What about moving taxes instead of raising them? Right-wing economists like Milton were often in favour of flat taxes, and if resource use is inflexible as you claim, a resource tax is really just that.
First I don't know why you got an off-topic mod, that seems like a fair question. (well I do actually, it's because someone tried to censor you)
The damage is irrelevant, I don't agree with taxing emissions directly, but a tax on resource use in general seems like a reasonable thing to have. It just so happens that taxes on resources would discourage excessive consumption, and waste for that matter. Think about it: a tax on labour discourages labour, a tax on business discourages business, a tax on resource use discourages resource use. Which of the those sounds the least bad ? The third obviously. No crystal ball necessary.
Gosh, first reaction so far that puts the shoe on the other foot. Uptil this post everyone complains basically that their criminal record can come back to haunt them. Oh noes! Being held accountable for your actions! What will the world turn into.
Don't think that your dream will happen AC. Notice you yourself don't even dare to post it under your own account and face the karma burn.
People learning to accept the consequences of their actions and therefor restrain themselves from actions that might hurt them? Nah.
All fine and dandy for someone who lives in a country where there are no victimless crimes, oh wait, that's nowhere. In the UAE you can be sent to prison for kissing in public, in Britain police officers can make up arbitrary laws on the spot under the provisions of the ASBO. In France it's illegal to wear certain headgear. In many countries a police officer can perform a warrant-free search on your person, if they simply suspect you of another well-known victimless crime. Sex with a minor even when you're the same age is a crime in many countries. Under-age possession of alcohol. The list goes on, most laws are fucked, and youths know that even better than us, they break laws, and sometimes they even make mistakes.
Criminals should have rights, and only those rights which will help prevent them from re-offending should be taken away.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind" - ghandi
Name one religion that hasn't been utilised for the manipulation of a populace at one point of history. Apologists often say "what's the harm?", but even the most liberal of religions are a barrier to critical thought, and another step away from a truly civilised world. Sure the populists and hate mongers are the ones that are really behind the injustice, but religion is another tool in the toolbox for them, and certainly not above critique.
I once went to a church for a wedding, evangelical I believe, but I can't remember the particular sect, either way, the pastor had a 15 minute tirade on the evils homosexuality just before the service, and that was his fucking sermon, and there was nothing figurative about it. I just about walked out, but stayed for the benefit of those getting married, plus I was only thirteen at the time. Needless to say, that was somewhat formative for me becoming the anti-Christian that I was for the rest of my school life.
How many times have you fiddled with your mp3 player or stereo while driving? How often have you exceeded the speed limit? Tailgated just before overtaking? Everyone must except a certain amount of risk when they get on the road, tires blow out, diabetics get hypo's, truckers fall asleep, fatties go into cardiac arrest, Prius owners put their foot on the wrong pedal. It's a gross mischaracterisation to say that a risk taker is trying to kill you or or your family, their just exceeding the level of risk that you consider to be acceptable. Everyone has a different idea of what amount of danger should be encountered on the road, but we all have to share it, so there has to be some kind of balance. The only way to eliminate the danger inherent in driving is to take the train:).
Decreased reaction times aren't particularly hazardous, certainly no worse than driving in the wet, increasing following distances is good enough for the most part. The real danger with driving tired or drunk is passing out behind the wheel, and of course the behavioural changes, such as increased risk taking. Here in New Zealand the limit is 0.08% BAC, which seems to me to be about right, sure reaction times are slightly slower, but there are few behavioural changes.
After this many years of trying, I've found that all publicly known methods of circumventing censorship do not last, no matter how promising the technique may seem at first. There are (were) online forums where people would share SOCKS and HTTP proxies they find or own, but nowadays these gets blocked faster than you can post it. The only reliable solution I've found is to buy your own commercial VPN service and keep it to yourself. I rent a VM host in California and run OpenVPN which I share with some of my friends. We get pretty decent connection speeds here in China, and it's actually pretty cheap even by us third-world standards, especially if you share the cost among a few people.
The only long term fix to this problem is, of course, to replace the communist (more like fascist nowadays) regime with a democratic government, which is an endeavor that may take a few more decades. In the meantime, I suggest buying a VPN service as a temporary workaround.
A third option is for already democratic countries to reduce immigration restrictions, and have China's best and brightest vote with their feet.
I don't brandish my pistol in public if that's the question.
You sound like you are responsible in regards to gun safety/etiquette, but not everyone is, it was more a question of how someone could lawfully conduct themselves while in possession of a weapon.
What kind of legal restrictions on weapons carried in public are reasonable to you? Should a business or property owner be allowed to restrict the carrying of weapons onto/into their premises? Should a firearm have to have its safety enabled at all times? Should it have to remain holstered? If not; in what manner should it have to be held when removed from its holster if any? .
Insurance, if you kill your neighbour's thirteen year old kid after having caught him breaking into your liquor cupboard, that's usually frowned upon by our society. I'm actually a New Zealander, but we're mostly the same. While I'm opposed to gun control, I'm also opposed to death as a punishment for a misdemeanor offence.
Actually from what I have read reduced restrictions on firearm ownership for everyone except Jew's, so there's a bit of truth to both sides of the story.
Not to mention the Khyber Pass and Danao City improvised arms industries. Many firearm parts can be made with simple hand tools like reams, taps, files etc. However IED's are very easy to make and extremely effective weapons, making the underground production of firearms more of a curiosity than a practical endeavour.
While it may be possible to prevent individuals from acquiring high quality firearms, bombs are a far greater threat than firearms, and it is impossible to stop people from producing them. Those who think they have a right to kill thirteen year old burglars are antisocial lunatics, but whether it is moral to own weapons is irrelevant, some will.
Many people who are obese can do little about their weight, whether it's because of psychological or metabolic issues. Just going off weight alone seems fair to me. (I'm 175cm and 80kg, so I'm not tall or light) Perhaps as compensation they could have larger seats for taller and wider people, if they're going to charge more that is.
I'm not sure that this is to much of an issue, unless there is some kind of tone-mapping involved it would be near impossible to see the indirect lighting while have the direct component at the correct exposure level. I think that the way most games pump up the ambient term in order to show the contents of the shadows looks bad, it kills the contrast.
Go in a dark room, aim a bright flashlight at a ceiling, and see what happens.
I will see a great deal of bounce light, but now if I take a photo of it, correctly exposing the directly lit area, I probably won't. Human eyes have a much greater dynamic range than a camera sensor or computer screen, and hence we see things very differently.
Indeed, I should have made myself clearer, when I said that global illumination isn't particularly visible, I'm only talking about when the direct light is exposed correctly, as is usually the case when you're looking at an environment illuminated by a flash (or a flash-light that's close to the camera:) ) . However when the direct light is overexposed, for example a room lit by a window, then the indirect is very important.
Privacy is only important when you need it: example (A) I'm searching what films are on at the local cinema, and order some tickets, I use the voice search feature on my phone and Google or Apple or Microsoft now know what genre of films I enjoy, and I don't care. example (B) I'm networking with some colleagues from an anarcho-terrorist group to arrange some bomb making classes, I use freenet set on its most secure mode, and nobody knows that I am interested in explosives.
As long as we are reasonably careful with what information could be of consequence to us and what is just noise, there's no reason to be worried about giving away the noise.
The problem was that the shadows were hard. The the real world, light bounces. This is why if you turn on a flashlight, you can see things in the room not in the beam. Light bounces off one surface, then off another and so on. You can simulate this via radiosity on computers. Problem is that is real expensive computationally. You don't do it in realtime. So generally what most games do is a cheap global illumination. There is an all pervasive amount of light applied to everything, and then specific dynamic lighting.
Well in Doom 3, there was no GI, and all light bounced only once. So anything directly illuminated, you saw. However anything else, was completely dark. Shadows were complete, there was no shadowed corner where things were visible, but barely.
I'm not sure that this is to much of an issue, unless there is some kind of tone-mapping involved it would be near impossible to see the indirect lighting while have the direct component at the correct exposure level. I think that the way most games pump up the ambient term in order to show the contents of the shadows looks bad, it kills the contrast.
Slashdot Mirror
What about moving taxes instead of raising them? Right-wing economists like Milton were often in favour of flat taxes, and if resource use is inflexible as you claim, a resource tax is really just that.
First I don't know why you got an off-topic mod, that seems like a fair question. (well I do actually, it's because someone tried to censor you)
The damage is irrelevant, I don't agree with taxing emissions directly, but a tax on resource use in general seems like a reasonable thing to have. It just so happens that taxes on resources would discourage excessive consumption, and waste for that matter.
Think about it: a tax on labour discourages labour, a tax on business discourages business, a tax on resource use discourages resource use. Which of the those sounds the least bad ? The third obviously. No crystal ball necessary.
Gosh, first reaction so far that puts the shoe on the other foot. Uptil this post everyone complains basically that their criminal record can come back to haunt them. Oh noes! Being held accountable for your actions! What will the world turn into.
Don't think that your dream will happen AC. Notice you yourself don't even dare to post it under your own account and face the karma burn.
People learning to accept the consequences of their actions and therefor restrain themselves from actions that might hurt them? Nah.
All fine and dandy for someone who lives in a country where there are no victimless crimes, oh wait, that's nowhere. In the UAE you can be sent to prison for kissing in public, in Britain police officers can make up arbitrary laws on the spot under the provisions of the ASBO. In France it's illegal to wear certain headgear. In many countries a police officer can perform a warrant-free search on your person, if they simply suspect you of another well-known victimless crime. Sex with a minor even when you're the same age is a crime in many countries. Under-age possession of alcohol. The list goes on, most laws are fucked, and youths know that even better than us, they break laws, and sometimes they even make mistakes.
Criminals should have rights, and only those rights which will help prevent them from re-offending should be taken away.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind" - ghandi
If swearing is juvenile and superfluous, then criticising it must be redundant and infantile.
I've seen grown ups pee their pants, doesn't make it grown up behavior though, does it?
Actually I would say that's more grown-up than anyone would care to be, almost geriatric I would say*.
*(unless your a woman, in which case, you should have thought twice before pushing out those overweight spawn)
I know jack-squat about the US legal system, but you sound like an ideal candidate for an Expungement.
Name one religion that hasn't been utilised for the manipulation of a populace at one point of history. Apologists often say "what's the harm?", but even the most liberal of religions are a barrier to critical thought, and another step away from a truly civilised world. Sure the populists and hate mongers are the ones that are really behind the injustice, but religion is another tool in the toolbox for them, and certainly not above critique.
I once went to a church for a wedding, evangelical I believe, but I can't remember the particular sect, either way, the pastor had a 15 minute tirade on the evils homosexuality just before the service, and that was his fucking sermon, and there was nothing figurative about it.
I just about walked out, but stayed for the benefit of those getting married, plus I was only thirteen at the time. Needless to say, that was somewhat formative for me becoming the anti-Christian that I was for the rest of my school life.
If you are a prostitute; then they are one in the same.
How many times have you fiddled with your mp3 player or stereo while driving? How often have you exceeded the speed limit? Tailgated just before overtaking? :).
Everyone must except a certain amount of risk when they get on the road, tires blow out, diabetics get hypo's, truckers fall asleep, fatties go into cardiac arrest, Prius owners put their foot on the wrong pedal. It's a gross mischaracterisation to say that a risk taker is trying to kill you or or your family, their just exceeding the level of risk that you consider to be acceptable. Everyone has a different idea of what amount of danger should be encountered on the road, but we all have to share it, so there has to be some kind of balance. The only way to eliminate the danger inherent in driving is to take the train
Decreased reaction times aren't particularly hazardous, certainly no worse than driving in the wet, increasing following distances is good enough for the most part. The real danger with driving tired or drunk is passing out behind the wheel, and of course the behavioural changes, such as increased risk taking. Here in New Zealand the limit is 0.08% BAC, which seems to me to be about right, sure reaction times are slightly slower, but there are few behavioural changes.
flickr is already blocked in China.
After this many years of trying, I've found that all publicly known methods of circumventing censorship do not last, no matter how promising the technique may seem at first. There are (were) online forums where people would share SOCKS and HTTP proxies they find or own, but nowadays these gets blocked faster than you can post it. The only reliable solution I've found is to buy your own commercial VPN service and keep it to yourself. I rent a VM host in California and run OpenVPN which I share with some of my friends. We get pretty decent connection speeds here in China, and it's actually pretty cheap even by us third-world standards, especially if you share the cost among a few people.
The only long term fix to this problem is, of course, to replace the communist (more like fascist nowadays) regime with a democratic government, which is an endeavor that may take a few more decades. In the meantime, I suggest buying a VPN service as a temporary workaround.
A third option is for already democratic countries to reduce immigration restrictions, and have China's best and brightest vote with their feet.
I don't brandish my pistol in public if that's the question.
You sound like you are responsible in regards to gun safety/etiquette, but not everyone is, it was more a question of how someone could lawfully conduct themselves while in possession of a weapon.
I think it has something to do with draughts.
What kind of legal restrictions on weapons carried in public are reasonable to you? Should a business or property owner be allowed to restrict the carrying of weapons onto/into their premises? Should a firearm have to have its safety enabled at all times? Should it have to remain holstered? If not; in what manner should it have to be held when removed from its holster if any? .
Insurance, if you kill your neighbour's thirteen year old kid after having caught him breaking into your liquor cupboard, that's usually frowned upon by our society. I'm actually a New Zealander, but we're mostly the same. While I'm opposed to gun control, I'm also opposed to death as a punishment for a misdemeanor offence.
Actually from what I have read reduced restrictions on firearm ownership for everyone except Jew's, so there's a bit of truth to both sides of the story.
Not to mention the Khyber Pass and Danao City improvised arms industries. Many firearm parts can be made with simple hand tools like reams, taps, files etc. However IED's are very easy to make and extremely effective weapons, making the underground production of firearms more of a curiosity than a practical endeavour.
While it may be possible to prevent individuals from acquiring high quality firearms, bombs are a far greater threat than firearms, and it is impossible to stop people from producing them. Those who think they have a right to kill thirteen year old burglars are antisocial lunatics, but whether it is moral to own weapons is irrelevant, some will.
So what?
Many people who are obese can do little about their weight, whether it's because of psychological or metabolic issues. Just going off weight alone seems fair to me. (I'm 175cm and 80kg, so I'm not tall or light)
Perhaps as compensation they could have larger seats for taller and wider people, if they're going to charge more that is.
I'm not sure that this is to much of an issue, unless there is some kind of tone-mapping involved it would be near impossible to see the indirect lighting while have the direct component at the correct exposure level. I think that the way most games pump up the ambient term in order to show the contents of the shadows looks bad, it kills the contrast.
Go in a dark room, aim a bright flashlight at a ceiling, and see what happens.
I will see a great deal of bounce light, but now if I take a photo of it, correctly exposing the directly lit area, I probably won't.
Human eyes have a much greater dynamic range than a camera sensor or computer screen, and hence we see things very differently.
Indeed, I should have made myself clearer, when I said that global illumination isn't particularly visible, I'm only talking about when the direct light is exposed correctly, as is usually the case when you're looking at an environment illuminated by a flash (or a flash-light that's close to the camera :) ) . However when the direct light is overexposed, for example a room lit by a window, then the indirect is very important.
Privacy is only important when you need it:
example (A) I'm searching what films are on at the local cinema, and order some tickets, I use the voice search feature on my phone and Google or Apple or Microsoft now know what genre of films I enjoy, and I don't care.
example (B) I'm networking with some colleagues from an anarcho-terrorist group to arrange some bomb making classes, I use freenet set on its most secure mode, and nobody knows that I am interested in explosives.
As long as we are reasonably careful with what information could be of consequence to us and what is just noise, there's no reason to be worried about giving away the noise.
The problem was that the shadows were hard. The the real world, light bounces. This is why if you turn on a flashlight, you can see things in the room not in the beam. Light bounces off one surface, then off another and so on. You can simulate this via radiosity on computers. Problem is that is real expensive computationally. You don't do it in realtime. So generally what most games do is a cheap global illumination. There is an all pervasive amount of light applied to everything, and then specific dynamic lighting.
Well in Doom 3, there was no GI, and all light bounced only once. So anything directly illuminated, you saw. However anything else, was completely dark. Shadows were complete, there was no shadowed corner where things were visible, but barely.
I'm not sure that this is to much of an issue, unless there is some kind of tone-mapping involved it would be near impossible to see the indirect lighting while have the direct component at the correct exposure level. I think that the way most games pump up the ambient term in order to show the contents of the shadows looks bad, it kills the contrast.
No, that's a walk-through actually.
Hence depriving them of the royalties collected from selling those stupid little plastic bottles of beer.