So UBI will basically be like a minimum-wage job today, except with ability to make more money by working more and not lose any benefits you may have. Or have more free time to better oneself and eventually end up doing something either (a) better-paying or (b) genuinely useful to society.
Exactly: nothing stops you from working in this situation. People typically want to have a purpose in life. Most will continue to work, but maybe not two jobs at min wage -- they'll have more time to better themselves and their situation.
Not everyone is given equal educational opportunities in the first place. There are states with piss-poor public high schools where even public universities cost $15 grand a year. Likewise, job opportunities differ regionally, but people with families can't just pack it up and move on a dime's drop. Also, people mature at different rates, and some people have learning differences (ADHD, etc) that get diagnosed later in life.
Grow up instead of speaking from a position of privilege.
Building a reactor to "burn" nuclear fuel easily is actually a hell of a lot easier than building what you speak of, which is a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bomb with Pu needs a bunch of precisely-machined plutonium bits made up into a sphere, compressed with very precisely machined and exactly designed explosives. Getting a nuke to go BOOM! isn't actually all that simple, unless you're talking about a primitive Hiroshima-type U-235 "gun."
If the least productive members of society are actually able to get off the treadmill of a minimum-wage job, they'll have time to better themselves through education, training, reading, etc should they desire to. The breathing room given to them will actually allow them to become MORE productive people.
UBI is a safety net without the expensive part of qualifying people for different welfare programs. Nothing more or less. It's a more efficient form of welfare, where the costs of the UBI are recovered with higher income and/or sales taxes as incomes increase.
Also, people who don't feel as poor tend to be more mobile. If you're making $10/hr at Mickey Dee's at 40hr/week, you're too busy surviving to go back to school or look for vocational training to better yourself. Take away the immediate need for as much income, and people end up with more options -- this will end up making people MORE productive in the long run.
Aluminium and magnesium are also pyrophoric. We make engine blocks out of their alloys. Pyrophoricity doesn't mean it will spontaneously ignite in air, just that it can burn under the right circumstances. (i.e. heated with a blowtorch, finely divided than subjected to flame, etc)
The solution is either: (a) to store and transport Pu as an oxide. It can't be burnt, since it's already chemically "burnt." (b) use a less-flammable cladding material to protect it from oxygen.
The engineers are beholden to... OMG!... politicians with no scientific education, who in turn are accountable to low-information voters. Nuclear power in the US is highly politicized.
Yep, the guy was a fratboy arsehole -- this crap continued through college and probably later. But the real stinker about his entitled arse were his policies and ideals. Anti-choice, against separation of church and state, against enforcing Amendments 4, 5, and 6 properly. Hope the stress of his confirmation hearings has started him on the path to severe alcoholism...
The plutonium is a metal. Mixed with glass, it's not going anywhere fast. Tritium is radioactive hydrogen (probably as part of tritiated water). It likes to migrate. You're comparing lemons to nipples here.
AFAIK, it will still run in a reactor -- you'd just need more shielding when processing it or loading the reactor with MOX.
One can argue that the increased radioactivity/Pu240 contamination is a feature, not a bug. Makes it harder to misappropriate or for amateurs to machine into a bomb core.
Pu239 can run a reactor in space, though. Pu238 is for radioisotope thermal generators. But both types of power generator can power a long-range spacecraft.
Pu239 is better in some ways -- reactors can produce more power than a RiTeG, and also, it's relatively non-radioactive until a reactor is started. Start the reactor after entry into space, and you're much safer from launch mishaps than if you used faster-decaying Pu238,
I mean, why use military means when you can use economic means? Sanctions work as a stick. A carrot? We'll give you a low-interest loan to build you a brand spankin' new clean nuclear plant and run it for 40 years...
You're implying that many of the wars the US goes into abroad are "useful." Also, better to have them shoot at wooden targets than actual human beings -- human beings are not target dummies, twerp.
The US is likely to comply last -- much of the non-US world sees it as a real problem and wants to reduce emissions voluntarily. How to get countries to comply without military thuggery? How about economically? Don't buy their products if they don't. And sell them products that help them comply, like new-generation, clean, safe-as-can-be nuclear reactors, as well as nuclear fuel and engineering support. Give low-interest long-term loans. Profit.
Science and engineering degrees are useful. Business majors? The US could do without most of them -- b-school in the US is often about teaching future CxOs how to be better sociopaths.
ICBMs/SLBMs and an armed population are cheap and effective at dissuading invasion. We're not giving any of those things up anytime soon. Things like the F-35 are mostly good at invading OTHER countries, not at protecting against invasion from outside.
Taxation is useful. However, the money garnered should serve the needs of all citizens, not just a few select companies or people who profiteer on government contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
Milk and lemon juice taste very different, though I suppose you can combine them to make paneer. :D
So UBI will basically be like a minimum-wage job today, except with ability to make more money by working more and not lose any benefits you may have. Or have more free time to better oneself and eventually end up doing something either (a) better-paying or (b) genuinely useful to society.
Exactly: nothing stops you from working in this situation. People typically want to have a purpose in life. Most will continue to work, but maybe not two jobs at min wage -- they'll have more time to better themselves and their situation.
It comes from taxing those that are working at a given time. The $1000 is redistributed, not created from thin air.
Not everyone is given equal educational opportunities in the first place. There are states with piss-poor public high schools where even public universities cost $15 grand a year. Likewise, job opportunities differ regionally, but people with families can't just pack it up and move on a dime's drop. Also, people mature at different rates, and some people have learning differences (ADHD, etc) that get diagnosed later in life.
Grow up instead of speaking from a position of privilege.
Building a reactor to "burn" nuclear fuel easily is actually a hell of a lot easier than building what you speak of, which is a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bomb with Pu needs a bunch of precisely-machined plutonium bits made up into a sphere, compressed with very precisely machined and exactly designed explosives. Getting a nuke to go BOOM! isn't actually all that simple, unless you're talking about a primitive Hiroshima-type U-235 "gun."
If the least productive members of society are actually able to get off the treadmill of a minimum-wage job, they'll have time to better themselves through education, training, reading, etc should they desire to. The breathing room given to them will actually allow them to become MORE productive people.
Unclear. If it's financed by taxes, not by deficit spending, it doesn't actually increase the amount of money available to the economy by much.
UBI is a safety net without the expensive part of qualifying people for different welfare programs. Nothing more or less. It's a more efficient form of welfare, where the costs of the UBI are recovered with higher income and/or sales taxes as incomes increase.
Also, people who don't feel as poor tend to be more mobile. If you're making $10/hr at Mickey Dee's at 40hr/week, you're too busy surviving to go back to school or look for vocational training to better yourself. Take away the immediate need for as much income, and people end up with more options -- this will end up making people MORE productive in the long run.
Aluminium and magnesium are also pyrophoric. We make engine blocks out of their alloys. Pyrophoricity doesn't mean it will spontaneously ignite in air, just that it can burn under the right circumstances. (i.e. heated with a blowtorch, finely divided than subjected to flame, etc)
The solution is either:
(a) to store and transport Pu as an oxide. It can't be burnt, since it's already chemically "burnt."
(b) use a less-flammable cladding material to protect it from oxygen.
The engineers are beholden to ... OMG! ... politicians with no scientific education, who in turn are accountable to low-information voters. Nuclear power in the US is highly politicized.
That's why you process it into an oxide before use in a reactor. If it's already burnt, it can't be burnt further.
Yep, the guy was a fratboy arsehole -- this crap continued through college and probably later. But the real stinker about his entitled arse were his policies and ideals. Anti-choice, against separation of church and state, against enforcing Amendments 4, 5, and 6 properly. Hope the stress of his confirmation hearings has started him on the path to severe alcoholism...
It does have the ability to burn, supposedly. But you can make it into plutonium oxide which is already "burnt" to make it safer.
The plutonium is a metal. Mixed with glass, it's not going anywhere fast. Tritium is radioactive hydrogen (probably as part of tritiated water). It likes to migrate. You're comparing lemons to nipples here.
Yep, screeching anti-nuclear Luddism with a healthy helping of irrational terrorism/proliferation fear mixed in.
AFAIK, it will still run in a reactor -- you'd just need more shielding when processing it or loading the reactor with MOX.
One can argue that the increased radioactivity/Pu240 contamination is a feature, not a bug. Makes it harder to misappropriate or for amateurs to machine into a bomb core.
Pu239 can run a reactor in space, though. Pu238 is for radioisotope thermal generators. But both types of power generator can power a long-range spacecraft. Pu239 is better in some ways -- reactors can produce more power than a RiTeG, and also, it's relatively non-radioactive until a reactor is started. Start the reactor after entry into space, and you're much safer from launch mishaps than if you used faster-decaying Pu238,
What's scarier? A killer who still has some shame about whom s/he kills, or a killer without a sense of remorse or shame?
I mean, why use military means when you can use economic means? Sanctions work as a stick. A carrot? We'll give you a low-interest loan to build you a brand spankin' new clean nuclear plant and run it for 40 years...
You're implying that many of the wars the US goes into abroad are "useful." Also, better to have them shoot at wooden targets than actual human beings -- human beings are not target dummies, twerp.
The US is likely to comply last -- much of the non-US world sees it as a real problem and wants to reduce emissions voluntarily. How to get countries to comply without military thuggery? How about economically? Don't buy their products if they don't. And sell them products that help them comply, like new-generation, clean, safe-as-can-be nuclear reactors, as well as nuclear fuel and engineering support. Give low-interest long-term loans. Profit.
Science and engineering degrees are useful. Business majors? The US could do without most of them -- b-school in the US is often about teaching future CxOs how to be better sociopaths.
ICBMs/SLBMs and an armed population are cheap and effective at dissuading invasion. We're not giving any of those things up anytime soon. Things like the F-35 are mostly good at invading OTHER countries, not at protecting against invasion from outside.
Taxation is useful. However, the money garnered should serve the needs of all citizens, not just a few select companies or people who profiteer on government contracts.