Except cruise ships run 24/7. And cruise ships burn shitloads of fuel even when at rest. And burn much dirtier fuel. And don't have the filtering tech that cars have. Etc etc.
It is possible for both pollution from cars and pollution from other sources to be a problem. Cars pollute most in precisely the most dangerous place -- child head height in the middle of densely populated cities.
That article says not a single word about the relative emissions of petrol and diesel cars. It's sweet that you think it's relevant, but then, you also think that a phrase like "you are bollocks" is meaningful English, so I guess it's not terribly surprising.
Which is marvellous, except for the fact that the filters aren't fully effective till hot, so they don't work well on short journeys (read: most urban traffic) or in cold days. And they are fairly frequently removed on the after-market to improve performance. And lots of the diesel fleet is old and therefore does not have modern filters, and in many cases has no fIlter at all. So in real world conditions, diesel cars emit much more PM than petrol cars.
If the article really claims that diesel has lower PM emissions than petrol, I think it's safe to say the entire article is bollocks and can be ignored.
Actually it's not at all like that and it's exactly like putting people on a national register because they're Jews.
And just to emphasise the dumbfuckery of this kind of thing: do you think Daesh terrorists are going to end up on this register, or do you credit the enemy with the intelligence to take steps to hide their religious identity?
Wait, you're suggesting that before buying a house, I would -- in your very exciting model -- now need to worry about the assets, liabilities and obligations associated with the local road network? That I have to sign up to be part of a collective buying organisation? I thought the whole frigging point about this was to move to more individualism, and away from collectivism -- if there's a collective buying organisation, then there's going to be votes, and subscriptions, and governance rules, and people pissed off that the decisions of the collective adversely affect their interests, etc etc -- i.e. a painstaking recreation of local government, just for roads (but with inevitable mission creep).
What a complete waste of time. The idea of disruption is to create new business models. This is just more of the same.
In what sense are these not taxes? They are set and collected by the relevant governments (e.g. the state of Oregon).
You seem to have forgotten that your original complaint was that you didn't see why roads should be paid for by taxes *as opposed to* fees. You now appear to be doing some kind of weaselly thing where you attempt to pretend that your original complaint wasn't a sub-Randian argument that the gummint should butt out and let private commerce run the roads, but was merely a technical complaint about the basis of how taxes that fund roads are calculated and collected. At this stage, I think you really ought to sit down and figure out what you actually have a problem with and what you'd prefer, check that it actually isn't already extant, and only then bother posting about it. Because you come across as someone moaning about nothing.
You do realise that the thread you're commenting on began with a poster making a distinction between taxation and user fees, right (and preferring the latter to the former)? You are now weighing in to take issue with me by claiming that they are one and the same thing. Don't take that up with me, take it up with the OP!
As I said to the other guy, the issue is not whether you can fund the odd road here and there privately -- even quite important roads. It's whether you can fund an entire network this way. Particularly if you're imagining that the government stops its involvement in road systems.
Sheesh, I really don't think it's too much to ask that you demonstrate a route from have 0.1% or whatever of roads paid for by user fees through to 99% of roads paid for in the same way. I can't imagine how that could be done -- why don't you tell us if it's so obvious? And start with the actual hard cases, like suburban road networks, and how competition would operate, and explaining how people wouldn't be held hostage just to leave their houses, and whether sidewalks would be funded or if pedestrians can all just go fuck themselves etc etc.
Erm. I live in the UK. Public roads are not financed by user fees. They are financed by taxes: road fuel duty and vehicle excise duty. The government sets the rates, public bodies collect the money, etc etc. If you're defining these as user fees, well how is that any different from annual state registration fees, the Massachusetts excise tax, or the Federal Highway Use tax? I mean, the latter even has the bloody word Use in it!
You're pissing around with semantics, intentionally or unintentionally.
Go back to the beginning: what are the features of a road tax that you don't like and what are the features of a user fee that you do like, and then name a country that has user fees that have the features you do like and does not have road tax with the features you don't like. If you're going to deviate from the commonly understood meanings of the terms, for example, by suggesting that user fees can be set and charged by the government and you're happy with that, then you'd better explain very clearly precisely what your actual gripe is, cos that certainly looks like hand-waving and semantic nonsense to me.
Ah, you knew my Omi well, did you? And you knew Polly, Freydi, Gusti and the rest of them, huh? You were with them when they hid in their attic while Hitler and his troops marched past, were you? And you certainly seem to think you know what she'd think better than I do, which is interesting what with my having heard her express herself quite clearly on the topic of fascists for 35 years and you having heard her express herself...never.
Who the fuck do you think you are to think it's your place to tell me what my own grandmother would have thought? I can tell you quite categorically that she would have thought that you were a meshuganeh. She once chucked a brick through a neighbour's window when he wouldn't turn the music down -- she was 80 at that time. She'd have made mincemeat of you. She'd have found you risible. She would have called you names that would have made you shrink and snivel. She was a wonderful person, who expressed herself with tremendous clarity and gave me a moral code based on her experience, and un-fucking-surprisingly, it includes "only twats vote for fascist ideas".
The really quite important word in that sentence is "some" -- as in "some of their roads". Just what percentage of roads in, say, Spain do you think are paid for by user fees. Do it as miles rather than number of roads if you like, which will give you an advantage as tolls are used on long highways. Is it 70%, perchance? 30%? 5%? Or 0.01%?
In fact, just for shits and giggles, perhaps you'd like to name any country in the world that has user fees for more than say 10% of its roads. If you can name any that have done it for urban roads, that'd be especially interesting, given that those roads typically have multiple entrances and exits and it might just be the tiniest bit inconvenient to have to stop every bloody 100m to pay another sodding toll...
*This* is what shilling looks like to you? A post referring to a couple of interesting articles in a magazine? Darlink, if I were going to shill, I'd do so a mite more effectively than that...but don't worry, the articles aren't really intended for people like you anyway. They're for people capable of rational thought and with a passing interest in science and logic
All of that is well and good but the inescapable fact is that you -- a man who abhors homosexuality -- are writing things that make other men hard. You are causing erections other than your own. You are causing men to dream (guiltily, but achingly) of the moment they could put their cock up your anus in a manner you and they would find intensely unnatural, but which for them is disgustingly erotic too. I hope you can live with yourself for inducing these sexual undercurrents among men who had hitherto considered themselves as straight as you.
You say many dumb things, but this really takes the biscuit: "Just because Trump wants to revive some of the American pride, that doesn't make him a facist"
No-one thinks that what makes Trump a fascist is that he wants to revive some of the American pride. They think he's a fascist because he wants to do to Muslims and Mexicans what Austrian fascists did to my grandma: put her on a national register because of her religion and deport her from the country as undesirable. And plenty of fuckwits thought that was just great when it happened in the 30s and plenty more fuckwits think it's great Trump is suggesting doing it now.
You misread: it said in point 3 that this stage comprises conservatives inviting the fascist movement to join them. Conservatives do this in an attempt to quell left-wing opposition.
Funnily enough, when I look back at my childhood, it wasn't characterised by a wish to inflict misogynystic violence on relatives. I think you think you're typical; I really hope you're not.
Surely the burden of proof is for you to show that roads can -- not could, but can -- be financed by user fees by pointing to a country where this is done successfully?
We know how tax funding of public roads works, as there are many models of it around the world. But user fees? That's a new model and has some pretty obvious risks that would need to be mitigated credibly, so you kinda need to demo something real if you want people to think it's anything other than a libertarian's comforting night-time self-pleasure.
The irony is that your bigotry is inducing tumescence in dozens of manly men across the nation. There are men with erections that have been caused by your post. Throbbing with sexual excitement at reading your righteous, nostalgic, patriarchal, homophobic anger.
Slashdot Mirror
Except cruise ships run 24/7. And cruise ships burn shitloads of fuel even when at rest. And burn much dirtier fuel. And don't have the filtering tech that cars have. Etc etc.
It is possible for both pollution from cars and pollution from other sources to be a problem. Cars pollute most in precisely the most dangerous place -- child head height in the middle of densely populated cities.
That assumes that there is an invariant demand for cruise ship space. In fact, there is supply-induced demand.
That article says not a single word about the relative emissions of petrol and diesel cars. It's sweet that you think it's relevant, but then, you also think that a phrase like "you are bollocks" is meaningful English, so I guess it's not terribly surprising.
Which is marvellous, except for the fact that the filters aren't fully effective till hot, so they don't work well on short journeys (read: most urban traffic) or in cold days. And they are fairly frequently removed on the after-market to improve performance. And lots of the diesel fleet is old and therefore does not have modern filters, and in many cases has no fIlter at all. So in real world conditions, diesel cars emit much more PM than petrol cars.
If the article really claims that diesel has lower PM emissions than petrol, I think it's safe to say the entire article is bollocks and can be ignored.
Mod this up -- spot on.
Actually it's not at all like that and it's exactly like putting people on a national register because they're Jews.
And just to emphasise the dumbfuckery of this kind of thing: do you think Daesh terrorists are going to end up on this register, or do you credit the enemy with the intelligence to take steps to hide their religious identity?
No, I don't mean those roads. I mean the roads along which houses are built. Like the street I live on.
Wait, you're suggesting that before buying a house, I would -- in your very exciting model -- now need to worry about the assets, liabilities and obligations associated with the local road network? That I have to sign up to be part of a collective buying organisation? I thought the whole frigging point about this was to move to more individualism, and away from collectivism -- if there's a collective buying organisation, then there's going to be votes, and subscriptions, and governance rules, and people pissed off that the decisions of the collective adversely affect their interests, etc etc -- i.e. a painstaking recreation of local government, just for roads (but with inevitable mission creep).
What a complete waste of time. The idea of disruption is to create new business models. This is just more of the same.
In what sense are these not taxes? They are set and collected by the relevant governments (e.g. the state of Oregon).
You seem to have forgotten that your original complaint was that you didn't see why roads should be paid for by taxes *as opposed to* fees. You now appear to be doing some kind of weaselly thing where you attempt to pretend that your original complaint wasn't a sub-Randian argument that the gummint should butt out and let private commerce run the roads, but was merely a technical complaint about the basis of how taxes that fund roads are calculated and collected. At this stage, I think you really ought to sit down and figure out what you actually have a problem with and what you'd prefer, check that it actually isn't already extant, and only then bother posting about it. Because you come across as someone moaning about nothing.
You do realise that the thread you're commenting on began with a poster making a distinction between taxation and user fees, right (and preferring the latter to the former)? You are now weighing in to take issue with me by claiming that they are one and the same thing. Don't take that up with me, take it up with the OP!
As I said to the other guy, the issue is not whether you can fund the odd road here and there privately -- even quite important roads. It's whether you can fund an entire network this way. Particularly if you're imagining that the government stops its involvement in road systems.
Sheesh, I really don't think it's too much to ask that you demonstrate a route from have 0.1% or whatever of roads paid for by user fees through to 99% of roads paid for in the same way. I can't imagine how that could be done -- why don't you tell us if it's so obvious? And start with the actual hard cases, like suburban road networks, and how competition would operate, and explaining how people wouldn't be held hostage just to leave their houses, and whether sidewalks would be funded or if pedestrians can all just go fuck themselves etc etc.
Erm. I live in the UK. Public roads are not financed by user fees. They are financed by taxes: road fuel duty and vehicle excise duty. The government sets the rates, public bodies collect the money, etc etc. If you're defining these as user fees, well how is that any different from annual state registration fees, the Massachusetts excise tax, or the Federal Highway Use tax? I mean, the latter even has the bloody word Use in it!
You're pissing around with semantics, intentionally or unintentionally.
Go back to the beginning: what are the features of a road tax that you don't like and what are the features of a user fee that you do like, and then name a country that has user fees that have the features you do like and does not have road tax with the features you don't like. If you're going to deviate from the commonly understood meanings of the terms, for example, by suggesting that user fees can be set and charged by the government and you're happy with that, then you'd better explain very clearly precisely what your actual gripe is, cos that certainly looks like hand-waving and semantic nonsense to me.
Ah, you knew my Omi well, did you? And you knew Polly, Freydi, Gusti and the rest of them, huh? You were with them when they hid in their attic while Hitler and his troops marched past, were you? And you certainly seem to think you know what she'd think better than I do, which is interesting what with my having heard her express herself quite clearly on the topic of fascists for 35 years and you having heard her express herself...never.
Who the fuck do you think you are to think it's your place to tell me what my own grandmother would have thought? I can tell you quite categorically that she would have thought that you were a meshuganeh. She once chucked a brick through a neighbour's window when he wouldn't turn the music down -- she was 80 at that time. She'd have made mincemeat of you. She'd have found you risible. She would have called you names that would have made you shrink and snivel. She was a wonderful person, who expressed herself with tremendous clarity and gave me a moral code based on her experience, and un-fucking-surprisingly, it includes "only twats vote for fascist ideas".
The really quite important word in that sentence is "some" -- as in "some of their roads". Just what percentage of roads in, say, Spain do you think are paid for by user fees. Do it as miles rather than number of roads if you like, which will give you an advantage as tolls are used on long highways. Is it 70%, perchance? 30%? 5%? Or 0.01%?
In fact, just for shits and giggles, perhaps you'd like to name any country in the world that has user fees for more than say 10% of its roads. If you can name any that have done it for urban roads, that'd be especially interesting, given that those roads typically have multiple entrances and exits and it might just be the tiniest bit inconvenient to have to stop every bloody 100m to pay another sodding toll...
*This* is what shilling looks like to you? A post referring to a couple of interesting articles in a magazine? Darlink, if I were going to shill, I'd do so a mite more effectively than that...but don't worry, the articles aren't really intended for people like you anyway. They're for people capable of rational thought and with a passing interest in science and logic
All of that is well and good but the inescapable fact is that you -- a man who abhors homosexuality -- are writing things that make other men hard. You are causing erections other than your own. You are causing men to dream (guiltily, but achingly) of the moment they could put their cock up your anus in a manner you and they would find intensely unnatural, but which for them is disgustingly erotic too. I hope you can live with yourself for inducing these sexual undercurrents among men who had hitherto considered themselves as straight as you.
You say many dumb things, but this really takes the biscuit: "Just because Trump wants to revive some of the American pride, that doesn't make him a facist"
No-one thinks that what makes Trump a fascist is that he wants to revive some of the American pride. They think he's a fascist because he wants to do to Muslims and Mexicans what Austrian fascists did to my grandma: put her on a national register because of her religion and deport her from the country as undesirable. And plenty of fuckwits thought that was just great when it happened in the 30s and plenty more fuckwits think it's great Trump is suggesting doing it now.
You misread: it said in point 3 that this stage comprises conservatives inviting the fascist movement to join them. Conservatives do this in an attempt to quell left-wing opposition.
Funnily enough, when I look back at my childhood, it wasn't characterised by a wish to inflict misogynystic violence on relatives. I think you think you're typical; I really hope you're not.
Surely the burden of proof is for you to show that roads can -- not could, but can -- be financed by user fees by pointing to a country where this is done successfully?
We know how tax funding of public roads works, as there are many models of it around the world. But user fees? That's a new model and has some pretty obvious risks that would need to be mitigated credibly, so you kinda need to demo something real if you want people to think it's anything other than a libertarian's comforting night-time self-pleasure.
"Vote for me! I know Clinton is corrupt because I corrupted her!"
The irony is that your bigotry is inducing tumescence in dozens of manly men across the nation. There are men with erections that have been caused by your post. Throbbing with sexual excitement at reading your righteous, nostalgic, patriarchal, homophobic anger.
"A person with a Muslim for an assistant"
A person with a Jew for an assistant
A person with a woman for an assistant
A person with a Negro for an assistant
You're not a staunch conservative. That's not your defining characteristic: you're a racist