Going back to the days of stepper relays and carbon-granule microphones would be very expensive, even as a backup-only system. Better to design hardened infrastructure and phase it in, along with duplication and surplus capacity.
It's been about 40 years now, but I read an article about a rock concert held in a baseball stadium. Being a place expecting far more men than women, there was more capacity for men's restrooms than women's, and the women's lines were seriously long. One woman couldn't wait and went to the men's restroom and was raped multiple times.
By your way of thinking, someone among the several men in that restroom would have protected her. Looks like your way of thinking is wrong.
There are laws against reckless driving, drunk driving, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of a divided highway. Those laws are to prevent deaths and injuries. Not all instances of reckless driving, drunk driving, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of a divided highway cause death or injury; the laws are still proper.
A law against a man in a lady's restroom is to prevent sexual assault. Not all cases of a man in a lady's restroom result in sexual assault, a law preventing a man in a lady's restroom is still proper.
People being secure in their persons is essential to a civilized society, it is of far more importance than "health care, job creation, infrastructure" (only the last of which is a valid government function.)
A perv would feel less restricted in doing things that he would be inhibited from doing where there are cameras and/or men who would protect a woman. Exposing himself. Standing between a woman and the toilets, blocking her way and asking "Do you fuck?" "Can I watch you?" "C'mon, just a little feel." Standing next to her while she's at the sink, breathing on her neck and drooling. Masturbating.
Do you honestly think those things won't happen, or is it that you want them to happen?
The primary purpose of the law is to make it possible for men to be evicted from women's restrooms. As the GP posted, we want to prevent rapes. There are already too many rapes, and the laws punishing rape have been in existence for a long time. A law that allows men in a women's restroom encourages rape and lewd behavior.
A steady dose of 17-beta-estradiol (say about 2 milligrams a day) will cause depression in most otherwise healthy males. I suppose depression is "stable", but it isn't healthy.
For Google to provide data that does not make them look bad, they'd need to provide a great deal of information from personnel files, such things as performance reviews and reprimands. That sort of data is properly considered company confidential and could leave Google open to a host of lawsuits (such as for libel) if the data were released.
The Department of Labor (being union stooges) is trying to harm Google. No other fact is necessary to understand the DoL's motivation.
Just how do you propose that a world could exist without ignorance? For one thing, omniscience is impossible. For another, everyone is born with almost no mental content.
There's a safety reason for not having a stop sign for the inbound traffic at a large parking lot. Traffic crossing a big street to enter a lot, only to find that the entryway is blocked by a row of cars at a stop sign, is a collision waiting to happen.
Charles Tandy bought the failing 9-store Radio Shack chain in 1963. He grew the company until his death in 1978. New management continued expansion, including the computer product line until computers became highly commoditized (i.e. low margin.) As time went on, management became weaker and competition steeper. The rate of failure of major consumer electronics retailers since about 1990 has been substantial; firms that should have been better able to survive than RS died while RS stumbled along.
The markets have shifted, and I don't think that a chain of mostly small stores in any of RS's traditional markets, with a large national overhead, can succeed. Going back to hobbyists won't work.
Radio Shack has been around for a long time, and you are missing a great deal of what they were and their history. Many Radio Shacks were franchise stores; hours of operation were determined by the owner-operator. Many of the stores, particularly the larger ones and those in malls, were open until 9 PM.
Your proposal that he give away $60 billion would be funding for one year. Then what do you do after you've eaten the golden goose?
Consider also that his $63 billion is probably mostly in stock of his own company. When news spreads that he's dumping his stock, the price will collapse. No more $63 billion.
I like your pointing out his hypocrisy, I'm just pointing out that those who think he really should give everything to the poor don't realize how little good it would do.
Current social program expenditures amount to about $2.3 trillion annually (2015), divided by 330 million people is $7000 each per year. That, at least, provides a place to work from when examining whether a UBI provides enough to live on and what incentives might be.
Food assistance frauds are widespread. Given the money involved, I'd assume that housing assistance frauds (through sublettting or corrupt deals with a landlord) are also common.
I'm not able to judge if a complete abolition of federal social programs (60+% of expenditures) would cover a UBI or whether such a program could be properly administered without significant fraud (no payments to non-citizens, for example). In the context of current programs, there are moral and practical advantages to a UBI. Compared to nothing at all, UBI is vastly inferior.
A person's proper goal in his life is providing his own well-being, not contributing to society (which is a byproduct of providing for himself.) The pensioner has provided for himself, and has no moral requirement to further contribute to others.
The perpetual non-working UBI recipient has no moral claim on the effort of others, and has never contributed to society.
You almost sound persuasive, and then you sneak in your final sentence: "...everyone should have their basic needs met: food, shelter, health." Putting aside traditional and valid concerns like "who pays" and "should...by what standard?", there's the problem that health can't be provided. Health is determined by what you eat and what you do, and to some extent by luck. You can't provide health to someone born with an inoperable cancer, someone just run over by a cement truck, or a centenarian about to die (no matter how rich). It's just not possible, and asking for it is an attempt to set up a world where anyone dieing is taken as evidence that the government needs to take more money.
Slashdot Mirror
Going back to the days of stepper relays and carbon-granule microphones would be very expensive, even as a backup-only system. Better to design hardened infrastructure and phase it in, along with duplication and surplus capacity.
Never been to an art museum, have you?
While we're on the subject, most swimwear doesn't leave much to the imagination.
It's been about 40 years now, but I read an article about a rock concert held in a baseball stadium. Being a place expecting far more men than women, there was more capacity for men's restrooms than women's, and the women's lines were seriously long. One woman couldn't wait and went to the men's restroom and was raped multiple times.
By your way of thinking, someone among the several men in that restroom would have protected her. Looks like your way of thinking is wrong.
There are laws against reckless driving, drunk driving, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of a divided highway. Those laws are to prevent deaths and injuries. Not all instances of reckless driving, drunk driving, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of a divided highway cause death or injury; the laws are still proper.
A law against a man in a lady's restroom is to prevent sexual assault. Not all cases of a man in a lady's restroom result in sexual assault, a law preventing a man in a lady's restroom is still proper.
People being secure in their persons is essential to a civilized society, it is of far more importance than "health care, job creation, infrastructure" (only the last of which is a valid government function.)
A perv would feel less restricted in doing things that he would be inhibited from doing where there are cameras and/or men who would protect a woman. Exposing himself. Standing between a woman and the toilets, blocking her way and asking "Do you fuck?" "Can I watch you?" "C'mon, just a little feel." Standing next to her while she's at the sink, breathing on her neck and drooling. Masturbating.
Do you honestly think those things won't happen, or is it that you want them to happen?
Grow a brain.
The primary purpose of the law is to make it possible for men to be evicted from women's restrooms. As the GP posted, we want to prevent rapes. There are already too many rapes, and the laws punishing rape have been in existence for a long time. A law that allows men in a women's restroom encourages rape and lewd behavior.
Have you ever seen a woman work an 80 hour week? I haven't.
A steady dose of 17-beta-estradiol (say about 2 milligrams a day) will cause depression in most otherwise healthy males. I suppose depression is "stable", but it isn't healthy.
Is that deliberate? It sure is funny.
Better yet, DoL attorney Ian Eliasoph should pay for it personally.
For Google to provide data that does not make them look bad, they'd need to provide a great deal of information from personnel files, such things as performance reviews and reprimands. That sort of data is properly considered company confidential and could leave Google open to a host of lawsuits (such as for libel) if the data were released.
The Department of Labor (being union stooges) is trying to harm Google. No other fact is necessary to understand the DoL's motivation.
Don't be intentionally obtuse. It's neither acute nor right.
Just how do you propose that a world could exist without ignorance? For one thing, omniscience is impossible. For another, everyone is born with almost no mental content.
Ever heard of forgeries?
What government? Google is incorporated in Delaware.
Consider the alternative.
There's a safety reason for not having a stop sign for the inbound traffic at a large parking lot. Traffic crossing a big street to enter a lot, only to find that the entryway is blocked by a row of cars at a stop sign, is a collision waiting to happen.
Charles Tandy bought the failing 9-store Radio Shack chain in 1963. He grew the company until his death in 1978. New management continued expansion, including the computer product line until computers became highly commoditized (i.e. low margin.) As time went on, management became weaker and competition steeper. The rate of failure of major consumer electronics retailers since about 1990 has been substantial; firms that should have been better able to survive than RS died while RS stumbled along.
The markets have shifted, and I don't think that a chain of mostly small stores in any of RS's traditional markets, with a large national overhead, can succeed. Going back to hobbyists won't work.
Radio Shack has been around for a long time, and you are missing a great deal of what they were and their history. Many Radio Shacks were franchise stores; hours of operation were determined by the owner-operator. Many of the stores, particularly the larger ones and those in malls, were open until 9 PM.
Your proposal that he give away $60 billion would be funding for one year. Then what do you do after you've eaten the golden goose?
Consider also that his $63 billion is probably mostly in stock of his own company. When news spreads that he's dumping his stock, the price will collapse. No more $63 billion.
I like your pointing out his hypocrisy, I'm just pointing out that those who think he really should give everything to the poor don't realize how little good it would do.
Current social program expenditures amount to about $2.3 trillion annually (2015), divided by 330 million people is $7000 each per year. That, at least, provides a place to work from when examining whether a UBI provides enough to live on and what incentives might be.
Food assistance frauds are widespread. Given the money involved, I'd assume that housing assistance frauds (through sublettting or corrupt deals with a landlord) are also common.
I'm not able to judge if a complete abolition of federal social programs (60+% of expenditures) would cover a UBI or whether such a program could be properly administered without significant fraud (no payments to non-citizens, for example). In the context of current programs, there are moral and practical advantages to a UBI. Compared to nothing at all, UBI is vastly inferior.
A person's proper goal in his life is providing his own well-being, not contributing to society (which is a byproduct of providing for himself.) The pensioner has provided for himself, and has no moral requirement to further contribute to others.
The perpetual non-working UBI recipient has no moral claim on the effort of others, and has never contributed to society.
By what mechanism does a basic income end union job protection and political sinecures?
You almost sound persuasive, and then you sneak in your final sentence: "...everyone should have their basic needs met: food, shelter, health." Putting aside traditional and valid concerns like "who pays" and "should...by what standard?", there's the problem that health can't be provided. Health is determined by what you eat and what you do, and to some extent by luck. You can't provide health to someone born with an inoperable cancer, someone just run over by a cement truck, or a centenarian about to die (no matter how rich). It's just not possible, and asking for it is an attempt to set up a world where anyone dieing is taken as evidence that the government needs to take more money.