Which work with multiple phones and even other devices, and tend also to be much more competitively priced than an OEM internal battery which only likely works with one particular model.
if we were to assume that this data is never misused, it seems like an enormous amount of marketing analytics....perhaps enough to offset the cost of windows 10?
They ARE offering (or aggressively pushing) a limited time free upgrade to existing licensed users of 7 and 8 get adoption rates up on the theories that they'll make some money back on the in-app advertising on the app store stuff, and the (mostly correct) assumption that almost nobody pays to upgrade windows anyway, so giving away the upgrade REALLY doesn't cost them much.
But if you bought a new PC with Windows 10 on it, that copy was paid for.
Further, "telemetry" isn't *supposed* to be used for marketing. It's "supposed" to be used for product improvement. Using it for marketing IS misusing it as far as I'd be concerned.
Not necessarily. Its more like a service pack. I've done a couple of those big major updates that update the Windows build number, and they take you through the same "installation" wizard after install as the original upgrade.
"Hi."
"Welcome to Windows"
etc...
You can argue (legitimately) that it's a bit obnoxious; and I won't disagree. But its still not 'forced'. Recall the Java and Adobe updaters the default to installing toolbars on you; you can opt out, but its obnoxious that you have to opt out each time. This is more like that.
you would have a little more credibility if you would deign to tell us what the real problems are
Microsoft Telemetry is the collection of usage statistics and usage information from a Windows user. What programs are you running. What features of them are you using and how often (if the application can report that; e.g. microsoft apps). How long are you using them. What programs you have installed. What you search for in the search bar. How long you look at the start menu.
This is generally fairly innocuous, but its still none of their business if I don't want to send it to them and its downright offensive that it can't easily be turned off.
Microsofts's telemetry goes further though, since the EULA suggests they capture keystrokes; etc. This is potentially a serious breach of security and privacy. And while presumably this is for improving cortana and so on, the problem remains:
a) they don't easily let you opt out b) they don't properly disclose exactly what is collected nor from where with any precision. c) we ultimately do not know what has been collected on us, nor who has access to it.
Finally, the issue is with Telemetry not Windows 10. The telemetry exists in Windows 7 and 8 now too; so not upgrading to protest it is an exercise in futility.
Windows 10 upgrade only resets the defaults if you go with the "recommended settings" option. If you select "customize" then it prompts you whether to update your default programs or keep the existing.
If you take Microsoft's "recommended settings"; is it any surprise that they set you up on Edge for your browser, the new windows 10 photo viewer, etc, and a few other application defaults?
It's nuts. There is a REAL problem with Microsofts telemetry situation; but too many of you get side tracked by every little irrelevant detail; and then run around like chicken little foaming at the mouth; and it takes all your credibility away.
- "Oh no! Windows 10 has waaay too much telemetry... "
o "Oh, that sounds a little disturbing, tell me more?"
- "Oh no! Windows 10 sets your default browser to edge if you select 'recommend settings'. - "Oh no! Windows 10 tries to connect to the internet so that it can update the icon that says whether or not you are connected to the internet!" - "Oh no! Windows 10 connects to the internet a thousand times in the first 24 hours"
o "er...I see you left Windows update service turned on!"
- "OMG Micro$$$oft evil! Bing sounds stupid. They made it easier to get to device manager and control panels... by changing somehting. EVIL!!"
o "Yeah, I've forgotten why I was listening to you."
All the Administration has to do is create a "make us a back door or pay a $10M per day" tax, and Apple will cave. Unintended consequences of Obamacare.
More like Imagined consequences as a result of a too tight tinfoil hat. You can argue about obamacare legitmately, but this is not how.
Hitler for example believed in what ever he could to get power.
The fact remains that he BELIEVED in it.
People claiming he was Religious ignore the fact that he had teams of Mystic's and Astrologers, and was trying to hoard "Magic" artifacts.
That doesn't argue against his religious faith, that just shows that he believed that non-Christians could also have relationships with God via their own religions and belief systems.
Lots of Christians believe this to be the case perhaps the majority; hell even the Papacy itself has allowed for it.
There is good rap. Rap that is so good that it makes the lyrics of every other genre look like the poems you wrote to your high-school infatuation
I don't disagree there is really good rap. But I don't agree that every other genre is weak by comparison. There are are truly amazing lyrics in most genres... Leonard Cohen, Pink Floyd, Skinny Puppy, Ladytron, New Order, Faith No More... all have songs that I'd consider poetic excellence.
This guy creates new rhymes that he has never said before almost every time he opens his mouth. If you think of yourself as quick-witted, just try and do this
There is an 'art' to playing with pronunciation and cadence that some rappers have that allow them a lot more rhyming flexibility than I'll ever have. I'm not sure I'd categorize it as quick-wit, its merely a particular aptitude plus practiced skill. Myka9 im not familiar with, but as a pretty familiar example, Eminem is very good at it.
I'm more impressed by metaphor, meanings, and symbols than raw speed or rhyming ability, but I don't mean to suggest that there isn't a certain impressiveness to skilled freestyle rapping.
and the very first one, rather than being a FreeBSD bug is a style bug that just looks bad, but is working as intended, yet they intentionally mislead by indicating that its a flaw. Its not, its badly formatted, but its working as intended and that if statement is only meant to control the first line.
I disagree. It doesn't just look bad, it's indentation is communicating semantics that aren't accurate. It should be corrected. Something that should be corrected... is a flaw.
You say its "working as intended" (and I presume it is); but the message the developer communicated with that formatting is that he intended for it to work differently from how it does in fact work.
I agree its "just a formatting error"... but its a particularly nasty one; and code like that SHOULD be investigated and corrected.
I could see people trading in Windows Phone for an iPhone
Carriers have run these plans themselves for years already. The trade in credit for your existing phone is universally laughably bad, and its always better to just keep your old phone in case you lose or break your new one -- so you have a working device you can fall back to.
Or you can flip your old phone on craigslist for double to quintuple what its trade in value is.
I think a legitimate question would be, what happens with all those traded-in phones every time Apple comes out with some incremental improvement?
trade in iphones 5s and newer will be refurbished if in good condition, and used as warranty replacements etc.
Androids and windows phones and older iphones are likely sent away to be recycled. Maybe if we're lucky they get donated to some program to give them 3rd world users, or otherwise disadvantaged people-in-need.
I do so love a post that effectively contradicts itself merely by the fact it was made in the first place. Very meta. Bravo.
As for the argument at hand, more irony... some politico says "I wish people would stop calling them 'Polish Death Camps' when the Polish people had nothing to do with creating them or running them; there ought to be a law!"
To which your response is that "He shouldn't be allowed to have that opinion, you know, to protect freedom of speech."
Past a certain age both vision, and motor control do become issues. I think tablet touchscreens are easier to use for most than a mouse is generally.
But a tablet tends to be difficult to see as one's vision goes.
As I said in another response, I think the ideal device for the elderly would be an ipad in a touchscreen imac formfactor. A large touch capable screen), full size keyboard to type things, mouse optional, with an ios like derivative for simplicity.
"gorlla arm" phenomena would be minimally an issue. They aren't working 8 hours a day. At best they are casually browsing etc. And I'd give them a mouse if they could use it, or let them just touch the screen if that was easier.
Nobody said they can't or shouldn't use a full size keyboard to type things out.
Indeed for the elderly, I think basically an ipad in a touchscreen imac form factor would be the perfect device. You've got a large 24"+ touch screen, and keyboard. and then optionally a mouse.
"I always think of someone like an uncle or aunt who only needs a computer to read and write email, browse the web, and maybe write a letter. Steering people like this to machines with Linux preinstalled is the only way I expect they would be willing to use it."
That was true a few years ago and those people were a potential linux demographic, but today? There's no real reason that person even needs a computer, nevermind a Linux computer.
They really just need an ipad or android tablet. That's where my wife parents are. That's where I'd put my grandmother.
I'm not really sure why I'd even consider putting them on Ubuntu.
I know a few people on the brink of poverty, who would drop their job in a heartbeat with a UBI scheme.
Why exactly? Is it because life is good enough on barely-enough-to-live and they don't want more? Or because working their asses off at a shitty job for the same amount they'd get from welfare just isn't worth getting off the couch?
Because I can see the latter.
One probelm with welfare as implemented is that it too often becomes a case of "make $200 week working a shit job" OR "make $250 week not working at all on welfare". And if they get a job they lose the welfare. If they get a part time job they lose all the welfare and actually take home less then they were when they weren't working. Or if they get a min-wage job that pays shit they might find themselves working 32.25 hours a week on shifts scheduled by a monkey throwing shit at the wall to make $50 more than they were on welfare... why bother?
So welfare becomes a bit of a trap... where its not worth getting off it until they cut you off unless you find an genuinely half decent job.
A better implementation of welfare (or as most UBI proposal work) would be that you get your $200/week for being a citizen, and then if you pick up a part time job, or a shitty almost full time job or whatever... you actually get to keep most of that too.
Suddenly its actually worth taking that shitty job, because your disposable income goes noticeably up, for the effort you put in. And situations like flex time, and part time jobs etc aren't so problematic.
On the flipside, we also need to remove things that provide incentives to companies to prefer part time employees over full time employees. There are lots of real reasons to need part time worker - filling peak hours, seasonal demand, etc; but not wanting to pay benefits or statutory holiday or whatever is not one of them.
Perhaps, but again, if my ipaq in 2003 could handle "open word", and a few dozen other phrases, my phone in 2016 should be able to handle days, months, years, numbers to 100. etc. and 10,000 common words.
So, "phone call 555-1245" or "call X" where X is in my relatively short contact list. or make an appointment July 5th, for 1hr, with John Smith.
or "what am I doing July 5th"
etc don't have to go to the internet.
I'm also ok, with a tier of explicitly authorized commands to talk to the internet. phone go online and navigate to xyz. or phone go online and search for korean restaurants near me...
With a keyword "go online" or something to not just search online but also auth sending the request to servers online.
I am not intimately familiar with the tax regime where ever you live, but every where I've ever lived, as your income goes up your taxes go up incrementally only on the additional income.
e.g. if you make 10,000 you get taxed, 0$ if you make 30,000 you get taxed 0$ on the first 10, and then 10% of the next 20, for a total of 2k
if you make 50,000 you get taxed 0$ on the first 10, 10% on the next 20k, and then 30% on the next 30k. For a total of ~12k.
In super progressive taxation, it can get up to 60% and beyond. But that rate only starts on the dollars OVER X$.
So you don't "lose money" by reaching a higher tax bracket, you just make progressively less with each additional dollar.
Ie... your first thousand dollars you keep every penny of those dollars, but your 200,000th dollar you keep only 45 cents of that dollar.
So,even if I'm in the top tax bracket, and you give me another 10,000 in income I'll take it. I'll only keep 4,000. But that's still 4,000 more than I had. And if I'm smart, and invest it or shelter it I get to keep more than if I just use it as more walking-around-money.
Making more money and "Paying higher taxes" still means I took home more money than if I hadn't made more money in the first place.
So this all boils down to: "Does the study include some "middle-class" test subjects so see how well they do after paying higher taxes ?"
Why EXACTLY do you see this as a likely issue? Are you just unfamiliar with how taxes actually work? Or bad at math? Or is there some genuine issue that arises where you live if someone gave you a bunch of money that it would somehow ruin your life?
Its true there are some edge cases in tax law, where as your income goes up you no longer qualify for certain deductions or subsidies, but even then its nearly always a zero sum game. And worst case you end up with the same amount you started with despite receiving more money. But these usually only affect the lower/barely middle class.
The only "trap" to suddenly making more money is not being aware what you can keep, and spending more than you actually were entitled to keep, creating a tax bill you don't have money to pay. (e.g. if you make 50,000 a year set aside money to pay a tax bill for someone who makes 50k a year, and someone gives you a new 10k in income, going on a 10k vacation with it is pretty stupid.)
That's the key. It's easy to record an audio clip, and figure out which of a dozen keywords it comes closest to matching.
Something the ipaq did 12 years ago.
It's much, much harder to record an audio clip and try to find a match in a library of 20,000 words.
If only we had proessessors several orders of magnitude more powerful than a 2003 ipaq. With thousands of time more RAM, and multiple cores...
oh wait.
But for the time being, transmitting the audio to a beefy server is the best we've got.
Just how beefy are these servers? I don't need it to service millions or thousands or even 10s of users at once. Just me. I bet my desktop has enough beef to match it. And I bet that my smartphone, several orders of magnitude stronger than an 2003 ipaq, could be a pretty remarkable personal assistant just with its local resources.
That's debatable, since its literally the interface to open the door, and is often integrated mechanically and electronically with the locks.
Not to mention in some vehicles such as mini-vans and SUVs the side and rear door handles are little more than fancy switches that send an open/close signal to a control unit.
Mercedes was a both german company and a military supplier to the german army. The parent company Daimler-Benz also produced aircraft, tanks, and submarine engines.
Hitler driving a Mercedes isn't really the same thing at all.
The closest analog to modern encryption is the pyrotechnic safe; attempting to drill it results in an explosion and a fire inside.
Where I can I buy one? Sure I've seen them in movies. Do they actually exist?
If they exist how reliable are they? No criminal is going to want his books and cash to burn out if the neighbors kid crashes a car into a tree on your yard. Or a small earth quake.
I literally can't find anything about them at all. The closest is that using themic lances against normal safes can burn the papers in them.
Perhaps some psycho might rig a bomb inside a regular safe, but that's probably enough to get you convicted just for that, even if you walk on the original case.
In any case this hardly seems to be a problem law enforcement is constantly running into.
They can hire a safe-cracker, but if they can't find one that can break in to your safe, you still don't have to give up the combination and the cops are out of luck.
Quite. But how realistic is this? How many safes out there can the police not get cracked? Its a theoretical limitation with no real implication on actual law enforcement activity.
Contrast this with "everybody and their un-crackable cellphone".
If someone made a physical safe the cops couldn't break into, and people were buying them by the millions law enforcement would be in a similar tizzy about it. Except I doubt that can happen, nothing one can build can't be ground down again. And the cost of such a safe would be extreme.
Contrast with encryption where the cost of encryption is negligible, and uncrackable. (aka "free with 2 year contract")
Encrypted data is the same. They can't force you to give them the passphrase but they can hire someone to try and crack it. If no one can, the cops are out of luck.
Exactly. But they aren't ok with being "out of luck" so often.
What if I had a paper diary and I wrote it in my own language(encryption)?
You'd be surprised how easy it would be to crack in practice. In most cases invented languages would be little more than some window dressing on an existing language, with some simple ciphers etc. Couple that with other relatively detailed knowledge they have about your movements and activities and they almost have a Rosetta stone.
But sure, we can hypothesize you invented the equivalent of martian for the sake of argument, and nobody can make anything of it.
The cops would be out of luck.
Ok, how many people do you think in the world are inventing the equivalent of martian to write their criminal diaries? Are even capable of it? How many police investigations have been hampered by it?
The police don't have a problem with this, because it practically NEVER happens.
The issue they have with encryption is that every criminal from a purse snatcher to the head of the Yakuza uses computers, tablets, smartphones, etc. So its an actual obstacle to actual investigations instead of a hypothetical issue that never happens.
I don't see how you have a problem with any of this.
In an ideal world, I'd want police to be able to break into an encrypted device with a warrant. Why wouldn't I want that? But for better or worse, in the real world, for the first time ever we have somewhere we can put our documents that is easy, convenient, inexpensive, and is secure enough to keep even global super powers from getting in with all their resources combined. Never mind the local police detachment.
I don't have a "problem" with it, in the sense that I think we should ban encryption or backdoor it because those are both stupid non-solutions. But it is a legitimate problem that law enforcement faces that has no good solution.
I would argue it is time to take up arms against a government with mind reading tech.
And then what? Burn the existing tech, ban research into it, and hope foreign country X doesn't secretly have it?
I agree there is some pretty messed up stuff that could (would) happen in such a world, but I figure mass-proliferation of the tech to everyone would be the only possible stable outcome of such a development.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore people who claim a replaceable battery isn't necessary must be boring city dwellers without a sense of adventure.
Or maybe we think outside the box and buy things things like:
http://www.amazon.com/X-DRAGON...
http://www.amazon.com/Nekteck-...
Which work with multiple phones and even other devices, and tend also to be much more competitively priced than an OEM internal battery which only likely works with one particular model.
if we were to assume that this data is never misused, it seems like an enormous amount of marketing analytics. ...perhaps enough to offset the cost of windows 10?
http://www.amazon.com/Microsof...
Home is 119
Pro is 199
About the same as 7 and 8. You can get an OEM copy a bit cheaper.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
About the same as 7 and 8.
Windows 10 isn't free.
They ARE offering (or aggressively pushing) a limited time free upgrade to existing licensed users of 7 and 8 get adoption rates up on the theories that they'll make some money back on the in-app advertising on the app store stuff, and the (mostly correct) assumption that almost nobody pays to upgrade windows anyway, so giving away the upgrade REALLY doesn't cost them much.
But if you bought a new PC with Windows 10 on it, that copy was paid for.
Further, "telemetry" isn't *supposed* to be used for marketing. It's "supposed" to be used for product improvement. Using it for marketing IS misusing it as far as I'd be concerned.
How much is left of it on W7 when none of their spyware updates has been installed?
I am sure if you are sufficiently diligent; you're ok.
But its a pain to vet every single update. I prefer to just install it, and then block it; its less labor intensive.
Unless they're dishonest with the update descriptions.
You mean like: "This update resolves issues with Windows. Recommended." They don't even have to lie if that's all they write.
Sounds a bit worse now, doesn't it?
Not necessarily. Its more like a service pack. I've done a couple of those big major updates that update the Windows build number, and they take you through the same "installation" wizard after install as the original upgrade.
"Hi."
"Welcome to Windows"
etc...
You can argue (legitimately) that it's a bit obnoxious; and I won't disagree. But its still not 'forced'. Recall the Java and Adobe updaters the default to installing toolbars on you; you can opt out, but its obnoxious that you have to opt out each time. This is more like that.
you would have a little more credibility if you would deign to tell us what the real problems are
Microsoft Telemetry is the collection of usage statistics and usage information from a Windows user. What programs are you running. What features of them are you using and how often (if the application can report that; e.g. microsoft apps). How long are you using them. What programs you have installed. What you search for in the search bar. How long you look at the start menu.
This is generally fairly innocuous, but its still none of their business if I don't want to send it to them and its downright offensive that it can't easily be turned off.
Microsofts's telemetry goes further though, since the EULA suggests they capture keystrokes; etc. This is potentially a serious breach of security and privacy. And while presumably this is for improving cortana and so on, the problem remains:
a) they don't easily let you opt out
b) they don't properly disclose exactly what is collected nor from where with any precision.
c) we ultimately do not know what has been collected on us, nor who has access to it.
Finally, the issue is with Telemetry not Windows 10. The telemetry exists in Windows 7 and 8 now too; so not upgrading to protest it is an exercise in futility.
Windows 10 upgrade only resets the defaults if you go with the "recommended settings" option. If you select "customize" then it prompts you whether to update your default programs or keep the existing.
If you take Microsoft's "recommended settings"; is it any surprise that they set you up on Edge for your browser, the new windows 10 photo viewer, etc, and a few other application defaults?
It's nuts. There is a REAL problem with Microsofts telemetry situation; but too many of you get side tracked by every little irrelevant detail; and then run around like chicken little foaming at the mouth; and it takes all your credibility away.
- "Oh no! Windows 10 has waaay too much telemetry ... "
o "Oh, that sounds a little disturbing, tell me more?"
- "Oh no! Windows 10 sets your default browser to edge if you select 'recommend settings'.
- "Oh no! Windows 10 tries to connect to the internet so that it can update the icon that says whether or not you are connected to the internet!"
- "Oh no! Windows 10 connects to the internet a thousand times in the first 24 hours"
o "er...I see you left Windows update service turned on!"
- "OMG Micro$$$oft evil! Bing sounds stupid. They made it easier to get to device manager and control panels... by changing somehting. EVIL!!"
o "Yeah, I've forgotten why I was listening to you."
All the Administration has to do is create a "make us a back door or pay a $10M per day" tax, and Apple will cave. Unintended consequences of Obamacare.
More like Imagined consequences as a result of a too tight tinfoil hat. You can argue about obamacare legitmately, but this is not how.
Hitler for example believed in what ever he could to get power.
The fact remains that he BELIEVED in it.
People claiming he was Religious ignore the fact that he had teams of Mystic's and Astrologers, and was trying to hoard "Magic" artifacts.
That doesn't argue against his religious faith, that just shows that he believed that non-Christians could also have relationships with God via their own religions and belief systems.
Lots of Christians believe this to be the case perhaps the majority; hell even the Papacy itself has allowed for it.
There is good rap. Rap that is so good that it makes the lyrics of every other genre look like the poems you wrote to your high-school infatuation
I don't disagree there is really good rap. But I don't agree that every other genre is weak by comparison. There are are truly amazing lyrics in most genres... Leonard Cohen, Pink Floyd, Skinny Puppy, Ladytron, New Order, Faith No More... all have songs that I'd consider poetic excellence.
This guy creates new rhymes that he has never said before almost every time he opens his mouth. If you think of yourself as quick-witted, just try and do this
There is an 'art' to playing with pronunciation and cadence that some rappers have that allow them a lot more rhyming flexibility than I'll ever have. I'm not sure I'd categorize it as quick-wit, its merely a particular aptitude plus practiced skill. Myka9 im not familiar with, but as a pretty familiar example, Eminem is very good at it.
I'm more impressed by metaphor, meanings, and symbols than raw speed or rhyming ability, but I don't mean to suggest that there isn't a certain impressiveness to skilled freestyle rapping.
So far every thing I've seen in their analysis is a bug in their software
How far did you read the article? Starting with the second example, they were finding things that were not logically correct.
For example
if ((m->m_flags & M_PKTHDR) == 0 || ...
m->m_pkthdr.len != m->m_pkthdr.len {
That or clause is clearly defective.
and the very first one, rather than being a FreeBSD bug is a style bug that just looks bad, but is working as intended, yet they intentionally mislead by indicating that its a flaw. Its not, its badly formatted, but its working as intended and that if statement is only meant to control the first line.
I disagree. It doesn't just look bad, it's indentation is communicating semantics that aren't accurate. It should be corrected. Something that should be corrected... is a flaw.
You say its "working as intended" (and I presume it is); but the message the developer communicated with that formatting is that he intended for it to work differently from how it does in fact work.
I agree its "just a formatting error"... but its a particularly nasty one; and code like that SHOULD be investigated and corrected.
I could see people trading in Windows Phone for an iPhone
Carriers have run these plans themselves for years already. The trade in credit for your existing phone is universally laughably bad, and its always better to just keep your old phone in case you lose or break your new one -- so you have a working device you can fall back to.
Or you can flip your old phone on craigslist for double to quintuple what its trade in value is.
I think a legitimate question would be, what happens with all those traded-in phones every time Apple comes out with some incremental improvement?
trade in iphones 5s and newer will be refurbished if in good condition, and used as warranty replacements etc.
Androids and windows phones and older iphones are likely sent away to be recycled. Maybe if we're lucky they get donated to some program to give them 3rd world users, or otherwise disadvantaged people-in-need.
I do so love a post that effectively contradicts itself merely by the fact it was made in the first place. Very meta. Bravo.
As for the argument at hand, more irony... some politico says "I wish people would stop calling them 'Polish Death Camps' when the Polish people had nothing to do with creating them or running them; there ought to be a law!"
To which your response is that "He shouldn't be allowed to have that opinion, you know, to protect freedom of speech."
Your head a splode!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Past a certain age both vision, and motor control do become issues. I think tablet touchscreens are easier to use for most than a mouse is generally.
But a tablet tends to be difficult to see as one's vision goes.
As I said in another response, I think the ideal device for the elderly would be an ipad in a touchscreen imac formfactor.
A large touch capable screen), full size keyboard to type things, mouse optional, with an ios like derivative for simplicity.
"gorlla arm" phenomena would be minimally an issue. They aren't working 8 hours a day. At best they are casually browsing etc. And I'd give them a mouse if they could use it, or let them just touch the screen if that was easier.
Nobody said they can't or shouldn't use a full size keyboard to type things out.
Indeed for the elderly, I think basically an ipad in a touchscreen imac form factor would be the perfect device. You've got a large 24"+ touch screen, and keyboard. and then optionally a mouse.
"I always think of someone like an uncle or aunt who only needs a computer to read and write email, browse the web, and maybe write a letter. Steering people like this to machines with Linux preinstalled is the only way I expect they would be willing to use it."
That was true a few years ago and those people were a potential linux demographic, but today? There's no real reason that person even needs a computer, nevermind a Linux computer.
They really just need an ipad or android tablet. That's where my wife parents are. That's where I'd put my grandmother.
I'm not really sure why I'd even consider putting them on Ubuntu.
I know a few people on the brink of poverty, who would drop their job in a heartbeat with a UBI scheme.
Why exactly? Is it because life is good enough on barely-enough-to-live and they don't want more? Or because working their asses off at a shitty job for the same amount they'd get from welfare just isn't worth getting off the couch?
Because I can see the latter.
One probelm with welfare as implemented is that it too often becomes a case of "make $200 week working a shit job" OR "make $250 week not working at all on welfare". And if they get a job they lose the welfare. If they get a part time job they lose all the welfare and actually take home less then they were when they weren't working. Or if they get a min-wage job that pays shit they might find themselves working 32.25 hours a week on shifts scheduled by a monkey throwing shit at the wall to make $50 more than they were on welfare... why bother?
So welfare becomes a bit of a trap... where its not worth getting off it until they cut you off unless you find an genuinely half decent job.
A better implementation of welfare (or as most UBI proposal work) would be that you get your $200/week for being a citizen, and then if you pick up a part time job, or a shitty almost full time job or whatever... you actually get to keep most of that too.
Suddenly its actually worth taking that shitty job, because your disposable income goes noticeably up, for the effort you put in. And situations like flex time, and part time jobs etc aren't so problematic.
On the flipside, we also need to remove things that provide incentives to companies to prefer part time employees over full time employees. There are lots of real reasons to need part time worker - filling peak hours, seasonal demand, etc; but not wanting to pay benefits or statutory holiday or whatever is not one of them.
Perhaps, but again, if my ipaq in 2003 could handle "open word", and a few dozen other phrases, my phone in 2016 should be able to handle days, months, years, numbers to 100. etc. and 10,000 common words.
So, "phone call 555-1245" or "call X" where X is in my relatively short contact list. or make an appointment July 5th, for 1hr, with John Smith.
or "what am I doing July 5th"
etc don't have to go to the internet.
I'm also ok, with a tier of explicitly authorized commands to talk to the internet. phone go online and navigate to xyz. or phone go online and search for korean restaurants near me...
With a keyword "go online" or something to not just search online but also auth sending the request to servers online.
I am not intimately familiar with the tax regime where ever you live, but every where I've ever lived, as your income goes up your taxes go up incrementally only on the additional income.
e.g. if you make 10,000 you get taxed, 0$
if you make 30,000 you get taxed 0$ on the first 10, and then 10% of the next 20, for a total of 2k
if you make 50,000 you get taxed 0$ on the first 10, 10% on the next 20k, and then 30% on the next 30k. For a total of ~12k.
In super progressive taxation, it can get up to 60% and beyond. But that rate only starts on the dollars OVER X$.
So you don't "lose money" by reaching a higher tax bracket, you just make progressively less with each additional dollar.
Ie... your first thousand dollars you keep every penny of those dollars, but your 200,000th dollar you keep only 45 cents of that dollar.
So,even if I'm in the top tax bracket, and you give me another 10,000 in income I'll take it. I'll only keep 4,000. But that's still 4,000 more than I had. And if I'm smart, and invest it or shelter it I get to keep more than if I just use it as more walking-around-money.
Making more money and "Paying higher taxes" still means I took home more money than if I hadn't made more money in the first place.
So this all boils down to: "Does the study include some "middle-class" test subjects so see how well they do after paying higher taxes ?"
Why EXACTLY do you see this as a likely issue? Are you just unfamiliar with how taxes actually work? Or bad at math? Or is there some genuine issue that arises where you live if someone gave you a bunch of money that it would somehow ruin your life?
Its true there are some edge cases in tax law, where as your income goes up you no longer qualify for certain deductions or subsidies, but even then its nearly always a zero sum game. And worst case you end up with the same amount you started with despite receiving more money. But these usually only affect the lower/barely middle class.
The only "trap" to suddenly making more money is not being aware what you can keep, and spending more than you actually were entitled to keep, creating a tax bill you don't have money to pay. (e.g. if you make 50,000 a year set aside money to pay a tax bill for someone who makes 50k a year, and someone gives you a new 10k in income, going on a 10k vacation with it is pretty stupid.)
That's the key. It's easy to record an audio clip, and figure out which of a dozen keywords it comes closest to matching.
Something the ipaq did 12 years ago.
It's much, much harder to record an audio clip and try to find a match in a library of 20,000 words.
If only we had proessessors several orders of magnitude more powerful than a 2003 ipaq. With thousands of time more RAM, and multiple cores...
oh wait.
But for the time being, transmitting the audio to a beefy server is the best we've got.
Just how beefy are these servers? I don't need it to service millions or thousands or even 10s of users at once. Just me. I bet my desktop has enough beef to match it. And I bet that my smartphone, several orders of magnitude stronger than an 2003 ipaq, could be a pretty remarkable personal assistant just with its local resources.
whoosh
A door handle is not involved with security IMO.
That's debatable, since its literally the interface to open the door, and is often integrated mechanically and electronically with the locks.
Not to mention in some vehicles such as mini-vans and SUVs the side and rear door handles are little more than fancy switches that send an open/close signal to a control unit.
Mercedes was a both german company and a military supplier to the german army. The parent company Daimler-Benz also produced aircraft, tanks, and submarine engines.
Hitler driving a Mercedes isn't really the same thing at all.
The closest analog to modern encryption is the pyrotechnic safe; attempting to drill it results in an explosion and a fire inside.
Where I can I buy one? Sure I've seen them in movies. Do they actually exist?
If they exist how reliable are they? No criminal is going to want his books and cash to burn out if the neighbors kid crashes a car into a tree on your yard. Or a small earth quake.
I literally can't find anything about them at all. The closest is that using themic lances against normal safes can burn the papers in them.
Perhaps some psycho might rig a bomb inside a regular safe, but that's probably enough to get you convicted just for that, even if you walk on the original case.
In any case this hardly seems to be a problem law enforcement is constantly running into.
They can hire a safe-cracker, but if they can't find one that can break in to your safe, you still don't have to give up the combination and the cops are out of luck.
Quite. But how realistic is this? How many safes out there can the police not get cracked? Its a theoretical limitation with no real implication on actual law enforcement activity.
Contrast this with "everybody and their un-crackable cellphone".
If someone made a physical safe the cops couldn't break into, and people were buying them by the millions law enforcement would be in a similar tizzy about it. Except I doubt that can happen, nothing one can build can't be ground down again. And the cost of such a safe would be extreme.
Contrast with encryption where the cost of encryption is negligible, and uncrackable. (aka "free with 2 year contract")
Encrypted data is the same. They can't force you to give them the passphrase but they can hire someone to try and crack it. If no one can, the cops are out of luck.
Exactly. But they aren't ok with being "out of luck" so often.
What if I had a paper diary and I wrote it in my own language(encryption)?
You'd be surprised how easy it would be to crack in practice. In most cases invented languages would be little more than some window dressing on an existing language, with some simple ciphers etc. Couple that with other relatively detailed knowledge they have about your movements and activities and they almost have a Rosetta stone.
But sure, we can hypothesize you invented the equivalent of martian for the sake of argument, and nobody can make anything of it.
The cops would be out of luck.
Ok, how many people do you think in the world are inventing the equivalent of martian to write their criminal diaries? Are even capable of it? How many police investigations have been hampered by it?
The police don't have a problem with this, because it practically NEVER happens.
The issue they have with encryption is that every criminal from a purse snatcher to the head of the Yakuza uses computers, tablets, smartphones, etc. So its an actual obstacle to actual investigations instead of a hypothetical issue that never happens.
I don't see how you have a problem with any of this.
In an ideal world, I'd want police to be able to break into an encrypted device with a warrant. Why wouldn't I want that? But for better or worse, in the real world, for the first time ever we have somewhere we can put our documents that is easy, convenient, inexpensive, and is secure enough to keep even global super powers from getting in with all their resources combined. Never mind the local police detachment.
I don't have a "problem" with it, in the sense that I think we should ban encryption or backdoor it because those are both stupid non-solutions. But it is a legitimate problem that law enforcement faces that has no good solution.
I would argue it is time to take up arms against a government with mind reading tech.
And then what? Burn the existing tech, ban research into it, and hope foreign country X doesn't secretly have it?
I agree there is some pretty messed up stuff that could (would) happen in such a world, but I figure mass-proliferation of the tech to everyone would be the only possible stable outcome of such a development.