Possession: maybe. Distribution? no. A savvy lawyer could simply request immunity from prosecution for crimes unrelated to the search warrant in exchange for your cooperation.
That would only work if the defendant wasn't compelled by a court order. The lawyer doesn't get to say that you'll follow it in exchange for something.
Turns out that developed countries have the opposite problem. At least one European country has produced ads to get people to have kids, and Japan is in desperate straits due to the lack of "breeders".
The solution is, DON'T force masses of people to live in squalor.
I think even basic income is a crutch that will eventually stop working.
If you're a factory owner, for instance, and you're cranking out product to sell to people who get the money for free, how long until you decide to stop essentially giving away your products and retool the factory to produce only for yourself?
Trademarks have to be defended because it's not just about the property of the trademark owner. It's also about the public being able to know what they're getting. If any software developer could call their product "Microsoft Widgets" then there would be extreme confusion over products. So the onus is put on the owner of the trademark - either defend it, or that word is going to become generic.
Nothing about getting that much money away from the rich is simple. There's a saying - politics is like water on cement - it finds every crack and crevice. The very very rich already have an army of accountants and lawyers whose sole job is to find every loophole that will let them keep as much money as they can, along with an army of lobbyists to make sure the laws you suggest either never get passed or are riddled with loopholes to the point that they're meaningless.
I'm not saying there's no solution, but I am saying there's no EASY solution.
The only good thing I can see in this is that it used to be much much worse. The very rich (nobles, kings, the high up clergy, etc) essentially sold the service of not murdering people, in exchange for complete and total servitude. Nowadays there are very big threats (too big to fail, etc), but instead of outright military force they use extremely complicated financial rules to fool people instead.
the founding mantra of the USA is "equal opportunity, not equal outcome".
As long as we pay for primary education via local property taxes, we are explicitly saying that we DON'T care about giving equal opportunity. Along with all the other implicit ways we do it means we don't get to claim that.
We've found that when people aren't threatened with dire poverty and are provided with easy access to contraception, they'll take care of the population growth all on their own, to the point where it's a problem going the OTHER direction. Link
Of course it was! I mean, you have people who do nothing but go from party to party, riding on a new yacht each week, buying house after house after mansion...
Oh, you thought the PLEBS were going to work less? Sweet summer child...
Millennials typically aren't the ones writing stories about millennials. It's usually the previous generation complaining about whatever it is the new generation is doing.
And I'm not willing to let humanity placate to fucking idiots. Sorry, but learn to RTFM, or kill someone else on the road uninvolved with your mistakes.
A quibble, but exploding the car doesn't stop it from going forward. Now instead of a car heading towards the crowd, there's flaming shrapnel heading towards the crowd.
While I agree that most people would do well to cut out expenditures for things that they really don't need and don't make them any happier and investing the money instead, a person with $10 in their pocket and no debt is wealthier than 25% of Americans. They're not about to start investing in anything, let alone a commercial power plant.
Though I should look at putting some more money into a solar company after the last one I invested in got bought out...
- You wont need the space or restroom facilities for a crew.
- Without people Minimal HVAC will be required.
Minor quibble, but the fast food places and restaurants I've seen only have one set of bathrooms for both customers and staff, so you can't get rid of those. Similar issue with HVAC.
Or shift to a paradigm of only selling to other people who have hordes of robots. And any poor person who miraculously manages to make some money. Everybody else can starve for all they care.
Oh, and in response to the idea that the poor will go all French Revolution on the rich? Robotic turrets set to kill anything that moves outside the wall.
It's also not even that useful for those at the top. The post war years showed that when you have an economic system where people go to work every day to add to the pool of assets in a society, rather than fight each other over the assets that exist, everyone can literally live like a king.
It depends on their goal. If they want to objectively increase their standard of living over what it was previously, then maybe you're right. If they want to ensure that they stay at the top, then keeping everyone else below them is essential.
I find it quite unsettling that your go to is a fast food joint.
You find it unsettling that it's well known that fast food jobs pay poorly and are generally unpleasant? Why? Were you not aware of this?
Why are we thinking about giving people money they did not earn instead of fixing this situation so that meaningful job opportunities exist and we don't need this form of corporate welfare?
Right from the summary:
For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created. Technical progress means that more and more high-paying jobs will disappear and thus shrink the middle class.
Wrong. A UBI would put every worker, especially the ones on the lower end of the payscale, in a MUCH better negotiating position. If any fast-food CEO tried this he could expect to see every single bottom-level fast food worker quit instantly. This would be much more of a nightmare than even them all unionizing.
Slashdot Mirror
That would only work if the defendant wasn't compelled by a court order. The lawyer doesn't get to say that you'll follow it in exchange for something.
I think he's talking about how terrorists often fund their operations by selling oil they've seized, among other things.
Not if the remaining people encrypt everything, delete all training material, and install timebombs in the mainframe.
Sure, prosecute them, but then you just guarantee your company goes under.
Turns out that developed countries have the opposite problem. At least one European country has produced ads to get people to have kids, and Japan is in desperate straits due to the lack of "breeders".
The solution is, DON'T force masses of people to live in squalor.
I'm wondering if you just phrased yourself poorly, or you don't know how to count.
I think even basic income is a crutch that will eventually stop working.
If you're a factory owner, for instance, and you're cranking out product to sell to people who get the money for free, how long until you decide to stop essentially giving away your products and retool the factory to produce only for yourself?
Until the 1%ers want their land.
Trademarks have to be defended because it's not just about the property of the trademark owner. It's also about the public being able to know what they're getting. If any software developer could call their product "Microsoft Widgets" then there would be extreme confusion over products. So the onus is put on the owner of the trademark - either defend it, or that word is going to become generic.
Nothing about getting that much money away from the rich is simple. There's a saying - politics is like water on cement - it finds every crack and crevice. The very very rich already have an army of accountants and lawyers whose sole job is to find every loophole that will let them keep as much money as they can, along with an army of lobbyists to make sure the laws you suggest either never get passed or are riddled with loopholes to the point that they're meaningless.
I'm not saying there's no solution, but I am saying there's no EASY solution.
The only good thing I can see in this is that it used to be much much worse. The very rich (nobles, kings, the high up clergy, etc) essentially sold the service of not murdering people, in exchange for complete and total servitude. Nowadays there are very big threats (too big to fail, etc), but instead of outright military force they use extremely complicated financial rules to fool people instead.
As long as we pay for primary education via local property taxes, we are explicitly saying that we DON'T care about giving equal opportunity. Along with all the other implicit ways we do it means we don't get to claim that.
By that time, the rich will have automated turrets mounted on the walls of their gated communities.
We've found that when people aren't threatened with dire poverty and are provided with easy access to contraception, they'll take care of the population growth all on their own, to the point where it's a problem going the OTHER direction. Link
Of course it was! I mean, you have people who do nothing but go from party to party, riding on a new yacht each week, buying house after house after mansion...
Oh, you thought the PLEBS were going to work less? Sweet summer child...
Millennials typically aren't the ones writing stories about millennials. It's usually the previous generation complaining about whatever it is the new generation is doing.
FTFY.
A quibble, but exploding the car doesn't stop it from going forward. Now instead of a car heading towards the crowd, there's flaming shrapnel heading towards the crowd.
There's a concept known as "constructive dismissal" that thwarts this plan.
While I agree that most people would do well to cut out expenditures for things that they really don't need and don't make them any happier and investing the money instead, a person with $10 in their pocket and no debt is wealthier than 25% of Americans. They're not about to start investing in anything, let alone a commercial power plant.
Though I should look at putting some more money into a solar company after the last one I invested in got bought out...
Food trucks already exist prior to the robot revolution, but they haven't driven restaurants out of business.
Minor quibble, but the fast food places and restaurants I've seen only have one set of bathrooms for both customers and staff, so you can't get rid of those. Similar issue with HVAC.
Or shift to a paradigm of only selling to other people who have hordes of robots. And any poor person who miraculously manages to make some money. Everybody else can starve for all they care.
Oh, and in response to the idea that the poor will go all French Revolution on the rich? Robotic turrets set to kill anything that moves outside the wall.
It depends on their goal. If they want to objectively increase their standard of living over what it was previously, then maybe you're right. If they want to ensure that they stay at the top, then keeping everyone else below them is essential.
You find it unsettling that it's well known that fast food jobs pay poorly and are generally unpleasant? Why? Were you not aware of this?
Right from the summary:
Wrong. A UBI would put every worker, especially the ones on the lower end of the payscale, in a MUCH better negotiating position. If any fast-food CEO tried this he could expect to see every single bottom-level fast food worker quit instantly. This would be much more of a nightmare than even them all unionizing.