Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:holy crap (Score 1) 541

by Scottingham (#48426975) Attached to: "Barbie: I Can Be a Computer Engineer" Pulled From Amazon

"Despite that book being completely true to life"

Sweeping generalizations like that and using the world Feminazis doesn't really undo your attempt at analysis of the book.

Slightly rephrased: "I'm not racist, but god damn I hate $racial_slur. That said, that Arizona sheriff sounds almost purposely racist."

Comment: Re:Opinion On Basic Income (Score 1, Interesting) 108

by Scottingham (#48413485) Attached to: Interviews: Ask Malcolm Gladwell a Question

Oi, I realize this will woosh right over your partisan-baked brain, but I'll bite:

"What makes you think that anyone is entitled to someone else's money?"
How did they get that money in the first place? Through a societal system they are able to take advantage of. Never completely on their own like libertarians are want to believe. Our current monetary system is based on debt leveraged on debt based on a promise. It's purely imaginary, fiat, whatever. The real deal is the cost of energy, resource extraction (also a function of the cost of energy), and labor cost (which is decreasing due to automation/globalization). Money is just a convenient shorthand.

"you're trying to impose your beliefs as facts"
I'd like you to meet Kettle, Mr. Pot. Also...notice that I used words like 'could'. It was pretty clear I was speculating, not claiming anything as a fact (otherwise I cite that shit).

"How (who?) defines how much is "basic"? That is a good point. If I'm able to filter out your partisan ObamaPhone/Nike bullshit I can see where you are going (though your mental image of what constitutes a poor person is a hilariously on-message Fox News caricature). Who or what defines a living as basic is a pretty subjective thing. A good place to start is being able to eat real food and have a stable place to live. I'd go so far as to include internet in that mix.

"The problem with Socialism is eventually, you run out of other people's money."
Nice quote there Thatcher. Got any good Rand for me?

  "you're so useless, we'll pay you to not work so you will go away and we can ignore you"
That is not the message. The message is "everybody is worth something, regardless of whether or not you are capable of 'meaningful work'. Mentally ill people, physically disabled people, etc.

The value of meaningful work != the monetary value. With a basic income if somebody wanted to make art baubles and somebody else found value in is that less meaningful than cleaning a bathroom at a movie theater?

So, having said that. I'm sure there would be some negative consequences. Since I'm speculating as much as the next guy, what would some be? If people got a basic income, then they wouldn't be forced to work in a Tobacco field for minimum wage (or less in a lot of cases) to make rent. What would happen O sage of the free market? Would the wages for these shitty jobs raise to meet the demand of the no-longer enslaved lower class? Would that then cause the price of cigarettes or whatever else to go up? Would inflation explode to make the basic income essentially worthless? (a possibility smarter economists than I say is unsupported by cite though)

Seriously though, Mr. Libertarian, go fucking live on an island. If you want to say 'I got mine, fuck off' so badly, GTFO.

Comment: Re:Opinion On Basic Income (Score 1) 108

by Scottingham (#48412307) Attached to: Interviews: Ask Malcolm Gladwell a Question

Good points. However, both the population increase as well as the increase in automation is happening at an exponential rate, not linear as I infer (perhaps incorrectly) your statement to be.

This would also address more than solely unemployment though. It could lead to the abolishment of the minimum wage, which expecting people to live on is sort of a joke anyhow. It could provide a means for a single mother to actually be around enough to raise her kid(s) which has all sorts of positive societal benefits. It could lead to a flourishing of small businesses as they would no longer have to fully support the entrepreneur in addition to employees. It would remove the stigma of welfare on the lower classes and remove the perverse incentive to say unemployed (eg once you start working you lose your welfare and end up bringing in less money than being solely on welfare).

Honestly though, I think it'll remain firmly in fantasy land until we can obtain a cheap and abundant energy source. Either widespread solar/wind + future grid, or next gen fission, or maybe even fusion (one can dream), or some combination of all three. Fossil fuels are clearly not cutting the mustard.

Comment: Opinion On Basic Income (Score 4, Interesting) 108

by Scottingham (#48411987) Attached to: Interviews: Ask Malcolm Gladwell a Question

I'm curious to know what your take is on a basic income for all US citizens versus our current 'conditional' welfare system. What do you think short term and long term outcome would be? Would the increased tax burden on the upper classes result in a total collapse rendering a basic income useless? My personal opinion is that it is necessary given the increasing rate of job automation coupled with our increasing population size (not to mention aging). Am I delusional? If so, why?

Comment: NC Research (Score 1) 30

by Scottingham (#48387515) Attached to: Researchers Develop $60 Sonar Watch To Aid the Visually Impaired

Say what you will about NC politics (and, shit, there is a lot to be said), we pump out some top-notch research! Wake Forest, Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, NC State seem to continually be in the science section headlines for some new something or other.

It's also a shame that the NCAA bullshit is putting a cloud over all the hard working researchers at UNC.

Comment: Re:Huh (Score 0) 223

by Scottingham (#48386341) Attached to: Comet Probe Philae To Deploy Drill As Battery Life Wanes

Time out! Are you saying I'm in the 'Papa knows best' crowd proudly displaying my new knowledge of the D-K and using it as such to shut down discussion? I feel like there's some irony somewhere in there...perhaps the D-K effect doesn't mean what you think it means? I do like the idea of a self-proclaimed D-K expert though, deliciously recursive. If anything I'd say it is a gauntlet-throw to put up some actual citations or evidence or get off the lawn.

If Koan had a modicum of expertise I'm sure he would have cited it prominently. Then again, he also probably wouldn't have said anything knowing that every cubic cm and milliwatt was accounted for.

I realize that it is frustrating seeing such a badass feat of astrophysics be humbled by a shadow...but...

If wishes and buts were clusters of nuts, we'd all have a bowl of granola!
(Jellineck, Geoffrey et al 2000)

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.