But I'd like to amend his question to this: Can we ever expect VLC to "just work" with off-the-shelf Blu-ray movie discs which have already been decrypted by other means? At present Blu-ray menu support is super spotty, whereas DVDs decrypted by other means tend to work fine.
Millennials didn't vote for Reagan and his flat tax scam that "starves the beast" of needed tax revenue to protect the safety net. We voted for expansions of the safety and and higher taxes on the wealthy.
Unless that ideology somehow ends up wrecking the economy the way Reaganomics did, which I doubt because a culture of high taxes on high earners worked great for us in the 50s and 60s, then the next generation after us will be thanking us for undoing the shitty policies of their grandparents.
Slashdot was on the decline, but I'm actually optimistic about the new owner's chances of succeeding at turning the ship around because of their commitment to listening to the community for the first time in far too long.
a new competitor will come and replace them (possibly Sourceforge, if they manage to continue with the same enthusiasm they've started with recently, and manage to turn that enthusiasm in to their product)
SourceForge's death spiral hits me right in the feels as much as any other Slashdotter, but I am pretty convinced that new competitor which will dethrone GitHub will be GitLab. Basically the same product, but open source. Similar monetization model for enterprise use. That's who I'm rooting for these days.
Choose your discussion system: ( ) Interactive Discussion System (D2) ( ) Classic Discussion System (D1)
The "interactive" system is widely derided. I personally think it was a good idea, but it needs work. A lot of old timers around here stick with the classic system, including me.
I would recommend investing heavily in a new discussion system, perhaps something that feels more like reddit's, but keeping Slashdot's moderation system in place. But whatever you do, don't remove the classic one as an off-by-default option.
I have some confidence you guys can come up with something that I'll be happy to switch to, but some people around here hate change. All change. They'll appreciate being able to keep the old system around.
The site itself is in some desperate need of further development.
- The infamous UTF8 issue. - The new comment system is widely disliked. - That said the old comment system probably does need to be replaced with something better. (Don't forget to keep the old one around as an off-by-default option. Some people here just hate change. All change.) - Remove all hard dependencies on JavaScript. Progressive enhancement is a thing.
A right to the basic needs of food, shelter, and healthcare is not subjective or vague. That's about as specific as you can get. It means at a minimum all people have a right to just enough food to not starve to death. A right to at least dorm room-sized shelter. A right to see doctors for preventative care or go to the hospital without having to worry about medical bankruptcy.
Those things are narrowly tailored and well-defined. It's not reasonable to call those things vague or to imply that it's some crazy slippery slope to endless transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, especially when people have worked out budget proposals that deliver on those proposed rights that require only modest increases in taxation.
how much personal property can the government really take to support your ideas about outcome equality, still remains unanswered
I already answered that question: the bare minimum necessary to provide a lifestyle floor that ensures everyone's basic needs are met; food and shelter at least, but personally I'd throw in healthcare as well. Nothing beyond that.
I'm not sure why you don't think that's a specific enough answer. If you want to know what that costs specifically, go look up tax proposals that replace Social Security (and other cash transfer programs like SNAP) with UBI along with tax proposals that extend Medicare to all and drop Medicaid.
Many people have run the numbers and come up with balanced budgets that include these new provisions. Most agree taxes would need to go up to support such programs as well as to address the existing deficits, but it's been done before. We've had higher taxes before (especially on the wealthy) and things were just fine.
This isn't about equalizing outcomes, it's about raising the height of the floor so that nobody can fall into abject poverty ever again. There will still be enormous inequality of outcomes, as there should be, to reward those who work harder with greater wealth.
There will still be rich people, mansions, and suchlike. All that will be different is they will be slightly less rich. The net worth of the average one percenter may decline slightly, but it'll still be more than enough money to live a life of luxury and leisure and to never have to work again.
40 sports cars in the collection for the average aristocrat instead of 50. Or maybe one less vacation home. It's a small price to pay to end homelessness and hunger nationwide.
Man, what an emotional rant filled with fear. I strongly encourage you to take a step back and calm down. Breathe. It'll be okay!
Look, the facts are this: our country is wealthier than it's ever been in history. It may be hard to notice though, because the richest 1% have harvested the majority of that wealth. If we divided up the nation's wealth equally among all citizens (which you don't seem to realize I'm not advocating for BTW), more people would get a bigger slice than if we had done that in any time in history.
We do have the means to ensure a bare minimum lifestyle floor for every citizen whether you believe we do or not. The apocalyptic scenarios you expect to come to pass will not occur. Poverty in this country is not going to get worse, unless we keep voting for austerity policies you support. We can end poverty if we continue to innovate technologically, economically, and culturally as we have in the past.
The two biggest drivers for the decline in labor participation are increasing automation squeezing people out of jobs (unemployment driven by technological obsolescence) and people voluntarily leaving the workforce because they don't need to work anymore (early retirement among those who can afford it). I feel bad for people who want to work but can't find a job, and that's exactly why we need to share the new wealth we've created with exactly those people who are experience technological obsolescence as a result of our more productive than ever economy.
Proposals like universal basic income are exactly what our obsolete underclass needs to stay out of poverty and devote their time to learning 21st century skills so they can compete in the new economy. Western Europe has just begun to realize this. Finland is currently exploring implementing UBI as a way to tackle unemployment.
If you set aside your fear and take the time to read more about this stuff, you will see that America's best days are still ahead.
Look into budget/tax proposals people have come up with for universal basic income. It replaces Social Security plus a series of smaller safety net programs.
Basically between the savings we get from removing the inefficient means testing along with some modest tax increases on the wealthy, it is feasible without even bothering to alter our Medicare/Medicaid spending nor altering our insane military industrial complex.
However if we reformed those things too, we could certainly afford UBI with less tax increases.
There's plenty of data out there showing that the more various governments around the world invest in their safety nets, the more poverty is reduced.
What's delusional is assuming private charity is going to fix poverty, or that capitalism will magically offer everyone great careers.
At the end of the day, the only system we've come up with that has shown itself to actually be effective at reducing poverty are government run safety net programs.
Of course there is a limit. It would not take much of the nation's wealth to provide for everyone's basic needs and nothing beyond that. It's not like I'm talking about socialism for BMWs here. Get real.
So how much of the rich's resources are you prepared to take? Have you ANY limits?
The bare minimum necessary to ensure a humane lifestyle floor for all citizens. Once everyone has food, shelter, and healthcare, we can let capitalism run as rampant as we want beyond that.
If you want to raise the standard of living of the poor, you don't confiscate the wealth from others and give it to them. You enact policies that encourage economic growth so they can get jobs and aren't dependent on the government.
Generally speaking, providing a lifestyle floor for everyone does encourage economic growth.
Suppose, for instance, we had a universal basic income indexed to right at what a bare minimum living wage is. In that case, 100% of that money is spent, and circulates through the economy, producing demand in a whole host of economic sectors, creating jobs.
In addition, it would improve productivity by removing unwilling labor from the labor pool. Those working would do so because they want to, not because they're forced to under thread of death from homelessness or starvation.
That would remove a small number of people from the labor force, but make those who remain far more productive because they'd be more motivated.
Moreover, it would also let us remove wasteful economic distortions like means testing for the safety net (which the left hates) because UBI replaces the safety net and the minimum wage (which the right hates) as it would no longer be necessary either.
As far as those "unwilling to fish"....screw those lazy bastards.
Translation: "I'm perfectly okay with letting poor people die from exposure or starve to death."
However, the BIGGEST problem I have with your views is your thinking it's a good idea to take from the rich and give to the poor, that it's somehow the only morally acceptable course of action. Taking taxes is a necessary evil, but make no mistake it's EVIL and as such should be avoided as much as possible. [...] So, I don't believe it's a good idea to trample property rights with confiscatory tax policy necessary to support our current spending levels and debt.
Suppose the following two moral principles:
1. Depriving the wealthiest x% of y% of their wealth while leaving them z% wealthier than everyone else is a morally wrong intrusion on property rights. (The thesis of conservatives such as yourself.)
2. Forcing someone to work under threat of death by homelessness, starvation, and/or inadequate access to healthcare when that is preventable through modest taxation is a morally wrong form of coercion. (My thesis. In fact there's a term for it: wage slavery.)
Personally, I see more moral virtue in an impoverished man's right to shelter and to not starve to death than to Larry Ellison's right to another Hawaiian island.
Once we take care of everyone's basic needs, Larry can have all the remaining islands his still insane wealth can afford him.
While that stereotype does apply to some on the left, I'm personally opposed to enforcing my ideas undemocratically. If the majority of us decide in an election that we prefer less safety net, I can live with that, as I have in the past when we've passed austerity measures. It's my duty to convince my fellow Americans that more safety net is a good idea, not to ram it down the nation's throat by force.
Oh please.. Money != power in our republic. Poor people get as many votes per person as the rich.
That is not the case. Numerous studies have shown that money buys power in this country.
taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" may provide an immediate reduction in poverty, but it lowers everyone's standard of living.
I am fine with lowering the standard of living of the wealthiest x% people in this country to provide a humane minimum standard of living for everyone else. (Where x is defined as roughly a very low single digit percentage give or take one or two percent.)
Today we have millions living in abject poverty while the wealthiest are wealthier than ever. The country can survive taking from the top just enough to end poverty.
But taking from the rich only goes so far, so we as a country are going into debt to provide welfare, healthcare and anti-poverty campaigns.
Back when taxes were higher, we didn't have a debt problem like we do today. One man's "government spends too much!" is another man's "maybe we should increase government's income so it can pay its bills."
The CBO says that repealing the ACA (Obamacare) would actually lower the deficit, raise employment, cut taxes and actually end up putting more on health insurance roles, which is EXACTLY what the right was saying when this got rammed though congress...
First of all, the right came up with the idea. The left wanted single payer, and continues to argue in favor of it on the grounds that it would be less expensive in the long run than the current public/private mess we have today.
Second, that CBO analysis you're referring to is a lot more complicated than you're making it sound. You might want to read about it in more detail. Depending on how you interpret the data, some analysts say repeal would lower the deficits, others say it would add to the deficit dramatically.
Conservatives are driven by what's best in the long term and what's going to do the most good for people.
That doesn't seem like a very well supported statement to me. Conservatives oppose policies that would end poverty on the grounds that it's morally wrong to take from rich people. That's by definition elitist, not "what's good for most people."
Your classic teach a man to fish rather than give a man a fish analogy is a perfect illustration of that. You see other men as only deserving of fish if they're capable of fishing for them themselves. If you see it is morally acceptable to deny a man a fish who is unable or unwilling to fish it up himself, then your ideology is not "what's going to do the most good for people" because it's predicated on unnecessary starvation of those you deem unworthy of eating.
The ideology that will "do the most good for people" is the one that doesn't impose conditions on the basic needs of others. Imposing conditions kills people. Personally, I'm not a fan of social darwinism.
Last I checked, democracy was not a leftist idea. Concentrating disproportionate power in the hands of a few billionaires is undemocratic.
Government is the absolute worst way to do charity
And yet the governments with the strongest safety nets are the best at reducing poverty. Seems to me government is pretty good at it, when properly funded.
Pet charity projects throwing money haphazardly at random causes a few billionaires feel strongly about is an undemocratic disgrace. Had more of their largesse been taxed, we the people could've put it to better use dealing with our deficit, fixing our failing infrastructure, or even using it to help pay for ambitious new programs like universal basic income and single payer healthcare. Those ideas have the potential to totally end poverty. Pet charity projects like Gates' or Zuckerberg's hold no such potential.
From the article: "Who should fund our general societal needs and how? Charities rarely fund quotidian yet vital needs. What would $40 billion mean for job creation or infrastructure spending? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a budget of about $7 billion. Maybe more should go to that. Society, through its elected members, taxes its members. Then the elected officials decide what to do with sums of money."
The IAU's definition is only limited to the Solar System because we don't have enough observational data to define extrasolar planets so specifically. If we had as clear a view of other planetary systems as we did our own, then we wouldn't need the distinction between planet and exoplanet.
A separate draft definition for extrasolar planets was established by the IAU in 2001 and includes the criterion: "The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in the Solar System."
For all intents and purposes planet is a generic term and is used that way by the astronomy community. In fact, the very fact that we refer to exoplanets as extrasolar planets makes that very clear.
Slashdot Mirror
No indeed.
But I'd like to amend his question to this: Can we ever expect VLC to "just work" with off-the-shelf Blu-ray movie discs which have already been decrypted by other means? At present Blu-ray menu support is super spotty, whereas DVDs decrypted by other means tend to work fine.
Millennials didn't vote for Reagan and his flat tax scam that "starves the beast" of needed tax revenue to protect the safety net. We voted for expansions of the safety and and higher taxes on the wealthy.
Unless that ideology somehow ends up wrecking the economy the way Reaganomics did, which I doubt because a culture of high taxes on high earners worked great for us in the 50s and 60s, then the next generation after us will be thanking us for undoing the shitty policies of their grandparents.
Slashdot was on the decline, but I'm actually optimistic about the new owner's chances of succeeding at turning the ship around because of their commitment to listening to the community for the first time in far too long.
Am I right to assume this is already possible on Linux desktops and on OS X? If so, how?
SourceForge's death spiral hits me right in the feels as much as any other Slashdotter, but I am pretty convinced that new competitor which will dethrone GitHub will be GitLab. Basically the same product, but open source. Similar monetization model for enterprise use. That's who I'm rooting for these days.
Sorry SourceForge. You had your chance.
If you go under https://slashdot.org/prefs.pl and click on "Discussions" this option is present:
Choose your discussion system:
( ) Interactive Discussion System (D2)
( ) Classic Discussion System (D1)
The "interactive" system is widely derided. I personally think it was a good idea, but it needs work. A lot of old timers around here stick with the classic system, including me.
I would recommend investing heavily in a new discussion system, perhaps something that feels more like reddit's, but keeping Slashdot's moderation system in place. But whatever you do, don't remove the classic one as an off-by-default option.
I have some confidence you guys can come up with something that I'll be happy to switch to, but some people around here hate change. All change. They'll appreciate being able to keep the old system around.
The site itself is in some desperate need of further development.
- The infamous UTF8 issue.
- The new comment system is widely disliked.
- That said the old comment system probably does need to be replaced with something better. (Don't forget to keep the old one around as an off-by-default option. Some people here just hate change. All change.)
- Remove all hard dependencies on JavaScript. Progressive enhancement is a thing.
A right to the basic needs of food, shelter, and healthcare is not subjective or vague. That's about as specific as you can get. It means at a minimum all people have a right to just enough food to not starve to death. A right to at least dorm room-sized shelter. A right to see doctors for preventative care or go to the hospital without having to worry about medical bankruptcy.
Those things are narrowly tailored and well-defined. It's not reasonable to call those things vague or to imply that it's some crazy slippery slope to endless transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, especially when people have worked out budget proposals that deliver on those proposed rights that require only modest increases in taxation.
Actual studies contradict that tired narrative.
I already answered that question: the bare minimum necessary to provide a lifestyle floor that ensures everyone's basic needs are met; food and shelter at least, but personally I'd throw in healthcare as well. Nothing beyond that.
I'm not sure why you don't think that's a specific enough answer. If you want to know what that costs specifically, go look up tax proposals that replace Social Security (and other cash transfer programs like SNAP) with UBI along with tax proposals that extend Medicare to all and drop Medicaid.
Many people have run the numbers and come up with balanced budgets that include these new provisions. Most agree taxes would need to go up to support such programs as well as to address the existing deficits, but it's been done before. We've had higher taxes before (especially on the wealthy) and things were just fine.
This isn't about equalizing outcomes, it's about raising the height of the floor so that nobody can fall into abject poverty ever again. There will still be enormous inequality of outcomes, as there should be, to reward those who work harder with greater wealth.
There will still be rich people, mansions, and suchlike. All that will be different is they will be slightly less rich. The net worth of the average one percenter may decline slightly, but it'll still be more than enough money to live a life of luxury and leisure and to never have to work again.
40 sports cars in the collection for the average aristocrat instead of 50. Or maybe one less vacation home. It's a small price to pay to end homelessness and hunger nationwide.
Man, what an emotional rant filled with fear. I strongly encourage you to take a step back and calm down. Breathe. It'll be okay!
Look, the facts are this: our country is wealthier than it's ever been in history. It may be hard to notice though, because the richest 1% have harvested the majority of that wealth. If we divided up the nation's wealth equally among all citizens (which you don't seem to realize I'm not advocating for BTW), more people would get a bigger slice than if we had done that in any time in history.
We do have the means to ensure a bare minimum lifestyle floor for every citizen whether you believe we do or not. The apocalyptic scenarios you expect to come to pass will not occur. Poverty in this country is not going to get worse, unless we keep voting for austerity policies you support. We can end poverty if we continue to innovate technologically, economically, and culturally as we have in the past.
The two biggest drivers for the decline in labor participation are increasing automation squeezing people out of jobs (unemployment driven by technological obsolescence) and people voluntarily leaving the workforce because they don't need to work anymore (early retirement among those who can afford it). I feel bad for people who want to work but can't find a job, and that's exactly why we need to share the new wealth we've created with exactly those people who are experience technological obsolescence as a result of our more productive than ever economy.
Proposals like universal basic income are exactly what our obsolete underclass needs to stay out of poverty and devote their time to learning 21st century skills so they can compete in the new economy. Western Europe has just begun to realize this. Finland is currently exploring implementing UBI as a way to tackle unemployment.
If you set aside your fear and take the time to read more about this stuff, you will see that America's best days are still ahead.
Look into budget/tax proposals people have come up with for universal basic income. It replaces Social Security plus a series of smaller safety net programs.
Basically between the savings we get from removing the inefficient means testing along with some modest tax increases on the wealthy, it is feasible without even bothering to alter our Medicare/Medicaid spending nor altering our insane military industrial complex.
However if we reformed those things too, we could certainly afford UBI with less tax increases.
There's plenty of data out there showing that the more various governments around the world invest in their safety nets, the more poverty is reduced.
What's delusional is assuming private charity is going to fix poverty, or that capitalism will magically offer everyone great careers.
At the end of the day, the only system we've come up with that has shown itself to actually be effective at reducing poverty are government run safety net programs.
The less means-tested, the better.
Of course there is a limit. It would not take much of the nation's wealth to provide for everyone's basic needs and nothing beyond that. It's not like I'm talking about socialism for BMWs here. Get real.
The bare minimum necessary to ensure a humane lifestyle floor for all citizens. Once everyone has food, shelter, and healthcare, we can let capitalism run as rampant as we want beyond that.
Generally speaking, providing a lifestyle floor for everyone does encourage economic growth.
Suppose, for instance, we had a universal basic income indexed to right at what a bare minimum living wage is. In that case, 100% of that money is spent, and circulates through the economy, producing demand in a whole host of economic sectors, creating jobs.
In addition, it would improve productivity by removing unwilling labor from the labor pool. Those working would do so because they want to, not because they're forced to under thread of death from homelessness or starvation.
That would remove a small number of people from the labor force, but make those who remain far more productive because they'd be more motivated.
Moreover, it would also let us remove wasteful economic distortions like means testing for the safety net (which the left hates) because UBI replaces the safety net and the minimum wage (which the right hates) as it would no longer be necessary either.
Translation: "I'm perfectly okay with letting poor people die from exposure or starve to death."
Suppose the following two moral principles:
1. Depriving the wealthiest x% of y% of their wealth while leaving them z% wealthier than everyone else is a morally wrong intrusion on property rights. (The thesis of conservatives such as yourself.)
2. Forcing someone to work under threat of death by homelessness, starvation, and/or inadequate access to healthcare when that is preventable through modest taxation is a morally wrong form of coercion. (My thesis. In fact there's a term for it: wage slavery.)
Personally, I see more moral virtue in an impoverished man's right to shelter and to not starve to death than to Larry Ellison's right to another Hawaiian island.
Once we take care of everyone's basic needs, Larry can have all the remaining islands his still insane wealth can afford him.
While that stereotype does apply to some on the left, I'm personally opposed to enforcing my ideas undemocratically. If the majority of us decide in an election that we prefer less safety net, I can live with that, as I have in the past when we've passed austerity measures. It's my duty to convince my fellow Americans that more safety net is a good idea, not to ram it down the nation's throat by force.
Here's some data on just homelessness: http://www.nationalhomeless.or...
The total number of people experiencing poverty will obviously be higher than that.
Read the articles I linked to.
Private charities fund the pet issues of their rich benefactors.
They don't fund the vital needs of society.
Using the democratic process to decide how to spend the money produces better results.
That is not the case. Numerous studies have shown that money buys power in this country.
I am fine with lowering the standard of living of the wealthiest x% people in this country to provide a humane minimum standard of living for everyone else. (Where x is defined as roughly a very low single digit percentage give or take one or two percent.)
Today we have millions living in abject poverty while the wealthiest are wealthier than ever. The country can survive taking from the top just enough to end poverty.
Back when taxes were higher, we didn't have a debt problem like we do today. One man's "government spends too much!" is another man's "maybe we should increase government's income so it can pay its bills."
First of all, the right came up with the idea. The left wanted single payer, and continues to argue in favor of it on the grounds that it would be less expensive in the long run than the current public/private mess we have today.
Second, that CBO analysis you're referring to is a lot more complicated than you're making it sound. You might want to read about it in more detail. Depending on how you interpret the data, some analysts say repeal would lower the deficits, others say it would add to the deficit dramatically.
That doesn't seem like a very well supported statement to me. Conservatives oppose policies that would end poverty on the grounds that it's morally wrong to take from rich people. That's by definition elitist, not "what's good for most people."
Your classic teach a man to fish rather than give a man a fish analogy is a perfect illustration of that. You see other men as only deserving of fish if they're capable of fishing for them themselves. If you see it is morally acceptable to deny a man a fish who is unable or unwilling to fish it up himself, then your ideology is not "what's going to do the most good for people" because it's predicated on unnecessary starvation of those you deem unworthy of eating.
The ideology that will "do the most good for people" is the one that doesn't impose conditions on the basic needs of others. Imposing conditions kills people. Personally, I'm not a fan of social darwinism.
Last I checked, democracy was not a leftist idea. Concentrating disproportionate power in the hands of a few billionaires is undemocratic.
And yet the governments with the strongest safety nets are the best at reducing poverty. Seems to me government is pretty good at it, when properly funded.
Pet charity projects throwing money haphazardly at random causes a few billionaires feel strongly about is an undemocratic disgrace. Had more of their largesse been taxed, we the people could've put it to better use dealing with our deficit, fixing our failing infrastructure, or even using it to help pay for ambitious new programs like universal basic income and single payer healthcare. Those ideas have the potential to totally end poverty. Pet charity projects like Gates' or Zuckerberg's hold no such potential.
Instead of praising this, we should be asking ourselves what kind of society we want to live in.
From the article: "Who should fund our general societal needs and how? Charities rarely fund quotidian yet vital needs. What would $40 billion mean for job creation or infrastructure spending? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a budget of about $7 billion. Maybe more should go to that. Society, through its elected members, taxes its members. Then the elected officials decide what to do with sums of money."
See also: public vs. private social expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
The IAU's definition is only limited to the Solar System because we don't have enough observational data to define extrasolar planets so specifically. If we had as clear a view of other planetary systems as we did our own, then we wouldn't need the distinction between planet and exoplanet.
A separate draft definition for extrasolar planets was established by the IAU in 2001 and includes the criterion: "The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in the Solar System."
For all intents and purposes planet is a generic term and is used that way by the astronomy community. In fact, the very fact that we refer to exoplanets as extrasolar planets makes that very clear.
The astronomy community makes an exception to that pattern when you refer to a specific named star's system of planets by the star's proper noun name.
e.g. Sol is Solar System as Tau Ceti is to Tau Ceti system.