Where did I say anything about the merit of peer review? What I did was point out that European academics (overwhelmingly government employees) and European publishers colluded in creating a system in which publicly financed research ends up controlled by private publishers. And it is the academics that are ultimately responsible, because they could end this system tomorrow if they wanted to.
The people who can't afford it now are often people who didn't expect to lose their jobs because of an illness with permanent effects
And that's because the people of the hinterlands should pay the Barbara Hudsons of this world to live in expensive cities! After all, you deserve it, and screw everybody else, right?
I'm very happy with our single payer health system - pretty much all of us are. I hate government supported housing because it leads to supposed non-profit co-ops making a mint off the poor with substandard housing
So stay there and stop telling Americans what to do about basic income or health care or anything else. You made your choice, now live with it.
This system of commercial publishing of academic research is nothing new; it arose in Europe and at Europe's public universities long ago. And it continues because academics, publishers, and European governments are so cozy with each other.
Many people find that their choice of place to live is based on where their doctors work
And many other people find that they can't move to a medical mecca like SF because they can't afford it. Not only do you demand that we pay for your medical care, you demand that we pay for medical care and a place to live that we would not and could not afford for ourselves. How greedy and selfish can you be?
In any case, what are you complaining about? You live in Canada, don't you? Aren't you happy with your single payer health care system and your government supported housing?
Freedom is fleeting if they can slip chains on you at a latter date.
Someone releasing a closed source version of an open source project doesn't affect the freedom of the open source project.
I'm fairly sure that LINUX is beating out BSD. And since Linux still runs under GPL it falls under RMS's camp, I'm not entirely sure how you can say RMS is losing the debate.
Linux is an old project, as is gcc. If you look at newer open source projects, they are (1) largely started by private companies and (2) increasingly under more liberal licenses than the GPL. Note that Torvalds has rejected more recent version of the GPL, and gcc is increasingly being replaced by clang.
Now there's a non-sequitur. In fact, I have no desire to be a top-level exec, and am happy to earn a very nice living doing the actual work. Personal preference.
Well, and a lot of people share that personal preference. Since the "actual work" of execs needs to get done, they get paid more for their "actual work" than you do for yours.
Irrelevant, because the question we are arguing about is basic income, which is not specific to San Francisco.
Yes, the question we are talking about is basic income, and basic income is irrelevant to people with disabilities because they are already receiving disability payments; that is, whether we adopt basic income or not, people with disabilities wouldn't receive anything more than they already are receiving. Furthermore, as the OP pointed out, a basic income is not designed to pay for living in an expensive place.
False, because as I pointed out, handicapped people require a support system in place, and they won't immediately have that at the new place. Not the family, not friends. So, how is a visually handicapped person supposed to look for a place to live by themselves? Their dog can't tell them that there's mold and rust in the bathtub. This really happens - it happened to me, and it was only because someone warned me after I signed, so off to court for fraudulent misrepsentation.
You're (presumably) a legally competent adult and you are receiving disability payments, and you make your own decisions according to your means, your support structure, and your abilities, like everybody else, disabled or not.
Living in a place like SF (or Montreal) is probably a poor decision for you, both financially and socially, but it's ultimately up to you. A smaller town or city likely has better support and is safer and cheaper as well. If you are unable to live on your own, you might consider an assisted living facility. If you keep running into problems like you describe, that is a good indication that you should probably consider moving and making other changes in your life.
Yeah, sure. Give weapons to everybody, "just in case". people will never shoot at each other.
Restricting gun ownership is clearly ineffective as a method for reducing homicides, so, yes, the relationship you imply doesn't exist.
More important, a "war on guns" would be even more harmful than the "war on drugs" has been, while being even less effective in helping people. Do you really want to give police even more of an ability to detain people, invade their homes, sift through their receipts and finances, and increase the racial divide? Because that would be the consequences. You have to love a police state if you want a war on guns.
You can because other countries have implemented those or similar laws and have massively lower gun deaths per capita.
Other countries had much lower gun deaths per capita before they implemented gun control. And if you look at recent examples like Australia, the effect of gun control was nil.
There is essentially no relationship between gun control and homicides, or gun ownership and homicides. People like you promoting that idea are utterly unscientific and irrational. You pick and choose your data to try to reach a pre-determined conclusions, and facts apparently don't matter to you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The only major difference between BSD and GPL licenses is that BSD allows open software to be closed, so really you're arguing in favour of closed software.
No, he is arguing in favor of freedom. Freedom is meaningless if it doesn't include the freedom to do things others disapprove of. Software licenses are a mechanism for achieving freedom. RMS believes that the best way to achieve freedom is through restrictive licenses backed by the coercive power of the state (copyright, courts, police). Other people believe that the best way to achieve freedom is through non-restrictive licenses and by example. Which of those mechanisms is better is an empirical question, but at this point, it looks like RMS is losing the debate.
Or, alternatively, you might also say that RMS has won the debate but just doesn't want to admit it: the GPL was never intended to be a permanent solution, it was intended to be transitional, until people have learned the benefits of sharing and do it freely. Well, that's what's been happening, with the vast amounts of software released under "do anything, just don't sue us" licenses by private companies.
Personally, I thank RMS for his original contributions and getting people use to the idea of sharing software, but I think his task is done, and for now, at least, the BSD and Apache licenses are better choices for most projects.
But the fact that only companies and labs have access to this technology can represent a threat. First of all, we cannot know how money driven companies are going to use this novel technology. Second, this monopole slows down Progress and Technology.
The GNU project should do a bit more background research before starting new projects. Here are some links to open source deep learning tools. These are the same tools and libraries used by those "money driven companies" in their projects, including AlphaGo:
Combining all the means-tested and needs-tested programs and junking them will help everyone who falls through the cracks, as well as eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy. Why would you be against that, hmm?
I think "combining all the means-tested and needs-tested programs" into a basic income would be great. But that's not what we are discussing here. All I did was point out that there are plenty of jobs around the country, so anybody who wants to leave SF right now can already do so.
As for what you are, your online presence has clarified that: you live in a hell of your own making. What a sad life.
The study is based on correlations; you cannot infer causation from those correlations. In particular, you can't predict what's going to happen if those laws were implemented. In reality, there is little reason to believe that any of the proposed federal laws would have any effect on gun deaths at all.
Of course, that even presumes that reducing gun deaths should be a direct policy goal of federal policy at all, something many people disagree with.
You claimed that we don't need to provide people with a basic income. Tell that the the 60% of visually handicapped people who can't get a job.
People who can't get a job due to disability are already covered by disability payments. "Basic income" is something that is paid to everybody regardless of disability or other life circumstances. That's the whole point of "basic income" and what distinguishes it from other government programs: that it is not means tested or need based.
Are you really as stupid as you seem to be, or are you just a troll?
Apple's phones already have backdoors. The spat between the FBI and Apple is a charade: Apple gives a false impression of privacy, and the FBI is downplaying its capabilities.
(1) The government doesn't have any choice in the matter. Cryptography is so easy to implement these days that anyone who wants to can use it.
(2) I guess Obama's mask has come off now, and his isn't trying to hide his complete disdain for civil liberties and privacy. Obviously, his original campaign promises were just lies.
Sure, if you want to look stupid and irresponsible, go ahead and whine and complain all you like. Just don't expect any help, and be prepared for the fact that you are increasingly pissing off both investors and voters.
Whatever special needs and circumstances may make it impossible for a few people to leave San Francisco, they are not at all related to the general question of whether people have a right to stay in some expensive place when they can't afford to anymore.
Furthermore, having someone who is disabled in my family, a caring family would move with them anyway, not just because it's the right thing to do, but also because it's the rational thing to do.
We don't need to provide people with a "basic income". If you're willing to move and willing to work, there are plenty of places in the country where you can get by just fine in some job.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did I say anything about the merit of peer review? What I did was point out that European academics (overwhelmingly government employees) and European publishers colluded in creating a system in which publicly financed research ends up controlled by private publishers. And it is the academics that are ultimately responsible, because they could end this system tomorrow if they wanted to.
And that's because the people of the hinterlands should pay the Barbara Hudsons of this world to live in expensive cities! After all, you deserve it, and screw everybody else, right?
So stay there and stop telling Americans what to do about basic income or health care or anything else. You made your choice, now live with it.
This system of commercial publishing of academic research is nothing new; it arose in Europe and at Europe's public universities long ago. And it continues because academics, publishers, and European governments are so cozy with each other.
And many other people find that they can't move to a medical mecca like SF because they can't afford it. Not only do you demand that we pay for your medical care, you demand that we pay for medical care and a place to live that we would not and could not afford for ourselves. How greedy and selfish can you be?
In any case, what are you complaining about? You live in Canada, don't you? Aren't you happy with your single payer health care system and your government supported housing?
Looks like the mask is slipping.
Someone releasing a closed source version of an open source project doesn't affect the freedom of the open source project.
Linux is an old project, as is gcc. If you look at newer open source projects, they are (1) largely started by private companies and (2) increasingly under more liberal licenses than the GPL. Note that Torvalds has rejected more recent version of the GPL, and gcc is increasingly being replaced by clang.
Well, and a lot of people share that personal preference. Since the "actual work" of execs needs to get done, they get paid more for their "actual work" than you do for yours.
Yes, the question we are talking about is basic income, and basic income is irrelevant to people with disabilities because they are already receiving disability payments; that is, whether we adopt basic income or not, people with disabilities wouldn't receive anything more than they already are receiving. Furthermore, as the OP pointed out, a basic income is not designed to pay for living in an expensive place.
You're (presumably) a legally competent adult and you are receiving disability payments, and you make your own decisions according to your means, your support structure, and your abilities, like everybody else, disabled or not.
Living in a place like SF (or Montreal) is probably a poor decision for you, both financially and socially, but it's ultimately up to you. A smaller town or city likely has better support and is safer and cheaper as well. If you are unable to live on your own, you might consider an assisted living facility. If you keep running into problems like you describe, that is a good indication that you should probably consider moving and making other changes in your life.
Restricting gun ownership is clearly ineffective as a method for reducing homicides, so, yes, the relationship you imply doesn't exist.
More important, a "war on guns" would be even more harmful than the "war on drugs" has been, while being even less effective in helping people. Do you really want to give police even more of an ability to detain people, invade their homes, sift through their receipts and finances, and increase the racial divide? Because that would be the consequences. You have to love a police state if you want a war on guns.
Other countries had much lower gun deaths per capita before they implemented gun control. And if you look at recent examples like Australia, the effect of gun control was nil.
There is essentially no relationship between gun control and homicides, or gun ownership and homicides. People like you promoting that idea are utterly unscientific and irrational. You pick and choose your data to try to reach a pre-determined conclusions, and facts apparently don't matter to you. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Take other, random sequences of integers with the same density within the integers. I wouldn't be surprised if you find similar anomalies.
No, he is arguing in favor of freedom. Freedom is meaningless if it doesn't include the freedom to do things others disapprove of. Software licenses are a mechanism for achieving freedom. RMS believes that the best way to achieve freedom is through restrictive licenses backed by the coercive power of the state (copyright, courts, police). Other people believe that the best way to achieve freedom is through non-restrictive licenses and by example. Which of those mechanisms is better is an empirical question, but at this point, it looks like RMS is losing the debate.
Or, alternatively, you might also say that RMS has won the debate but just doesn't want to admit it: the GPL was never intended to be a permanent solution, it was intended to be transitional, until people have learned the benefits of sharing and do it freely. Well, that's what's been happening, with the vast amounts of software released under "do anything, just don't sue us" licenses by private companies.
Personally, I thank RMS for his original contributions and getting people use to the idea of sharing software, but I think his task is done, and for now, at least, the BSD and Apache licenses are better choices for most projects.
The GNU project should do a bit more background research before starting new projects. Here are some links to open source deep learning tools. These are the same tools and libraries used by those "money driven companies" in their projects, including AlphaGo:
Caffe, widely used C++ deep learning framework.
Theano, widely used Python deep learning framework.
Torch, the software used by Google, AlphaGo and Facebook.
TensorFlow, Google's large scale machine learning framework.
CNTK, Microsoft's deep learning toolkit.
I think "combining all the means-tested and needs-tested programs" into a basic income would be great. But that's not what we are discussing here. All I did was point out that there are plenty of jobs around the country, so anybody who wants to leave SF right now can already do so.
As for what you are, your online presence has clarified that: you live in a hell of your own making. What a sad life.
Of course, that even presumes that reducing gun deaths should be a direct policy goal of federal policy at all, something many people disagree with.
People who can't get a job due to disability are already covered by disability payments. "Basic income" is something that is paid to everybody regardless of disability or other life circumstances. That's the whole point of "basic income" and what distinguishes it from other government programs: that it is not means tested or need based.
Are you really as stupid as you seem to be, or are you just a troll?
Could this run on Raspberry Pi or does that lack some necessary hardware support?
Java security has pretty much always been broken in one way or another anyway, so who cares?
Apple's phones already have backdoors. The spat between the FBI and Apple is a charade: Apple gives a false impression of privacy, and the FBI is downplaying its capabilities.
(1) The government doesn't have any choice in the matter. Cryptography is so easy to implement these days that anyone who wants to can use it. (2) I guess Obama's mask has come off now, and his isn't trying to hide his complete disdain for civil liberties and privacy. Obviously, his original campaign promises were just lies.
If you really desire to be a "top-level exec", why don't you go for it?
Sure, if you want to look stupid and irresponsible, go ahead and whine and complain all you like. Just don't expect any help, and be prepared for the fact that you are increasingly pissing off both investors and voters.
Furthermore, having someone who is disabled in my family, a caring family would move with them anyway, not just because it's the right thing to do, but also because it's the rational thing to do.
Your comment is nothing short of idiotic.
Yes, and there's a reason for that: higher level positions are both a lot harder and a lot riskier.
We don't need to provide people with a "basic income". If you're willing to move and willing to work, there are plenty of places in the country where you can get by just fine in some job.