I am watching a video of someone watching a video of someone recording a video of a video.
I am watching a video of someone watching a video of someone recording a video of a video.
So why isn't the library of congress making these exemptions?I usually think of librarians as being pretty good guardians of research and free speech. It seems like the LOC does not follow that spirit.
Thanks for the explanation. They sue the enforcer so they can get the injunction. Got it.
Because it is hard to sue the government.
First, you have to have standing. You can't just go "oh, this law sucks and would affect me so I'm going to sue." You really have to wait for the government or third-party to prosecute you, then defend yourself. Then you *might* have standing to sue the government. Also, you need to have a better case than "I wanna watch anime in my Mom's basement." So far, many security researches have either not been sued, or they haven't stood up to defend themselves.
It is also tough to find out who exactly to sue. The approach here is that, since the DMCA gives the library of congress (LOC) the power to create DMCA exemptions, they can sue the LOC. They are also suing the copyright office and the department of justice (DOJ). Copyright office seems logical too, but I am unsure why the DOJ is on the list.
It's also really really expensive.
It becomes Tesla's problem because it affects public perception of Tesla. They are at the next challenge, which is, can they manage the PR spin and survive it.
has Tesla done anything practical with their rockets yet?
Tesla has not, because Tesla is the car company. But if you meant to ask that about SpaceX...
Have you seen how fast a Tesla goes? 0-60 in 2.8 seconds. I think that qualifies as a rocket.
No, now they pay more than $80/month because now they have to pay Comcast for internet + buy Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime to get the same content.
Why not, if the only other alternative available to you is $0/hour and you don't lose any of your basic income?
Two reasons: 1) You have reduced their incentive to work and 2) Most of them are getting UBI because they physically or mentally cannot work anyway.
By the numbers:
Today welfare tops out at about $7k/year, and minimum wage is $7.25 an hour which is about $15k. Using your numbers, UBI would be at least $16k for a single person, and they will make $1/hour which is $2k. So you have reduced their wage by a factor of 7 and increased their welfare by a factor of 2. That means that they have a 14-fold reduction in the benefit of their work.
So make a deposit to a debit account each day, they will eventually figure it out. What you are saying is 10% of US population is mentally incompetent. If that is truly the case, we have a public health emergency. But I bet it's closer to 1% if we give people reasonable chances to be independent.
We *do* have a public health emergency! 66% of people below the poverty line report substance abuse or mental health problems! You need to go meet the poor because it is clear you know jack about poverty in America. It's okay, I didn't either until my brother-in-law and my father, both got involved in careers in that field.
Your "guess" that they will "eventually figure it out" does not jive with reality. America cannot make a policy change based on the middle-class's guess as to how impoverished people will respond to a sudden influx of cash. I suggest that you volunteer at a soup kitchen for a week, or volunteer to drive some impoverished people around town. Maybe ride the bus to work in Chicago or DC and talk to them. Go meet a social worker. Your idea of what their life is like is far from reality.
These ideas sound nice in theory - it's the libertarian capitalist "get the government out of their way" viewpoint. It's appealing because we hate bureaucracy. I lean libertarian myself as well. But your confidence in people's ability to make good decisions does not reflect the reality that psychologists and social workers know. Many of the poor don't know how to budget. They get scammed. Many are elderly, or have never had a savings account before. Some of them wouldn't walk into a bank at gunpoint! They are scared of banks and signatures, so they go to check cashing services that take 20% off the top. They keep money in cash in their houses, and lose track of it or get robbed. You are saying that by getting rid of all this structure, and handing them cash, they will suddenly save themselves.
I don't understand the last 4 paragraphs of your response so I can't reply regarding the taxation stuff.
This is the exact argument for expanded social services.
No it is not. It is an argument for leaving the system as it is.
Your numbers are made-up, but that's okay I get the gist.
UBI will be structured in such a way to to supplement income of these individuals to the level where they can purchase food, shelter and other basic human needs
So to restate this, UBI for "poor" individuals basically means that their food stamps and section 8 housing are replaced with a cash payout that is slightly larger than what they have now.
The other 95.5% will be paying the basic income they received and extra to cover the poor in taxes.
So for everyone not "poor" the government pays them UBI, then taxes them so they don't actually get it. That seems silly.
You can now hire people for a dollar per hour so long as that's the best money they can get at the moment.
The system you describe would provide them less incentive to work than they have today. No on would work at $1/hr, it would not be worth it.
These programs employee a large number of government bureaucrats and enforcement officers. If the value and overhead of these other benefits are saved, we can substantially reduce additional taxes needed or alternatively provide more substantial basic income for the same cost.
This seems to be an underlying thread to UBI, and it sounded good to me at first, but it really doesn't work as you think it through. All that bureaucracy exists because giving out welfare money isn't as simple as sending people a check every month. When we did that, many tended to spend it on hookers and blow, (pardon the euphemism, I couldn't resist) so we needed social workers to check up on them. Many of them rented housing that wasn't up to code. Or got scammed. So we created section 8, public housing, food stamps, etc. Middle class people who lose their jobs can't pay their mortgages with UBI, so we created the unemployment office, which requires unemployment judges, and unemployment taxes,etc. More complexity.
This concept of the "simpler" system is appealing, and a common theme in politics today. And if you don't understand the complexity, it sounds intoxicating. But once we know why it is there, the solutions don't seem as simple.
Think about the flat tax. "Get rid of all those loopholes and complications! The tax code is so complex only big corporations can take advantage of it and they screw us over." It sounds great. Then think about this: Do you own a house? If so, a flat tax means you give up your mortgage interest tax deduction. How about kids? A flat tax means no child tax credit. Did you make any energy efficient purchases this year? No tax credit for you under a flat tax system. And those solar panels and that Prius aren't deductions either now. The small business owners go "Wait! I bought $10k in computers this year - that's not a tax deduction either?" Then we realize that it wasn't just the big corporations who were using that complicated system. We can tear up the books and start back at zero again, but let us not kid ourselves into thinking that all those complications aren't there for a reason.
It's like when someone decides to create some new piece of technology that is much simpler than the existing one. Maybe JSON instead of XML. Or REST instead of SOAP. Or Java instead of C++. After 20 years, we see that the new technology has evolved to become just as complicated as the one it replaced, because over time the designers realized they needed all that stuff in there.
Let's look at those options unemotionally:
Zap him again
Their hands were occupied trying to hold him down. They had already zapped him twice and he still struggled.
blow to the head
If they can't even hold his arms down, and the stun gun didn't work, will a blow to the head work? Maybe.
shoot him in the leg
Where did they shoot him? I suspect they pointed the gun at his chest thinking "Surely he won't continue to reach for his gun after this." Moving the gun to point elsewhere might have given him enough time to finally reach his.
They've got his weapon
No they don't. If they did, it would be a non-issue
They're armed and armored
I do not believe police normally wear body armor. Even if they were, you don't let someone shoot you just because you have body armor.
Part of the problem here is that no rational person would reach for their gun when a gun is pointed square in your chest. He tried to call their bluff. I haven't read enough background: was he high? That might explain the non-effect of the stun gun plus his irrational behavior.
The man was pinned to the ground and incapable of anything more than a token fight.
If you read the story, Mr. Sterling had been stunned twice and *was still standing.* Wow! That guy is a tank! So the officers physically took him down. One officer pinned Mr. Sterling's left arm, while the other officer was unable to pin his right arm because of the car in the way. From the store's video camera view, we see that Mr. Sterling's right arm was reaching down to his side. After the shooting, the police remove a gun from his right side.
So I see:
* Man refuses to stand down when verbally asked.
* Man stands-up to two stuns.
* Man is still struggling after being pinned to the ground.
We can stop here: at this point, they might well legally be able to shoot him. They have exhausted all other options. What else could they do? Stun him 50 more times? Hope another officer arrives and that 3 people can take him down? I'm seriously interested in hearing what the next escalation level is that doesn't involve a gun.
* Man has a gun.
I am no lawyer, but I am pretty confident that NOW they can shoot him. At this point, even if he laughed and said "Sorry guys, I just was messing around, let me up and we can chat about this" they might still be room to shoot him. He demonstrated that he is willing to use force, that he is strong as hell, and he isn't giving up. Now he has a deadly weapon too?
* Man is reaching for a gun.
No brainer. Done.
How else will I catch-up on my Netflix queue? I think it already exceeds my expected remaining lifespan.
Can someone make a Tetris game that drops actual physical blocks down? Maybe on pulleys. Bonus points if filled rows actually explode.
Oh I see, thanks!
"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys