I hate to break it to you, but there is extensive evidence that there is never very much difference between humans and other primates at any level of development. The differences are minuscule compared to the similarities.
I completely sympathies with you, and I feel you should immediately sue your employer for cruel and unusual work conditions. It is awful for someone to be forced to use such a horrible hone.
Well, actually no, this is the theory, the fact is that the companies charge what the market will bear, and then pay taxes, this is why so many companies migrate to locations with tax shelters or tax deferments etc.
But, that is the problem - 34,000 pages of tax code specifically lead to all the issues. We need a tax code that has no social engineering and no exemptions.
If the government wants to encourage development of Solar Cells, they should grant money to that industry as a separate bill - all by itself.
The Tax system should not be polluted with all the 34,000 pages of BS.
We can debate all you want about progressive vs flat vs whatever, but if it can't be describe on one 8 1/2 x 11 hand written paper, then it is too complex.
Numerous people have looked at the math, which you obviously haven't, and I suggested that we let the other countries that want to try it to do it first, then learn from their mistakes.
At one time all the math said, flying was impossible.
You obviously aren't interested so I am wasting my time here, but one of the BIG points about UBI is that the same people will not be running it - but don't let facts sway you, after all this is Slashdot.
The article in general is wrong, and ignores completely that UBI is replacing a failing expensive welfare systems.
I have a suggestion, rather than everyone sitting around drawing conclusions out of their asses, lets see what actually happens when someone tries it. Let them prove or disprove it and then we will have some results to examine and criticize.
I did not read the article - this is Slashdot after all.
But, start with in the US alone there are about 275 million cars and trucks on the road in the US alone. That means replacing over 27 million of them each year. That means everyone driving a car can afford to replace it.
Net step is replacement of the infrastructure to deliver fuel conveniently to 275 million vehicles.
Next step replacing the OTR trucking industry with something powered some other way.
Next step, replacing 39% of our (US) power generation using coal. The past 10 years we have replaced 10%
Replacing super tankers drive systems and super tankers. And remember these tankers are expensive and the ROI is based on more than 10 years service, someone will take a heck of a beating.
Converting to a different energy source is what we need to do, and we need to start seriously NOW. But, to much money, to much infrastructure, and too much investment to replace in just 10 years.
Don't let you hate blind you, this is NOT a new exploit, this is the same exploit and is fixed in 9.3.1 and the article even suggests updating to prevent it.
Won't work. By the time enough Nukes can be brought online it will be too late. The cost and timelines for safe Nukes is prohibitive.I don't have any problem using nukes, I worked at Palo Verde, the largest nuke in the country and one of the oldest and safest.
The problem is simply logistics. The money and time spent on trying to shore up our energy requirements to replace coal and oil would be far better spent building gas fired plants and alternate power systems. No one system is viable today to solve all our problems, we need a multi wont approach to solving the energy problem.
The problem with Nukes is not all the technically difficulties, its that the time to build a nuke plant is prohibitive to doing any good in our current situation. We would have to bring a new plant online every week (after the years long planning phase) to make a significant dent in our energy production in the next 20 to 30 years. Isn't going to happen.
The amount of money that we would have to spend to do that could be better invested in a variety of alternative engird production systems and research into new systems and achieve much more "bang for our buck".
I am NOT against Nukes, I worked at one for a few years as a Project Manager, and I found it to be safe and reliable. It just isn't practical to think we can build enough of them fast enough to help.
This seems to be a little hard for people on Slashdot to comprehend.
Apple is in business to make money, not to make any given individual or small group of geeks happy. And guess what, what they are doing makes them a lot of money. So, why should they change what they are doing? My wife and I are long term Apple users and find their products perfectly acceptable, and the Customer Service stellar. So, we are happy Apple users.
I expect they will continue making incremental changes on the existing product lines and only very rarely bring out something new until their profit growth slows significantly - at which point investors will force them to try something new, and that will result in the downward spiral of Apple.
Agreed there is no way the Government can win, since if they outlaw encryption only criminals will have encryption. And Apple turning off encryption does NOTHING to help or hinder the government, since the bad guys would simply add thier own as you say. However, if they turn it off, then everyone else suffers since they have no security - which Apple currently provides. Not all of Apples several hundred million iPhone users are geeks. I would hazard a guess that most aren't.
That is a very limited view point from your perspective. Many people work on Open Source for a living. However, they do pay taxes on the money they make down it. This is simply a way to encourage open source startups/individuals.
I am really tired of all the conditional studies. Wake me when someone discovers something that can state, and not hedge they findings in conditionals.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I am shocked, shocked I tell you, they told me Socialism doesn't work...
I hate to break it to you, but there is extensive evidence that there is never very much difference between humans and other primates at any level of development. The differences are minuscule compared to the similarities.
I completely sympathies with you, and I feel you should immediately sue your employer for cruel and unusual work conditions. It is awful for someone to be forced to use such a horrible hone.
I expect some serious testing to see just how easy it is to break the glass with the hole has been cut into it.
The other half are as stupid as a rock.
Well, actually no, this is the theory, the fact is that the companies charge what the market will bear, and then pay taxes, this is why so many companies migrate to locations with tax shelters or tax deferments etc.
But, that is the problem - 34,000 pages of tax code specifically lead to all the issues. We need a tax code that has no social engineering and no exemptions.
If the government wants to encourage development of Solar Cells, they should grant money to that industry as a separate bill - all by itself.
The Tax system should not be polluted with all the 34,000 pages of BS.
We can debate all you want about progressive vs flat vs whatever, but if it can't be describe on one 8 1/2 x 11 hand written paper, then it is too complex.
Why would the failure be catastrophic? Sometimes things aren't as bad as they could possibly be in the worst case scenario.
Numerous people have looked at the math, which you obviously haven't, and I suggested that we let the other countries that want to try it to do it first, then learn from their mistakes.
At one time all the math said, flying was impossible.
You obviously aren't interested so I am wasting my time here, but one of the BIG points about UBI is that the same people will not be running it - but don't let facts sway you, after all this is Slashdot.
The article in general is wrong, and ignores completely that UBI is replacing a failing expensive welfare systems.
I have a suggestion, rather than everyone sitting around drawing conclusions out of their asses, lets see what actually happens when someone tries it. Let them prove or disprove it and then we will have some results to examine and criticize.
I hate it when someone beats me with exactly the same post I was going to do...
I did not read the article - this is Slashdot after all.
But, start with in the US alone there are about 275 million cars and trucks on the road in the US alone. That means replacing over 27 million of them each year. That means everyone driving a car can afford to replace it.
Net step is replacement of the infrastructure to deliver fuel conveniently to 275 million vehicles.
Next step replacing the OTR trucking industry with something powered some other way.
Next step, replacing 39% of our (US) power generation using coal. The past 10 years we have replaced 10%
Replacing super tankers drive systems and super tankers. And remember these tankers are expensive and the ROI is based on more than 10 years service, someone will take a heck of a beating.
Converting to a different energy source is what we need to do, and we need to start seriously NOW. But, to much money, to much infrastructure, and too much investment to replace in just 10 years.
Don't let you hate blind you, this is NOT a new exploit, this is the same exploit and is fixed in 9.3.1 and the article even suggests updating to prevent it.
That way everyone can enjoy it and no one can steal it.
Won't work. By the time enough Nukes can be brought online it will be too late. The cost and timelines for safe Nukes is prohibitive .I don't have any problem using nukes, I worked at Palo Verde, the largest nuke in the country and one of the oldest and safest.
The problem is simply logistics. The money and time spent on trying to shore up our energy requirements to replace coal and oil would be far better spent building gas fired plants and alternate power systems. No one system is viable today to solve all our problems, we need a multi wont approach to solving the energy problem.
The problem with Nukes is not all the technically difficulties, its that the time to build a nuke plant is prohibitive to doing any good in our current situation. We would have to bring a new plant online every week (after the years long planning phase) to make a significant dent in our energy production in the next 20 to 30 years. Isn't going to happen.
The amount of money that we would have to spend to do that could be better invested in a variety of alternative engird production systems and research into new systems and achieve much more "bang for our buck".
I am NOT against Nukes, I worked at one for a few years as a Project Manager, and I found it to be safe and reliable. It just isn't practical to think we can build enough of them fast enough to help.
Gotta love Slashdot now days, it doesn't matter what the story they can always come up with a way to be negative.
This seems to be a little hard for people on Slashdot to comprehend.
Apple is in business to make money, not to make any given individual or small group of geeks happy. And guess what, what they are doing makes them a lot of money. So, why should they change what they are doing? My wife and I are long term Apple users and find their products perfectly acceptable, and the Customer Service stellar. So, we are happy Apple users.
I expect they will continue making incremental changes on the existing product lines and only very rarely bring out something new until their profit growth slows significantly - at which point investors will force them to try something new, and that will result in the downward spiral of Apple.
Uh, you mean like Plex? Theres an app for that.
Agreed there is no way the Government can win, since if they outlaw encryption only criminals will have encryption. And Apple turning off encryption does NOTHING to help or hinder the government, since the bad guys would simply add thier own as you say. However, if they turn it off, then everyone else suffers since they have no security - which Apple currently provides. Not all of Apples several hundred million iPhone users are geeks. I would hazard a guess that most aren't.
I agree with you, it is too little, but it is a step in the right direction.
That is a very limited view point from your perspective. Many people work on Open Source for a living. However, they do pay taxes on the money they make down it. This is simply a way to encourage open source startups/individuals.
Or they might use an improbability machine. Maybe, or an inertialess drive, or maybe -
sigh. another maybe article.
I am really tired of all the conditional studies. Wake me when someone discovers something that can state, and not hedge they findings in conditionals.