But they wouldn't say "You lied on the polygraph test". They would say "certain things have come to light that cause us to question your trustworthiness".
You seem to believe that polygraph operators can tell if someone is "ready to cheat the test". But there is no evidence that they can, so the whole thing is bullshit.
Most inventions consist of taking a bunch of existing inventions and putting them together in a novel way.
Anybody doubt the kid could have gotten a patent for it?
Yes, but a rising "standard of living" doesn't benefit everyone equally. And, if someone can't find a legal way to make a decent living, they will turn to an illegal way such as extortion, fraud or human trafficking. The cost to society is far greater than the cost of just giving the money devoted to security and law enforcement to the poorest people directly.
Under this argument, if I clean out my rain gutters (so I benefit from having clean gutters and save the money I would have had to pay someone) I should send a check to all the local gutter cleaning services in the area to "return some of the benefit to the people whose labor was replaced" by my own. And every lawn mower sold would have a tax added to the purchase (and a regular tax from then on) to be sent to the local lawn care companies to "return some of the benefit to the people whose labor was replaced".
Which is exactly what is happening now, since all of those transactions are subject to some kind of tax.
And where does the money for the "Basic Income" come from? Assuming it is the government, where does the government get its money? Mostly from income taxes. No work = no employment income = no income tax revenue.
I have a 16GB iPad Air. I've had it about 6 months, and am only using about 2/3 of the space. The only people I know that are using much more have dozens of apps that they downloaded, didn't like, then didn't bother to delete.
"FREE" and "FREE with a two-year contract" have nothing to do with each other. "FREE with a two-year contract" just means you are buying the phone on an instalment plan.
We have only been around for a few hundred thousand years, while crocodiles and sharks have been around for a hundred million years. Which has the evolutionary advantage? Only time will tell.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just what a terrorist would say!
But they wouldn't say "You lied on the polygraph test".
They would say "certain things have come to light that cause us to question your trustworthiness".
this means that polygraphs actually work pretty well most of the time, on most people.
And how do you know this?
Citations, please.
You seem to believe that polygraph operators can tell if someone is "ready to cheat the test".
But there is no evidence that they can, so the whole thing is bullshit.
What's the provable loss for someone who bought a car and found out later than it emitted 3% more NOx than advertised?
Actually, it was 10 to 40 times as much as advertised.
And the provable loss is the tremendous drop in the car's resale value.
That's 36 millimeters.
No, people are acting like he deserves encouragement more than handcuffs.
Most inventions consist of taking a bunch of existing inventions and putting them together in a novel way.
Anybody doubt the kid could have gotten a patent for it?
And, does it make a huge BOOM that somehow travels through the vacuum of space?
Now, Arment has pulled Peace from the App Store, saying its success "just doesn't feel good."
Translation: some big advertiser bribed/threatened him to drop it.
I think that fear will abate, as soon as someone actually comes up with a idea for what all those displaced workers will do.
I know we are in a period of opulence
Not everybody.
but you don't need money to have a good life. I would say that you can easily be happy without money.
You may not need a lot of money (whatever that is) but you do need some. Like, for example, a basic income?
There are plenty of possible solutions without the Government ever being involved.
But you can't actually think of any, can you?
For every brilliant person born who could benefit society, there will be a dozen who don't.
So, net loss.
Yes, but a rising "standard of living" doesn't benefit everyone equally.
And, if someone can't find a legal way to make a decent living, they will turn to an illegal way
such as extortion, fraud or human trafficking.
The cost to society is far greater than the cost of just giving the money
devoted to security and law enforcement to the poorest people directly.
Under this argument, if I clean out my rain gutters (so I benefit from having clean gutters and save the money I would have had to pay someone) I should send a check to all the local gutter cleaning services in the area to "return some of the benefit to the people whose labor was replaced" by my own. And every lawn mower sold would have a tax added to the purchase (and a regular tax from then on) to be sent to the local lawn care companies to "return some of the benefit to the people whose labor was replaced".
Which is exactly what is happening now, since all of those transactions are subject to some kind of tax.
And where does the money for the "Basic Income" come from?
Assuming it is the government, where does the government get its money?
Mostly from income taxes.
No work = no employment income = no income tax revenue.
Wrong reference: that is about Switzerland pushing for it.
The camera: take a day's worth of pictures and upload to the cloud at the end of the day.
Music:Spotify.
Total usage:about 2Gig.
I have a 16GB iPad Air.
I've had it about 6 months, and am only using about 2/3 of the space.
The only people I know that are using much more have dozens of apps that they downloaded, didn't like, then didn't bother to delete.
"FREE" with a two-year contract
"FREE" and "FREE with a two-year contract" have nothing to do with each other.
"FREE with a two-year contract" just means you are buying the phone on an instalment plan.
Or, more to the point, did Douglas Adams?
Second, civilization continuously grows and expands
Why assume this?
Even here on Earth, the most advanced societies are the ones with the smallest population growth (e.g. Japan).
We have only been around for a few hundred thousand years, while crocodiles and sharks have been around for a hundred million years. Which has the evolutionary advantage?
Only time will tell.
We seem to getting close to having some quite clear ideas about how life developed from simple chemicals to primitive cells
Citation?
I've encountered a great number of vague hand-waving papers on the subject, but nothing solid.