Just like you said - with technology. If something happens that breaks up the order of our civilization enough that we start losing access to that technology, then the list of things that can wipe us out starts to expand quite rapidly.
That's why you don't build just a few stations. You build a whole system, so that a significant part of the country has access to public transport. Once that is done, prices for the connected part may rise, but since the supply is now so much greater, they shouldn't rise nearly as high as they are in the connected parts now.
Well that solves the whole problem of 'lack of evidence'. The court can just order each defendant to produce the evidence to convict them. If they don't, then jail them until they do.
One of the issues is that getting work means you lose the 'UBI'. And getting a low paying job will often mean you're worse of than staying unemployed (have to pay for childcare, with prices that are higher now since you no longer qualify for unemployment discounts,..).
With a true UBI that can go away - anything you earn is in addition to your UBI.
Do they always complete those transactions? Or do they cancel them if the person they want to sell to either cancels their order or buys from another high speed trader?
If you need language that people can't understand to write a law, then that is a bad law. The whole point of laws is that they are something that everyone has to obey. If they can't be understood, they can't be obeyed, so why have them?
A good first step would be to check if the legislators understand what they are voting on. Lets say that after a law is voted on, a random sample of those that voted for it is chosen, and they are given a quiz about what the law would mean in various situations (these questions could be sent in by the voters as well as whoever opposed the law). If all the answers agree, these answers can serve as the 'explanation' of the law. If they don't the law does not take effect, since it is too unclear.
And why are the bills written like that? Laws should be understood by the general public.
If even the politicians can't understand the law they are just about to pass, how can the public be expected to understand and follow them in combination with the zillion other laws that already exist?
Or go with supply and demand: Worker must be paid at least as much as the highest paid employee of the whole company (if there is such a shortage, then the worker's skills are obviously more valuable than the CEO's).
Has the writer ever actually played eve? It's a game about causing other players as much frustration as possible. And now they want to give the players a chance to mess up something even more important than internet spaceships?
I think this is a more balanced take on the issue.
It means that instead of a payout that covers their medical bills and other damages (which would be covered by the mandatory insurance), your victims get whatever bankruptcy court can squeeze from you and nothing else.
I might be in favor of this if they were allowed to sell of your organs in cases where you can't pay for the damage you cause and you aren't insured.
10 million times perhaps $5k/year would be $50 billion. I figure that's cheap enough. However, I'd go even further and put income restricts so only lower income individuals would qualify. (Under 250% of the poverty level.) And only those who maintain a 2.0 GPA.
My question was whose income should be counted? The childs (which is likely near 0 even for children of billionaires) or the parents? And if it should be the parents, what about parents that refuse to finance their child's education? Should the child be punished by being denied aid for having parents that are both rich and uncaring?
Whose income would you count? The parents or the student? What if the parents could afford tuition, but refuse to? Should the child be further punished for having parents that don't care about him/her?
But they did work for that money. They worked x months, which entitles them to an extra Y money if they get fired. Just like executives get bonuses at the end of the year. If the company never hired those workers then they would not have needed to pay them anything.
Why didn't the CEO or the owners give a loan to the company. If it just needed a few months to pay it off, then there wasn't any risk was there? And unlike the former employees the CEO and the owner had both an interest in keeping the company going and all the information about it's current status.
So why don't they increase prices as it is? Do you think corporations just figure out they are making enough profit and keep rices low out of the goodness of their hearts? Or do they raise their prices as high as possible without actually loosing profit due to diminished sales?
I can see how this would damage the company, but won't this actually help the customers? Right now they are relying on the locks to be secure. We do not know how many other people have discovered the flaw that makes them insecure. So is it better to leave the customers in the dark, or should they be notified so they can switch to a different lock supplier?
I'm guessing no vaccine is ever completely effective. But if everyone is vaccinated then the people whose vaccination didn't work are a lot less likely to ever be exposed to the disease.
Slashdot Mirror
At least now corporations have to bribe politicians in each country separately. With this agreement they just have to bribe some judges.
Just like you said - with technology. If something happens that breaks up the order of our civilization enough that we start losing access to that technology, then the list of things that can wipe us out starts to expand quite rapidly.
That's why you don't build just a few stations. You build a whole system, so that a significant part of the country has access to public transport. Once that is done, prices for the connected part may rise, but since the supply is now so much greater, they shouldn't rise nearly as high as they are in the connected parts now.
Well that solves the whole problem of 'lack of evidence'. The court can just order each defendant to produce the evidence to convict them. If they don't, then jail them until they do.
One of the issues is that getting work means you lose the 'UBI'. And getting a low paying job will often mean you're worse of than staying unemployed (have to pay for childcare, with prices that are higher now since you no longer qualify for unemployment discounts,..).
With a true UBI that can go away - anything you earn is in addition to your UBI.
Do they always complete those transactions? Or do they cancel them if the person they want to sell to either cancels their order or buys from another high speed trader?
Could internet explorer be uninstalled from the machine?
If you need language that people can't understand to write a law, then that is a bad law. The whole point of laws is that they are something that everyone has to obey. If they can't be understood, they can't be obeyed, so why have them?
A good first step would be to check if the legislators understand what they are voting on. Lets say that after a law is voted on, a random sample of those that voted for it is chosen, and they are given a quiz about what the law would mean in various situations (these questions could be sent in by the voters as well as whoever opposed the law). If all the answers agree, these answers can serve as the 'explanation' of the law. If they don't the law does not take effect, since it is too unclear.
If laws are the code, wouldn't you expect the devices (people) that are supposed to execute the code to actually understand what it says?
And why are the bills written like that? Laws should be understood by the general public.
If even the politicians can't understand the law they are just about to pass, how can the public be expected to understand and follow them in combination with the zillion other laws that already exist?
Or go with supply and demand: Worker must be paid at least as much as the highest paid employee of the whole company (if there is such a shortage, then the worker's skills are obviously more valuable than the CEO's).
Has the writer ever actually played eve? It's a game about causing other players as much frustration as possible. And now they want to give the players a chance to mess up something even more important than internet spaceships?
I think this is a more balanced take on the issue.
So what would be the point of Primaries? Why not just have an election and be done with it?
And the doctors would then have kept quiet to avoid being named in the suit for prescibing the drug.
It means that instead of a payout that covers their medical bills and other damages (which would be covered by the mandatory insurance), your victims get whatever bankruptcy court can squeeze from you and nothing else.
I might be in favor of this if they were allowed to sell of your organs in cases where you can't pay for the damage you cause and you aren't insured.
So that when you crash, and you have to pay damages to both the person you hit and your passenger, you can't just shrug and declare bankruptcy.
If you have their DNA, why bother with modeling their appearance? Just do DNA tests on the small group of suspects.
Please read what I was responding too.
10 million times perhaps $5k/year would be $50 billion. I figure that's cheap enough. However, I'd go even further and put income restricts so only lower income individuals would qualify. (Under 250% of the poverty level.) And only those who maintain a 2.0 GPA.
My question was whose income should be counted? The childs (which is likely near 0 even for children of billionaires) or the parents? And if it should be the parents, what about parents that refuse to finance their child's education? Should the child be punished by being denied aid for having parents that are both rich and uncaring?
Whose income would you count? The parents or the student? What if the parents could afford tuition, but refuse to? Should the child be further punished for having parents that don't care about him/her?
I'm guessing even a competent doctor DOES cause many deaths. I doubt anyone is lucky enough to make the right decisions 100% of the time.
But they did work for that money. They worked x months, which entitles them to an extra Y money if they get fired.
Just like executives get bonuses at the end of the year.
If the company never hired those workers then they would not have needed to pay them anything.
Why didn't the CEO or the owners give a loan to the company. If it just needed a few months to pay it off, then there wasn't any risk was there? And unlike the former employees the CEO and the owner had both an interest in keeping the company going and all the information about it's current status.
So why don't they increase prices as it is? Do you think corporations just figure out they are making enough profit and keep rices low out of the goodness of their hearts?
Or do they raise their prices as high as possible without actually loosing profit due to diminished sales?
I can see how this would damage the company, but won't this actually help the customers? Right now they are relying on the locks to be secure. We do not know how many other people have discovered the flaw that makes them insecure. So is it better to leave the customers in the dark, or should they be notified so they can switch to a different lock supplier?
I'm guessing no vaccine is ever completely effective. But if everyone is vaccinated then the people whose vaccination didn't work are a lot less likely to ever be exposed to the disease.