Damn, there was no reason to go anonymous for that bon mot.
Damn, there was no reason to go anonymous for that bon mot.
I not a big fan of leakers, unless like Snowden they can go a long way to demonstrating they tried very hard to work within the system first.
And just as important, leak something that's going to stay secret, like corruption, or US agencies violating the law. The whole point of Snowden's data dump was to reveal that the NSA was illegally collecting information on Americans, for policy rationales they did not have a legal right to institute.
The NSA was not going to keep secret that the Russians tried to hack American vote gathering machines. She bought herself a 15 year prison sentence for revealing nothing. I'm still trying to figure out whether the reporter should be castigated for enabling their naive source to destroy their life just to get a byline that was going to be printed shortly before Trump gets impeached.
That is the wrong message to tell Mylan.
The right message is to write to your congressman and FTC how Mylan is gouging you the voter, and that the congressman and gov't are doing such a poor job keeping Mylan in line that Mylan feels comfortable telling their constituents to "go fuck themselves".
At very least, it opens up an opportunity for someone to fuck over Mylan, if only with compulsory political donations.
When you have eighty percent of the market, you have a monopoly. The fact that your best competitor only has ten percent means it doesn't really count.
No, it only means your company is very successful. You need to be successfully prosecuted in a court of law for using your market position to stifle competition or extort money/business based on your market position before you're legally considered a monopoly.
But their position in the marketplace was considered to be a de facto monopoly.
1) That was Microsoft, not Google.
2) Having the lion share of the marketplace does not make a company a monopoly. Having proven in a court of law that one used their market position to eliminate competition or coerce money out of customers in thrall to that company makes the company a monopoly. Also, in the US, the prosecution has to be able to argue that the market position would be sustained over a period of time and not a temporary market condition. As far as I know, Google has not lost an antitrust decision in the US.
I don't know why I keep getting declared a conspiracy theorist for pointing out that it happened,
I don't know fuck-all about you, or ever accused you to be a conspiracy theorist. Whether Google is a monopoly or not is not conspiracy theory.
But technically, Google is not a monopoly, since it has many competitors, which includes Bing.
Pretty much, although its more about addressing the fact that 75% of current jobs are going to get wiped out by automation, and that automation is not going to create 75% new jobs. Basic presumptions about how the capitalist system needs to be re-examined, including whether the threat of survival is required in order for capitalism to function (I seriously doubt that).
As a side note, I don't think people understand how salary works in the country.
At a certain salary amount, when you receive it long enough, a CEO will earn more money than they can spend profligately in their lifetime. So why do people pursue more amounts of money beyond that point? Its about collecting enough money to either subsidize personal causes, or manipulate the political process. At that level, its about accruing money for power; it has nothing to do with earning enough money for consumer goods.
There will be a shitload of people who will not pursue a demanding job because their basic needs are satisfied. They don't matter to the economy. They don't produce anything significant. Before automation, the only way to get production from a job was to put the fear of starvation & homeless into people. Once automation takes away 50% of all the jobs that used to employ people, who cares if those people don't want to work? They're already deemed useless by market forces.
Is the extra $5K a year you'll make working as a janitor be worth it now?
Yes, because that janitor will have access to $5K more luxuries (or investment opportunities) than someone who only collects UBI with no alternate income. Supply and demand will still drive the consumer market; it just means UBIs will only have enough money to feed themselves, clothe themselves, and house themselves. If they want to buy that book, computer SoC, or LeBron James kicks, he's going to have to earn money outside of UBI to pay for them.
In order words, incentives to work will not be "dramatically" increased. They'll stay roughly the same due to market forces.
In other words, 97-99% of the population collect a UBI, regardless whether they have a job, so whatever payment the employer offers is pure profit. Its only a small percentage of people who can earn an astronomical amount of money who actually get taxed (to support UBI).
...that paid me under the table, while collecting my UBI...
Yes, I'd abuse the hell out of it.
You don't get what UBI is. Its not merely a form of welfare. Properly designed, everyone collects a UBI, except for the people in the 1% who actually earns so much money, they're the one's paying taxes to support UBI.
UBI is merely a base payment made to every (non-rich) person to ensure they have enough money to feed, clothe, house themselves, and generate enough consumer activity to keep the economy moving. There will be indispensable jobs that cannot be economically replaced by automation. There will need to be sufficient payment to provide motivation to work those jobs and it will mean workers will have access to luxuries that will not be available to mere UBI recipients.
In a properly designed system, you can't "cheat" a taxation system by finding ways of making money while collecting UBI. Almost no one under the top 1-3% incomes of workers (remaining) will be required to pay taxes to support UBI. People finding ways of making money outside of UBI is merely proof that a capitalist system can be maintained without threatening starvation & homelessness if they are the least capable of making enough money to support themselves.
Today, though, encryption technology has created personal, unbreakable locks in virtually everyone's possession.
No, they are breakable. We just don't know how many months or decades will pass before they become breakable.
Law enforcement still has the same obligation to search these devices if there is probably cause to believe they contain evidence of a crime
Law enforcement has no legal concept enshrined which requires it to violate the CotUS in order to pursue the possibility of crime. In fact, if the only way they can prove a crime is committed is to use information obtained by violating the self-incrimination, that is basically grounds to dismiss a case.
A court order to provide the passcode is not a violation of the 5th, because providing a key to your unbreakable lock is not an admission or statement of guilt.
Bullshit. That's just you making up crap to support coerced, self-incriminating investigations. The bottom line, if you believe technology has changed legal conditions to the point that it becomes impossible to conduct prosecutions due to a technologically invulnerable source, pass a Constitutional amendment delineating when such a search can be legally applied. Don't try to let court precedent create law.
You get what you pay for.
If they have an emergency and need supplies or personnel, you can send them. None of that is possible with a Mars mission.
Its a myth. NASA would never budget the money for a backup rescue launch to be ready to go if there was a problem at the Moonbase that could be survived by four days. They never have.
We dont know shit about surviving in space. Were just now starting to really answer a lot of the important questions.
Well, if that's the case, you shouldn't have any problem securing future funding for the ISS to answer those questions, huh?
To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a Hardluckland. -- Jack Paar