No. Face unlocking is not "more convenient" than a fingerprint when the fingerprint is strategically located on the back of a phone, or at the bottom/side of an iPad.

It's ridiculous that when I want to unlock my iPad Pro in class I can't just scan a finger. No. I have to tap the screen, then tilt it so it can see my face or type in my code anyway. It used to just be tap once on the fingerprint scanner and boom, unlocked. Yeah, adding a 2 steps (tap THEN lift THEN wait for it to see/scan my face) that's convenient. Morons.

My point exactly. Well put.

-SM

No - I take an actuarial definition of socialism.

You're equating regulation with taxation. I can assure you that they are entirely different things. More importantly, increasing minimum wage, or taxing individuals is entirely antithetical to UBI. It makes absolutely no sense at all. True UBI would eliminate both of those concepts. They're unnecessary. Clearly you don't understand UBI as well as you think you do. This is apparent in your mis-use/hodgepodging of things Bernie has mentioned (at various times) that don't relate back to UBI.

The closest you came was the "Bezos" tax, except that the real version of it (that would actually work) is a sort of "automation tax." Bill Gates proposed one, so did Musk... neither of their plans will work without refinement, but the concept is simple: We have retarded the technological advancement of the planet simply because we insist on protecting jobs for the sake of protecting them and/or keeping people working. Had not the UAW stepped in and slowed automation in 1964 when Unimate came online, how much further along would the auto industry be? Or, in a similarly ridiculous situation, why are we turning coal plants back on? (To put people back to work.)

The true answer is that there are people whom we don't actually need working—they can be automated immediately or in the near future. But, the truer answer is that we can't let those same people starve to death in the streets (they would revolt, like the French Revolution, it would be very bad). So, there needs to be a plan to "take care" of those people. We can keep filly-farting around with "socialist" programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, social security, etc... or we can stop being ridiculous, encourage full automation at every level (Buy n Large from WALL-e), and get on with the next version of humanity. This doesn't take socialism, but it absolutely takes a new-world-view on what it means to be human. I can assure you that what "being human" doesn't mean is waking up every day and going to a job you dread just to put food on the table for you and your family.

This plan still allows for private ownership, but recognizes that the only reason you have land on which your robots can grow those crops is because the public (govt) has parceled it out of their own stores, and you currently hold title. So, when your robots grow food, keep a profit... but the public is entitled to a profit from your lands as well. The public's profit comes in the form of taxation. Taxation, that is, until we figure out an actual better version of apportionment that doesn't involve money. (Think Federation of Planets, when dealing amongst themselves.)

Your final point then, is moot (if not a bit outlandish.) Neither will the government take over, nor will it regulate. It will, however, encourage you and support you to automate every single worker you can. Possibly including yourself. UBI is about individual freedom, not restriction, and recognizes that society as a whole benefits when you don't have to worry about eating/sleeping, but can go pursue whatever it is you want. Maybe you love your job and your life and everything you do... most don't. They'd rather be doing something else. Maybe if you didn't have to work you could focus on your band, or painting, or traveling, or just spending time with your family. Or, maybe you want a better life than UBI provides and you have the skills to still work as we move toward total automation (not at all claiming we're there already). So you work, and the companies pre-tax profits pay your salary, which isn't taxed. It might be lower than you're currently used to, but you don't have to give up the UBI money, so in the end, you wind up ahead of the "don't want to work" people and can enjoy more than the "basics." Or maybe you drop to part-time, so you can pursue some happiness.

Please note: I'm using "you" because I'm responding to you. It's entirely possible that you have a perfect life, have a perfect work-life balance, and love your job and wouldn't switch careers for anything in the world. As I said, most don't. If I had to guess, somewhere around 80% of American's don't.

Cheers,

-SM

To your other point/post, yes, once UBI exists you absolutely have to have a single-payer healthcare system - there's no way around that, but single-payer universal healthcare is coming with or without UBI. We're the only country in the world that doesn't have it. It's coming, it's just a matter of when. So yes, Medicare and Medicaid go away. And no, I don't want them to have a budget or save. People are allotted a weekly/daily/monthly/whatever living allowance that covers the "basics." Basic Income also requires a fixed-price system on what is "basic." (Think housing, basic food, basic clothes.) You're clearly too young to remember government cheese. Look it up. It's what we did before food stamps and it sucked for those people, but it worked and was very difficult to exploit b/c they got perishable food.

You're being extremist in your anti-arguments, I'm not sure why. To drag myself down to that level (where you'll probably beat me with experience), people die in the streets today, lots of them. The current system is not working, and literally every single person on the planet knows that it's not. Even if they're Bezos-rich, deep down, they know it's broken and that's why they're Bezos-rich in the first place.

I'm not saying that UBI in it's current iteration is a perfect solution. It's far from it, and there are a ton of problems that need to be worked out before any serious wide-scale, long-term testing can begin. What I'm saying is that UBI looks like it has the potential to be heap better than the nonsense we have going on right now and anyone serious about fixing the problems with our world should be taking a serious look at it (and automation, which, IMO, is a UBI requirement.)

Except that basic income doesn't require governmental control of all businesses, which is what "socialism" actually is. Basic income (and social programs like welfare) might seem "socialist" because that's what you've been told, but they are not - they do not require public ownership/control of business. Single-payer-government-run health care on the other hand, is totally socialist (because the system is run by the public a.k.a. government).

In America, the shining example we have of socialism is the Interstate Highway System (most roads really). It is 100% unequivocally socialist with the tiny exception of states that have been retain pieces as toll roads for various reasons, but those pieces can't use federal funds.

socialism

noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

-SM

All it takes is one.

-SM

This.

Also, charge lots of money for an item of very little value and use a stolen/fraudulent CC to purchase = (nearly) instant cash.

Yes, chargebacks can happen, but the savvy are long gone by then. Also, charge 10K on a legit card, make a payment or two for "looks", then default.

-SM

Being "tracked" and being "reported," however, are two entirely different things.

In the reverse of this case, and in the absence of automatic security cameras, if ICE (or other law enforcement) submitted a list of license plates to the mall and said "can you please let us know if your staff notices any of these license plates in your lot," there is no issue. It holds then that the reverse is true—a citizen can, absolutely and unequivocally, report any public information to any authority, including a particular car's location. A citizen can also be compensated for reporting information deemed "useful" to law enforcement (aka "reward").

In this case, the mall is exercising it's right to monitor it's premises, which includes it's right to capture license plate information for anyone on it's private property, then sharing that list with law enforcement for a fee. There's simply no crime here and there is no violation.

Also, I think you mean the 4th Amendment, not Article 4. Article 4 is: Full Faith and Credit, Interstate Extradition, New State admittance to the Union, Protection from invasion/domestic Violence, Privileges and Immunities. Unless of course you mean "Freedom of Movement" as part of "Privileges and Immunities," but fundamentally that only allows people to cross state borders and absolutely allows tracking and has nothing to do with being embarrassed. (You do not at all have right to not be embarrassed.) Specifically In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States)

A more applicable law would be 4th Amendment, which disallows for warrantless tracking, but again, that's tracking by the government, not asking for reports from private citizenry. "Person of Interest" law is an example of this. Law enforcement has the right to seek the public's assistance in locating a person/people of interest without needing a warrant. "Have you seen this man?" is an example of that. It was specifically addressed as part of Carpenter v. United States, which put severe limits on the Third Party Doctrine, but not on "reasonable expectation of privacy (Kats v United States). Specifically "For example, federal Fourth Amendment protections do not extend to governmental intrusion and information collection conducted upon open fields; expectation of privacy in an open field is not considered reasonable. Some states, however, do grant protection to open fields." (from https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...)

-SM

Relative to what attorneys pay AdWords for Personal Injury ads, they're not that expensive. Moreover, they're paid for on a CPM, not CPC model. The tracking cookie for retargeting might serve a CPC ad or dozen, but even those are cheaper than you'd think b/c tsill not adwords.

Disclaimer: I'm the President of Marketing for a law firm. We spend a ton on marketing... and I've known about this for years. We thought about this when it came out about 2 years ago, but don't like the CPM model and had other (ethical) concerns.

As noted above, this is directly from the treasury:

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

If you have a case you're citing where SCOTUS required cash payment, then cite it. Otherwise, you are wrong. Businesses absolutely do not have to accept cash.

More info here https://www.patriotsoftware.co... :

Can a business refuse cash?
Federal law makes U.S. currency a legal tender for paying debts. As a small business owner, you must accept dollars for your products or services. This doesn’t mean paper notes. You can accept electronic dollars as payment.

Private businesses can create their own payment policies, including ones that restrict cash payments. You can say that customers must pay with a credit card, check, or money order. You can also ban large bills at your business.

Bottom line—you can accept payments in whatever form you want. Here’s why:

No federal law requires businesses to accept cash.
You only need to accept cash when someone owes a debt. If the customer pays before you provide the product or service, you don’t have to accept cash.
You need to establish a cash payment policy before a transaction occurs. You can’t change your policy mid-transaction or refuse someone’s paper bills when you say that you accept cash. As long as you tell customers upfront that you don’t accept cash, you can refuse cash payments.

The simple solution to this is free passports for all, and passport offices that are open outside working hours at least 2x/month. I honestly can't believe we don't have this in place yet.

-SM

Just limit it by MAC to a certain # of devices, and let the user delete devices from time to time. Apple does this already, so does Adobe CC, and Google Music. It's not that hard.

The whining is coming not from the content providers, but from the cable companies, because they're the obsolete ones getting screwed. Viacom doesn't care because the more streams there are (regardless of shared login) the more $ they get to charge advertisers on OTT.

It's simple math: a+b = cable companies just need to die already.

-SM

I don't have the time to find any particular source, but I believe the scanning checked luggage goes through is more advanced than the screening for hand luggage, which part of the reason why you're not supposed to put film in checked luggage.

-SM

Ha! I said "film" on /.!

"When you have an understanding of the history of the argument", presumes that the reader does have that knowledge, which is referenced nowhere in TFA. It's obtuse to assume everyone is as learned as you are about this comparison. And no, the financial aid calculator that determines your "need based" assistance level isn't exactly "marketing material". Since you want to dismiss it, here's your real data:

http://www.collegecalc.org/col...

The point of my original comment, which you missed, is that if you're going use use a "list price" quote it as MSRP, not "the cost of attending Harvard". The kids who get in to Harvard are some of the brightest in the land and when they don't have a need for need-based scholarships, they get scholarships anyway.

As I said, it's poor reporting. The article (and it's headline) talks about "cost of attending" not "price". Meaning, it's not at all non-sequitur to point out the difference between MSRP and actual "cost".

-SM

This comparison is stupid.

Contrary to popular belief: Harvard's true tuition is based on your family's income/assets, it's not fixed like standard schools. I get that the "list price" is $69K, but that's not the "cost" if your family isn't earning ~$250K/year. Harvard has "need-based" scholarship programs that can reduce the true cost to zero or near zero. The point is, if your academics can get you into Harvard College, they don't want you to worry about the price, they want you to attend. Oh, and they disallow student loans. https://college.harvard.edu/fi...

From the Harvard site (linked): "In fact, approximately 70 percent of our students receive some form of aid, and about 60 percent receive need–based scholarships and pay an average of $12,000 per year. Twenty percent of parents pay nothing. No loans required."

Here's a calculator: https://college.harvard.edu/fi...

In other words, the "genius" who made this comparison isn't Harvard material - and is trying to say "it's expensive to house our inmates" by assuming Harvard is expensive. The truth is, it's not.

If s/he had done some research, s/he could should have said "Cost of a Porsche Boxster S", or something else that is actually "expensive" instead of making the poor people think they've got no chance of affording Harvard if they can get in.

Sloppy journalism.

-SM

Go Crimson!

Every night, before I go to sleep, I hope and pray to the PTBs that Google will add AT&T to Project Fi's list of carriers. There's a section of the desert between Vegas and LA that is useless on TMo/Sprint/USCellular. Adding AT&T to Fi (and possibly iPhone support for Fi) with decent marketing $ behind it would be the end of direct-from carrier services as we know it here in the U.S.. Needs to happen.

-SoulMaster