You can still get health care, but if you want "health insurance", which is basically a collection of shared resources for a few to collect from, then I suspect your fellow participants may want you to pay more to participate if you live a certain lifestyle.
Why should others have to pay for YOUR risky choices. We all understand accidents happen, but if an individual likes to zip down mountains regularly in a squirrel suit, I'd hope they are paying a higher premium than those of us who don't.
" Not fit enough, eat too much red meat, drive too fast....sucks to be you."
Are you saying you shouldn't have to pay higher life insurance rates if you aren't fit, eat too much red meat, and drive to fast? For those of us who keep our bodies in shape, eat healthy, and don't take unnecessary risks; this will be a good thing and should ultimately provide better rates.
Insurance companies already set rates based on age, weight, if you smoke, have some diseases, and other factors. This can just let insurance companies zero in on additional risk attributes that they didn't have visibility to before. At least the examples you provided are things you can control. That seem more fair than rates based on age, sex, or factors outside a person's control.
" this car will drive itself in conditions a, b, and c"
Those probably include doing proper maintenance which isn't always followed. If Bob lets his tires get too worn, then some or all of the liability falls on him. Again, that's what courts are for. They can work out those more complicated scenarios.
Also, unpreventable accidents will happen that can lead to death when you have high speed transportation. Random nails in the street can cause a blowout that can cause a vehicle to go out of control and slam into a tree, light pole, or person. Its unfortunate, but no one may be to blame. The only way to minimize that is not let vehicles exceed 5mph, and that wouldn't be palatable to most of the population. Society has decided to take risks and accept a certain amount of lost life and injury for the convenience of being able to travel 70+ mph.
"The US absolutely has federal holidays, there are 8 of them"... "Most professionals and tradesmen have the holidays off"
Not exactly true. There are 10 federal holidays. Most professionals and tradesmen have 6 of the holidays off.
Most do NOT get MLK, Washington's Birthday, Columbus Day, or Veterans Day. Most do get New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas
This reminds me of Astrology a lot. Lumping people into a few generic groups based on a few traits doesn't seem to have much value. Especially when there is more than 1% outliers. The only use I can see is to predetermine that someone is more suited for a specific job, but if it isn't 100% accurate, then its as unfair as racism and sexism.
I live in the U.S. While most people would define a limousine as "a stretched car", they would also include limousine service as nearly any taxi-like service that isn't in a marked taxi. I've gotten several pickups to/from airports advertised as "limousine service" and its almost always a luxury car or SUV, not a 30 foot stretch vehicle with a sunroof and wet bar.
That's a slightly more reasonable argument, but regardless of semantics, I get the impression you seem to feel like you cannot protect yourself adequately without the use of a firearm. You have a level of concern for your safety which requires you to have "insurance" that you can use to protect yourself from bad people. You aren't scared, or afraid, or living in fear; you are a brave cautious person protecting their family from the bad people.
I wonder what the average gun-owning person's savings totals. If insurance against bad things happening is a legitimately important factor, a financial emergency is a much more likely recurring event to happen to an individual.
The main reason most people (67%) say they own guns now is for protection (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/). That would mean they feel unable to protect themselves with anything else. That sounds like they are scared to me.
Sure, some people use guns for sport, or hunting, or even probably collect them as works of art.
"the price should be nearly zero regardless of demand"
That would be true if the creators of the media didn't need to get paid. There would be little incentive for authors to write if there was a 0% chance they could get paid for their effort. Sure, some would write for fun/free but forget about most of what is published.
If I were on the city counsel I'd claim Eminent domain on the property and offer 200% of their declared value for the property and then see what number they provide. It seems easy enough for a city to always offer that to anyone who doesn't like their assessment.
"any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component."
I wonder if there is a place where you can go test your homemade firearm to see if it complies. And if so, could bad guys do that to see what they can pass through the system?
I think the banning of instructions is idiotic myself. But we do live in a society where certain plants are banned. Even certain sequences of 0s and 1s are effectively banned. If you don't believe it, obtain the sequence that will cause a computer to render child pornography and see how that works out for you.
Nowhere does "a six figure salary actually doesn't mean much". Sure, you can live MUCH better in Jackson MS on $100k+ than San Fran, but you can still have a nice lifestyle on six figures anywhere. 90% of the population makes less than that. The median household income in SF is $78,378, so if you make 100k you are 25% more than that. Again, not rich but not poor.
The implied contract with you and Facebook/Apple/whoever is that for the use of their services, they get to and will collect data related to your use. That could include metadata, content, usage metrics, etc. The more you use, the more you effectively pay. You don't have to use those services, and regardless of some people's option, you can still function in society without those services.
"We should be paying per gigabyte and no more than ten times the cost to the ISP. So that's like.... $0.00001 per gigabyte for the users?"
While that act of moving 1GB of data doesn't consume a lot of resources once the infrastructure is in place, building and maintaining that infrastructure has significant costs. If you really believe they are gouging the world and charging 10000 times more than they should, then I recommend you buy Comcast or whoever's stock and reap the profits with them.
"I have an ID on this and many other sites but I'm still anonymous. Even if the gov put out a shit form and a need a UID to even log on to the internet (good luck getting that working) and I fill it with false details and get my ID off I go. Even if I get one someone else's ID i'm still anonymous. Go back to pointing out that when you declare something a UFO its been identified as unidentified and figure that one out."
Do you do the same with credit card purchases? Banking transactions? I'm all for anonymity, but if they made it illegal to use other's ID on the internet or bypass your govt issued ID, then most people will do what's required. As anonymous as you think you are on this site, odds are they keep IP records which can likely be traced back to you. Now, if you use VPNs to stay anonymous, it could be effective. That said, if they want to track you, they can just require VPN services to keep logs as well. If they don't comply, they can be liable. If they are outside your country, they can be blocked. That's what the US did with many gambling sites. Plus, your ISP could even be required to not allow VPN type services that go around such tracking. I'm not saying its right, but getting around it isn't as easy as you think. China has 1.1B people and they seem to have it locked down pretty tight.
I bet they will save a few for those who want to pay for a premium seat that includes an actual window. And as other's have said, if there is just a monitor, expect ads and the view to be brought to you by "Little Debbie"
"which would add about a buck and a half to the price of every meal"
I've seen cutlery at the dollar store for $1 per knife/fork/spoon and presume they are not selling them at a loss. I bet if you buy they by the gross you may be able to get each piece to $0.50.
Yet another thing self driving cars will fix. Once those are standard, there will be no more DUIs. There will also be no more tickets for speeding, running red lights, failure to maintain control, reckless driving, or any other moving violations.
Sadly, I think cops will hate this. They want to be able to have a reason to pull someone over, especially if they are black (and this is coming from a white male who reeks white privilege). They will also fear this will eliminate a need for a major part of their job. I don't know the number, but suspect a sizable percentage of police activity involves traffic enforcement. If cars are driving themselves, their need will greatly diminish. At some point, municipalities will decide they don't need to pay someone to enforce laws that aren't being broken and there is no longer a threat to society by drunk and reckless drivers. I'm not sure what the final outcome will be, but it doesn't look good for the men in blue.
"So if I hook the phone up to the car stereo via a usb cable, or to the Windows laptop via a usb cable, I'd be outta luck?" You'd be out of luck if you haven't entered the passcode in 7 days or used your fingerprint and don't want to be bothered with authenticating by those means.
"Who thought up this idiocy?" Someone who doesn't like their security controls being bypassed.
Say all the easy jobs go may away. I think people will get smarter and the average intelligence will rise. In 1800 only about 12% of the world could read. Today, the opposite is true (https://ourworldindata.org/literacy). I suspect back then it seemed crazy to think over 90% of the world population would be able or have a need to read.
Even if people don't get smarter, they will still need to find a place to live, eat, etc. When economies collapse after wars, disaster, etc people figured it out. I guess the hope is to minimize the turmoil between accelerated automation and whatever happens after that.
Slashdot Mirror
You can still get health care, but if you want "health insurance", which is basically a collection of shared resources for a few to collect from, then I suspect your fellow participants may want you to pay more to participate if you live a certain lifestyle.
Why should others have to pay for YOUR risky choices. We all understand accidents happen, but if an individual likes to zip down mountains regularly in a squirrel suit, I'd hope they are paying a higher premium than those of us who don't.
" Not fit enough, eat too much red meat, drive too fast....sucks to be you."
Are you saying you shouldn't have to pay higher life insurance rates if you aren't fit, eat too much red meat, and drive to fast? For those of us who keep our bodies in shape, eat healthy, and don't take unnecessary risks; this will be a good thing and should ultimately provide better rates.
Insurance companies already set rates based on age, weight, if you smoke, have some diseases, and other factors. This can just let insurance companies zero in on additional risk attributes that they didn't have visibility to before. At least the examples you provided are things you can control. That seem more fair than rates based on age, sex, or factors outside a person's control.
" this car will drive itself in conditions a, b, and c"
Those probably include doing proper maintenance which isn't always followed. If Bob lets his tires get too worn, then some or all of the liability falls on him. Again, that's what courts are for. They can work out those more complicated scenarios.
Also, unpreventable accidents will happen that can lead to death when you have high speed transportation. Random nails in the street can cause a blowout that can cause a vehicle to go out of control and slam into a tree, light pole, or person. Its unfortunate, but no one may be to blame. The only way to minimize that is not let vehicles exceed 5mph, and that wouldn't be palatable to most of the population. Society has decided to take risks and accept a certain amount of lost life and injury for the convenience of being able to travel 70+ mph.
"The US absolutely has federal holidays, there are 8 of them" ... "Most professionals and tradesmen have the holidays off"
Not exactly true. There are 10 federal holidays. Most professionals and tradesmen have 6 of the holidays off.
Most do NOT get MLK, Washington's Birthday, Columbus Day, or Veterans Day.
Most do get New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas
This reminds me of Astrology a lot. Lumping people into a few generic groups based on a few traits doesn't seem to have much value. Especially when there is more than 1% outliers. The only use I can see is to predetermine that someone is more suited for a specific job, but if it isn't 100% accurate, then its as unfair as racism and sexism.
Was this test created by Senn Delaney? (https://www.senndelaney.com/Default.aspx)
I live in the U.S. While most people would define a limousine as "a stretched car", they would also include limousine service as nearly any taxi-like service that isn't in a marked taxi. I've gotten several pickups to/from airports advertised as "limousine service" and its almost always a luxury car or SUV, not a 30 foot stretch vehicle with a sunroof and wet bar.
That's a slightly more reasonable argument, but regardless of semantics, I get the impression you seem to feel like you cannot protect yourself adequately without the use of a firearm. You have a level of concern for your safety which requires you to have "insurance" that you can use to protect yourself from bad people.
You aren't scared, or afraid, or living in fear; you are a brave cautious person protecting their family from the bad people.
I wonder what the average gun-owning person's savings totals. If insurance against bad things happening is a legitimately important factor, a financial emergency is a much more likely recurring event to happen to an individual.
The main reason most people (67%) say they own guns now is for protection (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/). That would mean they feel unable to protect themselves with anything else. That sounds like they are scared to me.
Sure, some people use guns for sport, or hunting, or even probably collect them as works of art.
"the price should be nearly zero regardless of demand"
That would be true if the creators of the media didn't need to get paid. There would be little incentive for authors to write if there was a 0% chance they could get paid for their effort. Sure, some would write for fun/free but forget about most of what is published.
If I were on the city counsel I'd claim Eminent domain on the property and offer 200% of their declared value for the property and then see what number they provide. It seems easy enough for a city to always offer that to anyone who doesn't like their assessment.
"any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component."
I wonder if there is a place where you can go test your homemade firearm to see if it complies. And if so, could bad guys do that to see what they can pass through the system?
I think the banning of instructions is idiotic myself. But we do live in a society where certain plants are banned. Even certain sequences of 0s and 1s are effectively banned. If you don't believe it, obtain the sequence that will cause a computer to render child pornography and see how that works out for you.
Nowhere does "a six figure salary actually doesn't mean much". Sure, you can live MUCH better in Jackson MS on $100k+ than San Fran, but you can still have a nice lifestyle on six figures anywhere. 90% of the population makes less than that. The median household income in SF is $78,378, so if you make 100k you are 25% more than that. Again, not rich but not poor.
The implied contract with you and Facebook/Apple/whoever is that for the use of their services, they get to and will collect data related to your use. That could include metadata, content, usage metrics, etc. The more you use, the more you effectively pay. You don't have to use those services, and regardless of some people's option, you can still function in society without those services.
"We should be paying per gigabyte and no more than ten times the cost to the ISP.
So that's like.... $0.00001 per gigabyte for the users?"
While that act of moving 1GB of data doesn't consume a lot of resources once the infrastructure is in place, building and maintaining that infrastructure has significant costs. If you really believe they are gouging the world and charging 10000 times more than they should, then I recommend you buy Comcast or whoever's stock and reap the profits with them.
"a cat with a blowhole"
Isn't that a furry?
"I have an ID on this and many other sites but I'm still anonymous. Even if the gov put out a shit form and a need a UID to even log on to the internet (good luck getting that working) and I fill it with false details and get my ID off I go. Even if I get one someone else's ID i'm still anonymous. Go back to pointing out that when you declare something a UFO its been identified as unidentified and figure that one out."
Do you do the same with credit card purchases? Banking transactions? I'm all for anonymity, but if they made it illegal to use other's ID on the internet or bypass your govt issued ID, then most people will do what's required. As anonymous as you think you are on this site, odds are they keep IP records which can likely be traced back to you. Now, if you use VPNs to stay anonymous, it could be effective. That said, if they want to track you, they can just require VPN services to keep logs as well. If they don't comply, they can be liable. If they are outside your country, they can be blocked. That's what the US did with many gambling sites. Plus, your ISP could even be required to not allow VPN type services that go around such tracking. I'm not saying its right, but getting around it isn't as easy as you think. China has 1.1B people and they seem to have it locked down pretty tight.
I bet they will save a few for those who want to pay for a premium seat that includes an actual window. And as other's have said, if there is just a monitor, expect ads and the view to be brought to you by "Little Debbie"
"which would add about a buck and a half to the price of every meal"
I've seen cutlery at the dollar store for $1 per knife/fork/spoon and presume they are not selling them at a loss. I bet if you buy they by the gross you may be able to get each piece to $0.50.
Yet another thing self driving cars will fix. Once those are standard, there will be no more DUIs. There will also be no more tickets for speeding, running red lights, failure to maintain control, reckless driving, or any other moving violations.
Sadly, I think cops will hate this. They want to be able to have a reason to pull someone over, especially if they are black (and this is coming from a white male who reeks white privilege). They will also fear this will eliminate a need for a major part of their job. I don't know the number, but suspect a sizable percentage of police activity involves traffic enforcement. If cars are driving themselves, their need will greatly diminish. At some point, municipalities will decide they don't need to pay someone to enforce laws that aren't being broken and there is no longer a threat to society by drunk and reckless drivers. I'm not sure what the final outcome will be, but it doesn't look good for the men in blue.
Wow, you much be human. Everyone knows 28573782909827352 is really 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 197 x 4391 x 1376343499
"So if I hook the phone up to the car stereo via a usb cable, or to the Windows laptop via a usb cable, I'd be outta luck?"
You'd be out of luck if you haven't entered the passcode in 7 days or used your fingerprint and don't want to be bothered with authenticating by those means.
"Who thought up this idiocy?"
Someone who doesn't like their security controls being bypassed.
"google is for word processing"
You obviously work for a major industry. Word is still the defacto choice for work processing.
Say all the easy jobs go may away. I think people will get smarter and the average intelligence will rise. In 1800 only about 12% of the world could read. Today, the opposite is true (https://ourworldindata.org/literacy). I suspect back then it seemed crazy to think over 90% of the world population would be able or have a need to read.
Even if people don't get smarter, they will still need to find a place to live, eat, etc. When economies collapse after wars, disaster, etc people figured it out. I guess the hope is to minimize the turmoil between accelerated automation and whatever happens after that.