When we pointed this out years ago, the Microsoft trolls told us to stop being silly, because it was optional and Microsoft would never, ever think of changing that. Why, the very idea!
And, if you don't buy them, the government will mandate them. Smart TVs will allow them to immediately send police or ambulance to your house when something bad happens, and smart themostats will allow them to control power demand for the most efficient energy usage.
Don't forget forcing mandatory upgrades, removing features and charging you to add them back. then announcing that they're moving to a subscription model, and if you don't pay them $500 a month, your house will no longer work.
I remember reading an SF story once where everything was 'smart' and people even had to put a quarter in the lock to get in and out of their house; that's the future the rentier corporations want to see.
Do you really think the outsourced programmers developing Things for the 'Internet Of Things' will do anything but hack together the code in Java or Python on the cheapest OS they can find?
Ah, 'Universal Basic Income', the last gasp of socialism as it fades into irrelevance.
We're looking at a future where you can build anything you want in your parents' basement so long as you have the raw materials to do so. Why would I want the Glorious People's Central Income Committee deciding what I should and shouldn't have?
A vehicle stopping never causes others to plow into it. Bad drivers plow into stopping cars because they are driving badly. That's why if you hit a car from behind, you're at fault.
You've never run into a whiplash scam, have you?
Before I left the UK, I'd see a news story every few months about someone who'd been pulling in front of other cars and slamming on their brakes to cause a collision so they could make fraudulent insurance claims.
Can someone please tell me, exactly, how this is supposed to be done?
It's pointless, anyway. Half the year, you can't see the lane markings here because they're covered in snow. The other half, you can't see them because they've been scraped off by snow ploughs. Maybe for two days a year you can see them, because they just got repainted before the snow started again.
Any system that relies on seeing lane markings is doomed, unless it's restricted to open highways in good weather.
Now, you might have to clean your sensors before you head out, but you have to scrape your windshield anyway.
Before you head out?
You do realise that most of the crap on your sensors gets there while you're driving, right? So you'll get half-way there and the car will say 'oh crap, I can't see, I CAN'T SEE! I'M GOING BLIND!' and you'll have to get out in the middle of the road and clean them so it can finish the journey?
Try driving in the snow belt in a car with a rear-view camera, and you'll have a better idea of just how little time you can drive around without having to clean all those fancy sensors.
The REAL problem is twofile: (1) that we are no longer creating new, higher-paying jobs to replace those that were automated away, and (2) that the benefits of increased productivity per worker haven't been shared by the workers for 40 years.
The REAL problem is that you can't imagine what you could possibly ever do without a 'job'.
People would choose "i dont want to pay no taxes and dont want no vaccines on my kids" and then complain the roads are bad, and private education is expensive.
And your problem with that is, exactly?
WHO DEVELOPED THE LAUNCH TECHNOLOGY FOR SATELLITES?
Nazis and Commies, as a spinoff of technology for lobbing bombs at each other.
Because air doesn't stay in one place. Are you fucking retarded?
So you think car emissions from Montana are going to float over to LA and cause smog?
Why do politicians always want to use the stick instead of the carrot?
Because most Western politicians are sociopaths who believe everyone else must do what they're told OR ELSE?
I read an interesting news article recently about an African nation which had decided that, instead of their 30% tax rate, they'd offer people the choice of paying 3%. Their motivation, apparently, was that they actually only managed to collect about 2%, so if people agreed to pay the 3% tax instead of evading the 30% tax, they'd collect more money.
Income tax exists to keep the middle class poor. The rich love income tax because they can ensure that most of their income isn't classed as 'income', and it prevents the middle class from building up enough capital to compete with them.
The funny part is that it's the rich-hating 'progressives' who keep pushing for more income tax, even though the rich are the greatest beneficiaries. If the 'progressives' didn't exist, the rich would have to invent them.
So what would have happened if it were up to the individual states for Roe v Wade (esp. with the yearly cowardly renewal of the Hyde Amendment) ?
People would get to choose the laws they live under, rather than having one choice forced on them by the Feds. The only people who complain about that are the ones who want to force others to live the way they want, because they know best.
And considering the economic benefits we've had from the space race, which was a federal program, which was neither protecting civil rights no necessary regulations, do you really want to give up those advances?
Ok, name some worth spending all that money on.
Hint: Tang, Velcro and microchips aren't among them.
Federal exhaust emissions?
Why should people who live in Montana have to comply with emissions laws designed for California?
Minimum Corporate Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards?
You mean 'forcing people to buy cars they don't want' standards?
So how will taxing Google's profits abuse the low income population?
Google will increase advertising prices to make up for the lost income, which will cause advertisers to increase prices to make up for increased advertising costs, which will cause the low income population to pay more for the things they'll buy.
Or, if they can't increase prices, their reduced profits will result in reduced dividends and stock price, so those low income people stashing away a few pounds a month in their pension fund will find it's worth less when they come to retire.
What do you think happens when the government sucks more money out of the productive economy? It's made up for with unicorn farts?
Unlike Starbucks, who, at the very least need outlets in the UK to sell coffee here, Google could run everything from a single location anywhere in the world, yet still trade with any other country.
Except Starbucks UK Ltd can presumably buy their coffee from Sunbucks Bermuda Ltd (no relation, honest), and make a loss in the UK.
The fundamental problem with taxing corporations is that corporations are much smarter than governments. After all, if you were smart enough to make a lot of money in business, why would you become a politician?
They have a definition of "fair share of taxes". It's "giving all your money to the government, so we can blow it on public sector pensions and windmill subsidies".
He will do because its a big topic over here in the UK, and has been for a while.
He probably won't do, because the odds are very high that the Tories will be tossed out at this election. If you're going to elect a socialist government, you might as well vote for actual socialists.
The problem still remains that after the package has been installed, a file in it can just be replaced with a malicious version either on disk or in memory.
To do that, you need to be root. If you're root, you can do anything you want.
Slashdot Mirror
When we pointed this out years ago, the Microsoft trolls told us to stop being silly, because it was optional and Microsoft would never, ever think of changing that. Why, the very idea!
You appear to be confusing Republicans with Democrats. Though, to be fair, it's pretty easy to do these days.
And, if you don't buy them, the government will mandate them. Smart TVs will allow them to immediately send police or ambulance to your house when something bad happens, and smart themostats will allow them to control power demand for the most efficient energy usage.
Don't forget forcing mandatory upgrades, removing features and charging you to add them back. then announcing that they're moving to a subscription model, and if you don't pay them $500 a month, your house will no longer work.
I remember reading an SF story once where everything was 'smart' and people even had to put a quarter in the lock to get in and out of their house; that's the future the rentier corporations want to see.
Real-time OS. You're funny.
Do you really think the outsourced programmers developing Things for the 'Internet Of Things' will do anything but hack together the code in Java or Python on the cheapest OS they can find?
Ah, 'Universal Basic Income', the last gasp of socialism as it fades into irrelevance.
We're looking at a future where you can build anything you want in your parents' basement so long as you have the raw materials to do so. Why would I want the Glorious People's Central Income Committee deciding what I should and shouldn't have?
Remember it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the bottom 50% of drivers.
That's great for the bottom 50% of drivers. No so great for those of us who've been driving for decades and never caused an accident.
Why would I want to travel in a self-driving car that drives worse than I do?
A vehicle stopping never causes others to plow into it. Bad drivers plow into stopping cars because they are driving badly. That's why if you hit a car from behind, you're at fault.
You've never run into a whiplash scam, have you?
Before I left the UK, I'd see a news story every few months about someone who'd been pulling in front of other cars and slamming on their brakes to cause a collision so they could make fraudulent insurance claims.
Can someone please tell me, exactly, how this is supposed to be done?
It's pointless, anyway. Half the year, you can't see the lane markings here because they're covered in snow. The other half, you can't see them because they've been scraped off by snow ploughs. Maybe for two days a year you can see them, because they just got repainted before the snow started again.
Any system that relies on seeing lane markings is doomed, unless it's restricted to open highways in good weather.
Now, you might have to clean your sensors before you head out, but you have to scrape your windshield anyway.
Before you head out?
You do realise that most of the crap on your sensors gets there while you're driving, right? So you'll get half-way there and the car will say 'oh crap, I can't see, I CAN'T SEE! I'M GOING BLIND!' and you'll have to get out in the middle of the road and clean them so it can finish the journey?
Try driving in the snow belt in a car with a rear-view camera, and you'll have a better idea of just how little time you can drive around without having to clean all those fancy sensors.
The REAL problem is twofile: (1) that we are no longer creating new, higher-paying jobs to replace those that were automated away, and (2) that the benefits of increased productivity per worker haven't been shared by the workers for 40 years.
The REAL problem is that you can't imagine what you could possibly ever do without a 'job'.
You can't post sense here. This is Slashdot.
People would choose "i dont want to pay no taxes and dont want no vaccines on my kids" and then complain the roads are bad, and private education is expensive.
And your problem with that is, exactly?
WHO DEVELOPED THE LAUNCH TECHNOLOGY FOR SATELLITES?
Nazis and Commies, as a spinoff of technology for lobbing bombs at each other.
Because air doesn't stay in one place. Are you fucking retarded?
So you think car emissions from Montana are going to float over to LA and cause smog?
Cars will be replaced anyway.
Then what's the problem?
Why do politicians always want to use the stick instead of the carrot?
Because most Western politicians are sociopaths who believe everyone else must do what they're told OR ELSE?
I read an interesting news article recently about an African nation which had decided that, instead of their 30% tax rate, they'd offer people the choice of paying 3%. Their motivation, apparently, was that they actually only managed to collect about 2%, so if people agreed to pay the 3% tax instead of evading the 30% tax, they'd collect more money.
Then why have income tax?
Income tax exists to keep the middle class poor. The rich love income tax because they can ensure that most of their income isn't classed as 'income', and it prevents the middle class from building up enough capital to compete with them.
The funny part is that it's the rich-hating 'progressives' who keep pushing for more income tax, even though the rich are the greatest beneficiaries. If the 'progressives' didn't exist, the rich would have to invent them.
It's actually Starbucks Coffee Trading Co., which is a Swiss company, I believe.
I was talking hypothetically, though I guessed they probably did something similar already.
Because people who have no money and nothing to lose lob off your head and take yours.
And here, children, we see the 'progressive' red in tooth and claw: "Give us your stuff, or we'll kill you and steal it!"
So the poor should be allowed to make tax slaves of the rich because political candidates buy advertising. Got it.
They can't 'make tax slaves of the rich', because the rich can just refuse to make money for them to steal.
Sure, they can steal all that wealth once and blow it on bread and circuses, but then they starve.
So what would have happened if it were up to the individual states for Roe v Wade (esp. with the yearly cowardly renewal of the Hyde Amendment) ?
People would get to choose the laws they live under, rather than having one choice forced on them by the Feds. The only people who complain about that are the ones who want to force others to live the way they want, because they know best.
And considering the economic benefits we've had from the space race, which was a federal program, which was neither protecting civil rights no necessary regulations, do you really want to give up those advances?
Ok, name some worth spending all that money on.
Hint: Tang, Velcro and microchips aren't among them.
Federal exhaust emissions?
Why should people who live in Montana have to comply with emissions laws designed for California?
Minimum Corporate Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards?
You mean 'forcing people to buy cars they don't want' standards?
Libertarians are all about themselves before everyone else.
No, you're confusing them with socialists. "You have stuff and I don't. Give it to me!"
So how will taxing Google's profits abuse the low income population?
Google will increase advertising prices to make up for the lost income, which will cause advertisers to increase prices to make up for increased advertising costs, which will cause the low income population to pay more for the things they'll buy.
Or, if they can't increase prices, their reduced profits will result in reduced dividends and stock price, so those low income people stashing away a few pounds a month in their pension fund will find it's worth less when they come to retire.
What do you think happens when the government sucks more money out of the productive economy? It's made up for with unicorn farts?
Unlike Starbucks, who, at the very least need outlets in the UK to sell coffee here, Google could run everything from a single location anywhere in the world, yet still trade with any other country.
Except Starbucks UK Ltd can presumably buy their coffee from Sunbucks Bermuda Ltd (no relation, honest), and make a loss in the UK.
The fundamental problem with taxing corporations is that corporations are much smarter than governments. After all, if you were smart enough to make a lot of money in business, why would you become a politician?
They have a definition of "fair share of taxes". It's "giving all your money to the government, so we can blow it on public sector pensions and windmill subsidies".
He will do because its a big topic over here in the UK, and has been for a while.
He probably won't do, because the odds are very high that the Tories will be tossed out at this election. If you're going to elect a socialist government, you might as well vote for actual socialists.
The problem still remains that after the package has been installed, a file in it can just be replaced with a malicious version either on disk or in memory.
To do that, you need to be root. If you're root, you can do anything you want.