Might not a better metric be the average number of hours spent by a member of the population, working. Because everyone has to report their incomes to "the tax man", this would be relatively simple, we could just add another box next to the one that says amount earned called, hours worked? This would also remove illegal working practices from the counted figure, which depending on who you are, might be the right decision anyway.
I disagree, I think if anything claims of artificial intelligence have been understated for thousands of years. Wasn't it just last year the US voted to have an artificially intelligent president?
They should have given the design contract to a British Civil Nuclear Engineering firm. I've worked for a few of them, every decision is made wearing tinfoil hats, it's pretty bad. I've seen designs that would work safely regardless of any nearly impossible weather conditions, they then added additional independent safety features so that it would work for something several times worse. I can't see how they would have missed this particular hiccup, it would have had the ramp falling away from the door, a pumped drainage solution as backup and nearby emergency submersible vessels to gain entry after the ice caps have melted.
Those that want to produce will simply stop producing when they can't receive the fruits of their labor because it's going to a massive welfare state.
Actually I think this is precisely the problem with communism that UBI solves. The socialist extreme is that everyone gets the same amount and that doesn't work because you need to retain the concept that you get more for doing more valuable work or what is the point. The un-taxed capitalist extreme is that everyone gives out their money in exchange for the things they want, this gives control out in proportion to wealth, naturally we all avoid loosing our money so this also doesn't work because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. With UBI, people are indiscriminately protected from poverty to some extent, but at the same time work is rewarded, just less, retaining the motivation to work. Also I'd like to add that in my experience addiction and poverty are associated, which if you understand addiction, makes sense. If we recuse those people from poverty, many of them will also be rescued from addiction.
If we had an atmosphere of 100% CO2 we would all die very quickly.
If we had an atmosphere of 0% CO2 we would all die very quickly.
Looking after the environment is about removing the effect of our behaviors from environmental conditions. We know that a range of historically established range of conditions allow us and other species of the present time to live unharmed on this planet. As established above, we know that extreme conditions do not. Moving away from the historically established conditions will eventually cause catastrophic destruction, the only guaranteed solution to preventing any damage is to return the planet to its natural equilibrium.
I'd say its more accurate, from the group of laymen I use for my "What do the masses think" questions, to say that at least 8 out of 10 people don't give a toss what happens to the environment. And they aren't even that stupid.
Actually studies show that if you force people to try too hard to memorize passwords, they use coping methods such as keeping passwords on sticky notes which compromises the security of the password to a lower standard than if you have relatively simple pass codes.
A more realistic solution might be to have a regular password rotation. This means that there is an established and tested system in place for new passwords to be issued to all staff. It also means that should passwords make it into the wrong hands by accident, this is rectified by default after a short time. Obviously this would need the rotation time to be relatively long though, otherwise the postit notes will show up anyway.
I think the real issue here is a broadly accepted custom to demonize benign behavioral preferences and make broad generalizations to get better effect. I mean why does any of this matter, the immigration, job hopping it was homosexuality before that. I'm just disappointed that this question needed to be asked.
Why would they do this instead of raising their commission? The effect should be similar, the same at Ubers scale of operation, cheaper to achieve and easier to control.
I think this sort of issue is inevitable in software. The most effective boardroom personalities are typically focused on controlling their environment and standardizing culture. The most effective Dev's are opposed to this, they are open minded and solution focused. So you're bound to get this:[Insert unusual interest] has been condemned by [Insert company board representative], this has been widely criticized by the development community at large.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you need to add a more zeros, grid loss over that distance would be high. Also it would be very sensitive to space weather.
They have worked out how to store 50x as much data on a tape that costs 100x as much to make.
Might not a better metric be the average number of hours spent by a member of the population, working. Because everyone has to report their incomes to "the tax man", this would be relatively simple, we could just add another box next to the one that says amount earned called, hours worked? This would also remove illegal working practices from the counted figure, which depending on who you are, might be the right decision anyway.
I disagree, I think if anything claims of artificial intelligence have been understated for thousands of years. Wasn't it just last year the US voted to have an artificially intelligent president?
I would pay a lot for an outdoor-does-it-all device.
I believe you can train a child/wife for this.
They should have given the design contract to a British Civil Nuclear Engineering firm. I've worked for a few of them, every decision is made wearing tinfoil hats, it's pretty bad. I've seen designs that would work safely regardless of any nearly impossible weather conditions, they then added additional independent safety features so that it would work for something several times worse. I can't see how they would have missed this particular hiccup, it would have had the ramp falling away from the door, a pumped drainage solution as backup and nearby emergency submersible vessels to gain entry after the ice caps have melted.
Those that want to produce will simply stop producing when they can't receive the fruits of their labor because it's going to a massive welfare state.
Actually I think this is precisely the problem with communism that UBI solves. The socialist extreme is that everyone gets the same amount and that doesn't work because you need to retain the concept that you get more for doing more valuable work or what is the point. The un-taxed capitalist extreme is that everyone gives out their money in exchange for the things they want, this gives control out in proportion to wealth, naturally we all avoid loosing our money so this also doesn't work because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. With UBI, people are indiscriminately protected from poverty to some extent, but at the same time work is rewarded, just less, retaining the motivation to work. Also I'd like to add that in my experience addiction and poverty are associated, which if you understand addiction, makes sense. If we recuse those people from poverty, many of them will also be rescued from addiction.
If we had an atmosphere of 100% CO2 we would all die very quickly. If we had an atmosphere of 0% CO2 we would all die very quickly. Looking after the environment is about removing the effect of our behaviors from environmental conditions. We know that a range of historically established range of conditions allow us and other species of the present time to live unharmed on this planet. As established above, we know that extreme conditions do not. Moving away from the historically established conditions will eventually cause catastrophic destruction, the only guaranteed solution to preventing any damage is to return the planet to its natural equilibrium.
I'd say its more accurate, from the group of laymen I use for my "What do the masses think" questions, to say that at least 8 out of 10 people don't give a toss what happens to the environment. And they aren't even that stupid.
Actually studies show that if you force people to try too hard to memorize passwords, they use coping methods such as keeping passwords on sticky notes which compromises the security of the password to a lower standard than if you have relatively simple pass codes. A more realistic solution might be to have a regular password rotation. This means that there is an established and tested system in place for new passwords to be issued to all staff. It also means that should passwords make it into the wrong hands by accident, this is rectified by default after a short time. Obviously this would need the rotation time to be relatively long though, otherwise the postit notes will show up anyway.
I think the real issue here is a broadly accepted custom to demonize benign behavioral preferences and make broad generalizations to get better effect. I mean why does any of this matter, the immigration, job hopping it was homosexuality before that. I'm just disappointed that this question needed to be asked.
Scientists Identify Parts of Brain Involved In Dreaming. Politicians have welcomed the move as progress towards extinguishing all hope.
Why would they do this instead of raising their commission? The effect should be similar, the same at Ubers scale of operation, cheaper to achieve and easier to control.
Absolutely, the only way I have ever considered having any smart home stuff has been to make it myself.
I think this sort of issue is inevitable in software. The most effective boardroom personalities are typically focused on controlling their environment and standardizing culture. The most effective Dev's are opposed to this, they are open minded and solution focused. So you're bound to get this :[Insert unusual interest] has been condemned by [Insert company board representative], this has been widely criticized by the development community at large.