At least Johnson is honest. I'll take an honest man I disagree with on some issues - even an extremist - before I take liars and racists. I guess everyone has different priorities. With the dems and repubs, what they campaign on is probably completely unrelated to what they actually do in office. That's assuming they even talk about issues at all. With Johnson, I know where he stands.
Johnson doesn't have to win - he just has to make enough of a showing to wake people the heck up.
One party nominated a racist. The other party nominated a serial liar. And still, I bet the Libertarian and Green parties won't get 5% of the vote. I suspect that Hillary and Trump could beat American children in public while shouting "America sucks" and we still wouldn't get a third-party into office.
My favorite is the guy attending the RNC, wearing the "STOP TRUMP" t-shirt, who said he would vote for Trump. **NUCLEAR FACEPALM**
Their interface is complete horrible. And it is completely different on each device. Sometimes I can't do something from my phone app, so I try the mobile browser, and then if that doesn't work I try the desktop app. If that doesn't work, maybe I can do it from my TV. It's ridiculous. Sometimes it searches the DVD and streaming catalog, sometimes it searches just the streaming catalog. Sometimes the "My List" disappears from their Android/iPhone app, only to reappear later.
I suspect that Netflix was a company that did the right thing at the right time, but was never well managed.
Netflix needs to find a way to expand their streaming service.
While I keep seeing articles titled "Why does anyone use Netflix's DVD service?" I have a DVD queue that is 324 DVDs long. Their streaming catalog is a tiny fraction of what they have on DVD, and almost nothing I want is streamable. No new releases are streamable. Hardly any Disney or Dreamworks is streamable. Seems like most "blockbusters" aren't streamable. Neither is most of the 90's sci-fi I want to catch-up on. They need to pressure hollywood while they are still the 500-lb gorilla of the market.
Any aircraft can be converted to a drone. That helicopter carrying 500-1000 gallons of water might actually be better-off as a drone, than with a human pilot. That's the threat the AC refers to.
I don't trust the federal government to be telling the truth here.
I can't find the Slashdot article, but the FAA was caught lying in front of congress about how drones interfere with other aircraft. They were taking every occurrance where a pilot says that they see a UFO, and counting that as a drone. Another example was the case where a commercial plane was damaged by something striking it, and they claimed it was a drone even though they found no evidence of it. They found their boogeyman and want to blame everything on it.
We have a problem that government agencies can make rules without having to prove their case. And they aren't elected officials so they don't answer directly to the people.
It could be that various government organizations see drones as a threat to government opaqueness. The FAA is going to do everything they can to limit drone use. This is where the surveillance society swings the other way - people can keep better track of the government. Whenever we see these claims about drones, take them with a grain of salt. Start asking what evidence they have that there was a drone present. Most drones are so cheap and light, that a 2mph breeze will make them uncontrollable. It strains believability that firefighting helicoptors are threatened by bits of plastic lighter than many birds. Are there really drones operating over forest fires? Until I see real evidence, a random pilot claiming "I couldn't do X because of a drone" isn't going to convince me to tighten regulations.
How about a common sense regulation saying that anyone operating a drone over a certain weight has to be available on a particilar CB radio channel?
I should have sold my XBone as soon as I got it for free from the Microsoft Build Conference. Instead, it accumulated dust for years under the idea that "ooh, I can use the Kinect 2 as a 3D scanner!" And my kids can play Kinect games in a few years! Turns out, nobody supports Kinect 2 as a 3D scanner because it is inferior to the Kinect 1. And they never made any decent games for it. Even new, the writing was on the wall: I couldn't even trade-in my new-in-box $500 XBOX for a used $300 Wii. GameStop just didn't want the dang things since day 1.
I am surprised that people don't think that Niantic owns the Pokemon trademark. Take a look at the title screen. It says "Niantic <br/> [Niantic Logo] <br/> The Pokemon Company." It looks like "The Pokemon Company" is Niantic's tagline. That's not typically how a company is named.
So why isn't the library of congress making these exemptions?I usually think of librarians as being pretty good guardians of research and free speech. It seems like the LOC does not follow that spirit.
First, you have to have standing. You can't just go "oh, this law sucks and would affect me so I'm going to sue." You really have to wait for the government or third-party to prosecute you, then defend yourself. Then you *might* have standing to sue the government. Also, you need to have a better case than "I wanna watch anime in my Mom's basement." So far, many security researches have either not been sued, or they haven't stood up to defend themselves.
It is also tough to find out who exactly to sue. The approach here is that, since the DMCA gives the library of congress (LOC) the power to create DMCA exemptions, they can sue the LOC. They are also suing the copyright office and the department of justice (DOJ). Copyright office seems logical too, but I am unsure why the DOJ is on the list.
It becomes Tesla's problem because it affects public perception of Tesla. They are at the next challenge, which is, can they manage the PR spin and survive it.
has Tesla done anything practical with their rockets yet?
Tesla has not, because Tesla is the car company. But if you meant to ask that about SpaceX...
Why not, if the only other alternative available to you is $0/hour and you don't lose any of your basic income?
Two reasons: 1) You have reduced their incentive to work and 2) Most of them are getting UBI because they physically or mentally cannot work anyway.
By the numbers: Today welfare tops out at about $7k/year, and minimum wage is $7.25 an hour which is about $15k. Using your numbers, UBI would be at least $16k for a single person, and they will make $1/hour which is $2k. So you have reduced their wage by a factor of 7 and increased their welfare by a factor of 2. That means that they have a 14-fold reduction in the benefit of their work.
So make a deposit to a debit account each day, they will eventually figure it out. What you are saying is 10% of US population is mentally incompetent. If that is truly the case, we have a public health emergency. But I bet it's closer to 1% if we give people reasonable chances to be independent.
We *do* have a public health emergency! 66% of people below the poverty line report substance abuse or mental health problems! You need to go meet the poor because it is clear you know jack about poverty in America. It's okay, I didn't either until my brother-in-law and my father, both got involved in careers in that field.
Your "guess" that they will "eventually figure it out" does not jive with reality. America cannot make a policy change based on the middle-class's guess as to how impoverished people will respond to a sudden influx of cash. I suggest that you volunteer at a soup kitchen for a week, or volunteer to drive some impoverished people around town. Maybe ride the bus to work in Chicago or DC and talk to them. Go meet a social worker. Your idea of what their life is like is far from reality.
These ideas sound nice in theory - it's the libertarian capitalist "get the government out of their way" viewpoint. It's appealing because we hate bureaucracy. I lean libertarian myself as well. But your confidence in people's ability to make good decisions does not reflect the reality that psychologists and social workers know. Many of the poor don't know how to budget. They get scammed. Many are elderly, or have never had a savings account before. Some of them wouldn't walk into a bank at gunpoint! They are scared of banks and signatures, so they go to check cashing services that take 20% off the top. They keep money in cash in their houses, and lose track of it or get robbed. You are saying that by getting rid of all this structure, and handing them cash, they will suddenly save themselves.
I don't understand the last 4 paragraphs of your response so I can't reply regarding the taxation stuff.
Your numbers are made-up, but that's okay I get the gist.
UBI will be structured in such a way to to supplement income of these individuals to the level where they can purchase food, shelter and other basic human needs
So to restate this, UBI for "poor" individuals basically means that their food stamps and section 8 housing are replaced with a cash payout that is slightly larger than what they have now.
The other 95.5% will be paying the basic income they received and extra to cover the poor in taxes.
So for everyone not "poor" the government pays them UBI, then taxes them so they don't actually get it. That seems silly.
You can now hire people for a dollar per hour so long as that's the best money they can get at the moment.
The system you describe would provide them less incentive to work than they have today. No on would work at $1/hr, it would not be worth it.
These programs employee a large number of government bureaucrats and enforcement officers. If the value and overhead of these other benefits are saved, we can substantially reduce additional taxes needed or alternatively provide more substantial basic income for the same cost.
This seems to be an underlying thread to UBI, and it sounded good to me at first, but it really doesn't work as you think it through. All that bureaucracy exists because giving out welfare money isn't as simple as sending people a check every month. When we did that, many tended to spend it on hookers and blow, (pardon the euphemism, I couldn't resist) so we needed social workers to check up on them. Many of them rented housing that wasn't up to code. Or got scammed. So we created section 8, public housing, food stamps, etc. Middle class people who lose their jobs can't pay their mortgages with UBI, so we created the unemployment office, which requires unemployment judges, and unemployment taxes,etc. More complexity.
This concept of the "simpler" system is appealing, and a common theme in politics today. And if you don't understand the complexity, it sounds intoxicating. But once we know why it is there, the solutions don't seem as simple.
Think about the flat tax. "Get rid of all those loopholes and complications! The tax code is so complex only big corporations can take advantage of it and they screw us over." It sounds great. Then think about this: Do you own a house? If so, a flat tax means you give up your mortgage interest tax deduction. How about kids? A flat tax means no child tax credit. Did you make any energy efficient purchases this year? No tax credit for you under a flat tax system. And those solar panels and that Prius aren't deductions either now. The small business owners go "Wait! I bought $10k in computers this year - that's not a tax deduction either?" Then we realize that it wasn't just the big corporations who were using that complicated system. We can tear up the books and start back at zero again, but let us not kid ourselves into thinking that all those complications aren't there for a reason.
It's like when someone decides to create some new piece of technology that is much simpler than the existing one. Maybe JSON instead of XML. Or REST instead of SOAP. Or Java instead of C++. After 20 years, we see that the new technology has evolved to become just as complicated as the one it replaced, because over time the designers realized they needed all that stuff in there.
Their hands were occupied trying to hold him down. They had already zapped him twice and he still struggled.
blow to the head
If they can't even hold his arms down, and the stun gun didn't work, will a blow to the head work? Maybe.
shoot him in the leg
Where did they shoot him? I suspect they pointed the gun at his chest thinking "Surely he won't continue to reach for his gun after this." Moving the gun to point elsewhere might have given him enough time to finally reach his.
They've got his weapon
No they don't. If they did, it would be a non-issue
They're armed and armored
I do not believe police normally wear body armor. Even if they were, you don't let someone shoot you just because you have body armor.
Part of the problem here is that no rational person would reach for their gun when a gun is pointed square in your chest. He tried to call their bluff. I haven't read enough background: was he high? That might explain the non-effect of the stun gun plus his irrational behavior.
The man was pinned to the ground and incapable of anything more than a token fight.
I disagree.
If you read the story, Mr. Sterling had been stunned twice and *was still standing.* Wow! That guy is a tank! So the officers physically took him down. One officer pinned Mr. Sterling's left arm, while the other officer was unable to pin his right arm because of the car in the way. From the store's video camera view, we see that Mr. Sterling's right arm was reaching down to his side. After the shooting, the police remove a gun from his right side.
So I see: * Man refuses to stand down when verbally asked. * Man stands-up to two stuns. * Man is still struggling after being pinned to the ground.
We can stop here: at this point, they might well legally be able to shoot him. They have exhausted all other options. What else could they do? Stun him 50 more times? Hope another officer arrives and that 3 people can take him down? I'm seriously interested in hearing what the next escalation level is that doesn't involve a gun.
* Man has a gun.
I am no lawyer, but I am pretty confident that NOW they can shoot him. At this point, even if he laughed and said "Sorry guys, I just was messing around, let me up and we can chat about this" they might still be room to shoot him. He demonstrated that he is willing to use force, that he is strong as hell, and he isn't giving up. Now he has a deadly weapon too?
Actually, it sounds like you should start an IoT company. In a few years, everyone will wake-up and realize that the wave of cyber-attacks on poorly-defined IoT devices has to stop. And a company with products that are already secure will have a serious leg-up on the competition.
Slashdot Mirror
At least Johnson is honest. I'll take an honest man I disagree with on some issues - even an extremist - before I take liars and racists. I guess everyone has different priorities. With the dems and repubs, what they campaign on is probably completely unrelated to what they actually do in office. That's assuming they even talk about issues at all. With Johnson, I know where he stands.
Johnson doesn't have to win - he just has to make enough of a showing to wake people the heck up.
One party nominated a racist. The other party nominated a serial liar. And still, I bet the Libertarian and Green parties won't get 5% of the vote. I suspect that Hillary and Trump could beat American children in public while shouting "America sucks" and we still wouldn't get a third-party into office.
My favorite is the guy attending the RNC, wearing the "STOP TRUMP" t-shirt, who said he would vote for Trump. **NUCLEAR FACEPALM**
Their interface is complete horrible. And it is completely different on each device. Sometimes I can't do something from my phone app, so I try the mobile browser, and then if that doesn't work I try the desktop app. If that doesn't work, maybe I can do it from my TV. It's ridiculous. Sometimes it searches the DVD and streaming catalog, sometimes it searches just the streaming catalog. Sometimes the "My List" disappears from their Android/iPhone app, only to reappear later.
I suspect that Netflix was a company that did the right thing at the right time, but was never well managed.
And we all thought this was impossible, until the first time we saw Shazam. This Shazam not that other Shazam.
Netflix needs to find a way to expand their streaming service.
While I keep seeing articles titled "Why does anyone use Netflix's DVD service?" I have a DVD queue that is 324 DVDs long. Their streaming catalog is a tiny fraction of what they have on DVD, and almost nothing I want is streamable. No new releases are streamable. Hardly any Disney or Dreamworks is streamable. Seems like most "blockbusters" aren't streamable. Neither is most of the 90's sci-fi I want to catch-up on. They need to pressure hollywood while they are still the 500-lb gorilla of the market.
Any aircraft can be converted to a drone. That helicopter carrying 500-1000 gallons of water might actually be better-off as a drone, than with a human pilot. That's the threat the AC refers to.
I don't trust the federal government to be telling the truth here.
I can't find the Slashdot article, but the FAA was caught lying in front of congress about how drones interfere with other aircraft. They were taking every occurrance where a pilot says that they see a UFO, and counting that as a drone. Another example was the case where a commercial plane was damaged by something striking it, and they claimed it was a drone even though they found no evidence of it. They found their boogeyman and want to blame everything on it.
We have a problem that government agencies can make rules without having to prove their case. And they aren't elected officials so they don't answer directly to the people.
It could be that various government organizations see drones as a threat to government opaqueness. The FAA is going to do everything they can to limit drone use. This is where the surveillance society swings the other way - people can keep better track of the government. Whenever we see these claims about drones, take them with a grain of salt. Start asking what evidence they have that there was a drone present. Most drones are so cheap and light, that a 2mph breeze will make them uncontrollable. It strains believability that firefighting helicoptors are threatened by bits of plastic lighter than many birds. Are there really drones operating over forest fires? Until I see real evidence, a random pilot claiming "I couldn't do X because of a drone" isn't going to convince me to tighten regulations.
How about a common sense regulation saying that anyone operating a drone over a certain weight has to be available on a particilar CB radio channel?
I should have sold my XBone as soon as I got it for free from the Microsoft Build Conference. Instead, it accumulated dust for years under the idea that "ooh, I can use the Kinect 2 as a 3D scanner!" And my kids can play Kinect games in a few years! Turns out, nobody supports Kinect 2 as a 3D scanner because it is inferior to the Kinect 1. And they never made any decent games for it. Even new, the writing was on the wall: I couldn't even trade-in my new-in-box $500 XBOX for a used $300 Wii. GameStop just didn't want the dang things since day 1.
I am surprised that people don't think that Niantic owns the Pokemon trademark. Take a look at the title screen. It says "Niantic <br/> [Niantic Logo] <br/> The Pokemon Company." It looks like "The Pokemon Company" is Niantic's tagline. That's not typically how a company is named.
I am watching a video of someone watching a video of someone recording a video of a video.
MIND.
BLOWN.
So why isn't the library of congress making these exemptions?I usually think of librarians as being pretty good guardians of research and free speech. It seems like the LOC does not follow that spirit.
Thanks for the explanation. They sue the enforcer so they can get the injunction. Got it.
Because it is hard to sue the government.
First, you have to have standing. You can't just go "oh, this law sucks and would affect me so I'm going to sue." You really have to wait for the government or third-party to prosecute you, then defend yourself. Then you *might* have standing to sue the government. Also, you need to have a better case than "I wanna watch anime in my Mom's basement." So far, many security researches have either not been sued, or they haven't stood up to defend themselves.
It is also tough to find out who exactly to sue. The approach here is that, since the DMCA gives the library of congress (LOC) the power to create DMCA exemptions, they can sue the LOC. They are also suing the copyright office and the department of justice (DOJ). Copyright office seems logical too, but I am unsure why the DOJ is on the list.
It's also really really expensive.
It becomes Tesla's problem because it affects public perception of Tesla. They are at the next challenge, which is, can they manage the PR spin and survive it.
has Tesla done anything practical with their rockets yet?
Tesla has not, because Tesla is the car company. But if you meant to ask that about SpaceX...
Have you seen how fast a Tesla goes? 0-60 in 2.8 seconds. I think that qualifies as a rocket. :-)
No, now they pay more than $80/month because now they have to pay Comcast for internet + buy Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime to get the same content.
Why not, if the only other alternative available to you is $0/hour and you don't lose any of your basic income?
Two reasons: 1) You have reduced their incentive to work and 2) Most of them are getting UBI because they physically or mentally cannot work anyway.
By the numbers:
Today welfare tops out at about $7k/year, and minimum wage is $7.25 an hour which is about $15k. Using your numbers, UBI would be at least $16k for a single person, and they will make $1/hour which is $2k. So you have reduced their wage by a factor of 7 and increased their welfare by a factor of 2. That means that they have a 14-fold reduction in the benefit of their work.
So make a deposit to a debit account each day, they will eventually figure it out. What you are saying is 10% of US population is mentally incompetent. If that is truly the case, we have a public health emergency. But I bet it's closer to 1% if we give people reasonable chances to be independent.
We *do* have a public health emergency! 66% of people below the poverty line report substance abuse or mental health problems! You need to go meet the poor because it is clear you know jack about poverty in America. It's okay, I didn't either until my brother-in-law and my father, both got involved in careers in that field.
Your "guess" that they will "eventually figure it out" does not jive with reality. America cannot make a policy change based on the middle-class's guess as to how impoverished people will respond to a sudden influx of cash. I suggest that you volunteer at a soup kitchen for a week, or volunteer to drive some impoverished people around town. Maybe ride the bus to work in Chicago or DC and talk to them. Go meet a social worker. Your idea of what their life is like is far from reality.
These ideas sound nice in theory - it's the libertarian capitalist "get the government out of their way" viewpoint. It's appealing because we hate bureaucracy. I lean libertarian myself as well. But your confidence in people's ability to make good decisions does not reflect the reality that psychologists and social workers know. Many of the poor don't know how to budget. They get scammed. Many are elderly, or have never had a savings account before. Some of them wouldn't walk into a bank at gunpoint! They are scared of banks and signatures, so they go to check cashing services that take 20% off the top. They keep money in cash in their houses, and lose track of it or get robbed. You are saying that by getting rid of all this structure, and handing them cash, they will suddenly save themselves.
I don't understand the last 4 paragraphs of your response so I can't reply regarding the taxation stuff.
This is the exact argument for expanded social services.
No it is not. It is an argument for leaving the system as it is.
Your numbers are made-up, but that's okay I get the gist.
UBI will be structured in such a way to to supplement income of these individuals to the level where they can purchase food, shelter and other basic human needs
So to restate this, UBI for "poor" individuals basically means that their food stamps and section 8 housing are replaced with a cash payout that is slightly larger than what they have now.
The other 95.5% will be paying the basic income they received and extra to cover the poor in taxes.
So for everyone not "poor" the government pays them UBI, then taxes them so they don't actually get it. That seems silly.
You can now hire people for a dollar per hour so long as that's the best money they can get at the moment.
The system you describe would provide them less incentive to work than they have today. No on would work at $1/hr, it would not be worth it.
These programs employee a large number of government bureaucrats and enforcement officers. If the value and overhead of these other benefits are saved, we can substantially reduce additional taxes needed or alternatively provide more substantial basic income for the same cost.
This seems to be an underlying thread to UBI, and it sounded good to me at first, but it really doesn't work as you think it through. All that bureaucracy exists because giving out welfare money isn't as simple as sending people a check every month. When we did that, many tended to spend it on hookers and blow, (pardon the euphemism, I couldn't resist) so we needed social workers to check up on them. Many of them rented housing that wasn't up to code. Or got scammed. So we created section 8, public housing, food stamps, etc. Middle class people who lose their jobs can't pay their mortgages with UBI, so we created the unemployment office, which requires unemployment judges, and unemployment taxes,etc. More complexity.
This concept of the "simpler" system is appealing, and a common theme in politics today. And if you don't understand the complexity, it sounds intoxicating. But once we know why it is there, the solutions don't seem as simple.
Think about the flat tax. "Get rid of all those loopholes and complications! The tax code is so complex only big corporations can take advantage of it and they screw us over." It sounds great. Then think about this: Do you own a house? If so, a flat tax means you give up your mortgage interest tax deduction. How about kids? A flat tax means no child tax credit. Did you make any energy efficient purchases this year? No tax credit for you under a flat tax system. And those solar panels and that Prius aren't deductions either now. The small business owners go "Wait! I bought $10k in computers this year - that's not a tax deduction either?" Then we realize that it wasn't just the big corporations who were using that complicated system. We can tear up the books and start back at zero again, but let us not kid ourselves into thinking that all those complications aren't there for a reason.
It's like when someone decides to create some new piece of technology that is much simpler than the existing one. Maybe JSON instead of XML. Or REST instead of SOAP. Or Java instead of C++. After 20 years, we see that the new technology has evolved to become just as complicated as the one it replaced, because over time the designers realized they needed all that stuff in there.
Let's look at those options unemotionally:
Zap him again
Their hands were occupied trying to hold him down. They had already zapped him twice and he still struggled.
blow to the head
If they can't even hold his arms down, and the stun gun didn't work, will a blow to the head work? Maybe.
shoot him in the leg
Where did they shoot him? I suspect they pointed the gun at his chest thinking "Surely he won't continue to reach for his gun after this." Moving the gun to point elsewhere might have given him enough time to finally reach his.
They've got his weapon
No they don't. If they did, it would be a non-issue
They're armed and armored
I do not believe police normally wear body armor. Even if they were, you don't let someone shoot you just because you have body armor.
Part of the problem here is that no rational person would reach for their gun when a gun is pointed square in your chest. He tried to call their bluff. I haven't read enough background: was he high? That might explain the non-effect of the stun gun plus his irrational behavior.
The man was pinned to the ground and incapable of anything more than a token fight.
I disagree.
If you read the story, Mr. Sterling had been stunned twice and *was still standing.* Wow! That guy is a tank! So the officers physically took him down. One officer pinned Mr. Sterling's left arm, while the other officer was unable to pin his right arm because of the car in the way. From the store's video camera view, we see that Mr. Sterling's right arm was reaching down to his side. After the shooting, the police remove a gun from his right side.
So I see:
* Man refuses to stand down when verbally asked.
* Man stands-up to two stuns.
* Man is still struggling after being pinned to the ground.
We can stop here: at this point, they might well legally be able to shoot him. They have exhausted all other options. What else could they do? Stun him 50 more times? Hope another officer arrives and that 3 people can take him down? I'm seriously interested in hearing what the next escalation level is that doesn't involve a gun.
* Man has a gun.
I am no lawyer, but I am pretty confident that NOW they can shoot him. At this point, even if he laughed and said "Sorry guys, I just was messing around, let me up and we can chat about this" they might still be room to shoot him. He demonstrated that he is willing to use force, that he is strong as hell, and he isn't giving up. Now he has a deadly weapon too?
* Man is reaching for a gun.
No brainer. Done.
How else will I catch-up on my Netflix queue? I think it already exceeds my expected remaining lifespan.
Can someone make a Tetris game that drops actual physical blocks down? Maybe on pulleys. Bonus points if filled rows actually explode.
Oh I see, thanks!
Nope.
Actually, it sounds like you should start an IoT company. In a few years, everyone will wake-up and realize that the wave of cyber-attacks on poorly-defined IoT devices has to stop. And a company with products that are already secure will have a serious leg-up on the competition.