Logically, with UBI. You can shut down all the social programs which it supersedes and their administration, take it back from people who don't need it through the IRS without any substantial changes, and pay for it through taxation on the wealthy — thereby creating more money by increasing its velocity.

Yes, and what I want the system to do instead of encouraging some wealthy people to play a game of increasing some numbers in ways which don't even affect their lives, and they are only doing for bragging rights, is share more of the available improvements in quality of life with more people.

I am far from against technology. I am against it destroying everything that we all universally enjoy, things like being able to eat and sleep and breathe and shit comfortably. Every world war is more dangerous to the continued existence of our way of life than the last, and we appear to be on the cusp of one. And for what? Once again, so that the worst old men the world could produce can play some games with others' lives. Does it not make sense that instead of allowing these rich old fucks to kill us, we should share the wealth more when that actually creates more wealth? How are we going in completely the wrong direction again?

And mine is for you.

A peace and love music festival held right next to the apartheid wall, which was most importantly not held on the day on which history began.

Your arguments are stupid, and more importantly boring. You are a net loss for Slashdot.

If the best available evidence indicates X, but you believe Y based on gut feel, then later solid evidence of Y is developed, were you right? Further, should this experience convince you to trust your gut over the best available evidence in the future?

If you read the article carefully, they are talking about lenses THINNER than a hair. I see several of the posts here thinking the width/radius of the lenses is this small, a reasonable mistake given the way this was written. Having a radius that small would severely reduce their light gathering ability, requiring very bright light or very dim images or very long exposure times.

-

Only if you want to ensure that anything innovative gets filtered out and The Science becomes a circlejerk around The Established Narrative. Which the last fifty years of gatekeeping pretty much have.

Even longer, really, when you consider how long it took to convince surgeons that maybe washing their hands for surgery might be a good idea.

Yeah, there are a lot of nuts around. But there are also a lot of nuts and grifters inside The Science who don't want anyone spoiling their fun.

I presume he's working with Republican Jesus. Maybe they are the same guy, you ever see them both in the same room?

It's not only an official act, it's official business.

Better than the autopenis? Yes. That's not even a question. If he can't find a teenager he'll fuck a flag.

That was not the claim.

Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy.

The Constitution is what gives Congress the power to make laws which implement those other parts of the government, so in no way is that moving past the Constitution.

And once again, we had a law preventing this until Bill Clinton signed the TCA.

What's your DNA doing this evening?

"who are REGULARLY found to be committing TREASON"

No, Republicans are home grown

We pay for Jews to commit genocide in another country so we don't have to look at it. It's very efficient.

You also know American Jesus loves you when you get lots of money.

Well he should have done a better job, the hairless apes are fucking it all up.