There are several countries that have "universal jurisdiction" laws on their books. So, yes, there are other countries that pretend that their law applies to all of the world.
You know you post this as if this is unique to the U.S.. The only difference between the U.S. doing this and most other countries is that the U.S. is able to make it stick in more places than most other countries.
Of course it does. And I might buy that if the idea of installing GPS tracking devices came up after they had been seriously discussing mileage taxes for awhile. However, the suggestions for mileage taxes always come up with an involved justification as to why they have to be done using GPS devices already thoroughly worked into the concept, with various arguments as to why just using odometer readings is not a workable solution. This to me says that the mileage tax is an excuse to mandate GPS devices, rather than GPS devices being a solution to implementing mileage taxes.
What makes you think those taxes are going to go away when they introduce the mileage tax? In the U.S., it was only in the last 10-15 years that they did away with the telephone tax that was passed to pay for the Spanish-American War (and then only because several radio personalities were using it as an example to drum up opposition to another tax they wanted to pass).
This will be used to track your mileage so you can be taxed that way.
No, they will introduce GPS devices in order to track you, using a mileage tax as the excuse. If the idea of a mileage tax was the goal, they would talk about doing periodic odometer readings. I have yet to hear anyone who is proposing a mileage tax suggest basing it on odometer readings. They all propose installing new GPS tracking devices in order to implement this new mileage tax. The obvious conclusion is that getting the GPS tracking devices installed in every car is the goal, not the mileage tax, since the mileage tax could be collected without any new devices being installed.
It's the govt's form of automated road pricing. I think it's a really, really bad idea.
No, it is the government's way of introducing tracking everybody who drives, but you are correct, it is a really, really bad idea (if you value freedom).
Yes, I have considered what the consequences will be if AGW is true. It will be cheaper to mitigate the effects than it would be to prevent them from happening. Not only that, but choosing that course of action means that freedom does not have to be given up. If you look at the courses of action that AGW proponents want to implement, all of them call for giving over all significant economic decision making power to an elite group that will make those decisions "for the greater good".
What, you are saying that judging the veracity of the science by the fact that all of those who claim to believe it and to have access to the raw data act as if it wasn't true is a bad idea? I have never come across a case where, when I was asked to accept a position on authority and those authorities acted as if that position was false, that position was actually true. Now, it is possible that AGW may be an exception to that, but, if so, it will be the first in my experience.
Personally, I think we should work to reduce the amount of pollution we produce because pollution is waste. Minimizing the amount of waste one generates is a good way to maximize one's productivity.
I did not initialy look to see who posted this. I was reading it and started thinking that the reasoning seemed circuitous and tortured, then I looked and sure enough it was a Bennett Haselton submission.
I believe that it will be cheaper and more effective to mitigate whatever effects there are from AGW than to spend trillions trying to reduce it by less than 1%.
The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter ow you do the math, I can think of no compelling reason why the owners of Google need to fly to Tahiti to view a solar eclipse.
If they believe that AGW is real, and that the stuff that "carbon credits" are based on work to reduce CO2, they should spend the money they spend on carbon credits and not fly to Tahiti to view the eclipse. That goes for everyone else who campions AGW. If you think the problem is that big a deal and you can afford "carbon credits", you should change your lifestyle and pay for those CO2 mitigation activities. Otherwise, you are just a hypocrite, trying to expand government power.
The problem is that I am unaware of any prominent AGW proponent who lives as if he or she actually believes it. You are correct that the fact that most AGW proponents are hypocrites does not mean that AGW theory is wrong. However, when the people who are telling me that I must change my lifestyle because of it do not act as if they believe it, it causes me to be skeptical.
What about GPS tracking of cars for mileage taxation. If that ever happens, why shouldn't that data be released just like the airplane data.
That is a very good question and part of the reason that I don't see any good reason for GPS tracking of cars, for any reason (except in special cases with a warrant). Perhaps it has never occured to you that the goal of those proposals is GPS tracking of cars, not the mileage taxation. The mileage taxation is just an excuse to install GPS tracking in all vehicles.
These are two people who spend a lot of time proclaiming that we should reduce our carbon footprint. This is in the same category of hypocrisy as the guy who proclaims that sex outside of marriage is wrong and is then caught sleeping with his secretary. If your position is that AGW is such a major problem as to justify spending trillions of dollars of other people's money to mitigate it, then you should not be jetting off to some island to view a solar eclipse.
This type of behavior on the part of AGW proponents is why people like me don't take it seriously. The behavior of prominent AGW proponents does not seem to indicate that they really believe in it either.
Yeah, and the technology roapmap is generally built around the needs of people who think computing reached its nadir in the 70s.
Yeah, anybody who thinks that technology was at it's lowest point in the 70s, clearly does not understand the history of technology and is unlikely to to be able to predict the future of technology.
What does that have to do with rail freight? The person I responded to said that we should get rid of long distance freight trucking in order to support the rail system. How does the fact that passenger rail is unprofitable have anything to do with improving the profits of an already profitable freight rail system? Do you really think that profitable freight rail companies are going to get into unprofitable passenger rail service if the government reduces their competition for carrying freight?
Well, except for some braindead routing issues (sometimes to get from point A to point B, you have to go through point Z that's well out of the way of either), Amtrak works OK as a passenger rail carrier on a freight rail system...
I am unfamiliar with freight routing, so I really would not know anything about that.
The thing is that rail freight is profitable in the U.S.. There is no need to add any additional regulations. The problem is that today a passenger rail system is a completely different beast than a freight rail system. The U.S. has a perfectly functional freight rail system.
Have you ever used a Linux distro? Have you ever seen what their repositories look like?
I use Windows much more than I use Linux because there is software I use that does not have counterparts on Linux. I don't dislike Windows. The "repository" you pointed out has nothing that an ordinary user would use.
And i'm not a fan of Microsoft either, but lets not use lies to attack them with.
That would be a place to get some Microsoft software, but I did not see any games, money management software, book inventory software, video inventory software, etc. So, it is not quite the same. If you can think of using a PC to do a task, there is probably software in the repository of a given Linux distro to do it (not necessarily very good software, but nevertheless, something).
What does the Mayan calendar have to do with this? The nutjobs who think the Mayans predicted the end of the world say that it will end next year in December (except for a handful who believe it will be in May of 2013).
I know a Christian who sent Harold Camping a letter asking Camping to sign over all of his assets to him as of May 22, since Camping would no longer need them after the Rapture. I have not heard if Camping replied.
As an Anonymous Coward pointed out, the problem with understanding this passage is that Jesus is answering two questions posed by the disciples as one. "When will this happen,.." referencing the comment that Jesus had just made about not one stone being left on another (a reference to the Roman sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD). And "...what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" The reason for believing that the part that says no one knows the day or the hour applies to the end is that there are one or two other passages in the New Testament that refer to the Second Coming being as a "thief in the night" or otherwise coming as a surprise.
Why would he be worried about that? He's a professional athlete, I assume they are all wife beaters unless there is evidence to the contrary (OK, that's not true, I generally think that hockey players are not wife beaters).
Slashdot Mirror
There are several countries that have "universal jurisdiction" laws on their books. So, yes, there are other countries that pretend that their law applies to all of the world.
Feel free to invade the U.S.. I think you will find the consequences unpleasant.
You know you post this as if this is unique to the U.S.. The only difference between the U.S. doing this and most other countries is that the U.S. is able to make it stick in more places than most other countries.
Of course it does. And I might buy that if the idea of installing GPS tracking devices came up after they had been seriously discussing mileage taxes for awhile. However, the suggestions for mileage taxes always come up with an involved justification as to why they have to be done using GPS devices already thoroughly worked into the concept, with various arguments as to why just using odometer readings is not a workable solution. This to me says that the mileage tax is an excuse to mandate GPS devices, rather than GPS devices being a solution to implementing mileage taxes.
What makes you think those taxes are going to go away when they introduce the mileage tax? In the U.S., it was only in the last 10-15 years that they did away with the telephone tax that was passed to pay for the Spanish-American War (and then only because several radio personalities were using it as an example to drum up opposition to another tax they wanted to pass).
This will be used to track your mileage so you can be taxed that way.
No, they will introduce GPS devices in order to track you, using a mileage tax as the excuse. If the idea of a mileage tax was the goal, they would talk about doing periodic odometer readings. I have yet to hear anyone who is proposing a mileage tax suggest basing it on odometer readings. They all propose installing new GPS tracking devices in order to implement this new mileage tax. The obvious conclusion is that getting the GPS tracking devices installed in every car is the goal, not the mileage tax, since the mileage tax could be collected without any new devices being installed.
It's the govt's form of automated road pricing. I think it's a really, really bad idea.
No, it is the government's way of introducing tracking everybody who drives, but you are correct, it is a really, really bad idea (if you value freedom).
Yes, I have considered what the consequences will be if AGW is true. It will be cheaper to mitigate the effects than it would be to prevent them from happening. Not only that, but choosing that course of action means that freedom does not have to be given up. If you look at the courses of action that AGW proponents want to implement, all of them call for giving over all significant economic decision making power to an elite group that will make those decisions "for the greater good".
What, you are saying that judging the veracity of the science by the fact that all of those who claim to believe it and to have access to the raw data act as if it wasn't true is a bad idea? I have never come across a case where, when I was asked to accept a position on authority and those authorities acted as if that position was false, that position was actually true. Now, it is possible that AGW may be an exception to that, but, if so, it will be the first in my experience.
Personally, I think we should work to reduce the amount of pollution we produce because pollution is waste. Minimizing the amount of waste one generates is a good way to maximize one's productivity.
I did not initialy look to see who posted this. I was reading it and started thinking that the reasoning seemed circuitous and tortured, then I looked and sure enough it was a Bennett Haselton submission.
Since all of the people I know who have claimed this scientific data proves AGW do not act as if they believe that, why should I?
I believe that it will be cheaper and more effective to mitigate whatever effects there are from AGW than to spend trillions trying to reduce it by less than 1%.
The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter ow you do the math, I can think of no compelling reason why the owners of Google need to fly to Tahiti to view a solar eclipse.
If they believe that AGW is real, and that the stuff that "carbon credits" are based on work to reduce CO2, they should spend the money they spend on carbon credits and not fly to Tahiti to view the eclipse. That goes for everyone else who campions AGW. If you think the problem is that big a deal and you can afford "carbon credits", you should change your lifestyle and pay for those CO2 mitigation activities. Otherwise, you are just a hypocrite, trying to expand government power.
The problem is that I am unaware of any prominent AGW proponent who lives as if he or she actually believes it. You are correct that the fact that most AGW proponents are hypocrites does not mean that AGW theory is wrong. However, when the people who are telling me that I must change my lifestyle because of it do not act as if they believe it, it causes me to be skeptical.
What about GPS tracking of cars for mileage taxation. If that ever happens, why shouldn't that data be released just like the airplane data.
That is a very good question and part of the reason that I don't see any good reason for GPS tracking of cars, for any reason (except in special cases with a warrant). Perhaps it has never occured to you that the goal of those proposals is GPS tracking of cars, not the mileage taxation. The mileage taxation is just an excuse to install GPS tracking in all vehicles.
These are two people who spend a lot of time proclaiming that we should reduce our carbon footprint. This is in the same category of hypocrisy as the guy who proclaims that sex outside of marriage is wrong and is then caught sleeping with his secretary. If your position is that AGW is such a major problem as to justify spending trillions of dollars of other people's money to mitigate it, then you should not be jetting off to some island to view a solar eclipse.
This type of behavior on the part of AGW proponents is why people like me don't take it seriously. The behavior of prominent AGW proponents does not seem to indicate that they really believe in it either.
Yeah, and the technology roapmap is generally built around the needs of people who think computing reached its nadir in the 70s.
Yeah, anybody who thinks that technology was at it's lowest point in the 70s, clearly does not understand the history of technology and is unlikely to to be able to predict the future of technology.
What does that have to do with rail freight? The person I responded to said that we should get rid of long distance freight trucking in order to support the rail system. How does the fact that passenger rail is unprofitable have anything to do with improving the profits of an already profitable freight rail system? Do you really think that profitable freight rail companies are going to get into unprofitable passenger rail service if the government reduces their competition for carrying freight?
Well, except for some braindead routing issues (sometimes to get from point A to point B, you have to go through point Z that's well out of the way of either), Amtrak works OK as a passenger rail carrier on a freight rail system...
I am unfamiliar with freight routing, so I really would not know anything about that.
The thing is that rail freight is profitable in the U.S.. There is no need to add any additional regulations. The problem is that today a passenger rail system is a completely different beast than a freight rail system. The U.S. has a perfectly functional freight rail system.
Have you ever used a Linux distro? Have you ever seen what their repositories look like?
I use Windows much more than I use Linux because there is software I use that does not have counterparts on Linux. I don't dislike Windows. The "repository" you pointed out has nothing that an ordinary user would use.
What is this then? http://www.microsoft.com/web/downloads/platform.aspx I used it just this week to install sql express...
And i'm not a fan of Microsoft either, but lets not use lies to attack them with.
That would be a place to get some Microsoft software, but I did not see any games, money management software, book inventory software, video inventory software, etc. So, it is not quite the same. If you can think of using a PC to do a task, there is probably software in the repository of a given Linux distro to do it (not necessarily very good software, but nevertheless, something).
What does the Mayan calendar have to do with this? The nutjobs who think the Mayans predicted the end of the world say that it will end next year in December (except for a handful who believe it will be in May of 2013).
I know a Christian who sent Harold Camping a letter asking Camping to sign over all of his assets to him as of May 22, since Camping would no longer need them after the Rapture. I have not heard if Camping replied.
As an Anonymous Coward pointed out, the problem with understanding this passage is that Jesus is answering two questions posed by the disciples as one. "When will this happen,.." referencing the comment that Jesus had just made about not one stone being left on another (a reference to the Roman sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD). And "...what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" The reason for believing that the part that says no one knows the day or the hour applies to the end is that there are one or two other passages in the New Testament that refer to the Second Coming being as a "thief in the night" or otherwise coming as a surprise.
Why would he be worried about that? He's a professional athlete, I assume they are all wife beaters unless there is evidence to the contrary (OK, that's not true, I generally think that hockey players are not wife beaters).