I see it. I just used it. It's in parentheses right after the title.
I see it. I just used it. It's in parentheses right after the title.
They've had lots of innovation!
They figured out:
* data caps
* Double charging for the same service
* Outsourced customer service to lowest bidder
* Customer "retention"
"You missed the cause of all of this: no nationalized healthcare. A single-buyer can negotiate prices"
Completely wrong, both in your analysis and causal claim.
Reduction in tool failure means human failure will be statistically more common. That does not mean human failure has increased nor does it mean aggregate failure has increased. The "rise" of human failure, all things being equal, is GOOD NEWS. It means tools and methods are far more reliable.
To illustrate: Human failure is far more likely an issue of injury in a vehicle incident now than 40 years ago. Fatality rates are dramatically lower while human cause has increased.
Competition lowers price and increases quality.
It is a system in which success ultimately requires being more productive than your competition.
Monopoly is incentive to do as little as possible while demanding as much as possible.
Competition encourages altruism.
Monopoly encourages extortion.
"Single payer" requires the impossible condition of maximum efficiency and altruism from the most inherently selfish and lazy structure possible.
Came here for the Planetes references. Was not disappointed.
When I was there, it was definitely not easy to circumvent. I tried multiple VPNs, dns tricks, all kinds of things, but my internet coverage was spotty at best. If I tried to go to any western news site for any reason, I'd find my phone either throttled to nothing or completely offline for hours or days.
They seemed to be cracking down on VPN usage via deep packet inspection and/or whack-a-mole with overseas endpoints.
I was there in November of 2014, so I can't imagine things have gotten much better.
They charged me an extra ~$100 one month and ~$50 another. Just charged my card and left me wondering wtf happened until I called them.
Never ever EVER give a company your credit card number for automated billing. NEVER EVER EVER give them your bank account information for automated billing.
You asked for this problem when you signed up.
And no other jobs come to fill their places?
By your logic, we'd be at 75% unemployment (figure pulled out of my ass, admittedly, but just making a point here...) right now with all the technological advances since the 1970s. What do you think happened to our economy to achieve our current 5% unemployment rate? Are all those file clerks and bookkeepers still out of work or did they find something else to do?
People made the same arguments you're making for every technological leap forward. The net result has always been people thrown out of low wage, miserable jobs have found higher wage, less miserable jobs, given enough time.
It's called Structural Unemployment. It is a problem for workers who are too old to retrain - think people in their upper 50's trying to sprint to retirement - but for the vast majority of the workforce, it's a net benefit in the long run at the cost of a little short term pain.
This entire thread is based on a false idea that if people are thrown out of minimum wage jobs that they'll be unemployed forever.
This has been proven countless times since the 1700's to be absolutely false.
Once a technological innovation disrupts employment - the loom, the cotton gin, the computer, the combine planter/harvester, the robot - those who were displaced from employment find new jobs in higher paying sectors, at least in the aggregate. How many file clerks do you know? Know anybody picking corn, wheat, or soybeans by hand? Yet unemployment is around 5%.
The people slinging burgers will find new work. They'll have to. New employment opportunities will open up; they always have.
What's disingenuous is not including Social Security receipts in federal tax income figures.
False dichotomy. There are lots of options that don't involve any of those things --
How about making it cheaper for employers to hire people by cutting the payroll tax?
How about creating a climate of entrepreneurship which creates jobs?
How about reducing the cost of living by eliminating expensive regulation?
How about making it attractive to the private sector to start projects such as construction or the like that result in more and more jobs being created?
There are lots of ways to get people out of poverty that don't involve giving people money.
"In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade." --Milton Friedman
Actually, I've seen answers to all of those questions.
> If I own a self driving car, is my insurance insuring the AI as the driver?
Yes. Google has stated they will assume liability. Other companies pursuing this say the same.
> Is the driving record of that AI individual to my car, or to AI's of that software version ?
This one is actually easier. The insurance industry will have much better figures on the probability of having a claim to pay for the AI drivers, since all those drivers will drive the 'same'. They will be able to say that cars of model X get into
> Can I sue the AI, or am I suing the AI manufacturer. Is the AI the car, or separate from the car?
The manufacturer gets sued. The manufacturer would keep insurance and lawyers for these lawsuits.
> am I suing Google or Ford ?
You sue whoever sold you the car. One throat to choke.
You've proven my point:
You start with a strawman
You claim evolution has happened (nope, hasn't happened, evolution requires life to spontaneously come into existence from inert substances and complex, multipart structures to appear instantly) - mutation has happened, evolution has not.
You claim theory is fact.
Darwin most certainly DID mention flaws in this theory, including the eye.
The point of my comment about 150 years is that research has shown the PROBABILITY of evolution to be increasingly lessening. Specific shape of the universe, relatively small variability of environment, etc. all combine to lessen chance of random occurrence.
You claim lack of knowledge of a lifeform is proof of evolution.
You're twisting science into realm in which it is inapplicable and misusing the concepts. Too bad for you.
The end of my statement was illustrating the limits of science. The statement was paradox, that's all it was. You didn't recognize that.
OP is quasi-correct.
Science, by definition, is an analytical tool which is based on constant questioning and testing with the goal of disproving proposals (too lazy to reserach the plural of hypothesis...) As with any tool, it has a limited scope of applicability.
It is impossible to ultimately prove or disprove anything without complete, ultimate knowledge of all that was, is, and will ever be. Given that is impossible, science is properly viewed as a constantly fluctuating qualifier component of probability.
The word "science" is frequently misused as a dogmatic bludgeon, most obvious lately by the political left's AGW dogma; "settled science." Science is outside the realm of personal opinion.
It is impossible to definitively prove the existence or non-existence of the ultimate diety unless situations change (return of Christ, for example.) As science developed, many physical relationships of matter were codified, true. As scientific knowledge advances, the perceive probability of life on Earth spontaneously occurring has diminished greatly
The real issue is the human propensity for dogma. People who demand Darwinist macro evolution theory is fact and religious cults are similar. They both selectively choose which "facts" they will accept and which they will disregard. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Just a Piltdown Man was a fraud, so are many of the claims used to promote evolution. In this case, I mean MACRO evolution. Charles Darwin was very clear about this weakness of his theory and gave examples which disqualified the theory. The dogmatic way in which proponents of macro evolution demand this old theory is ultimate truth betray themselves as acting with complete disregard for science. Scientific discovery did not stop 150 years ago. What seemed plausible then, is now rendered nearly impossible with current knowledge.
As an example from the Christian realm, the Bible includes what appear to be mutually exclusive direct instructions from God to both test all things and not to doubt God.
If there is a God, you'll know at some point...or you won't.
If there is not a God, you'll never know.