The only consistent, ongoing factor in automation is that it does more, faster, more reliably, cheaper at the expense of staff who did less, slower and less reliably but cost more. Sure, people need jobs - but nobody but the government is obligated to create them.
"Your poverty isn't my problem" is usually where it all goes to hell, yes. Right up until the poor collectively discover that they can still throw rocks.
Why do you believe that there must be a religious explanation for a "soul"?
Why do you believe there must not be a religious explanation for a soul?
I don't believe either way. It's not a binary choice, you (should) know.
Ot goes both ways based on current evidence. There is evidence that the soul is a quantum phenomenon that can not be simply created (for varying definitions of simply) and this possibly explains so many things.
Actual evidence? I was under the impression there were only theories, and if I believe anything, it's that scientific evidence proving the existence (or non-existence) of souls should be front-page news. Okay, maybe page two or three, depending on what else happened that day. But major news nonetheless.
I acknowledge its only a possibility and the theory has only a small amount of evidence but you have exactly none to back your statements.
Which statements would those be? I made two. The first was that the previous poster had made a claim that relied on an unsupported assumption; you demanding I provide evidence for someone else's unsubstantiated claim being wrong is a tu quoque fallacy. The second was that it would be no less a major discovery if we found scientific proof that we did have souls (than if we found we didn't); I took it to be self-evident, but feel free to ask a journalist (or priest) their view.
You know what's really weird? That so many people without a PhD in climatology think they need to look at the research to know whether the scientists are right or wrong.
http://in.reuters.com/article/...
Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson said on Wednesday that efforts to address climate change should focus on engineering methods to adapt to shifting weather patterns and rising sea levels rather than trying to eliminate use of fossil fuels.
Tillerson said humans have long adapted to change, and governments should create policies to cope with the Earth's rising temperatures.
"Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around -- we'll adapt to that. It's an engineering problem and it has engineering solutions," Tillerson said in a presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations.
It's so much easier to just follow the money.
Why do you believe that consciousness must not emerge from brain activity for there to be a "soul"?
Why do you believe that there must be a religious explanation for a "soul"?
Whether or not there actually is a "soul", your provided definition of it doesn't require either of those to be true.
And it would be no less a major discovery if we found that we did have souls. Or that only some of us did. Or that we only got them at a certain age. Or only under certain conditions. Or that we could create them. Or destroy them.
Well, the 13th Amendment of the United States constitution reserves the power to make and keep slaves to the government; combine the latter's oligarchic aspects with the "revolving door" and it's obvious the poor little executives are just confused and forgetting which side of the curtain they're currently on
Yes, exactly my point.
Heh. All that the "only four other countries exempt" means is that those four countries already have agreements with the US to share stuff their own spies learn.
Me? Spies are going to spy. What matters is the oversight, the checks and balances - or lack thereof.
Oh, it's a matter of the risks?
Look at the Wikipedia entry for Hobson's choice: "The phrase is said to originate with Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner in Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses, he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all."
If it were solely a matter of the risks, the customer obviously also had the choice of stealing a horse. But the desirability of that happening and the likelihood of that working out for the customer is so low that we go ahead and call it a Hobson's choice. Ditto Snowden: the desirability of the remaining alternatives and the likelihood of that working out for him is so low - now that the revocation of his passport has caught up with him and that other countries are demonstrably willing to interfere with even presidential aircraft if they think he's on board - that I'm going to call it in the ballpark. YMMV, and apparently does.
While true that any country can grant asylum regardless of the lack of a passport, the person still needs to be able to reach that country. Thus the second half of my original comment:
(perhaps he could still have got himself smuggled out in a diplomatic bag or some other James Bond shenanigans, but considering the Evo Morales grounding incident, that might not have worked out so well)
Fair enough. I'll amend: By the fact that the revocation of his passport caught up with him while transiting Russia, Snowden's choice went from "which country do I seek asylum in" to "do I seek asylum in Russia or not at all?"
See Hobson's Choice.
By the fact that his passport was revoked while transiting Russia, Snowden's choice went from "which country do I seek asylum in" to "do I seek asylum in Russia or not at all?"
(perhaps he could still have got himself smuggled out in a diplomatic bag or some other James Bond shenanigans, but considering the Evo Morales grounding incident, that might not have worked out so well)
Ah yes, "customer rights", we have dismissed that claim.
The whole premise of "don't talk to the cops" is one of risk management. Don't be confrontational, don't try to outwit them in an argument, don't show off how smart (you think) you are, etc. Be nice, be meek, be quiet. You lose nothing if the cop is a good cop and you reduce the risk of losing everything if the cop is a bad cop. Leave the lion-handling to the experts, i.e. your laywer, who isn't you, who can say things you can't, and who hopefully has many years of experience in knowing how to negotiate with the police.
Obviously (well, hopefully) your kid running away or your house getting burgled are situations where "call the cops" trumps "don't talk to the cops". YMMV.
I've a couple of friends who are cops. It's not (generally) that dangerous physically, compared to some jobs, but it is dangerous mentally - a few years of being a cop and the world starts getting divided into "perp", "vic", "witness", "suspect", etc. And it starts creeping into their social life. It's a monochrome perspective that no amount of increased pay can solve, and I'm very much in favor of giving cops generous leave entitlements instead - indeed, mandating an amount of leave every so often - as much for society's benefit as their own.
That sounds like a scenario in which you better make extremely sure of your UPS arrangements.
"Mwuahahaha! Now my criminal empire is secured against all possible government interference!"
*gets jostled by minion, drops IC, watches in horror as the little battery powering it springs loose and bounces across the floor*
"FFFFFFFFFU-"
Your linked table shows an extremely strong correlation between income and SAT test performance _regardless of race_, so it fails to disprove the GP's hypothesis that "in achieving and maintaining qualification and motivation"
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.
