Yea! How dare he take part in voluntary transactions for goods and services he provided! He made too many voluntary transactions because he made too much money! Unfettered greed! Communism! Means of production! REEEEEEEE
I'm sorry, he provided? His industriousness is certainly unparalleled. What do the other 565,999 employees do around there, anyway?
Not that I think you're wrong, but it will never happen, because AT&T won't let it happen.
Guess who owns all the people who make the regulations? AT&T.
My recollection is that there used to be hundreds of little ISPs that served the Internet up over dial-up phone lines. Over time of course the state of the art became DSL, coax cable and fiber. The broadband infrastructure is and was always owned by a variety of big companies. But the bottom line is that for one reason or the other all the small ISPs have been bought up by the big players, the Bells have been remerged into AT&T due to deregulation, and there has been considerable consolidation in the cable space, leaving most consumers without a lot of choice. AT&T in the summary essentially parrots this.
No one is doubting that there is regulation, but I would need to see something more than your post to draw any conclusions about whether lots of regulation keeps little guys from starting ISP businesses or if it's really just the big companies being anti-competitive. Certainly there used to be lots of little ISPs but perhaps the landscape has shifted to much more regulation in the last 15 years? By all means, back up your post with some substance.
Dude, come on, you're totally fucking up his narrative!
Indeed. I'm failing to see the benefit of this device. There are already trackers on the market for much less you can place on your car. I don't see the advantage of having an e-ink license plate. Why have something fragile on the back of my car when I can have a $2 piece of metal on the back.
This is the modern tech world. It has brought you such innovations as the vending machine, taxi, roommates, and the electric juicer! It's really an indication that our society's needs are so overfilled that people are having a harder and harder time coming up with new, real value.
You think immigration is the only think to have changed since 1975? I'm not even sure that's true. Has immigration changed since 1975? I can't be bothered to find out. But the fact that you jump to that idea says a lot about you.
Don't let fear control you. Look for ways you can make positive changes in your life to bring you more happiness or satisfaction. There have been and always will be immigrants. They are not your problem. Even if we closed all the borders and didn't let anyone in, your life would be largely the same. That's because your problem is your own mentality and outlook. But that's good news! You can change your outlook and see things differently if you choose to. You can't really do much about immigrants, except bitch about them on the Internet. So focus on yourself and what you are thinking and feeling. Any change in your life starts with you.
You can hire people with fewer skills to do that job. You might take it for granted that not everyone knows how to drive or necessarily came from somewhere where most of the population owns automobiles. If Europe hopes to integrate their growing immigrant population, they're going to need for those people to have jobs and to be out in society.
Some of those people are very low skill and a lack of language proficiency may remove other job opportunities as well. This type of job almost seems like a perfect match for someone who lacks most vocational skills and doesn't yet have a strong grasp of the local language. It might not seem like much to you or I, but it's something.
This person will have to take over at a moment's notice, likely in a hazardous situation. I'd think they would need to know how to drive.
When I was young, the smartly-uniformed milkman delivered all sorts of things up and down the garden path, and while he was doing that the bored horse moved the milk-float (some yards behind it) to align with the next house that had regular orders. People forget what was possible in a less techno-mad world.
What I don't get is what is the point of having an autonomous vehicle if it has to have a human chaperone? Why doens't the human just drive the vehicle?
"I take no pleasure in saying this, but we've been warning for the past 8 years that the Orwellian surveillance programs instituted under the Obama administration could fall into the hands of someone that people may trust less," said Kade Crockford, the director of the ACLU of Massachusetts' Technology For Liberty program. "We now find ourselves in exactly that situation."
It actually started under Bush, after 9/11. But that doesn't matter. Neither party cares enough about the rights of citizens.
LOL. Trump's staffers get hounded from restaurants and you lefties still think he's Hitler incarnate.
Well, why do you think they're being hounded out of restaurants? Turns out actions have consequences, even for God-fearing people like Sarah Sanders. Some of us can see what's right in front of our faces. I can't make you see what you don't want to see.
Eh, not gonna worry about that unless "they" start throwing the kids into ovens. Meanwhile those kids can enjoy their air conditioned concentration camps.
Oh, come off it. You won't care then either.
At least today the Nazis among us feel free enough to self-identify.
The problem is that to take away this power, you'll need to invest power into the government. This power will then be abused, as it has been every other time someone has blindly followed this suggestion. Why else do so many experiments promising "Socialism" end up as dictatorships?
Isn't the company you work for, or run, a dictatorship? It sure ain't a democracy. The power you don't invest in government will be picked up by someone else. That someone else will likely be answerable only to those with more power. That's not you.
The whole reason we have a democratic government is because if we didn't we would have warlords or strongmen. It's really either-or, in a complex society. Government is at least answerable to the people, if the people get organized. Corporations and gangs are not. You either have everyone participating in government, or you have might-makes-right. Is government perfect? Hell no! You need people who want it to work. But that's the case with every system.
You will either be ruled by a government, or you will be ruled by the guy with the most money or the most guns. With government, at least you can vote and lobby to make change. They guys with money or guns don't care what you think and don't have to.
Do YOU even know what you mean by that? Or is it just something you heard Alex Jones say and so you thought it must be true?
Here is a good example. This woman is so toxically vicious that Democrats are trying to stuff her back into her cage like a rabid pit bull:
https://www.realclearpolitics....
Funny how Republicans never seem to do that. They put their toxically vicious people at the top of the ticket. Maxine Waters has said she advocates only peaceful protest. 404: Advocating violence not found. The Democrats are only trying to shut her up because they have no balls.
Private prisons are not inherently bad but there can be problems like with any government operation that can use power of the state for corrupt purposes profiting specific people and companies.
Actually, they really are inherently bad. The companies are making money by locking people up, and therefore have a profit motive to maximize the number of people incarcerated, and for as long as possible. The incentive structure is just inherently fucked up. As you point out, it is also ripe for abuse and corruption. It's just bad all around.
Your bonus reason 3 is bogus and not substantiated by fact.
Your bonus reason 4 is bogus and not substantiated by fact. Hippies also suck ass. The left is advocating violence and harassment. Maybe they need a time alone in a cage to think about their actions.
If you are interested, you should research the origins of the War on Drugs. It really is about racism and going after political enemies.
It is unfortunate that the ridiculous listing of marijuana as "Schedule 1" makes it so difficult and dogmatic to do useful research and create useful products.
I chuckled when I read the summary, because the US government is now officially contradicting itself. Schedule 1 drugs have a high potential for abuse and no knows medical use. Now we have the FDA approving a medical use. As a regular marijuana user, I appreciate the absurdity.
hilarious how the populace turns a blind eye to the government that sponsors the most terrorism, the most malware, the most regional destabilizing, the one that gives support to the world's cruelest dictators.....yes, that's the USA.
Ssshh! America's rosy self-image must not be disturbed.
Our poor in the US are far and away better off than regular citizens in many other countries so your claims are clearly unfounded and nothing more than a arrogant cheap shot.
-geekpoet
This is what people in America tell themselves so that they don't have to readjust their rosy view. 7.4% of the people in the US don't necessarily know where their next meal is coming from. You think that's the case for "regular citizens" of other countries?
How's about a better example then. Since your 'civilised' country still has backwards, barbaric drug policies that increase the level of harm, because they're unwilling to accept science and reason because of moral judgements, how do drug dealers handle a cashless economy?
(No country has acknowleged the failure of the War on Drugs and eliminated prohibition as their policy for drugs beyond pot. Only Portugal has even decriminalized personal possession of tiny quantities, still miles away from what a civilized, rational country would do if their interest actually was minimizing the harm of hard drugs; limited-access heroin maintenance programs are similarly far too narrow in scope to count. More civilized than the US != civilized)
The American War on Drugs, as you may know, is a political monster; not a scientific one. It was begun so that the Nixon administration could go after the leaders of the civil rights movement and the anti-war left. It is no surprise that it doesn't achieve its stated goals. It was never designed to. It has however somewhat achieved its actual goals, in that black people are over-represented in American prisons. It is a national disgrace that America has yet to come to terms with.
That touches on my main worry about cashless: power concentration. You don't feel it until a bit later when this concentrated power decides to use it .
- Let's introduce negative interest rates
- from now on we don't want you to pay to fund organisations of type X
- from now on it is impossible to do trade with person Y
Checks and balances, there's a reason for it.
Yes, and these reasons are why, once you go cashless, they have you by the balls. No more private or anonymous transactions. You will be forced to keep your money in the bank; where else could it be? There will be a record of every transaction; data mining on steroids. Unfortunately, most people only see the convenience, and don't have the foresight or imagination to understand all of the implications.
UBI, whether a left-wing concept or a right-wing concept, is fundamentally barbaric because it treats individuals as property of the state. I'd be more interested in a libertarian-style UBI, i.e. one that is opt-in and driven purely by charity, but that's because I put justice above the various notions of "fairness" invented by statists of both wings.
If charity were sufficient, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Strange then that the Federal Reserve is worried about wage inflation and trying to calm Wall Street fears that wages are increasing overall as the labor pool shrinks because fewer people are looking for a job.
Not that strange, considering who the Fed works for and prioritizes in its decisions.
Balancing a checkbook is easy but nobody under 40 does it anymore because it's pointless. The vast majority of transactions these days are digital and the balance of your account is available with a few clicks on your phone. Most millennials will only write a handful of checks in their lives. Gen Z will probably kill them for good.
No! This is the most stupidest thing I've read today. Yes, I realize I'm reading and posting to a 0 score but this thinking has to be corrected.
Balancing your checkbook is basic accounting 101. You don't use it just to keep track of how much money you spend. You use to make sure the bank hasn't committed a error on your statement, or that someone isn't stealing money from your account. Never trust what the bank tells you.
Not all transactions show up on a digital statement right away. Digital transactions first show up as a pending entry in your statement. Those are entries that have not cleared. Those pending transactions can vanish off your account in a few days only to come back as a cleared statement.
Checks on the other hand do not show up on your digital statement till they are cashed. For this to happen you are at the mercy of the person holding the check. They could hold that check for a few days or in some cases a few months.
You must keep track of your own money. Do not rely on the bank to do this.
I can't argue with anything you're saying. But I am 45 years old and have never balanced my checkbook in my life. I look at my bank statement, and if it looks right, I go on with life.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea! How dare he take part in voluntary transactions for goods and services he provided! He made too many voluntary transactions because he made too much money! Unfettered greed! Communism! Means of production! REEEEEEEE
I'm sorry, he provided? His industriousness is certainly unparalleled. What do the other 565,999 employees do around there, anyway?
If you arent a criminal it doesn't affect you.
Define criminal, and then somehow convince me that definition will never change.
Not that I think you're wrong, but it will never happen, because AT&T won't let it happen. Guess who owns all the people who make the regulations? AT&T.
But, I thought it was the "Left"!
My recollection is that there used to be hundreds of little ISPs that served the Internet up over dial-up phone lines. Over time of course the state of the art became DSL, coax cable and fiber. The broadband infrastructure is and was always owned by a variety of big companies. But the bottom line is that for one reason or the other all the small ISPs have been bought up by the big players, the Bells have been remerged into AT&T due to deregulation, and there has been considerable consolidation in the cable space, leaving most consumers without a lot of choice. AT&T in the summary essentially parrots this. No one is doubting that there is regulation, but I would need to see something more than your post to draw any conclusions about whether lots of regulation keeps little guys from starting ISP businesses or if it's really just the big companies being anti-competitive. Certainly there used to be lots of little ISPs but perhaps the landscape has shifted to much more regulation in the last 15 years? By all means, back up your post with some substance.
Dude, come on, you're totally fucking up his narrative!
Indeed. I'm failing to see the benefit of this device. There are already trackers on the market for much less you can place on your car. I don't see the advantage of having an e-ink license plate. Why have something fragile on the back of my car when I can have a $2 piece of metal on the back.
This is the modern tech world. It has brought you such innovations as the vending machine, taxi, roommates, and the electric juicer! It's really an indication that our society's needs are so overfilled that people are having a harder and harder time coming up with new, real value.
What's changed since '75 ?
Immigration.
You think immigration is the only think to have changed since 1975? I'm not even sure that's true. Has immigration changed since 1975? I can't be bothered to find out. But the fact that you jump to that idea says a lot about you.
Don't let fear control you. Look for ways you can make positive changes in your life to bring you more happiness or satisfaction. There have been and always will be immigrants. They are not your problem. Even if we closed all the borders and didn't let anyone in, your life would be largely the same. That's because your problem is your own mentality and outlook. But that's good news! You can change your outlook and see things differently if you choose to. You can't really do much about immigrants, except bitch about them on the Internet. So focus on yourself and what you are thinking and feeling. Any change in your life starts with you.
You can hire people with fewer skills to do that job. You might take it for granted that not everyone knows how to drive or necessarily came from somewhere where most of the population owns automobiles. If Europe hopes to integrate their growing immigrant population, they're going to need for those people to have jobs and to be out in society. Some of those people are very low skill and a lack of language proficiency may remove other job opportunities as well. This type of job almost seems like a perfect match for someone who lacks most vocational skills and doesn't yet have a strong grasp of the local language. It might not seem like much to you or I, but it's something.
This person will have to take over at a moment's notice, likely in a hazardous situation. I'd think they would need to know how to drive.
When I was young, the smartly-uniformed milkman delivered all sorts of things up and down the garden path, and while he was doing that the bored horse moved the milk-float (some yards behind it) to align with the next house that had regular orders. People forget what was possible in a less techno-mad world.
What I don't get is what is the point of having an autonomous vehicle if it has to have a human chaperone? Why doens't the human just drive the vehicle?
Sure it has. But it was approved by Obama first http://theweek.com/articles/678038/facial-recognition-governments-new-weapon
"I take no pleasure in saying this, but we've been warning for the past 8 years that the Orwellian surveillance programs instituted under the Obama administration could fall into the hands of someone that people may trust less," said Kade Crockford, the director of the ACLU of Massachusetts' Technology For Liberty program. "We now find ourselves in exactly that situation."
It actually started under Bush, after 9/11. But that doesn't matter. Neither party cares enough about the rights of citizens.
LOL. Trump's staffers get hounded from restaurants and you lefties still think he's Hitler incarnate.
Well, why do you think they're being hounded out of restaurants? Turns out actions have consequences, even for God-fearing people like Sarah Sanders. Some of us can see what's right in front of our faces. I can't make you see what you don't want to see.
Eh, not gonna worry about that unless "they" start throwing the kids into ovens. Meanwhile those kids can enjoy their air conditioned concentration camps.
Oh, come off it. You won't care then either.
At least today the Nazis among us feel free enough to self-identify.
The problem is that to take away this power, you'll need to invest power into the government. This power will then be abused, as it has been every other time someone has blindly followed this suggestion. Why else do so many experiments promising "Socialism" end up as dictatorships?
Isn't the company you work for, or run, a dictatorship? It sure ain't a democracy. The power you don't invest in government will be picked up by someone else. That someone else will likely be answerable only to those with more power. That's not you.
The whole reason we have a democratic government is because if we didn't we would have warlords or strongmen. It's really either-or, in a complex society. Government is at least answerable to the people, if the people get organized. Corporations and gangs are not. You either have everyone participating in government, or you have might-makes-right. Is government perfect? Hell no! You need people who want it to work. But that's the case with every system.
You will either be ruled by a government, or you will be ruled by the guy with the most money or the most guns. With government, at least you can vote and lobby to make change. They guys with money or guns don't care what you think and don't have to.
Almost like they did this responsibly. Of course the ACLU went apeshit with no wrongdoing.
You consider violating the 4th Amendment no wrongdoing?
We finally found a "medical" reason to grow the stuff! said stoners everywhere.
We only needed a medical reason because, "I like it, and it's relatively harmless" wasn't good enough for some people.
Do YOU even know what you mean by that? Or is it just something you heard Alex Jones say and so you thought it must be true?
Here is a good example. This woman is so toxically vicious that Democrats are trying to stuff her back into her cage like a rabid pit bull: https://www.realclearpolitics....
Funny how Republicans never seem to do that. They put their toxically vicious people at the top of the ticket. Maxine Waters has said she advocates only peaceful protest. 404: Advocating violence not found. The Democrats are only trying to shut her up because they have no balls.
Private prisons are not inherently bad but there can be problems like with any government operation that can use power of the state for corrupt purposes profiting specific people and companies.
Actually, they really are inherently bad. The companies are making money by locking people up, and therefore have a profit motive to maximize the number of people incarcerated, and for as long as possible. The incentive structure is just inherently fucked up. As you point out, it is also ripe for abuse and corruption. It's just bad all around.
Your bonus reason 3 is bogus and not substantiated by fact. Your bonus reason 4 is bogus and not substantiated by fact. Hippies also suck ass. The left is advocating violence and harassment. Maybe they need a time alone in a cage to think about their actions.
If you are interested, you should research the origins of the War on Drugs. It really is about racism and going after political enemies.
It is unfortunate that the ridiculous listing of marijuana as "Schedule 1" makes it so difficult and dogmatic to do useful research and create useful products.
I chuckled when I read the summary, because the US government is now officially contradicting itself. Schedule 1 drugs have a high potential for abuse and no knows medical use. Now we have the FDA approving a medical use. As a regular marijuana user, I appreciate the absurdity.
hilarious how the populace turns a blind eye to the government that sponsors the most terrorism, the most malware, the most regional destabilizing, the one that gives support to the world's cruelest dictators.....yes, that's the USA.
Ssshh! America's rosy self-image must not be disturbed.
Our poor in the US are far and away better off than regular citizens in many other countries so your claims are clearly unfounded and nothing more than a arrogant cheap shot.
-geekpoet
This is what people in America tell themselves so that they don't have to readjust their rosy view. 7.4% of the people in the US don't necessarily know where their next meal is coming from. You think that's the case for "regular citizens" of other countries?
How's about a better example then. Since your 'civilised' country still has backwards, barbaric drug policies that increase the level of harm, because they're unwilling to accept science and reason because of moral judgements, how do drug dealers handle a cashless economy? (No country has acknowleged the failure of the War on Drugs and eliminated prohibition as their policy for drugs beyond pot. Only Portugal has even decriminalized personal possession of tiny quantities, still miles away from what a civilized, rational country would do if their interest actually was minimizing the harm of hard drugs; limited-access heroin maintenance programs are similarly far too narrow in scope to count. More civilized than the US != civilized)
The American War on Drugs, as you may know, is a political monster; not a scientific one. It was begun so that the Nixon administration could go after the leaders of the civil rights movement and the anti-war left. It is no surprise that it doesn't achieve its stated goals. It was never designed to. It has however somewhat achieved its actual goals, in that black people are over-represented in American prisons. It is a national disgrace that America has yet to come to terms with.
That touches on my main worry about cashless: power concentration. You don't feel it until a bit later when this concentrated power decides to use it . - Let's introduce negative interest rates - from now on we don't want you to pay to fund organisations of type X - from now on it is impossible to do trade with person Y
Checks and balances, there's a reason for it.
Yes, and these reasons are why, once you go cashless, they have you by the balls. No more private or anonymous transactions. You will be forced to keep your money in the bank; where else could it be? There will be a record of every transaction; data mining on steroids. Unfortunately, most people only see the convenience, and don't have the foresight or imagination to understand all of the implications.
UBI, whether a left-wing concept or a right-wing concept, is fundamentally barbaric because it treats individuals as property of the state. I'd be more interested in a libertarian-style UBI, i.e. one that is opt-in and driven purely by charity, but that's because I put justice above the various notions of "fairness" invented by statists of both wings.
If charity were sufficient, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Shut up, gramps. It was fixed b4 u put the comment in.
Ah, the impetuousness of youth.
there are jobs, but not well paying jobs
Strange then that the Federal Reserve is worried about wage inflation and trying to calm Wall Street fears that wages are increasing overall as the labor pool shrinks because fewer people are looking for a job.
Not that strange, considering who the Fed works for and prioritizes in its decisions.
Balancing a checkbook is easy but nobody under 40 does it anymore because it's pointless. The vast majority of transactions these days are digital and the balance of your account is available with a few clicks on your phone. Most millennials will only write a handful of checks in their lives. Gen Z will probably kill them for good.
No! This is the most stupidest thing I've read today. Yes, I realize I'm reading and posting to a 0 score but this thinking has to be corrected.
Balancing your checkbook is basic accounting 101. You don't use it just to keep track of how much money you spend. You use to make sure the bank hasn't committed a error on your statement, or that someone isn't stealing money from your account. Never trust what the bank tells you.
Not all transactions show up on a digital statement right away. Digital transactions first show up as a pending entry in your statement. Those are entries that have not cleared. Those pending transactions can vanish off your account in a few days only to come back as a cleared statement.
Checks on the other hand do not show up on your digital statement till they are cashed. For this to happen you are at the mercy of the person holding the check. They could hold that check for a few days or in some cases a few months.
You must keep track of your own money. Do not rely on the bank to do this.
I can't argue with anything you're saying. But I am 45 years old and have never balanced my checkbook in my life. I look at my bank statement, and if it looks right, I go on with life.