My rule is Never, ever, ever take a survey for free and never ever ever do it for a sweepstakes entry unless one gets an entry for disqualifying–and then disqualify as soon as possible. If people only knew it, even at $10 for a twenty minute survey, they are still getting ripped off. WBZ-TV s David Wade reports. Brian Daley of Salem won a $5,000 gift card from Home Depot. He used his winnings to buy a bunch of tools. You see the offers on a lot of receipts. They say to go to … The company I worked at for 3 years had 79 stores and no customer from any of them ever won that $1,000. Each store had an average of 75 surveys a month. So that s 213,300 surveys without a single winner. However, I do know there actually is a winner for these contests, and you ll never have a chance if you don t enter. I have, 3 times in fact. Now to be honest, only 1 is really worth mentioning but I ll tell you about all 3. The first one was a sweepstakes run by Sega around the time they released Sonic Shuffle for the Dreamcast. The grand prize was a paid vacat… Not a you might win , no. But I have received free food coupons for doing McD s surveys. 1. level 1. ichabodsc. 4 years ago. They give a chance to win a gift card rather than a $1 credit or even a coupon because they feel that they can entice more than 100 people for a chance at a $100 gift card or analogous . How do we start to regulate the mathematical models that run more and more of our lives? I would suggest that the process begin with the modelers themselves. Like doctors, data scientists should pledge a Hippocratic Oath, one that focuses on the possible misuses and misinterpretations of their models. Following the market crash of 2008, two financial engineers, Emanuel Derman and Paul Wilmott, drew up such an oath. It reads Neuroanatomy for starters. The brain is specialized. Different areas do different jobs. So understanding how the brain produces an experience requires understanding what parts of the brain are involved in that production and, for most of the past century, our imaging technologies weren t up to the task. Neither, to be honest, were our researchers. The second issue was familiarity the scientists most interested in studying flow states weren t always that good at having flow states. With neither a technological nor personal window into the experience, the result was a black box and a big puzzle. Yet those are precisely the sorts of autonomous drones and battlefield robots the U.S. government and military contractors are developing today. They re creating and using the best advanced AI available. I find it strange that robot pioneer Rodney Brooks dismisses the possibility that superintelligence will be harmful when iRobot, the company he founded, already manufactures weaponized robots. Similarly, Kurzweil makes the argument that advanced AI will have our values because it will come from us, and so, won t be harmful. We have focused on basics in Singapore. We used the family to push economic growth, factoring the ambitions of a person and his family into our planning. We have tried, for example, to improve the lot of children through education. The government can create a setting in which people can live happily and succeed and express themselves, but finally it is what people do with their lives that determines economic success or failure. Again, we were fortunate we had this cultural backdrop, the belief in thrift, hard work, filial piety, and loyalty in the extended family, and, most of all, the respect for scholarship and learning. There is, of course, another reason for our success. We have been able to create economic growth because we facilitated certain changes while we moved from an agricultural society to an industrial society. We had the advantage of knowing what the end result should be by looking at the West and later Japan. 22 Just try writing a commercial which obeys thirty-four regulations like these.