The problem is that privileged access to the market is exactly how the system was meant to work.
A taxi driver in most of the countries involved is required to buy a license which costs as high as $250'000, which the taxi driver is usually able to recoup only after 15 years of activity. No sane person would invest that much money (often requiring to get a loan) without some guarantee that they will be able to recoup and profit from it, which is what the regulated access to the market was supposed to do.
Now most municipalities would gladly let Uber or other private companies operate, but taxi drivers paid them a lot of money to get the licenses supposed to protect them from the competition which Uber is doing... many of them have not recouped their investment yet and if Uber is allowed to operate most likely never will.
Turing predicted that machines would eventually be able to pass the test; in fact, he estimated that by the year 2000, machines with 10 GB of storage would be able to fool 30% of human judges in a five-minute test, and that people would no longer consider the phrase "thinking machine" contradictory.
In this cause there she has pleaded her case. There has been no evidence against it. Therefore her statements can be taken as fact.
In this case there is no cause at all, or did I miss the lawsuit, her testimony under penalty of perjury and the subsequent cross-examination?
You can verify the source of the original accusation. With the lack of any evidence to the contrary you have to accept it as the truth.
By which crazy logic? Knowing the source of the accusation doesn't make it automatically "true until proved false".
I don't want a Java app anywhere near my financial information.
In the United States, constructive discharge has differing meanings depending on the jurisdiction. In California, the California Supreme Court defines constructive discharge as follows:
"In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee's resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee's position would be compelled to resign."
What I meant is that you said that people winning the lottery or the jackpot "did nothing to earn the money" which is absolutely not correct: these people paid to earn the chance of winning. Risking your own money to earn the chance of a win is definately not "doing nothing". Getting money doing nothing is more similar to receiving a gift.
Anyway I agree that earned or unearned income should not make any difference.