Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Fake News (Score 1) 250

Considering the engines provided a max of around 22,000 pounds of thrust and the plane weighed around 30,000 pounds empty, the brick strapped to a rocket analogy is inaccurate. The aerodynamics work, if there is a rapid enough input to deal with the rapid changes in airflow. The same has been the case since at least the F-14; the F-117 was just an extreme case. Modern fighters are even less statically stable than the Nighthawk was. It's what gives them their maneuverability.

Comment Re:But.. (Score 1) 171

The incremental cost is probably minimal, especially compared to the cost of existing bottle redesigns, as are the potential lost sales. I've seen various attempts to market bottles in forms that are supposed to get more of the product out (only the 409 bottles that feed from the bottom via a molded tube seem to fully work), and that can absolutely be a sales pitch. I hate trying to get the last of the mayo out of the jar because I end up having to dirty a spatula to get at the remnants. I'd happily get something that would allow me to pour out the last bits instead, and I suspect many others will, too.

Comment Re:Hyperbole stew (Score 4, Insightful) 510

Funny, I've always thought that "they hate us for our freedoms" was a joke, and understood as such by everyone. Are you telling me people seriously mean it when they say that? And that other people believe it? Because I always thought they hate you for destroying their countries and ruining their lives, and not so much about what you do when you are at home...

Comment Re:How is that supposed to happen? (Score 1) 387

So you draw the line "before _additional_ automation is introduced". Let's say I have a highly automated factory, and my competitor does not. If he introduces automation he gets to pay a massive tax that I don't - simply because I was earlier.

And do we count that "additional" automation from now? Or from 1980? Or from 1600? That's the line you are drawing. Where is the cutoff point?

Comment How is that supposed to happen? (Score 5, Insightful) 387

You (and others) seem to believe that "robots" are clearly defined pieces of equipment, that clearly take over someone's job. Something with at least a sinister metallic arm that you can point to and say "that thing has my job!".

Reality is that work has been steadily mechanized over a course of centuries, and that process will continu. Instead of you doing your job with a machine, it will be a slightly smarter machine doing the work - and it may or may not have an arm. Where do you draw the line, precisely? How is a law going to define what a "robot" is and what isn't? Is an assembly line one robot, or a hundred? How about the robots in your house: are you going to pay taxes on your mixer, your bread maker, your oven, your fridge, etc.? How about your car, are you going to pay taxes on that as well? Each of those devices save a lot of work, and in doing so, replace human labor. Are we going to pay taxes for all of that?

If you wish to apply tax in terms of displaced human labour, will you compare with assembly line labour of a century ago, or fully manual labour of a millennium ago? How about robots in China, how will you tax those?

Comment Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score 2) 895

that explains picking a Judge with only ten years of experience to the Supreme Court instead of the most experienced one that could be found.

Chief Justice John Roberts had five years of experience as a judge before being nominated for Associate Justice to replace retiring Justice O'Connor and then being nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist when he died. While I don't agree with everything he says, he's done a good job of steering the court overall.

Going after the most experienced usually means going after the oldest, which has some potentially significant downsides not just in terms of time on the Supreme Court but also often least understanding of current issues. Going after the most qualified does not mean the most experienced.

Comment Re:Neckbeard Bigly (Score 1) 113

As has been speculated in many places, people are quite sick of the phony smiles and phony concern of the phony politicians who give you a phony handshake and express their phony grieve about your circumstances while at the same time making your situation even worse with every policy they have available. A person who says what he thinks is real, and that is what appeals to many people.

Also, some politicians care more about other countries and other people than they care about their own. It's lovely if they have nice manners, but for most voters, the only thing that matters is their policies.


Comment Re:A very good more basic question (Score 1) 722

Children are also people, they cost a shitload of money, and social programs aimed at them will also get replaced by UBI. Why on earth would you exclude them?

Your figure includes local and state level taxes. Not that it matters all that much. You might end up with "just enough to live on", but that would still be without all the other things like defense, healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. If you want to get a realistic view of cost, try finding the current cost of social programs alone. Some quick searching suggests around $360 billion is what you're currently spending on that. The equivalent value in UBI would be $1125/person/year.

Ok, let's be silly here and exclude children and people we don't like. Now it's $1800/person/year.

Oh hey, we can recover that money by having them pay taxes! Let's put that at 40% (as you did). Now it's $1080/person/year. Can you survive on that? How about if you have children (since they don't get their own UBI)?

Comment Re: A very good more basic question (Score 1) 722

That's just normal wellfare, then. The whole point of UBI, the very thing that sets it apart from wellfare, is that _everyone_ receives it, no matter what. Its proponents frequently claim it will eliminate the 'giant overhead' of checking whether people are illegible.

As for taxes returned, sure, by all means subtract them. But please do keep in mind that this will eat into the $12000 I calculated earlier - and that was already too low to live on.

Comment Re:A very good more basic question (Score 1) 722

My _math_ is fine. And why wouldn't children get UBI? Do you believe there is no cost involved in raising a child? Clothes, food, education, hobbies, ...? Should all this money automatically come from the parents' income? Given that we are replacing _all_ benefit programs (including those for children) with UBI, shouldn't they also be receiving UBI?

Comment Re:A very good more basic question (Score 2) 722

You are apparently not aware of this but money (almost) does grow on trees. Ever wondered where the money that is around came from? It was printed by a central bank. And it still is. Just google Mario Draghi and what he's doing with the Euro lately.

citing from The Article:

No, it doesn't. Money is not by itself a resource. Instead it is a means of measuring value. If you create money without also creating value, all you do is dilute the supply of money. This works out great if you are the one making the money since you end up with a bigger share of the pie, but for everybody else it means their fixed amount has just become less valuable. Inflation is in a very real sense a wealth transfer from the poor (who don't own much, and have much of their capital in cash) to the rich (who have the ability to buy actual resources, rather than just money).

Throughout history, experiments have been run by very smart people with creating money from thin air. In France, rampant inflation led to the French revolution. In Germany, it led to WW2. In Zimbabwe, it has turned a fertile agricultural country into a desert that must import food. And in Venezuela, it has led an oil-rich country to not even be able to provide toilet paper to its citizens.

Having people work less - but voluntarily - is one of the benefits of UBI. Many people suffer involuntary unemployment due to automation. So we end up with a part of the workforce without ANY job and the other part with full jobs. It would be smarter to distribute jobs more evenly. But the present system drives everybody to try and get a fully paid job, as a matter of risk management: it could be anytime you lose that job and without a (substantial) financial buffer you'd be in deep trouble. UBI takes away that fear of existential threat - it gives you peace of mind and makes you less clingy to the job you have. It significantly improves your negotiating position towards (potential) employers.

It's a lovely sentiment. Like Star Trek, with everybody contributing, for free, to the best of their ability. Or like communism, with everybody taking and nobody giving. Hint: one of those is fiction.

One might also wonder if money were created for free, whether cost (of everything) would remain the same, or rise to meet the levels of available money. In other words, the program might be undone by rampant inflation.

Yes, there will be inflation. FYI the European Central Bank is desperately trying to increase inflation (my above comment regarding Mario Draghi)

I know. Do you know why he wants that? It's because he hopes to get rid of rampant government debt by obliterating the value of the currency. It's not because inflation is such a positive force, as you seem to believe. Oh, and there is this whole "wealth transfer to the rich" part as well, of course.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten