>"Some proponents advocate funding the move by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it"
If it does not *replace* all the other social income and welfare programs, then what is the purpose? That is the only way it could even remotely be affordable; and even then, it is still questionable. Basic income is not based on need, it is based on equality- that everyone would get an amount of subsistence money, regardless of what they choose to earn or already have. A program with zero red tape, almost no overhead, and without trying to create standards for who supposedly "deserves" money. Otherwise, all we would be doing is starting another absolutely massive, unaffordable, unsustainable, unfair, corruptive social welfare program to add to the dozens that already exist.
I am more inclined to believe you are just in that very small 0.1% of people who can actually tell:)
I can tell too, but only with extraordinary content, and only with no motion (OR, if I stand three feet from my 80" TV). Neither is typical for most video, though. More useful for displaying stills.
>"An alleged commenter in Montana told a reporter she didn't even know what net neutrality was. "
Actually, based on my dealings with "every day people" I estimate that perhaps as many as 98% of people either have no idea what net neutrality is or have highly inaccurate information about what it is. But this seems typical on any highly technical or abstract subject.
>" could lead to three times the resolution for televisions, smartphones and other devices."
Perhaps for "other devices", but for TVs and general phone use, it is a waste of time. Unless they plan on increasing the human eye and brain along with it.
Example: 99.9% of people won't notice any difference between quality 1080P and 4K at a normal distance for the size of the screen (perhaps 9-10 feet for a 70-80" screen). Same thing with a 5.5" phone held at a normal 16" or so (although reading/viewing static TEXT on devices is far different from moving video and does benefit from some increase in resolution, but we already have that now).
Please put the effort into things that actually matter to more than 0.01% of the population. Like better battery life, or better reception, higher bandwidth, wider viewing angles, lower power draw, lower weight, lower price, etc.
>"This is already partially available on T-Mobile, called Scam Blocker. It's free."
Cool, thanks for the info. I just turned on that option. Their help stuff doesn't really say much technical info about how it works (is it crowd-sourced, is it centralized, does it include telemarketers and robocallers, etc).
And I never noticed they had caller ID, probably just ignored it since they want to charge $4 a month. Yeesh. They call it "Name ID"
2) Adding caller ID with name (really, we have had this on land lines for how many decades now?)
3) Blocking spam callers with full end-user control (like settings for do NOT allow going to voicemail either, white lists, challenge suspected spam calls with voice prompts, etc)
>"it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions[...]have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen."
THAT would be the worst mistake ever, especially for the USA. We have already seen many of the things "the world" would want to do and much of it runs contrary to the Constitution.
I have been saying this for many years.... it doesn't matter what laws say, the government (and big business) is going to do whatever they want with data they collect. Most certainly the 3-letter agencies will.
I love it how things are worded "this data can only be used for XXXXX" or "can't be used for YYYYY" or "won't be disclosed to ZZZZZZ". Bull crap. They will do whatever they want and even if they abide by it for the moment, computers don't "forget" and laws can change at any time.
If you don't think the agencies have access to (or WILL have access to) every fingerprint collected, every photo, every DNA sample run, etc, then you are living in a fantasy world.
The only safe data (or biometric) is that not given and not collected.
Sorry, this has little to do with Trump. Almost all tourism here (USA) starts with airplanes/airports. The hysteria/irrational security of airports and airplanes started a long time ago and tourism has been suffering every year since.
The current issue with a few Middle Eastern countries is just a blip on the radar of how overall tourism has been affected. And none of this even mentions tourism WITHIN the USA by Americans, which is also down because of the ridiculous harassment at airports.
This whole thing is blown WAY out of proportion about firefighting or law enforcement safety. A drone doesn't supply any more danger in such a situation that in ANY OTHER situation where it is flying near or over people. Period. This is just a power grab.
If it is even reasonably possible to install Linux on it and have it actually work properly. I haven't researched it, but I am going to guess it would be an unfortunate nightmare..... so a "Surface" is likely never going to be on my radar.
They are just sending a cease and desist letter to a site using their name in the domain. We might not like that, but this is not an abuse of power or their position as an ISP at all. They didn't block the site. They didn't flood the site. They didn't slow down the site.
No ISP (that I know of) is going to support net neutrality on their own volition. They want the power to do whatever they want with data and bandwidth. I don't blame them for wanting to get rid of neutrality, even though I don't like it. I blame the apathetic CUSTOMERS who either don't understand the issues or just don't CARE about their privacy and freedom.
>"According to this story just posted here on Slashdot, Comcast is playing about as dirty as they can get."
Really? Looks to me like they are just sending a cease and desist letter to a site using their name in the domain. We might not like that, but this is not an abuse of power or their position as an ISP at all. They didn't block the site. They didn't flood the site. They didn't slow down the site.
No ISP (that I know of) is going to support net neutrality on their own volition. They want the power to do whatever they want with data and bandwidth. I don't blame them for wanting to get rid of neutrality, even though I don't like it. I blame the apathetic CUSTOMERS who either don't understand the issues or just don't CARE about their privacy and freedom.
>" It's just that some water doesn't have an adequate amount of fluoride to discourage tooth decay."
There is no need for it in water anymore in first-world countries. Almost every common toothpaste and dental rinse has way more than enough to prevent tooth decay. I can't imagine drinking it is necessary or has been for decades now.
>"Is this shortage happening in countries with "socialized medicine", or just in free market America?"
If we had a really free market (with safeguards to prevent monopolies or near-monopolies), then plenty of other companies would make such "drugs" available, too (in this example, it is not really a drug, it is just a commodity). Besides, even if a shortage occurred in such a market, it would send the price up and other companies would rush to market with completing product and pricing would go down and supply would then increase then eventually stabilize.
In a perfectly free and elastic economy (and part of that freedom *is* preventing monopolies with take away from free trade), supply and demand and pricing is completely self correcting. If anything, the more "socialized" a place is (with more government controls on supply and demand, limiting competition, restricting price changes, tampering with demand) the more likely shortages will occur.
No system is perfect. But free markets have generally been proven to work better than anything out there.
"What router analytics data is collected and how is the data being used by NETGEAR? Technical data about the functioning and use of our routers and their WiFi network can help us to more quickly isolate and debug general technical issues, improve router features and functionality, and improve the performance and usability of our routers. Such data may include information regarding the routerâ(TM)s running status, number of devices connected to the router, types of connections, LAN/WAN status, WiFi bands and channels, IP address, MAC address, serial number, and similar technical data about the use and functioning of the router, as well as its WiFi network."
Yeah, power is easy to manage with electricity. Range is always the issue (well, and weight). Weight and size is really a problem for motorcycles- so a powerful-enough motorcycle with reasonable range will likely have to wait for a major battery breakthrough that can double to quadruple density for the same weight/volume.
Overtaxing is almost the same as banning, so that wouldn't be good either. The best way is to offer compelling alternatives and just give it time. It is not like [modern] motorcycles use much fuel or contribute much to pollution (mine has EFI, O2 sensor, CAT).
>"I don't care if you hurt yourself, but drivers regularly hurt other innocent people. If self-driving cars really work out his well, then yes, you will not be allowed to put other at risk for your own driving pleasure."
So you don't think a bicyclist suddenly pulling out in front of a self-driving car couldn't hurt someone else; causing it to veer out of the lane or malfunction in a way that could hit someone else or cause harm to the occupant? Or a target shooter harming someone else by accident? Or a dog biting someone? I think many of my examples are perfectly valid even about hurting "innocent" people. My point is that it is impossible to make the world perfectly safe, and by doing so, it sucks all the fun and enjoyment out of it.... even if your goal is only to try and absolutely protect people from each other.
Motorcycles[/clylists] actually cause very few accidents. And the people that get hurt are overwhelmingly the motorcyclists themselves. Cars drivers probably hurt motorcyclists 1,000+ times more than motorcyclists harm car drivers. If human-operated motorcycles remain on the roads with mostly or totally self-driving cars, it should probably be just fine. But I can see where things like this lead.
>"BMW, Honda, and Yamaha have already built them. The future is here, and it looks boring as hell."
Not really, they have developed self-balancing motorcycle prototypes and low-speed, unmanned following concepts. That is not the same as a "self-driving motorcycle" which would have to fight the driver's positioning and weight while driving at high-speed. I don't doubt it will eventually come, but I suppose I should have reworded what I said- that really isn't motorcycling driving and I can't imagine it would be any fun at all (which means your last sentence certainly would be true).
>"Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond"
And those of us who ENJOY driving, especially motorcycles (which can likely never be self-driving) are royally screwed. But hey, I suppose a super-safe and boring life is so much more meaningful than a a free and enjoyable one with some risk....
Oh, make sure to ban bicycles and pedestrians too. Then start banning skateboards, roller skates/blades, horseback riding, skydiving, mounting climbing, target shooting, football, skiing, dogs, game consoles, whatever. Life is just not safe, you know.
>" beefed-up specs that won't just guarantee smooth app performance and streaming, according to Amazon's VP of Smart TVs Sandeep Gupta, but are also meant to future-proof the device."
Yeah right. If you want a future-proof "TV", then what you want is just a "dumb" monitor/TV with EXTERNAL content supply devices. Things that can be easily replaced, updated, shipped, configured, or added. Is it really that big of a deal to plug in a Fire Stick, ChromeCast, Roku, TiVo, AppleTV, whatever? I mean, it is not like people don't understand the concept of having a cable box or DVD/BluRay player or game console. This "smart TV" concept is usually just a privacy and security disaster- stuff that is not kept updated, and often can't be disabled or controlled.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Some proponents advocate funding the move by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it"
If it does not *replace* all the other social income and welfare programs, then what is the purpose? That is the only way it could even remotely be affordable; and even then, it is still questionable. Basic income is not based on need, it is based on equality- that everyone would get an amount of subsistence money, regardless of what they choose to earn or already have. A program with zero red tape, almost no overhead, and without trying to create standards for who supposedly "deserves" money. Otherwise, all we would be doing is starting another absolutely massive, unaffordable, unsustainable, unfair, corruptive social welfare program to add to the dozens that already exist.
I am more inclined to believe you are just in that very small 0.1% of people who can actually tell :)
I can tell too, but only with extraordinary content, and only with no motion (OR, if I stand three feet from my 80" TV). Neither is typical for most video, though. More useful for displaying stills.
>"An alleged commenter in Montana told a reporter she didn't even know what net neutrality was. "
Actually, based on my dealings with "every day people" I estimate that perhaps as many as 98% of people either have no idea what net neutrality is or have highly inaccurate information about what it is. But this seems typical on any highly technical or abstract subject.
>" could lead to three times the resolution for televisions, smartphones and other devices."
Perhaps for "other devices", but for TVs and general phone use, it is a waste of time. Unless they plan on increasing the human eye and brain along with it.
Example: 99.9% of people won't notice any difference between quality 1080P and 4K at a normal distance for the size of the screen (perhaps 9-10 feet for a 70-80" screen). Same thing with a 5.5" phone held at a normal 16" or so (although reading/viewing static TEXT on devices is far different from moving video and does benefit from some increase in resolution, but we already have that now).
Please put the effort into things that actually matter to more than 0.01% of the population. Like better battery life, or better reception, higher bandwidth, wider viewing angles, lower power draw, lower weight, lower price, etc.
>"This is already partially available on T-Mobile, called Scam Blocker. It's free."
Cool, thanks for the info. I just turned on that option. Their help stuff doesn't really say much technical info about how it works (is it crowd-sourced, is it centralized, does it include telemarketers and robocallers, etc).
And I never noticed they had caller ID, probably just ignored it since they want to charge $4 a month. Yeesh. They call it "Name ID"
I would much rather the effort go into:
1) Preventing phone number spoofing.
2) Adding caller ID with name (really, we have had this on land lines for how many decades now?)
3) Blocking spam callers with full end-user control (like settings for do NOT allow going to voicemail either, white lists, challenge suspected spam calls with voice prompts, etc)
>"it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions[...]have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen."
THAT would be the worst mistake ever, especially for the USA. We have already seen many of the things "the world" would want to do and much of it runs contrary to the Constitution.
I have been saying this for many years.... it doesn't matter what laws say, the government (and big business) is going to do whatever they want with data they collect. Most certainly the 3-letter agencies will.
I love it how things are worded "this data can only be used for XXXXX" or "can't be used for YYYYY" or "won't be disclosed to ZZZZZZ". Bull crap. They will do whatever they want and even if they abide by it for the moment, computers don't "forget" and laws can change at any time.
If you don't think the agencies have access to (or WILL have access to) every fingerprint collected, every photo, every DNA sample run, etc, then you are living in a fantasy world.
The only safe data (or biometric) is that not given and not collected.
Sorry, this has little to do with Trump. Almost all tourism here (USA) starts with airplanes/airports. The hysteria/irrational security of airports and airplanes started a long time ago and tourism has been suffering every year since.
The current issue with a few Middle Eastern countries is just a blip on the radar of how overall tourism has been affected. And none of this even mentions tourism WITHIN the USA by Americans, which is also down because of the ridiculous harassment at airports.
+1 insightful
This whole thing is blown WAY out of proportion about firefighting or law enforcement safety. A drone doesn't supply any more danger in such a situation that in ANY OTHER situation where it is flying near or over people. Period. This is just a power grab.
>We know full well how much the PGOTUS respects these things.
Yep, just about as much as the previous president and the several ones before him.
If it is even reasonably possible to install Linux on it and have it actually work properly. I haven't researched it, but I am going to guess it would be an unfortunate nightmare..... so a "Surface" is likely never going to be on my radar.
Exactly.
They are just sending a cease and desist letter to a site using their name in the domain. We might not like that, but this is not an abuse of power or their position as an ISP at all. They didn't block the site. They didn't flood the site. They didn't slow down the site.
No ISP (that I know of) is going to support net neutrality on their own volition. They want the power to do whatever they want with data and bandwidth. I don't blame them for wanting to get rid of neutrality, even though I don't like it. I blame the apathetic CUSTOMERS who either don't understand the issues or just don't CARE about their privacy and freedom.
>"According to this story just posted here on Slashdot, Comcast is playing about as dirty as they can get."
Really? Looks to me like they are just sending a cease and desist letter to a site using their name in the domain. We might not like that, but this is not an abuse of power or their position as an ISP at all. They didn't block the site. They didn't flood the site. They didn't slow down the site.
No ISP (that I know of) is going to support net neutrality on their own volition. They want the power to do whatever they want with data and bandwidth. I don't blame them for wanting to get rid of neutrality, even though I don't like it. I blame the apathetic CUSTOMERS who either don't understand the issues or just don't CARE about their privacy and freedom.
>" It's just that some water doesn't have an adequate amount of fluoride to discourage tooth decay."
There is no need for it in water anymore in first-world countries. Almost every common toothpaste and dental rinse has way more than enough to prevent tooth decay. I can't imagine drinking it is necessary or has been for decades now.
>"Is this shortage happening in countries with "socialized medicine", or just in free market America?"
If we had a really free market (with safeguards to prevent monopolies or near-monopolies), then plenty of other companies would make such "drugs" available, too (in this example, it is not really a drug, it is just a commodity). Besides, even if a shortage occurred in such a market, it would send the price up and other companies would rush to market with completing product and pricing would go down and supply would then increase then eventually stabilize.
In a perfectly free and elastic economy (and part of that freedom *is* preventing monopolies with take away from free trade), supply and demand and pricing is completely self correcting. If anything, the more "socialized" a place is (with more government controls on supply and demand, limiting competition, restricting price changes, tampering with demand) the more likely shortages will occur.
No system is perfect. But free markets have generally been proven to work better than anything out there.
"What router analytics data is collected and how is the data being used by NETGEAR? Technical data about the functioning and use of our routers and their WiFi network can help us to more quickly isolate and debug general technical issues, improve router features and functionality, and improve the performance and usability of our routers. Such data may include information regarding the routerâ(TM)s running status, number of devices connected to the router, types of connections, LAN/WAN status, WiFi bands and channels, IP address, MAC address, serial number, and similar technical data about the use and functioning of the router, as well as its WiFi network."
Yeah, power is easy to manage with electricity. Range is always the issue (well, and weight). Weight and size is really a problem for motorcycles- so a powerful-enough motorcycle with reasonable range will likely have to wait for a major battery breakthrough that can double to quadruple density for the same weight/volume.
Overtaxing is almost the same as banning, so that wouldn't be good either. The best way is to offer compelling alternatives and just give it time. It is not like [modern] motorcycles use much fuel or contribute much to pollution (mine has EFI, O2 sensor, CAT).
>"However they might demand that they become electric."
Fine with me! As long as they don't require it until they are at least as powerful as a 1400cc and with a 240 mile range :)
Although it would make more sense to ban NEW sales, rather than ban everything outright.
>Driving is unsafe to *others* as opposed to skydiving or skiing.
And my other examples that DO involve being a danger to others?
> And I won't even ask where you were going with game consoles.
They pose serious RSI danger and can develop anti-social behavior and sometimes addiction.
>You'd better hope dumbasses are not going to be banned.
Then I wouldn't be able to enjoy reading such comments?
>I don't think it will be banned I think it will just fall out of favor.
Perhaps... or insurance will make it unaffordable, which is kinda the same thing.
>I mean sure you could drive yourself but why bother?
You are obviously not a motorcyclist or you wouldn't say such a thing :)
> Motorcyclists have much more to fear from human driven cars than self driving cars.
That is very true.
>Hey self driving cars might even stop for motorcyclists wouldn't that be nice?
There would be great advantages for human-driven motorcyclists in a world where most or all of the cars are computer-driven.
>"I don't care if you hurt yourself, but drivers regularly hurt other innocent people. If self-driving cars really work out his well, then yes, you will not be allowed to put other at risk for your own driving pleasure."
So you don't think a bicyclist suddenly pulling out in front of a self-driving car couldn't hurt someone else; causing it to veer out of the lane or malfunction in a way that could hit someone else or cause harm to the occupant? Or a target shooter harming someone else by accident? Or a dog biting someone? I think many of my examples are perfectly valid even about hurting "innocent" people. My point is that it is impossible to make the world perfectly safe, and by doing so, it sucks all the fun and enjoyment out of it.... even if your goal is only to try and absolutely protect people from each other.
Motorcycles[/clylists] actually cause very few accidents. And the people that get hurt are overwhelmingly the motorcyclists themselves. Cars drivers probably hurt motorcyclists 1,000+ times more than motorcyclists harm car drivers. If human-operated motorcycles remain on the roads with mostly or totally self-driving cars, it should probably be just fine. But I can see where things like this lead.
>"BMW, Honda, and Yamaha have already built them. The future is here, and it looks boring as hell."
Not really, they have developed self-balancing motorcycle prototypes and low-speed, unmanned following concepts. That is not the same as a "self-driving motorcycle" which would have to fight the driver's positioning and weight while driving at high-speed. I don't doubt it will eventually come, but I suppose I should have reworded what I said- that really isn't motorcycling driving and I can't imagine it would be any fun at all (which means your last sentence certainly would be true).
>"Cities will ban human drivers once the data confirms how dangerous they can be behind a wheel. This will spread to suburbs, and then beyond"
And those of us who ENJOY driving, especially motorcycles (which can likely never be self-driving) are royally screwed. But hey, I suppose a super-safe and boring life is so much more meaningful than a a free and enjoyable one with some risk....
Oh, make sure to ban bicycles and pedestrians too. Then start banning skateboards, roller skates/blades, horseback riding, skydiving, mounting climbing, target shooting, football, skiing, dogs, game consoles, whatever. Life is just not safe, you know.
>" beefed-up specs that won't just guarantee smooth app performance and streaming, according to Amazon's VP of Smart TVs Sandeep Gupta, but are also meant to future-proof the device."
Yeah right. If you want a future-proof "TV", then what you want is just a "dumb" monitor/TV with EXTERNAL content supply devices. Things that can be easily replaced, updated, shipped, configured, or added. Is it really that big of a deal to plug in a Fire Stick, ChromeCast, Roku, TiVo, AppleTV, whatever? I mean, it is not like people don't understand the concept of having a cable box or DVD/BluRay player or game console. This "smart TV" concept is usually just a privacy and security disaster- stuff that is not kept updated, and often can't be disabled or controlled.