While I am not a big fan of hate crime laws, which to me walks a tightrope over racism, I would like to remind you that the law has codified many types of murder/manslaughter, all based around intent. Some states have gone as far as making special murder laws with harsher punishments if the victim was a child or even a policeman. While hate crime legislation isn't ideal, it is consistent with laws on the books. Personally, I think a murderer is a murderer.
Old disk drives space ratings were the usable space because of disk format (FAT) which gave them 720k per side. Those same disks on my Amiga were 880k per side (1.76 meg for a ds dd) because it used a different directory system (hash). If I remember correctly macs were getting 800k a side at the time. But in fairness, none of this was a major indication, due to filesystem overhead, of exactly how much data you could cram on the disk.
Feeding the trolls here, but the reason that Robert E. Murray doesn't have a case is that John Oliver pulls all of his stuff from the public record, and is legally allowed to call someone certain names, such as asshole. Any judge worth a damn will throw this out way before it hits trial.
My sense is that Trump quickly found himself lacking in people who would back him politically and has unfortunately begun to align himself more and more with the huckster caucus of the Republican party, those Republicans interested in enriching themselves and their corporate minions even further.
This reminds me of an abused wife talking about her husband. "He's a good man, really, he just can't control himself."
Long before his political career, Trump proved himself to be the very definition of the word Huckster. He made a university that taught nothing valuable. He re-branded regular steaks and blatantly called them the best ever. He can't keep his story, or position strait from day to day, or sometimes in the same breath! To be any more of a huckster he would have to be P.T. Barnum!
I just wish that people who voted for him could come to terms with the fact that they aren't getting any, not even one, of the things he promised to get their vote. That way they could start finding a candidate for the next cycle who isn't a Simpson's character made flesh.
I'll give you a better reason. The article posits that a mobile phone would somehow be developed 7 years before the invention of the transistor radio. Not to mention the battery tech was terrible. Any cellphone created in that time frame would be backpack size at best.
I'm an Atheist who has read both (Atlas and Fountainhead). The only way I would label someone defective for reading them is if they used them for the basis of some market worship philosophy afterward. In general I found them to be something a first year college student would consider "insightful" because they have no real world experience and precious little empathy.
They are full of one dimensional characters who's defining traits are egomania and greed, or are impossibly Mary Sue, such as Mr. Roark, who was evidently born with the perfect knowledge of every subject. The central thesis is terminally flawed by the assumption that some sort of capitalist utopia can be achieved by a collective of completely self centered sociopaths. I think in the end they say more about Mrs. Rand than any true economic or social insight.
But I highly encourage people to read them so they can see their banality for themselves, and to arm themselves for when they get trapped in a corner by a randroid at a party.
Could you please describe for me how an illegal alien registers to vote? When they show up to the polls, how do they get into the booth? Also, we are talking 3 million votes that made up Hillary's margin. Considering that there are 11 million illegals in the country, how did they get that organized that 30% of them were able to pull this off? Also, how is it that not even one of them has spilled the beans on TV, for, you know, a huge paycheck from fox? If I am making it sound like you are some conspiracy nut, it's because that is what you sound like.
You do know that even telco providers keep trying to develop competitive options to Netflix, and could throttle the hell out of the routes to those peering servers if they managed to roll one out? (full disclosure, I worked for a major telco for 15 years. They were testing solutions for becoming your tv company for 10 of those years. Also, that company's pack was DEAD SET AGAINST net neutrality because of it.) And don't even get me started on Comcast, which told Netflix to go shove their peering servers.
The point is, their systems can't compete with netflix, but if you can make netflix suck just as much, why BOTHER to compete.
That's a squeeker! But I mean, lets not pretend that anyone who voted for Clinton is going to vote for Trump. In all likelihood, it will come down to the same 70,000 votes it did last time, except the dems are actually going to fight for them this time.
Meanwhile in the real world (outside the echo chamber of Breitbart), Trump's approval ratings just keep plummeting
This is so incredibly inaccurate I don't even know where to begin. This is the worst kind of single step thinking I have ever seen. Lets start with this bit:
Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return.
Sure, if the money just stopped in the government's hands, but what about this trillion dollar deficit government leads you to believe they won't spend it? And what you get back is roads, schools, a military, all the things that make commerce efficient and safe! I can't tell if this is supposed to be an argument towards anarchy or total ignorance of the fact that the american government is a GIANT part of the economy. About the only thing they could do to "take the money out of the economy" would be to pay off our debt. But unless you are suggesting that we should never do that, I don't see an eventual way around that one.
Assuming that the money is 100% redistributed to people, they can do less with the money because economic activity has fallen. Nothing good comes out of this.
What? Are you experiencing some kind of fever dream where you type? Assuming that 4 trillion dollars were handed out to to populace at large, there would be the same effect as we see from income tax rebate time. Want to know how much that stimulates the economy, stop by a gamestop and ask any manager what kind of massive sales increase they see. Now multiply that by 10,000. Short term, if such a reckless plan were enacted, you would see massive inflation, but only due to supply, and that is precisely why the government would likely find a more responsible way of using the money. Like our crumbling roads that business drive their goods on, or huge investment in good paying green energy which will require massive hiring.
Honestly, you talk like nobody in the world even remotely asked anyone who knows anything about economics before proposing a carbon tax. We have these nifty guys called economists, and they have these fancy things called PHDs. In fact, other countries have them too! I am sure at least a few were consulted and didn't come up with the "this does nothing" claim that you seem to have arrived at.
But hey, Trump University might teach a different take on it.
Dude, you should probably not get all of your information about women from porky's movies. Women don't like doing any of that in front of any STRANGER regardless of gender. That is why there are stalls instead of open toilets.
But fine, lets accept your movie stereotype. I cite infinite "guy pretending to be gay" movies as evidence that women have no problem undressing in front of men who aren't sexually attracted to women.
Now, for homework, go meet and actually talk to a woman.
This is a failure of your company's HR department and bonus structure. Your managers should have incentive against lost time in their departments. At my previous gig, our manager practically begged us not to loose time, starting the planning in September to make sure were weren't over max by the end of the year.
This requires that the poor are only interested in cheap commercial goods, and not in paying the rent/working to buy a home, buying food, living decently as you and I are. Sure, there will be a certain amount of lottery mindset, but that will only last so long. They would use the money to do the same thing that I did, buy their way into the middle class. But as you say, the money will move, and that fact alone could be very exciting for all of us.
Trumpesque debate style aside, your problem there is that you assume money is some form of finite resource. If you give a person $1000, where do you think that money goes? Under their mattress? It gets spent. Usually on things that are sold by companies owned by rich people. See where this is going? How do you "run out of other peoples money?" There is a fundamental flaw in your understanding of economics. You seem to have the hyperbole down though.
Because I can math, allow me to call bullshit on you. Bill gates is worth 87 billion at the moment. 10% of Americans is roughly 3 million people, meaning that per person, I could give them about 29,000 each. Assuming we are talking a ubi of 1,000 a month, then I could fund 10% of america for more than 2 years FROM JUST ONE DUDE. You need to look at some numbers and not just go with your gut feelings.
You know, I am sure there are dozens of comments like this in this thread, basically saying "I bet he doesn't want to use his money for it!" You do realize that by calling for government action that he knows will require taxing the hell out of the rich, he IS offering his money. Right?
The flaw with your argument is that people who would choose to live on the very small amount of money UBI would choose to sit around staring at a blank wall. If you didn't have to work, what would you do? The things you do in your free time now! Most of us would still hold a job because we need/want more than a ubi would pay, but lots of people would start small businesses to supplement their income. Sites like etsy bear that out pretty well. There are secondary markets for hobby's that would not only provide people with busy work, but turn it into a profit making opportunity. Locking people into crappy jobs that a robot can do is not "looking after their mental health." People can, and will find their own purpose in life, just like you, given the opportunity to do so.
I don't know what realtors make in your neck of the woods, but around here, they make a 5% commission that they split with the purchasing agent. So, in this scenario they would have to be selling a $40 million home. I would like to officially call bullshit on you. And frankly, the fact you would spout such crap makes be believe you haven't even been through the home buying process yourself. Forgive me for questioning your business acumen.
Humans, Human Civilization and the environment all did much better at warmer temperatures.
Better than what? Seems to me with all the science and education and, you know, no black plague we are doing pretty good, and would like to keep it that way. We have identified a threat with the same tool that got us to this halcyon age. Stop trying to pretend science is panic or conspiracy.
You hit the nail on the head. People don't want to change the way they live. That is why for vast and rapid change, you will never get anywhere without legislation/public works. Honestly, at this point, we should stop throwing around the "what will I have to sacrifice" trope. The answer is almost nothing. You will still have lights, but they will be LED lights that you have to change less often. You will still have a car, but it will be a hybrid that you have to fill up less often. Your power will come partially from your roof, and you will have to buy less electricity from your provider.
Lets stop pretending that this debate is really anything more than us sticking with old technologies because we are lazy and lack the will to replace them with better ones. In the grand scheme of things, your soda habits will mean almost nothing against the regulation of the prime contributors to this problem. And implemented responsibly, any change should be nearly transparent/nothing but good news for you the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
While I am not a big fan of hate crime laws, which to me walks a tightrope over racism, I would like to remind you that the law has codified many types of murder/manslaughter, all based around intent. Some states have gone as far as making special murder laws with harsher punishments if the victim was a child or even a policeman. While hate crime legislation isn't ideal, it is consistent with laws on the books. Personally, I think a murderer is a murderer.
Old disk drives space ratings were the usable space because of disk format (FAT) which gave them 720k per side. Those same disks on my Amiga were 880k per side (1.76 meg for a ds dd) because it used a different directory system (hash). If I remember correctly macs were getting 800k a side at the time. But in fairness, none of this was a major indication, due to filesystem overhead, of exactly how much data you could cram on the disk.
Feeding the trolls here, but the reason that Robert E. Murray doesn't have a case is that John Oliver pulls all of his stuff from the public record, and is legally allowed to call someone certain names, such as asshole. Any judge worth a damn will throw this out way before it hits trial.
My sense is that Trump quickly found himself lacking in people who would back him politically and has unfortunately begun to align himself more and more with the huckster caucus of the Republican party, those Republicans interested in enriching themselves and their corporate minions even further.
This reminds me of an abused wife talking about her husband. "He's a good man, really, he just can't control himself."
Long before his political career, Trump proved himself to be the very definition of the word Huckster. He made a university that taught nothing valuable. He re-branded regular steaks and blatantly called them the best ever. He can't keep his story, or position strait from day to day, or sometimes in the same breath! To be any more of a huckster he would have to be P.T. Barnum!
I just wish that people who voted for him could come to terms with the fact that they aren't getting any, not even one, of the things he promised to get their vote. That way they could start finding a candidate for the next cycle who isn't a Simpson's character made flesh.
And truly intelligent devs check the "use spaces instead of tabs for formatting" in the options of their IDE...
I'll give you a better reason. The article posits that a mobile phone would somehow be developed 7 years before the invention of the transistor radio. Not to mention the battery tech was terrible. Any cellphone created in that time frame would be backpack size at best.
I second this. I was in my 30s before I finally read 1984 and it is like a handbook to recognizing political flim-flam.
I'm an Atheist who has read both (Atlas and Fountainhead). The only way I would label someone defective for reading them is if they used them for the basis of some market worship philosophy afterward. In general I found them to be something a first year college student would consider "insightful" because they have no real world experience and precious little empathy.
They are full of one dimensional characters who's defining traits are egomania and greed, or are impossibly Mary Sue, such as Mr. Roark, who was evidently born with the perfect knowledge of every subject. The central thesis is terminally flawed by the assumption that some sort of capitalist utopia can be achieved by a collective of completely self centered sociopaths. I think in the end they say more about Mrs. Rand than any true economic or social insight.
But I highly encourage people to read them so they can see their banality for themselves, and to arm themselves for when they get trapped in a corner by a randroid at a party.
Does it have to be one or the other? I think he's capable of both.
Could you please describe for me how an illegal alien registers to vote? When they show up to the polls, how do they get into the booth? Also, we are talking 3 million votes that made up Hillary's margin. Considering that there are 11 million illegals in the country, how did they get that organized that 30% of them were able to pull this off? Also, how is it that not even one of them has spilled the beans on TV, for, you know, a huge paycheck from fox? If I am making it sound like you are some conspiracy nut, it's because that is what you sound like.
You do know that even telco providers keep trying to develop competitive options to Netflix, and could throttle the hell out of the routes to those peering servers if they managed to roll one out? (full disclosure, I worked for a major telco for 15 years. They were testing solutions for becoming your tv company for 10 of those years. Also, that company's pack was DEAD SET AGAINST net neutrality because of it.) And don't even get me started on Comcast, which told Netflix to go shove their peering servers.
The point is, their systems can't compete with netflix, but if you can make netflix suck just as much, why BOTHER to compete.
Don't party just yet.
Lets assume that those 4 and 6 percent respectively actually do vote for the other team, which, I think you will agree, will not happen....
Clinton: 65,844,610 (48.2%)
Trump: 62,979,636 (46.1%)
Clinton: 61,893,933(94%) + 2,519,186 (Trumps 4%) = 64,413,119
Trump: 60,460,450(96%) + 3,950,677 (Clinton's 6%) = 64,411,127
That's a squeeker! But I mean, lets not pretend that anyone who voted for Clinton is going to vote for Trump. In all likelihood, it will come down to the same 70,000 votes it did last time, except the dems are actually going to fight for them this time.
Meanwhile in the real world (outside the echo chamber of Breitbart), Trump's approval ratings just keep plummeting
Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return.
Sure, if the money just stopped in the government's hands, but what about this trillion dollar deficit government leads you to believe they won't spend it? And what you get back is roads, schools, a military, all the things that make commerce efficient and safe! I can't tell if this is supposed to be an argument towards anarchy or total ignorance of the fact that the american government is a GIANT part of the economy. About the only thing they could do to "take the money out of the economy" would be to pay off our debt. But unless you are suggesting that we should never do that, I don't see an eventual way around that one.
Assuming that the money is 100% redistributed to people, they can do less with the money because economic activity has fallen. Nothing good comes out of this.
What? Are you experiencing some kind of fever dream where you type? Assuming that 4 trillion dollars were handed out to to populace at large, there would be the same effect as we see from income tax rebate time. Want to know how much that stimulates the economy, stop by a gamestop and ask any manager what kind of massive sales increase they see. Now multiply that by 10,000. Short term, if such a reckless plan were enacted, you would see massive inflation, but only due to supply, and that is precisely why the government would likely find a more responsible way of using the money. Like our crumbling roads that business drive their goods on, or huge investment in good paying green energy which will require massive hiring.
Honestly, you talk like nobody in the world even remotely asked anyone who knows anything about economics before proposing a carbon tax. We have these nifty guys called economists, and they have these fancy things called PHDs. In fact, other countries have them too! I am sure at least a few were consulted and didn't come up with the "this does nothing" claim that you seem to have arrived at.
But hey, Trump University might teach a different take on it.
Dude, you should probably not get all of your information about women from porky's movies. Women don't like doing any of that in front of any STRANGER regardless of gender. That is why there are stalls instead of open toilets.
But fine, lets accept your movie stereotype. I cite infinite "guy pretending to be gay" movies as evidence that women have no problem undressing in front of men who aren't sexually attracted to women.
Now, for homework, go meet and actually talk to a woman.
The Republican party doesn't ignore the "black folks." They spend quite a bit of effort trying to get them to stay home rather than vote.
This is a failure of your company's HR department and bonus structure. Your managers should have incentive against lost time in their departments. At my previous gig, our manager practically begged us not to loose time, starting the planning in September to make sure were weren't over max by the end of the year.
This requires that the poor are only interested in cheap commercial goods, and not in paying the rent/working to buy a home, buying food, living decently as you and I are. Sure, there will be a certain amount of lottery mindset, but that will only last so long. They would use the money to do the same thing that I did, buy their way into the middle class. But as you say, the money will move, and that fact alone could be very exciting for all of us.
Trumpesque debate style aside, your problem there is that you assume money is some form of finite resource. If you give a person $1000, where do you think that money goes? Under their mattress? It gets spent. Usually on things that are sold by companies owned by rich people. See where this is going? How do you "run out of other peoples money?" There is a fundamental flaw in your understanding of economics. You seem to have the hyperbole down though.
Because I can math, allow me to call bullshit on you. Bill gates is worth 87 billion at the moment. 10% of Americans is roughly 3 million people, meaning that per person, I could give them about 29,000 each. Assuming we are talking a ubi of 1,000 a month, then I could fund 10% of america for more than 2 years FROM JUST ONE DUDE. You need to look at some numbers and not just go with your gut feelings.
You know, I am sure there are dozens of comments like this in this thread, basically saying "I bet he doesn't want to use his money for it!" You do realize that by calling for government action that he knows will require taxing the hell out of the rich, he IS offering his money. Right?
The flaw with your argument is that people who would choose to live on the very small amount of money UBI would choose to sit around staring at a blank wall. If you didn't have to work, what would you do? The things you do in your free time now! Most of us would still hold a job because we need/want more than a ubi would pay, but lots of people would start small businesses to supplement their income. Sites like etsy bear that out pretty well. There are secondary markets for hobby's that would not only provide people with busy work, but turn it into a profit making opportunity. Locking people into crappy jobs that a robot can do is not "looking after their mental health." People can, and will find their own purpose in life, just like you, given the opportunity to do so.
I don't know what realtors make in your neck of the woods, but around here, they make a 5% commission that they split with the purchasing agent. So, in this scenario they would have to be selling a $40 million home. I would like to officially call bullshit on you. And frankly, the fact you would spout such crap makes be believe you haven't even been through the home buying process yourself. Forgive me for questioning your business acumen.
Humans, Human Civilization and the environment all did much better at warmer temperatures.
Better than what? Seems to me with all the science and education and, you know, no black plague we are doing pretty good, and would like to keep it that way. We have identified a threat with the same tool that got us to this halcyon age. Stop trying to pretend science is panic or conspiracy.
You hit the nail on the head. People don't want to change the way they live. That is why for vast and rapid change, you will never get anywhere without legislation/public works. Honestly, at this point, we should stop throwing around the "what will I have to sacrifice" trope. The answer is almost nothing. You will still have lights, but they will be LED lights that you have to change less often. You will still have a car, but it will be a hybrid that you have to fill up less often. Your power will come partially from your roof, and you will have to buy less electricity from your provider.
Lets stop pretending that this debate is really anything more than us sticking with old technologies because we are lazy and lack the will to replace them with better ones. In the grand scheme of things, your soda habits will mean almost nothing against the regulation of the prime contributors to this problem. And implemented responsibly, any change should be nearly transparent/nothing but good news for you the consumer.
In 100 years?