That will stop illegal immigration (one way or another...)
Well I'm glad that someone without a vested interest in banking secrecy has some idea about what's going on. If the NSA sees terrorists laundering money or companies violating sanctions they can tip off the relevant authorities.
Wait... what about this recent news has you believing the NSA wants to tip of anyone about anything they discover?
They were pushing hard in Las Vegas last year. Hired a bunch of street promoters to hand out coupons for free rides.
I swear the first time I read that is said "...handing out condoms for free rides"... It must have been the Vegas reference... still, not a bad marketing ploy there.
That whole supply/demand thing isn't a myth?
I think there is more to consider about this. Supply/Demand is nothing NEW. What is interesting here is a key component of "efficient markets" - that of "perfect information". Companies spend a lot of money on market research - which is essentially an inefficient cost in the market that perfect information would eliminate the need for. Now, you can never truly have perfect information, but you can get efficiency gains.
In this example, the crowd used online petitions to communicate a problem seeking a better market solution. That's the reverse of market research. It isn't "crowd sourcing", which I would argue is still initiated by the company. This is more like "crowd based" or "crowd initiated" (someone will coin a better term I'm sure). So, what I would ask is, generally speaking, will the use of online petitions (directed at specific companies or the market in general) become a new trend that leads to faster development of products and services for which a true demand exists?
It is kinda like having a kickstarter without the fundraising or the idea, just getting people behind the "problem" and establishing a viable market for whatever solution emerges.
"Operating lifetime was estimated at five to seven years per satellite."
Doesn't that seem like a really sort span of time to have to send something into space? That means in like any given year you could be replacing 20% of your satellites? I guess perhaps with the idea that technology would be advancing so a 30 year old satellite might not really support current technology... Anyway still seems a bit crazy...
And, if he says it will cost $20B that also implies $4B / year in replacement costs... I'm sure he is betting on the tech improving (cheaper and longer lifespan) as they move to scale. On that, he's probably right.
They'll lose 2 a day. A Falcon Heavy lifter can take 100 at a time, so one replacement flight ever 50 days or so.
100 at a time? Each is the size of a MINI Cooper car... Do they fold up smaller for launch?
The question about jobs misses the more important point: all of this is nonsense. For instance, in the summary they say:
Job selection on the basis of certain desirable genetic characteristics is already common in the military and sports.
No, it's not. Job selection based on presented traits is common in the military and sports (e.g. small jockeys, tall basketball players, etc.), not based on genetic characteristics. Sure, there are genetics behind those traits, but no one is using them directly to make decisions.
Here is an idea... find a kid that tests genetically well for the traits you are seeking, let's say height and other physical traits for basketball as our example... Maybe in China.
Now, you haven't used genetic information in a hiring decision, merely as the basis for a real future option and/or exclusivity.
There, no laws broken.
The bigger problem with this article though is that it really doesn't belong here. This is not a technology issue, or even a science issue. This is an economics issue, and a monetary issue. The jobs aren't going away because people here are being replaced by better technology, the jobs are going away here because people are being replaced by workers in other countries who can work for less.
Except that MIT and President Obama would both disagree with you... https://www.wired.com/2016/10/...
“It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”
That was a cute joke, but Clintons have certainly beaten Trump to it. Unless you think, Bill and Hillary Clinton receiving hundreds of thousand of dollars per speech can be explained by anything other than his past presidency and, more importantly, the "inevitability" of her future one.
That original quote is totally misunderstood... Trump said the first candidate to "run" and make money on it. I.e. - make money on RUNNING, not having anything to do with winning. Remember that once donors and the party started picking up the tabs he jacked up the rates on the offices and rooms in his own properties they were using? And now he plans to launch a TV network, etc? He doesn't need to win. He is saying he will be the first one to run, lose, cost the Republican party their shot at succeeding after Obama AND make off like a bandit anyway.
I'm amazed more people don't see through it all.
There are always many "gold digging" women around stars. They let him do it because they don't mind it, because that's how they dig their gold. They know it and he knows it.
You said that if he had said "boss" you would have agreed with me but because he said "star" you saw it differently, per the above quote?
I don't care what role he has, had, will have or what role any other guy has, had or will have. Presuming women will accept sexual contact without prior approval and also acting on that presumption is simply wrong. At best, the guy is "correct in his assumption", which still doesn't excuse the action or the "climate" such actions promote.
Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.