Ethics means different things to different people. You say that ethics means ruling that ``some otherwise logical conclusions are "unacceptable" because - other, unrelated reasons.''. Does this imply it's not OK for us to believe certain things that are (from a factual point of view) true because doing so might have what, in your view, are negative social effects? It seems to me that that is an infringement on the most basic of human capabilities-- the ability to perceive the truth. I decided a long time ago-- about the time I was leaving my religion and becoming an atheist-- that I would not worry about the effects-- on my eternal soul or on anythings else-- of believing a certain thing and just believe things based on the evidence, because if you don't try to believe the truth, how can you trust your own thoughts?

I personally believe a lot of things that are considered socially unacceple by most of my peers. I won't say specifically what they are though, because I want to keep my job.

Any study where the experimental group gets given *more* money is going to show some kind of positive effect. A tax cut would have done the same thing. The real question is whether the negative effects on economic productivity of having to raise taxes enough to fund a UBI are enough to justify the benefits of the UBI. This is, of course, a subjective question as it depends how much you value equality versus freedom and economic growth.

Their suits come in medium, large and extra large. Who manufactures them-- Durex?

It seems to me that exaggerated fears about children and sex isn't a specifically SJW phenomenon but more of a generalized American phenomenon (seeping into the rest of the world now, since US culture is so influential).

Wish I had mod points. Seems all the mod points are being given out to SJW's.

Thanks for raising the standard of discussion around here, anonymous couward!

Agreed, it's not thought through at all.

There was a noticeably longer wait at places like Starbucks when they introduced those chip readers. Imagine what would happen if people had to say their email addresses.

No, that's cocksucker seven eight nine then the number four spelled out at hotmail dot com

Baring their teeth? That must have been very scary, considering that normal geese don't have teeth.

It seems to me the bigger deal here is that the US is prosecuting her for violations of *US* sanctions agains Iran. Point is: the USA unilaterally applies sanctions to Iran and it expects third parties to comply. She violated US law, but (and I haven't read the details) I'm going to assume her crimes were all third-party stuff, i.e. deals between China and Iran, which international law doesn't give the US a right to have any say in. American law has all kinds of ways of asserting extraterritorial reach e.g.-- and I'm guessing here-- they may be claiming that Huawei did transactions in US dollars and therefore became subject to some kind of American law. If China or Russia were to take the same attitude, you can bet that American hackles would be raised.

The Chinese attitude, I expect, is, "Who died and made you the boss?"

(Re-posting my earlier post after logging in and making a correction). Good point.

There is another aspect of this too, that the abstract seems to miss. A universal basic income that's given to everyone does not directly reduce the incentive to work at all if you assume linear utility of money. But the point is that the extra money you'd have to raise in order to supply that universal basic income would normally come from some kind of taxation, of income or sales. That taxation, not the UBI itself, is what reduces the incentive to work. A lot of the studies of, and discussions of, UBI completely fail to account for this.

Personally I think it's likely a cultural issue at Apple; I think whoever was responsible for this keyboard screw-up is reluctant to admit it, and Tim Cook is not man enough to call them out. I've read reports that in the Jobs days, there were internal feedback forms at Apple where you could report a problem to the top and it would get fixed, but now it just results in retaliation.

I suspect the same thing that happened to Microsoft is is now happening at Apple, i.e. corporate politics and not the customer experience or the product starts to drive everything. (I used to work at Microsoft).

All this story says to me is that the UK's climate minister is a little green. Firstly, she's confused if she thinks the science tells us "what the goal is". The 1.5 degrees C goal is an arbitrary line that humans drew, it doesn't come from any science. And surely she must know that the first rule of commissions and inquiries is, don't ask a question unless you want to know what the answer is? Because if she is leaving herself open to committing the UK to a vastly expensive transition to non-fossil fuels at the same time as Brexit, she obviously doesn't value her job very much.

That's true up to a certain point but once you go too distant, it ceases to be true. Scientists believe the immediate offspring of sapiens and Neanderthals would, in most cases, not have been healthy and might not have even survived, because their genes were not that compatible. That's why only a small minority of Neanderthal genes survived many millennia of natural selection in predominantly Homo Sapiens poplations.

RE: "they were by definition the same species if they could interbreed"

That is not quite correct. The definition of species is complex and at times a little subjective. There are many pairs of species that *can* interbreed with a certain amount of success, but don't normally do so in the wild. Consider: bison/cattle, lion/tiger.

where is the link to the article?