c.f. Isaac Asimov and his laws of robotics, for example "I, Robot" (not the unrelated movie of the same title) Whatever I read so far by Asimov (not THAT much I admit) centered around such robo-ethical questions and how to circumvent them

So, according to the robot laws:

No, it SHOULD not as it would endanger a human.
Thinking this through to the end would mean that a robot should never serve any drug (down to coffee) to a human.
But yes, it would serve alcohol to an alcoholic as he would be kept from checking the contents of the brown bad it serves to the human and that has been packed by ANOTHER robot. Neither wrapping a beer bottle in a brown bag, nor fetching a brown paper bag is dangerous.

The realistic solution would be (as circumvention is that easy) to serve that drink but log it.

I don't mean that it should be like that, but it would be an alternative to those multi-million development companies that are currently for big construction projects. Rental houses create a constant stream of revenue and a share of that probably would make much a bigger difference for a construction worker who build the house than dumping it on top of the pile of a nameless hedgefund.

Already posted, so please accept this +1 insightfull.

But there is one flaw: How would you measure if we have "enough" people in music creation? Do numbers count at all? What about quality? How many pop idols would be needed to outweigh a Leonard Bernstein? How many for an Elvis Presley?

Why should something that generates revenue over time not be paid out the same way to the creator? A book or a movie (that is more than single-use-pulp) may be selling books and DVDs and ads in TV reruns for decades.

if you're asking for the creators to be payed upfront when the work is finsihed, you'd need to find someone who is going to finance that - paying with money that has not been earned yet.

There are certainly advantages to such a model, but it would definitly create a middleman with too much power. (Or restore the power of publishers that they are currently losing due to easier self-publishing and self-marketing online)

But I agree that the whole system is broken at several points

Please back that information up at least with some country information. Else it's just plain wrong.

Of course I can do that. That's easy. The problem starts where you have to tell the difference between non-obvious propaganda and sloppy journalism due to budget reasons.

Yes, your course of action (reading and comparing multiple sources) would help, but boils down to do your own research and become your own expert, just to recognize bad newspaper articles.

And if that wouldn't be hard enough, you would have to be self-reflecting enough to recognize your own bias. Which is harder than you think, because to yourself, bias appears as knowledge. Usually of the "Everyone knows that..." or "Someone who I accept as expert once told me that..." or "It's common knowledge that.." varieties.

And it takes a really scientific mindest to accept that what you know may be completly wrong. (Our brain is wired to work with inaccurate information which is cool on its own, but the opposite of scientific)

That would be indeed more of a solution than a problem.

But in reality, people who want their media to be free of bias rather tend to consider media, that shares their own bias as bias free.

So ApplePay needs new card readers? the retailers have to upgrade and replace working old readers to use it?

Well, I guess CVC will be glad to hear those news....

Why not leave anything that could start a major diplomatic incident (at best) to the hands of amateurs!

what could possibly go wrong...

Well, still could work. But that's really rare. I could only quote two examples where the engeneer either is the hero (McGyver) or saves the day (Star trek. Usually by reversing some polarity...)

But yeah, in all other shows the clever guy is usually the uncool nerd. (Riptide, anyone?)

Google 2factor-auth also works sms-less if you don't trust that. Either by a seperate authenticator app that calculates the secondary code the same way as an external key-genrator would, or you can use an actual external generator.

Or live with amateur advice from people who can't be lawyers by definition.

I left open the option "just for lulz". Yes, not everyone personally benefits from causing confusion.

I even wrote "literally" laundring it - like removing stains.

And there is a huge difference if your inside man is replacing extra money: it won't be missed, lowering the risk of detection.

Sorry I'm not comming up with laid out plans for the perfect crime as a response to a /.-post, but I guess getting finding a way to have someone trusted (like another bank) replacing your stained bills would be the way to go if you were in that line of business.

Well, it's not their money they're destroying...

Hmm... they can take the stained money, but neither deposit or spend it.....

They're probably going to leave behind stained money, as it is of no use to them. The bank, on the other hand, of course will re-deposit their own stained money....

But what if they would find out that there is MORE stained money found in the debris than there was inside?

Sounds to me like either a source for lulz or a way to wash (somehow literally) dirty money. (with a little inside help of course)