I work up in Bellevue, (which means a crappy commute, but I can wfh a decent amount), and it's amazing how much cheaper Tacoma is than Seattle, where my brother who works for Amazon is stuck. Although that being said, it's also beginning to gentrify a lot, especially in the Hilltop area, which is really cleaning up from it's slum history. I bought a really nice three story house for under 200k in the winter, and it was recently valued at 250k. While Amazon probably won't be coming here, as transit options start to open up, (And they get that whole mess with the municipal fiber network fixed) I think Tacoma's going to start seeing a lot more tech. Also, a lot of smaller start ups are coming here, realizing they can get amazing prices on office space.

All in all, that makes me nervous. I grew up in Tacoma, then moved up to the Seattle area to find tech work, then once I was able to wfh a bit more, bought a house at the bottom of the market in Tacoma, but I'm worried about what will happen. Thus far Tacoma's kept a lot of it's gritty feel, which isn't for everyone but I've always liked, but more and more I'm seeing the signs of gentrification.

I pretty much agree with your analysis... The only thing I wanted to give you to think about was the source of revenue used to pay the Basic Income.

You suggest income taxes... and capital gains taxes, which similarly to income taxes are based on the flow of wealth transfers... mostly they are convenient because mostly people don't notice the money they aren't getting that didn't have already...

BUT such taxes aren't really ideal, because you can have a great income and not have much wealth... and you can have a lot of wealth and not much income (especially if you're creative)...

So... I think Wealth itself should be taxed...Take money from the top... a small percentage of the richests people's total net value... and redistribute that as a basic income.

The main advantage of this is that it rewards those that use their wealth to provide value to those who demand their products and services... It recognises that wealth 'trickles up'... and corrects for that... it puts the tax burden on those who can most afford to pay it... so that everyone can benefit from the productivity gains inherent in free market capitalism.

Dude.,. If you've studied economics then you know that by the Second Welfare Theorem, it is possible to redistribute endowments to achieve alternative pareto optimal distributions... Ie... a tiny few super-elite ultra wealthy with millions or billions in poverty subservient to them is only one possible free market allocation.

You don't have to give up capitalism, free market, or assume the end of scarcity or any other such nonsense... just standard economics... though implementing this is difficult precisely because it goes against the interests of the wealthy.

Money is SIMPLY a tool to indicate the balance between demand and supply... and we don't need to finish with money either.

Wealth Tax and Basic Income should be implemented to redistribute the efficiency gains that have been achieved over the last few decades, but that have only been benefited the wealthiest members of society, and not all of us.

I think you'd agree that a Wealth Tax and Basic Income are about as close as practical implementation of Lump Sum Transfers required by the Second Welfare Theorem... That it maintains the value of money, free market and capitalism in general... and redistributes the benefits of productivity increases to all, not just a handful...

Maybe it never tried.

That and also more importantly: because nature's idea of "better" is almost never the same as our idea of "better." I think it's wonderful that the performance example that they used, happened to be binding to cancer cells. If cancer doesn't illustrate the vast gulf between us and it, I don't know what does!

The example I used was salt.

"There really is nothing to show that salt is bad for you."

Increased salt intake is generally believed to be bad for you in the scientific community.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Very low level of salt consumption is bad -- and so is very high. And the amounts in many canned foods are very high for single entrees (example already provided).

The battles don't need to be longer than 3 minutes. I think there was a single match so far that went to a split decision and could have benefited from an extra minute.

ABC excluded less interesting preliminary fights. Now that a viewing audience has built up all the matches get shown.

I say "generally canned foods contain a lot of salt". This is true.

You say that the canned tomatoes you use do not, which I will accept as true.

If I say most people lose the the lottery, is it really a counter argument to say "No! I won once!"?

What about the other extreme? Go to the market and pick up a can of spaghetti (yes, spaghetti, not sauce). You'll find most have a sodium content of something like 1000 mg per serving (with 2 or so servings per can). That's pert near close a full days worth of salt -- over a full day if someone eats the whole can. Or close to half on a few of the more loose recommendations -- in a single entree.

Yes, processing doesn't mean bad. A lot of salt does and I was trying to find some meaning up the thread. And this is only a single example.

grep "terror" /var/log/mail.log

The article left out that terrorists will be required to send from a hostname that has the word "terror" in it. Failure to do so, is a violation and will be punished!

"Avoid all WHITE foods with the exception of cauliflower."

Racist.

"Really? Where? Just because canned food is "processed" it does not make it bad for you. And i have never seen a study to support this assertion in any way or form. After all bread is processed foods!"

Maybe he meant 'indirectly' bad for you. Generally, canned foods contain a lot of salt -- which is generally believed to be harmful if consumed in excess and regularly over time.

It sounds like the project you want [someone] to start, does this: reads a config file, looks at what modules ended up actually getting loaded, and then enables/disables config options, writes a new config file. Then your subsequent compiles can be faster and your /lib/modules can be smaller.

I suspect there are two problems for them in being too clear. First, I suspect they can't guarantee to reuse every cartridge - some of them will be damaged or contaminated, I imagine; second, they won't want to validate third party cartridge refills by admitting they actually do refills themselves! I recycle my Lexmark cartridges by mailing them back (with a prepaid shipping label they include with every new cartridge); my guess is they will refill and reset perfect-condition cartridges, recondition damaged or older ones, and recover the raw materials from unusable ones, but they won't want to be too open about the details. The "new" cartridges aren't exactly cheap, admitting they're sometimes actually refills would probably hurt sales.

"At some point in our past we decided that eye-for-an-eye was not a workable approach to justice and three lifetimes plus hundreds of years for an offense of twelve hours, no matter how awful those twelve hours may have been, goes so far beyond eye-for-an-eye..."

Dozens of multiple counts -- three of which hold 25 to life terms. I'm sure if you knew the details you would say it's not enough.

Again -- anyone who's brain is broke enough to be attracted to kids should not walk free -- ever. Just because they walk, talk and wear clothes doesn't mean they aren't dangerous animals.

"Not that I don't get what you're saying, but if a woman molested your son (one of the many, many female child molesters) would you hunt her down and presumably kill her?"

My 10 year old son? Yes. My 17 year old son? No. There are many variables. How "under 18" was she?

My daughter was kidnapped when she was 10 years old an suffered a horrific 12 hours with a monster. Over 2 years later the monster still hasn't been to trial but that's coming up soon. He's looking at 3 life sentences + a few hundred years.

A history of sexual predation should never be erased from the public memory. I don't give a rip if this particular guy is "living a new life" -- if your brain is broke in such a way as to be attracted to kids then you should no more be allowed to walk the streets than a lion who thinks kids are tasty.

I suggest we program all robots with some type of rules that prevent this from happening. Some 'laws', if you will that prevent them from hurting people. Force them to follow their programming (unless it tells them to hurt people). Finally, prevent them from damaging themselves or their work (unless it would cause them to hurt people or not follow their programming).

These are pretty basic 'laws'. I don't know why someone hasn't come up with this yet.