Where do you think the bulk of Federal spending goes? I wonder if you realize that 71% goes to welfare, pensions, healthcare and interest on the debt? EVERYTHING else - including the department of defense - is the other 29%. Slash that and we're still in a bad position. The numbers for UBI simply don't work out, unless you want to shut down everything but pensions, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, and interest on the debt - and then you could give about $3600 annually per person.
About 2/3rds of the US population is aged 21 and over. The US Federal Government already spends $13,000 per person in the US; this plan you linked says another $13,000 for those 2/3rds. So now we've increased the Federal budget from $4.4 trillion per year to around $7.3 trillion (another $3 trillion). Is that deficit spending? No? Then we need to nearly double Federal taxation - FICA, Federal income tax, corporate taxes, etc. Everybody's Federal tax load just doubled, at a minimum. You ready to sign up for that?
The US Federal Government already spends about $1100 per month for every man, woman, and child inside the US. Add UBI; that's another $20K per person, right? So now we've tripled our Federal spending, to close to $13.3 trillion. We're now using 70% of our GDP just for Federal Government spending. The numbers just don't add up.
The headline is wrong? It's actually wrong. The issue here is that the EPA has released the data it was directed to release by the Courts, under the Obama Administration. And that data did not support the requirements the Obama Administration desired. Science is trumping politics - and that's a bad thing?
What you're missing is that there was no scientific basis for that "key legal justification". It was made up for political reasons. Science is winning here - and we should be happy for that.
This is actually about finally implementing the required actions the Courts demanded during the Obama Administration (2015). There is nothing here, other than the EPA has to finally release the legally-required data that was hidden to obscure the fact the Obama Administration wanted to make regulations without proper vetting/analysis disclosure. The Court say "can't do that - release the data". Now it's released - and the damage claimed by the Obama Administration turns out to be non-existent.
The Berlin wall was amazingly effective. VERY few people actually escaped over it, compared to the number who it held back. Likewise, the Israeli wall works 99% of the time. That's quite effective. Or do you demand 100%, and since NOTHING can give that, we might as well just open everything up completely?
2. No licensing (3.5mm TRS has been around forever) and the cost for 10MM jacks is about $0.07 each. Meaning it would save about $0.35 per phone, to the consumer.
3. See number 1 - I guess Apple's engineers aren't as smart as a lone hacker in Hong Kong?
4. Because apparently lots of people - including the author of this article - want it?
5. Mine has a serial port - of course, it has bog-standard USB OTG, so it does RS232 over USB. Oh wait, an iPhone doesn't have a USB port, does it - at least, not without a custom dongle...
I would rather be below the poverty line in the US (which is how the first 21 years of my life were spent) than below the poverty line in the Philippines. That any better? And yes, I've spent significant time in the Philippines... I guess if you'd rather live with a stream to bathe in, communal pits for toilets, garbage tossed over the back fence, and dirt roads with spotty - at best - utilities, be my guest.
And yet thinner phones (2mm thinner) already existed - and kept the 3.5mm jack. Not to mention a hacker added 3.5mm jack internally to an iPhone 7. Clearly it can be done, and clearly thinner phones can be made. It was dropped because Apple was spending $3.2 billion buying one of the biggest Bluetooth headphone brands in the world - Beats.
They are. Even if it's cheaper AND easier to make food at home, they will still go out because #imafoodie means you have to Instagram or post from the latest popup restaurant or no one will like your posts and you'll die from the lack of affirmation.
Here you go. Twenty one percent live below the poverty line, and that is in a country with a GDP per capita of below $3000. I'd say that is pretty darn low income. And 50 tons of shrimp sounds like a lot - but it's about 275 pounds a day, and that can be caught locally as warm-water shrimp or farmed in a pretty small area of about 5,000 square meters. Hmmm - catch shrimp at night/early morning, feed whale sharks in the day, earn lots of money (around $100 to $200 per tourist per day), seems like a great way to get out of proverty of making an average of less than $10 per day...
There is a simple solution to this problem: Build a zoo for sharks!
Interesting! Tell me more!
You can put them in large cages filled with water,
Man, you get my hopes up that you solved the issue, then you go and say something stupid like that! How the heck can a cage hold in water? It'll flow right out between the bars! Back to the drawing board...
You can charge $190 per tourist per whale shark visit. The GDP per capita is under $3000 per year. You do the math. Take 20 trips a year with tourists - or work an average of 300 days. Your choice.
No no, I'm being corrected, it's the noble savage who is having the Western ideal of life thrust upon him and taught to ignore/hate the environment... /sarc
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you think the bulk of Federal spending goes? I wonder if you realize that 71% goes to welfare, pensions, healthcare and interest on the debt? EVERYTHING else - including the department of defense - is the other 29%. Slash that and we're still in a bad position. The numbers for UBI simply don't work out, unless you want to shut down everything but pensions, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, and interest on the debt - and then you could give about $3600 annually per person.
About 2/3rds of the US population is aged 21 and over. The US Federal Government already spends $13,000 per person in the US; this plan you linked says another $13,000 for those 2/3rds. So now we've increased the Federal budget from $4.4 trillion per year to around $7.3 trillion (another $3 trillion). Is that deficit spending? No? Then we need to nearly double Federal taxation - FICA, Federal income tax, corporate taxes, etc. Everybody's Federal tax load just doubled, at a minimum. You ready to sign up for that?
The US Federal Government already spends about $1100 per month for every man, woman, and child inside the US. Add UBI; that's another $20K per person, right? So now we've tripled our Federal spending, to close to $13.3 trillion. We're now using 70% of our GDP just for Federal Government spending. The numbers just don't add up.
Yes, yes it is. Drink 5 gallons over 2 weeks, no problem. Drink it over 2 days, problem. Dosage matters - every single time.
Water is bad for humans, too... You're ignoring the dosage. It's like people scared about radiation from the WiFis around them...
The headline is wrong? It's actually wrong. The issue here is that the EPA has released the data it was directed to release by the Courts, under the Obama Administration. And that data did not support the requirements the Obama Administration desired. Science is trumping politics - and that's a bad thing?
What you're missing is that there was no scientific basis for that "key legal justification". It was made up for political reasons. Science is winning here - and we should be happy for that.
This is actually about finally implementing the required actions the Courts demanded during the Obama Administration (2015). There is nothing here, other than the EPA has to finally release the legally-required data that was hidden to obscure the fact the Obama Administration wanted to make regulations without proper vetting/analysis disclosure. The Court say "can't do that - release the data". Now it's released - and the damage claimed by the Obama Administration turns out to be non-existent.
The Berlin wall was amazingly effective. VERY few people actually escaped over it, compared to the number who it held back. Likewise, the Israeli wall works 99% of the time. That's quite effective. Or do you demand 100%, and since NOTHING can give that, we might as well just open everything up completely?
A 2000 year old, incomplete wall doesn't quite apply to modern times, does it?
Stream Tidal (or use their offline mode) on your phone - Redbook or better audio quality.
Let Lil' Wayne educate you about waterproof 3.5mm jacks...
1. Or you could put a jack in it
2. No licensing (3.5mm TRS has been around forever) and the cost for 10MM jacks is about $0.07 each. Meaning it would save about $0.35 per phone, to the consumer.
3. See number 1 - I guess Apple's engineers aren't as smart as a lone hacker in Hong Kong?
4. Because apparently lots of people - including the author of this article - want it?
5. Mine has a serial port - of course, it has bog-standard USB OTG, so it does RS232 over USB. Oh wait, an iPhone doesn't have a USB port, does it - at least, not without a custom dongle...
Go check. I started with the Israeli wall...
I would rather be below the poverty line in the US (which is how the first 21 years of my life were spent) than below the poverty line in the Philippines. That any better? And yes, I've spent significant time in the Philippines... I guess if you'd rather live with a stream to bathe in, communal pits for toilets, garbage tossed over the back fence, and dirt roads with spotty - at best - utilities, be my guest.
Why carry one device when you can carry two! Double the Apple-y goodness!
And yet thinner phones (2mm thinner) already existed - and kept the 3.5mm jack. Not to mention a hacker added 3.5mm jack internally to an iPhone 7. Clearly it can be done, and clearly thinner phones can be made. It was dropped because Apple was spending $3.2 billion buying one of the biggest Bluetooth headphone brands in the world - Beats.
Being poor in the US is radically different - and much better - than being poor in the Philippines...
They are. Even if it's cheaper AND easier to make food at home, they will still go out because #imafoodie means you have to Instagram or post from the latest popup restaurant or no one will like your posts and you'll die from the lack of affirmation.
Yep, only Tanawan had coral reefs! It's not like 9% of all reef area in the world is in the Philippines. Nope, Tanawan only, nothing else!
Mmmm... Whale Shark Lumpia...
Here you go. Twenty one percent live below the poverty line, and that is in a country with a GDP per capita of below $3000. I'd say that is pretty darn low income. And 50 tons of shrimp sounds like a lot - but it's about 275 pounds a day, and that can be caught locally as warm-water shrimp or farmed in a pretty small area of about 5,000 square meters. Hmmm - catch shrimp at night/early morning, feed whale sharks in the day, earn lots of money (around $100 to $200 per tourist per day), seems like a great way to get out of proverty of making an average of less than $10 per day...
There is a simple solution to this problem: Build a zoo for sharks!
Interesting! Tell me more!
You can put them in large cages filled with water,
Man, you get my hopes up that you solved the issue, then you go and say something stupid like that! How the heck can a cage hold in water? It'll flow right out between the bars! Back to the drawing board...
You can charge $190 per tourist per whale shark visit. The GDP per capita is under $3000 per year. You do the math. Take 20 trips a year with tourists - or work an average of 300 days. Your choice.
No no, I'm being corrected, it's the noble savage who is having the Western ideal of life thrust upon him and taught to ignore/hate the environment...
/sarc