The theory that wealth is a cake, and if someone else has a bigger share, it must be because he took some of yours is the basis of all left wing thinking - the politics of jealousy.
However, it is not completely wrong: the value of something exists because people want it. You want what you have not got, and someone else has: all value essentially derives from jealousy.
The stinking rich mostly believe that wealth can be created, sometimes because they actually created some themselves. At other times, because they can't tell the difference between creating wealth and stealing other people's.
The main problem with genuine communism is that the state is chronically risk averse, and consequently not creative, and therefore cannot create wealth. it also does not stop people from being jealous.
America is totally fucked: the wealth is in the hands of the few because almost everybody is jealous as fuck of a bunch of greedy half-wits.
In reality, if you share out the existing wealth, the creative can always create more and improve their lot, and will always be in a better position than those who only consume. The lazy will continue to be poor and jealous, but possibly marginally less so. They will definitely be less hungry, and a hungry man is an angry man. Angry men are dangerous. Somehow, most people find this hard to understand. As someone else said: the point of UBI is to prevent the peasants revolting, but it might benefit everyone as a side effect.
The idea that you help those in need because one day you might be in need has actually worked OK in Europe. Obviously it is not perfect, but the reality is that, mostly people are protected from dire poverty by the system. Some of them live their entire lives in poor conditions, and some manage to climb out. It is work in progress. And sometimes it goes backwards a bit.
The current problem we have in the UK is the system has become corrupt so property owners can milk the system at the expense of everyone else. This could be fixed, but obviously won't be while the party in power mainly represents property owners, and the opposition is mostly people with no understanding of reality at all.
UBI is based on the theory that it is basic, that is where the B comes from. The same theory says:
Once you are not at immediate risk of being homeless and starving, the majority of humans will actively work to improve their lot, and will be in a situation where they can think about how to do this best in the long term rather than desperately undertaking any work they can get, which consumes their entire time, leaving none for long term planning.
With the ability to invest their time seeking a goal that may not pay off in the short term, they can go for far greater goals - inventing, creating, building a better future for all.
if you are going to remove the options of pumping gas, Uber driving and shelf stacking as a way of surviving when your employment collapses, then either you do this, or you can reasonably expect a re-run of the French revolution - which is effectively what is happening in a lot of the world already (ISIS, Boko Haram, etc). Once the killing starts, it is very hard to stop, and when you have nothing, the guy with 5c is a "filthy capitalist bastard".
You can now make your own skill without writing code.
Now you can create a skill without having a skill yourself. It is a short step to "now you can create a skill with no brains", which is the start of a slippery slope towards "now only people with no brains can create skills".
The general process is that there is a "European directive" - which is essentially guidance as to what each European country should enact, and then they do so, in line with local practicality and custom, at the pace they are comfortable with.
However, in the case of data protection, the GDPR (Google is your fiend), will apply from 25 May 2018*, all across Europe, including the UK, even after Brexit. Penalties are EUR25Million or 4% of your global turnover. Hopefully, per offence of face recognition of non-subscribers. I do not doubt that a great many European citizens are campaigning at this minute for jail sentences for Zuk and the like, but the legal system is happy to take payment by plastic.
There is no question whatsoever that facial recognition of non-subscribers is a very serious offence under the GDPR.
It would most definitely require prior, informed consent, and registry with the Information Commissioner's Office before doing it, with a credible explanation of why you are doing it.Sure, you can take a photo of me in public without my consent. BUT if you publish it without my permission, I have the right to sue your balls off, and if you have any money, I am sure I can find a lawyer willing to do it for "no win-no fee".
Believe me, that is preferable to a visit from my friends with big sticks and angry rottweilers, or nuking from high orbit. So: stay within the law, and be happy the law is created by sane people!
* It applies to anyone in the EU collecting data, or anyone wherever, collecting data on live people in the EU, some countries may grant exemptions for dead people if the feel so inclined. The situation regarding Zombies is still TBD. This was announced two years ago, so you have had time to find out.
If this is the kind of shoddy treatment companies can now expect in this country then they should move overseas to where they
will get the piss knocked out of them in short order.
Their behaviour is completely unacceptable in any reasonable part of the world, and face recognition of people who are not even users falls into the sort of category associated with real WW2 Nazis.
Lets be reasonable here. its not the case that has no merit - its Facebook that has no merit.
When it comes to court, I hope they are found to lack standing, and also be deprived of the right to sit and lie down too.
Long jail sentences are required to set a good example.
using the words "legal" and "reality" in the same sentence is normally considered evidence of severe mental problems. I suggest you attend a medical practitioner at the earliest opportunity.
No, that is not the case. While haggling, the buyer is saying what he would like to pay, and the seller what he would like to receive. There is no implication that they expect it.
As to literacy, the Quakers and Anglicans would have been fairly literate, but the rest of the population was not, both in the UK and US. That probably did allow Quakers to use Excel spread sheets to set their pricing;-)
What the Quakers actually said was "my price is the same for any man, be he a pauper or a king".
I was taught that the Quakers started doing this in the early 1700's here (UK). My school was founded in 1703.
I was never convinced about the morality though. I have lived in countries where they still haggle. I bought coffee and milk from the same person nearly every day for six months, and I am pretty sure I never paid the same amount twice. Its not just about how well the customer is, or otherwise - its also about how keen the seller is to get money quick. If you are really poor, you still may get the seller to sell at a loss, rather than carry their wares home after closing time, especially if the goods are perishable. (Also true in London markets today).
In the 1700's most people self employed, and were able to control their own destiny more than employees can (if you were an employee, you were not in a good position at all).
But the video is correct, in a big store, fixed prices are definitely an advantage.
And haggling school? well just try taking a taxi in any third world country - you either get it pretty quickly, or you will go broke! However, in the spirit of equality, Uber is bringing the Third world to everyone, everywhere.
There is a difference between protecting data on my phone and protecting data travelling from my phone over the internet possibly from a hotel in America to a bank in my home country
And let's not pretend anything in the government's hands is safe. You might recall a fairly well known event where a guy called Snowdon managed to get hold of all the US Governmetn's secret stuff. How many others have also got it, but kept their mouths shut?
Rest assured, other governments are no better at keeping data secret. The UK government has a habit of leaving top secret data on laptops in pubs or taxis. I would be astonished to hear that any government does significantly better.
Remember, half the population is of below average intelligence, and the government employs a lot of people. Them odds ain't good.
Why do people buy replicas of old cars but without any modern conveniences
I would love a replica of a D-type Jaguar. They look fantastic, but the brakes and steering of the original are not up to modern standards by a very long way.
Because new cars are full of unrepairable electronics, and mechanical parts precision engineered to die just after the warranty expires. This destroys their second hand value.
If older cars have survived 30 years, with a small amount of maintenance, they can be made to survive another 30.
The "convenience features" of modern cars are mostly plastic bits that break off once the plastic has aged a bit. And the metal panels are so thin you can dent them with one finger.
Slashdot Mirror
The Sahara was tropical rainforest till a bunch of people developed camels and goats, which ate the green stuff, roots and all.
However, it is not completely wrong: the value of something exists because people want it. You want what you have not got, and someone else has: all value essentially derives from jealousy.
The stinking rich mostly believe that wealth can be created, sometimes because they actually created some themselves. At other times, because they can't tell the difference between creating wealth and stealing other people's.
The main problem with genuine communism is that the state is chronically risk averse, and consequently not creative, and therefore cannot create wealth. it also does not stop people from being jealous.
America is totally fucked: the wealth is in the hands of the few because almost everybody is jealous as fuck of a bunch of greedy half-wits.
In reality, if you share out the existing wealth, the creative can always create more and improve their lot, and will always be in a better position than those who only consume. The lazy will continue to be poor and jealous, but possibly marginally less so. They will definitely be less hungry, and a hungry man is an angry man. Angry men are dangerous. Somehow, most people find this hard to understand. As someone else said: the point of UBI is to prevent the peasants revolting, but it might benefit everyone as a side effect.
The idea that you help those in need because one day you might be in need has actually worked OK in Europe. Obviously it is not perfect, but the reality is that, mostly people are protected from dire poverty by the system. Some of them live their entire lives in poor conditions, and some manage to climb out. It is work in progress. And sometimes it goes backwards a bit.
The current problem we have in the UK is the system has become corrupt so property owners can milk the system at the expense of everyone else. This could be fixed, but obviously won't be while the party in power mainly represents property owners, and the opposition is mostly people with no understanding of reality at all.
I believe "fear of death concentrates the mind wonderfully" is a perfectly good reason.
Large numbers of hungry people with the right to arm bears is not a recipe for the filthy rich to go on grinding people down for ever.
It's robots all the way down. So the turtles are redundant too?
Once you are not at immediate risk of being homeless and starving, the majority of humans will actively work to improve their lot, and will be in a situation where they can think about how to do this best in the long term rather than desperately undertaking any work they can get, which consumes their entire time, leaving none for long term planning.
With the ability to invest their time seeking a goal that may not pay off in the short term, they can go for far greater goals - inventing, creating, building a better future for all.
if you are going to remove the options of pumping gas, Uber driving and shelf stacking as a way of surviving when your employment collapses, then either you do this, or you can reasonably expect a re-run of the French revolution - which is effectively what is happening in a lot of the world already (ISIS, Boko Haram, etc). Once the killing starts, it is very hard to stop, and when you have nothing, the guy with 5c is a "filthy capitalist bastard".
Free? It looks bloody expensive tome!
So Facepalm is entitled to half lie to you, and sell half your personal data - the half that is most valuable to them.
However, you have the right to carry a half-concealed weapon and shoot Facepalm CxOs half-dead.
What is proposed here is dumping the zombies.
In this instance, AI probably stands for Actual Incompetence.
Now you can create a skill without having a skill yourself. It is a short step to "now you can create a skill with no brains", which is the start of a slippery slope towards "now only people with no brains can create skills".
Unlike the GP, who could have a UTF8 filed against them.
Its not instinct. They only do that when taught to do so by a diet of Hollywood movies.
No need to worry. At least we can be sure this one is a Corrupto-Currency.
It may be a way to solve the question, I am petty sure nuking from high orbit is a better one.
Slightly true.
The general process is that there is a "European directive" - which is essentially guidance as to what each European country should enact, and then they do so, in line with local practicality and custom, at the pace they are comfortable with.
However, in the case of data protection, the GDPR (Google is your fiend), will apply from 25 May 2018*, all across Europe, including the UK, even after Brexit. Penalties are EUR25Million or 4% of your global turnover. Hopefully, per offence of face recognition of non-subscribers. I do not doubt that a great many European citizens are campaigning at this minute for jail sentences for Zuk and the like, but the legal system is happy to take payment by plastic.
There is no question whatsoever that facial recognition of non-subscribers is a very serious offence under the GDPR.
It would most definitely require prior, informed consent, and registry with the Information Commissioner's Office before doing it, with a credible explanation of why you are doing it.Sure, you can take a photo of me in public without my consent. BUT if you publish it without my permission, I have the right to sue your balls off, and if you have any money, I am sure I can find a lawyer willing to do it for "no win-no fee".
Believe me, that is preferable to a visit from my friends with big sticks and angry rottweilers, or nuking from high orbit. So: stay within the law, and be happy the law is created by sane people!
* It applies to anyone in the EU collecting data, or anyone wherever, collecting data on live people in the EU, some countries may grant exemptions for dead people if the feel so inclined. The situation regarding Zombies is still TBD. This was announced two years ago, so you have had time to find out.
Nuke from high orbit - its the only way to be sure.
Their behaviour is completely unacceptable in any reasonable part of the world, and face recognition of people who are not even users falls into the sort of category associated with real WW2 Nazis.
Lets be reasonable here. its not the case that has no merit - its Facebook that has no merit.
When it comes to court, I hope they are found to lack standing, and also be deprived of the right to sit and lie down too.
Long jail sentences are required to set a good example.
using the words "legal" and "reality" in the same sentence is normally considered evidence of severe mental problems. I suggest you attend a medical practitioner at the earliest opportunity.
As to literacy, the Quakers and Anglicans would have been fairly literate, but the rest of the population was not, both in the UK and US. That probably did allow Quakers to use Excel spread sheets to set their pricing ;-)
What the Quakers actually said was "my price is the same for any man, be he a pauper or a king".
I was taught that the Quakers started doing this in the early 1700's here (UK). My school was founded in 1703.
I was never convinced about the morality though. I have lived in countries where they still haggle. I bought coffee and milk from the same person nearly every day for six months, and I am pretty sure I never paid the same amount twice. Its not just about how well the customer is, or otherwise - its also about how keen the seller is to get money quick. If you are really poor, you still may get the seller to sell at a loss, rather than carry their wares home after closing time, especially if the goods are perishable. (Also true in London markets today). In the 1700's most people self employed, and were able to control their own destiny more than employees can (if you were an employee, you were not in a good position at all).
But the video is correct, in a big store, fixed prices are definitely an advantage.
And haggling school? well just try taking a taxi in any third world country - you either get it pretty quickly, or you will go broke! However, in the spirit of equality, Uber is bringing the Third world to everyone, everywhere.
And let's not pretend anything in the government's hands is safe. You might recall a fairly well known event where a guy called Snowdon managed to get hold of all the US Governmetn's secret stuff. How many others have also got it, but kept their mouths shut?
Rest assured, other governments are no better at keeping data secret. The UK government has a habit of leaving top secret data on laptops in pubs or taxis. I would be astonished to hear that any government does significantly better.
Remember, half the population is of below average intelligence, and the government employs a lot of people.
Them odds ain't good.
The answer to quadrophnic remains unchanged:
I will buy Quadrophonic as soon as I have four ears!
I would love a replica of a D-type Jaguar. They look fantastic, but the brakes and steering of the original are not up to modern standards by a very long way.
Because new cars are full of unrepairable electronics, and mechanical parts precision engineered to die just after the warranty expires. This destroys their second hand value.
If older cars have survived 30 years, with a small amount of maintenance, they can be made to survive another 30.
The "convenience features" of modern cars are mostly plastic bits that break off once the plastic has aged a bit. And the metal panels are so thin you can dent them with one finger.
Wasn't the BSD licence there 20 years earlier?