Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

Someone's head needs to roll for that!

Unfortunately, that's not very likely. The authorities are taking far too much of an "Oh, well, accidents happen" attitude towards companies who don't adequately protect people's information.

These data breeches will continue until such time as the penalties for a lapse/leak are made stiff enough where a company won't take the risk of putting private data on laptops, cloud storage or anyplace else prying eyes might get to it. Penalize a "Target" or some other company that leaks data stiff enough to drive them out of business & give the responsible executives prison terms a few times and companies will get the message.

[Falcon Horus]

Not really. BUT if twitter/farcebook etc, CAN scourer people's posts and censor out stuff they think's too right wing, WHY THEN does it take them till there's outrage before they do the same to Terrorist inspiring/teaching/bomb making posts/videos etc??

I take it the bolded bit was purposely written incorrectly?

Also, FB will faster remove a naked nipple sticking out somewhere than a video showing violence of any kind.

Try telling that to all those who've died from a Drunk driver.

The alcohol is not the direct cause of the death inflicted. That would be the driver who left his sense of responsibility at the bottom of the empty bottle or glass.

...actually, a prohibition on guns should be the next logical choice.

My thoughts exactly. Hell, on one site where its being discussed some are saying that ONE news report says it was the freighter that crashed INTO the naval ship.. Others say the opposite..

I just can't get passed "big body of water", "plenty of space to maneuver" and yet they collided?

But if you look at the positioning of navigation lights on vessels, Red on the port (left) side and Green on the starboard side, the freighter would have seen the Destroyer's Green lights to their left, indicating that they (the freighter) had the right of way under navigation law.
While it's a good bet that there were many other factors in play, and I have no doubt we will see a complete report at some point, this may have been the DE's fault.

The nautical road-rules are similarly ignored, much like the actual road-rules. More guidelines, than actual rules.

Unfortunately, that's not very likely. The authorities are taking far too much of an "Oh, well, accidents happen" attitude towards companies who don't adequately protect people's information.

Remember they voted to sell all your information (browser, history, personal) to the highest bidding datawarehouses. They really don't give a damn about your privacy.

[Annoyed]

I just can't get passed "big body of water", "plenty of space to maneuver" and yet they collided?

The nautical road-rules are similarly ignored, much like the actual road-rules. More guidelines, than actual rules.

Actually, the "first rule" of navigation states that you can ignore any of the other rules IF it avoids an accident. But as a whole, I don't think the shipping industry or the U.S. Navy ignores them.

As I understand it, the collision occured in a crowded channel with limited room for maneuverability.

Remember they voted to sell all your information (browser, history, personal) to the highest bidding datawarehouses. They really don't give a damn about your privacy.

Yes, I know, and I'm not happy about that. But they did similar under the prior administration as well; default "opt-in" to allowing companies to collect info and so forth, so both parties can be blamed for that.

[Falcon Horus]

Yes, I know, and I'm not happy about that. But they did similar under the prior administration as well; default "opt-in" to allowing companies to collect info and so forth, so both parties can be blamed for that.

Our new privacy-rules on the other hand... those are going to be interesting for all companies operating within the Europe -- strict would be an understatement.

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, I know, and I'm not happy about that. But they did similar under the prior administration as well; default "opt-in" to allowing companies to collect info and so forth, so both parties can be blamed for that.

Nope, go back one more for that one.

[aretood2]

Try telling that to all those who've died from a Drunk driver..

Drunk driving, however, is banned. Very banned. This is the flaw in your argument. If you are equating a drunk driving ban to a gun ban and thus to a Muslim ban. You are basically arguing that none will work. To reiterate, your argument actually shows the flaw of having a Muslim ban. My point is, it was a bad argument from the get go.

First, the idea is unaffordable. You try to levy taxes heavy enough to support that, and you'll chase every person whom you try to tax out of the country, or out of their own jobs. People will just stop working and live off the gmi. There won't be enough people who are still subject to tax.

First thing first. Is your only or primary issue with this its affordability? I ask because it's pointless to debate anything if no matter how affordable it is you'd still be against it. As for taxing, you don't get it. This pattern that basic income is responding to is happening EVERYWHERE. That means, where would these tax refugees go? Europe and Eastern Asia will be doing the exact same thing. The developing world would want to tax them to fund its own welfare programs. Newly developed countries would be building their own schemes too. That leaves what? The 3rd world? Good luck with that to those who wish to leave just to avoid taxes. And what good would it do them to move anyway? Chances are that immigrants wold be barred from such a scheme for obvious reasons. They'd end up paying in taxes the basic income they won't be getting that the natives of their new homes would be getting.

Not to mention that many of those outsourced jobs returning would also be replaced by automation.

But the better question might be "Why not stop and try to reverse at lease some of the changes that are causing the lack of jobs?"
How long have I been saying that Free Trade isn't such a good thing for us?
Whenever I say that, the objections are typically "well, those people will have to learn new jobs"
Are you conceding that there simply won't be enough jobs? So maybe reversing that trend to whatever degree is possible isn't such a bad idea?

You don't seem to understand. Automation is not outsourcing. Even if you bring every single outsourced job, we are still looking at a huge net loss of jobs due to automation. Then not ot mention that the prices would skyrocket as employers would have to pay a whole lot more money for non-automated jobs. This would still cause demand to decrease, which would lead to a decrease in production which means more lay offs. Nothing gets solved.

Automation is a 21st century (and 22nd?) problem. It can't be solved with 18th century solutions (That being protectionism) and 19th century solutions are problematic (that being communism.) There is a good 20th century solution, but it isn't exactly a fun one (that being authoritarian/fascist government).

[Annoyed]

First thing first. Is your only or primary issue with this its affordability? I ask because it's pointless to debate anything if no matter how affordable it is you'd still be against it. As for taxing, you don't get it. This pattern that basic income is responding to is happening EVERYWHERE. That means, where would these tax refugees go? Europe and Eastern Asia will be doing the exact same thing. The developing world would want to tax them to fund its own welfare programs. Newly developed countries would be building their own schemes too. That leaves what? The 3rd world? Good luck with that to those who wish to leave just to avoid taxes. And what good would it do them to move anyway? Chances are that immigrants wold be barred from such a scheme for obvious reasons. They'd end up paying in taxes the basic income they won't be getting that the natives of their new homes would be getting.

Not to mention that many of those outsourced jobs returning would also be replaced by automation.


You don't seem to understand. Automation is not outsourcing. Even if you bring every single outsourced job, we are still looking at a huge net loss of jobs due to automation. Then not ot mention that the prices would skyrocket as employers would have to pay a whole lot more money for non-automated jobs. This would still cause demand to decrease, which would lead to a decrease in production which means more lay offs. Nothing gets solved.

Automation is a 21st century (and 22nd?) problem. It can't be solved with 18th century solutions (That being protectionism) and 19th century solutions are problematic (that being communism.) There is a good 20th century solution, but it isn't exactly a fun one (that being authoritarian/fascist government).

Ok, take me for example. I'm a working stiff, goes to work at a job I despise every day because this job affords me a low end middle class level lifestyle.

Add up all the taxes I pay under our existing system, and almost 50% of my wages go to taxes of one sort or another.
Now, along comes a BMI that will provide nearly the same lower middle class level income.
But my taxes will have to be raised substantially to pay for this pipe dream. Suppose I now have to spend 75% of my income on taxes.
What possible incentive do I have to go to work? If they're taking 75% or more in taxes? Why wouldn't I just quit and live off the BMI?

Your first response is probably "They won't tax you, they'll tax the rich."
Guess what? The rich ALWAYS find a way to avoid excess taxes. The statues and laws are written BY THE RICH (lawyers, etc.) and you can rely upon them to always leave themselves ways to escape heavy taxes. So it will be the middle class who pays the freight for this.

You say you don't like the idea of Communism/Socialism and so forth. What do you think this is? "From each according to his abiltiy, to each according to his needs." Ever hear that one?
The government takes from those whom it thinks has the ability to pay and doles it out to whom the government thinks needs it.

Sounds like Communism to me. Or so close to it that it makes no difference.

I agree there are not enough jobs. But this isn't an acceptable solution.

[aretood2]

Ok, take me for example. I'm a working stiff, goes to work at a job I despise every day because this job affords me a low end middle class level lifestyle.

Add up all the taxes I pay under our existing system, and almost 50% of my wages go to taxes of one sort or another.
Now, along comes a BMI that will provide nearly the same lower middle class level income.
But my taxes will have to be raised substantially to pay for this pipe dream. Suppose I now have to spend 75% of my income on taxes.
What possible incentive do I have to go to work? If they're taking 75% or more in taxes? Why wouldn't I just quit and live off the BMI?

Once again, you failed to understand what a BMI even is. A good chunk of your "50%" taxes have to with welfare. BMI replaces welfare with a flat rate for everyone. Also, a BMI isn't a livable wage, it shouldn't be. It'd be anywhere from 500-900 a month depending on the region you live in (that is depending on the cost of living). Simply put, you'd die on that amount alone. So no, your taxes and wages really wouldn't change at all and you'd get the BMI added unto what you make.

Your first response is probably "They won't tax you, they'll tax the rich."
Guess what? The rich ALWAYS find a way to avoid excess taxes. The statues and laws are written BY THE RICH (lawyers, etc.) and you can rely upon them to always leave themselves ways to escape heavy taxes. So it will be the middle class who pays the freight for this.

Like I said above, that is simply not the case.

You say you don't like the idea of Communism/Socialism and so forth. What do you think this is? "From each according to his abiltiy, to each according to his needs." Ever hear that one?
The government takes from those whom it thinks has the ability to pay and doles it out to whom the government thinks needs it.

Sounds like Communism to me. Or so close to it that it makes no difference.

It's a far cry from a planned economy. That quote is merely one small aspect of the system. Protectionism, production quotas, price controls and employment quotas are also part of that system, yet you have no issues with wanting that to be the way things are done here, and that sounds a whole lot more like communism to me than BMI.

I agree there are not enough jobs. But this isn't an acceptable solution.

Your major issue is what it could do to the middle class? At the rate things are going, with automation and such, there will be no middle class if nothing is done. So to take a page from your playbook, do you have any better ideas on how to deal with the incoming fallout of automation?

[garhkal]

Unfortunately, that's not very likely. The authorities are taking far too much of an "Oh, well, accidents happen" attitude towards companies who don't adequately protect people's information.

These data breeches will continue until such time as the penalties for a lapse/leak are made stiff enough where a company won't take the risk of putting private data on laptops, cloud storage or anyplace else prying eyes might get to it. Penalize a "Target" or some other company that leaks data stiff enough to drive them out of business & give the responsible executives prison terms a few times and companies will get the message.

Or until the company heads, start having THEIR information leaked to everyone and THEIR IDs get compromised..

I take it the bolded bit was purposely written incorrectly?

Also, FB will faster remove a naked nipple sticking out somewhere than a video showing violence of any kind.

Yup. It was an overt miswrite of their name, cause that's waht i consider them after hearing of all the stupid sheit they've done.. Such as one guy i game with, had a pic on his face book page of his B/tech mech collection, another of him and his 4 kids playing a game, then one with him doing a barbeque, but Smoking a cigar, with one of his youngest sitting on his lap.. AND pulled the pic. YET another poster who was in his 'circle', had several pics of her and her two daughters TOSSING rocks at cops in one of the protests back in mid oct last year, and THEY allowed that to stay up for months before they got brought down due to complaints?

So in essence they said taking your kids to a violent riot is OK parenting, but having a kid sit on your lap while smoking a cigar, WHILE OUTSIDE doing a BBQ, is bad parenting...

...actually, a prohibition on guns should be the next logical choice.

And look at how that worked in Europe in relation to criminals.. THEY still get guns, and citizens have nothing to defend themselves.

[SoulReaver]

The alcohol is not the direct cause of the death inflicted. That would be the driver who left his sense of responsibility at the bottom of the empty bottle or glass.

no alcohol => no drunk driver

[Falcon Horus]

And look at how that worked in Europe in relation to criminals.. THEY still get guns, and citizens have nothing to defend themselves.

Yes, do tell... when was the last mass shooting over in Europe?

Cause the last one I remember involving a lot of casualities by a legal gun owner, no less, was Anders Breivik in 2011 in Norway.

Another one happened in 2015 in the Czech Republic, leaving 9 people dead. Legal gun owner.

I mean, it's damn hard to find any statistics on the thing but I did find the 16 deadliest shootings between 1987 and 2016, which left 254 dead and all the perpetrators were men.

So yeah, Europe really has a problem with guns.

[Gatefan1976]

We have the same "problem" with mass shootings as well FH

[Gatefan1976]

We all know trump likes to watch FOX..............
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/fox...e-they-hit-la/

Now he is tweeting about NK...........

[The Flyattractor]

How DARE Trump use TWITTER! That should only be allowed to be used by Millennial AntiFa Took the Blue Pill SJW Cry Babies!

Like GF!

[Gatefan1976]

I like that the fool uses twitter, the vast majority of his problems come from his own fingers, let him tweet away.