Sorry, but that's like saying the human genome isn't complex because it's just four nucleic acids, like in the old days. Maybe at the layer you worry about it's just like always, but there are quite a few complex optimizations, translations, and application-layer standards, that if they do what they're meant to do, are transparent to most. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
I think motorcycles should be allowed to use any lanes they want. I might need an organ transplant someday, and I want to ensure a steady supply of donors.
However, Ben Franklin's quote that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" did exist 30 years ago. Alas, large groups of humans have never been very good at learning things.
This. I've been primarily telecommuting for the last 20 years or so and there are a number of things you have to do to make it really work, such as the over-communication you mentioned. I do that even when the whole team, or the whole company, is virtual. Written communication ability really matters too -- making your ideas and your understanding of what is being done and what needs to be done very clear (by yourself and others) is key. As is written advocacy of your own viewpoint and contributions, if you can pull it off gracefully. The upside of this is by going through that exercise I often discover flaws in my own thinking.
I do have to set and enforce the "Do Not Disturb" rules. I swiped a doorknob sign from a hotel for just such a purpose, and after some "training" it actually works.
There are some things that are really better handled face-to-face, but since the companies I've worked for have had to fly me cross-country for this to happen, I don't worry about that aspect getting out of hand.
And I get about an hour and a half of my life back, every day.
Sorry 'bout the pedantry, but when there's a chance to attempt a bad pun I can't help myself. My parents probably don't think about me much, them being dead and all. I'll check with my grandkids.
In the meantime, you might want to learn the difference between "loose" and "lose", so that while you're driving, if you lose a wheel because it comes loose, you'll at least know what happened.
Because, Mr. Mironenko, I and many, many like me who do have the capacity realize that it is much better to live in a society that meets the basic needs of its members as best it can, and in fact are willing to pay for it. This does not mean that anyone should be penalized for working to make their lives better, as the current social welfare systems typically do in most countries. It means that I, as a citizen of country X, say to my fellow citizens of country X, we're all getting a dividend based on our society's current wealth. It covers the basics to live upon each month and the assurance of the level of health care that our country can afford. If we want more we can work and/or invest and it will at each increment always be to our financial benefit to do so. At some level of income and wealth, I and many others will pay more, perhaps much more, in than we get back as a citizen dividend. But it's well worth it not to have to live in a dystopian shithole. There are many who feel as I do and, sorry, collectively we have the financial means and the rational and moral arguments to utterly overwhelm those who feel as you do. It's part of a social contract we humans have almost always had, since before we learned how to farm. It's been preserved because it keeps the tribe alive -- you know, the "nature of things".
Not to ruin your day, but if you are spending time learning investing, and monitoring and allocating your investments, you are working. Granted, you're getting to choose the type of work and how much of it you wish to do, but you're working.
That's not quite what he said. He said, "we should replace the ragbag of specific welfare programs with a single comprehensive program of income supplements in cash -- a negative income tax. It would provide an assured minimum to all persons in need, regardless of the reasons for their need."
Today we don't have truly massive displacement of the labor force due to automation, so presently it would be mostly those who are working who would pay for it, and it would mean progressively higher tax rates for us. But remember *everyone* gets it, and remember in his hypothetical scenario the costs of what we now call welfare have been eliminated. As you make more you begin giving progressively more of the UBI you get back. I'd probably be paying back more than what I got in UBI, but I pay a disproportionate cost of welfare as it is.
And if you're unemployed, you're free to take any old job you like, say an apprenticeship for what you'd really like to be doing - and it ADDS to your UBI stipend. It doesn't take away from it or disqualify you from it like welfare does now. Or do nothing, if you wanted to just subsist and be considered at the bottom rung forever. I really don't think most people would be content to just fuck off full-time forever.
The minimum wage would be eliminated, since society had already taken care of that. So employers could get labor more cheaply, especially for apprenticeship-type jobs.
As "robots" began creating greater frictional unemployment (refer to George Stigler's concepts) then society would have to find a way to recoup some of the extra productivity they provided in order to pay for the displaced labor -- and that's a tough question to answer. That displaced labor wouldn't be displaced forever, but it would take time for each displaced worker to find a new spot in a heterogenous labor market - i.e., learn that new skill.
Yes immigration would need to be controlled, mainly in that as an immigrant you don't get UBI until you are a citizen or have spent X-years here paying taxes. And if you want to come here illegally, fine, as long as you are willing to work for shit wages and never get any closer to getting a UBI.
The fantasy part is thinking that it will be at all easy to transition from the screwed up dis-incentivizing system we have how (welfare) to a UBI. The government is too in love with its job as Nanny to willingly accept something where bureaucrats aren't nearly as much in control.
I agree that socialism, when primarily characterized by the dis-incentivization of work, is eventually always going to run aground for the foreseeable future. However, a guaranteed minimum income (UBI or negative income tax) is NOT by itself socialism. You still get to keep it if you work, though it may get slowly taxed away as you earn more. Friedman subscribed to this idea too (cf. chapter xii in "Capitalism and Freedom). In fact, we discussed just that with him when was a guest lecturer in a class I took on Human Capital (under Gary Becker).
According to the paper submitted to the DOE by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (not the article) about 3/4 of the energy required for heat is produced by burning gaseous byproducts of the Hydrothermal Liquefaction process and the rest is bought off the grid. The biofuel is not burned or otherwise processed onsite, but shipped/sold to a centralized upgrading/refining operation that processes it on a larger scale. Since it is only about 1/10000th of the volume of the incoming raw sewage before it's processed and dewatered, it's economical to truck it to a central refinery rather than doing any refinement at the site.
And another thing it does is remove the disincentives to work that exist in the current system. $10,000 may keep you off the streets, but it is definitely not enough to actually live on, so you want more money, so you find work. And you still get to keep the $10,000.
You're not making it up -- you and the Swiss seem to just be getting it wrong. Of course, paying each person to have a heartbeat will increase the money supply and devalue a currency by increasing is quantity and velocity of movement, but a stipend, as free as possible from bureaucratic constraints, will not cause a society not to work. Welfare INSTEAD of work does.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but that's like saying the human genome isn't complex because it's just four nucleic acids, like in the old days. Maybe at the layer you worry about it's just like always, but there are quite a few complex optimizations, translations, and application-layer standards, that if they do what they're meant to do, are transparent to most. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
The DOJ is a department of the executive branch of government, not the judicial branch.
No, not at a Kwik-E-Mart you wouldn't. You'd do _that_ at a Circle K.
I'm waiting for the headline, "Is Betteridge's Law True?"
I think motorcycles should be allowed to use any lanes they want. I might need an organ transplant someday, and I want to ensure a steady supply of donors.
However, Ben Franklin's quote that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" did exist 30 years ago. Alas, large groups of humans have never been very good at learning things.
This. I've been primarily telecommuting for the last 20 years or so and there are a number of things you have to do to make it really work, such as the over-communication you mentioned. I do that even when the whole team, or the whole company, is virtual. Written communication ability really matters too -- making your ideas and your understanding of what is being done and what needs to be done very clear (by yourself and others) is key. As is written advocacy of your own viewpoint and contributions, if you can pull it off gracefully. The upside of this is by going through that exercise I often discover flaws in my own thinking.
I do have to set and enforce the "Do Not Disturb" rules. I swiped a doorknob sign from a hotel for just such a purpose, and after some "training" it actually works.
There are some things that are really better handled face-to-face, but since the companies I've worked for have had to fly me cross-country for this to happen, I don't worry about that aspect getting out of hand.
And I get about an hour and a half of my life back, every day.
Sorry 'bout the pedantry, but when there's a chance to attempt a bad pun I can't help myself. My parents probably don't think about me much, them being dead and all. I'll check with my grandkids.
In the meantime, you might want to learn the difference between "loose" and "lose", so that while you're driving, if you lose a wheel because it comes loose, you'll at least know what happened.
Why race to the bottom when it appears you've already gotten there?
Because, Mr. Mironenko, I and many, many like me who do have the capacity realize that it is much better to live in a society that meets the basic needs of its members as best it can, and in fact are willing to pay for it. This does not mean that anyone should be penalized for working to make their lives better, as the current social welfare systems typically do in most countries. It means that I, as a citizen of country X, say to my fellow citizens of country X, we're all getting a dividend based on our society's current wealth. It covers the basics to live upon each month and the assurance of the level of health care that our country can afford. If we want more we can work and/or invest and it will at each increment always be to our financial benefit to do so. At some level of income and wealth, I and many others will pay more, perhaps much more, in than we get back as a citizen dividend. But it's well worth it not to have to live in a dystopian shithole. There are many who feel as I do and, sorry, collectively we have the financial means and the rational and moral arguments to utterly overwhelm those who feel as you do. It's part of a social contract we humans have almost always had, since before we learned how to farm. It's been preserved because it keeps the tribe alive -- you know, the "nature of things".
Not to ruin your day, but if you are spending time learning investing, and monitoring and allocating your investments, you are working. Granted, you're getting to choose the type of work and how much of it you wish to do, but you're working.
I agree, and "If you have nothing to say, then why don't you say nothing." should (unfortunately) be a moderation choice on Slashdot.
Yes, it needs to go faster. But, you could "jog" a 4-minute mile? The world record for a mile is 3:43.15.
^This.
At first I thought the title said we were going to outfit them with autonomous brakes.
That's not quite what he said. He said, "we should replace the ragbag of specific welfare programs with a single comprehensive program of income supplements in cash -- a negative income tax. It would provide an assured minimum to all persons in need, regardless of the reasons for their need."
Today we don't have truly massive displacement of the labor force due to automation, so presently it would be mostly those who are working who would pay for it, and it would mean progressively higher tax rates for us. But remember *everyone* gets it, and remember in his hypothetical scenario the costs of what we now call welfare have been eliminated. As you make more you begin giving progressively more of the UBI you get back. I'd probably be paying back more than what I got in UBI, but I pay a disproportionate cost of welfare as it is.
And if you're unemployed, you're free to take any old job you like, say an apprenticeship for what you'd really like to be doing - and it ADDS to your UBI stipend. It doesn't take away from it or disqualify you from it like welfare does now. Or do nothing, if you wanted to just subsist and be considered at the bottom rung forever. I really don't think most people would be content to just fuck off full-time forever.
The minimum wage would be eliminated, since society had already taken care of that. So employers could get labor more cheaply, especially for apprenticeship-type jobs.
As "robots" began creating greater frictional unemployment (refer to George Stigler's concepts) then society would have to find a way to recoup some of the extra productivity they provided in order to pay for the displaced labor -- and that's a tough question to answer. That displaced labor wouldn't be displaced forever, but it would take time for each displaced worker to find a new spot in a heterogenous labor market - i.e., learn that new skill.
Yes immigration would need to be controlled, mainly in that as an immigrant you don't get UBI until you are a citizen or have spent X-years here paying taxes. And if you want to come here illegally, fine, as long as you are willing to work for shit wages and never get any closer to getting a UBI.
The fantasy part is thinking that it will be at all easy to transition from the screwed up dis-incentivizing system we have how (welfare) to a UBI. The government is too in love with its job as Nanny to willingly accept something where bureaucrats aren't nearly as much in control.
I agree that socialism, when primarily characterized by the dis-incentivization of work, is eventually always going to run aground for the foreseeable future. However, a guaranteed minimum income (UBI or negative income tax) is NOT by itself socialism. You still get to keep it if you work, though it may get slowly taxed away as you earn more. Friedman subscribed to this idea too (cf. chapter xii in "Capitalism and Freedom). In fact, we discussed just that with him when was a guest lecturer in a class I took on Human Capital (under Gary Becker).
According to the paper submitted to the DOE by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (not the article) about 3/4 of the energy required for heat is produced by burning gaseous byproducts of the Hydrothermal Liquefaction process and the rest is bought off the grid. The biofuel is not burned or otherwise processed onsite, but shipped/sold to a centralized upgrading/refining operation that processes it on a larger scale. Since it is only about 1/10000th of the volume of the incoming raw sewage before it's processed and dewatered, it's economical to truck it to a central refinery rather than doing any refinement at the site.
Your comment has officially won the interwebs for the next 15.75 hours. Congratulations Sir. Your prize is a lovely ingestible diagnostic device.
Yet, that's not always true. My admittedly anecdotal evidence -- me not being dead now.
Now you're just being Pontius.
I do. For a lot of money.
And another thing it does is remove the disincentives to work that exist in the current system. $10,000 may keep you off the streets, but it is definitely not enough to actually live on, so you want more money, so you find work. And you still get to keep the $10,000.
You're not making it up -- you and the Swiss seem to just be getting it wrong. Of course, paying each person to have a heartbeat will increase the money supply and devalue a currency by increasing is quantity and velocity of movement, but a stipend, as free as possible from bureaucratic constraints, will not cause a society not to work. Welfare INSTEAD of work does.