Money is the determining factor. I can easily see the abomination as you put it, being much cheaper, especially as the power will be designed to exactly provide what is necessary. The saving could be substantial.
I can think of several situations where a camera is desirable but what you want won't work.
The main example is observation of large areas where capture rate is meaningless.
For example if you want to look for forest fires, you plant a camera on a high spot, overlooking a large area of forest. It takes a picture every hour.
Another example is time lapse photos for environmental/biological research.
Your solution does not explain why they wouldn't SAY that's what they were doing and why.
As such your simplest explanation fails badly.
My explanation may be wrong - but it not tinfoil hat. The NSA has done far worse things than illegally put back doors into software. More importantly, I was using overly specific example to convince a real tin-foil hat guy that he was crazy. I don't claim to know the specifics - I don't know if it was the NSA or some other agency, nor do I know the specific order. But it was in keeping with how the US and similar espionage agencies work. Minimal effort, only a threat of legal actions, probably an appeal to patriotism.
The order was not "shut down" - the US government is not stupid enough to give that order. It's against the basic principles of Capitalist Republic Democracy.
Any non-psychotic person can easily tell that the NSA went up to them and said:
"Hey, you TrueCrypt people, making a safe, un-crackable encryption system? You are going to put in a back door to let us, the NSA in - and you are NOT going to tell anyone about our order or you will go to jail."
The order the NSA gave was legal. The true crypt devs are law abiding people. But they weren't going to obey the NSA. So the True Crypt Devs said "Screw that shit, we shut down."
You on the other hand are a wanker that thinks normal people - who are not anywhere near wealthy enough to defend themselves against the full might of a TREASON charge - should go to jail just to keep you happy! Because that's all it would have done - the court would have shut down TrueCrypt and put everyone in jail. Look what they did to Snowden.
Stop screaming at other people for not standing up for your principles.
Because they did NOT get to the original devs - they tried and FAILED. The devs refused to bow down to their orders and shut down the project.
Getting to the auditors is harder than getting to the devs, because anyone can be the auditor.
The thing about a free society is that the fact that we find out about the tyranny. That makes paranoid fools think their is more tyranny going on. But the truth is that real tyranny hides.
In North Korea, they would not have shut down the the devs, the devs would have put the back door in and kept their mouth shut.
Here in the free world, the devs say no and shut it down, because we have more freedom than they do.
I have always wanted to learn how to kite surf. I decided to do this this summer. The thing that kicked me over the edge was hearing about how some people have added a hydrofoil to the surf board, so I want to try that.
He didn't give specific examples, so I thought of the worst thing someone might ask.
I agree that Ideally people should stand up and refuse to work at a place that asked these questions. But sometimes people are not in a position to refuse such work - to quote Richard Prior from the Toy:
Try switching nouns - consider this possibility. Given the limitless potential of humans, don't you think it is possible for a human to eventually create a bicycle capable of reaching the moon?
Yes, we reached the moon - but with a rocket, not a bicycle. Bicycles are too limited, it took a much better vehicle to reach the moon.
Some day we may create something that is as intelligent as humans. But it will be much more similar to a human than a computer is - to the point where calling it a computer would be like calling a rocket ship a bicycle.
There area few ways to help you fit into the 'normal' life. Try these:
1) Set up a personal web page - a blog, works, but it doesn't ahve to be one. You can put whatever you want on it. This gives people something to check online - but gives YOU the full control over it. No one linking to you, posting to your page, no advertisers steeling your information.
2) Maintain weekly contact with your friends by hand. Pick a single day - Sunday, whatver - and email (or call your good friends) all your actual, real friends about what you are up to and ask questions. If they are really your friend, they will email you back.
3) If a potential employer asks an inappropriate question be polite but call them on it in a way that makes you look good. "How often do you drink?" should be responded to with "I don't drink at all at work - do you have a problem with people drinking on the job?" Any question about your sex life should be politely taken as if they hitting on you. "I really don't think it's appropriate to date potential coworkers".
4) Be ready for questions about Facebook and have a good answer to it. Something that sounds sane, rather than crazy. If you are female this one works VERY well "After I found out an X stalked me on Facebook, I decided to delete my account. I get so much more work done now." It also works for men, but not as well.
Be prepared to lose some fair-weather friends/work. Just as a TV Producer would lose jobs if he decided to no longer watch TV. But your real friends and most worthwhile jobs will still like you. (Except with Facebook - if you want a job with Facebook, JOIN FACEBOOK)
A computer hooked up to the internet can hold data that, if properly requested by the user, return any scientific fact
But it can't do a task it doesn't already know how to do.
A human child will have far fewer facts that the computer at easy hand - but can figure out how to do anything, if given enough time. While some things may take years, most will be learn-able very quickly.
Intelligence does not depend on the facts you know, but instead on the skills you have that let you learn new things.
I strongly disagree with the idea of a job famine. Jobs are not a limited resource - no X # and that's it.
There are basically four kinds of jobs:
1)Super - Essential jobs that we all need to live in an area. Specifically jobs that provide food, water, heat, clothing, etc. At one point in time, ALL jobs were that. But long ago we filled all those jobs and we honestly have not increased them significantly. Few people get them anymore.
2)Essential jobs that would cause some but not all people to die if we stopped. Sewer worker, doctors, firemen, cops, soldiers. There are again a limited number of such jobs but occasionally we come up with new "essential' jobs - new types of doctors, pollution monitors/reductions, etc. Most developed countries have filled these jobs, but in certain locations they are unfilled. Why? Because of monetary issues.
3) Supportive jobs. These jobs help the rest of society do their work. Teachers, engineers, manufacturers, etc. They consist of the majority of our jobs and we are no where near the limit. We quite honestly do not have enough money to pay for all the supportive jobs we need. The old and the autistic need help (not prison - nor a prison that is called help). The jobs might have a limit, but we can't see it.
4) Luxury jobs. This includes both research and pleasure producing jobs. They make people happy and more importantly, CREATE NEW JOBS. There is no limit to these jobs and there never will be one. There will always be room for more scientists and more musicians.
That is a sad state of affairs when they can't simply announce "ALIEN LIFE FOUND!", but instead have to go with the obnoxious "What they found will shock you."
I think the real problem is not the number of people getting a generalized liberal arts degree vs the number of people getting a STEM degree.
Both of those degrees are expensive and worth it.
Nor is it the number of people getting what I will call the specialized non-stem degree.
Prime examples of this would be "Hotel Management", "Sociology", "Graphic Designer", "illustrator", "Teaching."
Note, this is not an insult to those fields. The world needs people with those skills. But if you want to be a teacher, get a BA in English or Mathematics, or Biology, not in teaching. My sister has a Masters in sociology - a well worth it. But as a College level degree, it is worthless. You can't get a job as a Sociology Major, nor does it help you get into a Masters Program more than a degree in Psychology. No on goes looking for a painter with an Illustrator degree, they look for a painter that paints WELL.
Some of these 4 year degrees would do much better as a 2 year program. Others should simply get a liberal arts 4 years BA and then get work or go into a post-grad study. Some should never go to college at all, better to get some real life experience.
The problem is that certain job fields have NO business getting a 4 year degree in that subject. There is reason to learn how to lift off an airplane if you don't also learn how to land it. Four year programs for certain things make no sense.
The problem is people have been caught up in the idea that a College education is the be all and end all. So we took a bunch of regular jobs that don't need or want a BA and created BA's for them. Some of them need Post-Grad work, others could get by on a couple of Community College courses, rather than spending the huge amount of money for a BA.
Are you really stupid enough to think everything you just described doesn't happen now?
Normal people have mortgages. If they can't afford the house, they have to sell it. That's the way the world works.
As for on top of, I did not say that. I want a federal property tax to replace existing federal taxes.
As for how much tax 5% property tax (on everything excluding IRAs and 1 home of upto 200K value) per year would allow us to totally remove all federal income tax
If you make it 2% that only applied if you owned more than 1 million dollars, we could lower the top tax rate to 30% and keep it there.
The fact that you thought 10% or more indicates your knowledge of the math and economics involved is seriously flawed. Frankly, you don't know enough to have this argument.
Most things are fairly easy to determine their worth.
But for anything you have issues with determining, you can write whatever you want in there - but the government has the right to offer you 15% more and you are required to sell it for that 'profit'.
If you refuse, you can give a new number - and pay back taxes for the past 5 years.
Wow, what an idiot. We already have property taxes on homes - but I don't see people moving out of the high tax ares. In fact they move to them because they offer good services.
Similarly, we already tax the homes of old people, so what kind of idiot thinks that would suddenly put old people out of their home?
Yes, my method would shift the tax burden to the wealthy a SMALL amount, but not by much. Current estimates have the US wealth divided as such:
0-50 percentile are poor. They own nothing and pay no income tax. nothing changes for the poor
51-90 are middle class, own 1/3 of the property and pay about 1/3 of the taxes. Again, nothing changes.
91-99 are upper class, own a bit less than 1/3 of the property but pay a bit more than 1/3 of the taxes. They do better with this system.
1 % are truly wealthy, own more than 1/3 of the property but pay a bit less than 1/3 of the taxes (mainly becuase of tax manipulations). They lose their unfair advantage.
If you pay an annual ownership fee of 5% (excluding IRA and the first home), then you would not have to pay any income tax. The math works out fine.
Under those circumstances people still pay for things they need. Cars, clothing, jewelery, etc. But we would stop buying junk we don't need - like a sports car we can't afford.
There would be a slight increase in the market for consumables - specifically experiences, and classes.
Your argument makes ZERO sense. If you think that taxing what people own means the state owns it, then taxing what people earn means the state earns it.
Tax does not equal ownership. It is a fee for protection from invasion, pollution, crime, etc.
The more wealth you have, the more you should pay to protect what you own. Taxing income on the other hand makes no sense, why should you pay more because you earn more? Because you might some day eventually own more?
No it doesn't. The only way to get rich is to save. The incentive to save still far exceeds the incentive to spend.
Effectively what this does is make it a bit harder to get rich and STAY rich.
In other words it reduces the gap between the wealthy and the poor,
If you merely keep an IRA as tax free, effectively the middle class starts to save, while the wealthy, particularly the extremely wealthy, start paying their fair share.
The key thing is this is a simple tax structure that soaks the wealthy, the exact opposite of the flat tax that soaks the poor.
What idiot thinks the company doesn't pay the ownership tax? And who said anything about business expenses being deductable? That works when you are trying to calculate your income, it doesn't apply when you are talking about ownership taxes
I agree. The rules the CIA etc. use for deciding who is a terrorist and who is not, while self-serving, are definitely a lot better than what the media uses.
Among other things, it means the bombing of the navy ship USS Cole is not a terrorist attack.
Right now it is nearly impossible for a Republican to win the general election.
During the Bush years, the GOP has sidetracked itself with it's own gerrymandering. By pursuing said strategy, they created a bunch of safe districts, allowing only the most extreme, conservative people to get elected. This works extremely well on the local level, but the Constitution of the US prevents them from gerrymandering all the democrats into a a few states.
This forces the majority of the party to kowtow to the extreme right on issues like gay rights and gun control, so it becomes impossible for a truly moderate republican, such as Huntsman to win the nomination.
As such, the Democrats get to decide who runs the country, while the Republicans get to decide the Congress. The Senate and the Governorships are the only real elections up for grabs.
Slashdot Mirror
Money is the determining factor. I can easily see the abomination as you put it, being much cheaper, especially as the power will be designed to exactly provide what is necessary. The saving could be substantial.
For example if you want to look for forest fires, you plant a camera on a high spot, overlooking a large area of forest. It takes a picture every hour.
Another example is time lapse photos for environmental/biological research.
They are a religion. They deserve tax free status as much as the Mormon church and the West Baptist church does.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be arrested for the multiple crimes they are currently doing.
But I see no reason to single out the Scientologists tax free status and not go after the many other questionable churches.
As such your simplest explanation fails badly.
My explanation may be wrong - but it not tinfoil hat. The NSA has done far worse things than illegally put back doors into software. More importantly, I was using overly specific example to convince a real tin-foil hat guy that he was crazy. I don't claim to know the specifics - I don't know if it was the NSA or some other agency, nor do I know the specific order. But it was in keeping with how the US and similar espionage agencies work. Minimal effort, only a threat of legal actions, probably an appeal to patriotism.
The order was not "shut down" - the US government is not stupid enough to give that order. It's against the basic principles of Capitalist Republic Democracy.
Any non-psychotic person can easily tell that the NSA went up to them and said:
"Hey, you TrueCrypt people, making a safe, un-crackable encryption system? You are going to put in a back door to let us, the NSA in - and you are NOT going to tell anyone about our order or you will go to jail."
The order the NSA gave was legal. The true crypt devs are law abiding people. But they weren't going to obey the NSA. So the True Crypt Devs said "Screw that shit, we shut down."
You on the other hand are a wanker that thinks normal people - who are not anywhere near wealthy enough to defend themselves against the full might of a TREASON charge - should go to jail just to keep you happy! Because that's all it would have done - the court would have shut down TrueCrypt and put everyone in jail. Look what they did to Snowden.
Stop screaming at other people for not standing up for your principles.
Getting to the auditors is harder than getting to the devs, because anyone can be the auditor.
The thing about a free society is that the fact that we find out about the tyranny. That makes paranoid fools think their is more tyranny going on. But the truth is that real tyranny hides.
In North Korea, they would not have shut down the the devs, the devs would have put the back door in and kept their mouth shut.
Here in the free world, the devs say no and shut it down, because we have more freedom than they do.
I have always wanted to learn how to kite surf. I decided to do this this summer. The thing that kicked me over the edge was hearing about how some people have added a hydrofoil to the surf board, so I want to try that.
I agree that Ideally people should stand up and refuse to work at a place that asked these questions. But sometimes people are not in a position to refuse such work - to quote Richard Prior from the Toy:
"It's that bad out there? ... Worse."
Try switching nouns - consider this possibility. Given the limitless potential of humans, don't you think it is possible for a human to eventually create a bicycle capable of reaching the moon?
Yes, we reached the moon - but with a rocket, not a bicycle. Bicycles are too limited, it took a much better vehicle to reach the moon.
Some day we may create something that is as intelligent as humans. But it will be much more similar to a human than a computer is - to the point where calling it a computer would be like calling a rocket ship a bicycle.
1) Set up a personal web page - a blog, works, but it doesn't ahve to be one. You can put whatever you want on it. This gives people something to check online - but gives YOU the full control over it. No one linking to you, posting to your page, no advertisers steeling your information.
2) Maintain weekly contact with your friends by hand. Pick a single day - Sunday, whatver - and email (or call your good friends) all your actual, real friends about what you are up to and ask questions. If they are really your friend, they will email you back.
3) If a potential employer asks an inappropriate question be polite but call them on it in a way that makes you look good. "How often do you drink?" should be responded to with "I don't drink at all at work - do you have a problem with people drinking on the job?" Any question about your sex life should be politely taken as if they hitting on you. "I really don't think it's appropriate to date potential coworkers".
4) Be ready for questions about Facebook and have a good answer to it. Something that sounds sane, rather than crazy. If you are female this one works VERY well "After I found out an X stalked me on Facebook, I decided to delete my account. I get so much more work done now." It also works for men, but not as well.
Be prepared to lose some fair-weather friends/work. Just as a TV Producer would lose jobs if he decided to no longer watch TV. But your real friends and most worthwhile jobs will still like you. (Except with Facebook - if you want a job with Facebook, JOIN FACEBOOK)
But it can't do a task it doesn't already know how to do.
A human child will have far fewer facts that the computer at easy hand - but can figure out how to do anything, if given enough time. While some things may take years, most will be learn-able very quickly.
Intelligence does not depend on the facts you know, but instead on the skills you have that let you learn new things.
There are basically four kinds of jobs:
1)Super - Essential jobs that we all need to live in an area. Specifically jobs that provide food, water, heat, clothing, etc. At one point in time, ALL jobs were that. But long ago we filled all those jobs and we honestly have not increased them significantly. Few people get them anymore.
2)Essential jobs that would cause some but not all people to die if we stopped. Sewer worker, doctors, firemen, cops, soldiers. There are again a limited number of such jobs but occasionally we come up with new "essential' jobs - new types of doctors, pollution monitors/reductions, etc. Most developed countries have filled these jobs, but in certain locations they are unfilled. Why? Because of monetary issues.
3) Supportive jobs. These jobs help the rest of society do their work. Teachers, engineers, manufacturers, etc. They consist of the majority of our jobs and we are no where near the limit. We quite honestly do not have enough money to pay for all the supportive jobs we need. The old and the autistic need help (not prison - nor a prison that is called help). The jobs might have a limit, but we can't see it.
4) Luxury jobs. This includes both research and pleasure producing jobs. They make people happy and more importantly, CREATE NEW JOBS. There is no limit to these jobs and there never will be one. There will always be room for more scientists and more musicians.
That is a sad state of affairs when they can't simply announce "ALIEN LIFE FOUND!", but instead have to go with the obnoxious "What they found will shock you."
Ask him if he'd be willing to take some consultant work on the side, or maybe throw him a good goodby party. Simple things mean a lot.
I think the real problem is not the number of people getting a generalized liberal arts degree vs the number of people getting a STEM degree.
Both of those degrees are expensive and worth it.
Nor is it the number of people getting what I will call the specialized non-stem degree.
Prime examples of this would be "Hotel Management", "Sociology", "Graphic Designer", "illustrator", "Teaching."
Note, this is not an insult to those fields. The world needs people with those skills. But if you want to be a teacher, get a BA in English or Mathematics, or Biology, not in teaching. My sister has a Masters in sociology - a well worth it. But as a College level degree, it is worthless. You can't get a job as a Sociology Major, nor does it help you get into a Masters Program more than a degree in Psychology. No on goes looking for a painter with an Illustrator degree, they look for a painter that paints WELL.
Some of these 4 year degrees would do much better as a 2 year program. Others should simply get a liberal arts 4 years BA and then get work or go into a post-grad study. Some should never go to college at all, better to get some real life experience.
The problem is that certain job fields have NO business getting a 4 year degree in that subject. There is reason to learn how to lift off an airplane if you don't also learn how to land it. Four year programs for certain things make no sense.
The problem is people have been caught up in the idea that a College education is the be all and end all. So we took a bunch of regular jobs that don't need or want a BA and created BA's for them. Some of them need Post-Grad work, others could get by on a couple of Community College courses, rather than spending the huge amount of money for a BA.
Normal people have mortgages. If they can't afford the house, they have to sell it. That's the way the world works.
As for on top of, I did not say that. I want a federal property tax to replace existing federal taxes.
As for how much tax 5% property tax (on everything excluding IRAs and 1 home of upto 200K value) per year would allow us to totally remove all federal income tax
If you make it 2% that only applied if you owned more than 1 million dollars, we could lower the top tax rate to 30% and keep it there.
The fact that you thought 10% or more indicates your knowledge of the math and economics involved is seriously flawed. Frankly, you don't know enough to have this argument.
If you refuse, you can give a new number - and pay back taxes for the past 5 years.
Yes, my method would shift the tax burden to the wealthy a SMALL amount, but not by much. Current estimates have the US wealth divided as such:
0-50 percentile are poor. They own nothing and pay no income tax. nothing changes for the poor
51-90 are middle class, own 1/3 of the property and pay about 1/3 of the taxes. Again, nothing changes.
91-99 are upper class, own a bit less than 1/3 of the property but pay a bit more than 1/3 of the taxes. They do better with this system.
1 % are truly wealthy, own more than 1/3 of the property but pay a bit less than 1/3 of the taxes (mainly becuase of tax manipulations). They lose their unfair advantage.
My system does not eat the rich, but is simple.
If you pay an annual ownership fee of 5% (excluding IRA and the first home), then you would not have to pay any income tax. The math works out fine. Under those circumstances people still pay for things they need. Cars, clothing, jewelery, etc. But we would stop buying junk we don't need - like a sports car we can't afford. There would be a slight increase in the market for consumables - specifically experiences, and classes.
Tax does not equal ownership. It is a fee for protection from invasion, pollution, crime, etc.
The more wealth you have, the more you should pay to protect what you own. Taxing income on the other hand makes no sense, why should you pay more because you earn more? Because you might some day eventually own more?
Effectively what this does is make it a bit harder to get rich and STAY rich.
In other words it reduces the gap between the wealthy and the poor,
If you merely keep an IRA as tax free, effectively the middle class starts to save, while the wealthy, particularly the extremely wealthy, start paying their fair share.
The key thing is this is a simple tax structure that soaks the wealthy, the exact opposite of the flat tax that soaks the poor.
What idiot thinks the company doesn't pay the ownership tax? And who said anything about business expenses being deductable? That works when you are trying to calculate your income, it doesn't apply when you are talking about ownership taxes
I the US it's called a property tax. You pay a small % each year. Rather than a lot when you buy
Among other things, it means the bombing of the navy ship USS Cole is not a terrorist attack.
During the Bush years, the GOP has sidetracked itself with it's own gerrymandering. By pursuing said strategy, they created a bunch of safe districts, allowing only the most extreme, conservative people to get elected. This works extremely well on the local level, but the Constitution of the US prevents them from gerrymandering all the democrats into a a few states.
This forces the majority of the party to kowtow to the extreme right on issues like gay rights and gun control, so it becomes impossible for a truly moderate republican, such as Huntsman to win the nomination.
As such, the Democrats get to decide who runs the country, while the Republicans get to decide the Congress. The Senate and the Governorships are the only real elections up for grabs.