Do at least try to pay attention; UBI is a distribution method, not a collection method.
Do at least try to pay attention. You cannot have a "distribution method" without a "collection method" to collect that which you distribute. You cannot propose the former without considering the latter. Well, ok, you can think only of how great the world would be were we able to hand out all kinds of free money to everyone, but if you seriously want to do that, you need to answer the "who pays for it" question.
And while it is very clear who is expected to pay for all this largesse, it is not at all clear that they will be able to do so in any sustainable way. It is not at all clear how society will survive teaching the children that the government owes them a living no matter what they decide to do with their time. We're already halfway there with the entitlement mentality we've already got, going the full monty isn't going to make things better.
Crime is primarily a product of lack of opportunity.
That's a convenient way of blaming the victims. The burglar came by to help himself to your "opportunity" because the victims didn't give them enough in handouts. If only we paid the criminals not to be criminals, they'd just stop. They'd never want more. They'd never be stealing for any reason but to get the necessities of life.
Criminals are not all part of a large conspiracy to raise your taxes,
Oh, knock it off. Nobody said they were.
they are just people who either don't have opportunity or don't see it.
Right. In a utopia populated by perfect people that might be true. On planet Earth we don't have those conditions.
A more likely scenario would be for someone making $15k per year to make $21k after factoring in slightly lower wages.
Someone making $15k a year is working at a rate of about $7.50/hr. If he only makes $21k after being handed a free $10k, then the hourly rate must be about $5.50. You think minimum wages will go down to $5.50 instead of up? Really?
but it is highly unlikely UBI would be economically viable if it literally added $10k in net income to fifty million people or so.
Will it be more likely to be viable if that number is 300 million people "or so"? The recipients of UBI would be six times the number you talk about.
Most federal taxes in this country are paid by people making far more money than myself, and they would certainly not break even.
It is physically impossible for them to break even. Giving them $10k and then paying them $10k means they break even. Where does the money come for the 50% of households that pay no income tax currently? It has to be extracted from those who do.
American businesses were hoarding around $2 trillion as of the time this article was written:
It is a shame that you didn't actually read the article and relied on the sensationalistic headline. Had you read further than the first line, you would have seen:
The notion that a corporation would hold on to so much of its profit seems economically absurd, especially now, when it is probably earning only about 2 percent interest by parking that money in United States Treasury bonds.
Emphasis mine. So yes, the "hoarders" who are taking cash out of circulation are actually investing in treasury bonds (or is in the bank, or other savings system) and not just in a hole in the backyard.
A measly amount of interest, not enough to even beat inflation. Comparatively, it's not much of an investment.
Whether it is much of an investment or not, it refutes the nonsense that they are hoarding in a "Scrooge McDuck manner" all that cash and keeping it out of circulation. That money is circulating, being used by other people for other purposes. Yes, it's in an account that they can cash out of relatively easily when needed, but if you know how banks work you'd know the money isn't just sitting in a pile getting moldy.
The only social program we'd need then is a small one to help people at the bottom to move to these small cheap towns and restart their life there.
Because all of the people who are on current entitlement programs are people who can get by on $10k/year and want to live in rural areas. And "small cheap towns" are going to stay small and cheap when an influx of "don't want to work" folks show up looking for housing. The eco-folks who oppose expanding urban growth boundaries are going to just stop opposing those expansions so there will be plenty of space to build more housing, right?
While some people will be quite happy living like this, where does the money come for this handout? You cannot just define a budget that will allow people to live on $10k/year and forget that the $10k/year for 300 million people has to come from somewhere. You've admitted that there will be fewer people working and the $10k/year folks are paying nothing in taxes, so the money has to come from the rest of us -- punishing those who want to keep working at an even higher tax rate than currently exists.
And when the costs go up so that your $10k budget no longer works, what do we do then?
On the other hand, you seem to be suggesting that criminals would commit the same crimes regardless of their economic status. Does that really make sense to you?
For the most part, yes. Maybe not the identical crimes, but crime nonetheless. Most criminals aren't stealing a loaf of bread because they need to feed their family -- and if you handed those people $10,000 a year they'd still need to steal.
You seem to think that handing criminals $10,000 a year will get them to stop stealing. That's what makes no sense. You can't really believe that putting them at 1/3 of poverty level will make them go straight, do you?
The federal government collects $2.4 trillion in income taxes, so the 50% of households and companies which pay any incomes taxes today would need to pay 20% more.
That assumes there would still be 50% of the households paying income taxes. There won't be. People who take the $10,000 handout won't be paying taxes. Your "20% more" will be anywhere from 30% to 50% more, if that even covers it.
Reduced crime is hard to quantitatively measure
This implies that handing criminals $10,000 a year not to commit crime works. What happens when they smoke or snort that $10,000 in the first three months? They need more money. Guess who has some?
but removing the minimum wage
Who said the minimum wage would go away? Why would it be fair to pay someone less than current minimum wage tomorrow if it isn't fair today? And how much more will it cost to get employees? Fewer people wanting to work, the higher labor costs will have to be to attract employees.
but they at least show UBI is not as drastically unrealistic as this article suggests.
Or, maybe we just start with $1000 the first year, and remove any overhead for anyone already qualifying for that much. I bet it pays for itself,
The only way that pays for itself is if we are eliminating payments that total more than the money we would be paying to everyone. We'd be handing $1000 to every man, woman, and child in the US. How many of them were already getting handed $1000 per year? So we'd have to cut the programs that pay maybe $3000/year so everyone can get $1000. That pays for itself. But those who WERE getting $3000 a year now get only $1000, and they were the ones who needed it to start with. They lose.
Keep moving up the food chain, and pretty soon you're paying less to those who need more, and more to those who need less, just so it all "pays for itself".
And you know that money you save by eliminating welfare and other existing entitlement programs? You can't. There are some people for whom $10,000 a year just won't keep them alive.
Not people with something to gain, but something to lose, arguing against what would help them.
They have something to lose but they would gain? Can't have it both ways. And I hate to tell you, but we would ALL lose if this happens. Even those who have nothing now, because they'd be in a position of still having nothing and having no way to make it better.
Money hoarding? You believe in the Scrooge McDuck model of rich folks?
Some rich folks? Absolutely. And it's not just people, but also corporations.
You think that "some rich folks" keep large vaults where they shovel in the money and let it sit getting moldy, maybe paying their nephew and his sons ten cents an hour to polish the quarters? And corporations do the same thing? You really have no clue.
Rich folks didn't get to be rich folks by stuffing money in the mattress and sleeping on it at night. They got there by investing it. And when it isn't in an active investment of their own, its in a bank account earning interest. Where do you think the interest comes from? It comes from the BANK loaning out that money. When a corporate financial statement refers to "cash on hand", that's not folding money hidden in the CEO's safe or buried in the backyard, it's cash in the bank.
So no, "some rich folks" don't Scrooge their money, they put it out into circulation so it earns them more money. That's how they get to be, and stay, rich.
But hoarding too much can be just as detrimental,
I dare say there are more poor folks hoarding old copper pennies than rich folks hoarding thousand dollar bills.
It's kind of weird how it's mostly poor people committing crimes.
Yeah, it's kinda hard to hold down a high-paying job when you're locked in a cell. That skews the statistics quite a bit.
But if you're trying to claim that poor people commit crimes only because they are poor, well, that's pretty bigoted to start with. It ignores the vast majority of poor people who are still ethical and honest people. So yes, your "moral fiber" comment does apply.
It implies that you think if you simply give a criminal $10,000 a year he'll stop committing crimes, as if that $10,000 will support him in the manner he wants. It also implies that you think that $10,000 a year is above poverty level.
It's not a zero sum game. Taking three trillion out of the pockets of the relatively few who will be paying taxes to give it to everyone else isn't going to keep the GDP where it is, and it won't be possible to fund such a program for very long by doing that. Pretty soon the only way to fund it will be to keep printing money, and that's a spiral death trap.
A basic income would likely raise wages by killing the labor glut.
This would have the double effect of raising prices because of higher production costs and lower supply.
A basic income would mean you had to save less to retire.
It would mean that many people retire the day the first check arrives. So yes, you have to save less.
A basic income is cheaper to much cheaper than the cost of imprisoning people.
Imprisoning criminals is not so that the state can take over their care, it is to protect the public from criminals. If you think that we should stop imprisoning people because we can just give them $10,000 a year not to commit crimes, well...
Taking about 10% of that wealth and income as taxes would pay for basic income.
So in ten years the program would become unfunded. 10% per year cannot be extracted from the wealthy forever, you know.
It can afford a few trillion dollars to share the benefits of society with all citizens.
The reverse is true in any industry that is deemed "regulated".
You lie. Regulated "industries" are regulated by prohibitions on what they can do. If there is no prohibition on something IT IS ALLOWED. BY DEFINITION. For a relevant example, cable services are not permitted to emit spurious signals above a certain level not because there is no regulation that permits it, but because there is a regulation that prohibits it. Were there no prohibition, it would be legal.
Do not be confused by the existence of a blanket prohibition that has regulatory exemptions into thinking that they must have explicit permission to do something that is otherwise not prohibited. What is not prohibited is permitted.
What in federal regulation of cable TV and Internet guarantees access to local rights of way for competing last mile providers?
What a remarkable nonsequitor. It is the local franchise CONTRACT, which is federally prohibited from being exclusive. What does that have to do with prices? Nothing, because rate controls are ALSO federally prohibited from being part of the contracts.
You seem to think that federal statues are permissive in nature and not prohibitive. What is not prohibited is allowed. Why would you want to live in a country where you needed laws to make things legal?
Local regulation of cable is one of the prohibited things, as are exclusive franchises (government granted monopolies.) But your reference to cable companies as "cartels" is not correct. There are laws against that.
The state legislatures are the ones that need to be removed/fired.
Bingo.
Wrongo. The state legislatures have no ability to override the federal preemption of the laws regulating cable services, just as they cannot truly make pot legal. They can replace state-level criminalization laws with state-level taxation and criminalization of other related pot activities, but they cannot overrule the federal laws -- just as with cable.
Federal pre-emption of a communications service by the federal communications agency.
Someone please explain to me why I can purchase a bundled package for $70 or so with internet, a rented cable box, and HBO,
You're getting a pretty good deal. Without HBO I'm paying $140.
Why is such a bullshit pricing scheme allowed to continue?
Ummm, because nobody forces you to watch HBO or cable, so you can easily take advantage of the bundled deal and save a lot of money. Put the cable box on the shelf, connect the Internet, and you're good to go. The Internet doesn't stop working when the cable box isn't connected.
Were we to confine school children the same way we confine criminals and thus assume responsibility for their care and welfare as we do when we incarcerate someone, I'd be all for free room and board for all of them. Keep them off the streets.
A logical extension to the old "children should be seen and not heard", except not seen either.
In fact, if the state had them in school 24/7/365.25, they could be educated faster and become productive taxpayers sooner. No summer break to forget stuff. Classes from 7AM to 9PM. That should cut the time from 13 years for a high-school diploma down to about 6. Put them to work at about 11 years old.
And, of course, because the state educated them without any parental interference, they'd be happy workers doing whatever it is that is most needed.
No, criminals are people that the state has taken control of and therefore responsibility for. I do not want the state taking control of all the children. The parents are responsible.
"adults without a child eligible for the National School Lunch Program will be eligible to apply for Internet Essentials."
In my part of the country, EVERY child is eligible for NSLP. Every child that wants a free lunch can get one, even during the summer when there is no school in session. It would be discriminatory or hurt the truly needy kid's self-esteem if anyone verified their status, so any "need" requirement was removed. School kitchens are now a year-round operation.
Next year I hear they're going to provide clothing for free, and 24 months from now they're converting the school gyms into very large dorms to provide free housing.
This isn't about restoring a JPEG file back into its original RAW format.
I know what it is really about, thanks. What I pointed out is that "bit-for-bit perfectly" of "the original file" is nonsense and is just marketing hype.
ANY lossless compression will return "the original file" "bit-for-bit perfectly" when "the original file" is considered to be what the lossless compressor starts with. That's a tautology. It's a useless statement. When someone says the result of their lossless compression/decompression is a "bit-for-bit perfect" copy of "the original file", it is reasonable to assume they meant "the original file" to be something other than what their compressor starts with, otherwise they're just wasting words and time.
There is another "original file" that they could refer to that doesn't create a useless statement on their part -- the original from which the JPEG was created. If you do high-level photographic work, for example, your "original file" will be the raw file from the camera image sensor. You process that and then save a JPEG. You would NEVER claim that the JPEG was "the original file", because it is not.
So, I think the point has been made, they are speaking nonsense trying to impress people who don't know better. "Oh my, how great this lossless compression system is -- it can return a bit-for-bit copy of the file it started with!" Yes, that's what "lossless" means, thank you. If that's all you're saying, why bother?
The information lost from converting RAW to JPEG is gone. There is no way to get that back.
That was my point. The ORIGINAL is not recoverable, when you use a meaningful definition of "original".
Pfft.. too little, too late. JPEG is "good enough" and I don't want a huge clusterfuck of incompatibility problems with my libraries.
Yep. Two things strike me as significant about this press release. First, the claim that it reproduces the original file "bit-for-bit perfectly". So, if I take a Nikon raw file and convert it to JPEG, then Lepton it, I can get back the Nikon raw file "bit-for-bit perfectly"? I don't think so.
But second, they claim they've been doing this to images uploaded to Dropbox. I don't ever recall them being explicit in telling me that any image I upload to them will be compressed for me. Of course they probably put it in an unread EULA. But what happens when they find out their new algorithm -- which compresses AND decompresses! -- has a bug when it hits a certain data condition, and sorry, all your images are corrupted because the EXIF data common to them all triggered the bug.
but since phones can receive at least a dozen frequencies each, isn't each device filtering out all the traffic in the air around it that isn't destined for that device?
Of course. Too many channels in use and the phones not being selective enough isn't the problem. The problem is that there aren't ENOUGH channels available.
Each site has a subset of the band to use. That way it doesn't interfere with surrounding sites. For a temporary, small coverage area (like this use) you can use some of the channels used by the surrounding sites because it is unlikely you'll interfere, and if you do, you can live with it for a few hours.
Plus, if you can bring in a site that's on a different band, then you've added capacity without interfering with neighboring sites.
First, you don't have tens of thousand of people broadcasting. But, the solution comes because the temporary cell sites can use different channels and not be on the same ones that the permanent ones are.
You mean where it says "a survey suggests"? That's not proof they agree with you, and it isn't proof for anything other than Netflix. People will tell survey takers all kinds of things that they don't actually do in the long run. "Yeah, we'll drop that service if they start having ads." "Oh, well, we like the movies and there aren't many ads, and my kids would kill me if they lost access... so no, we didn't drop it after all." And Dewey beat Truman.
There are so many people who currently pay for services that have ads that you cannot really believe that a majority of people agree with you. If so many people felt it was unfair then nobody would be doing it. But they are. The proof is in the money. If there was an outrageous demand for ad-free pay services and nobody was providing them, someone would. And those who currently provide them wouldn't change.
Or did you truly intend your comment about paying for a service that has ads being unfair to apply to Netflix only? I don't see that from the context. It appeared to be saying that any pay service with ads was unfair.
But in the long run, how many people agree with you doesn't make it anything more than your opinion, and as I said up front, other people can have a different opinion, and the fact that you don't agree doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for them.
Luckily I get to decide what is fair and what is not fair when I'm the buyer.
Yes, you do. But your claim wasn't that it wasn't fair, you said it doesn't make sense. Both terms are subjective. Many people disagree with your opinion. Enough so that advertising supported content is a viable business system. And apparently enough so that some companies change from ad-free to ad-supported despite the loss of some customers.
It's like the old joke. A business man was asked how he could afford to stay in business when he sold widgets that cost him $1 to make for only 50 cents. "Volume". Your ad-free service isn't covering the costs, so losing you means the company actually makes more profit. You aren't getting a $1 widget for fifty cents anymore.
And frankly, I'm amazed at the brand loyalty that is created by a company that raises rates like Netflix is doing. They delayed for two years, but they're still doing it. My evil cell provider didn't change the rates on my cell service for... about ten years at least, and would have gone on for much longer. My rate went up only because I changed plans.
When the model of subscription + ads goes industry wide, I really won't have many options left.
No, you will have just as many options, you'll just have to choose to accept "unfair", or modify your definition based on a different view of reality. It will remain your choice, however.
Citation required. Your "example" is so full of misdefined terms that it is meaningless. What is "66% of the price"? The price is what you are charged for the service. How do you get charged 66% of what you are charged? Now, if you meant "cost", then you need to provide a cite for that. But even you admit that you only get back to "full price" after some "promo" period, and "full price" is not more than full price.
A simple counter-example is, of course, a newspaper. If you think you're paying the full cost of producing a newspaper when you put 75 cents into the box (or whatever the price is), you're sadly mistaken.
Why would I pay for service with ads? Makes no damn sense.
Because ads subsidize the content. You pay less than you would. That makes sense to many people. They still buy newspapers, magazines, and watch cable TV. You'd rather pay more and have no ads. It's a tradeoff.
Slashdot Mirror
Do at least try to pay attention; UBI is a distribution method, not a collection method.
Do at least try to pay attention. You cannot have a "distribution method" without a "collection method" to collect that which you distribute. You cannot propose the former without considering the latter. Well, ok, you can think only of how great the world would be were we able to hand out all kinds of free money to everyone, but if you seriously want to do that, you need to answer the "who pays for it" question.
And while it is very clear who is expected to pay for all this largesse, it is not at all clear that they will be able to do so in any sustainable way. It is not at all clear how society will survive teaching the children that the government owes them a living no matter what they decide to do with their time. We're already halfway there with the entitlement mentality we've already got, going the full monty isn't going to make things better.
Crime is primarily a product of lack of opportunity.
That's a convenient way of blaming the victims. The burglar came by to help himself to your "opportunity" because the victims didn't give them enough in handouts. If only we paid the criminals not to be criminals, they'd just stop. They'd never want more. They'd never be stealing for any reason but to get the necessities of life.
Criminals are not all part of a large conspiracy to raise your taxes,
Oh, knock it off. Nobody said they were.
they are just people who either don't have opportunity or don't see it.
Right. In a utopia populated by perfect people that might be true. On planet Earth we don't have those conditions.
A more likely scenario would be for someone making $15k per year to make $21k after factoring in slightly lower wages.
Someone making $15k a year is working at a rate of about $7.50/hr. If he only makes $21k after being handed a free $10k, then the hourly rate must be about $5.50. You think minimum wages will go down to $5.50 instead of up? Really?
but it is highly unlikely UBI would be economically viable if it literally added $10k in net income to fifty million people or so.
Will it be more likely to be viable if that number is 300 million people "or so"? The recipients of UBI would be six times the number you talk about.
Most federal taxes in this country are paid by people making far more money than myself, and they would certainly not break even.
It is physically impossible for them to break even. Giving them $10k and then paying them $10k means they break even. Where does the money come for the 50% of households that pay no income tax currently? It has to be extracted from those who do.
American businesses were hoarding around $2 trillion as of the time this article was written:
It is a shame that you didn't actually read the article and relied on the sensationalistic headline. Had you read further than the first line, you would have seen:
Emphasis mine. So yes, the "hoarders" who are taking cash out of circulation are actually investing in treasury bonds (or is in the bank, or other savings system) and not just in a hole in the backyard.
A measly amount of interest, not enough to even beat inflation. Comparatively, it's not much of an investment.
Whether it is much of an investment or not, it refutes the nonsense that they are hoarding in a "Scrooge McDuck manner" all that cash and keeping it out of circulation. That money is circulating, being used by other people for other purposes. Yes, it's in an account that they can cash out of relatively easily when needed, but if you know how banks work you'd know the money isn't just sitting in a pile getting moldy.
The only social program we'd need then is a small one to help people at the bottom to move to these small cheap towns and restart their life there.
Because all of the people who are on current entitlement programs are people who can get by on $10k/year and want to live in rural areas. And "small cheap towns" are going to stay small and cheap when an influx of "don't want to work" folks show up looking for housing. The eco-folks who oppose expanding urban growth boundaries are going to just stop opposing those expansions so there will be plenty of space to build more housing, right?
While some people will be quite happy living like this, where does the money come for this handout? You cannot just define a budget that will allow people to live on $10k/year and forget that the $10k/year for 300 million people has to come from somewhere. You've admitted that there will be fewer people working and the $10k/year folks are paying nothing in taxes, so the money has to come from the rest of us -- punishing those who want to keep working at an even higher tax rate than currently exists.
And when the costs go up so that your $10k budget no longer works, what do we do then?
On the other hand, you seem to be suggesting that criminals would commit the same crimes regardless of their economic status. Does that really make sense to you?
For the most part, yes. Maybe not the identical crimes, but crime nonetheless. Most criminals aren't stealing a loaf of bread because they need to feed their family -- and if you handed those people $10,000 a year they'd still need to steal.
You seem to think that handing criminals $10,000 a year will get them to stop stealing. That's what makes no sense. You can't really believe that putting them at 1/3 of poverty level will make them go straight, do you?
The federal government collects $2.4 trillion in income taxes, so the 50% of households and companies which pay any incomes taxes today would need to pay 20% more.
That assumes there would still be 50% of the households paying income taxes. There won't be. People who take the $10,000 handout won't be paying taxes. Your "20% more" will be anywhere from 30% to 50% more, if that even covers it.
Reduced crime is hard to quantitatively measure
This implies that handing criminals $10,000 a year not to commit crime works. What happens when they smoke or snort that $10,000 in the first three months? They need more money. Guess who has some?
but removing the minimum wage
Who said the minimum wage would go away? Why would it be fair to pay someone less than current minimum wage tomorrow if it isn't fair today? And how much more will it cost to get employees? Fewer people wanting to work, the higher labor costs will have to be to attract employees.
but they at least show UBI is not as drastically unrealistic as this article suggests.
Your assumptions are unrealistic.
Or, maybe we just start with $1000 the first year, and remove any overhead for anyone already qualifying for that much. I bet it pays for itself,
The only way that pays for itself is if we are eliminating payments that total more than the money we would be paying to everyone. We'd be handing $1000 to every man, woman, and child in the US. How many of them were already getting handed $1000 per year? So we'd have to cut the programs that pay maybe $3000/year so everyone can get $1000. That pays for itself. But those who WERE getting $3000 a year now get only $1000, and they were the ones who needed it to start with. They lose.
Keep moving up the food chain, and pretty soon you're paying less to those who need more, and more to those who need less, just so it all "pays for itself".
And you know that money you save by eliminating welfare and other existing entitlement programs? You can't. There are some people for whom $10,000 a year just won't keep them alive.
Not people with something to gain, but something to lose, arguing against what would help them.
They have something to lose but they would gain? Can't have it both ways. And I hate to tell you, but we would ALL lose if this happens. Even those who have nothing now, because they'd be in a position of still having nothing and having no way to make it better.
Money hoarding? You believe in the Scrooge McDuck model of rich folks?
Some rich folks? Absolutely. And it's not just people, but also corporations.
You think that "some rich folks" keep large vaults where they shovel in the money and let it sit getting moldy, maybe paying their nephew and his sons ten cents an hour to polish the quarters? And corporations do the same thing? You really have no clue.
Rich folks didn't get to be rich folks by stuffing money in the mattress and sleeping on it at night. They got there by investing it. And when it isn't in an active investment of their own, its in a bank account earning interest. Where do you think the interest comes from? It comes from the BANK loaning out that money. When a corporate financial statement refers to "cash on hand", that's not folding money hidden in the CEO's safe or buried in the backyard, it's cash in the bank.
So no, "some rich folks" don't Scrooge their money, they put it out into circulation so it earns them more money. That's how they get to be, and stay, rich.
But hoarding too much can be just as detrimental,
I dare say there are more poor folks hoarding old copper pennies than rich folks hoarding thousand dollar bills.
It's kind of weird how it's mostly poor people committing crimes.
Yeah, it's kinda hard to hold down a high-paying job when you're locked in a cell. That skews the statistics quite a bit.
But if you're trying to claim that poor people commit crimes only because they are poor, well, that's pretty bigoted to start with. It ignores the vast majority of poor people who are still ethical and honest people. So yes, your "moral fiber" comment does apply.
It implies that you think if you simply give a criminal $10,000 a year he'll stop committing crimes, as if that $10,000 will support him in the manner he wants. It also implies that you think that $10,000 a year is above poverty level.
It's not a zero sum game. Taking three trillion out of the pockets of the relatively few who will be paying taxes to give it to everyone else isn't going to keep the GDP where it is, and it won't be possible to fund such a program for very long by doing that. Pretty soon the only way to fund it will be to keep printing money, and that's a spiral death trap.
A basic income would likely raise wages by killing the labor glut.
This would have the double effect of raising prices because of higher production costs and lower supply.
A basic income would mean you had to save less to retire.
It would mean that many people retire the day the first check arrives. So yes, you have to save less.
A basic income is cheaper to much cheaper than the cost of imprisoning people.
Imprisoning criminals is not so that the state can take over their care, it is to protect the public from criminals. If you think that we should stop imprisoning people because we can just give them $10,000 a year not to commit crimes, well ...
Taking about 10% of that wealth and income as taxes would pay for basic income.
So in ten years the program would become unfunded. 10% per year cannot be extracted from the wealthy forever, you know.
It can afford a few trillion dollars to share the benefits of society with all citizens.
If only the economy were a zero sum game.
What is not prohibited is allowed.
The reverse is true in any industry that is deemed "regulated".
You lie. Regulated "industries" are regulated by prohibitions on what they can do. If there is no prohibition on something IT IS ALLOWED. BY DEFINITION. For a relevant example, cable services are not permitted to emit spurious signals above a certain level not because there is no regulation that permits it, but because there is a regulation that prohibits it. Were there no prohibition, it would be legal.
Do not be confused by the existence of a blanket prohibition that has regulatory exemptions into thinking that they must have explicit permission to do something that is otherwise not prohibited. What is not prohibited is permitted.
What in federal regulation of cable TV and Internet guarantees access to local rights of way for competing last mile providers?
What a remarkable nonsequitor. It is the local franchise CONTRACT, which is federally prohibited from being exclusive. What does that have to do with prices? Nothing, because rate controls are ALSO federally prohibited from being part of the contracts.
Local regulation of cable is one of the prohibited things, as are exclusive franchises (government granted monopolies.) But your reference to cable companies as "cartels" is not correct. There are laws against that.
The state legislatures are the ones that need to be removed/fired.
Bingo.
Wrongo. The state legislatures have no ability to override the federal preemption of the laws regulating cable services, just as they cannot truly make pot legal. They can replace state-level criminalization laws with state-level taxation and criminalization of other related pot activities, but they cannot overrule the federal laws -- just as with cable.
So Comcast is a government sanctioned monopoly,
No they aren't.
but some how are not subject to PUC regulation.
Federal pre-emption of a communications service by the federal communications agency.
Someone please explain to me why I can purchase a bundled package for $70 or so with internet, a rented cable box, and HBO,
You're getting a pretty good deal. Without HBO I'm paying $140.
Why is such a bullshit pricing scheme allowed to continue?
Ummm, because nobody forces you to watch HBO or cable, so you can easily take advantage of the bundled deal and save a lot of money. Put the cable box on the shelf, connect the Internet, and you're good to go. The Internet doesn't stop working when the cable box isn't connected.
In fact, if the state had them in school 24/7/365.25, they could be educated faster and become productive taxpayers sooner. No summer break to forget stuff. Classes from 7AM to 9PM. That should cut the time from 13 years for a high-school diploma down to about 6. Put them to work at about 11 years old.
And, of course, because the state educated them without any parental interference, they'd be happy workers doing whatever it is that is most needed.
No, criminals are people that the state has taken control of and therefore responsibility for. I do not want the state taking control of all the children. The parents are responsible.
"adults without a child eligible for the National School Lunch Program will be eligible to apply for Internet Essentials."
In my part of the country, EVERY child is eligible for NSLP. Every child that wants a free lunch can get one, even during the summer when there is no school in session. It would be discriminatory or hurt the truly needy kid's self-esteem if anyone verified their status, so any "need" requirement was removed. School kitchens are now a year-round operation.
Next year I hear they're going to provide clothing for free, and 24 months from now they're converting the school gyms into very large dorms to provide free housing.
This isn't about restoring a JPEG file back into its original RAW format.
I know what it is really about, thanks. What I pointed out is that "bit-for-bit perfectly" of "the original file" is nonsense and is just marketing hype.
ANY lossless compression will return "the original file" "bit-for-bit perfectly" when "the original file" is considered to be what the lossless compressor starts with. That's a tautology. It's a useless statement. When someone says the result of their lossless compression/decompression is a "bit-for-bit perfect" copy of "the original file", it is reasonable to assume they meant "the original file" to be something other than what their compressor starts with, otherwise they're just wasting words and time.
There is another "original file" that they could refer to that doesn't create a useless statement on their part -- the original from which the JPEG was created. If you do high-level photographic work, for example, your "original file" will be the raw file from the camera image sensor. You process that and then save a JPEG. You would NEVER claim that the JPEG was "the original file", because it is not.
So, I think the point has been made, they are speaking nonsense trying to impress people who don't know better. "Oh my, how great this lossless compression system is -- it can return a bit-for-bit copy of the file it started with!" Yes, that's what "lossless" means, thank you. If that's all you're saying, why bother?
The information lost from converting RAW to JPEG is gone. There is no way to get that back.
That was my point. The ORIGINAL is not recoverable, when you use a meaningful definition of "original".
Pfft.. too little, too late. JPEG is "good enough" and I don't want a huge clusterfuck of incompatibility problems with my libraries.
Yep. Two things strike me as significant about this press release. First, the claim that it reproduces the original file "bit-for-bit perfectly". So, if I take a Nikon raw file and convert it to JPEG, then Lepton it, I can get back the Nikon raw file "bit-for-bit perfectly"? I don't think so.
But second, they claim they've been doing this to images uploaded to Dropbox. I don't ever recall them being explicit in telling me that any image I upload to them will be compressed for me. Of course they probably put it in an unread EULA. But what happens when they find out their new algorithm -- which compresses AND decompresses! -- has a bug when it hits a certain data condition, and sorry, all your images are corrupted because the EXIF data common to them all triggered the bug.
It's not April 1. Stop with the nonsense.
but since phones can receive at least a dozen frequencies each, isn't each device filtering out all the traffic in the air around it that isn't destined for that device?
Of course. Too many channels in use and the phones not being selective enough isn't the problem. The problem is that there aren't ENOUGH channels available.
Each site has a subset of the band to use. That way it doesn't interfere with surrounding sites. For a temporary, small coverage area (like this use) you can use some of the channels used by the surrounding sites because it is unlikely you'll interfere, and if you do, you can live with it for a few hours.
Plus, if you can bring in a site that's on a different band, then you've added capacity without interfering with neighboring sites.
First, you don't have tens of thousand of people broadcasting. But, the solution comes because the temporary cell sites can use different channels and not be on the same ones that the permanent ones are.
There are so many people who currently pay for services that have ads that you cannot really believe that a majority of people agree with you. If so many people felt it was unfair then nobody would be doing it. But they are. The proof is in the money. If there was an outrageous demand for ad-free pay services and nobody was providing them, someone would. And those who currently provide them wouldn't change.
Or did you truly intend your comment about paying for a service that has ads being unfair to apply to Netflix only? I don't see that from the context. It appeared to be saying that any pay service with ads was unfair.
But in the long run, how many people agree with you doesn't make it anything more than your opinion, and as I said up front, other people can have a different opinion, and the fact that you don't agree doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for them.
Luckily I get to decide what is fair and what is not fair when I'm the buyer.
Yes, you do. But your claim wasn't that it wasn't fair, you said it doesn't make sense. Both terms are subjective. Many people disagree with your opinion. Enough so that advertising supported content is a viable business system. And apparently enough so that some companies change from ad-free to ad-supported despite the loss of some customers. It's like the old joke. A business man was asked how he could afford to stay in business when he sold widgets that cost him $1 to make for only 50 cents. "Volume". Your ad-free service isn't covering the costs, so losing you means the company actually makes more profit. You aren't getting a $1 widget for fifty cents anymore.
And frankly, I'm amazed at the brand loyalty that is created by a company that raises rates like Netflix is doing. They delayed for two years, but they're still doing it. My evil cell provider didn't change the rates on my cell service for ... about ten years at least, and would have gone on for much longer. My rate went up only because I changed plans.
When the model of subscription + ads goes industry wide, I really won't have many options left.
No, you will have just as many options, you'll just have to choose to accept "unfair", or modify your definition based on a different view of reality. It will remain your choice, however.
No, you pay more if there are ads.
Citation required. Your "example" is so full of misdefined terms that it is meaningless. What is "66% of the price"? The price is what you are charged for the service. How do you get charged 66% of what you are charged? Now, if you meant "cost", then you need to provide a cite for that. But even you admit that you only get back to "full price" after some "promo" period, and "full price" is not more than full price.
A simple counter-example is, of course, a newspaper. If you think you're paying the full cost of producing a newspaper when you put 75 cents into the box (or whatever the price is), you're sadly mistaken.
Why would I pay for service with ads? Makes no damn sense.
Because ads subsidize the content. You pay less than you would. That makes sense to many people. They still buy newspapers, magazines, and watch cable TV. You'd rather pay more and have no ads. It's a tradeoff.