[quote user=mmateri]maybe that will be a lesson to the next generation of little fuck heads who think they can terrorize nations w/o killing themselves at the same time and get off scot free[/quote]
The problem is that most of the people we picked up didn't do anything. We paid locals for anyone they turned in, and they gave us homeless people or anyone the warlords happened to dislike.
We want to release most of those we still have, but the funds to transfer or release prisoners was blocked by Congress and some of them belong to countries we don't really trust.
mmateri wrote:
maybe that will be a lesson to the next generation of little fuck heads who think they can terrorize nations w/o killing themselves at the same time and get off scot free
The problem is that most of the people we picked up didn't do anything. We paid locals for anyone they turned in, and they gave us homeless people or anyone the warlords happened to dislike.
We want to release most of those we still have, but the funds to transfer or release prisoners was blocked by Congress and some of them belong to countries we don't really trust.
Giving an account to a "friend" might be a minor contract infringement by reinterpreting the concept of "household", but like I said before... you don't shoot people over minor stuff.
You just throw out minor disincentives for minor losses. Netflix does this by preventing you from streaming more than two devices at the same time. If you want more, then you buy the "family plan" upgrade.
[quote user=ShanusMaximus]Raising prices on every customer creates a risk in competitive markets where consumers have many choices, he said. [/quote]
Sounds like they are cracking down on sharing and trying to raise prices in a targeted way.
Giving an account to a "friend" might be a minor contract infringement by reinterpreting the concept of "household", but like I said before... you don't shoot people over minor stuff.
You just throw out minor disincentives for minor losses. Netflix does this by preventing you from streaming more than two devices at the same time. If you want more, then you buy the "family plan" upgrade.
ShanusMaximus wrote:
Raising prices on every customer creates a risk in competitive markets where consumers have many choices, he said.
Sounds like they are cracking down on sharing and trying to raise prices in a targeted way.
[quote user=n0body]Which is something google seems to be doing a lot lately... If I wantwd some 3rd party private, restriced chat app I'd use facebook..[/quote]
I've noticed that. And with Google Reader going, RSS is going to be hit hard. Many devs prefer to tie into Reader rather than check every feed individually, since Google is already crawling the web anyway.
n0body wrote:
Which is something google seems to be doing a lot lately... If I wantwd some 3rd party private, restriced chat app I'd use facebook..
I've noticed that. And with Google Reader going, RSS is going to be hit hard. Many devs prefer to tie into Reader rather than check every feed individually, since Google is already crawling the web anyway.
You seem to think it is "censorship" when Netflix and the producers have an agreement on when their licenses expire.
But you will be using Government. Google follows US copyright law. The take-down and proof of ownership process was written into US law. You'll even have to sign a foreign tax withholding contract on your sales.
RIAA is a bit bigger, so they don't necessarily have to use Government as much as you. They usually have their own private arbitration agreements, and can get Google's attention without following some Government process.
You seem to think it is "censorship" when Netflix and the producers have an agreement on when their licenses expire.
But you will be using Government. Google follows US copyright law. The take-down and proof of ownership process was written into US law. You'll even have to sign a foreign tax withholding contract on your sales.
RIAA is a bit bigger, so they don't necessarily have to use Government as much as you. They usually have their own private arbitration agreements, and can get Google's attention without following some Government process.
[quote user=otester]No ones forcing them to copy.[/quote]
You seem to take the opposite position(s) when you are the file-sharer or the content producer.
I've been through this process before. Some Chinese group cracked one of my apps, copied the website, and started selling it online.
To request a take-down from Google for any website or App-Store, you go to Copyright.gov and follow the process. There is no informal way for an individual - Google only pays attention if you follow the legal procedure to prove ownership, as setup by the Government.
otester wrote:
No ones forcing them to copy.
You seem to take the opposite position(s) when you are the file-sharer or the content producer.
I've been through this process before. Some Chinese group cracked one of my apps, copied the website, and started selling it online.
To request a take-down from Google for any website or App-Store, you go to Copyright.gov and follow the process. There is no informal way for an individual - Google only pays attention if you follow the legal procedure to prove ownership, as setup by the Government.
[quote user=n0body]I think it comes down to work. You can copy an thing you see at a market stand, and if you put in work then it's not really copying.[/quote]
Yeah, I think that's generally the idea. You can't make shoes that say Nike because someone else built that reputation. The value in software is in the source code. You can make a rip-off game if you go through the work, but you can't just copy the source-code.
You own control of the thing that requires the work to build.
[quote user=n0body]Btw I have nothing against ip or copyright...[/quote]
In a Capitalist society, I think you need them.
I just think property should be a flexible thing. Unlike Otester and Wolffe, I don't think you should shoot someone who shoplifts.. and I don't think you should get massive fines for file-sharing. Things that are cheap and easy to steal should be just given small disincentives.
[quote user=n0body]Capitalism sucks is my point...[/quote]
In a couple hundred years, I wouldn't doubt if that's the standard view. Property is an artificial way to restrict resources. As resources grow, it's possible most people would be richer without property.
[quote user=otester]Using the law/government? No.[/quote]
Forget Government. That's just a red herring because we live in a Capitalist society enforced by Government. Your contracts actually require more Government than the RIAA since they have resources to fight things themselves through private collection / agreements.
You should oppose anything to restrict copying, even just private contracts or DRM like the RIAA does. If someone else wants to start selling your game, you'll be perfectly happy. To restrict them in any way would be "censorship" comparable to gas-chambers, right?
n0body wrote:
I think it comes down to work. You can copy an thing you see at a market stand, and if you put in work then it's not really copying.
Yeah, I think that's generally the idea. You can't make shoes that say Nike because someone else built that reputation. The value in software is in the source code. You can make a rip-off game if you go through the work, but you can't just copy the source-code.
You own control of the thing that requires the work to build.
n0body wrote:
Btw I have nothing against ip or copyright...
In a Capitalist society, I think you need them.
I just think property should be a flexible thing. Unlike Otester and Wolffe, I don't think you should shoot someone who shoplifts.. and I don't think you should get massive fines for file-sharing. Things that are cheap and easy to steal should be just given small disincentives.
n0body wrote:
Capitalism sucks is my point...
In a couple hundred years, I wouldn't doubt if that's the standard view. Property is an artificial way to restrict resources. As resources grow, it's possible most people would be richer without property.
otester wrote:
Using the law/government? No.
Forget Government. That's just a red herring because we live in a Capitalist society enforced by Government. Your contracts actually require more Government than the RIAA since they have resources to fight things themselves through private collection / agreements.
You should oppose anything to restrict copying, even just private contracts or DRM like the RIAA does. If someone else wants to start selling your game, you'll be perfectly happy. To restrict them in any way would be "censorship" comparable to gas-chambers, right?
[quote user=otester]My issue is in regards to copying, if someone can for example walk up to your market stand, clone a product your selling and "print" it out for himself, do you think you should the 'right' to stop him?[/quote]
That right is essential for Capitalism.
If someone clones your app and puts it in the app-store, do you think you should be able to stop them? It's pretty simple to convert the byte-code back into the original source.
My friend's business could be cloned by anyone, but it's illegal because he owns the brand. People pay for licenses to create their own franchise. That control is his equity and the piece he could sell to outside investors.
If you didn't have that control, then property would be meaningless.
otester wrote:
My issue is in regards to copying, if someone can for example walk up to your market stand, clone a product your selling and "print" it out for himself, do you think you should the 'right' to stop him?
That right is essential for Capitalism.
If someone clones your app and puts it in the app-store, do you think you should be able to stop them? It's pretty simple to convert the byte-code back into the original source.
My friend's business could be cloned by anyone, but it's illegal because he owns the brand. People pay for licenses to create their own franchise. That control is his equity and the piece he could sell to outside investors.
If you didn't have that control, then property would be meaningless.
Well, I think all contracts and private property are ultimately backed by Government... including your rights as the owner of your game.
I prefer not to see everything in black and white. Maybe property can be a grey concept and small infringement can be treated as a minor thing.
On the one hand, you think property is sacred and should be defended to the death. On the other, IP is gas-chambers and genocide, except when you are the creator. Reconciling these things is twisting you into knots.
A friend of mine recently sold part of his company to Mark Cuban. It's basically a name, logo, business-model. Completely abstract. He doesn't really own anything tangible - the equipment and assets are all rented.
Is the difference between his company and your game really that extreme? Why should we consider one purely good and the other completely evil?
Well, I think all contracts and private property are ultimately backed by Government... including your rights as the owner of your game.
I prefer not to see everything in black and white. Maybe property can be a grey concept and small infringement can be treated as a minor thing.
On the one hand, you think property is sacred and should be defended to the death. On the other, IP is gas-chambers and genocide, except when you are the creator. Reconciling these things is twisting you into knots.
A friend of mine recently sold part of his company to Mark Cuban. It's basically a name, logo, business-model. Completely abstract. He doesn't really own anything tangible - the equipment and assets are all rented.
Is the difference between his company and your game really that extreme? Why should we consider one purely good and the other completely evil?
Okay, well, the RIAA normally operates on private enforcement. The Government works too slow.
The Netflix licenses are completely private agreements. When they take down pirate sites, it's almost always from a private exchange with the host. The 6-strikes law they have isn't really a law... it's an agreement between the ISPs.
So, to me, it really seems like this "censorship" claim and hyperboles about gas chambers is just an excuse.
By flipping the table and putting you in the position of the copyright holder, you don't seem to be making the same arguments anymore.
Okay, well, the RIAA normally operates on private enforcement. The Government works too slow.
The Netflix licenses are completely private agreements. When they take down pirate sites, it's almost always from a private exchange with the host. The 6-strikes law they have isn't really a law... it's an agreement between the ISPs.
So, to me, it really seems like this "censorship" claim and hyperboles about gas chambers is just an excuse.
By flipping the table and putting you in the position of the copyright holder, you don't seem to be making the same arguments anymore.
Yeah, that's what RIAA and Netflix does through DRM, streaming licenses, IP restrictions, etc. RIAA also has private agreements with ISPs in the US to block or suspend internet to pirates.
The freemium model isn't really much different than the Netflix streaming solution. You keep the content on your servers so it's harder to pirate.
Now, if someone else just uploaded a hacked version of your game that pointed to their own servers, I'm sure you'd have a serious issue with it. You created it, and should have control of your software.
It is this "ownership" that makes it property in Capitalism. Whoever owns that control can sell or transfer it to anyone else, giving us that whole supply / demand that determines the value.
Yeah, that's what RIAA and Netflix does through DRM, streaming licenses, IP restrictions, etc. RIAA also has private agreements with ISPs in the US to block or suspend internet to pirates.
The freemium model isn't really much different than the Netflix streaming solution. You keep the content on your servers so it's harder to pirate.
Now, if someone else just uploaded a hacked version of your game that pointed to their own servers, I'm sure you'd have a serious issue with it. You created it, and should have control of your software.
It is this "ownership" that makes it property in Capitalism. Whoever owns that control can sell or transfer it to anyone else, giving us that whole supply / demand that determines the value.
I'm implying you'd accept "ownership" of your software. If someone else posted your game to the app-store and set the price to zero, I'd fully expect you to ask to have it removed.
You wouldn't consider it a free-speech issue at all.
I'm implying you'd accept "ownership" of your software. If someone else posted your game to the app-store and set the price to zero, I'd fully expect you to ask to have it removed.
You wouldn't consider it a free-speech issue at all.
I think you're trying too hard to be a purist, Otester.
Maybe some property is okay, and maybe some infringement isn't a huge deal.
If you start equating copyrights with genocide, then you start to look silly. Should you be charged with crimes against humanity for trying to sell the game you are making?
I think you're trying too hard to be a purist, Otester.
Maybe some property is okay, and maybe some infringement isn't a huge deal.
If you start equating copyrights with genocide, then you start to look silly. Should you be charged with crimes against humanity for trying to sell the game you are making?
I was just particularly interested in the Celtic-Indo link, since it had its own unique, early formation and provided early hints before any serious study was done. This connection must have been completely unexpected. The Romans did a good job stamping out the Celtic languages, so it only remained in isolated pockets and didn't drift the same way as something as widely spoken as Greek or Latin.
I believe the entire field wasn't formalized until the 19th-20th Century, so by the time we started really reverse-engineering this proto-language, the bulk of knowledge likely came from those ancient Hellenistic, Italic, or Germanic families.
This article seems to be talking about us. Our family of languages, which includes everyone from Europe to North Africa, to India.
Sounds about right.
I was just particularly interested in the Celtic-Indo link, since it had its own unique, early formation and provided early hints before any serious study was done. This connection must have been completely unexpected. The Romans did a good job stamping out the Celtic languages, so it only remained in isolated pockets and didn't drift the same way as something as widely spoken as Greek or Latin.
I believe the entire field wasn't formalized until the 19th-20th Century, so by the time we started really reverse-engineering this proto-language, the bulk of knowledge likely came from those ancient Hellenistic, Italic, or Germanic families.
This article seems to be talking about us. Our family of languages, which includes everyone from Europe to North Africa, to India.
Yeah, the article does seem to concede most people in the field are skeptical of the idea.
I remember learning the history of Sanskrit, the ancient language of India... when the English started to explore and discover India, they noticed it was very similar to languages spoken in Ireland.
Somehow, there was an ancient connection that had been preserved in isolated Celtic communities, for thousands of years.
We now know English and Sanskrit were part of the same ancient family of languages, but this was at most 5000-8000 years ago. 15,000 years ago is just too old to know much of anything. This predates agriculture and civilization.
Yeah, the article does seem to concede most people in the field are skeptical of the idea.
I remember learning the history of Sanskrit, the ancient language of India... when the English started to explore and discover India, they noticed it was very similar to languages spoken in Ireland.
Somehow, there was an ancient connection that had been preserved in isolated Celtic communities, for thousands of years.
We now know English and Sanskrit were part of the same ancient family of languages, but this was at most 5000-8000 years ago. 15,000 years ago is just too old to know much of anything. This predates agriculture and civilization.
PRO: If we privatize rainwater, then the markets will keep it clean and plentiful. It will be clean because we don't rely on Government regulation... the owners will just sue polluters. During droughts, the price will increase and people will waste less.
CON: Human Rights should be above property, and nobody should own something as essential as water. While this might be okay for satellite TV, rainwater should be held in the commons, and cleanliness should be regulated by Government laws.
Most people probably take a middle view, in which some property is okay. I would possibly allow it as an experiment only in a wealthy region, where people have more than enough wealth to buy the water they need, and some legal guarantees of availability enforced by the State.
Well, here's two common sides, if you want.
PRO: If we privatize rainwater, then the markets will keep it clean and plentiful. It will be clean because we don't rely on Government regulation... the owners will just sue polluters. During droughts, the price will increase and people will waste less.
CON: Human Rights should be above property, and nobody should own something as essential as water. While this might be okay for satellite TV, rainwater should be held in the commons, and cleanliness should be regulated by Government laws.
Most people probably take a middle view, in which some property is okay. I would possibly allow it as an experiment only in a wealthy region, where people have more than enough wealth to buy the water they need, and some legal guarantees of availability enforced by the State.
But you can see how water might be essential for life, right?
Some people have the view that water should not be privately controlled, and should be available to anyone for the taking. It's conceivable someone could buy rainwater, just as they buy air-waves. They could then charge you for the rainwater you collect... just as they charge rent to people who use their land or machines.
EDIT: Another example. You cannot point a hacked digital dish at a satellite and "steal" those airwaves. That is owned by someone else. Networks often drive by houses and look for non-paying individuals with dishes pointing at their satellites. They then sue you for infringing on their property without paying.
Wolffe wrote:
Life is a Right
But you can see how water might be essential for life, right?
Some people have the view that water should not be privately controlled, and should be available to anyone for the taking. It's conceivable someone could buy rainwater, just as they buy air-waves. They could then charge you for the rainwater you collect... just as they charge rent to people who use their land or machines.
EDIT: Another example. You cannot point a hacked digital dish at a satellite and "steal" those airwaves. That is owned by someone else. Networks often drive by houses and look for non-paying individuals with dishes pointing at their satellites. They then sue you for infringing on their property without paying.
Private ownership of land, water, air, etc... these are often Libertarian proposals to solve the problems of pollution. They tend to be Academic Libertarians.
There are several different proposed ideas.
Own the geographical streams / flows, as we privatized radio waves. You cannot transmit on waves owned by other people. It doesn't matter if it enters your fenced land. Your home ownership doesn't apply to radio waves... or air traffic, etc. You could setup ownership for rain or river flows in the same way.
Allow for class-action lawsuits against polluters, on the basis of diminishing the value of the air / water we consume. Those who own lakes or rivers or oceans can likewise measure the pollution and sue the polluters.
Have a common body / Government determine the allowable pollution limit and privatize that allowable pollution. You buy and sell "credits".
Some of these ideas may sound a bit far-fetched and crazy. Then again, all property sounds crazy before it is implemented and enforced... imagine explaining the idea of Corporations or ownership of a Brand name or Patents or even Land to a hunter-gatherer society.
The arguments against such ownership seem similar to the arguments against other forms of existing property. In many countries where people are starving, they don't like the idea that land can be owned and remain idle by the wealthy. They feel anyone should be able to use available land to grow food, as a human right. Others dislike the idea that they have to pay or "rent" land to grow food on land they do not own. It's like paying a tax on rainwater you collect, because someone else owns the water rights.
Private ownership of land, water, air, etc... these are often Libertarian proposals to solve the problems of pollution. They tend to be Academic Libertarians.
There are several different proposed ideas.
Own the geographical streams / flows, as we privatized radio waves. You cannot transmit on waves owned by other people. It doesn't matter if it enters your fenced land. Your home ownership doesn't apply to radio waves... or air traffic, etc. You could setup ownership for rain or river flows in the same way.
Allow for class-action lawsuits against polluters, on the basis of diminishing the value of the air / water we consume. Those who own lakes or rivers or oceans can likewise measure the pollution and sue the polluters.
Have a common body / Government determine the allowable pollution limit and privatize that allowable pollution. You buy and sell "credits".
Some of these ideas may sound a bit far-fetched and crazy. Then again, all property sounds crazy before it is implemented and enforced... imagine explaining the idea of Corporations or ownership of a Brand name or Patents or even Land to a hunter-gatherer society.
The arguments against such ownership seem similar to the arguments against other forms of existing property. In many countries where people are starving, they don't like the idea that land can be owned and remain idle by the wealthy. They feel anyone should be able to use available land to grow food, as a human right. Others dislike the idea that they have to pay or "rent" land to grow food on land they do not own. It's like paying a tax on rainwater you collect, because someone else owns the water rights.
If you can't take it anywhere without being stopped and arrested, then a registry really isn't a huge deal.
Most crimes need handguns and things you can carry without drawing attention. You can't have those around here.
Plus, most of us tend to be city-folk, where you can't really have a firearm for any reason. Homicide rates tend to be only a problem in the unpopulated provinces in the middle... Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and really bad in the remote NWT or Nunavut.
If you can't take it anywhere without being stopped and arrested, then a registry really isn't a huge deal.
Most crimes need handguns and things you can carry without drawing attention. You can't have those around here.
Plus, most of us tend to be city-folk, where you can't really have a firearm for any reason. Homicide rates tend to be only a problem in the unpopulated provinces in the middle... Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and really bad in the remote NWT or Nunavut.
Yeah, I kinda get that feels. Of course, I mainly stay in the city-center of Toronto, so I hear it the other way. They say too much attention and preferential treatment is given to maintain support for the West.
The firearm thing, for instance seems like a big deal to you guys, but it's not something people here really care about. The firearms used in crimes in the US are already banned in Canada, and the Provincial Police Chiefs have all agreed not to issue carry licenses. Legal weapons just can't be used in crimes as easily as the US.
It's mainly something the RCMP and police want, but nothing individuals really care about in the East.
A lot of blue-collar workers here hate NAFTA and that's a huge deal to them. But I imagine you guys don't mind it at all. Americans / Mexicans put pressure on manufacturing jobs here, but probably add lotsa moneys out West.
Yeah, I kinda get that feels. Of course, I mainly stay in the city-center of Toronto, so I hear it the other way. They say too much attention and preferential treatment is given to maintain support for the West.
The firearm thing, for instance seems like a big deal to you guys, but it's not something people here really care about. The firearms used in crimes in the US are already banned in Canada, and the Provincial Police Chiefs have all agreed not to issue carry licenses. Legal weapons just can't be used in crimes as easily as the US.
It's mainly something the RCMP and police want, but nothing individuals really care about in the East.
A lot of blue-collar workers here hate NAFTA and that's a huge deal to them. But I imagine you guys don't mind it at all. Americans / Mexicans put pressure on manufacturing jobs here, but probably add lotsa moneys out West.
[quote user=mmateri]the biggest problem in this country is how most of the prime ministers ignore the west, and now that the west is the financier of the rest of canada, we need a westerner in office[/quote]
You have to remember.... Alberta is still pretty small on the National scale. Ontario produces about 3-4 times as much wealth and Ontario + Quebec make up about 2/3 of the entire country's income.
mmateri wrote:
the biggest problem in this country is how most of the prime ministers ignore the west, and now that the west is the financier of the rest of canada, we need a westerner in office
You have to remember.... Alberta is still pretty small on the National scale. Ontario produces about 3-4 times as much wealth and Ontario + Quebec make up about 2/3 of the entire country's income.
I just don't think US policy on Pot has any significant impact on Mexican crime rates. They do anything that makes money, and with more resources than law-enforcement they don't really worry about laws. Marijuana is small-time, low-profit business with plenty of supply to meet demand. That's not their business model.
Just legalizing all illegal behavior isn't the answer.. unless you think legalizing kidnapping / ransom will work too.
I don't care one way or the other about drugs.
I just don't think US policy on Pot has any significant impact on Mexican crime rates. They do anything that makes money, and with more resources than law-enforcement they don't really worry about laws. Marijuana is small-time, low-profit business with plenty of supply to meet demand. That's not their business model.
Just legalizing all illegal behavior isn't the answer.. unless you think legalizing kidnapping / ransom will work too.
Anybody else use the Internet before webpages? Fido's right that BBS' were the thing for pirates, but it was its own thing, and mostly text files and really small apps.
I had a friend in school tell me about this "World Wide Web" thing that put pictures and text in a single file, and I thought it was stupid. Stupid name. Why would anyone use it when they had FTP and Gopher?
It was probably around 96-97 when the web took off.
Anybody else use the Internet before webpages? Fido's right that BBS' were the thing for pirates, but it was its own thing, and mostly text files and really small apps.
I had a friend in school tell me about this "World Wide Web" thing that put pictures and text in a single file, and I thought it was stupid. Stupid name. Why would anyone use it when they had FTP and Gopher?
It was probably around 96-97 when the web took off.
Actually, there is a difference in whether you decide to increase the deficit to spend or to give it back as tax-cuts.
Ironically, it's Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis (in Otester's video) that says the Government should spend it to get any stimulus effect. If you give it to taxpayers, they will hold it, and keep it out of the economy.
EDIT: Oh, and Friedman did NOT believe cutting taxes would increase revenues. I really don't think any famous Economists signed on to supply-side stuff.
Actually, there is a difference in whether you decide to increase the deficit to spend or to give it back as tax-cuts.
Ironically, it's Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis (in Otester's video) that says the Government should spend it to get any stimulus effect. If you give it to taxpayers, they will hold it, and keep it out of the economy.
EDIT: Oh, and Friedman did NOT believe cutting taxes would increase revenues. I really don't think any famous Economists signed on to supply-side stuff.
...Although I would point out that the Friedman video is a bit misleading. He is talking to millionaires, back before Reagan.
To them, removing all deductions and charging a "flat-tax" of 17% would be a cut. To the vast majority of people, it is a tax-increase. Most people pay an effective tax of about 11% or less.
Such a plan would really only benefit those earning the top bracket of $223,500.
...Although I would point out that the Friedman video is a bit misleading. He is talking to millionaires, back before Reagan.
To them, removing all deductions and charging a "flat-tax" of 17% would be a cut. To the vast majority of people, it is a tax-increase. Most people pay an effective tax of about 11% or less.
Such a plan would really only benefit those earning the top bracket of $223,500.
I was programming from a very young age and my school st me up with whatever I needed... so I remember using protocols like XModem or Kermit to download text files from Telnet servers.
I was programming from a very young age and my school st me up with whatever I needed... so I remember using protocols like XModem or Kermit to download text files from Telnet servers.
[quote user=otester]^ I meant just the basic income cheque, no other stuff like Social Security/Medicare, almost everything if not everything would be private.[/quote]
Social Security is just income checks. Medicare is checks to your doctor. The doctor and whatever you buy is private.
You extend the cost of these two programs to everyone, and then the Government needs to be much bigger. There really isn't much of any overhead in programs like these. They just involve sending checks / making deposits.
In fact, most Federal spending works like this. Pensions, Social Security, Medicare, Tax Subsidies, and Interest. That's about 2/3 or 3/4 of the budget right there. Everything else is your standard Defense, Courts, Crime, Education, etc.
otester wrote:
^ I meant just the basic income cheque, no other stuff like Social Security/Medicare, almost everything if not everything would be private.
Social Security is just income checks. Medicare is checks to your doctor. The doctor and whatever you buy is private.
You extend the cost of these two programs to everyone, and then the Government needs to be much bigger. There really isn't much of any overhead in programs like these. They just involve sending checks / making deposits.
In fact, most Federal spending works like this. Pensions, Social Security, Medicare, Tax Subsidies, and Interest. That's about 2/3 or 3/4 of the budget right there. Everything else is your standard Defense, Courts, Crime, Education, etc.
[quote user=otester]I was under the impression that basic income would be the only social spending?[/quote]
Ok. Doing some quick math, the cost to extend Social Security / Medicare to everyone would require the Government to be about 250% the current size.
Both programs cover about 1/4 of the current adult population, and account for about half of Federal spending.
You wouldn't gain any efficiency, because the program would operate exactly as the existing program does. You could eliminate the income subsidy / welfare programs, but those are only about 5% of the budget.
My point was that people on Social Security like it. They don't really pressure the Government to shrink it... they always vote to expand it.
otester wrote:
I was under the impression that basic income would be the only social spending?
Ok. Doing some quick math, the cost to extend Social Security / Medicare to everyone would require the Government to be about 250% the current size.
Both programs cover about 1/4 of the current adult population, and account for about half of Federal spending.
You wouldn't gain any efficiency, because the program would operate exactly as the existing program does. You could eliminate the income subsidy / welfare programs, but those are only about 5% of the budget.
My point was that people on Social Security like it. They don't really pressure the Government to shrink it... they always vote to expand it.
I'm impressed with Korea. A country 1/6th our size with more Math experts?
Japan was also impressive. Adjusted for population, they seem to have twice as many high-performers in every measure. Same with Germany.
US really looked pretty average. When we are above average, we are only slightly. When below, also only slightly. I would have expected more geniuses, given high rate of importing the best immigrants.
Even the average American is pretty average.
I think the article is a bit condescending. Nobody really thinks all Americans are idiots. We aren't surprised to have about the same "high-performers" as our population dictates.
Now, I wonder if there is a study of the most "low-performers". Does Japan just create geniuses? Or do they devote all resources to a few schools and create geniuses and idiots?
I'm impressed with Korea. A country 1/6th our size with more Math experts?
Japan was also impressive. Adjusted for population, they seem to have twice as many high-performers in every measure. Same with Germany.
US really looked pretty average. When we are above average, we are only slightly. When below, also only slightly. I would have expected more geniuses, given high rate of importing the best immigrants.
Even the average American is pretty average.
I think the article is a bit condescending. Nobody really thinks all Americans are idiots. We aren't surprised to have about the same "high-performers" as our population dictates.
Now, I wonder if there is a study of the most "low-performers". Does Japan just create geniuses? Or do they devote all resources to a few schools and create geniuses and idiots?
[quote user=otester]I perceive in the same light as taxes that would just fund a government to uphold liberty, basic income being another part of that because I feel it's a way to keep government small, anything the government does will directly hit everyone in the pocket.[/quote]
I don't really think giving a guaranteed income to everyone will really make the Government smaller. Do old people ever vote to shrink Social Security? We'd basically be making everyone Social Security beneficiaries.
I can understand why progressives would like the idea, since it counteracts the market's natural inequality. It would encourage people to take jobs they enjoy. Insecurity would be reduced.
Academic Libertarians might be attracted to the incentive problem, but I don't think you care about this. Right now, we tend to only give assistance to people who work or have medical conditions. Some Libertarians see this as coercive, since people should not be motivated to do things they do not want by Government.
But ultimately, it would demand a higher tax-rate. Rich people would pay more than they receive, and poor people would pay less. It's basic redistribution.
otester wrote:
I perceive in the same light as taxes that would just fund a government to uphold liberty, basic income being another part of that because I feel it's a way to keep government small, anything the government does will directly hit everyone in the pocket.
I don't really think giving a guaranteed income to everyone will really make the Government smaller. Do old people ever vote to shrink Social Security? We'd basically be making everyone Social Security beneficiaries.
I can understand why progressives would like the idea, since it counteracts the market's natural inequality. It would encourage people to take jobs they enjoy. Insecurity would be reduced.
Academic Libertarians might be attracted to the incentive problem, but I don't think you care about this. Right now, we tend to only give assistance to people who work or have medical conditions. Some Libertarians see this as coercive, since people should not be motivated to do things they do not want by Government.
But ultimately, it would demand a higher tax-rate. Rich people would pay more than they receive, and poor people would pay less. It's basic redistribution.
[quote user=otester]I'd prefer if a basic income covered it instead, you get your healthcare while also being forced to be responsible.[/quote]
If it isn't coordinated as a single system, you would likely lose the efficiency, though.
The UN has a series of studies on pension and healthcare systems, and low overhead is one of the primary advantages of National systems. A national pension system has tiny overhead, while private pensions are quite high. Same is true of National Insurance (Canada / UK) vs Private Insurance Pools (Switzerland, France).
The main disadvantage of National Insurance is that they tend to be cut easier, so they are subject to rationing.
I'm also still perplexed as to how you suddenly started supporting basic income. It seems like it just comes down to presentation. Currently, we like to hide welfare in income-subsidies and tax-credits, but make taxes very public. You don't really start to see it until you get old and start getting checks from the Government, at which point nobody ever wants to shrink the system.
otester wrote:
I'd prefer if a basic income covered it instead, you get your healthcare while also being forced to be responsible.
If it isn't coordinated as a single system, you would likely lose the efficiency, though.
The UN has a series of studies on pension and healthcare systems, and low overhead is one of the primary advantages of National systems. A national pension system has tiny overhead, while private pensions are quite high. Same is true of National Insurance (Canada / UK) vs Private Insurance Pools (Switzerland, France).
The main disadvantage of National Insurance is that they tend to be cut easier, so they are subject to rationing.
I'm also still perplexed as to how you suddenly started supporting basic income. It seems like it just comes down to presentation. Currently, we like to hide welfare in income-subsidies and tax-credits, but make taxes very public. You don't really start to see it until you get old and start getting checks from the Government, at which point nobody ever wants to shrink the system.
In many International surveys, NHS comes on top in many aspects. Efficiency. Few medical mistakes. Fastest access to a GP.
But the problems are usually associated with spending. NHS is under much greater pressure to keep costs low, so the UK only spends 1/2 the OECD average in %GDP. Compared to "socialist" countries with high Social spending (Scandinavia, France, Austria, etc), outcomes are generally worse in UK.
Like many similar systems, it scores very well in outcome per dollar... but total spending is just too low compared to more high-social-spending nations.
Of course, everyone is usually worse than the Europeans in Social outcomes, so it's not so surprising. English-speaking nations usually under-perform.
[quote user=ShanusMaximus]If you want better examples of those, try Singapore and Switzerland.........[/quote]
Switzerland was the model for Obamacare, but it is still way more leftist than the US. Profit on Basic Health Insurance is illegal in Switzerland. Prices for basic coverage are set by Government. The subsidies in Obama's plan are far fewer. The US allows higher deductibles than Switzerland. The required services for the "basic coverage" are much higher in Switzerland. Insurance exceeding 8% of your income is paid by Government. Their mandate is enforced with prison sentences.
Of course, if "efficiency" is the problem, then Switzerland isn't what we want. If we fudge definitions as Avik does and say the forced-mandate is private-spending, then Switzerland pays more per-person than everyone outside the US. UK is efficient. Switzerland is just better than the US.
Singapore also has a requirement to buy one of the insurance plans, basically like Obamacare. However, Singapore's Government also provides about 80% of the hospitals (similar to NHS) and sets those prices through the Government. You also have to set aside a proportion of your income to buy such things - like a tax - which is about 20%. I think it is way too close to its Communist and Asian roots for the US to copy.
In many International surveys, NHS comes on top in many aspects. Efficiency. Few medical mistakes. Fastest access to a GP.
But the problems are usually associated with spending. NHS is under much greater pressure to keep costs low, so the UK only spends 1/2 the OECD average in %GDP. Compared to "socialist" countries with high Social spending (Scandinavia, France, Austria, etc), outcomes are generally worse in UK.
Like many similar systems, it scores very well in outcome per dollar... but total spending is just too low compared to more high-social-spending nations.
Of course, everyone is usually worse than the Europeans in Social outcomes, so it's not so surprising. English-speaking nations usually under-perform.
ShanusMaximus wrote:
If you want better examples of those, try Singapore and Switzerland.........
Switzerland was the model for Obamacare, but it is still way more leftist than the US. Profit on Basic Health Insurance is illegal in Switzerland. Prices for basic coverage are set by Government. The subsidies in Obama's plan are far fewer. The US allows higher deductibles than Switzerland. The required services for the "basic coverage" are much higher in Switzerland. Insurance exceeding 8% of your income is paid by Government. Their mandate is enforced with prison sentences.
Of course, if "efficiency" is the problem, then Switzerland isn't what we want. If we fudge definitions as Avik does and say the forced-mandate is private-spending, then Switzerland pays more per-person than everyone outside the US. UK is efficient. Switzerland is just better than the US.
Singapore also has a requirement to buy one of the insurance plans, basically like Obamacare. However, Singapore's Government also provides about 80% of the hospitals (similar to NHS) and sets those prices through the Government. You also have to set aside a proportion of your income to buy such things - like a tax - which is about 20%. I think it is way too close to its Communist and Asian roots for the US to copy.
I invented my own programming style. Uses C# syntax, but uses a lot of weird tricks.
The problem with inheritance is that I always want objects that have unique behaviors that may derive from many different classes. My solution has been to create Models and just "attach" or "detach" Behaviors. When defining a Model's behavior, my syntax looks like this:
If my object were a ball, I'd attach a Physics behavior to it, which would probably register itself with a PhysicsManager service, and call Update methods while it was in the scene.
I invented my own programming style. Uses C# syntax, but uses a lot of weird tricks.
The problem with inheritance is that I always want objects that have unique behaviors that may derive from many different classes. My solution has been to create Models and just "attach" or "detach" Behaviors. When defining a Model's behavior, my syntax looks like this:
If my object were a ball, I'd attach a Physics behavior to it, which would probably register itself with a PhysicsManager service, and call Update methods while it was in the scene.
Gangland killings account for about 5% of all homicides... however, the victim doesn't necessarily have to be a gang member. Just the perpetrator.
Another 10% or so are robberies / crimes / drug deals / etc gone bad.
Most homicides are due to arguments between friends / family.
The rest are unknown, but probably distributed as above. Really, the vast majority of homicides are unrelated to criminals or gangs. They are just people getting into fights with a firearm around.
Gangland killings account for about 5% of all homicides... however, the victim doesn't necessarily have to be a gang member. Just the perpetrator.
Another 10% or so are robberies / crimes / drug deals / etc gone bad.
Most homicides are due to arguments between friends / family.
The rest are unknown, but probably distributed as above. Really, the vast majority of homicides are unrelated to criminals or gangs. They are just people getting into fights with a firearm around.
Well, if those pesky terrorists want to disrupt society, we sure as hell won't let them. We'll shut down entire major cities and send the police door-to-door if we have to.
Well, if those pesky terrorists want to disrupt society, we sure as hell won't let them. We'll shut down entire major cities and send the police door-to-door if we have to.
Yes, by day he is an Elvis impersonator, and at night he becomes Batman / undercover janitor.
As he started to unravel the case, everyone dismissed him as a lunatic. The Assistant District Attorney knew he was close and tried to "eliminate" him... but he escaped just in time. But the conspiracy was big and he was arrested with fake assault charges, to silence him.
To finally prove his sanity, he decided to send poison to politicians and the President.
Yes, by day he is an Elvis impersonator, and at night he becomes Batman / undercover janitor.
As he started to unravel the case, everyone dismissed him as a lunatic. The Assistant District Attorney knew he was close and tried to "eliminate" him... but he escaped just in time. But the conspiracy was big and he was arrested with fake assault charges, to silence him.
To finally prove his sanity, he decided to send poison to politicians and the President.
So... the gun bill failed because they wanted background checks before you buy a firearm from a retailer. I didn't think anyone other than Otester still opposed this.
So... the gun bill failed because they wanted background checks before you buy a firearm from a retailer. I didn't think anyone other than Otester still opposed this.
[quote user=ShanusMaximus]Again..........wouldn't you go where there would be a MASS of people to do a MASS shooting? Is the country where MASSES of people hang out? As far as the rifle, it is exactly the same as any semi-auto hunting rifle. It just has a different look. It doesn't function any differently than the exact same rifle that has a more "cowboy" look.[/quote]
I went lurking through a number of the ccw forums the last few days.
Every time someone asked about hunting with an AR-15, the response was that it was kinda stupid. Anyone who sees you is going to call the cops. That's what seems to have happened here.
Sure, it's mainly the "military" look. That's the look the killers go for, and it is incredibly strange to see someone actually carrying one for any practical reason. It causes panic, and that's what the police officer seems to have told this guy.
[quote user=ShanusMaximus]Of course you do. Here is a good example of how a cop handles a situation like this.........even with a guy who is being a dick.[/quote]
That guy in the video cooperated completely, and just had a .40cal pistol. Reading FreeRepublic, nobody seems to say they would respond that nicely. The general view is that they'd never hand over a firearm to a police officer, or allow them to unload it.
And the person in this article is an outspoken, extreme version of that personality... In fact, if he ever does hurt himself or others, I'm certain the EdRoberts of the world will be blaming the police for not doing their job. He has a history of aggression, mental trauma, and verbal threats. Fellow soldiers have been complaining about this guy for years.
ShanusMaximus wrote:
Again..........wouldn't you go where there would be a MASS of people to do a MASS shooting? Is the country where MASSES of people hang out? As far as the rifle, it is exactly the same as any semi-auto hunting rifle. It just has a different look. It doesn't function any differently than the exact same rifle that has a more "cowboy" look.
I went lurking through a number of the ccw forums the last few days.
Every time someone asked about hunting with an AR-15, the response was that it was kinda stupid. Anyone who sees you is going to call the cops. That's what seems to have happened here.
Sure, it's mainly the "military" look. That's the look the killers go for, and it is incredibly strange to see someone actually carrying one for any practical reason. It causes panic, and that's what the police officer seems to have told this guy.
ShanusMaximus wrote:
Of course you do. Here is a good example of how a cop handles a situation like this.........even with a guy who is being a dick.
That guy in the video cooperated completely, and just had a .40cal pistol. Reading FreeRepublic, nobody seems to say they would respond that nicely. The general view is that they'd never hand over a firearm to a police officer, or allow them to unload it.
And the person in this article is an outspoken, extreme version of that personality... In fact, if he ever does hurt himself or others, I'm certain the EdRoberts of the world will be blaming the police for not doing their job. He has a history of aggression, mental trauma, and verbal threats. Fellow soldiers have been complaining about this guy for years.
The problem is that most of the people we picked up didn't do anything. We paid locals for anyone they turned in, and they gave us homeless people or anyone the warlords happened to dislike.
We want to release most of those we still have, but the funds to transfer or release prisoners was blocked by Congress and some of them belong to countries we don't really trust.
The problem is that most of the people we picked up didn't do anything. We paid locals for anyone they turned in, and they gave us homeless people or anyone the warlords happened to dislike.
We want to release most of those we still have, but the funds to transfer or release prisoners was blocked by Congress and some of them belong to countries we don't really trust.