I only run across them myself on Google images, so maybe your usage just doesn't match the targets they're aiming for. If it is a plugin, I'd like to know what it is so I can stop getting them.
That's what I meant by generational. A large number of those casual users are people of my generation or older.
My dad clicks on spam stuff all the time. My sister, who just turned 18 (she's a lot younger than me) doesn't. She's less technical than my dad is - she's just been using the internet most of her life, and knows better.
It's annoying for Linux users too. Google images if full of links to sites that try to run a virus scan and force you to download their stupid product.
Unless you close the tab quickly, you'll likely have to kill firefox altogether because of the modal windows that it pops up. One more reason modal windows are fucking evil.
I think that'll be a generational issue. Today's children are growing up with computers, whereas most of my generation didn't.
Most people who are computer literate don't fall for these scams. Once the computer illiterate die off, it'll be a lot harder to scam people using these methods. There will still be scams, but there were scams before the internet too.
Sure, devices will change, and software will change, and people will fall behind, but I doubt we'll see the kind of technological revolution that the internet brought about for quite some time.
Isn't the 13 year existence of a security bug in open source code a valid argument that open source does not really mean a product is more secure?
No, it's not. It's a data point. It should be considered along with other data points (namely, if any bugs have been found because of open source methodology) to craft an argument.
If it can be shown that the "many eyes" theory has not solved any security issues, then you have an argument against it. One example is not enough.
You could say the same thing about any car. No matter how you put it, getting into a machine that can travel at higher velocities than the human senses were evolved to deal with is more dangerous than walking. It puts yourself and any others you come near in danger. For some reason, most of society thinks it's worth it.
Maybe I'm biased because I like classic cars, but I feel that if they were safe enough to drive around in the '60s, they're safe enough (if maintained) to drive now. If that's not safe enough, you can always stay home.
My '65 Kombi didn't have them, and the cops never bothered me about them.
I assumed back then that is didn't come with them from the factory, and that's the assumption the cops made as well. Looking back, it might have been because it had been a clown bus and they had stripped out a lot of the interior.
Wearing a seatbelt in a '69beetle is of dubious value if you're going to run into a tree.
There's not much in front of you but a light frame, some sheet metal, and a gas tank. The windows are small, so you're unlikely to be ejected, and the steering wheel is probably going to slam into you even if you are wearing a belt, just because the entire front end is going to look like a smashed soda can.
I'm not saying seat belts don't save lives - evidence is pretty clear that they do - but seat belts are generally accompanied by other safety designs on the car. There's a reason Beetles stopped being sold in the U.S.
That being said, yeah, he knew the risk. Anyone old enough to drive with an IQ over 70 knows the risk. Some of us choose not to wear them. It doesn't make it any less sad when someone dies, or justify dismissing their deaths just because they knew the risk.
Referring to members of the House as "Congressmen" and senators as "Senators" is a rule of thumb. That's the fact I was stating. It's true.
Yes, they're all "congressmen". We get that. What you apparently don't get is the custom of referring to senators by the title "Senator", and not by the generic term "congressman", which isn't a title. Members of the House don't have titles, so they are referred to as congressmen.
Consider two men: one gets a PhD, one does not. They're both adults. While you could refer to either as "Mister", it wouldn't be appropriate for the man with the PhD, since his correct title is "Doctor". In everyday conversation, referring to the doctor as "Mister So-and-So" would probably pass, but a TV or radio show host wouldn't never knowingly do it.
As to my other point, they are all representatives, in the sense that they represent an entity as a member of a representative government. Senators represent the state government, theoretically speaking, although since the 17th amendment senators have to concern themselves more with public opinion. They're generally not referred to as representatives since that would be confusing.
If you're referring to members of congress as a whole, then congressmen is perfectly acceptable. You don't see that very often, since it's not common to refer to the members of congress as a whole, as opposed to "Congress", which refers to the organization (i.e. you wouldn't say congressmen passed a law, you'd say Congress passed a law). The rule of thumb I mentioned above is for referring to individual senators and House members.
Big government provides more services and draws more on the tax base than small government.
Governments like Sweden, where the government provides health care, university education, public transit, etc. are big governments. There's a good social safety net, so the poor have a decent standard of living.
Small governments only provide that which cannot be reliably provided by the private sector. A small government would limit itself to things like law enforcement, foreign affairs, defense, essential public infrastructure (roads, seaports, etc.), and various forms of standardization for trade (i.e. 1Kg is actually 1Kg, pallets must be heat treated to remove parasites, etc.). A small government is better for the rich and (arguably) middle class, because less of your money is redistributed.
It's pretty much the whole socialism vs. capitalism argument. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but in times of economic hardship (at least in the U.S.), you get a lot of people calling for small government.
Run toward him and punch him in the gut. If he hasn't had a lot of training, once you're inside the range of the weapon he'll probably pause before he remembers to drop it and defend himself.
Once he's down, smash his visor into his face if he has one. That always pisses them off, and he'll have a hell of a time getting it off.
Most pikemen I know don't have pockets, but carry their belongings in a belt pouch. If you're lucky, he's got a knife on his belt you can grab it and cut the pouch strings off. You might also want to carry a knife yourself just for this purpose.
Don't turn and run - if you do, he's got you square in the back. I've seen it plenty of times - it's a rookie mistake.
Note that you should only attempt this at a ren faire or SCA event. Do not, under any circumstances, try it with the Swiss Guard.
It's also a fact that on the radio (and probably TV as well, I dunno) when they refer to someone as "Congressman So-and-So", he or she is a member of the House.
There's not really a title for representatives - technically, both senators and House members are representatives - Senators of the state, House members of the people in their district. The general rule of thumb in the media is to use the title "senator" when appropriate and "congressman" when it is not.
There is a whole lot of variation you could get from the same two parents. Each parent contributes 23 chromosomes, and which chromosome gets contributed is random. The chances of any two children all getting the same set from each parent is extremely low (outside of twins and whatnot, but that's a different mechanism).
Natural selection is just a part of the process of evolution. It's a lot more complicated than that.
What they're saying here is that since there are fewer mutations in each new human, there are fewer opportunities for new traits to develop, since most mutations don't lead to new traits.
Most of the high profile NASA missions have no direct effect on day to day life of the average Joe. It does have an effect on the future average Joe, because a lot of the technology created for the high profile missions does get used eventually for things that affect regular people. An example is the ion drive, which was tested on various pure science probes and is now used in satellites to control position and orientation, extending their service life due to not requiring as much fuel.
There's a lot of low profile stuff that NASA does that we can't do without. Most of the low profile missions involve putting satellites in orbit. Our communication systems rely on them. A huge chunk of the transportation industry would be crippled without them. GPS navigation relies on them. Hell, television and radio rely on them. Commercial space companies aren't at a level to compete with this quite yet, although they're being helped along by... well, NASA.
People also tend to forget the "Aeronautics" part of NASA, which does a lot of research for aircraft and missile systems. They partner with the big aircraft companies to test new designs and ideas. Some of those ideas end up with no practical use, and some of them do. It's up to the market to figure out how to commercialize them.
Some of these things you mention (water on Mars, X-Ray radiation, etc.) will be important to us if we set up shop anywhere beyond LEO. That might not be important right at the moment, but it very well may be in the future; China has its eyes on the moon - are we willing to let them have it?
There's always going to be budget pressures, even in good times. The scientists and engineers are specialized in what they do - you can't just turn off the space program and expect to start back where you left off. Look at Apollo - if we wanted to send people to the moon, we'd be starting from scratch, because most of the experts on our old technology are dead or retired. If we stop science research every time there's a budget shortfall, then it'll always be one step forward, one step back.
Ocean Acidification is what's he's talking about. No, the oceans aren't turning to acid - they're at a pH of 8.something right now and falling. So they're becoming more acid, but not actually becoming an acid.
The problem is that certain organisms can't deal with a more acidic ocean. Crustaceans won't be able to build shells, for instance - and they're all over the food chain down there. Disrupt the food chain enough and you have a massive extinction event.
I'm not sure what effect this will have on oxygen production (I'm no marine biologist, I'm a truck driver/ex UNIX admin/science groupie), but it will undoubtedly have an effect on the fisheries. A good chunk of the world gets most of its protein from the ocean.
Laws are necessary not for moral issues, but to allow for a functioning society.
Murder isn't illegal because it just happens to be a commandment. If it was, we'd also have laws forcing all work to cease on the sabbath, holding God before all things, and not coveting our neighbors. That last one would pretty much destroy the economy, really. Hell, combine that with a law forbidding lies and marketing would be a dead art.
Murder is illegal because you can't have a decent quality of life in a society where people can stab you at will. The same goes for theft.
Also, most laws that have nothing to do with morality at all. Income taxes are due on April 15. That's a law. You may be required to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but the ides of April isn't mentioned. The Bible has nothing to say about building codes (other than it being a good idea to build on rock, rather than sand), maximum length you're allowed to let your grass grow, or what speed you're allowed to drive on Interstate highways.
The laws that are based on religion are the laws that cause the most trouble. Gay marriage? Banned in most states for moral reasons, and that pisses a lot of people off. Teaching "intelligent design" in schools as an alternative to evolution? You end up with a lot of children who can't tell the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, or how the scientific method works. Abortion? People argue the wrong issue - instead of "at what point does a human acquire rights under the law", you get billboards saying crap like "You call it abortion, God calls it MURDER", which totally removes the actual important part of the debate.
Religious laws have a place. It's called church. You can teach people Leviticus all day long at church. Those of us who think Leviticus is not divinely inspired can opt out, as is our constitutional right.
As far as human rights, it basically boils down to what people think everyone should be entitled to. That's it. It's an idea created by people in less restrictive countries to decry the abuses of the more restrictive countries. Three hundred years ago, in the western world, people were owned by the crown, and had no right to themselves that wasn't granted by the monarch. We've moved past that, and feel that others should be able to as well.
It's compassion, not religion, that drives the idea of human rights; it's certainly not the Bible. There are no human rights in the Bible; God owns your butt, and if you don't follow along, you're punished. While the New Testament may encourage compassion as a virtue, you can never escape the fact that you don't own yourself or any of your possessions.
What do you do when healthcare insurance will pay for an assisted suicide, but will no longer pay for ongoing therapy and care?
As opposed to letting you die of the disease naturally? I mean, sure you could sue, but you might be dead by then.
What do you do when your friend's father is given the green light to commit suicide, but your mother who has the same illness but is advanced to the point where she is in a painful vegetative state and can no longer choose for herself?
Be happy for your friend's father, because he doesn't have to suffer like your mother does? I mean, seriously, what are you, a dick? Just because your mother suffers, he has to suffer too?
Euthanasia is a different issue than suicide, and there's a lot of really good reasons to restrict its use. I do think it should be legal under heavy regulation, but obviously a lot of people disagree. But the fact of the matter is that it's your mother's life to lose, not yours. The argument here is the right to control your own life, not the lives of others.
You are perhaps unaware then that since Obama became President we have run up more debut in three years than Bush managed in eight?
You are perhaps unaware that the debt was borrowed for the stimulus packages which were trying to fix the recession that started during the Bush years? It also paid for the two wars and the unfunded Medicare part D, both straight from Bush's desk.
And before you complain about Obama's evil stimulus package, remember Bush passed one himself before he left office. Even the Republicans know you need stimulus to fix the economy - compare Hoover's policies to FDR's for an example of why. Oh, wait, they don't want you to remember that they passed a stimulus package, because they're so busy condemning Obama for passing them, because it unbalanced the budget further. Oh, and don't mention that Bush had a balanced budget handed to him in 2001.
You know what the problem is? Congress under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and ol' W took the brakes off the economy, and it made a lot of people rich, and boosted the U.S. economy. The problem is that we went right off a cliff, and there were no brakes anymore. The banks will always act in their short term interest, which is why we have regulation. Taking the regulation away is like smoking crack - real nice high for a bit, then a horrible crash.
Obama's far from perfect, but you can't blame him for the recession, and he's done what he's done in regards to the stimulus and unemployment packages because he hasn't had much choice. It always takes time to recover from recession, and unemployment is always one of the last things to recover. And every time it happens, politicians play the blame game, and schmucks like you fall for it.
Yeah, but if you crossed state lines, then your state would be collecting tax for miles driven in another state.
You might think that states wouldn't care about that sort of thing, thinking that it would even out, but IFTA does just that for commercial vehicles - my company has to keep track of where I drive and submit that paperwork to Oklahoma along with a nice fat check, and Oklahoma pays the other states what is owed them.
Before IFTA, you had to buy fuel permits from every state you operated in, keep track of all your mileage, and pay tax to each state (or get a refund from states where you bought more fuel than you used). That just wouldn't work for non-commercial vehicles, but hey, if they're using a tracking device to monitor everywhere you car goes, that might be the new reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno about the great wall, but the pyramids were salvaged for stone.
What's left now is just the inner cores. Most of the pyramids were covered with smooth, white stone and capped with a metal tip.
I only run across them myself on Google images, so maybe your usage just doesn't match the targets they're aiming for. If it is a plugin, I'd like to know what it is so I can stop getting them.
That's what I meant by generational. A large number of those casual users are people of my generation or older.
My dad clicks on spam stuff all the time. My sister, who just turned 18 (she's a lot younger than me) doesn't. She's less technical than my dad is - she's just been using the internet most of her life, and knows better.
Is telemarketing harmful? Because every time I get one of those bastards calling me, I want to harm them.
(Yes, I know about the DNC list. I'm on a cell phone)
It's annoying for Linux users too. Google images if full of links to sites that try to run a virus scan and force you to download their stupid product.
Unless you close the tab quickly, you'll likely have to kill firefox altogether because of the modal windows that it pops up. One more reason modal windows are fucking evil.
I think that'll be a generational issue. Today's children are growing up with computers, whereas most of my generation didn't.
Most people who are computer literate don't fall for these scams. Once the computer illiterate die off, it'll be a lot harder to scam people using these methods. There will still be scams, but there were scams before the internet too.
Sure, devices will change, and software will change, and people will fall behind, but I doubt we'll see the kind of technological revolution that the internet brought about for quite some time.
Isn't the 13 year existence of a security bug in open source code a valid argument that open source does not really mean a product is more secure?
No, it's not. It's a data point. It should be considered along with other data points (namely, if any bugs have been found because of open source methodology) to craft an argument.
If it can be shown that the "many eyes" theory has not solved any security issues, then you have an argument against it. One example is not enough.
You could say the same thing about any car. No matter how you put it, getting into a machine that can travel at higher velocities than the human senses were evolved to deal with is more dangerous than walking. It puts yourself and any others you come near in danger. For some reason, most of society thinks it's worth it.
Maybe I'm biased because I like classic cars, but I feel that if they were safe enough to drive around in the '60s, they're safe enough (if maintained) to drive now. If that's not safe enough, you can always stay home.
My '65 Kombi didn't have them, and the cops never bothered me about them.
I assumed back then that is didn't come with them from the factory, and that's the assumption the cops made as well. Looking back, it might have been because it had been a clown bus and they had stripped out a lot of the interior.
Wearing a seatbelt in a '69beetle is of dubious value if you're going to run into a tree.
There's not much in front of you but a light frame, some sheet metal, and a gas tank. The windows are small, so you're unlikely to be ejected, and the steering wheel is probably going to slam into you even if you are wearing a belt, just because the entire front end is going to look like a smashed soda can.
I'm not saying seat belts don't save lives - evidence is pretty clear that they do - but seat belts are generally accompanied by other safety designs on the car. There's a reason Beetles stopped being sold in the U.S.
That being said, yeah, he knew the risk. Anyone old enough to drive with an IQ over 70 knows the risk. Some of us choose not to wear them. It doesn't make it any less sad when someone dies, or justify dismissing their deaths just because they knew the risk.
It's not false. Reread my comment.
Referring to members of the House as "Congressmen" and senators as "Senators" is a rule of thumb. That's the fact I was stating. It's true.
Yes, they're all "congressmen". We get that. What you apparently don't get is the custom of referring to senators by the title "Senator", and not by the generic term "congressman", which isn't a title. Members of the House don't have titles, so they are referred to as congressmen.
Consider two men: one gets a PhD, one does not. They're both adults. While you could refer to either as "Mister", it wouldn't be appropriate for the man with the PhD, since his correct title is "Doctor". In everyday conversation, referring to the doctor as "Mister So-and-So" would probably pass, but a TV or radio show host wouldn't never knowingly do it.
As to my other point, they are all representatives, in the sense that they represent an entity as a member of a representative government. Senators represent the state government, theoretically speaking, although since the 17th amendment senators have to concern themselves more with public opinion. They're generally not referred to as representatives since that would be confusing.
If you're referring to members of congress as a whole, then congressmen is perfectly acceptable. You don't see that very often, since it's not common to refer to the members of congress as a whole, as opposed to "Congress", which refers to the organization (i.e. you wouldn't say congressmen passed a law, you'd say Congress passed a law). The rule of thumb I mentioned above is for referring to individual senators and House members.
Cool. Learn something new every day, I guess.
OK, how about this idea:
Big government provides more services and draws more on the tax base than small government.
Governments like Sweden, where the government provides health care, university education, public transit, etc. are big governments. There's a good social safety net, so the poor have a decent standard of living.
Small governments only provide that which cannot be reliably provided by the private sector. A small government would limit itself to things like law enforcement, foreign affairs, defense, essential public infrastructure (roads, seaports, etc.), and various forms of standardization for trade (i.e. 1Kg is actually 1Kg, pallets must be heat treated to remove parasites, etc.). A small government is better for the rich and (arguably) middle class, because less of your money is redistributed.
It's pretty much the whole socialism vs. capitalism argument. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but in times of economic hardship (at least in the U.S.), you get a lot of people calling for small government.
Run toward him and punch him in the gut. If he hasn't had a lot of training, once you're inside the range of the weapon he'll probably pause before he remembers to drop it and defend himself.
Once he's down, smash his visor into his face if he has one. That always pisses them off, and he'll have a hell of a time getting it off.
Most pikemen I know don't have pockets, but carry their belongings in a belt pouch. If you're lucky, he's got a knife on his belt you can grab it and cut the pouch strings off. You might also want to carry a knife yourself just for this purpose.
Don't turn and run - if you do, he's got you square in the back. I've seen it plenty of times - it's a rookie mistake.
Note that you should only attempt this at a ren faire or SCA event. Do not, under any circumstances, try it with the Swiss Guard.
It's also a fact that on the radio (and probably TV as well, I dunno) when they refer to someone as "Congressman So-and-So", he or she is a member of the House.
There's not really a title for representatives - technically, both senators and House members are representatives - Senators of the state, House members of the people in their district. The general rule of thumb in the media is to use the title "senator" when appropriate and "congressman" when it is not.
There is a whole lot of variation you could get from the same two parents. Each parent contributes 23 chromosomes, and which chromosome gets contributed is random. The chances of any two children all getting the same set from each parent is extremely low (outside of twins and whatnot, but that's a different mechanism).
Natural selection is just a part of the process of evolution. It's a lot more complicated than that.
What they're saying here is that since there are fewer mutations in each new human, there are fewer opportunities for new traits to develop, since most mutations don't lead to new traits.
Piss on 'em. I think I'm the last person left who still boycotts Amazon over the one-click patent.
I still boycott DVDs too, but my reasons for doing that have grown far beyond the CSS debacle they started with.
Most of the high profile NASA missions have no direct effect on day to day life of the average Joe. It does have an effect on the future average Joe, because a lot of the technology created for the high profile missions does get used eventually for things that affect regular people. An example is the ion drive, which was tested on various pure science probes and is now used in satellites to control position and orientation, extending their service life due to not requiring as much fuel.
There's a lot of low profile stuff that NASA does that we can't do without. Most of the low profile missions involve putting satellites in orbit. Our communication systems rely on them. A huge chunk of the transportation industry would be crippled without them. GPS navigation relies on them. Hell, television and radio rely on them. Commercial space companies aren't at a level to compete with this quite yet, although they're being helped along by... well, NASA.
People also tend to forget the "Aeronautics" part of NASA, which does a lot of research for aircraft and missile systems. They partner with the big aircraft companies to test new designs and ideas. Some of those ideas end up with no practical use, and some of them do. It's up to the market to figure out how to commercialize them.
Some of these things you mention (water on Mars, X-Ray radiation, etc.) will be important to us if we set up shop anywhere beyond LEO. That might not be important right at the moment, but it very well may be in the future; China has its eyes on the moon - are we willing to let them have it?
There's always going to be budget pressures, even in good times. The scientists and engineers are specialized in what they do - you can't just turn off the space program and expect to start back where you left off. Look at Apollo - if we wanted to send people to the moon, we'd be starting from scratch, because most of the experts on our old technology are dead or retired. If we stop science research every time there's a budget shortfall, then it'll always be one step forward, one step back.
Ocean Acidification is what's he's talking about. No, the oceans aren't turning to acid - they're at a pH of 8.something right now and falling. So they're becoming more acid, but not actually becoming an acid.
The problem is that certain organisms can't deal with a more acidic ocean. Crustaceans won't be able to build shells, for instance - and they're all over the food chain down there. Disrupt the food chain enough and you have a massive extinction event.
I'm not sure what effect this will have on oxygen production (I'm no marine biologist, I'm a truck driver/ex UNIX admin/science groupie), but it will undoubtedly have an effect on the fisheries. A good chunk of the world gets most of its protein from the ocean.
Laws are necessary not for moral issues, but to allow for a functioning society.
Murder isn't illegal because it just happens to be a commandment. If it was, we'd also have laws forcing all work to cease on the sabbath, holding God before all things, and not coveting our neighbors. That last one would pretty much destroy the economy, really. Hell, combine that with a law forbidding lies and marketing would be a dead art.
Murder is illegal because you can't have a decent quality of life in a society where people can stab you at will. The same goes for theft.
Also, most laws that have nothing to do with morality at all. Income taxes are due on April 15. That's a law. You may be required to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but the ides of April isn't mentioned. The Bible has nothing to say about building codes (other than it being a good idea to build on rock, rather than sand), maximum length you're allowed to let your grass grow, or what speed you're allowed to drive on Interstate highways.
The laws that are based on religion are the laws that cause the most trouble. Gay marriage? Banned in most states for moral reasons, and that pisses a lot of people off. Teaching "intelligent design" in schools as an alternative to evolution? You end up with a lot of children who can't tell the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, or how the scientific method works. Abortion? People argue the wrong issue - instead of "at what point does a human acquire rights under the law", you get billboards saying crap like "You call it abortion, God calls it MURDER", which totally removes the actual important part of the debate.
Religious laws have a place. It's called church. You can teach people Leviticus all day long at church. Those of us who think Leviticus is not divinely inspired can opt out, as is our constitutional right.
As far as human rights, it basically boils down to what people think everyone should be entitled to. That's it. It's an idea created by people in less restrictive countries to decry the abuses of the more restrictive countries. Three hundred years ago, in the western world, people were owned by the crown, and had no right to themselves that wasn't granted by the monarch. We've moved past that, and feel that others should be able to as well.
It's compassion, not religion, that drives the idea of human rights; it's certainly not the Bible. There are no human rights in the Bible; God owns your butt, and if you don't follow along, you're punished. While the New Testament may encourage compassion as a virtue, you can never escape the fact that you don't own yourself or any of your possessions.
What do you do when healthcare insurance will pay for an assisted suicide, but will no longer pay for ongoing therapy and care?
As opposed to letting you die of the disease naturally? I mean, sure you could sue, but you might be dead by then.
What do you do when your friend's father is given the green light to commit suicide, but your mother who has the same illness but is advanced to the point where she is in a painful vegetative state and can no longer choose for herself?
Be happy for your friend's father, because he doesn't have to suffer like your mother does? I mean, seriously, what are you, a dick? Just because your mother suffers, he has to suffer too?
Euthanasia is a different issue than suicide, and there's a lot of really good reasons to restrict its use. I do think it should be legal under heavy regulation, but obviously a lot of people disagree. But the fact of the matter is that it's your mother's life to lose, not yours. The argument here is the right to control your own life, not the lives of others.
I wouldn't either.
Why let my enemy have the good stuff?
You are perhaps unaware then that since Obama became President we have run up more debut in three years than Bush managed in eight?
You are perhaps unaware that the debt was borrowed for the stimulus packages which were trying to fix the recession that started during the Bush years? It also paid for the two wars and the unfunded Medicare part D, both straight from Bush's desk.
And before you complain about Obama's evil stimulus package, remember Bush passed one himself before he left office. Even the Republicans know you need stimulus to fix the economy - compare Hoover's policies to FDR's for an example of why. Oh, wait, they don't want you to remember that they passed a stimulus package, because they're so busy condemning Obama for passing them, because it unbalanced the budget further. Oh, and don't mention that Bush had a balanced budget handed to him in 2001.
You know what the problem is? Congress under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and ol' W took the brakes off the economy, and it made a lot of people rich, and boosted the U.S. economy. The problem is that we went right off a cliff, and there were no brakes anymore. The banks will always act in their short term interest, which is why we have regulation. Taking the regulation away is like smoking crack - real nice high for a bit, then a horrible crash.
Obama's far from perfect, but you can't blame him for the recession, and he's done what he's done in regards to the stimulus and unemployment packages because he hasn't had much choice. It always takes time to recover from recession, and unemployment is always one of the last things to recover. And every time it happens, politicians play the blame game, and schmucks like you fall for it.
Yeah, but if you crossed state lines, then your state would be collecting tax for miles driven in another state.
You might think that states wouldn't care about that sort of thing, thinking that it would even out, but IFTA does just that for commercial vehicles - my company has to keep track of where I drive and submit that paperwork to Oklahoma along with a nice fat check, and Oklahoma pays the other states what is owed them.
Before IFTA, you had to buy fuel permits from every state you operated in, keep track of all your mileage, and pay tax to each state (or get a refund from states where you bought more fuel than you used). That just wouldn't work for non-commercial vehicles, but hey, if they're using a tracking device to monitor everywhere you car goes, that might be the new reality.