GP states that Milton Friedman believed in UBI, but that is not true. Friedman said that it may work as an alternative to Welfare under certain conditions. For example: Friedman believed in Welfare with an incentive to get off Welfare, which we have never had in the US. He also stated that Welfare was doomed to fail without tight immigration control, because it incentivized the least productive people immigrating and dis-incentivized productive people. Why come here to work if you pay 50% in Taxes, yet if you don't work you get Food, Housing, Transportation, and clothing from the State?
UBI is a Utopian fantasy, not a reality. Facts are dismissed when debating people propagating this fairy tale.
Humans want to succeed and have a successful lineage, they want to build things, they want to tinker with things, they want to learn things, and they want to do so without oppression. This is an instinctual set of principles which led to Humans becoming the top of the Food chain. This is not limited to today, but a historical normal. No opportunity for self and family advancements leads to unrest and revolt. Just like all other Utopian dreams, the dream of the lazy human doing nothing while robots do all the work will not succeed.
How will it work if you have 90% unemployment? Simple, it won't be that way for long. You will have massive unrest, and all of the horrors that would entail.
I'm not going to rehash the Nobel Prize winning economist I mentioned in my first post. Read them, study them, and learn from them. "Capitalism and Freedom" is a must read for anyone who wishes to discuss economic theory.
Economy does not work that way, sorry. Hawking should read from a real economist, like Milton Friedman. Middle class jobs have to remain, but the exact majority of work a person does will differ. Hawking knows political hyperbole, not economics.
TFA makes a bold assumption, that the reason for all of the political turmoil in the world is at least somehow related to climate change. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and yet they provide none. Start with a false assumption, end with a false conclusion. The Wars in the Middle East were not started because "Climate Change", they were started over "IDEOLOGY". Those wars continue over IDEOLOGY, not bad weather or land due to climate change.
The theme I'm referring to has nothing to do with special interests using the site, but rather a specific mindset taking control of a site. Reddit became popular because it was a free speech zone, but I'd never claim it was "main stream" any more than Slashdot is/was. Free speech is a dangerous thing to people in power. Facebook gets tons of free advertising from broadcast media because they do not support free speech. Timelines is the only thing you need to see to understand that they are more worried about propaganda than free speech.
I don't know reddit and don't know if there is pressure for them to stifle speech or if the management was really against it from the start, but felt it was tolerable venting as long as it stayed away from main stream.
Since you can provide no examples of a vast right wing conspiracy, you are simply a shitty troll. Exemplified by the fact that instead of doing work to provide any example you spent 5 minutes ranting out a personal attack.
Thanks for showing who you are, you useless shill.
I don't want random calendar invites even from people who work at my company. I should be permitting them, not having the system automatically spam me with crap. Block feature is not necessary with opt-in, as you are blocked by default.
The crappy thing is, if they just spam addresses and numbers they get responses if you accept or decline. Options are pretty limited.
One more "good idea on paper, but sucks in implementation and practice" to chalk up to the talking heads in Marketing.
I gave solid examples of the Left fabricating stories about the right and you claimed that it happened the other way. Give me examples of what the Right is fabricating about the left.
I read tons of material, and everything I see coming out of the propaganda centers (leftist) is anti-right. I don't see Fox or Breitbart, the only 2 "Right" new centers, making crap up about the left. Show me, or you are full of crap. And "NO"! Baseless ad hominem and accusation does not work for EITHER side.
Those are 2 who are being prosecuted for falsifying police reports, most are claimed to be false and seem to lend themselves to a Leftist agenda. You people on the left would claim that there are no facts on any other case, so I gave the 3 immediately found which are provably false.
And exactly what "right wing" false claims are you talking about? That Open Borders being pandered by the Progressives is bad for the country as a whole (security, economics, social welfare)? Perhaps the claim that we should be vetting immigrants from Syria and blocking those we can't is a false claim? Those two items alone are getting people on the Republican side labelled xenophobic, islamophobic, and anti-Hispanic.
So what false claims can you show me that the Republicans are perpetrating against the Progressive left? I won't hold my breath for answers, but you should consider holding yours while you actually find some (and it must be a real claim, not "jo schmo is a nazi bigot" like we are constantly hearing").
Breitbart is a media site with numerous articles by numerous reporters with numerous slants. Claims like "alt-right" have become tools of silencing people with a different agenda than the primarily Liberal/Leftist/Progressive MSM is what they see as a threat. This article is linked on Breitbart, which MSM originally reported on the "Hate Crime" but not so much on the finding of false accusation. It did not fit their agenda but does fit a Republican, and quite frankly should be "news" for everyone.
False accusations abound against Republicans, Trump supporters, and white males. You can find at least 2 other cases which were reported by MSM as hate crimes and anti-Trump supporters which where the original claimant is being charged with falsifying a police report. One for a robbery which never occurred, and another for a beating which never occurred. Meanwhile, there are actual murders and beatings of Trump supporters which MSM happens to ignore.
Hate speech is being used as a broad way of stifling dissent, and people really should be appalled.
Motive != Action, and attempting to ascribe a motive without a clear action is futile. What you are arguing is a typical red herring argument so that the Action in question is never fully discovered. Quite a common piece of Sophistry in Politics.
I tested the theory several times through the election process. "How do I vote" would immediately fill in "for Hillary Clinton" and the name "Donald Trump" would not appear even when you typed in "Donald Trum". Searching for "Presidential Candidates" would show Hillary and Obama, with Trump being down between 6 and 9 places in the list. When millions of people report the same exact symptom, it no longer remains something you can explain with a personal anecdote.
Google Management and executives have a bias toward Democratic/Liberal politics. This can show up in their product with relative ease, and if you don't believe so perhaps spend a bit of time with data analysts who can show you how to manipulate data for the effect you want. Study Statistics, which is all about manipulating data for effect.
While it's true that the study will be accepted by people who have the world view that Google censors content, people who happen to favor Democratic/Liberal politics will disbelieve it.
Reality is not distorted, only our view of it is distorted. Without facts, such as the question in my subject, we can only speculate on the facts that we do have.
As I stated in a separate post, honesty in consumers is just as important in honesty in manufacturing. While I don't disagree with your statements in summary, I will again express that regulation does not fix those types of issues. Regulation increases consumer costs and makes consumers less likely to act under a false belief that some entity is looking out for them.
You're saying if that was a law, it wouldn't help anything?
It would help all consumers never be able to afford a glass of Iced Tea or a bite of food. I don't call that "help" so the answer to your question is a resounding "NO". You should broadly consider your suggestions for broad regulations prior to posting them.
Hyperbole much? No, you are supposed to have faith that a company sells you what you they claim to be selling you. If you find out that they are not, you take the appropriate legal action. Or perhaps you simply don't purchase their products and tell other people about your bad experience, which in the market means that they lose business. Honesty as a consumer is just as important as honesty as a manufacturer.
The FDA does not know how much acetaminophen is in every single pill for every single brand of pain reliever. They collect money to test samples at specific frequencies. You purchase your Tylenol on faith that Tylenol is not going to screw you, not that the FDA is not going to screw you. For all you know, except for inspection day Tylenol could be loading every pill in line with a placebo to save a few bucks. The reason they don't has nothing to do with the FDA, and everything to do with maintaining consumer confidence in their products.
My argument is that regulations are not necessary, which does not in any way claim that the current regulations are functioning. "More" regulation will not improve the broken system.
Innocent until proven guilty is how our law works. Sorry you dislike it, but there is fundamental well established reasoning for that concept and codification.
Yes, it works the same way for selling crap as it does for any other crime. We don't arrest people for thought crimes, we arrest them for actions which are crimes.
CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, you sue them for false advertising. Company has to pay you for court costs, loss of wealth in purchasing their good, and damages if any exist. CompanyA can go bankrupt in the process, and perhaps you end up owning CompanyA when all is said and done.
CompanyB sees that CompanyA did wrong, and suffered consequences for their actions. CompanyB advertises a product without magic, but instead what the product actually contains. CompanyB stays in business, and people buy their products as needed. Wow! We have just described a basic fundamental of Capitalism and how Western Law works! No need for the Department of Magic in Products which reduces the overall costs for goods. People can actually purchase _more_ of CompanyB's stuff and CompanyB can actually make more stuff, or even branch out into CompanyC.
Believe it or not, this works with things like *gasp* Medicine too! If you think that the FDA measures the contents of every single ingredient in every single pill hitting the market, you are wrong to the point of needing professional care. The FDA makes money to test _some_ of the products _some_ of the time. Which could be done privately by companies just as well as by Government, and a whole lot cheaper.
I realize that this extrapolation will hurt someone's head, but cognitive dissonance is never easy.
Slashdot Mirror
GP states that Milton Friedman believed in UBI, but that is not true. Friedman said that it may work as an alternative to Welfare under certain conditions. For example: Friedman believed in Welfare with an incentive to get off Welfare, which we have never had in the US. He also stated that Welfare was doomed to fail without tight immigration control, because it incentivized the least productive people immigrating and dis-incentivized productive people. Why come here to work if you pay 50% in Taxes, yet if you don't work you get Food, Housing, Transportation, and clothing from the State?
UBI is a Utopian fantasy, not a reality. Facts are dismissed when debating people propagating this fairy tale.
Humans want to succeed and have a successful lineage, they want to build things, they want to tinker with things, they want to learn things, and they want to do so without oppression. This is an instinctual set of principles which led to Humans becoming the top of the Food chain. This is not limited to today, but a historical normal. No opportunity for self and family advancements leads to unrest and revolt. Just like all other Utopian dreams, the dream of the lazy human doing nothing while robots do all the work will not succeed.
How will it work if you have 90% unemployment? Simple, it won't be that way for long. You will have massive unrest, and all of the horrors that would entail.
I'm not going to rehash the Nobel Prize winning economist I mentioned in my first post. Read them, study them, and learn from them. "Capitalism and Freedom" is a must read for anyone who wishes to discuss economic theory.
Economy does not work that way, sorry. Hawking should read from a real economist, like Milton Friedman. Middle class jobs have to remain, but the exact majority of work a person does will differ. Hawking knows political hyperbole, not economics.
TFA makes a bold assumption, that the reason for all of the political turmoil in the world is at least somehow related to climate change. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and yet they provide none. Start with a false assumption, end with a false conclusion. The Wars in the Middle East were not started because "Climate Change", they were started over "IDEOLOGY". Those wars continue over IDEOLOGY, not bad weather or land due to climate change.
Curse or hate the Russians? I'm so confused....
Which is Free Speech
The theme I'm referring to has nothing to do with special interests using the site, but rather a specific mindset taking control of a site. Reddit became popular because it was a free speech zone, but I'd never claim it was "main stream" any more than Slashdot is/was. Free speech is a dangerous thing to people in power. Facebook gets tons of free advertising from broadcast media because they do not support free speech. Timelines is the only thing you need to see to understand that they are more worried about propaganda than free speech.
I don't know reddit and don't know if there is pressure for them to stifle speech or if the management was really against it from the start, but felt it was tolerable venting as long as it stayed away from main stream.
Nothing new here, time for a new service to take over and replace them. Not that I will miss them or was ever into Reddit, but I know others were.
Since you can provide no examples of a vast right wing conspiracy, you are simply a shitty troll. Exemplified by the fact that instead of doing work to provide any example you spent 5 minutes ranting out a personal attack.
Thanks for showing who you are, you useless shill.
I don't want random calendar invites even from people who work at my company. I should be permitting them, not having the system automatically spam me with crap. Block feature is not necessary with opt-in, as you are blocked by default.
The crappy thing is, if they just spam addresses and numbers they get responses if you accept or decline. Options are pretty limited.
One more "good idea on paper, but sucks in implementation and practice" to chalk up to the talking heads in Marketing.
I explicitly requested examples, and you failed to provide a single one. Astounding (not really)
Notice that none are provided.
I gave solid examples of the Left fabricating stories about the right and you claimed that it happened the other way. Give me examples of what the Right is fabricating about the left.
I read tons of material, and everything I see coming out of the propaganda centers (leftist) is anti-right. I don't see Fox or Breitbart, the only 2 "Right" new centers, making crap up about the left. Show me, or you are full of crap. And "NO"! Baseless ad hominem and accusation does not work for EITHER side.
Those are 2 who are being prosecuted for falsifying police reports, most are claimed to be false and seem to lend themselves to a Leftist agenda. You people on the left would claim that there are no facts on any other case, so I gave the 3 immediately found which are provably false.
And exactly what "right wing" false claims are you talking about? That Open Borders being pandered by the Progressives is bad for the country as a whole (security, economics, social welfare)? Perhaps the claim that we should be vetting immigrants from Syria and blocking those we can't is a false claim? Those two items alone are getting people on the Republican side labelled xenophobic, islamophobic, and anti-Hispanic.
So what false claims can you show me that the Republicans are perpetrating against the Progressive left? I won't hold my breath for answers, but you should consider holding yours while you actually find some (and it must be a real claim, not "jo schmo is a nazi bigot" like we are constantly hearing").
Breitbart is a media site with numerous articles by numerous reporters with numerous slants. Claims like "alt-right" have become tools of silencing people with a different agenda than the primarily Liberal/Leftist/Progressive MSM is what they see as a threat. This article is linked on Breitbart, which MSM originally reported on the "Hate Crime" but not so much on the finding of false accusation. It did not fit their agenda but does fit a Republican, and quite frankly should be "news" for everyone.
False accusations abound against Republicans, Trump supporters, and white males. You can find at least 2 other cases which were reported by MSM as hate crimes and anti-Trump supporters which where the original claimant is being charged with falsifying a police report. One for a robbery which never occurred, and another for a beating which never occurred. Meanwhile, there are actual murders and beatings of Trump supporters which MSM happens to ignore.
Hate speech is being used as a broad way of stifling dissent, and people really should be appalled.
Motive != Action, and attempting to ascribe a motive without a clear action is futile. What you are arguing is a typical red herring argument so that the Action in question is never fully discovered. Quite a common piece of Sophistry in Politics.
I tested the theory several times through the election process. "How do I vote" would immediately fill in "for Hillary Clinton" and the name "Donald Trump" would not appear even when you typed in "Donald Trum". Searching for "Presidential Candidates" would show Hillary and Obama, with Trump being down between 6 and 9 places in the list. When millions of people report the same exact symptom, it no longer remains something you can explain with a personal anecdote.
Google Management and executives have a bias toward Democratic/Liberal politics. This can show up in their product with relative ease, and if you don't believe so perhaps spend a bit of time with data analysts who can show you how to manipulate data for the effect you want. Study Statistics, which is all about manipulating data for effect.
While it's true that the study will be accepted by people who have the world view that Google censors content, people who happen to favor Democratic/Liberal politics will disbelieve it.
Reality is not distorted, only our view of it is distorted. Without facts, such as the question in my subject, we can only speculate on the facts that we do have.
There is zero constitutional separation between Criminal and Civil law.
There is nothing redundant about this post. Censorship is evil!
As I stated in a separate post, honesty in consumers is just as important in honesty in manufacturing. While I don't disagree with your statements in summary, I will again express that regulation does not fix those types of issues. Regulation increases consumer costs and makes consumers less likely to act under a false belief that some entity is looking out for them.
You're saying if that was a law, it wouldn't help anything?
It would help all consumers never be able to afford a glass of Iced Tea or a bite of food. I don't call that "help" so the answer to your question is a resounding "NO". You should broadly consider your suggestions for broad regulations prior to posting them.
Hyperbole much? No, you are supposed to have faith that a company sells you what you they claim to be selling you. If you find out that they are not, you take the appropriate legal action. Or perhaps you simply don't purchase their products and tell other people about your bad experience, which in the market means that they lose business. Honesty as a consumer is just as important as honesty as a manufacturer.
The FDA does not know how much acetaminophen is in every single pill for every single brand of pain reliever. They collect money to test samples at specific frequencies. You purchase your Tylenol on faith that Tylenol is not going to screw you, not that the FDA is not going to screw you. For all you know, except for inspection day Tylenol could be loading every pill in line with a placebo to save a few bucks. The reason they don't has nothing to do with the FDA, and everything to do with maintaining consumer confidence in their products.
My argument is that regulations are not necessary, which does not in any way claim that the current regulations are functioning. "More" regulation will not improve the broken system.
Innocent until proven guilty is how our law works. Sorry you dislike it, but there is fundamental well established reasoning for that concept and codification.
Yes, it works the same way for selling crap as it does for any other crime. We don't arrest people for thought crimes, we arrest them for actions which are crimes.
CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, you sue them for false advertising. Company has to pay you for court costs, loss of wealth in purchasing their good, and damages if any exist. CompanyA can go bankrupt in the process, and perhaps you end up owning CompanyA when all is said and done.
CompanyB sees that CompanyA did wrong, and suffered consequences for their actions. CompanyB advertises a product without magic, but instead what the product actually contains. CompanyB stays in business, and people buy their products as needed. Wow! We have just described a basic fundamental of Capitalism and how Western Law works! No need for the Department of Magic in Products which reduces the overall costs for goods. People can actually purchase _more_ of CompanyB's stuff and CompanyB can actually make more stuff, or even branch out into CompanyC.
Believe it or not, this works with things like *gasp* Medicine too! If you think that the FDA measures the contents of every single ingredient in every single pill hitting the market, you are wrong to the point of needing professional care. The FDA makes money to test _some_ of the products _some_ of the time. Which could be done privately by companies just as well as by Government, and a whole lot cheaper.
I realize that this extrapolation will hurt someone's head, but cognitive dissonance is never easy.