I think you may be missing the point. I don't literally mean "own robots", but rather more generally, "own the means of production". This translates into "own stock", if you happen to live in one of those societies that has made it possible for any individual to purchase shares. I'm assuming you do, so be grateful.
It tuns out that the owners of the robots (i.e., shareholders) already do pay taxes. Imposing yet another arbitrary and onerous tax on companies will, however, do plenty to ensure employment for bureaucrats and tax attorneys far into the future.
Here's a better idea: Empower people to own the robots. We need policy that incentivizes people to become shareholders... if it isn't too late for that already.
Who thought having this capability was a good idea? Well... the inventors of the worldwide web, for one thing. Remember that old thing? It allowed users to download content and code (ok, it's Javascript, but it's still code), without anyone's permission. It was called the open internet. What a weird idea!
In one fell swoop, Apple just broke all Meteor apps, and probably any other hybrid framework.
So I suppose we're all supposed to develop iOS apps using Apple-proprietary technologies now? No thanks. I'm old enough to remember the open internet, before the invasion of the phone-pokers.
What I'm trying to wrap my head around is where they draw the somewhat arbitrary line between downloading content and downloading functionality. I mean, any app that connects to the internet has the potential to download not just user comments, pictures, videos, and HTML, but also code, which might be executed on the client. What if my server pushes an image of a QR code to every client, which allows them to pay with bitcoin, thereby bypassing the 30% appstore surcharge? What if I want to display a web page in my app, which, by its very nature, is not approved by Apple's draconian bureaucrats??
I don't see "the rich" becoming richer as a problem. If poor people are becoming poorer, in absolute terms, then we have a problem. I don't see that happening, however, since increased robotic productivity should normally (free of government interference) result in more abundant goods and services, raising the living standard for everyone. Sure, the rich will reap most of the gains, but that is because they own the robots.
So, what is the solution? Pretty straightforward, actually: own the robots! As luck would have it, we live in an age in which it has never been easier for anyone to invest in the future. This implies, of course, that people are smart enough to forego buying that luxury condo and partying away their paycheck in favor of planning for the day that that paycheck won't be there any more. I admit, I may be assuming too much about the average person's capacity for delayed gratification.
Oh, it seems I've misinterpreted the law once again. Silly me! I read the white paint on the barn wall as "It is illegal to import cocaine", but somehow I never noticed the next line, "unless you are a TSA agent." I wonder why the handwriting is different... looks like a pig wrote it.
Yep, seems like your apprehended the problem precisely... government-funded this, government-funded that, government-funded everything. Couldn't agree more.
So, you're a privatization advocate, I take it? Good idea. Eliminate bureaucrats, create real jobs, increase efficiency, direct capital where it is most needed. Sounds good!
Amen to all that, and also, can we have a report of websites that, despite the millions undoubtedly spent on breathtaking design, can't be bothered simply to place the focus in the search field when the page is loaded? It's 2016, people... Is this still hard??? I'm looking at you IMDB (which used to do it right, but has chosen to suck in so many ways in recent years), Amazon... and so many others.
"When inflation rises the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates to bring it under control. This causes the dollar to appreciate because it would be seen as an attractive currency for foreign investors."
I'm so confused. Isn't that a bit like saying that shooting your hand off is good for your health, because you will be forced to see a doctor??
uh... Google internet speed test tells me that I get about 15 Mbps down:
Your Internet connection should be able to handle streaming an HD video. If multiple devices are streaming video at the same time, you may run into some slowdowns.
and yet... this is not "broadband"??? seriously, FCC, who is paying you to define these words? Verizon?
"This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to [ensure that non-swing states are totally ignored in the electoral process, due to some arbitrary lines drawn on the earth]. Worked exactly as designed."
Did it? My understanding was that the intention of the EC was not to serve as some sort of elaborate ceremonial confirmation of a party-controlled foregone conclusion, but to serve as a last measure of protection of the electorate from its own stupidity. If it were to "work exactly as designed", then the EC delegates would be sent to debate and decide the result on its own merits. Instead, we have 538 party loyalists, most of whom think it is their sworn duty to carry out the wishes of their masters, not those of the people they represent.
"What the people want" doesn't seem to make a lick of difference, since most of the one who bothered to vote (i.e., the majority) clearly preferred Clinton.
Not that I'd trust them to make any intelligent decisions... just sayin'.
Believe me. Global warming is a hoax. I've got people, they all tell me the same thing. Everybody says so. It's a big league hoax.
Believe me, cause I'm a genius.
Can we please also dispense with the North American AM/PM thing? This is just silly. Why is the first hour of each new day is called 12 AM??? Why is the first PM hour again 12, but all the others are 1 through 11?
The "even playing field" argument is fair and valid, and it would hold, if only IT were an industry with some environmental impact. As it stands, the field in which we are playing is the one where the best minds win (in principle), and there is no toxic waste to speak of.
The "race to the bottom" of which you speak has given you resources and freedom unimaginable to the richest medieval king. Look around you. Did you make all that stuff? Do you have the faintest clue as to how to design, manufacture, market, and distribute any of it?? No, you don't. And yet, every day, a truckload of this good fortune is dumped upon your life. This is the result of, as you say, thousands of years of racing to the bottom.
Instead of whinging about all the benefits you deserve, try considering all the benefits you have. Those are the benefits of a free society.
Huh. I admit, I never considered that angle. This may go some way to explaining the seemingly self-destructive behavior of CIO's who insist on hiring marginally competent Indian hackers.
Still... not quite convinced. I'm no legal expert, nor do I wish to be, but I do believe a company would be held responsible for whatever fuckups its contractors make. The data still belong to the company, and are its responsibility, after all.
Yes, competition sucks. Welcome to the global economy.
That cushy job you call "yours" actually belongs to your employer. You are paid at the owners' discretion.
OK, having said all that, I can tell you that, in all probability, the idiots in charge will be furiously back-pedaling in a few years, once they realize that you get what you pay for. I've been through this. Upper management has strictly no clue what IT even does, but they understand the bottom line. If some Indian IT consulting company offers services at bargain basement prices, they don't ask too many questions. To them, IT services are fungible.
If you were good at your job, you might be able to get it back at that point. Of course, if you were good, you probably found something better in the meantime. In that case, you will be thanking your current employer for giving you the kick in the ass you needed to get on with your life.
Or, simpler still, "My hair is orange," then followed by, "What color is my hair?" Chatbots don't generally have a model of reality. They just parse sentences and then string words together, with no real understanding of their meaning. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This robot seems like a rather mediocre chatbot attached to a fairly good anthropomorphic robot. Not exactly ground-breaking.
2.1. Spend the people's tax money to make and enforce a shit-pile of legislation designed to protect the entrenched interests of antiquated business models. Now hire an army of lawyers to defend your right to execute step 2.
Pfft... silly libertarians! Thinking they can just sell a product to people who want to buy it and get away with it.
1. Make product
2. Sell product
3. PROFIT!
Whoops! What was I thinking? I forgot...
2.1. Spend the people's tax money to make and enforce a shit-pile of legislation designed to protect the entrenched interests of antiquated business models. Now hire an army of lawyers to defend your right to execute step 2.
Pfft... silly libertarians! Thinking they can just sell a product to people who to buy it and get away with it.
Thanks for pointing that out. You forgot to mention the big winners in this game: accountants, corporate tax attorneys, legislators, lobbyists... all the most productive people in society (if income is to be used to gauge usefulness, that is).
Corporations are not people!!! Why are they taxed like people?
Eliminate corporate tax. Completely. Let the above leeches find real jobs.
Yes... all so that you can play Pokemon Go on your iThing.
As for the "slaves", I'm pretty sure they pay their employees, who are free to seek other employment. Using this word is an insult to actual slaves.
But don't worry, pretty soon, humans will be cut out of the supply chain completely. Maybe we can start taxing robots?? I'm sure somewhere there is an enterprising young legislator working on that...
Slashdot Mirror
I think you may be missing the point. I don't literally mean "own robots", but rather more generally, "own the means of production". This translates into "own stock", if you happen to live in one of those societies that has made it possible for any individual to purchase shares. I'm assuming you do, so be grateful.
It tuns out that the owners of the robots (i.e., shareholders) already do pay taxes. Imposing yet another arbitrary and onerous tax on companies will, however, do plenty to ensure employment for bureaucrats and tax attorneys far into the future.
Here's a better idea: Empower people to own the robots. We need policy that incentivizes people to become shareholders... if it isn't too late for that already.
Who thought having this capability was a good idea? Well... the inventors of the worldwide web, for one thing. Remember that old thing? It allowed users to download content and code (ok, it's Javascript, but it's still code), without anyone's permission. It was called the open internet. What a weird idea!
In one fell swoop, Apple just broke all Meteor apps, and probably any other hybrid framework.
So I suppose we're all supposed to develop iOS apps using Apple-proprietary technologies now? No thanks. I'm old enough to remember the open internet, before the invasion of the phone-pokers.
What I'm trying to wrap my head around is where they draw the somewhat arbitrary line between downloading content and downloading functionality. I mean, any app that connects to the internet has the potential to download not just user comments, pictures, videos, and HTML, but also code, which might be executed on the client. What if my server pushes an image of a QR code to every client, which allows them to pay with bitcoin, thereby bypassing the 30% appstore surcharge? What if I want to display a web page in my app, which, by its very nature, is not approved by Apple's draconian bureaucrats??
I don't see "the rich" becoming richer as a problem. If poor people are becoming poorer, in absolute terms, then we have a problem. I don't see that happening, however, since increased robotic productivity should normally (free of government interference) result in more abundant goods and services, raising the living standard for everyone. Sure, the rich will reap most of the gains, but that is because they own the robots.
So, what is the solution? Pretty straightforward, actually: own the robots! As luck would have it, we live in an age in which it has never been easier for anyone to invest in the future. This implies, of course, that people are smart enough to forego buying that luxury condo and partying away their paycheck in favor of planning for the day that that paycheck won't be there any more. I admit, I may be assuming too much about the average person's capacity for delayed gratification.
Twelve Current and Former TSA and Airport Employees Indicted for Smuggling Approximately 20 Tons of Cocaine
Oh, it seems I've misinterpreted the law once again. Silly me! I read the white paint on the barn wall as "It is illegal to import cocaine", but somehow I never noticed the next line, "unless you are a TSA agent." I wonder why the handwriting is different... looks like a pig wrote it.
I just had this great idea for a fabulous new technology! I'm calling it CASH. Here are its features:
Yep, seems like your apprehended the problem precisely... government-funded this, government-funded that, government-funded everything. Couldn't agree more.
So, you're a privatization advocate, I take it? Good idea. Eliminate bureaucrats, create real jobs, increase efficiency, direct capital where it is most needed. Sounds good!
Apple? What's that, some kind of fruit??
Amen to all that, and also, can we have a report of websites that, despite the millions undoubtedly spent on breathtaking design, can't be bothered simply to place the focus in the search field when the page is loaded? It's 2016, people... Is this still hard??? I'm looking at you IMDB (which used to do it right, but has chosen to suck in so many ways in recent years), Amazon... and so many others.
"When inflation rises the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates to bring it under control. This causes the dollar to appreciate because it would be seen as an attractive currency for foreign investors."
I'm so confused. Isn't that a bit like saying that shooting your hand off is good for your health, because you will be forced to see a doctor??
uh... Google internet speed test tells me that I get about 15 Mbps down:
Your Internet connection should be able to handle streaming an HD video. If multiple devices are streaming video at the same time, you may run into some slowdowns.
and yet... this is not "broadband"??? seriously, FCC, who is paying you to define these words? Verizon?
"This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to [ensure that non-swing states are totally ignored in the electoral process, due to some arbitrary lines drawn on the earth]. Worked exactly as designed."
Did it? My understanding was that the intention of the EC was not to serve as some sort of elaborate ceremonial confirmation of a party-controlled foregone conclusion, but to serve as a last measure of protection of the electorate from its own stupidity. If it were to "work exactly as designed", then the EC delegates would be sent to debate and decide the result on its own merits. Instead, we have 538 party loyalists, most of whom think it is their sworn duty to carry out the wishes of their masters, not those of the people they represent.
"What the people want" doesn't seem to make a lick of difference, since most of the one who bothered to vote (i.e., the majority) clearly preferred Clinton.
Not that I'd trust them to make any intelligent decisions... just sayin'.
Believe me. Global warming is a hoax. I've got people, they all tell me the same thing. Everybody says so. It's a big league hoax. Believe me, cause I'm a genius.
Can we please also dispense with the North American AM/PM thing? This is just silly. Why is the first hour of each new day is called 12 AM??? Why is the first PM hour again 12, but all the others are 1 through 11?
The "even playing field" argument is fair and valid, and it would hold, if only IT were an industry with some environmental impact. As it stands, the field in which we are playing is the one where the best minds win (in principle), and there is no toxic waste to speak of.
The "race to the bottom" of which you speak has given you resources and freedom unimaginable to the richest medieval king. Look around you. Did you make all that stuff? Do you have the faintest clue as to how to design, manufacture, market, and distribute any of it?? No, you don't. And yet, every day, a truckload of this good fortune is dumped upon your life. This is the result of, as you say, thousands of years of racing to the bottom.
Instead of whinging about all the benefits you deserve, try considering all the benefits you have. Those are the benefits of a free society.
Please, give it some serious thought.
Huh. I admit, I never considered that angle. This may go some way to explaining the seemingly self-destructive behavior of CIO's who insist on hiring marginally competent Indian hackers.
Still... not quite convinced. I'm no legal expert, nor do I wish to be, but I do believe a company would be held responsible for whatever fuckups its contractors make. The data still belong to the company, and are its responsibility, after all.
You mean... cheaper labor results in cheaper goods and services? Huh, who would have thunk it. Capitalism sure is evil!
Yes, competition sucks. Welcome to the global economy.
That cushy job you call "yours" actually belongs to your employer. You are paid at the owners' discretion.
OK, having said all that, I can tell you that, in all probability, the idiots in charge will be furiously back-pedaling in a few years, once they realize that you get what you pay for. I've been through this. Upper management has strictly no clue what IT even does, but they understand the bottom line. If some Indian IT consulting company offers services at bargain basement prices, they don't ask too many questions. To them, IT services are fungible.
If you were good at your job, you might be able to get it back at that point. Of course, if you were good, you probably found something better in the meantime. In that case, you will be thanking your current employer for giving you the kick in the ass you needed to get on with your life.
Or, simpler still, "My hair is orange," then followed by, "What color is my hair?" Chatbots don't generally have a model of reality. They just parse sentences and then string words together, with no real understanding of their meaning. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... This robot seems like a rather mediocre chatbot attached to a fairly good anthropomorphic robot. Not exactly ground-breaking.
Whoops! What was I thinking? I forgot ...
Pfft... silly libertarians! Thinking they can just sell a product to people who want to buy it and get away with it.
1. Make product 2. Sell product 3. PROFIT! Whoops! What was I thinking? I forgot ...
2.1. Spend the people's tax money to make and enforce a shit-pile of legislation designed to protect the entrenched interests of antiquated business models. Now hire an army of lawyers to defend your right to execute step 2.
Pfft... silly libertarians! Thinking they can just sell a product to people who to buy it and get away with it.
Thanks for pointing that out. You forgot to mention the big winners in this game: accountants, corporate tax attorneys, legislators, lobbyists... all the most productive people in society (if income is to be used to gauge usefulness, that is). Corporations are not people!!! Why are they taxed like people? Eliminate corporate tax. Completely. Let the above leeches find real jobs.
Yes... all so that you can play Pokemon Go on your iThing. As for the "slaves", I'm pretty sure they pay their employees, who are free to seek other employment. Using this word is an insult to actual slaves. But don't worry, pretty soon, humans will be cut out of the supply chain completely. Maybe we can start taxing robots?? I'm sure somewhere there is an enterprising young legislator working on that...