the US level, those niggles would be pretty much resolved. Of course, we have no aircraft carriers left because our leaders are dumbass morons and they want to lower the tax rate AND buy new nukes at the moment ...but still. I know what I'd rather my taxes paid for and it aint new nukes.
There is a difference between record keeping and science. Data gathering is not science, the analysis of that data to come up with a testable hypothesis is. Math is the quintessence of the scientific method, it's only math if your equation is testable and the results are consistently replicated. There is a clear difference between an experimental AI where the experiment is tested by the interaction and a simulation where the experiment is the outcome based on the initial criteria.
The exact moment I stopped carrying a surface book and an iPad when travelling.
Transmet style. We know how inaccurate distributed digital "factual" data is, we can make it so that this theoretical future civilization that rises from the ashes thinks we are lunatics that worship cats, fat bottomed lawyers daughters and creepy businessmen...oh...wait.
Microsoft are just holding on for a cycle or three until they get a functional surface-phone that can dock-&-desktop up and running. Then it will die off.
See how much he pays when the AMT goes and nothing replaces it.
Only with AMT, which Trump has argued against repeatedly, not surprising given that the one year we know he paid taxes the AMT accounts for the vast bulk of this tax payment, as it would for most of the 1%. But, more importantly. It. Was. A. Joke. at the expense of a troll. Seriously, get a sense of humor.
Agreed, but my point is that their long game is to push towards convergence of windows mobile and windows. Their mobiles are just keeping the seat warm at the moment and Surface is serving as a test-bed until the hardware catches up with the aspiration. Microsoft's ultimate goal is for you to have one or more slabs to wander around with and a couple of slabs or boxes at home, all running the same OS with the same cloud account attached software. I don't know that it will work, timing and tech will be everything. But if they pull it off while most employers are still windows users, and loads of people have x-boxes... It might just happen.