When you cut the government spending in half, which of the sections of the pie chart will be reduced/removed ?
I am not an expert in such things. And whatever changes would have to be gradual. Plus, that graph lumps things interestingly. Education should be 0%- that is State. Probably half of welfare. Half or more of "other spending". All of "interest" because we shouldn't spend more than we take in.... again, something that would be painful to correct (requiring maintaining taxes until it is paid). And probably at least 1/3 of Defense, Healthcare (80% of which is welfare/Medicaid). Way more than half of "Pensions" through self-correction by reduction of Federal workforce, over time, but the huge part is the nightmare of Social Security, which itself contains a large amount of welfare ("disability" being one of the absolute most abused expenditure in the whole program) and poor financial structure.
>"Words like "fewer", "less" and "more" are useless, because it's not clear how much, and compared to what baseline."
They are not useless. We are discussing 3 parties, so it can easily mean less or more than the other two.
>"For example: "Less government spending". How much less,
Considerably less. Most I know wouldn't even blink at saying half. But there is no exact amount, and change takes time, anyway.
>"and where exactly will the money come from ?"
What money? The money we aren't spending? From taxes that aren't collected; the money the People keep and have control over and spend how they want. Libertarians generally detest taxing income and support taxing consumption.
Nothing is really an absolute position, regardless of party. But, in a nut-shell, Libertarians believe in less government. That equates to things like:
1) Fewer regulations 2) Fewer laws 3) Less taxes 4) Less government spending 5) More personal freedom 6) More personal responsibility 7) More local control (less Federal)
Notice I didn't say "no" or "none" or "all" in the above. Just guiding principles. For some reason, on Slashdot, for many people, the word "Libertarian" immediately equates with extreme positions or just total anarchy, which is not only unfair, but actually pretty ridiculous. Libertarian is what used to be called "classic liberalism" which is pretty much on what the United States was founded. And it is what the Constitution supports and claims.
Ironically, I often hear people arguing positions that sound pretty much spot-on as Libertarian but from people claiming to be either Republican or Democrat.... but perhaps that is just due to our horrible two-party-only system that has formed from an even more horrible voting system (which REALLY needs to change if we want ANY real progress in this country... regardless of what party you think you are or what positions you hold dear).
How the above got modded "insightful" is absolutely beyond me. It is almost completely opposite of reality.
Democrats generally want more ILLEGAL aliens they can later TURN INTO voting residents who are dependent on "the system" through never-ending amnesty programs.
Republicans generally want more LEGAL aliens that will work for lower wages, yet pay taxes and not drain the system.
Exactly. This Excel crap is certainly random enough for randomness. The real question is whether an immigration system SHOULD be random. Is that in the best interest of the country? Of the citizens? Of the economy? What is "fair" and to whom? Does a country "owe" fairness or randomness to those seeking entry? Should those with better skills, education, or knowing the local language be prioritized? Should those with existing family support structures in the intended country be prioritized? These are tough questions that require answers.
Unfortunately, the whole confusion with ILLEGAL immigrants has muddied the water so much that people can't even seen to tell the difference anymore. Being selective doesn't necessarily mean being "phobic."
I know if I were inviting people I didn't know to come live in MY house, it certainly wouldn't be by lottery....
Yours is one of the best posts I have seen in a loooong time on Slashdot- at least when it involves anything political. I am glad it was corrected modded up.
All this hyper-sensitivity, ultra-PC, labeling, name-calling, and sensationalist media attention on non-issues or miscategorized issues are causing far more societal harm (through more polarization, hysteria, undeserved-guilt, unfounded hatred, beliefs of entitlement, finger-pointing, and bad policies) than the purported issues the SJW's intend to "solve."
Actually, I have seen good data backup numbers anywhere from what you said UP TO 3,000,000 (which I agree, is probably very unrealistic, hence my "up to" remark before the number). 1,000,000 seems to be the mostly supported number that I could come up with that seems reasonable. 80K is probably just as overly extreme on the low side as 3,000,000 on the low side. The 60-80K absolutely ignores a huge amount that we KNOW exists, but is nearly impossible to compute because not enough data is collected or can be proven.
Regardless, there are a huge number of actual and potential crimes that are stopped or averted due to "regular", "good" citizens who are *legally* armed. Pretty much everyone, including those who have seen only a little of the evidence with even a modicum of impartiality, agrees. While the number of violent crimes committed by people *legally* armed is so small as to be almost just noise in the statistics.
India, China, Vietnam, most of Africa (that isn't third-world), quite a bit of central and south America. It is a lose term, for sure. Countries between first-world and third-world in which they have some or moderate technology and economy, but most of their population is poor or very poor.
>"The split between first world and the rest is probably 50:50 or even 60:40."
By population? Oh no, I don't think it is anywhere near that good.
>"This attempt at legislation looks more like a some kind of "OMG! Flamethrowers are scary! We have to outlaw them!" type of knee jerk BS I've come to expect from California lawmakers."
That is because they are "Assault Flamethowers", just like the "Assault Revolver" and "Assault Shotgun"... soon to be followed by the "Assault Car" and "Assault Steakknight" and "Assault Baseball bat". Come on, get with the narrative, already!
>"If Amazon can't put the buyer in contact with the company which produced the device, then they should be liable. They sold it, they should be responsible for it"
I totally agree with that statement. But ONLY if Amazon can't provide that information. Otherwise, it is not Amazon's problem.
>"Frankly, even if they can put the person in contact, they should still be responsible, and recovering damages from the supplier should be their problem."
Not sure I agree with THAT statement. In those cases, they would only be responsible for replacement or refund of what they sold.
>"The only reason have Chrome install for those nasty web sites that have interactions that fail on Firefox. Those people don't follow standards!"
I can and do complain to operators of such web sites, especially when they are important sites. The last thing on earth we need is a return to the god-damn "this site supports only IE" or "best when viewed with IE X" days. Firefox is the primary (perhaps only) reason we we able to force a modicum of standards onto the world. We should NOT allow Google to take control and become the next IE.
>"That's not true, most of the first world is under replacement....."
The entire first world is a drop in the bucket compared to the population of the second and third world combined. So that means very little on a global scale.
Is that because it is too expensive to be "universal"? If there are income criteria attached, there is already a name for such a program.... it is called "welfare".
I think it is more plausible that 1/3 of the miles of Teslas THAT HAVE AUTOPILOT INSTALLED were driven on autopilot. Not 1/3 of all miles on ALL Teslas on the road. I am guessing a large majority of Teslas have no autopilot "installed." Earlier models don't offer it at all. And for those that do have it offered, many won't want or trust it, and many more won't pay the big extra cost for it ($5,000 to $10,000).
Besides, such statistics about fatality rates per mile don't take into consideration the TYPES of drivers that can afford and actually drive a Tesla. For all we know, they, as a group, might be above average drivers for a huge variety of reasons that we would have to account for, before giving such credit to autopilot.
Of course, I have no idea what the numbers actually are, just throwing out some stuff.
>"Incidentally, this approach can be applied to patents as well, "
Of course, the approach could ALSO be made on having children. They pose a huge cost to society too- schools, police, social services, amber alerts, JV, AFDC, Medicaid. But instead, we do the exact opposite (discounts, tax writeoffs, etc):)
If we stopped using stuff from every company or business who ever did something controversial, there would be nothing left for us to use or buy! What Mozilla did back then, was clearly and absolutely wrong. But Google has done so many, many more wrongs. Don't even get me started on Microsoft...
>"Last time an idiot in front of me at a light caused the same problems for similar reasons, ( he was playing with his phone and didn't notice the light went green after several seconds had passed ) I hit the horn to get his attention."
What does that REALLY have to do with a phone? I see people distracted all the time waiting for a traffic light and often causing us ATTENTIVE drivers to miss the damn light. They are looking at stores, messing with the stereo, putting on makeup, messing with their shoes, turned back yelling at the kids, entering directions on their car's GPS, sometimes just apparently daydreaming.
There is no special thing that makes phones or watches need to have special penalties or get singled out from any other type of distraction. Distracted driving is distracted driving.
People legally defend themselves with firearms between 1 and 3 million times a year (with or without firing, depending on source). That is not news for nerds. Criminals get shot a zillion times a year. That is not news for nerds. Is it just because it was in an Uber? If an Uber driver drove off the road, is that news for nerds? If he struck a pedestrian? If he was caught driving drunk? If he unjustifiably assaults/stabs/shoots someone? It might be news, but why here? Just to start more arguments about guns?
The article's only push talks about background checks. That has nothing to do with the shooting. And the article, itself, clearly says the shooter had no criminal record. Sounds like the Washington Post is just up to is typical anti-gun crusade/agenda as always.... but just because it is Uber, that doesn't make it Slashdot worthy.
>"Again, how do you know that? Who ever said you have to go to google.com to be tracked by google?"
Unless Startpage is colluding with Google, how exactly is Google going to know everything you are searching for when the requests are coming from a third party that is acting as a proxy/filter?
>"Just run the following performance test on Firefox and Chrome.
Whenever I look at benchmarks for the modern XXX vs. Firefox, they seem to be all over the map. In some specific benchmark tests, yes, XXX is X times faster than Firefox. But in others, Firefox is X times faster than XXX. What most people agree to is that with normal, general browsing, you can't really tell much of a difference in overall speed anymore.
By the way, I don't have Chrome, but I did compare Chromium to Firefox on that specific benchmark and had FAR worse results than you- 24 times slower! So yeah, they do need to work on whatever THAT is tickling!:)
Slashdot Mirror
When you cut the government spending in half, which of the sections of the pie chart will be reduced/removed ?
I am not an expert in such things. And whatever changes would have to be gradual. Plus, that graph lumps things interestingly. Education should be 0%- that is State. Probably half of welfare. Half or more of "other spending". All of "interest" because we shouldn't spend more than we take in.... again, something that would be painful to correct (requiring maintaining taxes until it is paid). And probably at least 1/3 of Defense, Healthcare (80% of which is welfare/Medicaid). Way more than half of "Pensions" through self-correction by reduction of Federal workforce, over time, but the huge part is the nightmare of Social Security, which itself contains a large amount of welfare ("disability" being one of the absolute most abused expenditure in the whole program) and poor financial structure.
>"Words like "fewer", "less" and "more" are useless, because it's not clear how much, and compared to what baseline."
They are not useless. We are discussing 3 parties, so it can easily mean less or more than the other two.
>"For example: "Less government spending". How much less,
Considerably less. Most I know wouldn't even blink at saying half. But there is no exact amount, and change takes time, anyway.
>"and where exactly will the money come from ?"
What money? The money we aren't spending? From taxes that aren't collected; the money the People keep and have control over and spend how they want. Libertarians generally detest taxing income and support taxing consumption.
>"That's not what libertarian means."
Nothing is really an absolute position, regardless of party. But, in a nut-shell, Libertarians believe in less government. That equates to things like:
1) Fewer regulations
2) Fewer laws
3) Less taxes
4) Less government spending
5) More personal freedom
6) More personal responsibility
7) More local control (less Federal)
Notice I didn't say "no" or "none" or "all" in the above. Just guiding principles. For some reason, on Slashdot, for many people, the word "Libertarian" immediately equates with extreme positions or just total anarchy, which is not only unfair, but actually pretty ridiculous. Libertarian is what used to be called "classic liberalism" which is pretty much on what the United States was founded. And it is what the Constitution supports and claims.
Ironically, I often hear people arguing positions that sound pretty much spot-on as Libertarian but from people claiming to be either Republican or Democrat.... but perhaps that is just due to our horrible two-party-only system that has formed from an even more horrible voting system (which REALLY needs to change if we want ANY real progress in this country... regardless of what party you think you are or what positions you hold dear).
http://fairvote.org/
How the above got modded "insightful" is absolutely beyond me. It is almost completely opposite of reality.
Democrats generally want more ILLEGAL aliens they can later TURN INTO voting residents who are dependent on "the system" through never-ending amnesty programs.
Republicans generally want more LEGAL aliens that will work for lower wages, yet pay taxes and not drain the system.
Exactly. This Excel crap is certainly random enough for randomness. The real question is whether an immigration system SHOULD be random. Is that in the best interest of the country? Of the citizens? Of the economy? What is "fair" and to whom? Does a country "owe" fairness or randomness to those seeking entry? Should those with better skills, education, or knowing the local language be prioritized? Should those with existing family support structures in the intended country be prioritized? These are tough questions that require answers.
Unfortunately, the whole confusion with ILLEGAL immigrants has muddied the water so much that people can't even seen to tell the difference anymore. Being selective doesn't necessarily mean being "phobic."
I know if I were inviting people I didn't know to come live in MY house, it certainly wouldn't be by lottery....
Yours is one of the best posts I have seen in a loooong time on Slashdot- at least when it involves anything political. I am glad it was corrected modded up.
All this hyper-sensitivity, ultra-PC, labeling, name-calling, and sensationalist media attention on non-issues or miscategorized issues are causing far more societal harm (through more polarization, hysteria, undeserved-guilt, unfounded hatred, beliefs of entitlement, finger-pointing, and bad policies) than the purported issues the SJW's intend to "solve."
Facts, logic, reason, studies, research, patience, intelligent conversation- who needs those?
Actually, I have seen good data backup numbers anywhere from what you said UP TO 3,000,000 (which I agree, is probably very unrealistic, hence my "up to" remark before the number). 1,000,000 seems to be the mostly supported number that I could come up with that seems reasonable. 80K is probably just as overly extreme on the low side as 3,000,000 on the low side. The 60-80K absolutely ignores a huge amount that we KNOW exists, but is nearly impossible to compute because not enough data is collected or can be proven.
Regardless, there are a huge number of actual and potential crimes that are stopped or averted due to "regular", "good" citizens who are *legally* armed. Pretty much everyone, including those who have seen only a little of the evidence with even a modicum of impartiality, agrees. While the number of violent crimes committed by people *legally* armed is so small as to be almost just noise in the statistics.
>"I assure you you have nothing to fear from the "Assault Steak Knights", as we only assault cows."
LOL, I caught the typo right after pressing Submit. Too late! Made it kinda funny, though.
>"What countries do you consider second world?"
India, China, Vietnam, most of Africa (that isn't third-world), quite a bit of central and south America. It is a lose term, for sure. Countries between first-world and third-world in which they have some or moderate technology and economy, but most of their population is poor or very poor.
>"The split between first world and the rest is probably 50:50 or even 60:40."
By population? Oh no, I don't think it is anywhere near that good.
>" I'm hopeful this outbreak of progressivism has run its course and is about to go dormant for a few generations."
I think we have just seen the tip of the iceberg...
>"Number of people killed in America last year by handguns: 25,227"
Number of defensive gun uses that either stopped or prevented crime in America by non-police, with and without any shots fired: up to 3,000,000
>"This attempt at legislation looks more like a some kind of "OMG! Flamethrowers are scary! We have to outlaw them!" type of knee jerk BS I've come to expect from California lawmakers."
That is because they are "Assault Flamethowers", just like the "Assault Revolver" and "Assault Shotgun"... soon to be followed by the "Assault Car" and "Assault Steakknight" and "Assault Baseball bat". Come on, get with the narrative, already!
>"If Amazon can't put the buyer in contact with the company which produced the device, then they should be liable. They sold it, they should be responsible for it"
I totally agree with that statement. But ONLY if Amazon can't provide that information. Otherwise, it is not Amazon's problem.
>"Frankly, even if they can put the person in contact, they should still be responsible, and recovering damages from the supplier should be their problem."
Not sure I agree with THAT statement. In those cases, they would only be responsible for replacement or refund of what they sold.
>"The only reason have Chrome install for those nasty web sites that have interactions that fail on Firefox. Those people don't follow standards!"
I can and do complain to operators of such web sites, especially when they are important sites. The last thing on earth we need is a return to the god-damn "this site supports only IE" or "best when viewed with IE X" days. Firefox is the primary (perhaps only) reason we we able to force a modicum of standards onto the world. We should NOT allow Google to take control and become the next IE.
>"That's not true, most of the first world is under replacement....."
The entire first world is a drop in the bucket compared to the population of the second and third world combined. So that means very little on a global scale.
>"Nature selects against societies that discourage child birth. It's only natural."
Only when the average goes below replacement. But few places are like that, and I believe we already have way more than enough people.
How is a "select group" "universal"?
Is that because it is too expensive to be "universal"? If there are income criteria attached, there is already a name for such a program.... it is called "welfare".
I think it is more plausible that 1/3 of the miles of Teslas THAT HAVE AUTOPILOT INSTALLED were driven on autopilot. Not 1/3 of all miles on ALL Teslas on the road. I am guessing a large majority of Teslas have no autopilot "installed." Earlier models don't offer it at all. And for those that do have it offered, many won't want or trust it, and many more won't pay the big extra cost for it ($5,000 to $10,000).
Besides, such statistics about fatality rates per mile don't take into consideration the TYPES of drivers that can afford and actually drive a Tesla. For all we know, they, as a group, might be above average drivers for a huge variety of reasons that we would have to account for, before giving such credit to autopilot.
Of course, I have no idea what the numbers actually are, just throwing out some stuff.
Interesting post.
>"Incidentally, this approach can be applied to patents as well, "
Of course, the approach could ALSO be made on having children. They pose a huge cost to society too- schools, police, social services, amber alerts, JV, AFDC, Medicaid. But instead, we do the exact opposite (discounts, tax writeoffs, etc) :)
If we stopped using stuff from every company or business who ever did something controversial, there would be nothing left for us to use or buy! What Mozilla did back then, was clearly and absolutely wrong. But Google has done so many, many more wrongs. Don't even get me started on Microsoft...
Well, I guess you have a point. But that still seems awfully generic and not technologically related.
>"Last time an idiot in front of me at a light caused the same problems for similar reasons, ( he was playing with his phone and didn't notice the light went green after several seconds had passed ) I hit the horn to get his attention."
What does that REALLY have to do with a phone? I see people distracted all the time waiting for a traffic light and often causing us ATTENTIVE drivers to miss the damn light. They are looking at stores, messing with the stereo, putting on makeup, messing with their shoes, turned back yelling at the kids, entering directions on their car's GPS, sometimes just apparently daydreaming.
There is no special thing that makes phones or watches need to have special penalties or get singled out from any other type of distraction. Distracted driving is distracted driving.
How is this at all related to "news for nerds"?
People legally defend themselves with firearms between 1 and 3 million times a year (with or without firing, depending on source). That is not news for nerds. Criminals get shot a zillion times a year. That is not news for nerds. Is it just because it was in an Uber? If an Uber driver drove off the road, is that news for nerds? If he struck a pedestrian? If he was caught driving drunk? If he unjustifiably assaults/stabs/shoots someone? It might be news, but why here? Just to start more arguments about guns?
The article's only push talks about background checks. That has nothing to do with the shooting. And the article, itself, clearly says the shooter had no criminal record. Sounds like the Washington Post is just up to is typical anti-gun crusade/agenda as always.... but just because it is Uber, that doesn't make it Slashdot worthy.
>"Again, how do you know that? Who ever said you have to go to google.com to be tracked by google?"
Unless Startpage is colluding with Google, how exactly is Google going to know everything you are searching for when the requests are coming from a third party that is acting as a proxy/filter?
>"Just run the following performance test on Firefox and Chrome.
Whenever I look at benchmarks for the modern XXX vs. Firefox, they seem to be all over the map. In some specific benchmark tests, yes, XXX is X times faster than Firefox. But in others, Firefox is X times faster than XXX. What most people agree to is that with normal, general browsing, you can't really tell much of a difference in overall speed anymore.
By the way, I don't have Chrome, but I did compare Chromium to Firefox on that specific benchmark and had FAR worse results than you- 24 times slower! So yeah, they do need to work on whatever THAT is tickling! :)