"Electricity (as we know it) may not be around then."
I'm not sure how you expect electricity to 'change' in the future.
If a civilization can't generate electricity, then they wouldn't have the technical knowledge to even know what to do with digital data, so the whole point would be moot.
I've never understood why any government would tax a sale. Why would you increase the cost of something, and thus make it harder for consumers to buy?
Plus, people have to pay that tax, whether they have a steady income or not. Same for property tax. The government is making you pay taxes ON THINGS THAT DO NOT GENERATE INCOME FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO PAY THE TAXES! For example, if I'm out of work, I am still expected to pay property taxes on my house and car, and for certain necessities (some basics are excluded). Where am I expected to get this money to pay the taxes if I'm out of work? It seems that if states just did away with all taxes except for income tax, the tax system would be simpler and more fair.
Not constitutional in our normal, sane eyes, but we are talking about the courts. They make crazy decisions all the time, because they over think the minutiae of these cases. It should take them all of five seconds to declare this unconstitutional, but they probably will say it is fine. Don't think so? Look at use tax.
Relevant sections of the constitution state: "The Congress shall have Power To... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Pretty much sounds like states can't make me pay a tax when passing goods from one state to another, right? Yet states have somehow subverted this by declaring it a 'use' tax, not a 'sales' tax. They claim that they are not taxing the sale of the item, but rather, the use of the item in their state. This would almost be a plausible argument, except for two tiny problems:
1. The use tax rate is the exact same as the sales tax rate. 2. The use tax only applies to all items used in a state, but ONLY items brought in from another state.
If this were a REAL use tax, every item 'used' in the state would be subject to it. The use tax is so obviously nothing more than an interstate tax by a different name. And the courts, almighty protectors of our constitutional rights, have gone along with this bullshit argument.
And his flight was three years after the Wright Brothers. (1903 vs. 1906) Dumont supporters cling to the fact that the Wright Brothers had a headwind at takeoff to justify their claim that he, and not the Wright Brothers, was the first to fly a real airplane. Pretty weak argument if you ask me.
I'm constantly amazed how people constantly fail to realize what the 2nd amendment means. And how they think that they have to pick 'militia' or 'people', but you can't pick both. I've spelled it out in other posts, but I guess I'll do it again:
The 2nd amendment is meant to ensure that MILITIAS continue to exist by giving INDIVIDUALS the right to keep weapons. The 2nd amendment is not a multiple choice (I have to pick the rights of militias or the rights of individuals). They BOTH get that right.
Legally, you are correct. But in the real world, threat of violence is not the SAME as violence. Example: Would you rather have me threaten to punch you in the face, or actually punch you in the face? Why?
I don't think the comparison of one-way trips on Earth to one-way trips to Mars is quite fair. On Earth, explorers were traveling to places that would likely have necessities like food, water, shelter... reasonable temperatures... air. You know, important stuff like that. Traveling to Mars means if you don't take it with you, you don't have it.
From the article... "...a new, more secure Internet where users would be required to register prior to gaining access."
I already have to do ridiculous things like 'prove' who I am before boarding a plane, I'm sure as hell not going to jump through anymore government hoops for something as simple as internet access. And what would this 'registration' require? SSN? Birthdate? Can people be put on a 'no-internet' list? Who has final say over who is allowed access? What would keep people from filling in junk info like I do on every website that requires registration?
It's scary that this guy thinks that he knows technology, but doesn't have a clue that his plan is blindingly stupid.
This community has known for decades that they needed to move, and they've been planning relocation for over twenty years. From the 2nd page of the executive summary:
"To this end, village residents have pursued relocation for the last twenty years."
Except that in your example you know the source of the problem: the chemical plant.
But with global warming effects, who is to blame? Oil companies? Auto companies? Drivers? People that slash and burn the rainforest? When a worldwide phenomenon is the culprits, how do you legally point to a few and say, "It's your fault"?
The state of California sends out a tax bill for your vehicle every year. The try to hide it as a 'registration fee', but the 'fee' is based on the vehicle's value, and it is deductible as property tax by the IRS. My $4,000 Mustang is around $50/yr, while my wife's newer SUV is around $200.
"if the users are free to opt out at any point, how exactly is this terrible?" You can opt out for NOW. What happens when the government decides that too many adults are downloading copyrighted materials? Or something the government considers 'dangerous'? There is already an existing filtering system in place, and it will be so easy to just turn it on for everybody. Government rarely opts for less control or regulation.
"Would you prefer this run by an organization or company that would be even more susceptible to bribes and/or collusion?" You think companies are MORE susceptible to bribes and collusion? You've never heard of campaign contributions or voting along party lines, have you?
"Or perhaps you'd rather that every ISP establish it's own standards of censorship?" Yes, most definitely. Then you could have ISPs that cater to families/children by having a rigid filtering system, while others might have little to no filtering for adults. Guess what? Then you have a choice.
Yeah, that orange juice is hard to put down. I can't tell you how many of my dorm mates in college skipped class to just sit around their room and pass a bottle of Sunny Delight around. It was really sad when one of them would just stare at the bottle for a while and then mutter, "Whoa... Sunny-D..."
"the UK could have held out indefinitely" An isolated UK against an Axis controlled Europe/Russia would have starved to death.
"Especially after his ill-judged foray East..."...that was halted with our help. Sorry, you'd have been facing off against pretty much the entire landmass of Europe/Asia, with no way to feed yourselves. Even the US couldn't have hoped to stop THAT war machine.
"I'm not American bashing per se" Really? Let me recite some of your post:
"Incidentally, half of Europe did live under communist dictatorship for fifty years post-WWII"
And that's our fault because...? I see, we don't get credit for helping you, but we get the blame for anything that doesn't go right. Nice.
"without US global interference and posturing the communist states may have collapsed more swiftly than they did."
You just blamed us for keeping the Soviet Union afloat. All on pure speculation, and against all logic. Who the hell do you think kept the USSR in check? France?
Spain? There was one nation that rivaled their military power: us.
"I'm delighted that there are ways to detect and defeat B2 bombers. US military dominance is not a good thing for the world at large" I guess that all depends on WHO overtakes our dominance. You might be praying for the good ol' days of US military dominance.
They guy can't even take five minutes to type up WHAT change-congress.org is all about and put it on the website? With such lax dedication and organizational skills, how the hell did he ever expect to get a campaign up and running?
A) It seems like he receive 11 times what the licensing/copyright fee was. What would you consider a 'good' settlement (with an attorney). Do you have an example of a higher settlement for a single photo copyright infringement?
B) So if he hired an attorney, he could have sued for attorney's fees, and MAYBE received it... and then given it to the attorney. Or if he didn't get the attorney's fees, he would have had to pay out of his own pocket. I don't see how either outcome would have benefited him.
The thing that makes me laugh most about this joke is that according to my wife (who's company uses SAP), you NEVER pronounce it sap in front of the consultants. It is always S-A-P, and they always make sure to correct you every time.
I then made sure to pronounce it sap in front of our consultants when the company I worked for switched over.:-)
How did this get modded insightful? This is nothing but blatant America-bashing with no facts.
"Had the UK gone turtle we'd have survived fine without the US"
I assume by 'we' that you mean Europe, but Germany was pretty much stomping across Europe at will before we showed up. So with the UK and US out of the picture, who would have been left to liberate Europe?
"Had the USSR not had US materials/equipment they'd maybe have lost 25m men not just the 20m they did lose."
Complete speculation on your part, since even with our equipment Germany got to within spitting distance of Moscow. Oh, and saving 5mil Russian lives doesn't mean anything to you? That's pretty heartless. And typical of America-bashers. No matter how many we save, it doesn't matter to you.
"If it weren't for the US, the Germans would still have lost the war."
You're sentence doesn't quite make sense. I think you meant to say "Even without the help of the US, the Germans would still have lost the war." Again, complete speculation on your part. I could just as easily say, "The US could have ended WWII all by itself without any help from the other Allies.", but it wouldn't make it true just because I typed it. The parent poster you replied to didn't even make that absurd a statement, and you went off on him like he was some kind of an idiot.
"Don't fucking tell me the US saved Europe."
The US fucking helped save Europe from one of the most evil dictatorships in history, and I can send you lots of pictures of dead American teenagers that gave their lives doing it. Just because you hate George Bush is no reason to spit on the graves of those that helped your continent.
They originally tried to looked it up in Hitchiker's Guide to The Galaxy - Home Basic Edition, but received an error of, "Sorry, that information is not available in this edition. Would you like to upgrade?"
"For example, public schools are an example of socialism, although those schools seem to have failed to educate their students as to that fact"
Wow, our public (socialist) schools failed at teaching something? Say it ain't so...
Slashdot Mirror
"Electricity (as we know it) may not be around then."
I'm not sure how you expect electricity to 'change' in the future.
If a civilization can't generate electricity, then they wouldn't have the technical knowledge to even know what to do with digital data, so the whole point would be moot.
"The Congress shall have Power To ... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, and with the Indian Tribes;"
That power lies with Congress, not the states.
It's best to read my whole post before making arguments about it.
I've never understood why any government would tax a sale. Why would you increase the cost of something, and thus make it harder for consumers to buy?
Plus, people have to pay that tax, whether they have a steady income or not. Same for property tax. The government is making you pay taxes ON THINGS THAT DO NOT GENERATE INCOME FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO PAY THE TAXES! For example, if I'm out of work, I am still expected to pay property taxes on my house and car, and for certain necessities (some basics are excluded). Where am I expected to get this money to pay the taxes if I'm out of work? It seems that if states just did away with all taxes except for income tax, the tax system would be simpler and more fair.
If it's so perfectly legal, why do states not just call it an 'import' tax?
Also, if I am sending something from California to New York, am I not EXPORTING it? Wouldn't this mean that New York has taxed an export?
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles EXPORTED FROM ANY STATE." (emphasis mine)
Not constitutional in our normal, sane eyes, but we are talking about the courts. They make crazy decisions all the time, because they over think the minutiae of these cases. It should take them all of five seconds to declare this unconstitutional, but they probably will say it is fine. Don't think so? Look at use tax.
... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Relevant sections of the constitution state:
"The Congress shall have Power To
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Pretty much sounds like states can't make me pay a tax when passing goods from one state to another, right? Yet states have somehow subverted this by declaring it a 'use' tax, not a 'sales' tax. They claim that they are not taxing the sale of the item, but rather, the use of the item in their state. This would almost be a plausible argument, except for two tiny problems:
1. The use tax rate is the exact same as the sales tax rate.
2. The use tax only applies to all items used in a state, but ONLY items brought in from another state.
If this were a REAL use tax, every item 'used' in the state would be subject to it. The use tax is so obviously nothing more than an interstate tax by a different name. And the courts, almighty protectors of our constitutional rights, have gone along with this bullshit argument.
Um, so what are the propellers in this picture attached to? http://www.old-picture.com/wright-brothers/pictures/Wright-Brothers-Airplane-001.jpg
And his flight was three years after the Wright Brothers. (1903 vs. 1906) Dumont supporters cling to the fact that the Wright Brothers had a headwind at takeoff to justify their claim that he, and not the Wright Brothers, was the first to fly a real airplane. Pretty weak argument if you ask me.
I'm constantly amazed how people constantly fail to realize what the 2nd amendment means. And how they think that they have to pick 'militia' or 'people', but you can't pick both. I've spelled it out in other posts, but I guess I'll do it again:
The 2nd amendment is meant to ensure that MILITIAS continue to exist by giving INDIVIDUALS the right to keep weapons. The 2nd amendment is not a multiple choice (I have to pick the rights of militias or the rights of individuals). They BOTH get that right.
Legally, you are correct. But in the real world, threat of violence is not the SAME as violence. Example: Would you rather have me threaten to punch you in the face, or actually punch you in the face? Why?
What if a cop pulls their gun on a criminal assaulting someone, and forces the criminal to the ground without firing a shot?
What if a dangerous animal is getting near a group of people, and I fire a few shots off into the air to scare it off?
What if a burglar breaks into my house, sees me wielding a gun, and takes off?
Seems like these are a lot of useful, non-violent uses of a gun. A gun doesn't have to take a life to be useful.
I don't think the comparison of one-way trips on Earth to one-way trips to Mars is quite fair. On Earth, explorers were traveling to places that would likely have necessities like food, water, shelter... reasonable temperatures... air. You know, important stuff like that. Traveling to Mars means if you don't take it with you, you don't have it.
From the article...
"...a new, more secure Internet where users would be required to register prior to gaining access."
I already have to do ridiculous things like 'prove' who I am before boarding a plane, I'm sure as hell not going to jump through anymore government hoops for something as simple as internet access. And what would this 'registration' require? SSN? Birthdate? Can people be put on a 'no-internet' list? Who has final say over who is allowed access? What would keep people from filling in junk info like I do on every website that requires registration?
It's scary that this guy thinks that he knows technology, but doesn't have a clue that his plan is blindingly stupid.
"To this end, village residents have pursued relocation for the last twenty years."
http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/en/cw/Kivalina/Executive%20Summary.pdf
This town was going to disappear weather there was global warming or not. Global warming is now their excuse to get someone else to pay for it.
Except that in your example you know the source of the problem: the chemical plant.
But with global warming effects, who is to blame? Oil companies? Auto companies? Drivers? People that slash and burn the rainforest? When a worldwide phenomenon is the culprits, how do you legally point to a few and say, "It's your fault"?
I'll take one more swipe at it:
Cue Horatio Caine.. *tilts head*
'Looks like someone's been left in the dark.. '
*PUTS ON sunglasses*
*Looks off into the distance*
'permanently.'
The state of California sends out a tax bill for your vehicle every year. The try to hide it as a 'registration fee', but the 'fee' is based on the vehicle's value, and it is deductible as property tax by the IRS. My $4,000 Mustang is around $50/yr, while my wife's newer SUV is around $200.
Cue Horatio Caine.. 'Looks like someone's been left in the dark.. '
*removes sunglasses*
'permanently.'
There, fixed that for ya.
"if the users are free to opt out at any point, how exactly is this terrible?"
You can opt out for NOW. What happens when the government decides that too many adults are downloading copyrighted materials? Or something the government considers 'dangerous'? There is already an existing filtering system in place, and it will be so easy to just turn it on for everybody. Government rarely opts for less control or regulation.
"Would you prefer this run by an organization or company that would be even more susceptible to bribes and/or collusion?"
You think companies are MORE susceptible to bribes and collusion? You've never heard of campaign contributions or voting along party lines, have you?
"Or perhaps you'd rather that every ISP establish it's own standards of censorship?"
Yes, most definitely. Then you could have ISPs that cater to families/children by having a rigid filtering system, while others might have little to no filtering for adults. Guess what? Then you have a choice.
Yeah, that orange juice is hard to put down. I can't tell you how many of my dorm mates in college skipped class to just sit around their room and pass a bottle of Sunny Delight around. It was really sad when one of them would just stare at the bottle for a while and then mutter, "Whoa... Sunny-D..."
"the UK could have held out indefinitely"
...that was halted with our help. Sorry, you'd have been facing off against pretty much the entire landmass of Europe/Asia, with no way to feed yourselves. Even the US couldn't have hoped to stop THAT war machine.
An isolated UK against an Axis controlled Europe/Russia would have starved to death.
"Especially after his ill-judged foray East..."
"I'm not American bashing per se"
Really? Let me recite some of your post:
"Incidentally, half of Europe did live under communist dictatorship for fifty years post-WWII"
And that's our fault because...? I see, we don't get credit for helping you, but we get the blame for anything that doesn't go right. Nice.
"without US global interference and posturing the communist states may have collapsed more swiftly than they did."
You just blamed us for keeping the Soviet Union afloat. All on pure speculation, and against all logic. Who the hell do you think kept the USSR in check? France?
Spain? There was one nation that rivaled their military power: us.
"I'm delighted that there are ways to detect and defeat B2 bombers. US military dominance is not a good thing for the world at large"
I guess that all depends on WHO overtakes our dominance. You might be praying for the good ol' days of US military dominance.
They guy can't even take five minutes to type up WHAT change-congress.org is all about and put it on the website? With such lax dedication and organizational skills, how the hell did he ever expect to get a campaign up and running?
A) It seems like he receive 11 times what the licensing/copyright fee was. What would you consider a 'good' settlement (with an attorney). Do you have an example of a higher settlement for a single photo copyright infringement?
B) So if he hired an attorney, he could have sued for attorney's fees, and MAYBE received it... and then given it to the attorney. Or if he didn't get the attorney's fees, he would have had to pay out of his own pocket. I don't see how either outcome would have benefited him.
The thing that makes me laugh most about this joke is that according to my wife (who's company uses SAP), you NEVER pronounce it sap in front of the consultants. It is always S-A-P, and they always make sure to correct you every time.
:-)
I then made sure to pronounce it sap in front of our consultants when the company I worked for switched over.
How did this get modded insightful? This is nothing but blatant America-bashing with no facts. "Had the UK gone turtle we'd have survived fine without the US" I assume by 'we' that you mean Europe, but Germany was pretty much stomping across Europe at will before we showed up. So with the UK and US out of the picture, who would have been left to liberate Europe? "Had the USSR not had US materials/equipment they'd maybe have lost 25m men not just the 20m they did lose." Complete speculation on your part, since even with our equipment Germany got to within spitting distance of Moscow. Oh, and saving 5mil Russian lives doesn't mean anything to you? That's pretty heartless. And typical of America-bashers. No matter how many we save, it doesn't matter to you. "If it weren't for the US, the Germans would still have lost the war." You're sentence doesn't quite make sense. I think you meant to say "Even without the help of the US, the Germans would still have lost the war." Again, complete speculation on your part. I could just as easily say, "The US could have ended WWII all by itself without any help from the other Allies.", but it wouldn't make it true just because I typed it. The parent poster you replied to didn't even make that absurd a statement, and you went off on him like he was some kind of an idiot. "Don't fucking tell me the US saved Europe." The US fucking helped save Europe from one of the most evil dictatorships in history, and I can send you lots of pictures of dead American teenagers that gave their lives doing it. Just because you hate George Bush is no reason to spit on the graves of those that helped your continent.
They originally tried to looked it up in Hitchiker's Guide to The Galaxy - Home Basic Edition, but received an error of, "Sorry, that information is not available in this edition. Would you like to upgrade?"
"For example, public schools are an example of socialism, although those schools seem to have failed to educate their students as to that fact" Wow, our public (socialist) schools failed at teaching something? Say it ain't so...