I always wonder why they limit their magic wand to a "basic" income. Why not instead pay everyone a billion dollars a year? I mean, if there's no downside to the Fed creating all this money, why be cheap?
Creating more dollars without creating more goods and services improves nothing - why do people have a hard time with that idea?
again, you see what you want to see. Your misapplying statistics. a few points of order:
I didn't say anything about what I want to see. I asked if what you said negated the possibility of average differences, since you seemed to think it did, from the context.
Both the law and civilization are a "work in progress."
Progress to what end? Remember that Germany had democracy before Hitler rose to power, and secular societies have turned religious on well more than one occasion.
None of that, actually. It's mainly your writing style (e.g. shorter rather than longer sentences) in addition to a few of your mannerisms. I don't have a whole lot of time to go into detail.
At any rate I'm not endorsing bestiality, just that I haven't found a logical reason to condemn it. Otherwise you may as well say that just because I can't prove that Jesus didn't exist means I condone every bad thing Christians have done. Instead Christians don't bother me, and I don't bother them.
It is not a "near miss", it is a "near hit", or more properly "Heathrow Plane Nearly Hit a Drone". If it were a near MISS, then the two would have collided.
That's fine and all, but what are you supposed to do if nobody has an actual device of that platform? For example, since nobody owns a Windows Phone device, how are you supposed to develop for Windows Phone? These guys get angry when developers discriminate, angry enough that they write a strongly worded blog about them spiracies:
The DoJ hit Sony with a fine large enough to make Sony miss its earnings significantly for the year, which lead tot the CEO leaving. There is a criminal justice system for corporations: gross negligence awards, and other eye-watering fines.
But of course, Sony is an example of problems with Japanese corporate culture and legal system more than our own. I do wonder whether the DoJ would have been so aggressive if a US company had done that.
Sony's CEO resigned over the rootkit thing, and the DoJ basically told them that if it happened again, there would be no Sony in America. That's what powerful incentives look like! Sony took that quite seriously.
DoJ found that it wasn't the case that Sony execs set out to break the law here, but added that if this sort of thing happened again, they'd assume it was intentional.
It is an avoidable risk
If humans have one glaring flaw in their ability to act rationally, it's this. Avoidable risks are no more risky than any other kind of risk! Life will never be safe, and each and every price we pay to reduce risk needs to consider both the cost and benefit. If a given risk poses less than a 1-in-a-million chance of hurting the average person, there had better be no meaningful downside to prevention.
We freak out over all kinds of not-actually-important risks, often throwing liberty over the side in pursuit of meaningless safety, simply because the risk is avoidable. Well, fine but avoidable at what cost?.
All private use of drones is going to end up getting outlawed over something like this, because we seem immune to rational consideration of risk.
if you're here you should be able to tell the difference between reviewing the first entrant in a new product category and every subsequent device.
What kind of idiot economist says things like this? It's designed to enrich the corporations and take away the rights of the People. It does a great job at that. It's what critics said would happen before it was enacted and the power structure likes it just fine. You sound like a fool when you pretend it's a mistake.
Also I can't help but observe that in my experience the way you pursue this is more consistent with the way men do than women do, which further reinforces an earlier point I made on various occasions.
Of course I'm going by the legal definition. It's the framework we as a civilization have built, and under which we live. It's the one that has real-life consequences.
Under that logic, the persecution of Alan Turing was perfectly justified. And in other words, you also feel that the persecution of Alan Turing was perfectly justified.
We lecture other nations about free trade, but fucking Canada is freer than the US for some farm goods and other stuff.
And don't even get Australia started. For that matter, our sugar is 2-3x world price inside the US because, umm, you know, we love free trade. It's been pointed out Congress is holding 310 million Americans hostage to about 7000 farmers.
Until recently Christians didn't identify themselves as such. They identified themselves as Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist, Episcopal, Armenian, etc.
It's probably safe to throw the tolerant label on a few of them.
Disclaimer: I don't identify to a religious belief and am probably best described as atheist.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford
