Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Default? (Score 1) 96

"Without any evidence to the contrary, the defendants could not force the system to be tested in court"

I don't get it... even if it was considered reliable by default, why would you not be able to test the system in court? There's a lot of things that the court might consider true by default, but you can still challenge them.

Like, take official records, say the list of births, deaths and marriages... It would take a lot to challenge something in that, the records are kept carefully, nobody generally has any incentive to falsify them... but with enough evidence, you can challenge anything... and if you feel it can be challenged you have the right to look into it, supoena records, witnesses or whatever.

Comment Re:Planned Obsolence (Score 1) 62

I guess if you find a cellphone that supports open Android firmware, you can run it as long as you want. But I was looking at Android phones the other day, and the cheapest ones are $US 80, and they're not even that bad. Heck, I have a flagship Samsung, and the $160 phones I could run and not even feel really deprived. It even had an IR blaster which my flagship doesn't have, and 8GB RAM which is the same as some base model Samsung S23s. What's the point in keeping these things running 10 years?

Comment Re:The rich will retire (Score 1) 249

Not too many people are in a rush to replace their 200K lifestyle with a 24K lifestyle... I don't think... But who knows. Bear in mind that taxes will rise to fund it, so if you're making a lot from those investments, the extra tax may well be equal to 24K, and you may actually not be better off. In fact that would probably be the aim, that your average middling person will pay as much in extra tax as the UBI they are given so that most people's situation is no net change. It must be so for the math to work out.

Comment Re:Thirty people (Score 1) 249

To be fair, we should at least listen to the arguments of the proponents:

* If it's universal, you can fire everyone in social security tasked with assessing and policing your income levels.

* You can discontinue a bunch of specialised welfare services, because people can use the UBI to obtain those services themselves.

* All the people with no money were going to get welfare anyway.

* All the people working might have taxes raised... but they'll also get free money which balances it out.

Does that mean I think it will work? Not really, but the arguments at least have merit to analyse rather than thinking you can dismiss it all in a hastily written Slashdot post.

Slashdot Top Deals

We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission

Working...