Isn't it true that the end of feudalism and serfdom, as well as the rise of the "middle class" from the Renaissance until the industrial revolution , was built on the backs of slave imports from Africa? And since there was stark contract in appearances, black slaves didn't enjoy the same privileges enjoyed by white slaves traded during the Middle Ages, such as the opportunity to secure the freedom of their children.

After slavery was officially ended, blacks were still exploited in African colonies, quite often as conscripted labor (ie "short-term slavery"). Today the burden has shifted to Asia, but globalization has allowed the wealthy to trade on a global stage, no longer bound to support those who used to be lucky enough to live in close proximity to the wealthy. The reversion back to feudalism is now underway. Anomalies known as the "middle class", "democracy" and "freedom" will be topics of study for tomorrow's few children of wealth.

Wouldn't work unless you regulated how much medical providers could charge for services and medicine. In the US the medical-industrial economy functions on a take-it-all approach. There is no such thing as a free-market price for hospitalization in the US. The bill is basically made up, usually in the $10k to $100k+ range, presented to the patient and the patient's family, and then negotiated from there. Settlements of 20-30% of the billed amount are normal, so no one can really argue that the hospital's actual expenses are reflected anywhere in that bill. Most hospitals are still "non-profit", meaning they pay excess revenue out in bonuses to executives (usually as much as the public will tolerate, often by comparing the non-profit executive to a for-profit executive with similar staff size, budget, responsibilities,etc.) and spend the rest on buying more expensive equipment and facilities rather than to shareholders. They have to spend all of the excess money so there is reduced incentive for suppliers to compete on price. While taking the "profit" motive out sounds like a good idea, the hospitals don't have much internal motivation to reduce costs or be more efficient. In fact, the more inefficient they are the more they can charge, since some collections do end up in court and showing high-dollar operating costs helps to justify their large bills. Sometimes they have so much money flowing in they have to find creative ways to spend it, such as billboard advertizing and TV commercials as if they were competing for business. In good times or bad hospitals can raise money just like any other charity, including grant money from government sources. Many hospitals have massive multi-billion dollar endowments managed by more top-paid executives. Even though the endowments keep growing, there is little motive to actually spend those funds on charity care. The bigger the endowment the more executive pay can be demanded. For-profit is not the solution though, because they compare their bills to the non-profit status quo as evidence that what they charge is "fair market value", and they also just claim that as a for-profit business they can charge whatever price they choose to maximize their profits.

The hospital will give you the choice of paying 100% of your disposable income for life and allow you to keep your good credit, or if you have substantial savings they will accept all of it and trash your credit as a debt settlement. If you don't have enough disposable income or liquid assets the hospital will take whatever you send them and sell the balance of your debt to a collection agency, trashing your credit and exposing you to other hassles. If you have disposable income or assets worth fighting for, you can play hardball in negotiating, but hospitals have taken to suing people directly and using legal maneuvers to levy bank accounts, seize personal property, and in some cases foreclose on homes.

Obamacare addressed mostly the insurance side of the healthcare industry. Most hospitals have staff or departments that bill separately and do not take your insurance. Even with insurance, patients that are novices to the complexities of hospital care and billing can find themselves agreeing (which is another word for not actively and loudly protesting and refusing) to treatment that is not covered, or at uncovered facilities by uncovered persons. Many people do not know that facilities can be located in the same building on the same floor without any descriptive signage that would suggest they are being taken to a different, uncovered facility. Once they have you receiving care your insurance doesn't cover they are free to bill you at amounts designed to far exceed your capacity to pay. Even with insurance, if you don't qualify for enough subsidies your annual out-of-pocket costs could exceed $10k. Anyone with a chronic illness or disabling injury requiring long-term treatment over the course of years would Coupled with the un-reimbursed costs associated with the illness/injury and treatment, such as transportation, meals away from home, lost wages, and arrangements for the care of children, elderly/disabled family members, as well as help maintaining house, car, paying bills, running errands, etc., a family with a "universal base income" might still not be able to make ends meet.

So, if every family is guaranteed to have $30k of income, the medical-industrial complex will set their prices and collection tactics accordingly. We will be separated into two classes: Those with perfectly healthy households and those that have had an ill or disabled family member. Corporate loopholes will be shot through Obamacare and other government half-measures to tweak the healthcare "free market". Winner takes all. If you go into a poor neighborhood you can see how many of those families are already struggling due to one single family member in poor health or disabled.

And that is just healthcare that would be impacted by a universal income. There are many other Fascist policies in Americas cities that make life barely affordable, such as policies that limit how small a dwelling can be, where affordable housing can be located, etc.

...squinting at tweezers day-in and day-out for most of your life and the toll that would take on your eyes. It must be even harder for tall people with long arms.

According to Wikipedia, "Proponents of the singularity typically postulate an "intelligence explosion",[5][6] where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds, that might occur very quickly and might not stop until the agent's cognitive abilities greatly surpass that of any human."

"could", "might", and "might". There are a lot of presuppositions to singularity theory. By the same logic I can claim that all of the oxygen molecules are one day going to randomly congregate in the corner of someone's room just long enough for that person to suffocate. With all of the people on the planet after a certain number of years it is destined to happen, right? I'd be just as likely to one day travel to the far edges of the galaxy on a ship powered by an improbability drive just to discover that the meaning of the universe is 42.

One has to accept the Law of Accelerating Returns, feasibility of AGI (strong AI), feasibility of superintelligence, and the premise of intelligence explosion. The summary author is correct in stating that belief in the Singularity is stupid, just as it is stupid to believe that if we just cut loose the restraints on Capitalism everyone would be overwhelmed by economic abundance, or that if we just had a government agency to distribute material needs to the masses we could all be satisfied and work two four-hour days a week. Yes, in theory it is "possible", but if you are convinced that it is inevitable and it will happen in your lifetime, you are as delusional as any religious fanatic waiting for a scriptural prophecy to be fulfilled. Generally speaking, if it looks like a cult and smells like cult then its a cult - complete with SF scriptures, a supreme being, and a chance at an afterlife.

The computers would have worked better if they had left "bits" and "bytes" off the bill of materials when the knock-off design went into production.

Yeah, reminds me of the many sermons I've heard about how you can use logic and deduction to prove the Bible, which almost always consisted of allegories, allusions, analogies, anecdotes, uncited "scientific discoveries", misattributed quotations from historical figures, other poetic, persuasive and literary elements, and a conspicuous absence of a competent debater (ie "infidel") to challenge (ie "heresy") any of the statements to "prove" the logical conclusion: that if you look honestly into yourself and measure all of the fallible human evidence against the one true standard of truth, which of course, is the Bible.

And don't forget the screen doors. The EM emissions just pass through like water through a sieve.

My most memorable classes were not lectures. The purpose of textbooks and assigned reading was to transfer the fundamental information. Homework from the textbook gave you an opportunity to gauge whether or not you were actually learning the material and your ability to apply the processes described by the text. Classrooms were a place to first have a pop quiz (a great way to really gauge if you have retained and/or truly comprehend what you have been learning), then to discuss the reading assignment (Socratic method), and if applicable, engage in a demonstration or skill-building activity.

The only question is: will they be US intelligence agencies or Chinese intelligence agencies? Or have the two world powers finally merged to form the top secret Sole Power of Ex-Communists and Republicans Empire, aka S.P.E.C.T.R.E?

Data wants to be free, free as a billionaire fleeing a Belize murder rap.

Yes, but if he tries he will learn a lot about software engineering and project management, skills that go way beyond basic coding; skills that employers are hiring for. Being totally self-driven would just be icing on the cake. I would however suggest a slight modification to the "break it down" strategy. And that is, write modular programs that can work with the other programs you write but could also each function as a stand-alone program. You still need to decide what direction you want to take your programming. If you want to write financial software, you could write several modules that perform specific financial functions and then a top-level program that integrates the individual modules as sub-routines. Or write the firmware for an intelligent battery charger, and keep adding functions, like a USB driver to interface the charger with other devices, and then add a display to the charger and write the code for that, and then write a program to log events, then a program to graphically display the charging history, etc. etc. Just start with a project that is potentially simple enough, like a quick and dirty operating system, and keep expanding on it until it becomes as over bloated as MS Windows has become today.

I'm not going to condemn you for this. My own perceptions of what I would be doing with my engineering degree turned out to be so far off target that it's not even funny. I'm not working on the stuff that fascinated me. I'm working on the stuff my boss lets me do. I try to find the "joy of engineering" when and where I can, but it is very difficult to earn a living, raise a family, have the intrinsic qualifications and market demand to pursue one's very specific interests. I suspect that many other readers here would agree.

You're immature and naive if you believe that Democrats aren't being paid by the same corporate lobbyists to pursue the exact same agenda.

Nobody knows WHO "invented" bitcoin. Odds are fair that bitcoin is just another NSA program to track those who are seeking to remain anonymous. Who else with a decent R&D budget would fund such a project without taking credit for it, raising awareness for their cause, or making a profit from the effort?

The enemy wants to take away your freedom. The only way to stop them is to dominate, track and control every facet of life. You do believe in protecting freedom now, don't you?