Excellent idea! Perfectly anchoring taxes to Benefit/Cost would result in a just society! For units of measure, let's use leisure time and dollars for cost.

Thus, the corporation with the greatest benefit is that which offers the greatest increase in leisure time for the lowest cost, improving our quality of life! But...how do we differentiate between playing video games all day, and a more varied basket of goods?

Oh dear. This is more trouble than I thought. Back to Netflix!

In concrete terms, visual proof would be a religious book made of black hole matter and gilded with cosmic string. I'm still waiting.

It's called soft paternalism, or "nudging." It's the same reason I don't have junk food in my apartment, even though I like eating them; this forces me to either make an omelet. Hunger vs. Fear of Cooking: Hunger wins. For obesity, mileage may vary. You may need to move away from every convenience store within convenient distance to counter their pull.

This has the same computational complexity as the Turing test, except instead of distinguishing between AI and Real I, you're trying to separate Real Real I from Fake Real I.

First put your pants on, THEN you can leave the house.

They're not thinking big enough. I could pay off that whole Limewire suit with a single 100 trillion Zimbabwe bill.

The same could be said of any profession and their peers, yet no exception is made for them. To make an exception for "technical" professions vs. the rest, you must define tech. How about Moore's Law: any industry that suffers fast depreciation of its assets is allowed to have a jury of only peers.

IT, certainly.

Doctors? Maybe. The human body hardware hasn't changed for a thousand years, but our knowledge of it does.

Lawyers, politicians, managers? Lawyers still use Black's Law Dictionary after a century, and human concepts of fearmongering and cults are still valid after thousands of years. However, a politician could argue with a straight face that the circumstances, within which he uses these tried-and-true methods, change every second.

Net Neutrality's 'points' are as numerous as the stars in the sky, yet any elevator speech on it will only name three of them. This setup guarantees that you can never fully deliver, and that people will scrutinize your choice of stars (the brightest? The closest? The most suitable for Earth life?) The only guarantee of one's veracity is either 1. When they're dying or 2. When they actively take positions that seem contrary to their interests.

But what if their professed interests are actually decoys too, and that by actively taking positions against the decoys they actually serve their true interests? (Second-order strategy). I get the feeling that Rush Limbaugh is not as stupid as he looks, but that his listeners ARE as stupid as they look.

Pardon me officer, but I would like to skip the scanner and go straight to the pat-down. For the lucky agent, I'll pick...her!

This thing shoots from kilometers away. Invest in Radar Transparency.

And it's not just a matter of getting lower profits from the same demand. Algorithmically calculating your bill like that would actually REDUCE the demand function! There's a reason why people don't like getting "nickeled and dimed" : having to be cognizant of the marginal cost of an extra YouTube video is exhausting. People would be conservative with their browsing, and thus Verizon would be out of even more money.

Throw in grandma and freedom with the children. Why you could put anything under these umbrellas!

A society that has forgotten to forgive will hold a grudge against itself forever.

I use Google Chrome and Firefox concurrently, using the other when my primary doesn't work. Firefox has random issues with plugins as well. Sometimes it'll freeze for a site like Mangafox, as if trying to think through the javascript in the background. Chrome has serious Flash issues though. Sometimes either they won't show up, or there'll be some infinite loop that'll force you to kill it. If Firefox wasn't a resource hog, I'd go back in a heartbeat.

Battle of distinctions! Anti-Female vs. Anti-Business > Civil vs. Criminal Basically it's because sexual harassment tends to evoke images of harassing women, which kicks off a chain reaction of rage.

Why would we pay them to do something which is for their own benefit? If they don't want it, then let them make that choice and suffer down the road. *Ninja whisper* ...Wait. What do you mean I'm going to bail them out?!