Misleading? How? I call BS without much more clarification and even then most likely still a BS claim.
Prior to the Electoral College, States chose Electors. In 1787 six of the ten voting States used any form of popular vote to determine the election. In 1792, six of fifteen states used popular votes to determine the election. In both of those elections "Electors" were tallied, not vote counts for a popular vote.
News would be "Trump selects Joe Schmoe for position", instead of the labels tagged on everything. Did Obama select "Lawyer Lorretts Lynch" as the AG? How about "Lawyer Eric Holder"? Did Obama hire "Lawyer Comey" as the head of the FBI? Was "Lawyer Clinton" selected for Secretary of State? How about "Lawyer Kerry"? If you don't see the FUD here, you are simply not looking. Sensationalizing everything you dislike in a negative way is not "news", it's propaganda.
In what way is the country functioning now? Republicans are only interested in helping their party and destroying anyone outside their tribe.
Democrats are not doing the same thing with exactly your next statements?
We have a president elected despite losing by 3 million votes.
The United States of America has _NEVER_EVER_ elected a President by popular vote. The founders saw the danger in a tyranny by majority and saw fit that we have an Electoral College to protect us from exactly that thing. Citation: Read the Federalist papers
We're unable to agree with everyone else and a majority of our citizens that yes, healthcare is something that is important and yes,
"We" is in invalid generalization. Perhaps in your bubble the next things are the most important thing ever (more on that in a moment) but that is not "we", that is "you".
dumping excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a bad thing.
And you as a consumer can ensure that you purchase products made in the most efficient way. We don't need Government taxing the poor to pay for things they don't have, and can't be bothered to worry about.
There is a big difference between you stealing from me with government force, and me wanting to make changes which benefit society. In fact, as a general rule the louder you scream demanding the fruits of my labor, the more I push back against you which impacts your cause. I, like many fellow people in the world, ignore appeals to emotion.
We don't have a functioning state department and are actively turning on our allies.
Too vague to be worth discussing.
Did a foreign power decide our election? Dunno, the unelected party is preventing any serious investigation.
Not according to the last administration or this one, and no evidence has been presented to back such an allegation. The investigation started nearly 11 months ago and we still have seen no evidence of foreign interference in our election process. Testimony from Clapper, Comey, and Rogers all stated that our election was not "hacked", and that no votes were changed.
If evidence surfaces perhaps we can discuss it further. Until then, you are simply repeating a propositional fallacy like many other people. I find it very sad that repeating faulty logic has become so common, and worse, people think they are "smart" by doing it.
So your argument is that is should never have been classified information to begin with, and they should burn her at the stake for releasing it?
Instead of attributing words to me which I never said, why not ask for my opinion? I did not, nor would I have made such a poor argument.
I don't want you to know my detection capabilities any more than a Russian Bank wants you to know theirs! Knowing those capabilities gives attackers information on how they should be attacking. Show me a company that goes out and tells the public every time there is a spear phishing attack against them. You won't find any. In the cases you see a report due to a successful attack the information released will be very minimal.
Tactics and Strategy 101: Project only as much offense as you want someone to know you have, and never ever project your defense..
What she leaked was certainly not whistle blowing. A report that states people were spear phished by a foreign government is nearly a daily event for many of us, and I don't even work in DOD any longer where it was multiple times a day. This was dumping data for purely political purposes, not presenting wrong doing and cover up. Snowden and Manning both could be claimed as whistle blowers.
As to the claim that this should be in front of a jury I would agree if, and only if, the jury members all had the correct clearance and could be trusted outside of court with information learned in the case. Evidence in these types of trials will contain at least some classified material/methods. It must be established "how" they tracked down the 6 sources and narrowed down to one.
For those who cry "1st Amendment", the 1st does not protect you from consequences. Hell, the founders of the US lived knowing that at any moment the King of England would lop their heads off if given the chance.
Absolutely false. My demand to show me a perfect Government project is based on GP's claim that private companies make mistakes so should not be involved in ATC. Your claim about a lacking reference means that you can't follow basic logic. The Federal Government runs the ATC, so when they claim that private companies should not work on the program who does that leave holding the work? You win if you say "Federal Government".
James Comey is also a Lawyer, who practiced Law and worked for the DOJ prior to heading the FBI. Prior to Comey, we had Robert Mueller who was also a Lawyer and also worked for the DOJ. Pickard who served a whole 71 days was not an attorney, but prior to him Louis Freeh was.. can you guess? An Attorney.
In fact, why not run through the list and see how many FBI directors were of all things, a "Lawyer". The only reason for this thread to make it to the front page is for clickbait and post count. It is not a "story", and not "news"
Why would I argue something I never stated and would never agree with? GP stated that Government should do it because private companies have had problems. That implies rather strongly that Government is infallible and perfect, therefor should be doing everything. In particular, that Government should be maintaining ATC systems instead of a non-profit consortium.
Twitter is not the Government, and has nothing to do with the Government. President Trump did not make a requirement to petition Government following him on Twitter. Another fantasy (fake) issue won't make you or GP correct. You can petition Government all you want without Twitter, and I'll suggest that in 140 characters or less a Twitter petition is as "useful as a poopy flavored lollypop" (@tm Patches O'Hoolihan).
Claiming a violation of rights is occurring because "hypothetical" seems to be a common trend (see CNN, MSNBC, and other members of the trash we call MSM) yet is a failure of basic logic. if A therefor B is a propositional fallacy in the best case, or you are using a formal syllogistic fallacy. Using circular logic to continue to argue B is plain old insanity.
In your opinion perhaps, but a measurable percentage of people disagree with you. Do try to be less arrogant.
I think we can agree that the President using the power of the government to enjoin/prevent someone from being able to post on Twitter, at all, would violate the first amendment, first off.
Well, so much for being less arrogant because "NO", we can't agree. President Trump is not preventing anyone from getting or using a Twitter account. Nor is he blocking anyone from reading anything on Twitter including his posts. You don't even need a Twitter account to read his posts, you can do so anonymously. There is no punishment for reading his posts, no punishment for people posting disagreements or contrary positions, and not stopping people from the insensate ad hominem attacks against him.
There isn't an in-between as you claim, because your opening statement is simply fake.
The first amendment protects your right to speech, but also protects my rights to ignore you if I choose. The first amendment does not mean that anyone has to be forced to listen to you or agree with you.
Or, it demonstrates that MS was guilty of using unfair tactics. It isn't at all clear that it was successful against Borland.
So you are claiming that the court that found MS guilty was wrong in the case for Bordland, but in the other cases was correct? Or perhaps you are ignoring facts and creating fantasy...
Nothing in TFA to show it's a "new" problem, but the massive amount of degrees, student debt, and money going into a massive number of institutions sure is. At least agree that the scale of the problem has grown massively.
To be a bit more fair with your minor point, even 30 years ago when I was going to college people in the administration attempted to keep people from learning Philosophy, Ethics, and Logic. For a 4 year degree, we were required at least 1 year of Philosophy though (and my degree is in Mathematics). Colleges then were happy to push you into "Humanities" for a 2 year degree, but at least we had pure Philosophy courses in even community colleges. Many schools today don't offer the courses, and have no requirements for any for many degrees.
A successful anti-trust case demonstrates you are wrong to blame gcc. This is in addition to actual history which shows gcc has never been heavily used on Windows systems. The case was decided long after Borland was killed off, as was true with Correl and WordPerfect. MS has been found guilty of antitrust violations more than any company in history, even those that are 3-4 times older than MS.
I think the better generalization is that colleges are being used as prep for employment, and teaching us the loads of data required to function in a corporation in a particular discipline.
Seems to match what I stated.
To your second point, critical thinking is essential all the time every day. People in power have historically attempted to keep people from learning the skills, because their bullshit is easier to see.
I believe the better generalization would be that Colleges are teaching students "What" to think, and not "How" to think. Since cognitive dissonance is painful, and it feels good to belong to something you believe is important, it's easy to get people to go along with the game.
When you consider that the people with political power on the left are pushing for more "free" college the prospect 10 years down the road could look much worse.
Your own logic (only if it competes with the OS) would also insist, despite actual history, that MS had no reason to strong arm Correll, WordPerfect, Bordland, Cybersitter, NetNanny, and countless other companies out of business. They did, and they do because that is how you maintain a monopoly. Remove any competition, including those that crop up to attack persistent problems with your base product.
Netscape was just one small example of MSes anti-competitive business practices. Microsoft saw NetNanny, Cybersitter, and other internet control projects as a threat (some due to bad press). So they built in their own inferior system, and put the majority of those out of business. Microsoft wanted total control of Office Applications, gave away enough "Word" to put competitors out of business. Novell was basically put out of business by MS giving "free" licensing (scaling limits) with NT3 and NT4 for a few years. See what MS did to Bordland for compiler space as well.
I'm not surprised Kaspersky filed suit, I'm more surprised that other companies had not already done so. Then again, there is a whole lot of back room deals with MS and US AV/Security companies.
So your answer is that if Government does it, it's perfect! You seem to forget how many glitches and problems there have been with _EVERY_ project, including and especially Government projects. In fact, why don't you show me a single Government program which is perfect to prove your point. Just one. Warning: I have worked DOD, am a US Veteran, and currently hold a clearance.
And I present to you Linux, System V, BSD, Solaris, IRIX, HP-UX, AIX, OSX, IOS, and Android. All big projects with big impact which have consistently upgraded and rolled out because they are not controlled by a massive bureaucracy like Microsoft products, but by function and customer input.
Your example of one giant privately owned set of failures is exactly why Government sucks at everything, and certainly not an example of Government success.
Do I trust my code to be bug free? Invalid question. The question should be "would you write better code if you worked for the Government as opposed to a private company?" The answer to that is probably not. If anything, I have less incentive to write better code working in a Government job. I get cost of living increases and retirement benefits that can't be matched in the private sector if I can stick out 20-30 years in a Government job.
where both the far left and far right claim that we need Government to be our savior.
Far left? What you thinking... Trotskyism? Leninism?
Far right? National socialism fans? Mussolini acolytes?
If you're from the US, you probably have weird ideas about what constitutes 'far' left and right. Seems to frequently be the case.
Pretty much yes. While our far left in the US won't proclaim love for Trotsky/Lenin the principles they are pushing for are exactly the same thing. Our far right pushes many of the same principles as Mussolini's fascism, but won't come out and say they are for fascism. If you believe that the people in the US have weird ideas about far left/right, consider the problem is with you and not them. I have to be careful talking politics with people from the UK, because their idea of a liberal is considerably different than the US idea. I have to adjust during those conversations, and am mature enough not to call them "weird" because our language differs slightly.
Money coming from tax payers means that everyone, from poor to rich pay for the services. As opposed to people who can afford to use the airlines paying an additional fee to support the services they actually use. Considering the ultra wealthy can afford to pay a lesser rate for their taxes (the 80,000 page US tax code isn't that large to make it fair) it's the rest of the population paying for this today!
This is the problem with a whole lot of projects and schemes where both the far left and far right claim that we need Government to be our savior. Government tends to be horrible at everything, and maintaining and growing their tax funded budget is prioritized over everything else.
I'll really have to consider this more deeply over the next few days, but I'm fine with it as is. The FAA seems to be maintaining oversight of standards, investigations into incidents, etc.. and if that's the case I will remain fine with it.
Twitters R&D goes to two primary objectives. 1) Filtering/censoring, and 2) Data mining.
I'm amazed it's that much money myself, but we know that they have invested heavily in those two areas. Those same two areas happen to also be why their stock has tanked. People distrust the company, and going co-op won't necessarily change either of those two issues.
Twitter should die, just like most of the propaganda outlets in the US should die. Since fringe groups send them scraps, it's a very slow and painful death.
And you don't understand that the current welfare system would not be replaced by UBI. The only way it could be, is if the Government controlled 100% of the economy and production. Give everyone 1,000.00 a month and what happens to rent? What happens to food cost? What happens to utilities? There is this thing called inflation which would adjust itself to the extra money floating around for "free".
Considering that people needing assistance now are no better off with more cash if it's worse less, you are proposing a completely unworkable system based on numerous false premises. Such ass "humans are all altruistic and infallible so will do what you want with the cash.
Answer this simple question: A person now who is in poverty with dependent children spends their UBI on lottery tickets instead of rent and food. Do you tell them to piss off and let them and their dependents live on the street and beg for food, or do you pick up the tab for housing and food in addition to UBI? You and I both know the answer to the question.
While you fumble around with that one big fat lie, consider that the rest of UBI theory has the same exact problems. People are not altruistic and infallible. The current system is abused regulary. Extending hand outs to everyone does not change that fact, and nothing gets better. Inflation and taxes for producers become much worse, to the point of being unworkable.
You are correct that job satisfaction is not tied to income, but neither is job satisfaction nor income is tied to addiction. Why are so many musicians and actors, with so much wealth and free time also addicts? They could surely afford to move to a more fulfilling job if they wanted, and fill time in ways other than drugs,l alcohol, and sex addiction? Doesn't fit the narrative does it?
That all said, you still ignore the basic concern I mentioned which is that giving people money for doing nothing harms those conditions. Again, use the extremely wealthy with too much time on their hands as the example. Enabling people does not help society, it harms it. Now you need more $$ from the producers to treat all the addiction, treat all the depression, pay the rent when money gets spent on drugs instead of housing, etc..
In other words, the current welfare system is not replaced at all by UBI. UBI makes the situation worse!
Slashdot Mirror
Misleading? How? I call BS without much more clarification and even then most likely still a BS claim.
Prior to the Electoral College, States chose Electors. In 1787 six of the ten voting States used any form of popular vote to determine the election. In 1792, six of fifteen states used popular votes to determine the election. In both of those elections "Electors" were tallied, not vote counts for a popular vote.
News would be "Trump selects Joe Schmoe for position", instead of the labels tagged on everything. Did Obama select "Lawyer Lorretts Lynch" as the AG? How about "Lawyer Eric Holder"? Did Obama hire "Lawyer Comey" as the head of the FBI? Was "Lawyer Clinton" selected for Secretary of State? How about "Lawyer Kerry"? If you don't see the FUD here, you are simply not looking. Sensationalizing everything you dislike in a negative way is not "news", it's propaganda.
In what way is the country functioning now? Republicans are only interested in helping their party and destroying anyone outside their tribe.
Democrats are not doing the same thing with exactly your next statements?
We have a president elected despite losing by 3 million votes.
The United States of America has _NEVER_EVER_ elected a President by popular vote. The founders saw the danger in a tyranny by majority and saw fit that we have an Electoral College to protect us from exactly that thing. Citation: Read the Federalist papers
We're unable to agree with everyone else and a majority of our citizens that yes, healthcare is something that is important and yes,
"We" is in invalid generalization. Perhaps in your bubble the next things are the most important thing ever (more on that in a moment) but that is not "we", that is "you".
dumping excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a bad thing.
And you as a consumer can ensure that you purchase products made in the most efficient way. We don't need Government taxing the poor to pay for things they don't have, and can't be bothered to worry about.
There is a big difference between you stealing from me with government force, and me wanting to make changes which benefit society. In fact, as a general rule the louder you scream demanding the fruits of my labor, the more I push back against you which impacts your cause. I, like many fellow people in the world, ignore appeals to emotion.
We don't have a functioning state department and are actively turning on our allies.
Too vague to be worth discussing.
Did a foreign power decide our election? Dunno, the unelected party is preventing any serious investigation.
Not according to the last administration or this one, and no evidence has been presented to back such an allegation. The investigation started nearly 11 months ago and we still have seen no evidence of foreign interference in our election process. Testimony from Clapper, Comey, and Rogers all stated that our election was not "hacked", and that no votes were changed.
If evidence surfaces perhaps we can discuss it further. Until then, you are simply repeating a propositional fallacy like many other people. I find it very sad that repeating faulty logic has become so common, and worse, people think they are "smart" by doing it.
So your argument is that is should never have been classified information to begin with, and they should burn her at the stake for releasing it?
Instead of attributing words to me which I never said, why not ask for my opinion? I did not, nor would I have made such a poor argument.
I don't want you to know my detection capabilities any more than a Russian Bank wants you to know theirs! Knowing those capabilities gives attackers information on how they should be attacking. Show me a company that goes out and tells the public every time there is a spear phishing attack against them. You won't find any. In the cases you see a report due to a successful attack the information released will be very minimal.
Tactics and Strategy 101: Project only as much offense as you want someone to know you have, and never ever project your defense..
So to you it is news because you fail to comprehend the irrationality of a propositional fallacy. Got it!
What she leaked was certainly not whistle blowing. A report that states people were spear phished by a foreign government is nearly a daily event for many of us, and I don't even work in DOD any longer where it was multiple times a day. This was dumping data for purely political purposes, not presenting wrong doing and cover up. Snowden and Manning both could be claimed as whistle blowers.
As to the claim that this should be in front of a jury I would agree if, and only if, the jury members all had the correct clearance and could be trusted outside of court with information learned in the case. Evidence in these types of trials will contain at least some classified material/methods. It must be established "how" they tracked down the 6 sources and narrowed down to one.
For those who cry "1st Amendment", the 1st does not protect you from consequences. Hell, the founders of the US lived knowing that at any moment the King of England would lop their heads off if given the chance.
Absolutely false. My demand to show me a perfect Government project is based on GP's claim that private companies make mistakes so should not be involved in ATC. Your claim about a lacking reference means that you can't follow basic logic. The Federal Government runs the ATC, so when they claim that private companies should not work on the program who does that leave holding the work? You win if you say "Federal Government".
James Comey is also a Lawyer, who practiced Law and worked for the DOJ prior to heading the FBI. Prior to Comey, we had Robert Mueller who was also a Lawyer and also worked for the DOJ. Pickard who served a whole 71 days was not an attorney, but prior to him Louis Freeh was.. can you guess? An Attorney.
In fact, why not run through the list and see how many FBI directors were of all things, a "Lawyer". The only reason for this thread to make it to the front page is for clickbait and post count. It is not a "story", and not "news"
Why would I argue something I never stated and would never agree with? GP stated that Government should do it because private companies have had problems. That implies rather strongly that Government is infallible and perfect, therefor should be doing everything. In particular, that Government should be maintaining ATC systems instead of a non-profit consortium.
Twitter is not the Government, and has nothing to do with the Government. President Trump did not make a requirement to petition Government following him on Twitter. Another fantasy (fake) issue won't make you or GP correct. You can petition Government all you want without Twitter, and I'll suggest that in 140 characters or less a Twitter petition is as "useful as a poopy flavored lollypop" (@tm Patches O'Hoolihan).
Claiming a violation of rights is occurring because "hypothetical" seems to be a common trend (see CNN, MSNBC, and other members of the trash we call MSM) yet is a failure of basic logic. if A therefor B is a propositional fallacy in the best case, or you are using a formal syllogistic fallacy. Using circular logic to continue to argue B is plain old insanity.
It's an interesting question, really.
In your opinion perhaps, but a measurable percentage of people disagree with you. Do try to be less arrogant.
I think we can agree that the President using the power of the government to enjoin/prevent someone from being able to post on Twitter, at all, would violate the first amendment, first off.
Well, so much for being less arrogant because "NO", we can't agree. President Trump is not preventing anyone from getting or using a Twitter account. Nor is he blocking anyone from reading anything on Twitter including his posts. You don't even need a Twitter account to read his posts, you can do so anonymously. There is no punishment for reading his posts, no punishment for people posting disagreements or contrary positions, and not stopping people from the insensate ad hominem attacks against him.
There isn't an in-between as you claim, because your opening statement is simply fake.
The first amendment protects your right to speech, but also protects my rights to ignore you if I choose. The first amendment does not mean that anyone has to be forced to listen to you or agree with you.
Or, it demonstrates that MS was guilty of using unfair tactics. It isn't at all clear that it was successful against Borland.
So you are claiming that the court that found MS guilty was wrong in the case for Bordland, but in the other cases was correct? Or perhaps you are ignoring facts and creating fantasy...
Nothing in TFA to show it's a "new" problem, but the massive amount of degrees, student debt, and money going into a massive number of institutions sure is. At least agree that the scale of the problem has grown massively.
To be a bit more fair with your minor point, even 30 years ago when I was going to college people in the administration attempted to keep people from learning Philosophy, Ethics, and Logic. For a 4 year degree, we were required at least 1 year of Philosophy though (and my degree is in Mathematics). Colleges then were happy to push you into "Humanities" for a 2 year degree, but at least we had pure Philosophy courses in even community colleges. Many schools today don't offer the courses, and have no requirements for any for many degrees.
A successful anti-trust case demonstrates you are wrong to blame gcc. This is in addition to actual history which shows gcc has never been heavily used on Windows systems. The case was decided long after Borland was killed off, as was true with Correl and WordPerfect. MS has been found guilty of antitrust violations more than any company in history, even those that are 3-4 times older than MS.
I think the better generalization is that colleges are being used as prep for employment, and teaching us the loads of data required to function in a corporation in a particular discipline.
Seems to match what I stated.
To your second point, critical thinking is essential all the time every day. People in power have historically attempted to keep people from learning the skills, because their bullshit is easier to see.
I believe the better generalization would be that Colleges are teaching students "What" to think, and not "How" to think. Since cognitive dissonance is painful, and it feels good to belong to something you believe is important, it's easy to get people to go along with the game.
When you consider that the people with political power on the left are pushing for more "free" college the prospect 10 years down the road could look much worse.
Your own logic (only if it competes with the OS) would also insist, despite actual history, that MS had no reason to strong arm Correll, WordPerfect, Bordland, Cybersitter, NetNanny, and countless other companies out of business. They did, and they do because that is how you maintain a monopoly. Remove any competition, including those that crop up to attack persistent problems with your base product.
Netscape was just one small example of MSes anti-competitive business practices. Microsoft saw NetNanny, Cybersitter, and other internet control projects as a threat (some due to bad press). So they built in their own inferior system, and put the majority of those out of business. Microsoft wanted total control of Office Applications, gave away enough "Word" to put competitors out of business. Novell was basically put out of business by MS giving "free" licensing (scaling limits) with NT3 and NT4 for a few years. See what MS did to Bordland for compiler space as well.
I'm not surprised Kaspersky filed suit, I'm more surprised that other companies had not already done so. Then again, there is a whole lot of back room deals with MS and US AV/Security companies.
So your answer is that if Government does it, it's perfect! You seem to forget how many glitches and problems there have been with _EVERY_ project, including and especially Government projects. In fact, why don't you show me a single Government program which is perfect to prove your point. Just one. Warning: I have worked DOD, am a US Veteran, and currently hold a clearance.
And I present to you Linux, System V, BSD, Solaris, IRIX, HP-UX, AIX, OSX, IOS, and Android. All big projects with big impact which have consistently upgraded and rolled out because they are not controlled by a massive bureaucracy like Microsoft products, but by function and customer input.
Your example of one giant privately owned set of failures is exactly why Government sucks at everything, and certainly not an example of Government success.
Do I trust my code to be bug free? Invalid question. The question should be "would you write better code if you worked for the Government as opposed to a private company?" The answer to that is probably not. If anything, I have less incentive to write better code working in a Government job. I get cost of living increases and retirement benefits that can't be matched in the private sector if I can stick out 20-30 years in a Government job.
where both the far left and far right claim that we need Government to be our savior.
Far left? What you thinking... Trotskyism? Leninism?
Far right? National socialism fans? Mussolini acolytes?
If you're from the US, you probably have weird ideas about what constitutes 'far' left and right. Seems to frequently be the case.
Pretty much yes. While our far left in the US won't proclaim love for Trotsky/Lenin the principles they are pushing for are exactly the same thing. Our far right pushes many of the same principles as Mussolini's fascism, but won't come out and say they are for fascism. If you believe that the people in the US have weird ideas about far left/right, consider the problem is with you and not them. I have to be careful talking politics with people from the UK, because their idea of a liberal is considerably different than the US idea. I have to adjust during those conversations, and am mature enough not to call them "weird" because our language differs slightly.
Money coming from tax payers means that everyone, from poor to rich pay for the services. As opposed to people who can afford to use the airlines paying an additional fee to support the services they actually use. Considering the ultra wealthy can afford to pay a lesser rate for their taxes (the 80,000 page US tax code isn't that large to make it fair) it's the rest of the population paying for this today!
This is the problem with a whole lot of projects and schemes where both the far left and far right claim that we need Government to be our savior. Government tends to be horrible at everything, and maintaining and growing their tax funded budget is prioritized over everything else.
I'll really have to consider this more deeply over the next few days, but I'm fine with it as is. The FAA seems to be maintaining oversight of standards, investigations into incidents, etc.. and if that's the case I will remain fine with it.
Twitters R&D goes to two primary objectives. 1) Filtering/censoring, and 2) Data mining.
I'm amazed it's that much money myself, but we know that they have invested heavily in those two areas. Those same two areas happen to also be why their stock has tanked. People distrust the company, and going co-op won't necessarily change either of those two issues.
Twitter should die, just like most of the propaganda outlets in the US should die. Since fringe groups send them scraps, it's a very slow and painful death.
And you don't understand that the current welfare system would not be replaced by UBI. The only way it could be, is if the Government controlled 100% of the economy and production. Give everyone 1,000.00 a month and what happens to rent? What happens to food cost? What happens to utilities? There is this thing called inflation which would adjust itself to the extra money floating around for "free".
Considering that people needing assistance now are no better off with more cash if it's worse less, you are proposing a completely unworkable system based on numerous false premises. Such ass "humans are all altruistic and infallible so will do what you want with the cash.
Answer this simple question: A person now who is in poverty with dependent children spends their UBI on lottery tickets instead of rent and food. Do you tell them to piss off and let them and their dependents live on the street and beg for food, or do you pick up the tab for housing and food in addition to UBI? You and I both know the answer to the question.
While you fumble around with that one big fat lie, consider that the rest of UBI theory has the same exact problems. People are not altruistic and infallible. The current system is abused regulary. Extending hand outs to everyone does not change that fact, and nothing gets better. Inflation and taxes for producers become much worse, to the point of being unworkable.
You are correct that job satisfaction is not tied to income, but neither is job satisfaction nor income is tied to addiction. Why are so many musicians and actors, with so much wealth and free time also addicts? They could surely afford to move to a more fulfilling job if they wanted, and fill time in ways other than drugs,l alcohol, and sex addiction? Doesn't fit the narrative does it?
That all said, you still ignore the basic concern I mentioned which is that giving people money for doing nothing harms those conditions. Again, use the extremely wealthy with too much time on their hands as the example. Enabling people does not help society, it harms it. Now you need more $$ from the producers to treat all the addiction, treat all the depression, pay the rent when money gets spent on drugs instead of housing, etc..
In other words, the current welfare system is not replaced at all by UBI. UBI makes the situation worse!