Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Replace it... with what? (Score 2) 895

Sorry, the reason she didn't want to talk about it was because it had a number of bombs in it that were timed to go off after elections. As they've went off, they have continued to propel the cost of insurance up astronomically.

What is amazing is that exactly zero predictions Republicans made about Obamacare came true. Zero. That's a truly amazing record. I don't think there has ever been a psychic with a worse record.

Healthcare.gov would never work? False. Nobody would sign up for the ACA? False. Only sick people would sign up? False. Would kill millions of jobs? How about that really low unemployment and many years of job growth! (Thanks Obama!) Would make employers make millions of jobs part-time-only? False. 30 million people would lose employer insurance? False. Death panels? I don't even... Would cause massive deficits? The deficit shrunk in real dollars every year that Obama was president.

"Propel the cost of insurance up astronomically"? Huh? Even with spikes in a few states health care costs are well below estimates from 8 years ago. Until Obamacare, health care costs were going up an average of 8% a year over the previous 30 years. They've gone up about 3-4% a year since. Sure, some of that was the recession, and there will be some corrections; we're seeing a few now. But that still puts costs far below expectations.

Pelosi said that people like you were telling lies about the ACA, but that once it was passed people would see through the lies. Guess what: People don't want to get rid of Obamacare! GOP officials are cancelling town halls because their fragile egos crack when they hear their constituents beg them to keep Obamacare. Every budget watchdog has warned that removing Obamacare will explode the deficit. The GOP has gone from "repeal" to "repeal and replace" to "repair" and now they're hoping they can just ignore it and let it continue.

Look, I realize that you actually believe the lies you repeat. But it's so easy to look at the actual facts. Please, please do so.

Comment Re:No. (Score 2) 895

Trumped up alternative facts don't last long in the face of the truth. Deal with it.

Things like birtherism, climate change denial, Benghazi, and anti-vax paint a different story, sadly. The only reason that birtherism and Benghazi have stopped mattering is because the targets have left positions of power.

Comment Re:So much winning... (Score 1) 895

no interest in prosecuting anyone whose name isn't Clinton, Warren, or Pelosi.

Only Warren and Pelosi; they stopped their muckraking campaign against Hillary the day after the election. There will be a few more accusing statements, since their fragile white herds must be pacified while they are pointed at a new target, but there will be no action.

Comment Re:Replace it... with what? (Score 4, Insightful) 895

Right. I mean, I can imagine those Republicans are so stupid that they'll come up with something and then say "duh, but, der, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". That'd be just like a stupid Republican, amiright?

I love that quote; it's an easy way to separate idiots from people who care about facts. Intelligent people listen to the two sentences before it and realize what Pelosi was saying. Idiot partisans just assume it means "we won't show you what's in this bill before we pass it, neener neener", and of course never look deeper because they're idiots.

I encourage you to look up the whole quote. Then think about where you first heard about this quote, and ask yourself why they lied about the meaning, and why you accepted it. Also ask yourself if listening to that source is a good idea. You won't, but since this country would be better off with fewer sheep and more thinkers, I feel that I should at least encourage you.

Comment Re:A more basic question (Score 1) 723

First, UBI studies have been done in the United States, with similar results. So I'm not sure why you wouldn't think they wouldn't generalize, unless you have never looked at those studies and just assumed.

Also: "one of those cultures and there is the basic social expectation that you of course want to contribute to society" sounds like the usual "anyone on welfare is lazy and deserves to be poor" whining I hear a lot. Folks in conservative states regularly do studies to show that most people on welfare are gaming the system. Have you ever heard of those studies? Likely not, because they always show that the fraud rate on welfare is quite low. "Improper payments" is about 10% of welfare funds, and that doesn't mean 10% fraud, that means 10% of funds are over- or under-paid; the percentage of money paid to lazy people gaming the system is far lower.

Oddly, the fraud rate for poor people on welfare is pretty similar for the fraud rate of rich doctors scamming medicare. Poor lazy people have the same fraud rate as smart rich doctors; do you put doctors in the "don't want to contribute to society" category too?

Comment Re:So what are the stats on /.? (Score 1) 174

Drinking absolutely pure water can hurt or kill you. In the same way, pure information, stripped of context, is as likely to mislead or confuse as help. For example, if I pick a specific range of years, I can "prove" that the climate change is making the earth hotter, colder, or is completely false. A bit of context (a graph showing a wider range of years) is far more accurate.

I use the name as part of the context of information. It's not the whole of the context; even mostly-truthful sources can be mistaken, and even mostly-false sources sometimes post truths. But it's a useful shorthand, because nobody has time to verify every fact. My experience is that those who claim they verify every fact are the least accurate, actually...

Also, if you can't be bothered to sign up for a mostly-anonymous account and have your current statement interpreted in light of your previous statements, then I don't see why I should take to time to read your opinion. Most people who don't want their statements connected are trolls, and I've got better things to do than deal with them.

Comment Re:A more basic question (Score 1) 723

The more money you give to people for free, the less work they'll do.

Interestingly, previous small-scale experiments have not really shown this; time spent working only decreased a small amount, and was mostly replaced with other useful activities (raising children or education). Do you think the previous experiments did not measure this, or do you think the results will not scale?

Which means the trade balance with other countries will worsen, and more of your tax money will escape.

That's a non-sequitur; trade balance doesn't seem tied to hours worked. It has some relation to economic output, but (with automated jobs) that is also not strongly tied to hours worked. Basically, how is our trade balance affected by how many workers vs robots are in a restaurant or in a factory? It is affected by how much consumers can spend, but UBI means that spending power is also less tied to hours worked.

Comment Re:The problem (Score 1) 723

Well, yes, the whole point of UBI is that everyone gets the money whether they need it or not. Unless you think that paying for complicated regulations, means-testing, enforcement etc is a better idea?

Besides, I find that most anti-UBI people are convinced that 90% of people on welfare don't need it, so if that's the case we're ALREADY paying people who don't really need it; how would UBI be worse? Unless you're one of those folks who love regulations for the sake of more regulations?

I'm not claiming that UBI will solve all problems, or even that the economics will work out, but declaring it unworkable without trying it seems weird. The small-scale experiments have worked well so far; let's scale the experiments up.

Comment Re:I should add (Score 1) 723

I should add that UBI also looks very good to people who evade tax completely but have an income.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the US president is NOT a UBI supporter. Nor are most large multinational companies who play shell games with money in various havens. So I'm not sure who you are talking about.

I'm a supporter of UBI (assuming the economics work), and I can assure you I pay lots of taxes. I make enough to pay lots, but not enough to use most of the tax breaks. I assume that the direct benefit I get from UBI will be eaten up by the extra taxes it will cost, but that's fine. If more people in my area can afford to buy things, then my business will prosper and I'll make more money to buy more things for myself (and to pay more taxes).

We've tried cutting taxes on the rich (effectively giving money to the rich). That doesn't work well for anyone but the already-rich. So maybe we should try giving money to the folks who need money, and as a side benefit remove most of the regulations around it.

Comment Re:Here's a good reason for you (Score 1) 723

I see a lot of people on welfare making negative contributions. They break things out of boredom, or they ruin their health by smoking, eating, and drinking, and require fixing up with expensive medical treatments.

And I see a lot of people NOT on welfare doing the same thing. I see lots of people on welfare taking shitty part-time jobs with back-breaking, health-destroying labor, and buying shitty food because they cannot afford healthy food nor the time needed to prepare healthy meals.

So... many people will do stupid unhealthy things whether they work or not. But many underemployed people do stupid unhealthy things because they cannot afford anything else. May as well let them afford healthy things; it will save us all money in health care down the road (and is more moral if you care about such things).

Comment Re:work less (Score 1) 723

A basic income also means that your renters will be able to afford renting your property, leading to fewer cases of forced evictions (which are a landlords nightmare, trust me). Win-win.

A basic income means that we can weaken labor protection laws, since nobody starves if they get fired. Actually we can weaken lots of regulations if the human cost is less of a problem. Seems fine to me; liberals like me want intelligent regulations because they protect people. Nobody actually likes regulations for their own sake!

I'm still not convinced that the economics will work out, but it seems worth investigating. We know the effects of "tax cuts for the rich"; maybe we if we want different results we should try something different.

Comment Re:A more basic question (Score 1) 723

The remaining $800 could go across the border, but most of it will go to local stores for food, clothing, health care, etc. Who pay their employees (among other things), who then pay taxes on that money and buy more things, round and round.

Some money will go across a border. And some money from across a border will come here (for any definition of "border" and "here"). That's economics, whether or not UBI is involved.

Nobody is saying that UBI "pays for itself"; that's stupid. But it seems like it could be a workable system, which is why folks are running experiments. Some folks (like TFA) have decided on the outcome of the experiments without bothering to run them. Maybe it won't work, but I'm encouraged by the small-scale experimental results in the past.

Comment Re:Finally an iPhone that is better a Google phone (Score 2) 143

I note the linked articles make no indication of what wireless standard they will use. Given that QI is used by almost everyone I would hope that is the standard they will follow, but Apple, being Apple, will probably see the need to introduce a new incompatible standard. I hope I am wrong about that,

I've owned a number of Qi devices, and while I love wireless charging, Qi is too limited. Too slow, placement is too precise, distance is too small (even a thin case slowed charging). I'm using a USB-c Nexus now; less convenient but fast charging and a plug which doesn't just piss you off.

I really hope that Apple goes with a far better charging system, something that gives you at least a few inches distance (better would be a few feet, maybe with beamforming?) and speed to match USB-c charging. If so, then other phones will get that too within a year and I'll be much happier.

Comment Re:What's the advantage? (Score 1) 75

Why would Lastpass be inadequate? Lastpass is also a fine solution, as long as you store a manual replacement for your TFA there in a secure note. Its more complex than Facebook's system, but does far more.

Anything which make TFA easier is a good thing. Facebook is solving one TFA problem. U2F solves some different problems. Lastpass solves a slightly different set of problems. Bad security is easy, good security is hard and will get harder as long as criminals exist.

Comment Re:What's the advantage? (Score 1) 75

It sounds like this doesn't replace TFA, it complements it. It is an attempted solution for "what do you do when you lose/damage your yubikey?"

We can argue about whether or not this is a good solution (my guess is that it is fine for most people, but not for security professionals), but there is no doubt that it is trying to solve a real problem (just not the one in the headline).

Slashdot Top Deals

The disks are getting full; purge a file today.

Working...