No they won't have to. Instead of adding up all the different kinds of robots in a company, you can simply tax the whole company a fixed percentage of its sales.
Taxing individual robots makes things very complicated.
Docking with a train becomes pointless in a self driving car. We use long trains now, because they only require one driver, reducing cost. There is no cost reduction from docking with a car in front of you. Instead, you can just drive right behind it, and go on a different course whenever you need.
Same with 4-8 seaters. Going on a route to pick up people wastes a bunch of time, plus people don't want to share a ride with a bunch of strangers, or have to stop at some place to pick someone up, and find out that person isn't there yet. Also, the efficiency of multi seaters isn't that great if they aren't full, especially not if we get lightweight single seaters.
How many of them are going to be able to learn to do something better/more valuable? If they could have, wouldn't many of them already have done so?
The move to the "passenger economy" will create a bunch of new jobs, just like every other time that we've invented technology to take over jobs in the last 1000 years. Before we had alarm clocks, people had jobs to go down the streets and wake people up by knocking on their bedroom windows with a long stick, or lighting the street lamps. We had pinsetters that would set up the pins in a bowling alley. We had professional leech collectors for bloodletting, switchboard operators at phone companies. We had ice cutters that would remove chunks of ice from a lake to help you keep your food cool. Tons of old jobs are gone forever, and yet, unemployment is around record low levels.
If you can call a vehicle on demand, why would you call a huge 4 person vehicle for 1 person?
You wouldn't. You'd call a single seater vehicle instead. The only reason we have single drivers in 4 person vehicles is because people need 4 seats in the weekend, and they don't want to get 3 different cars. But if you can call a vehicle for a single use, it makes sense to get exactly what you need.
What does a computer playing a game with a strict set of rules have to do with self-driving cars? Nothing.
The rules of the game are simple and strict, but evaluation of the board is extremely hard and fuzzy. Comparable to driving, actually. There is a strict number of rules driving a car, but complicated evaluation.
Already we are seeing that processor speed is only marginally improving year over year.
My point exactly. The sudden breakthrough of AlphaGo had little to do with slowly improving processor speeds, but mostly with some guys coming up with a few clever ideas. And this year's version was running on dedicated hardware, not general purpose processors, so it could gain orders of magnitude improvement in a single year.
Progress in this field is impossible to predict, because it's not proceeding in a linear fashion, but rather it jumps forward every time someone has a good idea. Look at AlphaGo. Given the progress before that, people thought such a program was at least a decade away, but all of a sudden it was there.
But what would happen in an UBI system with someone who gets the same amount of children ? Would they starve, because the UBI level is fixed ? If that is what we want, we can simply remove the welfare payouts for extra children.
Get a paper, with a stamp on it. Walk 10 meters (30 feet) and hand over the paper to somebody else who reads it as if I where able to falsify it somehow in those 10 meters.
The first check is done by an immigration officer. The second check is customs. Two different jobs with different responsibilities.
The "hour" that's been mentioned is a rough estimate for the amount of work that would need to be done to handle the visa application. It's not an estimated increase of the amount of time that it will take for passengers to travel through an airport.
Ok. I got confused by the example based on JFK airport. But still, there are two wrong assumptions: 30 million passengers are not all foreigners. A lot of them will be travelling on a US passport. And the "hour" is grossly exaggerated, because all you have to do is run the account names through a computer, to see if they are associated with suspicious behavior that has been analyzed previously.
Why are you still talking as if the GP was talking about employer-provided incentives when the GP was very clearly talking about personal incentives?
Because GP's statement that the personal incentives would dramatically increase are only true if the employer-provided incentives stay the same under the UBI program. That's not going to be the case. Salaries will drop, such that the personal incentives for work stay just as modest as they are now.
That said, your notion that people would tend to only try to work up to $1200/mo take-home income (far below the US poverty line) is silly. And contradicted by the study that forms the basis of this Slashdot article.
Feel free to double or triple the dollar amounts. It doesn't change the argument.
The only benefit of under-the-table would be to hide the extra cash from taxation. People do that anyway.
It's harder to do on welfare, because (at least where I live) you need to show that you've been applying for jobs, which would interfere with working a full job somewhere else.
Aka, under most welfare systems, there's a "welfare cliff" where if a person works more, their income actually drops as they lose their benefits - and thus there's a disincentive to work past that cliff
Correct. But people do it anyway. For example, someone on $900 welfare who switches to a $1200 job is apparently willing to work full time in order to get $300 more. Now, imagine the same person on $900 UBI, with the same motivation, will do the same amount of work to get to the $1200 level. This means that the employer only needs to give $300 in incentives to get the same number of people working for him, instead of $1200.
In order words, incentives to work will not be "dramatically" increased. They'll stay roughly the same due to market forces.
That's not how visas work. You can still get sent back despite having a perfectly valid visa
Sure, I simplified the process a bit, but that's irrelevant. The point is that they aren't going to spend an hour at the immigration desk going through your social media status, because that's already been processed.
The waves travel at light speed. The earth is sufficiently big to give noticeable delta in detection times, which allows you to find the place in the sky where the source of the waves is, no matter how far the object.
You still get your full UBI regardless of how much money you make, dramatically increasing the incentives to work.
No, because employers don't want to dramatically increase the incentives. They are getting enough employees with the current system, so with UBI, they can lower the wages, and still get enough people.
What they "detected" was random noise. Nothing to see here.
They have two detectors now, one in Washington and the other in Louisiana. If they both trigger at nearly the same time, it's not random noise. This summer they'll add a third station in Pisa, Italy, which should not only help to collaborate the results, but also allow to triangulate the source.
No one cares WHEN the vetting is done, it still HAS to be done and it still takes the same amount of work no matter when it is done.
It's not that hard. You make a one-time database of all social media accounts, passport numbers, and e-mail addresses, and flag everyone that you consider suspicious (they probably already have that). When a visa applicant comes in, you run their history through the database. Add the data to their existing risk profile, and continue with standard procedures. Maybe you'll spend a bit more time on persons that are flagged, but in return you can afford to spend less time on people that aren't.
Re 'All prior passport numbers?" Most normal nations will be able to give that to their own citizens. Most normal nations keep their passports and passport numbers very secure. So that passport list would be an enquiry a person can be expected to make in their own nation given they have a passport in 2017.
Yes, I'm sure my country's bureaucrats can provide such a list for only $39.95 per person.
That means 82,191 passengers need vetting each day. Assuming they each take one hour
It doesn't take any longer than it does now. If they have a valid visa, then you let them in. If they don't, you send them back, just like now. All the vetting has already been done during visa application.
Slashdot Mirror
No they won't have to. Instead of adding up all the different kinds of robots in a company, you can simply tax the whole company a fixed percentage of its sales.
Taxing individual robots makes things very complicated.
Docking with a train becomes pointless in a self driving car. We use long trains now, because they only require one driver, reducing cost. There is no cost reduction from docking with a car in front of you. Instead, you can just drive right behind it, and go on a different course whenever you need.
Same with 4-8 seaters. Going on a route to pick up people wastes a bunch of time, plus people don't want to share a ride with a bunch of strangers, or have to stop at some place to pick someone up, and find out that person isn't there yet. Also, the efficiency of multi seaters isn't that great if they aren't full, especially not if we get lightweight single seaters.
How many of them are going to be able to learn to do something better/more valuable? If they could have, wouldn't many of them already have done so?
The move to the "passenger economy" will create a bunch of new jobs, just like every other time that we've invented technology to take over jobs in the last 1000 years. Before we had alarm clocks, people had jobs to go down the streets and wake people up by knocking on their bedroom windows with a long stick, or lighting the street lamps. We had pinsetters that would set up the pins in a bowling alley. We had professional leech collectors for bloodletting, switchboard operators at phone companies. We had ice cutters that would remove chunks of ice from a lake to help you keep your food cool. Tons of old jobs are gone forever, and yet, unemployment is around record low levels.
If you can call a vehicle on demand, why would you call a huge 4 person vehicle for 1 person?
You wouldn't. You'd call a single seater vehicle instead. The only reason we have single drivers in 4 person vehicles is because people need 4 seats in the weekend, and they don't want to get 3 different cars. But if you can call a vehicle for a single use, it makes sense to get exactly what you need.
What does a computer playing a game with a strict set of rules have to do with self-driving cars? Nothing.
The rules of the game are simple and strict, but evaluation of the board is extremely hard and fuzzy. Comparable to driving, actually. There is a strict number of rules driving a car, but complicated evaluation.
Already we are seeing that processor speed is only marginally improving year over year.
My point exactly. The sudden breakthrough of AlphaGo had little to do with slowly improving processor speeds, but mostly with some guys coming up with a few clever ideas. And this year's version was running on dedicated hardware, not general purpose processors, so it could gain orders of magnitude improvement in a single year.
The article/summary is confused. It just means that an overall passenger economy will save 1/2 million lives.
Even 2035 is being too optimistic.
Progress in this field is impossible to predict, because it's not proceeding in a linear fashion, but rather it jumps forward every time someone has a good idea. Look at AlphaGo. Given the progress before that, people thought such a program was at least a decade away, but all of a sudden it was there.
Who's going to pay when these cars get in wrecks?
The insurance company, and they get the premiums from the passengers riding in them.
Using the time delta with only two detectors means the source "location" is defined by a cone.
That's why they're adding a 3rd detector.
But what would happen in an UBI system with someone who gets the same amount of children ? Would they starve, because the UBI level is fixed ? If that is what we want, we can simply remove the welfare payouts for extra children.
Get a paper, with a stamp on it. Walk 10 meters (30 feet) and hand over the paper to somebody else who reads it as if I where able to falsify it somehow in those 10 meters.
The first check is done by an immigration officer. The second check is customs. Two different jobs with different responsibilities.
The "hour" that's been mentioned is a rough estimate for the amount of work that would need to be done to handle the visa application. It's not an estimated increase of the amount of time that it will take for passengers to travel through an airport.
Ok. I got confused by the example based on JFK airport. But still, there are two wrong assumptions: 30 million passengers are not all foreigners. A lot of them will be travelling on a US passport. And the "hour" is grossly exaggerated, because all you have to do is run the account names through a computer, to see if they are associated with suspicious behavior that has been analyzed previously.
Why are you still talking as if the GP was talking about employer-provided incentives when the GP was very clearly talking about personal incentives?
Because GP's statement that the personal incentives would dramatically increase are only true if the employer-provided incentives stay the same under the UBI program. That's not going to be the case. Salaries will drop, such that the personal incentives for work stay just as modest as they are now.
That said, your notion that people would tend to only try to work up to $1200/mo take-home income (far below the US poverty line) is silly. And contradicted by the study that forms the basis of this Slashdot article.
Feel free to double or triple the dollar amounts. It doesn't change the argument.
The only benefit of under-the-table would be to hide the extra cash from taxation. People do that anyway.
It's harder to do on welfare, because (at least where I live) you need to show that you've been applying for jobs, which would interfere with working a full job somewhere else.
I'm afraid the "whoosh" is on your side.
Aka, under most welfare systems, there's a "welfare cliff" where if a person works more, their income actually drops as they lose their benefits - and thus there's a disincentive to work past that cliff
Correct. But people do it anyway. For example, someone on $900 welfare who switches to a $1200 job is apparently willing to work full time in order to get $300 more. Now, imagine the same person on $900 UBI, with the same motivation, will do the same amount of work to get to the $1200 level. This means that the employer only needs to give $300 in incentives to get the same number of people working for him, instead of $1200.
In order words, incentives to work will not be "dramatically" increased. They'll stay roughly the same due to market forces.
That's not how visas work. You can still get sent back despite having a perfectly valid visa
Sure, I simplified the process a bit, but that's irrelevant. The point is that they aren't going to spend an hour at the immigration desk going through your social media status, because that's already been processed.
The waves travel at light speed. The earth is sufficiently big to give noticeable delta in detection times, which allows you to find the place in the sky where the source of the waves is, no matter how far the object.
You still get your full UBI regardless of how much money you make, dramatically increasing the incentives to work.
No, because employers don't want to dramatically increase the incentives. They are getting enough employees with the current system, so with UBI, they can lower the wages, and still get enough people.
What they "detected" was random noise. Nothing to see here.
They have two detectors now, one in Washington and the other in Louisiana. If they both trigger at nearly the same time, it's not random noise. This summer they'll add a third station in Pisa, Italy, which should not only help to collaborate the results, but also allow to triangulate the source.
No one cares WHEN the vetting is done, it still HAS to be done and it still takes the same amount of work no matter when it is done.
It's not that hard. You make a one-time database of all social media accounts, passport numbers, and e-mail addresses, and flag everyone that you consider suspicious (they probably already have that). When a visa applicant comes in, you run their history through the database. Add the data to their existing risk profile, and continue with standard procedures. Maybe you'll spend a bit more time on persons that are flagged, but in return you can afford to spend less time on people that aren't.
Re 'All prior passport numbers?" Most normal nations will be able to give that to their own citizens. Most normal nations keep their passports and passport numbers very secure. So that passport list would be an enquiry a person can be expected to make in their own nation given they have a passport in 2017.
Yes, I'm sure my country's bureaucrats can provide such a list for only $39.95 per person.
That means 82,191 passengers need vetting each day. Assuming they each take one hour
It doesn't take any longer than it does now. If they have a valid visa, then you let them in. If they don't, you send them back, just like now. All the vetting has already been done during visa application.
Why should a more elaborate visa application result in extra delays at the airport ? You get your visa before you travel.
So what percentage of the current climate shift is natural versus induced by man?
It's about 110% caused by man, and -10% by nature. You can find the details in the latest IPCC report.
Better still, if we shut down all Petroleum Production and usage today, what would the economic impact be and how many people would die because of it?
That has nothing to do with AGW science.
Please don't try to make the place I like exactly like your place.
I don't care what you do. Just stating my observation.